View
0
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
.:
-r,
'I. New York S,Division 0
onservation
August, 2002
~--------- -----------------
A 2002 Ten Year Follow-upBiological Monitoring Assessment of
Oatka and Spring Creeks inUpstate New York
William L. Sutton
In Cooperation With:
New York State Department of Environmental ConservationDivision of Fish, Wildlife and Marine Resources
Avon, NY
August, 2002
-----------------------------------
ABSTRACT
A baseline biological survey of Oatka Creek and its tributary Spring Creek was conducted
in 1992 and 1993 and a five year follow-up in the Spring and Fall of 1997. This biomonitoring
assessment in the Spring of2002 compares the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation expected biotic index values for flowing waters with those found in two previous
studies. That comparison shows no deterioration in water quality.
It was observed that if only the Percent Model Affinity community parameter had been
used in the ten year study of Oatka Creek, the conclusion about water quality would have been
the same.
1
-------------------------------------------------------~----
INTRODUCTION
In the Spring and Fall of 1992 and 1993, biological assessments were conducted on Oatka
Creek and its tributary Spring Creek for the purpose of establishing a baseline for periodic
monitoring of benthic macroinvertebrates (Sutton 1995a). A five year follow-up study in 1997
showed no deterioration in water quality (Sutton 1999). This report presents the results of a ten
year follow-up biological assessment in the Spring 2002.
METHODS
The biological assessment method described by Bode et al. (1991), which was used for
the baseline and five year follow-up studies, was also used for this study. The four sampling
sites were the same (Figure 1). They were: (1) Oatka Trail above Mumford and below the Blue
Hole; (2) Spring Creek in Mumford at the Brookside Drive bridge; (3) Garbutt above the bridge
at Union Street; and (4) Scottsville below the Route 251 bridge. The sampling was conducted on
May 7,2002. No Fall samples were taken.
One standardized traveling kick sample was taken in the riffle area at each site. The
samples were inspected in the field and preserved in alcohol. Subsequently, the samples were
uniformly distributed in a white plastic tray with the bottom divided into 20 cells. Using a 2X
illuminated magnifier, organisms of 3 mm or greater were removed from a randomly selected cell
and sorted by major taxons for identification under a stereoscope. The process was continued
until 100 organisms were subsampled. The number of cells required to provide 100 organisms
was recorded to provide a measure of Relative Abundance (RA) of macro invertebrates.
All organisms were identified to species level, where possible. The author identified all
organisms except chironomids, oligochaetes, and black fly larvae, which were identified by the
2
Figure 1.
N
1
Oatka and Spring Creek StudyArea, showing location ofsampling sites.
Oatka and Spring CreekStudy Area
------7I
1-
I
II
I--~II
II
II
II
I
3
-------------------------------
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), Stream Biomonitoring
Unit, Troy, NY. Primary reliance was placed on the taxonomic keys in Peckarsky et al. (1990),
but a number of references were used for more specific identification. Many of them are listed
by Bode et al. (1991). References of particular use were: Schefter and Wiggins (1986) for
Hydropsychidae; Holsinger (1972) for Gammaridae; Bednarik and McCafferty (1979) for
Stenonema; Morihara and McCafferty (1978) for Baetis. Useful for generic identification of
caddisflies was Wiggins (1996), and for stoneflies, Stewart and Stark (1993).
A field data sheet was used for recording site data (Appendix I), and a stream assessment
biologic data sheet was used to record the laboratory subsample data (Appendix II). The results
were evaluated using four expected index values for flowing water (Bode 1990). Also used were
the measure of Relative Abundance and the Family Biotic Index, which was calculated by
classifying the subsample organisms to the family level and assigning family level pollution
tolerances as given by Bode et al. (1990). The six indices used for comparison with the previous
study results were: J:ercent Model Affinity (PMA); Ephemeroptera, J:lecoptera, and Irichoptera
value (EPT); Species Richness (SR); HilsenhoffBiotic Index (HBI); Relative Abundance (RA);
and family Biotic Index (FBI).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The NYSDEC indices and the FBI and RA are shown in Table 1 for the 2002 samples.
The New York State impairment classifications are also shown. Tables 2 and 3 present the 1992,
1993, and 1997 results along with those from 2002 for comparison. The taxa found in the
subsamples are listed in Appendix III.
4
Table 1. Biological index values and biological impairment classifications for samplescollected on Gatka and Spring Creeks in May, 2002.
