Metedeconk River Watershed Protection & Restoration PlanXStream visual assessments are field...
Transcript of Metedeconk River Watershed Protection & Restoration PlanXStream visual assessments are field...
Metedeconk River Watershed Protection & Restoration Plan
Stakeholder Advisory Committee Meeting
April 27, 2011
Stream Visual Assessments(Task 2)
Stream Visual Assessments
Numerous studies and lots of high-quality data is available on the Metedeconk
Intent of MRWPRP to draw from/build upon existing info to the greatest extent possible
Stream visual assessments served as new, supplemental source of info for the project
Stream visual assessments are field evaluations of stream reaches
Detailed observations made of the stream’s physical condition and surrounding areaObvious problems are documentedPractical means of identifying opportunities for protection and restoration projects
Visual assessments (83 total) completed by BTMUA and GCU staff between March - June 2010
Considerable amount of information collected
Stream Visual Assessments (cont’d)
BenefitsWidely accepted approach for evaluating stream health at a basic levelRequires no expertise in aquatic biology or extensive trainingComplements watershed characterization work
Provides a better understanding of issues affecting the watershedAdditional information on features such as storm outfalls and drainage ditchesOpportunity to clearly identify problem areas and restoration targets or areas in need of protection Serve as a smaller scale snapshot of the condition of the watershed benchmark for future restoration activities
Stream Visual Assessments (cont’d)
Assessments performed in accordance with a Visual Assessment Project Plan (VAPP)
Purpose/objectivesData quality criteriaTrainingMethods/protocolSitesRecordsQA/QCData managementReporting
Visual Assessment Project Plan
Metedeconk-specific protocol developedBased primarily upon widely-used USDA NRCS Stream Visual Assessment Protocol, plus…
NJDEP Visual Assessment Project Plan (VAPP) Guidance (August 2007)
NJDEP Volunteer Monitoring Program Visual Assessment Protocol (2008-2009)
Rutgers Cooperative Extension Water Resources Program Stream Visual Assessment Protocol (2008)
Center for Watershed Protection Unified Stream Assessment: A User’s Manual, Manual 10 (Ver. 2.0, February 2005)
Center for Watershed Protection Unified Subwatershed and Site Reconnaissance: A Users' Manual, Manual 11 (Ver. 2, February 2005)
Visual Assessment Protocol
Detailed and comprehensive examination of the selected sites
Field formsCompletenessConsistencyComparability
Digital photographs & GPS positions of important features
Visual Assessment Protocol (cont’d.)
Protocol addresses:General stream conditionHydrologic alterationFlow/water appearanceHabitatRiparian areaLocal land usePollutant sources/litter/dumpingStormwater infrastructure– Outfalls, drainage ditches, basins
Utility infrastructure/easements – Sanitary sewer (potential pollutant source)
Etc.
Visual Assessment Protocol (cont’d.)
Each reach assigned an “Assessment Score”1-10 scaleOverall score determined by averaging the scores from a series of visual assessment indicators
Reaches ranked as Excellent ( ), Good (7.5-8.9), Fair (6.1-7.4) or Poor (Applies a quantitative measure to something that is qualitative and often subjective
Visual Assessment Protocol
Channel conditionHydrologic alterationRiparian zone - left bankRiparian zone - right bankBank stability - left bankBank stability - right bankWater appearanceNutrient enrichment
Barriers to fish movementInstream fish coverPoolsInvertebrate habitatCanopy coverManure presenceRiffle embeddedness (rarely applicable)
Eighty-three (83) sites selected to be representative of the watershed
Broad range of conditions, from forested headwater areas to heavily urbanized commercial centers closer to the coastline
Assessment Sites
Assessment Sites (cont’d.)Site selection considerations:
Existing stream impairments (Integrated Report)Landuse/landcover and other GIS layersHUC14 subwatershed area/coverageBTMUA watershed monitoring program and staff field knowledgeAccessibility
Land Use by HUC14 Subwatershed
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
90.00%
100.00%
20050 20040 20030 20020 20010 30050 30040 30030 30020 30010 40020
Wetland
Water
Urban
Forest
Barren
Ag
LimitationsDespite using consistent methods, assigning scores is inherently subjective
Use best professional judgment and relative comparison to other sites (including reference sites) when assigning indicator scoresEvery effort made to ensure information collected is accurate, complete and meets data quality requirements
The assessment protocol examines conditions within the assessment area only - may not detect problems caused by factors outside the area being assessedSingle round of stream assessments for this project cannot be used to evaluate trends or changes in condition over time
The assessments may not be able to explain the exact cause or source of stream degradation
Stream Visual Assessments
83 visual assessments conductedReach lengths varied from approx. 129 ft - 3,650 ft 1,762 digital photographs914 GPS positions of important watershed featuresSigns of human activity, either present or past, are evident virtually everywhere in the watershed, even in the most pristine areas.
