Lessons Learned from BMP evaluation studies in the nontidal streams and river in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Katie Foreman University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science Synthesis Workshop January 24, 2012

Introduction CBW second nationally in the number of restoration projects completed 3 main objectives of these projects Riparian zone management Water quality improvement (Ag BMPs, buffers, wetlands) Stream stabilization Source:Hassett et al. 2005

Review of CBW projects Sources: Peer-reviewed journal articles, EPA 319 reports, agency personnel, agency reports, synthesis documentation 22 studies: 17 agricultural, 5 urban MD, VA, WV, DE, PA locations

Urban studies - locations All in Maryland (Baltimore, Annapolis, DC) –8 stream-study in AA county –Minebank Run (Lower Gunpowder Falls) –Spring Branch, (Baltimore Co.) –Sawmill Creek (AA county) –Silgo Creek (Anacostia River tributary)

Urban studies- BMPs Most BMPs are stream restoration (including bank stabilization, floodplain re- connectivity, and riparian zone management) 1 stormwater BMP 1 suite of BMPs including stormwater management and toxics management

Urban Case Studies Minebank Run (Baltimore, MD): Response time <5 yrs to stream stabilization and floodplain connectivity. Significant improvement in N (25- 50%) and 2 fold increase in denitrification, decrease in P and S Silgo Creek (Montgomery Co., MD): Decades response time to stormwater management, decrease in peak flows, better habitat, and more diverse biology (increase in fish species from 3- 15)

Urban Studies – Lessons Learned 4/5 studies were deemed successful, 1 mixed result Factors for success Collaboration Strategic designs- target areas of watersheds and specific pollutants Suite of BMPs are important –Reconnection with floodplain along with stabilization Success depends on what factors you use to determine success –Habitat vs. biology

Ag studies - locations

Ag Studies - BMPs Fencing and riparian zone buffer Nutrient Management Riparian buffer Suite of ag BMPs (conservation crop rotation, grassed waterways, nutrient management, fencing, etc.) Wetlands

Ag Case Studies (successes) Big Spring Run Basin and Mill Creek Basin, PA (fencing)–quick improvements in N, P, and S, shallow groundwater and biology. Dissolved P increase (need nutrient management) Owl Run, VA (suite BMPs): reduced all forms of N and most forms of P, but not in reducing ortho-P. Magnitude of reductions were 35-78% Pocomoke, MD: (suite of BMPs) TN concentrations decreased 30% over short period of time in response to large management action

Ag Case Studies (con’t) German Branch MD (suite of BMPs) – Mixed results, reasons for lack of success include amount and timing of BMPs, scale of project, lag times, other factors (farming changes) Bald Eagle Creek, PA (nutrient management) – Failed even with a substantial decrease in animals in the watershed and nutrients applied (77%). Too short sampling period, timing of BMPs off, lack of cooperation and changes in farming practices

Ag Studies- lessons learned Most were successful (12) with 4 mixed results and 1 not successful Factors for success –Fencing animals out of a stream is a BMP that shows positive and quick response (bacteria and habitat) –Wetland BMPs have quick effect –Stakeholder involvement –Large amount of BMP implementation(suites)

Ag Studies- lessons learned (con’t) Reasons for failures Hard to control for multiple factors affecting change (blurs the signal) Inability to achieve implementation goals Timing of BMP implementation Lag times in groundwater/legacy sediments Scale of watershed Only one BMP installed (vs. a suite) Not enough implementation

Ag Studies- lessons learned Needs More reliable data about BMP implementation More monitoring for longer period of time or higher frequency

Conclusion Common factors affecting the success of the BMPs –Location –Scale –Amount of BMP implementation –One BMP vs. a suite of BMPs –Cooperation by stakeholders –Lag times –Information on factors affecting change (precip., landuse) –Monitoring for question “was it effective?”