ENSC 202 Watershed Assessment Final Projects

1
ENSC 202 Watershed Assessment Final Projects

• Impacts of stormwater runoff on stream health in
  urbanizing areas of the north eastern Vermont

2
Project Goal

• Determine whether streams that have been
  designated as impaired by stormwater on the
  basis biocriteria also demonstrate impairment on
  the basis of habitat and geomorphic metrics.

3
Project Objectives

• Complete Phase 1 data collection using VT Stream
  Geomorphic Assessment Protocols
• Complete RHA (Step 6) and RGA (Step 7) components
  of Phase 2
• Compare and contrast key metrics from the Phase 1
  and 2 data and link to watershed characteristics
• Correlate the Phase 1 and Phase 2 metrics with
  simulated flow duration curves for the same
  watersheds

4
Project Approach

• Resources
• Vermont State 303.d listed waters
• Doug Burnhams list of provisional attainment
  streams
• Vermont Stream Geomorphic Assessment protocols
• 8 student teams
• Each team 1 impaired stream and 1 attainment
  stream
• 3 reaches on each stream
• 6 reaches per team
• 48 total reaches on 14 streams (some overlap)

5
Team Reports

• Allen Brook up and down stream Report
• Amy Myers, Jarrett Arthur, Shea Hagy, Michael
  McDonald
• Bay Centennial Brooks ReportAbby Boak,
  Sarah Booker, Kate Connelly, Cara Massameno,
  Rosalie Wilson
• Sand Hill Bartlett Brooks ReportMeghan
  Crane, Adam Effler, Kevin Mize, Keith Montone
• LaPlatte Headwaters Munroe Brooks ReportLind
  say Harrington, Maury Lynch, Jared Nunery,
  Christopher Vance
• Alder Muddy Brooks ReportJoe Kelly,
  Alison Selle, Sarah Stein, Kristin Williams
• Potash Allen Brooks ReportJoe Bartlett,
  Jennifer Fullerton, Nat Morse, Sarah Palmer,
  Travis Smith
• Alder Morehouse Brooks Report
• Mikal Burley, Ari Lejfer, Amie McCarth, Trevor
  Pratt, Katherine Traverse
• Trout Sunderland Brooks ReportMary
  Blackwell, Carmen Herold-Lind, Alethea Jones,
  Jason Landis, Gabe Mason, Chris Tomberg

Click on the links above for specific
presentations (left) or reports (right)
6
Summary Results
7
Land use impacts all streamsImpaired more than
attainment
8
Impairment effect is evident in all key metrics
9
Evidence of all four geomorphic adjustment
processes in Phase 1 assessment
10
Adjustment processes confirmed in direct Phase 2
assessment
11
Impairment is reflected in the Phase 2 habitat
assessments
12
The top four habitat impacts are potentially
linked to sediment




13
The strongest categorical impact is in-stream
modification
Land use impact
In-stream modification
Floodplain modification
14
Habitat and Geomorphic condition are related to
stream condition index
15
Habitat quality is strongly correlated with
geomorphic condition
16
Healthy streams may be more sensitive to
geomorphic change
17
Conclusions

• Streams that are impaired on the basis of
  biocriteria are also impaired in terms of habitat
  health and geomorphic condition.
• Streams in attainment of the VT biocriteria
  standards are not in a reference condition by
  these protocols.
• All four geomorphic adjustment processes are
  active in these streams. But, are these scores
  indicative of the strength of the processes or
  the relative influences of anthropogenic impacts
  on these process?
• Sediment appears to play a key role in habitat
  degradation.
• Streams that are in attainment of VT biocriteria
  standards may be especially sensitive to habitat
  degradation by geomorphic change.
• The VT/SGA protocols, especially Phase 1, are
  difficult to apply to small urban streams due to
  constraints imposed by the resolution of
  fundamental data layers (e.g., topos, orthos)