Nonpoint Source Success Nonpoint Source Success Stories: Linking Stories: Linking Projects with Projects with Water Quality Water Quality Improvement Improvement Steve Epting, ORISE Fellow US EPA – Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds Nonpoint Source Control Branch
28
Embed
Nonpoint Source Success Stories: Linking Projects with Water Quality Improvement
Nonpoint Source Success Stories: Linking Projects with Water 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? - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
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
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.
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
nies
/100
mL)
201020082004
1500
1000
500
1260
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