Capture & Recycle Technology

for

Pollution Prevention in the Nursery Industry
Final Report
CWA Section 319(h) FY 1996 Nonpoint Source Pollution Program Task 600 Oklahoma Conservation Commission Task #83 OSU Project Account AC-5-90250

Principal Investigators Dr. Sharon L. von Broembsen Professor, Entomology & Plant Pathology, OSU OCES Plant Pathologist, Horticultural Crops Dr. Michael A. Schnelle Professor, Horticulture and Landscape Architecture, OSU OCES Ornamental Floriculture Specialist Dr. Ronald L. Elliott Professor and Head, Biosystems & Agricultural Engineering, OSU Project Director Dr. Michael D. Smolen Professor, Biosystems & Agricultural Engineering, OSU OCES Water Quality Program Coordinator Report Prepared by: Timothy L. Propst OCES Engineer/Environmental Scientist

Final Report

Capture & Recycle Technology for Pollution Prevention in the Nursery Industry
CWA Section 319(h) FY 1996 Nonpoint Source Pollution Program Task 600 Oklahoma Conservation Commission Task #83 OSU Project Account 3-5-90250

Principal Investigators Dr. Sharon L. von Broembsen Professor, Entomology & Plant Pathology, OSU OCES Plant Pathologist, Horticultural Crops Dr. Michael A. Schnelle Professor, Horticulture and Landscape Architecture, OSU OCES Ornamental Floriculture Specialist Dr. Ronald L. Elliott Professor and Head, Biosystems & Agricultural Engineering, OSU

Project Director Dr. Michael D. Smolen Ass’t Professor, Biosystems & Agricultural Engineering, OSU OCES Water Quality Program Coordinator Report Prepared by: Timothy L. Propst OCES Engineer/Environmental Scientist
Correspondence: OCES Water Quality Programs 218 Agriculture Hall Oklahoma State University Stillwater, OK 74078 Tel: 405/744-5653, FAX: 405/744-6059 Email: smolen@okstate.edu Web: http://biosystems.okstate.edu/waterquality

Acknowledgements The authors would like to express appreciation to all the Extension Educators in the Project region whose efforts helped make the field days and demonstration sites a success. The cooperation and support of the Greenleaf Nursery Company, especially Mark Andrews, Research and Development, and David Morrison, Vice President for Operations, were key to the Project’s success. The work of graduate students, Tom Alexander and Heath Sand (BAE) and Shanda Wilson and Nikki Charlton (EPP), produced the results for subsequent educational programs. The assistance of Charles Shackleford, of TLC Nursery in Oklahoma City, and Kathy Conry and Craig Wood, of Ag Communications, is acknowledged in the production of educational videos.

iii

List of Commonly Used Abbreviations

BAE – Biosystems and Agricultural Engineering Department BMP – Best Management Practice CorpComm – Oklahoma Corporation Commission DEQ – Department of Environmental Quality EPP – Entomology and Plant Pathology Department EQIP – Environmental Quality Incentives Program FSA – Farm Service Agency IRB – Institutional Review Board NPS – Non-Point Source NRCS – Natural Resource Conservation Service OCC – Oklahoma Conservation Commission OCES – Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service ODA – Oklahoma Department of Agriculture ODA-FD – Oklahoma Department of Agriculture-Forestry Division ODWC – Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation ONLA – Oklahoma Nursery and Landscape Association OSE – Office of the Secretary of the Environment OSNA – Oklahoma State Nursery Association (now known as ONLA) OSU – Oklahoma State University OWRB – Oklahoma Water Resources Board PPP – Pollution Prevention Plan TMDL – Total Maximum Daily Load USFS – United States Forestry Service USFWS – United States Fish and Wildlife Service USGS – United States Geological Survey WHIP – Wildlife Habitat Improvement Program

iv

Table of Contents Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................................iii List of Commonly Used Abbreviations ....................................................................................iv Table of Contents........................................................................................................................v List of Tables..............................................................................................................................vi List of Figures ............................................................................................................................vi Executive Summary..................................................................................................................vii Final Project Report....................................................................................................................1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................1 Project Area ............................................................................................................................2 Project Goals ..........................................................................................................................2 Project Management ..............................................................................................................2 Project Tasks ..........................................................................................................................2 Task I: Management of Project .............................................................................................2 Task II: Analysis of hydraulic performance and design of capture and recycle system. .......3 Task III: Demonstration of stormwater management aspect of the nursery recycling system. ..............................................................................................................................................4 Task IV: Demonstrate performance of recycle system with respect to transmission of plant pathogens. ............................................................................................................................7 Task V: Education program for nursery growers.................................................................10 Task VI: Final Report ..........................................................................................................10 Measures of Success...........................................................................................................10 Conclusions..........................................................................................................................13 Appendix 1: Workplan .............................................................................................................1-1 Appendix 2: Plant Pathogen QAPP ........................................................................................2-1 Appendix 3: Stormwater Quality QAPP .................................................................................3-1 Appendix 4: Hydraulic Modeling ASAE Paper ......................................................................4-1 Appendix 5: Engineering Course Module..............................................................................5-1 Appendix 6: Stormwater Report .............................................................................................6-1 Appendix 7: Plant Pathogen ASAE Paper .............................................................................7-1 Appendix 8: Wilson Plant Pathogen Thesis ..........................................................................8-1 Appendix 9: Plant Pathogen Recommendations ..................................................................9-1 Appendix 10: Educational Materials ....................................................................................10-1 Appendix 11: Capture & Recycle Factsheet........................................................................11-1 Appendix 12: Teaching Module for Horticulture Students.................................................12-1 Appendix 13: Water Quality Recycling Manual for Nursery Operators ............................13-1 Appendix 14: Description of Nursery Water Recycling Video ...........................................14-1 Appendix 15: 1998 Greenleaf Nursery Capture & Recycle Costs and Benefits Survey ..15-1 Appendix 16: Post-project Survey Information...................................................................16-1

v

List of Tables Table 1. Table 2. Table 3. Table 4. Average NO3-N concentrations (ppm) from historical studies at Greenleaf Nursery. ....5 Average Phosphate-P concentrations (ppm) from historical studies. ............................5 Historic Purchase and Application Rates of Liquid NH4-NO3 at Greenleaf Nursery .......5 Sampling sites for plant pathogen monitoring................................................................7

List of Figures Figure 1. Comparison of Phosphate-P in runoff and retention ponds at Greenleaf Nursery........6 Figure 2. Comparison of Nitrate-N in runoff and retention ponds at Greenleaf Nursery ..............6

vi

Executive Summary This report details OCES activities from 1996 – 2000 in support of the FY 1996 CWA 319(h) Nonpoint Source Pollution Program grant, “Task 600: Capture and Recycle Technology for Pollution Prevention in the Nursery Industry,” (OCC Task #83, OSU Account No. 3-5-90250, Contract No. AG-96-EX-059). The grant was administered by OCC. Key personnel at OSU included Project Director Michael D. Smolen (OCES Water Quality Programs Coordinator) and Project Managers Sharon L. von Broembsen (OCES Plant Pathologist, Horticulture Crops), Michael A. Schnelle, (OCES Ornamental Floriculture Specialist), and Ronald L. Elliott (Professor, Soil & Water Resources). Task I: Management of Project Outputs: QAPP, semi-annual, annual reports OCC established a contract with OSU for project activities and to cost share treatment equipment with Greenleaf Nursery. A copy of the approved workplan is included as Appendix 1. Based on project team recommendation, however, treatment equipment was not purchased and the task was reprogrammed to accommodate the change. Semi-annual and annual reports were submitted as required. The QAPP for the pathogen research was submitted by October 1997 (Appendix 2). The stormwater recycling study QAPP was submitted by October 1999 (Appendix 3). EPA approved both documents. Task II: Analysis of hydraulic performance and design of capture and recycle system. Milestones: Simulate hydraulics of capture and recycle system, including recycle Outputs: Teaching module for engineering students OSU graduate research assistant, Heath Sand, developed a simulation model of hydraulics at Greenleaf to analyze design and performance of the capture and recycle system. Results were used in operational guidance and a teaching module for an engineering course on irrigation. Topographic data from key points at Greenleaf Nursery were used in WaterCAD 3.1 software to model the site’s hydraulic system. The water levels predicted by the computer model followed the same general trends as the observed water levels. Errors in the volume balance were compared to the average pumping volumes for each basin. Overall, model error was less than 25% of the average daily pumping volume more than 80% of the time and less than one-half the average pumping volume more than 92% of the modeling period. More accurate methods for measuring pumping rates would likely improve model performance. A thesis detailing this model was published (Sand, 1999). Results of the hydraulic modeling study were also presented at the 1998 ASAE annual meeting (Appendix 4). An aerial map was developed and provided to Greenleaf Nursery for their use. A copy of the map is included in the digital version of this report. In addition, a teaching module (Appendix 5) was developed to facilitate basic decision-making and design efforts in engineering design courses such as watershed engineering, nonpoint source pollution control, or irrigation. Task III: Demonstration of storm water management aspect of the nursery recycling system. The performance of the recycling system under storm water conditions was evaluated. Recommendations were made to reduce offsite contamination. This task assessed, during both storm and non-storm conditions, the spatial and temporal patterns of nitrate (NO3-N) and total dissolved phosphorus (TP) in irrigation return flows

vii

(tailwaters) and rainfall runoff (storm water) on the Greenleaf site. This information was used in a computer model to analyze the performance of the capture and recycle system. This work showed that operating retention basins to recycle irrigation return flow is an effective pollution prevention technology and best management practice (BMP) for the nursery industry. Capturing and using storm water, too, reduces the discharge of nitrogen and phosphorus. A dissertation detailing this portion of the project was published (Alexander, 2001). A report summarizing these results was submitted to OCC (Appendix 6). An aerial map was developed and provided to Greenleaf Nursery for their use. Copies of the photos are provided in the digital version of this report. Task IV: Demonstrate performance of recycle system with respect to transmission of plant pathogens. OSU plant pathologists investigated disease propagation under different management protocols, demonstrated its effect, and prepared clear recommendations for the industry. Preliminary results were presented at the 1998 ASAE meeting (Appendix 7). A thesis detailing this portion of the project was also published (Wilson, 1998) and is referenced in Appendix 8. Although concentrations of Phytophthora spp. in irrigation runoff from all parts of the nursery were very high, Phytophthora concentrations in recycled water delivered to plants from retention basins were low. This showed that the retention basin itself could be an effective treatment system. Factors that may reduce Phytophthora numbers in the basins include settling, natural biological and physical degradation, and dilution. Pumping from middle levels of the water column avoids pathogen structures that settle out and motile zoospores that swim to the surface. No adverse effects on plants watered with recycled water were apparent. If increased disease should develop, water from the source basin could be selected for decontamination. Filtration is recommended as the most environmentally sound method of decontamination. Specific recommendations concerning plant pathogens were reported to OCC (Appendix 9). In general, these stated; (1) An effective disease management program, which incorporates the most proactive management practices, is essential to maintaining low disease levels in nurseries adopting capture and recycle technology, and (2) Irrigation management is a key factor in managing disease in capture and recycle irrigation systems. Task V: Education program for nursery growers. Outputs: Fact sheet on capture and treat technology, teaching module for horticulture students, Water Quality (Recycling) Manual for Nurseries, Video tape series: Design and Management of Water Quality Systems Milestones: Greenhouse short course with water quality training element; field trip for engineering and horticulture students, field day for key industry people, state agencies, and cooperators, statewide training through OSNA conference OSU conducted extensive demonstration and educational programs, including field trips to the Greenleaf site, videos, Nursery Water Quality website, and water quality manuals. A workshop was held in conjunction with an OSNA (now known as ONLA) annual meeting and coordinated with the pesticide applicator certification program. The project sponsored field trips, workshops, and educational meetings for nursery personnel, other professionals, and students. Flyers, abstracts, and presentation outlines from these activities are included in Appendix 10. The factsheet on utilizing capture and recycle technology for pollution prevention in the nursery industry was published in 1999 (Appendix 11). Dr. Schnelle lectured to horticulture students at OSU-Tulsa in 1999. His presentation was developed into a teaching module that was completed in 2001 (Appendix 12). A draft of the recycling manual for nurseries was completed

viii

location after implementation (Appendix 15).Greenleaf Nursery reported no increase in pathogen problems at their Park Hill. o Controlling salt buildup . Reduction of nitrogen and phosphorus in runoff – Project results showed that BMP and capture and recycle technology implementation combined to produce a steady decrease of nitrogen and phosphorus levels in runoff from Greenleaf Nursery from 1989 to 2001 (Tables 1 and 2. In some locations. Although costly. indicating that the technology has the potential to reduce operating expenses. o Post-project survey – A telephone survey of nine selected operators indicated that virtually all are familiar with capture and recycle. Nurseries were also educated on ways to integrate traditional BMPs into their operation as different parts of the technology were put into place. Task VI: Final Report This document. in the professional judgment of the project team. ix . Capture and recycle technology is a topic of interest to the Oklahoma nursery industry. Results also suggested a need for more dissemination of project materials. The videotape was completed and distributed in late 2000.In one full year of water quality monitoring. performance. and operation of a capture and recycle system was evaluated. including appendices. the project team encouraged a progressive approach to capture and recycle implementation.in 2001 (Appendix 13). it has benefits for storm water management. Reduction of barriers to C&R implementation o Controlling propagation of disease . the company never provided them. particularly methods relating to smaller operations with limited resources and area. the use of capture and recycle technology is achievable by many nursery operators. The demonstration site continues to be used by OSU to educate the industry and promote its adoption of the technology. Project results show unequivocally that pathogen propagation need not be a barrier if capture basins are designed to reduce pathogen concentration and the recycled water is not used on the most sensitive plants. • • • Conclusions Capture and Recycle technology is an effective means of reducing the discharge of nitrogen. In this program. phosphorus. respectively). the capture and recycle system reduced runoff quantity more than 90%. location under recycling compared to using fresh water exclusively (Appendix 15). Greenleaf Nursery reported a 70% savings in water costs at their El Campo. Evaluation of Impact on Knowledge of Nursery Professionals o Pre. it is not only achievable but also essential to meeting environmental objectives. although it is not widely used. is the final report. Pre-and post-tests were administered at the annual OSNA meeting in January 1999. However. design. Measures of Success • Reduction in quantity of runoff water . o Reducing costs . TX.Although pumping records were requested from Greenleaf Nursery.To spread costs out over a longer period of time. and pesticides from nursery operations. A description of the video’s content is provided in Appendix 14.and post-tests at project meetings – This aspect of the project was overlooked until late in the project period. but unfortunately these records have been lost. OK. Further. there was no evidence of salt buildup in the system. Cost was the most frequently mentioned factor prohibiting more widespread use of the technology.

3-5-90250. Task 300 FY92 identified no surface water or groundwater impacts from a selected group of nurseries. Schnelle (OCES Ornamental Floriculture Specialist). has this capacity if employed properly. Horticulture Crops). on the other hand. The grant was administered by OCC. and Ronald L. von Broembsen (OCES Plant Pathologist.S. beyond the capture and recycle of tailwater return flow. may not be adequate to control runoff quality to meet the needs of Oklahoma’s Outstanding Resource Waters. “Task 600: Capture and Recycle Technology for Pollution Prevention in the Nursery Industry. The project also specifically addressed how to manage waterborne plant diseases that can occur when irrigation water is re-used. An additional concern of nurseries. the project also presented alternative emissionsreducing practices to help operators meet environmental objectives until capture and recycle technology can be installed. but its survey was limited in scope and intensity. but anticipated problems of high startup costs and disease propagation have been viewed as seemingly insurmountable barriers to its implementation. State Dept. The current project was designed to address this problem by demonstrating the reduction of pollutants in nursery irrigation tailwaters through the use of “capture and recycle” technology. In contrast. Smolen (OCES Water Quality Programs Coordinator) and Project Managers Sharon L. Re-use of these waters can reduce nutrient and pesticide pollution to offsite waters and the treatment system helps prevent disease problems. The project showed nurseries how to switch over to this technology. As part of the project. Elliott (Professor. no overlap occurred between the two projects. set out the costs for different options. Capture and recycle technology. OSU Account No. The proposed technology consisted of an engineered hydraulic system with appropriate treatment practices to allow re-use of irrigation tailwater.Final Project Report This report details OCES activities from 1996–2000 in support of the FY 1996 CWA 319(h) Nonpoint Source Pollution Program grant. Introduction Previously. of Agriculture. phosphorus and pesticides to acceptable levels with existing technologies. These BMPs. Recognizing the expense of this technology. Soil & Water Resources). making the technology more acceptable to the nursery industry. and gave specific technical information on building and operating such systems. Similar findings have been noted elsewhere in the U. This technology has generated some interest within the nursery industry. Key personnel at OSU included Project Director Michael D. In Task 600. Task 300 provided a base from which to launch Task 600. These conclusions were based on five years worth of OSDA and nursery industry monitoring data (1989 through 1993). Task 300 focused on BMPs that are widely available and applicable in the nursery industry. The Curtis Reports further demonstrated how difficult it is to reduce nitrogen. Although Task 300 FY92 also addressed pollution control for nurseries. AG-96-EX-059). 1993 and 1994) indicated the presence of high concentrations of nitrogen and phosphorus as well as ten different pesticides in runoff from four nurseries on the Illinois River. however. is management of stormwater using the recycling system. system performance under storm flow conditions was evaluated and recommendations made on operation of the water recycling system to retain stormwater runoff. the Curtis Reports (Okla. and in Europe. implementing it selectively to reduce or spread out their costs. information on the new capture and recycle technology was presented and its feasibility in a commercial setting demonstrated. This balanced program of advanced technology in combination with alternative and supporting practices showed nursery operators how to phase in the new technology. a demonstration of the new capture and recycle technology. 1 . Michael A. Contract No.” (OCC Task #83.

phosphorus. Early in the project. nursery professionals were educated about pollution control and alternative/supporting practices to allow them greater flexibility during the adoption phase. Outputs: QAPP. To reach its goals. and thereby limiting the discharge of nitrogen. semi-annual. Greenleaf participated fully in the project. and pesticides. Task I: Management of Project OCC will establish contract with OSU for project activities and cost share treatment equipment with Greenleaf Nursery. This task includes oversight of the project. The technology works by reducing the amount of tailwater runoff water leaving the site. the OCES Water Quality program. the area is considered only partially supporting for its designated uses due to the presence of plant nutrient pollutants. annual reports The Project Managers helped ensure that work in the area of their expertise was accomplished. semi-annual/annual reports. the Conservation Commission. and reduce the discharge of pollutants. plant pathology. both of which are critical to the ultimate adoption of this technology. Project Area The project area was Greenleaf Nursery. the project relied upon this combination of demonstration and educational support. and participation in educational program. principal investigator von Broembsen recommended that treatment 2 . A listing of the six tasks with a discussion of the activities undertaken follows. Project Management The Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service. An extensive education program was designed to transfer the technology to the nursery industry. horticulturists.Finally. conducted the project. Cooperators included the Oklahoma Department of Agriculture. Finally. and agricultural engineers from OSU worked with Greenleaf personnel to optimize the design and management of the capture and recycle system to control the build-up of salts. assistance in writing QAPP. avoid propagation of disease. allowing use of their facility for demonstration of the capture and recycle technology. Project Tasks The goals of the project were accomplished through six different tasks. A copy of the workplan is provided as Appendix 1. Both water bodies support a thriving recreation industry. some of which derive from nurseries. and horticulture. The Illinois is one of the few designated Oklahoma Scenic Rivers. design and management information developed in the project was incorporated into agricultural engineering design courses and horticulture courses to transfer the information to future generations of designers and managers. Information gained through this project was also transferred to the industry by incorporating its findings into professional courses at OSU in engineering. The public interest generated by this combination of factors is extremely high and greatly increased the visibility of the project. and Lake Tenkilller is a designated Outstanding Resource Water. and the nursery industry. Despite these outward signs of quality water. under contract with the Oklahoma Conservation Commission. Project Goals The main goal of the project was to demonstrate capture and recycle technology for pollution prevention from nursery systems. Plant pathologists. situated on the Illinois River at Lake Tenkiller. and Greenleaf Nursery. Addressing such a highly publicized problem area benefited the state nonpoint source program.

Overall. The task was reprogrammed to fund aerial photographic mapping of the area. Second. and pipes. An off-the-shelf software package. Semi-annual and annual reports were submitted as required. An aerial map was developed and provided to Greenleaf Nursery for their use. A brief history of the development of the container nursery industry 3 . WaterCAD 3. EPA approved both documents. Results will be used in development of design guidance and a teaching module for engineering course. OSU graduate research assistant will develop simulation model based on hydraulics at Greenleaf to analyze design and performance of system. The QAPP for the pathogen research was submitted by October 1997 (Appendix 2).. This suggested that the model adequately simulated the hydraulic system at the nursery. Milestones: Simulate hydraulics of capture and treat system. reservoirs. Daily readings of the on-times for all pumps. Some basins were more accurately modeled than others. A thesis detailing this portion of the project was published (Sand. a time series plot was produced to show the water level trends. modeled water levels were plotted versus observed water levels and a simple regression analysis was performed for each basin. Since the irrigation system and its management are integral to the recycling system. Outputs: Teaching module for engineering students A teaching module (Appendix 5) was developed to facilitate basic decision-making and design efforts in engineering design courses such as watershed engineering. The stormwater recycling QAPP was submitted by October 1999 (Appendix 3). Preliminary analyses led to the selection and installation of electric hour-meters on all the pumps at the nursery. Differential GPS was used to locate model components accurately (i.equipment was not needed. 1999). including recycle The purpose of this task was to employ a computer model for simulating the hydraulics of a runoff recycling system at the nursery. The model could provide the nursery with valuable information for their water management program. model error was less than 25% of the average daily pumping volume more than 80% of the time.e. More accurate methods for measuring pumping rates would likely improve model performance. A digital version of the map is provided in the electronic version of this report. Results of the hydraulic modeling study were presented at the 1998 ASAE meeting (Appendix 4). A sonic flow meter was used to measure discharge rates from each pump. the purposes for irrigation and the systems most commonly adapted to nursery use are discussed. Modeled water levels in the basins were compared to observed water levels using two methods. were also collected in each of seven basins from August 17 through October 30. These data were used to configure the software to simulate the nursery’s hydraulic system. and Greenleaf Nursery decided not to purchase it. Errors in the volume balance were compared to the average pumping volumes for each basin.1. First. as well as water levels in all basins. was selected and adapted by adding elements to represent components of the recycling system. pumps. specifically including basins. The model is a water management tool the nursery can use to model “what-if” scenarios to predict water availability on a one to four day horizon. Aerial photomapping will assist with this analysis. Task II: Analysis of hydraulic performance and design of capture and recycle system. nonpoint source pollution control. or irrigation. latitude/longitude/elevation of key points at the nursery). This information was used to evaluate model performance. 1998. The error was less than one-half the average pumping volume more than 92% of the modeling period. The water levels predicted by the computer model followed the same general trends as the observed water levels. OSU will work with Greenleaf to monitor performance of the recycle system.

there has been a significant reduction in Greenleaf's purchase and application of liquid ammonium nitrate (NH4-NO3) in the last decade relative to an increase in the facility's number of container beds. 4 . Finally. A list of references consulted in the compilation of this information is also included. It further suggests that the facility has placed a greater reliance over the past decade on the use of the more expensive but more easily managed slow release (Osmocote) fertilizer. a short list of exercises related to hydrology. For both of these nutrients. A discussion of advantages and disadvantages to runoff recycling is provided. The module puts the water management problem in the context of the industry as it is today. therefore. 2001). Table 1 indicates a rapid decline of nitrate-N beginning in 1991. As detailed in the QAPP (Appendix 3).provides background. including legal ramifications. The module emphasizes that all of the issues. the largest decrease in nutrient loss comes from reducing the quantity of effluent through recycling water and nutrients. Much of the system cost is incurred during construction and installation. The initial research for this task assessed the spatial and temporal patterns of nitrate (NO3-N). Table 2 shows that phosphate-P increased from the1975-1977 monitoring period to 1989 and declined at most stations from 1991 to present. and the competing costs associated with them. Nitrate-N declined further in the 1998-99 period. Design considerations in outline form conclude the body of the module. and public relations benefits. Task III: Demonstration of stormwater management aspect of the nursery recycling system. Incentives for recycling relate to environmental water quality issues. while any savings are experienced over the system’s useful life. On average. Recommendations will be made with respect to operation for benefits of reducing offsite contamination. while discussing some of the changes shaping it for the future. there is little difference in phosphate-P concentration with and without the recycling system. The performance of the recycling system under storm water conditions will be evaluated. Copies of photos of the capture and recycle system are provided in the electronic version of this report. The following tables and figures provide a brief history of nutrient levels in Greenleaf nursery water. under recycling. The capture and recycle system reduced the concentration of fertilizer constituents over time and minimized offsite discharges to adjacent bodies of water during both storm and non-storm conditions. a sampling program at 12 stations was maintained for one full year (12 months). total dissolved phosphorus (TP). Aerial photomapping will assist with this evaluation. A dissertation detailing this portion of the project was published (Alexander. must be considered. As shown in Table 3. and pump and basin sizing was developed. The decrease in the use of liquid ammonium nitrate is an indicator of the effectiveness of the facility's retention basins and recycling system. This demonstration showed that recycling captured waters is an effective pollution prevention technology and BMP for the nursery industry. The module also lends itself well to an engineering economic analysis application. Factors against recycling are largely questions of water quality within the nursery. as well as insight into current operating practices. when Greenleaf switched to slow-release fertilizers and other BMPs. sustainability. Runoff concentrations were compared historically to show the changes through time and within storm events to evaluate performance. The exercises call for input from an existing nursery or site to be complete. and other dissolved minerals throughout the nursery during both storm and non-storm conditions. and a report submitted to OCC (Appendix 6).

08 0.211 13.13 6.14 10.843 3. Historic Purchase and Application Rates of Liquid NH4-NO3 at Greenleaf Nursery Year NH4-NO3 Number of Application Rate Container Beds (gals/bed) (Ending Oct.11 6.60 1994 0.2 1992 112. Houghton (OSDA) 1 4 3 2 Curtis Reports IT-1 IT-2 IT-3a IT-4 & 5 IT-6 Alexander Ill.24 11.27 0.43 1990 0.15 1.00 7. 5B 1975-1977 0. Average Phosphate-P concentrations (ppm) from historical studies.7 5 .9 1998 31.43 0.46 0.12 1998-1999 1.10 0.51 1996 0. Date Sample Station No.28 1989 0.48 1993 1.09 0.0 1996 35.290 12.08 44.84 30.199 12. River Waterfall Discharge #34 Discharges From #1 Outfall From #8C (Upgradient) BD#15E.810 2.44 21.55 0.91 14.7 1997 40.10 1.47 1991 0.75 1990 1.37 0.08 1. Houghton (OSDA) 1 4 3 2 Curtis Reports IT-1 IT-2 IT-3a IT-4 & 5 IT-6 Alexander Ill.65 0.400 3. 26G.44 1995 0.68 Table 3.40 15.27 1996 1.29 12.56 0.38 1.29 6.11 0.07 4.12 0. 26G.200 13.45 1991 1.10 0.65 9.70 16.09 1.787 8.548 13.65 14.97 8.79 0.58 15.31 0.657 7.3 1999 23.314 2.41 1998-1999 0.29 0.78 0.10 1989 1.00 <1.508 13. River Waterfall Discharge #34 Discharges From #1 Outfall From #8C (Up gradient) BD#15E.) Purchased (gal) 1991 161. Date Sample Station No.10 10.22 18.08 0.57 1995 0.16 1.11 1.42 13.40 12.07 0.60 1992 0.1 1995 40.37 0.7 1994 40.31 24.05 18.81 10.30 1994 1. Average NO3-N concentrations (ppm) from historical studies at Greenleaf Nursery.459 12.80 0.Table 1.53 6.85 9.61 0.86 0. 5B 1975-1977 0.898 2.526 12.01 0.68 0.63 0.51 0.8 1993 97.92 Table 2.08 8.828 1.304 13.94 1992 1.44 1993 0.763 13.18 8.11 32.13 0.

Figure 1 compares total phosphate concentration in runoff with that in retention ponds throughout the year.5 1 0. Nitrate-N in Runoff and Pond Effluent 45 40 35 NO3-N mg/L 6 Pond Average Runoff Average 5-day rainfall 5 4 3 Rainfall Inches 30 25 20 15 10 2 1 5 0 6/4/98 7/24/98 9/12/98 11/1/98 12/21/98 Date 2/9/99 3/31/99 5/20/99 7/9/99 0 8/28/99 Figure 2.0 Pond Average 1. As significant runoff only occurs during storm events. Comparison of Phosphate-P in runoff and retention ponds at Greenleaf Nursery. No build up was observed. Runoff concentrations are an indicator of what would be leaving the nursery if there were no retention ponds. Note pond concentration is typically lower than runoff concentration. since all effluent points are connected to the recycle basins.0 6/4/98 7/24/98 9/12/98 11/1/98 12/21/98 Date 2/9/99 3/31/99 5/20/99 7/9/99 0 8/28/99 Figure 1. Nitrate-N concentration in ponds was similar to that of runoff concentration. No build up in total phosphate concentration was observed.5 Total P mg/L 6 Runoff Average 5-day rainfall 5 Rainfall inches 4 1.0 3 2 0. Phosphate in Runoff and Pond Effluent 2. Comparison of Nitrate-N in runoff and retention ponds at Greenleaf Nursery 6 . Retention pond concentration is a measure of actual effluent. Figure 2 shows nitrate-N in runoff and retention ponds. effluent may be considered zero between storm events.

prior to implementation of water recycling.Task IV: Demonstrate performance of recycle system with respect to transmission of plant pathogens. These were identified to species level using standard methods for identification of Phytophthora spp. were compared with water supplied to plants from the Snake Pit. From April . 1998) included as Appendix 8. This task focused on two main objectives: (1) to monitor levels of the pathogen Phytophthora spp. and the full report is detailed in a MS thesis (Wilson.6 °C. Sampling sites for plant pathogen monitoring Sampling Sites 1 2 3. Results In 1997 water temperature ranged from 13 . representing inflow from production areas. with the exception of the propagation and sensitive-plants areas (areas draining to Site 1) used recycled water to varying extents.78 L containers by taking equal-size sub-samples intermittently from flowing water over a 20-minute period.) Source water (Lake Tenkiller) Runoff from large general production areas Large storage pond. nursery runoff. and the large storage pond (Site 4). Site 2 represented inflow from Lake Tenkiller. The sampling design was modified from the previous year to place more emphasis on sampling water inflow and outflow from recycle basins. by filtering water to recover propagules. During both 1997 and 1998. Samples were assayed for Phytophthora spp. Samples were transported back to the laboratory at 4 °C in chests. the Hub. A summary of the findings follows. composite water samples were collected at each site in 3. 7/22. Five colonies per site per sampling date were lifted from isolation plates to pure culture. Table 4. This made it possible to study the effects of retention and dilution on Phytophthora spp levels in recycled water.14 to 9. irrigation water monitoring was initiated in 1997. and 5. receives fresh water from Lake Tenkiller. six sites (Table 4) were sampled on 12 dates (4/1. expressed as the number of colony forming units per liter (cfu/L). pH. 8/5. runoff and stored water) within the overall system before and after implementation of the capture and recycling technology. in different types of irrigation water (source. 9/4.October 1997. 6/10. often above the optimum for long-term survival of Phytophthora spp. Sample pH varied from 7. were analyzed with respect to sampling site and date. and recycled runoff from the Hub and the Snakepit. and (2) to evaluate the usefulness of leaf baiting techniques as a practical means of monitoring Phytophthora levels in irrigation water.24 and electrical conductivity 7 . inverting filters onto plates containing Phytophthora-selective medium. and 10/9). Irrigation Water Monitoring Sampling Design and Methods To determine baseline levels of Phytophthora. Temperature. and 6 4 Hub Snake Pit Description Runoff from plant propagation and Phytophthora-sensitive plant area (This area receives only fresh water. Main capture pond for recycled water Second capture pond for recycled water During 1998 the entire nursery. 5/27. Sites 1. 3. 6/24. and incubating to allow fungal growth. Preliminary results were presented at the 1998 ASAE meeting (Appendix 7). 5. Phytophthora concentrations. 5/13. 7/8.33. 4/15. and electrical conductivity were recorded in the field for each sample. 4/29.

The leaf baiting method was revised in 1998 after field and laboratory results indicated that rhododendron leaves and lemon leaves were equally effective in recovering Phytophthora spp. both of which could affect settling efficiency and the natural degradation processes. The extent of this reduction differed from basin to basin. water pumped to production areas from either the lake source (Site 2) or the upper storage basin (Site 4) was very clean. Peak levels of Phytophthora spp. Conclusions Data collected during 1997 and 1998 showed that Phytophthora spp. citrophthora. and 5) gave consistently high Phytophthora levels. In 1997. laboratory tests showed a 24-hour baiting period was equally effective as a 48-hour period. They also differed in the amount of dilution with lake or storm water in each basin. thereby avoiding pathogens that settle out and motile zoospores that swim to the surfaces.from 200 to 500 µS/cm. parasitica) were recovered from water samples taken from small streams flowing into upper portions of the nursery from adjacent forest and pasture areas. cryptogea. Since rhododendron leaves were more readily available. and dilution. the same five species of Phytophthora were recovered from water samples. Pump intakes in all ponds were designed to draw from middle levels of the water column. P. In addition. cryptogea and P. The basins differed considerably in geometry and detention time. Careful handling of recycled water and design of basins to promote settling and separation of inlet from outlets can control pathogen dispersal. Under recycling conditions. P. P. were recorded in spring (April to midMay) and mid. citrophthora. extremely high Phytophthora spp. under recycling. In decreasing order of abundance. cinnamomi) were recovered in rhododendron and dogwood production areas with visibly diseased plants and from roots. concentrations in irrigation return flow from all parts of the nursery were very high in both years. natural biological and physical degradation. During the second year. Phytophthora spp. during the 1998 season. respectively. high sediment levels associated with the primitive runoff ditch at Site 6 interfered with the assay method. which would affect the concentration directly. Three species (P. P.54. with the same relative frequency. During both years.8 . Concentrations were <1-2 cfu/ L in these instances. but samples from the three other runoff sites (Sites 1. with mean concentrations from the two runoff sites averaging approximately 450 cfu/L over the season and reaching >1000 cfu/L on occasion. the species were P. Leaf Bait Efficacy Study Sampling Design and Methods Rhododendron and lemon leaf baits were deployed at all six sampling sites in 1997 on each sampling date and recovered after 48 hours of exposure. parasitica. lemon leaves were not used in 1998. citricola. Factors that may be reducing Phytophthora concentrations in the basins include: settling. so the duration of exposure 8 . The Snake Pit retention basin did not exceed 190 cfu/L at any sampling and water delivered from the Hub retention basin reached 270 and 400 cfu/L for the April and July samplings.33. averaging 450 cfu/ L over the season. Even with high runoff levels. levels were again recorded in runoff. Phytophthora concentrations in recycled water were much lower than that entering basins in return flow.3 °C. citricola and P. cinnamomi. media and gravel beneath apparently healthy plants adjacent to visibly diseased plants. pH ranged from 6. were recovered from Site 2 on two sampling dates and from Site 4 three times early in the season. and the electrical conductivity averaged about 300 µS/cm. Two of these (P.73 to 9. and P. In contrast.to late summer (July to early September). No Phytophthora was recovered from source water delivered from Lake Tenkiller. with some samples exceeding 1000 cfu/ L. 3. water delivered from the Upper Storage basin (Site 4) had extremely low concentrations of Phytophthora (<20 cfu/L when detected). During 1998 water temperature ranged from 4.

g. Since they only give a positive reaction once fungal cells lose their integrity. leaf baits exposed in moving water at runoff sites consistently showed almost total saturation of leaf pieces at each sampling. during aging or microbial degradation) leaf baits. water from specific basins can be selected for decontamination. must be boiled prior to assaying. Instructions for this procedure are provided in the kits. in irrigation water. as leaf baits consistently recovered Phytophthora from surface waters of these two sites. preferably filtration. Greenleaf Nursery Company has decided that decontamination is not warranted at this time. Leaf samples were transported back to the laboratory in cold chests. which utilize an antigen/antibody reaction to detect fungal constituents located inside cells. Results In 1997. Baiting at the two retention basin sites (the Hub and Snake Pit) produced considerably higher numbers of Phytophthora-infested leaf pieces than either of the “clean” water sites. as well as Lake Tenkiller. Mean number of infected pieces/20 was determined and then analyzed with respect to sampling site and date. As with the water samples. so the kit would only be recommended as a qualitative analysis tool for both of these organisms. at the surface of the two "clean" water sites (Lake Tenkiller and the Upper Storage Basin) even when no Phytophthora was present in corresponding water samples taken at the beginning of the exposure period. At this point there are no apparent adverse effects on plants watered with recycled water. and 2. The assay technique to detect Phytophthora spp was the same for both seasons. which incorporates the most proactive management practices. These results corresponded with concentrations of Phytophthora spp. Task IV Recommendations Specific recommendations concerning plant pathogens reported to OCC (Appendix 9) are: 1. probably because of the propensity of motile spores (zoospores) to congregate near water surfaces due to their negative geotropism. This sensitivity was also noted in 1998. Mark Andrews of Greenleaf Nursery prepared and deployed rhododendron leaf baits 24 hours prior to each sampling visit in surface waters of the Upper Storage. shorter interval. If increased disease does develop. This reflects the extremely high levels recorded at these sites and the continual exposure of the baits to large volumes of infested water over a 48hour period. therefore. 9 . (e. In 1998. Conclusions Leaf baiting was shown to be an extremely sensitive method of detecting Phytophthora spp. even when undetected by the quantitative sampling. Laboratory tests indicated cross reactivity between Phytophthora and Pythium. Hub and Snake Pit retention basins. This method could be a valuable pathogen detection tool for nurseries. Filtration is the most environmentally sound method of decontamination since it does not require the use of any toxic agent and leaves the water in a more natural state. Leaf baits were often able to detect Phytophthora spp. or other plant tissues with potentially recent infections. An effective disease management program. is essential to maintaining low disease levels in nurseries adopting capture and recycle technology.was reduced to the more convenient. recovered from water samples taken at the end of each 24-hour bait exposure period. Irrigation management is a key factor in managing disease in capture and recycle irrigation systems. A convenient alternative to plating out leaf pieces on selective medium is provided by commercially available kits. infection of leaf bait pieces was determined by plating onto selective medium.

a Capture and Recycling Field Day was held at Greenleaf Nursery in Tahlequah. The videotape was completed and distributed in late 2000. including field trips to the Greenleaf site. and cooperators. However. A draft of the recycling manual for nurseries was completed in 2001 (Appendix 13). Oral presentations on disease management for nurseries using recycling irrigation were delivered at annual meetings of the Delaware Nursery Association and the Oklahoma State Nursery Association (now known as ONLA) during January 1999. Measures of Success • Reduction in quantity of runoff water . Milestones: Conduct Greenhouse short course with water quality training element. videos. abstracts. including appendices. Team members. His presentation was developed into a teaching module that was completed in 2001 (Appendix 12). conduct field day for key industry people. observed that after recycling began in 1999. Project research was presented to an international audience at various meetings and published in three Master’s theses and one doctoral dissertation. and presentation outlines from these educational activities are included in Appendix 10. A workshop highlighting a simple capture and recycle system for retail nurseries and garden centers was conducted on March 31. these outfall points were closed. On June 2. 1999.Although pumping records were requested from Greenleaf Nursery. at TLC Nursery in Oklahoma City. Dr. Flyers. Greenleaf Nursery indicated that they had noticed no increase in pathogen • 10 . Reduction of barriers to C&R implementation o Controlling propagation of disease . teaching module for horticulture students. With the completion of the capture and recycle system in 1999. OSU will conduct extensive demonstration and educational programs. state agencies. the capture and recycle system reduced runoff quantity more than 90%. virtually all return flow was retained in capture basins and recycled. Schnelle lectured to horticulture students at OSU-Tulsa in 1999. who were on the nursery site several times each month during 1998 and 1999. in the professional judgment of the project team. 1999. Videotape series: Design and Management of Water Quality Systems The factsheet on utilizing capture and recycle technology for pollution prevention in the nursery industry was published in 1999 (Appendix 11).Task V: Education program for nursery growers. This would normally leave the site through several outfall points on the nursery. A description of the video’s content is provided in Appendix 14. is the final report. Workshops will be held in conjunction with the OSNA annual meetings and coordinated with pesticide applicator certification programs. and water quality manuals. conduct statewide training through OSNA conference A field trip to Greenleaf Nursery for BAE students and a group of Dutch engineers visiting the OSU BAE Department was held on January 7. conduct field trip for engineering and horticulture students. 1998. Task VI: Final Report This document. Therefore. as much as 40% of the irrigation water would be expected to appear as return flow. Water Quality (Recycling) Manual for Nurseries. Assuming reasonable irrigation efficiency.In a questionnaire developed and administered by OSU Master’s student Shanda Wilson in 1998 (Appendix 15). there was only minor leakage of irrigation return flow at two points. Outputs: Fact sheet on capture and recycle technology. the company never provided them. Nursery Water Quality website.

OK. which also recycles. due to the decrease in pumping costs. [Greenleaf later concluded that chlorination was not necessary]. implementation of the technology was not yet complete. OK. TX. location under recycling compared to using fresh water exclusively. In addition. In addition. First of all. After implementation of recycling. Greenleaf had to pump irrigation water from deep wells. but were unable to be quantified. However. Greenleaf reported no measurable change in losses of plants to disease since the implementation of recycling. • Reduction of nitrogen and phosphorus in runoff . A steady decrease is seen for the release of both of these nutrients from the site. withdrawing water from midlevels of the basins avoids pathogens that have settled to lower levels of the water column. Fertilization costs were thought to be slightly less at the Texas location. However. Secondly. At both locations. there was no evidence of salt buildup in the system. At that time they also expressed concern over pathogen levels and were considering the possibility of chlorinating. Reducing costs . dilution of irrigation runoff in the basins reduces concentration. For example. In addition. they commented that plants uniformly had a better color after implementation of the recycling. Greenleaf acknowledged a financial benefit from the fertilizer in the runoff going back onto the plants (see below). Greenleaf Nursery’s responses to the 1998 questionnaire (Appendix 15) suggest that location is a major factor in costs associated with implementation of the technology. location. respectively. Nurseries were also educated on ways to integrate traditional BMP techniques into their management as the different parts of the technology were put into place. prior to recycling at the El Campo. Project results show unequivocally that pathogen propagation need not be a barrier if capture basins are designed to reduce pathogen concentration and the recycled water is not used on the most sensitive plants. Table 3 shows that Greenleaf has reduced fertilizer use per acre during this same time period. they have 11 .The project team was well aware of the high initial costs of the technology and promoted a progressive approach to its implementation so that costs were spread out over a longer period of time. Greenleaf reported a 20% increase in water costs at the Oklahoma location on the questionnaire. Project results show that retention basins actually reduce the concentration of pathogens in recycled irrigation water. TX.problems at their Park Hill. Greenleaf reported no measurable difference in costs associated with pest or disease management. they reported increased foliar Phytophora infestation at their El Campo. On the other hand. o o Controlling salt buildup . they reported a 70% savings in water costs. as well as the use of capture and recycle technology. This is accomplished through the interaction of two different mechanisms. location. By taking into account the nutrients already present in the runoff water.In one full year of water quality monitoring. At both locations. and costs were expected to decline. despite using chlorination. in the same questionnaire. as well as motile zoospores that congregate at the water’s surface. At Park Hill.Recorded nitrogen and phosphorus levels in runoff from Greenleaf Nursery from 1989 to 2001 are shown in Tables 1 and 2. This can be attributed to the implementation of traditional BMP practices. educational events at TLC Nursery in Oklahoma City and the project video highlighted low-cost systems to accomplish the capture and recycle objectives.

five responses were obtained. During discussion. • Evaluation of Impact on Knowledge of Nursery Professionals o Pre. are 100% retail (1). Interestingly. encourage. why is capture and recycle not more widely used in Oklahoma?’. and promote these small. seven of nine operators said they do not. Post-project survey –Ten nursery operators familiar to Extension programs were identified and selected as the focus for a post-project phone survey. or else they would not have been willing to discuss it at such length. Cost was the most frequently mentioned prohibitive factor. Future educational programs should highlight. resulting in both environmental and financial savings. Three contacts felt o 12 . Five indicated they had virtually no runoff because they: they use drip irrigation (2). and complete survey results are included as Appendix 16. The third question. “Have you heard of capture and recycle technology for pollution control on nurseries?” All nine contacts were familiar with capture and recycle as a process. was successful in generating discussion about the topic. The final question. These two locations were added to the call list. partial recycling efforts. one interviewee inquired about capture and recycle usage of two other nurseries. Pre-and post-tests were administered at the annual Oklahoma Nursery and Landscape Association meeting in January 1999. Their reasons for this were given in response to questions 2 and 4. A copy of the survey instrument. IRB approval. ‘In your opinion.and post-tests at project meetings – This aspect of the project was overlooked until late in the project period. but they seemed to be confused by “capture and recycle technology. or do not irrigate (1). However. water by hand (1). when asked this specifically at the start of the interview. As general knowledge. ‘Do you currently utilize capture and recycle technology in your nursery operation?’. The first question asked. and many discussed other operations and facilities about which they had heard or read. This suggests there is a concern that capture and recycle is an “all or nothing” undertaking. but unfortunately these records have been lost. several “not interested” responses were given because operators were not interested in utilizing it in their operation. during discussion. When asked. After several attempts to contact them. In all. one of those who utilize capture and recycle replied in the negative.” Their familiarity was expressed clearly when the interviewer expounded upon the question. Six more contacts were identified using Internet search techniques. Several mentioned the operations at Greenleaf and their environmental awards. However. ‘Are you interested in capture and recycle technology?’ had the undesired effect of being interpreted two different ways. This should be remembered for future educational programming.reduced the amount of fertilizer applied. all contacts must have had some interest. and the interviews produced informative discussion. Only two operators indicated they utilize capture and recycle as a management tool. nine operators out of 18 potential contacts were interviewed. However. he commented that they do recycle water (approximately 25% of the nursery volume) from a small holding area during July and August to conserve water. those operators that could be contacted were very cooperative.

although widespread in the nursery. the use of capture and recycle technology is achievable by many nursery operators. and operation of a capture and recycle system was evaluated. “Change is the hardest thing in the world. 13 . or lack thereof. Finally. Phytophthora spp. but this technology is essential to meeting environmental objectives. Through careful management of both irrigation and dilution water. Monitoring of plant pathogens showed that the primary pathogen. performance. No serious outbreaks of infection were observed and no disinfection was needed. In some locations. Although costly.. One mentioned the potential costs of time and labor associated with planning and installation.” Conclusions Capture and recycle technology was shown effective in reducing the loss of nitrogen. phosphorus and other pollutants from the nursery site. where can a green house put a retention pond?) Two respondents were concerned about increased incidence of disease. And one operator stated the challenge that faces all educational programming. The demonstration site continues to be used by OSU to educate the industry and promote its adoption of the technology.e. it becomes even more difficult to for them to justify the expenditure for installing capture and recycle equipment and processes. When somebody’s been doing something one way for 30 years. it is not only achievable. Another interesting point was brought out in one discussion concerning smaller operations. getting them to do something different is just not easy. many of these small nurseries may only be active for 6-9 months of the year. as a motivating factor. Two respondents mentioned political pressure. Evidently. In this program. With this limited usage. Natural reduction of pathogen concentration occurs in the recycle basins if there is sufficient hydraulic residence time and if water intake for irrigation occurs mid-level in the water column. while another was wary of the disruption to the crop cycle that could result. was not a problem in the capture and recycle system. with potential benefits for storm water treatment. in addition to operational-. or management-related aspects. design. This practice can be considered a BMP.that the physical area of the operation could limit usage (i. nitrate and phosphate levels did not build up in retention basins. some respondents indicated that the philosophy behind management also affects capture and recycle implementation.

Appendix 1: Workplan 1-1 .

State Dept. and horticulture. set out the costs for different options. Note: Task 300 FY92 identified no surface or ground water impacts from a selected group of nurseries. The Curtis Reports (Okla. Task 300 will provide a base from which we can launch Task 600. Task 300 focused on widely available BMPs. The project will demonstrate the technology through cooperation with a nursery on the Illinois River. Although Task 300 of FY92 also addressed pollution control for nurseries. design. Similar experiences have been noted elsewhere in the U. Further it addresses a major constraint to implementation of water recycling systems. The proposed “capture and recycle” technology consists of an engineered hydraulic system with appropriate treatment practices to allow reuse of irrigation tailwater. making the technology more acceptable to the industry. The Curtis Reports further demonstrated how difficult it is to reduce nitrogen. This survey. there is no overlap between it and Task 600. The Capture and Recycle technology. and operation.S. of Agriculture. was limited in scope and intensity. These BMPs. plant pathology. a demonstration of the new capture and recycle technology. In Task 600. Reuse of these waters will reduce nutrient and pesticide pollution to offsite waters. 2000 Page 1 of 6 . and the treatment system will prevent disease problems. phosphorus and pesticides to acceptable levels with existing technologies.Agency: Oklahoma Conservation Commission In Cooperation with: OSU Cooperative Extension Service OSU Agricultural Experiment Station Oklahoma Department of Agriculture Conservation Districts Project Title: Capture and Recycle Technology for Pollution Prevention in the Nursery Industry Task: 600 (revision 6/15/2000) Introduction: This project addresses the problem of reducing pollutants in irrigation tail waters from Oklahoma nurseries. The demonstration site will then be used by OSU to educate the industry and promote its adoption. and give specific technical information on building and operating such systems. on the other hand. 1993 and 1994) on monitoring of four nurseries on the Illinois River from 1989 through 1993. however. applicable everywhere in the nursery industry. however. show the presence of high concentrations of nitrogen and phosphorus as well as ten different pesticides in nursery runoff during five years of OSDA and nursery industry monitoring. has this capacity if employed properly. specifically how to manage waterborne plant diseases that occur when irrigation water is re-used. This will show nurseries how to switch over to this technology. Information gained through this program will also be transferred to the industry by incorporating its findings into professional courses at OSU in engineering. In this program. OSU Cooperative Extension and Greenleaf Nursery will evaluate a capture and recycle system to demonstrate its performance. on the other hand. Oklahoma’s FY 1996 319(h) Task #600 (OCC Task #83) Revised June 15. may not be adequate to control runoff quality sufficiently to meet the needs of Oklahoma’s Outstanding Resource Waters. we will present information on the new capture and recycle technology and demonstrate its feasibility in a commercial setting.

The Greenleaf Nursery has agreed to allow the use of its facilities to demonstrate new technology that captures and recycles its irrigation tailwater.] In this project. Design and management information will be incorporated into agricultural engineering design courses and horticulture courses to transfer the information to future generations of designers and managers. and agricultural engineers will work with Greenleaf personnel to demonstrate the design and management of the capture and recycle technology. In addition. 2000 Page 2 of 6 . system performance under storm flow conditions will be evaluated and recommendations made on operation of the water recycling system to retain storm water runoff. will be achievable by many nursery operators. will allow nursery operators to phase in the new technology. some of which derive from nurseries. As part of the project. Recognizing that this technology is expensive. use of capture and recycle technology. is management of stormwater using the recycling system. beyond the capture and recycle of tailwater return flow.and in Europe. implementing it selectively to reduce or spread out their costs. Reductions in discharge of nitrogen. reducing discharge of pollutants while controlling the build up of salts and propagation of disease. This area is designated Outstanding Resource Water and Scenic River in Oklahoma. Although there is interest in this technology. Project Activities The project will demonstrate capture and recycle technology for pollution prevention Oklahoma’s FY 1996 319(h) Task #600 (OCC Task #83) Revised June 15. Project Area Description The project area is the Greenleaf Nursery. Demonstration and educational support through this program will be critical to ultimate adoption of the technology. phosphorus. An additional concern of nurseries. and pesticides will be accomplished primarily by reducing the amount of nursery runoff water leaving the site. though costly. situated on the Illinois River at Lake Tenkiller. OSU proposes to include alternative practices than can reduce emissions and help operators meet environmental objectives until the capture and recycle technology is in place. the area is considered to be partially supporting for its designated use because of agricultural pollutants. with advanced technology as well as alternatives and supporting practices. [Note: In OSU’s view. horticulturists. The technology will be transferred to the nursery industry through an extensive education program. there are anticipated problems of disease propagation which may restrict its implementation. OSU also feels this technology will be essential to meeting environmental objectives in some locations. plant pathologists. Further the education of producers about pollution control and alternative/supporting practices will allow greater flexibility during the adoption phase. Project Objectives The project will demonstrate capture and recycle technology for pollution prevention from nursery systems. The area has extremely high visibility to the public and will accrue benefits to the water quality program and the nursery industry. This balanced program. The technology also has a high startup cost that is a barrier to implementation.

The public participation. Because the principal investigators of this project (von Broembsen. fact sheets. students in applied and academic programs. and Plant Pathology departments at OSU. The education program will be shared through a video. the current project will teach alternatives for them to control leaching of chemicals and fertilizers. and to introduce slow release fertilizer formulations into their operations. training of managers and producers from the nursery industry. A teaching module will be developed for use in the Biosystems and Agricultural Engineering curriculum on design of capture and recycle systems. some nurseries may find it prohibitively expensive in the short term. That video conference was Oklahoma’s FY 1996 319(h) Task #600 (OCC Task #83) Revised June 15. On-site demonstrations will be followed by an extensive education program for nurseries across Oklahoma. The information gained will be incorporated in a nursery handbook. to select less damaging chemicals. and Elliott) are involved in graduate and undergraduate education. and a teaching module will be developed for horticulture students on operation of these systems. In this case. and an engineering curriculum addressed to design of capture and recycle systems. Outputs will include a handbook for operation of such systems. Although total capture of irrigation tailwater is desirable. garden center. This short course is taught every June or July and offers CEUs for pesticide certification. and in undergraduate curricula for engineering and horticulture. and industry field days.from nursery systems. horticulture teachers and other faculty. Schnelle. and a video. and pest control operators (PCOs). component of this project consists of three elements: written materials. or public education. and maintenance of these systems will be available to the undergraduate curricula in the Agricultural Engineering. operation. Each year this short course has water quality content. This project will be conducted by Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service under contract with the Oklahoma Conservation Commission (OCC). The written materials include a fact sheet on capture and recycle technology and a water quality manual for nursery operators. Cooperators will include the Oklahoma Department of Agriculture. what they learn about design. 2000 Page 3 of 6 . The classroom activities include the following: Water Quality Symposium at the October 1997 at the Oklahoma State Nurserymen’s Association (OSNA) annual trade show and conference Annual Short course for greenhouse growers. Horticulture. classroom education. and greenhouse operators and their staffs. professional society presentations. In addition. This is reflected in a very successful series of two 90-minute satellite video programs delivered in 1993 on the Greenhouse IPM program. Academic course material from this project will be used in horticulture and engineering courses. OSU reports. the Conservation Commission. Cooperative Extension will work with the Oklahoma State Nurseryman’s Association (OSNA) to offer certification courses that include operation and maintenance of capture and recycle systems. and Greenleaf Nursery. The project leaders have considerable experience in short courses and video conferences to share IPM and other technologies with the nursery/greenhouse industry of Oklahoma and other states. Classroom education will be aimed to nursery. a manual.

2000 Page 4 of 6 . how it is designed. Planned is one field day per year for Oklahoma nursery operators and related personnel. Measures of Success Reduction in quantity of runoff water leaving the nursery will be taken as a measure of success for the demonstration project. Quality Assurance Because the objective of this project is education and demonstration. and remaining barriers associated with the technology. maintenance. and high costs of design. Water. 1999. and operation. and management considerations. how it operates. Project Management The project will be managed overall by OCC. the project will determine success by reducing barriers that restrict implementation of the technology. Nurserymen-oriented classes will include pre.and post-tests to evaluate what they learn about the technology and what barriers remain to prevent implementation. Each unit of water saved will be assumed to have saved a corresponding quantity of nitrogen and phosphorus. Analysis of the performance of the recycling system will be conducted under QA/QC of the OSU Soil. The Oklahoma Department of Agriculture will also participate in the project because of their continued association with the nursery industry.broadcast to 25 other states. This entails demonstrations at the Greenleaf Nursery to show growers and students what the recycle system looks like. A pre-project record of nitrate and phosphate concentrations exists at the Greenleaf Nursery since about 1991. 1999. build up of salt. interest. Oklahoma’s FY 1996 319(h) Task #600 (OCC Task #83) Revised June 15. such as controlling propagation of disease. A contract will be written with OSU for the demonstration studies and education program. Efficiency of the recycle system will be estimated from Greenleaf Nursery water pumping records. All analysis will be conducted under the QAPP to be submitted June 15. Nursery growers will be asked to evaluate the program after the first round of classes and demonstrations to assure that the program is on track and will meet their needs. In addition. and an updated QAPP to be submitted by June 15. and Forage Laboratory. An on-site education program will be conducted for nursery growers and students. Finally a post-survey of the nursery industry will determine the level of implementation. QA procedures are held to the minimum necessary to achieve reliable demonstration.

test in class Prepare Water Quality (Recycling) Manual for Operators Conduct field trip for engineering and horticulture students Conduct field day for key industry people. including recycle Conduct Greenhouse Short Course with water quality training element Prepare information fact sheet on capture and treat technology Prepare engineering teaching module for undergraduate program. July 1. 2000 October 31. assistance in writing QAAP and Semi-annual/annual reports. 1999 June 30. 2000 September 30.1996. 1999 September 1998 July 1997 March 31. 2000 September 30. 2000 September 30. OSU graduate research assistant will develop simulation model based on hydraulics at Greenleaf to analyze design and performance of system. 2000 September 30. 1998 June 30. and cooperators Conduct statewide training through OSNA-conference Produce videotape on capture and recycle technology for nurseries (replaces satellite video conference) Prepare final report Target Completion Date June 15. 2000 September 30. 1999 January 1999 September 30. . 1999 September 30. state agencies. and participation in educational program. 2000 Page 5 of 6 . 1998. Analysis of hydraulic performance and design of capture and recycle system.Project Milestones Task-Project Milestones Prepare QAPP for EPA approval Simulate hydraulics of capture and treat system. QAPP to EPA Semi-annual reports to EPA Annual Reports to EPA Fact sheet on capture and treat technology Teaching module for engineering students Teaching module for horticulture students Water Quality (Recycling) Manual for Nurseries Video tape series: Design and Management of Water Quality systems Final Report Project Tasks Task I. 2000 September 30. Management of Project May 31. Cost: $42. July 1.September 30.700 OCC will establish contract with OSU for project activities and cost share treatment equipment with Greenleaf Nursery. test in class Prepare horticulture teaching module for undergraduate program. 2000 July 1. 1999 September 30. 1997. Oklahoma’s FY 1996 319(h) Task #600 (OCC Task #83) Revised June 15. 1999 September 30. 2000 September 30. This task includes oversight of the project. Task II. Aerial photo mapping will assist with this analysis. 2000 Cost: $6.000 OSU will work with Greenleaf to monitor performance of the recycle system. 2000 Project Outputs All activities will be included in the State's 319 semi-annual and annual report of activities to EPA.

