Adem.alabama.gov Incorporating NPS Intensive Surveys into ADEM’s Monitoring Strategy Southeastern Water Pollution Biologists’ Association Meeting Lake.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Lawyer Creek Steelhead Trout Habitat Improvement Project presented by: Lewis Soil Conservation District.

Advertisements

Information Needs for the Integrated F&W Program (ESA and Power Act) Jim Geiselman - BPA.

Restore McComas Meadows /Meadow Creek Watershed Project # Restore McComas Meadows/ Meadow Creek Watershed Project # Nez Perce Tribe Fisheries.

Biological Response of Two North Central PA Streams After Flood of September 2011 Fred Rogers CWI, Supervisor Dr. Mel Zimmerman Introduction: Within Pennsylvania,

Effects of Land Use and Associated Factors On Biological Communities of Small Streams in the Illinois River Basin of Arkansas by James C. Petersen, Billy.

What’s Mud Got to Do With It? Stephen J. Klaine, Ph.D. Department of Biological Sciences Clemson University

Utilization of Remotely Sensed Data for Targeting and Evaluating Implementation of Best Management Practices within the Wister Lake Watershed, Oklahoma.

Assessment of Utah’s Nonpoint Source control program Nancy Mesner, Doug Jackson-Smith, Phaedra Budy, David Stevens Lorien Belton, Nira Salant, William.

Nelly Smith EPA Region 6. - Develop or revise bacteria reduction program for consistency with new TMDL requirements and allocations - Develop or revise.

Nutrient Trading Framework in the Coosa Basin Alabama Water Resources Conference September 6, 2012 A Feasibility Study of Nutrient Trading in Support of.

Stream Monitoring in Loudoun County David Ward, Water Resources Engineer Department of Building and Development, Department of Building and Development,

Clearwater River Habitat/Bioassessment

Cahaba River Watershed

Developing Modeling Tools in Support of Nutrient Reduction Policies Randy Mentz Adam Freihoefer, Trip Hook, & Theresa Nelson Water Quality Modeling Technical.

Potential Project Evaluation and Prioritization Indian and Howard’s Creeks Local Watershed Plan April 23, 2009.

Chesapeake Bay Program Monitoring Activities and Monitoring Network Design Chesapeake Bay Program Monitoring Activities and Monitoring Network Design Stephen.

Restoration of Chamberlain Creek Amy Clinefelter Riparian Wetland Research Program Restoration of Chamberlain Creek Amy Clinefelter Riparian Wetland Research.

Water Quality Monitoring The Role of the Clean Water Act.

Alabama’s Water Quality Assessment and Listing Methodology ADEM QA Workshop February 13, 2006.

Monitoring Design, Available Data, and Filling Data Gaps for Determining Whether Shale Gas Development Activities Contaminate Surface Water or Groundwater.

Anne Wynn Ecosystems Investigations Program Geological Survey of Alabama Application of the Strategic Habitat Unit (SHU) Model in North River.

Evaluation of Macroinvertebrate Assemblages in the Marcellus Shale Region of the Susquehanna River Basin, Luanne Steffy Susquehanna River Basin.

ORD’s Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) Sound Science for Measuring Ecological Condition

Hydrosapiens GIV eSAT of Vermont: Water Group 2013 Ben DeJong, Nina Brundage, Caitlin Beaudet, Julie Rickner, Mariah Ollive, Hannah VanGuilder, Heather.

GIS Tools for Watershed Delineation Public Policy Perspectives Teaching Public Policy in the Earth Sciences April 21, 2006 Gary Coutu Department of Geography.

Probabilistic Monitoring of Streams Below Small Impoundments in Tennessee Debbie Arnwine Water Pollution Control

Site Classification for Re-calibration of the Alabama Index of Stream Macroinvertebrate Condition Ben Jessup and Jen Stamp Tetra Tech, Inc. SWPBA November.

The Cahaba River Watershed Nutrient TMDL 2006 National Monitoring Conference San Jose, CA 2006 National Monitoring Conference San Jose, CA Presented by:

Name of presenter Date of presentation.  To help preserve and protect Wisconsin’s over 15,000 lakes and 86,000 miles of rivers.

The Non-tidal Water Quality Monitoring Network: past, present and future opportunities Katie Foreman Water Quality Analyst, UMCES-CBPO MASC Non-tidal Water.

Ghost River & Waiparous Creek in Waiparous Village on June 21, 2007.

Lessons Learned from BMP evaluation studies in the nontidal streams and river in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Katie Foreman University of Maryland Center.

Development of a Southeastern Reference Stream Monitoring Network Debbie Arnwine Water Resources, TDEC

Redwood River TMDL Critique David De Paz, Alana Bartolai, Lydia Karlheim.

Timeline Impaired for turbidity on Minnesota’s list of impaired waters (2004) MPCA must complete a study to determine the total maximum daily load (TMDL)

Rough Draft Biennial Report Spokane River and Lake Spokane Dissolved Oxygen TMDL.

Price Creek Watershed Project A joint project of the Iowa & Benton County Soil and Water Conservation Districts IOWATER Meeting – November 13, 2007.

Nonpoint Source Success Stories: Linking Projects with Water Quality Improvement Steve Epting, ORISE Fellow US EPA – Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds.

Deep River-Portage Burns Watershed TMDL Stakeholder Meeting March 13, 2013.

Reducing Nutrient Loads from the Opequon Creek Watershed Project Team Meeting Oct 19, 2007 Chesapeake Bay Targeted Watersheds Grant Program.

Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for low gradient streams) for species richness, composition and pollution tolerance, as well as a composite benthic macroinvertebrate.

