DWQ-2012-008013

UTAH
NONPOINT SOURCE
POLLUTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

FISCAL YEAR 2011
ANNUAL REPORT

January 2012
Prepared by:
The Utah Department of Environmental Quality
In cooperation with NPS Task Force

1
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Appreciation is expressed to the following individuals for contributing information and writing
portions of this report: WD Robinson and Jack Wilbur, Utah Department of Agriculture and
Food; 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 and Rebecca Weissinger,
National Park Service; Rory Reynolds, Bill Zanotti, Utah Department of Natural Resources; Scott
Stoddard, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Ben Radcliffe, USGS; Carl Adams, 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, Alan Saltzman; West Colorado, Daniel Gunnell; Uinta
Basin, Gary Weiser; Jordan River, Marian Hubbard; Upper Weber, Lars Christensen; Lower and
Middle Bear, Justin Elsner; Upper Bear, Brady Thornock; and South Eastern Utah, Tessa Groff.

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: River Restoration Project, East Canyon Creek, Park City Utah

2
Table of Contents

1. INTRODUCTION AND PROGRAM OVERVIEW................................................................... 4
2. GRANT MANAGEMENT AND PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION........................................ 4
2.1. STAFFING AND SUPPORT .............................................................................................................. 6
2.2. MILESTONES ................................................................................................................................7
2.3. SUMMARY OF ACTIVE UTAH 319(H) GRANTS DURING FY-11 ..................................................... 7
2.4. WATERSHED BASED PLANS/ TMDLS........................................................................................... 7
2.5. PROJECT PROPOSALS APPROVED FOR FUNDING DURING FY- 11 SOLICITATION PROCESS ........... 8
3. NPS PROGRAM STRATEGIC APPROACH ............................................................................ 8
3.1. TARGETED BASIN APPROACH ...................................................................................................... 9
3.2. UTAH STATE NPS FUNDING......................................................................................................... 9
3.3. PROGRAM MATCH STATUS ........................................................................................................ 10
3.4. INTEGRATING WATERSHEDS AND NPS FUNDING (BASIN WIDE SUMMARY)............................... 11
3.5. NPS WATER QUALITY TASK FORCE/ MONITORING COUNCIL.................................................... 15
3.6. GRANTS REPORTING AND TRACKING SYSTEM ........................................................................... 17
4. WATER QUALITY INFORMATION ...................................................................................... 17
4.1. SAMPLING AND ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES- JIM HARRIS ............................................................. 17
4.2. DATA ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT........................................................................................... 19
4.3. GROUND WATER PROTECTION................................................................................................... 19
5. OUTREACH ACTIVITIES........................................................................................................ 19
6. STATE AGENCY CONTRIBUTIONS...................................................................................... 22
7. FEDERAL AGENCY CONTRIBUTIONS................................................................................ 26
8. FEDERAL CONSISTENCY REVIEW AND NPS PROJECT TOURS FOR FY-2011........ 35
9. APPENDICIES............................................................................................................................. 46

Figure 1 Project Location Map ........................................................................................................... 46
Figure 2 UDAF 319 Project Management .......................................................................................... 56

Table A 319 Final Project Reports Submitted in FY-2011................................................................. 47
Table B Summary of Active Utah 319(h) Grants FY-11 ................................................................... 47
Table C Approved TMDLs ................................................................................................................ 50
Table D Watershed Plans ................................................................................................................... 52
Table E State NPS Funds Allocated in 2011...................................................................................... 52
Table F Summary of BLM Riparian Project Expenditures by Reporting FO:................................... 53
Table G Funding Used In Conjunction with Section 319 funding..................................................... 56
Table H Acres Planned by NRCS in FY-2011................................................................................... 57
Table I BLM Acres Planned with UWRI funding ............................................................................ 58

3
1. 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.

2. Grant Management and Program Administration

In Fiscal Year 2011 (FY-11) the Utah NPS program received $1,541,000 in federal Section
319(h) funds. Of these funds, $708,079 was used for staffing and support, while the remaining
$832,921 was dedicated to 4 project grants. Due to budget cuts, the FY-2011 grant was reduced
by 13% from the previous fiscal year.

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 an information and education project, support of local watershed
coordinators, Best Management Practice (BMP) implementation, and watershed group support,
(See Figure 1).

4
Figure 1

NPS 2011 Program Categorical Funding Distribution
Total Amount of Funding: $832,921
Weber
Watershed
(Targeted Basin)
$380,421
46%
Utah Watershed
Coordinators
$340,000
41%
Utah Watershed
Coordinating
Council
$10,000
1%
Volunteer
Monitoring and
Information and
Education
$102,500
12%

In addition to the FY-11 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-06 $1,219,600 $148,350 $1,055,795 87%
FY-07 $1,126,500 $95,624 $764,033 68%
FY-08 $1,161,585 $165,816 $848,444 73%
FY-09 $1,119,400 $402,186 $700,094 63%
FY-10 $1,065,000 $413,578 $416,101 39%
FY-11 $823,921 $0 $0 0%
Total $5,516,506 $1,225,554 $3,784,467 67%

5
2.1. Staffing and Support

In FY-2011 the Division of Water Quality devoted 6.8 FTEs to the NPS Pollution Management
Program that are funded 60% with 319 funds and 40% state revenue. Table 2 shows the positions
and FTEs funded by the Division of Water Quality using section 319 funds.

Table 2
PERSONNEL
(# FTE's) SALARY
FRINGE
(44%)
TOTAL
EXPENSES
STATE
(40%) EPA 319 (60%)
Program
Coordinator (1.0) $64,064 $28,188 $92,252 $36,901 $55,351
Environmental
Scientist (0.5) 32,155 14,148 46,303 18,521 27,782
Environmental
Scientist (1.0) 57,691 25,384 83,075 33,230 49,845
Environmental
Scientist (0.50) 30,454 13,400 43,854 17,542 26,312
Environmental
Scientist (0.30) 17,307 7,615 24,922 9,969 14,953
Environmental
Scientist (0.50) 28,846 12,692 41,538 16,615 24,923
Monitoring
Specialist (1.0) 50,383 22,169 72,552 29,021 43,531
GW
Hydrogeologist
(0.50) 33,042 14,538 47,580 19,032 28,548
Two Seasonal
Temps (0.70) 59,266 26,077 85,343 34,137 51,206
Watershed Section
Manager (0.60) 41,856 18,417 60,273 24,109 36,164
Asst. Div. Director
(0.30) 24,630 10,837 35,467 14,187 21,280
Division Director
(0.10) 10,768 4,738 15,506 6,202 9,304
TOTAL
6.8 FTEs $450,462 $198,203 $648,665 $259,466 $389,199

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 $203,682 in FY-11 319(h) funds to help fund 4 positions
which include: NPS Information and Education Coordinator; Account Technician; Program
Tracking Specialist; and an Environmental Quality Section Manager.

6
2.2. Milestones

• Utah closed out the FY-05 Section 319 Grant, and all information has been entered into
the Grant Recording and Tracking System (GRTS)
• The Water Quality Task Force joined forces with other supporting agencies to sponsor
the 21st Water Quality Conference held August 30th-September 1st in Logan, Utah. The
title of the conference was changed from the Nonpoint Source Conference to The Water
Quality Conference allowing some of the presenters to cover a wider variety of Water
Quality Topics. Over 130 people registered for this conference.
• The NPS Task Force continued to meet throughout the year. Meetings were held
November 1st, 2010, April 5th, 2011, and June 30th, 2011.
• The Utah Watershed Coordinating Council (UWCC) met 3 times during the 2011 fiscal
year. This included a training offered by Utah State University dealing with Best
Management Practice (BMP) monitoring, and a BMP monitoring manual that was
recently published by USU and their partners.
• The Utah State Monitoring Council continues to meet 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 continues to work on an in-depth evaluation of the Utah NPS
program. This evaluation will help determine more effective ways to administer and
implement 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.
• The Department of Environmental Quality has developed a handbook for watershed
coordinators and planners. This handbook covers the basics of watershed planning,
project implementation, grant reporting, and BMP monitoring.
• A nonpoint source management plan for abandoned mines has been completed, and has
been sent out for public comment. It is anticipated that this plan will be completed by the
end of the 2011 calendar year. This plan will be included in the Statewide NPS
management plan when it is revisited in 2012.
• The storm water management plan is in the final stages of development, and will be
integrated into the revised statewide nonpoint source management plan.
• The Emigration Creek TMDL has been completed and submitted to EPA for approval

2.3. Summary of Active Utah 319(h) Grants During FY-11
For an entire summary of active Utah 319(h) projects see Table B in the appendices.
2.4. Watershed Based Plans/ TMDLs

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 2008. Currently the State of Utah has 64
waterbodies that are currently implementing TMDLs or watershed plans, with Emigration Creek
awaiting approval from EPA. (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
7
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.
2.5. Project Proposals Approved for Funding During FY- 11 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. Sixty-one pre-proposals were accepted
from the middle of April to the end of May for the 2011 fiscal year. These pre-proposals were
reviewed by the Utah Division of Water Quality using a project selection ranking criterion
developed by the Water Quality Task Force. Of the proposals received only four projects were
selected for funding with Section 319 funds. The Weber Watershed received the majority of
Project funds available, since it was the targeted basin in FY-2011. The local watershed
coordinators, the Utah Watershed Coordinating Council, and an information and education grant
through Utah State University were also funded (See Table 3). The Projects that were not
selected for funding with section 319 funds were then considered for funding with state NPS
funding.

