River Ecosystem Assessment Group 2 Josh Parenti Josh Parenti Tristan Bond Tristan Bond Brady Russell Brady Russell Laura Kingsbury Laura Kingsbury Robert.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Framework for the Ecological Assessment of Impacted Sediments at Mining Sites in Region 7 By Jason Gunter (R7 Life Scientist) and.
Advertisements

Watershed Investigations: Stream Monitoring All photos by Joan Schumaker Chadde, Western UP Center for Science, Mathematics & Environmental Education,
TMDL Development Upper Kanawha River Watershed August 18, 2011 WV DEP WV DEP Dave Montali.
20 th Annual Student GREEN Congress “Counting Critters” Workshop.
Biological Response of Two North Central PA Streams After Flood of September 2011 Fred Rogers CWI, Supervisor Dr. Mel Zimmerman Introduction: Within Pennsylvania,
Metals in the Benthic Macroinvertebrates in Coal Creek, Crested Butte, CO Scarlett E. Graham July 10, 2006 University of Colorado at Boulder Environmental.
Cold Water Habitat Evaluation Gilbert Creek & Elk Creek June – August 2005 Matthew D. Rasmussen Applied Science Undergraduate UW-Stout Menomonie, WI
Clearwater River Habitat/Bioassessment
Summary of Case Studies Designed to Determine the Influence of Multiple Stressors on Benthic Communities in Urban California Streams Lenwood W. Hall, Jr.
Lec 12: Rapid Bioassessment Protocols (RBP’s)
Chris Nagai Nick Foster Christen Dschankilic Streams of Science.
Watershed System Physical Properties Stream flow (cfs) Stream Channel Pattern Substrate Chemical Properties pH Dissolved Oxygen Temperature Nutrients Turbidity.
Do installed steam logjams increase macroinvertebrate richness and abundance? Seyeon Kim and Ong Xiong with faculty mentor Dr. Todd Wellnitz Biology Department.
Habitat Assessment Developed by Ken Cooke Kentucky Division of Water Watershed Watch Program Coordinator Modified by Mike Kemp Professor of Environmental.
MCDEP’s Database Conversion Overview Benthic MonitoringFish Monitoring Rapid Habitat Geomorphology Physchem Herpetofauna Spring MonitoringSummer Monitoring.
Common Monitoring Parameters. Step 1 Consider purpose/objectives of monitoring Assess use attainment Characterize watershed Identify pollutants and sources.
A landscape perspective of stream food webs: Exploring cumulative effects and defining biotic thresholds.
Assessing Aquatic Ecosystems & Measurement. Aquatic Ecosystem Assessment The health of an aquatic ecosystem can be determined by examining a variety of.
Rapid Bioassessment Protocol (RBP). Background to RBP changes in community/assemblage composition used to evaluate existence and degree of impact.
“Habitat Assessment Using the QHEI “ Edward T. Rankin June 6 City of Columbus, Level 3 Training Course Columbus, Ohio Senior ResearchScientist
Ecology and environment, inc. International Specialists in the Environment The McKinstry Creek & Riparian Area NYSDOT Rt. 219 Mitigation Project Analysis.
Hydrosapiens GIV eSAT of Vermont: Water Group 2013 Ben DeJong, Nina Brundage, Caitlin Beaudet, Julie Rickner, Mariah Ollive, Hannah VanGuilder, Heather.
ABIOTIC. The pH of a stream or lake depends on the kinds of rocks and soil that water contacts. Proper pH is an important life requirement for all aquatic.
Part II: Water Quality Water quality refers to the condition of the water: Is it clean or is it polluted?
Name of presenter Date of presentation.  To help preserve and protect Wisconsin’s over 15,000 lakes and 86,000 miles of rivers.
REDUCING OUR FOOTPRINT Unit 3-1b How To Measure Water Quality
Andrew Lipsky State Biologist USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Rhode island Watershed Stewardship Class: Introduction.
NC Division of Water Quality Water Quality Assessments and Local Watershed Plans.
Principles of River Ecology New Mexico Watershed Watch Teacher Training September 2004 by Richard Schrader.
TMDL Development Upper Guyandotte River Watershed May 4 th & 5 th, 2015.
Final stuff: n Lab practical: Apr 29 n Final exam: due Fri May 2:15.
