INDEX OF BIOTIC INTEGRITY ON TURKEY CREEK IN THE TOWN OF FARRAGUT FINAL REPORT SEPTEMBER 24, 2009
CONDUCTED BY:
FORT LOUDOUN LAKE ASSOCIATION
REPORT PREPARED BY: Michael S. Gaugler, Stormwater Services Program Director
IBI DATA PROVIDED BY: Fish lBl Data Provided By: Michael S. Gaugler Macroinvertebmle 181 Data Provided By: Michael S. Gaugler Habitat Analysis Data Provided By: Michael S. Gaugler INDEX OF BIOTIC INTEGRITY ON TURKEY CREEK IN THE TOWN OF FARRAGUT FINAL REPORT SEPTEMBER 24, 2009
INTRODUCTION
This document represents data collected from Turkey Creek at one location in Farragut, TN by the Fort Loudoun Lake Association (FLLA) for the Town of Farragut. Turkey Creek was surveyed forthe Index of Biotic Integrity for Macroinvertebrates (IBI. M) on September 14,2009. In addition to lhe IBI-M collection, a physical habitat assessment was conducted following sampling. Within this document we will state our plan, describe the study areas, explain methodology. and discuss results.
OBJECTIVES
I. Perform a macroinvertebrate survey at the sampling location. 2. Perform a habitat assessment at the sampling location. 3. Perform water quality testing at the sampling location. 4. Provide photographic evidence ofcurrent conditions and envirOlUllental pressures at the sampling location. 5. Score the IBI-M and habitat assessment and deliver write-up to the Town of Farragut.
STUDY AREAS
FLLA assessed one site along Turkey Creek. The site was adjacent to the Turkey Creek Harbor walking trail off ofConcord Road and Turkey Creek Road (see Figure I). It is located approximately 1.6 miles upstream from the bridge on Northshore Drive SW. Sampling was conducted in the forested area parallel to Concord Road near the stone dam. Please see photos in Appendix A for current habitat conditions.
2 Figure 1. Location for IBI-M on Turkey Creek on September 14,2009.
3 METHODS
INDEX OF BIOTIC INTEGRITY FOR MACROINVERTEBRATES (IB1-M) FLLA followed the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation's (TDEC) Quality System Standard Operating Procedure for Macroinvertebrate Stream Surveys (Arnwine 2006) for sampling procedures ofcollecting biological samples. The biological conditions ofTurkey Creek were assessed by collecting and identifying the benthic macroinvertebrates (IBI-M) present at one site in the creek. The sampling site was considered suitable based upon the presence of riffles ofdifferent flow conditions. A semi-quantitative rime kick (SQKICK) was used to collect samples. A one meter kick net with 500 micron mesh was used to sample the riffles. At the site, four collection kicks were performed. Two kicks were perfonned in slower current velocity rimes and two kicks were performed in faster current velocity rimes. Sampling was conducted from the downstream rime to the upstream sample. After each kick approximately one minute passed before removing the net from the rime to allow all debris to wash into the net. Next all debris collected was washed into a sampling bucket with a 500 micron screen on the bottom. All kicks were combined and all debris was washed into a labeled I L (1000 ml) bottle and samples were stored in 70% isopropyl alcohol. Any aquatic macroinvertebrates remaining on the net were removed and placed in the storage container. After sampling both net and bucket were thoroughly washed to prevent contamination at the next sampling site. Before sampling the physical and chemical field sheet was completed. After sampling the top portion ofthe "Benthic Macroinvertebrate Field Data Sheet" (Appendix A-3: Form I Barbour et al. 1999) was completed as well as a habitat assessment for high gradient streams (Appendix A·I Form 2 of Barbour et al. 1999). In the laboratory, samples were washed onto a 500-micron mesh sieve and washed with water to remove additional sediment and residual alcohol. Each sample was processed completely and all macroinvertehrates were removed and stored in a second container for identification purposes. The processed sample was returned to the original container and stored. A random subsample was taken ofall macroinvertebrates collected and those from the subsample were identified to the lowest possible taxon, either genus or species. All macroinvertebrates were identified using a Fisher Scientific microscope and several identification keys. These included Brigham et al. (1982) along with recent corrections to this edition, Merritt and Cummings (1995) and Perez et al. (2004). A macroinvertebrate index using seven biometrics was created based upon semi· quantitative macroinvertebrate surveys (Arnwine and Denton 200 Ia). The index is based upon ecoregional reference data and calibrated by bioregion. The seven biometrics are: EPT (Ephemeroptera Pleeoptera Triehoptera Riehness) TR (Taxa richness) % EPT (EPT abundanee) %OC (% oligochaetes and chironomids) NCB! (North Carolina Biotie Index) % NUTOL (% nutrient tolerant organisms) % Clingers After calculating the seven biometric values, the data are equalized and assigned a score of0, 2, 4, or 6 based upon the reference database of the bioregion. The seven
4 scores are totaled and the biological condition of each site is determined. There are three categories of the index score: Non-impaired (supporting) is equal to or greater than 32. Slightly impaired (partially supporting) is 21 - 3J. Moderately impaired (partially supporting) is equal to or less than 20.
