Incorporating NPS Intensive Surveys into ADEM’s Monitoring Strategy

adem.alabama.gov

Incorporating NPS Intensive Surveys into ADEM’s Monitoring

Strategy

Southeastern Water Pollution Biologists’ Association Meeting

Lake Guntersville, Alabama15 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

Monitoring

Monito

ring

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


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$T

$T $T

%U

%U

#S

#S

#S

#S

#S#S

#S

#S

#S #S#S

#S#S

#S#S

#S

#S

#S

#S

#S

#S

#S

#S

#S

#S

#S

#S

#S

#S

#S

#S

FC-10A

FC-10CCRDM-2

CRDM-3

CRDM-1FC-10B

TE06U1

HERM-1

HERM-2

HERM-3

LAWRENCE

MORGAN

CULLMAN

4

12

9

11

116

7

3

13

15

14

10

5

62

8

County-poly.shpBMPsRoadsStreams and rivers

Usecategories.shp4A Approved TMDL5 Impaired

Delistedwaters.shpPathogensSiltation

$T Stormwater/ Construction %U CAFOs#S Industrial Permits#S Existing Sampling Locations#S BMPs

Crowdabout - Herrin Creek Watersheds

5 0 5 10 Miles

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 Surveys2007 Upstream – downstream

comparisons Upstream stations not flowing

Small watersheds Severe drought conditions

Upstream stations Higher gradient



ADEM’s NPS Intensive Watershed SurveysBefore 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


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 CharacteristicsNLCD 1993 2006% Landuse Open water <1 <1 Wetland Total 2 5 Forest Total 52 33 Deciduous 29 29 Evergreen 6 2 Mixed 17 2 Other grasses/Shrub/scrub 1 6 Pasture/hay 28 38 Cultivated crops 10 8 Development 4 10 Barren/Mining/Transitional 3 1



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 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-BMPRobinson 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

#S

#S#S

RBNM-1 RBNM-2

RBNM-3

Planted Riparian Forest BufferCategory 4a F&W WatersRobinson Creek WatershedRoads

#S Monitoring Stations

2 0 2 4 Miles

N

Alabama

ADEM’s NPS Intensive Watershed Surveys: Paired watershed?

Station Area (mi2)Pop'n

per km2%

Urban%

Pasture%

CroplandRBNM-1 9 51 9 38 7.5

2009 Requested Sampling LocationsFLTL-1 9 62 9 3 1.3ELML-1 19 28 5 40 8.7

MCDL-360 11 18 4 46 6.0HERM-1 6 17 4 53 1.4

Existing Assessment DataMFBN-5 10 65 10 48 3.1RTFL-1 15 24 7 54 3.6

CSPJ-70 9 18 5 28 12.7


Station EcoArea (mi2)

HDG Gradient (ft/0.5 mi)

Q(cfs) Jan-Mar

Q(cfs) Apr-June

Q(cfs) July-Sept

Q(cfs) Oct-Dec

RBNM-1 71G 9 5 3 0.8 0.2 0.0 0.02009 Requested Sampling Locations

FLTL-1 71G 9ELML-1 71G 19

MCDL-360 71G 11 5 8 0.9 0.2 <0.1 <0.1HERM-1 71G 6 5 9 0.5 0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Existing Assessment DataMFBN-5 71G 11 6 9 1.8 0.5 0.1 0.1RTFL-1 71G 15 5 10 2.5 0.6 0.1 0.1

CSPJ-70 71G 10 5 2 1.9 0.8 0.6 0.3

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.


Trib to Robinson Creek, Looking toward Robinson Creek, with riparian forest buffer, in April of 2011.

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 RBNM-1 MCDL-360 HERM-1 CSPJ-70 MFBN-5 RTFL-11994-1998 2009 2009 2009 2003 2003 2003

Habitat Parameters (% Maximum Score)Sedimentation 58 70 58 59 46 86 77

Riparian Buffer Zone 85 50 48 48 50 73 25# EPT Families 5 7 6 6 4 7 5# EPT Genera --- 10 9 7 4 17 7Water quality

Minimum Flow (cfs) 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.5 <0.1 0.6 <0.1Maximum Flow (cfs) 3.6 25.9 61.3 19 54.9 20.1 11.8

Dissolved oxygen (mg/L) 1.6 6.2 5.1 5.5 2.5 6.3 7.2Median NO3+NO2-N (mg/L) 0.659 0.589 0.572 0.321 2.193 0.222 0.32

