DOCSLIB.ORG

Quality Indices for Urbanization Effects in Puget Sound Lowland Streams

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Quality Indices for Urbanization Effects in Puget Sound Lowland Streams University of Washington Department of Civil and Environn1ental Engineering QUALITY INDICES FOR URBANIZATION EFFECTS IN PUGET SOUND LOWLAND STREAMS C.W. May, E.B. Welch, R.R. Horner, J.R. Kar and B.W. Mar Final Report for Washington Department of Ecology June 1997 Seattle, Washington 98195 Department of Civil Engineering University of Washington Seattle, Washington 98195 QUALITY INDICES FOR URBANIZATION EFFECTS IN PUGET SOUND LOWLAND STREAMS C.W. May, E.B. Welch, R.R. Horner, J.R. Kar and B.W. Mar Final Report for Washington Department of Ecology Water Resources Series Technical Report No. 154 June 1997 Abstract The Puget Sound lowland (PSL) ecoregion contains an abundance of complex and historically productive salmonid habitat in the form of small streams as well as their riparian forests and wetlands. These watersheds are under intense pressure due primarily to the cumulative effects of urban development. Instream habitat characteristics, riparian conditions, physio-chemical water-quality, and biological attributes of 22 PSL streams (120 survey reaches) were studied over a gradient of development levels to determine relationships between urbanization and stream quality and suggest target conditions for management/protection. Urbanization of PSL watersheds has resulted in an increase in the fraction of total impervious area (% TIA) and a decrease in forested area, including a significant loss of natural riparian forests and wetlands. The cumulative effects of a modified hydrologic (disturbance) regime, the loss ofinstream structural complexity, and the alteration of channel morphological characteristics accompanying urbanization have resulted in substantial degradation of instream habitat during the initial phases of the development process. As the level of basin development increased above 5% total impervious area (% TIA), results indicated a precipitous initial decline in biological integrity as well as the physical habitat conditions (quantity and quality) necessary to support natural biological diversity and complexity. The frequency, volume, and quality of large woody debris (LWD) decreased significantly as basin development and riparian encroachment increased. Loss of L WD due to washout and removal, as well as a reduction in L WD recruitment due to loss of mature riparian forest areas, were significant factors. As a result of the reduction in the quantity and quality ofLWD, along with the effects of a modified hydrologic regime, coho rearing habitat was significantly reduced. Salmonid spawning habitat was also degraded by the cumulative effect~ of urbanization. Fine sediment in spawning gravels generally increased as urbanization increased, while intragravel dissolved oxygen (IGDO) also decreased during the period of salmonid embryo development. Chemical constituents (primarily metals) of water quality during baseflow conditions, as well as storm events, were insufficient to have produced adverse i effects in streams with low to moderate % TIA, but increased markedly in highly urbanized basins (TIA>45%). Results suggest that resource management should place a high priority on preservation and protection of high quality stream ecosystems (TIA <5%) that currently support natural salmonid populations (coho and cutthroat). Mature, riparian forests dominated by coniferous trees should be the long-term management goal. A wide (>30 m) and near-continuous (<2 breaks/Ian) riparian zone appears to be a necessary, although not a wholly sufficient condition for a natural level of stream quality and biotic integrity. Restoring the natural hydrologic regime should be a primary goal for rehabilitation and enhancement efforts. A set of stream quality indices and instream habitat target conditions are proposed for monitoring and managing PSL streams. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Abstract ................................................................................................................................ i Table of Contents ............................................................................................................... iii List of Figures .................................................................................................................... vi List of Tables······························••,•·············································································.'. ..... xi Acknowledgnients ............................................................................................................ xiii INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1 METHODS .......................................................................................................................... 