WATER QUALITY Water parameters recorded included dissolved oxygen, pH, temperature and conductivity. Parameters were recorded using YSI meters. The YSI pH 100 meter recorded temperature and pH and the YSI 85 was used to compare temperature and to measure 00 and conductivity. Before each field day the meters were calibrated per the manufacturer's directions and tested for reading drift at the end of each sampling day.
HABITAT ANALYSIS A visual habitat assessment was conducted at the sampling site following Barbour et. al (1999) methodology to evaluate the integrity of the habitat. The Physical Characterization and Water Quality Field Data Sheet (Appendix A-l, Form I of Barbour et aJ. 1999) and the Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet (Appendix A-I, Form 2 of Barbour et al. 1999) were used. Because samples were collected in ecoregion 67f, the High Gradient Stream assessment sheet was used to evaluate habitats. In all, ten parameters were evaluated: Epifaunal substrate/available cover Embeddedness Velocity/Depth combinations Sediment deposition Channel flow status Chalmel alteration Frequency of riffles or bends Bank stability Bank vegetative protection Riparian vegetative zone width Each parameter was individually scored 0 to 20 with 20 being the highest attainable score for a maximwn score of 200 points. Scores were divided into four categories (Optimal, Suboptimal, Marginal and Poor) with a range of five points per category. After totaling the scores, the final score was compared with the Habitat Assessment Guidelines for ecoregion 67f from Tennessee's Department of Envirolunent and Conservation Quality System Standard Operating Procedure for Macroinvertebrate Stream Surveys (Arnwine 2006) to detennine if the habitat is capable ofsupporting a healthy macroinvertebrate community. Scores for the Habitat Assessment are: Scores greater than or equal to 130 indicate the habitat is not impaired. Scores 103 - 129 indicate the habitat is moderately impaired. Scores less than or equal to 102 indicate the habitat is severely impaired.
5 RESULTS
Table l. Summary oflBI-M and habitat assessment scores of Turkey Creek, September 14,2009.
TURKEY CREEK SAMPLING SITE IBI-M score 28 Ratin2 Sliehtlv imnaired Habitat score 131 Ratin!! Not imDaired
At the sampling site, the scores indicated that the physical habitat has not been impacted due to alterations ofthe area and was rated as not impaired. The biological community however has been impacted and scored a 28, which is below the target score of32 for streams in this area ofTennessee.
Table 2. Densities of macroinvertcbrates collected on Turkey Creek September 14, 2009.
TAXA SAMPLING SITE OLIOOCHAETA (aquatic worms) Lumbricidae Eclipidrilus sp. I EPHEMEROPTERA (mavflies) Baetidae Boelis flavislrif!o S HePlageniidae S,enacron infervunctatum 26 TRJCHOPTERA (Caddisflies) HvdroDsvchidae Chematopsyche spp. 61 HvdroDsvche demora 1S Hydropsychevenular~ 2 COLEOPTERA (beetles) Dytiscidae Hvdaticus modes/us 1 Elmidae Promoresia rardella 2 S/enelmis SOD. 25 larvae 8 adult Psephenidae Psevhenus herricki 10 DIPTERA (Flies) Chironomidae Paramerriocnemus fundbecki 8 Polypedilum spp. S
6 Thienemannimvia SOD. 8 CeratopO~onidae Dasvhelea f!risea 3 Tipulidae Antoeha SOD. 7 Simuliidae Simulium snowi 12 Simulium laxodium 3 MESOGASTROPODA (snails) Planorbidae Planorbella spo. 8 Pleuroceridae Elimia spp. 6 TUBIFICIDA Naididae Nais SOD. 2 AMPHIPODA Cranaonvctidae Cran/Zonyx spp. 2 Total 220
A total of220 specimens were collected at the sampling site. Specimens from the caddistly genera, Chemalopsyche, and Hydropsyche, dominated the biological community at this site. Other numerous species included the mayfly, Slenacron inlerpunclalum, and black fly larvae from the genus, Simulium.
Table 3. Summary Table for Macroinvertebrate Index of Sampling Sites on Little Turkey Creek, October 21, 2008.
METRIC Taxa EPT % % NCBI % % Index Richness Richness EPT OC Clinaers NUTROL Score Site Value 19 4 49.54 10.0 5.21 73.64 58.64 Score 2 2 6 6 4 6 2 28
INDEX SCORE INDEX SCORE RATING SITE 28 Sliahtlv Imnaired
The macroinvertebrate community at the Turkey Creek sampling site scored a 28 that classified it as slightly impaired. The score was lowered due to the number of taxa and the number of EPT taxa identified. The target score for streams in the 67f ecoregion is 32 thus Turkey Creek failed to achieve this level (Arnwine 2006).