Table 3

2011 Project Implementation Plans (PIPs) for CWA Section 319 Funding
(Prepared June 30th, 2011)
Base Funds
Proposal Type & Title Requested Final
Information & Education (I & E) and T.A. Amount Allocation

1. Utah Watershed Coordinating Council Support $ 35,000 $10,000
2. USU Volunteer Monitoring and I&E $ 102,500 $102,500

Sub Totals $ 137,500 $112,500

Planning, Tech. Assist. and Implementation Incremental Funds

4. Local Watershed Coordinators $ 400,000 $340,000
15. East Canyon Restoration $1,000,000 $380,421

Sub Totals $1,400,000 $720,421

Grand Total $1,537,500 $832,921

3. 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
8
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.
3.1. Targeted Basin Approach

The State of Utah has decided to implement a targeted basin funding approach to reduce nonpoint
source pollution. In FY-2011 the state was able to fully implement the targeted basin approach
(see Table 4). This approach allows the state to focus implementation efforts on a given
watershed instead of spreading the funding across the entire state. By using this method the State
will implement TMDLs and watershed plans more effectively.

The Weber River Watershed obtained 100% of the 319 funds allocated for BMP implementation,
and will also receive an additional $150,000 in State Nonpoint Source funds in FY-2012 and FY-
2013. The majority of these funds will be used to implement projects on East Canyon Creek, as
identified in its watershed plan.

Table 4
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

3.2. 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 funds. These
funds are acquired from interest generated from hardship grant 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, and
would not be economically feasible without the grant. In the 2011 fiscal year, 23 projects were
funded, totaling $876,761, Using State NPS funds. In addition to these projects an additional
$123,239 was used to conduct Cultural Resource Inventories on all stand alone 319 projects. For
a complete summary of FY-11 funded projects see table E in the appendices.

9
3.3. 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 and local programs which have been very helpful in generating match for
the 319 projects. The Division of Wildlife Resources manages several state general funding grant
programs, which include Habitat Council funds, Blue Ribbon Fishery program, and Watershed
Restoration Initiative funding. These funds are dedicated to the improvement of wildlife habitat
on public and private lands, while improving water quality. Table G in the appendices gives a
summary of these funds used in conjunction with section 319 funding.

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 Grazing Improvement Program at the Utah Department of
Agriculture and Food also provides state revenue to improve upland and riparian areas throughout
the state. All of the programs mentioned above have provided match for 319 revenues in jointly
funded projects. Table G in the appendix reflects the project match accrued in FY-11 using these
additional state and local 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 5 shows the amount of match accrued for all
open Section 319 grants.

Table 5
Grant Year 319 Funds Spent
in FY-10
Match Accrued
in FY-10
Total 319 Funds
Spent
Total Match
Accrued
FY-06 $148,350 $98,900 $1,055,795 $703,863
FY-07 $95,624 $63,749 $764,033 $509,355
FY-08 $165,816 $110,544 $848,444 $565,629
FY-09 $402,186 $268,124 $700,094 $466,729
FY-10 $413,578 $275,719 $416,101 $277,401
FY-11 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total $1,225,554 $817,036 $3,784,467 $2,522,977

10
3.4. 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-11 work was completed on the Stream Visual Assessment Protocol (SVAP) survey of
the Middle Sevier River and will be used to update the Sevier River Watershed Management
Plan. Aerial photography was used to identify problem areas along the river. Mr. Koyle feels as
though these images will be useful information for years to come.

Lynn has been actively involved with information and education activities in the watershed. He
has been working with Jack Wilbur from UDAF to address septic issues throughout the
watershed. He also assisted with the planning of the 2010 NPS Conference, which was held in
Richfield Utah in September of 2010. He planned the watershed tour and helped facilitate the
location in which the conference would be held.

There are several river restoration projects planned for the near future. The local watershed
coordinator is working with several sources of funding to fund these projects including ARDL
Loans and State NPS Funding.

In 2011 six projects were completed. These projects included five stream bank restoration
projects and one animal feedlot relocation. The watershed plan was also completed for the
Middle Sevier Watershed and submitted to EPA for approval.

Southeastern Colorado River Watershed- Tessa Groff

The position of watershed coordinator is new to the Southeastern Colorado River watershed
therefore the majority of the Coordinator’s time has been spent aiding the development of a local
watershed group, the Moab Area Watershed Partnership (MAWP). During the 7 months the local
watershed coordinator has been employed she has coordinated meetings for MAWP, developed a
website, and assisted with the development of the local watershed plan. She has also assisted
with the collection of water quality data that will be used in the development of this watershed
plan.
The local watershed coordinator has been involved in local nonpoint source educational activities
such as the organization of a streamside science workshop in Moab as well as a storm drain
marking activity.

Scofield and West Colorado Watershed- Daniel Gunnell

Phase 3 of a project focused on restoring the riparian corridor on the Price River was completed.
Noxious/invasive woody biomass was removed, and stumps were treated, and fencing was
installed along the riparian area to eliminate grazing access. Five re-vegetation projects were also
implemented. These projects were supported largely by volunteer efforts and helped improve
11
both the riparian and upland areas along the Price River. The local watershed coordinator has
been able to work well with the Division of Natural Resources. The DNR has provided funding
for projects along Mud Creek above Scofield Reservoir as well as riparian planting along the
Price River.

A Moab storm drain marker project was completed in May of 2011. The local Girl Scout troop
224 placed over 170 markers and spoke about the importance of keeping pollution from the storm
drain with EVERY passerby. An Enviroscape Pollution model was purchased for educational
purposes throughout the West Colorado River Watershed Management Unit. The model has been
used in various middle schools, at the Moab storm drain marker kickoff and the UACD Zone 7
area conference. In addition, the model has been added to the USU Water Quality extension
website and listed for use in Emery, Carbon, Grand and San Juan Counties. 3,193 Noxious weed
calendars were also developed and distributed throughout Utah.

Jordan River Watershed- Marian Hubbard

In 2011 excessive snowpack in the mountains and heavy precipitation caused delays in some of
the construction projects. With the use of various funding sources, Salt Lake County is ready to
construct an overland flow wetland complex for improvement of water quality in the 8600 South
Storm Drain which discharges into the Jordan River. There have been some land acquisition
issues that are currently being addressed. An ecosystem restoration project along 8600 South to
9000 South along the Jordan River is mostly completed, but vegetation still needs to be
established. The Alta Fen mining project is also currently being redesigned by Salt Lake County
and should be completed by August of the coming year.

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. Major excavation and rock placement has been completed and a
pre-emergent weed spray was applied to the disturbed areas to prevent emergence of
invasive/noxious weeds. The irrigation system has been installed, top soil applied and the area re-
vegetated and seeded. 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
macroinvertebrate sampling. This data will be used to create water quality models and update
future watershed plans. Also, Salt Lake County completed the Stream Function Index (SFI). The
SFI is a monitoring tool to measure the effectiveness of project implementation.

An ongoing effort to educate the general public about the Jordan River, and the environmental
issues that exist continues. 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 program began in April 2010 they have participated in approximately nine events and
have many more planned throughout the year.

12
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. In FY-
2011 the Weber River was the targeted basin receiving the majority of the Section 319 funding.
However, due to delays in issuing those funds the majority of the implementation activities will
take place in FY-2012. Currently the coordinator is working with Snyderville Basin Water
Reclamation District, SWCA Environmental Consultants, and the East Canyon Watershed
Committee to facilitate the planning and implementation of restoration work along East Canyon
Creek. The coordinator has been working with landowners to gain access to properties in need of
restoration. He has also worked with Swaner Nature Preserve to implement restoration practices
which will reduce bank erosion and increase shading along East Canyon Creek on the preserve.
Along with the work being done on East Canyon Creek the local watershed coordinator is also
identifying projects in other areas of the watershed, such as the upper Weber Watershed. Many
of these projects will be funded using FY-2012 funding.

The local watershed coordinator has also assisted with monitoring efforts in the watershed. This
includes the installation of a permanent monitoring station on East Canyon Creek, and gathering
information using datasondes. 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.

The Coordinator has also been heavily involved in Information and Educational activities in the
watershed. These activities have focused on the disposal of pet waste and other nonpoint source
issues.

Middle and Lower Bear River Watershed- Justin Elsner

In FY-2011, due to staffing changes, the Middle and Lower Bear River Watershed Coordinator
position was vacant for several months. However, Justin Elsner was hired and is currently
implementing several projects in the Middle Bear River Watershed. Justin is working with two
cooperators on riparian enhancement projects. There are three animal feeding operations that are
either under construction or in the planning process.

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 Summer of 2012 and the feedlot is still in the initial
planning stage.

The coordinator continues to work with the Cutler Reservoir and Lower Bear River Advisory
Committees. He is also assisting with monitoring to assist with the revision of the Lower Bear
River TMDL. He has established educational activities dealing with pharmaceuticals and other
NPS issues in the watershed.

Upper Bear River Watershed- Brady Thornock

In FY-2011 five nonpoint source projects were completed in the Upper Bear River Watershed.
These projects include one animal feeding operation, one stream bank restoration project, and
three grazing management projects. In addition to the projects that were completed, the
coordinator also began planning two additional projects; a grazing management contract and a
13
stream bank stabilization project. The coordinator has been actively involved in implementing
and planning the 3 Creeks grazing allotment project in Rich County.

Education and outreach have also been areas of focus this past year. The Producer’s dinner was
held for the third consecutive year. This dinner acknowledges the producer’s that have been
actively involved in implementing water quality projects. The coordinator has also actively
participated on several of the water quality related committees in the watershed.

San Pitch Watershed- Alan Saltzman

The San Pitch Watershed coordinator position was vacant for the majority of FY-2011. Because
of this vacancy very little funding was spent in FY-2011. In May of 2011 a new watershed
coordinator was hired, and he has been very efficient at identifying projects that will be
implemented before the end of the year. In FY-2011 the watershed coordinator helped complete
the implementation of 2 stream bank projects. He has also identified five additional projects that
should use up the remainder of the FY-06 grant received by the San Pitch Watershed. These
projects include 2 animal feeding operations, two stream bank stabilization projects, and one
irrigation project.

The local watershed coordinator continues to assist the local conservation districts and watershed
groups. He also helped plan a watershed educational day for the local elementary school.

Upper Sevier Watershed- Wally Dodds

Five projects were completed in FY-11 in the Upper Sevier watershed. Of these projects one was
a range project focusing on reducing woody debris that would serve as fuel for range fires. There
was also an animal feeding operation that was removed from the riparian corridor. Two stream
bank projects took place which stabilized both sides of the river for nearly a mile of the East Fork
of the Sevier River. An irrigation project was also completed which increased irrigation
efficiencies, thus reducing the amount of pollutants entering the river via return flows. The
coordinator is currently working on three additional stream bank stabilization and fencing
projects.

