2009 Presentation - Lynchburg College

Analysis of Chemical, Biological, and Physical Indices 2009 ENVS 375 Freshwater Ecology Class Group Members Project Manager: Dr. Thomas Shahady Assistant Project Manager: Adam Bonaventura, Senior, Environmental Science Chemical Analysis — 
— 
Buddy Dailey, Junior, Environmental Science Kaitlin Marvin, Junior, Biology Macroinvertebrates Analysis — 
— 
— 
Stephen Armstrong, Sophomore, Environmental Science Rebecca Evans, Junior, Environmental Studies Rachel Roozen, Junior, Environmental Studies Fish Analysis — 
— 
Ryan Enoch, Sophomore, Environmental Science Bradley Puffenbarger, Junior, Environmental Science Physical Analysis — 
— 
Thomas “Ford” Kerns, Sophomore, Environmental Science Brandon Schneider, Junior, Environmental Science Introduction, Discussion, and Editing — 
— 
— 
Molly Galloway, Sophomore, Environmental Science Caitlin Gibb, Sophomore, Environmental Science Sabrina Ripperger, Sophomore, Biology Urbanization and Its Impacts on Watersheds, Georeference, and Land Use in the Blackwater and Ivy Creek Watersheds Urbaniza1on: Environmental Degrada0on —  Disturbing undeveloped land —  Erosion and Sedimentation —  Urban Runoff – concentrated flow —  Urban Pollutants —  Population Growth —  Other aspects: —  Topography —  Rainfall Urbaniza1on: Sources of Degrada0on —  Public Sector —  Construction Sites — 
— 
Commercial Municipalities —  Parking lots and roads —  Types of Pollution •  Suspended Matter —  Private Sector —  Industry —  Residential communities •  Chemical •  Nutrients •  Microbiological •  Surface runoff •  Bio-­‐wastes Urbaniza1on: Effects on Stream Health “Hydrologic impacts due to urbanization are reported to cause water quality problems such as sedimentation, increased temperatures, habitat changes, and the loss of fish populations” (1) —  Increased and contaminated Runoff —  Eutrophication – decreased oxygen —  Biological degradation —  Impervious Surfaces —  Discharge volume, temperature, and velocity —  Imperviousness increases runoff rates exponentially —  Channelization —  Physical alterations of habitat Sedimenta1on: Blackwater Watershed —  Most detrimental to stream water quality —  Difficult to control —  Decreases water quality: —  Physical – Stream embeddedness, erosion —  Habitat loss – Macroinvertebrates & Fish —  Species diversity —  Chemical metrics – Turbidity increases The Blackwater and Ivy Creek Watersheds • •  • Tomahawk Chaffin’s arm Hooper Hollins Rock CCV
reek astle M
RFR
oad ill Blackwater Peaks Dreaming • Ivy James iew C
iver Preek ark • •  Land u
se ––– Creek Land u
se Land u
se C• reek Piedmont Land use – Residential •  agricultural Land use /– Forested Restoration Region Suburban Restoration • •  Expected Reference Pasture • •  Urban Expected water qf uality – Area Expected o
Fair, •  Stream Expected water q–uality transition water quality expected best comparable to – Fair, quality water w
ater Peaks V
iew – F
P
air oor •  overall 42,000 A
cres improving – G
V
ery ood P
oor quality Park Hypothesis % Rural versus Water Quality 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 % Rural = (1.2)%Forest + (0.5)%Agriculture Water Quality —  Urbanization degrades water quality —  As the quantity of rural land decreases, urbanization increases —  As urbanization increases, overall water quality decreases 0 Excellent Poor Quan1fying Urbaniza1on —  Calculations based on: —  Vegetation cover – undisturbed woods vs cultivated/grazing land —  Infiltration – imperviousness —  Forest (1.2): assigned greater value
—  Strongest indicator of land classified as “rural” —  Agriculture (0.5): assigned lower —  Land impacts compared to commercial, industrial, and imperious surfaces Land Use: Blackwater Creek Drainages 1.  Chaffin’s Farm 2 2.  Hooper Road 3.  Hollins Mill 4.  Tomahawk 5 3 1 5.  Peaks View Park 6.  Dreaming Creek 7.  Rock Castle Land Use: Forest 4 6