Stream Visual Assessment Results
Overall reach scores
1 Excellent (1%)33 Good (40%)30 Fair (36%)19 Poor (23%)
Stream Visual Assessment Results
Stream Visual Assessment Rankings
11%
3340%
3036%
1923%
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Stream Visual Assessment Results
Stream Visual Assessment Results
HUC14 Score
NB-1 7.1NB-2 6.8NB-3 5.5NB-4 6.4NB-5 7.0SB-1 7.8SB-2 7.8SB-3 7.1SB-4 6.6SB-5 7.3CNFL1 5.6
Stream Visual Assessment ResultsReach scores by HUC14 subwatershed
Stream Visual Assessment Results
Major findingsRiparian buffers are in decent shape, though there are opportunities for restoration in some areasWatershed’s gentle topography, sandy soils and prevalent wetlands have provided some level of stability to the main river branches despite measurable changes in stream flow characteristicsSmaller tributaries are more sensitive to local development and runoff than larger river branches
Erosion problems are confined to smaller tributary streamsAssessment indicators related to in-stream habitat appear to be the most sensitive to changes in stream condition and the first indicators of impaired stream health
Stream Visual Assessment Results
Major findingsLots of antiquated stormwater infrastructure
Direct outfallsDrainage ditches Detention basins
Significant issue for Metedeconk River flow and water quality Some stormwater infrastructure in poor conditionDirect stormwater discharges to the river were found at 68 sites (82%)117 storm outfalls and 24 drainage ditches cataloged20 sites have detention basins nearby
Stream Visual Assessment Results
Stream Visual Assessment ResultsMajor findings
Very few obvious pollution sources identifiedWaterfowl and livestock (suspected) contributing somewhat to fecal problemsStream impairments are related to stormwater/NPS
Trash and floatables is a major problem Storm grate retrofits will help
Numerous cases of dumping documentedUtility facilities are in good condition and tend to be very well maintainedLakes are suffering from problems with water quality, sedimentation and nuisance aquatic plant growth -lake management/restoration would be beneficial
Site STM-1, Rt. 9 & Stanley Blvd, Howell
Site STM-1
Site STM-1
Site STM-1
Site NF-14, Clifton Ave, Lakewood
Site NF-14
Site NF-14
Site GH1, Maxim-Southard Road, Howell
Site GH1
Site GH1
Site GH1
Site GH1
Site CBB-3, Rt. 70 & Brick Blvd, Brick
Site CBB-3
Site SHB1, Lakewood-Allenwood Rd, Howell
Sites NE, Lakewood & TR10-1, Jackson
Site DB5, Rt. 9, Howell
Site SH, Brewers Bridge Road, Jackson
Site SH-1, Rt. 88, Lakewood
Site TR13-5, Picadilly Drive, Jackson
Site TR1-2, Lanes Mill Rd, Brick
Site TR1-2
Site SHB-2, Howell & POND6, Brick
Issues and potential restoration opportunities have been documented for each assessment siteMany opportunities exist to improve the condition of the Metedeconk watershed
These visual assessments are just a sampleAddressing stormwater-related problems should be a high priority
Retrofitting older stormwater outfalls and basins with stormwater BMP’sEnsuring new stormwater systems address water quality and minimize downstream flow increases through groundwater recharge
Land ownership at potential restoration sites is being determined to ensure project feasibility
Conclusions