Mari Veliz1, Wanhong Yang2, Ramesh Rudra2, Gabe Ferguson3

1Ausable Bayfield Conservation Authority, Exeter, ON2University of Guelph

3Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs

How can we document water quality improvements from BMPs?• Are the BMPs working?• How can we see a difference downstream?• Who benefits? Who pays?

Approaches to BMP Verification (2010 to 2013)• Monitoring Watershed scale Field scale

• Watershed model – SWAT• Literature Review

Program Adaptation after Verification Study• Outreach• Management and Stewardship Actions• Monitoring

Study Area - Gully Creek

study area

4 watersheds Land use varied (2011 – ag/forest):

o Gully ~70/30o Spring ~35/65o Zurich ~90/10o Ridgeway ~90/10

focus on 15-km2 watershed in Huron County, Ontario and 4 BMPs Cover crop Conservation tillage Nutrient management Water and Sediment Control Basins

High Flow Events

Gully Spring Zurich RidgewayTo

tal P

hosp

horu

s (m

g/L)

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6PWQO (0.03 mg/L)

Low Flow Events

Gully Spring Zurich Ridgeway

Tota

l Pho

spho

rus

(mg/

L)

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6PWQO (0.03 mg/L)

• TP concentrations increased during high flow events compared with low flow events

• Spring Creek had lower TP concentrations than Gully, Zurich, and Ridgeway during high flow events

During an eventTypical conditions

• These ephemeral channels are important to water and sediment/nutrient transport• Therefore:

• Rural BMPs must address ephemeral channels • Must monitor (field and watershed outlet) during this time

to verify the effectiveness of the BMPs

Land Management BMPs• Cover crop• Nutrient Management• Conservation tillage

We tried plots, edge of field monitoring, and rain fall simulator approaches

We could not capture water samples Longer-term monitoring of a Water and

Sediment Control Basin (WASCoB)

Grassy ditch• small 3 ha watershed

area• indicators have

different response • efficacy in dry

conditions WASCoB

• water quantity• inlet compared to

outlet• downstream effects

With slope, soil and land use information SWAT identified areas of higher channel erosion and sediment contributions for targeting BMPs

Effectiveness of WASCoB downstream

Model by Watershed

Evaluation Groupat the University of

Guelph

• Compared different BMP scenarios with existing watershed conditions

• Land management BMPs decreased erosion, reducing sediment and mainly the particulate forms of P and N

• Berms also decreased channel erosion, reducing sediment and both particulate and dissolved P and N

Modelled ScenarioLoading Reduction at Watershed Outlet (%)

Sediment Total P Total N

Implemented 3 land management BMPs throughout watershed*

15 27 10

Added 14 berms (a structural BMP)throughout watershed

11 6 7

* Conservation tillage, cover crop, and nutrient management

Best Management Practice Nutrients TSS E. coliConservation Buffers (e.g., riparian strips) ↔ ↔ ↔Conservation Cropping (e.g., cover crop) ↓ ↓ ↔Conservation Tillage (e.g., zero tillage) ↔ ↓ no dataManure Management (e.g., livestock fencing) ↓ ↔ ↓Nutrient Management (e.g., fertilizer reduction) ↓ ↓ ↔Water Management (e.g., holding ponds) ↓ ↓ no data

Studies used different approaches (e.g., spatial and temporal scale, design, indicators)

Implementation of multiple BMPs ~ landowner decisions Results were inconsistent between studies

Efficacy of BMPs• Monitoring showed the efficacy of land management BMPs is difficult to monitor

soil and land use characteristicsposition to upstream watershed amount of precipitation

reductions in suspended solids (TSS) and total phosphorus (TP) and soluble reactive phosphorus at site scale for the grass buffer and TSS for WASCoB

• variable results in the literature• Modelling showed reductions in TSS, TP, and total nitrogen at watershed scale for four BMPs• More study - required for modified inlets in WASCoB, land management BMPs

How can we see a difference downstream? ….Have we been looking?

• Monitoring during events at the watershed outlet and at the microbasin scale for BMPs• In the short term, watershed models are key to measure BMP effectiveness • More study – how well do models predict flows in the uplands? how do determine how

many BMPs necessary to see a difference at watershed scale?

Landowners: The quality of our environment depends on the millions of individual decisions private landowners make every day (NRCS 2014) therefore, ensure that they are involved in watershed planning

Build Awareness

Take actions to protect and

enhance

Measure and Adapt

From: Lake Huron Georgian Bay Framework for Community Action

CommunityInvolvement

Community developed watershed plans…to address ephemeral channels

Urban BMPs

TrapTreat

Control (at/near source)

Avoid(improve filtration)

Rural BMPs

No/Minimum Till Cover Crops Nutrient

Management Improve soil health

Less Pavement Permeable

Pavement Natural Cover

Controlled Drainage

Grassed Waterways

Berms Wetlands

Rain Gardens Rain Barrels Bioswales

Stormwater Ponds Buffers Two-Stage

Ditches

Based on Kroger et al. 2012Tomer et al. 2013

“Drain Walks” help to identify BMPs

Municipal Drainage Engineers • use model to predict areas for water storage

Understanding water indicators under wet and dry weather conditions

Landscape conditionsSoil Health Watershed

Report CardsCitizen Scientists to

measure storms Interrogating SWAT

Community Outreach• Developed community based watershed plans• Watershed plans increase BMP uptake• Study provided ability to explain the hierarchy of

BMPs to participating landownersMonitoring water quality

• In the past we focused on dry weather monitoring • Study provided more complete understanding of

water quality indicators• Verification of BMPs is not possible to complete

everywhere BMPs implemented but should be done in some places

SWAT modelling was undertaken as part of a Watershed Based Best Management Practices Evaluation, involving a collaboration between:

o Ausable Bayfield Conservationo University of Guelpho Ontario Ministry of Agriculture & Food and Ministry of Rural Affairso Ontario Ministry of the Environmento Huron County Federation of Agriculture

Tracey McPherson (Ausable Bayfield Conservation)

Funding:o Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs through the Canada Ontario

Agreement respecting the Great Lakeso Ontario Ministry of the Environmento Lake Huron Georgian Bay Framework for Community Action