Upload
lot
View
30
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
The effectiveness of conservation efforts in the Little Bear River Watershed. Douglas Jackson-Smith: SSWA Dept, USU Nancy Mesner: WATS Dept, USU David Stevens, Jeff Horsburgh, Darwin Sorensen : CEE Dept, USU. Overview. Background Analysis of Existing WQ Data - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
The effectiveness The effectiveness of conservation of conservation
efforts in the Little efforts in the Little Bear River Bear River WatershedWatershed
Douglas Jackson-Smith: Douglas Jackson-Smith: SSWA SSWA Dept, USU Dept, USU
Nancy Mesner: Nancy Mesner: WATS Dept, USUWATS Dept, USU
David Stevens, Jeff Horsburgh, Darwin David Stevens, Jeff Horsburgh, Darwin SorensenSorensen: CEE Dept, USU: CEE Dept, USU
OverviewOverview
Background Analysis of Existing WQ Data Implementation & Maintenance Study Alternative Approaches – Riparian Study Targeting Critical Areas Common BMP Monitoring Problems Rethinking Monitoring
USDA’s Conservation Effectiveness Assessment USDA’s Conservation Effectiveness Assessment ProjectsProjects
National AssessmentNational AssessmentWatershed StudiesWatershed StudiesBibliographies and Lit ReviewsBibliographies and Lit Reviews
CEAP Program CEAP Program ObjectivesObjectives
Determine whether publicly-funded programs to reduce phosphorus loadings from nonpoint sources into surface waters in the Little Bear River watershed are effective;
Examine the strengths and weaknesses of different water quality monitoring programs; and
Make recommendations to stakeholders to ensure that future agricultural management efforts are targeted towards the most effective and socioeconomically viable BMPs.
USU Project OverviewUSU Project Overview Original LBR watershed project (~1990-2002)
Funds from HUA; EPA 319; EQIP
USU Conservation Effects Assessment Program (CEAP) Grant – 2005-2009 Assess effects of historical conservation practices Review historical data Map practices and their implementation Model watershed and stream response Outreach and education Establish water quality monitoring network
Little Bear
Watershed
Little Bear River Hydrologic Unit Project
Pre-treatment problems: Bank erosion, manure management, flood irrigation problems
Treatments: bank stabilization, river reach restoration, off-stream watering, manure and water management, grazing management
Analysis of Historic Analysis of Historic Water Quality Water Quality
TrendsTrends
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Date
Tota
l Pho
spho
rus,
mg/
L
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
Seasonal Kendall Trend for TP Seasonal Kendall Trend for TP concentration at Mendon Rd (mouth concentration at Mendon Rd (mouth
of LBR).of LBR).
Slope -0.0043 mg/L yr
Since 1992
No Significant slope before
1990
Flow data may drag down Flow data may drag down ‘post’ estimates‘post’ estimates
Ambient Monitoring DataAmbient Monitoring DataLittle Bear at ParadiseLittle Bear at Paradise
Moist
Dry Dry‘Norma
l’Cons
Projects
OBSERVATIONSOBSERVATIONS
Trends suggest water quality Trends suggest water quality improvementsimprovements
Data Record Insufficient to Data Record Insufficient to Tease out Exogenous Variables – Tease out Exogenous Variables –
project coincided with changes in project coincided with changes in background climate conditionsbackground climate conditions
Link Trends to BMP ImplementationLink Trends to BMP Implementation Support Traditional Modeling Support Traditional Modeling
ApproachesApproaches
Implementation Implementation and Maintenance of and Maintenance of
BMPsBMPs
BEHAVIOR
Socioeconomic Socioeconomic ComponentComponent
IIMMPPLLEEMMEENNTTAATT IIOONN
PROGRAM SIGNUP
CONTRACTED
BMPS
MMAAIINNTTEENNAANNCCEE
WATER QUALITY
Socioeconomic MethodsSocioeconomic Methods Gather formal practice infoGather formal practice info from NRCS from NRCS
filesfiles Went through every file – Went through every file – 90 landowners90 landowners Create master list of practices (Create master list of practices (871 total871 total)) Copied key maps for interviewsCopied key maps for interviews
Conduct field interviewsConduct field interviews with participants with participants Validate file informationValidate file information Contacted 70 of 90 participantsContacted 70 of 90 participants
55 agreed to be interviewed 55 agreed to be interviewed 61% of all landowners; 79% of those we contacted61% of all landowners; 79% of those we contacted
Conducted field interviews - ~90 minutesConducted field interviews - ~90 minutes Detailed discussoin about BMP experienceDetailed discussoin about BMP experience
Findings - Findings - ImplementationImplementation
Individual BMPsIndividual BMPs 83% of BMPs successfully implemented83% of BMPs successfully implemented Reasons for non-implementation (17%)Reasons for non-implementation (17%)
