Biological Resources of the Delaware River and Related
Environmental Issues
Kenneth J. Wagner, Ph.D
Background for K. WagnerBackground for K. Wagner• Born and raised in the Delaware River (DR) basin
(New Jersey, across the river from Philadelphia)• Escaped to NH for college (Dartmouth); extradicted in
1977 to Trenton for state service• Four years with NJDEP, including monitoring work
on the DR, during which Ken lived 300 ft from the DR at Washington’s Crossing
• Escaped again, to NY for grad school (Cornell) – not yet recaptured
• 23 years of water resource consulting, based in New England, but working all over, including in DR basin
0:20
Background for DRBCBackground for DRBC• The Delaware River Basin Commission was formed in
the early 1960s through multi-state and federal agreement, putting management of the watershed under an authority other than individual states or feds
• Representatives of each state and US government sit on the commission and make decisions
• Withdrawal and discharge permits are issued by DRBC• DRBC staff conduct studies and make recommendations• Scientific, economic and political elements all rolled into
a watershed approach to water resource management
0:50
Background for DRBCBackground for DRBCAddresses issues in:• 13,539 square miles• 236 watersheds
(HUC 11)• 4 states: DE, PA,
NJ, NY• 42 counties• 838 municipalities• 25 congressional
districts• 2 EPA Regions• 5 USGS offices
2:50
Background for DRBCBackground for DRBC• The DRBC has a
recent plan with key result areas
• Recognizes the complications and interactions associated with water resources and watershed activities
• Implementation is always a challenge
4:00
Biological Groups of InterestBiological Groups of Interest• Periphyton – attached algae• Aquatic Plants – emergent or submergent vascular
plants• Benthic Macroinvertebrates – bugs and other aquatic
invertebrates• Fish – best known stream biota• Reptiles and Amphibians – snakes, turtles, frogs,
salamanders with strong link to water• Birds and Mammals – water dependent species Some are more “charismatic” than others…
5:00
PeriphytonPeriphyton• Photosynthetic plants or bacteria growing
attached to some substrate
• Affected by substrate, light and water quality
• Limited water quantity effects; mainly presence and velocity
• Most often used as water quality indicators
6:50
PeriphytonPeriphyton
• Shifts among groups are meaningful; some field assessment possible with training
• Requires lab techniques for best quantity measurement
• Microscopic analysis of algal types is very useful, but requires considerable training and equipment
8:25
Aquatic Vascular PlantsAquatic Vascular Plants• Provide food and shelter for many other groups• Types and density usually determined by substrate and
light; only a few use water as a nutrient source• Water quantity impacts related to presence of adequate
water and flows that may destabilize community• Patchy distribution over space and time expected;
recovery from disturbance is fairly rapid
8:50
Aquatic Vascular PlantsAquatic Vascular Plants• Hot button issue is invasive species• Native species may be replaced by invaders, altering
ecology• Not all new species are invasive, and not all native
species are non-nuisances• Yet invasive species represent a major ecological and
economic threat
10:15
Benthic MacroinvertebratesBenthic Macroinvertebrates• Invertebrate fauna living among the substrate materials • Typically feed on algae, terrestrial inputs (e.g., leaves)
or each other• Sensitive to substrate and water quality• React to a lesser degree to water quantity; mainly
presence and velocity• Sensitive to food resources; especially periphyton,
drifting particles and leaf packs• Mussels are the most threatened among benthic
invertebrates, and are affected by both water quantity and quality issues
11:40
Benthic MacroinvertebratesBenthic Macroinvertebrates• Insects, Annelids, Crustaceans and Molluscs are the
main groups
15:10
Benthic MacroinvertebratesBenthic Macroinvertebrates• Abundance is important, although hard to characterize• Shifts among groups are very meaningful
– EPTs vs. Chironomidae– Similarity indices– Functional feeding groups
Distribution of Individuals among Feeding Groups
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Station 1 Station 2 Station 3 Station 4 Station 5
# o
f in
div
idu
als
Total Collectors