National Aquatic Resource Surveys Wadeable Streams Assessment Overview November, 2007.
 Sustainability Master Plan  Effect of Runoff on Stream  Negative Effect on Lake Carnegie  Final Pre-Restoration Assessment  Why this first order.
Stream Quality Assessment Biological Monitoring. WHY Monitor Stream Quality? To determine if problems exist in our streams and rivers.
Effects of Multi-scale Environmental Characteristics on Agricultural Stream Biota in the Midwestern USA 5th National Monitoring Conference May 9, 2006.
Fish Assemblages of the Wabash River Mark Pyron. Wabash River Fishes 1.Large river 2.High diversity 3.History of human impact 4.Fish assemblages respond.
Hydrology Unit Review. The continuous movement of water from the ocean to the atmosphere to the land and back to the ocean is called what? The Water Cycle.
Stream Ecosystem Assessment Group 1 Camp Caesar August 2003.
Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for low gradient streams) for species richness, composition and pollution tolerance, as well as a composite benthic macroinvertebrate.
Loudoun Wildlife Conservancy Stream Monitoring Kickoff March 4, 2012 Rust Library Leesburg, VA.
Sampling Biodiversity Using macroinvertebrates
Identifying Changes to Stream Condition caused by Urbanization How understanding the responses can improve ecological risk characterization
Comparison of Benthic Invertebrate Communities Upstream and Downstream of Proposed Culvert Installations in Alabama Amy C. Gill USGS, Alabama Water Science.
Ecology of Mined WV Watersheds: Monongahela River to Tug Fork J. Todd Petty, PhD Division of Forestry & Natural Resources Surface Mine Drainage Task Force.
National Monitoring Conference May 7-11, 2006
Multimetric Concepts Index 101 Michael Paul; Jeroen Gerritsen Tetra Tech, Inc.
Water Assessment Data Lab Assignment # 5 Land Use The first thing you notice when field sampling is the area around your site. What type of land use.
Case Study Development of an Index of Biotic Integrity for the Mid-Atlantic Highland Region McCormick et al
Lab: Benthic Bugs and Bioassessment
Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index Bradley Hansen John Nieber Department of Bioproducts and Biosystems Engineering For BBE 4535/5535 Fall 2011.
Macroinvertebrates Little Creatures that tell us If our natural waterways are healthy.
Abandoned Mine Drainage’s Impacts The Impact of AMD to Life in Streams Lessons Prepared by Trout Unlimited With Funds from Pennsylvania Department of Environmental.
The Arizona Rivers Project Southwestern Academy June 2009 Fun with Macroinvertebrates.
Record notes in your notebook  Record at least 5 facts/ideas in your notebook.  Write down and answer the following questions:  What are“benthic macroinvertebrates”?
Stream Monitoring Vocabulary Review As each slide is presented: (in 3 table groups (Group 1: tables 1, 2, 3 – Group 2 is tables 4 & 5, Group 3 is tables.
USE OF BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATES TO ASSESS WATER QUALITY IN BOLIN CREEK David Lenat Lenat Consulting Services.
Watershed Management Plan Summary of 2014 Activities/Progress Presented by: Matthew Bennett, MS December 2014.
Watershed Health Indicators
Stream Ecology.
Biology October 6, 2016 Class: Post River Study Homework: Test on Water properties, Water cycle, Macroinvertebrates, Watershed Next week.
Fun with Macroinvertebrates
J. M. C. K Jayawardhana1, W. D. T. M Gunawardhana 1, E. P
Discover Life in West Virginia ( )
Biological Assessment of Pond Health
a Biological Study of Macroinvertebrates in the Leibert Creek
Stream Geomorphic Assessment of Allen Brook
Summary of Case Studies Designed to Determine the Influence of Multiple Stressors on Benthic Communities in Urban California Streams Lenwood W. Hall, Jr.
Using Bugs and GIS to Assess and Manage Watershed Health
Cain, DJ, Carter, JL, Buchwalter, DB, and Luoma, SN
The Index of Biotic Integrity (the BI or IBI)
Presentation transcript:

River Ecosystem Assessment Group 2 Josh Parenti Josh Parenti Tristan Bond Tristan Bond Brady Russell Brady Russell Laura Kingsbury Laura Kingsbury Robert Michalow Robert Michalow Jason Workman Jason Workman Chandra Inglis-Smith Chandra Inglis-Smith Ryan Braham Ryan Braham Norse Angus Norse Angus Eric Nieman Eric Nieman

Birch River Ecosystem Assessment Group 2.1 Josh Parenti Tristan Bond Brady Russell

Description of Birch River Study Assessment of Ecosystem was done above the falls Weather and Time –1:45 p.m. –Cloudy –26° C Basin Area –29.2 km 2

Description of Birch River Study (con’t) Watershed –Part of the Elk River watershed –Second order stream

Description of Birch River Study (con’t) Geology –Pottsville Sandstone

Stream Flow and Water Quality Stream Flow –Discharge rate of m 3 /s Water Quality –Ca:H Ratio –Ph –H+ concentration –Ca++ concentration –Conductivity –Fecal Coliform Bacteria - 2 –Toatal Aluminum –Total Iron

RVHA Epifaunal Substrate/Available cover –Score of 13/20 Embeddedness –Score of 14/20 Velocity/Depth Regime –Score of 16/20 Sediment Deposition –Score of 13/20 Channel Flow Status –Score of 14/20 Channel Alteration –Score of 13/20 Frequency of Riffles (or bends) –Score of 18/20 Bank Stability –Left Bank Score of 3/10 –Right Bank Score of 6/10 Vegetative Protection –Left Bank Score of 6/10 –Right Bank Score of 5/10 Riparian Vegetative Zone Wiidth –Left Bank Score of 5/10 –Right Bank Score of 2/10

RVHA (con’t) Reference condition according to the EPA for the RVHA is >170 Total RVHA score for the Birch River was 128/200 –The final component score is a 36

Benthic Macroinvertebrates Most Predominant Groups –Stonefly –Mayfly –Caddisfly –Common Netspinner –Midge Larva

Benthic Macroinvertebrates (con’t) Total WVSCI score –89.2 Total Acid SCI –76.9 The final Rating is an “Excellent” Score

Fishes Most Predominant Fishes –Northern Hogsucker –Creek Chub –River Chub Final IBI Component Score –75 –Final Rating is an “OK” Stream

Summary Overall Site Condition –General impact has a rating of 69 –Acid (precip) has a rating of 75 –Acid (AMD) has a rating of 67 The overall assessment of the Birch River watershed gives the stream a “moderately impaired” rating

Craig’s Run Ecosystem Assessment Group 2.2 Laura Kingsbury Laura Kingsbury Robert Michalow Robert Michalow

Overall Description of Site New River watershed 2 nd order stream Basin Area: 7.77km 2 Geology: Pottsville sandstone

RVHA Epifaunal Substrate Embed- dedness Velocity regime Sediment deposition Channel flow Channel alterations Frequency of riffles Bank Stability Vegetative protection Riparian Vegetative zone width Overall Score %

Stream Flow and Water Quality Discharge (m 3 /s) pH7.83 H +1 conc (moles/L) Ca 2+ (mg/L)6.8 Ca:H460 Conduct (micro S/cm 2 /sec)24 Using EPA defined protocols we tested the flow and quality of the water flowing in Craig’s run Discharge = smallest stream we sampled (compare with Cranberry 1.8m3/s) pH = VERY surprising to be this basic Ca:H ratio is excellent (>100) Conductivity = excellent (<150) Mn & Fecal = NO DATA

Benthic Invertebrates EPA EMAP protocols followed (modified by picking in the field!) –18 total taxa found –Nearly 50% were web spinners (tolerant) –10% midges (tolerant) –10% Capniidae stoneflies (tolerant) –10%Heptageniidae mayflies (sensitive)

IndicesScore% Correlation % EPT Abundance EPT Richness % Generally Tolerant % Ephemeroptera Modified Hilsenhoff Index % Dominance Taxa Richness WVSCI82.8 Acid SCI63.5 Site Name Stream Rating Scale - SCI ExcellentGoodMarginalPoor Craig's Run > < 55.0 Site Code Stream Rating Scale - S0S ExcellentGoodMarginalPoor 0 > < 11.0

