The effectiveness The effectiveness of conservation of conservation

efforts in the Little efforts in the Little Bear River Bear River WatershedWatershed

Douglas Jackson-Smith: Douglas Jackson-Smith: SSWA SSWA Dept, USU Dept, USU

Nancy Mesner: Nancy Mesner: WATS Dept, USUWATS Dept, USU

David Stevens, Jeff Horsburgh, Darwin David Stevens, Jeff Horsburgh, Darwin SorensenSorensen: CEE Dept, USU: CEE Dept, USU

OverviewOverview

Background Analysis of Existing WQ Data Implementation & Maintenance Study Alternative Approaches – Riparian Study Targeting Critical Areas Common BMP Monitoring Problems Rethinking Monitoring

USDA’s Conservation Effectiveness Assessment USDA’s Conservation Effectiveness Assessment ProjectsProjects

National AssessmentNational AssessmentWatershed StudiesWatershed StudiesBibliographies and Lit ReviewsBibliographies and Lit Reviews

CEAP Program CEAP Program ObjectivesObjectives

Determine whether publicly-funded programs to reduce phosphorus loadings from nonpoint sources into surface waters in the Little Bear River watershed are effective;

Examine the strengths and weaknesses of different water quality monitoring programs; and

Make recommendations to stakeholders to ensure that future agricultural management efforts are targeted towards the most effective and socioeconomically viable BMPs.

USU Project OverviewUSU Project Overview Original LBR watershed project (~1990-2002)

Funds from HUA; EPA 319; EQIP

USU Conservation Effects Assessment Program (CEAP) Grant – 2005-2009 Assess effects of historical conservation practices Review historical data Map practices and their implementation Model watershed and stream response Outreach and education Establish water quality monitoring network

Little Bear

Watershed

Little Bear River Hydrologic Unit Project

Pre-treatment problems: Bank erosion, manure management, flood irrigation problems

Treatments: bank stabilization, river reach restoration, off-stream watering, manure and water management, grazing management

Analysis of Historic Analysis of Historic Water Quality Water Quality

TrendsTrends

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Date

Tota

l Pho

spho

rus,

mg/

L

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Seasonal Kendall Trend for TP Seasonal Kendall Trend for TP concentration at Mendon Rd (mouth concentration at Mendon Rd (mouth

of LBR).of LBR).

Slope -0.0043 mg/L yr

Since 1992

No Significant slope before

1990

Flow data may drag down Flow data may drag down ‘post’ estimates‘post’ estimates

Ambient Monitoring DataAmbient Monitoring DataLittle Bear at ParadiseLittle Bear at Paradise

Moist

Dry Dry‘Norma

l’Cons

Projects

OBSERVATIONSOBSERVATIONS

Trends suggest water quality Trends suggest water quality improvementsimprovements

Data Record Insufficient to Data Record Insufficient to Tease out Exogenous Variables – Tease out Exogenous Variables –

project coincided with changes in project coincided with changes in background climate conditionsbackground climate conditions

Link Trends to BMP ImplementationLink Trends to BMP Implementation Support Traditional Modeling Support Traditional Modeling

ApproachesApproaches

Implementation Implementation and Maintenance of and Maintenance of

BMPsBMPs

BEHAVIOR

Socioeconomic Socioeconomic ComponentComponent

IIMMPPLLEEMMEENNTTAATT IIOONN

PROGRAM SIGNUP

CONTRACTED

BMPS

MMAAIINNTTEENNAANNCCEE

WATER QUALITY

Socioeconomic MethodsSocioeconomic Methods Gather formal practice infoGather formal practice info from NRCS from NRCS

filesfiles Went through every file – Went through every file – 90 landowners90 landowners Create master list of practices (Create master list of practices (871 total871 total)) Copied key maps for interviewsCopied key maps for interviews

Conduct field interviewsConduct field interviews with participants with participants Validate file informationValidate file information Contacted 70 of 90 participantsContacted 70 of 90 participants

55 agreed to be interviewed 55 agreed to be interviewed 61% of all landowners; 79% of those we contacted61% of all landowners; 79% of those we contacted

Conducted field interviews - ~90 minutesConducted field interviews - ~90 minutes Detailed discussoin about BMP experienceDetailed discussoin about BMP experience