Recommendations will be made with respect to operation for benefits of reducing offsite contamination. videos.500 Cost: $4. Task III. Demonstration of storm water management aspect of the nursery recycling system.000. including field trips to the Greenleaf site.500 State: $ 63. Cost: $12.300 OSU plant pathologist will investigate disease propagation under different management protocols and prepare clear recommendations and demonstrations. Aerial photo mapping will assist with this evaluation. Cost: $44. Task VI. 2000 Page 6 of 6 . Education program for Nursery growers. and water quality manuals. Workshops will be held in conjunction with the OSNA annual meetings and coordinated with pesticide applicator certification programs. Demonstrate performance of recycle system with respect to transmission of plant pathogens. Task IV. The performance of the recycling system under storm water conditions will be evaluated. Final Report: Project Duration: Three years Resource Allocation Federal: $ 94.000 OSU will conduct extensive demonstration and educational programs.500 Oklahoma’s FY 1996 319(h) Task #600 (OCC Task #83) Revised June 15. Cost: $48.Results will be used in development of design guidance and a teaching module for engineering course.000 Total: $157. Task V. Nursery Water Quality Website.

Appendix 2: Plant Pathogen QAPP 2-1 .

1997 Page 1 of 22 .FY96 NPS Task 600 Plant Path QAPP September 2. 1997 QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN FOR CAPTURE AND TREAT TECHNOLOGY FOR POLLUTION PREVENTION IN THE NURSERY INDUSTRY SECTION 319 FY96 SUBMITTED BY OKLAHOMA COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE OKLAHOMA STATE UNIVERSITY September 2.

. Engi. Associate Professor. Water Quality Programs Director Date _________________________________________________________ Phillip Moershel. Smolen.. Assoc. Elliott. Biosystems & Agric. von Broembsen.FY96 NPS Task 600 Plant Path QAPP September 2. Schnelle. Horticulture Date Conservation Commission approvals: _________________________________________________________ John Hassell. Plant Pathology Date _________________________________________________________ Ronald L. Project Director Date Investigator approval: _________________________________________________________ Sharon L. Date _________________________________________________________ Michael A. Professor. 1997 A1 Approval Page Rev 0. Prof. Quality Assurance Officer Date Oklahoma Office of Secretary of Environment approval: _________________________________________________________ Sylvia Ritzky. Office of Secretary of Environment Date EPA approval: _________________________________________________________ USEPA Region VI Project Officer Date __________________________________________________________ USEPA Region VI Office of Water Quality Date Page 2 of 22 . September 2 1997 Plan prepared by: _________________________________________________________ Michael D.

.... September 2.......... 1997...... Rev 0................. 6 A10 Documentation and Records......................... 1997..... September 2.. 1997 .... 1997 . Rev 0........................... Rev 0............ September 2.... 1997 A1 Approval Page Rev 0.............. September 2 1997 ........... 6 A8 NA (ORD only).... September 2......................................... Rev 0.......... 13 D3 Reconciliation with Data Quality Objectives........................... Rev 0...... 5 Project Area Description................... 22 Page 3 of 22 ..................... 1997 A2 Table of Contents... 1997.. September 2.............. Rev 0.......... September 2...... Rev 0.... 15 APPENDIX B SOP Collecting and Handling Water Samples............ Rev 0............. 9 B3 Sample Handling and Custody Requirements... 1997 ............. 6 A7 Data Quality Objectives for Measurement Data. 1997 .......................... 19 APPENDIX C Water Sampling Data Format............. 1997............ September 2.... 1997 .................................... Rev 0. 1997 ............................ September 2.......... September 2............................................... September 2........................... September 2... Rev 0........ September 2...... September 2........... 4 A5 Problem Definition/Background........ September 2........ September 2....... Rev 0........................................ Rev 0. Inspection.............. 20 APPENDIX D SOP Laboratory Analysis of Water Samples........ Rev 0........ 1997 ............ Rev 0..... Rev 0.............. 1997 ........ Rev 0...................................... September 2.............................................. 8 B2 Sampling Methods Requirements.......... 1997. 1997 21 APPENDIX E Pathogen Isolation Data Format.. 1997 ................. 1997... 10 B9 Data Acquisition Requirements (Non-Direct Measurements)........... September 2.... September 2..............................FY96 NPS Task 600 Plant Path QAPP September 2................................................................ 1997................... September 2............... Rev 0......... 10 B5 Quality Control Requirements................ September 2............... and Verification Requirements............................... 13 D2 Validation and Verification Methods......... 1997 . Rev 0............. Rev 0.. 4 A4 Project/Task Organization...................................... September 2........ 1997.............. 13 APPENDICES......................... September 2............................................ 9 B4 Analytical Methods Requirements...................... 1997 ................... 5 A6 Project Task Description.................... Rev 0......................................... 10 B7 Instrument Calibration Frequency............ 6 Project Activities........... September 2................................................... Rev 0...................................... 2 A2 Table of Contents.. 12 D1 Data Review..... Rev 0..... 14 APPENDIX A Data Quality Objectives (DQO)..... 1997 .... 1997 ................................... September 2..... 6 A9 Special Training Requirements/Certification............. 1997 ................ September 2............................. Rev 0................................ September 2................ 7 B1 Sampling Process Design (Experimental Design).. 1997 ................. 1997 ................. 10 B8 Inspection/Acceptance Requirements for Supplies and Consumables......... 1997. 3 A3 Distribution List...................................................... September 2..... 10 B6 Instrument/Equipment Testing............. 1997 ...................... September 2.......... 1997... September 2..... 12 C2 Reports to Management........................... 1997... 10 B10 Data Management..... Rev 0......... Rev 0..... Rev 0... Rev 0..................... 11 C1 Assessments and Response Action................ Rev 0......................... Validation............. 1997 .................... 5 Project Objectives . Rev 0.... September.......... and Maintenance Requirements........ September 2..................... Rev 0....... Rev 0....

Wilson. is responsible for ensuring that the assigned duties and tasks of project personnel are completed in accordance with project design and quality assurance guidelines. Oklahoma Conservation Commission. September 2. • Michael Smolen. State Specialist. Plant Pathology Ronald L. State Specialist. QA Officer Office of Secretary of Environment Sylvia Ritzky U. Conservation Commission: Mason Mungle. and all changes to the QAPP. Schnelle. Informing the OCC QA Officer of significant issues concerning data Assuring that any appropriate corrective actions regarding QAPP are met Reviewing and revising the QAPP annually Submitting to the OCC QA Officer an annual report of activities conducted under this QAPP Maintaining a file including a hard copy of this QAPP Auditing field personnel responsible for activities governed by this QAPP Consultations with the EPA regarding issues pertinent to the conduct of this project • • • • • • • • Principal Investigators: Page 4 of 22 . September 2. Smolen Extension Water Quality Coordinator Sharon L. will oversee quality assurance guidelines. Professor Biosystems and Agricultural Engineering Michael A. Smolen or his designee will assume the following QA responsibilities: Evaluating data to ensure that accepted criteria are met. Rev 0. Oklahoma State University Extension Service. once approved: Project Personnel: Michael D. EPA Region 6 Personnel Scott Smith A4 Project/Task Organization. 1997 The following individuals will be provided copies of the approved QAPP. 1997 A3 Distribution List.S. 1997 Phillip Moershel. Executive Director John Hassell. Floriculture Shanda K. Project Assistant Biosystems & Ag Eng. QA Officer.FY96 NPS Task 600 Plant Path QAPP September 2. Project Assistant Plant Pathology Mark Andrews. von Broembsen. Water Quality Program Director Phillip Moershel. Elliott. Stillwater. Rev 0. Greenleaf Nursery Heath Sands.

Further it addresses a major constraint to implementation of water recycling systems. water sampling. Schnelle is responsible for interpretations related to production of ornamental plants. A5 Problem Definition/Background. Plant Pathology. September 2. and Extension State Specialist. 1997 This project addresses the problem of reducing pollutants in irrigation tailwaters from Oklahoma nurseries. Heath Sands. phosphorus. Project Assistant. She will evaluate the impact of recycling irrigation water on the plant pathogens and disease in the nursery production system. September 2. Von Broembsen will do some of the field sample collection and laboratory analyses. OSU Cooperative Extension and Greenleaf Nursery will construct and operate a capture and recycle system to demonstrate its performance. making the technology more acceptable to the industry. and give specific technical information on building and operating such systems. The “capture and treat” technology consists of an engineered hydraulic system with appropriate disinfection practices to allow reuse of irrigation tailwater. This will show nurseries how to switch over to this technology. Plant Pathology. Biosystems and Agricultural Engineering. 1997 Sharon von Broembsen. and horticulture.FY96 NPS Task 600 Plant Path QAPP September 2. set out the costs for different options. design. 1997 In this program. A6 Project Task Description. Reuse of these waters will reduce nutrient and pesticide pollution to off-site waters. OSU will present information on the new capture and treat technology and demonstrate it’s feasibility in a commercial setting. and pesticides will be accomplished. The technology will be transferred to the nursery industry through an Page 5 of 22 . The demonstration site will then be used by OSU to educate the industry and promote its adoption. and the treatment system will prevent disease problems. Project Objectives The project will demonstrate capture and treat technology for pollution prevention from nursery systems. Von Broembsen is responsible for all aspects of the project dealing with plant disease management. Sands assists in design and analysis of hydraulic systems for irrigation water recycling. Information gained through this program will also be transferred to the industry by incorporating its findings into professional courses at OSU in engineering. plant pathology. Elliott is responsible for analysis of hydraulic information. Field Personnel: Shanda Wilson. operation. specifically how to manage waterborne plant diseases that occur when irrigation water is re-used. Project Assistant. Rev 0. Rev 0. and laboratory analyses. Reductions in discharge of nitrogen. Biosystems and Agricultural Engineering. and implementation of the education program. Horticulture and Landscape Architecture. She is also responsible for data processing. Michael Schnelle. Wilson will conduct most of the field sampling and laboratory analyses. and design of recycle systems. Ronald Elliott.

Project Director should have experience in project management and data analysis. Project Activities The project will: 1. September 2. the area is considered to be partially supporting for its designated use because of agricultural pollutants. Conduct an on-site education program for nursery growers and students. and recycles its irrigation tailwater. A8 NA (ORD only). 2. 1997 extensive education program. The Project Director should also have experience in Hydrology. The technology also has a high startup cost that is a barrier to implementation. Demonstrate capture and treat technology for pollution prevention from nursery systems. some of which derive from nurseries. laboratory analysis. A7 Data Quality Objectives for Measurement Data. Incorporate findings into a nursery handbook. 1997 Data Quality Objectives are presented in Appendix A. OSU reports. and in undergraduate curricula for engineering and horticulture. 3. and agricultural engineers will work with Greenleaf personnel to demonstrate the design and management of the capture and treat technology. Project Area Description The project area is the Greenleaf Nursery. In this project. September 2. 1997 PIs and Project Director Principle investigators for this project require degrees in biological sciences or engineering. plant pathologists. Design and management information will be incorporated into agricultural engineering design courses and horticulture courses to transfer the information to future generations of designers and managers. Rev 0. Page 6 of 22 .. Rev 0. The Greenleaf Nursery has agreed to allow the use of its facilities to demonstrate new technology that captures. This area is designated Outstanding Resource Water and Scenic River in Oklahoma. Rev 0. reducing discharge of pollutants while controlling the build up of salts and propagation of disease. 1997 A9 Special Training Requirements/Certification. In addition. Although there is interest in this technology. treats.FY96 NPS Task 600 Plant Path QAPP September 2. and water chemistry. horticulturists. there are anticipated problems of disease propagation which may restrict its implementation. September 2. situated on the Illinois River at Lake Tenkiller. The area has extremely high visibility to the public and will accrue benefits to the water quality program and the nursery industry.

1997 Field personnel should have experience with general laboratory procedures and a commitment to careful recordkeeping. Photocopies of field reports and notations will be kept in the OSU Water Quality Office. investigator. and use of data base and statistical software for data entry and analysis. A10 Documentation and Records. isolation of fungi from water and plant samples in the laboratory. etc. September 2. Data for laboratory analysis of samples will be recorded on standardized sheets by designated personnel during and following completion of the analysis process. Project Assistant should have a broad training in sciences with experience in collecting and handling field samples. type of sample. Sample data recorded will include date and location where sample was collected. All records will be photocopied and submitted to the project director. Page 7 of 22 . Photocopies of all laboratory analysis sheets and reports will be sent to the Water Quality Office. 1997 Field investigators will record data regarding water sampling in a bound notebook identified for this project. A strong commitment to careful record keeping is also required.FY96 NPS Task 600 Plant Path QAPP September 2. Examples of lab data sheets are found in appendix A. Rev 0. and any comments such as difficulties incurred while collecting data.

will also be used for sampling water at corresponding sites. RECOVERY OF PLANT PATHOGENS Water samples will be filtered to recover fungi. also will be recovered from leaf baits by plating out pieces of leaf tissue onto HX and observing for fungal growth into the medium. and standard error (σn) for means. To determine if recycled water poses a greater risk of disease than the lake water source. Phytophthora spp.5 L) of flowing water will be taken by collecting small (less than 100 ml) aliquots randomly over a period of 20 minutes. Rev 0. An improved estimate of confidence limits of the mean can be obtained by introducing a correction factor. September 2. All counts will be analyzed statistically using the Poisson distribution of count data to calculate the variance (σ2). 1997 B1 Sampling Process Design (Experimental Design). The confidence limits of a count X are calculated as: Page 8 of 22 . standard deviation (σ). Counts of colonies developing from 20 leaf pieces will be recorded for each of the duplicate leaf baitings. a series of volumes of water will be filtered using three replicate sub-samples for each dilution in the series. Runoff samples will be taken from flowing water in runoff return ditches and samples of water from the lake or retention ponds will be sampled at the nearest delivery point (irrigation riser) from running water. The filters will be inverted onto plates containing a Phytophthora selective medium (HX) according to the method of von Broembsen (1984) to allow the fungi to grow out and the resulting fungal colonies to be counted. 1997 MONITORING FOR PLANT PATHOGENS The demonstration nursery is located on the shore of Lake Tenkiller and incorporates parts of three natural drainage systems that initiate off-site. Phytophthora spp.FY96 NPS Task 600 Plant Path QAPP September 2. The nursery currently takes all its water for irrigation from Lake Tenkiller. This type of series is similar to dilution series used to enumerate bacteria by dilution plating. water at five sites within the nursery and at the lake source will be monitored throughout the growing season for the waterborne plant pathogens. A leaf baiting technique in which cut leaves of lemon and rhododendron are suspended in water for 24 hrs to allow infection by Phytophthora spp. At least eight retention basins will eventually be employed to capture or store water for recycling back onto crops. The colonies that grow out on the selective media (HX) at the dilution allowing the best counting will be used to estimate populations for each sample. water from the four main runoff return ditches and water from a large dam that will store recycled water prior to reuse will be sampled. for a total of six sampling sites. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN For the filtration recovery method. SAMPLING WATER FOR PLANT PATHOGENIC FUNGI Water samples (4. The data will be reported as the number of colony forming units (cfu) per liter of water (mean + SE). FIELD SAMPLING DESIGN In addition to sampling lake water at the point of drawing from the lake.

5 (X1 + X2) (V1/(V1 + V2)) (V2/(V1 + V2)) The high cost of analysis of each sample in terms of materials. and then consulting a t table to determine if the counts are significantly different at the P < 0. 1997 X + d2/2 + d√(X + d2/4). Sampling data will be recorded using the format in Appendix C. Rev 0.0. time and labor does not permit more extensive sampling within the nursery and only limited replication.05 level. Rev 0. But repeated sampling throughout the season serves as an acceptable method of evaluating the pathogen levels at any one site. B3 Sample Handling and Custody Requirements. V1 and V2) can be similarly analyzed by applying a modified formula: d= | X1 . Time of sampling during the day is non-critical.05). Water samples will be collected in disinfected 4. where d is obtained from a t-table (p = 0.(X1 + X2)/2 | . September. Page 9 of 22 .g. Details of sampling procedures are provided in Appendix B. clearly labeled using indelible ink with the sample numbers. and transported in cool boxes directly to the laboratory. Counts obtained from different volumes (e. B2 Sampling Methods Requirements. which includes the person collecting sample. Samples will be placed in cool boxes and transported directly to the laboratory for same day isolation. Leaf baits will be collected in clean plastic gallon zip-lock bags similarly marked except that replicates will be placed in separate bags and clearly marked.(X1 + X2) (V1/(V1 + V2)) | . except that the blank will not be exposed to irrigation water. Composite water samples will be placed in disinfected 4. date. Duplicate leaf bait blank swill be run by treating leaf baits identically with environmental leaf baits. 1997 Water Sample Handling and Custody The person taking water or leaf samples will record sampling date and conditions in a field notebook. Poisson counts can be compared to determine if they are different using the following equation: d= | X1 . polypropylene containers labeled with indelible ink with the site (location) of collection. Data sheets shown in Appendix C give the format of the data that will be recorded for each sample. 1997 Water samples will be collected by the Project Assistant or the Principal Investigator according to standard operating procedures specified in the Appendix B.0.5 polyethylene containers and leaf baits will be placed in 1 gallon clean plastic zip lock bags. and any relevant ambient data or observations. and label samples for transport shipment to laboratory.5 L.FY96 NPS Task 600 Plant Path QAPP September 2. September 2.5 (X1 + X2)/4 where X1 is the first count and X2 is the second count.

Damaged. Deviations from these methods will be noted in laboratory reports and serve as grounds to render any sample(s) invalid. B6 Instrument/Equipment Testing. September 2. Inspection. Rev 0. 1997 All supplies are inspected upon receipt for completeness and integrity. Laboratory methods are presented in Appendices D and E. B7 Instrument Calibration Frequency. Page 10 of 22 . September 2. B8 Inspection/Acceptance Requirements for Supplies and Consumables. All reagents are checked for expiration dates and shelf life. Rev 0. September 2. B5 Quality Control Requirements. 1997 Samples will be analyzed for items specified in Data Quality Objective (Appendix A) using the standard operating procedures set out in Appendix D. B9 Data Acquisition Requirements (Non-Direct Measurements). Rev 0. and Maintenance Requirements. These would include the effects of specific management practices on pathogen levels in irrigation water. incomplete. Leaf bait blanks will also be run. Laboratory recovery equipment will be disinfected and isolations will be carried out using sterile technique. September 2. and expired supplies will not be used and will be returned to the supplier. September 2. Rev 0. September 2. 1997 No instrumentation requiring calibration will be used in sampling and recovery procedures. Rev 0.FY96 NPS Task 600 Plant Path QAPP September 2. and counts at more than one dilution will allow checking for any aberrations that would render a data point invalid. The format of the data that will be recorded for the laboratory analysis of the samples is set out in Appendix E. Data will be checked after each analysis by Sharon von Broembsen for consistency of data. 1997 Observations Of the Effect of Management Practices on Pathogen Levels in Irrigation Water Certain observations that are anecdotal in nature will be recorded so that these can be tested further using more rigorous methods. 1997 No chain of custody forms are required because. Some nursery-generated records may be available to support these observations. B4 Analytical Methods Requirements. 1997 Water Samples The use of two different methods of recovering pathogenic fungi from the same water samples will serve as an internal control for each sample. 1997 Water samples will be collected directly in disinfected containers. Rev 0. samples will remain in the custody of the field sampling person for the duration of transport and analysis. Photocopies of the recorded sampling data will be sent to the project Quality Assurance Officer.

Files will be backed up to removable disks daily and each week copies of the files on disk will be stored with the Quality Assurance Officer for safekeeping. Dr. 1997 Data acquired for use in this project from other projects or outside sources will be reviewed for completeness. 1997 Data Flow within and from Laboratory: Sample analysis data on the original laboratory data sheets will be photocopied after each analysis and copies filed with the QA Officer. and how it meets the data quality objectives. Where possible. she will resolve problems through consultation with the Quality Assurance Officer. September 2. von Broembsen will review data from the original laboratory data sheets for completeness.FY96 NPS Task 600 Plant Path QAPP September 2. Shanda Wilson will enter the data to an Excel database for subsequent analysis and reporting. quality. and violation of procedures. Data Storage and backups Data will be stored in computer files on a hard drive in the Plant Pathology Department. All data from outside sources will be cited appropriately. problems. B10 Data Management. Rev 0. gross errors. a record of changes will be retained in the record and reported to project QA Officer. Where errors are corrected. She will flag data where data are incomplete or have obvious reporting errors. Page 11 of 22 . Upon verification of data completeness.

If an error is found and no resolution can be arrived at concerning its source or cause. remedies taken to rectify those QA problems. Annual QA reports will be sent to the OCC. as well as a final report on the findings and recommendations of this study are also required. The annual reports will include status of the project. Results will only be discarded if a blunder is identified. the data will be flagged. summary explanations of any quality assurance problems encountered. results of performance and system audits. results of data quality assessments. In the event that no error is found. and the results of any periodic laboratory QA assessments. Rev 0. 1997 Quality assurance reports will be completed annually by the Project Director and distributed to those persons included in the Distribution List of this document. If discrepancies occur. or unusual results. 1997 C1 Assessments and Response Action. This QA report will include audits of field notes and Laboratory Quality Assurance Assessments. the data will be traced back through laboratory records and field record books to look for possible causes of the error. Page 12 of 22 . the data will be assumed to be normal and appropriate for use in project reports and in decision making. inconsistencies. C2 Reports to Management.FY96 NPS Task 600 Plant Path QAPP September 2. Rev 0. The report will also contain information on the ongoing status of the project. and significant quality assurance problems and solutions. Semi-annual and annual progress reports. September 2. summaries regarding the status of samples taken and their analysis. 1997 All data will be reviewed routinely for abnormalities. September 2.

FY96 NPS Task 600 Plant Path QAPP

September 2, 1997

D1 Data Review, Validation, and Verification Requirements, Rev 0, September 2, 1997 Acceptance criteria for water data will be based on consistency among duplicate samples and dilution series. Although some values may be considered, none will be discarded without evidence of a blunder. Suspect data will be flagged. D2 Validation and Verification Methods, Rev 0, September 2, 1997 All data will be reviewed routinely for abnormalities, inconsistencies, or unusual results. If any of these occur, the data will be traced back through laboratory records and field record books to look for possible causes of the error. In the event that no error is found, the data will be assumed to be normal and appropriate for use in project reports and in decisionmaking. If an error is found and no resolution can be arrived at concerning its source or cause, the data will be flagged. Results will only be discarded if a blunder is identified. Data from field duplicates will be analyzed by comparing the measured range to the laboratory quality control value for each parameter. In the event the range exceeds the laboratory control value, the laboratory will be notified to check for errors. If no error can be identified and corrected, the data for that parameter from all sites for that date will be flagged. Data will only be discarded upon clear evidence of a blunder. D3 Reconciliation with Data Quality Objectives, Rev 0, September 2, 1997 The objective of this Quality Assurance Project Plan is to provide data consistent with the workplan that is as complete as possible with the precision and accuracy necessary for meaningful interpretation. The data must also be representative of the activity performed and reported in a manner that allows comparison of data among different groups. The final measure of success will be an acceptable Type I error (5%) level in the treatment comparisons. Because this project is planned as a demonstration of alternative management strategies, the treatment effect must be large relative to variance. The distinction is planned more from the magnitude of difference among treatments than from excessive attention to statistical design.

Page 13of 22

FY96 NPS Task 600 Plant Path QAPP

September 2, 1997

APPENDICES, Rev 0, September 2, 1997
Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D Appendix E Data Quality Objectives Standard Operation Procedures for Collecting and Handling Water Samples Water Sampling Data Format Standard Operation Procedures for Laboratory Analysis of Water Samples Pathogen Isolation Data Forma

Page 14 of 22

FY96 NPS Task 600 Plant Path QAPP

September 2, 1997

APPENDIX A Data Quality Objectives (DQO), Rev 0, September 2, 1997 QAPP-DQO planning team: Personnel involved in establishing the DQO for this project include: Phillip Moershel – OCC. Michael Smolen – Oklahoma State University Extension - Project Director and QA Officer. Sharon von Broembsen – Oklahoma State University Extension (Plant Pathology) – Principal Investigator Decisions will be established by Sharon von Broembsen with approval by project director. Statement of the Problem to be Solved Capturing and recycling irrigation water is being promoted as a way for ornamental nurseries to contain nutrient and pesticide contaminated runoff that can pollute surface water bodies on site. However, nursery managers are concerned that runoff also contains certain important waterborne plant pathogens, especially Phytophthora spp., and that capturing and recycling irrigation water back on to crops may lead to an increase in disease. Increased disease would not only result in financial losses from plant deaths and reduced plant quality but would also require that greater amounts of fungicides be used to control disease. These concerns are a major constraint to implementation of capture and recycle pollution prevention technology. This demonstration will address the issue by monitoring levels of Phytophthora spp. in different components of the recycling irrigation system to evaluate if pathogen levels will increase compared to the original surface water source, Lake Tenkiller. Other components of this project, which do not require data collection and which are therefore not described in this document, will deal with educating nursery managers about how to manage capture and recycle systems to protect water quality while producing high quality plants. The question that pathogen monitoring will answer is, “Will recycled irrigation water have higher levels of Phytophthora spp. compared to the original lake water source?” Personnel Personnel who will also be involved in execution of the project are: Shanda Kay Wilson, Project Assistant and Graduate Student, Environmental Sciences Program and Department of Plant Pathology Equipment Equipment that will be furnished to the project as needed by the Plant Pathology Department include; • • Media preparation equipment, such as autoclaves, hot water baths, scales, etc. Microscopes

Page 15 of 22

FY96 NPS Task 600 Plant Path QAPP • • • Laminar flow bench for sterile technique Incubators Truck

September 2, 1997

Statement of the Decisions to be made and Data Required The ultimate decisions that this portion of the project will answer: 1. Can nurseries implement the new capture and recycle technology without increasing pathogen levels in recycled irrigation water to unacceptable levels? 2. Will treatment of recycled irrigation water be needed to allow re-use? 3. If treatment is required, what treatment would be recommended. Outcomes from these decisions will result in changes in recommendations to nursery producers, environmental regulators, natural resource agencies, and educators on the use of capture and recycle technology as a pollution prevention method for the containerized nursery industry. The data needed: Levels of Phytophthora spp. in the water source (Lake Tenkiller) and in captured and recycled water at specific points of the irrigation system during a production season. Decision Inputs Levels of Phytophthora spp. (cfu/ L) in water from the lake source, in runoff from major production areas within the nursery, and in recycled irrigation water as delivered to plants in production areas will be measured throughout a season. Levels in runoff from production areas and in recycled (captured, mixed and stored) water will be compared to levels in the source water to determine if they are significantly higher. Significance will be assumed if the probability of error, based upon statistical analysis, is less than 5%. Information Required for Decision 1. Levels of Phytophthora spp. (cfu/ L) in runoff from nursery production areas, recycled water at the point of delivery to plants, and from the lake source 2. Location and operation of water storage, capture, and recycling system. 3. Location of disease sensitive plants in the nursery. Samples will be collected and analyzed monthly throughout the growing season from March- September. The sites sampled will include four major runoff collection ditches, the lake source, and a site on a production block at the point of delivery of recycled water to the crop. Action Levels and Decision Criteria 1. If the mean level of Phytophthora spp. in recycled water at the point of delivery to the crop is 10 times greater than in the lake water source, re-use of untreated water will considered unacceptable. 2. If the mean level of Phytophthora spp. in the recycled water at the point of delivery to the crops is significantly greater but does exceed 10 times that in the lake water Page 16 of 22

FY96 NPS Task 600 Plant Path QAPP

September 2, 1997

source, re-use of recycled water may be acceptable with modifications of management practices. Boundaries Spatial Boundaries The project will be conducted at Greenleaf Nursery near Tahlequah. The project demonstration will be located at the Greenleaf Nursery Company’s main production site, 7 miles south of Park Hill, Oklahoma. The 600 acre containerized nursery is immediately adjacent to the upper reach of Lake Tenkiller. Temporal Boundaries Data for the project refer to average runoff conditions throughout a growing season (March-October). Constraints on Data Collection The high cost of analysis of each sample in terms of materials, time and labor does not permit more extensive sampling within the nursery and only limited replication. But repeated sampling throughout the season serves as an acceptable method of evaluating the pathogen levels at any one site. Decision Rule Based upon question listed: 1. If mean levels of Phytophthora spp. in recycled water at the point of use are significantly greater but do not exceed ten times those of the original lake water source, management options regarding storage, dilution and target use of recycled water will be recommended which will allow the use of recycled irrigation water without stringent in-line decontamination treatment. 2. If mean levels of Phytophthora spp. in recycled water at the point of use exceed ten times those of the original lake water source, treatment of recycled water with stringent in line decontamination treatment will be recommended. Specify Acceptable Limits on Decision Error All data comparisons will involve analysis of variance for treatments. Significant differences between means will have a probability of Type I error at 5%. Decision action levels are substantially higher than statistical confidence levels. The hypothesis for the study is: using recycled irrigation water will not raise levels of Phytophthora spp. to unacceptable levels. In order to reject the hypothesis, statistically significant differences must exist between the source water and recycled water. A false positive would imply that differences exist when in fact they do not. Such a result would lead to false assumptions concerning the need for treating water before reuse. Conclusion that treatment is necessary could lead to errant recommendations and unnecessary costs to implement water treatment.

Page 17 of 22

FY96 NPS Task 600 Plant Path QAPP

September 2, 1997

False negatives would suggest no increase in pathogen levels in recycled water when in fact an increase does exist. These results could have serious consequences if they are not only above the confidence level but also above the action level, since producers would be likely to experience increased disease and financial loss. This demonstration guards against the danger of false negatives by allowing a large buffer between the statistical confidence level and the action level. Optimize Designs Water sampling is a resource-effective system. Methodology for analysis and sample handling is well established and the data are reliable. Sample quality is not easily affected by contamination from the environment because the organisms in question exist only in water and soil. The data, however, are critical toward reaching decisions concerning implementation of capture and recycle technology. Therefore, water samples are very resource effective measures. The differences between mean levels of pathogens in recycled water compared with the source water will be measured from water monitoring conducted during the demonstration period. Statistical analysis using the water monitoring data will be conducted at a 95percent confidence level. Treatments that show a significant increase in Phytophthora spp. in recycled water will be identified. Our previous studies of water monitoring of surface waters for Phytophthora spp. (von Broembsen, S.L. Distribution of Phytophthora cinnamomi in rivers of the southwestern Cape Province. 1984. Phytophylactica 16, 227-229) have established that these methods can be used to identify statistical differences between treatments at a 95 percent confidence level. Methods of analysis used in this demonstration are similar to our previous experiments. Future changes to optimize the program will focus on location and timing of sample collection.

Page 18 of 22

FY96 NPS Task 600 Plant Path QAPP

September 2, 1997

APPENDIX B SOP Collecting and Handling Water Samples, Rev 0, September 2, 1997
1. 2. 3. Water samples with be collected in 4.5 liter polypropylene containers that have been previously disinfected with 10% sodium hypochlorite to eliminate Phytophthora spp. Containers will be clearly marked with the sample code and the data for each sample will be entered in the field notebook in the prescribed format (see Appendix C). Water in runoff ditches will be sampled from the main flow and water pumped from either the lake source or ponds will be allowed to run until all water standing in connecting pipes has been discharged prior to sampling. Small aliquots (< 100 ml) of water will be taken randomly from flowing water over a period of 20 minutes until the container is filled so as to achieve a composite sample of water over time. Water samples will be placed in ice chests and transported directly to the laboratory for analysis on the same day.

4. 5.

Page 19 of 22

FY96 NPS Task 600 Plant Path QAPP

September 2, 1997

APPENDIX C Water Sampling Data Format, Rev 0, September 2, 1997

Samples Taken By ________________________ Date _________ Time _________ Sample Group Code: _________________ Water # _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ Leaf Bait # ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ Water Conditions __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________ Observations/ Problems _______________________ _______________________ _______________________ _______________________ _______________________ _______________________ _______________________

Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5 Site 6 Extra

Page 20 of 22

2. After 24 incubation in the water samples. Page 21 of 22 . 4. Leaf Baits 1. After 72 h the numbers of colonies on each plate will be counted. leaves will be removed and 10 pieces of each leaf bait will be plated out onto a plate of HX medium.FY96 NPS Task 600 Plant Path QAPP September 2. 1997 A. Filtered volumes will be measured using either sterile pipettes or hot water disinfected measuring cylinders 4. Rev 0. Duplicate 1-liter sub-samples will be placed in beakers sterilized by autoclaving. 7. 3. Three replicate sub-samples at each volume with be filtered for each sample. 5. Filter holders will be disinfected by hot water treatment (10 minute immersion in water at 50C) in a hot water bath. 8. Water samples will be filtered through 45 mm diameter Nucleopore polycarbonate filters with 3 micron pores to recover and retain Phytophthora propagules on their surfaces. 1997 APPENDIX D SOP Laboratory Analysis of Water Samples. September 2. After 24 h filters will be removed and discarded. Two freshly cut leaves each of lemon and rhododendron will be placed in each of the duplicates. After 48 h the number of leaf pieces from which Phytophthora has grown out will be counted. 6. 3. B. 2. Filters will be inverted onto HX medium and plates incubated at 24 C to allow fungal growth. Filtration 1. Volumes to be filtered as part of a series of volumes will be selected based on experience as to amounts of water that can pass through a filter and as to volumes that will give countable plates.

FY96 NPS Task 600 Plant Path QAPP September 2. Leaf Baits (Number of pieces out of 10 from which Phytophthora grows) Lemon Rhododendron Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 1 Rep2 Site 1 _________ ________ __________ __________ Site 2 _________ ________ __________ __________ Site 3 _________ ________ __________ __________ Site 4 _________ ________ __________ __________ Site 5 _________ ________ __________ __________ Site 6 _________ ________ __________ __________ Extra _________ ________ __________ __________ Deviations or Problems Page 22 of 22 . 1997 Samples Analyzed By ________________________ Date _________ Sample Group Code: _________________ A. September 2. Rev 0. Filtration (Cfu = colony forming units of Phytophthora) Dilutions Counted Cfu Rep 1 _________________ _________ _________________ _________ _________________ _________ _________________ _________ _________________ _________ _________________ _________ _________________ _________ Cfu Rep 2 __________ __________ __________ __________ __________ __________ __________ Cfu Rep 3 __________ __________ __________ __________ __________ __________ __________ Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5 Site 6 Extra B. 1997 APPENDIX E Pathogen Isolation Data Format.

Appendix 3: Stormwater Quality QAPP 3-1 .

1999 Page 1 of 19 . 1999 QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN FOR CAPTURE AND RECYCLE TECHNOLOGY FOR POLLUTION PREVENTION IN THE NURSERY INDUSTRY (STORMWATER QUALITY COMPONENT) SECTION 319 FY96 SUBMITTED BY OKLAHOMA COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE OKLAHOMA STATE UNIVERSITY May 3.FY1996 NPS Task 600 Stormwater QAPP May 3.

Office of Secretary of Environment Date EPA approval: _________________________________________________________ Kerri Ward. Strong. Horticulture Date Conservation Commission approvals: _________________________________________________________ John Hassell. Schnelle. Date _________________________________________________________ Michael A. Smolen. USEPA Region VI Project Officer Date __________________________________________________________ USEPA Region VI Office of Water Quality Date Page 2 of 19 . Project Director Date Investigator approval: _________________________________________________________ Sharon L. Elliott. Prof. 1999 A1 Approval Page Rev 1. May 3. Plant Pathology Date _________________________________________________________ Ronald L. Water Quality Programs Director Date _________________________________________________________ Phillip Moershel.FY1996 NPS Task 600 Stormwater QAPP May 3. Biosystems & Agric. von Broembsen. 1999 OKLAHOMA STATE UNIVERSITY CAPTURE AND RECYCLE TECHNOLOGY FOR POLLUTION PREVENTION IN THE NURSERY INDUSTRY QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN (STORMWATER QUALITY COMPONENT) Plan prepared by: _________________________________________________________ Michael D. Assoc. D. Professor.. Engi. Associate Professor.. Quality Assurance Officer Date Oklahoma Office of Secretary of Environment approval: _________________________________________________________ J.

....................... 15 B4 Analytical Methods Requirements .... 19 Page 3 of 19 ... 12 Field collection and interpretation .......... 5 Project Area Description ..................... 16 B9 Data Acquisition Requirements (Non-Direct Measurements) ....................... 1999 A1 Approval Page .............................................................. 16 C1 Assessments and Response Action....................... 7 A6 ProjectTask Description ..................... 18 D3 Reconciliation with Data Quality Objectives........... 10 A10 Documentation and Records.................................................................................... 17 C2 Reports to Management...................................................... 15 B7 Instrument Calibration Frequency................................................................................................................................... Inspection... 16 Data Flow within and from Laboratory: ........ 15 B6 Instrument/Equipment Testing....................................................................................... May 3...................................................................................... 18 APPENDIX: Soil Water and Forage Laboratory QAMP Documents .............. 16 B10 Data Management................................................................................................. 1999 A2 Table of Contents.............FY1996 NPS Task 600 Stormwater QAPP May 3............ 9 Boundaries ........................... and Maintenance Requirements........................ 7 Project Activities.................................. 8 QAPP-DQO planning team:.............................................. 10 Specify Acceptable Limits on Decision Error ..................... 1999 ................................................................................................................................................................. 7 Project Objectives ...................... 16 Data Storage and backups .................................................................... 8 Statement of the Decisions to be made and Data Required ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 13 Laboratory analysis and data handling.................................................................. 11 A9 Special Training Requirements/Certification...................................... 13 Experimental design........................... 8 Decision Inputs ............... 8 A7 Data Quality Objectives for Measurement Data ............................ 12 Field sampling design ................................................................................. 10 Decision Rule ............................................................................................ 5 Background ........................... 10 A8 NA (ORD only)................................................................................................... 14 B3 Sample Handling and Custody Requirements....................................... Rev 1................................................................. 17 D2 Validation and Verification Methods.......................................................................... 10 Constraints on Data Collection ....................................................................................................................... 12 Monitoring nitrogen and phosphorus in runoff and stormwater ......................................................................................................................................................... 16 B8 Inspection/Acceptance Requirements for Supplies and Consumables. 8 Statement of the Problem to be Solved .............................................................................................................................. 4 A4 Project/Task Organization................................ 11 B1 Sampling Process Design (Experimental Design). 14 B2 Sampling Methods Requirements......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2 A2 Table of Contents .......... May 3................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 3 A3 Distribution List ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4 A5 Problem Definition/Background .. 15 B5 Quality Control Requirements...............................................................................................................................

1999 The following individuals will be provided copies of the approved QAPP.S. Oklahoma Conservation Commission. EPA Region 6 Personnel Kerri Ward A4 Project/Task Organization.FY1996 NPS Task 600 Stormwater QAPP May 3. Rev 1. Elliott. • Tom Alexander. Schnelle. See Figure 1 for organizational chart for the Division of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources. Smolen is responsible for ensuring that the assigned duties and tasks of project personnel are completed in accordance with project design and quality assurance guidelines. QA Officer Office of Secretary of Environment J. State Specialist. Water Quality Program Director • Phillip Moershel. Project Assistant. Floriculture • Shanda K. Project Director. Conservation Commission: • Mike Thralls. Smolen or his designee will assume the following QA responsibilities: • Evaluating data to ensure that accepted criteria are met. Project Assistant Biosystems & Ag Eng. May 3. once approved: Project Personnel: • Michael D. 1999 A3 Distribution List. QA Officer. State Specialist. D. Project Director: Michael Smolen. Strong U. Project Assistant Plant Pathology • Mark Andrews. von Broembsen. Wilson. and all changes to the QAPP. All OSU personnel are within that structure. Professor Biosystems and Agricultural Engineering • Michael A. Smolen Extension Water Quality Coordinator • Sharon L. Rev 1. May 3. will oversee quality assurance guidelines. Executive Director • John Hassell. 1999 Phillip Moershel. • Informing the OCC QA Officer of significant issues concerning data • Assuring that any appropriate corrective actions regarding QAPP are met • Reviewing and revising the QAPP annually • Submitting to the OCC QA Officer an annual report of activities conducted under this QAPP • Maintaining a file including a hard copy of this QAPP • Auditing field personnel responsible for activities governed by this QAPP • Consultations with the EPA regarding issues pertinent to the conduct of this project Page 4 of 19 . Smolen is Professor of Biosystems and Agricultural Engineering and Water Quality Coordinator for the Oklahoma State University Extension Service. Biosystems & Ag Eng. Greenleaf Nursery • Heath Sand. Plant Pathology • Ronald L.

• Tom Alexander. making the technology more acceptable to the industry. Sands works under the direction of Dr. Alexander collects water quality samples from the recycle system and analyzes the data. MS candidate Biosystems and Agricultural Engineering. • Heath Sand. Reuse of these waters will reduce nutrient and pesticide pollution to off-site waters. Page 5 of 19 . Schnelle is responsible for interpretations related to production of ornamental plants. The nurseries have succeeded in reaching these targets with some difficulty. 1999 This project addresses the problem of reducing pollutants in irrigation tailwaters from Oklahoma nurseries. The “capture and recycle” technology consists of an engineered hydraulic system with appropriate disinfection practices to allow reuse of irrigation tailwater. Von Broembsen is responsible for all aspects of the project dealing with plant disease management. Project Assistant. 1999 Principal Investigators: • Sharon von Broembsen. and implementation of the education program. Wilson works under direction of Dr. Professor of Entomology and Plant Pathology. Rev 1. She is also responsible for data processing. Without this demonstration. their nitrate-N to 10 mg/l. Sand assists in design and analysis of hydraulic systems for irrigation water recycling. the nursery industry is reluctant to employ the technology due to risk of plant disease. the four large nurseries agreed to participate in a voluntary monitoring program and install BMPs as necessary to reduce their pesticides to zero. Professor of Biosystems and Agricultural Engineering. Environmental Science. MS candidate. Elliott. • Michael Schnelle. Elliott is responsible for analysis of hydraulic information. The capture and recycle system is viewed by Greenleaf Nursery as a means of consistently meeting these effluent targets without reducing their production. and laboratory analyses. Smolen. and design of recycle systems. Wilson will conduct most of the field sampling and laboratory analyses. A separate part of the project demonstrates the plant pathogen control aspects of capture and recycle technology. Field Personnel: • Shanda Wilson. Alexander works under direction of Dr. von Broembsen. Horticulture and Landscape Architecture. Von Broembsen will do some of the field sample collection and laboratory analyses. Phosphorus. and State Plant Pathologist Specialist for Cooperative Extension. Under an agreement with Oklahoma Department of Agriculture. Background Previous work on nurseries in the Illinois River watershed have shown significant loss of Nitrogen. May 3. and their phosphate-P to 1 mg/l. Environmental Science. and pesticides before BMPs were initiated. A5 Problem Definition/Background. She will evaluate the impact of recycling irrigation water on the plant pathogens and disease in the nursery production system.FY1996 NPS Task 600 Stormwater QAPP May 3. • Ronald Elliott. water sampling. Project Assistant. PhD candidate. and the treatment system will prevent disease problems.

OSU Division of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources. 1999 President James Halligan Vice-President for Research Tom Collins Division of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources Dean Sam Curl Agricultural Economics Department Entomology and Plant Pathology Department Oklahoma Agricultural Experiment Station Ag. Education.FY1996 NPS Task 600 Stormwater QAPP May 3. Com. Page 6 of 19 . & 4-H Youth Develop.. Organizational Chart. Department Forestry Department Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service Animal Science Department Horticulture and Landscape Architecture Department College of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources Biochemistry & Molecular Biology Department Plant & Soil Sciences Department Biosystems & Agricultural Engineering Department Figure 1.

Design and management information will be incorporated into agricultural engineering design courses and horticulture courses to transfer the information to future generations of designers and managers. there are anticipated problems of disease propagation which may restrict its implementation. A6 Project Task Description. and give specific technical information on building and operating such systems. specifically how to manage waterborne plant diseases that occur when irrigation water is re-used. the results are useful for the Illinois River Program and for nurseries in general. In this project. Project Objectives The project is designed to demonstrate capture and recycle technology for pollution prevention from nursery systems. and recycles its irrigation tailwater. The technology also has a high startup cost that is a barrier to implementation. and operation. Although there is interest in this technology. directly on Lake Tenkiller. Reductions in discharge of nitrogen. treats. and agricultural engineers will work with Greenleaf personnel to demonstrate the design and management of the capture and recycle technology. OSU will present information on the new capture and recycle technology and demonstrate its feasibility in a commercial setting. and horticulture. This area is designated Outstanding Resource Water and Scenic River in Oklahoma. Information gained through this program will also be transferred to the industry by incorporating its findings into professional courses at OSU in engineering.FY1996 NPS Task 600 Stormwater QAPP May 3. plant pathology. some of which derive from nurseries. design. set out the costs for different options. reducing discharge of pollutants while controlling the buildup of salts and propagation of disease. Greenleaf Nursery will construct and operate a capture and recycle system to demonstrate its performance. In addition. Page 7 of 19 . May 3. It addresses the performance of the system for capture of nutrients and release under storm water conditions. Rev 1. Be more specific about the nutrients and pesticides that are considered to be problems in the area. situated on the Illinois River at Lake Tenkiller. the area is considered to be partially supporting for its designated use because of agricultural pollutants. The Greenleaf Nursery has agreed to allow the use of its facilities to demonstrate new technology that captures. The demonstration site will then be used by OSU to educate the industry and promote its adoption. phosphorus will be accomplished through water saving and consequent reduction in runoff. plant pathologists. The area has extremely high visibility to the public and will accrue benefits to the water quality program and the nursery industry. 1999 Because this project site is in the Illinois River Watershed. The technology will be transferred to the nursery industry through an extensive education program. This will show nurseries how to switch over to this technology. Project Area Description The project area is the Greenleaf Nursery. horticulturists. 1999 In this program. Another section (addressed in a separate QAPP) of the project addresses a major constraint to implementation of water recycling systems.

OSU reports. The project will: 1. 1999 QAPP-DQO planning team: Personnel involved in establishing the DQO for this project include: • Phillip Moershel – OCC.FY1996 NPS Task 600 Stormwater QAPP May 3. Incorporate findings into a nursery handbook. Equipment No equipment is specified. 3. This technology will be demonstrated as a means of retaining nutrients on-site for reintroduction and increased opportunity for plant uptake and removal of nutrients. 1999 Project Activities The project is intended as an education and demonstration activity.Project Director and QA Officer. Demonstrate capture and recycle technology for pollution prevention from nursery systems. Statement of the Problem to be Solved Capturing and recycling irrigation water is being promoted as a way for ornamental nurseries to contain nutrient and pesticide contaminated runoff that can pollute surface water bodies on site. He will be assisted from time to time by Nursery personnel or by others of the project team. • Michael Smolen – Oklahoma State University Extension . Task III. project director. A7 Data Quality Objectives for Measurement Data. 4. • Tom Alexander – Graduate Student. Budget See Revised Workplan. Although there will be sampling of water quality parameters. Rev 1. these results are not intended as an output of the project. and how extensively they flush out under stormflow conditions. and in undergraduate curricula for engineering and horticulture. Personnel Tom Alexander is the principle person involved in this element of the project. Publish results through the Oklahoma Cooperative Extension system and through refereed professional journals.. Oklahoma State University Decisions will be established by Tom Alexander with approval by Michael Smolen. This demonstration will address the issue by monitoring levels of nitrogen and phosphorus in different components of the recycling irrigation system to determine how rapidly they increase. Conduct an on-site education program for nursery growers and students. Environmental Science. May 3. 2. Statement of the Decisions to be made and Data Required The decisions this portion of the project will answer are as follows: Page 8 of 19 .

phosphorus. 1999 1. Concentration of nitrogen and phosphorus incoming runoff to the nursery during storms. Are there changes to be recommended to optimize nutrient retention in the recycle system? 4. and educators on the use of capture and recycle technology as a pollution prevention method for the containerized nursery industry. The data needed: The project will demonstrate capture and recycle technology for pollution prevention from nursery systems. Analytical data will be representative of concentrations in tailwater and captured runoff water in each season and under stormflow conditions. Samples will be collected and analyzed monthly from August through July (covering one calendar year). Can nurseries implement the new capture and recycle technology to eliminate tailwater discharge without excessive buildup of Nitrogen and Phosphorus in their system? 2. Reductions in discharge of nitrogen. phosphorus. Concentration of nitrogen and phosphorus in runoff from nursery production areas. Buildup of N and P in the capture system will be evaluated. Can management of the recycle system be adjusted to retain storm water? 3. Page 9 of 19 . the lake source. natural resource agencies. Design and management information will be incorporated into agricultural engineering design courses and horticulture courses to transfer the information to future generations of designers and managers. and the major cations and anions in recycled water. in runoff from major production areas within the nursery. and in the tailwater capture basins will be measured in each season. 2. A QAPP previously submitted covers the pathogen portion of the study Outcomes from these decisions will result in changes top our recommendations to nursery producers. and discharge water at the nursery will be determined. stormwater. and an incoming runoff site to establish background. environmental regulators. The sites sampled will include four major runoff collection ditches.FY1996 NPS Task 600 Stormwater QAPP May 3. Concentration of nitrate-nitrogen. Decision Inputs Levels of nitrogen and phosphorus in water from the lake source. and pesticides will be accomplished primarily by reducing the amount of nursery runoff water leaving the site. Action Levels and Decision Criteria No action is required other than adjustment to project recommendations and demonstrations. 3. Available storage in retention basins. The technology will be transferred to the nursery industry through an extensive education program. and the available storage for dilution by stormwater will be considered to determine if discharge targets can be achieved. Information Required for Decision 1. recycled water and discharge points on a monthly basis.

1999 PIs and Project Director Principle investigators for this project require degrees in biological sciences or engineering. May 3. Acceptable accuracy and precision will be determined by section 1020 of Standard Methods 1992.2 standard deviations and control limits of + or . Oklahoma. Alexander is available to this project because his effort on his dissertation meets the objectives of this project. This data collection effort is dependent on availability of project personnel. Each observation will be evaluated relative to the quality control parameters of the sample. Alexander is operating on personal funding. 1999 Boundaries Spatial Boundaries The project will be conducted at Greenleaf Nursery near Tahlequah. Page 10 of 19 . Descriptive statistics will be developed. Results are intended to be descriptive of the processes involved. Rev 1. Specify Acceptable Limits on Decision Error Data collected in this project are intended for descriptive purposes. General acceptance limits for field duplicates are based on table 1020:I of Standard Methods 1992. Decision Rule Information from this project are intended for purposes of education and demonstration. No mechanical sampling equipment is in use. May 3. With these charts. Method detection limits and acceptable limits for field duplicates for the water quality parameters and field replicates for biological assessments are shown in the following tables. The 600 acre containerized nursery and its contributing watershed is immediately adjacent to the upper reach of Lake Tenkiller. 7 miles south of Park Hill. This leaves only the risk that Alexander might be unavailable to the project for a period of time. These include anion/cation balance and duplicate and blanks.3 standard deviations are established. 1999 A9 Special Training Requirements/Certification. The only decision to be made is whether to accept or reject project results. warning limits of + or . Temporal Boundaries Data for the project refer to average runoff conditions and stormflow conditions in each month of the year. A8 NA (ORD only). Rev 1. The experimental design is being kept as simple and direct as possible to assure consistency in sampling and to reduce the possibility of failure. Information will be used in education/demonstration activities. The project demonstration will be located at the Greenleaf Nursery Company’s main production site. Sampling will continue for one calendar year.FY1996 NPS Task 600 Stormwater QAPP May 3. Constraints on Data Collection No funds are budgeted for personnel or automatic samplers to accomplish this sampling program. and no additional personnel are involved.

Project Assistants for stormwater should have broad training in sciences and engineering.5 mg/L 0. Project Director should have experience in project management and data analysis. but all personnel will have to follow procedures established at Greenleaf Nursery.1 S. investigator. Parameter Dissolved Oxygen Conductance pH Temperature Ammonia-Nitrogen Nitrate-Nitrogen Total dissolved Phosphorous Sulfate Chloride Hardness Sodium Calcium Magnesium Potassium Carbonate Bicarbonate Boron Iron Method* 4500-G 2510-B 4500 H-B 4500 4500-NO3-D 4500-P-B-E 4500-SO4-E 4500-C 2340-C 3500-Na ICP 3500-Ca ICP 3500-Mg ICP 3500-K ICP Meter/Lab YSI 55 Extech 341450 Extech 341450 YSI-55 SWAFL SWAFL SWAFL SWAFL SWAFL SWAFL SWAFL SWAFL SWAFL SWAFL SWAFL SWAFL SWAFL SWAFL Acceptable precision for low level field duplicates 90-110% 90-110% 90-110% 90-110% 75-125% 75-125% 75-125% 75-125% 75-125% 90-110% 90-110% 90-110% 90-110% 90-110% 90-110% 90-110% 90-110% 90-110% Acceptable precision for high level field duplicates 90-110% 90-110% 90-110% 90-110% 90-110% 90-110% 90-110% 90-110% 90-110% 90-110% 90-110% 90-110% 90-110% 90-110% 90-110% 90-110% 90-110% 90-110% Method Detection Level* 0. -5*C 0.0 uS/cm 0. and water chemistry.1 mg/L 0. Photocopies of field reports and notations will be kept in the OSU Water Quality Office for 5 years after termination of the project. A10 Documentation and Records. use of data base and statistical software. AWWA.1 mg/L 1. A strong commitment to QA careful record keeping is also required. and any comments such as difficulties incurred while collecting data. The Project Director should also have experience in Hydrology. 1999 Table 5.01 mg/L 0. May 3.1 mg/L 0. Method detection limits and acceptable limits for field duplicates. Analytical results and QA/QC data will reside in a Microsoft Excel Spreadsheet in the Water Quality Office. Standard Methods (APHA. and analysis of water quality data.) All records will be photocopied and submitted to the project director. WPCF 1989). Training in nursery procedures is not required. Sample data recorded will include date and location where sample was collected.2 mg/L 0. Field personnel should have experience with general laboratory procedures and a commitment to careful recordkeeping.1 mg/L 0.5 mg/L 0.FY1996 NPS Task 600 Stormwater QAPP May 3.1 mg/L 0.1 mg/L 0. laboratory analysis. Page 11 of 19 .5 mg/L 2 mg/L 2 mg/L 0. 1999 Field investigators will record data regarding water sampling in a bound notebook identified for this project.1 mg/L 0. He should have experience in collecting and handling field samples. type of sample.U.1 mg/L 3500-B ICP 3500-Fe ICP * Method detection limits reported by SWAFL Laboratory.

It also includes nitrate as nitrogen. 8. Water. runoff ditches. At least eight retention basins will eventually be employed to capture or store water for recycling back onto crops. we anticipate collecting one (1) field duplicate sample per sampling event. inflow to the nursery. 3. Sampling will include at least three stormflow events. Requested Analysis: "Irrigation Water Analysis". at least three (3) separate storm water runoff events will be collected. recycle basins. 7. Greenleaf Nursery in Park Hill. 1. OK. This analysis includes the major ions and several of the minor ions in water. Sampling frequency: Once per month at the designated sampling stations for an estimated period of twelve (12) months. The nursery currently takes all its water for irrigation from the Illinois River. Sampling Location: Onsite sampling stations only. 1999 Monitoring nitrogen and phosphorus in runoff and stormwater The demonstration nursery is located on the shore of the Illinois River as it enters the north portion of Lake Tenkiller. water from the main runoff return ditches and storage basins will be sampled. phosphorus. and incorporated into the study. Type of Samples: Surface Water Samples only. and outflow from the nursery. retention basins. Rev 1. including intermittent creeks. 4. P. and K). potassium (N. Sample Collection: To be performed on a periodic basis by Thomas J. 9. Estimated Number of Sampling Stations: 12 (Range 10-15). 11. and iron. Alexander ("TJA"). 5. OK 6. Type of Samples to be collected: Surface water samples will include both time-weighted averaged (TWA) samples from flowing water bodies and grab samples from ponds or basins. Mode of Sample Delivery: Personal delivery to the laboratory by TJA or authorized personnel under the direction of TJA.FY1996 NPS Task 600 Stormwater QAPP May 3. Page 12 of 19 . 2. A program of monthly sampling from August 1998 through July 1999 will examine N and P concentration in runoff from irrigation. Anticipated Lab Turn-around Time (TAT): one week 10. and/or lagoons. As a general rule. The property owned by the nursery incorporates a part of three natural drainage systems that initiate off-site. chemically analyzed. All sample containers will be delivered on ice in an ice chest with proper chain-of-custody documentation. 1999 B1 Sampling Process Design (Experimental Design). and standing bodies of water such as ponds. Chemical Analysis to be performed by: OSU Soil. May 3. and Forage Analytical Laboratory in Stillwater. Field sampling design In addition to sampling water at the point of drawing from the Illinois River. Number of Field Duplicates: There will be at least one (1) field duplicate sample for every 20 samples collected in the field (minimum of 5% field duplicate). Additionally.

Field collection and interpretation All pertinent information regarding each sampling event will be recorded in a field logbook. and Sodium Adsorption Ratios vs. and other visual aids.0 .0% This project will use a simple plus or minus (±) 5% difference in ionic balance to flag data that are questionable.FY1996 NPS Task 600 Stormwater QAPP May 3. intermittent creeks or ditches) will be secured using time-weighted average (TWA) techniques.0 . retention basins.800.0 Acceptable Ionic Difference (%) 0. Runoff samples will be secured from flowing water in the same manner. Page 13 of 19 . The WATEVAL program will be used to interpret the reliability of the data. Additional evaluation will also provide a logical means to compare and contrast all test results over time.0 10.e. Standard Method 1030F presents the following acceptance criteria for cation-to-anion ratios: Anion Summation (meq/l) 0. It will also be used to generate Piper Plots. field parameters for all samples will be secured and recorded in the logbook. The objective of this study is to perform relative sampling to characterize the nursery for purposes of description. Stiff Diagrams.0% 5. All test results will be input into the WATEVAL program. ponds.3.10.2% 2. surface water will be collected at the same sampling stations established in previous studies. Water samples from standing bodies of water (i. lagoons) will be sampled at the nearest delivery point of running water. 1999 Design rationale: For purposes of consistency. Also. Statistics will be evaluated using: (1) all data and (2) only those data that are not questionable. Water samples from flowing water (i. Laboratory analysis and data handling Upon completion of testing by the laboratory. water temperature (in C). the specific sampling station will be selected based on its accessibility. For those basins or creeks that do not have established sampling stations from previous studies. proximity to the nearest delivery point of running water. a. The accept/reject criteria for cation-to-anion balance is described in Standard Method 1030F in the EPA-approved 1992 Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater (18th Edition). It is not the objective of this study to establish the absolute values at the nursery. Entitled "Checking Correctness of Analysis". Field parameters secured from each sampling station will consist of pH. Conductivity Plots. dissolved oxygen (DO in %). Once established. and specific conductivity (SC in umhos/cm).0 . and other site-specific conditions. a copy of the analytical test results will be subjected to further evaluation. The purpose of further evaluation is to determine the data's reliability and accuracy. Charts and graphs will be prepared to examine the consistency of results and reliability of data.0 3.e. the specific sampling location for each basin or creek will not change. b.

