My Account: Log In | Join | Renew
Search
Author
Title
Vol.
Issue
Year
1st Page

Abstract

 

This article in JEQ

  1. Vol. 39 No. 1, p. 85-96
     
    Received: Mar 20, 2009
    Published: Jan, 2010


    * Corresponding author(s): dmeals@burlingtontelecom.net
 View
 Download
 Alerts
 Permissions
 Share

doi:10.2134/jeq2009.0108

Lag Time in Water Quality Response to Best Management Practices: A Review

  1. Donald W. Meals *a,
  2. Steven A. Dressingb and
  3. Thomas E. Davenportc
  1. a Tetra Tech, Inc., 84 Caroline St., Burlington, VT 05401
    b Tetra Tech, Inc., 1799 Rampart Dr., Alexandria, VA 22308
    c U.S Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604

Abstract

Nonpoint source (NPS) watershed projects often fail to meet expectations for water quality improvement because of lag time, the time elapsed between adoption of management changes and the detection of measurable improvement in water quality in the target water body. Even when management changes are well-designed and fully implemented, water quality monitoring efforts may not show definitive results if the monitoring period, program design, and sampling frequency are not sufficient to address the lag between treatment and response. The main components of lag time include the time required for an installed practice to produce an effect, the time required for the effect to be delivered to the water resource, the time required for the water body to respond to the effect, and the effectiveness of the monitoring program to measure the response. The objectives of this review are to explore the characteristics of lag time components, to present examples of lag times reported from a variety of systems, and to recommend ways for managers to cope with the lag between treatment and response. Important processes influencing lag time include hydrology, vegetation growth, transport rate and path, hydraulic residence time, pollutant sorption properties, and ecosystem linkages. The magnitude of lag time is highly site and pollutant specific, but may range from months to years for relatively short-lived contaminants such as indicator bacteria, years to decades for excessive P levels in agricultural soils, and decades or more for sediment accumulated in river systems. Groundwater travel time is also an important contributor to lag time and may introduce a lag of decades between changes in agricultural practices and improvement in water quality. Approaches to deal with the inevitable lag between implementation of management practices and water quality response lie in appropriately characterizing the watershed, considering lag time in selection, siting, and monitoring of management measures, selection of appropriate indicators, and designing effective monitoring programs to detect water quality response.

  Please view the pdf by using the Full Text (PDF) link under 'View' to the left.

Copyright © 2010. American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, Soil Science SocietyAmerican Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America