7 Agricultural Commercial High Residential Residential 2008 Blackwater Creek Watershed Management Plan Chemical analysis provides a “snapshot” of the quality of the stream – the data reflects the water flowing through the stream at that particular time. Metrics are generally easy to obtain, and can be compared over many streams as well as over time to reflect general trends (2). Methods —  Sampled each site using half liter acid washed bottles —  Froze bottles to keep phosphorus from diffusing in the water —  Ran phosphorus test (HACH Kit) —  Used pH meter —  Used Conductivity meter —  Recorded data in water proof notebook 2009 pH y = 0.1146x + 5.9714 R² = 0.23297 8 7 pH 6 7.11 6.2 5.8 6.1 6.23 5 4 3 2 1 0 Testing Sites 6.42 7.15 2009 Conduc1vity Conductivity (µs/L) 250 215 200 150 136.5 144 100 50 232 40 152 y = 30.311x + 17.957 R² = 0.81669 54.9 0 Testing Sites Dissolved Oxygen (%) 2009 Dissolved Oxygen 120% 100% 80% 100% 93.30% 91.90% 101.30% 78.00% 60% 101.90% 97.00% y = -­‐0.002x + 0.9559 R² = 0.00278 40% 20% 0% Testing Sites Temperature ◦C 2009 Temperature 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 16 16.4 14.2 13.6 15.7 12.6 14.3 y = -­‐0.2393x + 15.643 R² = 0.13811 Testing Sites pH: 2005 to 2009 7.5 pH 7 2005 R2 = 0.036 2006 6.5 2008 6 2009 5.5 5 Temperature: 2005 to 2009 Temperature (˚C) 19 17 15 R2 = 0.004 13 2005 11 2006 9 2008 7 2009 Conduc1vity: 2005 to 2009 Conductivity (µs/L) 350 300 250 R2 = 0.54 200 150 2005 100 2006 50 2008 0 2009 Dissolved Oxygen: 2005 to 2009 Dissolved Oxygen 140% 120% 100% 80% 60% 2005 40% 2006 20% 2008 0% 2009 Conclusion While the temperature is the most widely varying (temporally), its liner progression is disturbing. However, its range has the least amount of importance because all the temperatures were within acceptable limits. The more pressing metric is the variation of pH. The pH across the board has been lowered. The lowest was a 5.8, which can be unhealthy for stream life. Dissolved oxygen was for the most part good. Peaks View Park was lower than expected but still within reason. Like pH, there is an apparent drop in years past. The conductivity for the creeks increased in values as urbanization increased. However, the temporal data shows that areas that have finished developing have shown a decrease in materials in the water column. Areas starting to urbanize, such as Peaks View Park, have been showing a dramatic increase in conductivity. Macroinvertebrates are integrators of their environment. These indicators offer a sense of the stresses that occur over time. Macroinvertebrates metrics describe conditions over months, and patterns over time are readily established (2). Macroinvertebrates: An Overview —  Aquatic insects that are very sensitive to environmental change —  Good indicators of water quality and ecological condition —  Shows immediate and long term effects of human impacts —  Measured using three different indices: EPT, FBI, and PMA Indices: EPT —  The number of Ephemeroptera (mayflies), Plecoptera (stoneflies), and Trichoptera (caddisflies) Caddisfly Stonefly Mayfly Indices: FBI —  FBI: Family Biotic Index —  Assigns a number to each species depending on that species’ tolerance to pollution Indices: PMA —  PMA: Percent Model Affinity —  Compares sampled stream to an ideally unpolluted stream Methods —  Found a suitable riffle — 
— 
— 
— 
(downstream, middle, upstream of the reach) for sampling Used a Hess sampler to obtain a consistently accurate area (meters2) Placed Hess sampler in the water and stirred up rocks to obtain macroinvertebrates Placed samples in individual containers and placed samples on alcohol upon returning to the lab Identified the macroinvertebrates in each sample using a dissecting scope Results: Chaffin’s Farm Water Quality FBI EPT PMA Excellent .00-3.75
>10
>64
Very Good 3.76-4.25
-
-
Good 4.26-5.00
6.0 - 9
50-64
Fair 5.01-5.75
2.0 - 5
35-49
Fairly Poor 5.76-6.5