Volunteer-collected data can provide important baseline information to assist with decision making and improve watershed management. In this study, data.

Adem.alabama.gov ADEM’s Monitoring Summary Reports Alabama – Tombigbee CWP Stakeholders Meeting Montgomery, Alabama 3 February 2010 Lisa Huff – ADEM Field.

Lake Independence Phosphorus TMDL Critique Stephanie Koerner & Zach Tauer BBE 4535 Fall 2011.

Comparison of Benthic Invertebrate Communities Upstream and Downstream of Proposed Culvert Installations in Alabama Amy C. Gill USGS, Alabama Water Science.

Lessons Learned from BMP evaluation studies in the nontidal streams and river in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Katie Foreman University of Maryland Center.

Water Quality Monitoring and Parameter Load Estimations in L’Anguille River Watershed and Deep Bayou Presented by: Dan DeVun, Equilibrium

Nutrient and Sediment Loading in Sougahatchee Creek and the Impacts on Aquatic Biota Report submitted to West Point Stevens and the Cities of Auburn and.

Snapshot Event Monitoring Results for the Clackamas River Watershed Presented by PSU SWRP Summer Capstone August

The Lake Okeechobee Protection Plan Evaluation Update, 2007 The Lake Okeechobee Protection Plan Evaluation Update February 8, 2007.

K aren Worcester Staff Environmental Scientist with thanks to M. Thomas, D. Paradies, L. Harlan, and P. Meertens California Central Coast Regional Water.

Detecting Ecological Effects of Development in the Wappingers and Fishkill Watersheds Karin Limburg, Karen Stainbrook, Bongghi Hong SUNY College of Environmental.

STREAM MONITORING CASE STUDY. Agenda  Monitoring Requirements  TMDL Requirements  OCEA Initial Monitoring Program  Selection of Parameters  Data.

Water Quality Monitoring on Larkin Creek St. Francis County, AR JL Bouldin RA Warby Arkansas State University.

Land Uses & Water Pollution Sources By Joan Schumaker Chadde, Western U.P. Center for Science, Mathematics and Environmental Education. All photos by Chadde,

The National Monitoring Network: Monitoring & Management of Alabama Rivers Fred Leslie Alabama Dept of Environmental Management National Monitoring Conference.

The Bear Creek Watershed Association protects & restores water & environmental quality within the Bear Creek Watershed from the effects of land use. Bear.

Think about answering the questions: Who? What? Where? When? Why? How? Before your volunteers begin collecting data.

Modeling Fecal Bacteria Fate and Transport to Address Pathogen Impairments in the United States Brian Benham Extension Specialist and Associate Professor,

For EBTJV meeting October 26, 2010 Executive Order Strategy for Protecting and Restoring the Chesapeake Bay Watershed.

St. Johns County Water Quality Program Update March 15,

Impacts of Livestock Waste on Surface Water Quality By the North Dakota Department of Health Division of Water Quality For the Livestock Manure Nutrient.

Aquatic Resource Monitoring Overview Anthony (Tony) R. Olsen USEPA NHEERL Western Ecology Division Corvallis, Oregon (541)

EVALUATING STREAM COMPENSATION PERFORMANCE: Overcoming the Data Deficit Through Standardized Study Design Kenton L. Sena (EPA VSFS Intern), Joe Morgan,

Watershed Management Plan Summary of 2014 Activities/Progress Presented by: Matthew Bennett, MS December 2014.

Fish and Watershed Restoration Efforts in the Ninemile Drainage: Potential, Progress, and Opportunity Clark Fork R.

Watershed Restoration on the Lolo NF Benefits for the Clark Fork Watershed Taylor Greenup, Hydrologist, Lolo National Forest Jennifer Mickelson,

Larkin Creek Phase II Project

Henrico County Stream Assessment / Watershed Management Program

Public Meeting February 19, 2009

Presentation transcript:

adem.alabama.gov Incorporating NPS Intensive Surveys into ADEM’s Monitoring Strategy Southeastern Water Pollution Biologists’ Association Meeting Lake Guntersville, Alabama 15 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

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

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 Surveys 2007 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 Surveys Before 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 Surveys Before 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 Characteristics NLCD % Landuse Open water<1 WetlandTotal25 ForestTotal5233 Deciduous29 Evergreen62 Mixed172 Other grasses/Shrub/scrub16 Pasture/hay2838 Cultivated crops108 Development 410 Barren/Mining/Transitional31 ADEM’s NPS Intensive Watershed Surveys

Before 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-BMP Robinson 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 acres of forest riparian buffers were planted

ADEM’s NPS Intensive Watershed Surveys: Paired watershed?

ADEM’s NPS Intensive Watershed Surveys: Pre-BMP Tributary to Robinson Creek, looking towards Robinson Creek, in February of 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 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 MCDL-360HERM-1CSPJ-70MFBN-5RTFL Habitat Parameters (% Maximum Score) Sedimentation Riparian Buffer Zone # EPT Families # EPT Genera Water quality Minimum Flow (cfs) <0.10.6<0.1 Maximum Flow (cfs) Dissolved oxygen (mg/L) Median NO3+NO2-N (mg/L) Median Total phosphorus (mg/L)

ADEM’s NPS Intensive Watershed Survey Results

ADEM’s 2009 NPS Intensive Watershed Surveys: Robinson Creek

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?

Food for Thought We measure impairment in miles and improvement in feet 303d/TMDL waters on mainstem Best “success” seen in watersheds <3 mi 2

Food for Thought Prioritize watersheds for project implementation? Strategic habitat units? More cost-effective to prevent impairment than to fix it? Healthy watersheds initiative?