^tosrx
a
I NONPOINT SOURCE SUCCESS STURY
titfrh.
The Watershed Approach Results in Reduced Phosphorus in the
Fremont River
Waterbodies Improved
Anthropogenic activities such as animal feeding operations
resulted in excess loading of phosphorus into the Fremont
River, prompting Utah to add the upper segment to the Clean Water Act (CWA) section 303(d) list of
impaired waters in 2000 (for phosphorus and dissolved oxygen) and a second, downstream segment
in 2008 (for benthic macroinvertebrates bioassessments). A local steering committee developed a
Fremont River Water Quality Management Plan. Landowners completed stream restoration projects
and implemented best management practices (BMPs) to control sediment and nutrients in runoff
from animal feeding operations and irrigated cropland areas. These activities led to a reduction in
phosphorus levels and an increase in dissolved oxygen levels, allowing two segments of the Fremont
River to be removed from the 2016 CWA section 303(d) list of impaired waters.
Problem
The Fremont River headwaters begin at approximately
11,200 feet in elevation on the Fish Lake Hightop
Plateau In south-central Utah. The river winds through
forest, agricultural and range lands, and then con-
tinues through Capitol Reef National Park before its
confluence 95 miles downstream with Muddy Creek.
The two rivers join to become the Dirty Devil River,
which is a tributary to the Colorado River.
Anthropogenic activities throughout the watershed
resulted in excess loading of phosphorus into the
Fremont River. Several animal feeding operations
were in close proximity to the river, allowing nutrient
rich runoff to enter the river during snowmelt and
significant precipitation events. In addition, significant
erosion was occurring along many stretches of stream-
bank (Figure 1, right).
The upper Fremont River (Fremont River-2,
UT14070003-005) was included on the Utah's 2000
CWA section 303(d) list of impaired waters based on
data collected in 1988-1999. Low dissolved oxygen
concentrations and elevated phosphorus concentra-
tions were impairing the 3A Cold Water Fishery ben-
eficial use of the upper segment of the river. Another
segment, Fremont River-2, UT14070003-005, was
added to the impaired waters list in 2008 for benthic
macroinvertebrates bioassessments.
Figure 1. A stretch of the Fremont River, before
(top) and after (bottom) partners completed the
following streambank restoration work: shaping the
streambanks, placing in-stream structures (rip-rap and
rock barbs), and revegetating the riparian area.
Before

-------
Project Highlights
A local steering committee was formed to oversee
the development of a Fremont River Water Quality
Management Plan in 2002. The Fremont River
Conservation District directed implementation of the
completed watershed management plan, and part-
nered with several agencies to secure funding for work
conducted between 2003 and 2011.
The Fremont River Conservation District worked with
local landowners to locate streambank areas needing
improvement and to identify appropriate agricultural
BMPs. The implementation effort included shaping,
stabilizing and revegetating over 2.5 miles of stream-
bank (see Figure 1). Funding has been secured for one
additional streambank project planned for 2016.
Landowners have also voluntarily installed agricultural
BMPs: relocating two animal feeding operations away
from the river, installing BMPs at 17 additional animal
feeding operations to prevent animal waste from
entering the river, implementing sprinkler irrigation
systems to eliminate irrigation return flows to the
river, and adding riparian fencing. These practices help
control erosion and reduce runoff of sediment and
nutrients into the Fremont River.
Results
Water quality grab samples were collected in October
2012 through September 2013 at a site downstream
of where BMPs were implemented at several animal
feeding operations. Utah uses a phosphorus indicator
value of 0.05 milligrams per liter (mg/L) total phos-
phorus as an indicator of stream health. As shown
in Table 1, phosphorus levels significantly decreased
after project implementation. Less than 10 percent of
phosphorus data showed concentrations higher than
the indicator value of 0.05 mg/L, indicating that the
Fremont River is no longer impaired for phosphorus.
Table 1. Summary of phosphorus (P) data at a target
monitoring location on the Freemont River


n>0.05
%>0.05
Min.P
Max.P
Avg.P
Date Range
n
mg/L
mg/L
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
2003-2009
55
n
20
0.01
0.67
0.050
2012-2013
11
l
9
0.01
0.07
0.039
Dissolved Oxygen
Fremont River 1989-2013
14
12
- 10
oi
I 8
o
O 6
4
2
0
~ * ****<} V;
Dissolved
Oxygen
— Standard
6.5 mg/l
Figure 2. Dissolved oxygen levels in the river have
improved over time.
In addition, macroinvertebrate samples have been
collected at several locations downstream of the
project implementation area. Although observed/
expected population scores between 2006 and 2007
did not change, additional macroinvertebrate samples
collected in fall 2013 show improving scores.
As a result of the reduction in phosphorus levels and
the increase in dissolved oxygen levels (Figure 2), the
Fremont River (Fremont River-2, UT14070003-005)
will be removed from the 2016 CWA section 303(d) list
for these parameters. The Fremont River below this
segment (Fremont River-3, UT14070003-008) will also
be removed from the section 303(d) list in 2016 for
observed/expected benthic macroinvertebrate bioas-
sessments as a direct result of the project implemen-
tation work that was completed upstream.
Partners and Funding
The Fremont River Conservation District provided
oversight for project planning and implementation.
The Utah Division of Water Quality administered
$425,600 of CWA section 319 funding for implement-
ing a portion of the work, and stakeholder in-kind
match totaled $305,838. The Natural Resources
Conservation Service also contributed $20,597 in
Environmental Quality Incentives Program funding
for project implementation within the watershed.
Other partners included local landowners, the Utah
Department of Agriculture and Food, Utah Association
of Conservation Districts, Utah Division of Water
Rights, Utah Division of Water Resources and the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
^EDSrX
Q
3)
%
\
*1 PRO"^
ro
s
o
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
Washington, DC
EPA 841-F-16-001CC
October 2016
For additional information contact:
Amy Dickey
Utah Division of Water Quality, Nonpoint Source Program
801-536-4334 • adickey@utah.gov

-------