Cumulative Effects Monitoring: Lessons Learned from Development Monitoring in the Grand River. Latornell November

Transcription

1 Cumulative Effects Monitoring: Lessons Learned from Development Monitoring in the Grand River Latornell November

2 Outline 1. Introduce the Project; Background on Blair Creek 2. Objectives 3. Cumulative Effects Assessment Context 4. Methodology/ Framework 5. Overview of Results and Key Findings 6. Lessons Learned

3 Introduction

4 Blair Creek Timeline MONITORING GRCA Developers 2006-Present BBB Subwatershed Study 25% limit on hard surfaces Blair Functional Drainage Study No limit on hard surfaces BUT innovative STORMWATER MANAGEMENT required State of the Watershed Report Set the Baseline and Targets How are we doing?

5 MOECC: Pilot Project Current Proposed Many municipal s in a watershed One area-wide, municipal per municipality or subwatershed (MOECC, 2017)

6 Objectives 1. Baseline range of conditions 2. Develop framework to detect change i.e. deviations from normal Multiple objectives/ scales of assessment Site-scale: near development properties Receiver-scale: Blair Creek downstream sites Look at these objectives using a Cumulative Effects Assessment lens

7 Maintaining Ecosystem Function of Blair

8 Cumulative Effects Assessment Operational Steps: 1. Select VECs 2. Define physical and temporal boundaries 3. Identify stressors influencing VECs 4. Characterize baseline conditions 5. Analyze cumulative effects 6. Determine significance 7. Monitor outcomes & make predictions based on future scenarios Adapted from Ball et al. (2012) and Jones (2016)

9 Blair Creek as a Model for CEA Strengths Weaknesses Baseline Conditions ~ (6 yrs) Obvious potential stressor (subdivision developments) Indicators and indices identified Multi-scaled approach Technical Advisory Committee Applicability of water quality thresholds Possible data limitations Monitoring program not designed for CEA Sampling frequency Need to develop land use metrics for future projections

10 Hierarchy of Analysis Hydrology Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration (IHA) Water Quality Multiple scales and reaches Predictive Relationships Future development scenarios

11 Overview of Analyses Climate Hydrology Water Quality Stream Temperature Annual precipitation and average mean temperatures Seasonal patterns Climate trends Peakiness factors and flood frequency analysis Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration (IHA) Range of Variability Analysis (RVA) Nonparametric, flow stratified comparisons BACI comparisons with 2-factor ANOVA Seasonal Mann-Kendall Load estimates using FLUX 32 Thermal regime comparisons Exceedances occurring during brook trout spawning months Overview of methodologies for each analysis component

12 Key Findings: Hydrology u/s of wetland tributary d/s of wetland tributary

13 Key Findings: Water Quality Figure indicates a more localized influence of high sediment concentrations Increased 75 th,90 th,95 th percentiles at sites within development area Impact not observed downstream Or at control sites

14 Scales of Analysis e.g. [TSS]

15 Key Findings: Stream Temperature Stream Temperature ( C) Stream Temperature ( C) Pre- Construction Air Temperature ( C) During- Construction Air Temperature ( C) Thermal regime methods from Stoneman and Jones (1996) Blue: Coldwater Grey: Coolwater White: Warmwater Proportion of observations within each thermal category was compared pre vs post

16 Wet and dry weather [Cl] increasing at the Mouth Reichert [TSS] Pre: dry=wet During: dry<wet 75, 90, 95 percentiles Dodge, ND, Reichert No increase at control sites or Mouth Impact TSS range of concentrations 75 and 90 percentile increased Dickie Water Quality No Impact TP range of concentrations Dry weather [TSS], [TP], [NO 3 ], [Cl] decreasing at many sites No change in median wet weather concentrations Trend Analysis: Dickie was only trend of increasing [TSS] No increase in [TP] percentiles, except at Reidel BACI: no increase in [TSS] at any sites 16

17 Lessons Learned Blair Creek Evidence of localized increase in TSS Based on range of concentrations Downstream impact mitigated by Roseville Swamp Adaptive management Don t want to monitor decline Statistical significance vs ecological significance Application to Other SWS Pre-existing programs Scales of monitoring & assessment depends of questions being asked Parameter selection Weight-of-Evidence approach Integrated analysis Baselines and control sites

18 Roseville Swamp Provides Blair Creek with natural built-in resiliency No evidence of increase in TSS downstream of Swamp Area of significant groundwater discharge Facilitates brook trout habitat (coldwater) u/s d/s Roseville of wetland

19 Next Steps Mar Dodge Dr Parameters to keep an eye on based on Weight-of-Evidence approach Develop framework moving forward Blair Creek Other SWS Ongoing discussion with the City of London re: pilot project Mar Blair u/s New Dundee