Post on 26-Sep-2020
Summary of the Impacts of UrbanizationSummary of the Impacts of Urbanizationon Selected Maine Streams Detected byon Selected Maine Streams Detected by
the Maine DEPthe Maine DEP
Jeff Jeff VarricchioneVarricchione, Maine Department of Environmental Protection, Maine Department of Environmental ProtectionSusanne Meidel, Partnership for Environmental Technology EducationSusanne Meidel, Partnership for Environmental Technology Education
Presentation ObjectivesPresentation Objectives• Present data collected from 2 reference
and 8 study streams in Maine– biological databiological data–– physical and chemical data physical and chemical data–– hydrological and habitat data hydrological and habitat data
• Summarize findings• Where we go from here
Portland Area Streams
2 km
Map of Study Streams
Portland: Capisic Brook
CB
South Portland: Long Creek
LC
Barberry Creek
BC
Scarborough: Red Brook
RB
Trout Brook
TB
Portland
Brunswick Stream
2 km
Map of Study Streams
Brunswick
Mare Brook
MB
Bangor Streams
2 km
Map of Study Streams
PS
Penjajawoc StreamBirch Stream
BS
Bangor
Reference SitesCapisic Brook,
PortlandRed Brook,Scarborough
Upstream, July 2003May 1999
Urban Sites
South BranchJune 1999
North BranchJune 1999
MainstemDec. 2000
Long Creek,South Portland
Urban Sites
DownstreamSeptember 2003 August 2003
Capisic Brook,Portland
Barberry Creek,South Portland
Urban Sites
DownstreamJune 2003
UpstreamSeptember 2003
Trout Brook, South Portland
Urban Sites
Birch Stream, Bangor
Downstream, July 2003
UpstreamSummer 1999
Urban SitesPenjajawoc Stream, Bangor
July 2003
Maine’s Water ClassificationMaine’s Water ClassificationProgramProgram
• Defines water quality classifications forfresh surface waters, as well asestuarine and marine waters.
• River and stream water classes:– AAAA, AA, BB, and CC
• State legislature has assigned classesto every stream and river in the state.
DissolvedOxygen
Bacteria(E. coli))
Numeric Criteria
HabitatAquatic Life (Biological)
Class AA as naturallyoccurs
free flowingand naturalas naturally occurs
Class A naturalas naturally occurs
Class B 7 mg/L; or75% sat.
427/100ml (instan-taneous)
unimpaired
support all aquatic speciesindigenous to the receivingwater; no detrimental changesto the resident biologicalcommunity
Class C 5 mg/L; or60% sat.
949/100ml (instan-taneous)
habitat for fishand otheraquatic life
maintain the structure andfunction of the residentbiological community
Water Classification CriteriaWater Classification Criteria
as naturallyoccurs
as naturallyoccurs
7mg/L; or75% sat.
Narrative Criteria
BioME ModelBioME Model• BioME is a statistical model that uses biological
data to predict the likelihood of a sample attainingclasses AA, BB, CC, or NANA.
• BioME was developed and calibrated using:– 25 biological variables– 373 samples representing a range of conditions– 15+ years of data.
• For more information, see MDEP Biomonitoring website:www. state.me.us/dep/blwq/docmonitoring/biomonitoring/index.htm
Comparison of Assigned Class Comparison of Assigned Class versus Statistical Model Classversus Statistical Model Class
AssignedClass
Statistical ModelClass
northern C NAC CC C
Capisic Brook down C NA, NAup C NA, B, NAdown C
Barberry Creek C NABirch Stream B NA, NA, C (NA)
up B NAMare Brook B NA, NAPenjajawoc Stream B NA, NA, NA
Urban Sites
Red Brook C ACapisic Brook up C A, C
Reference Sites
Trout Brook
down
Long Creek mainstemsouthern
nd
Red Br (up)
Capisic Br (up)
Penjajawoc St
Long Cr (M)Mare Br
Trout Br (up)
Trout Br (down)
Barberry Cr
Long Cr (N)
Capisic Br (down)
Birch St (down)
Birch St (up)
Long Cr (S)
Subw
ater
shed
Siz
e (a
cres
)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
% Im
perv
ious
ness
0
10
20
30
40
50
Reference Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Urban Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
nd
Subwatershed Subwatershed Size and % ImperviousnessSize and % ImperviousnessSubwatershed Size% Imperviousness
Penjajawoc St - large undevelopedwetland watershed in upper 1/2
BiologicalBiologicalDataData
SensitiveSensitive andand IntermediateIntermediate SpeciesSpecies
CaddisCaddisfliesflies
MayfliesMayflies
StonefliesStoneflies
Dragonflies and DamselfliesDragonflies and Damselflies
TrichopteraTrichoptera
EphemeropteraEphemeroptera
PlecopteraPlecoptera
TolerantTolerant SpeciesSpecies
LeechesLeechesMidgesMidges
SnailsSnailsScudsScudsNon-insects
Non-insect
Non-insect
