S P R I N G 2 0 1 4 C A P S T O N E | U N C - C H A P E L H I L L

A N D R E W B O W E R S

M I C H A E L C A S H

J A S M I N E K R E I G

N A T H A N O L S E N

K Y L E P U F F

B R I T T N E Y T E A G U E

Effectiveness of Stream Restoration Practices in NC

1

Stream Ecology 2

What is a stream?

Composition

Structure

Function

Disturbances 3

Impervious surfaces from urbanization

Urban and agricultural runoff

Stream Restoration

Function based approach

Stream function pyramid

General practices

4

EPA, “A Function Based Framework”, May 2012. Prunuske Chatham, Inc.

Ev aluate th e ef f ec t iv eness of s tream res toration:

Water quali ty

Geom orph ology

The objective of our research project is to…

5

Experimental Design

Comparing variables at different stages in restoration process

Chose four different streams all in various stages of restoration

Mudlick (0 years)

Ellerbe (2 years)

Chapel Creek (4 years)

Sandy Creek (8 years)

6

Methods: Water Quality 7

Temperature Turbidity

pH

Dissolved Oxygen

ENVCO Supply Company

Methods: Geomorphology 8

Cross Section

Flow Rate

ENVCO Supply Company

Water Quality Geomorphology

Decreased turbidity, temperature, nutrients

Increased dissolved oxygen

More neutral pH

Lower base flow rate

Hypotheses 9

Results 10

No conclusive results

Data does not support hypotheses

Large limitations of study

11

y = 3.6629x + 1.464 R² = 0.7088

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

0 2 4 6 8 10

Tu

rb

idit

y (

NT

U)

Duration since restoration (years)

Changes in Turbidity Since Restoration

0

5

10

15

20

25

Tu

rb

idit

y (

NT

U)

Stream

Reference Stream

12

y = -0.1929x + 12.339 R² = 0.0952

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 2 4 6 8 10

Dis

so

lve

d O

xy

ge

n (

mg

/L)

Duration since restoration (years)

Changes in DO Since Restoration

-5

0

5

10

15

20

Dis

so

lve

d O

xy

ge

n (

mg

/L)

Stream

Reference Stream

13

y = 0.0319x + 14.747 R² = 0.0018

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 2 4 6 8 10

Te

mp

er

atu

re

(C

els

ius

)

Duration since restoration (years)

Changes in Temperature Since Restoration

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Te

mp

er

atu

re

(C

els

ius

)

Stream

Reference Stream

14

y = -0.0107x + 0.1132 R² = 0.2185

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0 2 4 6 8 10

Vo

lum

etr

ic F

low

Ra

te (

m^

3/s

)

Duration since restoration (years)

Changes in Volumetric Flow Rate Since Restoration

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

Vo

lum

etr

ic F

low

Ra

te (

m^

3/s

)

Stream

Reference Stream

Mud Lick Cross Section 15

Ellerbe Cross Section 16

Chapel Creek Cross Section 17

Sandy Creek Cross Section 18

Limitations and Error

Small sample size

Sensitivity of phosphate and nitrate test kits

Diverse restoration goals

Logistical limitations

Rain event limitations

19

Implications

Uncertainty about effectiveness

Requires future study

20

Conclusions

Stream “health” is very complicated

Laying the foundation

Future improvements

21

D r . G e o f f r e y B e l l

M a c H a u p t

N a n c y D a l y

D r . J a y e C a b l e

E n o P a r k

D u k e F o r e s t

M u d L i c k F a r m

D r . E l i z a b e t h S h a y

22

Acknowledgements

Questions? 23