4 Study Streams .......................................................................................................... 4 Puget Sound Lowland Ecoregion............................................................................. 8 Stream Classification ............................................................................................... 8 Watershed Characterization ................................................................................... 11 Reference Streams .................................................................................................. 12 Measures or Urbanization ...................................................................................... 13 Imperviousness ........................................................................................... 13 Road Density .............................................................................................. 18 Stream Segnient Delineation.................................................................................. 19 Watershed Characterization ................................................................................... 20 Drainage Density ................................................................................................... 20 Riparian Integrity Assessment ............................................................................... 21 Hydrologic Analysis .............................................................................................. 22 Hydrologic Modeling Methods ···································'.······························24 Physio-chemical Sampling and Analysis ............................................................... 28 Instream Habitat Assessment ................................................................................. 30 Riparian Canopy Conditions .................................................................... .32 Channel Morphology ................................................................................. 32 Streambed Scour and Aggradation ............................................................ 33 Intragravel Dissolved Oxygen (IGD0) ..................................................... .37 Salmonid Rearing Habitat ........................................................................ .39 Qualitative Habitat Assessment ................................................................ .41 Biological Indicators ..............................................................................................42 Coho:Cutthroat Ratio ................................................................................ 42 Macroinvertebrate Field Methods ............................................................ .42 Macroinvertebrate Data Analysis and Metric Testing ............................. .43 Statistical Analysis ................................................................................................. 44 RESULTS ····················································································································47 Watershed. Urbanization ......................................................................................... 4 7 Impervious Area ......................................................................................... 47 Road Density .............................................................................................. 52 Forested vs. Developed Area ..................................................................... 55 iii Basin Hydrologic Regime ...................................................................................... 55 Watershed Drainage-Density ..................................................................... 55 Stormjlow:Baseflow Ratio ......................................................................... 56 Flood Frequency ........................................................................................ 61 Relative Stream Power........................................................................................... 64 Hydro/ogic Observations and Model Predictions ..................................... 64 Relative Stream Power Related to Habitat ................................................ 65 Relative Stream Power Related to Biological Indices ............................... 70 Summary ofEffects ofRelative Stream Power .......................................... 73 Artificial Drainage Network ...................................................................... 73 . Stream Classification ............................................................................................. 75 Channel Morphological Characteristics ................................................................. 7 6 Banifull Dimensions .................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Of Washington Industry Leaders Reception