Findings - Findings - ImplementationImplementation

Individual BMPsIndividual BMPs 83% of BMPs successfully implemented83% of BMPs successfully implemented Reasons for non-implementation (17%)Reasons for non-implementation (17%)

Some cases – not recognized as contracted BMPSome cases – not recognized as contracted BMP Many – management practices that did not Many – management practices that did not

change behavior (based on interview discussion)change behavior (based on interview discussion)

Farm-LevelFarm-Level 32% farms implemented all BMPs32% farms implemented all BMPs 60% farms implemented more than ½ 60% farms implemented more than ½

Maintenance of BMPsMaintenance of BMPs

Is it still there? If not, why not?Is it still there? If not, why not? Overall – Overall –

21% of 21% of implementedimplemented BMPs BMPs notnot still there still there Combined with non-implemented Combined with non-implemented

practices = 1/3 of all originally practices = 1/3 of all originally contracted BMPs not currently therecontracted BMPs not currently there

Why not maintained?Why not maintained? No longer farming or sold land – 32% No longer farming or sold land – 32% Still farming, no longer use – 68%Still farming, no longer use – 68%

BMP Implementation & Maintenance by "Type"

83 83

49

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Structural Planting, Clearing andLeveling

Management

Percent implemented Percent maintainedPercent original BMPs still there

Implications: Implications: MaintenanceMaintenance

Good news: Good news: Producers did not discontinue the practices because they Producers did not discontinue the practices because they

did not like themdid not like them Not so good news: Not so good news:

The management practices had the shortest lifespanThe management practices had the shortest lifespan ALSO: Nonfarm Development and Farm Changes ALSO: Nonfarm Development and Farm Changes

can also affect long term impactscan also affect long term impacts

Implications: Implications: ImplementationImplementation

Management practices are the heart of Management practices are the heart of conservation programsconservation programs Failure to fully implement may have huge Failure to fully implement may have huge

impacts on successimpacts on success Big Question: How can management Big Question: How can management

behaviors be implemented more behaviors be implemented more effectively?effectively?

Analysis of Riparian Analysis of Riparian Area BMPsArea BMPs

Videography Analysis Videography Analysis ComponentComponent

Limitations to WQ monitoring Limitations to WQ monitoring data in 1990sdata in 1990s

Search for alternative indicators Search for alternative indicators of BMP impactof BMP impact

Discussions with colleagues led to Discussions with colleagues led to discovery of 1992 aerial 3-band discovery of 1992 aerial 3-band videography for stretches of LBRvideography for stretches of LBR

Arranged to re-fly the river in Arranged to re-fly the river in 20072007

Analysis StrategyAnalysis Strategy Match images from 1992 and 2007Match images from 1992 and 2007 Classify vegetative conditions for both time Classify vegetative conditions for both time

periods within identical riparian zonesperiods within identical riparian zones Riparian trees Riparian trees Small shrubs & grassesSmall shrubs & grasses Bare soilBare soil Water & ShadowsWater & Shadows

Quantify changes in riparian vegetation and Quantify changes in riparian vegetation and stream geomorphology between 1992-2007stream geomorphology between 1992-2007

Associate presence or absence of ‘riparian-Associate presence or absence of ‘riparian-relevant’ BMPs to these changesrelevant’ BMPs to these changes

‘‘Riparian Area’ Focused Riparian Area’ Focused BMPsBMPs

Stream channel structural BMPsStream channel structural BMPs Clearing & snagging (326)Clearing & snagging (326) Streambank and shoreline protection (580)Streambank and shoreline protection (580)

(13,825’)(13,825’) Stream channel stabilization (584)Stream channel stabilization (584)

Stream access controls for livestockStream access controls for livestock Riparian fencing (5383) – subset of 382Riparian fencing (5383) – subset of 382 Stream crossing (578)Stream crossing (578)

Riparian vegetation BMPsRiparian vegetation BMPs Channel vegetation (322)Channel vegetation (322) Critical area planting (342)Critical area planting (342) Tree/Shrub establishment (612)Tree/Shrub establishment (612)

1992 video images

2007 digital images

1992 Multispectral Mosaic 2007 Multispectral Mosaic

Site: Upstream from Hyrum Dam

Detail

Initial ObservationsInitial Observations

Significant vegetation growthSignificant vegetation growth Trees significantly larger throughout Trees significantly larger throughout

watershedwatershed Significant geomorphologic changes in Significant geomorphologic changes in

main stream channel pathmain stream channel path Moving centerlineMoving centerline New ‘islands’New ‘islands’ Major bank cuts & shifts in some new erosionMajor bank cuts & shifts in some new erosion

BIG QUESTION: Is it because of BIG QUESTION: Is it because of BMPs?BMPs?