5. Field parameters secured from each sampling station will consist of pH. then dividing by the number of observations. In the report. All samples will be collected in appropriate containers supplied by the laboratory. water temperature. lagoons) will be sampled at the nearest delivery point of running water. and other chemical and mathematical expressions. and variance will be calculated on all test results. standard deviation. field parameters for all samples will be secured and recorded in the logbook. the average difference will be calculated by summing all the differences (absolute values). The main constituents of interest for this study include those nutrients common to plant nurseries. Water samples will be collected by the Project Assistant (TJA). Rev 1. From duplicate analysis results. Several mathematical expressions and statistical analyses. etc. including nitrogen and phosphorus. 3. 2. Oklahoma Water Resources Board documents. 1999 Experimental design The analytical test results will be compiled into summary tables and spreadsheets for further evaluation. the samples will be secured in accordance with NPDES or other appropriate regulations regarding the collection of storm water runoff samples. May 3. Also. Chemical analysis of the major and minor ions will be performed on the water samples to ensure reliability of laboratory results and to aid in decisions concerning mixing of waters. The results of duplicate analyses and recovery values from repetitive analyses will be presented in a table similar to Section 1030:I of the Standard Methods Manual. including mean.e. 4. The report will emphasize how the various and interactive engineering designs and practices implemented at Greenleaf Nursery have resulted in decreased N-P-K loading rates to the Illinois River via overland discharges and storm water runoff. All pertinent information regarding each sampling event will be recorded in a field logbook. B2 Sampling Methods Requirements. Included in the report will be an evaluation of the test results secured during this research. retention basins.e. mass balances. Each sample container will be labeled with indelible ink and will contain the following Page 14 of 19 . Water samples from flowing water (i. Additionally. The resulting value will then be converted to a standard deviation and evaluated. A publishable report will be generated upon completion of the field sampling and analytical testing.FY1996 NPS Task 600 Stormwater QAPP May 3.) of the adjacent Illinois River. Water samples from standing bodies of water (i. 1999 1. It will also include test results from other published reports (such as Curtis Reports. and specific conductance (SC in umhos/cm). The 4 x 1-liter sample containers will be filled concurrently. ponds. intermittent creeks or ditches) will be secured using time-weighted average techniques. Scenic Rivers Commission Reports. an emphasis will be placed on describing the effectiveness and efficiency of capture and treat technologies at Greenleaf Nursery via the use of mixing routines. A total of four (4) liters of flowing water will be secured at each sample station by randomly collecting small (less than 100 ml) aliquots over a 20-minute period. dissolved oxygen (DO). Runoff samples will be secured from flowing water in the same manner previously described in 2.

All appropriate personnel will sign the COC in accordance with proper sampling protocols. May 3. 1999 information: Sample Location or Station Number. Routine maintenance will be performed on the instruments as deemed necessary. The polyethylene sample bottles will be secured from an approved analytical laboratory. The instruments will be inspected and calibrated in the field immediately prior to use and rechecked for accuracy upon completion of sampling. laboratory procedures. Page 15 of 19 . 1999 All test results will be input into the WATEVAL program. Hailin Zhang. will be introduced into the bottles. Information provided on the COC will include the project name. and condition of the samples upon receipt. and the sampler's initials. requested analyses. nitric. May 3. Time. sample containers will immediately be placed on ice in an ice chest and maintained at <4oC. B6 Instrument/Equipment Testing. Water. such as sulfuric. sample locations. sample date and times. and Forage Analytical Laboratory Quality Assurance Manual. Rev 1. May 3. 1999 Analytical methods. A YSI Model 55 Handheld Dissolved Oxygen Instrument will be used to secure field dissolved oxygen (DO in %) and water temperature (in oC) readings. The original COC will be kept in the project file and the laboratory will keep a duplicate copy. An Extech Oyster Model 341450 instrument will be used to secure field pH and specific conductivity (SC in umhos/cm) readings. B4 Analytical Methods Requirements. Rev 1. Missing data will not be replaceable. and Maintenance Requirements. and the decision structure of the analytical laboratory are described in the OSU Soil. which is attached in the appendix. B3 Sample Handling and Custody Requirements. No preservatives. so analyses will continue with missing data values so they do not influence the statistics. two (2) field instruments will be utilized at each sampling station. Results will be maintained at the level indicated in Section B1. or hydrochloric acid. Those not meeting the 5% requirement will be flagged and results evaluated without them.FY1996 NPS Task 600 Stormwater QAPP May 3. Date. any maintenance other than routine is not anticipated during the project period. B5 Quality Control Requirements. All appropriate holding times will be honored per Table XX in the QAPP and other EPA protocols. 1999 A chain of custody (COC) document will be completed in the field and will accompany all sample containers during transportation from the field to the laboratory. The WATEVAL program will be used to interpret the reliability of the data as described in Section B1. The sample containers will immediately be placed on ice in an ice chest and transported directly to the laboratory. Based on the current age of both instruments (<1 year old). For preservation. May 3. Additionally. 6. Inspection. both instruments will be used in accordance to manufacturer's instructions as provided in the operations manual. Laboratory Director. Rev 1. 1999 To secure field parameters for this project. is responsible for laboratory reliability. Rev 1.

Where errors are corrected. May 3. 1999 Documents on file at SWAFL. Data Storage and backups Data will be stored as hard copy with the Quality Assurance Officer for safekeeping. B10 Data Management. May 3. Rev 1. 1999 Procedures for review of supplies and consumables are under the control of the Soil Water and Forage Laboratory as part of their Quality Assurance Management Plan. These would include observations of the water management system at Greenleaf Nursery. 1999 Data Flow within and from Laboratory: Tom Alexander will review data from the original laboratory data sheets for completeness. Page 16 of 19 . Upon verification of data completeness. problems. Field sheets and Excel database will be maintained at the Water Quality Office for a period of 5 years beyond the end of the project. An indication of level of quality assurance will be presented with these results. a record of changes will be retained in the record and reported to project QA Officer. 1999 Certain observations that are anecdotal in nature will be recorded so that these can be tested further using more rigorous methods. Rev 1. gross errors. Where possible. Tom Alexander will enter the data to an Excel database for subsequent analysis and reporting. May 3.FY1996 NPS Task 600 Stormwater QAPP May 3. B8 Inspection/Acceptance Requirements for Supplies and Consumables. Quality assurance of data from other sources will not be guaranteed by this project. and violation of procedures. Rev 1. The project is not purchasing consumables for the field. He will flag data where data are incomplete or have obvious reporting errors. B9 Data Acquisition Requirements (Non-Direct Measurements). Rev 1. Field instruments will be calibrated before use at each sampling event. he will resolve problems through consultation with the Quality Assurance Officer. May 3. 1999 B7 Instrument Calibration Frequency.

results of data quality assessments. Results will only be discarded if the cation:anion ratio exceeds the 5% cutoff and/or a blunder is identified.FY1996 NPS Task 600 Stormwater QAPP May 3. 1999 All data will be reviewed routinely for abnormalities. The report will also contain information on the ongoing status of the project. the data will be assumed to be normal and appropriate for use in project reports and in decision making. remedies taken to rectify those QA problems. results of performance and system audits. May 3. This QA report will include audits of field notes and Laboratory Quality Assurance Assessments. the data will be traced back through laboratory records and field record books to look for possible causes of the error. and the results of any periodic laboratory QA assessments. inconsistencies. The annual reports will include status of the project. If an error is found and no resolution can be arrived at concerning its source or cause. C2 Reports to Management. Rev 1. Semi-annual and annual progress reports. the data will be flagged. Annual QA reports will be sent to the OCC. If discrepancies occur. May 3. as well as a final report on the findings and recommendations of this study are also required. Rev 1. summary explanations of any quality assurance problems encountered. 1999 C1 Assessments and Response Action. and significant quality assurance problems and solutions. summaries regarding the status of samples taken and their analysis. 1999 Quality assurance reports will be completed annually by the Project Director and distributed to those persons included in the Distribution List of this document. Page 17 of 19 . or unusual results by Tom Alexander and Michael Smolen. In the event that no error is found.

the data will be traced back through laboratory records and field record books to look for possible causes of the error. Requirements for precision and accuracy is based on the need to present an honest description of the system. D3 Reconciliation with Data Quality Objectives.FY1996 NPS Task 600 Stormwater QAPP May 3. the data will be flagged. Data from field duplicates will be analyzed by comparing the measured range to the laboratory quality control value for each parameter. In the event that no error is found. or unusual results. Page 18 of 19 . 1999 Acceptance criteria for water quality data will be based on consistency among duplicate samples and cation-anion balance. If no error can be identified and corrected. Rev 1. none will be discarded without evidence of a blunder. In the event the range exceeds the laboratory control value. If any of these occur. Results will only be discarded if a blunder is identified. Although some values may be considered. 1999 All data will be reviewed routinely for abnormalities. the data will be assumed to be normal and appropriate for use in project reports and in decision making. Results will be presented with full description of quality control concerns. If questions arise concerning chain of custody. See section B1. Validation. inconsistencies. Michael Smolen will retain authority to discard data found questionable. 1999 The objective of this Quality Assurance Project Plan is to provide descriptive data consistent with the workplan. May 3. May 3. 1999 D1 Data Review. No tests of hypotheses or comparisons of treatment are planned. Rev 1. May 3. The basic decision in each case will be to determine if the data fairly represent the processes being described. they will not be used. Suspect data will be flagged. these items will be flagged in the project report. If blunders or severe lab error make data unreliable. the data for that parameter from all sites for that date will be flagged. D2 Validation and Verification Methods. the laboratory will be notified to check for errors. Rev 1. If an error is found and no resolution can be arrived at concerning its source or cause. and Verification Requirements. Data will only be discarded upon clear evidence of a blunder.

FY1996 NPS Task 600 Stormwater QAPP May 3. 1999 APPENDIX: Soil Water and Forage Laboratory QAMP Documents 19 .

Appendix 4: Hydraulic Modeling ASAE Paper 4-1 .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Appendix 5: Engineering Course Module 5-1 .

Tejral Department of Biosystems and Agricultural Engineering Oklahoma State University Stillwater.Engineering Course Module: Introduction to Runoff Recycling Systems in the Container Nursery Industry Ronald D. . AC-5-90250) and the Oklahoma Conservation Commission (OCC.” in cooperation with the Office of Water Quality Programs for the Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service (OCES. Task 83). Oklahoma November. 2000 Developed as part of EPA FY1996 319(h) Task 600. “Capture and Recycle Technology for Pollution Prevention in the Nursery Industry.

Background The container nursery industry is an important source of plants for retailers.Water Quality Programs 10/15/04 Page 1 . a discussion of the purposes for irrigation and the systems most commonly adapted to nursery use is included. but large-scale production did not begin until after World War II. This module may be used in engineering design courses such as watershed engineering. These traits increase the value for both the producer and the consumer. light. and public relations.S. However. The minimum container volume is dictated by the nursery stock to be grown. and marketed in the same container. A short list of exercises relating to hydrology. the nation’s leader and a pioneer in container nursery production. As a result heartier plants are grown with lower mortality rates and accelerated growth both in the nursery and continuing for some time thereafter. the use of containers allows more precise control of nutrition. Plants could be grown. A list of references consulted in the compilation of this information may be of assistance for more advanced study. This section puts the problem in the context of the industry as it is today with some of the changes shaping it for the future. this topic also lends itself well to an application in engineering economic analysis. container-grown stock accounts for over 90% of sales. all stemming from water quality issues in the environment. Some incentives include legal issues. plant growth rate responds positively to increasing container size. A discussion of advantages and disadvantages to runoff recycling should facilitate basic decision-making and design efforts. The exercises will require input from an existing nursery or site to be developed. Today over 60% of nursery sales are made in containers. spacing. The irrigation system and its management are integral to the recycling system. In California. or irrigation. and other factors. Factors weighing in against recycling are largely related to water quality in the nursery. Growing plants in containers rather than in ground beds is more expensive on a per unit basis. the annual sales for this industry amount to over a billion dollars. Design considerations in outline form conclude the body of the report. while any savings are experienced over the system’s useful life. Within a small range. drainage. Background of the container industry provides some history of its development and insight into current operating practices. There are competing costs associated with all the issues. pump and basin sizing was developed. Containers OCES . This was made possible by the large number of used containers available from canned foods. For this reason.. Because much of the cost is incurred in the construction and installation of a system. The practice of growing plants in containers is centuries old. In the U. nonpoint source pollution control. shipped. sustainability.Use of this Course Module This module provides much of the necessary information to conduct introductory design and problem solving related to the recycling of runoff in the container nursery industry.

Tailwaters contain nutrients leached through the container media or applied directly in fertigation. No production can be sustainable if it harms the resources upon which it relies. Common media ingredients include sand. consists of water that has percolated through containers and runoff from interception and open spaces. it largely determines the aeration and drainage of the root system. However. Irrigation depth and frequency is determined by experience and observation rather than scheduling based upon evapotranspiration. This is not the case industrywide—in some areas growers use evaporation pans to more precisely estimate the plant needs. sediment. yet small enough to use space efficiently. Recycling systems are installed for the purpose of capturing runoff and the contaminants it contains. Because the media are well drained. And even where not specifically forbidden from the release of nutrient laden waters. yet seldom attained.Water Quality Programs 10/15/04 Page 2 . As water and fertilizer become more expensive and the regulations pertaining to offsite discharge increase. and bark. maintaining proper wetness by natural drainage. This eliminates the waste of nutrients that would be lost through inefficient irrigation systems and reduces the amount of nutrients available for leaching from the container. Container depth is the more important dimension. Discharge of nutrients often causes excessive algal growth or eutrophication. Application of fertilizer through an irrigation system is not uncommon. or return flow. Nursery Irrigation Recycling Systems Zero pollutant discharge is a worthy goal that is often discussed. is a practice that is gaining acceptance. the use of slow release fertilizers. Shipping costs are lower and a pathway for importation of disease is removed. more precise management of irrigation and recycling will become more common. Osmocote. Additionally. Practically speaking. tailwater. Also OCES . can be significant sources of nutrients. a producer is not necessarily protected from liability for the damages caused by offsite releases. A common result is depletion of of dissolved oxygen and fish kills.must be sufficiently wide for stability. The release of these contaminants to the environment is increasingly seen as a liability. As discussed above. irrigation is carried out with the intention of draining some water from the container. sphagnum and hypnaceous peat mosses. Its importance is gaining recognition. e. These media also have the advantage of being lighter and more sterile than soil. Protecting the environment for the environment’s sake alone may be reason enough to recycle water. The rapid growth desired in a nursery environment is marked by high respiration rates including the root system. Regulations regarding the discharge of nutrients continue to increase in number and restrictiveness. For this reason. because coupled with the media. mixed into the potting media. A decreasing number of growers still use soil. as agricultural non-point discharges. it is necessary to irrigate more frequently than in field conditions. pesticides. and other pollutants. public perception of a grower’s concern or lack of concern for the environment should not be underestimated. container nurseries usually grow plants in media which drain well and contain little if any actual soil.g. such as those from container nurseries.

the recycling basin gives the grower more flexibility and perhaps some added time to deal with the problem. and biological processes lower nutrient concentrations in the basin. not all of the nutrients in tailwater can be recovered for reuse. In an existing nursery. The installation of basins and associated pumps. The beds must drain well. if not to the energy required to pump it. and pipes or ditches should direct the water efficiently to the recycle basin.pesticides originally targeted for pests in the nursery may harm aquatic plant and animal life. less energy consumptive pumps. and diversions. or require more earthwork to install the necessary basins. The decision to add a recycling system to an existing nursery could necessitate expensive changes. The system of pumps. BMPs such as fertilizer management. or during short periods of drought. OCES .Water Quality Programs 10/15/04 Page 3 . The recycling of irrigation tailwater saves energy. Some states require that the first one half to one inch of rainfall-runoff be captured. canals. the recaptured water has a value attached directly to its volume. Generally pumping water from a recapture basin requires less energy than from the primary source such as ground water or surface water at a lower elevation. Elevated sediment loads cloud water. the ideal location of a basin as determined by topography may displace production areas. Though not the primary purpose of the recycling basin. Consumption of source water can be reduced by as much as 70% by recycling. and drainage canals associated with an irrigation recycling system can control the water level in particular storage basins through rerouting to other basins. Standing water or flows that limit the use of roads and paths will impede operations in the nursery and may provide an environment where pathogens or pests thrive. and drainage system requires significant capital investment. Nutrients from leachate or fertigation that would normally be lost in the runoff are made available to the plants through reuse of the water. piping. chemical. Some savings could also be gained by pumping to basins during off-peak hours and irrigating from the basin during times of peak power usage with smaller. sedimentation should be considered in the design. Sediments eventually settle out in reservoirs reducing their capacity and shortening their useful life. limiting sunlight to plants and driving out or killing intolerant species of fish and invertebrates. piping. This could be crucial in the instance of failure of a pump at the well or other source. Integrated Pest Management. Where water is purchased from a municipality. The system should be sized to capture all runoff from irrigation events and reduce discharge from precipitation events. and irrigation scheduling should already be in use. Because physical. but in the event of a spill of pesticides or miscalculated. The recycling of irrigation water is not without obstacles. because it contains the concentrated first flush of nutrients and sediment. A system that collects irrigation tailwater is more effective than production BMPs (best management practices) alone. This is effective pollution control. excessive application of fertilizer. it will be necessary to acquire more land. For some. The design of the drainage system will be important. Constructing basins on-site increases the potential for reserve water.

because particulate matter may clog nozzles. Irrigation tailwaters have been shown to contain elevated levels of Phytophthora spp. In the case of a new installation the recycling system is an important design consideration. because the implementation of a recycling system may affect the function of the irrigation system. Use of herbicides in the nursery will require additional care. Prompt removal of diseased plants helps to curtail the spread of disease within the bed and throughout the nursery through recycled water. and periodic testing should be conducted at the point of delivery to the growing beds. Spot spraying with postemergence herbicides typically does not result in residue in the irrigation tailwater. Periodic dredging may be necessary to remove sediment and maintain capacity of the basins. There is often a value associated with growing plants as quickly as possible to allow for new stock to be OCES . Purposes for Irrigation There are many reasons and ways that an irrigation system might be used. However.. while non-motile propagules settle out in as little as 24 hours. These areas should be grouped so they can be irrigated from a fresh water source. Design and management strategies that increase retention time reduce the concentration of these pathogens in recycled water. which can injure some woody landscape plants. as they could harm the desired plants when recirculated in irrigation. The alternative may be an increased labor demand with the change to trickle and drip irrigation systems. Drip and trickle irrigation make salinity control more practical by permitting precise placement of a measured amount of water to the media. sprinkler irrigation remains the most common method. Substantial reduction in the number of pathogens occurs as early as 48 hours. salts may accumulate. recycled water in propagation areas and on other sensitive nursery stock should be avoided. Pumping water from middle levels of the basin and not drawing the water down too close to the inlet takes advantage of these behaviors and reduces the amount of pathogens recirculated. There may be problems delivering recycled water through the irrigation system. Personnel will need to be trained or hired to run and service the system.Water Quality Programs 10/15/04 Page 4 . and Pythium spp. there is the added cost of dilution water to prevent salt injury. further costs will be incurred. Captured water may require treatment in the form of filtration and/or disinfection. and biological growths may form within the irrigation system.Once the system is installed. Due to evaporation and reapplication of water to plants and other areas of the nursery. The control of disease may be complicated by a recycling system. the experiences of many producers currently using recycling systems show that the water can be reused with few problems. This can mean many different things and depends upon the goal. It is recommended that only herbicides with low water solubility be used. Use of untreated. especially if they are broadcast. Plants that are susceptible to water-borne disease should be scouted regularly for disease as part of an integrated pest management program. are negatively geotropic and congregate near the surface of water. It is pertinent to mention these in this discussion. Motile zoospores of Phytophthora spp. The most fundamental use of irrigation is to enhance and control plant growth. So where soluble salts are a problem. However.

Sub-irrigation (or subsurface irrigation) is used primarily in greenhouse applications in Europe. so in these instances profitability is not maximized by increasing production. sub-irrigation is carried out using a capillary mat of natural or synthetic fibers placed beneath the containers and wetted by trickle irrigation. Irrigation can also be used to minimize losses to heat through evaporative cooling and is also commonly used to prevent frost. This makes more light available to the plants and improves their appearance for sale. Irrigation Systems in the Nursery Industry Sprinkler systems are the most prevalent in the nursery industry. In the first.rotated into the nursery and thus maximize production and sales. Irrigation can also add value to the plant in other ways. A system might be used to minimize plant loss.Water Quality Programs 10/15/04 Page 5 . The following is a list of design considerations that could be explored in existing engineering courses. The startup and maintenance of these systems are labor and cost intensive. The markets for many plants are seasonal. Runoff volumes are high. Others will need a plant that has been hardened off and is ready to be transplanted into less than ideal growing conditions. OCES . Trickle and drip systems are also used in nurseries. Design Considerations A wide range of problems and exercises can be developed that relate to design of capture and recycle nurseries. containers are set in a watertight tray. The tray is filled to a level at which there is direct hydraulic contact with media at the bottom of the container. less water. Leaching of pathogens from this method is low. For example. Efficiencies are high and independent of container spacing. Efficiencies can be lower than 20% in some applications. This ebb-and-flow method relies on recycling by design. Many of these problems are standard to watershed engineering or irrigation system design. The irrigation system can also be used to apply a fertilizer solution (fertigation). The water is drained to allow for respiration and used again on the same or another bed. Alternatively. there are two main forms. They require lower pressure. lush growth. but by optimizing the value of the crop through availability at the time of greatest demand. which makes the drainage system capacity more crucial. Nutrients are delivered at the time and in the amount needed through the irrigation system. Pathogens can be leached from the containers and also splashed by droplets hitting the media in the container or surface between the containers. efficiencies can approach 90%. In other cases it is advantageous to be able to schedule a date of harvest. a portable system may be employed during times of drought. and therefore incur lower energy costs. Cleaning of foliage is yet another use that irrigation can have. With containers set edge to edge in an offset pattern. They require less overhead cost and labor. while application uniformity and efficiency of these systems are high. Some consumers will prefer a soft. Only media having capillary conductivity high enough to draw water up through most of the container will maintain a healthy system of roots.

6) Hydrology a) Earthen or lined basins b) Surface.Water Quality Programs 10/15/04 Page 6 .channel design 8) Labor a) Availability b) Technical expertise c) Cost 9) Layout OCES . Offpeak 4) Climate a) Rainfall b) Evaporative demand c) Storm water quantity 5) Environmental/legal constraints a) Zero discharge of process water.5 inches of runoff ii) Bypass basin after collection of first flush.volume. subsurface drainage 7) Irrigation a) System type b) Application efficiency c) Scheduling i) Amount ii) Frequency d) Return flow . b) Some permitted discharge after first flush i) Maintain enough capacity for ≥0. area b) Hydraulic residence time i) Sedimentation and cleanout ii) Settling of pathogen propagules 2) Budget 3) Energy Requirements for pumping a) Source vs. Recycled b) Peak vs.1) Basin a) Size .

drainage area 10) Plants to be grown a) Nutrition needs b) Transpirative demand c) Sensitivity i) Pathogens ii) Salts d) Space requirements e) Value and timing of markets 11) Soil properties a) Channel profile and lining b) Infiltration c) Erodibility 12) Water a) Demand b) Source i) Quantity ii) Quality iii) Cost c) Recycled i) Quantity ii) Quality OCES .e. area to irrigate e) Site area.e.Water Quality Programs 10/15/04 Page 7 .a) Topography i) Location of basins ii) Routing of drainage b) Length of pipe runs c) Location of operations requiring different qualities of water d) Growing area. i. i.

choose a system to meet crop needs in 10 h/d or less. determine the cost benefit in filling the basin during off-peak hours and irrigating only from the basin during peak hours. storm of given return period. OCES . 3) Design channel for a given amount of contributing area. Assume qwell 10 h < ET. allowing 1 day of downtime per week. ET demand. 2) Design a system to capture first flush of storm water runoff while routing water in excess of basin capacity directly offsite. and depth to ground water.Exercises These are suggestions for exercises that explore some aspects of system design and management. estimate a curve number and explain your choice. 6) Research the electric rates for irrigators in your area. Find minimum basin capacity. Also find the value of captured runoff. Use SCS method to predict runoff from storm with 10-yr return period. Use the specifications of pumps chosen in exercise 5. Adapting problems to suit an existing nursery or to evaluate a design under consideration is recommended. topography.Water Quality Programs 10/15/04 Page 8 . If the rates vary for peak and off-peak usage. slope. select an irrigation system and determine the basin storage necessary to irrigate without supplemental water for a given number of days. Many of the problems will require additional information such as size and layout of a nursery. 1) For a given nursery. size pumps at well and basin. 5) Given maximum well output. 4) Given the crop water demand.

Publication no. Trade Flows and Marketing Practices within the United States Nursery Industry: 1993. Stillwater. Oklahoma State University. New Jersey. U. 2000. 37 p. Stillwater. Schnelle. Circular E-951. R. 1995. . Forest Service. and J. Oklahoma State University. Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service. Upper Saddle River. H. Water Quality Handbook for Nurseries. Master of Science Thesis. 1994. M. Peterson. Rolfe. Doctor of Philosophy Dissertation. New South Wales. Horticulture Research and Development Corporation. Growing Tree Seedlings in Containers.A. Department of Agriculture. Australia.. Nursery Industry Association of Australia. M. S. 1996.C. Stillwater. Davidson.P. pps 11-17. Entomology and Plant Pathology. S.. Division of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources. OK.J. Washington. T. Water Quality Handbook for Nurseries. Division of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources. Knoxville. September 1986. J. Mecklenburg. Oklahoma State University.M. Journal of Environmental Horticulture. December 1999. C. University of Tennessee. Klett. OK. New York. pps 27-29. in Captured Irrigation Runoff. Phytopathology 90:S13. Capturing and Recycyling Irrigtation Water to Portect Water Supplies. C. Stillwater. U. UT. ed. 1998. S. Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service. December 1992.L.A. Circular E-951. and Water Recycling in Container Nurseries. Sloan.E. Whitcomb. Evaluation of Performance and Maintenance Strategies for a Nursery Irrigation Recycling System Designed for Pollution Control. 1998. Iles.S. Atikinson. and Management of Diffuse Pllution. Survival. Nursery Management: Administration and Culture. A. OK.E. Effects of Nursery Fertilizer and Irrigation on Ponderosa and Lodgepole Pine Seedling Size. OCES .Water Quality Programs 10/15/04 Page 9 . Division of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources. Ch. Turner. Brooker. D. Bulletin B 755 (Oklahoma Agricultural Experiment Station Report).Bibliography Alexander. 2000. N. Evaluating Ways to Reduce the Harmful Effects of Irrigating Nursery Crops with Water High in Soluble Salts. Hinson. Ch. Prentice Hall. Intermountain Research Station. 1998. Oklahoma State University. Ogden. Stillwater. OK.L. Thomas D. Van Nostrand Reinhold. Water Quality Handbook for Nurseries. Water Quality: Prevention. Southern Cooperative Bulletin.. Von Broembsen. OK 74078. Dept. Hydraulic Modeling of a Runoff Recycling System for a Container Nursery. P-2000-0089-AMA. OK. Charlton. E. H. 1981. May. A. The Container Tree Nursery Manual. New South Wales Agriculture. 7. C. May 1999. Sand. Forest Service. Settling and Dispersal of Encysted Zoospores of Phytophthora spp. Kizer. von Broembsen. Managing Water in Plant Nurseries: a Guide to Irrigation. Stillwater.R. Department of Agriculture. and Oklahoma State University. Irrigation in the Nursery. R.S. Drainage. OK. Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service. 4.D. Circular E-951. Landis. Novotny. I. Vladimir and Harvey Olem. Currey. Identification. and Oklahoma State University. and Oklahoma State University. Stillwater. J. 1994.

Appendix 6: Stormwater Report 6-1 .

D.EVALUATION OF PERFORMANCE AND MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES FOR A NURSERY IRRIGATION RECYCLING SYSTEM DESIGNED FOR POLLUTION CONTROL By Thomas J. Smolen Biosystems and Agricultural Engineering Oklahoma State University August 2001 . Alexander and M.

Qualifying as the largest plant nursery in the State of Oklahoma and the third largest in the United States (Sand. hydrologic. Additionally. . There are many studies that document the complexity and heterogeneity of surface water conditions in a given watershed. basin. as of 1999. 1999). Greenleaf has the only functional and operational recycling irrigation system in the State of Oklahoma. during both storm and non-storm conditions. Regarded by the regulatory agencies as a pollution control technology. Figure 2). accessibility. Jordan et al. Greenleaf owns and operates approximately 267 hectares (660 acres) of hilly land adjacent to the Illinois River and Lake Tenkiller (see Site Map. However. the spatial and temporal patterns of NO3-N. Both the regulatory agencies that govern the facility and the nursery industry recognize water recycling activities as a best management practice (BMP). This facility was selected for research for several reasons including its size. in turn. Additionally. TP. research conducted in this study began with the general purpose of assessing and identifying. a recycling irrigation system was installed at the nursery that. the recycling irrigation system serves many purposes. and anthropogenic inputs (Larsen et al. Figure 1). 1999). no information was found regarding the specific complexities and heterogeneities of nitrate as nitrogen (NO3-N). Thus. and proximity to sensitive receptors. or catchment as they respond to various climatic. Figure 3)." This information was then used to develop a computer model that could simulate numerous site-specific variables and. while a few nurseries in other states may use a single retention basin system. uniqueness. 1994. be used to evaluate the irrigation system's performance and management strategies for varying climatological scenarios. years of operation at its present location (1955 to present). Greenleaf Nursery Company is a commercial nursery involved in the propagation and wholesale distribution of container plants (see General Location Map of Study Site.INTRODUCTION Located in east-central Oklahoma. included the design and construction of eight (8) strategically located retention basins and an elaborate pump and piping system. no other competitive nursery facility could be found that approaches the magnitude or uniqueness of this facility's eight (8) retention basins and its associated recycling system (see Site Map with Basin Pipe Interconnections. Takyi et al. and other dissolved chemical constituents associated with recycling irrigation systems from a plant nursery that contains multiple retention basins. total dissolved phosphorus (TP). It provides a means to recycle nutrient-enriched surface water back to containerized plants. known site history. and other dissolved minerals of irrigation return flows (or tailwaters) and rainfall runoff in the "Greenleaf Watershed. and It enhances the facility's ability to control storm water discharges during rainfall events. no information could be found regarding the use of computer modeling to evaluate a complex irrigation system's performance and its management as a viable pollution control technology. including: • • • • • It reduces the overall discharge of surface waters from the facility and minimizes offsite impacts to sensitive receptors. topography. It captures irrigation water at higher elevations than its usual source. However. It increases the facility's reserve reservoir of stored water. From 1990 to 1998. 1997.

3 .

4 .

.

especially those originating from agricultural non-point sources. and other dissolved minerals in irrigation tailwaters and rainfall runoff from production areas at a container plant nursery in east-central Oklahoma. especially the facility's use of liquid ammonium nitrate. OK. The analytical test results reported by the laboratory were then evaluated to determine spatial and temporal patterns of the constituents and to identify the factors and processes that influence those patterns. This was necessary to observe the changes of NO3-N. recycling. storm water samples. documents are sparse regarding pollution prevention and BMPs specific for commercial plant nurseries. in the form of overflow discharges. 1996). Recent studies by Jeter. 1997 and Edwards. total dissolved phosphorus (TP). can be a major contributor 6 . and other selected major and minor ions. and tested for nitrate as nitrogen (NO3-N). 1999. & Forage Analytical Laboratory (SWFAL). and historic test results of onsite water samples reported by others. and other constituent concentrations over a time period that was in excess of one (1) year. To assess the overall performance of the recycling irrigation system. 3. inflow or overland surface water originating from upgradient properties. To evaluate the spatial and temporal patterns of nitrate as nitrogen (NO3-N). et al. The objective for the development of an interactive computer model was to provide a user-friendly yet flexible means to simulate several onsite variables. total dissolved phosphorus (TP). However. Such variables also included the changes over time of the allowable NO3-N and TP concentrations per State of Oklahoma Discharge Permits. it is the purpose of this research to provide a new research approach to assess the performance and management of a recycling nursery irrigation system. and other constituent concentrations in the captured water over time and seasons. et al. Water. Sampling station numbers are identified on the Site & Topographic Map (see Figure 2). including the retention basins and its associated pumps and piping. and precipitation amounts. a state-certified laboratory in Stillwater. 1998 and ending on July 30. 2. changes in the volume of water pumped from basin to basin. TP. There are hundreds of articles on the general topic of pollution prevention technologies. 1997) found that storm water discharges. were also collected on various dates throughout the year at the facility's five (5) outflows. The research also included a review of other past or historic site documents.Project Objectives 1. Capture and Recycle Benefits Zero pollutant discharge is seen as an increasingly important goal (Alther. observed changes of NO3-N. but were not limited to. Onsite variables included. The results of this study may be used to advance the science of recycling irrigation systems as a viable pollution control technology. In addition to the periodic sampling events. as a means to minimize offsite discharges of nutrientenriched irrigation and rainfall runoff. When evaluated in conjunction with data collected in this study. surface water from a total of twelve (12) stations were sampled and analyzed on a monthly basis for one (1) year starting on August 4. TP. It further included changes in fertilizer usage rates by the nursery. a computer model was necessary to assist in the understanding of the inherent dynamics of the recycling irrigation system. To prepare an interactive model of a recycling irrigation system that is capable of evaluating various water management strategies for pollution control under storm and non-storm conditions. All liquid samples were delivered under chain-of-custody documentation to the Soil. Due to the study site's complexity. and best management practices (BMPs). Thus. et al (1990) and others (Wagner. it was anticipated that the historic findings would provided additional information regarding the performance of the facility's irrigation system as a viable pollution prevention technology and a BMP for the nursery industry. To accomplish the research objectives.

capture and recycle technology. best management practices (BMPs) for nurseries. This definition suggests a dual modality: (1) pollution obviously involves the physical addition of contaminants or pollutants to the environment and (2) pollution can be a result of other direct or indirect consequences of man's actions. According to Samela et al (1991). BD#17D) that has sufficient capacity to contain the water. these same nutrient enriched waters are a liability that could potentially cause adverse affects to receiving bodies of water. and biological integrity of U. because humans are terrestrial beings. 1983). Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). estuaries.e. pollution is an alteration of man's surroundings in such a way as they become unfavorable to him.e BD#15E. S. Samela et al (1991) further stated that EPA’s preferred alternatives for waste management and pollution prevention are reduction and recycling. Matthews (1996) states that although zero pollutant discharge is often talked about. the objective of the CWA is to restore and maintain the chemical. The reduction or elimination of irrigation runoff and other nutrientenriched discharges from the facility provides protection to the waters in the Illinois River and Lake Tenkiller. due to the interrelationships between the different media in an ecosystem. and applicable environmental regulations. hydrologic analysis. our perturbations typically and initially affect the land's surface. This provides additional freeboard to those retention basins that discharge water offsite when their storage capacity is exceeded. terrestrial-borne stresses are often transported offsite and their deleterious affects are reflected and often magnified in adjacent aquatic ecosystems.S. and chemical behavior of nitrate and phosphorus.e. was designed to capture all irrigation return flows during non-storm conditions and all rainfall runoff except for the most severe storms. The United States Congress originally enacted the Clean Water Act (CWA) in 1948 and greatly expanded it in 1972. physical. when the EPA created its Pollution Prevention Office in 1988. The literature review will examine many topics associated with this evaluation including terminology and definitions. Nitrate as nitrogen (NO3-N). it is less frequently pursued or fully achieved. LITERATURE REVIEW The process of evaluating the system performance and management strategies of a recycling irrigation system at a plant nursery is best accomplished using an interdisciplinary approach. BD#5B. streams. it focused on pollution prevention as a 'first choice option' for environmental protection. BD#8C) can be pumped into a larger basin (i. and other dissolved nutrients in surface water captured in the retention basins represent an asset to the facility because they have inherent or intrinsic value as fertilizer and can be reintroduced to potted plants via the irrigation system. previous work conducted by others at the study site. BD#7A) and those basins located immediately adjacent to the property boundary (i. Terminology and Definitions According to one definition provided by the Oklahoma State Department of Agriculture et al (1984). total phosphorus (TP). and other surface waters (Vick. Also included are discussions on other relevant issues such as interpretation of inorganic test results. when allowed to discharge from the facility. surface water contained in the facility's smaller basins (i. The facility's recycling irrigation system. which includes both the retention basins and its appurtenant pumps and piping. As enforced by the U. lakes. However. One such example is the accelerated eutrophication processes of lakes and rivers as a 7 .of nutrient loading and other pollution to our rivers and lakes. BD#26G. 1997) and to eliminate pollutants by 1985 (USEPA. As an example of the latter. Offsite discharges could also result in an exceedance of the facility's voluntary compliance agreement of State-determined allowable discharge concentrations. However. During a storm event.

For nurserymen and other plant growers. At Greenleaf. phosphorus. NO3-N concentrations for offsite discharges were set at 41 mg/l (annual average) and 53 mg/l (not-to-exceed maximum) for the facility (see Table 6). Oklahoma. whenever possible. especially the younger ones. research. These past studies. the Illinois River) are known as irrigation return flows. phosphorus. the first year that allowable discharge concentrations were established by OSDA. and mulch are mixed with potting substrate in an attempt to promote gravity drainage of water from the plant's container. Maintaining the ideal soil moisture content in a potted plant typically requires the regular application of water via an irrigation system. Several sampling stations used by Houghton were not present or included in subsequent research. by focusing efforts on small watersheds or sub-basins where the use of pollution control technologies will have the most effect (Smith et al. Previous Work This section describes past studies. an 'in-house' report.4 mg/l for NO3-N and 0. the Oklahoma State Department of Agriculture (OSDA) initiated an investigation to determine what pollution reduction measures could be taken by commercial nursery operations on or 8 . However. optimal moisture of potting soil in plant containers is of utmost concern. nitrogen. and potassium or NP-K) on land. and publications relating to the facility include three (3) Master's thesis of the facility. loosening agents such as sand. Vendinello. The stated objective in Houghton (1984) was to determine the impact of irrigation return flows originating from Greenleaf and another nursery on the Illinois River." The thesis was apparently utilized for a subsequent State of Oklahoma Inter-Agency Publication entitled. "The Effect of Irrigation Return Flows on the Illinois River Basin" (OSDA Plant Industry Division. In 1989. there is a considerable interest in increasing the efficiency of pollution control programs. including nitrogen. that were not initially consumed by the plant via root uptake. In his study. Houghton sampled and analyzed return flows and irrigation water from a total of six (6) sampling stations. and other miscellaneous summaries and circulars. 1992). NO3-N and TP analytical test results presented by Houghton were summarized and compared to other test results at the same sample location to depict the changes in nutrient concentrations at the facility over time (see Table 11 for NO3-N and Table 12 for TP). For this reason. and Oklahoma Water Resources Board Water Quality Division (OWRB-WQD) 1984). bark. Since most plants. Houghton concluded in his study that the discharge of irrigation return flows from Greenleaf did not cause any adverse affects of the water quality in the Illinois River. it is common for both irrigation tailwaters and irrigation return flows to exhibit high concentrations of dissolved nutrients. The available water that migrates through and ultimately drains from a plant container is known as irrigation tailwater. "Investigation of Irrigation Return Flows from Greenleaf Nursery on Tenkiller Reservoir and Midwestern Nursery on the Illinois River. Regardless of past or current discharge concentrations stated in the OSDA compliance permit. Since fertilizers are typically added to the soil mix or substrate. Oklahoma State Department of Health (OSDH). research and publications prepared by others at the subject facility. The facility has changed and grown significantly since Houghton's study in 1984.result of excessive use or over-application of fertilizers (i. Both the average and maximum discharge limits for NO3-N and TP were gradually reduced by OSDA in their discharge permit on an annual basis. Houghton (1984) presented a Master of Science Thesis to Oklahoma University entitled. 1997. Houghton concluded that the mean concentration of discharge through the facility's Waterfall Outfall (see Figure 2) was 16. Tailwaters that are allowed to return to their source or point of origin (in this case. potassium (N-P-K).268 mg/l for TP. several years of "Curtis Reports" prepared by the Oklahoma State Department of Agriculture (OSDA) Plant Industry Division. cannot survive with excessive moisture around their roots. especially those involving non-point source control programs. In 1991.e. including four (4) onsite and two (2) in the Illinois River immediately adjacent to the study site.

22 ppm and 32. and other test results of surface water samples secured from specific sampling sites at the facility. Stated in a letter from the Oklahoma Department of Agriculture in a letter dated October 12. pumps. tailwater and irrigation return flows were allowed to discharge continuously into the Illinois River. Since May 18. non-regulatory. and pesticides. During the 1991-92 year the levels had dropped to below the compliance agreement maximum and the growing season average of 12." Nitrate (as N) and total phosphorus test results presented by Heaton 9 . Many test results are published in The Curtis Reports. The project and report. to develop a set of effluent goals which will meet. 1989. Heaton compiled NO3-N. According to a review of available information.05 ppm for 1991 and 8. Heaton (1993) prepared an in-house report of the Greenleaf facility. "the NO3-N concentrations at Site IT-2 [the Waterfall area] showed a spring/early summer increase for 1989 and 1990 years and had an average of 30. known as The Curtis Reports are an on-going. testing. Before retention basins. respectively. Since contaminant loading to the River is a product of nutrient concentration multiplied by the volume of water. One problem with The Curtis Reports is that the nutrient concentrations of water discharged from the facility represents only a portion of the entire story. in 1989. 1988. installed.58 ppm for 1992 was below the compliance agreement average. adherence to a stricter irrigation schedules. they initiated several changes to their operations at that time (see Description of Study Site). Should excess effluents be determined. 1995. and interpretation of the test results. and the recycling of detained tailwater. Based on the sampling. Heaton stated that . then gradually reducing the allowable concentrations over time. Whenever possible. total phosphorus. piping systems. TP. to supervise the development of best management practice methods to enable the operations to meet the goals. the annual averages and maximum allowable discharge limits established by the OSDA have decreased over time (see Table 6). By starting with a high maximum allowable discharge concentration of NO3-N and TP. Greenleaf elected to voluntarily comply with the OSDA Compliance Agreement and. Following the establishment of effluent goals. Curtis Reports for Greenleaf and other nurseries in the area are available for the years 1989-1992. Additionally. the threefold objectives of the OSDA investigative study were: To determine if irrigation tail waters from nursery operations are contributing nutrients and/or pesticide residues to the river in excess of normal watershed runoff. as a minimum. change of substrate or media composition. those established for the City of Tahlequah.near the Illinois River and Lake Tenkiller. a report of only the nutrient concentrations does not accurately reflect the entire picture of potential or actual contaminant loading to the Illinois River or Lake Tenkiller. and cooperative implementation of best management practices by the nursery industries along the Illinois River.91 ppm. OSDA personnel have performed monthly on-site water sampling and analytical testing to determine the concentrations of nitrate as nitrogen. As a result of on-going investigations conducted by OSDA. and 1996. NO3-N and TP analytical test results presented in The Curtis Reports were summarized and compared to test results in other studies to depict the changes in nutrient concentrations at the facility over time (see Table 11 for NO3N and Table 12 for TP). Regarding other studies. OSDA implemented a phased approach that provided time for the nursery industries to develop and test new BMPs (see Table6). and other BMPs were constructed." Heaton concluded that Greenleaf "has done a good job of reducing the NO3-N concentrations in their tailwaters since signing the compliance agreements" and that they "need to continue to implement best management practices to further lower nutrient concentrations in their tailwater. In the report. 1993. 1994. increased use of slow release (Osmocote) fertilizers. or implemented at the nursery. the BMPs that showed initial promise included the reduction in the use of liquid ammonium nitrate.

von Broembsen. since tailwaters are typically rich with soluble nutrients.were summarized and compared to other test results at the same sample location to show the changes in nutrient concentrations at the facility over time (see Table 11 for NO3-N and Table 12 for TP)." The referenced paper was presented in July 1998 to the American Society of Agricultural Engineers (ASAE) at the Annual International Meeting in Orlando. and structural or other management practices found to be most effective and practicable to prevent or reduce the discharge of pollutants to the air or waters of the United States (Southern Nurserymen's Association. is an important BMP consideration at plant nurseries. "Capturing and Recycling Irrigation Runoff as a Pollution Prevention Measure" (OSU Fact Sheet F-1518). While contained in an onsite pond or retention basin. it would take a 70-80% reduction. the entire Lake will be classified as Mesotrophic (fair condition. Wilson (1998) presented a Master of Science Thesis to Oklahoma State University on the management of the plant pathogen Phytophthora to improve acceptance of recycling technology in ornamental nurseries. "Hydraulic Modeling of a Runoff Recycling System for a Container Nursery. the thesis did not include any NO3-N or TP test results. BMPs are evaluated and implemented to provide uniform protection guidelines regardless of the site's acreage or location (Jones et al. BMPs at plant nurseries typically include operating procedures and practices to control site runoff. not accelerated aging like Eutrophic) and algal blooms would be very common. Although NO3. Wilson and von Broembsen (1998) prepared a Water Quality Series brochure entitled. However." The stated objective of the treatise was to develop a computer-based model that simulated the hydraulic aspect of the facility's runoff recycling system. Burks (1995) prepared a report entitled. Wilson. maintenance procedures. prohibitions. which would be economically impossible to achieve. TP. nutrient-rich waters represent an 10 . Although some field parameters were collected and discussed. To restore the Lake to pristine conditions. Florida. or other inorganic chemical parameters. "Pathogen Management in Capture and Recycle Irrigation Systems for Nurseries. the referenced document provides excellent information regarding capture and recycling technology. total phosphorus loading should be reduced by 30 –40%. 1997). Sand (1999) presented a Master of Science Thesis to Oklahoma State University entitled. Phosphorus is the limiting nutrient element leading to algal growth which can be controlled in the Lake If current nutrient loading continues [from all sources]. Best Management Practices Best management practices (BMPs) are defined as the schedules of activities. Also in 1998. during both storm and non-storm events. TP. 1996). spillage or leaks. and Smolen prepared a paper entitled. "The Status of Lake Tenkiller". it makes economic sense to capture and recycle these waters back to the plants at the nursery. Management of irrigation tailwater and other surface runoff. or other specific inorganic chemical analyses were not performed on surface water samples. • • Von Broembsen (1998) prepared a document on the capturing and recycling of irrigation water to protect water supplies. and drainage from raw material storage. Additionally. To improve Lake water quality. the thesis did not present any analytical test results on NO3. The conclusions of Burks' research were: • • • The head of Lake Tenkiller is eutrophic (aging faster than normal).

including pumps and appurtenant piping. because natural fixation is a relatively minor source of new nitrogen in most watersheds compared to agricultural or other anthropogenic sources. which is important consideration prior to or during precipitation events. Smith et al (1997) states that the decay of TP in reservoirs. In a study of other BMPs. and may be the source of algal blooms. However. or other structures containing near-stagnant water would behave 11 . 1988). Freedman (1995) states that soils exhibit little capability to absorb nitrate.S. et al. Smith et al (1997) reveals that reservoir retention time is not a significant factor in the decay of total nitrogen (TN) dissolved in water. nitrogen. The capture of nutrient-rich water in retention basins allows for the recycling of nutrient-rich water back to the plants. but that the removal of nitrate and other nitrogen compounds is much more dependent upon hydraulic loading rates. and calcium (U. However. As detailed further in Chapter 3. High rates of precipitation would be expected to increase the transportation rates of nitrogen contaminants to a basin or receiving stream. the removal of total dissolved phosphorus (TP) is mainly a consequence of adsorption to soils. ponds. The rates of denitrification increase proportionally with increasing temperatures. rates of ecological processes are controlled by the metabolically essential environmental factor that is present in least supply relative to demand (Freedman. Retention basins increase the facility's reserve volume of water during times of drought. provides a means to control the water elevation (head) in a retention basin. including: Retention basins provide a mechanism to capture and store nutrient-rich tailwaters. a Corps of Engineer's buffer zone established around the site's perimeter is expected to provide further removal of nitrate and other dissolved nutrients in storm water that discharges from the facility. nitrate is typically the limiting factor in soil while phosphorus is the limiting factor in water (Conrads. 1995). 76% of the nitrogen. Edwards et al (1997) concluded that a 1-day detention time of simulated agricultural runoff effluent added to an sedimentation (not recycling) basin resulted in the removal of 94% of the sediment. The detention basin's removal efficiency rates for sediment. The presence of retention basins at a plant nursery represents a BMP for many reasons. retention basins. an overall negative effect of temperature on TN delivery is expected. It is expected that higher temperatures would also increase nitrogen fixation rates. and 52% of the phosphorus. and phosphorus increased with a 3-day detention time. but would minimize concentration loading in the receiving water body due to dilution. increased eutrophication. resulting in an expected decrease of TN delivery to streams during the summer months (Seitzinger. its original and intended use. especially during major storm events that cause significant erosion. Regarding nitrogen compounds. 1997). a process that ultimately reduces offsite discharge and minimizes offsite loading rates. and Retention basins act as a means for sediment control.inherently valuable asset and its recycling back to container plants will increase the opportunity for consumption by the plant. these same nutrient rich waters are considered a pollutant or contaminant if they are allowed to migrate offsite. complexation. Chemical Behavior of Nitrate and Total Phosphorus In accordance with the Principle of Limiting Factors. With a chemical behavior decidedly different than nitrate. Based on this principle. and because denitrification is by far the most important sink for TN. iron. EPA. and precipitation reaction with aluminum. and other adverse affects to adjacent water bodies. 1988). Howarth (1996) states that wetlands are widely recognized as effective filters for removing dissolved nutrients and are especially effective in removing nitrate and other dissolved nitrogen compounds. An irrigation system.

0 Acceptable C:A Difference (%) 0. 1992.0% 5. By definition. For instance. Thus. livestock. which is the metabolically essential constituent that is present in the least supply relative to its demand.0 . and runoff from agricultural activities.10. the first flush is 12 . Additionally. Hydrologic Analysis Does the "first flush" of runoff water during a storm contain a higher concentration of dissolved nutrients and other constituents than runoff water after the first flush? According to Adams (1998). a process that increases the transport of TP and other constituents that preferentially and physically bind with sediments and other particulate matter (Smith et al 1997). Further details regarding the WATEVAL Program are provided in Chapter IV. calculations can be performed on the test results to determine the correctness of the analyses. because the most important processes affecting the transportation of TP are physical rather than biochemical. this is a source of extensive debate among water quality professionals.0 3. (2) streamflow (serving as a surrogate for channel depth). et al. For this reason. we would expect lower rates of decay for NO3-N and TP in the Illinois River relative to decay rates seen in the study site's channeled creek beds. Travel time is defined as the ratio of reach length over stream velocity. According to Smith et al (1997). including all major and most minor ions.0% In addition to a review of C:A ratios. the primary production of most freshwaters is limited by the availability of phosphorus. By contrast. 1995). to a lesser extent. Because the major processes involved in-stream loss of Total P and Total N (sedimentation and denitrification. the rapid flow of surface water encourages surface erosion. 1997).0 10. the control of sediments.differently than flowing streams due to differences in settling rates of sediment-bound phosphorus in the two environments. NO3-N is highly soluble in the aqueous phase and the flow of surface water easily leaches excessive nitrate from the soil (Jordan et al. As discussed. is an important BMP control for phosphorus. 18th Edition).0 . Entitled "Checking Correctness of Analysis". eutrophication processes of rivers and lakes are predominantly caused by the presence of phosphorus and. in-stream losses of contaminant mass occur as a function of 3 variables: (1) travel time. The program used in this study was the WATEVAL Program (Hounslow.800. many computer programs are available that further assist in the interpretation of inorganic test results. Standard Method 1030 F presents the following acceptance criteria for C:A ratios: Anion Summation (meq/l 0. and (3) whether or not the reach is part of the reservoir. Perhaps the most commonly used accept/reject criteria is the calculation of a cation-to-anion (C:A) ratio as described in Standard Method 1030 F in the EPAapproved 1992 Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater (Greenberg. According to Freedman (1995).3. other nutrients in the water. deeper streams typically exhibit lower rates of decay. Common sources of phosphorus include municipal sources. respectively) operate at the channel bottom.2% 2. ambient air and water temperature is expected to have an insignificant effect on TP delivery (Jordan et al. eds. Interpretation of Inorganic Test Results For those water samples that have been subjected to a relatively complete set of inorganic analyses.0 . especially during precipitation events that result in high velocity overland flow and subsequent high erosion of site soils. 1997). The use of retention basins for sediment control is an important consideration due in large part to significant differences in the physical behavior and partitioning coefficients of nitrate as nitrogen (NO3-N) and total dissolved phosphorus (TP).

this can be approximated by the following empirical formula: D = A0. However. most of which have concrete bottoms and sides. Anderson et al. Thus. Takyi et al. Schueler (1994) states that "for certain pollutants." Maidment (1993) states that pollution frequently exhibits considerably higher concentrations near the beginning of storm rather than towards the end of the storm. Maidment further states that that phenomenon is often due to higher rainfall intensities near the beginning of the storm that result in higher runoff. 1999). included in the reciprocal form. Additionally. and separating the varying effects of irrigation vs. Adams (1998) states that pollutants that are readily moved by or dissolved in runoff water (i.e. fashion (Merz et al. Further complications in the use of rainfall-runoff models at Greenleaf arise from the presence of pumps and appurtenant piping systems that distribute water from one basin to another.simply the first volume of runoff water resulting from a storm event and is readily calculated by multiplying the drainage area of a watershed or sub-basin by the depth of rainfall (Maidment. According to Fetter (1994). 1997. According to Smith et al (1997). Assuming that direct precipitation in the stream and the baseflow components are collectively inconsequential. 1991). 1997 and Smith et al. Process-oriented rainfall-runoff models have proven successful as a means to predict aberrant hydrologic processes and parameters in watersheds with large areas (Smith et al. Potter. 1993). and a greater "wash-off" potential of those contaminants that built up on solid (soil) surfaces during dry weather. are immediately (1) Where: D = number of days between storm peak and the end of overland flow 13 . In such areas. copper. a BMP would be to optimize the capturing of the greatest amount of polluted runoff (i. ortho-phosphorus. 1999. Merz et al. even dependent. it makes sense from a system performance and management strategy perspective to capture the first flush and minimize offsite discharges. and Potter. 1996. then allow the bypass of the less polluted runoff. and sediment. nitrate) will exhibit higher concentrations in the first flush.2 A = the drainage basin area in square miles. In irrigated fields. 1997. stream density is defined as the ratio of channel length to drainage area. the amount of runoff is relatively constant (Smith et al. constructed drainage channels. Jordan et al. 1997. Because at least some of the research suggests that the first flush of runoff contains the highest concentrations of pollutants. Anderson et al. 1997). 1997). Estimates of stream density are computed directly from the length and area attributes of the stream network coverage. bacteria. 1997). Contrary to that viewpoint. runoff occurs from even small rainfall events (Sands. However. the first flush phenomena effect is weak or absent altogether. 1997. Other field experiments have revealed that hydrological processes and parameters often exhibit considerable spatial variability within a watershed (Merz et al. 1997. greater erosion potential. A greater stream density implies land-surface contaminants travel shorter distances on an average to reach the receiving streams. rainfall-runoff studies and modeling of small watersheds where significant amounts of irrigation water is used as a supplement for precipitation typically fail to accurately predict patterns of spatial and temporal variability (Merz et al. such as nitrate. Gan et al. storm water runoff or overland flow will end at some fixed time after the storm peak. the first flush). a poor performance of the curve number approach is also likely. 1991). because surface soils are wetted daily for many consecutive months by irrigation activities.e. precipitation runoff is difficult to accomplished. increased sediment transport potential. Runoff modeling studies of spatial variability indicate that many chemical parameters act in a complex. In nursery settings. 1997. indicating a positive effect on land-water delivery. Several Rainfall vs.

there are several other severe limitations with the rational method.008 for English units and 0. most involving arbitrary formulas or localized expressions applicable to a specific site. i = rainfall intensity (inches/hour or centimeters/hour).8). uncertainty and source of error in the application of the rational method (Pilgrim. is considered by Lindsley (1986) and Pilgrim (1986) to be the most simple and widely used method to estimate runoff rates and urban drainage design. the rational equation states that the peak discharge from a watershed ("q") is the average rate of the rainfall event ("i") times the area of the watershed ("A") and reduced by an infiltration factor ("C").278 for SI units). French et al (1974). and Graber (1989) suggest that the rational method is most valid when used in drainage basins of 200 acres or less. For instance. A description of the various "types of areas" and their corresponding runoff coefficient or "C" values used in Equation 2 are provided in numerous documents and hydrology textbooks. The rational method is applicable if the precipitation period exceeds a parameter identified as "the time of concentration".adjacent to most container beds.3 and 0. ft3/second (cfs) or m3/second). 1990). Both the SCS and rational methods are discussed in the following sections. often referred to as the 'Traditional Approach' (Pilgrim.e. 1993). studies conducted by Minshall (1960). According to Chow (1962) and Pilgrim (1976).S. The rational method is an approximate deterministic model of a flood peak from a given rainfall (Graber. The problem occurs from the necessity of deriving a single runoff coefficient for a diverse area that appropriately takes into account all factors that affect the relationship of peak flow to average rainfall intensity. 1993). The "Rational Method". Pilgrim et al (1993). Pilgrim et al (1993) states that the two most widely used types of methods for estimating peak runoff rates during storm events are the rational method and the U. The ultimate selection and use of a "C" value introduces the greatest source of bias. there are hundreds of different methods. C = a dimensionless runoff coefficient (usually between 0. Chow et al (1988). the rational equation makes the erroneous assumption that rainfall and infiltration rates are constant (Bras. According to Pilgrim (1989). 1994). Additionally. including the American Society of Civil Engineers (1969). The time of concentration is defined by Fetter (1994) as being the length of time necessary for water to flow from the most distant part of the watershed to the point of discharge. thus reducing the opportunity for infiltration. and Fetter (1994). F = unit conversation factor (1. The drainage channels are designed to collect and direct excessive surface water (overland flow) to one of the retention basins on the nursery. 1989). according to Pilgrim (1993). A better definition of the time of concentration. is that it is the time after (2) 14 . that have been used to estimate peak runoff rates and flood in small drainage basins. Soil Conservation Service or SCS Method. and becomes increasingly less valid with increased drainage basin size. Prediction of Rainfall Runoff Amounts Predicting the amount of runoff that will occur from a given storm event is a problem commonly addressed in hydrology (Fetter. The Rational Method. square meters). The estimation of an accurate "C" value is difficult. The Rational Method formula was developed from a simplified analysis of runoff and is defined in Pilgrim et al (1993) by the following equation: q = F C i A Where: q = the peak discharge (i. and A = area of the drainage basin (acres. With the assumption that a given rainfall event lasts a sufficient length of time.

commencement of rainfall excess when all portions of the drainage basin or watershed are contributing simultaneously to flow at the outlet. other methods and equations are available to accomplish this objective. Therefore. is to determine the peak discharge in an open channel.49 R2/3 S1/2 ] / n Where: V = average flow velocity (in feet/second). have severe limitations in that they exemplify an average velocity when. and n = the Manning roughness coefficient. Fetter. (4) (3) When used with the flow velocity as determined by the Manning Equation. One problem cited by Bras regarding the rational equation is that "it assumes (not generally correctly. 1994): V = [ 1. as shown by the following equation (Fetter. Stated otherwise. 1994). According to Bras (1990). 1994). such as Manning's equation. Hydraulic flow formulas. S = the slope or energy gradient of the water surface. the average flow velocity of water can be calculated using the Manning Equation as shown in the following equation (Fetter. 1993. Estimate values of the Manning roughness coefficient ("n") are provided in numerous hydrology and hydrogeology textbooks (Maidment. Q = V x A. at best. 1994). or any other modified flow equation. extreme rainfall events. the rational formula is a limited design tool that is capable of handing.0). One objective when using the rational method. especially in basins where the design flow is retained in channels that are formed or have small floodplains. Minshall (1960) discovered evidence for highly nonlinear velocity. Not everyone in the hydrology profession believes that the rational formula is the best method to use when determining peak runoff rates. R = the cross-sectional area of flow or the hydraulic radius of a pipe (in ft2) divided by the wetted perimeter (in ft). the evaluation of flow velocities using the Manning Equation in conjunction with the rational method provides an additional level of assurance in estimating peak runoff rates. Another problem described by Bras is that the rational and other similar peak discharge formulas fail to provide any information about the time development of discharge. because of the effects of antecedent and moisture conditions) that the peak discharge has the same probability of occurring as the corresponding storm". the rational and other peak discharge formulas do not provide a full or symmetrical 15 . For open-channel hydraulics (with an effective porosity of 1. The estimated flow or discharge of water in a stream ("Q") can be quantified by simply multiplying the average flow velocity ("V") obtained in the Manning Equation by the cross-sectional area of the stream ("A"). the time of concentration is defined by Pilgrim (1993) as the length of the stream channel in a watershed divided by the average water velocity plus the estimated time for overland flow to reach the channel. in fact. Since discharge equals the flow velocity times the cross sectional area (Fetter.

hydrograph with the obtained peak. in fact.8S) (7) To standardize the application of this equation. the SCS method is widely used for estimating floods in small to medium-sized ungauged drainage basins. which is defined as a certain volume of precipitation at the beginning of a storm event. Bras further states that the rational method is most applicable when used in small ("not larger than a few hundred acres") urban areas for the design of storm sewer systems. has been adopted as the required procedure by many municipal and regional authorities (Pilgrim. The SCS Method. According to McCuen (1982). then the rational formula provides reasonable results. Bras (1990) states that the empirical SCS method has enjoyed tremendous popularity because of its more complete database and the manner in which variables are considered and applied. Actual retention is defined as the volume of precipitation minus the volume of runoff. McCuen (1982) provides the SCS rainfall-runoff relationship in the following equation: F / S = Q / (P – Ia) Where: F = the volume of storage available for retention S = the potential maximum retention Q = flow or discharge of runoff water P = volume of storage available for retention ("F"). Bras (1990) acknowledges that as long as "i" (see Equation 2) is defined for a duration equal to or greater than the concentration time. the empirical relationship provided in Equation 5 remains the current standard in the industry. Nevertheless.2S)2 / (P + 0. the volume of runoff ("Q") can be determined by the following equation: Q = (P – 0. will not appear as runoff. which is defined as a certain volume of precipitation at the beginning of a storm event. the volume of runoff ("Q") is dependent upon the volume of precipitation ("P").2 S (6) (5) McCuen (1982) states that research performed since the adoption of Equation 5 suggests that the empirical relation may not be correct for all circumstances. the volume of storage available for retention ("F"). Pilgrim (1993) states that the following empirical relation has been adopted: Ia = 0. according to Pilgrim (1993). McCuen (1982) states that empirical studies indicate that S can be estimated by the following equation: 16 . will not appear as runoff. resulting in an unfavorable skewing of the data and inaccurate results. the initial abstraction ("Ia"). With due consideration of retention. 1993). The SCS Method has all but replaced the rational method in the United States and. To develop the SCS rainfall-runoff relation and determine a 'best approximation' from observed data. and Ia = the initial abstraction. According to Pilgrim et al (1993). and the potential maximum retention ("S"). McCuen (1982) states that through rearranging and substitution of Equations 4 and 5.

