Aquatic Biological Assessment of the Watersheds of Anne Arundel County, Maryland: 2004
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Anne Arundel County, Maryland Department of Public Works Watershed and Ecosystem Services Aquatic Biological Assessment of the Watersheds of Anne Arundel County, Maryland: 2004 Aquatic Biological Assessment of the Watersheds of Anne Arundel County, Maryland: 2004 Prepared by: Anne Arundel County, Maryland Department of Public Works Watershed and Ecosystems Services Group 2664 Riva Road Annapolis, MD 21401 November 2007 Acknowledgements The principal authors of this document were Christopher Victoria and Janis Markusic of Anne Arundel County. KCI Technologies, Inc., performed the original field sampling and Mike Piper of KCI provided information and support during the production of this report. Megan Roberts and Christine Smith of Coastal Resources, Inc., developed the basic framework and formats used in this document. Dan Boward of the Maryland Department of Natural Resources generously provided technical support regarding new benthic IBI calculations and assisted with QA/QC requirements of the County’s program. Erik Leppo, of Tetra Tech, Inc., provided data concerning EPA habitat scoring and the visual basic macro used for re-sampling the original subsamples exceeding 120 organisms. The appropriate citation for this report is: Victoria, C.J, and J. Markusic. 2007. Aquatic Biological Assessment of the Watersheds of Anne Arundel County, Maryland: 2004. Anne Arundel County, Department of Public Works, Watershed and Ecosystems Services Group, Annapolis, Maryland. 31 pp, plus Appendixes. For more information about this report, please contact: Christopher Victoria Department of Public Works Watershed and Ecosystem Services Group Anne Arundel County 2664 Riva Road / MS 6402 Annapolis, Maryland 21401 410.222.4240 [email protected] Table of Contents Acknowledgements Appendices Appendix A – Individual Site Summaries Appendix B – Master Taxa List Appendix C – Sample Field Sheets List of Tables Table 1–Field Sampling- Alternate Sites Chosen _____________________________________________________ 5 Table 2– EPA RBP Scoring _____________________________________________________________________ 8 Table 3–MPHI Scoring _________________________________________________________________________ 8 Table 5–MBSS BIBI Scoring ____________________________________________________________________ 9 Table 4–MBSS BIBI Metrics ____________________________________________________________________ 9 Table 6–Maryland COMAR Standards ___________________________________________________________ 10 Table 7–Summary of BIBI and habitat scores across sampling units. ____________________________________ 11 Table 8–Comparison of sample site biological scores to EPA RBP habitat condition. _______________________ 12 Table 9–Comparison of sample site biological scores to MBSS PHI habitat condition. ______________________ 12 Table 10–Reaches in which habitat and biological conditions are somewhat mismatched, as similarly characterized by both habitat assessment methods. _____________________________________________________________ 13 Table 11–Average water quality values – Severn Run ________________________________________________ 15 Table 12–Average water quality values – Severn River _______________________________________________ 18 Table 13–Average water quality values – Lower Patapsco ____________________________________________ 21 Table 14–Average water quality values – Middle Patuxent ____________________________________________ 24 Table 15–Average water quality values – Ferry Branch _______________________________________________ 28 List of Figures Figure 1 – 2004 Sampling Units __________________________________________________________________ 7 Figure 2 – Summary of Year 1 BIBI Scores ________________________________________________________ 10 Figure 3 – Summary of Year 1 Habitat Scores ______________________________________________________ 11 Figure 4 – Severn Run Site Locations ____________________________________________________________ 14 Figure 5 – Severn Run Habitat Scores ____________________________________________________________ 15 Figure 6 – Severn Run BIBI Scores ______________________________________________________________ 15 Figure 7 – Severn River Site Locations ___________________________________________________________ 17 Figure 8 – Severn River Habitat Scores ___________________________________________________________ 18 Figure 9 – Severn River BIBI Scores _____________________________________________________________ 18 Figure 10 – Lower Patapsco Sampling Sites _______________________________________________________ 20 Figure 12 – Lower Patapsco BIBI Scores __________________________________________________________ 21 Figure 11– Lower Patapsco Habitat Scores ________________________________________________________ 21 Figure 13 – Middle Patuxent Sampling Sites _______________________________________________________ 23 Figure 14 – Middle Patuxent Habitat Scores _______________________________________________________ 22 Figure 15 – Middle Patuxent BIBI Scores _________________________________________________________ 24 Figure 16 – Ferry Branch Sampling Sites __________________________________________________________ 26 Figure 17 – Ferry Branch Habitat Scores __________________________________________________________ 27 Figure 18 –Ferry Branch BIBI Scores ____________________________________________________________ 27 Anne Arundel County has approximately 1,500 Introduction miles of streams and rivers within its borders. Protecting these resources first requires having The Chesapeake Bay is the largest estuary in basic information about their overall conditions. North America (USEPA 2004). It has a drainage To collect this information, the County has area of over 64,000 square miles and is located in implemented a Countywide Biological Monitoring six states. Many important plant and animal Program to characterize the biological and habitat species inhabit the Bay and millions of people conditions of the major watersheds of the County. live, work, and play along its waters. However, A five-year sampling cycle, begun in 2004, will this kind of intense usage can have undesirable result in complete coverage of the County by impacts on the ecological health of the Bay 2008. This report summarizes the results of ecosystem. The conversion of forests and fields to sampling performed in 2004, or the first year of developed land, the filling and draining of this cycle. Following this introductory section, wetlands and streams, and the replacement of this report is organized as follows: natural shoreline with shores hardened with stone or piers are just a handful of examples illustrating Methods - A description of the methods used to the impacts of human activities on the Bay. evaluate biological community health and habitat conditions in and near the stream channel. Despite its large size, the health of the Chesapeake Bay is directly related to the water and habitat Results and Discussion of Stream Monitoring – quality of the thousands of streams and rivers that Comparisons of conditions are made between provide fresh water to this system (Staver et al. sampling units. Next, overall results are presented 1996). Healthy streams and rivers are necessary for each individual sampling unit and the for healthy coastal areas (Growns and James 2005, conditions of selected subwatersheds found within Batel et al. 2002). Additionally, since Anne each sampling unit are discussed. Detailed data Arundel County’s attractiveness as a place to live summaries of each station sampled are found in and work is partially related to its coastal Appendix B. Discussions are held in the context resources, the protection of streams and rivers is provided by reference conditions developed in vital to maintain the high quality of life and past work done by the Maryland Department of economic growth enjoyed by its citizens. For Natural Resources (DNR), which are used to example, it is estimated that approximately $1.7 evaluate reach and sampling unit health. General billion was spent in Anne Arundel County on recommendations to correct the causes of any heritage tourism in 2004, of which natural observed impairment are made. resources related tourism is considered to be a primary component (AAC 2005), underscoring the Conclusions and Recommendations - A list of economic importance of the Chesapeake Bay to recommendations generated by the study. the County. Appendices - Summaries of conditions found at each sampling site, a master taxa list, and field sheets used are found at the end of this document. 4 from the study. Reasons for removal of sites Methods included a lack of a defined channel, a dry channel, a beaver pond or other form of impoundment, or an overlap with another site. An Prior Reporting alternate site was then selected from a list These samples were initially collected as part of provided by the County. The reason for the deployment of the County’s Watershed elimination was noted on a field sheet along with Management Tool, or WMT, within the Severn the selected alternate site. Table 1 lists the River watershed and are reported in Piper (2005). alternate site selection and reasoning. At the time of data collection, the Maryland Biological Stream Survey (MBSS) of the DNR released revised Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity Field Methods (BIBI) metrics. Because subsequent work for the Sites were located in the field using a handheld Countywide Biological Monitoring Program Global Positioning System (GPS) to navigate to (CBMP) and for WMT deployment in future the predetermined