View
228
Download
1
Category
Tags:
Preview:
Citation preview
adem.alabama.gov
Incorporating NPS Intensive Surveys into ADEM’s Monitoring
Strategy
Southeastern Water Pollution Biologists’ Association Meeting
Lake Guntersville, Alabama15 November 2012
ADEM’s NPS Intensive Watershed Surveys
Figure 1. Unnamed tributary to the Coosa River in North Gadsden Park. This photo, looking downstream, was taken in 2004, prior to project construction.
Figure 2. Unnamed tributary to the Coosa River in North Gadsden Park. This photo, facing upstream, was taken in 2006, one year after project completion.
ADEM’s NPS Intensive Watershed Surveys Objectives
To document and assess water quality conditions; To provide baseline chemical and biological data to assess trends in
water quality; and, To evaluate the effectiveness of cumulative best management
practices
ADEM’s NPS Intensive Watershed Surveys Addressing NPS Issues
Waterbody assessment
TMDL development
Watershed management
plan
BMP implementation
Monitoring
Monitoring
Mon
itorin
g
ADEM’s NPS Intensive Watershed Surveys Small drainages Post-BMP monitoring
Multiple, well–established best management practices (BMPs)
Pre-BMP monitoring Sampling is conducted if no existing data is available Watershed management plans complete BMPs not yet implemented
In target basin if possible
ADEM’s NPS Intensive Watershed Surveys
NPS, FO, and WQ review:• Use classifications• TMDLs and WMPs• Permits• Existing stations and data• BMP location and type
NPS, FO, and WQ Select: • Sampling sites• Parameters and sampling
frequency$T
$T $T
%U
%U
#S
#S
#S
#S
#S#S
#S
#S
#S #S#S
#S#S
#S#S
#S
#S
#S
#S
#S
#S
#S
#S
#S
#S
#S
#S
#S
#S
#S
#S
FC-10A
FC-10CCRDM-2
CRDM-3
CRDM-1FC-10B
TE06U1
HERM-1
HERM-2
HERM-3
LAWRENCE
MORGAN
CULLMAN
4
12
9
11
116
7
3
13
15
14
10
5
62
8
County-poly.shpBMPsRoadsStreams and rivers
Usecategories.shp4A Approved TMDL5 Impaired
Delistedwaters.shpPathogensSiltation
$T Stormwater/ Construction %U CAFOs#S Industrial Permits#S Existing Sampling Locations#S BMPs
Crowdabout - Herrin Creek Watersheds
5 0 5 10 Miles
ADEM’s NPS Intensive Watershed Surveys 4 Approaches
Compare to ecoregional reference reach(es) Upstream – downstream comparison Before and after surveys Paired watersheds
ADEM’s NPS Intensive Watershed Surveys 4 Approaches
Compare to ecoregional reference reach(es) Upstream – downstream comparison Before and after surveys Paired watersheds
ADEM’s NPS Intensive Watershed Surveys 4 Approaches
Compare to ecoregional reference reach(es) Upstream – downstream comparison Before and after surveys Paired watersheds
ADEM’s NPS Intensive Watershed Surveys2007 Upstream – downstream
comparisons Upstream stations not flowing
Small watersheds Severe drought conditions
Upstream stations Higher gradient
ADEM’s NPS Intensive Watershed Surveys 4 Approaches
Compare to ecoregional reference reach(es) Upstream – downstream comparison Before and after surveys Paired watersheds
ADEM’s NPS Intensive Watershed SurveysBefore and After Studies: Classic Trend Analysis Challenges
Post-BMP monitoring conducted 1-3 years after BMP implementation
Limited time for BMPs to become fully established
ADEM’s NPS Intensive Watershed SurveysBefore and After Studies: Classic Trend Analysis Challenges
A few pre-BMP studies conducted in late 80’s and early 90’s Before and after surveys conducted under different conditions
Drought Herrin Creek: Pre-BMP data could not be collected in 2007
Landuse changes
Table 1. Comparison of watershed characteristics between 1993 and 2006 based on the National Land Cover Datasets (NLCD).
