Watershed 2012-2014 Stream Health Report

6% 10%

e live in a modern age when things The health of our streams is deter- progress quickly and we see mined using benthic macroinvertebrate resultsW immediately. It is easy to forget sampling (see page 2 for explanation). 26% how slow nature can be in response to Streams are rated from “very poor” to improving or declining ecological “very good” based on results from conditions. Just as it can take up to a multiple samples. Streams rated as “fair” 58% decade for the health of a forest to or worse fail the water quality rebound after a fire, the health of a standard for aquatic life. All data collect- stream can take years to respond to ed by StreamWatch meets the highest development occuring in a watershed. standards of the Virginia Department of When we monitor local water quality Environmental Quality. for an extended period of time, we have Our findings indicate that stream the opportunity to observe subtle chang- health has not substantially changed over Stream Health es. By watching our local streams cafeful- time, as results are similar to those of ly, we will know when and where water years past. From 2012 to 2014, 64 Very Good (5 of 50) quality is improving or declining. percent of monitored sites failed to meet StreamWatch has been monitoring the Virginia standard for aquatic life and stream and river health within the only 36 percent met the standard. The Good (13 of 50) Rivanna River watershed since 2003. main stem of the Rivanna is faring a bit While the Rivanna watershed is in our better than the watershed as a whole. Of Streams below this line fail to meet the Virginia water quality standard for aquatic life backyard, it also plays a larger role as a the eight sites located on the Rivanna tributary of the , which (including the North and South Forks), ultimately flows into the Chesapeake half pass the standard with “good” Fair (29 of 50) Bay. Not only do we need to concern ratings and the other half fail with “fair” ourselves with the creeks running by our ratings. Poor (3 of 50) homes and the water we drink here, but Several sampling sites have fluctuated it is important to be aware that what between “good” and “fair” ratings during happens in our watershed affects the past decade. As reported in earlier water quality standards. We drink, communities and ecosystms downstream assessments, it is possible to restore swim, fish and play in our local waters. in the Bay, which is an integral part of some of these streams to consistently The work to repair them takes time and our region. good health. Improving how we manage the recovery will likely take longer. As a With the commitment and hard work our resources, such as implementing community, we should commit to of nine community partners and more stormwater best management practices restoring our local waters to good health. than 100 citizen-science volunteers, and increasing riparian buffers, will StreamWatch will continue the necessary StreamWatch monitors 50 stream sites hopefully lead us on a path to healthier task of monitoring the quality of our twice a year within the Rivanna River streams. streams and rivers. We hope community watershed. This report looks at stream We all want healthy waterways and members will support us and our nine health during the three year window should not be content with 64% of community partners in working toward a from Spring 2012 through Fall 2014. sampled streams failing to meet state cleaner watershed. 1 Mechums River @ 692 - B Rating the health of streams 2 Stockton Creek upper @ 683 1 2 3 Powells Creek ~80 meters above Lickinghole 4 Lickinghole Creek south of Fairwinds Lane 5 Ivy Creek in Rosemont 6 Little Ivy Creek trib @ Kingston Road 7 Ivy Creek @ 601 8 Morey Creek south of Bellair 9 Doyles River @ 674 10 Doyles River upper @ National Park Boundary 11 Albemarle County reference stream #2 Benthic macroinvertebrates The insects are sorted and (bottom-dwelling bugs) are identified. All samples are 12 @ 601 collected from the stream with a processed in accordance with a 13 Mechums River @ 601 net by trained StreamWatch quality assurance project plan 14 Buck Mountain Creek @ 665 - A citizen scientists. approved by Virginia DEQ. 15 Fishing Creek west of Willwood Dr 3 4 16 Naked Creek @ 844 Each insect has a 17 Buck Mountain Creek upper west of 666 - A pollution tolerance Three years of scores 18 Lynch River @ 603 rating from 0 to 10 are analyzed and GOOD 19 Roach/Buffalo River north of 648 used to score the averaged to obtain 20 Quarter Creek in Twin Lakes sample. The types an overall rating for and diversity of bugs the site. 21 Parker Branch @ 633 also affect the score. 22 Stanardsville Run upstream of N. Ridge Way 23 Swift Run @ 605 24 Marsh Run upstream of 641 Very 25 North Fork @ Advance Mills Good 26 Preddy Creek west of Rosewood Drive Stanardsville 27 Burnley Branch @ Burnley Station Road 22 Good 28 Moores Creek near Woolen Mills 21 ENE RE 29 Meadow Creek west of Locust Lane Ct Ruckersville G 20 RANGE Nortonsville 19 O 30 Rivanna @ Darden Towe 10 18 Fair 11 23 26 31 South Fork @ Forks of Rivanna 17 25 24 32 North Fork @ Forks of Rivanna 27 Free Union 33 Rivanna @ Milton 14 ORANGE Poor 12 9 15 34 Buck Island Creek @ 729 13 16 ARLE EM 35 Carroll Creek in Glenmore White Hall LOUISA ALB 31 36 Cunningham Creek Middle Fork upstream of Bell Farms Lane Crozet 7 32 6 41 3 4 37 Lake Monticello trib #1 emptying Charlottesville 29 30 to Jackson Cove 2 39 5 8 Keswick 28 40 38 Mechunk Creek @ 759 33 39 Mechunk Creek upper @ 600 1 38 35 40 Beaverdam Creek East Prong upstream of 600 34 41 Turkeysag Creek @ 22 Lake Monticello 37 42 42 Rivanna @ Crofton - A