Number of Different Kinds ofNumber of Different Kinds ofMayflies, Stoneflies and CaddisfliesMayflies, Stoneflies and Caddisflies
Red Br (up)
Capisic Br (up)
Penjajawoc St
Long Cr (M)Mare Br
Trout Br (up)
Trout Br (down)
Barberry Cr
Long Cr (N)
Capisic Br (down)
Birch St (down)
Birch St (up)
Long Cr (S)
EPT
Ric
hnes
s
0
4
8
12
16
nd
Reference Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Urban Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1999 onlymultiple years (+ 1 SD)
Reference versus Urban StreamsReference versus Urban Streams
Shift from insect to non-insect taxa
Red Br (up)
Capisic Br (up)
Penjajawoc St
Long Cr (M)Mare Br
Trout Br (up)
Trout Br (down)
Barberry Cr
Long Cr (N)
Capisic Br (down)
Birch St (down)
Birch St (up)
Long Cr (S)
% N
on-In
sect
s
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
nd
Reference Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Urban Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Percentage of OrganismsPercentage of OrganismsThat Are Not InsectsThat Are Not Insects
1999 onlymultiple years (+ 1 SD)
Stonefly Abundance and Land UseStonefly Abundance and Land Use
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.90
10
20
30
Perli
dae
Abu
ndan
ce
Proportion of developed oragricultural land
Red Br (up)
Capisic Br (up)
Penjajawoc St
Long Cr (M)Mare Br
Trout Br (up)
Trout Br (down)
Barberry Cr
Long Cr (N)
Capisic Br (down)
Birch St (down)
Birch St (up)
Long Cr (S)
Bro
ok T
rout
Abu
ndan
ce (
# / 1
00 m
)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
nd ndnd nd0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reference Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Urban Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Abundance of Brook TroutAbundance of Brook Trout
Red Br (up)
Capisic Br (up)
Penjajawoc St
Long Cr (M)Mare Br
Trout Br (up)
Trout Br (down)
Barberry Cr
Long Cr (N)
Capisic Br (down)
Birch St (down)
Birch St (up)
Long Cr (S)
% M
otile
Dia
tom
s
05
1015202530354045505560657075
nd nd nd nd nd nd
Reference Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Urban Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Percentage of Motile DiatomsPercentage of Motile Diatoms
Physical andPhysical andChemical DataChemical Data
Temperature Study in Long Creek and Red Brook
Summer 2000
Aerial Photo of Study Streams and Sites
RB
LC
1 km
Aerial Photo of Study Streams and Sites
RB
LC
1 km
RB-RefRB-Ref
Aerial Photo of Study Streams and Sites
RB
LC
1 km
LC-RefLC-Ref
Aerial Photo of Study Streams and Sites
RB
LC
1 km
AA
Aerial Photo of Study Streams and Sites
RB
LC
1 km
BB
Aerial Photo of Study Streams and Sites
RB
LC
1 km
CC
Aerial Photo of Study Streams and Sites
RB
LC
1 km
DD
Brook Trout Upper Tolerancesfrom Various Studies
Temperature Data (week ending 7/1/2000)
RB-Ref
LC-Ref
A BC
DForest Forest,
Spring OpenOpen
ForestForest
Maximum Weekly Temperatures, Summer 1999
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
7/3 7/10 7/17 7/24 7/31 8/7 8/14 8/21 8/28 9/4 9/11 9/18 9/25Week ending on -
Max
imum
Wee
kly
Tem
pera
ture
(°C
)
Long Creek (M ) Long Creek (N )Capisic Brook (up ) Red Brook ( )Capisic Brook (down )
Capisic Brook (up )
Maximum Weekly Temperatures, Summer 2003
Week ending on -
Max
imum
Wee
kly
Tem
pera
ture
(°C
)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
7/5 7/12 7/19 7/26 8/2 8/9 8/16 8/23 8/30 9/6 9/13 9/20 9/27
Barberry Creek ( ) Penjajawoc Stream ( )
Capisic Brook (down )
Birch Stream (down )Trout Brook (down ) Trout Brook (up )
Red Br (up)
Capisic Br (up)
Penjajawoc St
Long Cr (M)Mare Br
Trout Br (up)
Trout Br (down)
Barberry Cr
Long Cr (N)
Capisic Br (down)
Birch St (down)
Birch St (up)
Long Cr (S)
Dis
solv
ed O
xyge
n - E
arly
AM
- (m
g/L)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Reference Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Urban Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Dissolved Oxygen Concentration(Early Morning)
5 mg/L
7 mg/L[ ]
Red Br (up)
Capisic Br (up)
Penjajawoc St
Long Cr (M)Mare Br
Trout Br (up)
Trout Br (down)
Barberry Cr
Long Cr (N)
Capisic Br (down)
Birch St (down)
Birch St (up)
Long Cr (S)
Spec
ific
Con
duct
ance
(µS/
cm)
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
20002800
3000
Reference Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Urban Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ConductivityConductivity1999 onlymultiple years (+ 1 SD)
LC
RB
Pollutants (Pollutants (ppmppm))
0.003, 0.020
0.050, 0.2000.030, 0.140
0.090, 0.270
I - 295
Scarb. Conn.
