DWQ-2011-020000

UTAH
NONPOINT SOURCE
POLLUTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

FISCAL YEAR 2010
ANNUAL REPORT

January 2011
Prepared by:
Utah Department of Environmental Quality
and
Utah Department of Agriculture and Food
in cooperation with NPS Task Force

1
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Appreciation is expressed to the following individuals for contributing information and writing
portions of this report: Roy Gunnell, WD Robinson, Jack Wilbur and Mark Quilter, Utah
Department of Agriculture and Food; Chuck Gay, Nancy Mesner and Rhonda Miller, USU
Extension; Gordon Younker, Utah Association of Conservation Districts; Norm Evenstad,
Natural Resources Conservation Service; Bill Goodman, Forest Service; Lisa Bryant, Bureau of
Land Management; Dave Thoma, National Park Service; Ben Radcliffe, US Bureau of
Reclamation; Rory Reynolds, Mike Eriksson, Utah Department of Natural Resources; Scott
Stoddard, U.S. Army Corps. of Engineers; Carl Adams, Robert Bird, Stacy Carroll, and Jim
Harris, Utah Division of Water Quality. The DWQ also appreciates the progress reports
submitted by the Local Watershed Coordinators as follows: Upper Sevier, Wally Dodds; Middle
and Lower Sevier, Lynn Koyle; San Pitch, Tom Shore; West Colorado, Daniel Gunnell; Uinta
Basin, Gary Weiser; Jordan River, Marian Hubbard; Upper Weber, Lars Christensen; Lower and
Middle Bear, Jim Bowcutt; Upper Bear, Taylor Payne & Brady Thornock; and Bear Lake, Mitch
Poulsen.

Thanks is also expressed to Gary Kleeman, Watershed Team, US Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 8 in Denver for his review and input to the report.

Cover Photo: Stream restoration photos from High Creek taken by Jim Bowcutt, with Utah State
University Extension.

2
Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION AND PROGRAM OVERVIEW................................................................................. 4
GRANT MANAGEMENT AND PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION...................................................... 4
STAFFING AND SUPPORT........................................................................................................................... 6
MILESTONES ............................................................................................................................................. 6
WATERSHED BASED PLANS/ TMDLS- SUMMARY................................................................................... 7
PROJECT PROPOSALS APPROVED FOR FUNDING DURING FY- 10 SOLICITATION PROCESS.................. 7
NPS PROGRAM STRATEGIC APPROACH........................................................................................... 8
TARGETED BASIN APPROACH .................................................................................................................. 8
UTAH STATE NPS FUNDING ..................................................................................................................... 9
PROGRAM MATCH STATUS ...................................................................................................................... 9
INTEGRATING WATERSHEDS AND NPS FUNDING (BASIN WIDE SUMMARY)......................................... 10
NPS WATER QUALITY TASK FORCE/ MONITORING COUNCIL ............................................................ 14
WATER QUALITY INFORMATION..................................................................................................... 16
SAMPLING AND ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES- JIM HARRIS ....................................................................... 16
Data Analysis and Assessment...........................................................................................................18
GROUND WATER PROTECTION.............................................................................................................. 18
OUTREACH ACTIVITIES ...................................................................................................................... 18
STATE AGENCY CONTRIBUTIONS.................................................................................................... 19
FEDERAL AGENCY CONTRIBUTIONS.............................................................................................. 23
VIII. Federal Consistency Review and NPS Project Tours for FY-2010 ......................................32
APPENDICIES…………………………………………………………………………………………….44
Figure 1- Project Location Map………………………………………………………………………………...44
Table A - 319 projects closed in FY-2010…………………………………………………………………...…45
Table B- Summary of Active 319 Grants in FY-2010…………………………………………………………46
Table C- Approved TMDLs………………………………………………………………………………………49
Table D- Watershed Plans…………………………………………………………………………..…………...50
Table E- State NPS Funds Allocated in 2010……………………………………………………..…………..50
Table F- Summary of NRCS Conservation Practices……………………………………………………......51
Table G- State Program Funds Used in Conjunction with 319 Funds………………...………………….55

3
I. Introduction And Program Overview

This report fulfills the requirements of Section 319(m)(1) of the federal Clean Water Act of 1987.
The Utah Department of Environmental Quality’s Division of Water Quality annually prepares
this report to inform the public, the U.S. Congress and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) on the state’s progress in the area of nonpoint source water pollution abatement. Although
this report should not be considered a complete enumeration of all nonpoint source activities, it
describes the most important features of Utah’s nonpoint source program.

The mission of the Utah Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Program is to support the
environmental protection goals of the state as described in the Utah Administrative Code
R317-2 in part to: 1) to conserve the waters of the state; 2) to protect, maintain, and improve
the quality of the waters of the state for public water supplies, species protection and
propagation and for other designated uses; and 3) to provide for the prevention, abatement
and control of new or existing sources of polluted runoff. The Utah NPS Management
Program works to achieve these goals by working in concert with numerous local, state and
federal agencies and private parties pursuant to the Utah NPS Pollution Management Plan.

Nonpoint source pollution refers to diffuse pollutants that when added together from an entire
watershed can significantly impact water quality in streams and even have more cumulative
impacts in lakes and reservoirs. Non point source (NPS) pollution is diffuse, generally not
coming from a discrete point such as a pipe but as a result of land runoff, percolation,
precipitation or atmospheric deposition. Rain and other forms of precipitation wash
pollutants from the air and land and into our streams, lakes, reservoirs and groundwater.
Such pollutants can include sediment, nutrients, pathogens (bacteria and viruses), toxic
chemicals, pesticides, oil, grease, salt and heavy metals. In Utah our most common problems
are sediment, nutrients, metals, salts and pathogens. These pollutants alter the chemical,
physical and biological integrity of the water and can impair their designated uses. Most
assessment units (waterbodies) that are listed on the State’s 2008 303(d) List of Impaired
Waters are on the list because of nonpoint source pollution. Some of the common sources of
NPS pollution include agricultural activities, runoff from parking lots, streets and residential
areas, mining and forestry operations, recreational activities, onsite septic treatment systems,
construction, stream/riparian habitat degradation and natural sources.

II. Grant Management and Program Administration

In Fiscal Year 2010 (FY-10) the Utah NPS program received $1,773,800 in federal section 319(h)
funds. Of these funds, $708,800 was used for staffing and support, while the remaining
$1,065,000 was dedicated to 14 projects across the State of Utah. In addition to these funds an
additional $66,582 was recertified from prior funding years to help conduct an in-depth
evaluation of Utah’s NPS Program. Section 319(h) funds are distributed at the local level to help
address water quality issues contributing to nonpoint source pollution. Recipients of these funds
can include local government entities, watershed groups and individual cooperators. The projects
selected for funding consisted of information and education projects, support of local watershed
coordinators, Best Management Practice (BMP) implementation, and watershed group support,
(See Figure 1).

4

Figure 1
2010 NPS Program Categorical Funding Distribution
Total Amount of Funding: $1,131,582
*NPS Program
Evaluation
$66,582
6%
Watershed
Coordinator
Support
$400,000
35%
Watershed
Group Support
$71,600
6%
BMP
Implementation
$474,200
42%
Information and
Education
$119,200
11%
*This project was supported by funds that were transferred from previous funding years.

In addition to the FY-10 funds Utah continues to manage five other federal grant awards, which
have been partially or completely expended. Table 1 summarizes grant awards by year and the
approximate percentage that has already been expended in each grant.

Table 1
Current Section 319(h) Nonpoint Source Funding Project Allocations
Federal Fiscal Year Grant Award Expenditures
in FY-10
Total
Expenditures
Percent
Expended
FY-05 $1,308,400 $275,017 $1,308,400 100%
FY-06 $1,219,600 $87,433 $907,445 74%
FY-07 $1,126,500 $450,530 $668,409 59%
FY-08 $1,161,585 $391,736 $682,628 59%
FY-09 $1,119,400 $297,908 $297,908 27%
FY-10 $1,131,582* $2,523 $2,523 0.2%
Total $7,067,067 $1,505,147 $3,867,313 55%

*Includes $66,582 from prior funding years

5
1) Staffing and Support

DEQ, Division of Water Quality continues to devote about 6.5 FTEs to the NPS Pollution
Management Program that are funded 60% with 319 funds and 40% state revenue. Those
positions include the following: NPS Program Coordinator; one full time monitoring position; 2.4
FTEs devoted to watershed planning and TMDL development; 0.4 FTE devoted to groundwater
assessment and protection; two seasonal monitoring positions (0.7 FTE); and nearly 1 FTE
supporting program management and administration.

Section 319 funds allocated to staffing and support functions are also utilized to pay for
laboratory support and report preparation. This includes laboratory analysis of water samples.
Phytoplankton samples are also collected annually from selected lakes and reservoirs by DWQ
monitoring staff. Macroinvertebrates are also collected in various locations. The analysis of these
samples and annual reports are paid for in part with 319 funds.

The Utah Department of Agriculture and Food’s (UDAF) Environmental Quality Section via
contract with DEQ has management and statewide responsibility for the agricultural component
of the NPS Program. UDAF received $235,245 in FY-10 319(h) funds to help fund 4 positions
which include:

NPS Information and Education Coordinator (1 FTE) - This position oversees many of the
outreach projects throughout the state. This includes workshops, press releases, articles, and
other water quality propaganda.

Account Technician (1 FTE) - The responsibilities of this position include preparing nonpoint
source contracts and processing payment requests. They are also in charge of tracking all
contract funding and transactions of 319 funds managed by UDAF.

Program Tracking Specialist (1 FTE) - This employee collects information and reports from
local project coordinators, then imports data into the Grant Reporting and Tracking System
(GRTS).

Environmental Quality Section Manager (1 FTE) - Facilitates and assists with the
development of the proposals and project implementation plans submitted by local watershed
coordinators. H also administers three fiscal year statewide AFO 319 grant project
implementation plans.

2) Milestones

• Utah continues to finish out older contracts. The FY-05 contracts will be closed in
September of 2010. The majority of these projects have already been closed. Final
reports have been received for all projects but three. Information will be entered into
GRTS as it becomes available.
• Utah has developed a yearly basin funding approach. The purpose of this approach is to
allocate the majority of the funds from each year to a targeted watershed. Funding will
be based on a six year funding cycle.
• The NPS Task Force joined forces with other supporting agencies to sponsor the 20th
Annual Nonpoint Source Water Quality Conference held October 5th-7th, 2010 in
Richfield, Utah. The theme of the conference was “Landscape Approach to Watershed
Health”.
6
• The NPS Task Force continued to meet throughout the year. Meetings were held
September 9th, 2009, December 15th, 2009, March 30th, 2010, and May 27th, 2010.
• The Utah Watershed Coordinating Council (UWCC) continues to meet 3 times per year
to exchange information, provide training and promote the local ownership and
development of watershed restoration plans.
• The Utah State Monitoring Council was organized, and meets 3 times a year. This
council consists of several state and federal agencies that have a vested interest in water
quality monitoring. Monitoring effectiveness and monitoring goals of the various
agencies are discussed in these meetings.
• Utah State University has been contracted to do an in-depth evaluation of the Utah State
NPS program. This evaluation will help determine if there are more effective ways to run
the NPS program. It will also look at the effectiveness of the practices that are currently
being installed to reduce nonpoint source pollution. This evaluation has already begun,
and is scheduled to be completed by the spring of 2012. Preliminary results of the
evaluation may be available as early as September of 2011.
• Utah continues to improve NPS contract close-out practices. During FY-10, the NPS
team closed out 62 projects from the FY-01 through FY-06 grants. In addition, project
closing instructions and expectations, such as final invoice, match reconciliation and final
reports, are being communicated more clearly and systematically to project sponsors. To
see the Projects that were closed in FY-10 see table A in the appendices.

3) Summary of Active Utah 319(h) Grants during FY-10 -For an entire summary of
active Utah 319(h) projects see Table B in the appendices.

4) Watershed Based Plans/ TMDLs- Summary

Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) requires states to develop and submit for
approval a list of waters targeted for Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) development every
two years. This is referred to as the 303(d) list. The most recent version of the 303(d) list
published for the state of Utah was issued in 2006. Currently the State of Utah has 64
waterbodies that are currently implementing TMDLs or watershed plans (See Table C and D in
the appendices). The Utah Nonpoint Source Management Plan that was developed in October of
2000 determined that all impaired waterbodies in the state of Utah should have a TMDL
established by 2010. However, due to the increased complexity of the TMDLs currently in
progress within the more heavily populated watersheds of the state, the pace of TMDL
submissions has decreased. It should be noted that all waters listed in 1998 have, or are in the
process of having, TMDL studies completed on them. Additionally, a comprehensive tracking
tool for TMDLs and waterbody assessments has been provided by EPA that will assist in
accurately reporting TMDL completion status.

