Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Stonycreek River Stonycreek River Watershed ReassessmentWatershed Reassessment
Amanda Deal & Len LichvarSomerset Conservation District
August 2008
W t h d Ch t i tiWatershed Characteristics
298,920 acres538 perennial stream miles538 perennial stream miles
519 mi natural stream/river19 mi artificial path19 mi artificial path
Elevation ranges 3132 ft to 896 ft
Stonycreek River WatershedMajor Sub-watersheds
Quemahoning Creek Shade CreekBens CreekPaint CreekRhoads CreekBeaverdam CreekWells Creek Solomon RunSOven Run
Land Cover
66% forested~66% forested~24% ag~9% urban9% urban
urbanforestagriculturegbarrenwater
RE t?REassessment?USGS 1997USGS 1997
Effects of coal-mine discharges on the quality f th St k Ri d it t ib t iof the Stonycreek River and its tributaries,
Somerset and Cambria counties, PennsylvaniaL t d & l d 270 i di hLocated & sampled 270 mine dischargesStream water chemistry at 37 sitesStream sampled above and below 5 discharges different discharges and g gentrance of Pokeytown Run and Oven Run
RE t?REassessment?
Led to nearly $10 million of project investment dollarsReversed Stonycreek River from net acidic to net alkalineacidic to net alkalineOver 15 miles of recovered fisheriesP lif ti f t h d &Proliferation of watershed groups & grassroots interest
Wells Creek, Shade Creek, Paint Creek
P f R tPurpose of Reassessment
Develop baseline data setFill in data gapsFill in data gaps
Funding for watershed groupsAML fundingAML funding
Quantify water quality changesIdentify new projectsComplete restoration efforts that began >15yrs ago
Obj tiObjectivesS t lit th h t t h dSurvey water quality throughout watershed
Especially upstream and downstream of treatment systems (main stem and tributaries)systems (main stem and tributaries)
Assess macroinvertebrate assemblagesIdentify fish assemblagesIdentify fish assemblagesGIS mappingMaster databaseMaster databaseFull report
I t C tiInteragency CooperationPA DEPPA DEP
Bureau of Abandoned Mine Reclamation
PA Fish & Boat CommissionHabitat Management Unit
Provided:PersonnelPersonnelExpertiseEquipmentAnalysis assistance
I t C ti ( t )Interagency Cooperation (cont.)PA Fish & Boat Commission (cont )PA Fish & Boat Commission (cont.)
Filled a major gap in biological data that would have been lacking withoutwould have been lacking without collaboration.Data collected will serve both agenciesData collected will serve both agencies
SCDReassessment and support for remediation projects
PFBC Fisheries management decisions
Sampling Points35 sites
17 main stem17 main stem18 tributaries
Ph i l h bit tPhysical habitat
EPA habitat assessment and physiochemical characterization fromp yRapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Wadeable Rivers (2nd ed.)( )
epifaunal substrate, embeddedness, velocity/depth i di t d iti h l fl t tregime, sediment deposition, channel flow status,
channel alteration, frequency of riffles, bank stability, vegetative protection, riparian vegetative zone width
Ph i l Ch t i tiPhysical CharacterizationAdapted from Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and
Weather conditions Morphology types
Wadeable Rivers (2nd ed.)
Habitat typescobble, snags, vegetated banks, sand, submerged
LWDAquatic vegetationT bidit, , g
macrophytes, other
Surrounding landuseNPS ll ti
TurbidityStream widthAverage thalweg depthNPS pollution
ErosionCanopy cover
Average thalweg depthVelocity
Canopy cover
W t Ch i tWater ChemistryTemperatureTemperatureConductivitypH Multi-Meter--HI 991300pHTDSDODOIron
Ion Specific Meter--HI 93732Hach hot kit
SulfateNitrate
Hanna Sulfate Test Kit(modified Barium Sulfate Turbidimetric method)
L M tt h t kitPhosphate LaMotte hot kits
M i t b t S liMacroinvertebrate Sampling
D-frame Kick Net Multihabitat ApproachEPA Rapid Bioassessment Protocols
Modification 5 kicks/jabs instead of 20Kicks/jabs taken in proportion to the percentages of each habitat typeof each habitat typeSample mixed into one homogeneous sampleStored in 70% isopropyl alcoholEntire sample sorted in labOrganisms identified to genus (when possible)
Macroinvertebrate Samplingp g
M i t b t D t A l iMacroinvertebrate Data Analysis
PA DEP IBI Modified Beck’sModified Beck sEPTSpecies RichnessSpecies RichnessShannon Weiner Diversity IndexHilsenhoff Biotic IndexHilsenhoff Biotic Index% intolerant taxa