7 Table 4. Summary of water quality analysis taken on Turkey Creek September 14, 2009.
WATER UALITY PARAMETERS Temperature DO (mgIL) pH Conductivity (um/s) 'c Sam lin Site 19.9 6.81 8.27 275.8
Water quality values on Turkey Creek are within nonnal ranges of East Tennessee streams located in Ecoregion 67f. The pH values are within the standard of 6.0 - 9.0 by TDEC (Arnwine and Denton 2004). DO readings were also within the standards set by TDEC (Arnwine et al. 2005) and did not fall below minimum requirement of6.3 ppm for Ecoregion 67f. Water temperatures also met Tennessee's water quality criteria for the support of fish and aquatic life in wadeable streams and did not exceed the maximum allowance of30.5 'c (Arnwine et al. 2005).
Table S. Summary for Habitat Assessment on Turkey Creek September 14, 2009.
Habitat Parameter Latitude (dec) 35.872133 LonRitude (deR) -84.148167 EDi faunal Cover 17 Embeddedness 18 VelocitvlDeoth Recime 17 Sediment Deoosition 13 Channel Flow 16 Channel Alteration 6 Rime Frequency 12 Bank stabilitv f1eftlrichtl 5/5 Ve~etative Protection (Ieft/ri~ht)* 8/5 Rioarian Zone Width f1eftlrichtl* 7/2 Total (200 max.) 131 Total Score Ratinc Not imDaired
* Scored while facing the downstream direction.
The site on Turkey Creek was scored as not impaired according to the habitat parameter data with a score of 131. The sampling site was able to meet the physical habitat goal for streams in Ecoregion 67f (Arnwine and Denton 2001 b). The area was characterized as being a forested reach located in a residential neighborhood on the left bank and the stream running parallel with Concord Road on the right bank. Between the two sampling rimes an extremely large stone dam was identified. The length of the dam was greater than the stream width and the dam height was over 2 meters. It was a cut stone dam that had a concrete path on the left stream
8 bank. Along the dam's length there were three cut outs that allowed water to continue following downstream. Currently there is no connectivity for fish migration at this location. Large numbers of sunfish and bass were observed in the pools above the dam but they had reached their lower limit on Turkey Creek. This dam altered stream flows and sediment deposition because severe bank erosion has been occurring upstream of the dam. There were large amoWlts ofwoody debris trapped above the dam that were being deposited on the banks. Even with these conditions, there was a good cobble gravel mix in the rime and run complex with little sand or silt emheddedness. Scouring of the riffle areas was occurring both above and below the dam. The riparian zone was mostly forested with a mixture of trees and under canopy cover that shaded most of the stream. However, the right bank's zone was altered by the native species being replaced with a well kept manicured lawn. The lawn extended upstream past the sampling site. Within this zone the riparian zone width was decreased to less than a few meters and in some locations to the stream banks. At the site four parameters were scored in the optimal condition category: epifaunal substrate cover, embeddedness, velocity and flow regime and channel flow status. Ofthe other parameters one was classified as poor, riparian vegetative zone width for the right bank due to the manicured lawn that extended almost to the stream bank.
DISCUSSION
Many streams throughout Ecoregion 67f are characterized by reduced riparian cover, high levels oferosion, sedimentation, and nutrient loading (Arnwine and Denton 2001 b). Turkey Creek is listed in the final version ofthe 2008, 303 d list for the state of Tennessee (TDEC 2008). The 15.8 impaired miles are listed due to loss of biological integrity due to siltation and high levels of Escherichia coli. lmpainnent sources include discharges from a MS4 area. The findings from the current study are comparable to other urban streams in the area including the Knoxville, Maryville and Alcoa areas from TDEC 2007 - 2008 sampling efforts. The IBI score on Turkey Creek was 28 compared to the mean score of 23.88 for other sampling efforts on other East Tennessee creeks by TDEC. The mean habitat score for other sampling efforts was 112 compared to 131 on Turkey Creek. In 2007 TDEC calculated the Turkey Creek scores of 32 for the macroinvertebrate community and 138 for habitat. Overall the area sampled was in good condition in tenns of in-stream habitat and most of the riparian zone. The riparian zone on the left bank is relatively undisturbed and is wide enough to mitigate the effects of the impervious surface of Concord Road both in terms ofsurface runoff and possible pollutants such as additional sediment and petroleum products such as motor oil. There were large areas ofavailable cover with little ernbeddedness present instrearn. Various flows were observed throughout the site and all areas were wetted. Rimes were present downstream and much ofthis babitat type was observed upstream of the dam. The channel was very straight however. This could increase flow velocities and could increase sheer stress on weakened banks.