5) Project Proposals Approved for Funding During FY- 10 Solicitation Process

Due to the high demand for 319(h) funds the State of Utah has required that entities applying for
funding submit pre-proposals to the State for review. Twenty-five pre-proposals were accepted
from the middle of April to the end of May for the 2010 fiscal year. These pre-proposals were
reviewed by the Utah Division of Water Quality using a project selection ranking criterion. After
reviewing and ranking all proposals, a draft funding recommendation list, consisting of 15
projects, was presented to the Environmental Protection Agency for approval. While $1,861,892
was requested by these applicants only $1,065,800 was awarded (see table 2).

7
Table 2

2010 Project Implementation Plans (PIPs) for CWA Section 319 Funding
(Prepared December 16th 2010)
Base Funds
Proposal Type & Title Requested Final
Information & Education (I & E) and T.A. Amount Allocation

1. Pot Creek Water Quality Improvement $75,000 $63,600
2. USU Septic System Ed. Enhancement 51,100 51,100
3. Local Watershed Coordinating Council 30,000 30,000
4. USU NPS I&E Outreach 600 600

Sub Totals $156,700 $145,300

Planning, Tech. Assist. and Implementation Incremental Funds

4. USU NPS I&E Outreach $ 36,400 $ 36,400
5. Lower Bear River TMDL Implem. 200,000 80,000
6. Middle Bear River TMDL Implem. 330,000 100,000
7. Upper Bear River Riparian Restor. BLRC 15,600 15,600
8. Upper Bear AFO/ CAFO & Riparian 200,000 70,000
9. East Canyon Stream Restoration 102,000 50,000
10. Mud Ck/ Scofield Riparian Restorat.. 205,800 50,000
11. Salt Lake Co. Stream Guide 62,210 31,100
12. Jordan R Council Capacity/ I&E 41,600 41,600
13. West Colorado R Watershed Improve. 45,000 45,000
14. TMDL Watershed Coordinator Support 400,000 400,000
15. *319 Project Program Evaluation 66,582 66,582

Sub Totals $1,705,192 $986,282

Grand Total $1,861,892 $1,131,582
*This project was supported by funds that were transferred from previous funding years.

III. NPS Program Strategic Approach

To be eligible for funding, NPS projects must be located on a waterbody, or a tributary to a
waterbody, identified on the state 303(d) list of impaired waterbodies. A current watershed plan
should also be in place which identifies areas of concern and possible sources of pollution in the
watershed. Using a targeted basin approach will allow watershed planners time to develop
watershed plans between funding cycles. To help facilitate the development of watershed plans
and identify sources of pollutant loading, the Utah State Division of Water Quality will conduct
annual intensive monitoring runs two years before funding is scheduled to be received by the
targeted basin.

1) Targeted Basin Approach

The State of Utah has decided to implement a targeted basin funding approach to help reduce the
impacts of nonpoint source pollution. FY-10 was the first year of a six year cycle that will
8
allocate the majority of the state nonpoint source funds to a targeted watershed (See Table 3).
The target basin approach will help identify areas of concern, estimate project effectiveness, and
facilitate project planning and reporting. The Bear River Watershed was the first watershed to
receive funds using this approach, receiving 60% of the funds available for project
implementation in 2010. In future funding years it is anticipated that an even higher percentage
of the funds will go toward the target basin.

Table 3
Basin Priority Funding Schedule
Watershed 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
(1) Jordan/ Utah lake
(2) Colorado River
(3) Sevier, Cedar‐Beaver
(4) Bear River
(5) Weber River
(6) Uinta Basin

2) Utah State NPS Funding

While 319 funds have historically been the main source of funding for NPS pollution projects in
the State of Utah, additional state funding has become available to help implement NPS projects
throughout the state. This additional funding will occur in the form of State NPS Source funds.
These funds are acquired from interest accumulated from loans given by the water quality board
for private and municipal water treatment facilities. Individuals, businesses, private entities,
associations, and government agencies are eligible to receive these grants. Much like section
319(h) funds all project proposals received are prioritized. The highest priority projects are those
that address a critical water quality need, will improve human health concerns, or would be not be
economically feasible without the grant. In the 2010 fiscal year twenty-one projects, totaling
$640,504, were selected for funding with State NPS funds. For a complete summary of FY-10
funded projects see table E in the appendices.

3) Program Match Status

The 319(h) federal money received by the State requires a 40% non-federal match for both the
staffing and support funds used by DEQ and UDAF and the dollars allocated for projects. Most
of the match for projects is provided at the local level by individual producers and landowners.
The DWQ has begun to provide State NPS funds as match to selected 319 projects to provide an
additional incentive to implement BMPs.

There are several State programs which have been very helpful in generating match for the 319
projects. The Division of Wildlife Resources manages a couple of state general fund grant
programs (Habitat Council funds and Blue Ribbon Fishery program) designed strictly for the
improvement of all habitat types on public and private lands. The Utah Conservation
Commission manages an Agriculture Resource Development Loan Program, ARDL, which in
recent years has been expanded to include water quality improvement purposes on farms and
ranches. These state programs are tremendous assets to the improvement of water quality in this
state. The relatively new Watershed Restoration Initiative Program through the Department of
9
Natural Resources and the Grazing Improvement Program at the Utah Department of Agriculture
and Food both provide state revenue to improve upland and riparian areas throughout the state.
Occasionally these programs provide match for 319 revenues in jointly funded projects. Table G
in the appendix reflects the project match accrued from FY-05 throughFY-10 using these
additional state funding sources.

The Department of Environmental Quality provides state revenue to match the staffing and
support 319(h) funds that are part of the Performance Partnership Grant. The Utah Department of
Agriculture and Food also provides state revenue to match the portion of those funds passed
through to UDAF via an annual contract.

Table 4
Grant Year 319 Funds Spent
in FY-10
Match Accrued
in FY-10
Total 319 Funds
Spent
Total Match
Accrued
FY-05 $275,017 $183,345 $1,308,400 $872,266
FY-06 $87,433 $58,289 $907,445 $604,963
FY-07 $450,530 $300,353 $668,409 $445,606
FY-08 $391,736 $261,157 $682,628 $455,086
FY-09 $297,908 $198,605 $297,908 $198,605
FY-10 $2,523 $1,682 $2,523 $1,683
Total $1,505,147 $1,003,431 $3,867,313 $2,578,209

4) Integrating Watersheds and NPS Funding (Basin wide summary)

Watershed coordinators have proven to be very effective at helping implement water quality
projects on the ground. Local watershed coordinators develop relationships with landowners and
educate the public on the benefits of installing Best Management Practices (BMPs). They also
oversee all project planning, design, project implementation, and reporting. They help organize
and facilitate meetings for local watershed groups. These groups are involved in watershed
planning and the project selection process.

Middle and Lower Sevier River Watershed- Lynn Koyle

During FY-10 work continued on the Stream Visual Assessment Protocol (SVAP) survey of the
Middle Sevier River. The river was broken down into sections by vegetation types, slopes, and
irrigated or non irrigated areas. Channel condition, hydrologic alterations, bank conditions,
riparian quantity and quality, water appearance, and nutrient enrichment were evaluated in the
survey.

There are several river restoration projects planned for the near future, however the EQIP funds
that landowners applied for did not materialize. The local watershed coordinator is working on
other sources of funding to match the 319 funds, including State NPS Grants and ARDL loans.

In 2010 four projects were completed. These projects included three stream bank restoration
projects and one animal feedlot relocation. There has also been significant progress made on the
development of the watershed plan for the Sevier Watershed.

10
Scofield and West Colorado Watershed- Daniel Gunnell

Project implementation continues in the Scofield and West Colorado watershed. During FY-10
two riparian projects have commenced, and financial assistance has continued to be provided to
help the DWR complete work on Mud Creek, in the Scofield drainage. Other projects have also
been identified, including erosion issues on irrigation canals and range management projects.
Additional proposals have been submitted to help obtain funding for these projects.

Significant information and education efforts have taken place in the watershed. These projects
include the marking of storm drains in urban areas, and organizing a Stream Side Science day.
The Stream Side Science activity focused on children from 4th- 9th grade. It taught the kids the
importance of water, and what they can do to help protect our rivers and streams.

The local watershed coordinator also continues to facilitate meetings for local watershed groups,
assist with monitoring, and conduct inventories of local animal feeding operations. He has also
attended various trainings that will help him become a certified conservation planner.

Jordan River Watershed- Marian Hubbard

With the use of the South Valley Water Reclamation Funds, County match, and 319 funds, Salt
Lake County is in the process of constructing an overland flow wetland complex for improvement
of water quality in the 8600 South Storm Drain that discharges into the Jordan River. Restoration
Work has also recently started along 8600 South to 9000 South along the Jordan River. 319
funds have also been acquired to help reconstruct the Alta Wetland Fen. Additional planning will
be required before the project can be undertaken.

Salt Lake County has begun a large restoration project with $1.5 million in grant funds to restore
7,000 feet of the Jordan River. Construction is scheduled to occur in the fall of 2010. Salt Lake
County is also partnering with Salt Lake City using ARRA funds to treat four additional sites, by
restoring bank stability. Construction has been completed on these sites and re-vegetation is
currently taking place.

In addition to project implementation, monitoring has also been one of the main areas of focus on
the Jordan River. The data collection includes: E. coli, flow, and a suite of multi-parameter
analyses such as DO, pH, TSS, Salinity, Conductivity, ORP, and Temperature, as well as
macroinvertibrate sampling. This data will be used to create water quality models and update
future watershed plans.

An effort has also been made to educate the general public about the Jordan River, and the
environmental issues that exist. To do this the county launched the “I Love the Jordan River
Campaign”. This campaign includes interactive games and a fun booth. Prizes are awarded to
participants, which also help spread the message of the Jordan River and watershed stewardship.
Since the start in April 2010 they have participated in approximately nine events and have many
more planned throughout the year.

Weber River Watershed- Lars Christensen

There are currently four TMDLs that are being implemented in the Upper Weber Watershed.
These TMDLs include: East Canyon Creek, Chalk Creek, Echo Creek and Silver Creek. Due to
the large gap in time between watershed coordinators there were very few projects in the
implementation phase when the current watershed coordinator was hired. However, the new
11
watershed coordinator has been able to find several projects to implement. It is anticipated that
several projects will be ready to go on the ground during the next funding year, when the Weber
Watershed receives the bulk of NPS funds. Stream restoration projects have been implemented in
the Swaner Nature Preserve on Kimball Creek. The local coordinator has been actively involved
in planning for future projects by conducting environmental assessments, obtaining the necessary
permits, and completing cultural resource inventories.

The local watershed coordinator has also assisted with monitoring efforts in the watershed. This
data will be used for future watershed planning and to document project effectiveness in the
coming years. He has also taken an active role working with local conservation districts and
watershed groups.

Middle and Lower Bear River Watershed- Jim Bowcutt

Several projects are currently under way in the Middle Bear River Watershed. In FY-10 one
stream bank project was completed, and several others began implementation. Currently there
are two riparian enhancement projects that are under way, one of which includes fencing seven
miles of river in the upper end of the watershed. There are also two animal feeding operations
that have begun construction. Both of these projects should be completed by December 2010.
Terraces are also being installed on select fields to help reduce sediment entering into Cutler
Reservoir during spring runoff and large storm events.

There are currently two projects that are in various stages of planning in the Lower Bear River
Watershed. There is one riparian protection project, and one animal feedlot improvement project.
The riparian project should be completed by spring of 2011 and the feedlot should be finished by
November of 2010.

The local watershed coordinator has also conducted several information and education activities.
The main areas of focus have been manure management, and the proper disposal of
pharmaceuticals. Fact sheets and other propaganda have been developed to help get the message
to the public.

In addition to project implementation the local watershed coordinator has also been involved in
facilitating meetings for local watershed groups, gathering water quality data through monitoring,
and submitting proposals for additional grants to help fund various projects throughout the
watershed.

Upper Bear River Watershed- Brady Thornock

Popularity of watershed improvement projects have grown over the last few years in the Upper
Bear River Watershed. In the last year, four fencing projects helped pull animals off the river,
one animal feeding operation was corrected, and one stream bank stabilization project was
undertaken. There are also other projects that are in various stages of project planning.

Education and outreach have also been areas of focus in the past year. Several tours were
conducted to highlight the efficiencies and benefits of various BMPs. A producer dinner was also
held to recognize landowners that had installed these practices.

The Upper Bear River Watershed coordinator has been very involved in organizing a grazing
allotment, which will help several landowners develop a grazing management plan. This
management plan will encompass all of their land into a joint grazing system. This will help
12
reduce the impacts of grazing throughout the watershed, and decrease the amount of sediment and
nutrients reaching local waterbodies.

San Pitch Watershed

Various projects have taken place in the San Pitch Watershed during the 2010 fiscal year. One
project helped improve pasture management, and helped re-seed 118 acres of pasture to prevent
sediment from entering waterbodies from overland flow. Five irrigation improvement projects
were also completed during this time period. These improved irrigation systems will help reduce
the amount of total dissolved solids, sediments, and nutrients that enter into neighboring streams
and rivers via overland flow. Three stream bank projects were also completed, covering over
6,400 linear feet of stream bank. While there is still a large amount of funding that has not been
spent from the remaining 319 contracts, all the remaining funds have been allocated.
Implementation of these projects should take place within the next two years.

