Nonpoint Source Success Stories: Nonpoint Source Success Stories: Linking Projects with Linking Projects with

Water Quality ImprovementWater Quality Improvement

Steve Epting, ORISE Fellow US EPA – Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds

Nonpoint Source Control Branch

Discussion Outline• Overview of NPS success stories

– What is eligible?– How does US EPA use this information?– What do 270+ success stories tell us about

“success”?

• Role of NPS Monitoring– Available resources – Examples of innovative state approaches to

address NPS monitoring needs

www.epa.gov/nps/success

Success Stories reflect the most common causes and sources of impairment

(Rivers & Streams - 2010)Top 5 Causes

1. Pathogens2. Sediment 3. Nutrients 4. Organic Enrichment/Oxygen

Depletion 5. Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)

Top 5 Probable Sources1. Agriculture2. Atmospheric Deposition3. Unknown4. Hydromodification5. Urban-Related Runoff/Stormwater

NPS Success Story Options Type 1 (WQ-10): Fully or Partially Restored Waters• Must have been listed as impaired during 1998/2000

listing cycle or later• Tracked on segment (waterbody) basis• Current Tally = 433 waterbodies• WQ has improved due to actual NPS pollution control

or restoration efforts. Improvements must be documented

*High bar = documenting attainment of WQS

Category Description

1 All DU are supported, no use is threatened

2 Some, but not all of the DUs are supported

3 Insufficient data and/or info. to make DU support determination

4

At least one DU is not being supported or is threatened. TMDL is not needed.4a – TMDL established4b – other required control measures expected to result in attainment of WQS in reasonable time4c – Non-attainment result of pollution, not pollutant

5 At least one DU is not being supported or is threatened, and TMDL is needed303(d)

List ofImpairedwaters

LOCAL Example: Alabama’s Flint River(Type 1: Fully or Partially Restored)

• Lower mainstem listed as impaired in 1998 for DO/organic enrichment due to agricultural activities and urbanization

• Agricultural BMPs (winter cover, conservation tillage, livestock protection, nutrient plans) and education/outreach efforts in early 2000’s

• 28-mile segment removed from impaired waters list in 2006 (partially restored)

NPS Success Story Options *These stories do not count towards WQ-10, but are published on

the Success Story website:

Type 2: Waters Showing Measurable Progress • Listed as impaired• Show progress towards meeting WQ goals• Do not yet meet WQ standards

Type 3: Waters Showing Ecological Restoration• Waterbody had WQ problems (but were not listed on

303(d) or on the Integrated Report); restoration efforts restored one or more uses.

• Lake Linganore listed in 1996 for sediment and nutrients

• Partners implemented agricultural BMPs and stabilized streambanks (Bens Branch).

• Results: Sediment and phosphorus levels declined, but do not yet meet standards.

Example: Maryland’s Bens Branch/Lake Linganore (Type 2: Showing Measurable Progress)

BEFORE

AFTER

• Development reduced flow between marsh and Buzzards Bay, causing salinity to decline

• Salt-intolerant species (invasive common reed) began to dominate plant community

• Project partners increased tidal exchange by four existing culverts with larger ones

• Led to decrease in salt-intolerant, invasive species; increase in native salt marsh grasses

Example: MA’s Winsegansett Marsh(Type 3: Showing Ecological Restoration)

BEFORE

AFTER

Photo Credit: Buzzards Bay NEP

Common Attributes ofNPS Success Stories• Practices target specific nonpoint sources

• Planning: TMDL, watershed-based plan

• Section 319 funds support planning and/or implementation (sometimes staff support)

• Multiple project partners involved (local, state, federal)

• WQ monitoring data (and photos) showing improvement

How does EPA use success story information?• National Water Program Guidance. Helps direct state

efforts to document NPS results.

• Highlight “best practices” where restoration efforts have resulted in water quality improvement, e.g., coordination with partner agencies

• Respond to Congressional inquiries and coordinate with EPA management (e.g., organizing site visits)

Chehalis River Basin, WA

Role of NPS Monitoring in Determining WQ-10 “Success”

BEFORE

AFTER

Muddy Creek, WY

Resources to Support NPS monitoring• State ambient monitoring program, but…competing

resource demands and issues of scale– CWA Section 106 funds

• CWA Section 319 funds– General NPS monitoring; project effectiveness monitoring

• Other federal/state partners - USGS• Volunteer Monitoring Networks

– Wisconsin’s Citizen Based Monitoring Program– Virginia’s Save our Streams Program

NPS Monitoring and WQ-10 “Success”• State must demonstrate that NPS-impaired waterbody now meets

WQS for one or more pollutant or designated use.

