What’s Mud Got to Do With It?

1. What’s Mud Got to Do With It? Stephen J. Klaine, Ph.D. Department of Biological Sciences Clemson University sklaine@clemson.edu

2. Co-authors • J.A. Smink, K.L. Sciera, J.W. Pike, M.A. Goddard, W.R. English,C.J. Post, M.A, Schlautman, T, Karanfil, J.M. Hur, B.A. Powell, J.C. Morse, J. Allen and J.C. Hayes Departments of Biological Sciences, Forestry and Natural Resources, Entomology, Soils and Plant Sciences, Agricultural and Biological Engineering, School of the Environment, Strom Thurmond Institute, and the Clemson Institute of Environmental Toxicology, Clemson University, Clemson, SC

3. Outline • Introduction • What happens when we develop watersheds • Qualitatively • Quantitatively

6. Upstate SC Urban Growth 1990 - 2000 Urban Area Increase 78% 1990 - 2000 Population Increase 15% Growth Ratio 5:1

7. Predicted Urban Growth for Upstate SC 2010

8. Predicted Urban Growth for Upstate SC 2020

9. Predicted Urban Growth for Upstate SC 2030

10. Changing Land Use and the Environment (CLUE)

11. Development Sites

12. Lost Creek Development Site • 286 acres – 4 phase plan • zoned R-15 • 40’ stream easement (20’ either side) • 30’ easement for the roads

14. Permanent Water Quality Sample Station • Housed Unit Automatic Water Sampler Cellular Phone/Modem Battery Power Work Bench • Rain Gage • Solar Panel • PVC Housing for sample lines

15. Feb, 2004: Lost Creek: 15% developed Knight Creek: 0% developed Sept, 2004 Lost Creek: 40% developed Knight Creek: 0% developed Feb, 2005: Lost Creek: 60% developed Knight Creek: 0% developed Feb, 2006: Lost Creek: 75% developed Knight Creek: 10% developed Feb, 2007: Lost Creek: 75% developed Knight Creek: 10% developed

16. March 2003 August 2005 March 2004 Lost Creek Time Series Looking upstream March 2006 March 2007

17. April 2003 March 2004 April 2006 November 2003 September 2005 Lost Creek Time Series Looking downstream

18. Erosion and Sediment Control ???? April 2006

20. April 2006

21. Lost Creek Runoff Event • Channel scour • Bank scour • Fine sediment deposition After a runoff event During a runoff event

22. 15% developed O% developed

24. 2579 mg/L

25. Runoff Event Summary February 5, 2004 Lost CreekKnight Creek • Rainfall (mm) 23.1 27.4 • Peak Flow (cfs) 4.7 1.5 • Event Volume (cf) 168,617 74,358 • TSS EMC (mg/L) 326 116 • Nitrate EMC (mg/L)0.71 0.11 • Total Phosphorus0.140 0.08 EMC (mg/L)

26. Paired WatershedDeveloped Watershed versus Undeveloped WatershedKnight Creek is undevelopedLost Creek is undergoing development (~20% as of Sept, 2004)

29. 8000 mg/L 80 mg/L

30. Runoff Event Summary September 1, 2004 Lost Creek Knight Creek • Rainfall (mm) 31.7 31.7 • Peak Flow (cfs) 18.8 0.37 • Event Volume (cf) 88,316 440 • TSS EMC (mg/L) 2,884 41.9 • Nitrate EMC (mg/L)1.39 0.37 • Total Phosphorus0.23 0.07 EMC (mg/L)

31. Dry Weather Period: Lost Creek and Knight Creek Discharge Per Acre • Lost Creek: 50% Development • Period rainfall 1.08 in. • Discharge increases significantly with little rain • Knight Creek: 5% Development • Period rainfall 1.12 in. • Event peak discharge 50% less • Rainfall has slight impact on base flow • Discharge moderated

32. Wet Weather Period: Lost Creek and Knight Creek Discharge per Acre • Lost Creek: 75% Development • Period rainfall 5.43 in. • Event peak discharge increases • Ground water recharge decreases • Flash flood frequency increases • Knight Creek: 10% Development • Period rainfall 4.61in. • Event peak discharge 1/10th Lost Creek • Flash flooding not observed • Ground water recharge

33. Runoff or Recharge: Lost Creek and Knight Creek • Wet Period • Lost Creek 5.43 inches • Knight Creek 4.61 inches • Lost Creek higher % runoff per acre • Lost Creek lower % recharge • Dry Period • Lost Creek 1.08 inch/25 days • Knight Creek 1.12 inch/25 days • Knight Creek higher base flow per acre

34. Biological Effects of Flow • Flow variables were correlated with total invertebrate density (Clausen and Biggs 1997) • Biomass of periphyton decreased with increasing flood frequency (Clausen and Biggs 1997) • Rivers with maximum flows >20x median flow had lower median taxonomic richness, density, and biomass (Quinn and Hickey 1990) • Flood frequency (>3x median flow) was the strongest ecological predictor (Clausen and Biggs 1997) • Flows can affect ability of fish to maintain position and insects to remain colonized

35. Ephemeroptera Plecoptera Trichoptera ephemenoptera plecoptera trichoptera

36. Summary Data 6% developed 20% developed

37. CTL LC MN KN 1 mm Scale: • Pictures taken at test completion - 168 hr

38. Development Monitoring Use graded scale: 0=open lot 6=cleared 5=foundation 4=framed 3=construction ongoing 2= exterior construction complete 1=complete with landscaping, no bare soil

39. Habitat Methods • EPA’s Rapid Bioassessment Protocol (RBP) • Uses Score Sheets for Parameters • Do multiple assessments and average results • Too Subjective???

40. Lost Creek: Development vs. Habitat 75% developed No Significance

41. Knight Creek: Development vs. Habitat <10% developed * Significance at =0.05

42. Conclusions • Small changes in land use can cause large changes in aquatic ecosystem health • Hydraulic, chemical and biological changes • Aquatic ecosystems are impacted quickly during development • Current BMPs may not be adequate

43. Acknowledgements • USDA-NRCS • SRWC • Clemson University PSA