A watershed education day was held on April 6, 2010 at Snow College for the North Sanpete and
South Sanpete School Districts. This involved 24 presenters and a total of 431 fourth-grade
students for the entire day as well as some parents who were helping the teachers with the
students.

Upper Sevier Watershed- Wally Dodds

Three projects were completed in FY-10 in the Upper Sevier watershed. One project was a fuel
reduction project in the South Canyon/ Five Mile area. This project focused on clearing junipers
and pinion pines from rangeland. This should help reduce the frequency of fires thus reducing
erosion in the watershed. Two riparian projects were completed. One project involved fencing
both sides of the river to restrict cattle from damaging the riparian area. The other project
installed rock structures and planted willows to reduce erosion. In addition to the projects that
were completed two additional projects are also in the final stages of implementation.

The Upper Sevier Coordinator is also extensively involved in outreach and educational activities.
These activities included a spring watershed tour, the production of educational newsletters, and
participation in a local natural resource field day. He also put on two workshops that helped
inform local watershed groups of the success that they are having in their planning efforts.

The local coordinator is actively involved in local conservation district meetings. He also helps
facilitate and support the Upper Sevier Committee. He also serves on the Sage Grouse Planning
Committee and as chairman of the Color County Cooperative Weed Management Area. He is
constantly approaching landowners in need of financial assistance to improve the riparian
corridor, and is currently working with three different individuals to obtain additional funding.

The Uintah Basin- Gary Wieser

The Uinta Basin coordinator position sat vacant for several months during the 2010 fiscal year. A
new watershed coordinator has recently been hired, and is building relationships with the local
landowners. Work continues to progress in the Calder/ Pot Creek watershed. The Division of
Wildlife Resources, along with Uinta County, have partnered on this project. This project
includes road improvements, and the installation of erosion control structures. Much of the work
has been done, and replanting will occur in the fall of 2010, or spring of 2011.

13
The local watershed coordinator also helped facilitate meetings for the Uinta Basin Watershed
Council. There was a large effort to recruit additional members of the council. The larger group
will then be divided into smaller sub-watershed work groups that will assist with the development
of watershed plans. Funds were acquired from the UWCC to help purchase outreach and
education materials to help establish these groups.

5) NPS Water Quality Task Force/ Monitoring Council

The Mission of the Utah Water Quality Task Force is to facilitate coordinated and holistic
management of Utah’s watersheds for the protection and restoration of Utah’s surface and ground
waters.

The Utah Nonpoint Source (NPS) Program is administered by the Division of Water Quality
(DWQ) of the Utah Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) through the coordination and
assistance of the Utah Water Quality Task Force, and its established ad hoc committees. The
responsibility of the Utah Water Quality Task Force is to advise the DEQ and Utah Department
of Agriculture and Food (UDAF) in the holistic management of Utah’s watersheds, with a focus
on reduction of nonpoint source pollution.

The Utah Department of Agriculture and Food has been delegated management and
implementation responsibility for eliminating agriculture NPS pollution via a memorandum of
understanding with DEQ. The chairmanship of the Water Quality Task Force is shared by the
Executive Directors of the DEQ and UDAF or their designated representatives. The UDAF is
responsible for chairmanship on even numbered years and the DEQ is responsible on odd
numbered years. The Task Force meets quarterly, but may meet more frequently if deemed
necessary.

Specific functions of the Utah Water Quality Task Force include:
• Serve as a coordinating body for the review and direction of federal, state and local NPS
management programs to assure that these programs are implemented consistent with the
Utah Nonpoint Source Management Plan (approved by EPA in 2000 and as amended or
revised);
• Promote and foster better alignment of relevant programs to assure efficient and effective
watershed management efforts that improve water quality, in addition to other benefits;
• Provide a forum for the exchange of information on activities which reduce nonpoint
source pollution;
• Provide a forum for discussion and recommended resolutions to program conflicts;
• Work with partner agencies to coordinate the prioritization of watersheds for nonpoint
source activities. Prioritization criteria should include local involvement (e.g. locally led
watershed committees), effective use of partnerships, and evidence of leveraged sources
of funding;
• Establish and implement a process for field inspections of nonpoint source reduction
activities on public and private lands to ensure that best management practices are
installed and functioning as designed to protect water quality; and
• Serve as a coordinating body for outreach and education to increase public awareness
regarding nonpoint source pollution abatement.

14
Specific Products of the Utah Water Quality Task Force include:

• The Annual Utah Nonpoint Source Program Report. This report is required by EPA, but
is not restricted to 319 funded efforts. The report is prepared by DEQ in coordination
with UDAF. The task force will assist in providing content, advice and review. The
report will highlight the planning efforts, projects, and successes statewide that are
possible with the broad coalition of partners encompassed in the Water Quality Task
Force;
• Presentation of the Annual Utah Nonpoint Source Program Report each year to the Utah
Water Quality Board, the Utah Partners for Conservation and Development, and the Utah
Conservation Commission.
• Organize an annual NPS Conference to share information, highlight successes, and
improve networking throughout the state and region.
• Provide annual water quality awards to individuals and organizations whose actions or
products have protected water quality and exemplified good stewardship of our waters.
• An institutional repository (e.g. a web site) that includes originals or links to documents,
reports, minutes, etc.

Membership:

The Task Force includes representation of those entities with programs that could potentially
cause or prevent nonpoint source water pollution. As new NPS program components are
developed and implemented, additional entities will be invited to participate. Current membership
includes representatives of:

Local Governments
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Intermountain Civil Works Office
U.S. Department of Interior Bureau of Land Management
U.S. Department of Interior Bureau of Reclamation
U.S. Department of Interior National Park Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Geological Survey
Utah Association of Conservation Districts
Utah Department of Agriculture and Food
Utah Department of Environmental Quality
Utah Department of Natural Resources
Utah Department of Transportation
Utah Farm Bureau, Trout Unlimited, the Nature Conservancy, and other NGOs
Utah State University Cooperative Extension

Utah Monitoring Council- Robert Bird

The Utah Water Quality Monitoring Council was formed in late 2009. The goal of the council is
to promote volunteer monitoring between cooperative agencies, schools, citizens and the Division
of Water Quality. The council met in February, June, and October of 2010. The first meeting
15
was held in conjunction with the annual cooperators meeting where they introduced the
Monitoring Council and stated the purpose and goals. The last meeting was held in conjunction
with the Watershed Coordinating Council. By meeting like this they were able to foster better
attendance with those agencies which currently assist in monitoring and draw on their knowledge
and experiences with their volunteer monitoring.

Currently the Utah Water Quality Monitoring Council has a very small citizen based volunteer
monitoring program and they are in the process of working with Utah State University to bolster
this. They are working to enhance their Lake Watch program and are drawing on their citizen
based programs to gain ideas on how to expand citizen based monitoring.

The Utah Water Quality Monitoring Council has also used these meetings to gain greater
participation in the E.coli monitoring program. They have used several federal cooperating
agencies to put the E.coli processing equipment and incubators in different areas of the state thus
allowing them to sample for E. coli and send the results into the state.

They have also presented the Ambient Water Quality Management Systems (AWQMS) data
base, which will serve as the new water quality information database, and are working on
customizing templates to better aide in data entry and data requests from cooperators. Data input
from the different agencies will be sent to a staging area where QA/QC protocols are performed
on the data before it is entered into AWQMS and sent to the EPA.

6) Grants Reporting and Tracking System

The Section 319(h) Grant Reporting and Tracking System is a national database developed by
EPA to track projects and activities funded with CWA Section 319(h) funds. The primary
purpose of the database is to track project progress, accomplishments, funding information and
environmental results using several nationally mandated information items that are reported to
Congress annually by EPA. Information extracted from this system forms part of the justification
to Congress for funding the Section 319 Program. EPA Region VIII uses GRTS to enable the
States to electronically fulfill reporting requirements using the Project Evaluation Form and other
attachment features in GRTS such as final reports, GIS maps or other project publications.

DEQ is the lead agency for administering the 319 Program. Because most of the project grants
are agricultural related, much of the grant funds are passed through to UDAF. As a result, UDAF
plays a critical role in maintaining the GRTS database. Essential training of UDAF staff in this
system continued during FY-09 through attendance at the national user group conference. UDAF
will continue to maintain GRTS information for all active 319 projects in the state of Utah. DWQ
will continue to oversee DWQ administered contracts including the tracking and review of all
reports. Upon completion, mid-year and annual progress reports will be forwarded to UDAF for
entry into GRTS. Also as 319 Project Final Reports are completed and approved by DEQ with
EPA concurrence, those reports are sent to UDAF for entry into the GRTS database.

IV. Water Quality Information

1) Sampling and Assessment Activities- Jim Harris

As more restoration is implemented around the state, monitoring individual projects is becoming
more difficult to perform. The majority of 319 projects in Utah address impacts to stream and
riparian habitats in order to restore water quality. Often, these projects substantially reduce
erosion and inputs of nutrients to streams and rivers, in addition to improving the localized
16
conditions of aquatic habitats. Unless restoration is widespread and inclusive of a large portion of
a watershed, it is often difficult to document improvements in ambient water quality trends given
the resources available. The DWQ’s monitoring strategy identifies a couple of key changes in the
approach to assessing the effectiveness of nonpoint source projects.

The first of these monitoring approaches involves the direct measure of the aquatic communities
affected by restoration utilizing Utah's Comprehensive Assessment of Stream Ecosystems
(UCASE) protocols in a BACI (Before-After-Control-Impact) approach. DWQ staff have already
performed UCASE monitoring at sites where restoration projects are planned and linking them to
sites of similar condition not anticipating management or restoration changes (Before-Control).
In coming years, those same sites will be visited again to assess the changes from restoration
activities (After-Impact). The BACI design provides statistically rigorous comparisons between
the control site(s) with the restored site (impact) to quantify changes in biological and physical
parameters that have occurred since the restoration was conducted. In reality, grab samples of
chemistry are sufficiently variable that even statistically rigorous approaches like BACI may not
demonstrate discrete changes in the chemical composition of surface waters following restoration
activities. However, similar analyses will be conducted for biological composition, which may
help demonstrate relatively rapid improvements that result from remediation activities. Measures
of biological composition are also useful because they directly measure improvements of the
biological designated uses the numeric criteria are intended to protect. Of course, measures of
both biological and chemical improvements will be dependent on the relative size of the
watershed and restoration activity.

In FY 2010, the majority of the biological monitoring occurred as part of the Probabilistic
Surveys performed in the Jordan River /Utah Lake and the Colorado River basin and as a result
there were few sites targeted specifically for the evaluation of nonpoint source projects utilizing
UCASE protocols. However, the focus of the Targeted Monitoring Program which collects
primarily water chemistry data was centered on the Jordan River and Utah Lake watersheds as
well. These sites were targeted with several objectives in mind: supplying data for assessment
and listing, Total Maximum Daily Load analysis, permitting and compliance and nonpoint source
assessment. As such many of these sites may fulfill more than one of these objectives and to
create an efficient annual monitoring plan the monitoring section consults with Water Quality
Management and TMDL staff to identify particular assessment and evaluation needs to meet their
programs

Another proposed improvement to monitoring nonpoint source projects on a watershed or sub-
watershed scale is the installation of long-term continuous monitoring stations. Depending on the
parameters of concern and the nature of restoration activities, these automated stations could
measure a variety of constituents, including dissolved oxygen, specific conductivity, pH, turbidity
and discharge. Since these probes collect a limited set of water quality parameters, surrogate
measures may be used and additional water chemistry monitoring implemented to develop
relationships between parameters of concern and the surrogate measures. For instance, positive
relationships may be developed between continuous turbidity data and chemistry data such as
nutrients to provide the necessary linkage between changes at long-term stations and project
effectiveness. While the installation of long-term stations isn’t feasible for the assessment of
individual projects on a small scale, they could be used to document the effects of a number of
projects implemented as part of a watershed-scale implementation strategy as in the case of
irrigation efficiency projects to reduce TDS or range improvements to reduce TSS (turbidity).

Currently, Sandy Wingert is implementing a long-term monitoring project in the Strawberry
River Basin in conjunction with Division of Wildlife Resources and the Forest Service. This
17
project seeks to evaluate the relationship between phosphorus and other measures such as
turbidity to generate data sets sufficient in size to perform trend analysis. In this way, watershed
improvements due to restoration activities may be discernable over time.

Data Analysis and Assessment

Data analysis for evaluating the effectiveness of nonpoint source projects will vary depending on
the type of project and the available data sources. Biological monitoring will provide background
condition of the biotic community for both the “Before” and “Control” collection events. Once
implemented, projects will be assessed by revisiting the “Control” and “Impact” site. Data will
be compared using similar tools described in the biological monitoring component of the
probabilistic and targeted assessments. Scores of biological condition can be evaluated for the
“Impact” or restoration site (Before vs. After) in conjunction with the “Control” site not receiving
treatment (Before vs. After). In this way, changes in the biological condition can be evaluated
against year-to-year variability.

