1. 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

2. CBW second nationally to the number of restoration projects completed, but monitoring lagging 3 main objectives of these projects 1)Riparian zone management 2) Water quality improvement (Ag BMPs, buffers, wetlands) 3)Stream stabilization

3. Many projects small Need a coordated watershed perspective Monitoring rates low and don’t get at the question “was it effective”

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

5. 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)

6. Urban studies- BMPs Most BMPs are stream restoration (including bank stabilization, floodplain reconnectivity, and riparian zone management) One stormwater BMP One study did a suite of BMPs including stormwater management and toxics management

7. Urban Case Studies (successes) 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)

8. Urban Studies -Lessons Learned 4/5 studies were deemed successful, 1 mixed result Factors for success Collaboration is key Strategic designs- target areas of watersheds and specific pollutants Capacity of urban streams to transform nutrients is different from streams in underdeveloped watersheds Reconnection with floodplain Suite of BMPs are important Success depends on what factors you use to determine success –Habitat vs. biology

9. Ag studies - locations

10. 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

11. Ag Case Studies (successes) Big Spring Run Basin and Mill Creek Basin, PA (fencing)–quick improvements in N, P, and S, increase in biology and shallow groundwater. 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

12. Ag Case Studies German Branch (MD) – Mixed results, reasons for no success include amount and timing of BMPs, scale of project, lag times, other factors (farming changes) Bald Eagle Creek, PA – Failed even with a substantial decrease in animals in the watershed and nutrients applied (77%). Too short sampling period, timing of BMPs, lack of cooperation and changes in farming practices

13. Ag Studies- lessons learned Most were successful (12) with 4 mixed results and 1 not successful Successes – 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)

14. Ag Studies- lessons learned 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

15. Ag Studies- lessons learned Needs More reliable data about BMP implementation More monitoring

16. Conclusion For both source sectors key factors affecting the effectiveness of the BMPs are: – Location – Scale – Amount of BMP implementation – One BMP vs. a suite of BMPs – Cooperation by stakeholders – Lag times – Information on factor affecting change (precip., landuse) – Monitoring for question “was it effective”