9 Ofthe possible issues identified at the sampling location two are site specific and anthropogenic. The first is the removal ofthe native riparian zone along the right bank. It is assumed that the homeowners association contracts a company/companies to maintain this area. Several lawn care employees were observed throughout the subdivision on the day ofsampling. Along the walking path there are numerous areas of wildnowers blooming that provide habitat and food for wildlife and provide land stability during stenn events. The second and greater issue is the stone dam. The dam prevents any type ofconnectivity for fish migrating in and out ofTurkey Creek to Fort Loudon Lake because it is an impassable object. SOffie fish may he able to pass downstream but they would not be able to return upstream. Second it has altered flow regimes. There are multiple riffle-run sequences both above and below it but the area upstream of the dam is a slow flowing pool habitat. Third, the amount oferosion on the stream banks and the amount ofdeposition at the dam is extensive. Bank failure is present on both banks as well as the island in the center of the stream. Mature trees are present on the island thus indicating the dam has been present for a number ofyears perhaps decades. The greatest concern about the dam is the useful life ofthe dam will be reached and the area will be completely filled in with sediment. Once this occurs the water will either continue to spill over the dam or will meander into the banks cutting a new path towards Concord Road or towards the subdivision. Finally it is suspected that the riffles are clean with little to no embeddedness because the water flows in Turkey Creek are scouring the channel due to the increased velocities of the straightened channel and the presence ofthe dam is preventing sediment transport from occurring. Once the water hits the dam, the velocities decrease and the suspended sediment falls and is deposited. Immediately below the dam there was exposed bedrock and the only sediment observed were fines as the result ofthe lower flows. At approximately to meters flows increased again and the rimes were in a similar condition that was observed above the dam. Because little to no sediment is being transported downstream at the dam, as water velocities increase the amount of sediment becoming suspended and transported is increased. Though the physical environment seems to be in good condition. there are some parameters that are affecting the macroinvertebrate community. Though the dominant taxa were caddisnies overall the EPT taxa were suffering. Two mayfly taxa and two caddisfly taxa were collected but no stonenies were collected thus this metric stored a two out ofsix. Another biological metric that scored a two was taxa richness. Overall only 19 taxa were collected on Turkey Creek. Also the percentage of nutrient tolerant organisms was high. Over half ofall specimens collected were in this classification including the most numerous taxon, Cheumalopsyche. Seven of the 19 macroinvertebrate taxa identified are classified as tolerant. All but the snail, Elimia and the mayfly, Baelis were collected in groups often or more. Because ofthe lowered scores, there is a basic question needing to be addressed. What is impacting the biological community on Turkey Creek? Because ofthe current physical habitat conditions, it is suggested that water quality analysis be conducted. TDEC has stated that E. coli impacts Turkey Creek. It would be valuable data to identify the specific cause of the degraded water and specifically where the inputs are along the creek. This water quality issue could be affecting the macroinvertebrate community negatively. It is recommended that the Town of Farragut identify the chemical or chemicals and sources along Turkey Creek through additional sampling efforts.
10 Overall Turkey Creek is impaired due to anthropogenic practices and it was evident at the study site. The physical habitat was not impaired but if conditions alter then it could degrade. Once the physical habitat is altered the biological community will be affected as well because the physical habitat influences the biological community (Arnwine and Denton 2001b). Perhaps the homeowners association could restore a section ofthe riparian zone that has been altered through the planting of native riparian species. This would aid in stormwater runoffand any pollutants carried to the creek. This could include lawn care chemicals or other chemical pollutants. Because bacteria are degrading water quality, the presence ofa larger riparian zone would help alleviate some of this situation. There are other measures that can be taken to further address this issue. Overall, the greatest issue on Turkey Creek at this location is the stone dam. It is believed that if it is removed and continuous flows are restored then the physical habitat will continue to maintain or improve as well as the biological community improving and meeting the state target score.
11 REFERENCES
Arnwine, D.H. 2006. Quality system standard operating procedure for macroinvertebrate stream surveys. Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Division of Water Pollution Control. Nashville, TN. Pp. 150.
Arnwine, D.H. and G.M. Denton. 2001a. Development of regionally-based interpretations ofTennessee's existing biological integrity criteria. Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Division of Water Pollution Control. Nashville, TN.
Arnwine, D.H. and G.M. Denton. 2001 b. Habitat quality of least-impacted streams in Tennessee. Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Division of Water Pollution Control. Nashville, TN. Pp. 65.
Arnwine, D. H. and G.M. Denton. 2004. Development of regionally-based pH criteria for wadeable streams: A criteria development document prepared for the Tennessee Water Quality Control Board. Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Division of Water Pollution Control. Nashville, TN. Pp.75.
Arnwine, D. H., R. R. James and KJ. Sparks. 2005. Regional characterization of streams in Tennessee with emphasis on diurnal dissolved oxygen, nutrients, habitat, geomorphology and macroinvertebrates. Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Division of Water Pollution Control. Nashville, IN. Pp.286.
Barbour, M.T., J. Gerritsen, B.D. Snyder and J.B. Stribling. 1999. 2"' Edition. Rapid bioassessment protocols for use in streams and wadeable rivers: Periphyton, benthic macroinvertebrates and fish. EPA 841-B-99-002. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. Washington D.C.
Brigham, A.R., W.U. Brigham and A. Gnilka (OOs.). 1982. Aquatic insects and oligochaetes of North and South Carolina. Midwest Aquatic Enterprises, Mahomet, fL.
