Transcript Blackwater Creek Watershed Assement

Blackwater
Creek
Watershed
Assessment
Teams
Physical Team - Derek Pinheiro, Libby Kircher, Marley
Connor, Rich Fletcher
Chemical Team - Albert Leavell, Naomi Tice
Macroinvertebrate Team - Ryan Beale, R.J. McNally, Jake
Kappes
Fish Team - Nels Erickson, Ben Tumolo, Nate Curtis
Writing Team - Emilee Herbert, Jan Rodes, Beth Dzula
Project Purpose

To provide the City of Lynchburg with an upto-date report on the water quality of the
Blackwater Creek Watershed

Determine land-use impacts on water quality
on various sampling sites throughout the
watershed

Propose practical restoration methods (best
management practices)
Blackwater Creek Watershed
Upper Ivy Creek Watershed
Richard Chaffin Farm Sampling Site
Middle Ivy Creek Watershed
Hooper Road Sampling Site
Lower Ivy Creek Watershed
Peaks View Park Sampling Site
Lower Blackwater Watershed
Hollins Mill Sampling Site
Burton Watershed
Rock Castle Creek Sampling Site
Dreaming Watershed
Dreaming Creek Sampling Site
Tomahawk Watershed
Tomahawk Creek Sampling Site
Stream Channelization

EPA definition: “any activity
that moves, straightens,
shortens, cuts off, diverts, or
fills a stream channel, whether
natural or previously altered.
Such activities include the
widening, narrowing,
straightening, or lining of a
stream channel that alters the
amount and speed of the
water flowing through the
channel”

Reduces ability to slow floods
and absorb damage
Changes flood heights and
frequency
Alters habitat types
Causes changes in plant and
animal communities



Riparian Zone










Areas that surround water
bodies in the watershed and
are composed of moist to
saturated soils, water-loving
plant species and their
associated ecosystems
Connects the waters edge
with dry land
Shade and cool stream
Stabilize banks
Collect sediment
Provide nutrients to macros
Create pools
Filter and purify water
Prevents floods
Lessens turbidity
Sedimentation





The blocking of an
aquatic system by
the deposition of
sediment
Chokes reservoirs
Raises river beds
Alters habitat
composition
Blocks light from
entering system
Eutrophication






Ecosystem response to the
addition of artificial or natural
substances such as nitrates
and phosphates, through
fertilizers or sewage, to an
aquatic system
Reduces biodiversity
Kills off certain organisms
Reduces visibility and mobility
functions due to biotic
overgrowth
Reduces dissolved oxygen
content
Can completely alter
ecosystem
Impervious Surfaces






Roads, parking lots,
rooftops, and other hard
surfaces characteristic of
urban areas that prevent
rainwater from infiltrating
into the ground, delivering
it instead as stormwater to
rivers, lakes and estuaries
Causes higher maximum
flows and lower minimum
flows
Degrades habitats
Carries sediment and
pollution to waterways
Raises water temperature
Decreases biodiversity
Physical Data
TEAM members:

Rich Fletcher, Libby Kircher, Derek Pinheiro, Marley
Connor
The measurements taken by the Physical
group examine the effects on the stream
by surrounding land use.
Physical and visual monitoring and
assessment was used to determine
stream quality and condition.
Physical Materials
 Garmin
GPS
 Self Level Laser
 Meter stick
 Tape measure
 Stream assessment form
Methods
 Set
up self level laser on stream bank
 Stretch tape measure across stream to
measure width (meters)
 Attach indicator to meter stick
 Place meter stick at meter or half meter
intervals, aligning until beeping from
indicator is consistent
 Record measurements on stream
assessment form
 Use GPS to record location from starting
point and to end of stream reach
Ivy Creek at Peaks View Park
RCI= 0.8
Observation: Soil deposits and
over-widened bank
Black Water Creek at Hollins
Mill Dam
RCI=1.45
Observation= exposed tree
routes, low sedimentation
upstream
Ivy Creek at Chaffin Farm
RCI= 1.12
Observation= good
overhead vegetation,
small vegetation in stream
bank
Ivy Creek at Hooper Road
RCI= 1.09
Observation= high
sedimentation in
downstream reach.
High amounts of
woody debris
Tomahawk Creek
RCI= 0.74
Observation= open
water, high tree
canopy, lots of shade
and leafy debris
Dreaming Creek
RCI= .85
Observation=
undercutting in
banks, high bed load
Rock Castle Creek
RCI= .61
Observation= severe
vertical incision at width,
zero overhead tree cover,
severe impervious
pavement around area
RCI Over Time
Site
Reach Condition
Index:
Rock Castle Creek (Cracker
Barrel)
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
0.7
0.9 0.62 0.88 0.74
Tomahawk
Ivy Creek Chaffin Farm
Ivy Creek (Peaks View Park)
Ivy Creek (Hooper Rd.)
Dreaming Creek (Heritage
Funeral Home)
Black water Creek (Hollins Mill
Dam)
These values are based on the USM Stream Assessment
Form which takes Channel Condition, Riparian Buffers, Instream Habitat, and Channel Alteration into consideration.
1 0.59 0.81 0.61
1.1 0.98 0.62
0.68 0.73 0.71
1 0.95 0.86
1 0.92
0.95
1.8 1.12
0.9
0.8
1.4 1.09
0.9 0.92 0.85
1.2 0.96
1.2 1.45
Physical Analysis Conclusions

Land use has a significant effect on water
quality of streams in the area.

The use of riparian buffers can dramatically
reduce the potential for stream degradation.

Being proactive about stream health is
superior to being reactive.

Prevention > mitigation
Water Quality Standards

pH: 6-9

Temperature: Maximum 32°

Nitrate: 10 ppm (standard for drinking water)

Phosphate: 0.1 ppm

E. coli- Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA)
recommended guidelines of 235 E. coli organisms
per 100 milliliters
Phosphate (ppm) at selected
sites from 2004-2012
0.8
0.7
Chaffin
0.6
Dreaming
0.5
Peaksview
PPM 0.4
Rock
Castle
*
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
2004
2005
2006
2008
Year
2010
2011
2012
Nitrate (ppm) at selected sites from
2004-2012
2.5
2
1.5
Chaffin
PPM
Dreaming
Peaksview
1
Rock Castle
0.5
0
2004
2005
2006
2008
Year
2010
2011
2012
pH levels from 2004-2012 in at
selected sites
9
8.5
8
7.5
Chaffin
pH
Dreaming
7
Peaksview
Rock Castle
6.5
6
5.5
2004
2005
2006
2008
2009
Year
2010
2011
2012
Conductivity (µS/cm) at Chaffin
and Peaks View from 2004-2012
250
200
150
Conductivity
(µS/cm)
Chaffin
Peaksview
100
50
0
2004
2005
2006
2008
2009
Year
2010
2011
2012
E. Coli for all sites in 2012
250
200
150
Colonies/200ml
100
50
0
Chaffin
Hooper
Peaksview
Hollins Mill
Site
Tomahawk
Dreaming Rock Castle
Creak
Chemical Analysis Conclusions

Streams with high conductivity levels may be the result of
large amounts of runoff flowing into the stream. Large
amounts of runoff typically carry sediment that causes
conductivity to rise.

Peaks view Park has seen an increase in phosphorous
through out years studied.

Other indicators: D.O, pH, Temp, Phosphate, and Nitrate, did
not have any noticeable trends between streams or years that
would indicate significant difference between the streams
and their past or current condition.
Cited Sources
 http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidanc
e/standards/wqslibrary/upload/vawqs.pd
f
 http://www.epa.gov/caddis/ssr_urb_wsq2
.html
Macroinvertebrate Collection:
Tools
Hess Net
Kick Screen
Indices

EPT – Measure of indicator species: Ephemeroptera
(Mayflies), Plecoptera (Stoneflies), Trichoptera (Caddisflies).
These three families are sensitive to pollutants.

