Upload
south-shore-clean-cities
View
34
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Deep River-Portage Burns Waterway InitiativeSouth Shore Clean Cities Webinar
Tuesday, April 28, 2015
Watershed Management Plan Tasks
Watershed Community Initiative (elements 1-3)
Watershed Inventory (elements 4-16)
Identify Problems & Causes (elements 17-18)
Identify Sources & Calculate Loads (elements 19-21)
Set Goals & Identify Critical Areas (elements 22-24)
Choose Measures/ Best Management Practices (elements 25-26)
Action Register & Schedule (element 27-31)
Tracking Effectiveness (elements 32-33)
Why is Our Watershed Important?
Recreational opportunities
Aesthetics
Large stretches of meandering channel
Connects so many cities
Drains to and affects Lake Michigan
Natural areas
Wildlife
Quality of life
Sense of place
Parks and trails
Economic and tourism
Drinking water
Beauty of Lake George
Mix of urban and agriculture
Agricultural production and local produce
Stakeholder Concerns
Habitat
Economic & Recreation
Planning/Coordination/Management
Watershed Processes
Storm Water Runoff
Groundwater & Drinking Water
Floodplains/Flooding/Drainage
Miscellaneous
Steering Committee
Municipal
County or Regional
Environmental & Conservation
Recreation
Business & Industry
Universities
State & Federal
Watershed Overview
Land Cover Change
41,928
197
37,239
11,650
8,840
5,029
953
9,462
38,744
89
40,977
10,986
8,472
5,377
1,015
9,360
37,108
53
42,725
10,951
8,330
5,491
1,040
9,323
34,818
691
44,685
10,777
8,415
5,280
1,033
9,322
32,100
270
51,555
10,891
6,411
3,950
1,058
8,899
0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000
Agriculture
Bare Land
Developed
Forest
Grassland
Scrub/ Shrub
Water
Wetland
Acres
2010
2006
2001
1996
1985
Soils- Runoff Potential
Wetland Loss
Impaired Streams (2012)
Stream Monitoring Study
Parameters:• E. coli• Fish &
Macroinvertebrate Communities
• Temperature• Dissolved Oxygen• Nutrients• Ammonia• Sediments• Habitat
Impaired Streams (2016)
Water Quality Targets
Is water quality safe enough for swimming?Recreational Use
Recreational Use Threats
E. coli “Hot-Spots”
Do the streams support healthy fish & macroinvertebrate communities?Aquatic Life Use
Index of Biotic Integrity
36
Aquatic Life Use Support Criteria
Biotic Index Integrity Class Corresponding Integrity Class Attributes
Fish community Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) Scores (Range of possible scores is 0-60)
Fully SupportingIBI ≥ 36
Excellent53-60 Comparable to “least impacted” conditions,
exceptional assemblage of species
Good45-52 Decreased species richness (intolerant
species in particular), sensitive species present
Fair36-44 Intolerant and sensitive species absent,
skewed trophic structure
Not Supporting IBI < 36
Poor23-35 Many expected species absent or rare,
tolerant species dominant
Very Poor12-22 Few species and individuals present,
tolerant species dominant
No Organisms 12 No fish captured during sampling.
Integrity Class Rating
If Not, Why?
Stressor Identification
Increased stream temperaturesLow dissolved oxygen levelsExcess nutrient loadingAmmonia toxicityExcessive sediment loadingPoor habitat quality
Dissolved Oxygen Levels
Dissolved Oxygen Levels
Stream Temperature
Stream Temperature
Nutrients- Phosphorus
Nutrients- Phosphorus
Ammonia Toxicity
Ammonia Toxicity
Habitat Quality
51
Stressor Co-occurrence with Impairment
Site
Biotic Impairment
Candidate Causes/ Stressors
↑Temp↓DO ↑ Nutrients Toxicity ↑ Sediment ↓Habitat Quality
Fish Macros Temp DO TP NO3 TKN NH3 TSS Turb QHEI Emb Chan Grad
1 Yes No 0 + + 0 0 + - + - + + 0
2 Yes Yes 0 - - 0 0 0 - - - - - -
3 Yes Yes 0 - - 0 0 + - 0 + - + +
5 Yes No 0 - + - 0 0 - + - + + 0
6 No Yes 0 - + - 0 0 - 0 - + + 0
7 Yes Yes 0 - + - 0 0 - + + + - +
8 Yes Yes 0 + + - 0 + - 0 - + + 0
Site Cluster Analysis of Fish & Macroinvertebrate Communities
Variables Predictive of Community Structure
Variable FishSignificance (α=0.05, CL=95%)
MacroinvertebrateSignificance (α=0.05, CL=95%)
Water ChemistryTemperature .014Dissolved Oxygen (DO) .036 .019Dissolved Oxygen % Saturation .024Ammonia .019Turbidity .036E. coli .026pH .017Total Organic Carbon (TOC) .028Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) .046
Land CoverWetland .022 .026Forest .040Scrub/Shrub .021Riparian Deciduous Forest .003Riparian Scrub/Shrub .015
HabitatChannel Morphology .019 .018Riparian .027Gradient .001 .010Embeddedness .022
Most Influential Factors?