1992

2007

1992

2007

STATISTICAL RESULTSSTATISTICAL RESULTS

Calculate area for each of 5 different Calculate area for each of 5 different vegetative classesvegetative classes

PREVIEW: analysis approachPREVIEW: analysis approach Document overall patterns of changeDocument overall patterns of change

Shows the ‘background’ trendsShows the ‘background’ trends Compare changes in “BMP impact zones”Compare changes in “BMP impact zones”

Aggregated riparian-relevant BMPsAggregated riparian-relevant BMPs Individual riparian-relevant BMPsIndividual riparian-relevant BMPs Comparison to Non-BMP areasComparison to Non-BMP areas

Percent of Riparian Zone by Vegetation Type, BMP and Non-BMP Impacted Zones

20%

39%

17%

24%

17%

61%

9%13%15%

53%

15%18%17%

66%

8% 9%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Water/Shadow Riparian Trees Shrubs & Grasses Bare Soil

Pe

rce

nt

of

Rip

ari

an

Zo

ne

BMP areas 1992 BMP areas 2007

Non-BMP areas 1992 Non-BMP areas 2007

Percent Change in Riparian Vegetation by BMP Status, 1992 to 2007

55%

(-46%) (-47%)

25%33%

(-46%) (-48%)(-47%) (-45%)(-60%)

(-40%)

(-20%)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Riparian Trees Shrubs & Grasses Bare Soil

Per

cen

t C

han

ge

1992

-200

7

BMP area NonBMParea Overall

Quick SummaryQuick Summary

Riparian conditions improving throughout Riparian conditions improving throughout watershed (more trees, less exposed soil)watershed (more trees, less exposed soil)

BMPs installed in areas with less BMPs installed in areas with less vegetationvegetation

BMPs associated with much more rapid BMPs associated with much more rapid growth in tree cover, similar rates of growth in tree cover, similar rates of decline in exposed soildecline in exposed soil

Fences = reduced exposed soil mostFences = reduced exposed soil most Instream work = increased trees the mostInstream work = increased trees the most

Targeting Critical Targeting Critical AreasAreas

Idea behind Targeting…Idea behind Targeting…

Growing Recognition of Growing Recognition of Landscape VariabilityLandscape Variability

Research Q: Is there evidence that the Research Q: Is there evidence that the BMPs implemented in LBR specifically BMPs implemented in LBR specifically targeted critical areas?targeted critical areas? Critical AreasCritical Areas: : areas where the areas where the

potential contribution of pollutants (i.e., potential contribution of pollutants (i.e., sediments, phosphorus) to the receiving sediments, phosphorus) to the receiving water is significantly higher than other water is significantly higher than other areasareas

Combined Map of Risk Zones

Description of LBR AreaDescription of LBR Area

Low-influence

km2 (%)Low-riskkm2 (%)

Sub-riskkm2 (%)

Riskkm2 (%)

Totalkm2

LBR Watershed (total) 365 (53%) 225 (33%) 57 (8%) 35 (5%) 682

Farm Field Area 173 (67%) 47 (18%) 20 (8%) 19 (7%) 259

Contracted Farm Field Area 38 (48%) 21(26%) 12(15%) 9(11%) 80

Non-Contract Farm Field Area 135 (75%) 26 (15%) 8 (4%) 10 (6%) 179

Low-Influence Sub-Risk

Low Risk Risk

23%

47 %

62 %

47 %

62%23%CoveredBy BMPs

47% 47%

Implications: Spatial Implications: Spatial AnalysisAnalysis

Evidence exists that higher risk zones were Evidence exists that higher risk zones were targeted with BMPs (not random)targeted with BMPs (not random)

More than ½ of riskiest areas covered by More than ½ of riskiest areas covered by BMPsBMPs