Merritt R. W. and K.W. Cummins. 1995. An introduction to the aquatic insects of North America. Third Edition. Kendall Hunt Publishing Co, Dubcque, IA. Pp. 862.
Perez K.E., S.A. Clark, and C. Lydeard, editors. 2004. "Showing your shells" A primer to freshwater gastropod identification. Freshwater Mollusk Conservation Society Gastropod Identification Workshop. Pp. 70.
Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation. 2008. Final Report: Year 2008303 (d) list. Division of Water Pollution Control. Nashville, TN.
12 APPENDlX A: PHOTOS OF TURKEY CREEK
Photo 1. Downstream riffle.
Photo 2. Conditions of substrate at lower rime.
13 Photo 3. Stone dam located between lhe two sample riffles. It extends the entire width ofthe stream and two meters in height.
Photo 4. On left bank (downstream) a concrete chute that extends toward Concord Road.
14 Photo 5. Large woody debris is blocking flows at the upstream side ofthe dam.
Photo 6. The high water mark above the dam showing debris.
15 Photo 7. Island located upstream of dam. Notice the pool area and eroded banks.
Photo 8. Water turbidity is very high at the pool upstream of dam.
16 Photo 9. The upstream rime is approximately 50 meters above the dam approximately. Notice the straight channel and bank erosion is occurring.
Photo 1O. The location is above the dam facing upstream.
17 Photo 11. St[eambed condition of a run located upstream of dam.
Photo 12. Location is upstream of the darn on right bank. ,. Photo 13. Location is on the right bank at the dam. The trees are in the center ofthe stream.
Photo 14. Sediment deposition is occurring that can be seen in Photo 13.
19 Photo 15. Location is immediately downstream of dam (in photo) showing the effects of scouring. Bedrock is exposed and only fines are present due to lower velocities.
Photo 16. The riparian zone located on the right bank upstream of the dam.
20 APPENDIX B: HABITAT SHEETS FOR TURKEY CREEK SAMPLING
21 Page I of I
PHYSICAL CHAR-.CTERIZATIONfWATER QUALITY FIELD DATA SHEET (FRONT)
STREA.M NAME -",1", e",.,."-. UlCAllON ST....TIOl' ~ H.IVF.RMII...E 5TREI\1\1 CUt~S LAT ..01'40 1UVE.1. DAS IN
STOJUIT ~ AGENCY IlNESTlGATCR.!:: FORM COMPU:--rBJ UV OAT< REASON FOR SURVEY 11ME AM '"
WLAImR N,. PUI~" If.. dlCr~ It<<:n .. b'.17 raID In tilt' lui. 7 d.,-.? CONDmONS b~D UYe, UNo 0 It(lml':~;n'l' rain) 0 0 r.ill (stad)' rain) 0 AlrTemplD'IltJr'__' C ,h;)'~ (intcmBllelll) 0 0 Olllrr -0 ~JlltK COWl' 0_" -0 ",11::'''''.111111 0
SITEWCATIONlM"P Dr..... map of lJicsitc And iotiinwi/ll UUI r.mpltd! (or '1U.(-fb'log~ Cfr-. fvJ1l';-e" -' r:~\< (:?r~_ 2..0 r-L , ~ - (.~ --;::> 20 t--'r" 0J
5TRL\[tI ~eI'" S"tnnttm Summ Tvpe CILU.ACTERIZATION r ennnitl' 0 m!enn:~l o Tirbl o r.lliM'lli:er ~tr.rw:Jltr Sin... 0 ..111.1" I:""hm'flr .,,. "", ~Q"'d;al 31fjrin!-le6 :lNon-g!:L";:I; Tn;>nbn.. !J iltll-~ (II rn<',n :l ,5 wur.v .md ~g a Olhct_ ..,
hI tp:llwww.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/rbp/pics/aOt .j pg 919/2009 Page 1of 1
PHYSICAL CHARACTERIZATlONIWATER QUALITY FIELD DATA SHEET (BACK)
W,.\Tr:RSHED uO ..;n,...5nrvU..littll llllflll!' .... c;l ....\ 1,1lOI1 ",aur'jl~"S rDlludol m ~\;nltflCWo.I [J No ~cn.~ :'l'Il' SOUl'CC1 Fl....TVRES or;.t - , po:enti.ol I'ttldlP:s:ure l'ldustri~l a Clbv:OUI SOl.rtes ~~gril:\ll~[ a Otll<:f Kt$illenriJI OCJClJ 'l\'~ Eruloa No:l~ odenle a Hnvy
lU~A..~ ~."Ib fI/llnlnanl t)~ rttord Ihe dl~~ Silultsprcunt \'E ETATI~," ~ Wb' 1:ltI.. a H~rbu:e1Ml1 (l! IIJC,:tcr W -c:r) .::Iomlnnm J.pf'dU p~n.r Lm~1l no/STREAM Eui.-lalcd Rudlo l>'\l I'll CD'I\)IJ~ co...~ ~ FI'.A.TlIRF.l:I: a hn v~ lnly.sh1ded :J Sbld:4 ~ti ..alcd SrruT1I wtddl ...lQ....m Hl:)I WIler Mark I ... ~ !i~ ...pliIlC Ruell ;\reo ---~' Prnp,nlon orRfllclt Rl'pf"IDImIN by Slra,. .~~. in km' ' ....'dU.f,) l\forpbolol)' T)'pCI --"'" [J Rim; 'Ii ~ Run % ~11.lllledStru .. o.~m O?I)(II~ -- s.. rr~~ Y.Iox~ ~te ('....n.~li1Prl 0 Vri ::IN.... ('1 thltte'l) n"M Pr",wnr ~ Vt:t UN.., ___m' U.Rr.~ WOODY LWO n£BRI. I)cmhytofLWD m'l'Ia:l' (LWDJ r.ac:h ll .... ~)
~~UAllC l..r.;u'~ th. dllrninllnr ".re and reunt I~e dllnlll4D1 SPtL"f:!.J:PrtSl!!l[ 'V GrrAllo,.~ o Itnncc '~nt 0 R~1Cd JQl:mer.~t . )otl!d tlolin; o F~I :l·)Iltnj; UFlIuhntA121C D4"ttlc!dAlrle d••,illlllK ipm,' pn-_t Portion oflhe r.:IdJ ..Uh l111111tJ<: yet:eladol .,.