Soil A is a deep sand or loess and exhibits high infiltration. silty loam. With the Soil Conservation Surveys providing the database. 1979. such as clay loam. Through an elaborate system of hydraulic pumps and appurtenant piping at each basin. it is expected that "CN" is a function of land use. Wilkerson further states that "the water management system must consider water quality factors how to handle salts. the Curve Number (CN) value is dependent on the soil type. opines that the biggest challenge is not collecting runoff. Soil D is a swelling or plastic clay and exhibits very slow infiltration. Designing a Retention Basin An important consideration when designing a retention basin is the selection of the type of reactor (or 'basin') based on its expected operational considerations and limitations. Bailey. In Albiston's article. 1998). operational factors typically included in the design of a reactor include (1) the nature of the water to be treated. According to Metcalf & Eddy (1979). C. A. At the study site. 1992. this technology consists of eight (8) constructed retention basins retrofitted with an engineered hydraulic pump system to reintroduce the captured water. including irrigation tailwater. irrigation runoff. Wilson et al (1998) states that the need for increased control over water availability and water quality has led many nurseries to examine the potential of recycling irrigation runoff as a pollution prevention measure. soils are classified into one of four groups. Wilkerson. According to McCuen (1982). and other hydrologic conditions of the land surface. or other soils low in organic content and exhibits slow infiltration. D. but managing the collected water. et al. Additional advantages include the storage of nutrient-enriched water at elevations above a facility's source of fresh water. cover. because "S" is a function of the factors that affect "Ia".S. Extension Horticulturist with the Texas Agricultural Extension Service. or D. Albiston (1998) states that many plant nurseries throughout Texas are discovering that excess water recycling and reuse is good business because the capture and recycling of tailwater has significantly reduced ground water withdrawals. (8) According to Bras (1990). and pesticide residues". and/or recycled throughout the property for plant irrigation purposes. along with other "fresh" water from the Illinois River. When applying the SCS Method. Capture and Recycle Technology The “capture and recycle” technology currently implemented at the study site is considered by many in the nursery industry to be the most appropriate best management practice (American Association of Nurserymen. antecedent moisture conditions. and Broner. 17 . and storm water. back to the plants. SCS National Engineering Handbook (1985) or Bras (1990). A detailed description of agriculture land-use Curve numbers can be found in the U. surface water captured in the retention basins can be pumped. and other factors that affect runoff and retention. and (4) local environmental conditions. B. antecedent soil moisture. Soil C is a fine-textured soil. (2) the reaction kinetics governing the expected treatment process. Curve numbers are provided throughout the United States. The recycling of N-P-K enriched irrigation tailwater provides additional opportunities for consumption by the containerized plants via root uptake.S = (1000/CN) – 10 Where: CN = a dimensionless runoff curve number. and S = the potential maximum retention in inches. Soil B is a shallow loess or sandy loam and exhibits moderate infiltration. (3) specific process requirements.

1982). Circular. According to Tao (1998). square. From Snoeyink et al (1980). the following statement is applicable and simplifies the overall picture of both PF and CSR reactors: (10) (9) 18 . a fifth factor should be the consideration of discharged contaminant concentrations caused by overflow. In essence. and leave at the same time (Metcalf & Eddy. the general equation for complete mix is: C = Cin / (K dt + 1) Where: C = concentration K = rate constant dt = change in time Based on chemical kinetic reaction rates. or slightly rectangular geometric shapes in plan view typically demonstrate CSR. plug flow reactors are more efficient at conversion at higher concentrations than continuously stirred reactors. According to Metcalf et al (1979). From Snoeyink et al (1980). Plug flow is typically demonstrated by flow in long. 1982). the integral of dC/r for plug flow is more efficient due to its higher rate of reaction than (CO-C)/r for continuously stirred reactors. this consideration can be evaluated by the governing kinetic expression for the reactor. flow through it with the same velocity. 1979). A plug flow (PF) reactor is a reactor in which all fluid elements enter the reactor at the same time. the general equation for Plug Flow is: V (∆C/∆t) = Q x Cin – Q (C + ∆C) – KCV Where: V = volume ∆C = change in concentration ∆t = change in time Q = discharge or flow C = concentration K = rate constant A continuously-stirred reactor (CSR) is a reactor (or basin) in which all fluid elements are dispersed throughout its entire volume. and the reactor's contents are uniform and identical with the effluent stream (Reynolds. According to Metcalf & Eddy (1979) a perfect plug flow or 'batch' reactor has a dispersion factor of zero. The travel time of the fluid elements equals the theoretical detention time and there is no longitudinal mixing. narrow tanks (Reynolds.In the case of designing an outdoor sedimentation basin specifically for the capture and recycling of irrigation tailwater.

such as storm water discharges. all of the various elements (i. N-P-K) at the study site. the pH dropped in the plug flow basins appeared to inhibit nitrification processes. trough-like geometries that promote plug flow during storm conditions. Tao (1998) further states that the CSR operates homogeneously at the final concentration. plant nurseries do not generate a process wastewater or other types of regulated discharges. Stephens (1998) conducted research on the impact of nitrification kinetics from plug flow reactors (PFR) vs. is not required to obtain a permit. the reactants are added. A basin that emulates a plug flow or batch reactor is one that does not have a continuous stream. 1982).Accumulation = inflow – outflow + utilization (11) Regarding its application to the study site. nutrients. 1998). The EPA first published the original storm water regulations on November 16. In fact. and hence. For optimum water quality benefit. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recognized the need to control non-point discharges. As a result of that recognition. the fluid elements are immediately dispersed throughout the volume of the basin. 19 . also known as the Clean Water Act (CWA). which is specifically exempted from permitting under the Clean Water Act (33 USC§1342(l)). completely stirred reactors (CSTR). the retention basins at Greenleaf may be generally classified according to their mode of operation. Environmental Regulations The 1972 enactment of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA). According to Reynolds (1982). throughout its length (Tao.S. In a plug flow basin.S. The contents are dispersed through the basin uniformly. Greenleaf does not generate a process wastewater and therefore. Congress amended the CWA in 1987 and in 1997. Although she found more efficient rates of kinetic reaction with PF reactors. 1990 in 55 Federal Register (FR) 47990. the primary waste stream from the facility is irrigation water. After the enactment of CWA. Upon entering the basin. design of retention basins should include the consideration of long. the concentration of fluid elements drops. narrow basin. plug flow and continuously-stirred reactor models would be applicable for nutrients (i. and exhibit identical concentrations as the effluent stream (Reynolds. until a final concentration is reached at the end of the reactor. a PF reactor operates at higher concentrations. and then the products are "discharged". the U. decreasing the rate. resulting in a rate at the final concentration that is much lower than anywhere in the PF reactor. prohibits the discharge of any pollutant to waters of the U. at higher rates. Specifically. contaminants. As a general rule. a reaction occurs. other aqueous inorganic constituents) of the fluid that enter the reactor at the same time flow through the reactor with the same velocity and leave at the same time. A basin that emulates a CSR is one that has a continuous stream of reactants entering and a continuous stream of products leaving.e. These regulations included permit application requirements and storm water sampling protocols for point source discharges involving storm water. Compared to CSR.e. especially during periods of storm events with high flow rates and an increased potential for outflow or storm water discharge. As fluid elements flow through a PF reactor or long. except at the exit point. Based on reaction rates and kinetic chemistry. from a point source unless the discharge is authorized by a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit.

0 ppm and 1. any activity in Oklahoma that can convert a wetland or low-lying buffer area adjacent to a river into an upland would require a Section 404(f) permit from the U. based on 20 . at that time. If an activity involving a discharge of dredged or fill material represents a 'new use' of a wetland and the activity results in the reduction in reach or impairment of flow or circulation of the wetland waters. and harvesting food. personal communication.S. However. dikes. such as dams. In effect. excavation. The facility's allowable discharge concentration of NO3-N and TP decreased over time to their current annual allowable of 10. 1992. there are certain activities that are exempt from dredge and fill permit requirements including: Established (ongoing) farming. Minor drainage. mandated a maximum nitrate as nitrogen (NO3-N) concentration of 53. and forestry activities. and based on a review of the list of exclusions.Note that Greenleaf may produce some waste waters which are specifically prohibited from discharge. For Greenleaf. the U. In the State of Oklahoma. Construction activity includes clearing. cultivating. Maintenance (but not construction) of drainage ditches. Upland soil and water conservation practices. one (1) activity that would require a Dredge and Fill Permit would be the physical removal of sediment from the retention basins and subsequent disposition of the material directly into the Illinois River or its flood plain. a permit is generally not required if discharges are associated with normal farming. A NPDES construction storm water permit is currently required for any 'construction activity' that disturbs more than five (5) acres of land and was not completed by October 1. Under Section 404(f). Army Corps of Engineers. road building. and levees.0 ppm. ranching. the retention basins will undoubtedly require frequent dredging of bottom sediments. In 1991. cultivating. plowing. seeding. 1997). S. then the activity is not exempt and a permit must be obtained. or nutrient-enriched water that exceeds the annual average or maximum allowable concentrations summarized in Table 6. Greenleaf voluntarily signed a compliance agreement with the Oklahoma State Department of Health (now Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality) that. Thus. Based on rates of sedimentation in the retention basins (Morisson. Construction and maintenance of farm and forest roads. Construction and maintenance of irrigation ditches. although Greenleaf is exempt from NPDES reporting requirements due to the agricultural exception. respectively. office buildings. and Maintenance of structures. construction of residential houses.0 ppm. they have agreed to not discharge any equipment washes. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires a permit for the discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States. NPDES generally prohibits a discharge of an oily sheen or anything else that violates established water quality standards from industrial or commercial facilities.0 ppm and a maximum Total Phosphorus (Total P) concentration of 2. and demolition activity. pesticide. Construction and maintenance of farm or stock ponds. These waters include both wetlands and low-lying 'buffer areas' around waters of the United States. grading. Plowing. or other similar activities. Based on the above list. fiber and forest products. Container plants located on nursery grounds are considered a 'farming activity' and therefore exempt from regulations. Army Corps of Engineers handles permits to discharge dredged or fill material. herbicides. industrial buildings. ranching.

#9D. and the holding capacities of the eight (8) retention basins (Morrison. years of operation at its present location (1955 to present). which is the largest basin at the site. However. accessibility. As of Fall 1999. their sensitivity to the waters of Illinois River and Lake Tenkiller. Greenleaf does not have nor is required to have a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. In an attempt to implement pollution controls and reduce the potential for offsite discharge of nutrientenriched waters to the adjacent water bodies. and proximity to sensitive receptors. The following table (Table 1) summarizes various information regarding the Basin Designation (BD) number. The Illinois River has been designated as an Outstanding Resource Water and Scenic River in Oklahoma (Oklahoma Scenic Rivers Act.4 million gallons was used for BD#17D. type of construction materials used. #17D. Additionally. and #26G. It is more likely that they would dispose of the dredged material onsite. exhibit the physical appearance of a natural pond. 1997) stated that BD#17D has a maximum capacity of 35 million (MM) gallons of water.4 million gallons. including Basin Designations BD#1H. To summarize the environmental regulations as they apply to the study site. BD#5B and BD#7A. known site history. which borders the subject property on its south and east sides. the nursery constructed a total of eight (8) strategically located retention basins on their property from 1987 to 1997. As shown in Table 1. Onsite disposal of dredged materials would exempt Greenleaf from the obligation of a dredge and fill permit. The facility was chosen for research due in large part to Greenleaf Nursery's progressive attitude towards environmental issues.knowledge of state and federal regulations. Storm Water Permit. Based on this acreage. a Storm Water Management Plan. The remaining two (2) retention basins. were constructed with concrete and do not exhibit a natural appearance. or roughly one-third of the originally stated volume. and Lake Tenkiller located to the southwest of the facility. It was also selected for research due to its size. Sensitive receptors include the Illinois River. and wholesale distribution of containerized plants (see General Location Map of Study Site. they own and operate approximately 267 hectares (660 acres) of hilly land near the Illinois River and Lake Tenkiller (see Site Map. Greenleaf Nursery is a commercial nursery involved in the propagation. while the largest retention basin has a reported maximum holding capacity of 35 million gallons of water. calculations by Sand (1999) indicate a maximum capacity of 11. The holding capacities of the four (4) smallest retention basins are less than 1 million gallons of water. a maximum holding capacity of 11. Figure 2). Figure 1). and minimize transportation costs.e. or a Dredge and Fill Permit. 1999). Greenleaf qualifies as the largest plant nursery in the State of Oklahoma and are the third largest plant nursery in the United States (Sand. six (6) retention basins. #8C. DESCRIPTION OF STUDY SITE The Facility Located in east-central Oklahoma. date of construction. personal communication). growing. Table 1 provides information regarding the type of flow system (i. Morrison (personal communication. #15E. and overall awareness to the consequences of their acts. it is not likely that facility employees would dispose of bottom sediments or other similar material in the Illinois River. 1970) and serves as the facility's primary source of irrigation water. either flow-through or bypass) that occurs at a given basin during storm water runoff. An apparent discrepancy in Table 1 exists regarding the maximum holding capacity of BD#17D. 21 . To be conservative with calculations and modeling in this study.

5 MM < 1 MM 5 MM < 1 MM 7. reduces algal blooms. However. and storm water runoff. Surface waters captured in retention basins are pumped to other retention basins for storage and/or recycled back as irrigation water to potted plants via an elaborate pump and irrigation system (see Site Map depicting Basin Pipe Interconnections. contaminant loading rates.0 MM 35 MM 4. Water contained in the basins can be mixed with fresh water obtained from the Illinois River and used for plant irrigation. Figure 3). The Setting The setting at the subject facility has many unique and site-specific features. Nor have there been any studies performed on the system regarding its overall management during both storm and non-storm events. one objective for constructing the recycling irrigation system is to minimize the potential for offsite discharges of nutrient-enriched waters by capturing and recycling runoff water. Surface water captured in the retention basins also serves as a reserve reservoir of water and lowers overall pumping costs.A pump and piping system has been installed in both concrete basins. Miscellaneous Information Regarding the Eight (8) Retention Basins Basin No. no postconstruction studies of the recycling nursery irrigation system have been completed to quantify its overall performance as a viable pollution control technology. and minimizes other adverse affects to adjacent water bodies. and the system utilizes automatic float valves to control the amount or elevation head of stored water. Table 1. 22 . #1H #5B #7A #8C #9D #15E #17D #26 G Estimated Date of Construction 1987 1995 1995 Originally 1977 rebuilt in 1998 1994 1997 1993 1997 Type of Construction Maximum Holding Capacity < 1 MM < 0.5 MM Type of Flow System During Storm Water Runoff Flow-through Combination flow-through and basin bypass Complete basin bypass via raised curbing Rock bottom with rock sides Natural. rock sides Natural. mud bottom and natural sides Rock bottom. including irrigation water obtained from the Illinois River. overland flow from topographically high properties. irrigation or tailwater runoff. Recycling the water captured in the retention basins provides additional opportunity for nutrient consumption by the potted plants. eutrophication processes. Minimizing offsite discharges of nutrient-rich water from the facility. Addressing these features is important for purposes of understanding spatial and temporal NO3-N and P patterns and for purposes of modeling. When water in BD#5B and #7A reaches a pre-determined height. mud bottom and natural sides Rock bottom with rock sides Flow-through Flow-through Plug flow through smaller arm Flow-through Flow-through Natural rock bottom and rock sides Concrete Concrete The construction of the retention basins and implementation of the irrigation system were designed and constructed to minimize discharges from the facility's five (5) outfalls. water is automatically pumped to BD#26G (see Figure 3). As stated. Runoff water is actually a mixture of water from various sources. an activity considered by State and Federal regulatory agencies to be a preferred pollution prevention technology.

1997). 1979). which are typical erosion patterns of sandstone bedrock in humid climates. Soils in the southern or bench-like portion of the property consist predominantly of Sallisaw silt loams. OK 7. This association has moderately coarse to fine sandy loams that formed on steep sloped (8 to 30%) uplands in sandstone areas. Conversely. Army Corps of Engineers' establishment of the buffer zone. although the subject property appears to be bound on its south and east by the Illinois River. Climate. is located in a geomorphic province known as the Boston Mountain Geomorphic Province (Johnson et al. OK is approximately 46 inches per year. The northern portion of the study site is hilly with steep slopes. in reality it has zero (0) feet of frontage on the river due to U. the average annual Class A Pan Evaporation is 70 inches. the average precipitation in southeast Cherokee County. The mean annual temperature at the study site 23 .Physical. According to the Oklahoma State Department of Agriculture Plant Industry Division et al (1982). as well as roughly the southern half of Cherokee and Adair Counties and the northern half of Sequoyah County. the southern portion of the property is relatively flat with bench-like terraces. and the drainage pattern is medium dendritic. Range 23 East in Cherokee County. Most of the subject property is contained in the S/2 of Section 18 and the N/2 of Section 19. According to the Soil Survey of Cherokee County. According to Mr. Geology. gently sloping brown silt loams. 1970). which suggest the presence of underlying or interbedded shales. The Greenleaf property. The subject property ranges in topographic elevation from approximately 880 feet above mean sea level (ASL) near the northwest corner to a fluctuating water level between 630 to 660 feet ASL at the bank of the Illinois River. Terrain analysis of the aerial photographs depicts a coarse dendritic-type pattern with rectangular patterns. Army Corps of Engineers. Figure 2). the irregularly shaped property consists of approximately 267 hectares (660 acres) of contiguous land. OK (USDA and SCS. The Corp's intent with this land is to provide a set-back or buffer zone for the river.5-minute topographic map dated 1973 (see Site/Topographic Map of Study Site. and a low water-holding capacity. Oklahoma (see Site Map. two (2) main soil types exist at the study site. The average lake evaporation is less than 60 inches per year and the average annual evapotranspiration is approximately 34 inches. with native undeveloped forestland seen northward towards the top or crest of Mahaney Mountain. the land adjacent to the Illinois River below an elevation of 670 feet ASL is controlled by the U.S. 1970). The Sallisaw soil series are deep. Township 15 North. The property is located south and topographically downgradient of the crest of Mahaney Mountain. Figure 2) and the aerial photograph in the Soil Survey of Cherokee County. Based on climatological data described by Pettyjohn et al (1983) representing the interval 1970 to 1979 and the Oklahoma Climatological Survey representing the interval 1980 to present. These and other features are easily identifiable on both the Park Hill. OK (USDA. Morrison (personal communication. V-shaped gullies. and light photo tones. Photo tones in the southern half of the property are dull grey and mottled. A county road is present along the property's northern boundary. Noted characteristics of this soil type include high erodibility. Soils in the northern or hilly portion of the property consist of the Hector-Linker association. This province is part of the Ozark Uplift and is characterized as having deeply dissected plateaus capped by gently west-dipping Pennsylvanian sandstones. The property is bound on its west by Oklahoma State Highway 82 and bound on its south and east by the Illinois River.S. Soils Located in east central Oklahoma. relatively shallow depth (15 to 30 inches). Oklahoma. Thus.

there are other means. evapotranspiration processes.2 8. The fertilizer is typically added or incorporated as substrate into the artificial media.200 35.508 Number of Container Beds 12.290 112.7 3. The current (1999) outfalls identified on the facility are BD#15E (SnakePit). BD#26G (Hub). and infiltration or percolation of surface waters. field personnel can add liquid ammonium nitrogen to above ground tanks that are connected to the facility's irrigation system.763 23.548 40. bulking agents.211 12. personal communication. BD#5B. Elevated spray nozzles can then direct the concentrated mixture to specific beds as necessary.304 31. If a bed of plants exhibit adverse affects resulting from nutrient deficiencies. slow release fertilizer is added as a top dressing (Morrison.199 40. As part of their voluntary compliance with best management practices (BMPs).7 The decrease in the use of liquid ammonium nitrate is an indicator of the effectiveness of the facility's retention basins and recycling system.3 1.526 97. Table 2 Historic Purchase and Application Rates of Liquid Ammonium Nitrate at Greenleaf Nursery Year (Ending Oct. in which nutrient losses in tailwater could occur. However. losses of N-P-K constituents in the recycled water are expected via aeration during irrigation processes.7°C) in January to approximately 81°F (27. Other opportunities for onsite N-P-K loss include the uptake of nutrients by the indigenous plant species that are located near the drainage systems (creeks) and biological consumption from biota present in the streams or basins.459 40.787 12. The facility's fertigation system was operable as of Fall 1999.828 Application Rate (gals/bed) 13. In this area.8 7. peat. and the Waterfall Outfall near BD#7A.810 13.843 13.400 13.898 13.9 2. on infrequent occasions.7 2. adsorption to site soils.0 2. Upon offsite 24 . This type of system is referred to as "fertigation" as it involves injecting a liquid ammonium nitrate (NH4NO3) fertilizer directly to the irrigation system. It further suggests that the facility has placed a greater reliance over the past decade on the use of the more expensive but easier-managed slow release (Osmocote) fertilizer. and other materials into a loamy soil-like substrate or "soilless artificial media" used to fill the containers. By definition. there has been a significant reduction in Greenleaf's purchase and application of liquid ammonium nitrate (NH4-NO3) in the last decade relative to an increase in the facility's number of container beds. In addition to direct root uptake by the potted plants. Onsite. Greenleaf gradually converted to using a slow release (Osmocote) fertilizer with a N-P-K ratio of 18-6-12 in late 1990 or early 1991.is approximately 61° Fahrenheit (16.) 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 NH4-NO3 Purchased (gal) 161. As shown in Table 2. Greenleaf incorporates nutrients. a container bed is a row of containers that measures 8 feet wide by 100 feet long. 1997). Prior to the construction of the retention basins and implementation of the irrigation system.1 3. tailwaters and storm water runoff discharged unimpeded and directly to the Illinois River or Lake Tenkiller from a total of five (5) outfalls on the property.657 12. both onsite and offsite.314 13. Located at the facility is an area known as the soil mixing area.1°C) with a range of approximately 35°F (1.2°C) in July. BD#11C (Front Basin).

75). combined with overland flows from topographically upgradient positions not associated with the creeks. type of cover. and other chemical constituents of the source of irrigation water used at the study site. Source and Significance of Irrigation Water The Illinois River is immediately east and south of the facility (see Figure 2).154 gallons of water. Outflow from the Study Area Unfortunately. and other constituents in the water transported onsite by these two (2) creeks. According to Corp of Engineers' Maps. South of the crest of Mahaney Mountain are two (2) intermittent or ephemeral creeks that transport rainfall and overland flow onto the study site. controlled by the U. Onsite Sampling Stations The following table (Table 3) provides miscellaneous information regarding the sampling stations that were sampled on a monthly basis for a period of twelve (12) months per this study. the crest of Mahaney Mountain is topographically high to and north of the study site. The Sample Station Numbers listed in Table 3 are depicted in Figure 2. The upgradient area on the south side of Mahaney Mountain that inflows onto Greenleaf measures approximately 160 acres (~0. (TP). steep topographic gradient. the historic or current contaminant loading that outflows or discharges from the study area cannot be determined with any degree of certainty. Since 1 acre-inch equals 27. The buffer zone. In addition to information provided in the Curtis Reports. water from the Illinois River was collected from Sample Station #1 (see Figure 2). This station was located on the walkway to the private floating dock on the Illinois River that contains the facility's main pumps. For irrigation purposes. it is expected that the indigenous plant species located in the "buffer zone" would provide another opportunity for additional N-P-K losses prior to confluence with the receiving river. the coefficient of runoff from the upgradient property is expected to be moderately high (~0. total dissolved phosphorus. then a 1" rainfall over 160 acres with a 0.25 square miles). the Highway 82 bridge immediately southwest of the study site serves as the structural dividing line between the south portion of the Illinois River and the north portion of Lake Tenkiller. Figure 2). To determine the concentration of nitrate as nitrogen (NO3-N). Inflow to the Study Area As shown in Figure 2. 1970). On a monthly basis for twelve (12) months. a grab sample of water was collected from the Illinois River in conjunction with other onsite sampling stations.75 runoff coefficient would produce as 3. One source of information for background concentrations is test results from Sample ID Numbers IT-4 and IT-5 contained in The Curtis Reports of 1995 and 1996.S. the Illinois River is designated as an Outstanding Resource Water and Scenic River in Oklahoma (Oklahoma Scenic Rivers Act. and the facility has a permit from the State of Oklahoma to pump water directly from it.6 million gallons per 24-hour day. Dissolved NO3-N.25 million gallons of water (27. a total of eight (8) inflow or "run-on" samples from the northwest corner of the Greenleaf property were collected and analyzed per this study (see Sample Station #34.75) that inflows onto the study site. As discussed.500 gallons per minute (gpm). Each pump is capable of delivering 1. Army Corp of Engineers. Maidment (1993) states that contaminant 25 .154 gallons x 160 acres x 0. resulting in a theoretical maximum water volume usage at the facility of 8. and other features. would represent the facility's background concentrations. is a narrow strip of land between the study site's outfall locations and the Illinois River. Based on the soil type. TP.discharge. The Illinois River serves as Greenleaf's primary source of irrigation water for their potted plants. Greenleaf installed four (4) pumps in the Illinois River.

all surface water. Samples were collected at the NE end of the basin at the concrete spillway/road. the author.e. As an indirect measure that that objective was accomplished. BD #15E "Snake Pit" Flowing Creek. made a total of five (5) "dry runs" to the site for the expressed purpose of collecting storm water discharge samples only to find that surface water discharges from the facility were not occurring. and storm water runoffs. on the subject property flowed unimpeded off the site. 1999). This indirect information perhaps provides the best testament that the facility has indeed reduced its volume of offsite discharges Based on interviews with knowledgeable personnel at Greenleaf. This is the smaller eastern arm of the BD#15E. it has been estimated that the retention basins and pumping system has resulted in at least a 95% reduction in the total volume of 26 . Smaller concrete basin located between waterfall outfall and BD#26G ('Hub'). This is in direct hydraulic communication with Sta. Near the pumps of the larger body of water. irrigation return flows. During that interval of time. As discussed.loading equals concentration (C) times discharge (Q). Flows into BD#26G BD #1H BD #17D "35 MMG" BD #9D BD #8C "Front Basin" BD #15E At weir of SnakePit Additional Sampling Station Descriptions The Illinois River is Greenleaf's source of fresh irrigation water. one objective for the design of holding capacities of the retention basins was to capture all surface water on the site except for storm water runoff resulting from the most significant and intense storm events (Sand. etc). over a year's time. It is up-gradient of waterfall outfall. including tailwaters. #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10 #11 #12 Flowing Creek or Basin Designation (BD) No. but no information was found in these or other reports regarding the estimate volume of surface water discharge or outflows. Flows into BD#15E BD #7A BD #5B BD#26G "Hub" Flowing Creek. This station is near the northwest corner of the study site and receives inflow (overland flow or 'run-on') from up-gradient properties (DelRancho. No. The historic volume of water that discharge undoubtedly increased as the facility grew in size and increased pumping rates of fresh water. Samples were collected immediately above the weir. Therefore. This is the pond or basin that has the highest holding capacity at the study site. gauging stations with constant recorders were not installed at any of the facility's outfalls. Concrete basin near propagation area. Illinois River. Houghton and The Curtis Reports). #2. Table 3 General Location and Other Descriptions Regarding Onsite Sampling Stations Sample Sta. This medium-size basin is up-gradient of BD#15E and has a concrete discharge weir. As discussed. Construction of the facility's retention basins and pumping system took place over the span a decade or more. On private dock containing pumps. nor were any other flow records kept of offsite discharges. This is the creek that flows into smaller arm (above the weir) of BD#15E. Hwy 51. without reliable discharge (Q) volumes. Water in this creek flows into BD#26G and is up-gradient of the soil mixing area This is the topographically highest basin at the study site. test results of NO3-N and TP exist in historic reports (i. #34 "Run-on" water from up-gradient property Prior to construction of the retention basins and its pumping system. estimates of annual contaminant loading rates to the Illinois River or other bodies of water cannot be accurately determined. This recently completed basin is near the main entrance of the facility.

1999 (Sampling Event #6). temperatures were once again moderate. 1999. there were a total of five (5) outfalls for storm water runoff at the facility. On January 3. The data included daily air temperatures. As of Fall 1999. Further discussions regarding the spatial and temporal patterns during storm conditions are discussed in Chapter 5. 1999). site conditions were very cold and very dry. and the Waterfall Outfall near BD#7A. a compilation of the daily data provided by the Oklahoma Climatological Survey for the TAHL Weather Station is in Appendix C of this report. are provided in Appendix A. understanding site-specific patterns of flow and recognizing spatial distributions of NO3-N. including maximums. "…that 1998 was one of the strangest weather years in memory. February 1999 was warmer and drier than average. In April. the amount of rainfall is important as it provides the primary driving force at the facility for constituent fate and transport mechanisms. According to the Oklahoma Climatological Survey (OCS.day periods prior to the date that monthly water samples were collected at the site. and daily averages. minimums. In June. The analytical test results and statistical analyses of all data. BD#11C (Front Basin). but significant amounts of rain fell at the site. to July 1. June 1999 was the 17th wettest since records were kept beginning in 1892. May. The "strange weather" discussed by the OCS should not adversely affect the general applicability of models used to evaluate the system performance and management strategies at this site." In late December 1998. it is located approximately twelve (12) miles to north/northwest of the Greenleaf facility (see General Location Map. as much as 3" of ice had to be broken on the surfaces of many basins before water samples could be collected. and August 1998. BD#26G (Hub). However. while test results and statistics of the reliable data are provided in Appendix B of this report. The "Facility Mean Water Temperature" (see column heading in Table 4). and daily 24-hour rainfall measurements. an emphasis was placed on sampling storm water discharges from BD#15E and BD#26G. Summertime drought conditions at the site prevailed until mid-September. that were collected during a single sampling event. Again. BD#5B. temperatures became more moderate for that time of the year. As a general overview of the weather conditions over the year that field research was conducted. including the Illinois River. is defined as the average of all twelve (12) water samples. In late September and October 1998. The nearest State of Oklahoma Climatological Weather Service Station to the study site is north of Tahlequah. The rainfall totals are presented for 30-days and 5-days prior to the associated sampling event. The OCS (1998) stated. In this research. and enduring to the end of January 1999. Climatological Conditions Because the facility's retention basins were designed and constructed to contain all surface water except for the most intense storms (Sand. but was followed by a cool and wet March 1999. From July 1. The percent of total rainfall for the month prior to the sampling date was calculated by dividing the 5-day rainfall total by the 30-day rainfall total. OK. July. at least one (1) storm water sample was collected and analyzed from each of the five (5) outfalls. Known as the "TAHL" Weather Station. conditions were very hot and very dry. including the storm water data. it is not possible to quantify the percent reduction of water discharged offsite over time. based on the number of variables associated with the site and the lack of constant-monitoring equipment at all outfalls. 1998 to July 1. Figure 1).discharge water. and other constituents at the site during storm conditions is a main focus of this project. but significant rainfall events were seen. As such. including BD#15E (SnakePit). For this study. daily climatological data was secured from the TAHL Weather Station from July 1. 27 . 1998). the summer of 1998 ranked as the 8th hottest and 9th driest summer of the 107 years on record. The daily information was then summarized in Table 4 with an emphasis placed on 30-day and 5. the study site experienced an extremely wide range of climatological conditions. and June 1999. TP. 1998. 1999.

The graph further depicts the high rainfall peaks that occurred in September and October 1998. #11. 5/2/99. respectively). the number of days that experienced an exceedance of 1.As expected. and Events #9. among other items. and also in April. May. The data shown in Table 5 further depicts stormy conditions prevailed for Sample Events #3 (10/1/98). 5/31/99. a graph of the climatological data depicts a good correlation between the ambient air temperature at the TAHL Weather Station versus the facility mean water temperature at the study site (see Figure 4). #10. and #12 (3/28/99. #4 (11/1/98).0 inches of precipitation within a 24 hour period (see Table 5). and June 1999. and 6/30/99. 28 .0 and 2. Information provided by OCS on the TAHL Weather Station was also reviewed and summarized to determine.

0 12.0 17.5 20.0 22.Air vs.0 8/4/1998 9/3/1998 10/1/1998 11/1/1998 12/1/1998 1/3/1999 1/31/1999 2/28/1999 3/28/1999 5/2/1999 Water Temp (C) 5-day rain 12 11 10 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 5/31/1999 6/30/1999 Temperature (C) Sampling Date Figure 4.5 15.0 2. Air vs.5 5.5 10. 5-day Rainfall Amounts Air Temp (C) 30-day rain 30.0 27.0 7.5 25.1 29 Rainfall (inches) 9 . Water Temperatures and 30-day vs.5 0. Water Temperature and 30-Day vs 5 Day Rainfall.

6 19.9 Facility Mean Water Temp. To gain confidence with data from the TAHL Weather Station and its application to the Greenleaf facility.56% 83. (Source: TAHL Weather Station) Sample Event No.7 10.03% 44.96% 30 .7 28.62" 5. 1998.3 19.2 66.3 3.80" 1.15" 0.3 38.2 28. This is especially true for mid-latitude thunderstorms that originate from convective-type currents and typically produce large amounts of high intensity rainfall over relatively small areas.1 15. and Date 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 8-4-98 9-3-98 10-1-98 11-1-98 12-1-98 1-3-99 1-31-99 2-28-99 3-28-99 5-2-99 5-31-99 6-30-99 Avg.00" 0.5 11. Figure 5).75" 2. (C) 29.00% 7. TAHL Weather Station The distance from the study site to the TAHL Weather Station north of Tahlequah. The good correlation of rainfall data provided confidence with this study's use and reliance upon the rainfall data recorded at the TAHL Weather Station.76% 0.0 21. (F) (C) 83. 5-day Rainfall Amounts.74" 2. 1993).14" 8. and ending October 30.65" 0.4 12.7 52.00" 6. a comparative study was performed of the recorded rainfall between the two sites.4 2.4 22.1 73. Facility Mean Water Temperature and 30-day vs.00" 0.Rainfall Comparison: Greenleaf vs. The following table (Table 6) shows that the rainfall amounts recorded at Greenleaf are quite comparable in both amount and duration to the TAHL data.00% 5. there is generally a good correlation between the rainfall amount at Greenleaf versus that at the TAHL Weather Station over a 10-week period in late Summer 1998 (see Rainfall Comparative Chart.16% 27.54" 1.00" 0.75" 10.07" 0. Ambient Air Temp.0 16. OK is approximately 12 miles (see Figure 1). Although some minor differences were seen.1 25.29" 0.1 15. Although that distance does not appear to be significant. the actual amount of total precipitation often exhibits significant changes over short geographical distances (Maidment.12" Ratio of 5-day to 30-day rainfall 2.27" 8.00% 4.7 5.19" 1.1 46.2 80.64" Total Rainfall (5-days prior to sampling) 0.34% 25. Greenleaf personnel collected daily rainfall data at their site over a 10-week span starting August 17.21" 0.7 18.80% 0.0 9.70" 1.8 Total Rainfall (30-days prior to sampling) 3.79% 12.0 61.93" 7.97" 2.9 22.8 77.3 50.31" 2. 1998. As described by Heath (1999).1 8.22% 0.4 27.6 42.4 25.1 14.5 60. Table 4 Ambient Air Temperature vs.

00 Rainfall (in) 3.00 2. Tahlequah Weather Station.00 1. Rainfall comparative Chart.00 Tahlequah Weather Station 4.00 9/ 7/ 19 9 8/ 17 /1 9 8/ 24 /1 9 8/ 31 /1 9 9/ 14 /1 9 9/ 21 /1 9 9/ 28 /1 9 10 /5 /1 9 /1 99 8 Day Figure 5.6.00 Greenleaf Nursery 5.00 0. Greenleaf Nursery vs. 31 10 /1 2 10 /1 9 10 /2 6 /1 99 8 /1 99 8 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 8 .

With an overall intent to protect the Illinois River as well as to provide the nurseries with a "grace period" to implement best management practices. These stations include: the Illinois River. OSDA then developed a Compliance Agreement that established an average annual and maximum allowable concentration goal for NO3-N and TP of discharge water from nurseries. The data are summarized in Table 6.Historic OSDA Discharge Permit Limits Under general provisions of the Oklahoma Pesticide Law and the Oklahoma Fertilizer Law. showing a decrease of NO3-N and TP concentrations over time. Specifically. the Compliance Agreement used a phased approach for NO3-N and TP concentrations. Upgradient (inflow or background) samples from the south slope of Mahoney Mountain. the Oklahoma State Department of Agriculture (OSDA) assumed primary jurisdiction of discharges from Greenleaf and other plant nurseries on the Illinois River in 1988. the Waterfall Outfall (discharge) the creek near the front gate and/or discharge from the Front Basin. 1998-99). Table 5. high concentrations were allowed at first with incremental lowering of constituent concentrations over time. 19891996. Historic Test Results There are five (5) sampling stations at the study site that appear to be consistent over time and are identifiable throughout various studies (Houghton. Alexander. and Collective offsite discharges (outflows) from the southeast portion of the property to the Illinois River. 1984 and The Curtis Reports. Other Summaries from Tahlequah Weather station 32 .

(ppm) 2. P p t. d a ys > 2 .T a b le 5 O th e r S u m m a rie s F ro m T A H L W e a th e r S ta tio n 1 m o n th p rio r.0 1.8 9 " (1 1 -2 9 -9 8 ) 0 . For comparative purposes.0 10. n u m b e r p rio r.6 5 " (1 0 -1 -9 8 ) 3 .0 2.0 10.0 1.7 9 " (5 -1 2 -9 9 ) (6 -2 0 -9 9 ) 0 . Regarding the collective offsite discharges.0 1.0 1 " 15 14 14 16 2 3 (6 -2 0 -9 9 ) Table 6.0 " W ith P p t.0 1 " 0 .0 Maximum Allowable TP Conc.5 Historic test results of NO3-N and TP from the five (5) sampling stations identified above have been summarized in Tables 11 and 12.5 7 " (1 2 -1 -9 8 ) (1 -3 -9 9 ) (1 -3 1 -9 9 ) (2 -2 8 -9 9 ) (3 -2 8 -9 9 ) (1 0 -5 -9 8 ) 0 .0 23.0 1.5 1.0 10.0 1 " 0 .0 Average Allowable TP Conc.0 1. num ber of d a ys W ith N o P p t.3 1 " (2 -6 -9 9 ) 1 . respectively.5 1.0 1 " 0 .7 " (1 -1 -9 9 ) 0 .8 4 " (9 -3 -9 8 ) 0 . (ppm) 53. P p t.6 9 " # 1 2 (6 -3 0 -9 9 ) 2 . (ppm) 1.5 14.0 18.0 1 " (8 -4 -9 8 ) 1 .0 " > 1 .0 1.0 1. 5 5 8 2 0 3 (7 -8 -9 8 ) 0 (7 -1 2 -9 8 ) 0 (9 -1 3 -9 8 ) 1 (9 -1 4 -9 8 ) (9 -2 1 -9 8 ) (1 0 -5 -9 8 ) 1 (1 1 -1 -9 8 ) 0 0 0 (2 -6 -9 9 ) 1 (3 -8 -9 9 ) 0 (3 -1 2 -9 9 ) (4 -3 -9 9 ) 0 (4 -2 2 -9 9 ) (4 -2 6 -9 9 ) (5 -1 2 -9 9 ) 0 (5 -1 7 -9 9 ) (6 -2 0 -9 9 ) 1 (6 -2 4 -9 9 ) (6 -3 0 -9 9 ) S a m p le R ound N o.5 1.0 1.5 15.0 15. an historic sample station was located near the edge of the Illinois River where several historic outflows from the study site converged 33 . 26 25 20 1 m o n th 1 m o n th 1 m o n th p rio r.0 2.0 41.0 1 " 0 .8 15.0 Maximum Allowable NO3-N Conc.5 10. (ppm) 41. of Nitrate (as N) and Total Phosphorus Discharges per OSDA Compliance Agreement Year 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Average Allowable NO3-N Conc.4 9 " (9 -1 3 -9 8 ) #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 (1 1 -1 -9 8 ) 5 . 1 m o n th M a x .8 6 " (3 -1 2 -9 9 ) (4 -2 6 -9 9 ) (2 -6 -9 9 ) # 1 0 (5 -1 2 -9 9 ) 1 .3 21.0 15.0 15.0 1.0 1 " 0 .1 1 " 0 .1 1 " 22 20 23 20 23 16 26 9 10 10 8 5 12 9 2 0 0 0 1 2 3 (1 0 -5 -9 8 ) 0 .0 15. n u m b e r p rio r. w ith P p t. the test results reported and described in this study have been included in Tables 11 and 12 with historic results.6 " # 1 1 (5 -3 1 -9 9 ) 1 . a n d D a te #1 #2 #3 M in .0 1 " 0 . p rio r to 1 m o n th p rio r to s a m p le d a te s a m p le d a te (7 -8 -9 8 ) (8 -1 3 -9 9 ) (9 -1 3 -9 8 ) 0 .9 1 " (1 -3 0 -9 9 ) 2 .5 1.0 1 " 0 .0 1 " 0 . Greenleaf’s Permit History: Average Annual and Maximum Allowable Concentrations.0 27. o f d a ys o f D a ys num ber of w ith P p t.5 1.

BD#26G. Water from these two sampling stations are in direct hydraulic communication with each other. while Sample Station #12 was located immediately above the weir in the eastern and smaller arm of the retention basin. MATERIALS AND METHODS Experimental Design The experimental design for this study consisted of the collection. Inflow surface water (overland flow) that ‘runs-on’ to the facility from topographically upgradient properties following a storm event. 1999. a state-certified laboratory in Stillwater. a second sampling station was established for Basin Designation BD#15E (Snake Pit). Storm water discharges from the five (5) known outfall points on the facility. Thus. For purposes of comparison. Surface water samples were collected for analysis on a monthly basis for a period of twelve (12) months. Due to its horseshoe shape and the configuration of its contributing creeks. All samples were transported under chain-of-custody documentation to the Soil. and BD#5B.e. and interpretation of various surface water samples collected from the study site. or other onsite drainage systems that carried excess runoff water to a retention basin. constructed ditches. the southeast portion of the property) were averaged. prepared by others. 1998 and the final sampling event was July 30. Information was also obtained on allowable NO3-N and TP concentrations in historic State Discharge permits and past usage rates of liquid ammonium nitrate by the nursery. The experimental design also included a review of site documents. & Forage Analytical Laboratory (SWFAL). Analytical testing was performed on water samples collected from the following sample stations: Surface water contained in the each of the eight (8) retention basins. Surface water in creeks. Water. analyses. but was identified as Station #2 in Houghton (1984) and Station IT-6 in The Curtis Reports (1989-1996). The average annual NO3-N concentration in Table 11 and the average annual TP concentration in Table 12 represent an average of 1998 and 1999 discharges from BD#15E. 34 . and Surface water of the Illinois River as collected near the nursery’s pump station. Oklahoma for inorganic chemical analysis.together. This station was located immediately north of Sample Station #5 at BD#5B in this report (see Figure 2). which was necessary to observe the changes of NO3-N and TP concentrations over a greater period of time. It was anticipated that the historic findings could be evaluated in conjunction with new information provided in this study to assess the overall performance of the facility's irrigation system as a viable pollution prevention technology and promote this best management practice (BMP) for the nursery industry. Field parameters and analytical test results of surface water samples were used to address the objectives of this study. Sample Station #2 was located in the main body of water near the pumps of BD#15E. The first sampling event occurred on August 4. including an evaluation of onsite spatial and temporal patterns in the water quality and an assessment of the overall performance of the recycling irrigation system. all storm water discharges in this report that outflow to this general area (i.

Upon receipt from the laboratory, the WATEVAL program was used to calculate other inorganic parameters and to evaluate the reliability of the analytical test results. All field parameters, analytical test results, and other inorganic parameters were summarized in spreadsheets (see Appendices A and B). Test results that exhibited a cation-to-anion ratio in excess of ±5% were identified as suspect. In an attempt to determine the potential effects of unreliable data, statistical analyses, including the minimum, maximum, mean, median, standard deviation, and variance, were calculated for all data and for all data less the suspect data. The analytical test results were used in various charts and graphs of NO3-N and TP. The charts and graphs were beneficial in visually depicting the spatial and temporal patterns in the water quality parameters at the various retention basins.
Field Instrumentation and Field Parameters

Two (2) field instruments were utilized at each sampling station in the collection of field parameters for this project. A YSI Model 55 Handheld Dissolved Oxygen Instrument was used to secure field dissolved oxygen (DO in %) and water temperature (in oC) readings. An Extech Oyster Model 341450 instrument was used to secure field pH and Specific Conductivity (SC in umhos/cm) readings. The instruments were inspected and calibrated in the field immediately prior to use and rechecked for accuracy upon completion of sampling. Both instruments were used in accordance to manufacturer's instructions provided in the operations manual. Due to the age of both instruments (<1 year old), maintenance other than routine on the field instruments was not required nor performed. The following field parameters were secured and recorded in a field log book for each sample collected in the field: pH, Dissolved Oxygen (DO in %), Water Temperature (oC), Specific Conductance (SC in umhos/cm), and Time and Date of Sample.
Sample Collection

Sample collection for this project consisted of surface water samples only. Sample locations included the twelve (12) sampling stations identified in Figure 2. Once a sampling station was established in the field, its geographic location did not change. Sampling frequency at each station was performed once per month for a period of twelve (12) months. The author collected all water samples for this project. Sample containers consisted of 500 ml teflon bottles supplied by Sherry Laboratory, an analytical laboratory in Tulsa, OK. The water samples were not filtered in the field and there were no preservatives included in or added to the containers in the field. Water samples from standing bodies of water (i.e. ponds, retention basins, and lagoons) were sampled at the nearest delivery point of running water. In the standing bodies of water, samples were secured with the containers by simply submerging an uncapped container approximately 4 to 6 inches below the surface and allowing the sample container to fill up. Care was taken to ensure that floating debris on top of the standing water was not sampled.

35

Water samples from flowing water (i.e. intermittent creeks, ditches, and overland flow) were secured using a time-weighted average technique. Small (approximately 50 ml) aliquots were collected over a 20-minute period and used to fill the sample container. For non-discrete samples, storm water runoff samples were collected in the same manner as previously described for the flowing water samples. However, when rainfall runoff occurred from a 'first flush' and several discreet samples were collected from one station to observe if NO3-N and TP changed over time, then grab samples (not time-weighted average or composite samples) were collected. Storm water discharge samples were usually collected manually. However, an attempt was made by the author to secure storm water discharge samples with an automatic Global Water Stormwater Sampler (Model SS201). According to the operations manual, the SS201 instrument is capable of automatically securing an initial ‘grab’ sample in one bottle, immediately followed by the collection of a time-weighted sample in a separate bottle. The instrument was of marginal success (only one sample was collected from the Waterfall Outfall), the utilization of the automatic sampler was discontinued. For purposes of consistency, all storm water or inadvertent discharge samples were subjected to the same analysis as other standard samples. While in the field, a chain of custody (COC) record was maintained for all samples. Information provided on the COC included the project name, sample dates and times, sample locations, name of the sampler, requested analyses, and type of sample (grab or composite). All samples were collected in appropriate containers and labels were affixed to each container. Using indelible ink, each sample container was provided with the following information: Sample Station Number, time, date, sampler's initials, and whether the sample was a grab ("G") or a composite ("C"). The sample containers were immediately placed on ice in an ice chest and transported to the laboratory. The chain of custody document accompanied all sample containers to the laboratory and all appropriate signatures were secured on each COC.
Analytical Test Methods

All surface water samples collected in this study were delivered to the Soil, Water, and Forage Analytical Laboratory (SWFAL) at Oklahoma State University in Stillwater, Oklahoma. Requested analyses for all samples included the "Irrigation Water Analyses" plus Total Dissolved Phosphorous (TP) and Dissolved Iron. On three (3) separate sampling events (Sample Events #10, #11, and #12), additional analysis for ammonium as nitrogen (NH4-N) was requested. Table 7 summarizes the analytical methods, detection limits, and acceptable limits for field duplicates.

36

Table 7. Analytical Methods, Method Detection Limits, and Acceptable Limits for Field Duplicates Parameter Analytical Method Meter or Lab Acceptable precision for low level fld duplicates 90-110% 90-110% 90-110% 90-110% Acceptable precision for high level fld duplicates 90-110% 90-110% 90-110% 90-110% 90-110% 90-110% 75-125% 75-125% 75-125% 75-125% 75-125% 75-125% 75-125% 75-125% 90-110% 90-110% 90-110% 90-110% 90-110% 90-110% 90-110% 90-110% 90-110% 90-110% Method Detection Level

Dissolved Oxygen Conductance pH Temperature Alkalinity Turbidity Ammonia Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen Nitrite-Nitrogen Nitrate-Nitrogen Total Phosphorous Total Suspended Solids Sulfate Chloride Hardness

4500-G 2510-B 4500 H-B 2320-B 2130-B 4500 4500-N-C 4500-NO2-B 4500-NO3-D 4500P-B-E 2540-O 4500-SO4-E 4500-C 2340-C

YSI-57 YSI Orion YSI-57 Hach digit-al titrator Hach 2100P SWAFL SWAFL SWAFL SWAFL SWAFL SWAFL SWAFL SWAFL SWAFL

0.1 mg/L 1.0 uS/cm 1.0 S.U. -5 C 15 mg/L 0.01 NTU 0.015 mg/L 0.01 mg/L 0.068 mg/L 0.5 mg/L 0.005 mg/L 1.0 mg/L 0.1 mg/L 0.5 mg/L 0.5 mg/L
o

Quality Assurance

A Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) was prepared prior to the initiation of field activities for this project. The intent of the QAPP document was to provide the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency or other interested parties with specific details such as a Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP), Data Quality Objectives (DQO), and an overall assurance that all aspects of the project were consistently and appropriately performed. Dr. Michael D. Smolen, Project Director for this study and Water Quality Director at the Biosystems Engineering Department at Oklahoma State University (OSU), prepared the QAPP. Other OSU investigators listed on the QAPP included Dr. Sharon L. von Broembsen, Dr. Ronald L. Elliott, and Dr. Michael A. Schnelle. The QAPP was implemented for this project and research conducted per this investigation met or exceeded the plan's requirements. Regarding quality assurance at the analytical laboratory, the Soil, Water, and Forage Analytical Laboratory (SWFAL) at Oklahoma State University (OSU) adhered to their internal QA procedures specified in the Laboratory Procedures Manual (Zhang, et al, 1997). According to OSU Extension Facts Document F-2901 (Zhang, et al), "accurate laboratory results are maintained through the use of laboratory standards, blank samples, internal and external check samples, and technical review of all results. All methods and procedures used in the lab are approved by either national or regional professional organizations. All instruments are calibrated daily and check with high quality standards. Blank samples are routinely used to check each day's analyses. Internal check samples are used every 20 samples. All results are double-checked for data entry accuracy and reviewed for any apparent problems."