Methods for long-term trend analysis have yet to be developed. However, these sites will likely
utilize a combination of continuous monitoring data coupled with water chemistry to establish a
relationship between the surrogate measures and chemical parameters of concern linked to PIPs
and TMDLs. For example, correlations can be readily established between total dissolved solids
collected by grab samples and specific conductance as measured by probe sensors. Continuous
monitoring datasets are sufficiently large enough to perform trend analysis with a level of
confidence not possible through periodic grab sampling. Developing correlations between probe
data and other parameters such as nutrients and sediment prove more difficult than the above
described scenario. In these cases, measures for dissolved oxygen, turbidity or other surrogates
may need to be evaluated. As mentioned above, specific monitoring plans will be developed
individually for implementation strategies and QAPPs and subsequent reporting documentation
will detail specific data analysis for each project.

Since much of the work performed during FY2010 was part of the new Stategic Monitoring Plan,
TMDL and NPS staff have not had the opportunity to evaluate or analyze these initial datasets.
Results of these analyses will likely be published on a watershed basis as these analyses become
available.

2) Ground Water Protection

Ground water protection remains an area of interest in the state of Utah. In the past various
projects were funded using 319(h) funds to help analyze ground water around the state. In FY-
2010 $25,000 of State NPS funds were contracted to the Utah Geological Survey to help classify
the aquifers in Davis County. By understanding the locations and classifications of local aquifers,
contamination of ground water can be avoided. As urban development continues to increase
throughout the State of Utah, groundwater protection will continue to be an area of focus for the
State Division of Water Quality.

V. Outreach Activities- Jack Wilbur

Nonpoint source outreach and education efforts are constantly taking place across the state.
These outreach efforts are generally a collaborated effort between Utah State University
Extension, local watershed coordinators, and the Utah Department of Agriculture and Food.

18
In 2010 the Utah Nonpoint Source statewide information and education program continued to
support the Utah Nonpoint Source Conference, continued publishing Utah Watershed Review and
continued the watershed outreach mini grant program in three watersheds, among other
highlights.

The annual Utah NPS Conference was held in Richfield, Utah in October. The conference was
attended by about 80 water quality professionals from throughout Utah. The event featured
conference sessions Tuesday afternoon, an awards barbecue on Tuesday night, conference
sessions all day Wednesday and a day-long watershed tour on Thursday.

The Statewide I&E coordinator continued working with local watershed groups in FY 10,
including the three watersheds awarded outreach mini grant money from Utah State University,
by way of Wilbur and UDAF. By the end of 2010 outreach plans were developed for the Price
River, San Pitch and Cutler/Lower Bear River watershed. These plans included the development
of informational surveys that identified water quality issues that needed to be addressed in each
watershed. Wilbur’s involvement in the individual committees decreased after the surveys were
completed and the results were analyzed. Each watershed went in a somewhat different direction.
The San Pitch watershed committee plans to use their remaining funds to create a septic system
map of the watershed which can overlay a map of the critical recharge areas and other vulnerable
areas of the watershed. In the Price River and Cutler/Bear River watersheds, the local committees
were preparing advertisements promoting positive water quality behaviors. In Price River,
general storm water awareness and behavior changes such as recycling used oils and not letting
fertilizers run off into ditches were the main areas of focus. In the Cutler area of Cache Valley,
properly disposing of prescription medications is the main issue being tackled.

Wilbur continued to work with the East Canyon Watershed I&E committee to research and
implement social marketing and education campaigns designed to change behaviors among
specific audience groups within the watershed. The first phase of the effort, targeting dog owners,
continues to be in the implementation phase. A radio and print advertising campaign, “scoop it:
it’s what best friends do,” ran in February and March 2009, and again in October and November.
In 2010, they initiated a campaign targeting storm water pollution in yards and neighborhoods.

Wilbur continued his work as co-chair of the national States-EPA NPS Outreach Workgroup by
conducting workshops and presentations to groups in several parts of the country, including
Vermont, and New York. Additionally he continued to work with watershed groups within EPA’s
Region III as a special advisor to their social marketing assessment and implementation efforts.

Utah Watershed Review, a newsletter highlighting watershed issues, was published three times in
2010. Due to in-state travel restrictions, Wilbur will have to rely more on watershed coordinators
and statewide representatives from other agencies to provide material to keep the publication vital
and informative.

VI. State Agency Contributions

1) Utah Conservation Districts/Utah Association of Conservation Districts- Gordon
Younker

Utah Conservation Districts have statutory authority for the prevention of nonpoint source
pollution. They are trusted and provide local leadership to identify resource needs and assist
private property owners/managers obtain the resources to addresses those needs. The districts and
UACD work in partnership with the Utah Division of Water Quality, Utah Department of
19
Agriculture and Food, and other state and federal agencies to implement the Clean Water Act,
Section 319 projects throughout Utah.

Assistance available through Utah conservation districts includes conservation planning,
engineering, and GIS/GPS services. Further, districts promote and fund educational activities for
children including fairs, field days, and in-classroom presentations.

UACD provides for state-level NPS contract administration and coordination of member
conservation districts’ contracting with NPS program participants. Various reimbursable contracts
are entered into with the Utah Department of Agriculture and Food and the Utah Division of
Water Quality for cost-sharing with landowners implementing agricultural related projects.
Further, UACD provides payroll, accounting, and personnel management for conservation
districts employing staff, including NPS program watershed coordinators.

2) Utah State University Extension- Nancy Mesner (USU Water Quality Extension
Specialist & Rhonda Miller (USU Agricultural Environmental Quality Extension
Specialist)

During the 2010 calendar year, Utah State University Water Quality Extension again provided
outreach and education programs and materials for Utah’s Nonpoint Source Program. Each year
we solicit input from our various partners and clients in the state. We use this input to determine
which of our past efforts have been effective and to identify new and emerging needs. We
continue to develop and implement our own programs but also draw upon high quality programs
and materials developed by others in our national network of Extension Water Quality Programs.
Our outreach efforts are partially funded by an annual 319 outreach grant but we also utilize other
external funds, including several grants from USDA and EPA.

USU Extension’s NPS ongoing programs include youth outreach, teacher education and training,
Utah’s water quality awards, and assistance to watershed groups. This year we continued to
expand our citizen monitoring efforts, completed our BMP monitoring training materials, and
distributed materials to the state developed by other Extension programs, such as a web site
devoted to well water quality protection, an updated toolkit for analyzing water testing results,
and a DVD on septic tank care.

USU Water Quality Extension has been a national leader in assessing the effectiveness of youth
curricula and programming. Our Stream Side Science continues to be acknowledged as one of
the national successes of USDA’s water program because its effectiveness has been demonstrated
through rigorous pre and post testing. We are now using a similar methodology to evaluate the
effectiveness of short term water quality experiences, such as field days that engage grade school
children in brief hands-on experiences. Nationally, an enormous amount of effort and funding is
directed to outreach programs such as these, although their effectiveness has never been formally
evaluated. Our study focuses on 4th graders and should help us understand whether these
programs result in short term or long term changes in knowledge or attitudes about protecting our
water.

The following paragraphs provide a summary of some of the major elements USU Water Quality
Extension’s Statewide NPS I&E program. Visit our website at
www.extension.usu.edu/waterquality to learn more.

20
Water Quality Education

In 2010, USU Water Quality Extension reached thousands
of youth and their families through tested, age-appropriate,
hands-on water quality activities. We provided activities
in 13 of Utah’s 29 counties, including all the most
populated areas, but also some of the most rural corners of
the state.

• We provided stream-side or other experiential
activities to over 5800 youth in classrooms, camps,
library programs, field days, and youth
environmental competitions. These programs
include at least an hour of activities and instruction
focused on understanding watershed and water science and
the importance of protecting our water quality.

Students learn about aquatic insects during
Natural Resources Field Days
• We provided activities and booths for watershed and water festivals and field days
throughout the state, reaching an estimated additional 7600 youth and their families.

• We trained over 160 educators in 1 to 2 days
workshops watershed and water science
curricula. This year we worked with
geography teachers through Utah’s
Community Mapping Program, we provided
watershed training to participants in USU’s
Master Naturalist program, and we trained
teachers in Project Wet and Stream Side
Science curricula. We presented a session at
Utah’s Agriculture / Natural Resources
statewide summer workshop on
incorporating water science and water
quality into their classroom activities.
Teachers learn Stream Side Science field
techniques at a St George workshop.

Citizen Monitoring

Lake reports are provided
to all citizen volunteers
Utah’s Division of Water Quality encourages the involvement of citizen monitors as one means
of increasing the coverage necessary to evaluate Utah’s water resources. Extension
recognizes the value of citizen monitoring events as an effective outreach tool
nationwide for NPS education, as it helps people connect their daily actions with the
quality of the water they value. This year we continued to support lake monitoring
efforts through our Utah Lake Watch program, in which volunteers recorded secchi
depths at 13 lakes and reservoirs throughout the summer. Several of these
waterbodies are monitored at the traditional mid-lake site, but also at sites nearer
shore where low water clarity and poor water quality may be more evident to those
visiting the lake. All our results are provided to Utah’s Division of Water Quality.
We also produce a one page (2 sided) fact sheet about each water body and share
these with the volunteers, watershed groups, extension offices and others interested
in these specific lakes or reservoirs.

21
In 2010 we participated in a second pilot study on the use of citizen monitors to help the Division
of Water Quality screen high-use beaches for E coli contamination. We helped recruit citizen
monitors and took the lead in training and collecting bacteriological data at 15 beaches
throughout Utah (representing one third of all the beaches monitored in 2010). The challenges of
citizen monitoring include identifying and maintaining a core of trained volunteers, but also
providing the necessary equipment for volunteers located throughout the state. We are working
with the recently formed Utah Monitoring Council to develop protocols, training, and a volunteer
network that will enable us to expand this effort.
Support for Watershed Groups

In 2010, we completed and printed 500 copies of watershed fact sheets for the the Middle Bear
River, the Middle Sevier River and Mill Creek, and are in the final formatting and printing stage
for fact sheets for Price River, San Rafael, Scofield Reservoir and the Lower Bear River. We
have begun fact sheets for an additional 6 watershed groups and expect to complete those in
2011. These publications involve the combined efforts of the Utah Association of Conservation
Districts, the Utah Division of Water Quality, and the Utah Partners for Conservation and
Development. The printed fact sheets are distributed through these offices, through USU
Extension county offices and to all our watershed coordinators. Electronic copies are also
available at: http://extension.usu.edu/waterquality/htm/watershedmanage.

Workshop on improving monitoring
of best management practices
In 2010, we also began sharing the lessons learned
from a USDA Conservation Effectiveness
Assessment Grant awarded to USU in 2005. We
gave several detailed presentations to UDAF,
UDWQ, and other partners on the challenges and
solutions to quantifying the impacts of BMPs
implemented for water quality improvement.
We also offered several training sessions on the
use of a new BMP monitoring manual and
training materials. The materials guide users
systematically through the steps necessary to
assure that monitoring efforts are focused on
project objectives and are designed in ways to capture true BMP impacts. The BMP materials
and manuals are in final printing and all will be available on-line by February 2011. Training of
watershed coordinators and follow up projects involving effective monitoring practices will
continue through 2011.

Additional activities have also focused on educating agricultural producers about the new Animal
Feeding Operation (AFO) regulations. A Producer’s Website, which provides “one-stop”
shopping for the producers, was created and is being expanded. This website provides
information, in laymen’s terms, on the regulations producers are likely to encounter. In addition,
nine workshops for AFOs are scheduled for January and February, 2011. These workshops will
cover the latest developments in the AFO regulations, and the options available to producers.
Information on risk assessment, and nutrient management plans (NMPs), which are required for
all of the permits, will be presented. Fact sheets to assist producers with their NMPs are being
developed.

22
3) Utah Division of Natural Resources- Rory Reynolds

Utah’s Watershed Restoration Initiative

The Watershed Restoration Initiative focuses on protecting and managing core values that are
important for our present and future quality of life: water quality and yield, wildlife, and
agriculture.

This is accomplished through the Utah Partners for Conservation and Development, a diverse
group of state and federal agencies working together with non-governmental organizations,
industry, local elected officials and stakeholders. Locally led teams identify conservation issues
and develop plans to address local needs.

In fiscal year 2010 with support of $2.3 million from the Utah Legislature, the Watershed
Initiative has implemented over 120 rangeland and river restoration projects involving over
77,213 acres and 2 miles of river enhancements. For a full list of WRI projects implemented go
to: http://wri.utah.gov/WRI/Projects.aspx?display=Complete. Through the partnership effort
funding from the Legislature has been successfully leveraged over 4 to 1 in on-the-ground
projects.

The long-term results from this effort will be measured in the reduced cost of fighting wildfires,
reduced soil loss from erosion, improved water quality and yield, improved wildlife populations,
reduced risk of additional federal listing of species under the Endangered Species Act, improved
agricultural production, and resistance to invasive exotic plant species.

VII. Federal Agency Contributions

The original MOUs between the Department of Environmental Quality and the Forest Service
and the Bureau of Land Management were executed in 1992. These MOUs have been reviewed
and were revised in 2009. The following entities are now part of the MOU: Forest Service,
Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, Utah Department of Agriculture and Food,
Division of Forestry, Fire and State Lands, and DEQ – Division of Water Quality.

