prepared for wallace alexander gerbode foundation sonoma

Transcription

TRACKING WATERSHED HEALTH IN SONOMA CREEK: A PILOT FOR ASSESSING PROGRESS
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Tracking Watershed Health in Sonoma Creek: A Pilot for Assessing Progress
June 26, 2014
INTRODUCTION
With support from the Wallace Alexander Gerbode Foundation, the Sonoma Ecology
Center and Rebecca Lawton Consulting, advised by watershed managers and
researchers, developed a pilot web-based system (Pilot Tracker) to show
cumulative improvement or decline in watershed health. Indicators and metrics
developed for the Sonoma Creek Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL),
beginning with targets, performance standards, and recommendations, were used
as measures of change.
Accessible data that is comprehendible to the stakeholder is likely to be understood,
useful, and acted upon. The Pilot Tracker’s simple graphics and clear text are both
relevant and easy to grasp. This project evolves outreach about Sonoma Creek
watershed health from a snapshot of static indicators toward a dynamic, illustrated
story accessible to all.
The Pilot Tracker’s interactive nature, in which human actions are linked to
outcomes and outputs as cumulative project impacts gauged by metrics of change,
will help answer the question, How are we doing as stewards of our watershed?
WHY START WITH TMDL?
The decision to use TMDL measures of progress in the Pilot Tracker was supported
by adviser input. Fraser Shilling, Ph.D., of U.C. Davis, an expert on sustainability
indicators and measuring outcomes relative to project goals, recommended the
focus on TMDL measures, as they are well established and vetted for Sonoma Creek
watershed. With his U.C. Davis colleague, Dave Waetjen, Dr. Shilling has developed
web-based reporting for the Department of Water Resources California Water Plan
(http://nbwatershed.org/uploads/prez/NBWA_Shilling_672013.pdf), and other
programs. Additional input from Data Manager Deanne DiPietro, Point Blue
Conservation Science, indicated that the format of the Pilot Tracker could be an
emulation of a future product in terms of desired appearance and expected function.
Ms. DiPietro was a principal proponent and designer of the Sonoma Ecology Center’s
Sonoma Valley Knowledge Base (http://knowledge.sonomacreek.net/), a potential
outlet for this project.
Additional advisers have provided technical recommendations and input based on
their experience tracking watershed health across the state and nation. These
stakeholders include Jeff Sharp, Principal Planner, Napa County Public Works, Water
Resources Division; Karen Larsen, State Water Resources Control Board; Jim Ponton
PREPARED FOR WALLACE ALEXANDER GERBODE FOUNDATION
SONOMA ECOLOGY CENTER AND REBECCA LAWTON
1
and Anya Starovoytov, San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board; and
Sam Ziegler, Luisa Valiela, and Erica Yelensky, U.S. EPA Region IX.
The extensive nature of sediment impairment in California and U.S. water bodies as
listed under the U.S. EPA Clean Water Act, Section 303(d), and adopted into TMDL
process, translates to the Pilot Tracker being of widespread interest.
INDICATORS AND METRICS
Watershed health indicators and metrics to be used in the Pilot Tracker are listed in
Tables 1 through 3. Three categories of indicator and metric—TMDL Targets, TMDL
Performance Standards, and TMDL Recommendations—are described in the 2008
Sonoma Creek Watershed Basin Plan Amendment (SFRWQCB, 2008).
2
TABLE 1. TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD FOR SEDIMENT: TARGETS
Indicator
Target
Metric
Spawning gravel
permeability
Pool filling
Median value ≥7000 cm/hra
Substrate
composition—percent
fines
Substrate
composition—percent
fines
Percent of fine sediment less than 0.85 mm in diameter is less
than or equal to 14 percent of the total bulk core sample (<14%
fines < 0.85 mm)b
Percent of fine sediment less than 6.40 mm in diameter is less
than or equal to 30 percent of the total bulk core sample (<30%
fines < 6.40 mm)b
Cm/hr water or mg/L dissolved oxygen
flowing through gravels
Trend in change of fine sediment by volume
as measured by VStar or other approved
method
Percent of fine sediment in substrate less
than 0.85 mm in diameter as estimated from
core samples
Percent of fine sediment in substrate less
than 6.40 mm in diameter as estimated from
core samples
Decreasing trend in the volume of fine sediment deposited in
pools
Metric
Type
OUTCOME
OUTCOME
OUTCOME
OUTCOME
Source: Table 1 (Page 2), SFRWQCB, 2008.
a
Target applies to all potential spawning sites for steelhead and salmon in Sonoma Creek and its tributaries
b
Target applies to wadeable streams and rivers with gradient less than 3 percent. A wadeable stream is one that an average