Fi h S liFish Sampling
PA FBC Protocols200 m reach200 m reachSingle pass electrofishingCollect all fishesCollect all fishesField id for most fishes; questionable specimens preserved and identified in labspecimens preserved and identified in lab
Fish Sampling gSites
18 sites18 sites12 main stem6 major tribs6 major tribs
Electrofishing CrewLeft to right: Eric Null (SCD), Amanda Deal (SCD), Gary Smith (Management Area 4 Habitat Biologist, FBC), Bob Ventorini (Fisheries Biologist, FBC), John Trilli (FBC)
Initial FindingsInitial Findings
Physical Habitat ScoresScores
Ranged 194 -- 36 (200 max)(200 max)
Avg 134
Highest scores in middle reaches
Lowest iscores in
headwaters and near mouthmouth
Stonycreek at Yonai BridgeHabitat Score 70Habitat Score 70
Clear Shade CreekHabitat Score 194Habitat Score 194
Field Water ChemistryField Water ChemistryTemperature
Ranged 23-13oC (55-73oF)ConductivityConductivity
Ranged 2200-43μSDO
Ranged >10-5mg/Lg gpH
Ranged 9-3TDS
Ranged 1100-21ppmFe
Ranged 0-6mg/LNit tNitrate
Ranged 0-13ppmPhosphate
Ranged 0-2ppmRanged 0-2ppmSulfate
Ranged >100-0mg/L
W t Ch i t Hi hli htWater Chemistry Highlights
Low phosphtes and nitrates throughoutNitrate spikes in headwatersNitrate spikes in headwatersSouth Fork Bens Creek
C d ti itConductivity43μS 1.5mi 1322μS
M i t b t SMacroinvertebrate Summary
2,034 organisms picked and identified15 orders15 orders57 families9191 genera
M Di t ib ti700s
Macro Distributions
400500600700
rgan
ism
s
200300400
ber o
f Or
0100
era era era era ata era era pp.
Num
b
Coleopte
r
DipterEph
emerop
terMeg
alopter
Odona
tPlec
opter
Tricho
pter
on-Ins
ecta
Spp
E
Non
Benthic IBIBenthic IBI Scores
Paint CreekBelow Paint Creek no macros were found.
Beaverdam CreekHigh IBI Score (76.2)
Fi h Hi hli htFish Highlights6 184 fish captured and identified6,184 fish captured and identified30 total species
Fish HighlightsGreatest richness atTurkeyfoot Bridge inKantner (19 species)( p )
Most fish collectedat Bens Creek (929)
Fewest fish (41)& lowest richness (6 spp) atQ emahoningQuemahoningCreek belowHoffman Run
Fi h Hi hli htFish Highlights
Caught more fish at 7 of 8 sites previously sampledp
Greater richness at 8 of 8 sites previouslyGreater richness at 8 of 8 sites previously sampled
Site #4 – Krings BridgeSite #4 Krings Bridge
Site #4 – Krings Bridge15 Sept 1998
4 Creek Chub12 July 2007
1 Banded Darter
Site #4 Krings Bridge
4 Creek Chub1 Yellow Perch
2 spp; 5 total
a ded a te143 Blacknose Dace1 Blackside Darter12 Bluntnose Minnow15 Central Stoneroller13 Creek Chub2 Johnny Darter14 L D14 Longnose Dace1 Mimic Shiner2 Mottled Sculpin1 Northern Hogsucker1 Northern Hogsucker4 Rock Bass124 White Sucker1 Yellow Perch1 Yellow Perch
14 spp; 334 total
Site #6 Carpenters Parkp
Site #6 Carpenters Park15 Sept 1998 12 July 2007
1 Bl k D
Site #6 Carpenters Park
2 Brown Trout3 Central Stoneroller7 Creek Chub
1 Blacknose Dace2 Blackside Darter1 Bluntnose Minnow7 Creek Chub
1 Northern Hog Sucker1 Pumpkinseed
1 Bluntnose Minnow12 Creek Chub13 Mimic shiner
13 White Sucker6 spp; 27 total
1 Pumpkinseed8 Rock Bass3 Smallmouth Bass3 Smallmouth Bass34 White Sucker1 Yellow Perch
10 spp; 76 total
Blacknose DaceBlacknose Dace
Over 1,100 Blacknose Dace were collected in the survey, representing the most
abundant fish species in the watershed.
Mottled SculpinSecond most abundant species collected in the survey
(>900 collected)
Common small fishes.Left to right: Bluntnose Minnow Johnny DarterLeft to right: Bluntnose Minnow, Johnny Darter, Fantail Darter.
Largemouth Bass Smallmouth Bass
S ll th BSmallmouth Bass
Rock Bass
Brown Trout Girl
TroutOver 1,000 trout were collected in the survey.Over 1,000 trout were collected in the survey.
Fallfish
Previously, Fallfish were not thought to occur in thePreviously, Fallfish were not thought to occur in the Stonycreek River watershed, but in the current study 47 were collected.
Snapping Turtlepp g
Penguing
N t tNext steps…
Data processing, compilation, evaluationFull reportFull reportExecutive summaryId tif ifi l ti h f thIdentify specific locations where further remediation projects are neededProvide results to partners for support of additional projects
Restoring the gresource…
AcknowledgementsAcknowledgementsFunding provided by
Cooperating Agencies