The Upper Sevier Coordinator is extensively involved in outreach and educational activities.
These activities included a fall 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 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 for
project implementation.

The Uintah Basin- Gary Wieser

In FY-2011 Phase I of the Lower Strawberry/Middle Duchesne Riparian Restoration Project was
completed. Funding for the project came from the Utah Watershed Restoration Initiative,
Duchesne County, and the Utah Association of Conservation Districts. The project cost for Phase
I was approximately $ 71,500. The funding was used to fund and support the AmeriCorps crew
14
that completed the work. Approximately 3.45 miles of riparian stream habitat was restored which
included 2 islands within the river channel. The work included removal of Russian olive,
Tamarisk, and knapweed from the riparian corridor followed by re-seeding the open sites with a
seed mix designed to integrate desirable plants into the ecosystem. A funding request for Phase II
of the project has been requested for FY 2012. If funding is approved, Phase II will be scheduled
to begin after July 1, 2011.

The local watershed coordinator helps facilitate meetings for the Uinta Basin Watershed Council.
There was a large effort to recruit additional members of the council. Once the larger group is
formed, it will be divided into smaller sub-watershed work groups that will assist with the
development of watershed plans.
3.5. 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 consistently 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
15
• Serve as a coordinating body for outreach and education to increase public awareness
regarding nonpoint source pollution abatement.

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- Jim Harris

The Utah Water Quality Monitoring Council has now in its third year of working with
cooperators, Utah State University, citizen monitors, and the Division of Water Quality. During
16
this time we have established a solid community of volunteers. We are working to enhance a
Lake Watch program and expanding our citizen based monitoring by providing monitors with
equipment and lab services for chlorophyll a analysis. This can be used with secchi depth to
identify lakes in Utah that might be impaired. Samples will be shipped by volunteers to the
Unified Laboratory Services to be analyzed.

In addition, we have begun working with the new USU Extension Citizen Monitoring
Coordinator, Brian Greene, to develop monitoring strategies for citizens and a tiered approach for
using their data for DWQ’s assessment program. DWQ’s new data base is now on line and we
are in the process of setting up customized portals for our cooperators to enter data. They will
also be able to download and submit data without having to go through DWQ’s staff.
3.6. 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 many 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-11 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, 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.

4. Water Quality Information
4.1. Sampling and Assessment Activities- Jim Harris

As more restoration projects are being implemented around the state, monitoring of 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 aquatic life beneficial uses. Often,
these projects substantially reduce erosion and inputs of nutrients to streams and rivers, in
addition to improving the localized 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 UCASE protocols in a BACI (Before-After-Control-Impact)
17
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 measures of 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 2011, the majority of the biological monitoring occurred as part of the Probabilistic
Surveys performed in the Sevier, Cedar, and West Desert basins 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 Uinta Basin and 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 Watershed Protection staff to identify particular assessment and
evaluation needs to meet their program objectives.

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
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.

18
4.2. 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 concerns 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 Strategic 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.

4.3. 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-
2011 $85,000 of State NPS funds were used to conduct ground water monitoring around the state.
Recently the State has noticed an increase in nutrients in various ground water sources. This
monitoring will help assess the problem, and identify the sources of the contaminants.

5. Outreach Activities

Utah Department of Agriculture and Food- Jack Wilbur
As of October 1, 2011, funding for the statewide Information and Education (I&E) coordinator
ceased. Until that time the I&E coordinator 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 statewide I&E coordinator was asked to chair the annual Utah Water Quality Conference
planning committee for 2011. The conference, which was held Aug. 30 through Sept. 1, 2011 in
19
Logan, Utah, was attended by about 150 water quality professionals from throughout Utah, as
well as faculty, staff, and students from Utah State University. The event featured conference
sessions on Tuesday and Wednesday, an awards barbecue on Tuesday night, and a day-long
watershed tour on Thursday. Wilbur reported on the success of the event in the October 2011
Water Quality Task Force meeting, where it was decided that no conference would be held in
2012. The future of the conference beyond that point will be determined based on the availability
of funding and level of interest.

The Statewide I&E coordinator continued working with local watershed groups in FY 10,
including the three watersheds which were awarded outreach mini-grant funding from Utah State
University, by way of Wilbur and UDAF. By the end of 2010 outreach plans had been developed
for the Price River, San Pitch and Cutler/Lower Bear River watershed. During 2011 each
watershed began to move forward with their plans. 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 the issue of general storm water awareness and behavior changes such as recycling used
oils and not letting fertilizers run off into ditches were promoted. 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. Additional posters and store front window signs
were printed for 2011 reminding residents to pick up after their pets and properly dispose of the
waste. In 2010, a campaign began targeting storm water pollution in yards and neighborhoods.
That effort continued through 2011.

Utah Watershed Review was published three times in 2011. The most recent issue, from summer
2011 is the last scheduled issue of the publication for the time being.

Wilbur completed one water quality video in 2011. A day in the life of a dairy animal feeding
operation was the subject matter. Grant Koehler in Midway, Utah granted us access to his
operation at all hours of the day and night as we tried to create an accurate portrayal of the large
workload that AFOs face, which includes daily and seasonal manure management issues. The
video was shown at the 2011 Utah Water Quality Conference as part of a series of presentations
on Utah AFO/CAFO program in Utah.

Utah State University Extension- Nancy Mesner (USU Water Quality Extension Specialist)

Utah State University Water Quality Extension has provided outreach and education programs
and materials for Utah’s Nonpoint Source Program since the program began in the early 1990s.
Each year we coordinate efforts with the UDWQ staff and with our various partners and clients
throughout the State to assure that we are providing programs that are needed, meaningful and
effective. Some programs, such as water quality education for youth, have been delivered almost
every year. These programs have been fully evaluated over time and improved and updated as
needed. Other programs are developed and implemented in response to short term needs. We
fund our efforts in part with an annual outreach grant from 319, but also utilize other funding
such as grants from USDA, internal USU grants, and support from the University’s Extension
program.
20

Students explore aquatic
macroinvertebrates at a field day.
Techniques from our old Lake Watch
program will be fully integrated in
Utah Water Watch.
In 2011, we continued a number of our ongoing programs, including youth outreach, teacher
education and training, Utah’s water quality awards, and assistance to watershed coordinators
through trainings, web page support and watershed-specific fact sheets. In addition, we began a
major statewide effort to develop and implement a citizen monitoring program. We are
continuing our work on an integrated watershed education program and
interactive display in the Upper Weber basin, and we have continued to
provide training and guidance on BMP effectiveness monitoring within
the State and Region. Using funding from other grants, we also
completed an assessment of the effectiveness of short term (1 hour to 1
day) field days in increasing knowledge of fourth graders.

Our materials and water quality tools, as well as links to all our
programs, are available at www.extension.usu.edu/waterquality . Some
of the significant outcomes of our work this past year are highlighted
below.

Citizen Monitoring: We have just begun a major effort to develop and
implement a citizen monitoring program for the state. The goals of this
program are to fill data gaps through the collection of credible data, and
increase citizen engagement in their local watersheds. In October we
hired a state coordinator who is working closely with the UDWQ
Monitoring Council and is meeting with other partners throughout the
state to identify monitoring opportunities and priorities. We anticipate that Utah Water Watch
will have three tiers. The first tier will focus on education, outreach and screening methods. We
will incorporate elements of our Lake Watch program, an E coli screening technique, and other
simple monitoring methods developed in our Utah Stream Team Monitoring program. The
second and third tiers will require increasing levels of training and experience, resulting in
increased data credibility. We anticipate a multitude of monitoring activities and opportunities
throughout the state, as well as state-wide “big day” or high profile events to reach a broader
audience. We are using or modifying materials and tools from previous projects, such as an
online database for citizen collected data, an online database that provides detailed interpretation
of water analytical results, methods for tier one monitoring developed for our Utah Stream Team
program, and training techniques that we have developed for other programs. We will assess the
program at multiple levels and will use this feedback to modify and improve the program as it
moves forward.

Youth education and teacher training: In 2011, 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 areas of the state. We provided stream-side or
other experiential activities to over 5000 youth in 9
counties throughout the state. 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. We also
trained 172 educators on the use of hands-on watershed
and water science lesson plans and curricula. We
conducted 13 workshops offered in 7 counties
throughout the state, each providing at least a day of
21
watershed science and field training on specific activities. We used feedback from a survey of
teachers who have taken our trainings as well as feedback from a 2009 focus group to enhance
our Stream Side Science curriculum. We have developed a new lesson plan on aquatic invasive
species which has been reviewed for pedagogy and scientific content and is now being tested by
teachers in the classroom. We also developed a “watershed detectives” lesson plan, in which
students conduct water tests and determine who the pollution culprit is in a watershed.

A major youth program assessment was also completed in 2011. Tiffany Kinder, a graduate
student in the WQ Extension lab, completed her review of the effectiveness of a field day at
increasing 4th graders’ knowledge and interest in rivers and water quality. She found that as little
as an hour of high quality hands-on activities can significantly increase children’s knowledge of
aquatic biology and pollution impacts, that the students retained this knowledge for at least 8
months and that additional activities in the classroom or additional field days improved the
student’s retention and understanding (Kinder, T. “Using short term environmental education
programs to increase student learning and elicit positive attitude change”. Masters Thesis, Utah
State University, 2011.) These findings are significant because so many water quality outreach
programs in the state and nation rely on short term activities that are rarely assessed for real long
term changes in knowledge or attitude. A paper of Kinder’s full results will be submitted to the
Journal of Environmental Education this spring.

