+

Characterization of Miller Run and Conceptual Plan for Watershed Restoration

UNIV 298 Spring 2009 + Miller Run: An Overview + Miller Run Statistics

 80% of Miller Run is owned by Bucknell.

 The runoff from the new housing developments also contribute to the stream.

 Length of Stream: 2,000m

 Percent Forest: 13.1% (The Grove and the Golf Course)

 Percent Urban: 37.5% (Buildings and Roads)

 Channelized: 75-100%

 50% Rip-rap

Source: streamstats.usgs.gov (2009) + Introduction to the Presentation

 Characterization of Miller Run  The impairment of the stream:  The Channel  The Water

 Conceptual Plan  Our Proposed Solutions  The Costs of Our Proposed Solutions

 Conclusions  What Miller Run Could Be

Photo Courtesy of: http://www.facstaff.bucknell.edu + Project Goals

 Flood Control  Storm Water Management  Retention  Infiltration

 Aesthetic Appeal  Native Species  Riparian Health  Recreation

 Improve Ecological Health  Year-Round Flow  Sewage Recycling Miller Run Today  Habitat- Diversity   Target Species

 Channel Sustainability  Space for Migration  Structure Renewal

 Environmental Education  Watershed Management  Learning and Teaching What Miller Run Could Be Photo Taken by Dina El-Mogazi at Wellesley College + The Characterization of Miller Run

Miller Run Put Into Perspective + +

EEE ZZ

VV QQ NN MR 1 LL GG Z A S A O M

MR 2 I B Reach 1 + Cross Section B 0 0 5 10 15 20 -1

-2 Vertical (m) -3

-4 Horizontal from left bank (m) Cross Section I 0 0 5 10 15 20 -1

-2

Vertical (m) -3

-4 Horizontal from left bank (m) Cross Section M 0 -0.5 0 5 10 15 20 -1 -1.5 -2 -2.5 Vertical (m) -3 -3.5 -4 Horizontal from left bank (m) Reach 2 + Cross Section O 0 0 5 10 15 20 -1

-2

Vertical (m) -3

-4 Horizontal from left bank (m) Cross Section S 0 0 5 10 15 20 -1 ) m -2

-3 Vertical ( -4 Horizontal from left bank (m) Cross Section Z 0 0 5 10 15 20 -1

-2

Vertical (m) -3

-4 Horizontal from left bank (m) Reach 3 + Cross Section AA 0 0 5 10 15 20 -1

-2

-3 Vertical (m) -4 Horizontal from left bank (m)

Cross Section GG 0 0 5 10 15 20 -1

-2

Vertical (m) -3

-4 Horizontal from left bank (m) Cross Section LL 0 0 5 10 15 20 -1

-2

Vertical (m) -3

-4 Horizontal from left bank (m) Reach 4 + Cross Section NN 0 0 5 10 15 20 -1

-2

Vertical (m) -3

-4 Horizontal from left bank (m) Cross Section QQ 0 0 5 10 15 20 -1

-2

Vertical (m) -3

-4 Horizontal from left bank (m) Cross Section VV 0 -0.5 0 5 10 15 20 -1 -1.5 -2 -2.5

Vertical (m) -3 -3.5 -4 Horizontal from left bank (m) Reach 5 + Cross Section XX 0 0 5 10 15 20 -1

-2

Vertical (m) -3

-4 Horizontal from left bank (m) Cross Section ZZ

0 0 5 10 15 20 -1

-2

-3 Vertical (m)

-4 Horizontal from left bank (m) Cross Section EEE 0 0 5 10 15 20 -1

-2

Vertical (m) -3

-4 Horizontal from left bank (m) + + + Hydrologic Issues

 Portions of Miller Run frequently go dry

 Water quickly enters and exits the system

 High content: hinders life, destroys restoration structures Frequent Periods of Zero Flow

0.140

0.120 /s) 3 0.100

0.080

0.060

0.040 (m 0.020

0.000 6/4/2008 0:03 6/4/2008 0:03 7/4/2008 6/14/2008 0:03 6/14/2008 0:03 6/24/2008 Time 0:03 7/14/2008 0:03 7/24/2008 + Methodology

 Established gauges upstream and downstream to measure the height of the water

 Used rating curve and Manning Equation to calculate discharge (flow of water over time)