37

Blind Field Duplicate Samples. By definition, a blind field duplicate (BFD) is an exact duplicate sample of water secured at the same time and place as its original sample. A fictitious sample identification number and fictitious sampling time is listed on both the BFD's container label and on the chain-of-custody (COC) ensure that the analytical laboratory cannot trace the BFD sample to its original sample. The intent of a BFD sample is to provide quality assurance (QA) by assessing the precision of test results reported by the analytical laboratory (Greenberg, et al, Eds, 1992). Precision is defined as random variation in data (Keith, 1991). Although acceptable limits of analytical precision vary from parameter to parameter (Greenberg et al, Eds, 1992, Table 1030:I), the acceptable precision values of several individual constituents analyzed in this study are provided in Table 7. Duplicate water samples were obtained by alternatively filling the two sample containers (one original, one BFD) from the same sampling device. To ensure that the laboratory could not trace the duplicate samples, BFD samples were collected from different sampling stations selected at random during different sampling events. The WATEVAL Program. Written by Hounslow (1995), WATEVAL is a basic computer program designed to intensively evaluate water quality data using a variety of subroutines and methods. The WATEVAL subroutines used in this study include the calculation of cation to anion ratios for all samples, the generation of piper plots and stiff diagrams, and the 3-sample mixing routine. Following is a brief description of each subroutine and a discussion of the general findings. Cation-to-Anion Ratios. The reliability of an individual water sample's test result may be determined by calculating and comparing the summation of cation-to-anion (C:A) ratios (in meq/l). Hem (1996) states that all potable waters are electrically neutral. Thus, if an analytical test result is considered to be reliable, the C:A ratio should be within a specified percent of zero. Although the Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater (Greenberg et al, eds, 1992) uses a sliding scale for acceptance criteria that is more restrictive with decreasing anion summation (in meq/l), the acceptance criteria for the C:A ratio used in this study was held at a constant ±5%. Piper Plots and Stiff Diagrams. Another commonly used subroutine in WATEVAL is the graphic program. Using the test results as input, the graphic subprogram is capable of graphing Piper Plots and Stiff Diagrams. According to Piper (1944), after plotting the analytical data on trilinear cation and anion diagrams, the two points can be extrapolated to a single point on the diamond portion of a Piper diagram. 3-Sample Mixing Routines. Another subprogram in WATEVAL is the 3-sample Mixing Routine. Hounslow (1995) states that the main objective of the Mixing routine is to determine if one analysis is related to two others by mixing. The Mixing Routine sorts the input analyses into two end members based on their TDS values calculated from 7 major ions, and then calculates how much each of the two end members would have to be mixed to obtain the third analysis. Based on the computed mix, a correlation coefficient (R) and its square (R2) are reported. According to Hounslow (1995), the possibility of a mix is tenuous if the R value is below 0.95 (or if R2 is below 0.90). Based on the high degree of mixing that was expected to occur at the study site resulting from the intra-basin pumping and recycling activities of captured water, a stringent

38

standard of acceptance was established for this study. The acceptance criteria selected for this study was a strict R ≥ 0.98 or R2 ≥ 0.96. The Sanitas™ Program. The SanitasTM Program (Intelligent Decision Technologies, 1997) was used to generate graphics and perform statistical evaluations of the data. The program is capable of generating Histograms, Box and Whisker Plots, and other graphics. A histogram displays a frequency distribution of a select constituent concentration. Box and Whisker Plots provide a quick way to visualize the distribution of data at a given sample station. The box portion of the plot graphically locates the mean, median, and 25th and 75th percentiles of the data set, while the "whiskers" or horizontal lines extend from the box to minimum and maximum values of the data set. Located within the box, the plus sign ("+") depicts the mean value and the solid horizontal line depicts the median for the select concentration and sample station. The distance between the ends of the box represents the Interquartile Range, which is useful in graphically depicting the spread or variability in the data set. RESEARCH FINDINGS
Analytical Test Results and Interpretation

Surface water samples from Stations #1 - #12 were sampled at the study site on a monthly basis from August 4, 1998 through July 30, 1999. The test results and statistics of all data are presented in Appendix A and all data less the suspect data are presented in Appendix B. Suspect data is defined as those analytical test results with cation-to-anion ratios that exceeded ±5%.
General Discussion

In this study, SWFAL performed twelve (12) separate and complete sets of inorganic analyses for sampling stations #1 - #10. Eleven (11) sets of analyses were completed at sampling station #11 and ten (10) sets of analyses were completed at sampling station #12. This resulted in total of 141 sets of analyses at the sampling stations. The total number of sets (141) does not include 11 blind field duplicate (BFD) samples for quality assurance (QA) purposes, 12 sets of storm water samples, and 8 upgradient or background samples at Station #34Of 141 analyses of the regular monthly samples, there were 12 analyses that had cation-toanion ratios that exceeded ±5%, resulting in 8.5% (12/141 x 100) suspect data. Stated otherwise, 91.5% of the test results were deemed reliable or non-suspect using a cation-toanion ratio of ±5%. Due to low concentrations of the major ions that were reported in many samples, this is an acceptable percentage of reliable or non-suspect data and provides confidence with the test results presented by the laboratory. With a single exception, a review of the NO3-N and TP test results summarized in Appendix A and B indicated no significant difference between the statistics of all data vs. all data less the suspect data. The noted exception was NO3-N test results at Sample Station #2. Using all data (see Appendix A), the standard deviation of NO3-N for twelve (12) sample events at Station #2 was 10.68. Removal of two (2) sampling events that exhibited suspect data lowered the standard deviation of NO3-N to 3.23. The average NO3-N concentration was 12.67 ppm for all data and 9.30 ppm for all data less the suspect data. For TP at Sample Station #2, the differences in the statistics were not significant. At Station #2, the standard deviation for TP was 0.287 for all data and 0.316 for all non-suspect data. The average TP concentration at Station #2 using all data was 0.672 ppm and 0.679 ppm for all data less the

39

suspect data. Thus, the removal of the two (2) sample events from Sample Station #2 that contained suspect data had a greater affect on NO3-N statistics than it did for TP.
Quality Assurance, Blind Field Duplicates

For purposes of QA, there were eleven (11) BFD samples collected and analyzed. This resulted in a QA/BFD of 7.8% (11/141 x 100) for this project, which exceeded the minimum BFD of 5% listed in this project's QAPP. The analytical test results of all original and their associated BFD samples were summarized in spreadsheet (see Appendix A and B). Calculations of the analyzed constituents were performed on the Original vs. BFD samples to determine if the differences were within acceptable precision limits. As previously stated, there were a total of eleven (11) BFD samples collected during this study, including one BFD per sampling event except for sample event #1. The BFD sample for sample event #1 was inadvertently omitted. Since the laboratory reported test results for a total of fifteen (15) individual constituents per sample, there were a total of 165 (11 x 15) constituents for this project's QA/BFD. As shown in Table 8, there were 21 constituents in the blind field duplicate samples that were less than a 90% concentration difference. Thus, 12.7% (21/165 x 100) of the QA/BFD results were not within a 90% precision criteria, or 87.3% QA/BFD results were within a 10% precision criteria. As seen in Table 8, the most frequently listed constituents exceeding a 10% precision criteria were boron (B) and dissolved iron (Fe), which were each listed four (4) times. From Table 7, the acceptable precision for low level field duplicates of most inorganic constituent concentrations was 75 – 125%. Using this criteria, there were a total of six (6) individual inorganic constituents in the BFD samples that were less than a 75% concentration difference (see Table 9). Thus, 3.6% (6/165 x 100) of the QA/BFD test results were not within the acceptable precision criteria for this project, or 96.4% QA/BFD test results were within a 25% precision criteria. As seen in Table 9, dissolved iron (Fe) was listed twice, while specific conductance (SC), total suspended solids (TSS), bicarbonate (HCO3), and boron (B) were each listed once.
Study Findings

The line graphs in Figures 6 and 7 depict the changes of NO3-N concentrations at each station over the 12-month sampling period. Two (2) graphs were used to depict NO3-N changes over time due to the total number of sampling stations (12) that were included in this study. The line graphs in Figures 8 and 9 plot the same data as Figures 6 and 7, but on an expanded Y-axis scale to show greater detail with lower NO3-N concentrations. The reason for the excessive NO3-N concentrations seen in several samples, especially during Sample Event #1 dated 8/4/98, is most likely related to the application of liquid ammonium nitrate and lack of rainfall at that time. Note in Figures 6, 7, 8, and 9 that the suspect data have been identified with a box around the data point. Not including suspect data, the average annual NO3-N concentration for all stations (#1-#12, inclusive of the Illinois River) was 8.75 ppm. Exclusive of the Illinois River, the average annual NO3-N concentration for all stations was 9.42 ppm. Both values are below OSDA's average annual compliance agreement of 10.0 ppm for NO3-N.

40

Table 8. QA: Blind Field Duplicate Constituents Below 90% Difference

Sample Location

Sample No.

Date Parameter % Difference 9/3/98 P 89.52 80.00 85.71 66.67 87.50 78.88 87.50 73.72 85.71 80.95 73.75 85.71 77.78 83.33 87.50 83.33 46.67 83.33 72.97 72.72 87.91

Runoff to BD#15E #3-2 BD#15E (at weir) BD#17D BD#17D BD#8C (front) BD#8C (front) BD#9D BD#9D BD#9D BD#9D BD#7A BD#7A BD#5B BD#5B BD#8C BD#8C BD#5B BD#5B BD#5B BD#5B #12-3 #9-4 #9-4 #11-6 #11-7 #10-8 #10-8 #10-8 #10-8 #4-9 #4-9 #5-10 #5-10 #11-11 #11-11 #5-12 #5-12 #5-12 #5-12

10/1/98 Fe 11/1/98 B 11/1/98 Fe 12/1/98 K 1/1/99 HCO3 1/31/99 K 2/28/99 Lab S.C. 2/28/99 NO3-N 2/28/99 P 2/28/99 Lab TSS 3/28/99 B 3/28/99 Fe 5/2/99 5/2/99 Na B

Runoff to BD#26G #7-5

5/31/99 Cl 5/31/99 Fe 6/30/99 Na 6/30/99 HCO3 6/30/99 B 6/30/99 Lab TSS

Table 9. QA: Blind Field Duplicate Constituents Below 75% Difference Sample Location Sample No. BD#17D BD#9D BD#9D BD#8C BD#5B BD#5B #9-4 #10-8 #10-8 #11-11 #5-12 #5-12 Date Parameter % Difference 11/1/98 Fe 2/28/99 Lab S.C. 2/28/99 Lab TSS 5/31/99 Fe 6/30/99 HCO3 6/30/99 B 66.67 73.72 73.75 46.67 72.97 72.72

41

50 45 40 35 Concentration (ppm) 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

Station 1 Station 2 Station 3 Station 4 Station 5 Station 6 Field Water Temp.

32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 C) Per Sample Event Mean Temp (

8/ 4/ 19 98

1/ 3/ 19 99

9/ 3/ 19 98

12 /1 /1 99 8

1/ 31 /1 99 9

2/ 28 /1 99 9

10 /1 /1 99 8

3/ 28 /1 99 9

5/ 2/ 19 99

11 /1 /1 99 8

5/ 31 /1 99 9

= Suspect Data

Sam pling Date

Figure 6. NO3-N Concentrations for Sampling Stations #1 - #6

42

6/ 30 /1 99 9

o

32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 5/ 2/ 19 99 9/ 3/ 19 98 1/ 3/ 19 99 99 8 99 9 99 8 99 9 99 9 99 9 99 8 11 /1 /1 1/ 31 /1 3/ 28 /1 5/ 31 /1 12 /1 /1 2/ 28 /1 = Suspect Data Sam pling Date Figure 7.50 45 40 35 Concentration (ppm) 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 8/ 4/ 19 98 Station 7 Station 8 Station 9 Station 10 Station 11 Station 12 Field Water Temp.#12 43 6/ 30 /1 10 /1 /1 99 9 Mean Temp ( o C) Per Sample Event . NO3-N Concentrations for Sampling Stations #7 .

16 14 S ta tio n S ta tio n S ta tio n S ta tio n S ta tio n S ta tio n F ie ld W 1 2 3 4 5 6 a te r T e m p . 32 30 28 26 12 24 Mean Temp ( C) Per Sample Event 22 Concentration (ppm) 10 20 18 8 16 14 6 12 10 4 8 6 2 4 2 0 /1 99 8 19 98 /1 99 8 /1 99 8 19 99 19 98 31 /1 99 9 28 /1 99 9 28 /1 99 9 8/ 4/ 9/ 3/ 1/ 3/ 10 /1 11 /1 12 /1 5/ 2/ 31 /1 99 9 30 /1 99 9 19 99 0 1/ 2/ 3/ = S u s p e c t D a ta S a m p lin g D a t e Figure 8 NO3-N Concentration for Sampling Stations #1-#6 44 6/ 5/ o .

32 30 28 26 12 Concentration (ppm) 24 22 10 20 18 8 16 14 6 12 10 4 8 6 2 4 2 0 98 98 98 99 99 99 98 98 99 99 99 /1 9 /1 9 /1 9 /1 9 /1 9 /1 9 8/ 4/ 19 9/ 3/ 19 1/ 3/ 19 5/ 2/ 19 /1 9 /1 9 99 0 = Suspect Data 10 /1 11 /1 12 /1 Sampling Date Figure 9 NO3-N Concentration for Sampling Stations #7-#12 1/ 31 45 2/ 28 3/ 28 5/ 31 6/ 30 Mean Temp ( C) Per Sample Event o .16 14 Station 7 Station 8 Station 9 Station 10 Station 11 Station 12 Field Water Temp.

Other stations that exhibited high NO3-N interquartile variability included Stations #9. A histogram of the NO3-N test results. #6 (BD#26G). NO3-N Box and Whiskers Plots Station #1 46 . followed by Station #7 (mean = 11. the sampling stations that depicted the highest NO3-N interquartile variability were Stations #3 (runoff into BD#15E). depicted a concentration of 5 mg/l as having the highest frequency (see Figure 12). Station #11 (Front Basin) had the highest average annual NO3-N concentration (13. Figure 10. exclusive of the suspect data. The station that depicted the lowest NO3-N interquartile variability was Station #34 (upgradient or inflow).73 ppm and median = 10.00 ppm). and #7 (runoff into BD#26G). #10.80 ppm) and highest median concentration (11. and #12 (see Figure 2).50 ppm). followed by Stations #1 (Illinois River) and #8 (BD1H).From the Box and Whisker Plots in Figures 10 and 11.

Figure 12. NO3-N Box and Whiskers Plots Other Sampling Stations.Figure 11. NO3-N Frequency Histogram (suspect data excluded) 47 .

Similar to the NO3-N graphs. As shown in Table 10. Station #4 (BD#7A) had the highest average annual TP concentration (0. Limited Ammonium (as N) Test Results Due to historic test results and the OSDA Compliance Agreement.60 ppm. and #12 (above weir in BD#15E). #7 (runoff into BD#26G). a greater emphasis was placed on NO3-N analysis over other nitrogen compounds. For the other two sample events (#10 and #12). the highest 30-day rainfall amount (10. This relationship was the same for water in the Illinois River (Station #1) as the onsite sampling stations. to determine the presence and significance of other nitrogen compounds at the study site.745 ppm). and #11 (see Figure 2). 1998). the form of most dissolved ammonium ions will be NH4OH(aq). Excluding the suspect data.27 inches) occurred during May 1999 prior to sample event #11. nitrogen is one of the most common contaminants in ground water. Hem further stated that above a pH of 9. #4 (BD#7A). Additionally. followed by Stations #1 (Illinois River) and #8 (BD1H). the average annual TP concentration for all stations was 0.e. Based on a review of the Box and Whisker Plots in Figures 15 and 16.2. As seen in Figure 4 and other rainfall information presented in Appendix C. Feth (1966) stated that most of the nitrogen dissolved in rainwater occurs in the form of ammonium (NH4+) ions.835 ppm and median = 0. exclusive of the suspect data. ammonification occurs when microorganisms decompose nitrogen compounds to inorganic ammonium salts. the average annual TP concentration for all sampling stations (inclusive of the Illinois River) was 0. According to Hounslow (1995). NH4-N concentrations averaged approximately 100% of the NO3-N concentrations on sample event #11.36 mg/l as having the highest frequency (see Figure 17). with mean = 0. Other stations that exhibited high interquartile variability included Stations #2. However. #5.885 ppm) and highest median concentration (0. see December 1998 and January-February 1999). #11.Although there was a general decrease of NO3-N concentrations at many stations during the winter months (i. This value is below OSDA's average annual compliance agreement of 1. 1985). which is an uncharged species. and #12).740 ppm). there was no correlation between NO3-N concentrations and mean water temperature. 48 . For phosphorus. NH4-N concentrations averaged approximately 10% of the NO3-N concentrations. Cationic ammonium (NH4+) compounds are strongly adsorbed on mineral surfaces (Hem. According to DeSimone (1998). there was no correlation between TP concentrations and mean water temperature. depicted a concentration of 0. the line graphs in Figures 13 and 14 depict the changes of total dissolved phosphorus (TP) concentrations over 12-month sampling period. suspect data was plotted but noted on the graphs.56 ppm. A histogram of the TP test results. Exclusive of the Illinois River. followed closely by Station #7 (Runoff to BD#26G.0 ppm for TP. infiltration of nitrogen-enriched surface water and subsequent baseflow often provides a mechanism for contaminant loading of nitrogen compounds to a stream or river (Yadav et al. #6. Similar to NO3-N. ammonium as nitrate (NH4-N) analysis was performed on water samples collected at all stations during the last three (3) sample events (#10. the sampling stations that depicted the highest TP interquartile variability were Stations #3 (runoff into BD#15E). The station that depicted the lowest TP interquartile variability was Station #34 (upgradient or inflow).

TP at stations 1 through 6 1 49 .60 1.40 0.00 0.1.20 1.60 0.40 TP Concentration mg/l 1.80 1.80 0.00 Station 1 Station 2 Station 3 station 4 Station 5 Station 6 Sampling Date Figure 13.20 0.

2 TP Concentration mg/l 1 0.4 0.8 0.1.4 1. TP at Stations 7 through 12 1 50 .2 0 Station 7 Station 8 Station 9 station 10 Station 11 Station 12 Sampling Date Figure 14.6 0.6 1.

TP B ox and whiskers plots for other sampling stations 51 . TP B ox and whiskers plots for Stations 1 through 9 Figure 16.Figure 15.

while it was 8. The lab pH value of 7.72 was the highest facility mean and it exhibited the lowest laboratory standard deviation (0.13) for lab pH values of all sample events in this study. For sample event #11.54 and 8. historic test results for inflow.42 on sample events #10 and #12. Recent Test Results In order to evaluate the change of NO3-N and TP concentrations over time at the study site. and this study (1999). a poor correlation was seen between the field pH and the lab pH. with some differences approaching 2.Throughout this study.02. there are five (5) sampling stations at the study site that have been consistently sampled and analyzed over time. the increase of pH of water secured during sample event #11 is the most plausible explanation for the one (1) order of magnitude increase (from 10% to 100%) of NH4-N concentrations relative to NO3-N concentrations. the field pH "facility mean" of all samples including the Illinois River was 9. the Illinois River. lab pH for Stations #7 and #12). and collective offsite discharges or outflows from the southeast portion of the property to the Illinois River. On sample event #11. Identifiable in studies by Houghton (1984). respectively. the stations that have been consistently sampled over time include: • • • • • the Illinois River. 52 . As discussed in Chapter 3 of this report.72. and outflow samples were retrieved from historic documents. The Curtis Reports (1989-1996). the Waterfall Outfall (discharge) the creek near the front gate and/or discharge from the Front Basin. Thus. upgradient (inflow or background) samples from the south slope of Mahaney Mountain. the laboratory pH facility mean of all samples including the Illinois River was 7.5 orders of magnitude (see Figures 18 and 19 for examples of field pH vs. Historic vs.

5 14.5 0.0 1.4 0.2 0.8 0.5 8.5 6.4 0.6 0.1 11. and Event Number #1-10 Illinois River #1-11 #1-12 #2-10 BD#15E #2-11 #2-12 #3-10 Runoff into BD#15E #3-11 #3-12 BD#7A #4-10 #4-11 #4-12 BD#5B #5-10 #5-11 #5-12 BD#26G #6-10 #6-11 #6-12 #7-10 Runoff into BD#26G #7-11 #7-12 BD#1H #8-10 #8-11 #8-12 BD#17D #9-10 #9-11 #9-12 BD#9D #10-10 #10-11 #10-12 BD#8C #11-10 #11-11 #11-12 BD#15E (at Weir) #12-10 #12-11 #12-12 NO3-N Conc.4 13.3 9.3 13.3 0.4 10.8 2.0 0. (ppm) 1 1 1 11 7 6 8 11 3 10 9 4 10 6 4 13 6 4 13 7 4 1 1 1 9 7 6 10 8 2 18 10 5 8 8 4 NH4-N Conc.0 7.7 8.8 14.0 15.4 10.5 Summation of NO3 + NH4 as N (ppm) 1.4 10.4 6.0 21. (ppm) 0.1 5.5 53 .0 10.9 1.2 0.3 1.1 1.3 2.0 5.1 0.3 15.6 13.5 5.8 4.3 0.5 0.6 9.3 19.3 4.5 10.4 20.6 6.8 0.8 1.4 0.0 5.6 3.9 0.Table 10 Comparison of NO3-N to NH4-N Concentrations of 12 Sampling Stations for 3 Sampling Events Sample Station Description Sample Sta.4 0.1 0.0 6.3 1.2 4.3 0.3 8.1 0.6 18.3 0.3 1.4 6.0 11.5 11.4 4.7 0.2 1.

00 4.00 98 7/ 24 /1 99 8 /1 99 8 9/ 12 11 /1 / 19 9 8 12 /2 1 /1 9 98 /1 9 99 2/ 9 3/ 31 /1 99 /1 99 7/ 9 8/ 28 /1 9 9 5/ 20 lab pH Field pH Figure 18. Field pH vs.Standard pH Units 6/ 4 10.00 /1 9 0. Station 7 Sampling Date 54 9 99 /1 99 9 .00 8. lab pH.00 2.00 6.00 12.

00 10.12. Field pH vs.00 Standard pH Units 8.00 98 99 99 8 9 8 9 99 99 99 99 9/ 19 9/ 19 /1 9 99 8/ 28 /1 9 12 /1 31 /1 20 /1 5/ /1 /1 21 11 12 / 2/ Sam pling Date Figure 19. Station 12. Historic test results from Houghton (1984) and The Curtis Reports (1989-1996) of NO3-N and TP from the five (5) listed stations have been summarized in Table 11 and 12. For comparative purposes. Table 11Comparison: Average NO3-N concentrations (ppm) from historical studies 3/ 9/ 55 7/ .00 4.00 Field pH Lab pH 2. test results provided in this study have also been included in the following tables. Lab pH. respectively.00 6.00 0.

10 44.08 IT-4 & 5 #34 (Upgradient) 2 IT-6 Discharges From BD#15E.27 1.55 0.37 1.51 0.08 14. 26G.94 14.12 7.42 ppm in 1996 in an intermittent stream that flows onto the study site.65 6.00 IT-4 & 5 #34 (Upgradient) 2 IT-6 Discharges From BD#15E.08 Sample Station No.13 8.07 ppm in 1995 and 0.05 8.75 21.10 0.70 1.81 1.31 0.63 1.01 10.00 ppm (less than detection limits) from a total of eight (8) 'run-on' or inflow samples. Although Sample Station #34 identified in this study is in a different geographical location than those identified in The Curtis Reports.44 18.43 0.44 0.42 <1.68 Inflow From Tables 11 and 12.80 0. 4 IT-2 Waterfall Outfall 0.37 0.85 6.12 0.09 0.08 1.28 0.07 0.68 0.11 1.13 1. River #1 1975-1977 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1998-1999 0.51 0.57 4.11 0.00 0.43 0. test results reported an average annual NO3-N concentration of <1.97 6.08 0.78 0.65 0.14 Sample Station No. upgradient or inflow samples in The Curtis Reports (see Sample Stations IT-4 & 5) depicted an average annual NO3-N concentration of 0. 26G. At Station #34.60 0.24 10.65 11.27 13.30 8.38 0.09 1.29 1.92 Table 12 Comparison: Average Phosphate-P concentrations (ppm) from historical studies Date Houghton(OSDA) Curtis Reports Alexander 1 IT-1 Ill.61 0.86 1.79 3 IT-3a Discharge From #8C 0.31 15.40 30.10 0. River #1 1975-1977 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1998-1999 0.47 0.07 0.91 12.53 10. Based on 56 .40 18.29 4 IT-2 Waterfall Outfall 16.29 0.58 6. 3 IT-3a Discharge From #8C 15.Date Houghton(OSDA) Curtis Reports Alexander 1 IT-1 Ill.11 1. five (5) of which were deemed reliable (see Appendix B).56 9.22 32.84 1.45 24.46 0.10 0.10 0. 5B 12.18 1.60 0. Station #34 was nonetheless an upgradient station to the subject property (see Figure 2).44 0.11 1. 5B 0.48 9.15 0.41 0.16 0.

10 ppm and 0. Regarding phosphorus. This finding suggests that the collective efforts to minimize discharges from Greenleaf and others located upgradient of the study site are having a favorable effect on the Illinois River.20 0. As expected.08 ppm. respectively (See Sampling Stations IT-4 & 5 in Table 12).40 0.20 0. the highest average annual concentrations in the Illinois River water occurred in 1989 (see Figure 20).10 NO3-N Phosphorus 0. and other adverse affects.00 1.40 1. Because phosphorus is known to be the limiting factor in aquatic systems and the primary cause for eutrophication.80 NO3-N Concentration (ppm) 1. NO3-N and TP Concentrations in Illinois River annual TP concentration was 0.05 0. For Sample Station #34 described in this study. TP and other dissolved constituents.30 0.00 19751977 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 19981999 0. the average annual TP concentration for 1998-1999 was 0. it was encouraging to discover the lowest TP concentrations occurred in 1998-1999. From the test results summarized in Table 11 and depicted in Figure 20. upgradient or inflow water samples in The Curtis Reports had an average annual TP concentration of 0.00 0.20 1. Illinois River Water from the Illinois River adjacent to the study site has been sampled over time and analyzed for NO3-N.00 Year For NO3-N and TP. From Table 12 and Figure 20.25 0.80 0.38 ppm in 1989.40 0. it appears that no significant changes in NO3-N concentrations has occurred in upgradient or background samples since 1995. the lowest average annual TP concentration in Illinois River water was 0. which coincides with the initiation of significant efforts by the OSDA regarding point 57 TP Concentration (ppm) . Illinois River 2. algal blooms.60 1.these analyses.60 0. the lowest average annual NO3-N concentration of Illinois River water was 0.15 0. and the highest average annual NO3-N concentration was 1.70 ppm in 1975-1977.84 ppm in 1989.07 ppm for the years 1995 and 1996.35 0.08 ppm in 1990 and in 1998-99. while the highest average Figure 20. no apparent or significant change in TP concentrations has occurred in upgradient or background samples since upgradient sampling began in 1995.

Outflow There are three (3) separate outflow stations at the study site that appear to be consistent in both historic and recent studies. has had a favorable affect on minimizing nutrient discharges from this outflow. As seen in Table 11 and Figure 22. perhaps combined with reduction in their use of liquid ammonium nitrate over the past decade (see Table 2).86 ppm in 1991 (see Figure 21). Regarding phosphorus. 1984). the front creek or outflow from the front basin. the designed curbing system that allows storm water to completely bypass BD#7A has been effective in its function and performance. The second lowest average annual TP concentration was 0.79 ppm in 1998-99 as described in this report. and the lowest average annual TP concentration was 0. recent NO3-N and TP test results for the previously identified stations.14 ppm in 1998-99. including: • • • the Waterfall Outfall. 58 . the highest average annual NO3-N concentration in the front creek was 18. current Waterfall Outfall discharge samples. which was obtained in this study by averaging three (3) separate storm water discharges or outflows from the Waterfall Outfall. At the Waterfall Outfall. the highest average annual NO3-N concentration of 32. The front creek is located immediately east of and parallel to State Highway 82 near the front gate of study site. This creek historically and currently receives discharge from the Front Basin (BD#8C).0 ppm per the OSDA Permit. Although considered to be high by current (1999) standards. the average allowable discharge NO3-N concentration of 41. and the collective discharges from various retention basins near the southeast portion of the facility. Based on NO3-N and TP test results of historic vs. Following is a discussion of the historic vs.27 ppm in 1975-77 (Houghton. this value did not exceed. Waterfall Outfall.91 ppm occurred in 1990 (see Table 11 and Figure 21). This suggests that the capture and recycling efforts by Greenleaf.56 ppm in 1995. Front Creek.source and non-point source discharges to the river.31 ppm in 1991. The reduction of these nutrients in the Illinois River over time suggests that the regulatory efforts and oversight of discharges have been successful. resulting in minimizing NO3-N and TP concentrations in storm water discharges from the facility. the highest average annual TP concentration at the Waterfall Outfall was 1. The lowest average annual NO3-N concentration reported was 6. at that time. The lowest average annual NO3-N concentration was 6.

00 5. the 1998-1999 increases in TP and NO3-N concentrations are most likely a result of dirt work and other construction activities in the area. Per the OSDA permit.80 NO3-N Phosphorus 1. Regarding offsite discharges.0 ppm is the maximum discharge allowable NO3-N concentration for a single event (see Table 6). Thus.60 0. NO# and TP Concentration in Waterfall Outfall. which is below the OSDA discharge permit allowable of 1.00 15. and reconstructed by Greenleaf personnel. discharge from the Front Basin (BD#8C) was 10.80 0. and was identified as Station #2 in the Houghton (1984) Report and Station IT-6 in The Curtis Reports (1989-1996). For phosphorus. redesigned.78 ppm was seen in 1998-1999 (see Table 12 and Figure 22).00 1975. It is expected that discharge concentrations of both NO3-N and TP constituents will decrease in the following years now that construction activities are completed and the basin is fully operational. 10.Waterfall Outfall 35. Collective Discharges from Various Retention Basins.40 1. the Front Basin (BD#8C) was completely drained. all storm water discharges sampled in this study that outflow to the historic sample station were averaged.00 2. the highest average annual TP concentration of 0.00 0. Based on one (1) storm water sampling event per this study.00 10. This historic sample station was located immediately north of Sample Station #5 at BD#5B in this report (see Figure 2).20 TP Concentration (ppm) 0.00 NO3-N Concentration (ppm) 25.00 30.40 0. Houghton and OSDA established a sample station in the Corps of Engineer's buffer zone where several outflows from the study site converge near the edge of the Illinois River.0 ppm is the average annual discharge allowable NO3-N concentration and 15.20 1.1989 1977 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 19981999 0.00 Year Figure 21.0 ppm. For comparative purposes.0 ppm. In late 1997 and the first half of 1998. 59 .00 20.60 1.00 1.

00 0.00 0.92 ppm.00 1975-1977 1989 1990 1991 1992 Year 1993 1994 1995 1996 1998-1999 0. #26G.40 8.00 4. the second lowest (see Table 11 and Figure 23).80 Phosphorus 0.00 0.30 0.00 45.00 30. the average NO3N concentration reported in this study was 7.60 0.00 5.00 2. 60 .70 Phosphorus NO3-N Concentration (ppm) 35.30 6. 26G & 5B 50.Front Creek and Discharge From BD#8C (Front Basin) 20.50 0. BD#26G.80 NO3-N 40. NO3-N and TP Concentration in Front Creek and Discharge from BD#8C Based on a collective total of eight (8) outflows from BD#15E.00 15.20 TP Concentration (ppm) 0.00 1975-1977 1989 1990 1991 1992 Year 1993 1994 1995 1996 1998-1999 0.00 25.50 10.00 0.00 Figure 22.27 ppm in 1995.40 0.00 18. and BD#5B.00 14.00 0.10 0. NO3-N and TP Concentrations from BD#15E.70 NO3-N Concentration (ppm) 0.00 Figure 23.10 0.00 16.00 12.60 TP Concentrations (ppm) 0.00 0.00 20. The lowest average annual NO3-N concentration was 4.00 0. and #5B.00 0.20 10. Discharges From BD#15E.90 NO3-N 0.

0% (188/336 x 100) meet the strict acceptance criteria of R2 ≥ 0. The resulting mixes that had a correlation coefficient (R2) greater than or equal to 0. General Discussion The mathematical mixing and evaluation of all possible combinations (123 or 1728) at the site would have been impractical.28 ppm in 1975-1977. there were 188 individual mixing calculations that met the stringent acceptance criteria. On several occasions.0 ppm for TP.0 ppm as stated in the OSDA permit. and the second lowest TP concentration was 0. 12.For phosphorus. The regular sampling events and their corresponding dates that represented storm conditions at the study site included the following: 61 . 7. 1995) 3-analyses mixing routine. Stations 3. the retention basins.1% (2/28 x 100) reported the same final mixture in the mixes that met the acceptance criteria (see Stations 1. Spatial and Temporal Patterns To evaluate the spatial and temporal patterns at the study site. 8.41 ppm in 1996 (see Table 12 and Figure 23). The remaining 36. First. 34. Spatial and Temporal Patterns For Storm Conditions One objective of this study was to determine the spatial and temporal patterns of NO3-N and TP at the facility during storm conditions. only 2 sets or 7. Of the 28 different sets of stations that were mixed. The average annual TP concentration per this study was 0. The difference may be a result of the methodology used in this study to determine an average concentration rather than securing samples directly at the historic location. 188 or 56. and outflows of storm water discharges. 7 and Stations 1. Analytical mixes were performed using the WATEVAL (Hounslow.7% (69/188 x 100) individual mixing calculations represent non-storm conditions. which is below the value of 1.960. Thus. 6.3% (118/188 x 100) occurred during the sampling events that represented storm conditions (see discussion in following subsection). 8. For this study. When a 3-station combination was selected for further evaluation. the acceptable calculations in Appendix E of those stations mixed during storm conditions were reviewed for spatial and temporal patterns. Stations 6. This resulted in the mixing of 336 (28 sets x 12 analyses per set) individual mixtures. Although it is below the permit discharge compliance standards of 1. 34. the lowest TP concentration was 0. including those with suspect data. there were 28 sets of 3-station combinations that were analyzed using the selection criteria described above. Of this. and based on the findings discussed above. Two (2) different methods were used to accomplish that objective. Second. 10). with a final mixture that did not necessarily represent the most logical or expected result.960 are summarized in Appendix E. The remaining 21 sets of stations that were evaluated using the 3-analyses mixing routine reported various and inconsistent final mixtures. The significant degree of mixing and unpredictability of final mixtures is further expected to mask many spatial and temporal patterns at the site that would otherwise be obvious or apparent. it appears that a significant amount of surface water mixing has occurred at the site. the criteria for selecting which samples to mix were based on the logical expectation that a specific mix could occur at the study site from a topographical or hydrological perspective. Of the 336 individual mixtures attempted. 9. a total of 28 different sets of samples were analytically "mixed" in this study. 3. all twelve (12) sample events for that set of stations were mixed. 3. 34 and Stations 7. Five (5) sets reported the same final mixture with one (1) exception (see Stations 2. the 1998-1999 concentration is the highest seen at this station. As seen in Appendix E. As expected. water samples were collected and analyzed during storm conditions from an upgradient station. 119 or 63. Stations 2. 11 in Appendix E). rainfall and storm water discharges occurred during regular sampling events.68 ppm.

#7) and 13% Illinois River water (Sta.• • • • • • • Sample Event #3 on 10/1/98. Except for the Del Ranch Restaurant and Highway 82. In addition to those identified above. 1999. However. represented storm conditions at the study site. 1999. the water contained in BD#17D (Sta. #6) and ~19% of storm water runoff originating from upgradient properties (Sta. #1). and Sample Event #12 on 6/30/99. Sample Event #7 on 1/31/99. the station receives overland flow from the upgradient property. the water contained in BD#26G (Sta. or 58. Storm water discharge samples were collected from one or more retention basins on each date listed above except for sampling event #12. the upgradient property consists of steep. Based on an average of four (4) acceptable mixes. only to discover that discharges from the facility were not occurring. 1998. Sample Event #4 on 11/1/98. this information is an indicator of the efficiency regarding the retention basins and capture and recycle technology in minimizing offsite discharges. 7 out of 12 regular sampling events. Sample Event #5 on 12/1/98. Sample Event #6 on 1/3/99. However.00 ppm) and the average TP concentration was 0. 62 . 1998. On the referenced dates. Over a 12-month period. #6) mathematically consisted of ~87% runoff water that flows into it (Sta. Station #34 was sampled on eight (8) separate occasions. and April 24. Based on an average of three (3) acceptable mixes. there were five (5) other dates when the author made a trip to the facility for the expressed purpose to collect storm water discharge samples.08 ppm. Identified as Station #34 and located near the northwest corner of the facility. 1998. As summarized in Appendix A and B. These dates include August 10. #12) mathematically consisted of ~64% creek runoff water that flows into it (Sta. resulting in a "dry run". #9) mathematically consisted of ~82% water pumped into it from BD#26G (Sta. March 7. the first three analyses are suspect due to excessive cation-to-anion ratios. water contained above the weir in BD#15E (Sta. Thus. Although it is an indirect measurement. Inflow An upgradient sample station was established to provide information on background water quality concentrations. Sample Event #11 on 5/31/99. September 23. the average NO3-N concentration was less than analytical detection limits (<1. Onsite A review of acceptable 3-analyses mixes summarized in Appendix E depict the following onsite patterns during storm conditions: Based on an average of four (4) acceptable mixes. As discussed. #3) and ~36% of water contained in the larger body of water at BD#15E (Sta. water elevations in the retention basins were below their respective spill points and no discharges or overflows occurred. upon arrival at the facility. September 13. undeveloped forestland.3%. storm conditions prevailed and storm water discharge samples were collected for analyses on April 3. 1999. weather reports indicated an approaching frontal system or other favorable conditions for storm conditions. #2). #34). based on five (5) acceptable analyses.

6. 7.0 12. Storm . Figure 24 further depicts the average NO3-N concentrations for those regular stations that were sampled during non-storm conditions. and Non-storm Average NO3-N Concentation for all Sampling Events. 9. #8). 2. Overall. including sample events 1. and 12.0 #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 # 10 Non-St or m Avg St orm Avg # 11 # 12 Overall Avg Non-Storm Avg S a m pl e S t a t i o n N o .0 14. Overall. exclusive of the suspect data (see Appendix B). 63 .0 6. and Non-Storm Averages of NO3-N Concentrations (ppm ) (Exclusive of Suspect Data) Storm Avg 20. 8. 5. Figure 25 depicts the overall annual average of TP concentrations at all sampling stations. 7. the NO3-N concentration at all sampling stations decreased during storm conditions. 8. Storm. 2. including sample events 3. exclusive of the suspect data (see Appendix B).0 0. and 12. It also depicts the average NO3-N concentrations of those regular sample stations that were sampled during storm conditions.0 8.0 18. and 10. It further depicts the average TP concentrations for those regular sample stations that were sampled during non-storm conditions. on those dates that storm conditions were present. water contained in BD#9D (Sta. 4. It also depicts the average TP concentrations for those regular sample stations that were sampled during storm conditions. this finding was expected. and 10. 6. 4.0 2. including sample events 1.Based on an average of four (4) acceptable mixes. Another method used to evaluate the change in NO3-N and TP concentrations in the retention basins over time was a review of the actual test results.0 4. Figure 24 depicts the overall annual average of NO3-N concentrations at all sampling stations. 9. including sample events 3. 11. #3) and ~17% of water contained in BD1H (Sta. Figure 24. rather than reliance upon mathematical calculations. 11. From Figure 24.0 16.0 10. Based on the high solubility of NO3-N in water and its dilution in rainwater and runoff water. 5. #10) mathematically consisted of ~83% creek runoff (Sta.

The first storm water discharge sample was collected from BD#15E on October 1.0 ppm.10 0.50 0. Contrary to the findings depicted in Figure 24 for NO3-N. Of these. Overall.40 0.80 0. Figure 25.90 0. no other spatial or temporal patterns were established for the Illinois River during storm conditions using the 3analyses mixing method. and Non-storm Average TP Concentation for all Sampling Events. NO3-N concentrations onsite were greater than 10.00 #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 # 10 Non. #1) mathematically consisted of ~81% of water contained in BD#17D (Sta. and Station #10 (BD#9D). #34). 9) and ~19% of storm water originating from upgradient properties (Sta. As depicted in Figure 26. Figure 25 depicts several sampling stations that exhibited higher TP concentrations during storm conditions.70 0.60 0.Storm . Due to the tendency for phosphorus to adsorb and chemically bind with solid particles. Another method used to evaluate the change in NO3-N and TP concentrations in discharges from outflows over time was a review of the actual test results. this finding suggests that BD#5B and BD#17D may be more susceptible to total dissolved phosphorus and sediment loading rates during storm events relative to the other basins.St orm Avg St or m Avg # 11 # 12 Overall Avg Non-Storm Avg S a m pl e S t a t i o n N o . rather than reliance upon mathematical calculations. A total of twelve (12) outflow or storm water discharge samples were collected for this study.00 0. Although an emphasis was placed on discharges from BD#15E and BD#26G. These stations include Station #1 (Illinois River). Station #5 (BD#5A). Station #9 (BD#17D).20 0. 1998.30 0. at least one discharge sample was collected and analyzed from each of the five (5) outfalls present at the study site. Overall. Stations #5 (BD#5A) and #9 (BD#17D) exhibited the greatest impact of phosphorus loading during storm events. Storm. and Non-Storm Averages of Total Phosphorus Concentrations (ppm ) (Exclusive of Suspect Data) Storm Avg 1. water in the Illinois River (Sta. Although a total of eight (8) sets of mixes were performed using test results from Station #1. but reduced in concentration as 64 . Outflow A review of acceptable 3-analyses mixes summarized in Appendix E depicted the following outflow pattern during storm conditions: Based on one (1) acceptable mix. on those dates that storm events occurred.

as the surface water elevation rises with increased rainfall and runoff.0 ppm and ~1.36 ppm. the highest NO3-N and TP concentrations were 29. As seen by the storm water graphs in Appendix D. surface water runoff flows over the elevated curb and discharges through the Waterfall Outfall. one storm water discharge that exceeded the maximum limits was from BD#5B (see Figure 27 dated 4-3-99).2 ppm. 65 . By comparing the monthly test results of BD#7A (Station #4) to two (2) separate discharges from the Waterfall Outfall (Storm Water Graphs #6 and #10). most storm water discharge events were below the acceptable limits for NO3-N and TP set by OSDA in the Compliance Agreement. In this discharge event. Prior to the initiation of rainfall on that day. it is apparent that the curbing system used to bypass BD#7A during runoff of storm water has been successful. respectively. A complete set of graphs of storm water discharges is presented in Appendix D in this report. respectively. BD#5B was at or near total capacity and was unable to hold the first flush of the storm event. However. However. However. The curbing system is designed to reroute and capture a storm event's initial flush.0 ppm and 2. NO3N and TP concentrations dropped to ~11.rainfall runoff exceeded the basin's holding capacity and offsite discharge began. within 15 minutes of the first discharge.

6 Concentration of P (ppm) 1 0. Depth of Water over Weir (inches).15 14 13 12 Concentration of NO3-N and K (ppm) 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Runoff (Creek) into BD#15E (1025) Onsite Offsite 0.20" @ 1010) 1040) 1113) 1140) Sam ple Location.25" @ (0.9 0.3 0. and Sam ple Tim e (hrs) Figure 26.85" @ (1.2 Phosphorus 0.5 suspect data 0.45" @ (0.4 Nitrate as N Potassium 0. Storm Water discharge from BD#15E (10-1-98) 66 .7 0.8 0.1 Near pumps at Upstream of BD#15E Weir (1000) (1005) 0 Overflow from Overflow from Overflow from Overflow from T/Weir T/Weir T/Weir T/Weir (0.

Acceptance criteria for the mixing routine included the following: (1) storm water mixtures of the 3 samples selected for analyses must be in the correct geographic or hydrologic order.9 0.2 0.15 14 13 12 Concentration of NO3-N and K (ppm) 11 0. 67 Concentration of P (ppm) 10 0.40" @ 1325) 0 Overflow from T/Weir (0.960 is considered to be stringent. 1995) was used to determine the percent concentrate (C). The following table (Table 13) summarizes only that data that met or exceeded the acceptance criteria. and (2) the correlation coefficient (R2) must be equal to or greater than 0.3 0.75" @ 1355) 2 Sam ple Location. and final mixture (M) of all storm water discharges. As previously discussed. Storm WaterDischarge from BD#5B (4-3-99) The 3-sample analysis subroutine in the WATEVAL program (Hounslow.96. Depth of Water over Weir (inches).6 .7 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Onsite Offsite 0.02" @ 1225) Overflow from T/Weir (0.1 0 Runoff (Creek) into BD#15E (0943) Near pumps Upstream of Overflow at BD#15E Weir from T/Weir (0928) (0932) (0. and Sam ple Tim e (hrs) Figure 27. but was necessary at the study site due to pumping and recycling activities that result in the continuous mixing of surface waters.4 Nitrate as N Potassium Phosphorus 0.02" @ 1255) Overflow from T/Weir (0.8 0.5 0. a correlation coefficient equal to or greater than 0. percent dilute (D).

000 63.739 36.050 53. Storm Water Mixing Using WATEVAL's 3-Sample Analysis Routine Storm Wtr Graph No.966 0.000 50.241 43.000 76.960 0.000 18. Graph #1 Sta.000 36.307 100. & Round 12-3 3-3 2-3 12-3 3-3 30-3 12-3 3-3 31-3 12-3 3-3 32-3 12-3 3-3 33-3 3-5 12-5 30-5 4-7 34-7 60-7 (C) 4/4-3-99 34-9 6/4-3-99 4/4-3-99 34-9 7/4-3-99 1/4-3-99 2/4-3-99 20/4-3-99 1/4-3/99 3/4-3-99 23/4-3-99 11/4-3-99 34-9 13/4-3-99 11/4-3-99 34-9 15/4-3-99 11-11 34-11 B-11 C.466 46.999 0.000 R2 Sample Time 1005 1025 1000 1005 1025 1010 1005 1025 1040 1005 1025 1113 1005 1025 1140 1020 1000 1010 1155 1134 1117 1130 1200 1117 1130 1215 1058 1100 1053 1058 1100 1255 1154 1130 1109 1154 1130 1307 0816 1150 0916 Sample Date 10/1/98 10/1/98 10/1/98 10/1/98 10/1/98 10/1/98 10/1/98 10/1/98 10/1/98 10/1/98 10/1/98 10/1/98 10/1/98 10/1/98 10/1/98 12/1/98 12/1/98 12/1/98 1/31/99 1/31/99 1/31/99 4/3/99 3/28/99 4/3/99 4/3/99 3/28/99 4/3/99 4/3/99 4/3/99 4/3/99 4/3/99 4/3/99 4/3/99 4/3/99 3/28/99 4/3/99 4/3/99 3/28/99 4/3/99 5/31/99 5/31/99 5/31/99 Graph #3 Graph #6 Graph #7 Graph #8 Graph #10 Graph #11 Sample Location Upstream of Weir at BD15E Creek Runoff into BD15E Near pumps of BD15E Upstream of Weir at BD15E Creek Runoff into BD15E Overflow from T/Weir Upstream of Weir at BD15E Creek Runoff into BD15E Overflow from T/Weir Upstream of Weir at BD15E Creek Runoff into BD15E Overflow from T/Weir Upstream of Weir at BD15E Creek Runoff into BD15E Overflow from T/Weir Creek Runoff into BD15E Upstream of Weir at BD15E Underflow from B/Weir In BD7A Run-on from DelRancho Overflow at Waterfall In BD5B Run-on from DelRancho Overflow from BD5B In BD5B Run-on from DelRancho Overflow from BD5B Near pumps at BD15E Creek runoff into BD15E Overflow from T/Weir Near pumps at BD15E Creek runoff into BD15E Overflow from T/Weir In BD7A Run-on from DelRancho Overflow from Waterfall In BD7A Runon from Del Rancho Overflow from Waterfall In BD8C Run-on from DelRancho Overflow at BD8C 0.995 1.566 100. D.358 100.179 6.000 41.117 100.994 0.996 0.424 49.759 100.950 100.305 100.835 100.995 68 .642 48.000 46.000 93.961 0.999 0. or M C D M C D M C D M C D M C D M C D M C D M C D M C D M C D M C D M C D M C D M C D M Percent of Component 36.821 100.074 100.979 0.119 100.695 23.534 100.165 25.000 51.981 0.434 63.978 0.576 100.883 63.926 11.974 0.000 0. No.000 53.693 81.000 88.000 56.261 100.881 58.000 74.Table 13.

Table 14. sizes. Summary of Total Mixtures Attempted vs. It was expected that the concentration of upgradient water would increase over distance and time of travel to the lower retention basins. 1998 and based on an average of five (5) analyses. two (2) onsite flowing creeks. BD#15E BD#15E BD#15E BD#15E BD#26G BD#7A BD#5B BD#15E BD#26G BD#7A BD#8C BD#7A Regarding the results of Graph #1 in Table 13. during a storm event on October1. Spatial and Temporal Patterns for Non-Storm Conditions One objective of this study was to determine the spatial and temporal patterns of NO3-N and TP at the facility during non-storm conditions. The remaining 50% that comprised the concentrate (C) was captured surface water in BD#15E above the weir. Compare the ~28% to its ~19% contribution to BD#17D in other storm events as previously discussed. stormflow characteristics. Evaluations of the study site's spatial and temporal patterns for storm events were difficult to characterize due to many site-specific variables. bypass or flow-through types. differences in basin shapes. specific site operations. 1995). 69 . 14 mixtures or 37. Of those attempted. These and other variables have an adverse affect on the evaluation of system performance and management strategies for a recycling system designed for pollution control. and 58%) in subsequent runoff events that met the acceptance criteria. Such variables include the recycling and continuous mixing of captured water. run-on from Del Rancho) averaged ~28% of the total discharge in lower retention basins based on six (6) storm water mixes.8% met the acceptance criteria. Another interesting relationship from the mathematical mixing of discharge samples in Table 13 was that the concentration of the background water (Station #34. 54%. water samples were regularly collected and analyzed from the source of fresh water (Illinois River). unknown system losses. there were a total of 37 storm water mixtures attempted using the WATEVAL 3-Sample Mixing Routine. Acceptable Mixtures (Storm Water Graphs Only) Storm Water Total Number of Mixtures Graph No. creek runoff was a dilute (D) responsible for ~50% of the offsite discharge over the top of the weir at BD#15E. of Mixtures and % of Total that met acceptance criteria 5 (100%) 0 (0%) 1 (50%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (50%) 2 (33%) 2 (33%) 0 (0%) 2 (50%) 1 (50%) 0 (0%) 14 (37. The creek runoff that discharged over the weir at BD#15E exhibited slightly higher percentages (81%. The test results were then subjected to statistical analyses and evaluation using the WATEVAL 3-Analyses Mixing Routine (Hounslow. and eight (8) retention basins.8%) BD No. To accomplish this objective. From data provided in Table 14. Attempted Graph #1 Graph #2 Graph #3 Graph #4 Graph #5 Graph #6 Graph #7 Graph #8 Graph #9 Graph #10 Graph #11 Graph #12 Total: 5 5 2 2 1 2 6 6 0 4 2 2 37 No. and many others.

the test results that reflect non-storm conditions consist of sample events 1. on those dates that non-storm conditions were present. Based on an average of two (2) acceptable mixes.Based on criteria previously discussed. Other retention basins that exhibited high NO3-N concentrations during nonstorm conditions include irrigation runoff into BD#15E (Station #3). Based on an average of two (2) acceptable mixes. Based on an average of two (2) acceptable mixes. #11) mathematically consisted of ~87% irrigation water in the creek that flows into it (Sta. the water contained in BD#8C (Sta. #7) and ~20% Illinois River water (Sta. BD#8C (Front Basin. Based on an average of two (2) acceptable mixes. Based on an average of two (2) acceptable mixes. #7) and ~42% water that contained in BD#1H (Sta. #1). #7) and ~13% of upgradient or background water (Sta. by pumps) mathematically consisted of ~44% irrigation water in the creek that flows into it (Sta. rather than mathematical calculations. 70 . #1). the water contained in BD#8C (Sta. #34). 2. 9. #11) mathematically consisted of ~83% irrigation water in the creek that flows into it (Sta. irrigation runoff into BD#26G (Station #6). Onsite A review of acceptable 3-analyses mixes summarized in Appendix E depict the following onsite patterns during non-storm conditions: • Based on an average of three (3) acceptable mixes. the water contained in BD#17D (Sta. #3) and ~56% water contained above the weir in BD#15E (Sta. Inflow For non-storm conditions. #34). #6) and ~17% upgradient or background water (Sta. the water contained in BD#26G (Sta. 8. Station #11) exhibited the highest average NO3-N concentration of 18. #6) mathematically consisted of ~88% irrigation water in the creek that flows into it and ~12% upgradient or background water (Sta. #7) and ~52% water in BD#17D (Sta. #12). • • • • • • • Another method used to evaluate the change in NO3-N and TP concentrations in the retention basins was a review of the actual test results. It also depicts the average NO3-N concentrations of those regular stations that were sampled during non-storm conditions. Figure 24 depicts the overall annual average of NO3-N concentrations at all sampling stations. exclusive of the suspect data (see Appendix B).5 ppm. and BD#26G (Station #7). including sample events 1. #2. #6) mathematically consisted of ~80% irrigation water in the creek that flows into it (Sta. 9. For non-storm conditions. Based on an average of five (5) acceptable mixes. and 10. Based on an average of two (2) acceptable mixes. the inflow of surface water from topographically upgradient properties did not occur and overland samples were not obtained from Station #34. #6) mathematically consisted of ~48% irrigation water in the creek that flows into it (Sta. and 10. the water contained in BD#15E (Sta. the water contained in BD#9D (Sta. 8. the water contained in BD#26G (Sta. #7) and ~17% of Illinois River water (Sta. 2. #9). #8). the water contained in BD#26G (Sta. #9) mathematically consisted of ~83% water contained in and pumped from BD#26G (Sta. #10) mathematically consisted of ~58% irrigation water in the creek that flows into it (Sta. #34).

the author believes this is reasonable estimate based on 12 months of personal observations 71 . this discharge from BD#15E did not exceed allowable permit limits (see Storm Water Graph #3 in Appendix D). Thus. The exception was the discovery on December 1. with one exception. including both irrigation water and storm water. and additional engineering analysis on the size. for the expressed purpose of minimizing offsite discharges. since the basins are not prone to offsite discharges during non-storm conditions. the hydrological and chemical objectives regarding the term "effectiveness" are interrelated. without regard to chemical or other interrelated subjects. resulting in offsite discharge from below the weir in BD#15E. Control is accomplished by pumping capture water from one basin that is at or near its holding capacity to another basin that has sufficient freeboard (i. The chemical meaning of effectiveness relates to a retention basin's ability to capture nutrient-rich irrigation tailwater for the expressed purpose of recycling. The determination of the 'hydrologic' effectiveness of a retention basin. this does not represent a threat to the Illinois River. no offsite discharges were observed during non-storm conditions. personal communication. 8. For non-storm conditions. Knowledgeable personnel at Greenleaf have estimated that the retention basins have been 90 to 99% effective in capturing and controlling runoff at the facility. 1998 that the weir at BD#15E had inadvertently been left opened. Rainfall-runoff relations could be examined and stream hydrographs could be prepared to determine what type of storm (i.85 ppm. however. concrete ditches to route surface flows to retention basins. exceeded the scope of this study as it would require stream flow gauges. depth. steep surface slopes. a retention basin is 100% effective if it never overflows. 1999). Calculations by the author for a 24-hour. 9. Irrigation returns in the two creeks (Stations #3 and #7) both exhibited average TP concentrations >0. duration and frequency) has the greatest effect on each specific basin. it is impractical to design a retention basin that can accommodate the peak rate of runoff from the most intense rainstorm ever known or anticipated. constant recording equipment. Although not quantifiable. such as the amount of pumping that occurred at the basin and its resulting surface water elevation. 2-year and 10-year return period storm at the study site support that claim.Figure 25 depicts the overall annual average of TP concentrations at all sampling stations. This. less opportunity to overflow) and/or to potted plants as recycled irrigation. including sample events 1. The hydrological meaning of effectiveness relates to a retention pond's ability to capture and retain surface water.23 ppm. since their design and construction (Morrison. the term "effectiveness" actually has a dual and overlapping meaning. It also depicts the average TP concentrations for those regular sample stations that were sampled during non-storm conditions. including both storm runoff water and irrigation tailwater water. The facility's system of retention basins was designed to capture both irrigation and control storm water runoff. Based on NO3-N results of 3. would be dependent upon other factors. and 10. However. 2. near constant saturation of the surface soils due to irrigation practices. the retention basins at the study site performed as designed and. of course. and geometric shape on each basin. From strictly a hydrologic perspective. this retention basin has an effective storm flow by-pass system as previously discussed and therefore was not of concern. BD#7A (Station #4) exhibited the highest average TP concentration of ~0. could be determined by observing how often a given basin overflows or discharges. This.0 ppm and TP results of 0.e. exclusive of the suspect data (see Appendix B). However.e. and other site-specific conditions. Zero discharge at the study site is an unrealistic goal due to high annual rates precipitation. However. Outflow During this study. according to the United States Department of Agriculture (1982). Effectiveness of Retention Basins As used to describe the retention basins at the study site.90 ppm.

which flows into BD#15E (Stations #2 [by pumps] and #12 [above weir]). BD#26G appears to be less efficient in its ability to remove NO3-N than BD#15E. which is known to minimize mixing of new water with existing water in a basin. The following table (Table 15) summarizes the NO3-N and TP removal efficiencies of BD#15E (for both stations) and BD#26G. However.e. Hartigan (1989) states that properly designed retention basins should remove 30% to 40% of total dissolved nitrogen and 40% to 60% of total dissolved phosphorus. the new water entering a basin displaces some percentage (up to 100%) of the water contained in the basin. Since BD#15E has two (2) sampling stations. Regular monthly samples were collected and analyzed at Station #3. there has been a noted decrease in the use of liquid ammonium nitrate at the facility (see Table 2). 1993). On an annual average. Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service. 1998). the calculations do not reflect the fact that BD#26G receives runoff from the soil mixing area. Using the data collected in this study.6% efficiency for NO3-N removal with the smaller arm of BD#15E.8% efficiency for non-storm and 0% efficiency for storm conditions. the pollutant removal efficiencies for both sample station #2 (at the pumps in the larger body of water) and sample station #12 (in small receiving arm of the basin above the weir) were calculated. it is more often than not that new water entering a basin mixes with water contained in the permanent pool. In support of this statement. enters the basin in a rapid fashion (Urbonas et al. various dates). especially storm water. which flows into BD#26G (Station #6).e.11% pollutant removal efficiency for that station or basin). and the mixing process is more likely to occur when water. A basin's pollutant removal efficiency is the inverse of its difference in concentration (i. Additionally. a 90% difference in NO3-N concentration in a given basin is equivalent to 11. only to discover that overflows or offsite discharges were not occurring. Except for storm conditions. there is a 45. a variable not addressed in this study and one that may have a significant impact on a 72 . Alternatively. and at Station #7. Urbonas et al (1993) also states that it cannot always be assumed that the relatively clean water in the permanent retention basin will be discharged first. Although many facility documents lack the inclusion of water quality and N-P-K analyses (i. the NO3-N removal efficiency is consistently higher for the smaller receiving arm above in the weir (Station #12) in BD#15E than it is for the larger but hydraulically connect body of water (Station #2). 1985. Based on the information provided in Table 15.and numerous trips to the site during storm conditions. The 0% efficiency during storm conditions reflects the occurrence of plug flow of creek runoff water through the smaller arm (above the weir) of BD#15E. This displacement can occur as plug flow. A comparison between the historic versus recent test results of storm water discharges showed a decrease in NO3-N and TP concentrations. with a high of 75. As a retention basin fills with tailwater and/or storm water runoff. two studies were available that reported past test results of the facility (Houghton. and The Curtis Reports. one method to determine a basin's effectiveness or ability to remove inorganic constituents is to compare NO3-N and TP concentrations in the creek runoff water to water contained in the receiving basin. there were several storm water discharges collected and analyzed in this study that depicted a reduction in NO3-N and TP concentrations as discharge first occurred (see discharge graphs of BD#15E in Figure 26 and other storm water graphs in Appendix D). there were a few storm water discharges that depicted higher NO3-N and TP concentrations after mixing and discharge initiated (see discharge graphs of BD#7A in Figure 27). Circular E-951. The pollutant removal efficiency was calculated as the NO3-N and TP concentration reported in the creek water runoff divided by NO3-N and TP concentration reported in the receiving retention basin. However.