I - 95
Lead ZincCopper NickelCadmium TSSChloride
• Max. concentrations during 3/28/00 storm;• Underlined data indicates exceedence of CMC criteria
Hydrology andHydrology andHabitat DataHabitat Data
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0Ru
noff:
Rain
fall
Ratio
3/28/0010/18/00
LC-S LC-M RB
3/28/00 = 1.6"10/18/00 = 1.1"
Site
Runoff : Rainfall RatioRunoff : Rainfall Ratio
% impervious: 47% 13% 8%
0
20
40
60
80
100
Time (hrs) on March 28-29, 2000
Cha
nge
in S
tage
(%)
LC - S(47% impervious)
LC - M(13% impervious)
RB (8% impervious)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Discharge DataDischarge Data
NaturalNaturalStreamStream
ClassificationClassificationSystemSystem
((Rosgen Rosgen 1996)1996)
Stream/SiteRosgen
ClassificationLONG CREEK SITESJetport Tributary (LC-N)
LC-N-0.595 E5 (disturbed)Main Stem Tributary (LC-M)
LC-M-1.653 E5 (normal)LC-Mn-2.274 E6 (disturbed)
Maine Mall Tributary (LC-S)LC-S-0.220 E5 (disturbed)LC-S-0.369 E5 (disturbed)
RED BROOK SITES (RB)RB-1.434 E5 (normal)RB-2.119 E5 (normal)RB-3.961 E5 (normal)
LC-Mw-2.896 C6 (disturbed)
G6c (disturbed)LC-M-0.603LC-M-0.432
LC-N-0.404 C5 (disturbed)
B5c (disturbed)
Rosgen Stream Classification
“Normal Channels”“Normal Channels”
“Disturbed Channels”“Disturbed Channels”
Large Woody DebrisLarge Woody Debris
510152025303540 Red Brook-3.500~
Boyd Lake Unnamed Stream
Capisic Stream-Upstream5
10152025303540
510152025303540
510152025303540 Barberry Creek
Linear Distance Along Stream (m)0 20 40 60 80 100
510152025303540 Birch Stream
510152025303540 Trout Brook-Upstream
510152025303540 Trout Brook-Downstream
510152025303540 Capisic Stream-Downstream
510152025303540 Long Creek-0.380
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1005
10152025303540 Long Creek-LC-Mn-2.600~
Mea
n D
iam
eter
of W
oody
Deb
ris (c
m)
Ref.Line
=~
15 cmor 6 in
Large Woody Debris
SummarySummary
• Biological communities (macroinvertebrates, fish,algae) are altered with a shift to more tolerantspecies in urban streams
• Urban streams generally do not meet their assignedWater Quality Class while reference streams do
• ButBut - not all is lost, most urban streams have somethingstill going for them (low temperature, riparian buffer,concerned citizen groups), and there still are bugsand fish there
• Physical and chemical parameters (temperature, earlymorning DO, conductivity, pollutants) are usuallydegraded in urban streams
• Habitat parameters (runoff:rainfall ratios, discharge,channel structure, large woody debris) are in worsecondition in urban streams
• Urbanization degrades streams in Maine[MDEP Studies; Other Studies: Morse (2001), Woodcock (2002), Guay (2002), South Portland Engineering (1995) / Planning (1983)]
• Disturbed urban streams: complicated & difficult to restore
• Planning can help prevent future “heavily degraded” situations in Maine
• Likely restoration priorities:- in-stream / riparian / floodplain restoration- stormwater system retrofits
Where We Go From HereWhere We Go From Here
• Urban streams are valuable resources that should beprotected/restored
• MDEP Biomonitoring Unit (Leon Tsomides, Tom Danielson, Susan Davies)
• SWAT (Surface Water Ambient Toxics) Program
• Brunswick Naval Air Station
• Others (Jeff Dennis, Chandler Morse, Mike Smith, John Field, John Reynolds)
• MDEP Staff, Interns and Volunteers