Summary of the Impacts of Urbanization on Selected Maine … · Summary of the Impacts of Urbanization on Selected Maine Streams Detected by the Maine DEP Jeff Varricchione, Maine

Summary of the Impacts of UrbanizationSummary of the Impacts of Urbanizationon Selected Maine Streams Detected byon Selected Maine Streams Detected by

the Maine DEPthe Maine DEP

Jeff Jeff VarricchioneVarricchione, Maine Department of Environmental Protection, Maine Department of Environmental ProtectionSusanne Meidel, Partnership for Environmental Technology EducationSusanne Meidel, Partnership for Environmental Technology Education

Presentation ObjectivesPresentation Objectives• Present data collected from 2 reference

and 8 study streams in Maine– biological databiological data–– physical and chemical data physical and chemical data–– hydrological and habitat data hydrological and habitat data

• Summarize findings• Where we go from here

Portland Area Streams

2 km

Map of Study Streams

Portland: Capisic Brook

CB

South Portland: Long Creek

LC

Barberry Creek

BC

Scarborough: Red Brook

RB

Trout Brook

TB

Portland

Brunswick Stream

2 km


Brunswick

Mare Brook

MB

Bangor Streams

2 km


PS

Penjajawoc StreamBirch Stream

BS

Bangor

Reference SitesCapisic Brook,

PortlandRed Brook,Scarborough

Upstream, July 2003May 1999

Urban Sites

South BranchJune 1999

North BranchJune 1999

MainstemDec. 2000

Long Creek,South Portland

Urban Sites

DownstreamSeptember 2003 August 2003

Capisic Brook,Portland

Barberry Creek,South Portland

Urban Sites

DownstreamJune 2003

UpstreamSeptember 2003

Trout Brook, South Portland

Urban Sites

Birch Stream, Bangor

Downstream, July 2003

UpstreamSummer 1999

Urban SitesPenjajawoc Stream, Bangor

July 2003

Maine’s Water ClassificationMaine’s Water ClassificationProgramProgram

• Defines water quality classifications forfresh surface waters, as well asestuarine and marine waters.

• River and stream water classes:– AAAA, AA, BB, and CC

• State legislature has assigned classesto every stream and river in the state.

DissolvedOxygen

Bacteria(E. coli))

Numeric Criteria

HabitatAquatic Life (Biological)

Class AA as naturallyoccurs

free flowingand naturalas naturally occurs

Class A naturalas naturally occurs

Class B 7 mg/L; or75% sat.

427/100ml (instan-taneous)

unimpaired

support all aquatic speciesindigenous to the receivingwater; no detrimental changesto the resident biologicalcommunity

Class C 5 mg/L; or60% sat.

949/100ml (instan-taneous)

habitat for fishand otheraquatic life

maintain the structure andfunction of the residentbiological community

Water Classification CriteriaWater Classification Criteria

as naturallyoccurs

as naturallyoccurs

7mg/L; or75% sat.

Narrative Criteria

BioME ModelBioME Model• BioME is a statistical model that uses biological

data to predict the likelihood of a sample attainingclasses AA, BB, CC, or NANA.

• BioME was developed and calibrated using:– 25 biological variables– 373 samples representing a range of conditions– 15+ years of data.

• For more information, see MDEP Biomonitoring website:www. state.me.us/dep/blwq/docmonitoring/biomonitoring/index.htm

Comparison of Assigned Class Comparison of Assigned Class versus Statistical Model Classversus Statistical Model Class

AssignedClass

Statistical ModelClass

northern C NAC CC C

Capisic Brook down C NA, NAup C NA, B, NAdown C

Barberry Creek C NABirch Stream B NA, NA, C (NA)

up B NAMare Brook B NA, NAPenjajawoc Stream B NA, NA, NA

Urban Sites

Red Brook C ACapisic Brook up C A, C

Reference Sites

Trout Brook

down

Long Creek mainstemsouthern

nd

Red Br (up)

Capisic Br (up)

Penjajawoc St

Long Cr (M)Mare Br

Trout Br (up)

Trout Br (down)

Barberry Cr

Long Cr (N)

Capisic Br (down)

Birch St (down)

Birch St (up)

Long Cr (S)

Subw

ater

shed

Siz

e (a

cres

)

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

% Im

perv

ious

ness

0

10

20

30

40

50

Reference Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Urban Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

nd

Subwatershed Subwatershed Size and % ImperviousnessSize and % ImperviousnessSubwatershed Size% Imperviousness

