stream community health in the seneca lake watershed - Hobart and ...

2011 Subwatershed Inventory 10 streams: North: Reeder, Castle,Wilson, Kashong South: Plum, Big, Rock,Catherine, Hector Falls,Glen Eldridge BenthicMacroinvertebrate(BMI) Survey Fish Survey

BMI SurveyNY DEC Protocol: 5 min diagonal transectSort subsample of 100 macroinvertebratesAnalyses:-Percent Model Affinity-Biotic Index

Results: BMI - Percent Model AffinityPercent Model Affinity (PMA)1009080706050403020100NOT ImpactedSlightly ImpactedModerately Impacted

Results: BMI - Biotic IndexBiotic Index76543210Moderately ImpactedSlightly ImpactedNOT Impacted

Electrofishing Survey75m sampling reachDouble-passSeine blocknetsTallied abundance

Results: Fish Survey - Richness109876543210Fish Species Richness (fish/75m)

Results: Fish Survey - AbundanceFish Abundance (fish/75m)500450400350300250200150100500

Common Small Stream Fish AssemblageCreek ChubBlacknose DaceCentral StonerollerCommon ShinerWhite Sucker

Reeder Creek Poor insect habitat: lotsof bedrock, silt, highconductivity, littlewoody debris Poor fish habitat:bedrock and warmwater, low speciesrichness (3) as well asabundance

Castle Creek Good insect habitat:woody debris, rifflesalthough highconductivity and silt oncobbles Good fish habitat:undercut banks, deeppools, overhead cover; High fish species richnessand 2 nd highestabundance

Wilson Creek Poor insect habitat:low DO, highconductivity, high silt;low PMA & BI scores Good fish habitat:deep pools, cooltemperature, woodydebris & undercutbanks; low fishabundance, but highrichness & diversity

Kashong Creek Poor insect habitat:clay banks & silt oncobble, erodedbanks, Great fish habitat:rootwads & woodydebris, deep pools,good riffle/poolsequence

Plum Creek = Great insect habitat:cool water, low silt,shallow, cobble Great fish habitat:tree canopy thick,gravel/cobble,however shallow &few pools Best BMI scores,100% BND

Big Stream Good insect habitat:riffle/run habitat, lowconductivity & silt Ok fish habitat: deeppools, cobble, but littlecanopy, high temp High fish richness &diversity However, highprevalence of blackspot,Central mudminnow

Rock Stream Poor insect habitat:little riffle habitat,silt & evidence ofheavy erosion Poor fish habitat: nocanopy, lots ofbedrock, waterfalls,warm shallow water;Fathead minnow

Catherine Creek Good insect habitat:high DO, lowconductivity, howevermoderate silt fromeroded banks Good fish habitat: lowtemp, cobble,riffle/pool sequence;Fantail darter

Hector Falls Creek2 Brown Trout! Ok insect habitat:clay banks = silt instream, riffle, butoverhangingvegetation Good fish habitat:Woody debris,debris jams, cobbleriffles, cool temp;White suckerabundant (10%)

Glen Eldridge Creek Good insect habitat: lowconductivity, high DO,however moderate siltfrom upstream erosion Great fish habitat: deeppools, low temp, somewoody debris &rootwads; Swallowtailshiner rare but present Highest fish abundance(449), 93% BND & CKB

Conclusions Few streams are in really poor condition Variety of impacts and responses BMI indicates that Reeder, Wilson & Kashong have poorwater quality (slight impact or greater) Higher percent agriculture in watershed found to also havelowest BMI scores, however fish communities still abundantand diverse Highest BMI score = lowest fish richness & diversity! Data will be going into 2011 Seneca Lake WatershedCharacterization and Subwatershed Evaluation

Summer Field Crew – Thanks! Eli Gleason H’12Ryan Kincaid WS’11Katharine Marino WS’12Derek Weiss H’12Riley CushmanJordan Youngmann H’10Jake Schreiber H’11