Cunningham 43 Raccoon Creek @ 15 Palmyra 44 Cunningham Creek @ 15 36 44 45 46 45 Ballinger Creek downstream of 625 ARLE 43 EM 47 UVANNA 46 Long Island Creek @ 601 ALB L F 48 47 Rivanna 5.2 km downstream of Palmyra 0 5 49 Miles 48 Carys Creek @ 15

Columbia 49 Rivanna @ Rivanna Mills Map courtesy of Chris Bruce, The Nature Conservancy Cedar Branch near Crofton (not shown) Comparing a healthy and unhealthy stream

The health of streams in our watershed ranges from unhealthy to near pristine. We rate these streams from “very poor” to “very good” using the Virginia Stream Condition Index, which has been developed by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. But what do those ratings mean? What does a “good” stream look like compared with a “poor” stream? Let’s take a look.

Buck Mountain Creek has been rated “good” consistently. The upper tributaries of Buck Mountain Creek are in the Shenandoah National Park, located in northwest Albemarle County. The creek largely is surrounded by forest and experiences only moderate runoff from agricultural fields. Meadow Creek is one of two major urban creeks within the City of Charlottesville, and over the past 10 years it has consis- tently received a “poor” rating. Meadow Creek receives urban runoff from lawns and parking lots which scours stream banks and delivers pollution that degrades stream habitat and water quality.

Buck Mountain Creek at Route 666 Meadow Creek west of Locust Lane Court

More than half of the bugs 3% More than half the bugs 39% collected in spring Sensitive collected in spring 2014 Sensitive 2014 were sensitive were not sensitive to 20% or somewhat sensi- 34% pollution. The Somewhat tive to pollution. Somewhat absence of bugs that Sensitive Their presence Sensitive are sensitive to pollu- 63% indicates that the tion indicates that the 41% Not Not stream is healthy Sensitive stream experiences Sensitive and experiences only significant amounts of moderate amounts of pollution. pollution. 20 total types of insects 11 total types of insects

Land use in Buck Mountain Creek Watershed Land use in Meadow Creek Watershed

82% 10% 7% 1% ~50 48% 32% 20% ~3000 Forest Grazing Open land Impervious People per Forest Impervious Open land People per cover surface square mile cover surface square mile

» Large riparian zone with » Medium riparian zone with minimal human impact noticeable human impact

» Minimal stream channel » Some stream channel alteration alteration

» Stream banks are very » Stream banks are moder- stable and not significantly ately stable and partially eroded eroded

» Good habitat on stream » Poor habitat on stream bottom with lots of rocks and bottom with minimal rocks slight sedimentation and moderate sedimentation

Watershed land use data are from 2009 - more information is available in our 2011 report “Stream Health Follows Land Use” Are our urban streams improving in health? 60

50 oores Creek and Meadow sample score at both monitoring Creek are the most urbanized sites. While these new results reveal 40 Mcreeks in the Rivanna River water- statistically significant positive shed. As a result of all the different trends (p<0.05), we are not sure at 30 pressures the urban environment this time if this will be continuous.

