Скачать презентацию Nonpoint Source Success Stories Linking Projects with Water Скачать презентацию Nonpoint Source Success Stories Linking Projects with Water

48fb8b61c1665f226185feed06c5e256.ppt

  • Количество слайдов: 28

Nonpoint Source Success Stories: Linking Projects with Water Quality Improvement Steve Epting, ORISE Fellow 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? – How 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 www. epa. gov/nps/success

Success Stories reflect the most common causes and sources of impairment (Rivers & Streams Success Stories reflect the most common causes and sources of impairment (Rivers & Streams - 2010) Top 5 Causes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Pathogens Sediment Nutrients Organic Enrichment/Oxygen Depletion Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Top 5 Probable Sources 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Agriculture Atmospheric Deposition Unknown Hydromodification Urban-Related Runoff/Stormwater

NPS Success Story Options Type 1 (WQ-10): Fully or Partially Restored Waters • Must 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 2 Some, but not all of the DUs are supported 3 Category Description 1 2 Some, but not all of the DUs are supported 3 List of Impaired waters All DU are supported, no use is threatened 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. 4 a – TMDL established 4 b – other required control measures expected to result in attainment of WQS in reasonable time 4 c – Non-attainment result of pollution, not pollutant 5 303(d) At least one DU is not being supported or is threatened, and TMDL is needed

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

Example: Maryland’s Bens Branch/Lake Linganore (Type 2: Showing Measurable Progress) • Lake Linganore listed Example: Maryland’s Bens Branch/Lake Linganore (Type 2: Showing Measurable Progress) • Lake Linganore listed in 1996 for sediment and nutrients BEFORE • Partners implemented agricultural BMPs and stabilized streambanks (Bens Branch). • Results: Sediment and phosphorus levels declined, but do not yet meet standards. AFTER

Example: MA’s Winsegansett Marsh (Type 3: Showing Ecological Restoration) BEFORE • Development reduced flow Example: MA’s Winsegansett Marsh (Type 3: Showing Ecological Restoration) BEFORE • 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 Photo Credit: Buzzards Bay NEP AFTER

Common Attributes of NPS Success Stories • Practices target specific nonpoint sources • Planning: Common Attributes of NPS 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 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 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 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 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 monitoring 1. 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 Addressing NPS Monitoring Needs: Oklahoma Conservation Commission

Oklahoma Conservation Commission Rotating Basin Monitoring Program – 245 ambient monitoring sites; each station Oklahoma Conservation Commission Rotating 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 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 instream nutrient loading within 4 – 7 years of beginning implementation

Bull Creek- NE OK • 31, 175 acre watershed • 17 mile creek • 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 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 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.

Addressing NPS Monitoring Needs: Ohio EPA Addressing NPS Monitoring Needs: Ohio EPA

Ohio EPA • State conducted NPS program evaluation in 2007 to assess use of 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 FY 08, OEPA staff conducted all monitoring for 319 projects (no 319 subgrants for monitoring) Grant Cycle Monitoring $ FFY 05 FFY 06 FFY 07 FFY 08 $304, 538 $508, 330 $271, 294 $44, 780

OEPA 319 Project Monitoring Team Environmental Specialist (FISH) Environmental Specialist (BUGS) 2 College Interns OEPA 319 Project Monitoring Team Environmental Specialist (FISH) Environmental Specialist (BUGS) 2 College Interns (FISH) 1 College Intern (BUGS) Total Cost: about $53, 000/yr

OEPA 319 Project Monitoring Team QHEI ICI IBI Habitat Assessment Bugs Assessment Fish Assessment OEPA 319 Project Monitoring Team QHEI ICI IBI Habitat Assessment Bugs Assessment Fish Assessment 75 Sampling Sites/Year 5 Sites/Project 15 Projects/Year

Benefits Cost Savings All Level 3 Credible Data All Data STORET Compatible One QAPP Benefits Cost 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 Questions related to NPS success stories or WQ-10? Steve Epting – EPA Nonpoint Source Control Branch epting. [email protected] gov