Title Slide

1
Title Slide
Biotic Integrity of Mill Run Establishing a
Before-Restoration Baseline Comparison to
Reference Sites Ryan Colley, Jinelle Crosser,
Sean Galletta, Elizabeth Goetz, Cassandra
Hamilton, James Jones, Nicole Scatena, Scott
Wissinger Bio/ES 580 December 2005
2
Project Goals

• Bio/ES 580 Project Goals
• characterize current ecological health of Mill
  Run
• - establish pre-restoration baseline for future
  comparisons
• - use standard indices of biotic integrity
  (IBIs) modified for small streams in French
  Creek watershed

• review current literature on urban stream ecology
• - causes consequences of degradation
• - state of the art for restoration
  approaches assessment

3
Rationale for Biomonitoring
Why biomonitoring? - urban stream degradation
is from cumulative effects of human impacts
related to land use impervious surfaces (e.g.,
increased runoff, pollutants in that runoff,
channel modification, altered riparian zones)
- exactly the situation in which the biological
community, rather than chemical testing is best
indicator for level of degradation
4
What is an IBI? Good species

• index of biotic integrity(IBI) - most widely
  used biomonitoring approach
• metrics describe attributes of the composition
  of stream communities
• that change w/ level of stream degradation

5
What is an IBI? Bad species
vs. tolerant taxa that predominate in degraded
streams e.g., invertebrates
Chironomus midges (Diptera)
Tubifex worms (Tubificidae)
these species live in clean streams, but dominate
in degraded streams
6
Ecosystem services
Example of one metric of all invertebrates
(or fish) that are sensitive species 100
0 High score Low Score
Total the scores from different metrics ? Index
of Biotic Integrity High scores indicate
healthy low scores indicate degraded conditions
IBI scores correlated w/ ecosystem function
(Wallace et al. 2003, Sweeney et al 2005)
7
General IBI

• Develop local IBIs for small streams in NW PA
• start w/ general lists of potential metrics
• ( i.e., dozens of proven metrics that respond
  to human-induced disturbances)
• (see Karr Chu 1999 Restoring
  Life in Running Waters)

2) adapt to local fauna size of stream -
eliminate inappropriate metrics for a particular
region - establish range parameters for each
metric for small streams
Invertebrate IBI for Small Streams in NW PA
(after Lyle 1998) Metric Rating Criteria
Value Rating Good
5 3 Bad 1 1. Total species gt20
11-20 lt10 ___
____ 2. mayfly species gt 3
1 3 0 ___ ____ 3. stonefly
species gt 3 1 3 0 ___
____ 4. caddisfly species gt 3 1
3 0 ___ ____ 5. EPT
(sensitives) gt 50 25-49 lt
25 ___ ____ 6. tolerant species lt
10 25-10 gt 25 ___
____
TOTAL ____ Total IBI Score good
30 24 average 23 15
degraded lt 15
8
Fish IBI

• Fish IBI for Small Streams in NW PA (modified
  from Roy 1998)
• Metric Rating Criteria
  Value Rating
• Good 5 3 Bad 1
• Total species gt 15 14 9
  lt 9 ___ ____
• darter species gt 5
  2-4 lt 1 ___ ____
• 3. Cyprinids that gt 35
  35-20 lt 20 ___ ____
• are insectivorous
• 4. Trout / 50 m gt 5 1
  4 0 ___ ____
• 5. piscivore species gt 3
  1-2 0 ___ ____
• 6. tolerant taxa lt 25
  26-50 gt 50 ___ ____
• fish-eating fish e.g. bass
• TOTAL ____
• Total IBI Score good 30 24
• average 23 15
• degraded lt 15