2% Basin For phosphorus. changes in the volume of water pumped from basin to basin.8% 5.57 Percent Efficiency 0. and rainfall/runoff amounts. and BD#15E for both storm and non-storm conditions.5% 33. No. there were many site-specific variables that needed to be addressed. The design of the models used a quantitative approach.4% Non-Storm Conditions 17.00 Percent Efficiency 43.50 9.53 Percent Efficiency -17.67 8.6% 34. soilless media. during both storm and non-storm events.2% For Total Phosphorus (ppm) Sta.78 0.00 7. bark.8% -35.56 Percent Efficiency 1. Table 15.75 16.61 0.1% 30.30 11.76 0. The impact of the soil mixing area on BD#15E is not known. For example.60 0. various N-P-K concentrations in the captured water and irrigation tailwater.7% compared to 0. in Microsoft Excel.84 0.0% efficiency with BD#15E.7% 5. NO3-N and TP Removal Efficiencies for Two (2) Retention Basins For Nitrate as N (ppm) Annual Basin Sta.67 11.57 6.73 11.81 0.comparative analyses between the two basins.9% 1.86 0. the author prepared an analytical and interactive model to evaluate N-P-K mixing and dilution in BD#17D.53 0.5% Storm flow 6. there were no existing models that met the objectives or demand requirements for this study. Performance and Management for Pollution Control One objective of this study was to prepare an interactive model capable of evaluating the system performance and management strategies. are capable of evaluating the effects of various flow (Q) and concentration (C) scenarios.45 0. Based on a review of the literature and available computer programs on the modeling of surface water. No.6% -11. The Interactive Model The models.84 0. BD#26G exhibited a calculated efficiency for NO3-N of 5. In order to accomplish this objective. of the retention basins. and other solid materials that wash into BD#26G from the soil mixing area may provide opportunities for the chemical adsorption of dissolved phosphorus that was not present in BD#15E.1% 30. Average #3 15E #12 #2 26G #7 #6 10.3% Storm flow 0.08 Percent Efficiency 31.6% Non-Storm Conditions 0. Thus. However. entitled "Interactive Model of Three Greenleaf Basins".68 0. The variables included but were not limited to inflow from upgradient properties during storm conditions.5% 7.0% -16. These basins were selected because they are considered to be the study site's main retention basins. when an outside source of water is added to a specific basin with a known 73 .60 Percent Efficiency 9.57 7.92 7.20 16. BD#26G exhibited a significantly higher percent of efficiency than BD#15E.61 0. During storm conditions. #3 15E #12 #2 26G #7 #6 Annual Average 0. BD#26G.3% 14. one favorable scenario is that substrate.00 9.

tailwater. pumping from another basin. Although the models are relatively simple and use logical. changing one input parameter will affect other linked cells. they are nonetheless capable of quantifying the effects of stormwater runoff. nitrification-denitrification processes. adsorption of TP. Changes to the final mixture ("m") from different sources (ie. etc. To incorporate these variables. straightforward equations. however.volume and N-P-K concentration. and others. pumped water. analytical data and current volume information are placed in a default summary (see Tables 16 and 17). Concentration and volume inputs from the various sources are then added. The models are not capable of determining unexplainable system losses. By design. a change of N-P-K concentrations occurs in that basin. A final mixture containing a given concentration with a known volume will change based on loading rates (C x Q) from outside sources. would improve the model but increase its complexity and possibly limit its use by Greenleaf personnel. If no water is introduced into a given basin from an outside source (i. loading rates can be calculated by the following equation: Loading Rates = Q x C Where: Q = flow C = concentrations of a particular constituent (12) According to Hounslow (1995) further stated that a mixing fraction can be calculated with any three input concentrations. watershed runoff. infiltration of NO3-N. pumping and other scenarios associated with the facility's main basins. (13) 74 . Hounslow (1995).e. etc). using a zero ("0") as a volume input results in no net change in N-P-K concentrations to that basin. precipitation of inorganic salts.) are additive as shown in the following equation: Cm x Q m = C1 x Q1 + C2 x Q2 Where: Cm = concentration of mixture Qm = flow of mixture C1 = the concentrated solution Q1 = flow of C1 C2 = the dilute solution Q2 = flow of C2 Because the models are both quantitative and interactive. resulting in the calculation of a "Final Mix" for that basin. runoff water. This information is transferred to each specific basin represented by a box with a heavy border. irrigation returns. Such losses can occur from intra-basin pumping.

0 0.75 6078 17D-SW 26G-SW Hub.49 10.0 100 Orig 15.0 0.94 6.0 N (mg/l) P (mg/l) K (mg/l) P (mg/l) K (mg/l) BD# 15E ("SnakePit") 10 Orig 15.9 0. ft) Precipitation (inches) Runoff Coefficient Storm Water Runoff (mgals) #9-2 BD#17D "35MG" 22.0 10% Add 1.75 14. Variables NO3-N (mg/l) P (mg/l) K (mg/l) Current Vol (mgal) Max.97 13.00 0.50 12.0 Add (mgal) from Hub N (mg/l) P (mg/l) K (mg/l) Add (mgal) from SP-SW N (mg/l) BD#26G ("Hub") Add (mgal) from 35 MG N (mg/l) P (mg/l) K (mg/l) Add (mgal) from Hub-SW N (mg/l) P (mg/l) K (mg/l) Add (mgal) from Mixed SP N (mg/l) P (mg/l) K (mg/l) 300 Orig 13.6 0.0 0.97 13.0 10% Add 0.65 3.0 0.9 Mix 21.75 14.65 3.0 0.75 13.0 Mixed SP (Hub + SnakePit Stormwater) 75 . Volume (mgal) Watershed Area (sq.0 0.9 0.3 5% Add 13.0 HUB 15.15E-SW SP35MG-SW SW SW SW = Storm Water 0.75 13.97 13.0 SP-SW 14.9 Mix 14.94 6.0 Mix 20.43 0.0 0.0 1% Add 14.52 12.8 0.000 1 0.9 Mix 13.0 0.000.0 Mix 11.00 10000 11440 #6-2 BD#26G "Hub" 13.9 7.0 1% Add 4.97 13.97 13.000.0 0.75 14.0 500 Orig 22.0 0.75 14.8 0.0 0% Add 13.75 13.0 0.0 10% Add 22.70 3054 13.1 Mix 13.0 0.0 5% Add 14.0 0.75 13.97 13. Interactive Model of 3 Greenleaf Basins: STORM CONDITIONS DEFAULT SUMMARY Sta.51 12.0 500 Orig 22.3 1.00 3000 3752 #2-2 BD#15E 'SnakePit' 15.1 0.Table 16.0 4.9 Mix 14.1 Mix 21.97 13.0 0.9 0.75 14.43 0.8 0.50 12.50 12.1 0.9 0. & Round No.0 0.000.0 300 Orig 13.0 0.000 1 0.0 0.00 7000 7662 8.75 13.94 12.0 30 Orig 13.9 Mix 15.000 1 0.7 0.0 0.75 3740 MIXING SCENARIOS BD #17D ("35 MG") Add (mgal) from 35MG-SW N (mg/l) P (mg/l) K (mg/l) Add (mgal) from Hub (default) N (mg/l) P (mg/l) K (mg/l) Add (mgal) from Hub (Mixed SP) N (mg/l) P (mg/l) K (mg/l) 1000 Orig 22.0 0.00 0.50 12.00 0.50 12.93 12.

Other improvements to the models would be the addition of all retention basins. However. any volume of water from one basin (with its specific N-P-K ratio) can be added to the water in another basin. this addition would increase the complexity of the model. Additionally.The model for Non-Storm Conditions (see Table 17) is capable of calculating a final N-P-K mix in the basin of choice from any combination of irrigation return flow and pumped water from the other basins. 76 . Unlike the model for Storm Conditions. the model for Non-Storm Conditions does not use an estimated watershed area or coefficient of runoff. Data input includes flow and concentration values for irrigation flow or tailwater. because the pumping of water from basin to basin can occur simultaneously with the inflow of irrigation returns. The resulting change of N-P-K concentrations in a basin from the inflow of irrigation return is then calculated. Due to the number of basin pipe interconnections (see Figure 3). and the resulting N-P-K final mixture is calculated. it would be prove useful in the evaluation of each specific basin.

0 10% Add 13.93 12.67 6.67 6.0 26G-IR Hub-IR 1.0 1% Add 13.0 1000 Orig 22.97 13.00 0.97 13.0 1% Add 14.5 Mixed SP (Hub + SnakePit Irrigation Returns) 77 .00 6.2 Mix 21.0 0.0 9% Add 4.75 13.75 13.0 0.9 0. Variables NO3-N (mg/l) P (mg/l) K (mg/l) Current Volume (mgal) Max.54 12.50 12.0 2.64 11.50 12.0 Mix 11.7 Mix 13.44 3.0 0.5 12.8 0.0 10% Add 44.0 0.75 14.75 14.0 10% Add 22.44 3.0 0.0 0.74 13.0 10% Add 14.0 Hub 15.0 0. Volume (mgal) #9-2 #6-2 #2-2 BD#17D "35MG" 22.0 15E-IR 4.0 0. Interactive Model of 3 Greenleaf Basins: NON-STORM CONDITIONS DEFAULT SUMMARY Sta.97 13.52 12.0 0.0 300 Orig 13.4 Mix 14.00 3000 3752 BD#15E 'SnakePit' 15.0 0.1 0.0 6.0 10% Add 1.97 13.Table 17.75 13.00 10000 11440 BD#26G "Hub" 13.97 13.2 0.0 2.0 30 Orig 13.7 Mix 15.74 13.00 7000 7662 17D-IR 35MG-IR 44.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 600 Orig 15.0 Mix 24.0 0.1 0.1 from Hub N (mg/l) P (mg/l) K (mg/l) Add (mgal) from SP-IR N (mg/l) BD#26G ("Hub") Add (mgal) from 35MG N (mg/l) P (mg/l) K (mg/l) Add (mgal) from Hub-IR (only) N (mg/l) P (mg/l) K (mg/l) Add (mgal) from Mixed SP N (mg/l) P (mg/l) K (mg/l) 300 Orig 13.75 14.0 SP-IR 14.0 0.0 0.75 14.50 12.5 0.97 13.5 0.4 Mix 14.3 0.7 Mix 21.0 1000 Orig 22.0 0.50 12. & Round No.0 N (mg/l) P (mg/l) K (mg/l) P (mg/l) K (mg/l) BD# 15E ("SnakePit" or "SP") Add (mgal) 60 Orig 15.5 0.0 SP-IR IR = Irrigation Return (or tailwater) MIXING SCENARIOS BD #17D ("35 MG") Add (mgal) from 35MG-IR N (mg/l) P (mg/l) K (mg/l) Add (mgal) from Hub (default) N (mg/l) P (mg/l) K (mg/l) Add (mgal) from Hub (Mixed SP) N (mg/l) P (mg/l) K (mg/l) 1000 Orig 22.0 0.75 14.1 Mix 13.92 12.0 0.97 13.

and the resulting N-P-K mixture is calculated in the final mix. The resulting change of nutrient N-P-K concentrations from the inflow of storm water runoff is calculated for each basin. the overall performance and validation process of the models could not be specifically determined. fertilization requirements.Based on several runs using actual test data. EPA.84 ppm in the Illinois River occurred in 1989. the test results associated with this study exceeded the minimum standards of quality assurance and are therefore considered to be reliable. However. it is anticipated that the models can be used during both storm and non-storm conditions to easily evaluate various water strategies. Based on final or end mixtures of numerous 3-analyses mixing routines. combined with the collective efforts of Greenleaf and other industries to implement pollution controls and best management practices. and an input coefficient for runoff. Generally. even beneficial. This may be particularly important during springtime months when plant production. in evaluating various onsite management scenarios. while the lowest annual TP concentration of 0. a significant amount of recycling and mixing has occurred at the site. Storm Condition Model The model for Storm Conditions (see Table 16) is capable of calculating a final N-P-K mix in any of the 3 basins from any combination of storm water runoff and pumped water added from the other two basins. any pumped volume of water from one basin with its N-P-K concentration can be added to another basin.08 ppm occurred in this study (1998-99). because Greenleaf determines NO3-N and TP concentrations on a daily basis in many basins. With knowledge of actual pumping volumes and runoff coefficients. A comparison of the facility's historic test results to the test results generated in this study indicated that the highest annual total phosphorus concentration of 1. it is anticipated that the models will be capable. NO3-N and TP in the water behaved as expected based on a literature review of their partitioning coefficients. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The construction of the retention basins and recycling of captured waters is an effective pollution prevention technology and best management practice (BMP) for the nursery industry. Using an estimated watershed area (in sq. The near-continuous mixing of water that occurs at the site has 78 . Although a few excessive cation-to-anion ratios were discovered from mathematical analyses of the inorganic test results. with estimated pumping volumes. input for precipitation (in inches). and other regulatory authorities. Due to the lack of information regarding pumped volumes. This suggests that oversight by the OSDA. thereby minimizing offsite discharges. The storm water model has additional management value as it is capable of determining the amount of freeboard needed to contain the runoff from an individual rainfall event. because the pumping of water between from basin to basin can occur simultaneously with the inflow of storm water runoff. Additionally. and irrigation return volumes. have had a favorable affect on the Illinois River. and rainfall-runoff events are all at a maximum. the total volume of storm water runoff (in thousands of gallons or "mgals") for each basin's specific watershed has been calculated and is shown in the default summary. Knowledge of freeboard will ensure that the first flush of a rainfall event is captured and retained by the basin. Recycling surface water captured in retention basins at the study site has reduced the concentration of N-P-K constituents over time and minimized offsite discharges to adjacent bodies of water during both storm and non-storm conditions. rainfall-runoff coefficients. the models provided very favorable results. ft) for each basin.

water contained in BD#26G (Hub) consisted. Finally. of 16. use and methods of application of various types of fertilizers. BD#15E appears to be performing during both storm and non-storm conditions as expected. It is recommended that BD#5B be enlarged to contain additional water volumes and incorporate a by-pass system with sedimentation basin. BD#5B (Station #5). offers little if any protection to offsite properties during storm events. Additionally. However. Following are additional spatial and temporal patterns regarding these basins. However. BD#26G (Hub) and BD#15E (Snake Pit). Higher NO3-N and TP concentrations were generally seen in the larger body of water of BD#15E (Station #12) relative to the hydraulically connected but smaller arm of the basin (Station #2). it is recommended that water contained in BD#15E be pumped to BD#26G whenever possible. BD#26G exhibited higher removal efficiencies for total phosphorus than BD#15E. stormflow characteristics. a simple interactive model was prepared to evaluate different flow (Q) and concentration (C) scenarios as they specifically relate to three (3) major basins at the study site. since phosphorus is a limiting factor in aquatic systems and has lower discharge limits relative to NO3-N. Also on an annual average. company personnel will have to use their best professional judgment in their use of the models. Although it was designed to be user-friendly.masked many of the spatial and temporal patterns and conditions at the site. Thus. Regarding spatial and temporal patterns that were recognizable. the data indicates that BD#5B presents the greatest potential for offsite adverse impacts of excessive NO3-N and TP concentrations. water in BD#9D consisted of an average annual mixture of 27% water from BD1H added to 73% creek runoff water. on an annual average.5 creek runoff water from its receiving stream. the other concrete basin at the site. The concrete curbing and complete storm water bypass system at BD#7A appears to be functioning as expected. 79 . In addition to the spatial and temporal patterns observed at the site. the water contained in BD#17D was a mixture of 18% inflow from Station #34 (upgradient or inflow) added to 82% of water pumped from BD#26G. Such variables but are not limited to differences in basin shapes. and many others. included BD#17D. an emphasized was placed on the three (3) largest basins. there are many other site-specific variables that made it difficult to evaluate system performance and water management strategies. although water contained in BD#26G typically exhibits slightly higher NO3-N concentrations than water in BD#15E. The water contained in BD#8C (Front Basin) was a mixture of near similar proportions. especially when storm water runoff enters the basin in a rapid fashion. the usefulness of the models is somewhat limited by the lack of flow meters and accurate volume estimates in the basins. while the smaller receiving arm of BD#15E appears to simply transfer its load via plug flow with little mixing to offsite areas. Thus. The analytical model is capable of predicting system performance and evaluating different management strategies at the nursery for both storm and non-storm conditions. Based on the collection and analyses of twelve (12) monthly samples and twelve (12) storm water discharges that included all five (5) facility outfalls. Although all retention basins and storm water outfalls at the facility were evaluated. sizes. Except during storm conditions.5% Illinois River water and 83. specific site operations. by-pass or flowthrough types. especially as they are related to pollution control and watershed management strategies. For both storm and non-storm conditions. The data suggests that BD#26G is more capable of reducing NO3-N concentrations during storm conditions. BD#15E appears to be more efficient than BD#26G in removing NO3-N in the water. which will minimize the opportunity of discharge over the top of the weir during storm conditions.

Perform additional research on the hydrological and surface water aspects at the facility. Although there are a few water wells on the facility. This is expected to be particularly important for phosphorus and other constituents that preferentially partition to solid particles.Research the potential for nutrient migration through the ground water. Knowledge of nutrients in the ground water is one of several components needed to determine the mass balance of NO3-N and TP at the site. It is expected that the data generated from the study could be used to determine the hydrologic equation (Inflow = Outflow ± Changes in Storage) at the site. which is an important factor when determining contaminant loading rates. Although pesticides and herbicides are included in the OSDA Compliance Agreement for the facility. Included in the research should be an analysis of Illinois River hydrographs to determine the base flow. Samples could then be collected and analyzed to determine if the ground water has been adversely affected from nursery activities. 80 . there appears to be limited historic and current information regarding this subject. Perform research on the rates and affects of sedimentation accumulation. Include in the study analyses of degradation products. and other similar equipment. constant recording pressure transducers in the basins that are capable of offsite discharge.RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH Recommendations for future research at Greenleaf Nursery include the following: Study the potential for pesticide and herbicide accumulation at the study site and ascertain their potential for offsite discharge. Information needed to assess the site and perform accurate hydrologic and mass balance calculations could be obtained with constant recording stream flow gauges at all outfalls. additional observation wells could be drilled and installed. This research is expected to be especially relevant for nitrate or other constituents that preferentially partition to the aqueous phase rather than adsorb to soil particles.

American Society of Civil Engineers and Water Pollution Control Federation. Michigan. Ann Arbor Science Publication. 443. Inc. Walter. Diemer. In: Best Management Practices for Agriculture and Silviculture. 1988. Practical Solutions to Water Management Challenges. 29 pp. P. Design and Construction of Sanitary Storm Sewers. Waddell. Maidment. Dietrich.S.J. Watershed Management Strategy Encourages Local Participation. S. pp. No. Anderson. AAN: Columbus. U.html>.. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 97-4151. Report No. Applied Hydrology. Clements. S. 643 pp. P. C. and C.edu/Depts/CoopExt/PUBS/CROPS/ 04709.com/infotrac/session/138/582/28557758w3/21 srn28&bkm_28>. Accuracy of Irrigation Efficiency Estimates. 1990. N. W.. and Biochemical Oxygen Demand. 1998. Piedmont N. R. 1990. USA. Ma. Torres.P.A. 309. 1997.Driver. 1997. 35-56.D. No. and Selected Constituent 81 . American Association of Nurserymen (AAN). 14-16. Loague. The Water Resources Research Institute. and K.Y. Water Reuse Allows Expansion of Commercial Nursery. 19921995. and C. Mays. pp.L.edu/twripubs/WtrSavrs/v2n1/ article-8. and Seepage Losses. D.. Clemmens. Loehr.R.R. Tailwater Recovery for Surface Irrigation. Techniques for Estimation of Storm-runoff Loads. Vol.E. 1. 1995. Conrads. M. Texas.C. Bailey. 1998. Turkey Creek Farms. South Carolina. Undated pamphlet #IMP/689/2000 prepared by AAN: Washington. D.. D.E. Smith.S.W. <http:// web7. Allan. pp. and C. Haith. R. and G. Storm Water Facility Design: Calculating the First Flush. T. Water Resources Research. 449 pp.T. 6. Vol. Pollution Engineering. and T. 380 pp. 9. pp. V. Creager. The Impact of Bans on Watering Landscape Plants. 1979. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. I. 45-48. Chelsea. 3 pp. Unchanneled Catchment. Reading. Broner. Wet Retention Basins: Performance Factors. R. Tasker.E. 37 and WPCF Manual of Practice No. Bras. Final Report presented to the Oklahoma Scenic Rivers Commission Board. MI. R.M. July 1997. <http://www. G. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering.A.C. Concentration-Discharge Relationships in Runoff from a Steep. 33. The Status of Lake Tenkiller. J. 123. Burt. Black. Best Management Practices for Agriculture and Silviculture: An Integrated Overview. and L. McGraw-Hill.html>.colostate. Simulation of Temperature. New York. Watershed Hydrology.L. Burks. 1969. Hydrology. March 1996. Ohio.F. Forsythe and J. Ann Arbor. December 1998.A.T. An Introduction to Hydrologic Science. 211225.W. Chow. 58 pp.. ASCE Manuals and Reports on Engineering Practice No. <http://twri. American Association of Nurserymen (AAN). searchbank. 1997. Ann Arbor Press. Inc. Sedimentation Dynamics. Water Environment & Technology. pp. Albiston. 2nd Ed. Volumes. July 1992. and Dissolved Oxygen in the Cooper and Wando Rivers near Charleston.C. and P. 1996. Martin (Editors). N. A.tamu.C. Nutrients.E.SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY Adams.

Charlottesville. Norman. B. Fetter. and A. 1992. 1989. Relations Between Rational and SCS Runoff Coefficients and Methods. New Jersey.W. and E.W. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. 3rd Ed. No.J. U. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2363. American Public Health Association. Master of Science Thesis.. Applied Hydrogeology. Article in Totally Tenkiller News by the President of the Lake Tenkiller Association. 18th Ed. Prentice Hall. 52-89. Va. Vol. Catchment Conditions. 539-546. 82 . Laurenson. In-House Advertisement/Report of Greenleaf Nursery.M. Hounslow. Vol. pp. NY: CRC Lewis Publishers. Washington. 32. Channel Flow and Catchment Runoff. Ground Water. Clesceri. One of Tenkiller's Good Neighbors. Misconceptions about Efficient Irrigation Technologies and Practices. Ellis. Eng. 691 pp. Water Resources Bulletin. 1994. Heaton. Stormwater Detention Basins and Residential Locational Decisions.. July-August 1994. 19th Ed. G. July 1996. No..C. Clesceri. 95-102. Emmerling-DiNovo. 515-521. 3. A. Houghton. Aust. American Public Health Association. Automatic Calibration of Conceptual Rainfall-Runoff Models: Optimization Algorithms. pp.D. 4. Inst. D. 1997. A.D. OK. C. Edwards. New York.P. 1974.edu/twriconf/ w4tx98/papers/fipps/html>.tamu. Hem. 1995. Graber.L. <http://twri. Yen. Upper Saddle River. S. Fipps. Eaton (Editors). Civ. Eaton (Editors). 1993.H. 31. Washington. Gan. John. Minnesota. French. University of Virginia. D. American Society of Agricultural Engineers (ASAE) Paper No. Investigation of Irrigation Return Flows from Greenleaf Nursery on Tenkiller Reservoir and Midwestern Nursery on the Illinois River. Minneapolis. 111-120. Department of Civil Engineering. Trans. L. NY.Concentrations in Urban Watersheds in the United States. T. pp.. Biftu. 1995. J. Study and Interpretation of the Chemical Characteristics of Natural Water. 69 pp.D. 44 pp.Y.R. and A. pp. Inc. L. Vol. 1989. 1998. C. 3513-3524. 972141 Presented August 10-14. 12. 32. Greenberg.. G. Fritz. American Society of Civil Engineers. D. 4. A Survey of Charge-Balance Errors on Published Analysis of Potable Ground and Surface Waters.S. Water Quality Data. R. Third Ed. United States Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2254. Engrs. New York. pp. and A. pp.. 1995. Experimental Examination of the Rational Method for Small Rural Catchments. S. and G. Analysis and Interpretation. J.W. 1995.C. Environmental Ecology. 606 pp.E. Academic Press. San Diego. Oklahoma University. Water Resources Research. Shannon. 263 pp.. Vol.S.. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. and Model Structure.C. 1996. Jarrett. Pilgrim. Sedimentation Basin Removal Efficiencies for Nitrogen and Phosphorus From Simulated Agricultural Runoff. Freedman. J. pp.D. Basis for Design of Wet Detention Basin BMP's. R. Greenberg. Greenleaf Nursery. 1997 at Minneapolis Convention Center.S.E. 17 pp. No. 2nd Ed. CE16. A. in B. 1984. C. Chapter 4: Brief History of Greenleaf Nursery. Hartigan. ed. Design of Urban Runoff Quality Controls. 397 pp.D.F. 1985. CA.

Matthews. New Storm Water Discharge Regulations Will Have Profound Effects on Industry. 145 pp.A Basic Program Used to Evaluate the Inorganic Constituents of Waters. 17-38. Jones. 33. and T. McCuen. Lewis Publishing/CRC Press. July-August 1996. G.: Englewood Cliffs. Relating Nutrient Discharges From Watersheds to Land Use and Streamflow Variability.H. Inc. CO.. Boca Raton. Water Quality Programs. J. 1991. Prentice-Hall. Prentice-Hall. pp. 2-3. 86. Spring. Jeter.V. Oklahoma.H. New York. Disposal. N.S. Metcalf & Eddy. 1960. SanitasTM Program. and J. pp. Correll. Stillwater. Program disk included in text. R. Water Quality Handbook for Nurseries. Sivapalan. Oklahoma Climatological Survey. and D. 1982. 920 pp. D. August 1998 – July 1999. Flood Estimates: How Good Are They? Water Resources Research.. 11 pp.. 1989. Ltd.. 1995. Report to the Governor of the State of Oklahoma and the Oklahoma Pollution Control Coordinating Board. 8 pp. pp. 42-47. Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service. Norman. Weller.A. Oklahoma Monthly Summaries. Intelligent Decision Technologies.A.E. Inc. N. October 1990. Division of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources.F. Keith. 159S-164S. 1979. Environmental Technology. 1986.W. Inc.W. R.M. 867 pp. W. Oklahoma Conservation Commission. M. Version 7.H. pp. Inc. Printed by Oklahoma Geological Survey. 1993. Longmont.C. 1998. 2nd Ed. pp.E.E. Minshall. Anderson. R. K. 2nd Printing. Regional Nitrogen Budgets and Riverine N and P fluxes for the Drainages to the North Atlantic Ocean: Natural and Human Influences. Roberts. 51-57. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering. Vol. WATEVAL . F. 1979. Water Quality Data. 143 pp. Curtis.. 11. A. Ham. and P. The In-House Compliance Expert.. Analysis and Interpretation. Environmental Sampling and Analysis.Y. L. Branson. Axley. 1994. No. Howarth. S. Jordan. 83 . M. N. 1996.E. Similarity Analysis of Runoff Generation Processes in Real-World Catchments. pp.. McGrawHill. C. 9 (Supplement). Environmental Waste Management Magazine. Hydrologic Analysis and Design. Sarkeys Energy Center. J. pp. and P. 19 pp. Linnet. C. Water Resources Research. Volume 22. 37 pp. Vol..E. Larson. 75-139.0. October 1996. Vol. Illinois River Task Force. Englewood Cliffs. Jr.. Circular E-951. Predicting Storm Runoff on Small Experimental Watersheds. Lindsley.L. Reuse. Achieving Zero Wastewater Discharge. A Guide To Hydrologic Analysis Using SCS Methods. A Practical Guide. J.E. Fognani. Harrison. 2579-2590. 1992. N. Treatment. Water Environment & Technology. McGregor. McCuen. Stormwater Best Management Practices. No. 35. How do We Improve Water Quality in the Illinois River Basin? Final draft. NJ. Coles. Duff. NJ. Marcher. R. Geology and Earth Resources of Oklahoma. T. Wastewater Engineering. December 14. FL. OK. The University of Oklahoma. Biogeochemistry. 1997. Johnson.K.E.R.Hounslow. 1997. Oklahoma State University. W.

Illinois River Irrigation Tailwater Project. Oklahoma State Department of Health State Environmental Laboratory. D. pp. and Oklahoma State University. and I. and S. 1990. A.W. A. 22 No. 120 pp. The Curtis Report. Bridging the Gap Between Flood Research and Design Practice.. Sediment. October 1. Final Report. David Morrison. Vol. March 17. Compliance Agreement for Greenleaf Nursery Co. 1992. May 20. Water Resources Research. 1984. Rackley. Oklahoma Department of Agriculture Plant Industry and Consumer Services. Cooperative "Clean Lakes" Project Phase I Diagnostic and Feasibility Study on Tenkiller Lake. Vice President and Operations Manager with Greenleaf Nursery Company. pp. H. J. 9. 72 pp. 25. 30. 1011-1023. 1993 Supplement.N. Park Hill. and Oklahoma Water Resources Board Water Quality Division. Illinois River Irrigation Tailwater Project. Oklahoma. 54 pp. 1991. Pionke. Flow and Nutrient Export Patterns for an Agricultural Hill-Land Watershed.W. Stillwater. 1996. The Curtis Report. McGraw-Hill. The Curtis Report. 1970. Oklahoma State Department of Agriculture Plant Industry Division. edited by D. 1997.H. 1944. Water Resources Research. 78 pp. 1986. American Geophysical Union Transactions. 292 pp. Cooke. Personal Communication. Park. 30-37. Oklahoma. 914-923. 27. Sponsored by United States Environmental Protection Agency Region VI. S. D.A. The Curtis Report. Pilgrim. with Mr. Oklahoma Department of Agriculture Plant Industry and Consumer Services. April 30. 44 pp. D. No. March 1983. Oklahoma Department of Agriculture Plant Industry and Consumer Services. pp. pp. Oklahoma Water Resources Board. 6.. Cordery. 1996. Volume 12. Water Resources Research. University Center for Water Research. W. 32. 5. H. Illinois River Irrigation Tailwater Project 1989-1992. 1994 Supplement.Oklahoma Department of Agriculture Plant Industry and Consumer Services. and Nutrient Yields. 1994.H.A. August 1993. 58 pp. K. Potter. Pilgrim. Dallas.J. 845-855. Water Resources Bulletin. Hydrological Impacts of Changing Land Management Practices in a Moderate-Sized Agricultural Catchment. No. Title 82 Oklahoma Statute 1415 et al. and R. Travel times and Nonlinearity of Flood Runoff from Tracer Measurements on a Small Watershed. Oklahoma State University. pp. supplement). Pettyjohn. Pilgrim. Piper. The Effect of Irrigation Return Flows on the Illinois River Basin.R.. OK. Illinois River Irrigation Tailwater Project. State of Oklahoma Inter-Agency Publication.42. TX. Vol. 1995. Dunn.1-9. Oklahoma Scenic Rivers Acts. BMP Impacts on Watershed Runoff. White. Flood Runoff. Harnessing Nursery Runoff. pp. Schnabel. May 15. August 1994. W.R. in Handbook of Hydrology.M. Gburek. pp. New York. Vol.B. Mostaghimi. 1795-1804. N.. 1995 Supplement.Y. 165S-176S. 9. 487-496. The Curtis Report. McClellan. pp. Shaprley.W. 1996 Supplement. Water Atlas of Oklahoma. Water Resources Research. Oklahoma State Department of Agriculture Plant Industry Division. 1976. 60 pp. United States Army Corps of Engineers. Maidment.H. and P. Oklahoma Department of Agriculture Plant Industry and Consumer Services. Illinois River Irrigation Tailwater Project. Vol. A Graphical Procedure in the Geochemical Interpretation of Water-Analyses. R. 1996. Vol. 84 . S. 1993. 1997-1999. 2 pp. American Nurseryman.

html> Tao. pp. Stephens. Stillwater. 1993. Can One Gauge the Shape of a Basin? Water Resources Research.: Englewood Cliffs. SNA: Marietta.H. Vol. 1988. Surface Water Quality Management Using a Multiple-Realization Chance Constraint Method. 23-24.A.org. Inc. 1997. September 1992. Published by the American Society of Civil Engineers. July 1997. OK. and L.S. 2781-2798. <http://www. Environmental Waste Management Magazine. Best Management Practices and Detention for Water Quality. Complete Mix. Oklahoma. Lence. Henniker. Skimina.S. 33. Landscape & Irrigation.Impact and Quality Enhancement Technology. 1657-1670. Urbonas. June 1982.L. Water Resources Research. 1982. pp. No. R. B. Prepared in cooperation with Oklahoma Agricultural Experiment Station. Version 7. 1998. Technology Transfer Design Seminar for Small Wastewater Treatment Systems. Nitrification: Plug Flow vs. NY. Complete Mix. Rinaldo. Design. 1994. No. 449 pp. Recycling Water. Watershed protection Techniques. 1998..E. A New Emphasis on Pollution Prevention. Smith. Hydraulic Modeling of a Runoff Recycling System for a Container Nursery. Agriculture Handbook No. Vol.Reaves. Construction. Rodriguez-Iturbe. 35. A. B. R. Oklahoma State University. CO. 1. 1980. D. and B. T.K. B.P.E. Rigon. S. A. EPA. January 1997. New England College. pp. and CSO Management. No.org/wwwboard/plantop/bnr/messages/712.S.wwwboard/plantop/bnr/messages/712. Urbonas. J. 5.A. Sand. Proceedings of an Engineering Foundation Conference. Vogel. C. 51 pp. June 1991. N. 590.Y. 1119-1127. Best Management Practices Guide for Producing Container-Grown Plants. Schwarz. 85 . Vol. June 23-27.A. Vol. Alexander. 69 pp. New Hampshire.0. Stahre. Snoeyink. 1999.Planning. Soil Survey of Cherokee and Delaware Counties.html> Tyaki. 52-57. 968-971. Ponds . Schueler. A Statistical Program prepared by Intelligent Decision Technologies. New York. 1986. May 1999.Y. 2. pp. John Wiley & Sons. <http://www.. First Flush of Stormwater Pollutants Investigated in Texas. 702-724. New York. pp. pp. Department of Agriculture and Soil Conservation Service.B. 4. H. H. Roesner. Water Resources Research. 27. 31. Nutrients. Stormwater. G. U. 463 pp.wef. Water Chemistry. 1986. Reynolds. eds. Limnology and Oceanography. 12. 478 pp. 9. and P.A. Samela. SanitasTM Program. Longmont. Greenleaf Nursery Makes Positive Environmental Impact. GA. and D. 88. U. pp. December 1970.K. Performance and Upgrading of Wastewater Stabilization Ponds. New Jersey. 1997. 33. V. Southern Nurserymen's Association (SNA). No. Nitrification: Plug Flow vs. Urban Runoff Quality . Drainage. No. Seitzinger. Department of Agriculture and Soil Conservation Service.wef. Vol. pp.J. U. and Waste in the Nursery Industry. Vol. G. R. and R. Denitrification in freshwater and Coastal Marine Ecosystems: Ecological and Geochemical Significance.R. Regional Interpretation of Water-Quality Monitoring Data. Jenkins. Master of Science Thesis. LTD. and I. HortScience.. Forte. PTR Prentice-Hall. and A.

D. USEPA. 86 .S. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System – Proposed Regulations for Revision of the Water Pollution Control Program Addressing Storm Water Discharges. April 15. 1986.U. 83 pp. Managing the Plant Pathogen. R. Department of Interior. Washington.O. 47990-48091.C. January 1977. DC. USEPA. EPA Functional Guidelines for Evaluating Inorganics Analysis. pp. USEPA. Dunn.. Phytophthora. 453 pp. U. and 124. Water Quality Handbook for Nurseries. Washington. 68-01-1945. Ott and J. 207 pp.37 pp. 1990. Water Planning Division Office of Water. 90 pp. Prepared for the Hazardous Site Evaluation Division. USEPA. Federal Register. 1988. 40 CFR Parts 122.F. D. Watershed Management Addresses Area Water Quality Issues. prepared by Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service. 1992. Vol. EPA/625/1-88/022. 1998.C. 222. Circular E-951. Quality Assurance Guidelines for Environmental Measurements. D. Federal Register. 27-30.S. S. 50 pp. pp. Vendinello. 7. Various pages. Washington.C. Office of Research and Development. D. Washington.. USEPA. Washington. S. Pollution Engineering. L. 1988. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit: Application Regulations for Storm Water Discharges. EPA Targets Pollution Prevention. Pollution Engineering. Preventive Approaches to Stormwater Management. EPA Document 440-77-001. to Improve Acceptance of Recycling Technology in Ornamental Nurseries. January 1997. 1988b. Final Rule. by the U.C. 123.S. August 1997.. November 1990. Application Regulations for Storm Water Discharges.C.K.Constructed Wetlands and Aquatic Plant Systems for Municipal Wastewater Treatment. EPA 440/5-86-001.S. USEPA. OK. Wagner. USEPA. Section 4. Capturing and Recycling Irrigation Water to Protect Water Supplies.C. 19-20. Vol. Vick. 192 pp.S. The Clean Water Act Turns 25. R. DC. D. Department of Agriculture. Pollution Engineering. Stillwater. pp. USEPA. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit. July 1992. 1998. 55. U. Soil Conservation Service. and Oklahoma State University. May 1. Best Demonstrated Available Technology (BDAT) Background Document. January 9. 82-86. Prepared under Contract No. Hydrology. EPA. pp. 1985. Washington.L. Von Broembsen. Washington. Ch. Bureau of Reclamation. U. 1998. Washington. No. Washington. Design Manual . Prepared by QA/QC Implementation Work Group. U. Final Report of the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program.W. U. E. Division of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources. USEPA. NPDES Storm Water Sampling Guidance Document. 1997.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1983. D.C. EPA 833-B-92-001. National Engineering Handbook. (PR 63 FR 1536).. 1998. EPA Data Review Work Group. Quality Criteria for Water 1986. Master of Science Thesis. DC. Oklahoma State University. EPA/530-SW88-031D. Wilson.S. USEPA. EPA Revised Regulations for New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for storage facilities storing fresh phosphate fertilizers. I.

pp. Oklahoma State University Water Quality Series F-1518. eds. Y. H. 1998. Ben Urbonas and Larry Roesner. Laboratory Procedures Manual for the Soil. Florida.D. June 23-27.B. 1998. S. Vol. Procedures used by OSU Soil. No. 3. Wall. Water. Capturing and Recycling Irrigation Runoff as a Pollution Prevention Measure. 987004. 1998. American Society of Agricultural Engineers (ASAE) Paper No. Kress. OK. presented at ASAE Annual International Meeting in Orlando. Proceedings of an Engineering Foundation Conference.. September 1997.N. von Broembsen. July 11-16. and G. and M. 1986. H. and Forage Analytical Laboratory (SWFAL). Oklahoma State University. pp. and M. 87 . Henniker. S. M.. Pathogen Management in Capture and Recycle Irrigation Systems for Nurseries. Water Resources Research. Benefit-Cost Analysis of Best Management Practices Implemented to Control Nitrate Contamination of Groundwater. Stillwater. 338-350.. Document SWFAL 97-3. S. New Hampshire. and Forage Analytical Laboratory (SWFAL).K. Wilson. 4 pp. 1986. and S. Oklahoma State University Extension Fact Sheet F-2901.L.Wilson. "Design and Effectiveness of Urban Retention Basins. von Broembsen. Yousef.L. 34. Yadav.K. and D. 497-504. S. 1998. Zhang. 4 pp. Johnson. Kress. Smolen. Water. Zhang.

Appendix 7: Plant Pathogen ASAE Paper 7-1 .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Appendix 8: Wilson Plant Pathogen Thesis 8-1 .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Appendix 9: Plant Pathogen Recommendations 9-1 .

and especially in propagation areas. Recycled water should only be used on hardy. For Phytophthorasensitive plants. Plants should be grouped to facilitate irrigation with the appropriate quality of water. Larger retention basins also allow captured runoff should be diluted with fresh or storm water whenever possible to reduce pathogen concentrations. is essential to maintaining low disease levels in nurseries adopting capture and recycle technology. 2. The quality of water with respect to pathogens will differ for water in different components of the system and must be used with this knowledge in mind.Recommendations for the Nursery Industry: Disease Management for Nurseries Using Capture and Recycle Irrigation Systems 1. The upper surface water should not be drawn since motile spores of Phytophthora spp. Water should be drawn from the middle levels of retention basins to avoid pathogens that have settled out. thereby increasing the chances for settling out of pathogens and for natural physical and biological degradation to occur. Routine scouting should be employed so that diseases can be detected early and corrective actions can be taken promptly. established nursery stock. In these ways. Diseased plants should be removed from the system before pathogens can move from infected plants into irrigation runoff. . Retention basins should be large enough to allow longer retention times. The source(s) of water to be used by nurseries should be tested to establish pathogen status. only fresh water that is naturally pathogen-free or water that has been made to be pathogen-free by decontamination should be used. An effective disease management program. nurseries can avoid recycling pathogens in recycled water. which incorporates the most proactive management practices. Irrigation management is a key factor in managing disease in capture and recycle irrigation systems. often congregate there.

Appendix 10: Educational Materials 10-1 .

Occurrence of Phytophthora spp. By the end of the 1997 season. Concentrations of Phytophthora spp. L. in nursery runoff and recycled irrigation water. concentrations averaged >800 and> 900 colony forming units (cfu)/ L. OK 94078.. were recovered from water delivered to production blocks from the lake irrigation source and a large reservoir on only two and three sampling dates. Dept. Although capturing and re-using irrigation runoff from ornamental nurseries prevents nutrient and pesticide pollution of surface waters. Wilson. OK 94078. P. citrophthora. Oklahoma State University. VON BROEMBSEN and S. of Entomology and Plant Pathology.Maintaining plant health while protecting water quality by recycling nursery runoff. P. parasitica. S. Irrigation water was sampled at six sites in a large wholesale ornamental nursery twice monthly during the 1997 growing season. The sampling design was modified for 1998 to reflect this change by sampling monthly at four delivery sites and two runoff sites and by using leaf baits for sampling two retention basins. were determined by passing known volumes of water through 3 urn filters and counting the colonies that developed when filters were inverted and incubated on a selective medium. citricola. . Phytophthora spp. Stillwater. the nursery had implemented a recycling system and was capturing >90% of its irrigation runoff. the potential for increased disease caused by waterborne plant pathogens in recycled water is a major deterrent to adoption of this pollution prevention strategy. Oklahoma State University. Leaf baits were also used for onsite detection of Phytophthora spp. cinnamomi. Stillwater. cyptogea. and P. VON BROEMBSEN. Department of Entomology and Plant Pathology. respectively. and were most useful for sites which had low concentrations. This is quite understandable as there are difficult questions that need to be answered. concentrations for these were 1-2 cfu/L. respectively. Levels of Phytophthora spp. K. The species recovered during the 1997 season were P. Can capture and recycle technology be implemented without increasing pathogens in recycled irrigation water to unacceptable concentrations? At what thresholds do concentrations of pathogens in irrigation water become unacceptable? How can pathogen levels in irrigation systems be measured easily yet effectively? Will stringent decontamination of recycled irrigation water be needed to disinfect captured runoff before re-use on crops? Are there other management practices and decontamination methods that can remove or reduce pathogens without posing additional environmental risks? Studies monitoring Phytophthora spp. S. in decreasing order of abundance. In contrast. in various nursery irrigation systems before and after implementation of capture and recycle systems give some answers to these questions and provide options for assessing. were highest at the four runoff sites for the 4/1 and 7/8 sampling dates. managing and treating irrigation water to prevent increased disease with capture and recycle systems. P.L.

.

.

.

.

.

von Broembsen. in Irrigation Water About This Site: The author of this web site is Sharon L. Acknowledgements: The author thanks Mark Callery for the graphic design and construction of the original site and the U. All other funding for the site and its maintenance comes from the Oklahoma State Cooperative Extension Service of Oklahoma State University. Environmental Protection Agency for funding his input to the site development through a 319 Water Quality Initiative grant.edu. and images on this site are copyright of the author. Disclaimer: The information presented at this site is believed to be accurate.S.htm (1 of 2)10/15/2004 10:28:24 AM .Appendices/Appdx10/capturing_and_recycling_irrigati. graphics. All text.Capturing and Recycling Irrigation Runoff Capturing and Recycling Irrigation Runoff Managing Disease in Recycling Irrigation Systems Monitoring Phytophthora spp. Department of Entomology and Plant Pathology. Oklahoma State University. file:///T|/Research/Water%20Quality/Propst/319/Cap&Recy. corrections and suggestions are welcomed at svonbro@okstate. but the author provides no guarantee to this effect and will not be held liable for consequences of actions taken based on the information... Comments. but this information can be used freely for non-profit educational purposes with acknowledgement of the source.

htm (2 of 2)10/15/2004 10:28:24 AM .Capturing and Recycling Irrigation Runoff file:///T|/Research/Water%20Quality/Propst/319/Cap&Recy.Appendices/Appdx10/capturing_and_recycling_irrigati...

Inc. 1” PVC pipe c. d. Small drainage canal directly behind finishing houses. 5000 gallon fiberglass tank (located in a heated greenhouse about 200 ft. Freezing 3. c. away. Re-use a. Only operating problems have been: 1. Catch Basin a. 4” PVC b. Pick-up a. Any runoff from these areas goes right back into recovery system. . Just a simple system to recover a portion of nursery & greenhouse generated runoff water. 6. b. Open cement drainage channels c. Recycle a. 1.“A Growers Perspective on Water Issues” Charles Shackelford TLC Florist & Greenhouses. French drains inside greenhouses in propagation area b. 2. Algae 2. Catch basin silting-in from storm water runoff. Cartridge type filters b. Containment a. We just designed the recovery system with the capacity to handle any nursery-generated drainage and let storm water go. Routed to outdoor growing areas and groundcover/perennial growing areas. French drain along lower side of nursery stock display area. Corrugated culvert pipe 3. Simple well pump and pressure tank c. Automatic submergible pump b.) 5. Most of this system is located in the main storm water runoff channels. This system probably wouldn’t work if it were not for our clay pan soil. French drains along lower perimeter of greenhouses c. Thoughts a. We have noticed no growing problems using the recycled water. Regular cement septic tank 4.

von Broembsen. L. M. Andrews Greenleaf Nursery July 1998 .Pathogen Management in Capture and Recycle Irrigation Systems for Nurseries S. D. S. W. Smolen Oklahoma State University M. Wilson. K.

Pesticides) Extend the water supply Save money on water and fertilizer Avoid the harassment of environmental agencies Public relations .Why recycle? Pollution control (Nitrogen. Phosphorus.

.

.

pipes. particularly Phytophthora. and management Concern for disease propagation. waterborne fungus Concern for herbicide damage Concern for salt build up .Why not recycle? Expensive--ponds. pumps.

.

Objectives of this study Establish data base on Phytophthora spp. in source water and runoff water before and after recycling Evaluate detection methods for Phytophthora in irrigation water Make recommendations concerning management of pathogens .

Greenleaf Nursery Third or fourth largest containerized ornamental nursery in the country Located on the Illinois River (Oklahoma’s Outstanding Resource Water) Under the gun for pollution prevention .

.

History Since 1990 Greenleaf has operated under a voluntary agreement with Oklahoma Department of Agriculture to keep effluent Nitrate-N below 10 mg/L and effluent Dissolved Inorganic P below 1 mg/L. Oklahoma Department of Agriculture monitors effluent to assure compliance. .

occasional mistakes.History (cont. Recycling technology allows greater flexibility for management. and changes in management make it difficult to meet limits. Stormflow. .) Greenleaf generally meets targets through use of BMPs such as slow-release fertilizers and IPM.

The Capture and Recycle System Main source of water is Lake Tenkiller (up to 3 million gallons /day) Complex topography: 8 basins to capture runoff. 2 receive most of the runoff System of pipes and pumps 1 large (35 M gallon) storage reservoir Offsite water enters at 4 locations .

The Capture and Recycle System
Three downslope ponds (3, 5, and 6) and two small concrete basins capture runoff from most of the nursery. Upslope storage reservoir (basin 4) can supply irrigation water wherever it is needed.

Greenleaf Nursery’s Recycling System
Lake Tenkiller
Concrete tanks

Basin 5 Basin 3 Basin 6

Basin 4

Results

Phytophthora monitoring methods
12 sampling dates in 1997 (March thorough October) 3 sampling dates in 1998

Leaf baits for detection of pathogen
Sensitivity is very high. Can be used to determine presence of the pathogen, but not the number. Rhododendron and lemon leaves were equally effective.

.

.

cinnamomi P. parasitica Area Observed Diseased plants in nursery Diseased plants in nursery Diseased plants in nursery Intermittent streams and pasture Intermittent streams and pasture . Citricola P.Species of Phytophthora Observed in the Nursery Species of Phytophthora P. citrophthora P. cryptogea P.

.

.

.

.

cfu/L x 100 10 0 Runoff Lake Storage 2 4 6 8 Phytophthora in Source and Runoff Water 4/ 1/ 4 / 97 15 4 / /9 7 29 5 / /9 7 13 5 / /9 7 27 6 / /9 7 10 6 / /9 7 24 /9 7/ 7 8/ 7 / 97 22 /9 8/ 7 5/ 8 / 97 19 /9 9/ 7 2/ 9 / 97 16 9 / /9 7 30 /9 7 .

Source water (Lake Tenkiller) was generally free of Phytophthora.Results 1997 (pre-recycling) (pre-recycling) Runoff water was consistently contaminated at levels too high for sensitive plants. Source water (Storage Reservoir) had low levels of Phytophthora. .

.Preliminary Results 1998 (post-recycling) (post-recycling) Phytophthora is present in all recycled water. Level of Phytophthora is too high for sensitive plants.

Managing pathogens (as currently done by Greenleaf) Group Phytophthora-sensitive plants to receive fresh water(not recycled). Disinfect water for the most sensitive areas (plant propagation). Use recycled water only for hardy plants. .

. Design storage basins for optimal settling of Phytophthora (large surface area). Install filtration/disinfection between capture and storage basins.Management options Monitor for presence of Phytophthora. Leaf baits may be appropriate.

Maintain storage volume for stormwater runoff.Management for storm flow Divert flow from outside if possible. . Consume as much recycled water as possible.

Pathogens are present in runoff from all parts of the nursery. . Leaf baits can be effective for detecting presence of pathogen.Conclusions Low levels of plant pathogens are present in “clean” surface water supplies and water flowing in from outside.

Grouping plants with respect to pathogen sensitivity is recommended.Conclusions (cont. .) Plant pathogens may reach detrimental levels in recycling basins (tentative). Plant pathogen management and storm water management may have conflicting objectives.

.

Appendix 11: Capture & Recycle Factsheet 11-1 .

Surface water is not as readily available. Water availability varies from region to region. total phosphorus. The water may be naturally high in salts or other minerals that are not desirable. it must be treated before use on the plants. nurseries can make the public aware that they are actively working toward environmental objectives. and the effects on the Illinois River and Lake Tenkiller if the releases were left uncontrolled. Runoff from nurseries may contain nutrients. can lead to algal blooms and eutrophication of water bodies. irrigation runoff from nursery beds and houses in production areas is collected by a system of channels or ditches leading to retention basins. T For example. water supplies may be plentiful. four Oklahoma nurseries along the Illinois River and Lake Tenkiller entered a voluntary program with the Oklahoma State Department of Agriculture to monitor their effluents on a monthly basis for nitrate-nitrogen. Nurseries are increasingly aware of the effect effluent can have on the environment. such as phosphorus. The public must be educated on what the growers are doing to help protect the environment. the most visible or high profile businesses are held responsible by the public. A positive public perception is important for businesses. By participating in water quality protection programs. This happens to a broad range of industries. in some parts of Texas. Wilson Water Quality Assistant Sharon von Broembsen Extension Plant Pathologist Why Nurseries Capture and Recycle Irrigation Water • • • • • Pollution prevention Reduced water costs Steady water supply Storm water control Greater management flexibility In a capture and recycle system. while in other regions. Capturing and recycling irrigation runoff can eliminate pollution of local water supplies by nurseries. pesticides. If the quality of the water is not suitable. This program. the Illinois River Irrigation Tailwater Project. while pesticides and herbicides can disturb biotic communities. In certain regions. including nurseries. was initiated in 1989 in response to concerns about the irrigation tailwater leaving the nurseries. but high volumes of runoff from nurseries may also occur. Increases in nutrients. The public generally views nurseries as having dangerous chemicals in their runoff which will contaminate water supplies. The project allowed the nurseries to work with the state department to control the quality of runoff water entering the scenic river and lake. and pesticides. water is a limited commodity for growers. and herbicides that can have an adverse impact on ecosystems. so water is pumped from deep wells. the main concern may be a lack of quality water. When an environmental problem arises. For example.Water Quality Series Capturing and Recycling Irrigation Runoff as a Pollution Prevention Measure F-1518 he need for increased control over water availability and water quality while meeting environmental objectives has led many ornamental nurseries to examine the potential of recycling irrigation runoff as a solution. In other regions such as Oregon. Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service • Division of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources • Oklahoma State University . Shanda K. it may be protection of water supplies.

Web site authored by Sharon L. Water can be pumped more cheaply from retention basins at ground level than from deep wells. Recycling has been estimated to conserve 40 to 50 percent of irrigation water in comparison to a system that does not recycle. and on the lower side of the nursery stock display area. Small plastic pipe can be used for moving captured runoff in Benefits of Capture and Recycle In areas where water is scarce. something as simple as a concrete septic tank can be used. other states require that the first one half to one inch of storm water falling on a nursery site be retained. so check with local authorities such as the Oklahoma Department of Agriculture for additional information. the concentrations of pollutants in the early discharge from the nursery could be very high. Web version of the above. retail nurseries may choose to divert storm water from off-site so they are not responsible for it. Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service. Department of Entomology and Plant Pathology. http://agweb. The cost of implementing a system depends on various factors such as the volume of runoff to be captured and topographic features that determine the number of retention basins needed to capture runoff. 1999. 1998. a capture and recycle system is designed with this same concept.or 12-inch pipe that may be necessary for a larger nursery. diluted with fresh water. but on a much smaller scale. If storm water were not retained. Capture and recycle technology began as a strategy to conserve water and to reduce water and energy costs.edu/pearl/e951/ Disease Management for Nurseries Using Recycling Irrigation Systems.comparison to the 10. 38 pp. For retail nurseries and garden centers. along the lower perimeter of the nursery or garden center. von Broembsen. A recycling system may also control storm water. retention basins are designed to retain runoff from the nursery and to collect and hold storm water. Wholesale nurseries that irrigate with large volumes of water have large amounts of runoff to capture and recycle. French drains can be placed in the propagation area. Once irrigation runoff is captured in retention basins. The quantity of water that can be used for irrigation may be limited. Capture and recycle technology began as a strategy to conserve water and to reduce water and energy costs. treated to remove plant pathogens. such as capturing and recycling irrigation runoff. and/or stored for future use. To collect irrigation runoff. Although no storm water retention limits have been set for Oklahoma. water may be recycled to conserve water or to reduce water costs. (Available from the OSU University Mailing Services at 405-7445385). http://zoospore. Water Quality Handbook for Nurseries (E-951). or the water may be expensive to pump from deep aquifers. and increasing regulation have compelled ornamental growers and nurserymen to search for alternative water practices. The water can then be pumped from these retention basins back onto production areas or to a storage basin. But. a capture and recycle system has a network of channels and ditches that capture runoff irrigation water from the nursery beds. Regulations concerning runoff from nurseries and garden centers vary from state to state. Capture and Recycle Constraints on water availability. in an urban setting. In a larger capture and recycle system. 1998. but sometimes the discharge limit is exceeded. Other OSU Publications and Web Sites Water Quality Handbook for Nurseries (E-951). Division of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources.edu/nursery 1518 / 2 . Most rain events do not overflow the retention basins. Instead of large retention basins for holding irrigation runoff. Oklahoma State University. environmental initiatives. Basically. and divert it to basins that retain the water.okstate. any discharge will be diluted by off-site storm water. With careful management of the water levels in retention basins. Oklahoma State University.okstate. it can be recycled directly back onto nursery crops.

Nurseries using overhead irrigation lose a large quantity of this expensive water to runoff. Building retention basins. garden centers and retail nurseries use low volumes of irrigation water and this results in minimal runoff from nursery beds. By making the decision to be proactive in the environment. herbicides. such as Phytophthora spp. Risks of Capture and Recycle Recycling irrigation water has several disadvantages.Quality of the water supply is also a concern. and pesticides. capture and recycle system can be costly. One way of accomplishing a friendly working environment with local communities is by removing themselves from the list of potential polluters of that water resource by implementing a capture and recycle system. channels can be designed to divert storm water around the nursery to avoid mixing with irrigation runoff containing fertilizers. waterways. The motility of the zoospores allow these fungi to locate infection sites on roots. even if the water supply is ample. In comparison to large wholesale nurseries. increas- Onwers of nurseries situated near lakes or rivers need to maintain a positive public perception of their impact on water quality. while more precise application and thoughtful selection of pesticides and herbicides can reduce the total amount present in the system. herbicides. there is more management flexibility in the use of different forms of fertilizers. in scheduling fertilizer applications. An increase in disease would compel nursery managers to consider decontamination. Phytophthora spp. Therefore.. it is possible to save money on water costs by recycling. With a capture and recycle system. Another benefit from recycling is a modest decrease in fertilizer costs due to the recycling of nutrients in the irrigation water. will be recycled back onto crops and result in increased disease problems in the nursery. flocculation to separate suspended particles or salts from water or acidification to reduce pH to levels acceptable for plant culture may increase the cost of water. Some of these costs can be offset by decreased water and fertilizer costs. There is also concern about the buildup of salts. nursery and garden center owners may find themselves responsible for the quality of storm water as it flows across and discharges from their property. including ornamentals. These plant pathogens are known to kill or damage a wide variety of economically important plants. This decreases the chance of contaminating ground water sources with the pollutants in runoff irrigation water. with a capture and recycle system. However. from being released into irrigation runoff. A capture and recycle system is still beneficial for several reasons. In urban locations. The primary disadvantage of the capture and recycle system is the possibility that waterborne pathogens. A high salt content can be solved through dilution with fresh water. their survival in irrigation water. Another problem associated with a capture and recycle system is the distribution of weed seeds that pass through sediment screens. and the effects of the environment on these processes must be understood. nursery ownerrs and managers can initiate good working relationships with state officials and help form a workable set of regulations. but passive movement by water can carry them longer distances and is a very important means of spread. Also. Also. and pesticides in recycled irrigation water. Diseases caused by these waterborne pathogens should not be a limiting factor for growers. 1518 / 3 . The solution to these problems can be found with proper management. and in using certain pesticides in mitigating pest outbreaks. to control the Phytophthora populations. and additional pumping stations to implement a Diseased plants detected during scouting should be removed immediately to prevent waterborne pathogens such as Phytophthora spp. Even a small volume of irrigation runoff with concentrated nutrients can end up in local streams via storm drains. Owners of nurseries situated near lakes or rivers need to maintain a positive public perception of their impact on water quality. their release into runoff. retail nurseries and garden centers can use liners underneath their nursery beds to deter irrigation runoff from infiltrating the soil. produce motile zoospores and most species can also produce other types of spores for survival under extreme conditions. If water quality is poor.