    ACE MENTOR PROGRAM OF WASHINGTON INDUSTRY LEADERS RECEPTION June 24, 2020 Virtual Meeting SPONSORS & SUPPORTERS PLATINUM: $10,000 SPONSORS & SUPPORTERS GOLD: $5,000-$9,999 * * Thank you to the companies that are ACE Sustainers, committing to a recurring donation to the Building Futures Together campaign. Sustainers are indicated with an *asterisk. SPONSORS & SUPPORTERS SILVER: $2,500-$4,999 DCI Engineers* Miller Hull Partnership* GLY Construction* Mithun* Howard S. Wright | Balfour Beatty Northshore Exteriors/ Integrus Architecture* NorthClad KPFF Consulting Engineers* Shannon & Wilson Lease Crutcher Lewis Skanska Malsam Tsang Structural Engineering ZGF Architects* MG2* BRONZE: $1,000-$2,499 AIA Seattle Prime Electric* Coffman Engineers* Ron Wright & Associates/Architects* DLR Group* Swenson Say Faget FREIHEIT Architecture* Upward McKinstry Charitable Foundation* VIA Architecture NBBJ Wood Harbinger* OAC Services* IRON: up to $500 Armour Unsderfer Engineering Notkin a PS2 Company Hargis Engineers PARTNERING ORGANIZATIONS AGC Education Foundation American Council of Engineering Companies of Washington* ($5,000) Thank you to the companies that are ACE Sustainers, committing to a recurring donation to the Building Futures Together campaign. Sustainers are indicated with an *asterisk. Proud Supporter of the ACE MENTOR PROGRAM Congratulations to all the ACE scholarship winners. May you have a rewarding career in our exciting and always changing industry. We look forward to working with you to lean into challenges, pay attention to details,
    [Show full text]
  • Construction Management/PM-For-Fee Firms
    JUNE 22/29, 2020 m enr.com GARDINER & THEOBALD is the program manager on the 90-acre THE TOP PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FIRMS #14 Buffalo Centennial Park, a waterfront redevelopment plan in Buffalo, N.Y. Construction Management/PM-for-Fee Firms 2019 REVENUE IN $ MIL. 2019 REVENUE IN $ MIL. RANK FIRM TOTAL REV. INT’L RANK FIRM TOTAL REV. INT’L 2020 2019 FIRM TYPE ($ MIL.) REVENUE 2020 2019 FIRM TYPE ($ MIL.) REVENUE 1 2 AECOM, Los Angeles, Calif. EA 4,118.1 658.9 36 76 SACHSE CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOP., Detroit, Mich. C 58.0 40.0 2 1 BECHTEL, Reston, Va. EC 3,227.0 469.0 37 40 MARK G. ANDERSON CONSULTANTS, Washington, D.C. CM 51.2 4.8 3 4 JLL, Chicago, Ill. CM 3,085.2 1,555.0 38 35 KRAUS-ANDERSON CONSTR., Minneapolis, Minn. C 50.0 0.0 4 3 JACOBS, Dallas, Texas EA 3,061.0 252.2 39 ** APTIM, Baton Rouge, La. EC 49.1 17.6 5 5 PARSONS, Centreville, Va. EC 2,396.5 578.5 40 36 MCDONOUGH BOLYARD PECK INC. (MBP), Fairfax, Va. CM 47.9 1.1 6 6 CBRE, Los Angeles, Calif. CM 1,747.7 1,093.8 41 32 MG2, Seattle, Wash. A 47.5 8.5 7 9 SNC-LAVALIN INC., Tampa, Fla. EC 378.9 0.0 42 37 PMA CONSULTANTS LLC, Detroit, Mich. CM 47.3 0.0 8 8 HILL INTERNATIONAL INC., Philadelphia, Pa. CM 376.4 182.5 43 66 HPM, Birmingham, Ala. CM 42.8 0.0 9 10 ARCADIS/CALLISON RTKL, Highlands Ranch, Colo.
    [Show full text]
  • Collateral Damage: How Global Disputes Are Disrupting Trade in Washington State June 2019
    Collateral Damage: How Global Disputes are Disrupting Trade in Washington State June 2019 wcit.org @washingtontrade facebook.com/ washingtontrade Contents Contents 1. Overview 2 2. Notable Export Activities and Assets by Congressional District 2 ​ 3. Beyond Apples and Airplanes: Other Leading Washington State Trade 3 ​ Food and Agriculture 3 i. Frozen Potatoes and other Food Stuffs 3 ii. Hops 3 iii. Coffee 4 Software, Cloud Services, and Video Games 4 Medical Devices 4 Architecture and Engineering 5 Higher Education 5 4. Where Does it Go? Washington’s Largest Foreign Markets for Goods and Services 6 ​ China 6 European Union 6 Canada and Mexico 6 Countries of the CPTPP 7 5. Well Connected: Washington as a Hub for Global Commerce 8 ​ Washington’s Ports 8 i. The Ports of Seattle and Tacoma and The Northwest Seaport Alliance 9 ii. The Ports of Longview, Vancouver, and Olympia 9 iii. Grays Harbor 10 iv. Columbia Snake River System 10 Kent Valley 10 Foreign-owned Firms Engaged in Trade 10 6. Conclusion 11 1 1. Overview The last two years have been tumultuous for trade. Friction between the U.S. and its trading partners has soared, from the contentious negotiations with Canada and Mexico on the USMCA to the ongoing disputes with China. The consequences of these tensions are far-reaching, including for the many workers, companies, and communities in Washington state that rely on robust global trade. Washington is the most trade-dependent state in the nation with approximately 40% of all jobs tied to international commerce. Though best known for apples and airplanes, trade in Washington is incredibly diverse.