human can safely cross on foot during the summer, low flow season while wearing chest waders.
3
TABLE 2. TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD FOR SEDIMENT: PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Indicator
Performance Standard
Metric
Metric
Type
OUTPUT
Farms, ranches, and rural lands with
erosion-control plans
Percent with farm and
ranch plans in place
Parks, open space, and municipal public
works with erosion control plans
Farms, ranches, rural lands, parks, open
space, and municipal public works with
erosion-control plans
All landowners, vineyard owners and operators, and ranch
operators specified in waste discharge requirements (WDRs)
or waiver of WDRs compliant
All landowners and operators specified in waste discharge
requirements (WDRs) or waiver of WDRs compliant
All landowners and operators, vineyard owners and
operators, and ranch operators specified in waste discharge
requirements (WDRs) or waiver of WDRs compliant
Percent with erosion
control plans in place
Percent with specified
progress toward WDRs
OUTPUT
Urban land managers with implementation
measures in place for sediment discharges
All stormwater dischargers under NPDES General Permits
compliant
Percent compliant with
SWPPPs and
monitoring plans
OUTPUT
OUTPUT
Source: Tables 4.1-4.4 (Pages 11-18), SFRWQCB, 2008.
4
TABLE 3. TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD FOR SEDIMENT: RECOMMENDATIONS
Indicator
Recommendation
Metric
Prevented and reduced sediment
delivery from channel incision and
near-stream landslides
Reduce by 80 percent: 43,300 tons/yr reduced to
8,100 tons/yr attributable to channel erosion and
incision; 900 tons/yr reduced to 200 tons/yr
attributable to near-stream landslides
Enhanced channel habitat as needed
to support self-sustaining run of
steelhead and enhance the overall
health of the native fish community
Stabilize channel banks and riparian
areas to reduce sediment loads from
landslides
Enhanced quality of rearing habitat
for juvenile salmonids by increasing
riparian canopy, large woody debris,
and frequency and depth of pool
habitat
Develop and prioritize channel restoration
projects to address unstable areas, based on
level of incision and/or landslide instability
Estimated reduction of fine sediment
delivery in tons/yr attributable to
restoration projects that address unstable
areas based on level of incision or
landslide activity
Number of projects developed and
prioritized
Develop, prioritize, and implement plans to
increase channel complexity, including
increasing riparian canopy, pool habitat, and
large woody debris
Number of plans developed, prioritized,
and implemented
Metric
Type
OUTCOME
OUTPUT
OUTPUT
Source: Tables 5.1 - 5.3 (Pages 19 – 21), SFRWQCB, 2008.
5
TABLE 3. TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD FOR SEDIMENT: RECOMMENDATIONS (continued)
Indicator
Recommendation
Metric
Suitable base flow
conditions for juvenile
rearing and smolt
migration to Sonoma
Creek estuary
Implement a groundwater management plan to (1) maintain groundwater
levels for the support of beneficial uses, (2) increase water recycling and
conservation in order to enhance summer base flows, (3) identify and
protect groundwater recharge areas, (4) enhance the recharge of
groundwater where appropriate, and (5) protect against adverse interactions
between groundwater and surface water flows
Number of
implemented plans
[programs] for stated
objectives
Identify potential groundwater recharge areas and develop pilot projects
Number of identified
areas and developed
pilot projects
Number of structural
impediments as
percentage of
maximum counted
Number of identified
barriers removed
Number of structural
impediments to salmonid
migration or passage in
mainstem or key tributaries
Reduce the number of
stream miles inaccessible
to fish
No significant structural impediments to salmonid migration or passage in
mainstem or key tributaries
Develop, prioritize, and implement plans to remove identified barriers to
fish passage
Metric
Type
OUTPUT
OUTPUT
OUTCOME
OUTCOME
Source: Table 3 (Page 5) and Tables 5.1 - 5.3 (Pages 19 – 21), SFRWQCB, 2008.
6
LOGIC MODEL
Many organizations use logic chains and models to facilitate project planning and to
show success at the project’s completion. Examples of logic chains and models are
found in the manuals of agencies such as the Association of Fish and Wildlife
Agencies, the W.K. Kellogg Foundation, and U.S. EPA (see References).
The U.S. EPA describes the value of a project logic model as follows.
It is not always possible to measure significant environmental outcomes
within the life of a typical grant, but it is important to show the
contribution of your individual project or grant in moving towards longterm objectives.
With a Logic Model, you can show why you are producing a specific