Plants with similar disease sensitivities should be grouped together to allow for this kind of selective irrigation. tion. Resistant cultivars should be selected to replace disease susceptible cultivars in production whenever possible. religion. and ultraviolet light. This publication is printed and issued by Oklahoma State University as authorized by the Dean of the Division of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources and has been prepared and distributed at a cost of $1. Currently. ozone. Executive Order 11246 as amended. 4) limiting the use of recycled water to only less susceptible plant material. in cooperation with the U. ozone. and ultraviolet light. sex. acts of May 8 and June 30. and overall management flexibility is enhanced. Retaining runoff and diluting it with fresh water may reduce pathogen levels low enough to eliminate the need for disinfection. High levels of Phytophthora could warrant disinfection of recycled water from fast turnover retention basins or sumps. Water decontamination equipment can be installed and used in these areas only. an acceptable level of pathogens in irrigation water has not been established. and financial resources. and other federal laws and regulations. Issued in furtherance of Cooperative Extension work. congregate near the upper water surfaces. Stillwater. age. 1518 / 4 . and 5) disinfecting recycled water before reuse on disease sensitive plants. Clearly. Most pathogen propagules settle to the bottom of retained water. Samuel E. established plants. depending on nursery management practices and what crops are produced. Many nurseries have been using recycled water for some time now with no apparent increased adverse effects on the crops. This includes but is not limited to admissions. thereby limiting costs. practices or procedures. such as Phytophthora spp. 3) retaining and diluting captured runoff to reduce or eliminate pathogens.Samples of a nursery’s source of irrigation water. irrigation demands. By pumping water between these two zones. Summary Capture and recycle systems not only protect water resources. but also make good sense from a practical perspective. one treatment process is not going to be applicable to every nursery because of differences in water quantity and quality. only water that has been disinfected or that has been shown to be pathogen free should be used. storm water is controlled more effectively. Water can also be filtered before reuse to remove most pathogens. Water costs are reduced. Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. does not discriminate on the basis of race. they may be low at the point of delivery to crops. of irrigation runoff from different parts of the nursery. If disinfection of recycled water is deemed necessary. in compliance with Title VI and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Studies have shown that although these pathogens are present in high concentrations in runoff water. or status as a veteran in any of its policies. 2) scouting for early detection of disease. Retention basins should therefore be designed so they can be diluted with fresh water before reuse and so that captured runoff can be retained as long as possible to allow for settling and degradation of propagules. These interfering substances must be removed by filtration or other methods before effective disinfection can occur. Although more attention may need to be placed on disease management. containing organic and mineral solids. Routine scouting allows for detection of disease before large-scale outbreaks occur. Oklahoma State University. For disease sensitive plant materials or for propagation. Retention of captured runoff in basins reduces pathogens levels due to natural processes such as settling out and biological and physical degrada- Oklahoma State University. although precautions must be used when handling this potentially dangerous chemical. the water will be lower for all pathogens including Phytophthora spp. Oklahoma.S. Director of Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service. Department of Agriculture. national origin. Flow rate and contact time are crucial elements in the success of these disinfection methods. Recycled water should be used only on hardier. color.000 copies. effective methods of disinfection are available. but motile zoospores of Phytophthora spp. Capturing and recycling irrigation runoff also demonstrates a clear commitment to environmental and water resource protection. 1914. The use of chlorine is the least expensive way to control pathogens. Common disinfection methods include treatment with chlorine. Disease Management with Recycling Systems The most important ways of managing disease in recycling nurseries are 1) cultivating disease resistant cultivars. Nursery tailwater can be quite turbid. Curl. and educational services. This threshold level could vary. this should not be a concern for well managed nurseries. disability. financial aid. ing the cost of recycling substantially.98 for 4. and of recycled water at various points of delivery back onto crops should be taken and analyzed for the presence of plant pathogens.181. which reduce the effectiveness of water treatments such as chlorination. a constant water supply is assured. Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. It is possible that decontamination will only be warranted in specific locations within the nursery. #0000 0599 MSC. but these are costly and require intense management. employment.

Appendix 12: Teaching Module for Horticulture Students 12-1 .

Mike Smolen Tim Propst . Sharon Von Broembsen OSU Plant Pathology OSU Biosystems & Agricultural Engineering Dr. Mike Schnelle Dr.Capture & Recycle Technology: A Pollution Prevention Tool for the Green Industry OSU Horticulture & Landscape Architecture Dr.

which is important for business Water Quality Programs .Capture and Recycle: Goals Conserve water to reduce water and energy costs Increase control over water availability and quality while meeting environmental objectives Promote a positive public perception.

Overview Green Industry Water Quality Issues Capture & Recycle Systems Pollution Prevention Summary Water Quality Programs .

Green Industry Water Quality Issues .

Green Industry: Water Dependent Water Quality Programs .

Green Industry: Where does the water go? Percolates through the greenhouse floor Runs off to a storm drain or the sanitary sewer Runs into a creek Water Quality Programs .

Green Industry: Water Quality Concerns Irrigation Runoff Infiltration Water Quality Programs .

Green Industry: Pollutants Fertilizer: N and P Pesticides – Insecticides – Herbicides – Fungicides Cleaning Supplies & Disinfectants Sediment Water Quality Programs .

Green Industry Pollutants : Fertilizer Algae “blooms” – Reduce water clarity – Reduce dissolved oxygen Nitrate in ground water Water Quality Programs .

Green Industry Pollutants: Pesticides Leach into soil. ground water – Human and environmental health risk – High clean-up costs Insecticides harm aquatic insects – Threatens food chain stability Water Quality Programs .

Green Industry Pollutants: Cleaning Supplies & Disinfectants Hazardous to environment Hazardous to water treatment systems Water Quality Programs .

Green Industry Pollutants: Sediment Nonpoint Source Public Enemy #1 Interrupts aquatic ecosystem processes Clogs drainage – flooding Carries other pollutants with it Water Quality Programs .

Capture & Recycle Systems .

Capture and Recycle: Advantages Pollution prevention Reduced water and energy costs Reduced fertilizer costs Steady water supply Storm water pollution control Greater management flexibility Water Quality Programs .

Capture and Recycle: System Design Irrigation runoff is captured in a network of channels and ditches Irrigation runoff is diverted to retention basins for storage or back onto production areas Water Quality Programs .

) may be recycled onto crops Potential accumulation of pollutants in irrigation water Storm runoff not completely controlled Water Quality Programs .g. Phytophthora spp.Capture and Recycle: Management Concerns Implementation can be costly Water-borne pathogens (e..

Capture and Recycle: Operational Basics Allow collected water to settle before re-use If needed. treat to eliminate pathogens/pesticides before re-use Mix re-cycled water with freshwater to reduce salt concentration if necessary Use freshwater on the most sensitive crops Account for sediment deposition Account for storm events Water Quality Programs .

Pollution Prevention .

Pollution Prevention Water Management Disease Management Nutrient Management Pesticide Management Water Quality Programs .

Water Management .

Water Management: Keys Avoid contamination Limit the amount used Recycle and re-use Water Quality Programs .

Water Management: Protect Your Water Source Examine the casing and construction of wells Test your wells Close and properly seal abandoned wells Water Quality Programs .

then move away from water source to add pesticide or fertilizer Test well water regularly for contamination Water Quality Programs .Water Management: Backflow Prevention Install backflow prevention devices and properly train personnel Ensure someone is near the spray tank during all filling and mixing operations Fill tanks with water first.

Water Management: Limit Use Over-watering leaches fertilizers and pesticides into soil – Reduces product effectiveness – Increases cost Water Quality Programs .

Water Management: Irrigation Management Irrigation Scheduling – Match water use to plant needs Irrigation Efficiency – Drip irrigation Water Quality Programs .

Water Management: Recycle and Reuse Sub-irrigation – Ebb and flow Capture and Recycle Water Quality Programs .

Water Management: Runoff & Storm Water Know all irrigation runoff regulations Learn if water discharge permit required Determine quantity of runoff Compare quality of irrigation & runoff water with water quality standards and regulations Develop plan to manage off-site storm water and runoff from the nursery Water Quality Programs .

What About Plant Pathogens Recycled in the Irrigation Water? Disease Management .

and points of use Water Quality Programs .Disease Management: Determine a Baseline Level Collect water samples at the source. runoff sites.

Disease Management: Determine a Baseline Level Float leaf baits (e.g. rhododendron or lemon leaves) in retention basin Water Quality Programs .

Disease Management: Determine a Baseline Level Obtain soil samples to detect pathogens in production beds Water Quality Programs .

as necessary for sensitive plants Water Quality Programs .Disease Management: Reduce Infection Risk Store and mix captured runoff to promote settling out and dilution of pathogens Draw water from mid-level of retention basins to avoid pathogens at surface and bottom Decontaminate infected water.

Disease Management: Disinfection Methods Retention and Dilution Filtration Ozonation Chlorination Ultraviolet radiation Water Quality Programs .

Disease Management: Manage Infection Risk Group plant types according to their disease susceptibility Know the ‘cleanliness’ of all water sources in the nursery and plan water use accordingly Water Quality Programs .

What About Fertilizers in Capture and Recycle Systems? Nutrient Management .

pH levels. and other nutrients Test irrigation water sources weekly for salt levels. and bicarbonates Water Quality Programs . and determine amount of fertilizer in the water Test field soils annually to account for carry-over of N. P.Nutrient Management: Assess Fertility Needs Monitor N and P in the water.

Nutrient Management: Fertilizer Application Apply only as much as needed Calibrate application equipment Utilize controlled-release fertilizers instead of soluble forms Account for nutrients in the recycled water Water Quality Programs .

Nutrient Management: Good Housekeeping Store chemicals safely (with proper containment for spills) at least 100 ft from water sources Handle chemicals safely Dispose of containers properly Re-use rinsates on labeled crop or as makeup water for labeled mix Dispose of excess concentrate properly Water Quality Programs .

What about Pesticides in a Capture and Recycle System? Integrated Pest Management .

The IPM Approach: Prevention Host Plant Resistance – Produce and market well-adapted resistant species and/or cultivars Inspect Incoming Plants Detect and Monitor Pests – Visual Inspection – Detection and Monitoring Devices Water Quality Programs .

The IPM Approach : Prevention (cont’d) Establish Thresholds for Action – Cosmetic thresholds – Pest abundance thresholds – Economic thresholds Water Quality Programs .

Pesticide Management Water Quality Programs .

Pesticide Management: Before You Apply Discontinue routine spray programs Treat based on action thresholds Know soil type and depth to ground water at site Consider the vulnerability of the site Evaluate the location of water source Develop an emergency action plan to contain pesticide spills Water Quality Programs Water Quality Programs .

Pesticide Management: Pesticide Selection Consider biological controls Utilize ‘softer’ pesticides that are less toxic to the environment Utilize pesticides with the least potential for surface runoff and leaching Utilize pesticides that break down quickly Water Quality Programs .

Pesticide Management: Good Housekeeping Store in a facility with an impermeable floor and no floor drain at least 100 ft from water sources Make sure containers and application equipment do not leak Mix. and store at least 100 ft from spray tank Prevent backflow during mixing Water Quality Programs . handle.

irrigation ditches. etc. streams.Pesticide Management: Application Calibrate all application equipment Read and follow label instructions Leave buffer zones around areas such as wells. that lead to ground or surface water Do not apply when conditions are likely to produce runoff or excessive leaching Do not spray on windy days Water Quality Programs .

or pressure-rinse empty containers .pour rinsate into spray tank Keep records of soil and water tests Water Quality Programs .Pesticide Management: After You Apply Use up excess materials by applying to crop as specified on the label Do not water treated areas immediately after application unless indicated on the label Triple.

Summary .

pesticides.Summary: Green Industry Success of operation depends on water quantity and quality Fertilizers. and pathogens in runoff threaten water quality Protecting water quality now can avoid problems later Water Quality Programs .

Summary: Capture and Recycle Reduces water costs Assures constant water supply Helps control storm water Enhances overall management flexibility and protects the environment Water Quality Programs .

Appendix 13: Water Quality Recycling Manual for Nursery Operators 13-1 .

Capturing and Recycling Irrigation Runoff: A (Practical) Guide for Ornamental Nurseries By S. L. von Broembsen Entomology and Plant Pathology And M. Smolen Biosystems and Agricultural Engineering Oklahoma State University September 2001 . D.

Foremost is the cooperation of Greenleaf Nursery management and staff. Task 600. Heath Sands. and Nikki Charlton.S. Informational support and assistance was provided by the Oklahoma Department of Agriculture. The project was funded primarily by the U. Capture and Recycle Technology for Pollution Prevention in the Nursery Industry.Acknowledgements The Research-Extension-Education project under which this handbook was developed. Additional support is acknowledged from the Oklahoma Agricultural Experiment Station and Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service. benefited from personal and financial contributions of a great many people and agencies. particularly Mark Andrews and David Morrisson. Environmental Protection Agency and Oklahoma Conservation Commission under FY 1996 Section 319(h). Tom Alexander. i . Much of the research base was derived from the thesis and dissertation research of Shanda Wilson.

. 3 Treating Irrigation Water to Control Plant Pathogens ...................................................................... 7 Saving Energy....................................................................................................................................................... 1 Is Recycle Right for You?............................................................... 3 Managing Disease in Recycling Irrigation Systems .................. 5 Design Considerations .............................................................................................................. 21 Chlorine products for treating water ............................................................ 31 Using Plant Baits to Recover Phytophthora spp............ 12 References.................................................................................................................................. 22 Factors affecting activity................................. 9 Managing the Recycle System for Pollution Control .................................. 17 Chapter 5 Treating Irrigation Water to Eliminate Plant Pathogens ................................................... 6 Controlling Storm Water......................................................................... 20 Chlorination .................. 31 ii .......................................... 15 Irrigation Management for Recycling Systems ................................................................................... 7 Reducing Fertilizer Costs.......................................... 7 Saving Water......................................................... 8 Chapter 3 Preventing Pollution and Managing Storm Water ................................................................................. 19 Retention and Dilution..................................................................................... in Irrigation Water ..................................................... 31 Taking Water Samples for Analysis ............ 24 Ozonation................................................................................................ 4 Chapter 2 Designing Capture and Recycle Systems.................................................................................................................................................... 8 Conclusions........................................... 5 Retrofitting versus New Construction ................................................................................................................................... 1 Why have some nurseries adopted capture and recycle technology? ...................................... 4 Appendices................................................................................................................................................................ 6 Storage requirements .................................................................. 23 Adverse effects and health hazards................................................ 13 Chapter 4 Managing Disease in Recycling Systems....................... 9 Managing the Recycle System for Storm Water............................................................................................ 25 Adverse effects and health hazards....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 19 Filtration. i Table of Contents..............................................................Table of Contents Acknowledgements............ 31 Quantitative Recovery of Phytophthora spp.................................. 1 This Handbook.. 15 Summary of Disease Management Recommendations for Nurseries Using Capture and Recycle Technology ............ from Water by Filtration .................................................. ii Chapter 1 Introduction to Capturing and Recycling Irrigation Runoff............... 28 Appendix 1 Monitoring Phytophthora spp.............................................................................. 11 Overall Management Considerations...................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 27 UV Light ...................................... 5 Slope and Drainage Complexity ......................................................................................... 2 Designing Capture and Recycle Systems .......................... 9 Pollutants of concern for nurseries ........ 2 Preventing Pollution and Managing Storm Water ............................................................................

................................. 32 APPENDIX 2 Identification of Phytophthora spp....................................... for Identification............................................................................. 37 Variation for use with small (60 mm) petri plates .........................ELISA Detection Kits ............................Error! Bookmark not defined.................................................................................................. 37 Estimating Zoospore Concentrations Using a Hemacytometer ..... 37 APPENDIX 3............................................................. iii ............................................................................... 35 Basic Procedures for Examining Isolates of Phytophthora spp.......................................................... 36 Axenic Production of Zoospores of Phytophthora spp.... Most Commonly Isolated from Irrigation Water.................. 35 Simplified Key to the Phytophthora spp............................. . 32 Evaluating the Effectiveness of Detection and Recovery Methods in Different Situations............. in Irrigation Water................................... .......................

eliminating return flow completely. Although it is possible to address all these objectives. first consider the alternatives. It may need to be pumped a 1 . many nurseries had adopted capture and recycling systems to deal with other pressing needs even before the current emphasis on environmental protection. For others the most compelling reason has been to assure that an adequate supply of sufficiently high quality water would be available when needed during production. although it may not reduce fertilizer costs. using sensors to apply water when moisture content of containers reaches a certain level. you should then consider your objectives as they affect the design of the recycle system. Specifically is your main purpose: • • • • • • To control pollutant runoff? To control storm water runoff? To save water? To reduce fertilizer costs? To save energy costs? Or all the above If the purpose is to control pollutant runoff. Can you reduce the quantity of runoff by using less water? Can you reduce the quantity of pollutants in the runoff by using less water or changing fertilizer management? Each of these may be less expensive than recycling. Why have some nurseries adopted capture and recycle technology? Although pollution prevention is a highly desirable result of implementing capture and recycle irrigation systems. There are several possible answers that can determine whether to implement a recycle system and what type of system to design. consider that using formulations that release nutrients more slowly This would keep the concentration of nitrogen and phosphorus low in runoff water. If the purpose is to save water. Water costs vary greatly depending on the source. You may be able to reduce water usage by irrigating only when the crop demands it. If these alternatives will not achieve your objective. If the purpose is to save fertilizer. In some cases drip irrigation may be the answer. Water may have to be purchased from an expensive community water supply.Chapter 1 Introduction to Capturing and Recycling Irrigation Runoff Is Recycle Right for You? The first question when considering a capture and recycle system is why do you need it. the most efficient design will be based on the most important objectives. consider alternatives such as more efficient irrigation systems and more precise irrigation scheduling. For some nurseries the most important reason to adopt capture and recycle methods has been that using recycled water can result in major savings on the cost of water.

For example. miscalculations and accidents do happen. acidification or decontamination. restricted or poor quality during drought periods when production need is great. This Handbook Designing Capture and Recycle Systems The design of a system to capture and recycle irrigation water will be different for each nursery. before it can be used for crop production. entailing high electrical costs for pumping. Source water may require treatment. e. Some nurseries faced with tightly managing nutrients and pesticides to keep these constantly below effluent limits have switched to the capture and recycle strategy. energy. Some of these costs can be recovered through savings in water. Nurseries implementing a capture and recycle system in an existing nursery may choose to phase in the installation process over a period of years. There are several potential disadvantages to the capture and recycle strategy. with the inevitable learning curve of any new technology. a correspondingly larger and more complex system will be needed. This allows more flexibility in the use of different forms of fertilizers for different stages of plant growth. Different parts of a nursery may be placed under the capture and recycle approach. Capturing storm water and irrigation runoff and storing it for later use is advantageous in these situations. very simple and relatively inexpensive capture and recycle systems can be used. All these factors contribute to the final cost of irrigation water and for many production systems a significant portion of that cost is lost when runoff leaves the nursery. and in meeting emergencies such as disease outbreaks. For larger nurseries. filtration. starting with those that lend themselves to this most easily or those with the most serious water quality problems. soluble fertilizers can be used for propagation and for pushing the growth of certain crops and slow release fertilizers can be used at higher levels without concern about spikes of nutrients in effluents. in scheduling applications. There has been some fear that recycled herbicides could damage sensitive crops. particularly with regard to pesticides. but sites 2 . Capture and recycle acts as a safety net. Likewise. the most reliable pollution control can be achieved by capturing and recycling runoff. A nursery with only one drainage may only need one retention basin. and fertilizer costs. but this has been shown to be avoidable with proper management. Most nurseries have found it difficult not to exceed the discharge limits occasionally. In this way potential contaminants are totally contained on site. buildup of salts in recycled water can be effectively managed by dilution with fresh water if this becomes a problem. There will also be new types of management skills needed to manage a recycling system. In such cases. By phasing in capture and recycle technology. Some nurseries have found that certain pollution prevention practices do not fit their production methods.g. The most obvious is the cost of retention basins. Water supplies may be unavailable. mistakes. storage ponds and additional pumping capacity.significant distance from underground or surface supplies. by flocculation. Some nurseries cannot be sure they will be able to acquire enough good quality water for their needs at any cost. For retail nurseries and garden centers that have small volumes of irrigation runoff. the capital outlay can be spread out over a number of years and adjustments in management practices made gradually.

Most rain events do not produce enough storm water to exceed these retention limits and so do not result in discharge. particularly if it receives drainage from off site. transport. Discharge of storm water is governed by a different set of permitting regulations than for the normal day-to-day runoff from irrigation. Although no statewide standards have been set for nursery effluents so far. Chapter 4. and utilize the recycled water. This program was very successful: the cooperating nurseries made the management changes necessary to achieve the target levels and have shown the public that they are doing their part toward protecting water quality in this region. Since 1990 the Oklahoma Department of Agriculture has been monitoring nutrients and pesticides in runoff from ornamental nurseries in the Illinois River Basin (an Oklahoma designated Scenic River) to establish baselines for nursery effluents. the concentration of pollutants in discharged water is usually much lower than in normal irrigation runoff because off-site runoff is generally lower concentrations. more importantly. channels. On the other hand. During storm events retention basins may not be able to retain all the runoff from a nursery site. Provision should be made to hold a certain minimal amount of storm water before discharge occurs. And. Although no retention limits have been set for Oklahoma. Preventing Pollution and Managing Storm Water The runoff standards that nurseries must meet vary with geographic location. Will water-borne pathogens be recycled back onto crops increasing disease problems and forcing nurseries to decontaminate the water? Studies have shown plant pathogenic fungi such as Phytophthora and Pythium spp.with complex topography will require more basins. Managing Disease in Recycling Irrigation Systems The possibility of water-borne disease is always a concern when considering a capture and recycle strategy. it has also been working with these nurseries to reduce effluent contamination to acceptable levels via a voluntary compliance program. many nurseries have been recycling irrigation water for years without decontaminating and have not experienced increased disease problems. Consult Chapter 2. other states require that ½ to 1 inch of storm water is retained before discharging. Chapter 3. it is easy to see why some growers feel compelled to decontaminate recycled irrigation water before reuse. Managing Disease in Recycling Irrigation Systems discusses the disease issue and shows that nurseries with effective disease management programs. a lot of dilution occurs. and pumps to capture. The question of whether or not to treat recycled water persists. After this initial phase. 3 . the Illinois River Basin studies would allow realistic levels to be set for Oklahoma nurseries in the future. Preventing Pollution and Managing Storm Water gives more attention to these important issues. Those located near outstanding resource waters or near large population centers are likely to bear the most scrutiny. in nursery runoff water at relatively high concentrations. however. Designing Capture and Recycle Systems for a further discussion. As there are no scientifically derived thresholds for of pathogen level. This is important because the pollutant levels in the first flush of storm water through a system can be high. and some studies have found these pathogens at the point of delivery to crops.

sufficient retention time and/or dilution have no increased risk from implementating a recycling system. This chapter recommends increasing the frequency of scouting of problem crops to give managers confidence in the system during the transition to the new technology. Research has shown that the levels of pathogens such as Phytophthora spp. can be greatly reduced by proper handling of captured runoff collected in retention basins.
Treating Irrigation Water to Control Plant Pathogens

More stringent methods of decontaminating irrigation water are fully discussed in Chapter 5. Treating Irrigation Water to Eliminate Plant Pathogens. A guide to methods for determining whether and to what extent Phytophthora spp. are present in irrigation water can be found in
Appendices

Appendix 1: Monitoring Phytophthora spp. in Irrigation Water. This should prove useful to horticulturists and plant pathologists advising nurseries with capture and recycle irrigation systems. Appendix 2: BMPs for Nurseries and Greenhouses presents a set of management practices a greenhouse or nursery can implement to pollution

4

Chapter 2 Designing Capture and Recycle Systems
Retrofitting versus New Construction

It is often a challenge to design a capture and recycle system for an existing nursery. Most nurseries are designed (or have evolved) to remove excess water as quickly and efficiently as possible, and seldom has space been reserved for capture and storage of runoff. Space is generally a premium. Retrofitting could, therefore, require drastic changes and expense to close the points where water leaves the property, divert water to sumps or capture basins, and pump water to storage and distribution systems. Storage ponds may require changes in location of plant beds or even purchase of additional land. Since a nursery may have many different outlets at different elevations, the system can be very complex. Installing capture and recycle on a new site, on the other hand, would be much more straightforward. A new nursery could be laid out to minimize the number of capture basins, minimize the length of channels and pipes, and optimize the pumps and use gravity as much as possible to transfer water. The design of a capture and recycle system is far simpler in a small operation, like a retail nursery or garden center than for a large production nursery. The difference is a function of the amount of water to be handled. Small operations with hand watering can implement capture and recycle at relatively low cost. A large production nursery with sprinkler irrigation, on the other hand, would require extensive engineering. The complexity of a capture and recycle system is dictated by the complexity and slope of the drainage area. If the area is dissected into several distinct drainages, a complex system of collection basins, storage ponds, diversion channels, pumps, and pipes will be needed. Sites with a single major drainage and low slopes could recycle with as few as one capture/storage basin, designed large enough to meet all detention and storage needs. A site with multiple drainages, on the other hand, could require numerous collection basins or sumps and one or more storage basins, with channels, pipes, and pumping systems to move water among the components.
Design Considerations

How much water must be handled? The size and complexity of a capture and recycle system will be directly related to the amount of water it must handle. An operation that uses hand watering or water saving practices like drip irrigation can design a relatively simple system to capture and recycle excess irrigation water, or Process Water. A retail garden center in Oklahoma City recycles its small amount of process water to assure compliance with the City’s storm water rules. They divert water from greenhouses and outdoor plant holding areas through a concrete channel to an underground capture tank (actually a septic tank). When the capture tank is full, a float valve starts a pump to transfer water to a fiberglass storage tank where it is mixed with fresh water and used to water outdoor plants. The system is designed to capture process water and to bypass storm water, the much larger volume of runoff that flows through the property during natural rainfall.

5

A large production nursery with overhead sprinkler irrigation has a much bigger problem capturing and recycling its process water than the garden center. Under sprinkler irrigation it is not unusual for 35 to 50 percent of the irrigation water to runoff, requiring large capture basins, channels, storage basins, pipes, and pumps to capture and recycle its process water.
Slope and Drainage Complexity

If the area is steep and slopes are complex, capturing and recycling process water can be particularly difficult. Each separate drainage area requires its own collection basin or sump with pipes, pumps, and channels to move the water around. In addition to the high capital cost to construct the system, there will be continuing expense for pumping water from basin to basin to meet irrigation demand or to assure volume to capture storm water. Design for a nursery in a flat area can be simpler, requiring fewer basins, pipes, pumps and channels. In the extreme, where there is virtually no slope, the biggest challenge may be removal of storm water when a large rainfall event occurs. This could require high capacity pumps to remove excess storm water to protect production areas, channels, dams, and retention facilities.
Storage requirements

The simplest system would be designed to capture only process water, bypassing storm water. The more efficient the watering system, the less capacity would be required. The recycle basin could be designed also to capture storm water for pollution control or to gain fresh water at low cost. A large storage basin could be used to store water pumped from the primary water source during periods of lower energy cost. If the system is designed only large enough to capture and re-use process water, i.e. without excess storage capacity, treatment such as filtration and/or disinfection would be recommended to reduce the propagation of waterborne plant disease. Adding storage capacity reduces or eliminates the need for disinfection, because as shown by Von Broembsen et al. (2001) dilution, and detention time can significantly reduce the viability of Phytophthora zoospores. Detention time of about 48 hours may be sufficient to control the transmission of this pathogen. Detention time, which is approximately the same as hydraulic residence time, can be translated directly into the size of the recycle basin. Thus, increasing storage capacity and/or diluting with fresh water can replace the need for disinfection. Hydraulic residence time is the ratio of Storage Capacity to Pumping Rate. In other words, if storage capacity is 4 million gallons and the pumping rate is 1 million gallons per day, the hydraulic residence time is approximately 4 days. [4 million gallons divided by 1 million gallons/day = 4 days]. Actual detention time may be shorter than hydraulic residence time, however, if there is short-circuiting in the recycle basin. For example, if the inlet to the basin is near the pump intake, water, pathogens, and other materials may take a short path through the basin, not allowing the full detention time. The shape of the basin should, therefore, be designed to minimize short-circuiting.

6

Controlling Storm Water

The quantity of storm water is the biggest problem in designing a capture system. Storing one-half inch of runoff requires 1800 ft3 or 13,600 gallons capacity for each acre of watershed. A 500-acre watershed would require 900,000 ft3 (6.8 million gallons), or a 2.1-acre lake, 10 ft deep, just to capture one-half inch of storm water runoff. This is further complicated by the fact that part of the watershed may be outside the boundaries of the nursery, requiring the nursery to install a massive diversion channel or construct extra storage capacity to deal with the off-site runoff. The retail garden center in Oklahoma City, used as an example above, occupies about two acres, but receives runoff from a much larger watershed, including streets and parking lots from adjacent businesses. Further, there is no land through which the off-site storm water runoff can be diverted. A storm-water capture-system for this nursery would not be feasible because it would take as much land as the existing nursery. In a 600-acre production nursery in Eastern Oklahoma, capturing storm water presents a different set of problem and some benefits. The complete watershed, including the nursery, is about 1100 acres. They would require about 5 acres of detention ponds just to capture one-half inch of storm water. Capturing this storm water, however, can save the nursery on pumping costs because this water is at a higher elevation than the lake from which they normally pump. The problem is one of designing the system to bypass most of the storm water, retaining only what is needed for dilution and irrigation supply.
Saving Water

The only water that can be saved in a recycling system is that which was wasted initially. Many times reducing water use, with more efficient irrigation, may be cheaper than construction and operation of a capture and recycle system. The design of a water-saving capture and recycle system requires that ponds and channels be paved or lined to reduce seepage, and measures be employed to control evaporation losses. Re-using the runoff water can then reduce water consumption. Further, any storm water captured during rainfall events reduces the amount of water that must be pumped from the source.
Reducing Fertilizer Costs

As with saving water, the most effective means of saving fertilizer is (1) to reduce inputs and (2) to reduce the leaching from plant containers. Use of slow-release formulations and voiding excess watering are particularly effective for reducing leaching. Even with careful control of fertilizer amount and leaching, however, there is always some leakage of nitrate, in particular, and a recycle basin can be an effective way to recapture and reuse the fertilizer. To reduce fertilizer use through recycling, the amount of N in the recycled water must be considered as part of the fertilizer requirement of the crop. Depending on the type of fertilizer management that is used, nitrate concentration can vary from a few parts per million (ppm) to as much as 40 to 50 ppm. At 50 ppm each 1000 gallons contains 0.417 lb of Nitrogen. Replacing part of the fertilizer with the amount in the irrigation water can result in significant reduction of fertilizer inputs. In addition, controlling the 7

fertilizer input to the plant is the only means of keeping the concentration at a reasonable level in the recycle basin.
Saving Energy

The recycle system offers opportunities to reduce energy costs. Filling the storage basins of the nursery during times off peak demand can save considerably in some areas. The large production nursery in Eastern Oklahoma, which can store about 20 million gallons (a 10-day supply) can stop using its big pumps which supply water from the lowest point in the nursery, and use smaller pumps to water from their storage basin to the crop. The big pumps would then be used to refill the capture and recycle ponds during the night and other off-peak times. Conclusions A capture and recycling system requires a major investment of capital. Although there are management practices and irrigation systems that can achieve most of the benefits in terms of pollution control, water savings, fertilizer savings, and energy savings, only the capture and recycle system combines them all. In addition the capture and recycle system allows flexibility to accommodates spills and other accidental problems. In flat topography, a single, large capture/storage basin may be sufficient. In steeper more complex terrain, however, multiple basins, separating the functions of capture and storage will be required. Capturing storm water can be expensive, particularly for small facilities in urban situations. Where land is available, however, capturing storm water can present an opportunity to recoup some costs through water and energy savings. Finally, the design of a capture and recycle system may be fairly simple for a small nursery that uses hand watering, but for a large nursery the design can become very complex. The larger system should be designed and optimized by professional engineers, with the objective of capturing and recycling all irrigation return flow, and saving fertilizer, water, and energy costs. Nurseries retrofitting to capture and recycle may choose to phase in a system over a period of years. Different parts of a nursery may be placed under a capture and recycle system gradually, starting with those areas that are most easily adapted. By phasing in capture and recycle system, the capital outlay can be spread out over a number of years and adjustments in management practices made gradually.

8

Chapter 3 Preventing Pollution and Managing Storm Water
Pollutants of concern for nurseries

The primary pollutants from nurseries are nitrate, phosphate, sediment, and pesticides. nitrate and phosphate are typical plant nutrients that normally are in short supply in the environment. When they are released to an external water body, a lake or stream, they stimulate growth of algae causing disagreeable conditions, taste and odor problems, and occasionally fish kills. Herbicides and insecticides tend to disrupt the aquatic ecosystem, changing the composition of aquatic plant and macroinvertebrate communities. Sediment, from erosion on the nursery is likely to be more of a problem on-site than in the receiving waters, although off-site problems should always be considered. Erosion on the nursery creates gulleys, and the eroded material, or sediment, fills water retention basins, blocks channels, and pollutes the off-site receiving waters. Runoff from a Nursery is classified as either Process Water or Storm Water. Process water, often referred to as tailwater or irrigation return flow, is the water that runs off from watering plants. If runoff leaves the nursery, it is referred to as effluent. Storm water is runoff generated from rainfall or snowmelt. The problem of capturing process water is different from that of controlling storm water runoff. Unlike storm water, process water runoff is limited in quantity, always less than the amount applied as irrigation. Therefore, a system of channels and basins can be designed to capture and recycle all the process water. Capturing all the storm water runoff, on the other hand, would be very difficult. Storm water runoff varies in quantity depending on the magnitude of rain or snow received in the watershed and the condition of the surface. Wet or frozen soils produce more runoff than hot, dry soils, and pavement produces more runoff than soil or gravel surfaces. In addition, storm water may come in from watershed areas outside the nursery. Thus, capturing all the storm water would require a very large, expensive basin that would be empty most of the time. The general approach to preventing pollution from nurseries is to capture and recycle all the process water runoff and retain and use as much storm water runoff as is practical. Release of water (effluent) should only occur under storm-flow conditions, when system capacity is exceeded by storm water runoff.
Managing the Recycle System for Pollution Control

Pollutant concentration in the recycle basin is determined by the quality of runoff water it captures and the amount of dilution with fresh water or storm water. Use of BMPs (Best Management Practices) such as using slow release fertilizer in plant containers instead of fertigation, or using practices that reduce the amount of runoff, can keep the concentration of nitrate and phosphate under control (Oklahoma Cooperative Extension. 1999.) A review of BMPs for nurseries and greenhouses is presented in the Appendix. Tables 1 and 2 show the reduction in nitrate-N and phosphate-P concentrations in nursery effluent resulting from BMPs implemented in 1992 at a large containerized nursery.

9

Table 1 Average NO3-N concentrations (ppm) from historical studies NO3-N (ppm) in discharge from nursery Date 1989
1

Effluent #1 30.22 32.91 12.05 8.58 6.24 10.53 10.13 8.65
2

Effluent # 2 18.08 14.44 18.31 15.65 11.85 6.97 6.56 9.01 6.14

Effluent #3 44.75 21.45 24.94 14.48 9.30 8.57 4.27 13.12 10.00

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1998-1999
1 2

1.29

1989-1996 data from ODA 1998-1999 data from Alexander

Table 2 Average phosphate-P concentrations (ppm) from historical studies Phosphate-P (ppm) in discharge from nursery Date 1989
1

Effluent #1 1.63 1.11 1.86 1.13 1.09 1.37 1.29 0.80
2

Effluent # 2 0.37 0.55 0.65 0.46 0.61 0.43 0.68 0.51 0.78

Effluent #3 0.43 0.47 0.60 0.44 0.60 0.44 0.51 0.41 0.68

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1998-1999
1 2

0.79

1989-1996 data from ODA 1998-1999 data from Alexander

The concentration of nitrate and phosphate in the recycle basin can be controlled by using BMPs to manage the quality of runoff or by adding clean dilution water. Figures 1 and 2 show the concentrations of nitrate-N and Orthophosphate-P in process water runoff, recycle basins, and discharge from the nursery over a twelve-month period at a large containerized nursery. Figure 1 shows that the concentration of nitrate-N in the recycle basins does not build up, but follows the concentration in runoff. A recycle basin affects phosphate-P concentration more than it affects nitrate-N concentration. Figure 2 shows that phosphate-P concentration is typically lower in ponds than in runoff, and lower yet in the effluent. In addition the P concentration seems to follow the rainfall pattern, with phosphate-P increasing with increasing rainfall amount.

10

Pollution control from recycling in a nursery can be substantial. A nursery, without recycling, that pumps 1 million gallons per day would lose about 37 lb of nitrateN and 3.7 lb of phosphate-P in runoff, even if they employ BMPs. With recycling, these

1.4 1.2 Phosphate-P (ppm) 1.0 0.8 rainfall amount recycle basin runoff effluent

12

10

6 0.6 4 0.4 0.2 0.0
8/ 4/ 19 98 9/ 3/ 19 98 10 /1 /1 99 11 8 /1 /1 99 12 8 /1 /1 99 8 1/ 3/ 19 9 1/ 31 9 /1 99 2/ 28 9 /1 99 3/ 28 9 /1 99 9 5/ 2/ 19 9 5/ 31 9 /1 99 6/ 30 9 /1 99 9

2

0

Sampling Date

Figure 1 Phosphate-P in process water runoff, capture ponds, and effluent from nursery.

losses would be eliminated. Losses would only occur when a large storm exceeds the capacity of the retention basin.
Managing the Recycle System for Storm Water

A storm water control system is generally designed to provide storage for the first onehalf inch, or at most one inch of runoff. You can determine how much storage volume is needed by multiplying the watershed area in acres times the number of inches of runoff, then converting to useful units such as acre-feet, cubic feet, or gallons. For example, for a 100-acre watershed, one half inch of runoff would require 50 acre-inches [100 acres x ½ inch], or 4.17 acre-feet [50 acre-inches/12 inches per foot] of storage. Storage for one inch of runoff would take twice as much space. A one-acre recycle pond on a 100-acre nursery would require about 4 feet of empty volume (or freeboard) to capture one-half inch of storm water. The unfilled volume could be distributed among all available ponds.

11

Rainfall (inches)

8

Since most storms produce less than one-half inch of runoff. 40 35 30 rainfall am ount runoff retention basins Effluent 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Ap ril M ay Ju ne Ju ly 25 20 15 10 5 0 Au Se gus t pt em be r O ct ob N ov er em b D ec er em be Ja r nu a Fe ry br ua ry M ar ch Sam pling Date Figure 2. Overall Management Considerations The capture and recycle system should be operated to capture all process water runoff. The water gained from storm water runoff could be used to irrigate plants. the average retention time is 4 days. The retention time in a basin is determined by the ratio of pumping rate and basin volume. and effluent from nursery. Nitrate-N in process water runoff. the nursery has a storage volume of 4 million gallons and pumps 1 million gallons per day from the basin. 12 Rainfall (inches) Nitrate-N (ppm) . The retention basin should be operated with freeboard (empty volume) to capture storm water runoff. this storm water capture volume would usually be empty. Although the extra volume for storm water management is expensive to construct. is affected by management. Retention time of two to four days would allow the natural reduction of pathogens through settling and promote processes that reduce the viability of zoospores. retain it for two to four days. although largely a design consideration. free water captured from off-site runoff and recycling of nutrients should offset some of the cost. and utilize it to irrigate all but the most sensitive plants. capture ponds. If for example. and there would be no effluent from the nursery. Retention time.

The Curtis Report. Illinois River Irrigation Tailwater Project. 1994 Supplement. J. T. Oklahoma Department of Agriculture Plant Industry and Consumer Services. 58 pp. Oklahoma Department of Agriculture Plant Industry and Consumer Services. Illinois River Irrigation Tailwater Project. 13 . August 1994. 1996. 44 pp. Water Quality Handbook for Nurseries. Oklahoma Department of Agriculture Plant Industry and Consumer Services. The Curtis Report. Oklahoma State University. 1993 Supplement. 1997. May 15. 1996 Supplement. Oklahoma Department of Agriculture Plant Industry and Consumer Services. 1999 Evaluation Of Performance And Management Strategies For A Nursery Irrigation Recycling System Designed For Pollution Control. Illinois River Irrigation Tailwater Project. Stillwater. August 1993. May 20. Ok. The Curtis Report. 60 pp. 54 pp. 120 pp. Stillwater. The Curtis Report. Circular E-951. The Curtis Report. 1998. Oklahoma State University. 37 pp.References Alexander. Spring. Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service. Division of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources. Illinois River Irrigation Tailwater Project 1989-1992. Illinois River Irrigation Tailwater Project. Oklahoma Department of Agriculture Plant Industry and Consumer Services. Oklahoma. April 30. 1995 Supplement. 1995. Dissertation.

or other waterborne pathogens should receive careful scrutiny. Scouting should occur weekly for all plant materials. water drawn from surface water sources such as lakes and rivers may contain waterborne pathogens and may require decontamination before 15 . Careful irrigation management will be needed to make sure that the pathogen status of each type of water matches the susceptibility of the plant materials receiving that water. the extent to which pathogens are present in irrigation water must be determined. Disease management becomes a critical aspect of the overall management program. Routine scouting will have the added benefit of increasing confidence in the recycling system by demonstrating that the overall disease management program is working. such as Phytophthora spp. certain practices within that program should receive higher priority.g. and that when this water is reused to irrigate healthy susceptible plants. Most successful nurseries will already have an effective disease management program in place. However as recycling is implemented. Water samples also should be taken at different times during the production cycle as pathogens may be seasonal and are affected by changes in production practices. Ground water drawn from properly constructed wells and water suitable for human consumption should be pathogen free. Nursery sanitation is also a very important factor for recycling systems. Research has shown that irrigation runoff often contains significant numbers of plant pathogens such as Phytophthora spp. Routine scouting for disease is very important. Crops highly susceptible to Phytophthora spp. This is especially true of waterborne root pathogens. An important but often overlooked consideration for all nurseries is the need to test the source of irrigation water for plant pathogens. And finally.Chapter 4 Managing Disease in Recycling Systems Water recycling affects all aspects of a nursery's management. and at points where recycled water is delivered back to plants. root infections can result. It is important that all these factors be taken into consideration when making decisions about implementing disease management practices with recycling systems. But many factors (e. Water should be sampled at various points in the irrigation system. Diseased plants will release pathogen propagules into drainage water and will increase the levels of these pathogens in captured runoff. Removing diseased plants quickly from the system should therefore be a high priority. during the disease process. It should not be necessary to apply either additional preventative treatments or remedial treatments. However. environmental conditions) will interact to determine if disease actually results. called propagules. Irrigation Management for Recycling Systems Before specific irrigation management practices used to prevent. irrigation water in different parts of a recycling irrigation system will be of different quality with respect to plant pathogens. plant susceptibility and age.. cultural practices. pathogen concentrations. Many plant pathogens produce large numbers of infective structures. reduce or eliminate pathogens in irrigation water can be considered. Samples should be taken at the irrigation water source. since pathogens may be problematic only in certain parts of the system. at points of runoff.

Samples of runoff should be taken at fast flowing points in channels and ditches to get a representative assessment. By following these strategies. Once the pathogen status of water in different parts of the recycling system are known. if large parts of the nursery contain crops susceptible to waterborne pathogens. These plant "baits" are very sensitive to low levels of pathogens. Only pathgen-free water should be used in propagation areas.g. canals and streams should be sampled and tested for pathogens. A diagnostic laboratory can analyze water samples for waterborne pathogens and should be consulted for specific instructions on how to take and submit samples before they are submitted. different qualities of water can be used accordingly. ponds.g. That way pathogen-free fresh water or water that has been decontaminated can be reserved for these areas. e. it should only be used for hardier or more mature plants that tend to be more resistant to waterborne pathogens. A complete discussion of methods of decontaminating irrigation water is given in Chapter 5. Lawson cypress. A practical way to sample irrigation water is to place certain plant parts. Monitoring Phytophthora spp. Treating Irrigation Water to Eliminate Plant Pathogens. in Irrigation Water. For more information about water sampling and analysis for Phytophthora spp. in irrigation water where they can become infected by plant pathogens that may be in the water. and dogwood) should be grouped together in the same part of the nursery. rhododendron. see the appendix to this guide. Plant bait samples can also be analyzed by a diagnostic laboratory or can be tested on-site with commercially available detection kits. Crops that are highly susceptible to water-borne pathogens such as Phytophthora spp. There is little known about acceptable thresholds for different pathogens on different crops. The pathogen status of recycled irrigation water can best be evaluated by assaying for pathogens in water collected at the points of reuse. Recycled water should be sampled at a number of points where it is irrigated back onto crops. However. lemon leaves or green pears. treating water to remove plant pathogens from recycled water is advised. nurseries may find that stringent decontamination of all recycled water is not necessary.use in propagation operations and for susceptible crops. Where recycled water is used with no treatment other than retention and dilution. 16 . citrus. (e. Sampling runoff from different parts of the nursery will determine if and where runoff is contaminated and to what extent. All source water drawn from lakes.

Only water that has been shown to be pathogen-free or decontaminated water should be used in propagation areas. Diseased plants should be removed as soon as detected to prevent pathogens developing on these plants from draining into runoff. Diluting captured runoff with fresh water or storm water also greatly reduces pathogen concentrations in recycled water. since careful irrigation management will be needed to match the pathogen status of each type of water with the disease susceptibility of various groupings of plant materials. Captured runoff should be stored and handled in ways that promote settling out and dilution of pathogens before reuse.Summary of Disease Management Recommendations for Nurseries Using Capture and Recycle Technology 1. Water for recycling should be drawn from the middle level of retention basins to avoid pathogens that have settled out and motile forms of Phytophthora spp. Recycled water will require decontamination before reuse on these sensitive plants. 4. Since settling is a more significant factor in reducing pathogen concentrations than lateral dispersal. Crops that are highly susceptible to water-borne pathogens such as Phytophthora spp. 2. water should be drawn from the point furthest from where runoff flows into the basin to maximize settling. Only fresh water or pathogen-free water should be used on blocks of Phytophthora-sensitive plants. 3. Routine scouting for early detection of disease should become a high priority for nurseries adopting capture and recycle technology. Recycled water should be reserved for hardier or more mature plants. Increasing retention time in basins reduces pathogen levels in captured runoff by allowing the relatively rapid natural decline in viability of pathogens and the settling out of pathogens to occur. that congregate near the water surface. The quality of irrigation water with respect to pathogens should be evaluated regularly at various times in the production cycle and at representative points in the irrigation system. should be grouped together in the same part of the nursery to facilitate irrigation management. 5. 17 .

Concentrations of Phytophthora spp. concentrations are usually much lower and often undetectable in irrigation water at the points of reuse. Several more stringent methods can also be used provided water is filtered to a reasonably clean level before decontamination. Filtration may be used to remove plant pathogens. but it is only useful for low flow rates and low volumes such as those required in propagation areas and greenhouses. drawing water from the middle levels of basins should avoid both propagules that have settled out and motile. There are a number of factors that may be contributing to this marked reduction. Retention and Dilution Although relatively high concentrations of Phytophthora spp. may be present in irrigation runoff entering retention basins. Each system will have to accommodate the unique requirements and conditions of the nursery for which it is designed. which are negatively geotropic and congregate near the surface of water. These decontamination methods have been adapted from purification methods for drinking water or swimming pool water and include the use of chlorine. Recycling systems should be designed to allow sufficient dilution. Micro-filtration to even smaller pore sizes can remove most fungal and bacterial plant pathogens. in recycled water from three different 19 . Dilution of recycled water with fresh or storm water will further reduce pathogen concentrations.Chapter 5 Treating Irrigation Water to Eliminate Plant Pathogens If decontamination of source water or recycled water is warranted. Once they have settled to the bottoms of basins they are effectively out of circulation and are continually subject to degradation. and different abilities to invest space and capital in treatment equipment. Obviously no single water treatment process will be work for all recycling systems. Pathogen concentrations also can be reduced by dilution with water that is free of pathogens. Therefore. complete decontamination may not be economically or technologically feasible. Retention and dilution of contaminated runoff can greatly reduce the levels of plant pathogens present. different irrigation demands. Different nurseries have different water quality problems. Water should be drawn from a point furthest from where runoff enters a retention basin to allow settling to be maximized. ozone or ultraviolet (UV) light.. Propagules of plant pathogens tend to settle out in still or slowly moving water. Natural processes such as microbial and physical degradation are acting within the system to reduce pathogens. Larger retention basins and longer retention of captured water before reuse should promote the settling and degradation processes. there are a number of options. surface seeking Phytophthora zoospores. It seems advisable to combine as many of these water handling treatments as possible. For some systems. but have little effect on bacteria. Modern sand filters which use graded sand reduce the numbers of fungal spores and nematodes in water. One exception to the beneficial settling effect are the motile zoospores. All three methods very effective in eliminating plant pathogens and other microorganisms from water but they require careful management to achieve the desired effect. of Phytophthora spp. Pathogens tend to settle out of contaminated water while it is stored and the viability of the infective units declines due both biological and physical factors.

Although theoretically capable of disinfecting nutrient solution. which retains particles greater than 1 µm.2 um actually has a wide range of pore diameters. deep basin with a long retention time and significant dilution with fresh water. concentrations of Phytophthora spp. Sand filtration removes >95% of fungal pathogens and nematodes. A higher degree of success has been obtained in greenhouse and hydroponic systems. such as chlorine. Microfiltration and Ultrafiltration. Two smaller. shallower basins with shorter retention times and less or no dilution also greatly reduced concentrations of Phytophthora spp. micro-filtration has been found in practice to be ineffective. Suspended solids reduce the efficacy of other treatment technologies. One problem with decontaminating irrigation water by filtration is the clogging of pores with particulates and algal slimes. but not as much. were extremely low or undetectable in recycled water at points of reuse when drawn from the middle levels of a large (16 million gallons).basins within the same nursery were monitored throughout the 1998 growing season. A filter. Although probably reducing the pathogen load in water. and is used in smaller quantities at lower pumping rates. This is due to the broad spectrum of pore diameters in microfilter membranes. Liquid is pumped through ultrafilters at a high velocity at low pressure (1-2 bars). Filtration is used to remove particulate contaminants prior to attempting microbial disinfection. this can be overcome by regular backwashing and chemical cleaning. such an approach has found only very limited application for nurseries requiring complete disinfection of irrigation water. Microfilters may be most useful as pre-filters to remove particulates in advance of some other treatment. and these materials will degrade the efficacy of following treatments. where irrigation water is cleaner initially. The size range of propagules of various common root infecting pathogens is shown in Table 1 as an indication of pore size required for water disinfection. However. However. Sand filters comprise specific grades of sand and are used for removal of particulate matter from water. Sand filtration. Filtration While it is theoretically possible to eliminate nematodes. They cannot remove dissolved organic materials from water. with some as large as 10 um. Certain pathogen propagules can easily pass through such a large pore size. In our studies. will eliminate all fungal spores but not bacterial cells or virus particles. A membrane with a nominal mean pore diameter of 0. Filtration systems with physical pores small enough to remove all pathogens produce low volumes of water at low flow rates and clog quickly. ozone or UV light. Filtration is also an essential component of all stringent decontamination methods. rough filtration of recycled water greatly reduces pathogen concentrations to levels that may be below working thresholds for most pathogens and hardy plants. 20 . On the other hand.. fungi and bacteria from water by filtration. An ultrafiltration cartridge is formed by embedding bundles of synthetic fibers in an epoxy resin matrix. they only remove particulates. Ultrafilters differ from microfilters in having a much lower mean pore diameter (10-3 um compared to a lower limit of 10-1 um) and a generally different method of filter construction. the pore size between sand grains is too large to effectively remove all fungal spores or bacterial cells.

Cartridge-type filters have been used to disinfect nutrient solution in hydroponic systems. Chlorine is one of the most effective chemicals for control of plant pathogenic fungi in water used for irrigation of greenhouse crops.3 x 0. is rapidly inactivated by dissolved and suspended organic matter in recirculated water. and a "slow sand filtration" process has been used for some greenhouse operations. However. and poses important human health hazards.5-0. l ii Type of Structure Zoospore cysts Sporangia Zoospore Oospore Microconidia Macroconidia Macroconidia Cell Cell Size (um) 8-10 (dia.Table 3.5 17-66 x 3-5 14-16 x 3-4 1. these systems have a relatively low capacity and have not been used effectively to disinfect recycled water in nurseries.5 x 17.7 There are relatively few reports of filtration systems used as the only method for eliminating plant pathogens from water.5 5-12 x 2-3. but clog relatively quickly High capital cost for microfiltration and ultrafiltration Cleaning of filters by backwashing produces a waste liquid which requires separate disposal Chlorination Chlorine treatment has been widely used to eliminate bacteria and viruses from drinking water supplies. or pesticides No harmful chemicals involved. so minimal risk to operator and crop health Disadvantages Sand filters result in only a partial reduction of the pathogen load Microfilters are quite effective but may still let some pathogen spores through removing pathogen spores. 21 . Chlorine can be phytotoxic to certain crops. its widespread adoption for treatment of recycled water in other crops has been somewhat deterred by several problems. Fe-chelates. Size of propagules of some root-infecting pathogens Pathogen Fungi Phytophthora parasitica Pythium aphanidermatum Fusarium oxysporum Thielaviopsis basicola Bacteria Erwinia carotovora Xanthomonas campestris pv.) 38 x 30 5x3 17.5-0. However.8 1-1. is difficult measure readily in nutrient solution.5 x 0. Table 4 Advantages and Disadvantages of filters for water disinfection Advantages Increases effectiveness of any subsequent disinfection by improving water purity No effect on nutrients in solution.

During storage chlorine gas is gradually lost and the % available chlorine falls. 22 . calcium hypochlorite solution. While some nurseries have successfully employed gas-based chlorination systems. or chlorine gas.g. Chlorine that is present in solution as chlorine. Chlorine products for treating water Sodium hypochlorite. particularly organic matter. if the hypochlorite reacts with root cells of a plant. residual chlorine sufficient to kill pathogens may be phytotoxic and for crops grown in organic media the residual dose will soon be lost. However. but the concentration of available chlorine (35%) is greater.Chlorination of water is generally achieved by adding metered amounts of sodium hypochlorite solution. gaseous chlorine produces the hypochlorite ion and hypochlorous acid when dissolved in water. like sodium hypochlorite. calcium hypochlorite may be a preferable source of chlorine. In order to be certain that spores of target fungi are exposed to available chlorine at the required minimum concentration it is necessary to maintain that level of residual free chlorine in the water. This product. continuous monitoring of the residual chlorine concentration is required. As with sodium and calcium hypochlorites. 2 mg/L. Commercial sodium hypochlorite solutions sold for use as a disinfectant or a bleaching agent generally contains 10-14% available chlorine (100. The amount of chlorine inactivated by chemical reaction (the chlorine demand) depends on the impurities. Thus. For crops in an inert substrate.000 140. Calcium hypochlorite also produces the hypochlorite ion and hypochlorous acid when dissolved in water. It has been used experimentally for treating water in horticultural crops although sodium hypochlorite is the more usual source. Chlorine gas. many have been discouraged from this approach due to stringent environmental and public health regulations governing gas storage and use. If the material being oxidized is a living microorganism. Calcium hypochlorite. Sodium hypochlorite is may be used in water treatment systems in preference to gaseous chlorine to avoid the hazard of handling and storing poisonous gas. and has long been used to treat municipal drinking water. If there is a risk of sodium accumulating to a phytotoxic level by continually dosing with sodium hypochlorite in an enclosed system. this is not the case in practice. Hence the killing effect of chlorine is quickly reduced in a peat leachate solution as the chlorine combines with organic matter. The product is diluted to achieve the target concentration (e.) in the water supply. some of these may be killed. is available as a solution. hypochlorite or hypochlorous acid is known as free or available chlorine. Chlorine tied up in this manner is termed combined or unavailable. Chlorine gas is the cheapest form of chlorine. or a nutrient film system. Sodium hypochlorite exerts its disinfectant and bleaching properties through oxidation reactions. in a water supply. then cell processes and structures are disrupted and the organism is killed. chlorine gas is phytotoxic and deadly poisonous to humans. A chlorine residual is still present in drinking water after treatment in order to maintain a potable supply should there be contamination along the distribution system. However. These molecules are very reactive and will readily combine with organic matter. ammonia or nitrogen in oxidation reactions. and must be used with great caution. Although a distributed residual chlorine dose should in theory offer similar benefits if applied to a crop grown in a recycled watering system.000 mg/L).