Total Shredders
Total Filter Feeders
Total Scrapers
Total Predators
Total Parasites
Total Detritovores
16:05
FishFish• Vertebrate biota with wide variety of forms and
ecology
• Consume some algae, mostly invertebrates, often each other
• Sensitive to cover (substrate, vegetation, banks), water quantity (depth, velocity), and water quality (especially oxygen and temperature)
17:40
FishFish• Types of fish present usually linked to water
quality
• Amount of fish present usually linked to physical habitat and by extension to water quantity – but this may not always be true
18:20
FishFish• Primary groups include salmonids (trout),
cyprinids (minnows) and centrarchids (bass/sunfish)
18:45
FishFish
• Shifts among groups are very meaningful– Trout vs. other
species– Fluvial specialists
vs. fluvial dependents vs. habitat generalists
Fish biomass in OC-1
0
10
20
30
40
Nov-98 May-99 Sep-99 J un-00 Sep-00 J un-01 Sep-01 J un-02 Oct-02
Date
kg
fish
/ha
Non-TroutBrown TroutBrook Trout
Fish biomass in OC-2
0
1020
3040
50
6070
80
Nov-98 May-99 Sep-99 J un-00 Sep-00 J un-01 Sep-01 J un-02 Oct-02
Date
kg
fish
/ha
Non-TroutBrow n TroutBrook Trout
19:20
FishFish• Shifts within groups
are very meaningful– Size distribution
(length or weight)– Growth rate (age
vs. length or weight)
– Condition factor (length vs. weight, evidence of parasites and disease)
Brook trout, OC-1 by season
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Length (mm)
Weig
ht
(g)
FallSpringStandard weight
Spring, 2002
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180
Length bin (mm)
Fre
qu
en
cy
Fall, 2002
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180
Length bin (mm)
Fre
qu
en
cy
20:30
Reptiles and AmphibiansReptiles and Amphibians• Most forms are dependent on water during at least part
of life cycle• “Hibernation” over winter creates vulnerability• National trends in decline: pollution, habitat loss, disease
or other cause (or all of the above)?• Many protected forms; requires site specific knowledge
of populations when planning projects
21:10
Birds and MammalsBirds and Mammals• River is a source of food for many forms, shelter for
some• Water dependent bird species are highly visible and
popular• Water dependent mammals have variable “appeal”• Greater range and less complete dependence complicates
impact analysis
22:10
Key Delaware River Bio-ResourcesKey Delaware River Bio-Resources• Periphyton
• Used as WQ indicators; NWQA project, Limbeck and Smith 2007
• Generally indicate good quality in most of DR basin
• Upper DR less rich, less diverse, less pollution tolerant, and more indicative of clean conditions than Lower DR, which is indicative of elevated nutrient levels
• Some evidence of siltation and substrate instability
Limbeck & Smith. 2007. Pilot Study:Implementation of a Periphyton Monitoring Networkfor the Non-Tidal Delaware River. DRBC, Trenton, NJ
23:20
Key Delaware River Bio-ResourcesKey Delaware River Bio-Resources• Aquatic vascular plants
• Submergent Valisneria, Elodea, Potamogeton represent most biomass in Upper DR; reduced over a decade (1989-1997) presumably by reduced ammonia in discharges
• Emergent Nuphar, Peltandra, Pontederia, Zizania, Typha and Phragmites represent most biomass in Lower DR; sequesters up to 10% P, <1% N in marshes
• Invasive species threats not quantified
(http://www.state.nj.us/drbc/public.htm)
26:15
Key Delaware River Bio-ResourcesKey Delaware River Bio-Resources• Macroinvertebrates - freshwater
• Used as WQ indicators around discharges for compliance and to classify streams
• 8 species of mussels protected
Federally endangered Dwarf Wedge Mussel
28:10
Key Delaware River Bio-ResourcesKey Delaware River Bio-Resources• Macroinvertebrates - saltwater
• Horseshoe crab decline prompted harvest restrictions
• Shellfish harvest restrictions due to WQ
29:35
Key Delaware River Bio-ResourcesKey Delaware River Bio-Resources• Fish
• Major recreational resource – Versar creel census, state tributary surveys
• Freshwater, saltwater, anadromous, catadromous fish present and important
• Economic driver – recreational and commercial $ can be huge
• Political driver - fish don’t vote, but fishermen do
• Habitat used as a surrogate for fish abundance in instream flow studies
30:40
Key Delaware River Bio-ResourcesKey Delaware River Bio-Resources• Versar 2003 Delaware River Creel Census, for
PA FBC