For both IBIs 30 is perfect score ? 6 is lowest
score
9
Do they work?
3) Do these modified IBIs work for small streams
in NW PA? - 2003 stream ecology class
studied 10 small streams - now have a
total of 14 streams from various other studies
Benthic IBI 13.7 0.12 native veg R2 0.46
26.0
22.0
Invertebrate IBI
18.0
14.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
Native Vegetation
10
Choosing reference sites
Choosing 4 reference streams for comparison to
Mill Run 1) similar size watershed area,
baseflow discharge, stream order 2) high
forest cover / riparian intactness 3) high
indices of biotic integrity (combined fish
benthic invertebrates)
11
Reference Sites
Location of reference sites
12
Mill Run sites
Location of Mill Run Sites
Library
Hospital
City Bldg
Shady-brook
13
Mill Run sites
Mill Run Sites Shadybrook Park (above)
Creek Connections Photo
14
Chemistry at baseflow

• Mill Run has high TDS (salts) nutrients
  (nitrogen phosphorus), but not severely
  polluted in a traditional (chemical) sense

15
Shady Brook vs. others

• above Meadville (Shadybrook), water quality is
  average

• decline in water quality after entering Meadville

16
Methods - Inverts
Invertebrate Sampling - 3 Surber samples in 3
different riffles - survey all habitats for
overall diversity using standard D-net
17
Methods - Fish

• Fish Sampling
• backpack electroshocker w/ blocking seines
• 50 m for quantitative data 25 m upstream
• downstream for diversity

• most fish identified in field released

18
Results For Invertebrate IBI
Mill Run
Which metrics contribute to low invertebrate
IBIs at in-town sites?
19
Typical invertebrate IBIs
Library site Rating Criteria
Value Rating Good
5 3 Bad 1 1. Total taxa gt20
11-20 lt10 10
1 2. Mayfly taxa gt 3 1
3 0 1 3 3. Stonefly
taxa gt 3 1 3 0 0
1 4. Caddisfly taxa gt 3 1
3 0 3 3 5. EPT gt
50 25-49 lt 25 5
1 6. tolerants lt 10
25-10 gt 25 8
5 ___
TOTAL 14
Mackey Run Rating Criteria
Value Rating Good 5 3
Bad 1 1. Total taxa gt20 11-20
lt10 26 5 2. Mayfly
taxa gt 3 1 3 0
6 5 3. Stonefly taxa gt 3
1 3 0 4 5 4. Caddisfly
taxa gt 3 1 3 0 4
5 5. EPT gt 50 25-49
lt 25 52 5 6. tolerants lt
10 25-10 gt 25 lt 1
5 ___
TOTAL 30
20
Results For Fish IBI
Mill Run
Shadybrook is average, mainly because of
several species (e.g., bluegill,
largemouth bass, crappie) from Tamarack Lake
Which metrics contribute to the low IBIs at the
other Mill Run sites?
21
Library Site

• Rating Criteria
  Value Rating
  Metric Good 5 3 bad 1
• Total no. species gt 15 14
  9 lt 9 9 3
• 2. No. darter species gt 5
  2 - 4 lt 1
  2 3
• 3. Cyprinids that gt 35
  35 - 20 lt 20 45
  5
  are insectivorous
• 4. No. Trout / 50 m gt 5
  1 4 0 0
  1
• 5. No. piscivore species gt 3
  1 - 2 0 0 1
  
• 6. tolerant taxa lt 25
  26-50 gt 50
  55 _1_
  TOTAL 14

22
Data Summary

Summary of Results

• 3 Mill Run sites degraded based on both fish
  invertebrate IBIs Shadybrook site (above town)
  is intermediate
• healthy stream indicators (EPTs clean water
  fish) are rare or absent at all in-town sites

• our results provide baseline data for assessing
  benefits of future improvements from restoration
  /land use changes
• Mill Run unlikely to ever have same communities
  as forested watersheds, but the comparative data
  provide examples of goals to work towards

23
Literature Context
Our results are typical of those in the
literature in that 1) few EPTs in
invertebrate communities (e.g., Roy et al. 2003)
2) mainly tolerant fishes (e.g., Roy et al.
2005 Wang et al. 2001)

24
Transition to Literature
Third goal for our project was to review the
current literature on urban stream
degradation restoration
Summarize what we learned about 1) main
causes of degradation for urban streams? 2)
benefits/limitations of different restoration
approaches 3) what needs to be known about
Mill Run before a comprehensive restoration
plan?
25
Literature
What did we read? 30 recent articles on urban
streams, restoration approaches, successes
assessment e.g.,

• Booth, D. 2005. Challenges and prospects for
  restoring urban streams. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc.
  24724737.
• Brabec, E. et al. 2002. Impervious surfaces and
  water quality a review of current literature
  and its implications for watershed planning. J.
  of Planning Literature 16499-514.
• Miltner et al. 2004. The biotic integrity of
  streams in urban and suburban landscapes.
  Landscape Urban Planning 6987100.
• Palmer, M. et al. 2005. Standards for
  ecologically successful river restoration Journal
  of Applied Ecology 42 208217.
• Roy, A.H., et al. 2003. Stream macroinvertebrate
  response to catchment urbanization
• Freshwater. Biol. 48 329346.
• Roy, A.H., et al. 2005. Hydrologic alteration as
  a mechanism of fish assemblage shifts in
  urbanizing streams. J. N. Am. Benthol.
  Soc.24656678
• Sweeney et al. 2005. Riparian deforestation,
  stream narrowing, and loss of stream ecosystem
  services. Proc. National Academy of Science
  1011413214137
• Walsh et al. 2005. The urban stream syndrome
  current knowledge and the search for a cure. J.
  N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 24706-723.
• Wang, L. Z., J. Lyons, and P. Kanehl. 2001.
  Impacts of urbanization on stream habitat and
  fish across multiple spatial scales.
  Environmental Management 28255266.

26
Causes of degradation
In the absence of allied stressors, urban stream
degradation is typically the result of
1) severely altered riparian zone (walls, pipes,
houses, etc.)
vs.
Decreased shading ? increased temp decreased
oxygen Decreased food (detritus leaves
wood) from riparian vegetation Decreased buffer
functions ? sediment nutrient retention
27
Channel structure
2) loss of channel structure e.g., a) debris dams
vs.

• invertebrate fish habitat
• retain detritus (food) in the system
• excess nitrogen converted to atmospheric gas

other channel effects include b) loss of
riffle-pool sequences habitat diversity c)
decreased channel width/depth less phosphorus
retention d) no vertical structure to substrate
e.g., cement or pipes no
refuge for invertebrates during floods!
28
Mill Run sites
3) altered hydrology lower lows, higher highs,
flashier
Urban conditions

• because of impervious surfaces (roads, sidewalks,
  roofs), little infiltration to groundwater ?
  rapid runoff
• fish invertebrates either dry or washed away!
• habitat structure for these animals also washed
  out

29
Mill Run sites
single most important issue in urban streams is
hydrologic alteration ? runoff from connected
impervious surfaces
30
Mill Run sites

• Five lessons that we learned about stream
  restoration and assessment?
• Need to first determine which reachscale
  (stream channel riparian buffers) watershed
  scale impacts are the most important for a
  particular urban stream

2) Establish baseline ecological health before
restoration long-term monitoring after
restoration at site, above below
3) Define goals - stream health? aesthetics?
greenway?
4) Prevention (land-use planning) is easier than
restoration
31
Mill Run sites
5) channel riparian buffer restoration at the
reach scale is an important component of overall
management plan
BUT, will have only modest short-term impact on
stream health unless accompanied by a landscape
approach to reducing connected runoff from
impervious surfaces flash flooding will undo
the local restoration efforts!
32
Mill Run sites
What needs to be learned about Mill Run before a
comprehensive restoration to improve stream
health?
2) What impacts above Shadybrook might compromise
stream health before it enters Meadville? 3)
Where why does health decline between
Shadybrook hospital ?
33
Restoration?
Riparian restoration has aesthetic value is a
necessary component of urban stream restoration,
but must be accompanied by a landscape-level
approach to reducing runoff from connected
impervious surfaces

34
Acknowledgements

• Acknowledgements
• Chris Shaffer (Allegheny GIS Lab) for assistance
  w/ GPS, GIS, maps
• Wendy Kedzierski (Creek Connections ) for Mill
  Run photos critique
• Erin Kirk (CEED) for organizing presentation
  sessions
• Rachel OBrien, Jim Palmer their students for
  critique of presentation