Fishes Taxa –Only 2 taxa found, 13 individuals Cyprinidae (Black-nose dace) Salmonalidae (Brook trout) Component Scores –Reduction in score Tolerant species in black nose dace No sensitive species (Sculpin) Total Coldwater IBI = 60% MAH IBI = 62%

Summary Craig’s Run is a wild & wonderful looking tributary of the William’s River! Due to its geological origins, it is a naturally acidic stream system and the biota within the stream has either evolved to deal with that or happily invaded because it could! (ex. Brook Trout, Capnid stoneflies & Crayfish)

We were surprised to find the pH over 7 especially since we were sampling in the rain (normally acidic precipitation) and that the water runs over sandstone that has no buffering capacity. The area does not fall within a coal mining zone so AMD would not be a stressor to this system. Great little trib. but would need more assessments to its health throughout the year…….why no Sculpin?

Stream Ecosystem Assessment Group 2.3 Cranberry (above Rough Run) Jason Workman Chandra Inglis-Smith Ryan Braham

Cranberry Short Summary Williams River→ New River Watershed Stream Order = 3 rd Order Basin Area = KM 2 Geology consists of Mauch Chunk Shale & Pottsville Sandstone Visual Conditions = 60% cloud cover and ~31 °C

Cranberry WVSCI Total # of Kinds11 SOS Index 24 IndicesScore% Correlation % EPT Abundance EPT Richness % Generally Tolerant % Ephemeroptera Modified Hilsenhoff Index % Dominance Taxa Richness WVSCI93.3 Acid SCI78.4 Site Name Stream Rating Scale - SCI ExcellentGoodMarginalPoor Cranberry > < 55.0 Site Code Stream Rating Scale - S0S ExcellentGoodMarginalPoor 0 > < 11.0

Cranberry Above Rough Run Data Source Discharge (m 3 s) pHH+ConcCa++Ca:H Group DEP N/A ConductFecalAlFeMn Group DEP

Rapid Visual Habitat Assessment Epifaunal Substrate EmbeddednessVelocity /Depth Regime Sediment Deposition Channel Flow Status Channel Alteration Frequency of Riffles/Bend Left Bank Stability Right Bank Stability Left Vegetat ive Cover Right Vegetative Cover Left Riparian Zone Right Riparian Zone Total

Overall Stream Condition Score ObservedComponent ReferenceDataScore Ca:H> Conductivity (microsiemens /cm2/s)< Manganese Conc. (mg/L)< Fecal Coliform< EPA RVHA> WV SCI (STANDARD)> WV SCI (ACID)> MAH IBI> 85.. Overal Site ConditionGENERAL IMPACT 100 Overal Site ConditionACID (PRECIP) 97 Overal Site ConditionACID (AMD) 98

Cranberry (above Rough Run) Conclusion Our site kicked ass The local geology makes the area susceptible to acid precipitation, but the Dosing station (800 tons/yr) in the North Fork and Dogway buffer the system. The bug and habitat data below dosing stations are indicative of a historically excellent Brook Trout fishery.

Stream Ecosystem Assessment South Fork of Cranberry River Group 2.4 Norse Angus Eric Nieman

Cranberry Watershed Description  The sample area drains 45.81km 2  This area is well forested with minimum development and light impacts(gravel roads, dosing stations, recreational uses).  The S. Fork of the Cranberry is located in a WMA in the Mon. National Forest.  The Cranberry drains Northwest into the Gauley River at Woodbine.  The S. Fork is a 3-4 th order stream with shale and sandstone dominating the geological formations.

Stream Flow and Water Quality Discharge m 3 /s pH[H + ]Ca ++ Ca: H Condu ctivity FecalMn

RVHA Epifaunal Substrate16 Embeddedness16 Vel./ Depth Regime 14 Sediment Deposition18 Channel Flow18.5 Channel Alteration19.5 Freq. of Riffles17 Bank Stability20 Veg. Protection20 Riparian Veg. Zone20 Avg. TOTAL178

Benthic Invertebrates

Fishes

South Fork Cranberry Summation  very little watershed problems  known acid rain effects.  High quality cold water stream.  Geology buffering the acid problems  Low fish score  Subjective collecting methods

Super Secret Post-Conclusion Conclusion CCCCost of Tuition, Food and Lodging = $ CCCCost of Alcohol = $ CCCCost of Higher Learning = Priceless