metedeconk river watershed protection & restoration planxstream visual assessments are field...

Metedeconk River Watershed Protection & Restoration Plan

Stakeholder Advisory Committee Meeting

April 27, 2011

Stream Visual Assessments(Task 2)

Stream Visual Assessments

Numerous studies and lots of high-quality data is available on the Metedeconk

Intent of MRWPRP to draw from/build upon existing info to the greatest extent possible

Stream visual assessments served as new, supplemental source of info for the project

Stream visual assessments are field evaluations of stream reaches

Detailed observations made of the stream’s physical condition and surrounding areaObvious problems are documentedPractical means of identifying opportunities for protection and restoration projects

Visual assessments (83 total) completed by BTMUA and GCU staff between March - June 2010

Considerable amount of information collected

Stream Visual Assessments (cont’d)

BenefitsWidely accepted approach for evaluating stream health at a basic levelRequires no expertise in aquatic biology or extensive trainingComplements watershed characterization work

Provides a better understanding of issues affecting the watershedAdditional information on features such as storm outfalls and drainage ditchesOpportunity to clearly identify problem areas and restoration targets or areas in need of protection Serve as a smaller scale snapshot of the condition of the watershed benchmark for future restoration activities

Stream Visual Assessments (cont’d)

Assessments performed in accordance with a Visual Assessment Project Plan (VAPP)

Purpose/objectivesData quality criteriaTrainingMethods/protocolSitesRecordsQA/QCData managementReporting

Visual Assessment Project Plan

Metedeconk-specific protocol developedBased primarily upon widely-used USDA NRCS Stream Visual Assessment Protocol, plus…

NJDEP Visual Assessment Project Plan (VAPP) Guidance (August 2007)

NJDEP Volunteer Monitoring Program Visual Assessment Protocol (2008-2009)

Rutgers Cooperative Extension Water Resources Program Stream Visual Assessment Protocol (2008)

Center for Watershed Protection Unified Stream Assessment: A User’s Manual, Manual 10 (Ver. 2.0, February 2005)

Center for Watershed Protection Unified Subwatershed and Site Reconnaissance: A Users' Manual, Manual 11 (Ver. 2, February 2005)

Visual Assessment Protocol

Detailed and comprehensive examination of the selected sites

Field formsCompletenessConsistencyComparability

Digital photographs & GPS positions of important features

Visual Assessment Protocol (cont’d.)

Protocol addresses:General stream conditionHydrologic alterationFlow/water appearanceHabitatRiparian areaLocal land usePollutant sources/litter/dumpingStormwater infrastructure– Outfalls, drainage ditches, basins

Utility infrastructure/easements – Sanitary sewer (potential pollutant source)

Etc.

Visual Assessment Protocol (cont’d.)

Each reach assigned an “Assessment Score”1-10 scaleOverall score determined by averaging the scores from a series of visual assessment indicators

Reaches ranked as Excellent ( ), Good (7.5-8.9), Fair (6.1-7.4) or Poor (Applies a quantitative measure to something that is qualitative and often subjective

Visual Assessment Protocol

Channel conditionHydrologic alterationRiparian zone - left bankRiparian zone - right bankBank stability - left bankBank stability - right bankWater appearanceNutrient enrichment

Barriers to fish movementInstream fish coverPoolsInvertebrate habitatCanopy coverManure presenceRiffle embeddedness (rarely applicable)

Eighty-three (83) sites selected to be representative of the watershed

Broad range of conditions, from forested headwater areas to heavily urbanized commercial centers closer to the coastline

Assessment Sites

Assessment Sites (cont’d.)Site selection considerations:

Existing stream impairments (Integrated Report)Landuse/landcover and other GIS layersHUC14 subwatershed area/coverageBTMUA watershed monitoring program and staff field knowledgeAccessibility

Land Use by HUC14 Subwatershed

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%

100.00%

20050 20040 20030 20020 20010 30050 30040 30030 30020 30010 40020

Wetland

Water

Urban

Forest

Barren

Ag

LimitationsDespite using consistent methods, assigning scores is inherently subjective