Watershed CharacteristicsNLCD 1993 2006% Landuse Open water <1 <1 Wetland Total 2 5 Forest Total 52 33 Deciduous 29 29 Evergreen 6 2 Mixed 17 2 Other grasses/Shrub/scrub 1 6 Pasture/hay 28 38 Cultivated crops 10 8 Development 4 10 Barren/Mining/Transitional 3 1
ADEM’s NPS Intensive Watershed Surveys
ADEM’s NPS Intensive Watershed SurveysBefore and After Studies: Classic Trend Analysis Challenges
A few pre-BMP studies conducted in late 80’s and early 90’s Changes in methodology Changes in taxonomy Before and after studies conducted by different agencies Pre-data not collected at best site for monitoring BMPs Availability of data collected
ADEM’s NPS Intensive Watershed Surveys 4 Approaches
Compare to ecoregional reference reach(es) Upstream – downstream comparison Before and after surveys Paired watersheds
ADEM’s 2009 NPS Intensive Surveys: Tennessee River Basin
Post BMP Monitoring Big Nance Creek Crowdabout Creek Goose Creek Herrin Creek Robinson Creek Scarham Creek Yellowbank Creek
Pre BMP Monitoring Big Shoal Creek Elam Creek Flat Creek Hester Creek McDaniel Creek Mountain Fork, Flint River
ADEM’s 2007 NPS Intensive Watershed Surveys: Post-BMPRobinson Creek: F&W stream in the Interior Plateau (71g)• 6.3 mile stream listed as impaired by agricultural sources• Siltation and OE/DO TMDLs completed in 2003• BMPs implemented 2005-2006
• 453 acres of forest riparian buffers were planted
#S
#S
#S
RBNM-1 RBNM-2
RBNM-3
Planted Riparian Forest BufferCategory 4a F&W WatersRobinson Creek WatershedRoads
#S Monitoring Stations
2 0 2 4 Miles
N
Alabama
ADEM’s NPS Intensive Watershed Surveys: Paired watershed?
Station Area (mi2)Pop'n
per km2%
Urban%
Pasture%
CroplandRBNM-1 9 51 9 38 7.5
2009 Requested Sampling LocationsFLTL-1 9 62 9 3 1.3ELML-1 19 28 5 40 8.7
MCDL-360 11 18 4 46 6.0HERM-1 6 17 4 53 1.4
Existing Assessment DataMFBN-5 10 65 10 48 3.1RTFL-1 15 24 7 54 3.6
CSPJ-70 9 18 5 28 12.7
ADEM’s NPS Intensive Watershed Surveys: Paired watershed?
Station EcoArea
(mi2)HDG
Gradient (ft/0.5 mi)
Q(cfs) Jan-Mar
Q(cfs) Apr-June
Q(cfs) July-Sept
Q(cfs) Oct-Dec
RBNM-1 71G 9 5 3 0.8 0.2 0.0 0.02009 Requested Sampling Locations
FLTL-1 71G 9ELML-1 71G 19
MCDL-360 71G 11 5 8 0.9 0.2 <0.1 <0.1HERM-1 71G 6 5 9 0.5 0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Existing Assessment DataMFBN-5 71G 11 6 9 1.8 0.5 0.1 0.1RTFL-1 71G 15 5 10 2.5 0.6 0.1 0.1
CSPJ-70 71G 10 5 2 1.9 0.8 0.6 0.3
ADEM’s NPS Intensive Watershed Surveys: Pre-BMP
Tributary to Robinson Creek, looking towards Robinson Creek, in February of 2005.
Site in the Herrin Creek watershed in 2006.
ADEM’s NPS Intensive Watershed Surveys: Paired watershed?
Trib to Robinson Creek, Looking toward Robinson Creek, with riparian forest buffer, in April of 2011.
Site in the Herrin Creek watershed in 2006.