Watershed Council Support: We continue to work closely with the Utah Watershed Coordinating
Council. We provided two training workshops for Utah Watershed Coordinators on how to
effectively monitor for impacts from BMP implementation, and on best practices for outreach
activities. We completed new watershed fact sheets for the Scofield Reservoir watershed, the San
Rafael River, the Price River and the Middle Bear River watershed. These are distributed to
watershed coordinators, the UDWQ, other agencies and extension as hard copies, and links are
available on the extension, UDWQ and other websites. We have provided mini-grant funding to
several watershed coordinators, which have been used for different aspects of their outreach
programs.

USU Extension AFO/ CAFO Education Efforts- Rhonda Miller

Activities have focused on educating producers about the new Animal Feeding Operation (AFO)
regulations. Nine workshops for AFOs were held in January and February, 2011. These
workshops covered 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 were presented. Current efforts are focused on developing
factsheets aimed at helping producers with their NMPs. A Producer’s Website, which provides
“one-stop” shopping for the producers, is being maintained and expanded. This website provides
information, in laymen’s terms, on the regulations producers are likely to encounter.

6. 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
22
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 Division of Natural Resources- Rory Reynolds

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 Watershed Restoration Initiative 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 2011 with support of $1.7 million from the Utah Legislature, the Watershed
Initiative has implemented over 127 rangeland and river restoration projects involving over
111,000 acres and 33 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 7 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.

3) Utah Department of Agriculture and Food-WD Robinson

During 2011 the Conservation Division has collaborated with state and federal agencies that share
our interests of sustaining Utah’s agricultural lands and protecting Utah’s natural resources. The
Division believes that creating strong Utah partnerships provides a portfolio of technical and
financial resource options to the Utah’s agriculture producer while promoting agricultural
sustainability. A watershed approach in solving resource issues is being applied by developing
conservation projects and providing funding options from multiple state and federal programs.
There are few organizations in the state that rival the work that is done in the division.

23
Environmental Quality Section

Various types of conservation practices were funded using Section 319 grants managed by the
Department of Agriculture and Food. To see a pie distribution of this effort by the various open
Section 319 grants that are currently being managed by the Department of Agriculture during the
2011 fiscal year see figure 2 in the appendices:

These funds have historically been provided from Utah’s EPA Nonpoint source implementation
grant (Section 319 of the Clean Water Act) through the UDAF. This delivery mechanism has
been cut significantly this year which will seriously impact the amount of projects and technical
services provided by UDAF.

Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program

The Division currently receives approximately $2 million from the Colorado River Basin States
Salinity Control Forum to reduce salt that enters the Colorado River, which has increased
significantly from the initial $350,000 received in 1997.

Historically, these funds have been allocated solely to improve irrigation practices. However, in
2009 the Forum allowed UDAF to test salt control measures on rangelands. The division has
acquired $500,000 for the purpose of testing the feasibility of using rangeland management
methods for salinity control. This project has the potential to provide ranchers with another
funding source for increasing production and protect natural resources.

The irrigation projects installed through the salinity program are an economic benefit to the
agriculture in eastern Utah. The new irrigation systems increase watering efficiency, decrease
water use, and improve crop production and uniformity.

Agriculture Resource Development Loan Program (ARDL)

Projects eligible for ARDL loans include animal waste management, water usage management
(irrigation systems), rangeland improvement, on farm energy projects, wind erosion control and
disaster mitigation and cleanup. Most of these projects have direct water quality protection or
water pollution reduction benefits.

In FY2011, 57 loans totaling $4,064,651 were made. The vast majority of these (>90%) were for
irrigation water management. Irrigation water management at least protects Utah’s water quality
and often reduces water pollution impacts by reducing contributions of leachates to groundwater
or by reducing the amount of water percolating through and dissolving salt or other pollutants
from subsurface geologic materials. Additionally with irrigation water management, less end-of-
field tail water runoff is available to carry erosion and other pollutants into receiving water
bodies.

The division is also working with the State Revolving Fund (SRF) under the Division of Water
Quality to underwrite and book loans to finance projects for eliminating or reducing nonpoint
source water pollution on privately owned lands. That program was recently expanded to include
grants as well as loans. The loans are now included in the ARDL program with some
modifications.

24
Conservation Commission

The mission of the Conservation District Section is to enable Utah's private land managers to
protect and enhance their soil, water and related natural resources, and thereby protect and
improve water quality. This is done in cooperation with the state’s Conservation Commission
and Utah’s 38 Conservation Districts (CD). Conservation Districts are authorized by state law.
Together, they work with many other state and federal natural resource-oriented agencies and
special interest organizations to bring about many short and long-term public benefits.

Districts are the local leaders that influence conservation on local, state, and federal lands. Their
efforts towards conservation improvements can be directed at a large scale watershed approach or
assisting an individual landowner. The grass-roots nature of conservation districts brings positive
change and sustainability of Utah’s farm and range lands.

Utah Grazing Improvement Program

The Utah Grazing Improvement Program (UGIP) is a broadbased program focused on rangeland
resource health. Its mission is to “improve the productivity and sustainability of our rangelands
and watersheds for the benefit of all.” A keystone benefit is the reduction of NPS water pollution
and the protection and improvement of water quality and habitat components.

A staff of Range Specialists located in five regions throughout the state offer the livestock
industry sound information and assistance regarding grazing issues. A main focus of the program
is to invest in and help facilitate improved resource management. Grants are provided for projects
that will enhance grazing management and rangeland resource health.

From 2006 to August 2011, over $6.7 million in UGIP funds have been obligated to 330 projects.
Including matching funds from producers, NRCS (Natural Resource Conservation Service), BLM
(Bureau of Land Management), USFS (U.S. Forest Service), SITLA (State Institutional and Trust
Lands Administration), DWR (Division of Wildlife Resources), and other sources, over $18
million have been invested in the program. For FY2011 specifically, total funds spent by the
UGIP program amounted to just over $1.56 million dollars.

Most of the projects are focused on improving grazing management by increasing water
availability and building fences to enhance control of livestock. By summer 2012, we estimate
that the program will have benefited 2.1 million acres. An example of how these projects were
distributed in FY2011 was tallied for the Southeast Area GIP:

725 seeded acres
1800 acres of grazing management plans
42,600 acres affected by improved water distribution or implementation
725 acres of brush management with improved ground cover by seeding
400 acres protected after a burn on HEL (Highly Erodible Land) on US Forest Service lands.

UDAF/UGIP is currently working with partners in three large-scale projects in Rich, Carbon, and
Box Elder Counties that total over 1.5 million acres. We believe that investing human and
financial resources to create financial, social, and ecological wealth from the public and private
rangelands of Utah will elevate the lives of every Utahn.

25
4) Forestry, Fire and State Lands- Bill Zanotti

Forestry, Fire and State Lands received a grant from Department of Environmental Quality to
monitor timber harvesting on private and state lands within the State of Utah. This grant is called
Forest Water Quality Guideline (FWQG) Monitor. The overall goal of this grant is to implement
a forest water quality monitoring and evaluation program in conjunction with demonstrated
application of Utah’s Forest Water Quality Guidelines (FWQG) identified in Utah’s Non-Point
Source Management Plan for Silvicultural Activities. Protocols for conducting FWQG’s
monitoring have been developed for use by FFSL’s service foresters.

During the SFY-2011, the following have been accomplished:
• Processed 12 notifications to conduct timber harvesting activities
• Conducted 5 post harvest inspections
• Conducted 5 pre/in progress inspections of timber harvesting activities
• Analysis findings in preparation for writing a report on the effectives of the FWQG’s
7. 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 $ 19,203,037 was obligated to land owners, sponsors & managers in Utah during
FY2011 through the various USDA-NRCS programs, not including Emergency Watershed
Protection recovery measures. A considerable percentage directly benefited Non-Point Source
AFO/CAFO concerns in Utah with 18 CNMP plans applied and 6 CNMP plans written in
FY2011. Table H in the appendices shows the total number of acres contracted in FY-11 by the
NRCS in Utah and the resource concerns they addressed.

Colorado River Salinity Resource Concern
Conservation work implemented by the NRCS and various partners reduces salinity, preventing
salts from dissolving and mixing with the river's flow. Irrigation improvements and vegetation
management reduce water available to transport salts vertically, laterally and on the soil surface.
Point sources, such as saline springs are also controlled. A long term, interstate and interagency
public/private partnership effort is being carried out to reduce the amount of salts in the river and
its associated impacts in the basin. Table 6 summarizes the NRCS work addressing this resource
26
concern in approved salinity control areas of Carbon, Daggett, Duchesne, Emery, Uintah and
Wayne counties.

Table 6
Colorado River 
Excessive Salinity 
 (acres) 
Contracts 
Obligated 
for Salinity 
(#) 
Obligation Amount 
for Salinity 
($) 
199.5 3 $222,351.65  
30 2 $36,872.00  
2418.2 55 $2,194,271.55  
2165.84 46 $2,091,336.44  
1280.5 31 $1,282,110.00  
1154.2 24 $649,257.61  
7,248.2 161 $ 6,476,199.3 

2) Forest Service- Bill Goodman

Each year, Congress appropriates funding specifically dedicated towards maintaining and
improving watershed conditions, including water quality. During the federal government fiscal
year 2011, 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 2011, National
Forests in Utah completed 23,365 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 2011 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.
27
• 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 Twitchell Fire (Fishlake NF), Coffee Pot (Manti La Sal NF)
in FY 2010. Implementation of projects that were part of the BAER treatments occurred during
FY 2011. The BAER program includes several activities that aim to protect or improve water
quality after wildfire. Examples include the, road and trail were improved 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. Both Twitchell and Coffee Pot fires
BAER treatments included aerial seeding and mulching. Acres improved through the BAER
program are included in the table 6 below.

Table 7. Acres treated by the Burned Area Emergency Response Program (October 1, 2010
– September 30, 2011).
Forest Total Acres
Improved

Ashley 441
Dixie 693
Fishlake 21,054
M-L 438
U-W-C 739
Total 23,365

3) National Park Service- Rebecca Weissinger

National Park Service Water Quality Activities, Fiscal Year 2011 (October 2010 –
September 2011)

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
2011 water quality in Utah National Parks was monitored at 24 sites, most of them on a monthly
basis (Table 8).