Use best professional judgment and relative comparison to other sites (including reference sites) when assigning indicator scoresEvery effort made to ensure information collected is accurate, complete and meets data quality requirements

The assessment protocol examines conditions within the assessment area only - may not detect problems caused by factors outside the area being assessedSingle round of stream assessments for this project cannot be used to evaluate trends or changes in condition over time

The assessments may not be able to explain the exact cause or source of stream degradation

Stream Visual Assessments

83 visual assessments conductedReach lengths varied from approx. 129 ft - 3,650 ft 1,762 digital photographs914 GPS positions of important watershed featuresSigns of human activity, either present or past, are evident virtually everywhere in the watershed, even in the most pristine areas.

Stream Visual Assessment Results

Overall reach scores

1 Excellent (1%)33 Good (40%)30 Fair (36%)19 Poor (23%)

Stream Visual Assessment Results

Stream Visual Assessment Rankings

11%

3340%

3036%

1923%

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Stream Visual Assessment Results

Stream Visual Assessment Results

HUC14 Score

NB-1 7.1NB-2 6.8NB-3 5.5NB-4 6.4NB-5 7.0SB-1 7.8SB-2 7.8SB-3 7.1SB-4 6.6SB-5 7.3CNFL1 5.6

Stream Visual Assessment ResultsReach scores by HUC14 subwatershed

Stream Visual Assessment Results

Major findingsRiparian buffers are in decent shape, though there are opportunities for restoration in some areasWatershed’s gentle topography, sandy soils and prevalent wetlands have provided some level of stability to the main river branches despite measurable changes in stream flow characteristicsSmaller tributaries are more sensitive to local development and runoff than larger river branches

Erosion problems are confined to smaller tributary streamsAssessment indicators related to in-stream habitat appear to be the most sensitive to changes in stream condition and the first indicators of impaired stream health

Stream Visual Assessment Results

Major findingsLots of antiquated stormwater infrastructure

Direct outfallsDrainage ditches Detention basins

Significant issue for Metedeconk River flow and water quality Some stormwater infrastructure in poor conditionDirect stormwater discharges to the river were found at 68 sites (82%)117 storm outfalls and 24 drainage ditches cataloged20 sites have detention basins nearby

Stream Visual Assessment Results

Stream Visual Assessment ResultsMajor findings

Very few obvious pollution sources identifiedWaterfowl and livestock (suspected) contributing somewhat to fecal problemsStream impairments are related to stormwater/NPS

Trash and floatables is a major problem Storm grate retrofits will help

Numerous cases of dumping documentedUtility facilities are in good condition and tend to be very well maintainedLakes are suffering from problems with water quality, sedimentation and nuisance aquatic plant growth -lake management/restoration would be beneficial

Site STM-1, Rt. 9 & Stanley Blvd, Howell

Site STM-1

Site STM-1

Site STM-1

Site NF-14, Clifton Ave, Lakewood

Site NF-14

Site NF-14

Site GH1, Maxim-Southard Road, Howell

Site GH1

Site GH1

Site GH1

Site GH1

Site CBB-3, Rt. 70 & Brick Blvd, Brick

Site CBB-3

Site SHB1, Lakewood-Allenwood Rd, Howell

Sites NE, Lakewood & TR10-1, Jackson

Site DB5, Rt. 9, Howell

Site SH, Brewers Bridge Road, Jackson

Site SH-1, Rt. 88, Lakewood

Site TR13-5, Picadilly Drive, Jackson

Site TR1-2, Lanes Mill Rd, Brick

Site TR1-2

Site SHB-2, Howell & POND6, Brick

Issues and potential restoration opportunities have been documented for each assessment siteMany opportunities exist to improve the condition of the Metedeconk watershed

These visual assessments are just a sampleAddressing stormwater-related problems should be a high priority

Retrofitting older stormwater outfalls and basins with stormwater BMP’sEnsuring new stormwater systems address water quality and minimize downstream flow increases through groundwater recharge

Land ownership at potential restoration sites is being determined to ensure project feasibility

Conclusions