output, what the short-term impact is likely to be, and how you are
contributing to longer-term objectives. The Logic Model can also help
clarify the limits of your direct accountability and provide insight as to
how you can actually measure outcomes.
Logic models come in many forms and shapes. You may find that a very
simple version does the trick, or you can really get into the details. In any
case, they all go something like this:
We need to conduct this research
so that
scientists and the public understand why the fish are dying
so that
decision makers can institute protective land use policies
so that
people can modify behaviors that damage fish habitat
so that
conditions in the stream improve
so that
salmon are healthy and abundant.
Table 4, a draft Logic Model for the Pilot Tracker, shows some possible rational
steps to be taken toward achieving measurable and important results of all kinds.
7
Table 4. Logic Model: Tracking Watershed Health in Sonoma Creek: A Pilot for Assessing Progress
INPUTS
OUTPUTS
What we invest
IN CREATING
AND SHARING A
PILOT TRACKER
Staff
Funding
Time
Expertise
Materials
Intellectual
Capital
ACTIVITIES
PARTICIPANTS
What we do AS WE
IMPLEMENT THE
PILOT TRACKER
Who we reach WITH
THE PILOT
TRACKER
Technical Analysis
Landowners
Outreach
Stakeholders
Tracking
Students
Research
Agencies
Fundraising
Planners
Partnering
Citizens
OUTCOMES
OF CREATING AND SHARING THE PILOT TRACKER
SHORT TERM
MEDIUM TERM
LONG TERM
What the short term
results are
 Awareness of
watershed issues
 Widespread
education
 Changed
management
practices
 Motivation for
projects
 Skills shared
Scientists
 Decreased
sediment supply
(decreased
estimated loads
and wasteloads)
What the medium
term results are
 Behavioral change
 Policies expanded
 Restoration
planned
 Recovery of
species in sight
 Preservation
planned
 Cleanup,
compliance
dollars saved
 Improved stream
habitat
What the ultimate
impact(s) results are
 Environmental
awareness and
stewardship
 Economic
improvement
 Civic &
community
cohesion
 Climate resilience
 Watershed health
 Well-watered
streams
 Thriving aquatic
populations
OUTCOME MEASURES
 Cleaner water
 Increased
column in streams
spawning gravel
permeability
 Prevented channel
incision and near-  Decreasing trend
stream landslides
in pool filling
 Enhanced channel  Decreased fine
habitat
sediment in
substrate
 More stream miles
open to fish
 Suitable base flow
conditions
8
SAMPLE CONTENT
Sample content was created for a project page on the Sonoma Valley Knowledge
Base (http://knowledge.sonomacreek.net). While designing sample content, the
project team reviewed example Tracker pages for other watersheds, including the
Napa County Public Works Department, Water Division, Tracking Sediment
Reduction page (http://www.napawatersheds.org/app_pages/view/5359); the
Chesapeake Bay Program TMDL Tracking and Accounting System, ChesapeakeStat
page, (http://stat.chesapeakebay.net/?q=node/130&quicktabs_10=2); and the
ecosystem and design firm, 2ND Nature, Interactive Maps page,
(http://www.2ndnaturellc.com/interactive-maps/).
Posted to the Pilot Tracker project page are the following:
 This project description
 Sample graphics for three TMDL indicators: estimated loads and
wasteloads, spawning gravel permeability, and suitable base flow
conditions
 Objectives, summary, status, timeline, and contact information for each
indicator.
The three TMDL indicators chosen for display in sample graphics show a range of
approaches that can be taken in watershed health tracking: (1) achieving overall
allocations, or watershed-wide goals; (2) achieving targets, or requirements,
measured in terms of outcomes; and (3) implementing recommendations, or
habitat enhancement goals, measured in terms of outputs. Other indicators and
metrics can be chosen, as can other goals; the goals, indicators, and metrics chosen
are simply examples selected for the Pilot Tracker.
Measuring Overall Allocation
Estimated loads and wasteloads are used in the Pilot Tracker to illustrate an
approach to achieving overall allocations, or watershed-wide goals. The fine
sediment loads and wasteload allocations published in the 2008 Basin Plan
Amendment for Sonoma Creek are divided into fine sediment supply from stream
channels, roads and stream crossings, surfaces, and landslides (mass wasting). One
subset of the overall load is the wasteload, the portion of the load derived from
stormwater sources. According to the logic model for this example: investing time
and expertise in tracking watershed-wide progress toward estimated loads and
wasteloads results in motivation for projects, skills shared, widespread education,
preservation planned, restoration planned, improved stream habitat, and ultimately
improved watershed health, thriving aquatic populations, and community cohesion.
9