28
Table 8. Water Quality monitoring sites in Utah National Parks in fiscal year 2011
Park Coop Sites Monitored
by NPS
Arches 1
Bryce Canyon 2
Capitol Reef 2
Canyonlands 110
Glen Canyon 3
Timpanogos Cave 2
Zion 4
Total 24
1Two sites on the Green River and Colorado River near their confluence in Canyonlands were monitored
eight times in the 2011 river season. The Canyonlands site downstream in the rapids of Cataract Canyon
and the site at Potash on the Colorado River upstream of the park, were both monitored seven times, and
the site upstream of the park at Mineral Bottom on the Green River was monitored three times.

Northern Colorado Plateau Network Park Projects

• Monthly monitoring of spring flow in the western part of Arches National Park has been
ongoing since early 2001. In early 2011, Southeast Utah Group’s Mary Moran released
a report: Courthouse Wash – Seven mile Canyon Spring Flow Monitoring, Arches
National Park, 2010 Project Update.

• There were historic high water flows on the Green and Colorado Rivers during the 2011
snowmelt event, not rivaled since 1983-1984. A desire to capture the fluctuations in
water quality during such events led Canyonlands staff to complete more water quality
monitoring runs on the rivers than in any previous year. Eight runs were completed
during the river season from mid-April through early November, 2011.

• The NPS Southeast Utah Group Resource Stewardship and Science staff continued
preliminary planning for a funded riparian restoration project on the Green and Colorado
Rivers in Canyonlands. The project is funded for 2013-2015. Some restoration efforts on
these rivers is ongoing, including repeat invasive weed treatments, removal of limited
beetle-impacted invasive tamarisk thickets from the popular confluence area, and this
year’s efforts by river rangers to plant several Goodding’s willows at a key river
campsite in conjunction with historic high flows.

• Restoration efforts in other Southeast Utah Group riparian areas in 2011 include limited
continued treatment of Russian olive, and planning for a more extensive restoration effort
in Courthouse Wash in Arches National Park; treatment of Russian knapweed in two
reaches of Salt Wash in Arches; treatment of isolated tamarisk in Armstrong Canyon in
Natural Bridges National Monument, clearing of beetle-impacted tamarisk for firebreaks
under desirable native tree canopies in Salt Creek, Canyonlands, and treatment of a few
invasive herbaceous species in the Goodman Point and Square Tower Units of
Hovenweep National Monument.

• Integrated monitoring of riparian vegetation, shallow ground water and channel
morphology was continued in Arches, Zion and Capitol Reef in 2011. A brief summary
of project objectives is available on-line at:
29
http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/units/ncpn/Link_Library/Web_Briefs/Riparian_Brief_20
11.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 continued upstream
from Zion in 2011. A vault toilet was installed at the Zion Narrows trailhead.

• In cooperation with EPA Region 8 analyzed 21 sites for waste indicator compounds and
pesticides.

• Bacteria exceedances on the Fremont River at Capitol Reef National Park prompted
increased coliform monitoring in 2011 at four locations.

Glen Canyon National Recreation Area

Water Quality Monitoring
During 2011, the Lake Powell Beach Monitoring Program at Glen Canyon National Recreation
Area (NRA) sampled Lake Powell for E. coli to protect public health. 523 samples were
collected from Lake Powell beaches. The National Park Service operates two state certified
laboratories for sample processing. Lake Powell sanitary water quality in 2011 remained very
good, with only one swimming closure event, related to cattle activity on the shoreline.

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.

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 twelfth year at Glen Canyon NRA. All
vessels and equipment brought to Lake Powell were required to be screened for risk of spreading
dreissenid mussels. Over 15,000 watercraft were sent to the decontamination station. Sixteen
watercraft were found to be harboring adult mussels and were decontaminated (including a
desiccation period) prior to being released. Over 350 citations were issued to visitors who failed
to comply with park regulations.

The dreissenid monitoring program was operational nearly all year, with only a slight backlog in
sample analysis due to the mussel technician positions being vacated for a short period of time.
The continuing development of an in-house PCR laboratory is ongoing; however, a PCR
laboratory able to analyze plankton samples for mussel veliger detection is projected to be
operational in the next fiscal year. Nearly 200 plankton samples were collected lake-wide and
analyzed for early detection of dreissenid mussels in 2011. Thus far, no evidence of the presence
of mussels has been found and Lake Powell remains mussel free..

30
Riparian Restoration
Riparian restoration and invasive plant control efforts continued in 2011. 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.
• Two large studies on Lake Powell which began in 2010 were continued into 2011 These
studies, 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.
• A bonytail chub reintroduction project has been ongoing, including survey work done
with USGS to gather bathymetric data of natural impoundment introduction location.
• A study of bank erosion on the Colorado River from Glen Canyon Dam to Lee’s Ferry
was started in 2011 with the placement of time-lapse monitoring cameras at a few
locations to monitor changes in the sediment beaches along the river.

4) Bureau of Land Management- Lisa Bryant

In 2011, 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.

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. Table I in the appendices shows a partial list
of some of the projects in which implementation was or will be completed by September 30, 2011
using Watershed Restoration Initiative funding.

Moab Field Office

Weed Inventory (13,096 acres):
The Moab Field Office acquired aerial imagery along the Colorado River with FY10 end-of-year
funds. This imagery was shared with the NPS/ Canyonlands Park, and the data is being analyzed
by BLM-NPS GIS staff. To date analysis of the imagery has provided polygons with vegetation
types and acreages to use with further planning of riparian restoration actions along the Colorado
River from the stateline to the confluence with the Green River located within Canyonlands
National Park. Additional funding for this project was provided by The Nature Conservancy,
paying for some labor costs.

Water Resource and Lake Inventory:
The Moab Field Office assessed conditions on 25 acres of lentic resources and 70 miles of lotic
resources following guidance in Technical References 1737-15 and 1737-16 (Proper Functioning
31
Condition). Each riparian reach was evaluated using an experienced Interdisciplinary Team, and
involve the grazing permittee and interested publics as they choose. Western Watersheds is an
interested public in several allotments and has sent a representative to our first PFC assessment in
Ten Mile Wash ACEC.

Weed Treatment (50):
The Moab Field Office treated 50 acres for secondary weeds including Russian Knapweed and
Kochia located within existing tamarisk treatments.

Stream Treatments (7):
The Moab Field Office completed 6 miles of stream treatments. Specifically, tamarisk removal
was conducted along 5 miles of the Dolores River and 1 mile of the Colorado River. This
involved cutting, piling and burning tamarisk trees. These treatment sites will need several years
of maintenance, as secondary weeds move in and native species plantings are conducted. A
volunteer planting day was conducted in March in cooperation with the Dolores River
Restoration Partnership and The Tamarisk Coalition.

Volunteer planting day on Dolores River, planting willows with a water stinger

In addition, one perennial stream crossing was improved to accommodate heavy equipment used
for a PJ treatment in the Black Ridge area. This involved water bars and gravel road base at the
stream crossing to drain and harden the site.

Riparian Improvements (2):
The Moab Field Office constructed 2 riparian protection projects. Project #1 involved using a
youth corps to construct almost 1 mile of fencing along the Dolores River riparian corridor near
the Utah- Colorado state line. This fence was needed to protect the riparian resources adjacent to
an agricultural lease where cows can graze year round. The riparian zone was rated as
Functioning at Risk by an ID team the previous year. This project was finished with funding
from the Dolores River Restoration Partnership, allowing the youth corps to remain 1 additional
week to finish the fencing. See fact sheet for more information.

32
Fencing on Dolores River, adjacent to agricultural lease, protecting a narrow riparian section

Project #2 involved installing a cattle guard at the Midway route entrance to Ten Mile Wash
ACEC. This site had a wire gate that was not functional anymore, therefore it was easy for cattle
to wander into the Ten Mile Canyon pasture out of season.

Cedar City Field Office
Water Resource Inventory
The CCFO inventoried 13 acres of lentic and 6 miles of lotic riparian areas. Each riparian reach
was evaluated using an Interdisciplinary Team. These assessments are being used in the
development of the CCFO’s riparian geodatabase, which will aid in the analysis of the
management situation and impacts assessment for the CCFO Resource Management Plan.

Riparian Structures
The CCFO purchased materials (wood posts and poles) using one-time funding ($6,468.25) to
construct NEPA-ready exclosure projects. Several exclosures have been approved through the
grazing permit renewal process in order to make progress toward Standard 2 of the Standards and
Guidelines for Healthy Rangelands. Exclosures were approved in areas where other management
actions are not feasible (i.e. year-round grazing by wild horses). Funds for labor to construct the
exclosures will be applied for through the Utah Partners of Conservation and Development and
material cost will be used as matching funds. The CCFO has been successful in securing funding
for these projects from UPCD the last two years.

Riparian Treatments
The CCFO continued to apply treatments on streams in the field office. Specifically, the CCFO
planted willows on 2 miles of stream where willow was historically present but no longer exists.
This included a Boy Scouts of America Eagle project on Bear Creek which has historical
Bonneville cutthroat habitat. This was a continuation of an Eagle Scout project from the previous
year. Fencing materials were purchased and used to create micro-exclosures to exclude livestock
and elk. Willows and fence materials were also completed in Upper Desert Spring in Modena
Canyon.

33
Bear Creek Eagle Project 2011

Monitoring
Quantitative monitoring was completed on 4 miles of stream. Streams monitored include Little
Creek and Wildcat Creek. It is believed that Little Creek contains Bonneville cutthroat trout
(pending DNA testing results). Monitoring results will be used to determine if any management
actions are needed to improve riparian and fishery habitat. Wildcat Creek is in an area proposed
for fuels management/reduction. The riparian area is dominated with pinyon and juniper trees
which are impacting cottonwood health and regeneration. The monitoring data will be used as
baseline, pre-treatment data.