Some cases – not recognized as contracted BMPSome cases – not recognized as contracted BMP Many – management practices that did not Many – management practices that did not
change behavior (based on interview discussion)change behavior (based on interview discussion)
Farm-LevelFarm-Level 32% farms implemented all BMPs32% farms implemented all BMPs 60% farms implemented more than ½ 60% farms implemented more than ½
Maintenance of BMPsMaintenance of BMPs
Is it still there? If not, why not?Is it still there? If not, why not? Overall – Overall –
21% of 21% of implementedimplemented BMPs BMPs notnot still there still there Combined with non-implemented Combined with non-implemented
practices = 1/3 of all originally practices = 1/3 of all originally contracted BMPs not currently therecontracted BMPs not currently there
Why not maintained?Why not maintained? No longer farming or sold land – 32% No longer farming or sold land – 32% Still farming, no longer use – 68%Still farming, no longer use – 68%
BMP Implementation & Maintenance by "Type"
83 83
49
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Structural Planting, Clearing andLeveling
Management
Percent implemented Percent maintainedPercent original BMPs still there
Implications: Implications: MaintenanceMaintenance
Good news: Good news: Producers did not discontinue the practices because they Producers did not discontinue the practices because they
did not like themdid not like them Not so good news: Not so good news:
The management practices had the shortest lifespanThe management practices had the shortest lifespan ALSO: Nonfarm Development and Farm Changes ALSO: Nonfarm Development and Farm Changes
can also affect long term impactscan also affect long term impacts
Implications: Implications: ImplementationImplementation
Management practices are the heart of Management practices are the heart of conservation programsconservation programs Failure to fully implement may have huge Failure to fully implement may have huge
impacts on successimpacts on success Big Question: How can management Big Question: How can management
behaviors be implemented more behaviors be implemented more effectively?effectively?
Analysis of Riparian Analysis of Riparian Area BMPsArea BMPs
Videography Analysis Videography Analysis ComponentComponent
Limitations to WQ monitoring Limitations to WQ monitoring data in 1990sdata in 1990s
Search for alternative indicators Search for alternative indicators of BMP impactof BMP impact
Discussions with colleagues led to Discussions with colleagues led to discovery of 1992 aerial 3-band discovery of 1992 aerial 3-band videography for stretches of LBRvideography for stretches of LBR
Arranged to re-fly the river in Arranged to re-fly the river in 20072007
Analysis StrategyAnalysis Strategy Match images from 1992 and 2007Match images from 1992 and 2007 Classify vegetative conditions for both time Classify vegetative conditions for both time
periods within identical riparian zonesperiods within identical riparian zones Riparian trees Riparian trees Small shrubs & grassesSmall shrubs & grasses Bare soilBare soil Water & ShadowsWater & Shadows
Quantify changes in riparian vegetation and Quantify changes in riparian vegetation and stream geomorphology between 1992-2007stream geomorphology between 1992-2007
Associate presence or absence of ‘riparian-Associate presence or absence of ‘riparian-relevant’ BMPs to these changesrelevant’ BMPs to these changes
‘‘Riparian Area’ Focused Riparian Area’ Focused BMPsBMPs
Stream channel structural BMPsStream channel structural BMPs Clearing & snagging (326)Clearing & snagging (326) Streambank and shoreline protection (580)Streambank and shoreline protection (580)
(13,825’)(13,825’) Stream channel stabilization (584)Stream channel stabilization (584)
Stream access controls for livestockStream access controls for livestock Riparian fencing (5383) – subset of 382Riparian fencing (5383) – subset of 382 Stream crossing (578)Stream crossing (578)
Riparian vegetation BMPsRiparian vegetation BMPs Channel vegetation (322)Channel vegetation (322) Critical area planting (342)Critical area planting (342) Tree/Shrub establishment (612)Tree/Shrub establishment (612)
1992 video images
2007 digital images
1992 Multispectral Mosaic 2007 Multispectral Mosaic
Site: Upstream from Hyrum Dam
Detail
Initial ObservationsInitial Observations
Significant vegetation growthSignificant vegetation growth Trees significantly larger throughout Trees significantly larger throughout
watershedwatershed Significant geomorphologic changes in Significant geomorphologic changes in
main stream channel pathmain stream channel path Moving centerlineMoving centerline New ‘islands’New ‘islands’ Major bank cuts & shifts in some new erosionMajor bank cuts & shifts in some new erosion
BIG QUESTION: Is it because of BIG QUESTION: Is it because of BMPs?BMPs?