WATER QUALITV Te'"'l"'...-...e 'c ~lc:rOdo" (rl.v- I'."i- )rm::liNt:ne Q~\~ Spuifi~ l'.."oI..n ...t.e ~ 'IUQIW1ll o Cll1mli;:.) !:: rlSb,. :J O'lIy.r Di»yl....,J OXrll:t" Wlltr "illrt3tt OU, ,II Cl Slkk D.o.:;lIlan a (~In">S o :::Ic:t,. ~~ OU1'CT TurbidIty ~kJIl~II""".'nI.) WQ 1n~lrumll'AI V5 :;EDIME.OfTI O.bn D~til. SUt6-rHATl: CJ N(II'.1·a.. l..J~ie ~I I1'IORGA..'....CSUBSTRATE COMPO~E:'¥TS oI'I:(';""H" SI11L.<;;T1l-\TI COMPOi'"Il'fTS [Ibo.hi :IlJ1! 1:0 lu JOO"4) ,doo:. nllllCa:I~ ..il_. :I..... 1I;J t.IO~) S.Mtr"h DI,m...... 11.. rtlm'[ln~irIM ill sab~lte Ch:ll';'l(ttr1~I!C % CojJ1f::lltlon II Tyl-'O: :;'mpli.c Kuch T:pc . 3al[lf)t"; "rea c.er.l~S :a:l;b, "0011, Cc;:J;[11: ;t1~m """'" rnmnall :CPOI-1) Boulder >256 mmOCT'1 CQ~b1e 64-lJO "Tn .:2.3"· 10'1 M~ck-!'Ilud blade, '(cry line or,,)Oj.: (F?OW) Ollud 1-6-' 1n.lll (0.1·-2 S"' ,.~ 0.1)(;·2Illm (~) Mllr'l grt,.•.!Ihtll h~r.u Si:t 0.00.1.-),06 om 01,. .~ '.OOJ mm slick) hitp:/Iwww.epa.gov/QwQw/monitoring/rbp/pics/a02.jpg 91912009 Page I of 1 Dll::iTIDC ~1ACRDINVl1RT"F.RR.4TRFTJ:I D DATA SffF.F.T sr....." NA.'lE Tv, I~ e", C/l«Q... lOC.U10N J7w.J :.....,. 4j I·C ...... OJ .... Ct"'-: «.II"Xirf> ""' c... - sTAnoN" I 'JVERl.llLE . ~.f:> STIl..£A.M cuss , '-'r }f.\'1y!; I LONG . IU ....ERBASm sroP..ET~ "'ll~'" "Y INV!S7JOA701lS ...r.- ... <;W LOTt IIA.3ITAT TYPES 1atic:lk~P"t:al:~tJ1ICpnum r a~ll. !<.:JSup I. a Ve;ulz1.IbnlcJ...1.z...'" as~ Ie;;. a ~;cqed Y.lICfOph'/1!; % QUtUl'( ) .. SA.'OU C !lcll0~1tIbl!r.r:~(ksl't." In It.lt.'' luloi.ut I!'...... JGbl- ::J ~__ r:J V~tUIe" ~__ :J~]4- ator.1er.~ MacKQ:lYEJ OOlkr( ) GENERAL Z. /<.0>-$ 'iIN "'(fIe.. -Pc<-? COM~fD."TS / ~ _':?J."..A...... ,L.... c(.. .. ~-.-!1 2..~:Ll..,. tip ....c, . - • h ~ V\t D"''' , QUALlT"TT\"T. T.L F!ELD ODSERV.\TlONS or l\L"CROEE:vTHOS JndlC:lte esl1muert lIIhnlUne~ u: A.b~nt:NGI OlH;uved, J- Rue (J.) orgllAl~ms). "J "" Com,"," (3-9 (I'lPrUfms), 3- .... b.lId:lnr (> 10 Qrg~nlum), 4 - Oomin~nf (>5n \Vlllni;mo;;} Porif'=' 0 I 2 J , AnlSO::l:Cr:! o. 1 , l , C.hirCT\om~ 0 /"l'Jl Hydrczo;L 0 1 1 J 4 ZY!Jupti!!1'2 0 1 1 , 4 Epherr.eroplen. 0) 1~f.4 PIOI)hchninlh:s , ~ .) ~ 0 1 , • HcmipD::a 0 2 J • Triclwptu S~M SURVEY FORM STREAM SURVEY INFORMATION S NUJII l'>l'RDM MAMe o"'~ SlAfK)NLOCAT1ON: ~,. t. • m." COUNTY: "'" $lREAM MI.!. WUIDoJfHUC: STReAM Cll'IDCR: WATERSHEDOROUf>. DlttJNAoe ARE'. LA TITUOE OECIOEO ElEVATION (f'4; LONGfTUDII! DE'CIDeJ GAZl!TTEEfl PAGl!: ECOlOOCAl SUBRBlDN: t; 1;f!' U90SDUAO PItOJECln'URPOse ISAMPLES COUECTEtl ...... u.. AMeM;Ct ..»em a .._ T~.