1) Natural Resource Conservation Service- Norm Evenstad

NRCS employees work in partnership with land users to conserve natural resource on private
lands. These employees are distributed among 26 field offices and 3 area offices that cover the
state of Utah. These offices are managed by District Conservationists. NRCS employees along
with Utah Association of Conservation District (UACD) employees report progress on activities
in the USDA-NRCS system, which is the basis for the following information.

A total of $ 54,067,132 was obligated to land owners, sponsors & managers in Utah during
FY2010 through the various USDA-NRCS programs listed in the table 5 (including the
Emergency Watershed Protection Program). A considerable percentage directly benefited Non-
Point Source AFO/CAFO concerns in Utah with 18 CNMP plans applied in FY2010.

23
Table 5
During FY2010, customers were assisted through a combination of federal and state
conservation programs. The tables and graphics below summarize the measures applied
that may directly or indirectly impact non-point source pollutant concerns in Utah.
FY2009 FY2010
NRCS Program
Dollars
Obligated
Number of
Contracts/Easements
Dollars
Obligated
Number of
Contracts/Easements
Agricultural Management Assistance (AMA) 684,118 6 481,920 18
Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) 0 0 1,738,582 78
Emergency Watershed Protection Program (EWP) 5,044,360 5 32,635,264 6
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) 14,184,687 332 15,214,202 323
Agricultural Water Enhancement Program (AWEP) 0 0 0 0
Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program (FRPP) 950,000 2 255,690 1
Grassland Reserve Program (GRP) 490,000 4 2,013,860 6
Healthy Forests Reserve Program (HFRP) 0 0 0 0
Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) 0 0 1,527,449 3
Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP) 576,219 8 170,195 5

24
Summary of Conservation Measures directly or indirectly associated with NPS benefits –
FY2010 (Table 6)
Report adapted from NRCS – Performance Results System (PRS) – Report # 6.14 –Last updated
Friday, October 1, 2010 – 12:30 AM.

Table 6
Performance by
Program - Field
Measures
Net
Total
Progress
Progress
with
Multiple
Programs
AMA
Colorado
River
Basin
Salinity
Control
CRP CSP
Conservation
Technical
Assistance-
Gen.
EQIP
EQIP-
Ground/Surface
Water
GRP RCD WHIP

Conservation Plans
Written (ac) 220,663 0 220,663
Watershed/Area-wide conservation plans developed (Nol)
Cropland with
conservation applied
to improve soil
quality (Ac.) 12,929 58 50 9,422 3,085 430
Land with
conservation applied
to improve water
quality (Ac)
80,428
1,270
50 36,272 31,363 430 11,044
CNMP written (No.) 0
CNMP applied (No.) 18 0 2 16
Land with
conservation applied
to improve irrigation
efficiency (Ac)
17,488 298 1,750 1,819 11,434 560 2,223
Grazing and forest land with conservation applied to protect and improve the resource base (Ac.)
176,539

519

1,876
108,451
48,824 17,907

Non-federal land with
conservation applied
to improve fish and
wildlife habitat quality
(Ac.)
10,350 8,353 1,996
Wetlands created,
restored or
enhanced (Ac.) 2 2

A table from the NRCS showing the Performance Results System (PRS) totals for the 2010 fiscal
year is found in Table F in the appendices. This report only shows the practices entered by the
NRCS and their partners.

Information in this table shows the planning and implementation accomplishments for all
conservation programs. Report selection criteria include location, time period, plan/applied,
CNMP, land use, resource concern, and agency. The report database was last updated on Friday,
October 01, 2010 12:30 AM.

25
2) Forest Service- Bill Goodman

Watershed Improvement and Water Quality Management Activities, Fiscal Year 2010

Each year, Congress appropriates funding specifically dedicated towards maintaining and
improving watershed conditions, including water quality. During the federal government fiscal
year 2010, non-point source pollutant control resulted either directly from projects designed for
soil and water improvement or indirectly resulting from project mitigation measures, such as
prescribing and implementing best management practices.

The Forest Service’s Watershed Improvement Program delivers direct benefits to improved water
and soil quality on National Forest System lands in Utah. During fiscal year 2010, National
Forests in Utah completed 2,821 acres of watershed improvement (Table 7). This total includes
projects completed using other appropriated funding sources (i.e., non-soil and water funds).

Water quality monitoring programs include high elevation lake sampling, cooperative water
quality sampling in conjunction with Utah DEQ, TMDL data collection, and Best Management
Practices implementation and effectiveness evaluations.

The types of projects implemented to improve watersheds condition include the following:
- Road Decommissioning projects are intended to improve water quality by reducing or
eliminating motorized impacts in sensitive watershed areas.
- Routine maintenance (grading, surfacing and drainage improvement) of the road system
improves water quality by decreasing erosion and sedimentation
- Exclosures and fences were constructed to protect sensitive riparian and wetland areas. The
protection of these sites contributes to the overall water quality within a watershed.
- Project level monitoring, including implementation and effectiveness monitoring of BMPs.
Projects monitored in 2009 include oil and gas developments, range allotments, timber projects,
as well as portions of the Forest motorized travel system involved in the Travel Plan revision
project.
- Fish Passage Projects- Culverts that formed barriers to fish passage were replaced by designs
which allowed for passage and more natural channel processes.
- Road Decommissioning- Roads were decommissioned by blocking access, scarifying and
reseeding the road surface.
- Numerous ATV-users created crossings and routes were obliterated thereby improving water
quality and aquatic habitat.

Forest Service Burned Area Emergency Response (BAER) Program
Fires that had a BAER team included the Twitchell Fire (Fishlake NF) and Coffee Pot (Manti La
Sal NF) in FY 2010. The BAER program includes several activities that aim to protect or
improve water quality after wildfire. An example includes road and trail improvements to
address increased runoff response. These treatments directly and indirectly address water quality,
generally through reduction of erosion and reducing chemical and temperature alterations to
water quality. Land treatments generally include mulching, and/or seeding. Acres improved
through the BAER program are not included in table 7 below.

26
Table 7. Watershed Improvement Projects Completed on National Forest System lands in
fiscal year 2010 (October 1, 2009 – September 30, 2010).
Forest Total Acres
Improved

Ashley 459
Dixie 689
Fishlake 506
M-L 425
U-W-C 742
Total 2,821

3) National Park Service- Dave Thoma

National Park Service Water Quality Activities, Fiscal Year 2010 (October 2009 –
September 2010)

The National Park Service units in Utah work closely with the Utah Division of Water Quality to
monitor water quality and mitigate non-point source impacts when noted. During fiscal year
2010 water quality in Utah National Parks was monitored at 37 sites, most of them on a monthly
basis (Table 8).

Table 8. Water Quality monitoring sites in Utah National Parks in fiscal year 2010.
Numbers in parentheses represent site count for aquatic macroinvertebrate
monitoring.
Park Coop Sites Monitored
by NPS
Arches 1(1)
Bryce Canyon 2
Capitol Reef 3
Canyonlands 16(1)
Glen Canyon 3
Hovenweep 3(1)
Natural Bridges 3
Timpanogos Cave 1
Zion 4
Total 25(2)
1Three sites on the Green River and Colorado River in Canyonlands were monitored six times in the 2010
river season. The site at Potash on the Colorado River sites upstream of the park, was monitored six times,
and the site upstream of the park at Mineral Bottom on the Green River was monitored twice.

Northern Colorado Plateau Network Park Projects

• The second bi-annual report on water quality in Utah Parks was completed in 2010 for
previous water years. It is available at:
http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/units/ncpn/WQBrief.cfm

27
• Presented talks on non-point source pollution issues at the Utah Nonpoint Source Water
Quality Conference, Richfield, UT October 5-6.
¾ Indicators of Fire Effects and Post-Fire Recovery
¾ Bacterial Water Quality in Zion National Park, Case Study from 2009
¾ Assessment of Nutrients in Surface Waters of the National Park Service Northern
Colorado Plateau Network 1972 through 2007

• Integrated monitoring of riparian vegetation, shallow ground water and channel
morphology was continued in Zion and Capitol Reef in 2010 and initiated at Arches. A
brief report on objectives of this project is available on-line at:
http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/units/ncpn/Link_Library/Web_Briefs/Riparian_Brief_20
09.pdf

• A cooperative study with Utah Division of Water Quality to determine the source
and degree of bacterial contamination in the North Fork Virgin River was
implemented upstream from Zion in 2010. Results were shared with stakeholders
November 29, 2010 in Cedar City, UT.

• Hosted a multi agency training session December 2-3 attended by 30 people on the
Automated Geospatial Watershed Assessment Tool for watershed modeling and
planning. The model predicts runoff and erosion from watershed based on vegetation
cover, topography, and fire severity.

• In cooperation with EPA Region 8 analyzed 21 sites for waste indicator compounds and
pesticides. Monthly monitoring of spring flow in the western part of Arches National
Park has been ongoing since early 2001. NPS Water Resource Division hydrologist
James Harte and University of Utah researchers released a report on groundwater age
dating of Arches springs.

• DWQ met with Park Service staff in Capitol Reef to discuss the monitoring strategy and
perform Demonstration of Capability assessment using IDEXX methods. Bacteria
exceedances on the Fremont River prompted an increased monitoring intensity in 2010
that will continue during warm seasons in 2011.

Glen Canyon National Recreation Area

Water Quality Monitoring
During 2010, the Lake Powell Beach Monitoring Program at Glen Canyon National Recreation
Area (NRA) sampled Lake Powell for E. coli to protect public health. The National Park Service
operates two state certified laboratories for sample processing. Lake Powell sanitary water
quality in 2010 remained very good.

Monitoring of water quality parameters, nutrients, metals, and other constituents was conducted
at over twenty sites throughout Lake Powell, including major inflows, the dam, and the tailwaters
in cooperation with the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center.
28

Other sites throughout the park including the Escalante River, Coyote Gulch, and a natural off-
channel impoundment, were monitored for water quality parameters and constituents.

Grazing Management
Grazing is managed on nearly a million acres of land within Glen Canyon NRA. The Park,
working closely with the Bureau of Land Management, has undertaken many water quality
pollution abatement activities associated with grazing.

Dreissenid Mussel Prevention
Zebra and quagga mussel prevention continued for the tenth year at Glen Canyon NRA. All
vessels and equipment brought to Lake Powell were required to be screened for risk of spreading
dreissenid mussels.

Riparian Restoration
Riparian restoration and invasive plant control efforts continued in 2010. Weeds, including
Russian olive, tamarisk, ravenna grass, and others were removed from riparian areas. Glen
Canyon is organizing and participating in the new Escalante River Watershed Partnership, which
is focused on watershed level management of both public and private lands in the Escalante River
watershed.

Special Projects
• Glen Canyon continued work on an Off-Highway Vehicle Environmental Impact
Statement addressing public use on Glen Canyon’s many miles of backcountry roads.
• Funding was secured for two large studies on Lake Powell that will begin in 2010. These
studies, to be conducted in cooperation with the U.S. Geological Survey, will complete
development of baseline data regarding hydrocarbon constituents and explore what
contaminates are being accumulated in the sediment deltas of the San Juan and Escalante
Rivers.
• Exploratory research on mercury concentrations in game fish tissues continued in
cooperation with the State of Utah and the U.S. Geological Survey.

4) The Bureau of Reclamation- Ben Radcliffe

The US Bureau of Reclamation funds irrigation improvement projects through the Colorado
River Basinwide Salinity Control Program. Reclamation Salinity Program projects completed in
2010 include:

- Peoples Canal: Located in Sweetwater County, Wyoming and Dagget County,Utah, the
Peoples Canal serves the lower Henry’s Fork River in Wyoming and the lower Lucern Valley
near Manila, Utah. This earthen canal was replaced with an 8 mile pipeline with an estimated
off-farm salt load reduction of 5,700 tons/year. This off-farm project was fully funded by the
salinity program at $7,250,000.

- Red Cap Canal: The Red Cap Project is situated in Duchesne County near Arcadia, Utah.
Approximately 8.6 miles of earthen ditches were replaced with a pipeline system with an
estimated off-farm salt load reduction of 1,817 tons/year. This off-farm project was fully
funded by the salinity program at $2,500,000.

29
- The Huntington-Cleveland Irrigation Company is continuing construction of their salinity
control project in Emery County.

Reclamation released a Funding Opportunity Announcement in September 2010 which closed in
December 2010. New Projects will be chosen for funding early in 2011.

5) Bureau of Land Management- Lisa Bryant

In 2010, Utah BLM continued to implement a strong Healthy Lands and Watershed Restoration
program, focused on improving habitat, vegetation, and improving water quality by reducing
erosion from BLM lands. These efforts included many watershed improvement projects that will
contribute to improved land health and long term reduction of erosion, and sediment, which also
benefits the salinity program. Five projects specifically funded by the salinity program were also
implemented including OHV management/trail closures, wetland restoration and management,
research and monitoring on OHV impacts in Mancos Shale Terrain, and protective exclosures for
riparian areas.