-
-
Poor 6.51-7.25
0-1
<35
Very Poor 7.26-10
-
-
Overall: Very Good Water Quality Results: Hooper Road Water Quality FBI EPT PMA Excellent .00-3.75
>10
>64
Very Good 3.76-4.25
-
-
Good 4.26-5.00
6.0 - 9
50-64
Fair 5.01-5.75
2.0 - 5
35-49
Fairly Poor 5.76-6.5
-
-
Poor 6.51-7.25
0-1
<35
Very Poor 7.26-10
-
-
Overall: Good Water Quality Results: Hollins Mill Water Quality FBI EPT PMA Excellent .00-3.75
>10
>64
Very Good 3.76-4.25
-
-
Good 4.26-5.00
6.0 - 9
50-64
Fair 5.01-5.75
2.0 - 5
35-49
Fairly Poor 5.76-6.5
-
-
Poor 6.51-7.25
0-1
<35
Very Poor 7.26-10
-
-
Overall: Fair Water Quality Results: Tomahawk Water Quality FBI EPT PMA Excellent .00-3.75
>10
>64
Very Good 3.76-4.25
-
-
Good 4.26-5.00
6.0 - 9
50-64
Fair 5.01-5.75
2.0 - 5
35-49
Fairly Poor 5.76-6.5
-
-
Poor 6.51-7.25
0-1
<35
Very Poor 7.26-10
-
-
Overall: Fair Water Quality Results: Peaks View Park Water Quality FBI EPT PMA Excellent .00-3.75
>10
>64
Very Good 3.76-4.25
-
-
Good 4.26-5.00
6.0 - 9
50-64
Fair 5.01-5.75
2.0 - 5
35-49
Fairly Poor 5.76-6.5
-
-
Poor 6.51-7.25
0-1
<35
Very Poor 7.26-10
-
-
Overall: Good Water Quality Results: Dreaming Creek Water Quality FBI EPT PMA Excellent .00-3.75
>10
>64
Very Good 3.76-4.25
-
-
Good 4.26-5.00
6.0 - 9
50-64
Fair 5.01-5.75
2.0 - 5
35-49
Fairly Poor 5.76-6.5
-
-
Poor 6.51-7.25
0-1
<35
Very Poor 7.26-10
-
-
Overall: Very Good Water Quality Results: Rock Castle Water Quality FBI EPT PMA Excellent .00-3.75
>10
>64
Very Good 3.76-4.25
-
-
Good 4.26-5.00
6.0 - 9
50-64
Fair 5.01-5.75
2.0 - 5
35-49
Fairly Poor 5.76-6.5
-
-
Poor 6.51-7.25
0-1
<35
Very Poor 7.26-10
-
-
Overall: Very Poor Water Quality Ranking of Streams Based on Average of Macro Data 35 • With a few exceptions, the Average of Scores 2009 macro samples are consistent with the hypothesis that urbanization degrades water quality • Ivy Creek at Peaks View Park • Dreaming Creek at McConville Road • Ivy Creek at Hooper Road 30 25 20 15 31.82 29.77 25.68 19.29 17.67 14.39 10 5 0 -­‐3.28 Rock Castle
s Mill Dam
ville Road
cker Barrel
ek at McCon
ksview Park
Creek at Cra
Dreaming Cre
Ivy Creek at
Pea
reek at Hollin
per Road
100
Blackwater C
Ivy Creek at
Hoo
ffin Farm
Ivy Creek at
Cha
PMA
PMA: 2004 -­‐ 2009 r2 = 0.2
80
60
40
20
0
-20
-40
er Bar
rel
ad
w Park
ville R
o
t Crack
McCon
aksvie
m
8
reek a
eek a t
ing Cr
k at Pe
Mill Da
o ad
arm
oper R
affin F
ollins
ek a t H
Ivy Cre
e
ter Cre
k at Ho
k at Ch
r2 = 0.31
Rock C
astle C
Dream
Blackw
a
Ivy Cre
e
Ivy Cre
e
FBI
9
FBI: 2004 -­‐ 2009 7
6
5
4
3
k at P e
racker
e k at C
astle C
re
d
Barrel
le Roa
Park
l Dam
aksview
e k at M
cConvil
ing Cre
Rock C
Dream
Ivy Cre
e
ollins M
il
rm
oad
o per R
k at Ho
affin Fa
k at Ch
e k at H
Blackw
ater Cre
Ivy Cre
e
Ivy Cre
e
EPT
EPT: 2004 -­‐ 2009 16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Conclusion —  Overall, the temporal data supports the hypothesis that urbanization degrades water quality Like macroinvertebrates, fish are integrators of their environment. Fish reflect greater levels of complexity and greater impact from pollution. Fish metrics indicate changes over years, providing a large picture of potential impact (2). Methods for Collec1ng Fish •  Used an Electrofishing back pack Calibrated the unit when both the probe and tail were in the water •  Waved the probe under water across the stream • 
•  Fish were netted and placed in • 
• 
• 
• 
buckets Sampling time was 30 minutes at all sites except at Chaffin’s Farm which was 20 minutes The quantity of fish was standardized by Catch per Unit Effort (CPUE) After shocking, the fish were identified using the book, Freshwater Fishes of the Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland, & Delaware. Rhode et. Al. (1994). Numbers and species of fish were recorded in a field journal Indices: IBI •  To get an indication of water quality from the fish data, the Index of Biological Integrity (IBI) was used •  This index involves 9 measurements: — 
