Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

What’s Mud Got to Do With It? Stephen J. Klaine, Ph.D. Department of Biological Sciences Clemson University

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "What’s Mud Got to Do With It? Stephen J. Klaine, Ph.D. Department of Biological Sciences Clemson University"— Presentation transcript:

1 What’s Mud Got to Do With It? Stephen J. Klaine, Ph.D. Department of Biological Sciences Clemson University

2 Co-authors J.A. Smink, K.L. Sciera, J.W. Pike, M.A. Goddard, W.R. English,C.J. Post, M.A, Schlautman, T, Karanfil, J.M. Hur, B.A. Powell, J.C. Morse, J. Allen and J.C. Hayes Departments of Biological Sciences, Forestry and Natural Resources, Entomology, Soils and Plant Sciences, Agricultural and Biological Engineering, School of the Environment, Strom Thurmond Institute, and the Clemson Institute of Environmental Toxicology, Clemson University, Clemson, SC

3 Outline Introduction What happens when we develop watersheds –Qualitatively –Quantitatively

4

5

6 Upstate SC Urban Growth Urban Area Increase 78% Population Increase 15% Growth Ratio 5:1

7 Predicted Urban Growth for Upstate SC 2010

8 Predicted Urban Growth for Upstate SC 2020

9 Predicted Urban Growth for Upstate SC 2030

10 Changing Land Use and the Environment (CLUE)

11 Development Sites

12 Lost Creek Development Site 286 acres – 4 phase plan zoned R-15 40’ stream easement (20’ either side) 30’ easement for the roads

13

14 Permanent Water Quality Sample Station Housed Unit Automatic Water Sampler Cellular Phone/Modem Battery Power Work Bench Rain Gage Solar Panel PVC Housing for sample lines

15 Feb, 2004: Lost Creek: 15% developed Knight Creek: 0% developed Sept, 2004 Lost Creek: 40% developed Knight Creek: 0% developed Feb, 2005: Lost Creek: 60% developed Knight Creek: 0% developed Feb, 2006: Lost Creek: 75% developed Knight Creek: 10% developed Feb, 2007: Lost Creek: 75% developed Knight Creek: 10% developed

16 March 2003 March 2004 Lost Creek Time Series Looking upstream August 2005 March 2006 March 2007

17 Lost Creek Time Series Looking downstream April 2003 November 2003 March 2004 September 2005 April 2006

18 Erosion and Sediment Control ????

19

20 April 2006

21 During a runoff event After a runoff event Lost Creek Runoff Event Channel scour Bank scour Fine sediment deposition

22 15% developed O% developed

23

24 2579 mg/L

25 Runoff Event Summary February 5, 2004 Lost CreekKnight Creek Rainfall (mm) Peak Flow (cfs) Event Volume (cf) 168,617 74,358 TSS EMC (mg/L) Nitrate EMC (mg/L) Total Phosphorus EMC (mg/L)

26 Paired Watershed Developed Watershed versus Undeveloped Watershed Knight Creek is undeveloped Lost Creek is undergoing development (~20% as of Sept, 2004)

27

28

29 80 mg/L 8000 mg/L

30 Runoff Event Summary September 1, 2004 Lost CreekKnight Creek Rainfall (mm) Peak Flow (cfs) Event Volume (cf) 88, TSS EMC (mg/L) 2, Nitrate EMC (mg/L) Total Phosphorus EMC (mg/L)

31 Dry Weather Period: Lost Creek and Knight Creek Discharge Per Acre Lost Creek: 50% Development Period rainfall 1.08 in. Discharge increases significantly with little rain Knight Creek: 5% Development Period rainfall 1.12 in. Event peak discharge 50% less Rainfall has slight impact on base flow Discharge moderated

32 Lost Creek: 75% Development Period rainfall 5.43 in. Event peak discharge increases Ground water recharge decreases Flash flood frequency increases Wet Weather Period: Lost Creek and Knight Creek Discharge per Acre Knight Creek: 10% Development Period rainfall 4.61in. Event peak discharge 1/10 th Lost Creek Flash flooding not observed Ground water recharge

33 Wet Period Lost Creek 5.43 inches Knight Creek 4.61 inches Lost Creek higher % runoff per acre Lost Creek lower % recharge Dry Period Lost Creek 1.08 inch/25 days Knight Creek 1.12 inch/25 days Knight Creek higher base flow per acre Runoff or Recharge: Lost Creek and Knight Creek

34 Biological Effects of Flow Flow variables were correlated with total invertebrate density (Clausen and Biggs 1997) Biomass of periphyton decreased with increasing flood frequency (Clausen and Biggs 1997) Rivers with maximum flows >20x median flow had lower median taxonomic richness, density, and biomass (Quinn and Hickey 1990) Flood frequency (>3x median flow) was the strongest ecological predictor (Clausen and Biggs 1997) Flows can affect ability of fish to maintain position and insects to remain colonized

35 Ephemeroptera Plecoptera Trichoptera ephemenoptera plecoptera trichoptera

36 Summary Data 6% developed 20% developed

37 CTL LC MN KN 1 mm Scale: Pictures taken at test completion hr

38 Development Monitoring Use graded scale: 0=open lot 6=cleared 5=foundation 4=framed 3=construction ongoing 2= exterior construction complete 1=complete with landscaping, no bare soil

39 Habitat Methods EPA’s Rapid Bioassessment Protocol (RBP) Uses Score Sheets for Parameters Do multiple assessments and average results Too Subjective???

40 Lost Creek: Development vs. Habitat No Significance 75% developed

41 Knight Creek: Development vs. Habitat * Significance at  =0.05 <10% developed

42 Conclusions Small changes in land use can cause large changes in aquatic ecosystem health –Hydraulic, chemical and biological changes Aquatic ecosystems are impacted quickly during development Current BMPs may not be adequate

43 Acknowledgements USDA-NRCS SRWC Clemson University PSA


Download ppt "What’s Mud Got to Do With It? Stephen J. Klaine, Ph.D. Department of Biological Sciences Clemson University"

Similar presentations


Ads by Google