ENSC 202 Watershed Assessment Final Projects

1. ENSC 202 Watershed Assessment Final Projects Impacts of stormwater runoff on stream health in urbanizing areas of the north eastern Vermont

2. Project Goal Determine whether streams that have been designated as ‘impaired’ by stormwater on the basis biocriteria also demonstrate impairment on the basis of habitat and geomorphic metrics.

3. Project Objectives • Complete Phase 1 data collection using VT Stream Geomorphic Assessment Protocols • Complete RHA (Step 6) and RGA (Step 7) components of Phase 2 • Compare and contrast key metrics from the Phase 1 and 2 data and link to watershed characteristics • Correlate the Phase 1 and Phase 2 metrics with simulated flow duration curves for the same watersheds

4. Project Approach • Resources • Vermont State 303.d listed waters • Doug Burnham’s list of provisional ‘attainment’ streams • Vermont Stream Geomorphic Assessment protocols • 8 student teams • Each team: 1 ‘impaired’ stream and 1 ‘attainment’ stream • 3 reaches on each stream • 6 reaches per team • 48 total reaches on 14 streams (some overlap)

5. Team Reports Allen Brook up and down streamReport Amy Myers, Jarrett Arthur, Shea Hagy, Michael McDonald Bay & Centennial Brooks ReportAbby Boak, Sarah Booker, Kate Connelly, Cara Massameno, Rosalie Wilson Sand Hill & Bartlett BrooksReportMeghan Crane, Adam Effler, Kevin Mize, Keith Montone LaPlatte Headwaters & Munroe BrooksReportLindsay Harrington, Maury Lynch, Jared Nunery, Christopher Vance Alder & Muddy BrooksReportJoe Kelly, Alison Selle, Sarah Stein, Kristin Williams Potash & Allen BrooksReportJoe Bartlett, Jennifer Fullerton, Nat Morse, Sarah Palmer, Travis Smith Alder & Morehouse BrooksReport Mikal Burley, Ari Lejfer, Amie McCarth, Trevor Pratt, Katherine Traverse Trout & Sunderland BrooksReportMary Blackwell, Carmen Herold-Lind, Alethea Jones, Jason Landis, Gabe Mason, Chris Tomberg Click on the links above for specific presentations (left) or reports (right)

6. Summary Results

7. Land use impacts all streamsImpaired more than attainment

8. Impairment effect is evident in all key metrics

9. Poor Good Evidence of all four geomorphic adjustment processes in Phase 1 assessment

10. Good Poor Adjustment processes confirmed in direct Phase 2 assessment

11. Impairment is reflected in the Phase 2 habitat assessments

12. The top four habitat impacts are potentially linked to sediment * * * *

13. The strongest categorical impact is in-stream modification Land use impact In-stream modification Floodplain modification

14. Habitat and Geomorphic condition are related to stream condition index

15. Habitat quality is strongly correlated with geomorphic condition

16. Healthy streams may be more sensitive to geomorphic change

17. Conclusions • Streams that are impaired on the basis of biocriteria are also impaired in terms of habitat health and geomorphic condition. • Streams in attainment of the VT biocriteria standards are not in a ‘reference’ condition by these protocols. • All four geomorphic adjustment processes are active in these streams. But, are these scores indicative of the strength of the processes or the relative influences of anthropogenic impacts on these process? • Sediment appears to play a key role in habitat degradation. • Streams that are in attainment of VT biocriteria standards may be especially sensitive to habitat degradation by geomorphic change. • The VT/SGA protocols, especially Phase 1, are difficult to apply to small urban streams due to constraints imposed by the resolution of fundamental data layers (e.g., topos, orthos)