Sample graphics for estimated loads and wasteloads are shown in Figures 1 through
4. Figure 1 shows 2005 estimated loading for all fine sediment source categories in
Sonoma Creek watershed (2008 Basin Plan Amendment). A Sediment Source
Analysis conducted by Sonoma Ecology Center et al., 2006a
(http://knowledge.sonomacreek.net/SSA), studied fine sediment supply due to
erosion of surfaces, roads, and channels; loading was modeled, field measured,
balanced in a sediment budget, and checked against empirical data. The Basin Plan
Amendment allocated loads and wasteloads to the source categories (SFRWQCB,
2008).
Figure 1. 2005 Es mated Sediment Loads and Wasteloads
in Tons/Year and % Total
TMDL Source Categories, 2008 Basin Plan Amendment
Sonoma Creek Watershed, California
Roads and Stream Crossings,
11200, 9.54%
CalTrans Stormwater,
100, 0.09%
Industrial Stormwater,
100, 0.09%
Surface Erosion, 8600, 7.33%
Landslides, 900, 0.77%
Construc on
Stormwater, 300,
0.26%
Channel Erosion and Incision,
95600, 81.43%
Stormwater, 1100, 0.94%
Municipal Stormwater, 600,
0.51%
Rebecca Lawton Consul ng
Figure 2 illustrates fine sediment loads and wasteloads projected for 2020 in the
2008 Basin Plan Amendment on the basis of planned restoration actions and
proposed targets: a 26,000 tons/yr or 22 percent overall load reduction in fine
sediment from combined sources.
10
Figure 2. 2020 Projected Sediment Loads and Wasteloads
6650, 7.28%
78000, 85.34%
Stormwater All, Source
Assignments to be Determined,
1100, 1.20%
Figure 3 illustrates fine sediment loads and wasteloads for 2025 (also from the 2008
Basin Plan Amendment), projected to be reduced another 26,000 tons/yr or 29
percent reduction from all sources. Therefore, by 2025, a 52,000 tons/yr, or 51
percent, fine sediment overall load reduction is prescribed. As of June 2014, specific
wasteload targets for Sonoma Creek watershed remain undetermined by SFRWQCB
and municipalities. Therefore projections for this subcategory of loading are shown
in Figures 2 and 3 as unchanged from the 2005 baseline of 1,100 tons/yr.
Projections should be adjusted for wasteloads as they are established.
11
Figure 3. 2025 Target Sediment Loads and Wasteloads
2100, 3.21%
Stormwater All, Source
Assignments to be Determined,
1100, 1.68%
60400, 92.35%
Figure 4 illustrates projected reductions in sediment loads and wasteloads in a
single graph, showing the 51 percent overall reduction by 2025.
Figure 4. 2005, 2020, and 2025 Sediment Loads and Wasteloads
TMDL Alloca ons, 2008 Basin Plan Amendment
120000
1100
100000
1100
Tons/Year
80000
1100
60000
116300
90340
40000
64300
20000
0
Total WASTELOAD
Total LOAD
2005 Es mated
2020 Projected
1100
1100
116300
90340
2025 Target
1100
64300
12
The effects of these reductions on watershed health can be illustrated using several
outcomes and outputs: for example, fine sediment reduction has been shown to lead
to increased numbers of fish in the system, KWH saved due to averted cleanup,
training gained for the workforce of a local community, hours of labor saved
through the prevention of siltation, avoided costs of cleanup, cleaner fresh-water
recreation, lower sediment-removal costs for municipal wastewater treatment
plants, and TMDL compliance dollars saved.
The economic benefit of reduced estimated loads and wasteloads is correlated
herein on the basis of the projected value of increased numbers of fish in the system
($2,000 per salmon; ECONorthwest, 2012). Reducing fine sediment loads in stream
water columns correlates to the success of salmonid hatching, as shown by studies
on the impacts of fine sediment in the water column on salmon egg and fry survival
(Sonoma Ecology Center et al., 2006b). Numerous studies indicate egg and fry
mortality rates related to fine sediment in streams: (1) mortalities range from 6 to
20.1 percent in clear streams versus 50 to 100 percent in silty streams (Cordone
and Kelley, 1961); (2) mortalities range from 6 percent in streams with suspended
sediment concentrations (SSC) <100 mg/L to 100 percent in streams with SSC
>1,000 mg/L (Campbell, 1954); fish production drops 10 percent and fish catch
drops 50 percent in stream water containing SSC greater than 27 mg/L (Anderson,
1975). Egg and fry survival are related to increasing SSC as sediment settles, fills
spawning gravels, adversely affects dissolved oxygen circulation to eggs, and
impairs streambed permeability necessary for fry emergence (Cordone and Kelley,
1961).
To correlate SSC to overall TMDL allocations in Sonoma Creek watershed, wet
season storms must be analyzed. Stream sampling beginning in hydrologic year
(HY) 2002 noted that elevated SSC values occurred most often during first flush and
early wet-season storms (October through April) that also elevate stream flow. In