Utah Watershed Restoration Initiative - Utah BLM is in its seventh year of a cooperative
effort in implementing the Utah Watershed Restoration Initiative through its participation in the
Utah Partners for Conservation and Development. Over 21,000 acres of BLM lands within the
Colorado Plateau were treated in 2010 under this program. The total treatment area including
other Federal, State and private lands as part of the cooperative effort is well more than double
that figure. Treatments include riparian restoration, tamarisk and Russian olive removal,
sagebrush restoration (Dixie-harrow and seeding), removal of juniper through bullhog and hand
thinning methods, wildlife and rangeland seeding, cheatgrass treatment and reseeding degraded
rangelands, and other similar projects.

Other BLM Watershed Improvement projects:
In addition to the projects implemented through the Utah Partners for Conservation and
Development, Utah Field Offices (FO) also reported an additional 22,000 acres of watershed and
range improvement projects funded through other appropriated dollars such as range, fuels,
wildlife or riparian funds. In 2010 nearly 6000 acres were treated with herbicide and reseeded
with native and and some soil stabilizing non-native species to improve habitat and plant
diversity. An additional 1000 acres was treated by hand and mechanical treatments to cut, scatter,
and use prescribed fire to remove juniper slash, opening up areas for seeding and restoration of
native grassland/shrub communities.

In the Richfield FO several riparian projects were identified as having benefits to the salinity
program, in addition to upland watershed treatments completed under the Utah Watershed
Restoration Initiative:

a) Two large silt free reservoirs in the Hanksville area were maintained by removing several
years worth of captured sediment from the sediment traps.
b) A prescribed burn is planned for Sept. 7-11 in Beaver Wash near Hanksville to remove
chemically treated Tamarisk from the riparian corridor. This will allow willows to be
reestablished in the riparian area.
c) Sixty acres of Tamarisk at Pool Springs (upper part of Beaver Wash) near Hanksville were
chemically treated in the fall of 2009.

30
The Price FO completed a large reservoir cleanout and repair project in their Desert
Allotment. This was part of a longer term cooperative project with the permittee in
which 15 reservoirs have been cleaned out and repaired over the last several years. The
Price River bisects the allotment, roughly creating a north and south pasture. The
improved reservoirs will help slow sediment movement and better distribute cows
throughout the allotment. Through improved grazing management it is anticipated that
trampling of livestock concentration areas will be reduced.

ARRA funded BLM deferred maintenance, habitat restoration, and travel plan
implementation projects.
Several key projects initiated in 2009 under the American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act were completed in 2010. $3,250,000 was spent in 2009-2010 for habitat restoration
including multiple biomass stewardship projects statewide. These activities included
erosion control, trail maintenance, closures of illegal routes, signage, public education
activities to encourage responsible recreation, etc.

Pariette Wetlands is a large artificially-augmented wetland in the northeastern portion
of Utah. This has been a long-term, multi-faceted project operating and monitoring the
wetland area for wildlife management and salinity/water-quality control. $80,000 in
salinity funding was divided two ways:
1) A portion was used to match other MLR funds and contribute to labor for a Pariette
Wetland Manager that maintained sediment control structures and conducted water
quality monitoring.
2) Most of the salinity program funding is being used to support a Financial Assistance
Agreement with Utah State University to do additional research on the effects various
land uses are having on water quality. A comprehensive study plan was completed this
year and is available upon request.

Salinity Reduction/ Grazing Exclosures: The BLM Moab Field Office was granted
$20,000 in FY10 to construct 5 grazing exclosures in saline soils. These exclosures will
provide good reference sites to better understand impacts to moderately saline soils (>8
mmhos/cm) from grazing activity.

Factory Butte OHV Study - A long-term study was initiated summer 2007 in the
Hanksville area of Central Utah to assess soil and water quality impacts related to OHV
use on Mancos Shale in the Factory Butte. A third season of erosion data was collected
this summer from sediment traps/silt fences and rainfall simulation sites following
deliberate OHV disturbance last year. The primary focus in 2009 has been to develop a
water quality monitoring plan to help determine salt contribution from the OHV play area
to the Fremont River.

Nine Mile Canyon Fencing/Range Improvement Project
$10,000 in salinity funds was provided to the Price FO to begin implementation of projects
identified in the Nine Mile Community Watershed Restoration Planning effort of previous years
(partially funded through the salinity program). The main focus of these projects was fencing
projects along riparian areas.

31
US Army Corps of Engineers- Scott Stoddard

Environmental Infrastructure (Sec 595) Program- This program was authorized in 2004 and
initially funded in 2005. The program assists rural communities in funding both improvements
to, as well as new infrastructure, to provide clean, safe drinking water and wastewater collection
and treatment to Rural Utah communities only on a cost-shared basis. At least one of our Sec 595
- Environmental Infrastructure Projects that is considered an NPS project:

Elwood Wastewater Collection & Treatment Facilities (new project - at the request of the State):
The monitors have taken samples from the land drains that cross Elwood and used the
fluorescence test for caffeine on them as a preliminary indicator of human waste. At least one of
the land drains tested positive.

The Corps of Engineers has also completed or is working on several other wastewater projects in
Rural Utah - Moroni, Cedar City/Iron County, Richmond & Mona (which along with Elwood is
still ongoing).

VIII. Federal Consistency Review and NPS Project Tours for FY-2010

During FY-2010, DEQ continued to use a combination of approaches to work
collaboratively with federal land management agencies and others to promote federal
consistency with the state NPS Pollution Management Program. As part of this program
tours of projects implemented by federal agencies are organized every year. The
following is a summary of a tour that took place in the Fish Lake National Forest, as well
as a project tour that visited several of the projects that had been implemented using
Section 319(h) funds.

Fish Lake National Forest Tour
June 17, 2010

Participants Organization Representing
Rick Hopson Region 4, Forest Service
Bill Goodman Region 4, Forest Service
Adam Solt Fishlake National Forest
Scott Daly Division of Water Quality
Carl Adams (Author) Division of Water Quality

This tour of water quality related management practices on the Fish Lake National Forest took
place on Monroe Mountain located between the Otter Creek drainage on the east and the Sevier
Valley on the west.

32

Monroe Mt
Upper and 
Lower Box 
Creek Res. 
Manning 
Meadow Res. 

The tour began on the east side of the mountain along the Box Creek drainage, a perennial
tributary to Otter Creek. A diversion structure on Box Creek near the Forest Service boundary
diverts surface flow during the summer to irrigate hay and pasture lands surrounding the
community of Greenwich. The riparian corridor appeared to be in excellent condition with an
extensive overstory of cottonwood and willow. Dispersed recreation sites along the creek bottom
appeared to be in fairly good condition with a minimal amount of trash and vegetation
disturbance.

Box Creek near Forest Service Boundary

The tour continued to the top of Monroe Mountain which consists alternately of broad gently
sloping meadows and deeply dissected valleys. Along the way we stopped at both Lower Box
Creek and Upper Box Creek Reservoirs. It was noted that water levels in both reservoirs were
higher than in many years previous owing to the preceding wet winter. Lower Box Creek was
less developed than the Upper consisting of a single access point of access to the water’s edge.

33
Lower Box Creek Reservoir

Upper Box Creek Reservoir Dam Outlet

Water quality concerns in the reservoirs include elevated water temperatures and algal blooms
that typically coincide with draw down of the reservoirs during late summer.

Along the way to Manning Meadow Reservoir a project site was visited where a short cut trail
had been ripped and seeded. Many illegal trails have been similarly treated throughout the
Forest.

Ripped and seeded
illegal trail

The excellent condition of the road along Manning Meadow reservoir was noted with well placed
culverts and graveled surface.

34
Improved road along Manning Meadow
Res.

When we arrived at Manning Meadow Reservoir, Division of Wildlife Resources personnel and
volunteers were collecting and processing spawning Colorado Cutthroat trout in a small tributary
to the reservoir, collecting their eggs for hatching and rearing at a State Fish Hatchery.

Colorado Cutthroat Trout egg
collection

Concerns regarding OHV access to surface waters are being addressed through strategic
placement of signage, gates, and rock. We visited a small lake near Manning Meadow where
construction of a gate was underway and rock and pole fencing had recently been placed.

35
Gate to prevent lakeshore OHV
access
Pole fencing and rock placement along roadway to prevent OHV access to surface waters

The last site we visited was on the eastern slope of the Tushar Mountains to the southwest of
Monroe Mountain in the upper reaches of a small intermittent tributary to Sevier River. This area
has experienced extensive head cutting over the last several decades. In the 1970’s small
detention basins were constructed to slow runoff and trap sediments.

Detention basin

36
More recently, fencing has been constructed just above the head cut stream channel to facilitate
rotational grazing management with excellent results.

New pasture fencing along intermittent tributary to Sevier River

NPS Tour
August 24-26, 2010

The 2010 NPS Tour focused on several watersheds in the northern part of the State that
have had significant implementation projects completed in recent years. Tour
participants included Gary Kleeman (EPA Region 8), Carl Adams (Utah Division of
Water Quality), W.D. Robinson (Utah Dept. of Agriculture and Food) and Roy Gunnel
(Utah Dept. of Agriculture and Food). Individuals involved in the specific projects
joined the tour at their respective project locations.

Day 1 - Rees Creek
The tour began in the upper Weber River watershed on Rees Creek south of Interstate 80
in Echo Canyon. Rees Creek was identified as a major source of sediment into the
Weber River from severe channel erosion. Through a cooperative planning effort
between the owner of the property, Ensign Ranch, the NRCS, cost share funding from
EPA, and several state and local agencies, a series of ponds were constructed to slow
water flow, drop out sediment, and raise the water table. This project has proven to be
highly effective towards achieving its goals, although follow up work was required in one
of the lower ponds’ outlet structures.

37

Echo Creek
The next site visited was a stream stabilization project on Echo Creek along Interstate 80 which
was also identified as a major sediment source into the Weber River. The valley through which
Echo Creek has been a major transportation corridor since pioneer settlement of the west, and is
currently situated between the Union Pacific railroad and the Interstate. Consequently the flood
plain of the creek has been constrained to the point where very little remains. To remediate the
severely eroding banks and re-establish instream structure, a series of rock structures have been
placed in the channel to direct erosive flows from the banks and create riffle-pool habitat. This
project is unique in that technical assistance has been provided by US Fish and Wildlife Service
in addition to several other Federal and State partners including the Utah Dept. of Agriculture and
Food. Funding for this work has primarily been from EPA as well as in-kind match from the
Weber Basin Water Conservancy District.

Chalk Creek
Chalk Creek was one of the first NPS project sites completed in the State of Utah. It is a
tributary to the Weber River south of Echo Creek. The site visited was on the property of
Jerrold Richins who became a staunch proponent for riparian restoration following the
38
successful implementation of his project. Over the years he has spoken to hundreds of
agricultural producers and local children on the benefits of protecting riparian areas
including before and after pictures of his property in an educational kiosk near the creek.
A comment was made that this portion of the creek would serve as an excellent 319
success story, demonstrating the long term benefits of riparian area management.

East Canyon Creek
East Canyon Creek and one its tributaries, Kimball Creek, were visited north of Park
City. This area has experienced rapid land use changes from primarily agricultural to
residential and recreational. A recently completed project was visited on Kimball Creek
where Christmas trees were used as revetment along eroding bends and perennial woody
plants such as willows, wild rose and dogwood were planted along the tops of the banks
to eventually provide shading to the creek. Shading has been identified as a critical need
for East Canyon Creek and its tributaries due to exceedances of the State’s cold water
temperature criteria during the late summer.

39

Day 2 – Ogden River
A major urban river restoration project was initiated on the Ogden River in 2009 with the
award of a $1 million ARRA grant through EPA. This project entails several unique
features including stormwater settling basins, foot paths, and instream structures to create
pool habitat for fish. It has the strong support of Ogden City and is anticipated for
completion in 2011.

Parleys Creek
Following a brief stop at the Water Quality Board meeting to witness the career
achievement award ceremony for Mike Reichert, Utah’s longtime NPS Program Manager
and Coordinator Parleys Creek in Salt Lake City was visited. Parleys Creek, like Echo
40
Creek, is situated within the same canyon through the Wasatch Mountain Range as
Interstate 80. At the mouth of the canyon, Parleys Creek flows through the Parleys
Nature Reserve, the management of which has become a controversial topic recently. It
was opened to off leash dog access in 2005 and has since become very popular with both
dogs and their owners to the point where water quality impacts have been observed,
specifically high E coli bacteria counts. A restoration plan has been developed to protect
water quality while still maintaining some access.

Little Cottonwood Creek / Alta Fen
The day’s tour ended in Little Cottonwood Canyon at the base of Alta Ski Area where
significant historic mining activities occurred. The mines, which extend throughout the
Wasatch Mountains east of Salt Lake City, collect water and discharge it at specific
points within the canyon. The discharge point visited is the Columbus-Rexall mine that
contains high concentrations of zinc for which a TMDL was established in 2002. A pilot
scale fen was constructed in cooperation with Salt Lake County and showed promising
results in reducing zinc concentrations. However progress in expanding the fen was
delayed by confusion over land ownership and liability concerns. It is interesting to note
that following this tour the mine outlet was blocked by a landslide and is now apparently
filling the mine works inside the mountain and/or discharging somewhere else in the
canyon thereby negating the need for the expanded fen, at least in the short term.