~~ .OMCON~ otEMr:AlS Y cr N REL.D MEASURBllENTS """"u.... P.wa.~tanPledlr ~ ~ AlltinWMtller· s-l' ~ lll\ilTtRSHEb CHlRlCTtRtSnCl App. 'I cI waWSfle.cl ~_,....,,: UPSTll:EAM SURROllNO~\fO LAflOllSE;u_ eAlN:.e1:l CC'J ."""" ~ - ;: I ...:Ha ~. aI_nk nQl OllUrvel:! FbwAfter. SOURCES -- ?ok1l Sou=. Indvst ..tlrlTlillM._'" L Po ~ constr\.IeIIOI1; ~11d 0 .. UnknclWll "'"!D_oln""" _ OM lWlure: Row cr 10 ,'''' LlfftUlCk lUI ·n!*-1tI 141 LENGTH OF STREAM AREA ASSESSED\m! &.l.c:tTN I>ivirioa o{ W...PollmDa Coa!n>l QSSOP {or Macroin.'ftVbntc S_Sur.'eyI' ~4 ~Due; Ooobro" 2006 Appc:ndQB; Plop9aCl2 STREAIl4 SURVEY FORM PHYSICAL STREAM CHARACTERISTICS com. RFfLE RUM POOL ugll&rtCll He \- ... vn.oaTYt,., \....1 5 fLOW (CFI, ~ITAT ASSUSMEHT SOOREt: .... "'. (~ ~G~P~'__ &UasJRATIi 1"4) (Vls.ull 1Sti.._sa 1'0" ~,o< 'N I'OOL 9OULOER (. 10"') ~:~ .. .. CVoV lAdQ ...... coea.E a.,.,O"j .. .. s" ...... GltA..e.. P-1-2.$1 ", .. .. om""", ICPONl ...... ,1IfCAOC>< ...... MUCK·NlJD (FPOto4l .. .. ,,"'" .. , .. .. ItJIRL (tI\elIl,..' ...... ISlllEAN use SUPPORT: !wAtERWTKlRAw.. t.OT'EO a.A~t ruI.~Y __Tl'fQC") PhQb.,'&orN Rol~' ?hot~"O ",,0 IMO E: fMO STREAM SKETCI-I (...... "'-..-.,." _ .... d""" , diobnce fr..,. blklg_, ~I~ ~ lflbl., c>Ultak, iYMlock 1OOhI, ~.n .ea ~I ,on""'" Di,i.;on of Wllfi Pollution Conlrol QSSOP for Mlcrom·..mebnte Snam SurvqJ R.eo.oision4 Effective Dale. 0c10beI" 2QOll AppmdixB: PIS,,4ofI2 HABITAT ASSESSMENT DATA SHEET- HlGH CRADIENT STREAMS (FRONT) STREAM NAME LOCA1l0N- ~.J;.J:,/" '- < lW,,( L.h STATION # - C,,~ ~ r,;" ECOREGION LAT WNG ( WATERSHED GROUP 2- WBIDMUC INVESTIGATORS FORM COMPLElED BY DAle TIME AM PM Ulbltal PINlltltttr CODdlloD Clttgory Dp- SaboptinuJ Marclnal " J. Eplfaanal Guatt:r lban. 70% of...mtnte 4l)..70% mD: ofstable hIbilat: 20-40% milr. of scabl" habital; Leu lhaa. 20% &table S,bfrn!tiA,·al.bble f.lnlnbk for q>ihuaa.l wdkuill:ld for full n'aiIability less !baD habitat; 1Ic:k ofbabiull is CO\'tJ:" colonia.tion and 6U CO\'ft"; coloniz:roli 19 I> 13 12 11 10 8 7 , , , 2 1 SCORE '" " ~16 .. • • 2, EmbtddedDtsS Gnvd, cobble. and boulder Gnvd. cobble: IUd boukIi:.- GRvt,l cobbl". and bouIdeI- Gravel cobble, and boulder particles arc 6-25% puticlel .... 25-50% puticles • ., SO-7S% particlts an:...... , tbID 76% .urrormded by line Iedimau...... 0IIIJIkd by fine secIimrm...... led by fiDe Jedirol:nt, ...... , .... Loyrri:ts ofcobble providos ...... , rli "fmclw! ~. 