sixteen wet storms in HY 2002, nine wet storms in HY 2003, and twelve wet storms
in HY 2004 in Sonoma Creek, peak SSC values on the mainstem ranged from 1,000 to
4,043.4 mg/L. SSC levels dropped following storms such that 90 percent of
maximum values were reached within 0.25 hour (15 minutes), 50 percent in less
than 3 hours, and 0 percent (total clearing below 27 mg/L) in less than 30 hours
(Lawton et al., 2002). The bulk of the fine sediment load moved into and through the
stream system at concentrations detrimental to fish during an average time
equivalent of 14 days per year in HY 2002 through HY 2004 (SEC et al., 2006a).
Storm intensity, storm timing, storm duration, and soil saturation all affect peak
SSC; however, reducing “rates of sediment delivery to channels” through source
reductions specified in the Basin Plan Amendment (SFRWQCB, 2008) reduces either
the peak or duration of elevated SSC or both.
13
Figure 5 illustrates a hypothetical number of fish that could live in the Sonoma
Creek watershed based on reduced load and wasteload allocations for 2020 and
2025, based on the following estimate. Reducing loading by 26,000 tons/yr (or 22
percent) correlates to a reduction in day-equivalents in which SSC is elevated above
27 mg/L from 14 days in HY 2002 through HY 2004 (used for 2005) to 11 days in
2020 and 8 days in 2025. These day-equivalents in turn correlate to 78 percent of
2005 exposure in 2020 and 56 percent of 2020 exposure in 2025. Assuming the
minimum increase in salmon production due to the reduced number of hours in
which SSC exceeds 27 mg/L (10 percent; Anderson, 1975), salmon production could
increase by 7.8 and 5.5 percent, respectively, for 2020 and 2025.
Figure 5. 2005, 2020, and 2025 Sediment Load Reduc on
and Increase in Salmon in Watershed
18500
120000
117400
Total Load (tons/year)
18,206
18000
Number of Salmon in Watershed
100000
17500
91400
17,246
17000
80000
65400
16500
60000
16,000
16000
40000
15500
20000
15000
0
14500
2005
2020
2025
Given the many assumptions in this example, including the assumption that
increased salmonid production equates to an equivalent increase in rearing
juveniles, the number of salmon in Sonoma Creek watershed could increase from
the estimated 16,000 in 2004 (used for 2005) to 17,426 in 2020 and 18,204 in 2025
(Figure 5). With an estimated benefit of $2,000 per salmon, dollars added to the
Sonoma Creek watershed economy by reducing fine sediment in streams
(ECONorthwest, 2012), based on fish increase alone, would increase from
$32,000,000 in 2005 to $34,491,312 in 2020 (an increase of $2,491,312) and to
$36,407,520 in 2025 (another increase, of $1,916,209). See Figure 6.
14
Figure 6. 2005, 2020, 2025 Number of Salmon
and Economic Increase
$37,000,000
18500
$36,412,809
$36,000,000
18000
Economic Increase
$35,000,000
17500
$34,491,312
$34,000,000
17000
18,206
$33,000,000
$32,000,000
$32,000,000
16500
16000
17,246
$31,000,000
$30,000,000
15500
16,000
15000
$29,000,000
14500
2005
2020
2025
Achieving Targets, Measured in Outcomes
Spawning gravel permeability was chosen as an example of achieving targets, or
requirements, measured in terms of outcomes. The numeric target for spawning
gravel permeability was set in the Sonoma Creek Basin Plan Amendment at a
median value ≥7000 cm/hr, for which the metric is the amount of water or
dissolved oxygen flowing through spawning gravels in cm/hr (water) or mg/L
(dissolved oxygen). A possible path through the logic model for this example:
investing time, expertise, intellectual capital, materials, funding, and staff in
tracking, researching, fundraising, and partnering with stakeholders, landowners,
and agencies to improve spawning gravel permeability results in awareness of
watershed issues, potentially changed management practices, behavioral changes,
motivation for projects, skills shared, widespread education, preservation planned,
restoration planned, improved stream habitat, and ultimately improved watershed
health, thriving aquatic populations, economic improvement through increased
salmonid populations and improved water quality, and community cohesion.
Sample graphics for spawning gravel permeability are shown in Figures 7a through
7c. Figure 7a is a map of sites throughout the Sonoma Creek watershed where
spawning gravel permeability was measured in 2004-2005 for the TMDL Limiting
Factors Analysis (SEC et al., 2006b; http://knowledge.sonomacreek.net/LFA).
15
Metric = SPAWNING GRAVEL PERMEABILITY
TMDL Target = Median value ≥7000 cm/hr water
Figure 7a. PILOT Watershed Health Tracker
CLICK HERE to Login • FOR MORE INFORMATION ON METRIC
TO DOWNLOAD DATA • TO NAVIGATE HOME
SONOMA VALLEY WATERSHED
SONOMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Legend:
= Stream Gravel Permeability Site
Figure 7b shows that permeability values ranged from 489 cm/hr water in Asbury