Penjajawoc St - large undevelopedwetland watershed in upper 1/2

BiologicalBiologicalDataData

SensitiveSensitive andand IntermediateIntermediate SpeciesSpecies

CaddisCaddisfliesflies

MayfliesMayflies

StonefliesStoneflies

Dragonflies and DamselfliesDragonflies and Damselflies

TrichopteraTrichoptera

EphemeropteraEphemeroptera

PlecopteraPlecoptera

TolerantTolerant SpeciesSpecies

LeechesLeechesMidgesMidges

SnailsSnailsScudsScudsNon-insects

Non-insect

Non-insect

Number of Different Kinds ofNumber of Different Kinds ofMayflies, Stoneflies and CaddisfliesMayflies, Stoneflies and Caddisflies

Red Br (up)

Capisic Br (up)

Penjajawoc St

Long Cr (M)Mare Br

Trout Br (up)

Trout Br (down)

Barberry Cr

Long Cr (N)

Capisic Br (down)

Birch St (down)

Birch St (up)

Long Cr (S)

EPT

Ric

hnes

s

0

4

8

12

16

nd


1999 onlymultiple years (+ 1 SD)

Reference versus Urban StreamsReference versus Urban Streams

Shift from insect to non-insect taxa

Red Br (up)

Capisic Br (up)

Penjajawoc St

Long Cr (M)Mare Br

Trout Br (up)

Trout Br (down)

Barberry Cr

Long Cr (N)

Capisic Br (down)

Birch St (down)

Birch St (up)

Long Cr (S)

% N

on-In

sect

s

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

nd


Percentage of OrganismsPercentage of OrganismsThat Are Not InsectsThat Are Not Insects

1999 onlymultiple years (+ 1 SD)

Stonefly Abundance and Land UseStonefly Abundance and Land Use

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.90

10

20

30

Perli

dae

Abu

ndan

ce

Proportion of developed oragricultural land

Red Br (up)

Capisic Br (up)

Penjajawoc St

Long Cr (M)Mare Br

Trout Br (up)

Trout Br (down)

Barberry Cr

Long Cr (N)

Capisic Br (down)

Birch St (down)

Birch St (up)

Long Cr (S)

Bro

ok T

rout

Abu

ndan

ce (

# / 1

00 m

)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

nd ndnd nd0 0 0 0 0 0 0


Abundance of Brook TroutAbundance of Brook Trout

Red Br (up)

Capisic Br (up)

Penjajawoc St

Long Cr (M)Mare Br

Trout Br (up)

Trout Br (down)

Barberry Cr

Long Cr (N)

Capisic Br (down)

Birch St (down)

Birch St (up)

Long Cr (S)

% M

otile

Dia

tom

s

05

1015202530354045505560657075

nd nd nd nd nd nd


Percentage of Motile DiatomsPercentage of Motile Diatoms

Physical andPhysical andChemical DataChemical Data

Temperature Study in Long Creek and Red Brook

Summer 2000

Aerial Photo of Study Streams and Sites

RB

LC

1 km


RB

LC

1 km

RB-RefRB-Ref


RB

LC

1 km

LC-RefLC-Ref


RB

LC

1 km

AA


RB

LC

1 km

BB


RB

LC

1 km

CC


RB

LC

1 km

DD

Brook Trout Upper Tolerancesfrom Various Studies

Temperature Data (week ending 7/1/2000)

RB-Ref

LC-Ref

A BC

DForest Forest,

Spring OpenOpen

ForestForest

Maximum Weekly Temperatures, Summer 1999

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

7/3 7/10 7/17 7/24 7/31 8/7 8/14 8/21 8/28 9/4 9/11 9/18 9/25Week ending on -

Max

imum

Wee

kly

Tem

pera

ture

(°C

)

Long Creek (M ) Long Creek (N )Capisic Brook (up ) Red Brook ( )Capisic Brook (down )

Capisic Brook (up )

Maximum Weekly Temperatures, Summer 2003

Week ending on -

Max

imum

Wee

kly

Tem

pera

ture

(°C

)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

7/5 7/12 7/19 7/26 8/2 8/9 8/16 8/23 8/30 9/6 9/13 9/20 9/27

Barberry Creek ( ) Penjajawoc Stream ( )

Capisic Brook (down )

Birch Stream (down )Trout Brook (down ) Trout Brook (up )

Red Br (up)

Capisic Br (up)

Penjajawoc St

Long Cr (M)Mare Br

Trout Br (up)

Trout Br (down)

Barberry Cr

Long Cr (N)

Capisic Br (down)

Birch St (down)

Birch St (up)

Long Cr (S)

Dis

solv

ed O

xyge

n - E

arly

AM

- (m

g/L)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14


Dissolved Oxygen Concentration(Early Morning)

5 mg/L

7 mg/L[ ]

Red Br (up)

Capisic Br (up)

Penjajawoc St

Long Cr (M)Mare Br

Trout Br (up)

Trout Br (down)

Barberry Cr

Long Cr (N)

Capisic Br (down)

Birch St (down)

Birch St (up)

Long Cr (S)

Spec

ific

Con

duct

ance

(µS/

cm)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

20002800

3000


ConductivityConductivity1999 onlymultiple years (+ 1 SD)

LC

RB

Pollutants (Pollutants (ppmppm))

0.003, 0.020

0.050, 0.2000.030, 0.140

0.090, 0.270

I - 295

Scarb. Conn.