— 
— 
— 
— 
— 
— 
— 
— 
Total Number of Species Total Number / Relative percent of Darter Species Total Number / Relative percent of Water Column Insectivores Total Number / Relative percent of Pool-­‐Benthic Insectivores Total Number / Relative percent of Intolerant Species Relative abundance of Tolerant Species Relative abundance of Omnivores or Generalist Feeders Relative abundance of Top Carnivores Deviation from ideal or number of individuals in sample •  Scored 1-­‐5, 5 representing little human impact •  A perfect score is 45 and a minimal score is 9 Analysis: Fish • Green = IBI score 4-­‐5 • Yellow = IBI score 3 • Red = IBI score 1-­‐2 Chaffin Farms Hooper Road Hollins Mill Tomahawk Peaks View Dreaming Rock Castle 11 13 10 13 7 11 13 774 362 184 198 56 534 334 Percent Percids 7.36 35.91 28.26 14.14 3.57 5.24 34.13 Percent Suckers Percent Cyprinidae 0.39 1.11 2.17 11.11 3.57 15.73 1.2 88.76 59.12 19.57 72.73 3.57 77.9 62.87 Percent CaGishes 1.55 2.76 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Sunfish Percent WC InsecIvores Percent Pool InsecIvores Percent Omnivores Percent Carnivores Total # WC InsecIvores Total # Pool InsecIvores 1.94 1.11 50 1.01 82.14 1.12 1.8 1.94 1.1 50 1.01 78.57 1.12 1.8 19.77 48.07 30.44 49.49 14.29 25.47 40.12 78.29 49.72 4.35 48.49 3.57 73.41 56.29 0 0 0 0 3.57 0 0 15 4 92 2 44 6 6 153 178 84 100 8 136 134 32.95 14.36 56.52 39.39 89.29 62.92 41.32 67.05 51.24 85.64 68.97 43.48 62.74 60.61 66.77 10.71 31.29 37.08 58.4 58.68 66.99 Total Fish Species Total # Fish Caught Percent Tolerant Percent Intolerant PMA Analysis: Fish Caught Pool WC Omnivores Carnivores InsecIvores InsecIvores Intolerant Tolerant Chaffin Farms 78 0 20 2 67 33 Hooper Road 50 0 48 1 86 14 Hollins Mill 4 0 30 50 43 57 Tomahawk 48 0 49 1 61 39 Peaks View 4 4 14 79 10 89 Dreaming Creek 73 0 25 1 37 63 Rock Castle Creek 56 0 40 2 59 41 Index of Biological Integrity (IBI) Measurements
Chaffin
Farms
Hooper Road Hollins Mill
Tomahawk
Peaks View
Dreaming
Creek
Rock Castle
Creek
Total Number of Species
Total Number / Relative
percent of Darter Species
Total Number / Relative
percent of Water Column
Insectivores
Total Number / Relative
percent of Pool-Benthic
Insectivores
Total Number / Relative
percent of Intolerant Species
5
2
4
5
4
4
5
3
2
1
3
1
5
5
4
5
2
5
1
5
4
4
1
2
1
5
3
1
5
5
2
4
1
2
4
Relative abundance of
Tolerant Species
Relative abundance of
Omnivores or Generalist
Feeders
Relative abundance of Top
Carnivores
Deviation from ideal or
number of individuals in
sample
Totals for each site
5
5
2
4
1
2
4
1
3
5
3
5
1
2
1
1
1
1
5
1
1
3
4
2
2
1
2
2
30
33
24
28
22
20
28
Grade
Good
Good
Fair
Fair
Poor
Poor
Fair
Fish Analysis IBI score (out of a possible 45) Increasing Urbanization versus IBI 40 30 30 33 28 24 20 y = -­‐1.2143x + 31.286 R² = 0.3233 22 20 10 0 Site (Increase of Urbanization from left to right) 28 Analysis: IBI Over Time IBI Score Over 4 years 40 IBI Score 30 Chaffin Farms Hooper Road 20 Hollins Mill Peaksview Dreaming Creek 10 Rock Castle 0 2005 2006 2008 Year 2009 Analysis: Average IBI Over Time Average IBI Score for 4 years Average IBI Score 40 30 27 20 27 y = -­‐0.7714x + 26.867 R² = 0.1657 25 22 18 10 0 Testing Sites 26 Conclusion • IBI scores for 2009 supports hypothesis that urbanization decreases water quality • Rock Castle has been urbanized for a long time, which has allowed it to adapt • Average IBI scores for the last 4 years supports our hypothesis. • This year’s data shows an improvement in IBI scores for every site, except Hollins Mill Physical analysis demonstrates human impacts over extended periods of time. Channelization, growth or destruction of riparian buffers, and other physical alterations impact stream quality over long periods and recover much slower than other indicators. Methods —  Using the Unified Stream Methodology (USM) allows one to see how all of the different parameters are affected and one can determine the overall health of the stream —  Four parameters in the USM are Channel Condition, Riparian Buffers, In-­‐stream Habitat, and Channel Alterations —  Scores for each parameters were assigned giving a final sum or Reach Condition Index (RCI). (Sum of all CL’s)/5 —  Calculated reach measured was the width of stream from bank to bank in feet. Then the width was multiplied by thirty to determine a reach at the midpoint. —  G.P.S. waypoints were taken at the midpoint, top, and bottom or the stream Dreaming CPreek Tomahawk Rock Chaffin’s Hooper Hollins Peaks CVastle M