St. George Field Office
Water Resource Inventory and Monitoring
The St. George Field Office collected water quality samples on Leeds Creek. Characteristics
measured: Nitrogen, Phosphorus, PH, Temperature, Dissolved Solids, Specific Conductance,
Selenium, Zinc, Mercury, Lead and Aluminum.
The information collected was used in developing the riparian portion of the Draft Red Cliff
National Conservation Area EIS.
For a complete summary of funding used by the Bureau of Land Management across the
state on riparian projects see Table F in the appendix

5) US Army Corps of Engineers- Scott Stoddard

The Rural Utah 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:

34
Construction has commenced on the Elwood wastewater project (see picture below). This was
after water quality testing identified that septic lines were impacting water quality in the area that
will be serviced by the new facility.

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).

6) United States Bureau of Reclamation- Ben Radcliffe

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

Cottonwood Creek Consolidated Irrigation Co.: Located in Emery County, Utah, the Clipper
and Western Canals serve the area west and south of Orangeville, Utah. This project replaces
approximately 60 miles of canals and laterals with approximately 15.5 miles of pipeline with an
estimated off-farm salt load reduction of 2,094 tons/year. This off-farm project was fully funded
by the salinity program at $6,509,548. The Company is building an associated project including a
pipeline and regulating reservoir to serve this distribution system as well as future projects.

Ouray Park Irrigation Co.: Located in western Uinta County, Utah, the Ouray Park canal has had
multiple salinity projects in the past which piped significant portions of their system. This most
recent project will pipe the remaining 5.2 miles of open canal with an estimated off-farm salt load
reduction of 1,662 tons/year.

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

8. Federal Consistency Review and NPS Project Tours for FY-2011

During FY-2011, 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
35
federal agencies are organized every year. The following is a summary of a tour that took place
in the Strawberry Valley and surrounding areas.

Strawberry Valley National Forest Tour
August 15, 2011
Participants:
National Forest Service: Jeff Bruggink, Greg Bevenger, Bill Goodman, Charlie Condrat, Utah
DEQ: Carl Adams and Jim Bowcutt; BLM State Office: Lisa Bryant

Objectives of the Trip

Watershed Improvement Program
a. Evaluate the effectiveness of selected watershed improvement projects in
meeting forest desired conditions.

Water Quality Program
a. Field visit with Utah Division of Water Quality to review water quality and non
point source issues and concerns.

General
a. Determine needs for improving Regional Office coordination and direction of the
soil and water programs.

FIELD SITES VISITED
A timber sale along in Telephone Hollow.

Three timber sale sites were visited. The first area was a site where a section of road cut was
manipulated to address seepage. Rock riprap was placed on the cut, apparently for stabilization
purposes. It appeared the rock was initially stockpiled on the opposite side of the road, which
expanded the area of disturbance considerably. Additional rehabilitation work is necessary to
allow full recovery of disturbed areas.

At the second area a landing, multiple slash piles, temporary road, and skid trail were observed. It
appeared harvest activity was on-going in this area as obliteration of the temporary road and
removal of decked material was incomplete. Large slash piles were located in a small meadow
36
and within 15 feet of an intermittent stream channel. The channel, which was parallel to the road,
did not have a culvert at the crossing. A few large logs were placed in the channel to facilitate a
crossing. There was active rill and gully erosion on the landing, with subsequent sediment
delivery to the channel.

It is unclear if the large piles would be burned or if firewood permit holders would be allowed to
cut from the slash piles. Due to the size of the piles (10 to 15 feet high and 25-30 feet long) and
the amount of large logs in the pile, soils would be sterilized if the piles were burned in their
current condition.

The third area was a landing that was along the ridge line and well away from any watercourses,
meadows, or wet areas. Conditions were acceptable from a soil and water perspective.

The Forest Service will conduct a review of the sale after closure to determine if handbook and
plan direction for soil and water resources was implemented and effective.

The second stop was at Strawberry Creek upstream of Strawberry Reservoir and the visitor
center.

UWC NF and UT DWR have been working together to restore the riparian system. Historically,
willows had been sprayed and mostly eradicated which lead to bank instability. The channel
downcut and there were raw unstable banks up to ten feet high. Willows have been replanted and
sections of the stream have been restored using a combination of willows and bio soil engineering
– geotextile erosion mat and soil lifts with willows planted. They have also placed a rock or log J
hooks and barbs to redirect flow off the eroding banks and back to the center of the stream
channel. This has been an improvement over the previous condition. The stream is still wider
than it most likely was prior to ranching and willow spraying activities and may still be trying to
create more meander, which could erode out some of the areas partners are trying to revegetate
with willows. A majority of the willows planted in the last two years have not resprouted (low
success rate). It appeared that these willows may be too close to the stream. The willows that
were thriving were farther from the waters edge. It was speculated that the last few years had low
flows and this year the snow pack and runoff was high and the water levels are higher than
previous years. There was some speculation that maybe planting the willows in a line
perpendicular to the channel may get some willows farther from the waters edge and thus they
37
might have a better survival rate when we get high flow years. Currently the plantings are all
within a foot or two of the waters edge and planted in rows parallel to the stream.

Overall the restoration work appears to be very effective and all partners are to be commended for
their efforts

The third stop was along Willow Creek to look at two AOP culverts

The tour included stops at two AOP culverts that were installed in 2010 along Willow Creek.
These culverts work to reduce erosion that leaves the roadways. It also allows for safe fish
passage during spawning season for cutthroat trout in the area. While there were some issues
with the installation, Overall the project seemed to serve the purpose of reducing NPS pollution in
the upper section of the watershed.

NPS Tour
September 12-15, 2011

In 2011 the Utah Nonpoint Source tour focused primarily on projects that had been implemented
throughout the Northern end of the State. The tour consisted of visits to several Best
Management Practices (BMPs) that had been installed using 319 funding. The tour also focused
on some of the wetland issues that have arisen along the Great Salt Lake.

Day 1 – Tour of the Great Salt Lake Wetlands
Participants- Jim Bowcutt(UDEQ), Jodi Gardberg(UDEQ), Jim Harris(UDEQ), Gary
Kleeman(EPA Region 8), Emily Flemer(UDEQ)

Since Gary Kleeman had recently been assigned to be the EPA contact for the Great Salt Lake
wetlands it was requested that he tour the wetlands surrounding the lake to become more familiar
with the wetlands and the issues.

38
Willard Spur
Day one of the tour mainly focused on the Willard Spur wetlands. Currently there has been much
debate regarding the Willard/ Perry Waste Water Treatment Facility that will discharge to the
Willard Spur Wetlands. The State Division of Water Quality is currently conducting a study on
the spur to help determine what the impact will be. The tour visited several of the monitoring
locations as well as the current and proposed discharge locations.

Antelope Island
The second stop was Antelope Island. At this location the participants were able to observe many
of the causeways that have drastically changed the internal flows within the lake. It was also
helpful to help understand the history of the lake in general.

Day 2 Weber River Watershed
Participants- Jim Bowcutt(UDEQ), Gary Kleeman( EPA Region 8), Carl Adams(UDEQ), Lars
Christensen(Kamas Conservation District), Kari Lundeen(UDEQ), Jennifer schuller(EPA Region
8), W.D. Robinson (UDAF)

Since the Weber River Watershed is the targeted basin for FY-2011 and 2012 the tour visited
several projects that had recently been implemented, as well as project sites that will be
implemented in the next few years. It was also beneficial to determine what the impacts of the
spring flooding had been due to a high water year that was experienced this spring.

Huff Creek
Huff Creek is a tributary to the Chalk Creek River. The location visited is a proposed project site.
The property is currently being grazed by 30-40 dairy cows which have free access to the river.
The property is also irrigated using wild flood irrigation which has also created erosion issues
along the creek. The property owner has agreed to fence the cattle off the river, and install
designated watering sites. The fencing will be placed at least 30 feet off the river. This could
also serve as a buffer strip, helping reduce the erosion that is occurring as a result of the current
irrigation method. This project will be implemented in the next year.
39

Chalk Creek
This project was a proposed stream bank project on the main stem of Chalk Creek. The site is
currently under contract with the NRCS to fence the animals from the Riparian area and install
rock structures as needed. Section 319 funding will also be used to acquire additional cost share.
We observed large Rock deposits from the high water this spring. These rock bars are pushing
the river against the opposite bank creating additional erosion problems.

Fish Creek
The Fish Creek site consisted of a road/ culvert that had been washed out by high water. This
was a significant source of sediment during the spring seasons. Due to the poor installation of
this project by the oil company that installed it, water was able to penetrate the soil surrounding
the culvert eventually sending thousands of tons of sediment down stream. The project is now
being corrected using 319 funding as well as funding from the county, Trout’s Unlimited, the
Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Utah Division of Water Quality. They plan on removing the
remaining soil from the site, re-vegetating the exposed soil, and installing drop structures to
reduce the slope of the river.
40

East Canyon Creek- Bittner Property
The Bittner Property was visited during the 2010 NPS tour immediately after projects
implementation. It was revisited during the 2011 tour to see how it withstood the high flows that
were experienced in the spring. The project is coming along very nicely. The flows had little to
no effect on the project other than a few plants that had died due being continuously submerged
in the high water. One issue that has arisen is the invasive weeds that have begun to take over the
project site. The local conservation district is currently spraying the invasive plants, and will
continue to treat them until they are gone.

Monitoring Station East Canyon Creek
The Swaner Eco-center has recently installed a monitoring Station to help monitor the
effectiveness of the projects that have been implemented. Since East Canyon Creek has been
listed for temperature these monitoring stations will be very effective at showing the progress that
is being made toward the TMDL endpoints. These stations are currently being used as match to
support the 319 projects that have been implemented on the same stretch of river.

41

East Canyon Creek- Swaner Property
The last site visited on day two was a stream bank project that had been implemented only days
before. The project used coconut fiber netting, vegetative planting and a small amount of rock
work to stabilize the eroding banks that previously existed at the site. Due to the quality of the
work that has been done on the recent project some of the landowners downstream that had once
been hesitant to implement these BMPs are now ready to participate in the program. Over all,
great strides have been made to help restore the water quality in East Canyon Creek.