PMA- Percent Model Affinity, compares sampled stream to
an unpolluted ideal stream, highly variable depending on
biodiversity.

FBI- Family Biotic Index, Based on each species tolerance
to pollution a number is assigned to show stream pollution. A
lower number is more pristine.
Chaffin Farm
Water Quality
Excellent
Very Good
Good
Fair
Fairly Poor
Poor
Very Poor
FBI
EPT
.00-3.75 >10
3.764.25
4.265.00
6-9
5.015.75
2-5
5.76-6.5
6.517.25
0-1
7.26-10
-
PMA
>64
50-64
35-49
<35
-
Hooper Road
Water Quality
FBI
Excellent
.00-3.75
>10
>64
Very Good
3.76-4.25
-
-
Good
4.26-5.00
6-9
50-64
Fair
5.01-5.75
2-5
35-49
Fairly Poor
5.76-6.5
-
-
Poor
6.51-7.25
0-1
<35
7.26-10
-
-
Very Poor
EPT
PMA
Hollins Mill
Water Quality
FBI
EPT
PMA
Excellent
.00-3.75
>10
>64
Very Good
3.76-4.25
-
-
Good
4.26-5.00
6-9
50-64
Fair
5.01-5.75
2-5
35-49
Fairly Poor
5.76-6.5
-
-
Poor
6.51-7.25
0-1
<35
7.26-10
-
-
Very Poor
Peaks View Park
Water Quality
FBI
EPT
PMA
Excellent
.00-3.75
>10
>64
Very Good
3.76-4.25
-
-
Good
4.26-5.00
6-9
50-64
Fair
5.01-5.75
2-5
35-49
Fairly Poor
5.76-6.5
-
-
Poor
6.51-7.25
0-1
<35
7.26-10
-
-
Very Poor
Dreaming Creek
Water Quality
FBI
EPT
PMA
Excellent
.00-3.75
>10
>64
Very Good
3.76-4.25
-
-
Good
4.26-5.00
6-9
50-64
Fair
5.01-5.75
2-5
35-49
Fairly Poor
5.76-6.5
-
-
Poor
6.51-7.25
0-1
<35
7.26-10
-
-
Very Poor
Rock Castle
Water Quality
FBI
EPT
PMA
Excellent
.00-3.75
>10
>64
Very Good
3.76-4.25
-
-
Good
4.26-5.00
6-9
50-64
Fair
5.01-5.75
2-5
35-49
Fairly Poor
5.76-6.5
-
-
Poor
6.51-7.25
0-1
<35
7.26-10
-
-
Very Poor
Tomahawk
Water Quality
FBI
EPT
PMA
Excellent
.00-3.75
>10
>64
Very Good
3.76-4.25
-
-
Good
4.26-5.00
6-9
50-64
Fair
5.01-5.75
2-5
35-49
Fairly Poor
5.76-6.5
-
-
Poor
6.51-7.25
0-1
<35
7.26-10
-
-
Very Poor
2012 Analysis (Macros)
Overall
 The
Chaffin Farm site has the healthiest water
quality, being located in a rural area
 The
Rock Castle Creek had the worst water
quality, being located in a urban area
 The
trend that is presented shows how
urbanization decreases water quality
2012 Fish Team
 Nathan,
Curtis, Nels Erickson, Ben
Tumolo, Dr. Shahady, and the Physical
Team
Materials
Waders
 Smith-Root LR-24 Electrofisher Backpack
 Nets
 Buckets
 Fish ID Book
 Pencil
 Paper

Methods
Turn backpack on
 Start time
 Begin collecting samples
 ID Fish and release them back into stream
 Enter data into spreadsheet
 Compile IBI Scores
 Analyze data

Ranking according to Fish
Populations
Hollins Mill
2. Chaffin Farm
3. Hooper Road
4. Rock Castle Creek
5. Dreaming Creek
6. Tomahawk Creek
7. Ivy Creek
1.
The Index of Biological Integrity
(IBI)

Index used to reflect the biological health in small
streams.