• 7.5 month period, 120,000 angler trips, 2/3 non-tidal, 1/3 tidal
• Shad, herring, striped bass were primary species, catch down from a decade ago, but perceived to be due to lower effort
• Trout and bass from Upper DR
not discussed, but also significant
• Catch and release practices dominate
32:25
Key Delaware River Bio-ResourcesKey Delaware River Bio-Resources• Upper DR coldwater fishery
• Discharge from Cannonsville Reservoir creates coldwater conditions for 27 miles
• Another 50 miles of “coolwater” fishery; esp. smallmouth bass, but some trout
• Mainly rainbow and brown trout in DR, but many brook trout in tributaries, esp. headwaters
33:10
Key Delaware River Bio-ResourcesKey Delaware River Bio-Resources• Commercial eel fishery
• Catadromous eels live in freshwater in spring/summer, return to saltwater to spawn in the fall
• Caught in eel weirs, an old native american technique
• Worldwide food market
34:40
Key Delaware River Bio-ResourcesKey Delaware River Bio-Resources
Non-support from pH, mercury, PCB and bacteria
35:30
Key Delaware River Bio-ResourcesKey Delaware River Bio-Resources• Reptiles and amphibians
• 5 reptiles and 4 amphibians on protected list; bog turtle is prime example
• Bog turtle habitat widespread in DR corridor, prefer open (non-forested) wetlands
• May overwinter in undercut banks or areas prone to flood/drought
36:10
Key Delaware River Bio-ResourcesKey Delaware River Bio-Resources• Birds and Mammals
• Many water birds are resident
• Major resource for migratory birds
• Water dependent mammals common: beaver, muskrat, otter; bears and deer common in river corridor (esp scenic designated area)
• Multiple bird species have come off protected list as a result of DR programs (Eagle, Great Blue and Little Blue Heron, Cliff Swallow)
37:00
Delaware River IssuesDelaware River IssuesFrom DRBC Plan ppt:
Upper Region
•Funding for strategic watershed planning
•Stream buffers
•Basin transfers & efficiency
•Support for local planning
•Flow management
•Fisheries & Recreation
•Special Protection Waters program
Notes from experience:
Ecological integrity starts with the headwaters; the further up in the watershed the withdrawal, diversion or discharge, the more contentious it will be.
There is an ongoing effort to upgrade tributary classifications for better protection of resources
38:10
Delaware River Issues (from plan)Delaware River Issues (from plan)Upper Region Water Supply System
39:40
Delaware River Issues (from plan)Delaware River Issues (from plan)From DRBC Plan ppt:
Central Region
• Comprehensive watershed
management
• Environmental education
• Regional water supply &
land use planning
• Fish habitat & water quality
• Recreation & flow mgmt
• Power generation
• Partnerships
Notes from Experience:
Aside from protection of small tributaries (see Upper DR issues), improving the main river corridor to extend scenic status and related benefits has been proposed
This is an area of more active development and land use conversion (agric to residential); heightened competing uses is expected
40:15
Delaware River Issues (from plan)Delaware River Issues (from plan)Notes from Experience:
Poor water quality is an overriding consideration in this area
Many established industrial uses and navigation will collide with recreational uses if WQ improvements are made
Salinity intrusion with reduced freshwater flow is a primary supply concern
From DRBC plan ppt:
Lower Region
•Adequate supply, suitable quality
•TMDLs & water quality standards
•Salinity impacts: industry, drinking water & the estuary
•Watershed planning
•Tourism & recreation
•Navigation
•Partnerships, coordination & stewardship
41:30
Delaware River Issues (from plan)Delaware River Issues (from plan)Lower Region Water Supply System (includes Central
and Lower from issues summary)
43:00
Delaware River IssuesDelaware River IssuesFrom DRBC Plan ppt:
Bay Area Issues
•Non-point source issues
•Water supply enhancement options
•Science-based regulations
•Watershed-based planning & management
•Collaboration
•Salinity impacts
•Wetlands & oyster habitat
Notes from Experience:
WQ impacts on shellfish, water supply, and recreation remain primary concerned, not really emphasized in the list on the left
There is ongoing effort and controversy on the science-based regulation of key contaminants, along with pollutant trading
Water quantity is less an issue here