    [Show full text]
  • Download PDF Version
    THE TOP PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FIRMS Overview p. 30 // CM/PM-for-Fee Revenue p. 30 // The Top 20 Firms in Combined Design and CM/PM Professional Services Revenue p. 31 // The Top 20 Firms in Combined Industry Revenue p. 31 // The Top 50 Program Management Firms p. 32 The Top 100 CM-for-Fee/Program Management Firms p. 33 BAYVIEW Project Management NUMBER 51 Advisors Inc. is construction manager for One Steuart Lane, a 20-Story luxury condominium tower in San Francisco currently under construction. CM FIRM RENDERING BY BINYAN STUDIOS, COURTESY OF PROJECT MANAGEMENT ADVISORS INC. OF PROJECT MANAGEMENT COURTESY STUDIOS, RENDERING BY BINYAN Planning for Post-Crisis Future Professional services firms have been affected by COVID-19, but clients are now relying on them to advise on what comes next. By Gary J. Tulacz enr.com June 22/29, 2019 ENR 29 0622_TopPSF_Intro_F.indd 29 6/16/20 3:49 PM COLLIERS INTL. GROUP INC. is program manager for Partners THE TOP PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FIRMS #11 HealthCare’s plan to open four outpatient surgery centers in Mass. Domestic CM-PM Fees Rise 2019 2017 2018 $18.88 $18.20 $ BILLIONS DOMESTIC REVENUE INTERNATIONAL REVENUE 2015 2016 $17.74 $16.62 $16.63 2011 2013 2014 $15.22 $14.62 $14.83 2012 $14.34 2016 2015 $6.78 2018 2019 2012 2014 $6.04 2013 2017 $5.58 $5.55 $4.87 $5.08 $4.79 $4.40 2011 $3.38 SOURCE: ENR As the nation struggles to cope with the disruptions growing trend of owners who are looking for expertise caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, construction beyond that which their core internal resources can fi rms of all types have been thrown off balance.
    [Show full text]
  • 2017 Top 500 Design Firms – Subsidiaries by Rank Rank Company Subsidiary Rank Company Subsidiary
    Overview p. 48 // Profitability p. 48 // Top 500 Volume p. 48 // Backlog p. 48 // Past Decade’s Design Revenue p. 48 Markets’ Share of Total Revenue p. 49 // Domestic and International Staff Hiring p. 49 // International Market Analysis p. 50 The Impact of Megamergers p. 51 // Top 20 Design Firms by Sector pp. 52-54 // Top 50 Designers in International Markets p. 57 // A New Home for DC Water p. 57 // Top 100 Pure Designers p. 58 // Hartford, Conn., Viaduct Alternatives Considered p. 59 // Top 500 Dialogue p. 60 // Hai Phong Hotel on the Rise p. 63 // How To Read the Tables p. 63 Top 500 Design Firms List pp. 64-73 // Where To Find the Top 500 pp. 74-75 INSIDE THE captionA goesNEW here SWOOSH for the firmZGF example Architects etcera LLP, firm with name. aptionSRG Partnershipgoes here for and the firmSkylab example Architecture, etcera is designing thefirm 3.2-million- name. sq-ft expansion of Nike’s world headquarters, near Beaverton, Ore. NUMBER 98 NUMBER PHOTO COURTESY OF ZGF ARCHITECTS LLP OF ZGF PHOTO COURTESY Market Poised for Takeoff Major design firms are ready for the Trump administration’s funding and tax proposals to take shape and translate into projects By Gary J. Tulacz enr.com May 1, 2017 Ⅲ ENR Ⅲ 47 THE TOP 500 DESIGN FIRMS 2016-2017 at a Glance NUMBER OF FIRMS VOLUME TOTAL NUMBER OF FIRMS DOMESTIC REPORTING PROFITABILITY REVENUE REPORTING PROFITS $ BILLIONS $92.8 HIGHER 427 SIZE OF BACKLOG 251 INTERNATIONAL DOMESTIC PROFITS REVENUE 111 $71.7 SAME INTERNATIONAL REVENUE 81 DOMESTIC INTERNATIONAL $21.1 LOSSES LOSSES LOWER 24 65 61 COMPARING THE PAST DECADE’S $80.6 $90.6 $80.0 $79.8 $85.1 $90.2 $92.69 $92.31 $91.81 $92.84 DESIGN REVENUE 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 $ BILLIONS SOURCE: DODGE DATA & ANALYTICS/ENR Major design fi rms have set up the starting blocks and in 2016, from $69.07 billion in 2015.