Creek to 4,113 cm/hr water in Calabazas Creek. Average fry survival rate for all
creeks was estimated to be 29 percent: Asbury was lowest at 10 percent survival
rate; Calabazas was highest at 41 percent.
Metric = Spawning Gravel Permeability
Figure 7b. PILOT Watershed Health Tracker
11
12
9
8
7
10
14
2005 Spawning Gravel Permeability Results
13
15
6 5
8000
4
17
2
18
Permeability in cm/hr
7000
16
3
6000
Watershed average:
2,069 cm/hr water
5000
4000
2165
1757
2000 1284
1931
1675
1053 1093908
489
1000
1
2620
3000
4113
3604
3166
2878
2480
1299
2170
1577
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Site Number
Legend:
1
Es mated average fry survival rate in
2005: 29 percent
16
Figure 7c illustrates permeability results relative to the TMDL target of 7,000 cm/hr
water, which none of the 2004-2005 permeability measurements achieved.
Figure 7c. PILOT Watershed Health Tracker
11
12
9
8
7
10
14
2004 Spawning Gravel Permeability Results
13
15
6 5
TMDL target:
7,000 cm/hr water
8000
4
16
3
17
2
18
Permeability in cm/hr
7000
6000
Watershed average:
2,069 cm/hr water
5000
4000
2620
3000
2165
1757
2000 1284
1931
1675
1053 1093908
489
1000
4113
3604
3166
2878
2480
1299
2170
1577
0
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Site Number
2005: 29 percent
1
Legend:
Figures 8a and 8b show baseline and projected improvements in spawning gravel
permeability at a single site (Site 11, Bear Creek in upper Sonoma Creek watershed).
Figure 8a illustrates 2004-2005 permeability for Site 11 (3,604 cm/hr) relative to
the TMDL target (7,000 cm/hr) in the Basin Plan Amendment.
Figure 8a. PILOT Watershed Health Tracker
11
12
9
8
7
10
Site 11: Bear Creek
Spawning Gravel Permeability
Dissolved Oxygen Flow Rate in cm/hr
14
13
15
6 5
4
TMDL target:
7,000 cm/hr water
8000
16
3
17
7000
6000
5000
2
18
4000
3000
3604
2000
1
1000
0
2004 Measured
Legend:
1
Bear Creek in 2005: 39 percent
17
Figure 8b illustrates the 2004-2005 permeability alongside a speculative 20 percent
improvement for 2020 (4,325 cm/hr) and a presumed target attainment for 2025.
Figure 8b. PILOT Watershed Health Tracker
11
12
9
8
7
10
Site 11: Bear Creek
14
13
15
6 5
TMDL target:
7,000 cm/hr water
8000
4
16
3
7000
17
7000
6000
5000
2
18
4000
3000
4325
3604
2000
1
1000
0
2004 Measured
Legend:
1
2020 Projected
2025 Target
Es mated average fry survival rate in Bear
Creek in 2020 and 2025: 100 percent
With each improvement in spawning gravel permeability, average fry survival rate
is expected to increase. Fitzgerald (2004) estimated that a 1 percent increment
increase in fine sediment in spawning gravels was equivalent to a 1.26 percent
reduction of salmonid fry emergence. The Limiting Factors Analysis (SEC et al.,
2006) notes that an increase in average spawning gravel permeability from 2,069 to
2,761 cm/hr (692 cm/hr) equates to an estimated 6 percent improvement in fry
survival. At this rate of increase (1 percent per 11.2 cm/hr), the fry survival rate for
Bear Creek would rise from 39 to 100 percent by 2020 and continue, given attained
targets in 2025 (see Figure 8c).
18
Figure 8c. PILOT Watershed Health Tracker
11
12
9
8
7
10
14
Site 11: Bear Creek
13
15
6 5
4
8000
16
3
17
120
100
7000
100
100
6000
80
5000
2
18
4000
60
40
2000
1
7000
39
3000
3604
4325
20
1000
0
0
2004 Measured
Legend:
2020 Projected
2025 Target
Es mated average fry survival rate in Bear
Creek in 2020 and 2025: 100 percent
1
Watershed-wide, fry survival would increase from 29 percent in 2005 to 65 percent
in 2020 and 100 percent in 2025 (Figure 9).
Figure 9. 2005, 2020, and 2025 Spawning Gravel Permeability
and Es mated Increases in Fry Survival Rate
8000
120
7000
7000
100
Spawning Gravel Permeability (cm/hr)
100
6000
Es mated % fry survival
80
5000
65
4000
60
3000
2417
40
2015
2000
29
20
1000
0
0
2004
2020
2025
19
Figure 10 illustrates the economic benefit of improved spawning habitat on
increasing salmonid populations and economic value in the Sonoma Creek
watershed ($2,000 per salmon; ECONorthwest, 2012). At $2,000 per salmon, and
reducing fine sediment impacts to spawning beds according to targets in the TMDL
Basin Plan Amendment for Sonoma Creek, economic increase is estimated to go
from $32 million in 2005 to $72 million in 2020 to $110 million in 2025.
Figure 10. 2005, 2020, and 2025 Spawning Gravel Permeability
and Es mated Economic Increase
60000
120000000
$110,344,828
50000
100000000
Economic Increase
40000
80000000
$71,724,138
30000
60000000
55,172
20000
40000000
35,862
$32,000,000
10000
20000000
16,000
0
0
2005
2020
2025
Implementing Recommendations, Measured in Outputs
Suitable base flow conditions are used here as an example of implementing
recommendations, or habitat enhancement goals, measured in terms of
outputs. The Basin Plan Amendment recommended protecting minimum summer