1992
2007
1992
2007
STATISTICAL RESULTSSTATISTICAL RESULTS
Calculate area for each of 5 different Calculate area for each of 5 different vegetative classesvegetative classes
PREVIEW: analysis approachPREVIEW: analysis approach Document overall patterns of changeDocument overall patterns of change
Shows the ‘background’ trendsShows the ‘background’ trends Compare changes in “BMP impact zones”Compare changes in “BMP impact zones”
Aggregated riparian-relevant BMPsAggregated riparian-relevant BMPs Individual riparian-relevant BMPsIndividual riparian-relevant BMPs Comparison to Non-BMP areasComparison to Non-BMP areas
Percent of Riparian Zone by Vegetation Type, BMP and Non-BMP Impacted Zones
20%
39%
17%
24%
17%
61%
9%13%15%
53%
15%18%17%
66%
8% 9%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Water/Shadow Riparian Trees Shrubs & Grasses Bare Soil
Pe
rce
nt
of
Rip
ari
an
Zo
ne
BMP areas 1992 BMP areas 2007
Non-BMP areas 1992 Non-BMP areas 2007
Percent Change in Riparian Vegetation by BMP Status, 1992 to 2007
55%
(-46%) (-47%)
25%33%
(-46%) (-48%)(-47%) (-45%)(-60%)
(-40%)
(-20%)
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Riparian Trees Shrubs & Grasses Bare Soil
Per
cen
t C
han
ge
1992
-200
7
BMP area NonBMParea Overall
Quick SummaryQuick Summary
Riparian conditions improving throughout Riparian conditions improving throughout watershed (more trees, less exposed soil)watershed (more trees, less exposed soil)
BMPs installed in areas with less BMPs installed in areas with less vegetationvegetation
BMPs associated with much more rapid BMPs associated with much more rapid growth in tree cover, similar rates of growth in tree cover, similar rates of decline in exposed soildecline in exposed soil
Fences = reduced exposed soil mostFences = reduced exposed soil most Instream work = increased trees the mostInstream work = increased trees the most
Targeting Critical Targeting Critical AreasAreas
Idea behind Targeting…Idea behind Targeting…
Growing Recognition of Growing Recognition of Landscape VariabilityLandscape Variability
Research Q: Is there evidence that the Research Q: Is there evidence that the BMPs implemented in LBR specifically BMPs implemented in LBR specifically targeted critical areas?targeted critical areas? Critical AreasCritical Areas: : areas where the areas where the
potential contribution of pollutants (i.e., potential contribution of pollutants (i.e., sediments, phosphorus) to the receiving sediments, phosphorus) to the receiving water is significantly higher than other water is significantly higher than other areasareas
Combined Map of Risk Zones
Description of LBR AreaDescription of LBR Area
Low-influence
km2 (%)Low-riskkm2 (%)
Sub-riskkm2 (%)
Riskkm2 (%)
Totalkm2
LBR Watershed (total) 365 (53%) 225 (33%) 57 (8%) 35 (5%) 682
Farm Field Area 173 (67%) 47 (18%) 20 (8%) 19 (7%) 259
Contracted Farm Field Area 38 (48%) 21(26%) 12(15%) 9(11%) 80
Non-Contract Farm Field Area 135 (75%) 26 (15%) 8 (4%) 10 (6%) 179
Low-Influence Sub-Risk
Low Risk Risk
23%
47 %
62 %
47 %
62%23%CoveredBy BMPs
47% 47%
Implications: Spatial Implications: Spatial AnalysisAnalysis
Evidence exists that higher risk zones were Evidence exists that higher risk zones were targeted with BMPs (not random)targeted with BMPs (not random)
More than ½ of riskiest areas covered by More than ½ of riskiest areas covered by BMPsBMPs
More than 70% of BMPs in zones that are More than 70% of BMPs in zones that are not considered at high risk for runoff not considered at high risk for runoff erosionerosion Suggests opportunity for greater Suggests opportunity for greater
targeting & efficiencytargeting & efficiency Related to structure of programRelated to structure of program
Common Problems Common Problems in BMP Monitoring in BMP Monitoring
ProgramsPrograms
Lessons LearnedLessons Learned: : Common Common problems in BMP monitoring problems in BMP monitoring
programsprograms
• Failure to design monitoring plan around Failure to design monitoring plan around BMP objectives BMP objectives
• Failure to identify and quantify sources of Failure to identify and quantify sources of variability in these dynamic systemsvariability in these dynamic systems..