I - 95

Lead ZincCopper NickelCadmium TSSChloride

• Max. concentrations during 3/28/00 storm;• Underlined data indicates exceedence of CMC criteria

Hydrology andHydrology andHabitat DataHabitat Data

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0Ru

noff:

Rain

fall

Ratio

3/28/0010/18/00

LC-S LC-M RB

3/28/00 = 1.6"10/18/00 = 1.1"

Site

Runoff : Rainfall RatioRunoff : Rainfall Ratio

% impervious: 47% 13% 8%

0

20

40

60

80

100

Time (hrs) on March 28-29, 2000

Cha

nge

in S

tage

(%)

LC - S(47% impervious)

LC - M(13% impervious)

RB (8% impervious)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Discharge DataDischarge Data

NaturalNaturalStreamStream

ClassificationClassificationSystemSystem

((Rosgen Rosgen 1996)1996)

Stream/SiteRosgen

ClassificationLONG CREEK SITESJetport Tributary (LC-N)

LC-N-0.595 E5 (disturbed)Main Stem Tributary (LC-M)

LC-M-1.653 E5 (normal)LC-Mn-2.274 E6 (disturbed)

Maine Mall Tributary (LC-S)LC-S-0.220 E5 (disturbed)LC-S-0.369 E5 (disturbed)

RED BROOK SITES (RB)RB-1.434 E5 (normal)RB-2.119 E5 (normal)RB-3.961 E5 (normal)

LC-Mw-2.896 C6 (disturbed)

G6c (disturbed)LC-M-0.603LC-M-0.432

LC-N-0.404 C5 (disturbed)

B5c (disturbed)

Rosgen Stream Classification

“Normal Channels”“Normal Channels”

“Disturbed Channels”“Disturbed Channels”

Large Woody DebrisLarge Woody Debris

510152025303540 Red Brook-3.500~

Boyd Lake Unnamed Stream

Capisic Stream-Upstream5

10152025303540

510152025303540

510152025303540 Barberry Creek

Linear Distance Along Stream (m)0 20 40 60 80 100

510152025303540 Birch Stream

510152025303540 Trout Brook-Upstream

510152025303540 Trout Brook-Downstream

510152025303540 Capisic Stream-Downstream

510152025303540 Long Creek-0.380

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1005

10152025303540 Long Creek-LC-Mn-2.600~

Mea

n D

iam

eter

of W

oody

Deb

ris (c

m)

Ref.Line

=~

15 cmor 6 in

Large Woody Debris

SummarySummary

• Biological communities (macroinvertebrates, fish,algae) are altered with a shift to more tolerantspecies in urban streams

• Urban streams generally do not meet their assignedWater Quality Class while reference streams do

• ButBut - not all is lost, most urban streams have somethingstill going for them (low temperature, riparian buffer,concerned citizen groups), and there still are bugsand fish there

• Physical and chemical parameters (temperature, earlymorning DO, conductivity, pollutants) are usuallydegraded in urban streams

• Habitat parameters (runoff:rainfall ratios, discharge,channel structure, large woody debris) are in worsecondition in urban streams

• Urbanization degrades streams in Maine[MDEP Studies; Other Studies: Morse (2001), Woodcock (2002), Guay (2002), South Portland Engineering (1995) / Planning (1983)]

• Disturbed urban streams: complicated & difficult to restore

• Planning can help prevent future “heavily degraded” situations in Maine

• Likely restoration priorities:- in-stream / riparian / floodplain restoration- stormwater system retrofits

Where We Go From HereWhere We Go From Here

• Urban streams are valuable resources that should beprotected/restored

• MDEP Biomonitoring Unit (Leon Tsomides, Tom Danielson, Susan Davies)

• SWAT (Surface Water Ambient Toxics) Program

• Brunswick Naval Air Station

• Others (Jeff Dennis, Chandler Morse, Mike Smith, John Field, John Reynolds)

• MDEP Staff, Interns and Volunteers

Documents

Summary of the Impacts of Urbanization on Selected Maine … · Summary of the Impacts of Urbanization on Selected Maine Streams Detected by the Maine DEP Jeff Varricchione, Maine