Uses qualitative data.

9 different measurements


Biodiversity, Relations between species, Populations
Scored 1-5


5 = very little human influence
1 = departs significantly from a reference stream (Ideal
or pristine)
Parameters

Measurement 1 – Total number of fish species

Measurement 2 – Total number of darter species/Relative percent of darter species to
the total.

Measurement 3 – Total number/relative percent of water column insectivores.

Measurement 4 – Total number/relative percent of pool-benthic insectivores.

Measurement 5 – Total number/relative percent of intolerant species.

Measurement 6 – Relative abundance of tolerant species.

Measurement 7 – Relative abundance of omnivores or generalist feeders.

Measurement 8 – Relative abundance of top carnivores.

Measurement 9 – Deviation from ideal or number of individuals in sample.
Hollins Mill
Hollins Mill
Total IBI Score
40
35
30
25
20
Total IBI Score
15
Linear (Total IBI
Score)
10
5
0
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
Hollins Mill IBI
Improvements

Total IBI





2005 (27)
2012 (36.5)
Increase in Total # Fish
Species
Good Diversity
Healthy balance
between


Tolerant (37%)
Intolerant (63%)
Concerns
 High
percentage
of Percids relative
to total population
 Absence of Top
Carnivores
Chaffin Farm
Subwatershed Upper Ivy
Chaffin Farm
Chaffin Farm
40
35
30
25
20
Chaffin Farm
15
Linear (Chaffin Farm)
10
5
0
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
Chaffin Farm IBI
Improvements

Total IBI





2005 (30)
2012 (34.5)
Increase in Total # Fish
Species
Decrease in Omnivores
Healthy balance
between


Tolerant (41%)
Intolerant (59%)
Concerns
 Absence
of Top
Carnivores
 Deviation from
total sample
Temporal Trends in the IBI of Rock Castle
Creek
40
35
30
25
20
IBI
15
10
5
0
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Year
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Interpretations

Has slightly improved in fish health

Responding well from development

However the effects of Wards road will be
largely felt down stream.

The stream bank were able to equilibrate to
the stress caused by development but
downstream the effects will be maximized.
Temporal Trends in the IBI of
Hooper Road Creek
40
35
30
25
IBI
20
15
10
5
0
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Year
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Interpretation
40
35
30
Series1
25
Series2
20
Linear (Series1)
Linear (Series1)
15
Linear (Series2)
10
5
0
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013

The numbers are very consistent and ideal as far as quality.

However we can already see a clear lowering of number from
the Chaffin Farm site close upstream.
Hooper Creek
Tomahawk
35
30
25
20
IBI
15
10
5
0
2009
2009
2010
2010
2011
Year
2011
2012
2012
2013
Dreaming Creek
35
30
25
20
IBI
15
10
5
0
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Year

-IBI has steadily increased over the past few years.
-Fish diversity has risen in the recent years.
-Residential and forested area
2011
2012
2013
Temporal Trends in Ivy Creek
25
20
15
IBI
10
5
0
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Year
2010
2011
2012
2013

Water quality has rapidly declined according to
the IBI indexes over the last 2-4 years

Highly residential area




Runoff
Residential pollution
Impervious surface
Riffles were not as abundant due to sediment
buildup
40
35
30
25
IBI 20
Chaffin Farm
Ivy Creek
15
10
5
0
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008 2009
Year
2010
2011
2012
2013
Conclusions
 Water
quality is improving
 Concern
 Protect
efforts
 Do
for maintaining BMPs
Hollins Mill / Ramp up restoration
nothing at Ivy Creek / Peaks View