Incorporating NPS Surveys into ADEM’s Monitoring Strategy Monitoring Strategy
Link each assessment to disturbances in the watershed Identify naturally similar watersheds
Drainage area, ecoregion, gradient Identify watersheds with similar levels of disturbance
% Landuse, #Permits, Population Density, Roads
Intensive monitoring to assess each site Monthly water quality monitoring (nutrients, sediment) Habitat assessments (Bank stability, embeddedness) Bioassessments (Macroinvertebrates)
However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the
results.-Winston Churchill
ADEM’s NPS Intensive Watershed Survey Results
RBNM-1 RBNM-1 MCDL-360 HERM-1 CSPJ-70 MFBN-5 RTFL-11994-1998 2009 2009 2009 2003 2003 2003
Habitat Parameters (% Maximum Score)Sedimentation 58 70 58 59 46 86 77
Riparian Buffer Zone 85 50 48 48 50 73 25# EPT Families 5 7 6 6 4 7 5# EPT Genera --- 10 9 7 4 17 7Water quality
Minimum Flow (cfs) 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.5 <0.1 0.6 <0.1Maximum Flow (cfs) 3.6 25.9 61.3 19 54.9 20.1 11.8
Dissolved oxygen (mg/L) 1.6 6.2 5.1 5.5 2.5 6.3 7.2Median NO3+NO2-N (mg/L) 0.659 0.589 0.572 0.321 2.193 0.222 0.32
Median Total phosphorus (mg/L) 0.081 0.038 0.076 0.156 0.031 0.032 0.058
ADEM’s NPS Intensive Watershed Survey Results RBNM-1 RBNM-1 MCDL-360 HERM-1 CSPJ-70 MFBN-5 RTFL-1
1994-1998 2009 2009 2009 2003 2003 2003
Habitat Parameters (% Maximum Score)
Sedimentation 58 70 58 59 46 86 77
Riparian Buffer Zone 85 50 48 48 50 73 25
# EPT Families 5 7 6 6 4 7 5
# EPT Genera --- 10 9 7 4 17 7
Water quality
Minimum Flow (cfs) 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.5 <0.1 0.6 <0.1
Maximum Flow (cfs) 3.6 25.9 61.3 19 54.9 20.1 11.8
Dissolved oxygen (mg/L) 1.6 6.2 5.1 5.5 2.5 6.3 7.2
Median NO3+NO2-N (mg/L) 0.659 0.589 0.572 0.321 2.193 0.222 0.32
Median Total phosphorus (mg/L) 0.081 0.038 0.076 0.156 0.031 0.032 0.058
ADEM’s NPS Intensive Watershed Survey Results
RBNM-1 RBNM-1 MCDL-360 HERM-1 CSPJ-70 MFBN-5 RTFL-11994-1998 2009 2009 2009 2003 2003 2003
Habitat Parameters (% Maximum Score)Sedimentation 58 70 58 59 46 86 77
Riparian Buffer Zone 85 50 48 48 50 73 25# EPT Families 5 7 6 6 4 7 5# EPT Genera --- 10 9 7 4 17 7Water quality
Minimum Flow (cfs) 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.5 <0.1 0.6 <0.1Maximum Flow (cfs) 3.6 25.9 61.3 19 54.9 20.1 11.8
Dissolved oxygen (mg/L) 1.6 6.2 5.1 5.5 2.5 6.3 7.2Median NO3+NO2-N (mg/L) 0.659 0.589 0.572 0.321 2.193 0.222 0.32
Median Total phosphorus (mg/L) 0.081 0.038 0.076 0.156 0.031 0.032 0.058
ADEM’s NPS Intensive Watershed Survey Results
RBNM-1 RBNM-1 MCDL-360 HERM-1 CSPJ-70 MFBN-5 RTFL-11994-1998 2009 2009 2009 2003 2003 2003
Habitat Parameters (% Maximum Score)Sedimentation 58 70 58 59 46 86 77
Riparian Buffer Zone 85 50 48 48 50 73 25# EPT Families 5 7 6 6 4 7 5# EPT Genera --- 10 9 7 4 17 7Water quality
Dissolved oxygen (mg/L) 1.6 6.2 5.1 5.5 2.5 6.3 7.2Median NO3+NO2-N (mg/L) 0.659 0.589 0.572 0.321 2.193 0.222 0.32
Median Total phosphorus (mg/L) 0.081 0.038 0.076 0.156 0.031 0.032 0.058
ADEM’s NPS Intensive Watershed Survey Results
RBNM-1 RBNM-1 MCDL-360 HERM-1 CSPJ-70 MFBN-5 RTFL-11994-1998 2009 2009 2009 2003 2003 2003
Habitat Parameters (% Maximum Score)Sedimentation 58 70 58 59 46 86 77
Riparian Buffer Zone 85 50 48 48 50 73 25# EPT Families 5 7 6 6 4 7 5# EPT Genera --- 10 9 7 4 17 7Water quality
Dissolved oxygen (mg/L) 1.6 6.2 5.1 5.5 2.5 6.3 7.2Median NO3+NO2-N (mg/L) 0.659 0.589 0.572 0.321 2.193 0.222 0.32
Median Total phosphorus (mg/L) 0.081 0.038 0.076 0.156 0.031 0.032 0.058
ADEM’s NPS Intensive Watershed Survey Results