• FFailure to understand pollutant pathways ailure to understand pollutant pathways and transformations and transformations choosing inappropriate choosing inappropriate monitoring approachesmonitoring approaches
Little Bear River Watershed, Utah
v
1994 11 13 1995 10 13 1996 10 13 1997 11 4 1998 6 10 1999 7 10 2000 6 5 2001 4 7 2002 2 8 2003 4 8 2004 1 8
Total Observations at Watershed Outlet site
Discharge Total phosphorus
1976 - 2004: 162 2411994 - 2004: 72 99
Number of observations each year
Was the original UDWQ monitoring program a failure?
No….Program was intended to detect exceedences of water quality criteria.
The failure was ours…. In attempting to use these monitoring data for detecting change in loads
• Failure to design monitoring plan around Failure to design monitoring plan around BMP objectives BMP objectives
• Failure to identify and quantify sources of Failure to identify and quantify sources of variability in these dynamic systemvariability in these dynamic system..
• A failure to understand pollutant pathways and transformations choosing inappropriate monitoring approaches
“upper watershed site”
“lower watershed site”
Monitoring stationsMonitoring stations
ObservationsDatabase
(ODM)
Base StationComputer(s)
Data ProcessingApplications In
tern
et
Telemetry Network
Environmental Sensors
Data discovery, visualization, analysis, and modeling through
Internet enabled applications
Programmer interaction through web services
Inte
rnet
Workgroup HIS Tools
Workgroup HISServer
Monitoring/data systemMonitoring/data system
Upper Site Flow (cfs) Turbidity (NTU)
• Seasonal and annual variation
• Variation between sites
• Different pathways of pollutants
January – December 2006
Lower Site Flow (cfs) Turbidity (NTU)
Sample DataSample Data
Surrogate monitoring Surrogate monitoring resultsresults
Sources of variability in sampling data
• Relationship of surrogate to target pollutant
• Sampling frequency
• Timing of sampling
• Rare events
• Variability in correlations between turbidity and water quality parameters (TSS and TP)
Turbidity vs TSS at Upper Site
Impact of “rare” events
TSS Load Upper SiteLower Site
Annual (kg) 8.9 X 106 1.4 X 107
Runoff (% of total) 89% 54%
Baseflow (% of total) 11% 46%
Storms (% of baseflow) <1% 16%
• Failure to design monitoring plan around Failure to design monitoring plan around BMP objectives BMP objectives
• Failure to identify and quantify sources of Failure to identify and quantify sources of variability in these dynamic systemvariability in these dynamic system..
• A failure to understand pollutant pathways and transformations choosing inappropriate monitoring approaches
Problem: excess sedimentAverage flow = 20 cfsBMP = series of in-stream sediment basins
Problems with “one-size-fits-all” monitoring Problems with “one-size-fits-all” monitoring designdesign
Rees Creek TSS load
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
45000
50000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
weeks
kg /
day
Above
Below
Problem: excess phosphorusAverage flow = 1000 cfsBMP = fence cattle OUT of riparian area and
revegetate
Bear River phosphorus load
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
weeks
load
(kg
/day
)
Rethinking Rethinking MonitoringMonitoring
Nancy Mesner, Dept of Watershed Sciences Utah State [email protected]; 435 797 7541
Ginger Paige, University of Wyoming
University of [email protected]; (307) 766-2200
Designing Monitoring Programs to Evaluate BMP Effectiveness
The road to more effective monitoring….