iew RFoad ill arm Cark reek Total Stream Score 1.2 1.1 1.1 1 1 1 1 USM Score 0.99 0.9 0.94 0.95 0.9 0.92 0.85 0.8 0.75 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.69 0.71 2008 2009 Linear (2008) In-­‐Stream Habitat 1.4 1.3 1.2 USM Score 1 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 2008 0.2 0 1.2 2009 Linear (2009) Channel Condi1on 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.2 USM Score 1.1 1 0.9 1.05 1 1 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.7 2008 2009 Linear (2009) 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.6 Conclusion Looking at the total stream score, in-­‐stream habitat, and the channel condition as our main metrics that effect water quality indirectly or show a grade for the physical condition of the stream, each graph shows a decrease from rural streams to urban streams. This in turn further supports our conclusion that urbanization decreases water quality. Conclusion: Over Time In comparing the stream assessment between 2008 and 2009, there is a direct correlation between the two years with each site going from least urbanized – Ivy Creek at Chaffin’s Farm – to most urbanized – Rock Castle Creek. Our data shows a decrease in all parameters of USM, supporting the analysis that urbanization decrease water quality. Overall water quality assessment for 2009 and temporally Indices of Water Quality —  Value dependent on type —  Chemical-­‐snap shot —  Macroinvertebrates and fish —  Physical-­‐time lag —  Effectiveness of single index vs multiple indices —  The “Bigger Picture” —  Watershed vs. sites —  Water quality in layers Conclusions: Subjec0vity and Poten0al Errors —  Interpretation of indices: —  Species identification —  Visual classifications —  Equipment errors: —  Chemical —  Biases toward sites: —  Aesthetics —  Subjectivity in analysis: —  Results 2004-­‐2008 —  Prior knowledge 2009 Overall Water Quality These water quality assessments were determined by the project group as a whole. The use of “good” “fair”, etc. was agreed upon as a simple way to categorize each stream. Average of all indices Generalized assessment Testing Sites % Rural Water Quality Chaffin’s Farm 85.01 Good Hooper Road 71.9 Good Hollins Mill 41.49 Fair Tomahawk 39.03 Fair Peaks View Park 36.67 Fair Dreaming Creek 31.97 Fair Rock Castle Creek 31.41 Poor Suppor1ve Evidence For 2004 to 2009 —  The data for 2009 supports the hypothesis —  Conductivity —  Overall IBI —  From 2004 to 2009 —  Urbanization in the Blackwater Watershed has increased —  Macroinvertebrate trends show consistent decline as urbanization increases Devia1ons from Hypothesis Spatial Temporal —  Hollins Mill —  The site scored well in physical assessment —  Other indices demonstrate human impact —  Quality of testing site versus quality of subwatershed —  Rock Castle —  IBI score shows improvement from previous years —  Time Lapse? Tomahawk (39.03% Rural) —  The same order stream as Dreaming Creek and Hooper Road —  Stream Order 3, with varied land use percentages —  Minimal bias —  How does it fit in the big picture? —  Conductivity —  IBI Urbaniza1on and Water Quality —  Future population growth (8) —  City of Lynchburg – 0.04% —  Bedford County – 18.6% —  Campbell County – 5.14% —  With population growth comes increased urbanization —  Water quality will