Median Total phosphorus (mg/L) 0.081 0.038 0.076 0.156 0.031 0.032 0.058

ADEM’s NPS Intensive Watershed Survey Results RBNM-1 RBNM-1 MCDL-360 HERM-1 CSPJ-70 MFBN-5 RTFL-1

1994-1998 2009 2009 2009 2003 2003 2003

Habitat Parameters (% Maximum Score)

Sedimentation 58 70 58 59 46 86 77

Riparian Buffer Zone 85 50 48 48 50 73 25

# EPT Families 5 7 6 6 4 7 5

# EPT Genera --- 10 9 7 4 17 7

Water quality

Minimum Flow (cfs) 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.5 <0.1 0.6 <0.1

Maximum Flow (cfs) 3.6 25.9 61.3 19 54.9 20.1 11.8

Dissolved oxygen (mg/L) 1.6 6.2 5.1 5.5 2.5 6.3 7.2

Median NO3+NO2-N (mg/L) 0.659 0.589 0.572 0.321 2.193 0.222 0.32






Minimum Flow (cfs) 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.5 <0.1 0.6 <0.1Maximum Flow (cfs) 3.6 25.9 61.3 19 54.9 20.1 11.8




























0

3

6

9

12

15

18

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

# EP

T Ge

nera

Human Disturbance Gradient

# EPT Genera

ADEM’s 2009 NPS Intensive Watershed Surveys: Robinson Creek

RBNM-1 MCDL-360 HERM-1 CSPJ-70 MFBN-5 RTFL-1Date (m/d/yyyy) 6/2/2009 6/30/2009 6/2/2009 5/26/1998 4/30/2003 6/23/2003Width (ft) 15 12 12 25 20 7Canopy Cover Shaded Mostly shaded Mostly shaded Mostly open Mostly shaded OpenDepth (ft)

Riffle 0.3 0.3 0.2Run 1.5 1.0 0.8 2 0.6 0.5Pool 2.5 1.5 1.5 2.5 1.5 1.5

% of ReachRiffle 5 --- 30 20

Run 50 75 85 --- 45 40Pool 50 20 15 --- 25 40

% of SubstrateBedrock 30 2 80Boulder 20 1 1 10 1Cobble 15 2 3 40Gravel 10 5 15 1 2 40

Clay 10 75 2 2Mud/muck 0 0 1

Sand 10 5 60 75 5Silt 2 5 10 15 12

Organic Matter 3 5 13 8 2 2

Physical Characteristics

ADEM’s 2009 NPS Intensive Watershed Surveys: Robinson Creek

RBNM-1 MCDL-360 HERM-1 CSPJ-70 MFBN-5 RTFL-1Date (m/d/yyyy) 6/2/2009 6/30/2009 6/2/2009 5/26/1998 4/30/2003 6/23/2003Width (ft) 15 12 12 25 20 7Canopy Cover Shaded Mostly shaded Mostly shaded Mostly open Mostly shaded OpenDepth (ft)

Riffle 0.3 0.3 0.2Run 1.5 1.0 0.8 2 0.6 0.5Pool 2.5 1.5 1.5 2.5 1.5 1.5

% of ReachRiffle 5 --- 30 20

Run 50 75 85 --- 45 40Pool 50 20 15 --- 25 40

% of SubstrateBedrock 30 2 80Boulder 20 1 1 10 1Cobble 15 2 3 40Gravel 10 5 15 1 2 40

Clay 10 75 2 2Mud/muck 0 0 1

Sand 10 5 60 75 5Silt 2 5 10 15 12

Organic Matter 3 5 13 8 2 2

Physical Characteristics

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?

Could TALU help?

Could TALU help?

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 mi2

#S

#S#S

RBNM-1 RBNM-2

RBNM-3

Planted Riparian Forest BufferCategory 4a F&W WatersRobinson Creek WatershedRoads

#S Monitoring Stations

2 0 2 4 Miles

N

Alabama

Food for Thought• Prioritize watersheds for project implementation?

• Strategic habitat units?

• More cost-effective to prevent impairment than to fix it?• Healthy watersheds initiative?

Incorporating NPS Intensive Surveys into ADEM’s Monitoring Strategy

Documents

nps watershed surveys

nps surveys

nps projects

water quality conditionsto

paired watershed approach

biological data

baseline data

biological conditions