    [Show full text]
  • Worry Despite Strong Markets the Markets Continue to Grow, but Design Firms Are Concerned About Infrastructure Funding, Tariffs and Staff Shortages
    Overview p. 42 // Profitability p. 42 // Top 500 Volume p. 42 // Backlog p. 42 // Past Decade’s Design Revenue p. 42 Markets’ Share of Total Revenue p. 43 // Domestic and International Staff Hiring p. 43 // International Market Analysis p. 44 IPS: Speed-to-Market Solution p. 45 // Top 20 Design Firms by Sector p. 46-48 // Top 50 Designers in International Markets p. 49 // Woolpert Restores a Classic Hotel p. 49 // Top 100 Pure Designers p. 50 // AKRF: Low-Key Firm Has a Critical Niche p. 51 // Top 500 Dialogue p. 52 // A Delicate Foundation Job p. 53 // How To Read the Tables p. 53 // Top 500 Design Firms List p. 54 // Where To Find the Top 500 p. 66 NUMBER 29 NUMBER TRIANGLES Perkins+Will is designing the School of Continuing Stud- ies at York University, North York, Ontario. PHOTO COURTESY PERKINS+WILL PHOTO COURTESY Worry Despite Strong Markets The markets continue to grow, but design firms are concerned about infrastructure funding, tariffs and staff shortages. By Gary J. Tulacz 0430_Top500_Intro.indd 41 4/24/18 5:09 PM THE TOP 500 DESIGN FIRMS 2017-2018 at a Glance NUMBER OF FIRMS VOLUME TOTAL NUMBER OF FIRMS DOMESTIC REPORTING PROFITABILITY REVENUE REPORTING PROFITS $ BILLIONS $93.9 HIGHER 432 SIZE OF BACKLOG 271 DOMESTIC INTERNATIONAL REVENUE PROFITS $74 117 SAME INTERNATIONAL REVENUE 96 DOMESTIC INTERNATIONAL $19.9 LOSSES LOSSES LOWER 20 54 41 COMPARING THE PAST DECADE’S $90.6 $80.0 $79.8 $85.1 $90.2 $92.69 $92.31 $91.81 $92.84 $93.90 DESIGN REVENUE 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 $ BILLIONS SOURCE: ENR The market for major design fi rms is growing and is billion in 2017 from $71.69 billion in 2016.
    [Show full text]
  • Enr.Com April 27/May 4, 2020  ENR  39
    Overview p. 40 // Profitability p. 40 // Top 500 Volume p. 40 // Backlog p. 40 // Past Decade’s Design Revenue p. 40 Markets’ Share of Total Revenue p. 41 // Domestic and International Staff Hiring p. 41 // International Market Analysis p. 42 SmithGroup on Lessons Learned From COVID-19 p. 43 // Top 20 Design Firms by Sector pp. 44-46 // Top 50 Designers in International Markets p. 47 // Sasaki Reimagines Boston’s Waterfront p. 47 // Top 100 Pure Designers p. 48 // Burns & McDonnell’s Brainy Kids p. 51 // Top 500 Dialogue p. 52 // Wood To Design Chevron’s Gulf of Mexico Platform p. 53 How To Read the Tables p. 53 // Top 500 Design Firms List p. 54 // Where To Find the Top 500 p. 64 CANAL CROSSING T.Y. Lin International is the Panama Ministry of Public Works’ engineer and program manager for the Fourth Crossing over the Panama Canal. NUMBER 38 NUMBER PHOTO COURTESY OF T.Y. LIN INTERNATIONAL T.Y. OF PHOTO COURTESY Will COVID-19 Change Design? The current pandemic has disrupted the market and design practices. But will its impact last beyond simply a market dip? By Gary J. Tulacz enr.com April 27/May 4, 2020 ENR 39 0504_Top500_Intro.indd 39 4/28/20 6:11 PM THE TOP 500 DESIGN FIRMS 2019-2020 at a Glance TOTAL REVENUE NUMBER OF FIRMS VOLUME NUMBER OF FIRMS HIGHER $103.2 DOMESTIC REPORTING PROFITABILITY REPORTING 290 PROFITS $ BILLIONS 426 SIZE OF BACKLOG DOMESTIC INTERNATIONAL REVENUE PROFITS $86.8 92 SAME 99 INTERNATIONAL DOMESTIC REVENUE LOSSES LOWER INTERNATIONAL $16.4 9 LOSSES 45 12 COMPARING THE PAST DECADE’S DESIGN REVENUE $79.82 $85.06 $90.24 $92.69 $92.31 $91.81 $92.84 $93.90 $101.16 $103.24 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 $ BILLIONS SOURCE: ENR Design fi rms began this year with high hopes that 2020 fi nancial data to third parties before it is fully released to would provide the tenth straight year of market growth.
    [Show full text]