1 Jan 2000K. Sullivan Monitoring for Non-Point Source Pollution --Perspectives From the Field-- Kate Sullivan Sustainable Ecosystems Institute

2 Jan 2000K. Sullivan Why are we talking about monitoring? u Government Perspective –Fundamental element of TMDL’s and HCP’s –High expectations for data and design –Sounds like its easy to do u Landowner Perspective –State responsibility –Two-edged sword –Extremely expensive

3 Jan 2000K. Sullivan My Perspective on Monitoring u Far too little knowledge about system performance has been generated for the money and time spent on monitoring in the past 30 years u It is very hard to develop and manage coordinated, informative monitoring programs u Approach driven by TMDL’s and HCP’s will potentially make the problem worse, not better u National scale programs will not help develop the kind of knowledge we need to guide State-based BMP systems

4 Jan 2000K. Sullivan What a monitoring program must consider u Performing the job: –Managing design and data –Managing organization(s) –Long-term commitment of financial resources u Reporting –Who cares? u Learning –Putting together information in a way that leads to conclusions about performance u Using information in decision-making

5 Jan 2000K. Sullivan Challenges to Monitoring Programs u Linking responsibility to landowners u Linking information to management practices u Accounting for watershed variability u Learning from monitoring u Linking information to decision-making

6 Jan 2000K. Sullivan What we would like to establish u Compliance –Did we do what we said we would do? u Effectiveness of practices –Did it solve or prevent the problems it was designed to address? u Resource status and trends –Did preventing or solving these problems translate to protection or improvement in resources of concern?

7 Jan 2000K. Sullivan Accounting for watershed variability u Watershed complexity has been well established by Watershed Analysis –Multiple watershed processes –Scale –Spatial variability in sensitivity –Temporal variability in driving processes u This makes comprehensive monitoring of system very difficult –replication –detection –cause and effect linkages

8 Jan 2000K. Sullivan Comparison of Point and Non-Point Sources

9 Jan 2000K. Sullivan What does NMFS’ ManTech Report suggest? u sample sites within each stream type (6) in your watershed = sampling locations u Random sample design –for 3 years, select 200 stream sites each year –after 5 years, start re-sampling u Reference sites to compare to u Participation in multi-State regional sampling program –Standard protocols –Training, QA/QC u Measure many things:

10 Jan 2000K. Sullivan Scientific Standards May Be Excessive u Scientists make the methodology hurtles very high / Replication / Randomness, etc. / Traditional statistical approach u Agencies are extremely risk averse 95% Confidence How about 80-90%?

11 Jan 2000K. Sullivan Linking responsibility to landowners u Potential problems –Mixed ownership –Legacies from past practices conducted over the past 100 years u Commitment of resources and keeping momentum –Getting going is difficult! »Setting up plans »Coordinating among various stakeholders »Designing credible, durable program

12 Jan 2000K. Sullivan Learning from Monitoring Like other scientific endeavors, monitoring should be based on HYPOTHESES of cause and effect linkages

13 Jan 2000K. Sullivan Cause and Effect Linkages Management Practices u Standard forest practice rules guide riparian area silvicultural practices…….. that influence recruitment of …….. functional large woody debris…... that controls channel conditions... that provide habitat ………. that supports harvestable levels of fish. Management System Watershed Processes Input Factor Channel Conditions Habitat / Water Qual Beneficial Uses

14 Jan 2000K. Sullivan Learning from Monitoring--Scientific Problems u Poorly articulated relationships between disturbing agents and channel response »failure to measure crucial variables while measuring many non-essential variables u Lack of understanding leading to inappropriate methods and blindness to linkages u Measuring at wrong scales »boundaries too small, boundaries too large »unrecognized process or event intervenes between the measured independent variable (e.g.. logging) and the system response (e.g. fine sediment loading in the channel) »If causal pathways aren’t fully delineated monitoring will often not detect or understand why the system changed as it did

15 Jan 2000K. Sullivan Learning from Monitoring u Measurements not taken at appropriate time scales –Most processes do not proceed at a steady rate through time –More common for long periods of boredom interspersed with short bursts of terror »like war or evolution –Measurements should be tailored to seasonal or hydrologically-mediated rhythms of processes: »more frequent when variables change fast or non-linearly »less frequent when variables change slow, linearly, or in a predictable fashion

16 Jan 2000K. Sullivan Learning from Monitoring u Practical problems –Timeframes are generally slow and data is generally ambiguous –Data piles up without analysis –When do we act? –When can we turn this thing off?

17 Jan 2000K. Sullivan Elements of “Smart” Monitoring u Monitoring designed to test hypotheses about the key linkages of causes to effects in watersheds –all crucial steps in chains of cause and effects examined –periodic re-working of hypotheses in light of new information –test with new data u Spatial mapping of key elements and processes in specific watersheds with an eye to developing the necessary hypotheses that predict relationships of variables that can be monitored more quickly over broader spatial scales

18 Jan 2000K. Sullivan Elements of “Smart” Monitoring u Interpretation of cause and effect linkages must be made locally and recognize “situations” u What is achieved depends on where on your are today u Example: Prescription is to leave 100 ft no-touch buffer along streams to achieve large conifer Riparian Stand Type Outcome Hypothesis Mature Conifer Success should achieve Mixed Conifer/Hardwood Mixed results would achieve in some locations Hardwood Failure should not achieve

19 Jan 2000K. Sullivan General Conclusions on TMDL Monitoring u Many Pitfalls –Complexities in application of management system/practices –Complex interactions among practices and watershed processes –Land ownership patterns –Legacies from past (legal) activities –Scale –Learning vs. measuring –Linkage to decision-system u Where is realistic guidance coming from?

20 Jan 2000K. Sullivan Watershed Analysis as a basis for monitoring u Watershed Analysis encourages information generation –Information is part of decision-making u Where watershed analysis has been done we know something about »Status of public resources »Cause and effect linkages between management practices, watershed processes and habitat conditions »Appropriate prescriptions tailored to landscape sensitivities

21 Jan 2000K. Sullivan Washington TFW Statewide Monitoring Program Monitoring is not:Monitoring is:

22 Jan 2000K. Sullivan Monitoring Program Approach  An example situation that is monitored: “Coarse sediment from past mass wasting in mapped unit 3 associated with roads on unstable slopes is reducing pools in stream segments 1 and 2 and degrading summer rearing habitat.” –Could monitor: Landslide rate Pools Amount of rearing habitat

23 Jan 2000K. Sullivan Goals for Monitoring Program u Utilizes all information efficiently u Learns quickly u Encourages volunteer information as well as core program funded by TFW u Reasonably reliable u Tracks trends in resource status –“State of the state report” u Establishes effectiveness of prescriptions