Day 3 – Price and San Pitch Watershed
Participants- Jim Bowcutt (DEQ), Scott Daley (DEQ), W.D. Robinson (UDAF), Gary Kleeman
(EPA), Craig Walker (DWR), Dan Gunnell (UACD), Alan Saltzman (UACD), Danny Boore
(Gunnision Irrigation Company), Garrick Wilden (Jones and Demile Engineering).

Mud Creek
The Mud Creek restoration project was completed last fall. The Scofield TMDL has identified
nutrient loading from tributaries as possible input into the reservoir. The Mud Creek Project
allowed the Division of Wildlife Resources to acquire an easement which allowed them to fence
cattle off of the river and implment 2 miles of river restoration. There were some places where
the project was impacted by the high flows that took place in the spring of 2011. The DWR is
42
planning on spending an additional $10,000 in state funding to make the required fixes to the
project. They are also working with neighboring landowners to implement BMPs on their
property as well.

San Pitch River
Recently the San Pitch Conservation District has been trying to persuade landower’s to
implement stream bank projects. To help showcase projects the district has identified projects
close to areas that are regularly traveled by people in the community. The tour visited one such
project located on Highway 116 just outside of Mount Pleasant. This project will fence the cattle
off of the river, giving them restricted watering access, and re-vegetating the riparian area.

12 Mile Canyon
A mud slide in 12 Mile Canyon has recently caused a large increase in the amount of sediment
flowing down 12 Mile Canyon Creek. This has become a real problem for local landowners that
irrigate their land with this water. The increase in sediment has plugged up settling ponds used for
irrigation water. The excess sediment is also hard on sprinkler systems and equipment. In an
attempt to catch a larger amount of this sediment local irrigation companies have proposed that
larger settling ponds be installed to help remove the sediment from the water. This could also
potentially have water quality benefits to the San pitch River, the receiving waterbody of 12 Mile
43
Canyon Creek. The local landowners are currently applying for additional 319 grants to help
fund the project.

Day 4- Bear River and Jordan River Watersheds
Participants- Jim Bowcutt (DEQ), Carl Adams (DEQ), Gary Kleeman (EPA), Justin Elsner (USU
Extension), John Hardman (NRCS), Jeff Barnes (NRCS), W.D. Robinson (UDAF), Marion
Hubbard (Salt Lake County)

Ballard Dairy
The first site was a pork operation that had installed a methane digester to help control animal
waste and improve air quality. Since the farm and the acreage they apply manure to is adjacent to
both Cutler Reservoir and the Bear River, the management of that manure is important. By
capturing the methane and using the digester the amount of manure produced by the operation
was reduced by 2/3 what it was prior to installation. The landowner was also able to use the
methane gas to power a generator that generated power that could then be sold to the local power
company.

Andrew Dairy
Andrew’s Dairy is located in close proximity to the Bear River. This dairy operation was having a
difficult time containing all the liquids that the dairy produced. They used 319 funding to help
build a liquid evaporation pond. This also allowed the manure to be dried out and composted,
thus reducing the amount of animal waste that was being applied to the adjacent fields.

Buttar’s Dairy
Before receiving 319 funding, the Buttars did not have any type of a storage facility where they
could store their manure. To help better manage the manure their operation generated they
constructed bunkers that could contain their manure, and allow it to be properly applied to their
fields.

Jordan River –Walden Park
Walden Park is located on the banks of the Jordan River. This site had previously had erosion
issues, along with large deposits of concrete slag along the bank. With Funding from Salt Lake
County and the Utah Transit Authority, as well as an easement granted by Murray City they were
able to restore the river bank for several hundred feet. The restoration included sloping the banks
and creating a bench that could serve as a flood plain during high flows. They also installed
several trees and planted grasses to help further stabilize the stream bank.
44

Jordan River- Modesto Park

Modesto Park is located on 11th South in Salt Lake City on the Jordan River. This project was
funded primarily by funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). Before
the project had been implemented there were cut banks in various locations. The project came in
and sloped the bank back and installed riparian vegetation to reduce erosion and provide
additional shading to the river. When the Jordan River begins to implement projects as the
targeted basin they will do more projects similar to this one with the 319 funding.

45
9. APPENDICIES

Figure 1 Project Location Map

46

TABLE A 319 FINAL PROJECT REPORTS SUBMITTED IN FY-2011
Project Title Total
NPS
Award
Date
Received
San Pitch River Watershed TMDL Implementation FY-05 $225,000 2/8/11
Upper Sevier River Watershed TMDL Implementation FY-05 $225,000 2/23/11
Scofield Reservoir TMDL Implementation FY-05 $25,200 1/24/11
USU Extension Statewide NPS Pollution I&E FY-06 $35,420 5/12/11
Scofield River TMDL Implementation FY-06 $20,200 1/24/11
Upper Bear River Stream Bank Stabilization FY-06 $34,000 4/28/11
TMDL Development and Watershed Planning Local Watershed
Coordinators FY-06
$387,800 12/28/10
Septage Treatment and Handling FY-07 $29,500 12/16/10
USU Extension NPS I&E FY-07 $19,900 2/23/11
State Riparian and Stream Restoration FY-07 $340,920 7/27/10

TABLE B SUMMARY OF ACTIVE UTAH 319(H) GRANTS FY-11
Project Title Total NPS Award Grant Status
Fremont River TMDL
Implementation FY-06
$100,000 Ongoing
San Pitch River Watershed
Implementation FY-06
$200,000 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 Project Complete Awaiting
Final Report
Middle Sevier River
Watershed TMDL
Implementation FY-06
$104,680 Ongoing
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
Watershed Coordinator $30,000 Project Complete Awaiting
47
Rich County FY-07 Final Report
Ag. Watershed
Improvement Project FY-07
$24,000 Ongoing
Alta Fen Rehab FY-07 $87,500 Ongoing
Middle Sevier River
Watershed TMDL
Implementation
$100,000 Ongoing
San Pitch River Watershed
TMDL Implementation FY-
07
$153,000 Ongoing
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
48
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
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
Matt Warner/Pot Creek
Road Rehabilitation FY-10

$63,600

Ongoing
USU NPS I & E Outreach
FY-10
$37,000

Ongoing
Lower Bear R TMDL Impl.
FY-10
$80,000

Ongoing
Middle Bear R TMDL Impl
FY-10
$100,000

Ongoing
Upper Bear R TMDL Impl
FY-10
$70,000

Ongoing
West Colorado River
Watershed Improvement
FY-10
$45,000

Ongoing
USU Septic System Ed.
Enhancement FY-10
$51,100

Ongoing
Utah Watershed
Coordinating Council FY-
10
$30,000

Ongoing
Upper Bear Riparian
Restoration FY-10
$15,600

Ongoing
East Canyon Stream
Restoration - Phase IV FY-
10
$50,000

Ongoing
Mud Ck/Scofield Riparian
Restoration FY-10
$50,000

Ongoing
Salt Lake County Stream $31,100 Ongoing
49
Guide FY-10
Jordan River Council
Capacity - I&E FY-10
$41,600

Ongoing
TMDL Local Watershed
Coordinators FY-10
$400,000

Ongoing
Utah NPS Program -
Management Review FY-10
$66,582

Ongoing
Utah Watershed
Coordinating council FY-11
$10,000 Ongoing
USU Volunteer Monitoring
and I&E FY-11
$102,500 Ongoing
Local Watershed
Coordinators FY-11
$340,000 Ongoing
East Canyon Restoration $380,421 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
50
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
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
Emigration Creek
Awaiting EPA
Approval
Ashley Creek
Awaiting EPA
Approval

51
TABLE D WATERSHED PLANS
Watershed Date Approved
Middle and Lower
Sevier
October 2010
completed approval
pending
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 2011
Watershed Applicant Project
Funding
Received
Bear Meikle Dairy* Feedlot $75,000
Bear
Landowner - Scott
Johnson* Feedlot / Laketown $15,500
GSL Wayne Wurtsbaugh Student eutrophication study $1,067
Sevier James Dairy Farm Inc. Streambank stabilization $20,732
Sevier Lee Christensen* Animal waste management $7,539
Sevier Dee Lynn Fautin* Streambank stabilization $24,471
Sevier Austin Hayward* Streambank stabilization $13,682
Sevier Michael Merline* Streambank stabilization $8,469
Sevier Kirby Parker* Streambank stabilization $6,383
Sevier Debbie Parsons* Onsite Wastewater System $4,050
Sevier Tim Westwood Upper Sevier Restoration $20,000
Statewide DWQ - Bill Damery GW Monitoring $85,000
Statewide USGS
Newcastle Res. Mercury
Remediation $74,100
Statewide DWQ - Jim Harris MST Analysis $71,345
Statewide
Farm Bureau - Randy
Parker AFO Inventory / TA $150,000
Statewide UACD - Gordon Younker AFO CNMP / TA $150,000
Statewide USU - Dr. Miller AFO Workshops $44,632
Statewide DWQ - Jeff Ostermiller BOD - Nutrient Study $14,874
Statewide Div of Water Quality
NPS Program Eval and SHPO
Projects $123,239
Statewide AWWA- Alayne Boyd AWWA Water Week $3,500
Weber USFWS / Wright Rees Cr $15,000
West Colorado DNR, DOGM
Mineland reclamation - Whiskey
Creek $35,000
Uinta Div of Wildlife Resources Strawberry River Restoration $36,417