Oatka 1 3.93 N* 4.37N llN 80N 24 S 9.5Trail
Garbutt 3 2.25N 4.11 N 5M 74N 12 M 8.8
Scottsville 4 3.99N 4.35 N 10 S 78 N 21 S 14.4
Spring 2 2.85 N 3.92N 3M 57 S 6 Sv 3.6Creek
* Biological impairment classifications from Bode et al. (1990):
N Non impactedS Slightly impactedM Moderately ImpactedSv Severely Impacted
5
-----------------------------------~---
Table 2. Comparison of 1992,1993, 1997, and 2002 Spring sampling biological indexvalues.
1. I ~~H 3.05 3.32 4.29 4.99 2.82/~\ 5t ~ . ;
l'\'l...1993 5.04 3.551, t t
RBI1997 2.94 2.78
2002 3.93 2.85
k.~~ 1992 5.37 3.58
e f\)~ II 1993 5.11 4.86FBI
Jrd,t,;L 1997 3.29 3.90
2002 4.37 3.92
. €, ~~t.L-{c. 1992 8 5rP1H"~I ••.• 1993 5 4
EPT11\ ''"*1t ~\ 1997 5 3
2002 11 3
1992 71 73e't~"•
~.)Jd 1993 70 57A 'U1,\,
PMA1997 85 65
2002 80 57
{'t ""< t.s1992 24 15
1993 21 111~'\t.~:;' SR
1997 22 11
2002 24 6
Re lll.t\v'C. 1993 3.5 1.3
~ ~u, RA 1997 2.6 2.8
2002 9.5 3.6
6
Table 3. Comparison of impairment classifications using the PMA and RBI index values in1992, 1993, 1997, and 2002.
S NSpring
2 N N N N S N
1992 1 N S S S S SFall
2 N S N S S S
1 N S N N S SSpring
2 S S N N N S1993
1 S N N N M SFall
2 S S N N S S
119971 s::~g1 1 N N N N S N N N
1 S N N N S S Sv N
~ISpringl 1 N N N N N N S N
OATKA PMA classifications same as RBI 21/33 = 64%PMA one classification better than RBI 7/33= 21%PMA one classification more impaired 5/33 = 15%PMA more than one classification different 0
1
7
-------------------------~----
As show in Table 1, the NYSDEC indices are mostly in the non-impacted or slightly
impacted ranges. The moderately impacted EPT and SR values at Station 3 are due to the very
high percentage of one species of Simulidae. These blackfly larvae were 33 percent of the
subsample as compared with one percent in May 1997. However, the species Prosimulium
magnum are very pollution intolerant with a pollution tolerance rating of 1, so this is not an
indication of a shift to more pollution tolerant organisms. The low Species Richness (SR) of 6 in
the Spring Creek samples is consistent with the low diversity spring creek communities~
previously described (Sutton 1995b, 1<:176, and 1999).
Examination of the values in Table 2 does not indicate any trend toward increasing
impairment. Comparison of the taxa identified in the subsamples (Appendix III) with those seen
previously did not identify new pollution tolerant species. Therefore, there was no evidence of
deterioration of water quality in the ten years between the baseline studies and 2002. As
observed in the previous studies, the FBI values were significantly higher that the HBI, but still
in the non-impacted range.
Percent Model Affinity has been shown to correlate closely with the HilsenhoffBiotic
Index and with Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera species richness (Novak and Bode
1992). Since PMA determination only requires identification to the level of order (except for
chironomids which are easily identified to family), it is a useful biotic index for volunteers who
cannot identify macro invertebrates to species level as required for RBI and SR, or to family level
for FBI. The impairment classifications derived from the PMA and the HBI are shown for
8
comparison in Table 3. This demonstrates that there is considerable congruence between PMA
and RBI in the Oatka Creek samples. If the PMA alone had been used to evaluate Oatka Creek,
the overall monitoring conclusion about water quality would have been the same. The PMA did
not as accurately reflect water quality in the low diversity community of Spring Creek.
Sample site number 3 (1....\ outt at the Union Street bridge) has been evaluated with kick
samples by the NYSDEC Stream Biomonitoring Unit in 1989 and 1990. Slightly impacted water
quality was indicated by the three samples (Bode et al. 1993). Comparing those results with
1973 macro invertebrates studied by Sprague (1974) at Mumford, Bode concluded that the water
quality appears similar. Thus, it appears that there has been no deterioration in water quality in
Oatka Creek in the 29 year period from 1973 to 2002.