41

Day 3 – Jordan River
Two sites were visited on the Jordan River, the first in the upstream reach below Utah
Lake where significant land use changes are occurring including extensive housing tracts
and commercial developments. The purpose of this first site visit was to meet with
representatives from Thanksgiving Point to learn of their proposal to develop an outreach
program on environmental stewardship near the river and wetland mitigation site for
thousands of children who visit on school field trips. The second stop was an EPA
funded project site downstream where eroding stream banks were stabilized by placing
rock barbs into the channel to direct flow into the center of the channel thereby allowing
woody vegetation to establish and protect the banks during high flows. This project was
completed by Salt Lake County as part of their Water Quality Stewardship Plan.

Upper Bear River
The final tour visit was along the Upper Bear River in Rich County where several 319
funded demonstration projects have been implemented. This area is largely agricultural
with extensive grass pasture and hay land fields surrounding the meandering Bear River.
The project site visited demonstrated the effectiveness of sloping back the eroding
outside bank and fencing from livestock access to allow vegetation to re-establish.
42
Although willow poles were planted the majority of recruitment appeared to come from
regeneration of native stands.

43
APPENDICIES

44

Table A- 319 Projects Closed in 2010
Project Title Total
NPS
Award
Date
Closed
USU Extension Statewide NPS Pollution I&E FY-01 $40,200 5/11/10
San Pitch River I&E FY-01 $470,700 5/26/10
Salina Creek Watershed Stuart Johnson Demonstration Project
FY-01
$22,000 5/12/10
Paria River Restoration FY-01 $13,000 12/22/09
Fremont River I&E and Mack Morrell FY-01 $25,600 2/10/10
USU Panguitch-Sevier River FY-01 $58,980 11/19/09
Upper Sevier River Watershed Rangeland Improvement Demo
FY-01
$13,770 5/12/10
Little Logan Watershed of the Middle Bear River FY-01 $46,550 4/29/10
Amalga Benson Area of the Middle Bear River Watershed FY-01 $105,000 6/7/10
Little Bear River Watershed Project FY-01 $119,000 6/7/10
Malad Portion of the Lower Bear River Watershed FY-01 $105,000 4/9/10
East Canyon Watershed Stream Restoration FY-01 $54,600 6/28/10
AFO Manure Management FY-02 $100,000 5/26/10
Amalga Benson Middle Bear River Watershed FY-02 $189,700 6/7/10
Chalk Creek Watershed Project FY-02 $175,000 7/8/10
Beaver River Watershed FY-02 $200,000 6/14/10
Cub River Watershed FY-02 $226,700 6/7/10
Upper Bear River Watershed FY-02 $36,400 5/25/10
Lower Bear River TMDL Implementation FY-02 $111,700 4/29/10
USU Extension Statewide NPS Pollution I&E FY-02 $30,300 1/21/10
Forest WQ Guidelines FY-02 $67,408 1/27/10
Migration NPS Chemicals GW in Milford Area FY-02 $84,900 6/7/10
Otter Creek Reservoir Watershed TMDL Development FY-02 $70,000 12/23/09
East Canyon Watershed Stream Restoration Phase II FY-02 $156,000 6/28/10
USU Extension Statewide NPS Pollution I&E FY-03 $43,000 3/12/10
USU Extension Watershed I&E Modules FY-03 $42,500 6/10/10
Potential CAFO Assistance Team FY-03 $150,000 6/14/10
Utah Local Watershed Coordinating Council FY-03 $21,100 7/12/10
San Pitch River Watershed TMDL Implementation FY-03 $113,300 7/7/10
Small Reservoir Flushing-Managing Impacts FY-03 $99,100 7/13/10
Upper Sevier Watershed Community I&E and Stream Dom FY-
03
$15,000 6/7/10
Upper Weber River Tech Assistance and I&E FY-03 $40,000 7/12/10
Reese Creek Demonstration FY-03 $38,400 8/17/09
Soldier Creek Watershed Project FY-03 $132,000 4/22/10
Bear River I&E Outreach and WQ Coordination FY-03 $42,300 3/26/10
East Canyon Instream Flow Augmentation Study FY-03 $75,000 6/28/10
GW Quality Assessment Selected Statewide Monitoring FY-03 $245,000 7/13/10
45
Otter Creek & Reservoir TMDL Development FY-03 $47,164 12/23/09
Jordan River WQ TMDL Assessment FY-03 $38,000 3/26/10
Cedar Mountain GW Monitoring FY-03 $21,800 6/29/10
Little Cottonwood Creek Implementation TMDL FY-03 $40,100 5/21/10
East Canyon Watershed Stream Restoration Phase III FY-03 $175,000 6/28/10
Onion Creek Implementation TMDL FY-03 $30,000 3/12/10
Utah Potential CAFO Team UACD FY-04 $150,000 6/14/10
AFO Manure Management FY-04 $313,400 6/2/10
USU Ext. Statewide NPS Pollution I&E FY-04 $39,230 7/14/10
Scofield Reservoir TMDL Implementation FY-04 $18,000 5/27/10
Upper Sevier River Watershed Implementation FY-04 $294,600 7/1/10
San Pitch River TMDL Implementation FY-04 $200,000 7/7/10
TMDL Development and Watershed Planning Local Watershed
Coordinators FY-04
$320,000 7/13/10
Fremont River TMDL Implementation FY-04 $100,000 7/8/10
Utah Potential CAFO Team FY-05 $150,000 6/14/10
Onion Creek TMDL Implementation FY-05 $93,250 3/12/10
Fremont River TMDL Implementation FY-05 $100,000 7/8/10
Upper Bear River Stream Bank Stabilization FY-05 $36,850 7/27/10
TMDL Development and Watershed Planning, Local Watershed
Coordinators FY-05
$320,000 7/13/10
Bear River I&E Outreach FY-05 $41,600 7/27/10
Ground Water Vulnerability to Pesticides FY-05 $44,000 7/28/10
Reese Creek Project FY-06 $40,200 8/17/09
Cedar Mountain Round Water Monitoring Fy-06 $21,800 6/29/10
Ground Water Vulnerability to Pesticides FY-06 $34,000 7/28/10
Spawn Creek Bank Restoration FY-06 $34,000 7/28/10

Table B- Summary of Active Utah 319(h) Grants FY-10
Project Title Total NPS Award Grant Status
San Pitch River Watershed
TMDL Implementation FY-
05
$225,000 Project Complete Awaiting
Final Report
Upper Sevier River
Watershed TMDL
Implementation FY-05
$225,000 Project Complete Awaiting
Final Report
Scofield Reservoir TMDL
Implementation FY-05
$25,200 Project Complete Awaiting
Final Report
USU Extension Statewide
NPS Pollution I&E FY-06
$35,420 Project Complete Awaiting
Final Report
Fremont River TMDL $100,000 Ongoing
46
Implementation FY-06
San Pitch River Watershed
Implementation FY-06
$200,000 Ongoing
Scofield River TMDL
Implementation FY-06
$20,200 Ongoing
Middle Bear River
Watershed TMDL
Implementation FY-06
$37,500 Project Complete Awaiting
Final Report
West Colorado River
Watershed Implementation
FY-06
$70,000 Ongoing
Middle Sevier River
Watershed TMDL
Implementation FY-06
$104,680 Ongoing
Upper Bear River Stream
Bank Stabilization FY-06
$34,000 Project Complete Awaiting
Final Report
TMDL Development and
Watershed Planning Local
Watershed Coordinators
FY-06
$387,800 Project Complete Awaiting
Final Report
Virgin River Watershed
TMDL Implementation FY-
06
$100,000 Project Complete Awaiting
Final Report
Bear River I&E Outreach
FY-07
$41,600 Project Complete Awaiting
Final Report
Jordan River Watershed
Council Capacity Grant FY-
07
$35,350 Ongoing
Oil & Gas Sediment
Erosion FY-07
$6,000 Ongoing
Septage Treatment and
Handling FY-07
$29,500 Final Report Submitted
Awaiting Approval
USU Extension NPS I&E
FY-07
$19,900 Ongoing
Watershed Coordinator
Rich County FY-07
$30,000 Project Complete Awaiting
Final Report
Ag. Watershed
Improvement Project FY-07
$24,000 Ongoing
State Riparian and Stream
Restoration FY-07
$340,920 Final Report Submitted
Awaiting Approval
Alta Fen Rehab FY-07 $87,500 Ongoing
Middle Sevier River
Watershed TMDL
Implementation
$100,000 Ongoing
San Pitch River Watershed
TMDL Implementation FY-
$153,000 Ongoing
47
07
Upper Sevier River
Watershed TMDL
Implementation FY-07
$155,000 Ongoing
Virgin River Watershed
Improvement FY-07
$33,730 Project Complete Awaiting
Final Report
West Colorado Watershed
Improvement Project FY-07
$70,000 Ongoing
Upper Bear River WS
TMDL Implementation FY-
08
$30,000 Ongoing
Middle Bear River TMDL
Implementation FY-08
$32,100 Ongoing
Lower Bear River TMDL
Implementation FY-08
$212,500 Ongoing
Strawberry River/ East
Daniels FY-08
$61,600 Ongoing
San Pitch River WS TMDL
Implementation FY-08
$118,000 Ongoing
Middle Sevier River WS
TMDL Implementation FY-
08
$137,085 Ongoing
West Colorado River
Watershed Improvement
Project FY-08
$70,000 Ongoing
Matt Warner, Calder
Reservoir/ Pot Creek FY-08
$64,800 Ongoing
Scofield Reservoir Riparian
Revegetation FY-08
$35,500 Ongoing
Local Watershed
Coordinators Support FY-
08
$400,000 Ongoing
USU Extension NPS I&E
Outreach FY-09
$33,500 Ongoing
Lower Bear River WS
TMDL Implementation FY-
09
$84,000 Ongoing
Upper Bear River WS
TMDL Implementation FY-
09
$110,140 Ongoing
Middle Sevier River WS
TMDL Implementation FY-
09
$60,000 Ongoing
Upper Sevier River WS
TMDL Implementation FY-
09
$122,790 Ongoing
48
West Colorado River WS
TMDL Implementation FY-
09
$70,000 Ongoing
Forest Water Quality
Guidelines Monitoring FY-
09
$33,870 Ongoing
Jordan River Ecosystem
Restoration FY-09
$96,000 Ongoing
Local Watershed
Coordinator Support FY-09
$509,100 Ongoing

Table C- Approved TMDLs
Water Body Date Approved
Middle Bear River February 23, 2010
Chalk Creek December 23, 1997
Otter Creek December 23, 1997
Little Bear River May 23, 2000
Mantua Reservoir May 23, 2000
East Canyon Creek September 1, 2000
East Canyon Reservoir September 1, 2000
Kents Lake September 1, 2000
LaBaron Reservoir September 1, 2000
Minersville Reservoir September 1, 2000
Puffer Lake September 1, 2000
Scofield Reservoir September 1, 2000
Onion Creek (near Moab) July 25, 2002
Cottonwood Wash September 9, 2002
Deer Creek Reservoir September 9, 2002
Hyrum Reservoir September 9, 2002
Little Cottonwood Creek September 9, 2002
Lower Bear River September 9, 2002
Malad River September 9, 2002
Mill Creek (near Moab) September 9, 2002
Spring Creek September 9, 2002
Forsyth Reservoir September 27, 2002
Johnson Valley Reservoir September 27, 2002
Lower Fremont River September 27, 2002
Mill Meadow Reservoir September 27, 2002
UM Creek September 27, 2002
Upper Fremont River September 27, 2002
Deep Creek October 9, 2002
Uinta River October 9, 2002
Pineview Reservoir December 9, 2002
Browne Lake February 19, 2003
San Pitch River November 18, 2003
49
Newton Creek June 24, 2004
Panguitch Lake June 24, 2004
West Colorado August 4, 2004
Silver Creek August 4, 2004
Upper Sevier River August 4, 2004
Lower and Middle Sevier River August 17,2004
Lower Colorado River September 20, 2004
Upper Bear River August 4, 2006
Echo Creek August 4, 2006
Soldier Creek August 4, 2006
East Fork Sevier River August 4, 2006
Koosharem Reservoir August 4, 2006
Lower Box Creek Reservoir August 4, 2006
Otter Creek Reservoir August 4, 2006
Thistle Creek July 9, 2007
Strawberry Reservoir July 9, 2007
Matt Warner Reservoir July 9, 2007
Calder Reservoir July 9, 2007
Lower Duchesne River July 9, 2007
Lake Fork River July 9, 2007
Brough Reservoir August 22, 2008
Steinaker Reservoir August 22, 2008
Red Fleet Reservoir August 22, 2008
Newcastle Reservoir August 22, 2008
Cutler Reservoir February 23, 2010
Table D Watershed Plans
Watershed Date Approved
Middle and Lower
Sevier October 2010
San Pitch January 2006
Upper Sevier June 2004
Virgin River February 2006
Paria River 2006
Escalante River 2006
Strawberry Watershed April 2004