52

TABLE F SUMMARY OF BLM RIPARIAN PROJECT EXPENDITURES BY
REPORTING FO:
1040 Field
Office BPS # Project Name / Description PE Units Cost
UT040
CCFO
055716
See
CCFO
CWWR
Report
Inventory and assess lentic reaches
within the Cedar City Field Office
where PFC assessments do not exist or
are out of date to prioritize management
and monitoring. The CCFO also
entered existing riparian (lotic and
lentic) assessment data into a
geodatabase in GIS. BU 13 932
UT040
CCFO
055716
See
CCFO
CWWR
Report
Inventory and assess lotic reaches
within the Cedar City Field Office
where PFC assessments do not exist or
are out of date to prioritize management
and monitoring. The CCFO also entered
existing riparian (lotic and lentic)
assessment data into a geodatabase in
GIS. BV 6 4,218
UT040
CCFO
057159 Purchased materials for NEPA-ready
riparian exclosure projects. JF 1 6,468
UT040
CCFO
See
CCFO
CWWR
Report
Bear Creek and Modena Canyon willow
planting projects and associated micro-
exclosures JG 2 3,229
UT040
CCFO
See
CCFO
CWWR
Report
Continued maintenance of CCFO
riparian exclosures
JI 32 2,406
UT040
CCFO
See
CCFO
CWWR
Report
Seeps and springs monitoring
MN 10 4,339
UT100
SGFO
LUTC03100 (Red Cliff NCA) BN 30 3,000
UT100
SGFO
LUTC03000 (St. George Field Office) JI 2 3,000
UT100
SGFO
LUTC03000/LUTCO3200 (Beaver
Dam Wash NCA)
MO 11 5,000
UT100
SGFO
LUTC03100 MU 25 3,000
UT050
RFO
Three wetland exclosures were
maintained on the Hanksville Field
Station. JI 3 10,000
Total Color Country District 45,592
UT080
VFO
Collect water quality on 2 stations on
Bitter Creek, 2 stations on Pariette
Draw, 1 station on Red Creek, 3
stations on Willow Creek BN
8 8,000
UT080
VFO
Russian olive treatment on Middle
Green River. This entailed spraying
new shoots from cut stumps from the
previous year. JF
30 5,000
UT080
VFO
This was accomplished in conjunction
with Active Management at Pariette
Wetlands MN
2,508 17,500
UT080
VFO
Upper Green River. This was
accomplished in conjunction with a MO
17 1,700
53
1040 Field
Office BPS # Project Name / Description PE Units Cost
Green River Restoration Project.
UT080
VFO
Upper and middle Green River. This
was accomplished in conjunction with a
Green River Restoration Project.
Support of the project entailed funding
training and safety equipment. Travel
and labor was also charged to this
project. JD 260 17,800
UT070
PFO
046198 Maintained Mounds, Hambrick Bottom,
Mud Springs, Soldier Canyon, Icelander
and Coon Spring Riparian Enclosure
Fences. JI 6 3,000
UT070
PFO
042774 Re-treatment of Tamarisk in Buckhorn
Draw (30 acres) JD 30 5,000
Total Green River District 58,000
UT020
SLFO
PFC for priority streams in Rich County BV 7 18,816
UT020
SLFO
MIM for priority streams in Rich
County MO 7 18,484
UT020
SLFO
Monitoring priority wetlands in Rich
County MN 40 9,279
UT020
SLFO
Evaluate Rangeland Health on priority
allotments in Rich County MJ 3 23,367
UT020
SLFO
Maintained riparian exclosure projects
in Rich County JI 5 9,124
UT010
FFO
Priority PFC assessments completed on
streams of the Deep Creek Mtns. an in
DevilCreek in Tintic Valley. BU 7 600
UT010
FFO
Maintain riparian exclosures in Amasa
Valley. JI 3 1000
UT010
FFO
Riparian monitoring of Bishop Springs MN 575 1000
UT010
FFO
Devil Creek MIM MO 2 1000
Lentic priority PFC assessments BV 15 300
Total West Desert District 82,970
UT060
Moab n/a
Inventory invasive species (tamarisk)
along the Colorado River using aerial
imagery purchased with end of year
FY10 funds.
BS 13096 $2,000
UT060
Moab n/a PFC assessments in lentic areas related
to grazing permit renewals and
rangeland health standards.
BU 25 $1,138
UT060
Moab n/a PFC assessments in lotic areas related
to grazing permit renewals and
rangeland health standards.
BV 171 $2,000
UT060
Moab n/a
Weed treatments associated with
recreation sites (campgrounds) and
tamarisk treatments along the Colorado
River.
JD 50 $2,000
UT060
Moab n/a
Tamarisk removal along the Dolores
River (5 miles) and the Colorado River
(1 mile in WestwaterCyn) and 1
improved creek crossing in Black Ridge
PJ treatment project.
JG 7 $2,000
UT060
Moab n/a
Constructed 2 riparian protection
fences:
Project #1) constructed 1 mile of
fencing along Dolores River- a section
JH 2 $2,000
54
1040 Field
Office BPS # Project Name / Description PE Units Cost
assessed by ID team as FAR in 2009
Project #2) replaced gate with fencing
to better manage grazing in Ten Mile
ACEC/ Texas Bob Dugway
UT060
Moab n/a
Repaired 7 riparian protection fences:
Project #1) replaced one non-functional
gate with a cattleguard to better manage
grazing in Ten Mile Wash ACEC/
Midway access
Project #2) repair swinging panel fence
in Ten Mile Wash ACEC
Project #3) repair road closure fence in
Kane Creek near Hole ‘n Rock
Project #4) repaired riparian exclosure
fencing at Cow Cyn in Ten Mile Wash
ACEC
Project #5) maintained tamarisk
treatments along Colorado River
Project #6) maintained tamarisk
treatments along Dolores River
Project #7) maintained tamarisk
treatments in Negro Bill Canyon
JI 7 $3,000
UT060
Moab n/a Monitoring of wetland resources in
Seven Mile Wash. MN 20 $2,000
UT060
Moab n/a
Monitoring of lentic resources in Ten
Mile Wash ACEC (8 miles), tamarisk
treatments on Dolores River (5 miles) ,
Colorado River (10 miles) and Kane
Creek (2)
MO 25 $2,000
UT090
Mont
Riparian monitoring on Arch, Devil,
and Squaw Canyons, Johnies Hole, and
Kane Gulch. MO 20 3000
UT090
Mont
Riparian Inventory along Johnnies Hole
and Kane Gulch BV 3 2667
Total Canyon Country District 23,805
State Office
Riparian Team Support, funds used to support PFC and MIM
training sessions 17,812
PFC and MIM implementation 3,650
Snake Valley Wetland/Riparian groundwater monitoring 14,000
San Rafael River Restoration Plan 6,000
Riparian Mapping Support 7,000
Tamarisk and Russian Olive removal support 7,000
Total State Office 55,462
State Total 265,829
CWWR Total from AWP

55
TABLE G FUNDING USED IN CONJUNCTION WITH SECTION 319
FUNDING.
Funding Source Amount
Blue Ribbon $38,600.00
Habitat council $81,659.00
Watershed Restoration Initiative $100,070.00
Environmental Quality Incentive Program
(EQIP) $468,584.13
Price River Mitigation $8,600.05
Moab City $2,524.69
Grazing Improvement Program $92,445.60
Utah Transit Authority Mitigation $55,000.00
Salt Lake County $750,571.00
South Valley Water Reclamation Facility $628,000.00

Figure 2 UDAF 319 Project Management

56

TABLE H ACRES PLANNED BY NRCS IN FY-2011
Resource Concern Category- Contracted Acres

COUNTY Plant 
Condition 
Water 
Quality 
Water 
Quantity 
Air 
Quality 
Soil 
Erosion 
Soil 
Condition 
Fish and 
Wildlife 
BEAVER 0 0 635 0 0 0 0 
BOX ELDER 0 0 2184.9 1555.2 2284 2124 3200 
CACHE 5.8 1554.4 705.62 2472.6 0 109 0 
CARBON 0.028 199.5 0 0 0.084 0.084 6274 
DAGGETT 0 30 1 0 0 0 0 
DAVIS 0 0 86.4 0 0 0 0 
DUCHESNE 3 2418.2 12782 0 0 0 73.5 
EMERY 0 2165.84 89.5 0 0 0 651.6 
GARFIELD 0 0 105.8 0 0 0 0 
GRAND 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
IRON 0 0 2367.3 0 0 0 2234.7 
JUAB 0 0 192 0 0 0 3872.3 
KANE 0 0 3566.8 0 0 0 0 
MILLARD 0 0 36 0 0 0 0 
MORGAN 0 0 50.9 0 0 0 0 
PIUTE 0 0 212.2 0 0 0 105 
RICH 0 0 218 0 0 0 0 
SALT LAKE 7.4 0 7.4 0 0 18.1 0 
SAN JUAN 0 0 2424.8 0 240 0 0 
SANPETE 1 1003 391.5 0 0 0 401 
SEVIER 0 0 181.5 0 0 0 0 
SUMMIT 0 0 230.7 0 0 0 24 
TOOELE 0 155.1 1361.5 155.1 0 0 0 
UINTAH 0.5 1280.5 841 0 340 0 2777 
UTAH 0.1 84 255.7 0 38.2 0 2.5 
WASATCH 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.6 
WASHINGTON 0 0 1175.3 0 0 0 0 
WAYNE 0 1154.2 0 0 0 0 12.4 
WEBER 0 0 170 0 0 222 222 
TOTALS 17.8 10,044.7 30,272.8 4,182.9 2,902.3 2,473.2 19,853.6 

57

TABLE I BLM ACRES PLANNED WITH UWRI FUNDING
# Title  
#  Utah Watershed Restoration Initiative Project Name
Acres/miles
treated
1718  Bittercreek Riparian Protection 1 mile 
1663  Little Hole Cheatgrass Control 182 acres 
1671 Deadman Bench Sagebrush Restoration 610 acres 
1735 Phase II Green River Habitat Restoration 1645 acres 
1653 Big Park Sagebrush Restoration 305 acres 
1659 Brush Creek Bench Seeding 407 acres 
1658 Archy Bench PJ & Sagebrush Restoration 1,122 acres 
1657  Upper Kanab Creek 2,703 acres 
1647 Reservation Ridge 83 acres 
1662 Indian Springs Fuel Reduction 
987 acres + 8.8 
miles 
1673 BLM Westwater Tamarisk Removal 
865 acres 
+15.5 miles 
1730 Black Ridge Fuels Reduction 
9034 acres + 
38.2 miles 
1737 Delores River Invasive Plant Removal and Habitat Restoration 
24.5 acres + 1 
mile 

58