CONCLUSION
This ten year follow-up assessment does not.show a significant change in the water
quality of Oatka Creek or Spring Creek. Both continue to have an abundance of pollution
intolerant benthic macroinvertebrates.
9
------------------------------~-----
LITERATURE CITED
Bednarik, A.F. and W.P. McCafferty. 1979. Biosystematic revision of the genus Stenonema(Ephemeroptera: Heptageniidae). Can. Bull. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 201. 73pp.
Bode, R.W., M.A. Novak, and L.E. Abele. 1990. Biological impairment criteria for flowingwaters in New York State. N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation. Albany,NY. 110pp.
Bode, R.W., M.A. Novak andL.E. Abele. 1991. Methodsfor rapid biological assessment ofstreams. N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation. Albany, NY. 196pp.
~Bode, RW., M.A. Novak~ L.E. Abele. 1993. 20 Year Trends in water quality of rivers and
streams in New York State based on macroinvertebrate data 1972-1992. N.Y.S.Department of Environmental Conservation. Albany, NY. 196pp.
Hilsenhoff, W.L. 1988. Rapid field assessment of organic pollution with a family level bioticindex. J N. Am. Benth. Soc. 7(1):65-68.
Holsinger, J.R 1972. The freshwater amphipod crustaceans (Gammaridae) of North America.u.s. Environmental Protection Agency. Biota of Freshwater Ecosystems IdentificationManual No.5. 89pp.
Morihara, D.K. and W.P. McCafferty. 1978. The Baetis larvae of North America(Ephemeroptera: Baetidae). Trans. Amer. Ent. Soc. 105: 139-22l.
Novak, M.A. and R.W. Bode. 1992. Percent Model Affinity: A new measure ofmacro invertebrate community composition. J. N. Am. Bentho!. Soc. 11(1):80-85.
Peckarsky, B.L., P.R Fraissinet, M.A. Penton and DJ. Conklin, Jr. 1990. Freshwatermacro invertebrates of Northeastern North America. Comstock Publishing Associates,Division of Cornell University Press. Ithaca, NY. 442pp.
Schefter, P.W. and G.B. Wiggins. 1986. A systematic study of the Nearctic larvae of theHydropsyche morosa group (Trichoptera: Hydropsychidae). Life SciencesMiscellaneous Publication. Royal Ontario Museum. Toronto, Canada. 94pp.
Sprague, B.E. 1974. Oatka Creek biological survey, 1973. U.S. EPA, Region II, June 20,1974.
Stewart, P.W. and G.B. Wiggins. 1986. A systematic study of the Nearctic larvae of theHydropsyche morosa group (Trichoptera: Hydropsychidae). Life SciencesMiscellaneous Publication. Royal Ontario Museum. Toronto, Canada. 94pp.
10
-----------------------------------
Sutton, W.L. 1995a. Biological monitoring of Gatka Creek in upstate New York. N.Y.S.Department of Environmental Conservation. Division ofFish and Wildlife. Avon, NY.29pp.
Sutton, W.L. 1995b. Biological assessment of Spring Creek. N.Y.S. Department ofEnvironmental Conservation. Division ofFish and Wildlife. Avon, NY. 23pp.
Sutton, W.L. 1998. Biological exploration of spring creeks in Western New York State. N.Y.S.Department of Environmental Conservation. Division ofFish, Wildlife and MarineResources. Avon, NY. 17pp.
Sutton, W.L. 1999. A five year follow up b' . -gical monitoring assessment ofOatka and SpringCreeks in upstate New York. N.Y.S. -,-,cpartment of Environmental Conservation.Division ofFish, Wildlife and Marine Resources. Avon, NY. 23pp.
Wiggins, G.B. 1996. Larvae of the North American caddisfly genera, Second Edition.University of Toronto Press. Toronto" Canada. 457pp.
