Monitoring Water Quality Impacts of Wetland Projects

1
Monitoring Water Quality Impacts of Wetland
Projects
Joshua N. Collins, Ph.D. Director, SFEI Wetland
Science program,
2
Wetland Typology

• CDFG and USFWS nomenclature
• Focus on habitat rather than water quality
• On-channel and off-channel wetlands
• Isolated and non-isolated wetlands
• Mitigation, creation, enhancement and restoration
• No standard monitoring methods

3
Wetlands in the Watershed Context

• Wetlands as filters
• sediment, most metals, pesticides, sometimes
  nutrients
• Wetlands as capacitors
• carbon, nutrients (especially nitrogen)
• Wetlands as generators
• carbon, sometimes MeHg

4
Galinas Creek Watershed
5
Lower portion of Galinas Creek Watershed
6
Seeps and Springs Groundwater input to streams
and other water bodies pulsed nutrient releases
7
Headwater Streams Terrestrial and atmospheric
input with filtration and downstream conveyance
8
Off-channel depressional Wetlands MeHg
generation without downstream conveyance
9
Roadside Ditches Some filtration but mainly
downstream conveyance of non-point source
problems.
10
Perennial Stream Temporary storage on
floodplains and in channel banks and beds, with
some generation of nutrients and MeHg.
11
Tidal Marsh Filtration and some generation of
nutrients and MeHg.
12
The performance of projects and their impacts on
water quality can be monitored using a simple but
comprehensive 3-Level Framework
The 1-2-3 Framework is central to the USEPA
Guidelines to States for monitoring and assessing
wetlands
13
3-Level Framework

• Level 1 Map-based inventories

Where are the projects and other wetlands?
14
www.wetlandtracker.org
15
Zoom to Oakland Shoreline and Lake Merritt
16
Select projects
17
Wetland Trackers are being developed coast-wide
18
Establishing Level 1 Baselines
Acres
19
3-level Framework

• Level 2 Basic assessment of functional capacity
  relative to broadest array of uses and services

rapid assessment wetland check-up
California Rapid Assessment Method CRAM
20
CRAM Design

• 4 attributes describe 3-D condition from km to cm
• Condition is scored for metrics of these
  attributes

21
Seeps
.42
Depression
Riverine
.83
.92
.74
.55
.52
.91
.75
CRAM Watershed Profiles
.62
.55
.68
.80
.71
22
Level 2 Ambient Survey Napa Watershed
Riverine-Riparian
Confined Riverine
Non-confined Riverine
23
(No Transcript)
24
3-level Framework

• Level 3 Intensive quantification of individual
  uses-functions-services

traditional monitoring what we wish to always
do
25
Level 3 Quantification of individual
uses-functions-services
Identify Key Uses and Stressors
26
Choosing Sentinel Species

• The question determines the appropriate
  biosentinel species
• What is the spatial scale?
• What is the temporal scale?
• Which habitats are involved?

27
high

• Wide-ranging, subembayment scale
• Consume fish from a variety of habitats (open
  Bay, Bay margin, sloughs, ponds)

Habitat Specificity
low
small
large
Spatial Scale
28

• Small regional scale
• Eat from a few habitats (pond, slough, Bay margin)

high
Habitat Specificity
low
small
large
Spatial Scale
29

• Small local scale (
• Eat from one habitat (marsh plain)

high
Habitat Specificity
low
small
large
Spatial Scale
30
high
Habitat Specificity
low
.
small
large
Spatial Scale
31
Longjaw Mudsucker
high
Habitat Specificity
Striped Bass
low
.
small
large
Spatial Scale
32
Uses of Sentinel Species

• MeHg varies at scale of habitat patches
• Habitats can be sampling strata
• Riparian area or floodplain vs channel bed
• High tidal marsh plain vs low marsh plain
• Habitat types are design elements
• Minimize MeHg generators

33
3-Level Framework Review
34
Thank you