Table E State NPS Funds Allocated in 2010
Waterbody Applicant Project Description
Amount
Requested
Amount
Authorized
East Fork
Sevier Creston Black Riparian restoration $27,730 $27,730
San Pitch Sanpete Cty Soil Con
Stream Stabilization
Engineering $70,000 $70,000
50
San Pitch Sanpete Cty Soil Con Stream Stabilization Project $100,000 $80,000
Beaver Crk Milky Way Dairy Stream Reveg/Stabilization $10,606 $10,606
Price River Price River Conserv Dist Stream Reveg/Stabilization $52,500 $52,500
Jordan
River DWQ
Jordan River TMDL
Development $96,000 $96,000
GSL DWQ Paleolimnology of GSL $90,000 $90,000
Davis
County Utah Geological Survey
Davis County Aquifer
Classification $25,000 $25,000
Statewide DWQ
WQ Handbook for Elected
Officials $40,000 $40,000
East
Canyon Myra C. Evans Animal Waste Control $101,000 $23,196
Clyde
Cr/Straw
Forest Service Heber
Dist Phos/Sed Reduction $125,000 $75,000
Calder Res
Uintah County
Conservation Dist Phos/Sed Reduction $100,000 $50,000
Bear River Bob Hoffman/Randolph Erosion Control $15,000 $4,096
Chalk Crk Kenneth Boyer Stream Erosion Control $31,500 $31,500
Chalk Crk Kevin Hirschi Erosion Control $9,500 $9,500
UBC Ponds USU Botanical Center Enhance Wetlands/Habitat $100,000 $100,000
GSL DEQ Analyze samples 40 sites $25,200 $25,200
Cutler Res Wurtsbaugh
Quantify
O2,nutrient,macros $2,156 $2,156
Statewide DWQ Data Logger repair (10) $5,945 $5,945
Statewide Farm Bureau AFO Inventory Program $40,000 $49,000
groundwater Coons
individual onsite
wastewater $4,075 $4,075

Table F
Summary Conservation Practices - FY2010 Planned Applied
Above Ground, Multi-Outlet Pipeline (431) (ft) 9,921 9,660
Access Control (472) (ac) 5 37
Access Road (560) (ft) 44,772 250
Amendments for the Treatment of Agricultural Waste (591) (ani unt) 3,762 7,054
Anaerobic Digestor (366) (no) 1
Animal Trails and Walkways (575) (ft) 180
Anionic Polyacrylamide (PAM) Application (450) (ac) 68
Apply controlled release nitrogen fertilizer (WQL06) (ac) 4,210
Apply nutrients no more than 30 days prior to planned planting date (WQL05) (ac) 494
Apply split applications of nitrogen based on a pre-sidedress nitrogen test on
cropland (WQL08) (ac) 3,172
Atmospheric Resource Quality Management (370) (ac) 14
Biological suppression and other non-chemical techniques to manage brush,
weeds and invasive species (WQL01) (ac) 737
Brush Management (314) (ac) 29,831 19,660
Channel Bank Vegetation (322) (ac) 2,113
51
Channel Bed Stabilization (584) (ft) 1,148
Closure of Waste Impoundment (360) (no) 1
Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plan - Applied (103) (no) 12 4
Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plan (100) (no) 7 21
Conservation Completion Incentive First Year (CCIA) (no) 1
Conservation Cover (327) (ac) 6,411 16,802
Conservation Crop Rotation (328) (ac) 15,293 20,943
Conservation Plan Supporting Organic Transition - Written (138) (no) 1
Conservation Power Plant (716) (no) 7 1
Constructed Wetland (656) (ac) 6
Continuous cover crops (SQL02) (ac) 2,202
Controlled traffic system (SQL01) (ac) 2,667
Conversion of cropped land to grass-based agriculture (SQL06) (ac) 180
Cover Crop (340) (ac) 2,652 27
Critical Area Planting (342) (ac) 12 26
Dam (402) (ac-ft) 2 2
Defer crop production on temporary and seasonal wetlands (ANM02) (ac) 23
Dike (356) (ft) 2,846 880
Diversion (362) (ft) 2,650 12,587
Establish pollinator habitat (PLT01) (ac) 235
Extending existing field borders for water quality protection and wildlife habitat
(ANM07) (ac) 1
Fence (382) (ft) 521,068 380,754
Field Border (386) (ac) 148
Filter Strip (393) (ac) 6 1
Firebreak (394) (ft) 73,429 141,000
Forage and Biomass Planting (512) (ac) 1,787 1,485
Forage Harvest Management (511) (ac) 4,769 1,976
Forest Slash Treatment (384) (ac) 11 31
Forest Stand Improvement (666) (ac) 11 34
Fuel Break (383) (ac) 5
GPS, targeted spray application (SmartSprayer), or other chemical application
electronic control tec (AIR07) (ac) 7,005
Grade Stabilization Structure (410) (no) 1
Grassed Waterway (412) (ac) 1
Grazing Land Mechanical Treatment (548) (ac) 2,897 44
Grazing Management Plan - Written (110) (no) 3,620
Grazing management to improve wildlife habitat (ANM09) (ac) 31,408
Harvest hay in a manner that allows wildlife to flush and escape (ANM10) (ac) 6,695
Heavy Use Area Protection (561) (ac) 1 5
High level Integrated Pest Management to reduce pesticide environmental risk
(WQL13) (ac) 18,325
Improve the plant diversity and structure of non-cropped areas for wildlife food
and habitat (ANM08) (ac) 135
Incorporate native grasses and/or legumes into 15% or more of the forage base
(ANM03) (ac) 535
52
Integrated Pest Management (595) (ac) 43,865 27,190
Intensive Management of Rotational Grazing (PLT10) (ac) 6
Irrigation Field Ditch (388) (ft) 1,537
Irrigation Land Leveling (464) (ac) 252 1,394
Irrigation Pipeline (430) (ft)
Irrigation pumping plant evaluation (WQT03) (no) 162
Irrigation Regulating Reservoir (552) (no) 10 11
Irrigation Reservoir (436) (ac-ft) 198
Irrigation system automation (WQT01) (ac) 1,917
Irrigation System, Microirrigation (441) (ac) 231 77
Irrigation System, Sprinkler (442) (ac) 12,153 12,449
Irrigation System, Surface and Subsurface (443) (ac) 73 562
Irrigation Water Conveyance, Ditch and Canal Lining, Flexible Membrane (428B)
(ft) 20,000
Irrigation Water Conveyance, Ditch and Canal Lining, Plain Concrete (428A) (ft) 9,225 3,650
Irrigation Water Conveyance, Pipeline, High-Pressure, Underground, Plastic
(430DD) (ft) 610,781 445,092
Irrigation Water Conveyance, Pipeline, Low-Pressure, Underground, Plastic
(430EE) (ft) 18,142 24,219
Irrigation Water Conveyance, Pipeline, Rigid Gated Pipeline (430HH) (ft) 1,400 1,000
Irrigation Water Conveyance, Pipeline, Steel (430FF) (ft) 220 152
Irrigation Water Management (449) (ac) 20,799 14,150
Land application of only treated manure (WQL14) (ac) 402
Land Smoothing (466) (ac) 6
Locally grown and marketed farm products (ENR05) (ac) 4,637
Managing Calving to Coincide with Forage Availability (ANM26) (ac) 2,543
Managing livestock access to water bodies/courses (WQL12) (ac) 89
Monitor key grazing areas to improve grazing management (PLT02) (ac) 31,219
Monitoring nutritional status of livestock using the NUTBAL PRO System
(ANM17) (ac) 8,247
Mulching (484) (ac) 158 8
Mulching for moisture conservation (WQT02) (ac) 7
Nitrogen Stabilizers for Air Emissions Control (AIR02) (ac) 800
Non-forested riparian zone enhancement for fish and wildlife (ANM13) (Linear Ft
/yr) 1,320
Nutrient Management (590) (ac) 16,327 9,105
Obstruction Removal (500) (ac) 368 21
On Farm Research and Demonstrations (FRD01) (ac) 19
Open Channel (582) (ft) 600 1,700
Pasture Grazing Bundle #1 (BPA01) (ac) 854
Patch-burning to enhance wildlife habitat (ANM11) (ac) 50
Pipeline (516) (ft) 324,109 349,015
Plant an annual grass-type cover crop that will scavenge residual nitrogen
(WQL10) (ac)
Plant Tissue Testsing and Analysis to Improve Nitrogen Management (WQL04)
(ac) 5,860
Pond (378) (no) 57 1,880
53
Pond Sealing and Lining, Soil Cement (740) (no)
Pond Sealing or Lining, Bentonite Sealant (521C) (no) 17 2
Pond Sealing or Lining, Compacted Clay Treatment (521D) (no) 386 1
Pond Sealing or Lining, Flexible Membrane (521A) (no) 7 13
Prairie Restoration for Grazing and Wildlife Habitat (ANM21) (ac) 81
Prescribed Burning (338) (ac) 145 317
Prescribed Grazing (528) (ac) 109,695 270,172
Prescribed Grazing (528A) (ac) 6,626
Pumping Plant (533) (no) 107 118
Pumping plant powered by renewable energy (ENR03) (no) 41
Range Grazing Bundle #1 (BRA01) (ac) 17,251
Range Planting (550) (ac) 22,081 14,298
Recycle 100% of farm lubricants (ENR04) (no) 3,532
Reduce the concentration of nutrients on livestock farms (WQL15) (ac) 338
Regional weather networks for irrigation scheduling (WQT04) (ac) 6,492
Renovation of a windbreak or shelter belt, or hedgerow for wildlife habitat
(PLT06) (ac) 185
Replace burning of prunings and other crop residues with non-burning alternatives
(AIR03) (ac) 657
Residue and Tillage Management, Mulch Till (345) (ac) 16,246 4,013
Residue and Tillage Management, No-Till/Strip Till/Direct Seed (329) (ac) 35 1,105
Residue Management, Mulch Till (329B) (ac) 1,096
Residue Management, Seasonal (344) (ac) 306 4,042
Resource-Conserving Crop Rotation (CCR99) (ac) 2,870
Restoration and Management of Rare or Declining Habitats (ANM22) (ac) 55
Retrofit watering facility for wildlife escape (ANM18) (no) 111
Riparian forest buffer, terrestrial and aquatic wildlife habitat (ANM14) (Linear Ft
/yr) 2,500
Roof Runoff Structure (558) (no) 5
Rotation of supplement and feeding areas (WQL03) (ac) 75,927
Salinity and Sodic Soil Management (610) (ac) 12 6
Seasonal High Tunnel System for Crops (798) (sq ft) 20,182 3,747
Shallow water habitat (ANM12) (ac) 135
Solar powered electric fence charging systems (ENR02) (no) 2
Solid/Liquid Waste Separation Facility (632) (no) 5
Split nitrogen applications 50% after crop/pasture emergence/green up (WQL07)
(ac) 5,709
Spring Development (574) (no) 9 9
Stream Habitat Improvement and Management (395) (ac) 25
Streambank and Shoreline Protection (580) (ft) 7,568 12,783
Structure for Water Control (587) (no) 1,537 610
TA Application (912) (no) 43 4,130
TA Check-Out (913) (no) 45 1,311
TA Design (911) (no) 39 1,559
Terrace (600) (ft) 91,254 116,477
Transition to Organic Cropping Systems (WQL20) (ac) 3,065
54
Tree/Shrub Establishment (612) (ac) 6,406 391
Tree/Shrub Pruning (660) (ac) 11 8
Tree/Shrub Site Preparation (490) (ac) 1,060
Upland Wildlife Habitat Management (645) (ac) 111,660 40,749
Use deep rooted crops to breakup soil compaction (SQL05) (ac) 2,324
Use drift reducing nozzles, low pressures, lower boom height and adjuvants to
reduce pesticide drift (AIR04) (ac) 18,141
Use of Cover Crop Mixes (SQL04) (ac) 2,202
Use of legume cover crops as a nitrogen source (WQL16) (ac) 2,202
Use of non-chemical methods to kill cover crops (WQL17) (ac) 2,202
Waste Storage Facility (313) (no) 37 58
Waste Transfer (634) (no) 58 17
Watering Facility (614) (no) 193 10,111
Wetland Enhancement (659) (ac) 1,406 495
Wetland Restoration (657) (ac) 144
Wetland Wildlife Habitat Management (644) (ac) 2,260 117
Wildlife corridors (ANM19) (ac) 10
Information relating to the specific conservation practices listed in the table can be found
at the following weblink:
http://ias.sc.egov.usda.gov/prsreport2010/report.aspx?report_id=222

Table G- State Program Funds Used In Conjunction with 319 Funds
Program Amount
Blue Ribbon Fishery Program $113,020.00
Watershed Restoration Initiative Program $364,447.00
Habitat Council $263,048.00
Grazing Enhancement Program $14,850.00
This table reflects the only the funds used in conjunctin with 319 grants. The total amount of funds put on the ground by these
programs is much larger.
55