43:25
Example: Hoffman Springs ProjectExample: Hoffman Springs Project
• Water withdrawn from headwater springs in Lehigh County of PA
• Permit issued by DRBC with input from PADEP
• Questions regarding impacts on downstream fish
• Now through 10+ years of monitoring
• Applied site-specific model of flow-habitat-fish abundance to one stream segment
• Variability with overall flow regime evident, but impact of withdrawal not discernible
• Changing habitat appears to be a major factor
44:25
Hoffman Springs ProjectHoffman Springs Project46:05
Hoffman Springs ProjectHoffman Springs Project
4.0 cfs
0.3 cfs
36 cfs
Average daily flow is 1.7 cfs
46:55
Hoffman Springs ProjectHoffman Springs Project
Adult brook trout (>=150 mm TL) OC-1
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Nov-98 May-99 Sep-99 Jun-00 Sep-00 Jun-01 Sep-01 Jun-02 Oct-02
Avg WUA Without Withdrawal/100 Avg WUA With Withdrawal/100 Biomass (kg/ha)
Juvenile (<150 mm TL)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Nov-98 May-99 Sep-99 Jun-00 Sep-00 Jun-01 Sep-01 Jun-02 Oct-02
Avg WUA Without Withdrawal/100 Avg WUA With Withdrawal/100 Biomass (kg/ha)
48:45
Hoffman Springs ProjectHoffman Springs Project
Fall Total Brook Trout
0
10
20
30
40
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Mean Summer Flow (cfs)
Fis
h B
iom
ass
(kg
/ha)
1999
2002
2003
2004
2001
2000
1998
2005
20062007
kg/ha = 7.748 (cfs) + 7.42Significance = 0.119 R2 = 0.275
30 kg/ha Class A level for brook trout
Relationship of flow to fish biomass
51:20
Hoffman Springs ProjectHoffman Springs ProjectRelationship of pool availability to fish biomass
Total trout biomass vs. % areal pool habitat in OC1
0
10
20
30
40
0 10 20 30
% pools
Bio
mas
s (k
g/ha
)
1999
2004
2005
2003
2006
2007
Significance = 0.013R2 = 0.82
52:55
Hoffman Springs ProjectHoffman Springs Project54:10
Hoffman Springs ProjectHoffman Springs Project
East Stream – change in pool area from 2004-05 storm
54:20
Hoffman Springs ProjectHoffman Springs ProjectCONCLUSIONS
• Ontelaunee Creek headwaters support a thriving trout population; water quality is suitable, although certain human activities represent a threat
• Natural variability in flow impacts fish abundance; withdrawal may have a negative influence during dry periods, but any such effect is masked by the larger natural pattern
• Factors other than flow affect fish abundance; management for more or bigger fish could be accomplished with habitat manipulation (pools)
54:50
Overall Conclusions and “Tips”Overall Conclusions and “Tips”• DR has a lot of valuable biological resources and
represents an economic driver (commercial and recreational) as a result
• Water quality and water quantity are linked and must both be considered in management decisions
• Some of the desirable features of DR are a result of human actions (e.g., coldwater fishing due to deep water releases from constructed reservoirs); it is not a system “apart from humans”
• Undesirable features center on pollutant inputs and consumptive water withdrawals; the further upstream these occur, the greater the impact
56:20
Overall Conclusions and “Tips”Overall Conclusions and “Tips”• While all bio-resources deserve consideration, fish
are the pivotal resource; they have measurable value, no where else to go, and the community may not recover quickly after damage
• Protected species represent the greatest regulatory “hook”; approval of a project becomes much more difficult if protected species may be impacted
• While the DRBC has political shortcomings, it is a highly appropriate institution by virtue of its watershed focus, and offers a single point of contact and defined process for evaluating projects and making management decisions
57:35
Overall Conclusions and “Tips”Overall Conclusions and “Tips”• When evaluating a possible withdrawal, consider:
• Where does it occur relative to known bio-resources?
• When does it occur relative to the needs of specific biota?
• What is the magnitude of withdrawal compared to the range of possible flows at the point of withdrawal?
• What other factors mitigate or exacerbate any impact of the withdrawal?
• What economic and socio-political drivers are important in addition to biological impacts?
59:00
Delaware River Bio-ResourcesDelaware River Bio-ResourcesQuestions and Comments?
Get good info before reacting; it is easy to be mislead!