RBNM-1 RBNM-1 MCDL-360 HERM-1 CSPJ-70 MFBN-5 RTFL-11994-1998 2009 2009 2009 2003 2003 2003
Habitat Parameters (% Maximum Score)Sedimentation 58 70 58 59 46 86 77
Riparian Buffer Zone 85 50 48 48 50 73 25# EPT Families 5 7 6 6 4 7 5# EPT Genera --- 10 9 7 4 17 7Water quality
Dissolved oxygen (mg/L) 1.6 6.2 5.1 5.5 2.5 6.3 7.2Median NO3+NO2-N (mg/L) 0.659 0.589 0.572 0.321 2.193 0.222 0.32
Median Total phosphorus (mg/L) 0.081 0.038 0.076 0.156 0.031 0.032 0.058
ADEM’s NPS Intensive Watershed Survey Results
RBNM-1 RBNM-1 MCDL-360 HERM-1 CSPJ-70 MFBN-5 RTFL-11994-1998 2009 2009 2009 2003 2003 2003
Habitat Parameters (% Maximum Score)Sedimentation 58 70 58 59 46 86 77
Riparian Buffer Zone 85 50 48 48 50 73 25# EPT Families 5 7 6 6 4 7 5# EPT Genera --- 10 9 7 4 17 7Water quality
Dissolved oxygen (mg/L) 1.6 6.2 5.1 5.5 2.5 6.3 7.2Median NO3+NO2-N (mg/L) 0.659 0.589 0.572 0.321 2.193 0.222 0.32
Median Total phosphorus (mg/L) 0.081 0.038 0.076 0.156 0.031 0.032 0.058
ADEM’s NPS Intensive Watershed Survey Results
0
3
6
9
12
15
18
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
# EP
T G
ener
a
Human Disturbance Gradient
# EPT Genera
ADEM’s 2009 NPS Intensive Watershed Surveys: Robinson Creek
RBNM-1 MCDL-360 HERM-1 CSPJ-70 MFBN-5 RTFL-1
Date (m/d/yyyy) 6/2/2009 6/30/2009 6/2/2009 5/26/1998 4/30/2003 6/23/2003
Width (ft) 15 12 12 25 20 7
Canopy Cover Shaded Mostly shaded Mostly shaded Mostly open Mostly shaded Open
Depth (ft)
Riffle 0.3 0.3 0.2
Run 1.5 1.0 0.8 2 0.6 0.5
Pool 2.5 1.5 1.5 2.5 1.5 1.5
% of Reach
Riffle 5 --- 30 20
Run 50 75 85 --- 45 40
Pool 50 20 15 --- 25 40
% of Substrate
Bedrock 30 2 80
Boulder 20 1 1 10 1
Cobble 15 2 3 40
Gravel 10 5 15 1 2 40
Clay 10 75 2 2
Mud/muck 0 0 1
Sand 10 5 60 75 5
Silt 2 5 10 15 12
Organic Matter 3 5 13 8 2 2
Physical Characteristics
ADEM’s 2009 NPS Intensive Watershed Surveys: Robinson Creek
RBNM-1 MCDL-360 HERM-1 CSPJ-70 MFBN-5 RTFL-1
Date (m/d/yyyy) 6/2/2009 6/30/2009 6/2/2009 5/26/1998 4/30/2003 6/23/2003
Width (ft) 15 12 12 25 20 7
Canopy Cover Shaded Mostly shaded Mostly shaded Mostly open Mostly shaded Open
Depth (ft)
Riffle 0.3 0.3 0.2
Run 1.5 1.0 0.8 2 0.6 0.5
Pool 2.5 1.5 1.5 2.5 1.5 1.5
% of Reach
Riffle 5 --- 30 20
Run 50 75 85 --- 45 40
Pool 50 20 15 --- 25 40
% of Substrate
Bedrock 30 2 80
Boulder 20 1 1 10 1
Cobble 15 2 3 40
Gravel 10 5 15 1 2 40
Clay 10 75 2 2
Mud/muck 0 0 1
Sand 10 5 60 75 5
Silt 2 5 10 15 12
Organic Matter 3 5 13 8 2 2
Physical Characteristics
Did paired watershed assessments help? Multiple lines of evidence
Helped sift through inevitable questions when comparing data collected during different years and/or by different agencies
Provided standard for evaluation when pre-BMP data was unavailable
How can we improve our surveys? Site selection:
Include a characterization of all study reaches during the recon Additional indicators:
Pebble count? Percent vegetated and bank angle? SWPB-ians: Suggestions on “interim” measures of success
would be much appreciated!
Process cannot help where these watersheds are located
Could TALU help?
Could TALU help?
Could TALU help?
Could TALU help?
Food for Thought• We measure impairment in miles and improvement in feet
• 303d/TMDL waters on mainstem
• Best “success” seen in watersheds <3 mi2
#S
#S
#S
RBNM-1 RBNM-2
RBNM-3
Planted Riparian Forest BufferCategory 4a F&W WatersRobinson Creek WatershedRoads
#S Monitoring Stations
2 0 2 4 Miles
N
Alabama
Food for Thought• Prioritize watersheds for project implementation?
• Strategic habitat units?
• More cost-effective to prevent impairment than to fix it?• Healthy watersheds initiative?
Recommended