↑ chemical oxygen demand
industry
channel alteration
agriculture urbanization
↓ aeration
upstream impoundment
↑ nutrients
human activity
source
additional step in causal pathway
interacting stressor
proximate stressor
response
LEGEND↓ dissolved oxygen (water or sediment)
↑ dissolved oxygen (water or sediment)
↑ DO fluctuation (water or sediment
∆ ecosystem processes∆ population & community structure
↑ temperature
↑ sediment
↑ oxygen production
↑ aeration
↓ oxygen in discharged waters↑ biochemical
oxygen demand
↑ organic loading↑ chemical
contaminants
↑ delivery of chemicals, organic material, & nutrients to stream
downstream impoundment
watershed & riparian devegetation
Simple conceptual diagram for DISSOLVED OXYGENDeveloped 7/2007 by Kate Schofield & Suzanne Marcy; modified 4/2015
Opportunities for Conservation
Looking Ahead
Identify problems that reflect the concerns
Potential causes for each problem
Potential sources for each pollution problem
Pollutant loads
Load reductions needed
Set goals and identify critical areas
Stakeholder Concern Analysis
ConcernsSupported
by Data?Evidence
Able to Quantify?
Within Project Scope?
Steering Committee
Wants to Focus On?
Stream Habitat Loss and Riparian Encroachment
Yes
24 of the 35 stream sites (69%) assessed by IDEM had QHEI scores <51 indicating that habitat quality in these reaches was generally not conducive to supporting a healthy warm water fish community.
Yes Yes YesThe average “riparian quality” metric score from the QHEI was 5.5 with a range of 3 to 9 (12 possible points).An analysis of land cover types within a 30-meter buffer adjacent to streams showed that human land uses account for 35 to 65% of the area with an average of 52%.
Wetland Habitat Loss and Degradation Yes
Based on hydric soils data, approximately 37,233 acres (58 mi²) of wetland historically existed within the watershed. Today only about 9,247 acres (14 mi²) or 25% of that wetland area remains.
Yes Yes Yes
Concerns & Problems
Concern Problem• Stream Habitat Loss and Riparian Encroachment• Wetland Habitat Loss and Degradation• Ability of Watershed to Store and Filter Storm Water Runoff
While Providing Habitat
Forest and wetland habitat loss is negatively affecting our watershed’s natural ability to store and filter storm water runoff while also providing important habitat.
• Need for Conserved Open Spaces, Riparian Corridor Acquisition, Recreational Access
• Ability of Watershed to Store and Filter Storm Water Runoff While Providing Habitat
• Habitat Restoration and Long-Term Management of Natural Areas
• Terrestrial and Aquatic Invasive Species
Natural area acquisition, conservation, restoration and accessibility needs to be increased in our watershed to benefit people and the environment.
Problems & Causes
Concern Problem• Stream Habitat Loss and Riparian Encroachment• Wetland Habitat Loss and Degradation• Ability of Watershed to Store and Filter Storm Water Runoff
While Providing Habitat
Forest and wetland habitat loss is negatively affecting our watershed’s natural ability to store and filter storm water runoff while also providing important habitat.
• Need for Conserved Open Spaces, Riparian Corridor Acquisition, Recreational Access
• Ability of Watershed to Store and Filter Storm Water Runoff While Providing Habitat
• Habitat Restoration and Long-Term Management of Natural Areas
• Terrestrial and Aquatic Invasive Species
Natural area acquisition, conservation, restoration and accessibility needs to be increased in our watershed to benefit people and the environment.
Questions or Comments
Joe Exl
Senior Water Resource Planner
Northwestern Indiana Regional Planning Commission
6100 Southport Road
Portage, IN 46368
219-763-6060 x137
www.nirpc.org/environment/deep-river-portage-burns-waterway-initiative.aspx