quantifying the effects of the blacks run stream restoration at purcell park

7/27/2019 Quantifying the Effects of the Blacks Run Stream Restoration at Purcell Park

1/32

Quantifying the Effects of the Blacks Run Stream

Restoration at Purcell Park

Shanna K. Murphy


2/32

Impaired Waters in Virginia

Out of 18,492 VA rivers assessed for WQS:

29% (5,347): Non-Impaired

71% (13,145): Impaired


3/32

Blacks RunBackground Information

Located in the South Fork Shenandoah

River Basin

Comprised of 12,255 acres

Over 8 miles of the 10.74-mile stream

flows through urban development

before entering a primarily rural area in

the lower portion

GIS Land Use Assessment:

-Urban/Suburban: 66%-Pasture/Hayland: 16%

-Cropland: 9%

-Forest: 8%


4/32

We live in the Blacks Run watershed before we get out to the riveror the bay. This is our home, and our stream. The bigger picture is

important, but so is taking care of our back yard.

-Thanh Dang

Public Works Planner (2009)

Blacks Run was placed on VAs list of impaired waters in 1996

In 2006, VDEQ completed TMDLs for the impairments:

Fecal Coliform TMDLErosion & runoff from agricultural livestock

Untreated human waste disposal

Wildlife

Residential & urban land runoff

Aquatic Life TMDLOverabundance of sediment & phosphorus


5/32

Urban Stream SyndromeThe consistent observation of a streams ecological degradation

that drains urban land.

Flashy hydrographs

Alterations in channel structure

Excessive nutrient and sediment

contamination

Decline in biological diversity


6/32


7/32

In March of 2009, a massive restoration

project took place on approximately 4,750 ft.

of Blacks Run and two neighboring

tributaries.

Reestablished

the naturalmorphology of the

stream

Steep and

eroding banks

were scaled back


8/32

Approximately 3,500

native trees andvegetation were

planted

Rock and log

structures wereadded to the

channel


9/32


10/32


11/32

Continue efforts at measuring and quantifying the

direct impacts of the restoration on Blacks Run by

implementing a number of stream quality assessment

techniques.

Characterize the post-restoration condition

Compare the data to previous studies to determine

whether or not Blacks Run can meet its designated

usages


12/32

The Sites

1 Urban Site

2 Restoration Sites

1 Rural Site


13/32

Site #1: BR-Bike

Exclusively urban setting

Upstream of the restoration

Artificially straightened

channel

Diverted

underneath

parking lot


14/32

Site #2: BR-Park

Located at the restoration

in Purcell ParkDownstream of BR-Bike

Site #3: SC-ParkLocated at the restoration

at the confluence with

Seiberts Creek


15/32

Site #4: BR-CWB

Located downstream

from the restoration

Primarily rural

setting

Crop Field

Livestock Pasture


16/32

Measurement Category Collected Data Frequency

General Water Quality

Temperature, pH,

Dissolved Oxygen, Specific

Conductivity, Water Levels

Bimonthly

NutrientsTotal Chloride, Nitrate-Nitrogen, Total Sulfate,

Total Phosphorus

Bimonthly

Macroinvertebrate Benthic Macro Counts Annual

Riparian BufferSpecies, Height,Condition, GPS

Coordinates

Annual

Fish Species Species and Numbers Biannual

Collected Data


17/32

General Water Quality Data

Water quality parameters were measured and recordedtwice a month at each site:

Dissolved Oxygen (DO)

Temperature

pH

Specific Conductivity (SC)

Water Levels


18/32

Water Levels

Water levels taken as reference to storm events


19/32

Temperatures ranged

between around 1C- 25C

Urban sitehigher in

summer, lower in winter

Rural sitehigher in winter,

lower in summer

31

C

maximum

7.61 7.10

10.63

6.48

21.47 21.43

18.21

23.34

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

BR-PARK SC-PARK BR-BIKE BR-CWB

Temperature(Celsius)

Site

Winter vs. Summer Average TemperatureWinter

Summer


20/32

5.0 mg/Lminimu

m

10.1910.67

8.21

11.76

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00


mg/L

Site

Average DO

DO decreases in

summer due to warmer

temperatures and visa

versa

Levels consistently

increase moving

downstream


21/32

8.32

8.22

7.75

8.41

7.40

7.60

7.80

8.00

8.20

8.40

8.60


pH

Site

Total Average pH

6.5-9.5

Urban site continuously had

the lowest pH levels, both in

the bi-monthly measurements

and the average of the 19-

month sampling period.

