1. 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

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

3. 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

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

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

6. Stream Flow and Water Quality Stream Flow –Discharge rate of 0.948 m 3 /s Water Quality –Ca:H Ratio - 1077.012 –Ph - 7.65 –H+ concentration -.0276 –Ca++ concentration - 27.4 –Conductivity - 390.5 –Fecal Coliform Bacteria - 2 –Toatal Aluminum - 0.05 –Total Iron - 0.07

7. 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

8. 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

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

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

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

12. 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

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

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

16. RVHA Epifaunal Substrate Embed- dedness Velocity regime Sediment deposition Channel flow Channel alterations 18171915 20 Frequency of riffles Bank Stability Vegetative protection Riparian Vegetative zone width Overall Score 201920 91%

17. Stream Flow and Water Quality Discharge (m 3 /s)0.03745 pH7.83 H +1 conc (moles/L)0.01479 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

18. 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)

19. IndicesScore% Correlation % EPT Abundance83.3100.0 EPT Richness1191.7 % Generally Tolerant11.785.4 % Ephemeroptera9.710.0 Modified Hilsenhoff Index4.589.2 % Dominance49.440.5 Taxa Richness1890.0 WVSCI82.8 Acid SCI63.5 Site Name Stream Rating Scale - SCI ExcellentGoodMarginalPoor Craig's Run > 85.085.0 - 70.069.9 - 55.0< 55.0 Site Code Stream Rating Scale - S0S ExcellentGoodMarginalPoor 0 > 22.017.0-22.011.0-16.0< 11.0

20. 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%

21. 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)

22. 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?

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

24. Cranberry Short Summary Williams River→ New River Watershed Stream Order = 3 rd Order Basin Area = 134.45 KM 2 Geology consists of Mauch Chunk Shale & Pottsville Sandstone Visual Conditions = 60% cloud cover and ~31 °C

25. Cranberry WVSCI Total # of Kinds11 SOS Index 24 IndicesScore% Correlation % EPT Abundance85.5100.0 EPT Richness15100.0 % Generally Tolerant1.6100.0 % Ephemeroptera16.032.1 Modified Hilsenhoff Index3.4100.0 % Dominance33.459.9 Taxa Richness23100.0 WVSCI93.3 Acid SCI78.4 Site Name Stream Rating Scale - SCI ExcellentGoodMarginalPoor Cranberry > 85.0 85.0 - 70.069.9 - 55.0< 55.0 Site Code Stream Rating Scale - S0S ExcellentGoodMarginalPoor 0 > 22.017.0-22.011.0-16.0< 11.0

26. Cranberry Above Rough Run Data Source Discharge (m 3 s) pHH+ConcCa++Ca:H Group 2.3 1.79257.4050.010.2256.34 DEP N/A7.40.07.33192.79 ConductFecalAlFeMn Group 2.3 34.55.05.06.01 DEP 445.05.06.01

27. Rapid Visual Habitat Assessment Epifaunal Substrate EmbeddednessVelocity /Depth Regime Sediment Deposition Channel Flow Status Channel Alteration Frequency of Riffles/Bend 15181916141918 Left Bank Stability Right Bank Stability Left Vegetat ive Cover Right Vegetative Cover Left Riparian Zone Right Riparian Zone Total 910 180

28. Overall Stream Condition Score ObservedComponent ReferenceDataScore Ca:H> 100256.35100 Conductivity (microsiemens /cm2/s)< 15034.5100 Manganese Conc. (mg/L)< 0.150.01100 Fecal Coliform< 1005100 EPA RVHA> 170180100 WV SCI (STANDARD)> 8593100 WV SCI (ACID)> 857892 MAH IBI> 85.. Overal Site ConditionGENERAL IMPACT 100 Overal Site ConditionACID (PRECIP) 97 Overal Site ConditionACID (AMD) 98

29. 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.

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

32. 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.

33. Stream Flow and Water Quality Discharge m 3 /s pH[H + ]Ca ++ Ca: H Condu ctivity FecalMn 1.157.5 3.0306.823036.5250.024

34. 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

35. Benthic Invertebrates

36. Fishes

37. 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

38. Super Secret Post-Conclusion Conclusion CCCCost of Tuition, Food and Lodging = $730.00 CCCCost of Alcohol = $437.80 CCCCost of Higher Learning = Priceless