20 puts on them, they continually rank Persistent monitoring and reassess- as the unhealthiest streams in our ment in the coming years will help Meadow Creek (2 9 ) Benthic Sample Score Benthic 10 watershed. But is this changing? to determine if our urban creeks Moores Creek (2 8 ) The most recent assessment shows continue to improve in health. 0 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 a slight upswing in the benthic Year Thank You To all those who help protect stream health in the Rivanna River Watershed - the many dedicated volunteers who make this work possible, private landowners who support our field work and the many individuals who support us financially. 2012-2014 volunteer monitors

Doni Ahearn Lavinia deVillier Karen Kostyal Marilyn Potter Joy Andrews John Edelen Clai Lange Dot Preis Virginia Ashby Miranda Elliot Rader Vera Leone Jennifer Price Melba Atkinson Sharon Ellison Mary Lofton Patrick Punch Cameron Beers Matt Estes Keggie Mallett Brigitte Rau Calvin Biesecker Carol Evans William (Bill) Marley Kristina Reid Black Alex Bijak Nancy Ford Ned Martin Ami Riscassi Lisa Bittner Ned Foss Peter Matthews Katey Blumenthal Nancy Friend Neil Means Sarah Robinson Misty Boos Matt Gallup Vicki Metcalf Deana Sackett Ksenia Brazhnik Repp Glaettli Jill Meyer Evie Sackett Luke Brazhnik Sean Grzegorczyk Susan Meyer John Savides Ashley Brill Shane Grzegorczyk Leslie Middleton Pat Schnatterly Rose Brown Deb Hackett Brit Minor Steve Schnatterly Jennifer Bucher Elise Hackett Becky Minor Clare Sevcik Jillian Burgan Ray Hackett Maggie Morris Marjorie Siegel Patricia Burkett Shirley Halladay Connor Mulvey Susan Sleight Mecca Burns Mark Helt Nancy-Elizabeth David Smith Nora Byrd Tana Herndon Nimmich Marilyn Smith Patrick Campbell Erika Howsare Cindy O’Connell Foundations and organizations that provided Shawn Strubbe John Campbell John Ince Killian O’Connell funding to StreamWatch in 2014: Bevin Cetta Francoise Johnson Lisa Pankowski Jim Surdukowski Leigh Surdukowski Gus Colom Leah Jung Woody Parrish » Albemarle County » Norcross Wildlife Tina Colom Marilyn Koleszar Art Petty Ida Swenson » Charlottesville Area Foundation Cristina Cornell Chris Kopp Shaina Phillips Roger Temples Zack DelGrosso Jane Kopp Gene Potter Mario Testani Community Foundation » Rivanna Water & Sewer Rob Tilghman » City of Charlottesville Authority Larry Tropea » Dominion Foundation » Sam’s Club Store Laura Troy » Elmo Foundation of Charlottesville Michael van den » Exxon/Mobil Foundation » The Nature Conservancy Bossche » Fluvanna County » Virginia Environmental John Walsh » Framestone Solutions Endowment Bill Wardlaw » J & E Berkley Foundation » Whole Foods Mary Wardlaw Community Partners Caroline Watts Bill Weaver » Albemarle County » Rivanna Water Nancy Weiss » City of Charlottesville and Sewer Authority Frank Wilczek » Fluvanna County » Thomas Jefferson Pat Wilczek » The Nature Conservancy Planning District John Wilkinson » Rivanna Conservation Laurel Williamson Society Commission Christina Woodson » Rivanna River Basin Com- » Thomas Jefferson Soil and Jill Zimmerman mission Water Conservation District

PO BOX 681 phone: 434-244-7879 Charlottesville, VA 22902 www.streamwatch.org