More than 70% of BMPs in zones that are More than 70% of BMPs in zones that are not considered at high risk for runoff not considered at high risk for runoff erosionerosion Suggests opportunity for greater Suggests opportunity for greater

targeting & efficiencytargeting & efficiency Related to structure of programRelated to structure of program

Common Problems Common Problems in BMP Monitoring in BMP Monitoring

ProgramsPrograms

Lessons LearnedLessons Learned: : Common Common problems in BMP monitoring problems in BMP monitoring

programsprograms

• Failure to design monitoring plan around Failure to design monitoring plan around BMP objectives BMP objectives

• Failure to identify and quantify sources of Failure to identify and quantify sources of variability in these dynamic systemsvariability in these dynamic systems..

• FFailure to understand pollutant pathways ailure to understand pollutant pathways and transformations and transformations choosing inappropriate choosing inappropriate monitoring approachesmonitoring approaches

Little Bear River Watershed, Utah

v

1994 11 13 1995 10 13 1996 10 13 1997 11 4 1998 6 10 1999 7 10 2000 6 5 2001 4 7 2002 2 8 2003 4 8 2004 1 8

Total Observations at Watershed Outlet site

Discharge Total phosphorus

1976 - 2004: 162 2411994 - 2004: 72 99

Number of observations each year

Was the original UDWQ monitoring program a failure?

No….Program was intended to detect exceedences of water quality criteria.

The failure was ours…. In attempting to use these monitoring data for detecting change in loads

• Failure to design monitoring plan around Failure to design monitoring plan around BMP objectives BMP objectives

• Failure to identify and quantify sources of Failure to identify and quantify sources of variability in these dynamic systemvariability in these dynamic system..

• A failure to understand pollutant pathways and transformations choosing inappropriate monitoring approaches

“upper watershed site”

“lower watershed site”

Monitoring stationsMonitoring stations

ObservationsDatabase

(ODM)

Base StationComputer(s)

Data ProcessingApplications In

tern

et

Telemetry Network

Environmental Sensors

Data discovery, visualization, analysis, and modeling through

Internet enabled applications

Programmer interaction through web services

Inte

rnet

Workgroup HIS Tools

Workgroup HISServer

Monitoring/data systemMonitoring/data system

Upper Site Flow (cfs) Turbidity (NTU)

• Seasonal and annual variation

• Variation between sites

• Different pathways of pollutants

January – December 2006

Lower Site Flow (cfs) Turbidity (NTU)

Sample DataSample Data

Surrogate monitoring Surrogate monitoring resultsresults

Sources of variability in sampling data

• Relationship of surrogate to target pollutant

• Sampling frequency

• Timing of sampling

• Rare events

• Variability in correlations between turbidity and water quality parameters (TSS and TP)

Turbidity vs TSS at Upper Site

Impact of “rare” events

TSS Load Upper SiteLower Site

Annual (kg) 8.9 X 106 1.4 X 107

Runoff (% of total) 89% 54%

Baseflow (% of total) 11% 46%

Storms (% of baseflow) <1% 16%

• Failure to design monitoring plan around Failure to design monitoring plan around BMP objectives BMP objectives

• Failure to identify and quantify sources of Failure to identify and quantify sources of variability in these dynamic systemvariability in these dynamic system..

• A failure to understand pollutant pathways and transformations choosing inappropriate monitoring approaches

Problem: excess sedimentAverage flow = 20 cfsBMP = series of in-stream sediment basins

Problems with “one-size-fits-all” monitoring Problems with “one-size-fits-all” monitoring designdesign

Rees Creek TSS load

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

45000

50000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

weeks

kg /

day

Above

Below

Problem: excess phosphorusAverage flow = 1000 cfsBMP = fence cattle OUT of riparian area and

revegetate

Bear River phosphorus load

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

weeks

load

(kg

/day

)

Rethinking Rethinking MonitoringMonitoring

Nancy Mesner, Dept of Watershed Sciences Utah State Universitynancy.mesner@usu.edu; 435 797 7541

Ginger Paige, University of Wyoming

University of Wyominggpaige@uwyo.edu; (307) 766-2200

Designing Monitoring Programs to Evaluate BMP Effectiveness

The road to more effective monitoring….

Monitoring plans require careful thought before anything is implemented.