19 (;;) 17 I> 13 12 11 10 8 7 , , , 2 1 SCORE '" I' I' • • 3. VelocltylDtpl~ All four ...,Iocityldeplh Only J of!he 4 rqimeI; Only 2 of4le 4 babital DomimleaIlow ""' (umally dow-dcq» sbaII_> (Slow is 18 ~ ;) I' 1l 13 12 11 10 8 7 , , , 2 I SCORE '" I' 14 • • 5. CllInnti Flow Wiler ",ac:brs base ofbotb Wiler lills> 75% oftbe Waters filii 25-75 % oftbc V~ Iinia wak'rm tIw>o.el Stlllll lowff bwks. and mioimaJ. Ivailable ~I; or 2S % of n'llibble cbIoneI. audiO!" Ibd UDClly pn::senIli IIDClW! af~I subslnte ia dum>r:1 aubslnl~ ia ~ riflle subllnlleI an: mMIly olc> SCORE 20 19 18 17 If1 I' 13 12 II 10 8 7 ,,4 2 I , l' • • Divisioa ofWalet Pollulion Control QSSOP for Macroin...... tebnte Stream Sun'qll Rn>Ui004 Eff HABITAT ASSESSMENT DATA SHEET- H1GH GRADIENT STREAMS (BACK) SlItioo ID D.w Dabltal PUllmeler Oplhnal Suboptimal Mal'llin" P~. 6. Cluonnd awme1iz.atioa or drecIciua Some c:Iwmo:liDIiora ~ O'mnelization .....,. be Banb d>orm with pbion or AJl.tnlloo abllenl or Illiaima.1; 1_w:r.th umally in an:u of bridge aieD$i,"C; emhankmralS ea:tlII:f1I; O\'a" SO-~ of~ 00fIDll1 pattern. al>umrnls; ~ ofpal or d10rina IlruclUreS, Junm reach chonnelized ~liDtion. i,e.. dmclp.. pre.cnt on boIb bMWr;; N>d dUrupled.. Imtream (peaJer 1hanpul20)'1")"'" aud 40 10 &0% ofPlum iuobiul peatly lheRd or ~pnsrm.but ~I reACh channrliud and IC!lIXl\'ed ealirely. cl-.....Jm,tion i. lIDt ~, "'" .... SCORE 20 19 \7 \. \] \2 \0 , , 7 ;0 , 3 2 \ \, \' \' 11 • 7. Fnqur.cyor OccnrrerlCe ofriftles lelMh'ely OcCUlTeDCe ofrime O SCORE 20 \9 \. \7 \' 14 \3 Ii! II \0 9 7 , 3 2 \ " , • • • •• .... SlIbihty BankJ U&bIc; e'\';cleDc:e of.-rosioa Moderately ItlIblc; in&eq~ Modcnkly wutable; JO.. Unstable; many eroded ~ (scc.., ncb bank) «bU:J.k fzilure abRD! or anaU anas oferosion lOO5lIy 60 'l4ofbank ill tach bu "'Q..,~ area &e 9. Veretath'e More m~ oCIbe 70-9O%ofrhc~ 5O-7~oflbe leJ:J !haD ~ ortile ...... oo~ed Prolectln (Kore _ surfaces by native nrearnbank JUJfacetl areambank JIlIfaceJ CCM:I'ed eacb bank) immediate riparia.a. ZOUC' cow:red vqr::1atioo. bul 0Df: dUll of cO\-ered by vegetation; by \"egelItioa; dimIptioa. of by nab~ vqcl:l.u..", iocbdms. plnrs is .DOC .....elI-lt'pI'eJelIted; Usruptioo obvious; areambanIi: ~.. Note: dltunll1De ~rt Uta. ~dmlbs, or disruptiOl1 e'\'ideII1 but DOC pald1eJ ofbare IOiI or \~ biab; \"C&ew.ioo bas or rlpl Jlde by nouwoody lmICIophytel; aff'ectiDg full plant glowtb dosely crowed ~~'o5 raClol dClWlllltream vqeum'e disropcioo Ihrougb poImIw. 10 lII,y armt_t; '"'ec:tlIbOl1 C 10. RlparillD Widtb ofripulanUlQC > 18 Witllb ofriparillll ZODe 12-18 Wtdth ofripariaa. z:oDe 6 Wodlh ofriparian ZODl' <6 Vegetad,~ Zooe mct