1. adem.alabama.gov Incorporating NPS Intensive Surveys into ADEM’s Monitoring Strategy Southeastern Water Pollution Biologists’ Association Meeting Lake Guntersville, Alabama 15 November 2012

2. 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.

3. 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

4. ADEM’s NPS Intensive Watershed Surveys  Addressing NPS Issues Waterbody assessment TMDL development Watershed management plan BMP implementation Monitoring

5. 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

6. 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

7. ADEM’s NPS Intensive Watershed Surveys  4 Approaches Compare to ecoregional reference reach(es) Upstream – downstream comparison Before and after surveys Paired watersheds

8. ADEM’s NPS Intensive Watershed Surveys  4 Approaches Compare to ecoregional reference reach(es) Upstream – downstream comparison Before and after surveys Paired watersheds

9. ADEM’s NPS Intensive Watershed Surveys  4 Approaches Compare to ecoregional reference reach(es) Upstream – downstream comparison Before and after surveys Paired watersheds

10. ADEM’s NPS Intensive Watershed Surveys 2007 Upstream – downstream comparisons Upstream stations not flowing  Small watersheds  Severe drought conditions Upstream stations Higher gradient

11. ADEM’s NPS Intensive Watershed Surveys  4 Approaches Compare to ecoregional reference reach(es) Upstream – downstream comparison Before and after surveys Paired watersheds

12. 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

13. 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

14. Table 1. Comparison of watershed characteristics between 1993 and 2006 based on the National Land Cover Datasets (NLCD). Watershed Characteristics NLCD 19932006 % 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

15. 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

16. ADEM’s NPS Intensive Watershed Surveys  4 Approaches Compare to ecoregional reference reach(es) Upstream – downstream comparison Before and after surveys Paired watersheds

17. 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

18. 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 2005-2006 453 acres of forest riparian buffers were planted

19. ADEM’s NPS Intensive Watershed Surveys: Paired watershed?

21. 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.

22. 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.

23. 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)

24. However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results. -Winston Churchill

25. ADEM’s NPS Intensive Watershed Survey Results

26. RBNM-1 MCDL-360HERM-1CSPJ-70MFBN-5RTFL-1 1994-19982009 2003 Habitat Parameters (% Maximum Score) Sedimentation 58705859468677 Riparian Buffer Zone 855048 507325 # EPT Families 5766475 # EPT Genera--- 10974177 Water quality Minimum Flow (cfs) 0.80.60.40.5<0.10.6<0.1 Maximum Flow (cfs) 3.625.961.31954.920.111.8 Dissolved oxygen (mg/L) 1.66.25.15.52.56.37.2 Median NO3+NO2-N (mg/L) 0.6590.5890.5720.3212.1930.2220.32 Median Total phosphorus (mg/L) 0.0810.0380.0760.1560.0310.0320.058

27. ADEM’s NPS Intensive Watershed Survey Results

33. ADEM’s 2009 NPS Intensive Watershed Surveys: Robinson Creek

35. 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

36. 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!

37. Process cannot help where these watersheds are located

38. Could TALU help?

42. 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

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