• State defines “success” through state WQS

• Relies on significant investment in NPS monitoring1. Pre-project monitoring for 305(b)/303(d) state program, watershed

characterization and TMDL/watershed-based plan development, including ID of NPS critical areas

2. During/post-project monitoring to assess project effectiveness, water quality trends, and eligibility for impairment delisting

• National NPS Monitoring Program estimates total project period of 10+ years: Baseline monitoring (2+ years) + BMP implementation (3-5 years) + post-project monitoring (3+ years)

Addressing NPS Monitoring Needs:Oklahoma Conservation Commission

Oklahoma Conservation CommissionRotating Basin Monitoring Program

– 245 ambient monitoring sites; each station sampled every 5 weeks for period of 2 years

– Fixed stations upstream of permitted discharges, reservoirs, confluences, etc. to focus on NPS

– Focus on pollutants for which the state has quantitative water quality standards, also includes nutrients

– Funded primarily with CWA Section 319

Additional 250 probabilistic sites monitored every 5 years

Year 1/6

Year 2/7

Year 3/8

Year 4/9

Year 5/10

Oklahoma Conservation Commission• In NPS Priority Watersheds (319

project areas), a paired watershed monitoring program monitors load reduction of critical parameters

• This monitoring has shown up to 60 – 70% reductions in-stream nutrient loading within 4 – 7 years of beginning implementation

Bull Creek- NE OK

• 31,175 acre watershed• 17 mile creek• Land use primarily

pasture land• Wheat, corn, and cattle

production• 303(d) listed in 2002 for

turbidity, fecal bacteria, and dissolved oxygen

Bull Creek• Conservation Practice funding

– EQIP and CSP invested approx. $277,936– Conservation Districts provided approx. $14,085 and

landowners $16,528 through the state cost-share program• Practices installed included:

– Pasture and rangeland planting on 169 acres– Brush management on 908 acres– Pest management on 3,431 acres– Forage harvest management on 281 acres– Prescribed grazing on 7,436 acres– 4,171 feet cross-fencing– 10 ponds– Conservation crop rotation on 216 acres– Conservation tillage on 948 acres– Nutrient management plans on 417 acres– 12,550 feet of terraces

Bull Creek - Water Quality Results• EPA 319 funded water

quality monitoring has documented significant improvements in turbidity and E. coli bacteria.

• Bull Creek was delisted from OK’s 303(d) list for turbidity and E. coli in 2010.

Assessment Year

Turb

idity (

NTU

)

2010200820042002

150

100

50

0

Bull Creek

exceedance 29%

exceedance 35%

exceedance 25%

exceedance 6%

Assessment Year

E. C

oli

(colo

nie

s/100 m

L)

201020082004

1500

1000

500

126

0

Bull Creek

Geometric Mean = 317

Geometric Mean = 250

Geometric Mean = 123

Addressing NPS Monitoring Needs:Ohio EPA

Ohio EPA• State conducted NPS program evaluation in 2007 to assess use of

319 funding.• Found that monitoring costs frequently exceeded 319 project

implementation• Beginning in FY08, OEPA staff conducted all monitoring for 319

projects (no 319 subgrants for monitoring)

Grant Cycle Monitoring $

FFY05 $304,538FFY06 $508,330FFY07 $271,294FFY08 $44,780

OEPA 319 Project Monitoring Team

Environmental Specialist

(FISH)

2 College Interns(FISH)

Environmental Specialist(BUGS)

1 College Intern(BUGS)

Total Cost: about $53,000/yr

OEPA 319 Project Monitoring Team

QHEIHabitat

Assessment

ICIBugs

Assessment

IBIFish

Assessment

75 Sampling Sites/Year

5 Sites/Project

15 Projects/Year

BenefitsCost Savings

All Level 3 Credible Data

All Data STORET Compatible

One QAPP

Project & Watershed Specific

Questions related to NPS success stories or WQ-10?

Steve Epting – EPA Nonpoint Source Control Branchepting.steven@epa.gov