Monitoring plans require careful thought before anything is implemented.
Consider how the data will be used to demonstrate change.
Use your understanding of your watershed and how the pollutants of concern behave to target monitoring most effectively.
Use different approaches for different BMPs.
Keep project goals and objectives in mind when monitoring BMPs
Monitor at an appropriate scale
Keep time lags in mind
Be selective, consider individual situations
Monitor surrogates when appropriate
Control or measure human behaviors / other watershed changes.
The road to more effective monitoring….
Focuses on the considerations and decisions necessary as a project is first being considered.
NOT a “how-to” manual of protocols
Online, interactive version
Currently being used to develop monitoring plans in MT, CO, WY, UT and tribes
Target AudienceTarget Audience
State Environmental AgenciesState Environmental Agencies
Conservation GroupsConservation Groups
Land Management AgenciesLand Management Agencies
Citizen Monitoring GroupsCitizen Monitoring Groups
Table of ContentsTable of Contents INTRODUCTIONINTRODUCTION SECTION 1 What is Your Monitoring Objective?SECTION 1 What is Your Monitoring Objective? SECTION 2 Understanding Your Pollutant and Your Natural SECTION 2 Understanding Your Pollutant and Your Natural
SystemSystem SECTION 3 Consider the ScaleSECTION 3 Consider the Scale SECTION 4 Monitoring versus Modeling: Different Approaches SECTION 4 Monitoring versus Modeling: Different Approaches
to to Detecting ImpactsDetecting Impacts SECTION 5 Choosing the Best Monitoring DesignSECTION 5 Choosing the Best Monitoring Design SECTION 6 Site Specific ConsiderationsSECTION 6 Site Specific Considerations SECTION 7 ProtocolsSECTION 7 Protocols SECTION 8 Quality Assurance and Quality ControlSECTION 8 Quality Assurance and Quality Control SECTION 9 Data ManagementSECTION 9 Data Management SECTION 10 Analysis of DataSECTION 10 Analysis of Data SECTION 11 Interpreting and Using the DataSECTION 11 Interpreting and Using the Data REFERENCESREFERENCES APPENDIX A-C: DEFINITIONS & RESOURCESAPPENDIX A-C: DEFINITIONS & RESOURCES
Additional Resources - Additional Resources - ToolsTools
Check list Check list identify KEY components of a monitoring identify KEY components of a monitoring
programprogram
Decision TreeDecision Tree non- linear process – very interactivenon- linear process – very interactive
Web Version of the Guidance Document: Web Version of the Guidance Document:
(Under Development)(Under Development) active links to the information and references active links to the information and references
in the Guidance Documentin the Guidance Document
Check List
► Method to help identify KEY components that need to be considered
► Takes one through the thought process.
Decision Tree
► Identifies KEY components
► Shows links between components
► Links to information in the Guidance doc
► Non – linear!!
Next StepsNext Steps Finalizing documentFinalizing document
Available as a document & online as pdfAvailable as a document & online as pdfNorthern Plains and Mountains Website Northern Plains and Mountains Website
http://region8water.colostate.edu/
Developing web versionDeveloping web versionLinks to “key” informationLinks to “key” information modelsmodels websiteswebsites water quality standardswater quality standards
Using in watershed WQ monitoring programsUsing in watershed WQ monitoring programs
Getting and incorporating feedback Getting and incorporating feedback
Additional ConclusionsAdditional Conclusions Formal USDA Program files are imperfect guide to actual
BMP implementation & maintenance
Fieldwork can generate important insights into water-quality relevant behaviors
More accurate behavioral component of models
Understanding barriers to implementation & maintenance
Face to Face Contact = particularly useful
Takes time & money
Future ActionsFuture Actions
Assistance with Watershed Assistance with Watershed Coordinators in developing effective Coordinators in developing effective monitoring plans;monitoring plans;
Application of many of the lessons Application of many of the lessons learned on a Utah watershed projectlearned on a Utah watershed project
Evaluation of effectiveness of Utah’s Evaluation of effectiveness of Utah’s NPS program.NPS program.
QUESTIONS?QUESTIONS?
CONTACT INFO:
[email protected]@usu.edu
This research is supported by CSREES CEAP Competitive Watershed Grant UTAW-2004-05671