OVERVIEW

This third quarterly report discusses progress made during the period January 1 to March 31, 1999. Work continued to progress in task areas begun during the first quarter. In addition, the task of developing the overarching structure of the monitoring protocol and the rationale behind the protocol began during the quarter. Task areas discussed in this report are:

Protocol Development

Preparation for Summer Field Work

EPA Site Visit

World Wide Web Site Established

Protocol Development

A major emphasis in this quarter was upon the continuing development of the protocol, particularly in assessing issues (from the literature) relevant to processes of watershed change. Our fundamental approach to monitoring can be best described as developing a protocol that is top down or strategic in nature, in which an understanding of watershed processes is used to guide selection of the most appropriate monitoring methods and sites. Figure 1 illustrates the features of the top-down (versus bottom-up) approach that we have modified from Landers (1997). Bottom-up, tactical approaches are site specific, discipline focused, and methods driven. They are reductionist, not holistic. A strategic approach is holistic, and when issues of hydrology and sedimentology are paramount, then a watershed-based strategy is essential. The critical connections between a strategic protocol design and monitoring site implementation are (Landers, 1997):

1. Scientific understanding of the processes/function linkages of watershed condition,
2. Consideration of environmental change at multiple temporal and spatial scales, and
3. Knowledge to select robust indicators of environmental change.

Thus, our protocol development is not based upon the generation of specific, new monitoring methods, for which there are many adequate examples. Rather, it centers upon developing an overall strategy for holistically monitoring rangeland watersheds. This strategy is based upon an understanding of watershed processes at multiple spatial and temporal scales such that the most appropriate methods for evaluating environmental change may be selected.

A second important aspect of the approach we are developing is its emphasis upon hydrogeomorphologic processes of rangeland watersheds, especially the linkages of erosion processes between watershed upland areas (terrestrial ecosystem) and sedimentation processes in stream (aquatic ecosystem) and riparian areas (riparian ecosystems) (Figure 2). In western rangeland landscapes, sediment yield is a significant issue in developing total maximum daily load (TMDL) criteria, especially in defining ‘natural’ or background sediment loading to streams. Sediment yield may be increased by many anthropogenic activities that affect watershed vegetation and hydrologic conditions including road and urban construction, grazing, logging, farming, and rangeland improvement. Our approach seeks to effectively monitor those indicators that should be most indicative of hydrogeomorphologic changes in rangeland watersheds. These indicators may be either bioindicators or geoindicators, and they could be either changes in driving variables (e.g., vegetation cover density) or indicator variables (e.g., downstream sediment size). The goal, of course, is to choose a suite of indicators that is robust in it assessment of environmental change while being economically implemented.
 

 Figure 1. Monitoring approaches. The approach proposed herein is a top down, watershed-based strategy.  Modified from Landers (1997).

 

Figure 2. Watersheds are viewed as being driven by the forces of water upon the landscape.
 

PREPARATION FOR SUMMER FIELD WORK

Another set of tasks undertaken during the quarter was preparation for field data collection at the study watersheds. We expect field data collection will begin on May 10 and to continue until August 27, therein providing 16 weeks of field data collection. Summer preparations have consisted primarily of three elements:

Development of Field Data Collection Standard Operating Procedures

Staffing for Field Data Collection

GIS Analyses for Data Collection

Development of Field Data Collection Standard Operating Procedures

To assure accurate data are collected, we are developing a manual of standard operating procedures for field data collection. The manual is a detailed ‘cookbook’ to assure that data are collected in a well-planned and consistent manner. As we stated above, the emphasis of our approach is primarily top-down, dealing with broad issues of where and how to collect data. The manual provides details of the specific data collection methods to be implemented.

The manual is being developed using well-documented field data collection methods (e.g., Goudie 1981; Harrelson 1994; USDA Forest Service 1992). We tested these methods during the data collection period last season, and will implement them this season. The manual is in draft form and will be provided as an appendix to the final report. Figure 3 illustrates one page of the draft manual.

Staffing for Field Data Collection

We began staffing for the summer field data collection by hiring a field crew supervisor in March. Chandra Heaton received a B.S. in Rangeland Resources from Utah State University in 1998 and will begin a M.S. program this fall. Ms. Heaton has previously worked for one of the project’s P.I.’s (Rasmussen) conducting various rangeland and riparian surveys and is well qualified to direct the crew. Prior to beginning the field season, Ms. Heaton has been assisting in data compilation, writing field protocols, and hiring the field crew.

Our original intent was to have two field crews working this summer. We have decided to utilize only one field crew. Although the use of one instead of two crews will slow data collection, the advantage, we believe, is better control of data quality. Cross validation of data standards between two crews will therefore be unnecessary. Ms. Heaton will hire three field crew members who will be employed on the project all summer. In addition, we expect that an additional graduate student (Dobrowolski’s) will be on the project and available for field data collection.

GIS Analyses for Data Collection

The third task in preparation for summer fieldwork was the completion of GIS analyses to select data collection points in the study watersheds. Methods describing this process were presented in the first quarter report. Field books with points identified on air photos and tables of GPS coordinates are being prepared to ensure data are collected at proper locations.

EPA SITE VISIT

During the first week of March, we received a site visit from the EPA Project Coordinator, Anne Neale of the Landscape Ecology Branch, Environmental Sciences Division, Las Vegas. We took the opportunity to show Anne the details of our approach to protocol development, which we highlight in this report. The site visit provided a great opportunity to exchange ideas regarding methods of landscape analysis. One outcome of our meeting was to plan an additional EPA site visit for this summer to illustrate field data collection methods.

WORLD WIDE WEB SITE ESTABLISHED

To make our ideas and findings available in real time as the project is in progress, we have established a site on the World Wide Web. Our intention is to use the site to depict our approach, visually display field sites and data, and to present initial findings and conclusions. Until project completion, only graphical summaries and simple tabulations will not be provided – not the actual data. The site also makes the quarterly reports available in html format for onscreen viewing and printing. We have adopted a relatively simple page structure with the following categories of data available:

USU REMAP Background

REMAP Watersheds

REMAP's Investigators

REMAP Quarterly Reports

USU REMAP Approach

EPA's REMAP Home Page

 The initial implementation of the of the site is available at:
  http://www.usu.edu/~remap/  

REFERENCES

Goudie, A.S., 1981. Geomorphological Techniques, London, George Allen & Unwin.

Harrelson, C.C., C.L. Rawlins, and J.P. Potyondy, 1994. Stream channel reference sites: An illustrated guide to field technique, USDA Forest Service GTR RM-245, Fort Collins, 61 pp

Landers, D., 1997. Riparian restoration: current status and the reach to the future. Restoration Ecology (5):113-121.

USDA Forest Service, 1992. Integrated riparian evaluation guide. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Region, Ogden, Utah. 60 p.
 

  Back to Previous Page