stream flows (base flows) through implementation of a groundwater management
plan. A measure of progress toward this indicator is the number of implemented
programs in the groundwater management plan that move toward each stated
objective in the Basin Plan Amendment: (1) maintain groundwater levels for the
support of beneficial uses, (2) increase water recycling and conservation in order to
enhance summer base flows, (3) identify and protect groundwater recharge areas,
(4) enhance the recharge of groundwater where appropriate, and (5) protect
against adverse interactions between groundwater and surface water flows.
A possible path through the logic model for this example: investing time, expertise,
intellectual capital, materials, funding, and staff in tracking, researching, fundraising,
and partnering with stakeholders, landowners, agencies, planners, citizens, and
20
scientists to improve suitable base flow conditions results in awareness of
watershed issues, widespread education, changed management practices,
motivation for projects, skills shared, behavioral change, policies expanded,
recovery of species in sight, preservation planned, improved stream habitat, and
ultimately environmental awareness and stewardship, economic improvement, civic
and community cohesion, climate resilience, improved watershed health, wellwatered streams, and thriving aquatic populations.
The programs recognized or administered by the Sonoma Valley Groundwater
Management Plan that are being implemented toward each of these objectives are
listed below. Although there is overlap among the programs regarding the benefits
they bring to each objective, and some programs listed are in part contained within
countywide, regional, and statewide efforts, each program with a unique
administrative structure or approach is listed once. To show a trend, programs
underway in 2005 and 2010 are compared. (The Sonoma Valley Groundwater
Management Plan was not adopted until 2007, but work was underway on it by
2005; it can be considered the overarching guidance document for that time.) This
list is not comprehensive but builds on references on the plan page at
http://www.scwa.ca.gov/svgw-documents/. The list can be revised in 2020 and
2025 as new programs are developed.
2005
Maintaining Groundwater Levels
 WellNess: Private Well Owner’s Guide
(http://www.scwa.ca.gov/files/docs/projects/svgw/svgw-docs0411/WELLness_091010.pdf)
Increasing Water Recycling and Conservation
 Valley of the Moon Water District Watersmart Home Program
(http://www.vomwd.com/conservation.php)
 Valley of the Moon Water District Rebates and Incentives
(http://www.vomwd.com/rebates.php)
 Valley of the Moon Water Waste Prevention
(http://www.vomwd.com/wastewater.php)
 City of Sonoma “Sonoma Conserves” Program
(http://www.sonomaconserves.org/tips.aspx#Commercial)
Identifying and Protecting Groundwater Recharge Areas
 California’s Groundwater Basins, Bulletin 118
(http://www.water.ca.gov/groundwater/bulletin118/bulletin118update200
3.cfm)
 Association of California Water Agencies (http://www.acwa.com/)
21
Enhancing the Recharge of Groundwater
 None noted
Protecting against Adverse Groundwater-Surface Water Flows
 None noted
2010
 WellNess: Private Well Owner’s Guide
(http://www.scwa.ca.gov/files/docs/projects/svgw/svgw-docs0411/WELLness_091010.pdf)
 Water Conservation Program in Rural Sonoma Valley
(http://www.scwa.ca.gov/files/docs/projects/svgw/svgw-docs0411/RuralWaterConservation.pdf)
Increasing Water Recycling and Conservation
 Sonoma-Marin Saving Water Partnership
(http://www.savingwaterpartnership.org/)
 Valley of the Moon Water District Watersmart Home Program
(http://www.vomwd.com/conservation.php)
 Valley of the Moon Water District Rebates and Incentives
(http://www.vomwd.com/rebates.php)
 Valley of the Moon Water Waste Prevention
(http://www.vomwd.com/wastewater.php)
 City of Sonoma Nathanson Creek Waterwise Garden
(http://www.sonomaconserves.org/uploads/documents/Nathanson%20Cre
ek%20Garden%20abstract.pdf)
 Sonoma Waterwise Garden (http://ucanr.edu/sites/scmg/Waterwise_Gardening/WaterWise_Demo_Garden/)
 City of Sonoma “Sonoma Conserves” Program
(http://www.sonomaconserves.org/tips.aspx#Commercial)
 North Bay Water Recycling Association (http://www.nbwra.org/)
 Rainwater Harvesting Education (http://www.sscrcd.org/rainwater.php)
Identifying and Protecting Groundwater Recharge Areas
 Sonoma Valley Groundwater Recharge Potential Mapping Project
(http://www.scwa.ca.gov/files/docs/projects/svgw/svgw-docs0411/Sonoma_Valley_GWR_Final_Report.pdf)
 Geohydrological Characterization, Water-Chemistry, and Ground-Water Flow
Simulation Model of the Sonoma Valley Area, Sonoma County, California
(http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2006/5092/)
 Association of California Water Agencies (http://www.acwa.com/)
22

