Utilizing SWAT to Enhance Stakeholder-based Watershed

Utilizing SWAT to Enhance Stakeholder-based Watershed

Protection Planning

North Central TexasWater Quality Project

Clint WolfeProject Coordinator

Texas AgriLife Urban Solutions Center - DallasThe Texas A&M University System

http://www.trwd.com/prod/index.asp�


• Proactive approach to solving water quality issues opposed to regulatory action through a TMDL (Total Maximum Daily Load)

• Trend of increasing Chlorophyll a levels in Cedar Creek Reservoir• Listing on the 303 (d) Water Quality list for impairments

Developing a Watershed Plan


• People and organizations that have a stake in the outcome of the watershed protection plan

– General Public– Municipalities and Counties– Resource Managers– Agriculture– Environmental– Developers– Landowners– State and Federal Agencies

Who is a Stakeholder


• Balanced representation from the varying “interest” groups• Manageable size for decision-making purposes• All stakeholders provide input

Stakeholder Group Composition


• Participate in the analysis of problems• Contribute ideas to the creation and implementation of the WPP

– Evaluate options for managing pollutants as outlined by research team– Suggest alternative management measures for your watershed– Integrate existing programs or plans into the WPP– Provide input on various components of the WPP

Stakeholder Roles


• Not 100% accurate• Explain the Model Limitations• Talk About Input Data and Where it was Obtained• Explain Its Not a Weather Model – Does Not Predict the Future

Helping Stakeholders Understand SWAT

Upland Processes

SWAT Watershed System

Channel/Flood PlainProcesses


• Land Use/Land Cover• Fertilization Rates• Crops Grown• Livestock Numbers and Types• Areas with Septic Systems• Changing Land Use• Currently Implemented Practices

Engage Stakeholders – Data Input


• Keep it Simple yet Informative• Don’t Overwhelm Stakeholders with “Extra” Information• Utilize Graphs and Charts

Presenting SWAT Data Output


Cedar CreekWatershed• Landuse


LandUse

Urban6.39%

Rangeland1.07%

Forest15.48%

Pasture63.52%

Cropland6.17%Water

5.54%

Wetland1.84%

Cedar Creek

Kings Creek

All other creeks

Total Area: 2612.052 Sq. KM

27.74%

33.65%

38.60%


Cedar CreekWatershed• Point Source Discharges

–Terrell–Willis Point–Kaufman–Kemp–Mabank–Eustace–Athens–East Cedar Creek–Cherokee Shores

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Calibration 15% 25% 35% 50% 65%

ug/L

A A A


Chl'a' Segment 4: Reduction in SWAT *NPS File Loading – Median and Percentiles (91-01)


Nine Elements of Watershed Protection Plans

1. Identify the sources and causes of pollution2. Estimate the necessary load reductions3. Describe Point Source and Non-Point source

management measures4. Assess the technical and financial assistance needed 5. Design an informational/ educational component6. Develop a schedule of implementation7. Set interim measurable milestones for progress8. Establish criteria to determine load reductions9. Create a monitoring component


Element 1: Identify Causes of Concern• Point Source Pollution

– Wastewater Treatment Plant Discharges– Industrial Discharges– Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO)

• Non-Point Source Pollution– Stormwater– Agricultural Run-off– Sediment– Nutrients– Toxic chemicals


Element 1: Identify Causes of Concern

• Pollution loads and sources were identified by Tarrant Regional Water District and the Texas A&M University Spatial Sciences Laboratory using the following techniques:

Modeling:– SWAT Modeling- Watersheds– WASP Modeling- Reservoirs– QUAL2E- Streams


Total P

Urban13.29%

Rangeland0.10%

Channel9.14%

WWTP12.11%

Forest0.22%Pasture

22.57%

Cropland42.52%

Wetland0.03%

87% reaches lakeTotal Phosphorus: 0.75 lbs/acre/year

LandCoverTotal P

(lbs/acre)Cropland 2.57Forest 0.01Pasture 0.13Rangeland 0.04Urban 0.78Wetland 0.01


Element 2: Estimate Load Reductions

Load Reductions based on:• SWAT model outputs• Effectiveness of Best Management Practices (BMP)

tied to land use and changes


Element 3: Nonpoint Source ManagementBest Management Practices Implementation

• Structural • Behavioral


Element 3: Point Source Management

• Infrastructure upgrades to WWTP’s• Permitting programs• Stormwater development planning


Selection and Prioritization of Best Management Practices

Targeting Sub-basins


• 6% of the Watershed – 40% of Total Sediment Yield– 23% of Total Nitrogen Yield– 42% of Total Phosphorus Yield

• Cropland Erosion rate is 5.35 mt/ac/yr– Equivalent to .8 to 1.1 mm of topsoil per year

Cropland


Cropland BMP’s

• Filter Strips• Contour Farming• Terracing• Grassed Waterways• Crop Residue Management• Cropland Conversion to Pasture• Fertilizer/ Nutrient Management


Sub-basins With More Than 10% Cropland Area


Sub-basins With Cropland Having Slopes >2%


• 62% of the Watershed – 16% of Total Sediment Yield– 44% of Total Nitrogen Yield– 23% of Total Phosphorus Yield

Pasture and Rangeland


Pasture and Rangeland BMP’s• Prescribed Grazing• Fencing• Water Facility• Fertilizer/ Nutrient Management• Pasture Planting• Range Planting• Grassed Waterway• Riparian Buffer strips


Sub-basins With More Than 75% Pasture Area


• 751 km of channels in the watershed – 35% of Total Sediment Yield– 5.5% of Total Nitrogen Yield– 9% of Total Phosphorus Yield

Channels


• Riparian Buffers• Channel Stabilization• Shoreline Protection• On and Off Channel Water and Sedimentation Control

Basins

Channel BMPs


Channel Erosion


• Total Area 2612.052 Sq. km– Pasture 63.52%– Rangeland 1.07%– Urban 6.39%– Water 5.54%– Wetlands 1.84%– Cropland 6.17%– Forest 15.48%

Watershed


Watershed BMP’s

• Wetlands• Grade Stabilization• Urban Nutrient Management


Distribution of Urban Land Cover

Documents

Utilizing SWAT to Enhance Stakeholder-based Watershed