11
-----------------------------------
--------------------------- ---------------------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The New York State Department of Environrnental Conservation provided much
appreciated and need support for this study. Lawrence Abele and Robert Bode ofthe Stream
Biomonitoring Unit identified the black flies, midges, and worms. Gary Neuderfer ofthe Avon
Office put this report in final form for printing and distribution. Fellow fisherman Lawrence
Garfield helped with the sampling, and Albert Anderson formatted the data sheets.~
12
------------------------------
APPENDIX I: Stream Assessment Field Data Form
13
----------------------------------
STREAM ASSESSMENT FIELD DATA
STREAM COUNTY STATE
DATE(Month/Day/Year)
Station Number
FIELD PERSONNEL
location Time
, Basic Stream Information
Width (Meters) Depth (Meters) Velocity (ern/see)
Canopy (% Cover) Turbidity Water Temp. (0C)
Dissolved O2 (ppm) pH Conductivity
Photo Taken
Aquatic Vegitation
Type of Biologic Sample
Banks - Describe
Substrate (Percent)
_R_O_C_k -+t_R_U_b_b_le I_G_r_a_ve_1 _
Sand . Silt, .. Other
Macroinvertebrates Observed
Epherneroptera Tricoptera Plecoptera
Coleoptera Chironomidae Oligochaeta
Other
14
APPENDIX II: Stream Assessment Biologic Data Form
15
-----------------------------------------------
~---- ---- -----------~------------ ----- ----~--~
;:)neet I
STREAM ASSESSMENT BIOLOGIC DATA
STREAM COUNTY STATE
DATE(Month/Day/Year)
Station Number
Field Personnel
Location Time
(I) MAIOR GROUPS Number (TAXA Model Differencein Parentheses)
Oligochaeta 5
Ephemeroptera 40
Plecoptera 5
Coleoptera 10
Trichoptera -- 10
Chironomidae 20
Other 10
TAXA SORTED (List)
Total 100
Percent Model Affinity
EPT Value
Species Richness
(2) FAMILIES SORTED Number Tolerance Subtolerance
GO TO SHEET 2
16
--------------------------------~-----
Sheet 2
STREAM ASSESSMENT BIOLOGIC DATA
STATIONNUMBER
Nurriber Tolerance Subtolerance(2) FAMIUESSORTED,Continued
Total
Family Biotic Index
Number. Tolerance Subtolerance(3) TAXA Sorted
GO TO SHEET 3
17
--------------------------------------
-
Sheet 3
STREAM ASSESSMENT BIOLOGIC DATA
STATION NUMBER
(3) TAXA Sorted, Continued Number Tolerance Subtolerance
-
Total
Hilsenhoff Biotic Index
Completed by:
18
--------------------------------------
-
APPENDIX III: Macroinvertebrate Taxa Present in 100 Organism Subsamples
19
----------------------------
Appendix ill. Macroinvertebrate taxa present in 100 organism subsamples collected from Oatkaand Spring Creeks in May, 2002.
OLIGOCHAET A
Unidentified Lumbricina
Tubificidae
Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri 2
CRUSTACEA
AMPHIPODA (Gammaridae)
Gammarus fasciatus
G. pseudolimnaeus
DECAPODA
Cambaridae
Unidentified Cambaridae 2 1 2
EPHEMEROPTERA
Baetidae
Acentrella sp. 1
Baetis insignificans 4
B. tricaudatus
1 1B. sp.
Heptageniidae
Heptagenia sp. 1
Stenacron interpunctatum 1
Stenonema vicarium 1
s. sp. 1 2
Ephemerellidae
20
6
26
11
Ephemerella invaria gp. 21 37 22 55
PLECOPTERA
Perlidae
4Agnetina capitata 4
~----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLEOPTERA
Elmidae
Optioservus sp. 2
Stenelmis sp. 14 26Psephenidae
Psephenus sp.
MEGALOPTERA
Corydalidae
Nigronia sp
TRlCHOPTERA
Hydropsychidae
Cheumatopsyche sp. 3
Hydropsyche bronta
H. sparna
7 3H. slossonae
Brachycentridae
Micrasema sp. 5
Odontoceridae
Psilotreta sp. 5
Polycentropodidae
Polycentropus sp.
Limnophilidae
21
.\; ..•...Sf~:::······.;~:;·cr~t.~:.~~~i~!~;t~~~~;1"'}'I :~<>i' '::1'" .',; ,.j'~'':~~;;.'1/4~i'T'" '2;" -'-'I
I:I SLTEff:'
Pycnopsyche sp.
DIPTERA
Simuliidae
Prosimulium magnum 233
Simulium venustum 2
Simulium sp. 2
Chironomidae
Tanypodinae Subfamily
Thienemannimyia gr. spp 2 2
Diamesinae Subfamily
15 12Diamesa sp.
Orthoc1adiinae Subfamily
Eukiefferiella devonica 2
Cricotopus vierriensis
3 9Orthocladius obumbratus 14
60. nr dentifer
Chironominae Subfamily
Polypedilum flavum 5
3P. laetum
22
Recommended