USGS Open-File Report on Groundwater Wells in Sonoma Valley
(http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1063/)
Enhancing the Recharge of Groundwater
 Groundwater Banking Feasibility Study
(http://www.scwa.ca.gov/files/docs/projects/svgw/FNL_GroundwaterUpda
teBrochure.pdf)
Protecting against Adverse Groundwater-Surface Water Flows
 Sonoma Valley Scoping Study (http://www.scwa.ca.gov/stormwatergroundwater/)
Figure 11 shows the number of implemented plans that affect base flows. Average
increase from 2005 to 2014 in the five objective areas is estimated to be 180
percent. Therefore, although there is no target for this indicator, progress has been
made toward recommended actions.
Figure 11. 2005 and 2010 Number of Implemented Programs
for Suitable Baseflow Condi ons
Groundwater Management Plan
2005
2010
9
4
2
4
2
1
1
1
1
0
Increasing Recycling and
Conserva on
Iden fying and Protec ng
Recharge
Enhancing Groundwater Recharge
Protec ng against Adverse
Surface-Groundwater Interac on
Stranding by low flows was found in the Sonoma Creek TMDL Limiting Factors
Analysis to lead to fry mortality in pools that go dry; surveyed streams were
23
estimated to lose approximately 40 percent of summer rearing habitat due to
dewatering (SEC et al., 2006b). Figure 12 shows the economic impact of improved
fish survival in 2025 if restored summer rearing habitat correlated to a 40 percent
reduction in direct mortality by that year.
Figure 12. 2005 and 2025 Increase in Salmon in Watershed
and Economic Increase due to Improved Base Flow
$50,000,000
$45,000,000
$40,000,000
$35,000,000
25000
22400
$44,800,000
Economic Increase
20000
16000
$32,000,000
$30,000,000
15000
$25,000,000
$20,000,000
10000
$15,000,000
$10,000,000
5000
$5,000,000
$0
0
2005
2025
FURTHER DEVELOPMENT
The Team is seeking to develop the Tracker further. The Sonoma Valley Team will
make presentations that will include a slideshow, a summary of products still to be
developed, and an informal survey of stakeholders present regarding the Tracker’s
usefulness. Possible audiences include the Sonoma Valley Groundwater
Management Technical Advisory Committee or Basin Advisory Panel, the TMDL
Vineyard Waste Discharge Requirement working group (when reconvened), the
North Bay Watershed Association, and Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation
and Open Space District.
Showing change relative to load and wasteload allocations requires the support of
specifically documented baseline conditions and databases updated at subsequent
intervals. Documenting these conditions and assembling these databases is a work
in progress by multiple agencies, organizations, and individuals. Therefore desired
outputs of further work include interactive graphics linked to map locations,
integration where possible of available databases, and additional example targets,
performance standards, and metrics.
24
Tracker outputs and outcomes can be interpreted further using additional economic
metrics (ECONorthwest, 2012). Economic assessment is a critical step toward
understanding the “Bang for Your Buck” component of any restoration effort. As we
have seen, improved watershed health equates to economic benefits through the
mere presence of fish, as well as through savings in energy, labor, and cleanup costs.
Expansion of the Tracker could include a module measuring sediment reductions
per dollar expended for restoration or preventative actions.
Other modules to be added to the tracking system could define its role in the era of
climate change. Climate resilience is an outcome that can also be monetized through
techniques similar to those used by ECONorthwest for fine sediment reduction.
25
REFERENCES
Anderson, H.W., 1975. Sedimentation and Turbidity in Wildlands. Reprinted by
permission in Watershed Management, ASCE-1975, Prox. Watershed
Management Symposium, Division of Irrigation and Drainage, American Society
of Civil Engineers, Logan, Utah. August 11-13.
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, 2011. Measuring the Effectiveness of State
Wildlife Grants: Final Report. http://www.fishwildlife.org/files/EffectivenessMeasures-Report_2011.pdf. April.
California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region
(SFRWQCB), 2008. Sonoma Creek Watershed Basin Plan Amendment, Resolution
R2-2008-0103.
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/board_decisions/adopted_or
ders/2008/R2-2008-0103.pdf. December 3.
Campbell, H.J., 1954. The Effect of Siltation from Gold Dredging on the Survival of
Rainbow Trout and Eyed Eggs in Powder River, Oregon. Salem, Oregon: Oregon
State Game Commission.
Cordone and Kelley, 1961, “The Effects of Inorganic Sediments on the Aquatic Life of
Streams,” California Fish and Game.
http://www.krisweb.com/biblio/gen_cdfg_cordoneetal_1961.pdf.
ECONorthwest, 2012. Handbook for Estimating Economic Benefits of Environmental
Projects for Inclusion in Benefit-Cost Assessments of Projects Proposed for Funding
under California Propositions 84 and 1E. Prepared for the North Bay Watershed
Association, December.
http://nbwatershed.org/library/NBWA_Handbook_2012-1221.pdf).
Fitzgerald, R., 2004. Salmonid Freshwater Targets for Sediment-Related Parameters.
Santa Rosa, California: State of California North Coast Regional Water Quality
Control Board. October.
Lawton, R., R. Hunter, and J. Menze, 2002. “Final Report, Volunteer Monitoring of
Suspended Sediment Concentration and Turbidity and Watershed Monitoring of
Road Remediation in Annadel State Park, Sonoma Creek Watershed, Sonoma
County, California.” Prepared for the Sonoma Ecology Center and Regional Water
Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region. September.
26
Sonoma Ecology Center, Martin Trso, Tessera Consulting, Talon and Associates LLC,
and Watershed Science, 2006a. “Sediment Source Analysis, Sonoma Creek
Watershed, California.” Edited by Rebecca Lawton. October.
Sonoma Ecology Center, Stillwater Sciences, and U.C. Berkeley Department of Earth
and Planetary Sciences, 2006b. “Sonoma Creek Watershed Limiting Factors
Analysis.” Edited by Lisa Micheli, Ph.D. December.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2014. Region 10 Webpage, The Pacific
Northwest, “Measuring Environmental Results,”
http://yosemite.epa.gov/R10/ECOCOMM.NSF/webpage/measuring+environme
ntal+results. June 5.
W.K. Kellogg Foundation, 2004. Logic Model Development Guide.
https://www.aacu.org/bringing_theory/documents/LogicModel.pdf. January.
27

prepared for wallace alexander gerbode foundation sonoma

Transcription

Similar documents

Huckleberry the Helpful Hound and Bike Safety

Watershed Committee of the Ozarks

2009 annadel estate vineyard mourvèdre, sonoma valley

2009 mourvèdre, sonoma valley annadel estate vineyard

Khiet Luong Pennsylvania Environmental Council 1315 W alnut

verde creek ranch kerr county, tx - 287 ac +

sonoma County - PD Media Source PD Media Source

Complicated 2014 Pinot Noir Fact Sheet

Khiet Luong Pennsylvania Environmental Council 1315 W alnut

Complicated 2014 Chardonnay Fact Sheet