1.8

1.6

1.4

1.2 Dow nstrream Upstream 1

0.2115 0.8 Upstream: y = 1.3806x Stage (ft) Stage R2 = 0.9822 0.6 Dow nstream: y = 1.5511x0.211 2 0.4 R = 0.933

0.2

0 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 Discharge (m 3/s) DOWNSTRE AM MR2 GAUGE

CAMPUS

UPSTREA M MR1 GAUGE + Flow

February Snow Melt Hydrograph

1.2

1 Upstream Downstream 0.8 /s) 3

0.6

0.4 Discharge (mDischarge

0.2

0 2/8/09 5:00 2/8/09 5:00 2/9/09 2/7/09 17:00 2/7/09 23:00 2/7/09 11:00 2/8/09 17:00 2/8/09 23:00 2/8/09 11:00 2/9/09 17:00 2/9/09 23:00 2/9/09 5:00 2/10/09 2/10/09 11:00 2/10/09 17:00 2/10/09 23:00 2/10/09 Time Feb 18 Snowmelt and Rain Event Hydrograph 0.03

0.025 Upstream

0.02 /s) 3

0.015

0.01 Discharge (mDischarge

0.005

0 2/18/09 0:00 2/18/09 6:00 2/18/09 0:00 2/19/09 6:00 2/19/09 0:00 2/20/09 6:00 2/20/09 0:00 2/21/09 2/18/09 12:00 2/18/09 18:00 2/18/09 12:00 2/19/09 18:00 2/19/09 12:00 2/20/09 18:00 2/20/09 Time + Storm Pipes throughout campus responsible for the double peak Upstream Discharge Lag Time For Small Rainfall Event 0.07 0.045

0.04 0.06

0.035

0.05 0.03 /s) 3

0.04 0.025

0.02 0.03

0.015 (in.) Rainfall

Discharge (mDischarge 0.02

0.01

0.01 0.005

0 0

Discharge 3/27/2009 0:00 3/27/2009 2:00 3/27/2009 3/26/2009 14:00 3/26/2009 16:00 3/26/2009 18:00 3/26/2009 20:00 3/26/2009 22:00 3/26/2009 Rain Time Downstream Discharge Lag Time For Small Rainfall Event 0.07 0.045

0.04 0.06

0.035

0.05

/s) 0.03 3 in.)

(m 0.04 0.025

0.02 0.03

0.015 ( Rainfall 0.02 Discharge Discharge 0.01

0.01 0.005

0 0

3/27/09 0:00 3/27/09 2:00 3/27/09 Discharge 3/26/09 14:00 3/26/09 16:00 3/26/09 18:00 3/26/09 20:00 3/26/09 22:00 3/26/09

Time Rain Upstream Discharge Lag Time For Large Rainfall Event 0.25 0.25

0.2 0.2 /s) 3 0.15 0.15

0.1 0.1 Rainfall (in.) Rainfall Discharge (mDischarge

0.05 0.05

0 0

Discharge 1/7/2009 9:00 1/7/2009 1:00 1/8/2009 3:00 1/8/2009 1/7/2009 11:00 1/7/2009 13:00 1/7/2009 15:00 1/7/2009 17:00 1/7/2009 19:00 1/7/2009 21:00 1/7/2009 23:00 1/7/2009 Time Rain Downstream Discharge Lag Time For Large Rainfall Event 0.25 0.25

0.2 0.2 /s) 3 0.15 0.15

0.1 0.1 Rainfall (in.) Rainfall Discharge (mDischarge

0.05 0.05

0 0

Discharge 1/7/09 9:00 1/7/09 1:00 1/8/09 3:00 1/8/09 1/7/09 11:00 1/7/09 13:00 1/7/09 15:00 1/7/09 17:00 1/7/09 19:00 1/7/09 21:00 1/7/09 23:00 1/7/09 Rain Time Sediment

Upstream Discharge and Sediment 1.2 Concentration 450

400

1

Discharge 350 Sediment 0.8 300 /s)

3 250

0.6

200

0.4 150 Discharge (mDischarge 100

0.2

50 SedimentConcetration (PPM)

0 0 2/7/2009 4:34 2/7/2009 4:34 2/8/2009 4:34 2/9/2009 2/6/2009 16:34 2/6/2009 16:34 2/7/2009 16:34 2/8/2009 16:34 2/9/2009 4:34 2/10/2009 Time Downstream Discharge and Sediment 1.2 Concentration 450

400

1 Discharge 350 Sediment 0.8 300 /s) 3

250

0.6

200

0.4 150 Discharge (mDischarge

100

0.2

50 SedimentConcentration (PPM)

0 0 2/7/09 4:00 2/7/09 4:00 2/8/09 4:00 2/9/09 2/6/09 16:00 2/6/09 16:00 2/7/09 16:00 2/8/09 16:00 2/9/09 4:00 2/10/09 Time + 224 Concentrations In Parts Per 18 Million 1798

117 521 625 371

270 253

606 205

2287 + Water Quality

 Final Report + Water Chemistry

 Tests Used:  Sondes were used to automatically record stream conditions such as temperature, pH, specific conductivity, and dissolved oxygen.

 Water samples were also taken manually during normal flow and high flow events, and analyzed for chemical composition.

 Two sites were sampled for each reading; MR-1 was upstream at the Art Barn crossing and MR-2 was downstream at Bucknell Hall. Baseline Ion Concentrations + Upstream Site February 17, 2009 Downstream Site- February 17, 2009 Concentration Concentration Dissolved Solid (mg/L) Dissolved Solid (mg/L) Ammonium <10 Ammonium <10 Sulfate 34 Sulfate 48 Chloride 81.7 Chloride 47.9 Nitrate 1.9 Nitrate 1.98 Phosphorous <0.1 Phosphorous <0.1 Sodium 32.2 Sodium 21.9 Potassium 3.2 2.8 9.7 Magnesium 9.9 57.9 Calcium 53.5 0.05 Manganese <0.03 Iron 0.2 Iron 0.23 Lead <0.01 Lead <0.01 Zinc <0.02 Zinc <0.02 Chromium <0.004 Chromium <0.004 Copper <0.04 Copper <0.04 Nickel <0.005 Nickel <0.005 Cadmium <0.001 Cadmium <0.001 Arsenic <0.005 Arsenic <0.005 + Sodium, Chloride, and Potassium Fluctuations (February 7-9, 2009 Snowmelt)

[Na+] [Cl-] Upstream (Art Barn) 100 300 Upstream (Art Barn) 90 Downstream (Hunt Hall) Downstream (Hunt Hall) 80 250 70 200 60 50 150 ] (mg/L) ] (mg/L) + 40 - 100 [Cl

[Na 30 20 50 10 0 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Time (hr) Time (hr)

+ [K ] Negative Impacts: Surface runoff 12 and interflow carry high ion 10 Upstream (Art Barn) 8 Downstream (Hunt Hall) loads into the waterway from 6 road salts and . ] (mg/L) + 4 [K 2 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Time (hr) + Sulfate and Nitrate Fluctuations (February 7-9, 2009 Snowmelt)

2- Negative Impacts: [SO4 ] 70 60 Initial decrease is due 50 • 40 to simple dilution. ] (mg/L) -

2 30

4 Upstream (Art Barn) 20 [SO 10 Downstream (Hunt Hall) •Increase is due to an 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 underground

Time (hr) contaminant located near the upstream site- - [NO3 ] probably 2.5 accumulation or a 2.0 broken sewage line. 1.5 ] (mg/L) - 3 1.0 Upstream (Art Barn)

[NO 0.5 Downstream (Hunt Hall)

0.0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Time (hr) + Ammonium and Phosphorous Fluctuations (February 7-9, 2009 Snowmelt) + [NH4 ] 1.4 1.2 1.0 Delayed peak reveals Upstream (Art Barn) 0.8 an underground source ] (mg/L) Downstream (Hunt Hall) + 0.6 4 0.4 of contamination near the [NH 0.2 upstream site. 0.0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Time (hr) [Soluble Reactive Phosphorous] 0.18 0.16 0.14 Upstream (Art Barn) 0.12 Downstream (Hunt Hall) 0.10 0.08 0.06

[SRP] (mg/L) [SRP] 0.04 0.02 0.00 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Time (hr) +Dissolved Oxygen- Baseline and April 3, 2009 Rain event Comparisons

12 Baseline (April 4) 11 10 9 8 Upstream (Art Barn)

[DO] (mg/L) [DO] 7 Downstream (Hunt Hall) 6 5 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 Time (hr) April 3 Rain Event

12 11 10

9 8

[DO] (mg/L) [DO] 7 Upstream (Art Barn) 6 Downstream (Hunt Hall) 5 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 Time (hr) +