Consider how the data will be used to demonstrate change.

Use your understanding of your watershed and how the pollutants of concern behave to target monitoring most effectively.

Use different approaches for different BMPs.

Keep project goals and objectives in mind when monitoring BMPs

Monitor at an appropriate scale

Keep time lags in mind

Be selective, consider individual situations

Monitor surrogates when appropriate

Control or measure human behaviors / other watershed changes.

The road to more effective monitoring….

Focuses on the considerations and decisions necessary as a project is first being considered.

NOT a “how-to” manual of protocols

Online, interactive version

Currently being used to develop monitoring plans in MT, CO, WY, UT and tribes

Target AudienceTarget Audience

State Environmental AgenciesState Environmental Agencies

Conservation GroupsConservation Groups

Land Management AgenciesLand Management Agencies

Citizen Monitoring GroupsCitizen Monitoring Groups

Table of ContentsTable of Contents INTRODUCTIONINTRODUCTION SECTION 1 What is Your Monitoring Objective?SECTION 1 What is Your Monitoring Objective? SECTION 2 Understanding Your Pollutant and Your Natural SECTION 2 Understanding Your Pollutant and Your Natural

SystemSystem SECTION 3 Consider the ScaleSECTION 3 Consider the Scale SECTION 4 Monitoring versus Modeling: Different Approaches SECTION 4 Monitoring versus Modeling: Different Approaches

to to Detecting ImpactsDetecting Impacts SECTION 5 Choosing the Best Monitoring DesignSECTION 5 Choosing the Best Monitoring Design SECTION 6 Site Specific ConsiderationsSECTION 6 Site Specific Considerations SECTION 7 ProtocolsSECTION 7 Protocols SECTION 8 Quality Assurance and Quality ControlSECTION 8 Quality Assurance and Quality Control SECTION 9 Data ManagementSECTION 9 Data Management SECTION 10 Analysis of DataSECTION 10 Analysis of Data SECTION 11 Interpreting and Using the DataSECTION 11 Interpreting and Using the Data REFERENCESREFERENCES APPENDIX A-C: DEFINITIONS & RESOURCESAPPENDIX A-C: DEFINITIONS & RESOURCES

Additional Resources - Additional Resources - ToolsTools

Check list Check list identify KEY components of a monitoring identify KEY components of a monitoring

programprogram

Decision TreeDecision Tree non- linear process – very interactivenon- linear process – very interactive

Web Version of the Guidance Document: Web Version of the Guidance Document:

(Under Development)(Under Development) active links to the information and references active links to the information and references

in the Guidance Documentin the Guidance Document

Check List

► Method to help identify KEY components that need to be considered

► Takes one through the thought process.

Decision Tree

► Identifies KEY components

► Shows links between components

► Links to information in the Guidance doc

► Non – linear!!

Next StepsNext Steps Finalizing documentFinalizing document

Available as a document & online as pdfAvailable as a document & online as pdfNorthern Plains and Mountains Website Northern Plains and Mountains Website

http://region8water.colostate.edu/

Developing web versionDeveloping web versionLinks to “key” informationLinks to “key” information modelsmodels websiteswebsites water quality standardswater quality standards

Using in watershed WQ monitoring programsUsing in watershed WQ monitoring programs

Getting and incorporating feedback Getting and incorporating feedback

Additional ConclusionsAdditional Conclusions Formal USDA Program files are imperfect guide to actual

BMP implementation & maintenance

Fieldwork can generate important insights into water-quality relevant behaviors

More accurate behavioral component of models

Understanding barriers to implementation & maintenance

Face to Face Contact = particularly useful

Takes time & money

Future ActionsFuture Actions

Assistance with Watershed Assistance with Watershed Coordinators in developing effective Coordinators in developing effective monitoring plans;monitoring plans;

Application of many of the lessons Application of many of the lessons learned on a Utah watershed projectlearned on a Utah watershed project

Evaluation of effectiveness of Utah’s Evaluation of effectiveness of Utah’s NPS program.NPS program.

QUESTIONS?QUESTIONS?

CONTACT INFO:

nancy.mesner@usu.edudoug.jackson-smith@usu.edu

david.stevens@usu.edu

This research is supported by CSREES CEAP Competitive Watershed Grant UTAW-2004-05671