Increased carbon dioxide

levels lower the pH of water


22/32

0.664

0.679

0.638

0.582

0.520

0.540

0.560

0.580

0.600

0.6200.640

0.660

0.680

0.700


ms/cm

Site

Average SC

Almost all

measurements fell

outside the healthyrange

Rural site consistently

held the lowest average

.150-.500

ms/cm


23/32

Essential nutrient for

algae and aquatic plants

EPA WQC recommends 0.1 mg/L for aquatic life and0.01 mg/L for max diversity

Considered a limiting factor for plant and aquatic

life


24/32

0.041

0.023

0.049

0.029

0.000

0.010

0.020

0.030

0.040

0.050

0.060


mg/L

Site

Average Phosphorus

0.1

mg/L

0.01

mg/L

Federa

l

WQC

Max

Diversity

Lowest average = SC-Park

with 0.023 mg/L

Highest average = BR-Bike

with 0.049 mg/L


25/32

Ion Chromatography

Nutrient Analysis &

Each water sample was

analyzed for major

anions using a Dionex

Ion Chromatograph

Three primary anions were

found in each sample:

Nitrate

Sulfate

Chloride


26/32

11.16

6.29

13.93

7.22

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

16.00


mg/L

Site

Average Nitrate

WQS

10 mg/L

Samples frequently exceeded

the Federal standard

BR-Bike held the highest

average nitrate at 13.93, and

SC-Park was the lowest at

6.29


27/32

Benthic Macroinvertebrate Survey

Sensitive to changes in

the ecosystem

Most live in an aquatic

environment for over ayear

Class I Pollution Intolerant Highly Sensitive

Class II Somewhat Pollution Tolerant Found in clean and slightly polluted waterways

Class III Pollution Tolerant Found in polluted, as well as clean, waterways

Easy to collect and analyze as water quality indicators


28/32

SitePopulation Density

(2011)

Population Density

(2012)

BR-

PARK5.25 11.75

SC-PARK 7.25 14

BR-BIKE 11.75 4.25

BR-CWB 16.5 19

SiteDate of

Survey

VA SOS

Multimetric Index

Ecological Condition

BR-PARK

(Restoration

1)

11/2/11 4 Unacceptable


SC-PARK

(Restoration2)

11/2/11 9 Acceptable

10/5/12 8

Gray Zone

Unable to

Determine

BR-BIKE

(Urban)



BR-CWB(Rural)




29/32

Riparian Buffer Survey

Prevent erosion

Enhance aquatic and

terrestrial habitat

Temperature regulation

Alive Dead Good Fair Poor

288 118 141 129 18

71% 29% 35% 32% 4%

Fish Species Survey


30/32

Fish Species Survey

SpeciesUrban(2008)-DGIF

Urban(2013)

Park(2008)-DGIF

Park(2013)

Rural(2008)-DGIF

Rural(2013)

CommonShiner

0 40 44 15 15 37

BluntnoseMinnow

0 9 66 49 23 5

WhiteSucker

0 10 16 12 8 0

GreenSunfish

0 0 2 10 0 0

BlueheadChub

0 28 18 25 8 18

Redbreast

Sunfish0 0 14 5 6 19

YellowBullhead

0 0 0 2 4 2

BlacknoseDace

11 116 49 6 0 0

Long-Nosed Dace

0 2 0 0 0 0

MarginedMadtom

0 0 0 0 0 1

FatheadMinnow

0 0 11 0 0 0

BandedKillifish

0 0 6 0 0 0

SPT 0 0 0 0 7 0

Total 11 205 226 124 71 82

SpeciesTotal 1 6 9 8 7 6


31/32

Aquatic life is still fairly poor due to excessive

nutrient and pollutant loads.

19 months of monitoring has shown that BR-

Bike consistently has the lowest

macroinvertebrate and fish diversity, pH, and

DO and the highest nitrate and phosphorus

levels.

BMPs, better land use practices, volunteer

clean-up days, and future monitoring are

essential


32/32

Acknowledgments

Dr. Robert Brent

Erica Harriman

WC Price &

Fred Copithorn

Dr. Benzing

Louise Finger &

Steve Reeser

from Virginia DGIF

Friends & Family

quantifying the effects of the blacks run stream restoration at purcell park

Documents