MR-1: Art Barn MR-2: Gerhard Field House- Rt. 15 MR-3: KLARC Building MR-4: Loomis St./Art Building + Habitat Assessment

Site MR-1 (Art Barn) MR-2 (Gerhard MR-3 (Kenneth G. MR-4 (Loomis Street – Fieldhouse - U.S. 15) Langone Athletics and Art Building) Recreation Center) Instream Cover(fish) 6 (Marginal) 8 (Marginal) 10 (Marginal) 7 (Marginal) Epifaunal Substrate 8 (Marginal) 12 (Suboptimal) 7 (Marginal) 8 (Marginal) Embeddedness 18 (Optimal) 3 (Poor) 3 (Poor) 3 (Poor) Velocity/Depth Regimes 7 (Marginal) 7 (Marginal) 9 (Marginal) 8 (Marginal)

Channel Alteration 14 (Suboptimal) 3 (Poor) 1 (Poor) 3 (Poor) Sediment Deposition 13 (Suboptimal) 7 (Marginal) 10 (Marginal) 8 (Marginal) Frequency of Riffles 8 (Marginal) 12 (Suboptimal) 10 (Marginal) 3 (Poor) Channel Flow Status 16 (Optimal) 14 (Suboptimal) 14 (Suboptimal) 7 (Marginal) Condition of Banks 10 (Marginal) 14 (Suboptimal) 11 (Suboptimal) 7 (Marginal) Bank Vegetative Protection 9 (Marginal) 5 (Poor) 1 (Poor) 1 (Poor)

Grazing or Other Disruptive 10 (Marginal) 6 (Marginal) 3( Poor) 3 (Poor) Pressure Riparian Vegetative Zone 3 (Poor) 4 (Poor) 1 (Poor) 1 (Poor) Width Total 122 95 80 59 Habitat Assessment Marginal Marginal Marginal Poor + Biological Sampling

 Reasons for Biotic Sampling:

 Aquatic macroinvertebrates are highly variable in their sensitivity to water pollution. These differences can be used by biologists to evaluate the overall health of a stream.

 The link between fish species composition and water quality provides an important assessment of stream ecosystem health.

 Algae analyses allow us to determine gain information about the biomass of algae, which is related to water chemistry and conditions of riparian vegetation. + Macroinvertebrates + Macroinvertebrate Results IBI Score of Miller Run Compared to Impairment Level • IBI Scores are used by the DEP to measure the degree of a stream’s 100 impairment. 80 60

40 IBI Score

• Miller Run’s IBI score is IBI Score significantly lower than the 20 Ref impairment threshold. 0 1 2 3 4 Sample Site: UpstreamDownstream • The downstream samples showed much lower and fewer pollution-sensitive species. Pollution-Sensitive Macrointertebrates vs. Shannon Diversity Index 30 Sampling Site 3 25

2.5 20

2 15 10 Percent Intolerant 1.5 Individuals Shannon 5 1 Diversity 0 0.5 1 2 3 4 Shannon Diversity Index Diversity Shannon

0 Percent Intolerant Individuals Sampling Site: UpstreamDownstream 1 2 3 4 Sample Site # + Algae Sampling

•The data show a general trend of increasing algal biomass downstream, which may indicate increasing nutrient or Relative Concentrations of Chlorophyl a light availability along Miller 14 Run.

12 •Alternatively, lower algal biomass in upstream reaches 10 )

of Miller Run might be caused 2 by grazing by benthic g/cm μ macroinvertebrates or ( 8 a herbivorous fishes. 6

Chlorophyll Chlorophyll 4

2

0 MR1 MR2 MR3 MR4 Sample Site Electro-Fishing

+ + Upstream Site Electro-Fishing Family Genus Species Adult Juvenile Tot al Centrarchidae Lepomis macrochirus 1 3 4 Twenty-three fish were collected at the two sample gibbosus 1 0 1 sites , with six species represented Cyprinidae Campostoma anomalum 1 0 1

There was a >88% decrease in Semotilus atromaculatus 11 0 11 fish numbers at the downstream Exoglossum maxillingua 2 0 2 sampling site, and a decrease in total species diversity by >83%. Luxilis cornutus 1 0 1

We expected that there would Total 17 3 20 be more species near Bull Run, due to colonization.