Mycelium containing chlamydospores was killed when immersed for 24 hours in a solution of 100 mg/L chlorine. Chlorine will react with phenols and with unsaturated bonds in organic matter. 1968). although in some tests some spores survived a concentration of 5 mg/L for 2 hours. 1981). The killing effect of chlorine on P. dianthi conidia in nutrient solution were killed by exposure to 5 mg/L chlorine for 15 minutes. Runia (1988) reported that spores of F. Exposures to 15 mg/L for 30 seconds and to 10 mg/L for 10 seconds were also effective. but this level is not sufficient for killing most plant pathogenic fungi. Thus.5 than at pH 8 (Segall. All these reactions increase the chlorine demand of water and thus reduce the disinfection capacity of a given chlorine concentration and exposure time. Chloramines. like chlorine. Hypochlorous acid reacts with hypochlorite to produce chlorate and hydrochloric acid and this decomposition is self-accelerating as the pH falls. a key requirement for chlorination (or any other disinfection process) is an effective assay to detect target pathogens.Factors affecting activity The killing effect of chlorine depends on concentration. Chlorine also reacts with ammonia in solution to form chloramines. The activity of hypochlorous acid to that of hypochlorite ion is of the order of 100:1.6 has the same effect on Bacillus subtilis spores as a concentration of 1000 mg/L at pH 9. A higher concentration for a shorter time (20 mg/L for 5 minutes) was also effective but this treatment was phytotoxic to the cabbage plants. or for 4 hours in a solution of 200 mg/L chlorine. Datnoff and Kroll (1987) demonstrated that chlorine at 2 mg/L for 24 hours at 25 C apparently killed resting spores of Plasmodiophora brassicae and prevented club root in cabbage plants in laboratory tests. concentrations of free chlorine less than 100 mg/L were effective at killing mycelium of pythiaceous fungi. Generally however. although the acid is more toxic than the ion. 23 . time. The residual concentration in drinking water is generally around 0. it is also unstable. and zoospores were killed without the addition of chlorine (Pittis. temperature and pH.5 mg/L. and also with reducing agents such as Fe 2+ and Mn 2+. which favors the formation of hypochlorous acid over hypochlorite ion. A hypochlorite concentration of 100 mg/L at pH 7. Decomposition is kept to a minimum in commercial hypochlorite solutions by the presence of sodium hydroxide. water quality (especially organic matter content). Zoospores of P. sp. cinnamomi were shown to be killed by exposure to 2 mg/L residual chlorine at 18 C for one minute (Smith. often termed combined chlorine residuals. To achieve the best activity over a period of time. oxysporum f. Treatment in a solution of 50 mg/L chlorine for 24 hours was ineffective. Price and Fox (1984) found that Fusarium oxysporum f. lycopersici in nutrient solution were generally killed by exposure to 1 mg/L chlorine for 2 hours. have significant disinfecting power. it is often necessary to maintain an alkaline pH. cinnamomi zoospores was shown to be slightly lower at 23 C than at 18 C (Smith. There is no single exposure dose that assures mortality of all plant pathogens under all conditions. At pH 4. Spores of Alternaria tenuis were killed more readily by calcium hypochlorite at pH 6-7. therefore. However.0. is more effective for disinfection. a greater concentration of combined chlorine residual than of free chlorine residual is required to accomplish a given kill in a specified time A lower pH. 1979). sp.

particularly when the crop is grown in a hydroponic system or in an inert substrate. carnation (Price and Fox. 1984). Pseudomonas corrugate and Xanthomonas graminis (Thompson and Williams. The growth and yield of plants was reduced as chlorine concentration increased above 10 mg/L. from the presence of toxic chlorate in the chlorine supply or from an accumulation of sodium ions in a recirculating system. that cause bacterial wilt of sweet pepper (Teoh and Chuo. A high sodium concentration will alter the sodium/potassium ratio in solution and plants may develop symptoms of induced potassium deficiency. equally the chlorine will be in very intimate contact with roots and will react with organic matter including root cells.g. 1978). But treatment at this rate markedly reduced root development and there was still evidence of root damage even at 0. lettuce at 18 mg/L and broccoli. Sodium hypochlorite at 25 mg/L or greater completely inhibited growth on agar plates of Pseudomonas sp. Lacey et al. e. Although chlorine treatment will be more effective against phytopathogenic microorganisms in crops grown in nutrient film technique systems and in inert substrates. marigold and petunia at 37 mg/L. but was ineffective against Clavibacter michiganense. In the presence of 10% sterile peat and with a contact time of 15 seconds. Plants were irrigated from above twice-weekly with much of the water contacting the foliage. Water was treated with 20 mg/L chlorine for 1 hour. Other workers have found that the effectiveness of chlorine declined rapidly below 10 C. Ewart and Chrimes (1980) reported that chlorination of nutrient solution to 3 mg/L in a nutrient film technique tomato crop reduced the numbers of potentially pathogenic types of bacteria. Growth of geranium and begonia declined at 2 mg/L. Experiments by Frink and Bugbee (1987) indicated that irrigation water with a residual chlorine concentration < 1 mg/L should not adversely affect growth or appearance of most potted plants and vegetable seedlings grown in a peat/perlite/vermiculite medium. Accumulation of sodium ions in a recirculating solution will occur with continual application of sodium hypochlorite and this may prove toxic to some crops. sodium hypochlorite was effective against Erwinia carotovora and Pseudomonas marginalis at 1% and against Xanthomonas campestris at 10%. Affected plants showed leaf chlorosis and stunted growth. pepper and tomatoes at 8 mg/L. Affected plants showed reduced weight and leaf chlorosis. Phytotoxicity may result from oxidation of root cells or cell contents. Germination of vegetable seedlings was unaffected.1979). Adverse effects and health hazards There are reports of chlorine treatment of irrigation water resulting in phytotoxic symptoms in a growing crop. carotovora. 1986).5 mg/L chlorine. Irrigation water containing 10 mg/L chlorine has been applied to a wide range of nursery stock subjects grown in peat-based media 24 . treatment at 10 mg/L was ineffective. (1972) demonstrated that chlorination of contaminated irrigation water gave control of bacterial rot of iris caused by Erwinia chrysanthemi and E. It is highly toxic to plant growth. Sodium chlorate may occur as a contaminant in sodium hypochlorite solutions and the amount may slowly increase with storage. They found that the effectiveness of chlorination was reduced in dirty water and when the number of bacteria was increased. When plants grown in granite chips were irrigated with water chlorinated at 15 mg/L or greater there was no plant death from bacterial wilt.

Decomposition of sodium hypochlorite in incorrectly designed. More recently it has been used for treating recycled irrigation water. as it is a severe nasal and throat irritant. Caryopteris. Ozone is commonly produced by passing a high voltage electrical discharge across a dry. Ilex acruifolium.without adverse effect on plant growth. Berberis. Excess ozone must be deactivated (usually by venting through an activated charcoal filter) before release to the atmosphere. cinnamomi was phytotoxic to newly rooted cuttings of Abelia. Smith (1979) reported that the high concentration of chlorine (200 mg/L) required to kill mycelium of P. oxygen rich gas. Table 5 Advantages and Disadvantages of Chlorine for WaterDisinfection Advantages Low capital cost Low running cost Wide spectrum of biocidal activity Simple operating system Rapid action No effect on Fe-chelates or pesticides Can continuously monitor and control chlorine level in water Disadvantages Effectiveness declines rapidly in water with particulates or organic substances Less powerful disinfectant than ozone Risk of crop phytotoxicity Effectiveness affected by pH Risk to human and crop health if chorine leaks from treatment system Risk of corrosion of metal equipment Potential for production of trihalomethanes and carcinogens which are harmful to human health Ozonation Ozone is a powerful oxidizing agent is now commonly used as a component of systems for purification of drinking water. Treatment of drinking water and municipal waste water with chlorine is being discontinued in some countries because of reaction of chlorine with humic substances to form trihalomethanes which may be harmful to human health. Cotoneaster. primarily as heat. Viburnum spp. Sodium hypochlorite causes burns on eyes and skin and if ingested causes internal irritation and damage. Use of a 100% oxygen stream rather than air results in production of 21 times as much ozone. As previously mentioned chlorine gas is highly toxic to humans. Calluna. Fuchsia and Rosmarinus when used as routine watering from June to October. Hydrangea. Hence. Treatment with ozone involves bubbling the gas through water. and Weigela florida (Scott et al. Formaldehyde reacts with hypochlorite to produce a carcinogen (bis-chloromethyl ether). Chamaecyparis lawsoniana. Deutzia scabra. swimming pool water. Sodium hypochlorite is corrosive and may damage metal parts of irrigation systems. sealed containers may lead to explosion. 25 . 1984). chlorine treatments that successfully achieve pathogen mortality pose a risk of phytotoxicity. Erica cinerea. As this discussion demonstrates. Treated subjects include Azalea. Thuja occidentalis. using fine bubbles to ensure a good contact with the solution. About 10% of the energy supplied is used to make ozone and the remainder is lost. chlorinebased treatments require careful biological and chemical monitoring for successful use. and municipal and industrial waste water. and poses health risks to workers.

spores of Fusarium oxysporum f. a concentration of 3.sp. bubbling ozone into the suspension caused 100% mortality in less than 5 minutes--the shortest practical treatment interval (MacDonald and Kabashima. if water is being discharged into the environment then pretreatment with ozone to break down pesticides may in fact be an advantage. melongea and Verticillium dahliae in nutrient solution for 20 minutes resulted in complete elimination of infectivity.60 mg/L. In the process of oxidation. lycopersici were killed after 10 minutes. This is because ozone reacts with. Ozone has been shown to be effective against fungi. The maximum ozone concentrations measured in the nutrient solutions were 1. It is also very reactive with any inanimate organic matter. contact time and the type of microorganism. In distilled water. and the amount and type of Fe-chelate. The rate of breakdown of ozone to oxygen and hydroxyl ions is increased at high pH. organic materials in the water. Pesticides may be destroyed in water by ozone treatment. most spores and cells were killed after 1 minute and all were killed after 5 minutes. For example. Mucor piriformis and Phytophthora parasitica suspended in water.s. and is rapidly depleted by.5 mg/L for 20 minutes inactivated spores of Botrytis cinerea. It is a more powerful oxidizing agent than chlorine and work with human pathogens has shown a more rapid kill of bacteria and viruses than with chlorine. oxygen and hydroxyl ions are produced and pH increases. pH. ozone accumulated much more slowly. Vanachter et al.11 and 0. However. 26 . Ozone kills micro-organisms by oxidation of cell structures and processes. that concentration was achieved in 1-2 minutes. Effectiveness is reduced at higher conductivities due to more ozone reacting with the increased concentrations of ions in solution. The effectiveness of ozone treatment varies markedly with the amount and type of iron chelate. When F.4 mg/L and the contact time about 4 minutes. A pre-filter to remove particulate organic matter before water is treated should improve effectiveness. For disinfection of drinking water the dose of ozone is about 0. 1998). the amount of ozone remaining in solution and available for killing microorganisms is reduced.4 ppm. When spores of Fusarium were suspended in distilled water. Ozonation increases pH so it may be necessary to add acid to the treatment chamber to maintain optimum pH. achieving 100% mortality of spores suspended in nursery effluent water required almost 20 minutes of ozonation. If ozone reacts with organic matter. conductivity. (1988) showed that in pure water.sp. lycopersici spores and Clavibacter michiganense cells were introduced 35 minutes after starting ozone generation. The killing effect depends on concentration of ozone in solution. The concentration of ozone required to kill fungal spores is considerably higher than the levels used to inactivate bacteria and viruses. and appeared to be related to the time required to achieve an ozone concentration of 0. and in nutrient solution containing Fe-DPTA or Fe-EDTA. bacteria and viruses. but in effluent samples.8 mg/L for 2 minutes and 1. While this may be viewed as a disadvantage. Runia (1988) demonstrated that ozone treatment of spore suspensions of Fusarium oxysporum f. This time interval varied between effluent samples. Solution conductivity influences the effectiveness of ozone treatment.The disinfective capacity of ozone is affected by organic matter. Iron chelates react with ozone and reduce the amount of ozone in solution available for killing microorganisms.

Table 6 Advantages and disadvantages of ozone for water disinfection Advantages Powerful disinfectant. ozone attacks most metals.01-0. with automatic alarms should there be a leak.03 ppm. Automatic monitoring of ozone levels in the air of the treatment facility will probably be necessary. In addition. or large numbers of resistant propagules (e. and possibly Mn and pesticides destroyed Risk to human and crop health if ozone leaks from treatment chamber so need to monitor atmospheric ozone level 27 . Levels of 1 ppm for 30 minutes or more produce headaches. Levels above 0. ozone treatment should prove adequate to disinfect water.02 to 0. The second objection is overcome by use of appropriate iron chelates. it is in fact toxic both to humans and plants. Although the smell of ozone was thought by some to be refreshing in low concentrations.05 ppm. and tends to limit ozone to small to medium sized nurseries Adverse effects and health hazards Potential disadvantages of ozone treatment include loss of ozone from the system resulting in harm to human health and crop phytotoxicity. chlamydospores of Thielaviopsis basicola. nurseries will need to install collection tanks. microsclerotia of Verticillium spp). However. The characteristic metallic smell of ozone is usually detected by humans at 0. To achieve sufficient exposures at times of peak irrigation demand. nose and throat. Ozonated water is transferred to the tanks prior to pumping back into the irrigation system. The first objection is overcome by use of a well designed and constructed treatment system.If the water to be treated does not contain significant quantities of organic matter. The background atmospheric concentration of ozone in surface air at sea level is approximately 0. This can add considerably to the infrastructure. below the level at which it is harmful.g. and the breakdown of iron chelates resulting in iron deficiency.1 ppm result in dryness of the respiratory tract. Tank volume must be matched to pumping rates to assure an adequate residence time for efficacy. more powerful than chlorine Wide spectrum of biocidal activity Can monitor disinfection process easily by rise in redox value No noxious products formed in treated water Ozone formed on site so no transport or storage needed Adds oxygen to water Disadvantages High capital cost Relatively high running cost Relatively long treatment time (20-30 minutes). thus holding tanks for batch treatment may be necessary A high concentration of ozone is required to kill fungal spores Effectiveness declines markedly in water with high organic matter May need to reduce pH for best results and readjust pH after treatment Some Fe-chelates. treatment efficacy is a function of ozone concentration and exposure duration.

Electromagnetic radiation with a wavelength of 100-400 nm is termed ultra-violet light. RNA) in organisms. and UV damage to cells is a well-known process. increase potential exposure time). This source is virtually monochromatic. The presence of suspended solids such as colloidal clays are one factor in this phenomenon. these units are still in developmental stages for the purposes of water disinfection. but have the added effect of emissions 190 nm. Absorption is maximal at approximately 254 nm. which forms ozone in situ from dissolved water. emitting virtually all photons at 248 nm. but a major factor is the presence of dissolved organics. Spores suspended in fouled water may not receive a lethal dose as they pass through a UV treatment chamber. While UV light can pass through 25 cm of pure water with relatively little attenuation. resulting in genetic and physiological damage. These factors must be considered in system design. However. Water quality is the predominant factor influencing the efficacy of UV. entry into fouled water might be limited to only a few millimeters. visible and infrared). However.UV Light Some water companies use ultraviolet (UV) light in preference to chlorination as a method for treating drinking water supplies. very high exposure doses will exceed the repair capacity of cells. water cooling towers). The dose of radiation required to kill a particular microorganism is generally expressed as mJ/cm2 and is the product of radiation intensity and exposure time. allowing some spores to pass through the chamber without ever coming close to the UV source. The most common source is low pressure mercury vapor lamps.g.e. which emit photons in a band around 254 nm. the only way to increase exposure dose is to slow down flow rate (i. but application of this technology to nursery recirculation has been more limited. Factors affecting activity. If turbulence is maintained. These have the advantage of pulsed power emissions. with the added advantage of pulsed power kinetics. UV light also has been used to disinfect recirculated nutrient solutions in hydroponic growing systems. leading to physiological disruption and death. Turbulence must be maintained. UV rays in the range 200-280 nm (UV-C rays) have a killing effect on microorganisms. making them a higher power source of photon emissions. Xenon flashlamps also are used as UV sources. UV light is selectively absorbed by nucleic acids (DNA. Since UV radiation is a constant from the source lamps. fish tanks. and UV is widely used to disinfect some recirculation systems (e. All cells possess chemical repair mechanisms that can correct the damage to nucleic acids caused by UV. with differing capabilities and costs. it is possible that pathogen propagules suspended 28 . A number of UV light sources are available.. leading to skin cancers in humans. High pressure mercury vapor lamps also emit photons around 254 nm. at low rates.. While capable of peak power emissions in the megawatt range (as compared to milliwatts for mercury lamps). The disadvantage is that xenon lamps emit a broad spectrum of electromagnetic energy (UV. the optimum effect being 240-280 nm with a peak around 265 nm. Exposing zoospores of Phytophthora to emissions from a low pressure mercury vapor lamp for as little as 5 seconds can cause nearly 100% mortality. so they do not convert all electrical energy into UV. which may give the water an amber color and which are highly absorptive in the UV band. The most efficient conversion of electrical energy into UV is the krypton/fluorine excimer laser. flow within treatment chambers may become laminar.

Runia (1988) reported that in demineralized water with no organic matter a 5-10 minute exposure time to UV light at 254 nm resulted in a 30-50% reduction in infectivity of Phytophthora nicotianiae. suggesting that some other treatment should be considered for disinfecting water collected from crops which are very susceptible to this fungus.9% elimination. This was attributed to greater water turbulence at the higher flow rate and a greater 'hit’ of fungal structures. fluorescent pseudomonads and pectolytic bacteria when treating the nutrient solution from a tomato crop. Thielaviopsis basicola is one pathogen that appears to be particularly difficult to kill by UV. Stanghellini et al. Ozone absorbs UV light very effectively and the resultant ozone breakdown product. assuming a linear dose/response relationship. UV light is active against fungal and bacterial pathogens if the water to be treated is sufficiently clear to avoid UV quenching. Stanghellini et al. Cleaning water to remove particulates or dissolved organics can be accomplished. Thus.5 to 0. is an even more powerful oxidant than ozone. Ewart and Chrimes (1980) found significant reductions in total bacterial numbers. The flow rate was 7. This can be an important concern in hydroponic or nutrient film technique systems. 1990). Daughtrey and Schippers (1980) found that UV treatment of 29 . but also creates a waste disposal problem which must be accounted for. (1984) obtained complete control of root rot of spinach caused by Pythium aphanidermatum by treating the circulating nutrient solutions with a 30 mW/cm2/s UV light at 253.1 mg/L after 24 h of UV treatment. The lethal dose for many fungi. where loss of iron chelate can induce iron deficiency chlorosis. Hence the interest in high-power UV sources that can deliver lethal doses in the millisecond range. (1984) recorded a fall in the iron content in nutrient solution from 4. There also appear to be synergistic effects in UV / ozone treatments for microbial disinfection.44 m3/h and water was passed through a sand filter before treatment.in fouled water will only pass close to the UV source for very brief intervals. the hydroxyl radical. With both lamp designs increasing the flow rate resulted in a higher percentage kill. More recently. bacteria and viruses in clear water is less than 200 mJ/cm2 (Steffan. UV is best suited to situations where the water supply is either clean at the outset. or cleaned prior to treatment. UV light in conjunction with metal catalysts degrade pesticides in water. estimated a dose of 100 mJ/cm2 was required for 99. Chlamydospores of Verticillium dahliae and Thielaviopsis basicola are notable exceptions requiring doses of 500 and 3000 mJ/cm2 or greater respectively. Runia and Nienhuis (1992) noted that a high pressure lamp was 90% effective against Fusarium at a dose of 25-30 mJ/cm2 and. One disadvantage of treating water with UV light is that it breaks down iron chelate. Runia and Klomp (1990) reported that a low capacity (9-18 L/h) flat-film lamp with a high radiation intensity (430-800 mJ/cm2) eliminated Fusarium completely and achieved 48-74% kill of Verticillium spores. The use of combined ozone/ UV systems are also very effective in breaking down chemical pollutants in water. A different lamp design with water flowing around the lamp at 200-400 L/h and receiving 100-200 mJ/cm2 radiation resulted in only 2-18% kill of Fusarium and Verticillium.7 nm for 3 sec (90 mJ/cm2).

turbulent flow. necessitating pre-filter.nutrient film technique solution from a tomato crop led to the development of pinkish roots and foliar iron deficiency. Table 7 Advantages and disadvantages of UV light for water disinfection Advantages Low capital cost for low capacity system used with high quality water Wide spectrum of biocidal activity UV generated on site Disadvantages High capital costs for high capacity system and poor quality water Relatively high running cost Effectiveness declines rapidly in water with suspended solids or dissolved organics. treatment in series Fe-chelates may be destroyed No noxious products in treated water No effect on pH Short treatment time allows continous flow systems Easily maintained No residual (downstream) effects as with chlorine 30 .

Quantitative Recovery of Phytophthora spp. Cambridge.78 L. Using Plant Baits to Recover Phytophthora spp. such as risers. from water. P10VPH agar. We do not take water samples directly from basins or storage ponds (the problems associated sampling with such water bodies scientifically are enormous). These isolation plates are incubated at 24oC for 24 h.Appendix 1 Monitoring Phytophthora spp. We evaluated the effectiveness of a number of leaf baits under laboratory and 31 . Filter assemblies. we sub-sample on site by collecting small volumes of water intermittently over a 20 minute time period directly from water flowing in runoff ditches or from irrigation water outlets. The number of colonies developing on each plate after 48 hr total incubation is recorded and the number of colony forming units/ L (cfu/L) is calculated. Clean water will require larger volumes to be filtered to be sure of recovering any propagules present. Samples are transported back to the laboratory in ice chests and always assayed on the same day as collected. Filters can also be used in conjunction with commercially available detection kits. These factors combined with a long exposure time of one to two days result in a very sensitive recovery method. Sampling bottles can be easily disinfected by filling with dilute bleach solution (1-2% sodium hypochlorite) and letting them stand overnight.) in an ordinary hot water bath. e.g. but rather we sample these indirectly by drawing samples at points of delivery from water actively being pumped from them. in Irrigation Water Taking Water Samples for Analysis We use ordinary gallon (3. Selecting the most appropriate volumes to filter becomes easier to judge with experience. Motile Phytophthora zoospores congregate near the surface of water (negative geotropism) and are naturally attracted to plant baits (positive chemotaxis). MA) and three replicate filtrations are made for each selected volume. and other equipment used in the filtration process can be disinfected by hot water treatment (5 min at 60 C. and the plates returned to incubation for another 24 h. 20 ml and 2 ml (three replicate filtrations each). the filters are removed from the plates. but any similar sized container that can be disinfected would work. Plant baits have been shown to be very effective at recovering Phytophthora spp. Irrigation systems should be allowed to run until all water that has been standing in pipes is cleared. For unknown samples it is probably best to use three different volumes covering a wide range of possible concentrations. the maximum volume of water from runoff ditches that can be filtered without blocking filters is often only 50 ml. in 60-mm diameter petri plates.) plastic milk bottles to collect irrigation water samples. Filters are removed from the filtration assembly and inverted onto a selective medium. To avoid taking large volumes of water back to the lab and then sub-sampling. from Water by Filtration A series of volumes of water (effectively a dilution series without any addition of water) are filtered through 3µ Nuclepore polycarbonate membrane filters (47-mm diameter) held in a Nuclepore filter funnel assembly (Costar Scientific Corporation. graduated cylinders. 200 ml. On the other hand.

field conditions and found that rhododendron and lemon leaves gave the best recovery of Phytophthora spp.g. the outer edges of leaves were cut away and then cuts were made perpendicular to the cut edges so that leaf tabs with three cut sides were produced. whether captured runoff should be treated in a specific way before reuse. results in loss of specificity to detect only Phytophthora spp. Large numbers of zoospores can 32 . The whole baiting/ float apparatus was fastened securely to a fixed point with nylon rope and then floated on the surface of the water. In preparation for use as leaf baits. which are often chosen because they are easier to use. placed in individual Ziplock bags and transported back to the laboratory in ice chests. plant baiting methods are primarily qualitative and may not give enough information for certain management decisions. however. as well. Since concentrations of Pythium spp. and a small stone was added for weight. The tops of the bags were closed with fishing line. ELISA Detection Kits Although the potential for using ELISA (enzyme linked immunosorbant assay) kits to detect Phytophthora spp. This. Leaf tabs were removed from each leaf and plated onto P10VPH agar.. are 10 to 1000 times greater in surface waters and captured irrigation water than Phytophthora spp. in plant baits would appear to be great. This greatly enhances confidence in interpreting field results. Leaf baits can also be assayed using commercially available detection kits. The tabbed leaves were placed inside nylon mesh bags made by folding and stapling mesh pieces. in irrigation water. there are still technical problems to be resolved before this is possible. e. the bags containing the leaf baits were collected. Better technology should be developed in the near future to allow testing of leaf baits and filters for Phytophthora spp. Neogen's Alert Phytophthora detection kits detect the new infections of leaf baits very poorly unless the leaf pieces are first boiled to release antigens. Evaluating the Effectiveness of Detection and Recovery Methods in Different Situations There have been a variety of methods reported for recovering and assaying for Phytophthora spp. usually with 10 tabs per leaf. However. this means that many false positives will result. After a 24 hr exposure period. The number of infested leaf pieces from which Phytophthora colonies formed was recorded after 24 h incubation at 24oC. commonly found in irrigation water over a range of conditions. so that the kits give a positive reaction for Pythium spp. e.g. This is especially true for plant baiting methods. which was also used to secure the bait bag to a float (one quart plastic milk bottle with lid). A quantitative method would provide the information needed in such situations. but is technically more difficult. It is advisable to evaluate several different methods initially to select those that are the most effective and most practical for sampling at a specific nursery and in different parts of an irrigation system. water already treated to remove pathogens. It is best to test the ability of potential methods to assay water containing known concentrations of the Phytophthora spp. Plant baits are very sensitive and work particularly well when used to monitor in situations where Phytophthora levels are expected to be low. that are most likely to be problematic.

000 rpm for 10 minutes. Store refrigerated and protected from light. 2. Final Concentrations of Antibiotics: Pimaracin 10 mg/L Vancomycin 200 mg/L PCNB 100 mg/L Hymexazole 50 mg/L 3. Corn Meal Agar (CMA) Place 17 g of Bacto Difco Agar in a suitable container and make up to a final volume of 1 L with distilled H2O. Plates can be poured thinner than usual to get more plates per liter.** **For a convenient batch size. +/. Store plates in dark and use within 2 weeks. Agar Preparation: Add 20 ml stock solution to 1 L CMA cooled to 50 C. Media for Isolation. A more useful batch size is to add 3g agar to 200 ml V8 broth. +/1200 = 5 parts for a total of +/. to 4 parts distilled H2O.be produced for this purpose using the procedure described below in Axenic Production of Zoospores of Phytophthora spp. Then spin down @ 10. Autoclave for 20 minutes at 15 psi.0 g vancomycin (pure) 0. 1.53 g PCNB (95%) For P10VPH Stock Solution: Add 0. Shake well to dissolve/suspend antibiotics. Growth and Identification of Phytophthora spp. *Clarified V8 Broth: Combine 1 can (12 oz. For P10VP Stock Solution: Into 100 ml sterile distilled H2O in sterile bottle place: 1. Decant the supernatant and dilute 1:5 for 20% Clarified V8 broth. Autoclave.25 g hymexazole (99%) to the above mixture.1500 ml). Phytophthora-Selective Agar Medium (P10VPH) Note: P10VP agar selects for all pythiaceous fungi.1 g pimaracin (50%) 0. 33 . measure 200 ml into several bottles before autoclaving.300 ml. (1 part V8. P10VPH selects for Phytophthora.) V8 juice and 5 g. V8 Agar (V8A) Add 15 g Bacto Difco Agar to 1 L clarified V8 broth* and autoclave. and stir for 30 minutes. and pour immediately to plates.

Store in refrigerator. add distilled H2O to bring to 50 ml and stir with gentle heating until dissolved.51 g ** Chelated Iron Solution: To 0.652 g EDTA and 1.08 g MgSO4 * H2O 1. Mineral Salt Solution (MSS) Place the following in a suitable container and make up the final volume to 1000 ml with distilled H2O. 2 filter paper. Ca(NO3)2 * H2O 3. Filter through Whatman No. Then add 0.49 g KNO3 0.22u filter. Sterilize by passing through 0.245 g FeSO4*7H20. After cooled down add. 34 . 5. Store in refrigerator. Agitate suspension with magnetic stirrer for 24 hours at room temperature. Then autoclave 15 minutes @ 121 psi.375 g KOH. 1 ml sterilized chelated** iron solution. Non-Sterile Soil Extract (NSSE) Suspend 15g of sandy loam soil in 1L of distilled water.4. Store filtrate in refrigerator. Warm to dissolve.

2. syringae. There are seven Phytophthora spp. only about a dozen have actually been recorded. citricola. Measure these when found. Incubate at 20/21 C under fluorescent lights for 2-5 days. Transfer isolate from the leading edge of a colony growing on CMA to plates containing V8A. P. P. Measure the length and breadth of sporangia. identification becomes more and more easy!!! See Media for Isolation and Identification of Phytophthora spp. is likely to be found. citrophthora. P. cactorum. that are major pathogens of nursery crops and that are commonly recovered from surface and irrigation water. commonly found in irrigation water. oospores. Isolates of related fungi such as Pythium spp. dreschsleri. megasperma. hyphal swellings and other characteristic structures. Basic Procedures for Examining Isolates of Phytophthora spp. cinnamoni. These are P. Standard taxonomic keys or the simplified key provided here can be used to distinguish between the Phytophthora spp. Once familiar with these. could potentially occur in irrigation water under certain circumstances. Then place five 4 mm square blocks from the leading edge of an actively growing V8A culture of an isolate into one plate each of both types of media. hyphal branching pattern. the distinguishing taxonomic criterium between the genera Phytophthora and Pythium is where the zoospores 35 . 1. Pipette 10 ml of either medium into standard petri dishes so as to have one plate containing each type media for each isolate. usually can be eliminated at this point based on sporangia features. oogonia. gonapodyides. Examine daily for formation of sporangia. However. Examine cultures for production of sporangia. only a subset of the most common Phytophthora spp. P. above for details on preparing media mentioned in these procedures. Seal with Parafilm and incubate for 7-14 days. if several basic steps are undertaken. and P. However. and the common species can usually be identified with a reasonable degree of confidence. growth rate. Grow isolates out on CMA to check their purity and to make observations on colony morphology. in Irrigation Water Although any Phytophthora sp. isolates can at least be confirmed as Phytophthora spp. Use Parafilm to seal the plates so that they do not dry out and incubate cultures. chlamydospores. and any spores or structures formed. For most irrigation or surface water. hibernalis. 4. and P. Note especially the degree of papillation and the most prevalent sporangial shape. boehmeriae. 3. Other species that have been reported are P. P. for Identification Identification of Phytophthora spp. is difficult for all but the mycologists who specialize in working with these fungi. Induce production of sporangia using both mineral salt solution (MSS) and nonsterile soil extract (NSSE). P. Observe pertinent characteristics. There are some relatively basic procedures for examining isolates for identification.Appendix 2 Identification of Phytophthora spp. P. antheridia. parasitica.

Phytophthora citricola B. Most Commonly Isolated from Irrigation Water This simple key for identifying the seven most important and most common Phytophthora spp. Markedly papillate sporangia with narrow exit pores form readily on solid growth media such as CMA or V8A. If zoospore production is not observed. above for details on preparing media mentioned in the key. Phytophthora citrophthora 5/6/7.are formed. regular large shapes with consistently marked papillation. See Media for Isolation and Identification of Phytophthora spp. Oospores form only in the presence of the opposite mating strain (heterothallic). Zoospores of Pythium spp. Or use the simplified key to the seven Phytophthora spp. are formed in thin-walled vesicles arising from sporangia whereas Phytophthora spp. Antheridia are amphigynous. B. 3. Phytophthora parasitica 4. 36 . Non-papillate sporangia with wide exit pores not formed on agar but formed abundantly in NSSE and often proliferating internally. irregular shapes with papillae ranging from markedly to moderately papillate. Oospores form quickly (in 3-4 days) and abundantly in culture on media such as CMA or V8A (homothallic). Zoospores should be produced by 1-4 hours incubation at room temperature. Simplified Key to the Phytophthora spp. most often found in irrigation water provided here. Phytophthora cryptogea/ drechsleri/ gonapodyides complex N. 5. this can be induced by chilling plates in a refrigerator for 45 minutes. Phytophthora cactorum 2. A. sporangia tending to spherical. Antheridia are paragynous. A full identification can be made for most isolates based on the information obtained from the above procedures by consulting standard taxonomic keys and the species descriptions and photos. in nursery irrigation water is derived from the taxonomic keys of Waterhouse. Markedly papillate sporangia with narrow exit pores form readily on solid growth media such as CMA or V8A and also in MSS and NSSE. 1. Somewhat papillate to barely papillate sporangia with medium diameter exit pores often form on solid growth media such as CMA or V8A but readily form in NSSE. Species in this complex are often difficult to distinguish using morphological and cultural criteria alone. form within sporangia and exit the apices of sporangia in an already motile state. Sporangia tending to longer.

Very slowly and gently invert the bottle or tube two or three times to distribute the zoospores throughout the liquid. Add 10 ml of MSS to each plate. Remove MSS wash again (which will make a total of two MSS washings).square blocks of actively growing culture (leading edge) to 1-3 standard 90 mm petri plates containing 10 ml V8 broth each. Day 4. Start. Remove MSS from each plate. Encyst the zoospores in the suspension in Eppendorf tube by vigorously agitating for 90 seconds using a vortex mixer. Finally. Just before pipetting some of the zoospore suspension to the entry points of the counting chambers of the hemacytometer. Day 6. Remove and place on lab bench. Gently remove just the upper portion of the liquid preparation containing most of the zoospores with a pipette and place this in a small bottle or test tube with a lid. Replace with 10 ml of MSS per plate and return plates to incubation under lights. Zoospores can be harvested (released) on either Day 9 or Day 10. The sub-sample is now ready for counting. Transfer Phytophthora culture to 1-2 V8 agar (V8A) plates. Add another 10 ml MSS to each plate.Axenic Production of Zoospores of Phytophthora spp. Day 10. Swirl plates and let stand for 10-15 minutes. Use only 3 ml of MSS or SDH2O for washing or incubation. Day 5. add 10 ml of MSS to each plate and incubate plates at 20/21o C under fluorescent lights. View the counting chambers using a 37 . Estimating Zoospore Concentrations Using a Hemacytometer A hemacytometer can be used to estimate the concentration of zoospores of Phytophthora in liquids. Incubate at 2427o C depending on optimum growth temperature of the species. transfer only three 5mm square blocks into plates containing only 3 ml V8 broth each. Remove MSS wash and discard. Adjust other volumes according as well. Pipette MSS from each plate. for 3-4 days. For the chilling step. Then immediately afterward. use only 4ml SDH2O. remove 1 ml of the liquid with a pipette and place this in an Eppendorf tube with a cap. Remove broth with pipette and discard. Wash 2 times with approximately 10 ml SDH2O. Do not stack plates. Phytophthora zoospores are negatively geotropic and become concentrated near the top of any liquid containing them. Zoospores will be released in 1-2 hours. but preparations of motile zoospores require special care to obtain accurate estimates while still retaining the motility of the zoospores. Incubate at 24 C. Variation for use with small (60 mm) petri plates On Day 4. Swirl or rotate plate to aid in washing. agitate the suspension again for 5 seconds to evenly distribute the encysted zoospores. Then pipette 11 ml of SDH2O into each plate and place plates in refrigerator for 45 minutes. Transfer ten 5mm.

the number of zoospore cysts counted would be multiplied by 1. Figure 3 Counting with a zoospores with a hemacytometer 38 . if using the entire grid area as in Figure 3.microscope at 100X to count the zoospores cysts on the grids.11 X 103. Count enough sections to give reliable data without being laborious. For example. Use the appropriate multiplication factors given below to calculate an estimate of the number of cells per ml.

whereas Stage III illustrates the ideal in water quality management. B. • Fill tanks with water first. ponds. • If well water is used on site for human consumption. • Train personnel to keep the end of the filler hose above the spray tank’s water level. • Determine where and how much irrigation runoff leaves the nursery. Stage III • Fill and seal any nearby abandoned wells according to the specifications of the Oklahoma Water Resources Board. • Convert paved or bare soil areas to vegetation that will retard runoff (turf grasses or other comparable plant materials) wherever possible. Division of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources. The specific recommendations for protecting water quality have been broadly categorized into the following three management areas: irrigation. Stage II • Check backflow prevention devices at least once a year and record the date and result of this check. Extension Plant Pathologist Mike Schnelle. for more accurate scheduling of irrigation. Stage III • Install and use moisture sensors. leaving an air gap between the water and the hose. or wetlands. 39 . • Ensure that someone is near the spray tank during all filling and mixing operations. blending it with fresh water as necessary. pesticide storage bins. Stage II is strongly recommended for implementation whenever physically and financially possible. Compare lab results against local and Oklahoma water quality standards and regulations. • Adjust individual sections of the irrigation system to avoid excess watering in some sections. creeks. Runoff and Storm Water Management I. • Move fuel tanks. have the well water tested regularly for contamination. Stage I • Become familiar with all regulations regarding irrigation runoff and find out if a water discharge permit is required. Backflow Prevention Stage I • Install backflow prevention devices. fertilization. Irrigation Management A. • Keep records of rainfall or utilize Mesonet data for this purpose. • Group plants with similar water needs together to improve irrigation efficiency. • Establish plant buffer zones between production areas and ditches. Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service. or any other chemical storage units to sites at least 100 feet away from wells or other water supplies. then move the tanks away from the water source to add pesticide or fertilizer. E-951. • Capture runoff water on site and then recycle it onto crops. Extension Ornamental Floriculture Specialist (From: Water Quality Handbook for Nurseries. and pest and pesticide management. • Develop a plan to deal with off-site storm water retention and runoff from the nursery. Stage II • Use drip irrigation or intermittent (pulse) irrigation to reduce wasted water. lakes. Justification for implementing the prescribed BMPs and their relevance to protecting water quality can be found in appropriate chapters of the publication Water Quality Handbook for Nurseries. Stage I should be implemented wherever feasible by all nurseries.Appendix 3 Best Management Practices (BMPs)for Nurseries to Protect Water Quality Sharon von Broembsen. • Test and record the quality of irrigation water and runoff. such as tensiometers. Oklahoma State Universtiy) This water protection program has been divided into three stages for ease of implementation.

• Follow prescribed precautions carefully when applying soil-based pesticides. • Do not apply pesticides or other agricultural chemicals when rainfall is imminent or heavy irrigation is scheduled. and irrigation source water. • Mix pesticides at least 100 feet from any well. Use this plant map to methodically inspect the nursery weekly and record pest problems. • Test field soils annually to account for carry-over of nitrogen and other nutrients that might be present. • Triple rinse or pressure rinse used pesticide containers and then spray rinse water over a production area. softer pesticides that are much less toxic to the environment. with responsibility for coordinating all pest management actions. Reviews the results before any fertilizer is added. • Use up all mixed pesticides on suitable plant material. • Identify biological control agents that can replace chemical pesticides. • Identify specific pest problems to determine appropriate control options. Stage III • Eliminate routine leaching of crops • Use only controlled-release fertilizers except when special circumstances warrant the occasional use of soluble formulations. • Whenever feasible. and pH. Integrated Pest Management Stage I • Discontinue routine spray programs for pests. soil. e. 40 . Don’t store or dump them. • Don not get rid of unused pesticides by washing them down drains or throwing containers into farm dumps. Pest and PesticideManagement A. • Purchase pH and EC meters and use them to monitor pH and EC (soluble salts) of the media. rather than using broadcasting or widespread spraying. Stage II • Begin growing and selling pest-resistant (low pesticide input) plant materials.II. • Use traditional chemical pesticides effectively. • Utilize hazardous chemical collection days to get rid of old chemicals. spread out applications of controlled-release fertilizers and use split applications of soluble fertilizers over the growing season. • Map the nursery to document plant locations. Stage III • Assign one person to be an IPM manager. Stage II • Initiate transition from the use of soluble fertilizers to controlled-release fertilizers. • Start using some of the many highly effective. Instruct all personnel in the use of this plan. stream. or pond. Return empty pesticide containers to dealers. stream. • Relocate fertilizers that are stored within 100 feet from water sources. which unnecessarily exposes soil. • Do not spray pesticides around sinkholes. Stage I • Know the soul type and depth to ground water at the nursery site. Fertilization Management Stage I • Test irrigation water sources three times a year for salt levels.g. bicarbonates. horticultural oils or soaps. Porous soils shallow water tables require special care. such as biological control and improved cultural practices B. or pond. Stage II • Draw up an emergency action plan to contain pesticide spills in mixing and storage areas and to clean up pesticides spills in production areas. • Develop procedures for applying pesticides directly on or around the plant. • Evaluate and record the effectiveness of previous control strategies during weekly inspections. Do not over apply foliar based pesticides. • Make careful pest control notes in the field and transfer them to permanent records upon returning to the office. • Use more bio-intensive control options. • Use action thresholds based on acceptable levels of infestation or disease to decide when to treat. • Identify changes in cultural practices that might reduce specific pest problems. Preventing Contamination from Pesticides III. • Keep records of soil and water tests as a reference for making future pesticide application decisions. Apply pesticides only when needed. Use this information to determine fertilization levels. • Store pesticides in a facility with an impermeable floor and no floor drain situated at least 100 feet from any well. • Reduce routine leaching of crops..

i.e.. low leaching potentials for porous soils and shallow water tables or low runoff potentials for sites near surface water bodi 41 .Stage III • Compare the leaching and surface runoff potentials of alternative pesticides and use those with the lowest potential to contaminate.

Appendix 14: Description of Nursery Water Recycling Video 14-1 .

slow release fertilizers. pesticide storage.) Special disease management (intense scouting. etc. Juniper Hill has some unplanned recycling]] Managing Recycling Irrigation Systems (special how) BMP’s solidly in place (IPM.(Outline for Capture and Recycle Videotape) Capturing and Recycling Nursery Runoff to Protect Water Resources Introduction (why) The problem Options for dealing with Effluent control to keep below permit levels [keep below target levels to avoid pollution – they don’t really have a permit] Capture and recycle Benefits of Recycling (more why) Pollution prevention Reduced water costs [Reduced fertilizer bill (Tom is getting such info from GLN)] Steady water supply Storm water control [difficult problem. doing the right thing) . different from irrigation return flows] Greater management flexibility Capture and Recycle Systems (what and how. different qualities of water with respect to nutrients and pathogens) Ending (Take home message Summarize steps to implement Recap benefits of Capture and Recycle (tangible) Other intangible benefits (public image. resistant plant materials. segregation of problem areas to use virgin water) Special irrigation management (more intense. for whom) Basic elements: Model system (graphic version) [I’m looking forward to seeing this!] Low runoff volumes: TLC [Ingenious approach does the job!] High runoff volumes: GLN In between: Juniper Hill and Miller Plant Farms [Millers may express interest. but they don’t currently recycle.

Appendix 15: 1998 Greenleaf Nursery Capture & Recycle Costs and Benefits Survey 15-1 .

pipes.) at Park Hill? $850. etc. 5. pumping. c. 000 at El Campo? $75. Decreased concern with testing and regulations regarding daily runoff since it doesn’t’ exist anymore.2/3 full to push the water to the recycling system. What is the most important benefit of implementing recycling at El Campo? Environmental Issues. What was the most important problem encountered in implementing recycling at El Campo? The coupling of the recycling with the lack of drainage. Greater Less 70%Difference Observations: 70% less cost to use recycled water. Pest costs. Wilson 1. b. Water costs. What changes in the annual operating costs listed below have you seen at El Campo since recycling was implemented? a. . but there has been some increase in the occurrence of foliar phytophora. The drainage ditches have to be ½ . but not quantifiable at this state. How many acres are currently under production at Park Hill? 500 at El Campo? 260 2. e. scouting. including all cost to get water onto crops. management Greater Less %Difference Observations: In theory it should be the same since we are chlorinating the water. electricity) are much less since pumping from a ground level source is much cheaper than from a deep well. Which of the above changes in costs (either increased or decreased) do you consider to be most significant for El Campo? And why? Water costs–pumping costs (i.000 Comments: 3. channels. d. treatment. Impedes draining from growing areas.e.. including materials and application Greater Less %Difference Observations: Should be slightly less. 6. Fertilization costs.g.Costs and Benefits of Implementing Recycling of Irrigation Water by Greenleaf Nursery Company Shanda K. What is your best estimate of the total cost of the physical aspects of converting to capture and recycling (basins. pumps. 4. Not have to pump from deep wells. Losses of plants from disease Greater Less %Difference Observations: No measurable difference. including pesticides and their application.

Water costs. cleaning sediment traps. 8.g. Pest costs. When the last basin is complete and we start to finetune the system. What changes in the annual operating costs listed below have you seen at Park Hill since recycling was implemented? e. Losses of plants from disease Greater Less %Difference Observations: Not that can be definitely linked. f. management Greater Less %Difference Observations: Seems to be no difference at this stage. What is the most important benefit of implementing recycling at Park Hill? The contribution that we are making to the preservation of the Illinois River and Lake Tenkiller. scouting. treatment. including pesticides and their application. including materials and application Greater Less %Difference Observations: Get some benefit from the fertilizer in the runoff going back onto the plants.7. etc. pumping. 9. the only significant additional cost will be the maintenance of the system: repairing pump. Greater Less 20 %Difference Observations: At this stage it is higher because of having to move water from basin to basin. Construction was difficult and erosion into system will always be a problem. g. the cost should go down. e. Which of the above changes in costs (either increased or decreased) do you consider to be most significant for Park Hill? And why? Following the initial construction costs. Ferlilizations costs. Thank you!! . h. Plants have more uniformly better color. including all cost to get water onto crops. although we are concerned about pathogen levels and the possibility of having to chlorinate. 10. What was the most important problem encountered in implementing recycling at Park Hill? The terrain is so varied.

Appendix 16: Post-project Survey Information 16-1 .

Pursuant to 45 CFR 46 www. complete the following: ___Private ___State AG 96 EX059 _X__Federal Grant Number OSU Routing Number Type of Review Requested: _X__Exempt ___Expedited ___Expedited Special Population ___Full Board Principal Investigator(s): Name of Primary PI (typed) Michael D. Signature of PI Date 5/16/02 College DASNR Phone E-Mail E-Mail smolen@okstate.edu/irb For office use only: _______________________ IRB Number APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF HUMAN SUBJECTS RESEARCH Submitted to the OKLAHOMA STATE UNIVERSITY INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD Title of Project:Capture and Recycle Technology for Pollution Prevention in the Nursery Industry Is the Project externally funded? __X_Yes EPA (Ok Conservation Commission Name of Agency ___No If yes. Smolen Department I acknowledge that this represents an accurate and complete description of my research.edu Biosystems and Ag Engineering PI=s Address Name of PI (typed) Signature of PI Date E-Mail Department College PI=s Address Phone E-Mail Adviser (complete if PI is a student): I agree to provide the proper surveillance of this project to ensure that the rights and welfare of the human subjects are properly protected. Adviser=s Name Signature of Adviser Date E-Mail Department College Adviser=s Address Phone E-Mail .vpr.okstate.

A brief script will be used to introduce the subject. scripts. intervention. to be used. Include a copy of the script or other means to be used to solicit subjects. and all subjects will be older than 18 years. 5) any follow-up procedures planned.NOTE: If sufficient space is not provided below for a complete answer in sufficient detail for the reviewer to fully understand what is being proposed. etc. including: 1) sampling procedures. instructions. and 7) any anticipated risks.. There are no anticipated risks. There will be no attempt to draw a random sample from the total population of nursery growers. Describe the purpose of the research. 4) how long the subjects will be involved. tests. 2) sampling population. This will be followed by four open-ended questions. 3) number of subjects expected to participate. or other written instruments. 1. Script with Questionnaire is attached. Each subject will receive one phone call to last about 10 minutes. 2 . or manipulation of human subjects or their environments. We will take notes on the subjects’ responses and include them in the project final report. The subjects will be nursery operators. 2. This survey is intended to complete grant requirements to conduct a post-project survey to detrmine the level of implementation and interest in the technology and identify remaining barriers that prevent its implementation. Include a copy of any questionnaires. 6) the calendar time frame for gathering the data using human subjects. 3. please use additional pages as necessary. Please state explicitly if subjects are under 18 years of age. The calls will be made during June 2002. Describe each proposed condition. Describe the subjects of this study. Instead we will be calling about 10 individuals who have some familiarity with Extension Horticulture programs.

3 . If No.4. Will medical clearance be necessary for subjects to participate because of tissue or blood sampling. 8. please explain below. Will the subjects be deceived or misled in any way? [ ] Yes [ X ] No If Yes. social. 7. Section 116. Likewise. Will a written consent form (and assent form for minor) be used? [ ] Yes [ X ] No If Yes. please include the form(s). Will information be requested that subjects might consider to be personal or sensitive? [ ] Yes [ X ] No If Yes. physical. please explain below. that you will use to inform subjects of all the elements that are required in a written consent. such as a copy of a public notice. please explain below. We intend to limit the amount of work involved in this survey because there are no funds available for the task. 6. please explain below. 5. Interviews will be terminated if the subject is uncertain about use of the information or has any reservations. Will the subjects be presented with materials that might be considered to be offensive. script. Explain in detail why a written consent form will not be used and how voluntary participation will be obtained. please explain how the clearance will be obtained. we wish to limit the intrusion into the time of the subjects. or degrading? [ ] Yes [ X ] No If Yes. A suggested format and checklist for the consent form may be useful as a guide.. or legal risks that are greater than those ordinarily encountered in daily life or during the performance of routine physical or psychological examinations or tests? [ ] Yes [ X ] No If Yes. We feel that spontaneous response is more likely if we do not belabor the formalities in starting the questions. The subjects will have the opportunity to refuse to answer questions at any time. Will any inducements be offered to the subjects for their participation? [ ] Yes [ X ] No If Yes. Will the subjects encounter the possibility of stress or psychological. If extra course credit is offered. including measures planned for intervention if problems occur. 10. or physical exercise conditioning? [ ] Yes [ X ] No If Yes. please explain below. a waiver of written consent must be obtained from the IRB. describe the alternative means for obtaining additional credit available to those students who do not wish to participate in the research project. administration of substances such as food or drugs. threatening. 9. Include any related material. etc. Elements of informed consent can be found in 45 CFR 46.

111(a)(2) requires that the risks to subjects be reasonable in relation to the anticipated benefits. please explain below. This survey will help us understand where we are in acceptance of the technology and what barriers remain to its implementation. please describe below. Section 46. 12. is a benefit to society in that it reduces water pollution from the nursery industry.11. Will the subject’s participation in a specific experiment or study be made a part of any record available to his or her supervisor. The subject of the project. Note that 45 CFR 46. demonstration of Capture and Recycle Technology. 4 . teacher. The investigator should specifically state the importance of the knowledge that reasonably may be expected to result from this research. or employer? [ ] Yes [ x ] No If Yes. We will not associate the names of interviewees directly with responses after the calls are complete. 13. Describe the benefits that might accrue to either the subjects or society. Describe the steps you are taking to protect the confidentiality of the subjects. Will the data be a part of a record that can be identified with the subject? [ ] Yes [ x ] No If Yes. 14.

Number of copies to be submitted (based on type of review required): Exempt Expedited Expedited Special Population Full board 2 3 5 12 NOTE: 1. MODIFICATIONS DO NOT CHANGE THE PERIOD OF INITIAL APPROVAL. 5 . 2. This plan is generally used for thesis or dissertation research or other unfunded research. ANY CHANGES IN THE PROJECT AFTER APPROVAL BY THE IRB MUST BE RESUBMITTED AS A MODIFICATION FOR REVIEW BY THE IRB BEFORE APPROVAL IS GRANTED. FORMS FOR CONTINUATION AND MODIFICATION ARE AVAILABLE ON THE WEB AND IN THIS PACKET. survey. APPROVAL IS GRANTED FOR ONE YEAR MAXIMUM. AS LONG AS THE RESEARCH CONTINUES. ANNUAL REQUESTS MUST BE MADE TO THE IRB FOR CONTINUATION. testing] (survey instrument attached with script) Curriculum vitae (Smolen’s vitae attached) Department/college/division signatures Grant Proposal (Project work planattached) *Research plan should be a brief summary of research. the methodology. risks to subjects. and 11 ) Informed consent/assent forms (Waiver Requested herein) Outline or script to be provided prior to subjects= agreement to participate (Script attached) Instrument(s) [questionnaire. 2. and benefits.Concurrence: Department Head (type) Signature Date Department College Dean or Research Director Date College Checklist for application submission: Χ Χ Χ Χ Χ Χ Χ Research plan* (Included in this form under questions 1.

SURVEY QUESTIONS 1. Have you heard of capture and recycle technology for pollution control on nurseries? 2. We are collecting information to assess the impact of a recent education project on the nursery industry. your help is much appreciated.INTRODUCTION My name is ____________ and I am with the Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service. In your opinion. . Would you be able to answer four questions for me? It will take approximately five minutes. why is C&R not more widely used in Oklahoma? CLOSING Thank you for your time. Do you currently utilize capture & recycle technology in your nursery operation? 3. Are you interested in capture & recycle technology? 4.

Can’t-uses drip irrigation. Unable to reach contact person for Respondent Number 7 after repeated phone calls H. Thinks it is interesting. b) Disruption to crop cycle that would result from installation and implementation of the technology F. etc. other chemicals back onto the crops that make you your living . Featured in video. etc. Danger of pumping herbicides. Capture and Recycle Post-project Survey Responses A. brought up interesting question about the differences between a tree & shrub nursery that fertilizes and waters year round vs. a) Initial cost. N 3. Respondent Number 9 interviewed on May 29. Y-was aware of it as a practice. 2002 1. Cost of building retention ponds. Oklahomans don’t buy into federal buzzwords. Respondent Number 5 interviewed on May 30. Y 5. changing pumping stations. nothing to capture 4. 2002 1. who uses more water and/or fertilizer. chemicals. Unable to reach contact person for Respondent Number 3 after repeated phone calls D. Respondent Number 1 interviewed on May 30. b/c of location (urban) they must be aware of the political implications. Respondent Number 8 interviewed on May 29. Unable to reach contact person for Respondent Number 4 after repeated phone calls E. one of the first in the industry 4. N-100% retail store 3. Y 3. the technology designation was confusing to him 2.I. but doesn’t see how it would work in a retail operation. Unable to reach contact person for Respondent Number 6 after repeated phone calls G. does the short growing season affect an annual nursery’s attitude toward recycling (why spend the $$ for something used 6 months a year?) B. 2002 1. those that recycle that he knows of are very large commercial operations. recognize that bureaucracy runs the world I. not sure that a true environmental threat has been shown to exist. pesticides. an annual and bedding plant grower that is only in operation for 6-9 months out of the year. Y 2. 2. does the more intensive care of the annuals and bedding plant nursery have more potential impact the environment (greater concentration in shorter time period). Thinks cost would be the major prohibitive factor. 2002 1. Y 4. fertilizers.. 4. feels most growers would want to protect environment. Unable to reach contact person for Respondent Number 2 after repeated phone calls C. average small grower probably can’t afford the expense.. Y 3. Y 2.

2002 O. Inconvenience of planning and installation. No-in his operation has no reason to. 2002 M. Depends 4. Respondent Number 11 interviewed on May 30. 2002 P. Initial response was cost. getting them to do something different is just not easy. Y-has a small holding area that they pump back into one of the watering ponds using gasoline pumps. recycles approximately 25% of their water. larger nurseries that do have room don’t use it because of lack of pressure. watering out of a pond. N 3. Respondent Number 18 interviewed on May 31. 2002 1. Unable to reach contact person for Respondent Number 13 on May 31. Y 2. When somebody’s been doing something one way for 30 years. Respondent Number 17 interviewed on May 31. but do not use fertilizers there. Respondent Number 16 interviewed on May 31. Unable to reach contact person for Respondent Number 15 on May 31. use daily during July and August to conserve water 3. ie. 2002 1. Unable to reach contact person for Respondent Number 12 on May 31. Y 2. but most of those nurseries are close to the Rio Grande and there is pressure to prevent runoff to the river. do have overhead irrigation at the shipping lot. N – uses drip irrigation. Matter of scale-smaller nurseries like themselves don’t have room to put in a reservoir. did mention that come recycling of nutrients would occur L. 2002 1. she has seen C&R in New Mexico. the technology designation was confusing to him 2.” S. need to have large area to install one of those ponds Q. Respondent Number 17 interviewed on May 31. Y-was aware of it as a practice. 2002 1. she said Greenleaf has the pressure of being on Lake Tenkiller. N-water by hand 3. 2002 1. in drought situation runs a ribbon line from wells to first year stuff. Unable to reach contact person for Respondent Number 14 on May 31. not big enough to use it 4. Y 2. 2002 N. only had to do about 5 times in ~20 years 3. Y 2. “could install it if we had to”. Unable to reach contact person for Respondent Number 10 after repeated phone calls K. No 4. if a different situation. then might have cause to consider it 4. “Change is the hardest thing in the world. so they might not do it if they weren’t at that location R. No. “pray for rain”. labor involved.J. N 3. I asked if there were any other downsides and he said increased disease. did mention he had read much on the subject and mentioned awards Greenleaf has won 4. N-does not irrigate. Cost of setup is primary reason .

why is capture and recycle not more widely used in Oklahoma?’. seven of nine operators said they do not. This suggests there is a concern that capture and recycle is an “all or nothing” undertaking. “Have you heard of capture and recycle technology for pollution control on nurseries?” All nine contacts were familiar with capture and recycle as a process. or do not irrigate (1). and the interviews produced informative discussion. are 100% retail (1). The first question asked. ‘In your opinion. during discussion. A copy of the survey instrument. and many discussed other operations and facilities about which they had heard or read. Several mentioned the operations at Greenleaf and their environmental awards. identified using internet search techniques. Evidently. one interviewee inquired about capture and recycle usage of two other nurseries. However. and complete survey results are included as Appendix 16. partial recycling efforts.. but they seemed to be confused by “capture and recycle technology. One mentioned the potential costs of time and labor associated with planning and installation. he commented that they do recycle water (approximately 25% of the nursery volume) from a small holding area during July and August to conserve water. The third question. one of those who utilize capture and recycle replied in the negative. These two locations were added to the call list. it becomes even more difficult to for them to justify the expenditure for installing capture and recycle equipment and processes. Cost was the most frequently mentioned prohibitive factor. and promote these small. as well as six more contacts. Their reasons for this were given in response to questions 2 and 4. many of these small nurseries may only be active for 6-9 months of the year. Five indicated they had virtually no runoff because they: they use drip irrigation (2). Three contacts felt that the physical area of the operation could limit usage (i. The final question. several “not interested” responses were given because operators were not interested in utilizing it in their operation. ‘Do you currently utilize capture and recycle technology in your nursery operation?’. or else they would not have been willing to discuss it at such length. where can a green house put a retention pond?) Two respondents were concerned about increased incidence of disease.Post-project survey –Ten nursery operators familiar to Extension programs were identified and selected as the focus for a post-project phone survey. Interestingly. was successful in generating discussion about the topic. when asked this specifically at the start of the interview. However. while another was wary of the disruption to the crop cycle that could result. IRB Approval. In all. . However. ‘Are you interested in capture and recycle technology?’ had the undesired effect of being interpreted two different ways.” Their familiarity was expressed clearly when the interviewer expounded upon the question. This should be remembered for future educational programming. only five responses were obtained. all contacts must have had some interest. With this limited usage. those operators that could be contacted were very cooperative. Another interesting point was brought out in one discussion concerning smaller operations. When asked. nine operators out of 18 potential contacts were interviewed. As general knowledge. During such discussion. encourage.e. Future educational programs should highlight. After several attempts to contact them. water by hand (1). Only two operators indicated they utilize capture and recycle as a management tool.

as a motivating factor. or lack thereof. And one operator stated the challenge that faces all educational programming. or management-related aspects.” . in addition to operational-. “Change is the hardest thing in the world. some respondents indicated that the philosophy behind management also affects capture and recycle implementation.Finally. When somebody’s been doing something one way for 30 years. getting them to do something different is just not easy. Two respondents mentioned political pressure.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful