Ecological Status Analysis of Beartrap Creek

Transcription

Ecological Status Analysis
of Beartrap Creek
Prepared by:
Instream Habitat Program
Department of Natural Resources
Cornell University
Ithaca, NY
For:
Izaac Walton League
Central New York Chapter
Syracuse, NY
January 2004
Ecological Status Analysis
of Beartrap Creek
Prepared by:
Piotr Parasiewicz, Hollie Kitson, Jeff F. Fountain,
M.Todd Walter, and Pierre Gerard-Merchant
Instream Habitat Program
Department of Natural Resources
Cornell University
Ithaca, NY
For:
Izaak Walton League
Central New York Chapter
Syracuse, NY
Ithaca, NY
January, 2004
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Funding for this project was provided by the Issak Walton League from the
Onondaga Lake Partnership Public Education and Outreach Mini-Grants Program. Les
Monostory, Vice President of CNY Chapter, was an initiator and contact person for the
project. Javier Gortazar, Chris Duerkes and Ethan R. Sobo took an active part in the
habitat assessment survey. Les Monostory and Dr. Russell Nemecek from Council on
Environmental Health, Onondaga County Health Department conducted the fishing
survey and provided the invertebrate and water quality data. Caitlin Northrup, a Wells
College student collected historical information and Marshall P. Thomas searched for
target fish data. M.Todd Walter and Pierre Gerard-Merchant from Cornell University Soil
and Water Lab, Hydrology Group Department of Biological and Environmental
Engineering guided Jeff Fountain in SMRD analysis.
We would like to thank Sheila Myers and Amy Samuels, Cornell Cooperative
Extension of Onondaga County; Bill Foulkrod, Conrad Strozik from Izaak Walton
League of America, CNY Chapter; Bill Legg, Patty Weisse from Project Watershed
Consortium; Doug Carlson, NYS DEC, Dr. Neil Ringler, SUNY College of
Environmental Science and Forestry and Gary Lipp, a teacher of Life Science at Roxboro
Middle School for help and interest in our study.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
________________________________________________________________________
P.Parasiewicz, H. Kitson, Jeffrey F. Fountain
January 2004
________________________________________________________________________
In an effort to rehabilitate Beartrap Creek, the Izaak Walton League of Central
New York together with the Instream Habitat Program at the Department of Natural
Resources at Cornell University, have directed a multidisciplinary effort investigating
the physical, biological, and chemical conditions affecting Beartrap Creek.
The purpose of this pilot study is to evaluate the conditions inhabiting a onceproductive trout stream. Through the use of habitat survey analyses and biological
monitoring, we hope to take the initial step in developing a stream and watershed
reclamation plan which will propose specific remedial measures to successfully restore
Beartrap Creek.
During this study, we gathered geographical and historical information, as well as
fish fauna data and corresponding habitat conditions within Beartrap Creek. The latter
task involved the collection of hydro- morphologic, temperature, and water quality data.
The primary conclusion of our study is that Beartrap Creek is a highly degraded
ecosystem that has undergone physical alteration and chemical pollution, leading to the
extirpation of fish fauna and the modification of flora. Historical evidence has shown
that Beartrap Creek was once a highly valuable resource containing large amo unts of
diverse and unique flora and fauna. However, human actions and a lack of appreciation
for the resource have led to the degradation of the stream. The habitat analysis has
shown no evidence of habitat supporting the fish species expected in the stream.
Nevertheless, we believe that Beartrap Creek has a high potential and value for
restoration. We observed high levels of hydraulic and thermal stability in Beartrap
Creek, creating favorable conditions for the revitalization of the creek ecosystem.
Despite a high level of development, we monitored a fair amount of forested and open
space that is a first condition for successful restoration. Furthermore, some of this open
area is adjacent to a school and residential development providing excellent educational
opportunities. It is our opinion that an ecological and scientifically-sound
management of Beartrap Creek is likely to bring astonishing effects and a vibrant
fish population to the stream.
However, due to the complexity of the impact, it is necessary to perform a more
detailed study of the Beartrap Creek ecosystem in order to identify the most effective and
appropriate restoration measures. The study will provide a scientific basis for developing
a comprehensive long-term technical plan aimed at maintaining the ecological integrity
and sustainability of the resource. It will allow for the wise use of available monetary
resources, ultimately leading to the greatest possible effect of restoration actions. In a
densely populated area (i.e. Syracuse) where river-restoration measures might conflict
with human use, an efficient restoration concept is highly recommended.
Regardless, some preliminary measures can already be introduced based on the
results of this pilot investigation. The following immediate actions are recommended for
the improvement of Beartrap Creek:
1
Create vegetative buffers to reduce the sedimentation and growth of invasive
plants and offer more light penetration
2
Provide more habitat structure and hydraulic diversity by creating debris jams in
areas that are not prone to flooding
3
Remove the leach field from the Orchard Estates apartment complex
4
Remove trash and, where possible, silt deposits
5
Monitor glycol levels (caused by seepage from the airport)
6
Monitor flow and water temperature.
List of Figures
Number
Title
Page
2.1
Map of Beartrap Creek study area and temperature probe locations ........2
2.2
Map of fishing sites along Beartrap Creek study area ..............................5
3.1
Graph of choriotop distribution along Beartrap Creek study area ..........11
3.2
Graph of shoreuse distribution along Beartrap Creek study area ...........12
3.3
Graph of invasive plant distribution along Beartrap Creek study area ...12
3.4
Graph of temperature vs. time for Probes 2, 3, and 5 ............................12
5.1
Locations of potential restoration sites in Section 1 ...............................16
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
List of Tables
Number
Title
Page
2.1
Description of hydro- morphologic units (HMUs) ....................................4
2.2
Description of physical attributes monitored during mapping survey......4
2.3
Definition of choriotops used during mapping survey .............................4
2.4
Variables calculated for each species using logistic regression................6
2.5
List of sampled benthic macroinvertebrates .............................................7
3.1
The distribution of macroinvertebrates among the four surveys ............13
List of Appendices
Number
Title
Appendix 1
Maps of hydro- morphologic distribution along Beartrap Creek
Appendix 2
Maps of blacknose dace suitability along Beartrap Creek
Appendix 3
Maps of inva sives distribution along Beartrap Creek
Appendix 4
The Soil Moisture Routing Distribution Model (SMDR)
1
1
Introduction
Beartrap Creek is a tributary of Ley Creek, one of five streams flowing into
Onondaga Lake from the northern suburbs of the City of Syracuse. Once a designated
trout stream, Beartrap Creek has experienced a major decline in its fish populations due
to rapid urbanization and residential and commercial development. Furthermore, the
streambed of Beartrap Creek, which may have originally consisted of cobbles and gravel,
has in recent years been silted over, most likely due to highway runoff and the
construction of the Syracuse Hancock International Airport.
In an effort to combat further stream degradation and perform the necessary
actions required to rehabilitate Beartrap Creek, the Izaak Walton League of Central
New York together with the Instream Habitat Program at the Department of Natural
Resources at Cornell University have directed a multidisciplinary effort investigating
the physical, biological, and chemical conditions affecting Beartrap Creek. The
Izaak Walton League, a group dedicated to conserving, maintaining, protecting, and
restoring the natural resources in the central New York region through scientific and
educational means, has been conducting volunteer stream monitoring along the creek
since 1991. The Chapter’s programs are designed to promote and encourage
opportunities for the education of youth and adults with respect to those resources
(www.iwla.org).
Overall, the purpose of this pilot study is to evaluate the conditions inhabiting a
once-productive trout stream. Through the use of habitat survey analyses and biological
monitoring, we hope to take the first step towards the development of a stream and
watershed reclamation plan which will propose specific remedial measures to
successfully restore Beartrap Creek.
2
Methods
2.1
Study Site
Located in the towns of Salina, Clay, and Cicero in Onondaga County, NY, the
Beartrap Creek study area begins north of the Syracuse Airport in the nearby city suburbs
(Figure 2.1). The stream originates in an unnamed swamp located in northern Syracuse
and flows southwest for approximately 5 km (3.1 mi) before it reaches Ley Creek, a
tributary of Onondaga Lake. Beartrap Creek is a first order stream characterized by a
stable and coldwater flow regime. The creek itself has only one tributary, Airport
tributary, whic h is justly named due to its partial location within the airport grounds. The
stream has a moderate gradient, is meandering and straightened, and contains high
amounts of silt and evidence of chemical pollution. For most of its length, Beartrap
Creek is shadowed by the Interstate Highway and accompanying commercial
development, leading to speculation that the river channel was heavily modified in the
past.
2
In order to determine flows along Beartrap Creek, gage readings were taken from
Ley Creek (USGS ga ge #04240120). The Ley Creek gage was located on the left bank of
the stream approximately 0.2 mi. upstream from the bridge on Park Street in Syracuse. It
indicated an average annual flow of 40.6 cfs (1.36 cfsm) from 1993 through 2001. The
data from this gage was also used as a control for the development of a hydrological
simulation model described in Appendix 4.
2.2
Literature Search
In order to better understand the history of the Beartrap Creek watershed and its
surrounding area, we conducted a historical review of the Syracuse region. A literature
search provided us with information concerning the natural and biographical history of
the area, as well as the previous geologic and morphologic status of the stream. Our data
was obtained from multiple resources including the historical society of Syracuse and
several libraries in the area (Mann and Olin libraries at Cornell University).
2.3
Target Fish Community
In order to evaluate the fish-biological status and habitat availability within
Beartrap Creek, we planned to determine the composition and structure of native fish
fauna that should be present within the stream using the concept developed by Bain and
Meixler (2000). By obtaining the fish community structure data, we intended to develop
a habitat model for dominating species that would reflect the most underlying
characteristics of the stream. In addition, the community structure data would provide a
benchmark for assessing the current habitat conditions potentially contributing to any
deficiencies within the fish community.
The computation of the Target Fish Community consists of two steps: 1) the
establishment of a literature-based list of fish species with a high likelihood of being
represented in the fauna of the targeted stream, and 2) the determination of expected
proportions of these species in the community. This is obtained by analyzing historical
fish collections from a number of streams containing similar characteristics to the
investigated one.
Through the course of this study, we realized that the scarcity of readily available
data and regional information on the physical characteristics of the streams substantially
complicated this task. The prime difficulty was in selecting streams not only similar to
Beartrap, but also having low levels of human impact and having available historical fish
collection data. This would require multiple workshops with local biologists and
hydrological experts followed by a complex selection process and potential fish
collections. Due to the impacted character of the stream, the time invested in the habitat
data collection was higher than anticipated and exceeded the available funding for the
project. Therefore at this stage, we decided to use our best available judgment combined
with fish data gathered in recent years on other streams in Northeast to select the indicator
species for the habitat assessment of Beartrap Creek.
3
For these reasons, we selected the fish species that were either found within the
creek or that were assumed to be present in the creek and deve loped a habitat model
using habitat selection criteria from our database. The species we selected are:
brook trout, brown trout, blacknose dace, longnose dace, and white sucker.
Several potentially-occurring species were lacking sufficient data (creek chub,
johnny darter, and brook stickleback); therefore, we could not perform the suitability
analysis for these species.
2.4
Data Collection
2.4.1
Habitat Survey
In order to assess the spatial distribution of fish habitat along Beartrap Creek, we
surveyed 5 km of the creek over 9 different occasions between August 26, 2003 and
September, 17 2003. Mapping was conducted at flows of ~ 0.23 cfsm using the
MesoHABSIM technique (Parasiewicz 2001) of data collection and habitat analysis.
This method is based on the mapping of mesohabitats such as pools, riffles or runs found
along the length of the stream. The MesoHABSIM approach modifies the data
acquisition technique and analytical method of earlier habitat quantification efforts by
changing the degree of resolution from micro- to meso-scale, providing a mechanism that
allows for the assessment of habitat changes at the watershed level.
Mesohabitats were described in terms of hydro-morphological units, or HMUs
(Table 2.1), as well as their associated hydrologic and cover characteristics. They were
mapped using personal digital assistants (PDA) and Arcpad software (ESRI). Georeferenced aerial photographs of the study area were downloaded onto the PDA and used
to accompany the habitat mapping. Within every HMU, we took seven random
measurements of velocity, depth and estimated substrate using a Dipping Bar (Jens
1968). We also recorded additional physical attributes (e.g. undercut banks, submerged
vegetation) as present, absent or abundant, and listed this information in an attribute table
attached to the corresponding polygon (Table 2.2). The Austrian standard ON6232
choriotop classification system (Table 2.3) provided the substrate definitions used
throughout this study.
2.4.2
Fish Survey
Fish collection along Beartrap Creek was conducted by Les Monostory and Dr.
Russell Nemecek of the Izaak Walton League on October 24, 2003. A portable backpack
electro-shocking unit was borrowed from the Terrestrial Environmental Services (TES)
and used at four sites along the creek. The captured fish were preserved in 10% formalin
solution.
The locations of fishing sites were as follows: Site 1 was located in the area with
silty stream bottom conditions behind the Roxboro Road Middle School. Site 2 was a
rocky stream bottom section at the west end of Brookfield and Richfield Roads in
Mattydale. Site 3 was located further north in a section between I-81 and the Northern
Lights Shopping Center, and continued up to the point where Beartrap Creek crossed
4
under I-81. And lastly, Site 4 was located alo ng the initial 50 yards of the Airport
Tributary adjacent to the Shopping Center, and just above the point where the tributary
enters the main branch of Beartrap Creek (Figure 2.2).
2.5
Data Analysis
2.5.1
Habitat Database
Following data collection, the mapping records were merged into a GIS database
and used to create digital maps showing the spatial delineation of HMUs along the study
area (Appendix 1). Each record associated with an HMU polygon in the ArcView map
consisted of 46 field observations describing the mesohabitat. For each measurement of
depth and velocity, the Froude 1 number was calculated according to the following
formula:
___Vm___
(9.81?D)0.5
Where:
Vm = mean column velocity
D = depth
The seven velocity and depth measurements and choriotop estimates were transferred
into categories of relative abundance. This transformation yielded a data structure that:
∗
realistically represented measurement accuracy
∗
corresponded with the estimated sensitivity of adult fish to environmental
circumstances
∗
was more applicable in the calculation of fish presence probabilities.
2.5.2
Fish Response Functions
The suitability of the above habitat for fish is evaluated by means of a so-called
fish response function. The fish response function aims to describe the physical criteria
by which animals select their living environments; however, because the number of fish
in Beartrap Creek is not nearly enough to provide adequate habitat selection observations,
we included our records of species abundance from the Fenton River in Connecticut and
the Stony Clove Creek in eastern New York. Using our fishing data collection, we
calculated habitat preference by performing a stepwise forward logistic regression
analysis using SPSS software. The fish species (dependent variables) were compared to
1
Froude number here is a gross approximation that has been shown to correlate with species and HMU
distribution (Jovett 1993, Vadas and Orth 1998). Low numbers indicate a dominance of “slow-deep”
habitats and high numbers represent “fast-shallow” ones.
5
the environmental attributes (independent variables) to determine the characteristics of
habitat that were used vs. habitat that was not used by each fish species. Two important
data values were obtained from the output of the logistic regression function: the
predictive power of the model, and the beta values for all attributes considered significant
for habitat use (Table 2.4). The predictive power value measured the accuracy of the
model in predicting presence/absence and high/low abundance. The beta values indicated
the strength and direction (+ or -) of the association between each habitat attribute and
fish presence and level of abundance.
2.5.3
Probability of Presence
Following the logistic regression analysis and using the mesohabitat data from the
mapping surveys, we calculated the probability of fish presence/high abundance using
computed regression equations and the following formula:
p = ___e z ___
z
(1+e )
Habitats that had a combined average of greater than 0.5 were assumed to be
suitable for fish. By using 0.5 as a cut-off value, we were setting higher standards for
habitat suitability. Using these guidelines, we constructed digital maps of the study area
(where applicable), and displayed units of suitable habitat at measured flow conditions
(Appendix 2).
2.5.4
Hydro-morphology
Observations of cover, substrate, vegetation structure, and riparian area were
generalized for each mesohabitat and evaluated to show differences in overall stream
character. All attributes were used to describe the macrohabitat conditions of the study
section. For every representative site, we calculated averages and standard deviations for
depth (AD, SD), column velocity (AV, SV), and Froude’s number (AF, SF). To generate
these values, we summarized the means and standard deviations of seven random
measurements (taken in every mesohabitat) and weighted these values according to the
mesohabitat area within each section. Table 2.2 describes the physical attributes
collected during the mapping surveys.
2.5.5
Temperature
Five Hobo temperature thermometers were placed along the study site on August
7, 2003. Probe locations were chosen according to the spatial delineation of the creek as
well as recommendations from members of the Izaak Walton League. The probes were
obtained from the Onset Computer Corporation and recorded 15-minute interval data
from early August 2003 through mid-October 2003. Probe 1 was located on the main
stem of Beartrap Creek, along the airport entry road. Probe 2 was placed along the initial
50 yards of the Airport tributary, located adjacent to the Northern Lights Shopping Center
(above where the tributary enters the main branch of the creek). Probe 3 was positioned
6
along the main stem of the creek, in the NE corner of the shopping center. Probe 4 was
placed behind the Roxboro Road Middle School, located southeast of the Orchard Estates
apartment complex. Probe 5 was positioned along the main stem creek, located near Ley
Creek Drive and adjacent to the bike trail parking lot.
2.6
Water Quality Measurements
Since 1991, the Izaak Walton League has conducted water quality analyses along
Beartrap Creek with the assistance of students from two local area schools. For this
particular study, we referred to stream health evaluations performed between April 2003
and October 2003. A total of 4 sites were monitored during this time and were based on
physical, chemical, and biological water quality measurements.
2.6.1
Physical analysis
General physical characteristics of the creek were monitored, including water
appearance and odor, stream bed composition, stream stability, algae color and texture,
and stream cover. Stream flow calculations were made as well using measurements of
depth, width, and estimated stream section length.
2.6.2
Chemical analysis
A number of chemical water quality tests were performed along the study area
including dissolved oxygen and PH tests using a Corning ScientificT M Check Mate90
meter. Additional tests performed were fecal coliform, biochemical oxygen demand,
turbidity, and various toxicity analyses.
2.6.3
Biological analysis
Macro- invertebrate samples were obtained along the creek on four different
occasions by members of the Izaak Walton League and local area students. At each
chosen site, the standard traveling-kick method, which is endorsed by the New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation (Bode et al., 1991), was used to sample
macroinvertebrates. For each sample, an individual positioned a D- net (mesh size: 0.5 –
0.6 mm) within the stream, disturbing the stream bottom (upstream of the net) by foot,
and causing dislodged invertebrates to be carried into the net. Sampling took place for 1
minute. The contents of the net were then emptied into a container along with any
invertebrates clinging to the net.
After the collection of invertebrates, the organisms were identified and
categorized based on their sensitivity to pollution. Benthic orga nisms monitored in this
study are shown in Table 2.5. According to the biotic score method, sensitive organisms
were assigned high values and tolerant organisms were assigned low values (Bode et al.,
2000). The procedure for calculating the biological water quality measurement involved
collecting 100 organisms and identifying the species. Once this was accomplished, we
multiplied the number of each organism by its Biotic Water Quality score and divided the
7
product by 10; this gave us the biotic water qua lity measurement. Ultimately, sites were
evaluated on a 0-100 scale where 2 :
80-100
non- impacted (excellent water quality)
60-80
slightly impacted (good water quality)
40-60
moderately impacted (fair water quality)
0-40
severely impacted (poor water quality)
3
Results
3.1
Literature Review
The geological history of the Beartrap Creek watershed was vastly influenced by
the continental ice sheet that covered New York, causing extensive saline seas and
erosion. As the glacier retreated, it left the land with abundant sources of water, thick
layers of salt and limestone, and fertile soil ideal for agriculture (Schramm, 1994). The
retreating of the glacier also formed Onondaga Lake as well as the major creeks and
rivers in the area, including Beartrap Creek (Adams, 2003 & Hopkins, 1914).
Within the Onondaga drainage, there were numerous springs and seepages that
fed the creeks, streams, and swamps and eventually fed the lake. The water produced
from these springs was classified as hard due to the high quantities of carbonate found
within the bedrock (Hopkins, 1914). Although the area was described as plentiful in
terms of species abundance and water availability, the creeks and streams were deemed
undrinkable due to the high salt content, making fresh drinking water hard to come by
(McAndrew, 2000).
Nonetheless, families moved to the area to make a living from the salt springs.
Prior to the influx of people to the region, the land was primarily covered by dense
forests and marshy landscapes (Beauchamp, 1908). Salt production proved to be
extremely wood-intensive, however, and abundant wood supplies were required for the
boiling of water, the building of salt barrels, and eventually the feeding of locomotives
(Chase, 1924). Ultimately, the land was nearly cleared of its wood resources as the salt
industry migrated to the use of coal. Onondaga Lake, formerly known as Salt Lake, was
harvested for the production of salt, an industry which proved profitable for many years
and eventually generated enough tax dollars to fund nearly half of the Erie Canal
construction (Chase, 1924). However, around the time the salt industry was coming to a
close, the quality of the city’s water supply was decreasing. By the end of the 1800s, the
water quality had become so poor that water had to be piped in from other watersheds for
city drinking water (Chase, 1924).
Over the next century, the impact of industrialization had a dramatic effect on the
city’s water supply. Road systems were built, as well as numerous industries and the
airport. Affecting Beartrap Creek in particular, the road system re-routed the stream from
its original path; this can be seen on maps pre-dating road construction as well as on
2
Taken from the Izaak Walton League’s Central New York Save our Streams Program.
8
present-day maps (Martin, 1961). The effects of the airport on the stream are not well
documented, however, a large portion of the airport overlaps the creek, inevitably
releasing some amount of runoff into the creek.
3.2
Habitat Survey
3.2.1
Regression Results
The multivariate fish habitat criteria calculated with logistic regression
are summarized in Table 2.4.
Brook trout
The regression model for brook trout presence has a predictive
power of 89.2%. Habitat attributes found to be associated with the
presence of brook trout were relatively low column velocities, moderately
to large sized substrates, canopy shading, and roads as a landuse. Stabilized
banks thoughwere associated with the absence of brook trout. The regression
model for high/low abundance of brook trout has a predictive power of 98.5%.
The results of this model indicated that low and high velocities, as well as
eroded banks and roads were associated with the higher abundance of brook
trout.
Brown trout
The regression model for brown trout presence has a predictive
power of 67.5%. Boulders, undercut banks, and fast runs were correlated
with the presence of brook trout, whereas submerged vegetation, faster,
deeper currents and moderately small substrates were associated with the
lack of brown trout. The regression model for high/low abundance has a
predictive power of 91.5%. The results indicated that low to moderate
velocities and woody debris were associated with the high abundance of
brown trout while submerged vegetation correlated with the lack of the
species.
Blacknose Dace
The predictive power of the regression model for blacknose dace
presence was 89.7%. Habitat attributes associated with the presence of
blacknose dace were clay and riprap. Attributes allied to the lack of
blacknose dace were submerged vegetation, woody debris, turbulent
waters, fielded and forested corridors, and stabilized banks. The
predictive power for blacknose dace high/low abundance was 93.3%. The
habitat attribute associated with the high/low abundance of blacknose dace
was clay whereas woody debris, turbulent waters, and forested corridors
were associated with the absence of blacknose dace.
Longnose Dace
The predictive power of the regression model for longnose dace
presence was 89.2%. Habitat attributes associated with the presence of
9
longnose dace were shallow, eroded margins, moderate velocities, large
substrates, residential land use, and the presence of clay. Submerged
vegetation and stabilized banks were associated with an absence of
longnose dace. The predictive power for longnose dace high/low
abundance was 93.4%. The habitat attributes associated with the presence
of longnose dace were clay, shallow and eroded margins, and residential
areas. The attributes associated with the absence of longnose dace were
submerged vegetation and low column velocities.
White Sucker
The regression model for white sucker presence has a predictive
power of 91.3%. The habitat attributes associated with the presence of
white sucker were riprap, overhanging vegetation, and woody debris. The
attribute linked to the absence of white sucker was shallow depth. The
predictive power of the model for high/low abundance was 97.1%. The
habitat attributes allied with the presence of white sucker were riprap, high
depths, relatively low column velocities, and small substrates.
3.2.2
Habitat for Fish
Using above regression functions to create habitat model, very little habitat for fish
was calculated in Beartrap Creek. Of the 5 species evaluated, blacknose dace was the only
one for which we found habitat within the creek. Of the total amount of wetted area in
the Beartrap Creek study site, approximately 33% of the available habitat was
considered suitable for blacknose dace and is shown in Appendix 2. In general, suitable
habitat for blacknose dace was more widespread in the forested portions of the stream
and particularly in Section 4.
3.3
Fish Survey
3.3.1
Fish Collection
A total of 21 fish were caught in Beartrap Creek with creek chub and longnose
dace occupying the standings for first and second most abundant species.
Common Name
Latin Name
# Species caught
Creek chub
Semotilus atromaculatus
8
Longnose dace
Rhinichthys cataractae
4
Johnny darter
Etheostoma nigrum
3
Blacknose dace
Rhinichthys atratulus
2
White sucker
Catostomus commersoni
2
Brook stickleback
Culea inconstans
2
The johnny darters were collected mainly in the rocky stream section by Richfield
Blvd., while the brook sticklebacks, creek chubs and white suckers were gathered behind
10
the Northern Lights Shopping Center. One of the more productive spots for all species
was the Airport Tributary, just above its discharge to Beartrap Creek. There was no
evidence of trout or lake-related fish species, although carp were observed in the creek
behind the Orchard Estates apartments in August.
3.4
Hydro-morphology
3.4.1
HMU Distribution
At a mean flow of 0.23 cfsm, nearly 240 hydro- morphologic units were mapped
over a non-consecutive period of 9 days. The distribution of units is shown in Appendix
1. For the entire study site, the most dominant hydro-morphologic units were runs which
composed almost 36% of the mesohabitat distribution, followed by pools (~ 26%) and
glides (~18%). The remaining HMUs mapped within the study area were ruffles (~
11%), sidearms (~5%), backwaters (~ 3%), and riffles (~ 1%).
In the uppermost section of the Beartrap Creek study area (Section 1), the stream
flows behind the post office, showing signs of channelization. The straightened character
of the stream and its sharp turns and uniform hydro-morphology (dominated by runs and
glides), is an apparent giveaway to the stream’s previous modifications. Further
downstream, the creek flows though a young forest in a marshy landscape. Here the
channel structure is much more diverse, containing pools, backwaters, and sidearms. The
section nonetheless has a low gradient with high amounts of silt on the channel bottom;
however, downstream of the highway crossing, the gradient increases and hydromorphologic features are faster-flowing.
In Section 2, the creek crosses under I-81, at which point it runs adjacent to the
highway through most of the section. The creek is closely accompanied by commercial
development, parking lots, and some open space next to the interstate exit ramps. Only
upstream of its confluence with Airport tributary is there some undeveloped forest that
lines the creek. Otherwise, the hydro- morphological character of the stream changes
dramatically into straightened runs and glides.
The upper half of Section 3 is similar to that of Section 2. Further downstream,
the creek flows through a more forested and residential landscape; however, it still runs
adjacent to I-81 and is nevertheless strongly modified with little diversity among HMUs
(mostly glides and runs). Next to the Orchard Estates apartment complex and Roxboro
Road Middle School, the stream turns away from the highway and flows into riparian
forest. The stream meanders and splits frequently into multiple sidearms, dramatically
increasing its hydro- morphological diversity.
For most of Section 4, Beartrap Creek flows through the forested areas available
between the highway and the stream channel. On the east shore, however, the
development comes particularly close to the stream. The HMUs are long but not linear
and highly diverse.
In Section 5, the lowermost portion of the Beartrap Creek study area, the stream
crosses the highway and remains fairly adjacent to the Interstate throughout. The section
is channelized although there remains some open space available for potential restoration.
11
3.4.2
Choriotop Distribution
The distribution of substrates along Beartrap Creek varied somewhat, but was
generally composed of a high level of fine sediments i.e. pelal, psammal, and akal. Pelal,
classified as silt, loam, and clay, was the most dominant chorio top monitored along the
corridor and comprised nearly half of the recorded area (~ 47%). This was followed in
abundance by psammal (~ 22%) and akal (~ 12%). The organic sediment, sapropel, was
found in relatively high quantities (~ 5%) while the remaining sediments were observed
at levels of 4% or less (Figure 3.1). In addition to the biotic and abiotic choriotops,
Beartrap Creek contained moderate amounts of man- made substrates and structures (i.e.
car tires, shopping carts, trash, etc.).
3.4.3
Shore Use
The development in the shore area was divided into five categories (Figure 3.2) and
defined by the appropriate land use along the riparian corridor (considered to be the land
between the stream and approximately 10m from the shore). During the mapping survey,
shore use was obtained for the left and right shores, and subsequently merged to provide
a single categorical output. The most abundant classification recorded along Beartrap
Creek was the forested areas (59%), followed by both fields and roads at 17%.
Urbanized areas made up 4% of the riparian corridor, while residential areas consisted of
3%.
3.4.4
Invasive Plants
Invasive plants were monitored during the mapping survey to provide potentially
useful data for the habitat analysis of Beartrap Creek. The two most abundant invasives
located along the creek were purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) and the common reed
(Phragmites communis). Appendix 3 indicates their locations along the creek and their
relative abundances in terms of many, moderate, and none. Similar to the shore use
classifications, invasives were recorded on both shores during the mapping survey and
subsequently merged to provide a single category of invasive per HMU. Therefore,
invasives defined as ‘many’ were found on both shores (48%), ‘moderate’ on one shore
(17%), and ‘none’ on neither shore (35%). Figure 3.3 shows the relative distribution of
invasives along Beartrap Creek.
3.5
Temperature
The five temperature probes originally used in the study of Beartrap Creek were
deployed on August 7, 2003 and left in their appropriate locations until the middle of
October, 2003. Due to unforeseeable circumstances, we were left with data from only
three probes at the end of the study period (Probes 2, 3, and 5). The data collected from
the three probes is shown in Figure 3.4 and the positions of the probes along the study
area are shown in Figure 2.1.
Probe 2 was located along Airport tributary behind Staples in the northeast corner
of the Northern Lights shopping center. The average temperature for Probe 2 was 57.4
12
o
F. On August 9, 2003 a high temperature of 70.4 o F was recorded while the low
temperature for the study period was marked on October 7, 2003 as 53.2 o F. Probe 3 was
positioned along the main stem of Beartrap Creek, just above the confluence with Airport
tributary. The average temperature reading for Probe 3 was 59.2 o F. A high temperature
was recorded on August 12, 2003 as 75.3 o F and a low was noted on October 7, 2003 as
46.8 o F. Probe 5 was placed along the main stem of creek near Ley Creek Drive and
adjacent to the bike trail parking lot. Average temperatures for Probe 5 during the study
period were 58.8 o F. A high temperature of 69.0 o F on August 12, 2003 was recorded
and a low of 49.7 o F on October 3, 2003.
3.6
Water Quality and Macroinvertebrates
The distribution and allocation of macroinvertebrates from the 4 surveys are
shown in Table 3.1.
3.6.1
Survey 1
The first survey was conducted on 4-12-2003 along the main branch of Beartrap
Creek on the service road between the Northern Lights shopping center and I-81. The
estimated flow rate was 7.5 cfs (0.25 cfsm) and the general physical stream
characteristics represented no abnormal qualities for the particular section of stream. The
water quality index for Survey 1 was 80.78, the highest of the 4 surveys. The biological
monitoring tests signified an 11, or ‘fair’ macro- invertebrate water quality rating while
the biological water quality (BWQ) measurement was 50.2, indicating a moderately
impacted stream.
3.6.2
Survey 2
Survey 2 was conducted on 6-20-2003 along the main branch of Beartrap Creek
in the northwest corner of the Northern Lights shopping center, near I-81. The estimated
flow rate for the survey was 7.2 cfs (0.24 cfsm) and there appeared to be no abno rmal
physical stream characteristics. The water quality index for Survey 2 was 69, the lowest
of the 4 surveys. Biological monitoring indicated a slightly higher index value of 13,
however, the macro-invertebrate water quality rating still corresponded to a ‘fair’
interpretation. The BWQ measurement was slightly higher than Survey 1 with an overall
score of 52.9, indicating a moderately impacted stream.
3.6.3
Survey 3
The third survey was performed on 8-22-03 along the Airport Tributary,
approximately 100 feet upstream from its discharge point into the main branch of
Beartrap Creek. The calculated flow rate for the survey was 3.7 cfs (0.12 cfsm) and there
was no indication of abnormal stream activity. The overall water quality index for
Survey 3 was 72.8 and the biological monitoring index was 12 which represented a ‘fair’
water quality rating. The BWQ measurement, 56.2, indicated a moderately impacted
stream.
13
3.6.4
Survey 4
Survey 4 was performed on 10-24-2003 along the main branc h of Beartrap Creek
between I-81 and the Northern Lights shopping center. The calculated flow rate for the
survey was 4.28 cfs (0.14 cfsm). The stream had many spots of instability, and the water
appearance was found to be muddy in several locations; however, otherwise the stream
characteristics seemed to correspond with those of the previous surveys. The overall
water quality index for Survey 4 was 76.1, and the biological monitoring index was 15
which indicated a ‘fair’ macro- invertebrate water quality rating. The BWQ
measurement, 57.7, was the highest of the four surveys, but nonetheless indicated a
moderately impacted stream.
4
Discussion
4.1
Overall Quality and Temperature
The evidence found in the literature suggests that Beartrap Creek once meandered
through the swamps and forests of the Syracuse area. The creek was known to be troutrich, even after deforestation took place. Consequently, the stream must have been a cold
water environment maintained largely by the discharge of groundwater to the overall
flow. This and the presence of marshes suggested a highly stable hydraulic environment
that could potentially provide excellent conditions not only for fish, but also for
freshwater mussels. The influence of high salinity levels could not be determined within
this study, however, historical evidence of trout populations indicates that the
concentrations were not lethal.
In times prior to deforestation, the adjacent forest probably contributed even more
to low water temperatures through shading and subsurface flows. It is also very likely
that the forest aided in the creation of most instream structures (i.e. debris jams) and to
the primary production of organic matter deposition.
During our study, low water temperatures were evident. First of all, little
fluctuation occurred during the study period, and interestingly enough, the lowest
fluctuation as well as the lowest temperature was observed at the probe located furthest
downstream in the Beartrap Creek. The highest temperature and amplitude were
observed upstream of the Airport tributary where the stream runs closely to I-81 and the
fluctuations are likely due to limited canopy-cover shading. The temperature readings
from the Airport tributary display an interesting phenomenon: low average amplitudes
and three relatively dramatic spikes (by 12o F (7o C) in two hours). It should also be
mentioned that the summer 2003 was relatively wet and cold, and the sudden changes (as
mentioned above) could occur more frequently at lower flow cond itions. Nevertheless,
the drop in water temperature in the downstream direction is a clear indication of
groundwater contribution (Figure 3.4).
A similar conclusion can be drawn from the hydrological simulation analysis
presented in Appendix 4. Despite a high amount of impervious areas, the simulation
clearly shows a stable baseflow level. Nevertheless, the flashiness of high flows reflects
the high level of watershed modification.
14
Over the past few decades, Beartrap Creek has endured major modifications
caused by industrial growth and urban/suburban development. The total area and
distribution of cover and natural substrate within Beartrap Creek is fundamentally
lacking. Woody debris is mostly absent limiting the cover for fish and leading to changes
in invertebrate fauna. Also, large portions of the river channel have been straightened
what ultimately causes monotonous habitats. Moreover, the stream health is affected by
dramatic changes in its streambank morphology such as reduced canopy shading and a
lack of aquatic vegetation. In addition, the creek corridor is filled with invasive plants
that are not only clear indicators of disturbance, but also impact the native flora and fauna
in the riparian zone.
Sediment loads within the creek were increased due to erosion from the surrounding developments and street runoff, ultimately contributing to flooding and reduced flow rates. Moreover,
pollution caused by the discharge of chemical de- icing compounds (mainly glycols) from the
Syracuse Hancock International Airport or by disfunctional leachfields as one behind Orchard Estates
apartment complex, potentially led to the considerable decreases in overall fish habitat quality.
As indicated on our maps, however, the level of impact is not equivalent in all
areas. Some sections of the river appear to be much more promising than others, specifically,
the portion behind and downstream of the Roxboro Road Middle School and potentially
the Syracuse Carrier Station Post office (the section behind the school is characterized by
highly variable habitat and a meandering channel with multiple sidearms ).
Unfortunately, as our observations from Fall 2003 have shown, the riparian cover is
being regularly removed from the stream banks, undoubtedly having a dramatic impact
on temperature, sedimentation, and as a result, the inhabiting fauna. Section 1 is also an
area of particular concern as it appears to have undergone a great deal of alteration. The
area around the highway cloverleaf, possibly former wetland landscape, was most likely
filled in with debris and unproductive soils around the time of construction, leading to higher
sedimentation and slower habitat recovery. Additional technical measures would need to be
implemented to initiate restoration in this area.
4.2
Fish Abundance
One of the most apparent findings of the study was the overall poor status of fish
fauna. Out of 4 fishing sites, only 21 fish were caught using electro-shocking. These
results allow for only one solid conclusion: there are very few fish in Beartrap Creek.
The majority of species captured in this study are classified by Bain (2000) as
fluvial specialists or fluvial dependent indicating relatively good hydraulic habitat. The
most abundant species found in the stream were creek chub (8 fish caught); no trout were
found within the study area. The two species utilize similar prey and occupy similar
habitats in small streams, indicating that their competitive interactions are an important
determinant of habitat dominance. However, in contrast to trout, creek chub is classified
as a macrohabitat generalist.
As our results have shown, temperatures within the range of 75.2o F (24o C) and
78.8 F (26o C) clearly favor creek chub over brook trout. Therefore, the presence of creek
chub could indicate that in drier years, the water temperatures are in a higher range than
o
15
what is optimal for trout. However, as mentioned before, the amount of available data
makes this conclusion uncertain.
4.3
Habitat Assessment
The habitat model developed for fluvial specialists in Beartrap Creek predicts
only negligible amounts of habitat for the fish community. Within the study area, the
only species predicted to have some available habitat is blacknose dace. Within the
region, this species is found to be quite common. Therefore, it was surprising to find that
only 33% of the wetted area was suitable for blacknose dace. However, by examining
the list of all other formerly described problems, we can not assume that the lack of
habitat is the only reason for the low numbers of fish.
All biological assessment surveys, taken over a period of 6 months, consistently
indicated that macro-invertebrate water quality ratings were ‘fair’. The 4 survey sites
seemed to suffer from similar physical, chemical, and biological problems resulting from
excessive sediment loads and street runoff caused by increased development and the
clear-cutting of aquatic vegetation and woody debris. However, we need to keep in mind
that the surveys provided only a snapshot of water quality, and macro- invertebrate fauna
(used as indicators) tends to recover relatively quickly from environmental stress.
Therefore, our results do not adequately conclude that the system is un-impacted by
short-duration pollution events. Moreover, the status of the fish fauna appears to indicate
that such events of chemical contamination from the inflow of conventional and
industrial pollutants has led, in part, to the extirpation of fauna in Beartrap Creek.
Another interesting find in our study was the presence of freshwater mussels
(Monostory pers. comm.), a fact that supports the observation of potentially good
conditions caused by hydraulic stability and low temperatures. Since many of the North
American freshwater mussels are on the endangered species list, we were particularly
interested by this finding and recommend a more detailed investigation.
5
Conclusions
The primary conclusion of our study is that Beartrap Creek is a highly degraded
ecosystem, which has undergone physical alteration and chemical pollution, leading to
the extirpation of fish fauna and the modification of flora. Historical evidence has shown
that Beartrap Creek was once a highly valuable resource containing large amounts of
diverse and unique flora and fauna. However, human actions and a lack of appreciation
for the resource have led to the degradation of the stream.
For that reason, it is believed that Beartrap Creek has a high potential and value
for restoration. According to anecdotal reports, the stream conditions have improved
over the last 15 years, and currently, the first signs of recovery are visible. The
hydraulic and thermal stability of Beartrap Creek creates conditions that are often not
found in northeastern streams and will surely be helpful in the revitalization of the creek
ecosystem. Despite a high level of development, we observed a fair amount of forested
and open space, a vital condition for successful restoration. We indicated the locations of
those promising sections and prioritized them according to color (see Figures 5.1-5.5).
16
The most exciting opportunities are in the lower portion of Section 3 and almost the
entire portion of Section 4 where not only open space is available, but due to the
closeness of the middle school and the residential areas, restoration in these sections
would provide significant educational benefits. We would suggest focusing on this
location first as it could offer leverage for the future restoration of the entire creek and
influence the development of the entire Onondaga Lake watershed.
It is our opinion that an ecological and scientifically-sound management of
Beartrap Creek is likely to bring astonishing effects and a vibrant fish population to the
stream.
The first step of this management action is to establish a solid base for a recovery
plan incorporating the thorough investigation of the ecology and hydro- morphology of
Beartrap Creek. The study design should include the determination of a target fauna (at
minimum consisting of fish and mussel species), their habitat needs, and the creation of a
habitat template for the resulting restoration efforts. The habitat model should be
accompanied by a hydrological model (such as SMDR – see Appendix 4) that will
ultimately predict the flow of water, contaminants, and sediments through the basin.
Both models need to have simulation capabilities and be embedded in a land-use GIS
model; this will allow for the prediction of ecological consequences resulting from
restoration measures and landscape- management scenarios.
The product of this investigation should be a comprehensive long-term technical
plan which leads to the recovery of Beartrap Creek. The particular goal of this plan
should be to recreate a river-type specific channel aimed at maintaining the ecological
integrity and sustainability of the resource.
The comprehensive, simulation-based long-term plan will allow for the wise use
of available monetary resources, ultimately leading to the greatest possible effect of
restoration actions. In a densely populated area (i.e. Syracuse) where river-restoration
measures might conflict with human use, an efficient restoration concept is highly
recommended. In order to perform this study, fiscal resources and time are required.
However some preliminary measures could already be introduced based on this pilot
investigation. The following immediate actions are recommended for the improvement
of Beartrap Creek:
1
Create vegetative buffers to reduce the sedimentatio n and growth of invasive
plants and offer more light penetration
2
Provide more habitat structure and hydraulic diversity by creating debris jams in
areas that are not prone to flooding
3
Remove /repair the leach field from the Orchard Estates apartment comple x
4
Remove trash and, where possible, overall prevalent silt deposits
5
Monitor glycol levels (caused by seepage from the airport)
6
Monitor flow and water temperature.
17
References
Adams, C.M. 2003. Defending our Place: Protest on the Southside of Syracuse. Thesis
submitted for Masters of Art in Geography, Graduate School of Syracuse University.
Austrian Standard ON M6232 1995. Richtlinien fuer die oekolo gische Untersuchung und
Bewertung von Fleissgewaessern. Oesterreichische Normungsinstitut, Vienna, 38 pp.
Beven, K., and M. Kirby, A physically based, variable contributing area model of basin
hydrology, Hydrological Science Bulletin, 24, 1979.
Bain, M. and M. Meixler. 2000. Defining a target fish community for planning and
evaluating enhancement on the Quinebaug River in Massachusetts and Connecticut.
Report for Quinebaug River study agencies. Cornell University. Ithaca, NY.
Beauchamp, W. M. 1908. Past and Present of Syracuse and Onondaga County, New
York. The S. J. Clark Publishing Company, New York and Chicago.
Bode, R.W., et al. 2000. Assessment of water quality of streams in the New York City
watershed based on analysis on invertebrate tissues and invertebrate communities. Part
II, 1999 sampling results. NYS Department of Environmental Conservation. Albany,
NY. 70 pp.
Bode, R. W., M.A. Novak, and L.E. Abele. 1991. Methods for rapid biological assessment
of streams. NYS Department of Environmental Conservation. Albany, NY. 57 pp.
Chase, F.H. 1924. Syracuse and its Environs. Lewis Historical Publishing Company, Inc.
New York.
ESRI. 1999. Arcview (Version 3.2). Environmental Systems Resource Institute, Inc.
Redlands, California.
Frankenburger, J., E. Brooks, M. Walter, T. Steenhuis, A GIS-based variable source area
hydrology model, Hydrological Processes, 13, 805—822, 1999.
Hewlett, J., and A. Hibbert, Factors affecting the response of small watersheds to
precipitation in humid regions, 275—290, Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1967.
Hewlett, J., and W. Nutter, The varying source area of streamflow from upland basins, in
Proc. of the Symp. on Interdisciplinary Aspects of Watershed Mgmt,. 65—83, ASCE,
1970.
Hopkins, T.C. 1914. The Geology of the Syracuse Quadrangle. New York State
Museum, New York.
Horton, R., The role of infiltration in the hydrological cycle, Transactions of the
American Geophysical Union, 14, 1933.
Horton, R., An approach toward a physical interpretation of infiltration capacity, Soil
Science Society of America Proceedings, 4, 399—418, 1940.
Izaak Walton League of America webpage. November 2003. http://www.iwla.org/
Jens, G. 1968. Tauchstabe zur Messung der Stromungsgeschwindigkeit und des
Abflusses. Deutsche Gewasserkundliche Mitteilungen, 12. Jahrgang, 4, 90-95.
18
Martin, R.C. 1961. Decisions in Syracuse. Metropolitan Action Studies; No.1 Indiana
University Press, Indiana.
McAndrew, M. 2000. „From Empire to Reservations“. The Herald American, Syracuse,
New York.
Mehta, V.K., M.T. Walter, E.S. Brooks, T.S. Steenhuis, M.F. Walter, M. Johnson, J.
Boll, D. Thongs. 2004. Evaluation and Application of SMR for Watershed Modeling in
the Catskills Mountains of New York State. Envir. Modeling & Assessment. <in press>.
Parasiewicz, P. 2001. MesoHABSIM: A concept for application of instream flow
models in river restoration planning. Fisheries 26:6-13.
Schramm, H.W. 1994. The Rivers of Time: A Bicentennial Historical Chronology of
Onondaga County. Cultural Resources Council of Syracuse and Onondaga County, Inc.
Syracuse, NY.
United States Geological Survey. 2000. Recent daily stream conditions for Ley Creek at
Park Street, Syracuse, NY, Daily Streamflow Conditions, Gauge # 04240120. Available:
http://waterdata.usgs.gov/ny/nwis/dv/?site_no=04240120&PARAmeter_cd=00060,00065
(August 2003).
Zollweg, J.A., W.G. Gburek, and T.S. Steenhuis. 1996. SmoRMod A GIS-integrated
rainfall-runoff model applied to a small Northeastern U.S. watershed. Trans. ASAE.
19
Probe 3
Probe 2
Probe 5
¯
Beartrap Creek Study Area
Syracuse, NY
Study site
0
460
920
1,840
Meters
Probe locations
Figure 2.1 Location of study site and temperature probes along the Beartrap Creek study area.
Site 3
Site 4
Site 1
Site 2
¯
Beartrap Creek Study Area
Syracuse, NY
Study site
0
470
940
1,880
Meters
Fishing locations
Figure 2.2 Beartrap Creek study site depicting the study section and fishing locations.
