View
0
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
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
Recommended