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 up-to-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 WatershedRichard Chaffin Farm Sampling Site

Middle Ivy Creek WatershedHooper Road Sampling Site

Lower Ivy Creek WatershedPeaks View Park Sampling Site

Lower Blackwater WatershedHollins Mill Sampling Site

Burton WatershedRock Castle Creek Sampling Site

Dreaming WatershedDreaming Creek Sampling Site

Tomahawk WatershedTomahawk 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 DataTEAM 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 RoadRCI= 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 CreekRCI= .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 TimeSite

Reach Condition Index: 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Rock Castle Creek (Cracker Barrel) 0.7 1 0.59 0.81 0.61

Tomahawk 0.9 0.62 0.88 0.74

Ivy Creek  Chaffin Farm 1.1 0.98 0.62 1.8 1.12

Ivy Creek (Peaks View Park) 0.68 0.73 0.71 0.9 0.8

Ivy Creek (Hooper Rd.) 1 0.95 0.86 1.4 1.09Dreaming Creek (Heritage Funeral Home) 1 0.92 0.9 0.92 0.85Black water Creek (Hollins Mill Dam) 0.95 1.2 0.96 1.2 1.45

These values are based on the USM Stream Assessment Form which takes Channel Condition, Riparian Buffers, In-stream Habitat, and Channel

Alteration into consideration.

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

2004 2005 2006 2008 2010 2011 20120

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

Chaffin

Dreaming

Peaksview

Rock Cas-tle

Year

PPM

*

Nitrate (ppm) at selected sites from 2004-2012

2004 2005 2006 2008 2010 2011 20120

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

ChaffinDreamingPeaksviewRock Castle

Year

PPM

pH levels from 2004-2012 in at selected sites

2004 2005 2006 2008 2009 2010 2011 20125.5

6

6.5

7

7.5

8

8.5

9

ChaffinDreamingPeaksviewRock Castle

Year

pH

Conductivity (µS/cm) at Chaffin and Peaks View from 2004-2012

2004 2005 2006 2008 2009 2010 2011 20120

50

100

150

200

250

Chaffin

Peaksview

Year

Conductivity(µS/cm)

E. Coli for all sites in 2012

Chaffin Hooper Peaksview Hollins Mill Tomahawk Dreaming Creak

Rock Castle0

50

100

150

200

250

Site

Colonies/200ml

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/swguidance/standards/wqslibrary/upload/vawqs.pdf

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 FBI EPT PMAExcellent .00-3.75 >10 >64

Very Good3.76-4.25 - -

Good4.26-5.00 6-9 50-64

Fair5.01-5.75 2-5 35-49

Fairly Poor 5.76-6.5 - -

Poor6.51-7.25 0-1 <35

Very Poor 7.26-10 - -

Hooper Road

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

Very Poor 7.26-10 - -

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

Very Poor 7.26-10 - -

Peaks View ParkWater 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

Very Poor 7.26-10 - -

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

Very Poor 7.26-10 - -

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

Very Poor 7.26-10 - -

TomahawkWater 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

Very Poor 7.26-10 - -

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

1. Hollins Mill2. Chaffin Farm3. Hooper Road

4. Rock Castle Creek5. Dreaming Creek6. Tomahawk Creek

7. Ivy Creek

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

2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 20140

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40 Total IBI Score

Total IBI ScoreLinear (Total IBI Score)

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 FarmSubwatershed Upper Ivy

Chaffin Farm

2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 20140

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Chaffin Farm

Chaffin FarmLinear (Chaffin Farm)

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

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 20130

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

IBI

Year

Temporal Trends in the IBI of Rock Castle Creek

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.

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 20130

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

IBI

Year

Temporal Trends in the IBI of Hooper Road Creek

Interpretation

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.

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 20130

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Series1Linear (Series1)Linear (Series1)Series3Linear (Series3)

Hooper Creek

Tomahawk

2008 2010 2012 20140

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Year

IBI

Dreaming Creek

-IBI has steadily increased over the past few years.-Fish diversity has risen in the recent years.

-Residential and forested area

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 20130

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Year

IBI

Temporal Trends in Ivy Creek

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 20130

5

10

15

20

25

Year

IBI

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

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 20130

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Chaffin FarmIvy Creek

Year

IBI

Conclusions

Water quality is improving

Concern for maintaining BMPs

Protect Hollins Mill / Ramp up restoration efforts

Do nothing at Ivy Creek / Peaks View