This indicates a substantial Downstream Site difference in the quality of Family Genus Species Adult Juvenile Total habitat available at downstream Cyprinidae Semotilus atromaculatus 3 0 3 versus upstream locations. Total 3 0 3 + Conceptual Plan For Miller Run

Proposed Solutions for the Lasting Health of Miller Run +

Flood control – management, Water retention, low flow augmentation, out-of-channel solutions

Aesthetic appeal – Appropriate stream landscaping, recreational (walking/biking) & meditation space, Bucknell as an example, community green space

Environmental education – Watershed management, “outdoor classroom”, research opportunities Ecological health and sustainability – Maintain year-round flow, provide habitat for target species, encourage native species growth

Channel sustainability – Space for migration/channel evolution, structure/obstruction removal or replacement, bank stability measures, floodplain reconnection Bucknell is what we call an impermeable jungle.

The campus is covered with ugly asphalt walkways and parking lots and large buildings which do not have efficient storm water management structures.

This needs to change to help replenish the ground water and reduce runoff. •Buildings and storm drains feed directly+ into Miller Run.

•Large amount of storm water produced.

•Explains why downstream peaks before upstream.

•Structures that could help cut down on surplus of water.

•Porous Pavements

o Asphalt, concrete, and block pavers

•Infiltration trenches

•Rain Gardens Permeable Pavements + •Pavements can be placed on slopes no greater than 5-20 degrees, which is a great deal of campus.

•Greatly reduce runoff.

•To keep pores clean walkways should be maintained.

•Some pavements more pleasing to the eye than others, but all are better than the ugly asphalt now. + Stepped Infiltration Trenches Possible+ Sites + Roof Runoff feeding into Infiltration Trenches + Possible Sites + Rain Garden + Rain Garden +Possible Sites + +

 Two areas  Sojka Lawn  Mod Field area

 Floodplain reconnection

 Stream corridor/vegetation  Biodegradable fabrics  Plant natives Villanova University + Reach 2A- 3 +

 Rip-rap/obstructions

 Expand natural areas

 Restoring and fostering native habitats

 Recreation & meditation space

 Bucknell as an example

Villanova University +

 “outdoor classrooms”  Biology  Engineering  Geology  Environmental Studies  The Arts

 Bike/walking path- increase community interaction with University of Delaware stream/environment +

 Widening of stream corridor allows for formation of diverse habitat- both biota (fish, etc.)& abiota

 Year-round stream flow (low flow augmentation)

www.creativehabitatcorp.com/stream.html +

•Space for channel evolution and migration •Removal/replacement of structures •Floodplain reconnection

http://www.fws.gov/midwest/Fisheries/streamcrossings/ReplacementStruct http://www.boquetriver.org/newswillsborocrib.ht ht l + Reach 2b + Economic Feasibility of Restoration Out of Stream Structures

COST ANALYSIS Storm Water Management Construction: Rain Gardens $ 6 1000 $ 6,000 Infiltration Trenches 7 30,000 210,000 Permeable Pavement 6 175,111 1,050,866

Grand Total: $ 19 $ 1,266,666 In Stream Structures

COST ANALYSIS

Channel Restoration

Demolition: Unit Cost Units est. Total Cost Rip Rap $ 42 2,400 $ 100,440

Parking Surfaces: 0 2,250 923

Concrete Walls: 150 300 45,000

Culverts and Pipes: 290 20 5,791

Sub Totals: $ 482 $ 152,154 Construction:

Log Cribbing $ 286 315 $ 90,090

Culvert 289.5 2 579

Wetlands: Sojka 150000 1 75,000

Wetlands: Mods 57100 1 57,100

Sub Totals: $207,676 $ 222,769

Grand Total: $208,157 $ 374,923 Total Project

COST ANALYSIS Channel Restoration Demolition: Unit Cost Units est. Total Cost Sub Totals: $ 482 $ 152,154 Construction: Sub Totals: $207,676 $ 222,769

Grand Total: $208,157 $ 374,923 Storm Water Management Construction:

Grand Total: $ 19 $ 1,266,666

Misc. Inputs Permits 8,500 Legal Council 4,250.00 BU Facility Cost 17,000.00

Sub Totals: $ 1,671,339 Escalation & Contingency 50,140.17

Grand Total: $ 1,721,479 + Non-Scientific Benefits

 The restoration of Miller Run dovetails with both campus and community initiatives  Campus Master Plan  Creation of green space and bike paths

 Offers educational facilities to students and members of the Lewisburg community

 Sets Bucknell apart from peer schools

 Unique and exciting atmosphere to both live and work