continue to degrade without proper measures being taken Future Planning Recommenda1ons: General Site Proposals —  Limit Future Construction —  Riparian buffer system —  Implementation and Preservation —  Filtration-­‐ nutrients and sediments prior to entering stream —  Stabilization-­‐ stream bank health —  Erosion control-­‐ construction sites —  Minimum buffer zone ≈ 75 feet on each bank Recommenda1ons: Government Involvement —  Tax Breaks and Subsidies: —  Stream bank restoration —  Best management practices (BMPs) —  Sustainable development practices —  Green roofs —  Porous pavement —  Use of gravel —  Erosion and Sedimentation Laws —  Enforcement —  Stricter penalties Ø Must address funding shortcomings Recommenda1ons: Community Outreach —  Private land owners: Preservation of undeveloped lands —  Education: Outreach programs —  Establish watershed education —  Sustainable practices-­‐watershed health —  Involvement: Stewardship —  Volunteer opportunities Ø 
Ø 
Trash removal Tree plantings Poten1al Future Studies — Bacterial Testing —  Example-­‐ E. Coli —  Issue after storms — 
Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) drainage systems —  Human health impacts —  Eutrophication The Goal: Achieving Long-­‐term Improvements —  Species and Ecological restoration —  Storm water management and bank stabilization —  Human attitude towards streams and landscapes —  Humans integrated as part of ecosystem Acknowledgements Thank You to: —  Dr. Thomas Shahady —  Steve Burris —  Adam Bonaventura To all those lost in the name of science…
Image Cita1ons http://www.stroudcenter.org/schuylkill/images/hess-­‐sampler.jpg http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/ccn/info/Science/SWCS///ZOOBENTH/
macro3.jpg 3. 
http://www.smith-­‐root.com/images/stories/electrofishers/
lr-­‐24_and_lr-­‐20.jpg 4.  2006 Comprehensive Water Quality Analysis Report of the Blackwater Creek Watershed. Lynchburg College. ENVS 375. 2006. 5.  http://www.mfwwc.org/images/WEP/Oakridge%20High%20Tree
%20Planting%20Princesses.JPG 6.  2005 PowerPoint. Comprehensive Water Quality Analysis Report of the Blackwater Creek Watershed. Lynchburg College. ENVS 375. 2005. 7.  http://www.blogmyair.com/uploaded_images/Green_City-­‐734054.jpg 8.  http://va.water.usgs.gov/projects/cows_br.jpg 9.  2004 PowerPoint. Water Quality in Lynchburg. Lynchburg College. ENVS 375. 2004. 10.  http://www.ecoliblog.com/minty-­‐e-­‐coli.jpg 11.  http://www.wordsmooth.com/EarthHands_op_621x413.jpg 1. 
2. 
References 1. 
2. 
3. 
4. 
5. 
6. 
7. 
8. 
(1996) U.S. Geological Survey. Water: Resources Investigations Report. Everyone lives downstream. Retrieved April 26, 2009 from: http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/
urbanquality.html. Arnold, C.L., and Gibbons, C.J. 1996. Impervious surface coverage: the emergence of a key environmental indicator. American Planners Association. J. 62:243-­‐58. (2008, Feb 25). Urbanization and streams: Studies of hydrologic impacts. Retrieved April 26, 2009, from United States Environmental Protection Agency Web site: http://
www.epa.gov/owow/nps/urbanize/report.html#06 Farnworth, E.G., Nichols, M.C. and C.N. Vann. 1979. Impact of sediments on nutrients and biota in surface waters of the United States. EPA-­‐600/3-­‐79-­‐105. USEPA. Washington, DC. 3, 311-­‐315. Meyer, J.L. and Paul, M.J. (2001). Streams in the urban landscapes. [Online Version] Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. 32, 333-­‐365. Shahady, T. 2006. State of the watershed report. Lynchburg College. Lynchburg, Virginia. Shahady, T., and P. Fitzsimmons. 2008. Blackwater creek watershed management plan. Lynchburg College. Lynchburg, Virginia. Shahady, T (2009). Freshwater ecology laboratory manual. Virginia Beach, VA: Academx Publishing Services, Inc. Waters, T.F. 1995. Sediment in streams: sources, biological effects and control. American Fisheries Society, Maryland.