5%
3%
12%
0%
2%
3%
22%
5%
1%
47%
Akal
Detritus
Macrolithal
Mesolithal
Microlithal
Pelal
Phytal
Figure 3.1 Distribution of choriotops along the Beartrap Creek study area.
Psammal
Sapropel
Xylal
4%
17%
17%
3%
59%
Field
Forested
Residential
Road
Urbanized
Figure 3.2 Distribution of shore use classifications along the Beartrap Creek study area.
35%
48%
17%
Many
Moderate
None
Figure 3.3 Distribution of invasive plants along the Beartrap Creek study area delineated into categories of many,
moderate, and none.
65
60
55
Temperature (*F)
80
75
70
50
45
40
10/15/2003
10/13/2003
Figure 3.4 Temperature data recorded from Probes 2, 3, and 5 located along the Beartrap Creek study area.
10/11/2003
10/9/2003
10/7/2003
10/5/2003
10/3/2003
10/2/2003
9/30/2003
9/28/2003
9/26/2003
9/24/2003
9/22/2003
9/20/2003
9/18/2003
9/16/2003
9/14/2003
9/12/2003
9/10/2003
Probe 5
Probe 3
Probe 2
9/9/2003
9/7/2003
9/5/2003
9/3/2003
9/1/2003
8/30/2003
8/28/2003
8/26/2003
8/24/2003
8/22/2003
8/20/2003
8/18/2003
8/17/2003
8/15/2003
8/13/2003
8/11/2003
8/9/2003
8/7/2003
Time
¯
0
Beartrap Creek
Section 1
55
110
220
Meters
Figure 5.1 Location of potential restoration sites along Section 1 of the Beartrap Creek study area.
green = high potential yellow = moderate potential orange = slight potential
Backwater
Ruffle
Glide
Run
Pool
Sidearm
Riffle
Trash Pool
¯
0
Beartrap Creek
Section 2
45
90
180
Meters
Backwater
Ruffle
Glide
Run
Pool
Riffle
Sidearm
Trash Pool
green = high potential
yellow = moderate potential
orange = slight potential
¯
0
Beartrap Creek
Section 3
45
90
180
Meters
Backwater
Ruffle
Glide
Run
Pool
Riffle
Sidearm
Trash Pool
¯
0
Beartrap Creek
Section 4
45
90
180
Meters
Backwater
Ruffle
Glide
Run
Pool
Riffle
Sidearm
Trash Pool
Figure 5.4 Distribution of hydro-morphologic units along Section 4 of the Beartrap Creek study area.
¯
0
Beartrap Creek
Section 5
45
90
180
Meters
Backwater
Ruffle
Glide
Run
Pool
Riffle
Sidearm
Trash Pool
Figure 5.5 Distribution of hydro-morphologic units along Section 5 of the Beartrap Creek study area.
green = high potential yellow = moderate potential orange = slight potential
HMU
Description
Backwater
Slack areas along channel margins caused by eddies behind
obstructions.
Cascade
Stepped rapids with very small pools behind boulders and small
waterfalls.
Fastrun
Uniform, fast-flowing stream channels.
Glide
Moderately shallow stream channels with laminar flow, lacking
pronounced turbulence. Flat streambed shape.
Plunge Pool
Occurs where main flow passes over a complete channel obstruction
and drops vertically to scour the streambed.
Pool
Deep water impounded by a channel blockage or partial channel
obstruction. Slow, concave streambed.
Rapid
Higher gradient reach with faster current velocity, coarser substrate,
and more surface turbulence. Convex streambed shape.
Riffle
Shallow stream reaches with moderate current velocity, some surface
turbulence and higher gradient. Convex streambed shape.
Ruffle
Dewatered rapid in transition to either run or riffle.
Run
Monotone stream channel with well-determined thalweg. Streambed
is longitudinally flat and laterally concave shape.
Sidearm
Trash Pool
Channel around the islands, smaller than half river width, frequently at
different elevation than main channel.
Bottleneck in stream where trash accumulates and conditions are such
that measurements can not be made.
*modified from Bisson & Montgomery 1996 and from Dolloff et al. 1993
Table 2.1 Description of hydro-morphologic units (HMUs) as used in the mapping survey.
Attribute
Mapped (or measured) categories
Hydro-morphologic units (see Table 2.1)
Cover sources
Shore line
Choriotop
Depth
Value in database Used for regression calculation
(yes/no)
Broken water surface, undercut bank, woody
debris, overhanging vegetation, submerged
vegetation, boulders, riprap, canopy cover
shading
(no/some/much)
Land use,invasive species stabilization,
shallow margin
(yes/no)
(see Table 2.1)
Undercut bank, woody debris, overhanging
vegetation, submerged vegetation, boulder, riprap,
canopy cover shading
Land use, Shallow margin
Pelal, psammal, akal, microlithal, mesolithal,
macrolithal, megalithal, phytal, xylal,
Dominant type and type
sapropel, detritus (for exact definitions see
in seven random
Austrian Standard ON6232)
samples
% of random samples in each category
Seven random samples, % of random samples in 6 classes in 25 cm
(cm)
mean, SD
increments (Range 0 - 125 cm and above)
Mean column velocity
(cm/s)
Froude number
Calculated
-1
Seven random samples, % of random samples in 8 classes in 15 cms
mean, SD
increments (range 0 -105 cms -1 and above)
Seven random samples,
average, SD
Average
Table 2.2 Physical attributes collected during the mapping survey and used to describe mesohabitats.
Nomenclature
Grain-size range
mega-lithal
> 40 cm
Abiotic choriotops
macro-lithal
meso-lithal
micro-lithal
akal
psammal
pelal
Biotic choriotops
detritus
xylal
sapropel
phytal
debris
Description of Choriotop
Upper sides of large cobbles and blocks, bedrock
Coarse blocks, head-sized cobbles, variable
percentages of cobbles, gravel and sand
Fist to hand-sized cobbles with a variable percentage
> 6.3 cm to 20 cm
of gravel and sand
Coarse gravel (size of a pigeon egg to child's fist)
> 2 cm to 6.3 cm
with percentages of medium to fine gravel
> 20 cm to 40 cm
> 0.2 cm to 2 cm
Fine to medium-sized gravel
0.063 mm to 2 mm Sand
< 0.063 mm
Silt, loam, clay and sludge
Deposits of particulate organic matter; distinguished are CPOM (coarse
particulate organic matter) e.g. fallen leaves; and FPOM (fine particulate
Tree trunks (dead wood), branches, roots, etc
Sludge
Submerged plants, floating stands or mats, lawns of bacteria, fungi and tufts
(often with aggregations of detritus, moss or algal mats)
Organic and inorganic matter deposited within a splash zone area by wave
motion and changing water levels, e.g. mussel shells and snail shells
*modified from ON M6232
Table 2.3 Description of choriotop classifications according to abiotic and biotic attributes.
Brook Trout
Presence (89.2%)
Canopy Shading
0.475
Stabilized
-1.082
Road
1.012
Velocity 15 cm/s
3.165
Velocity 15-30 cm/s
3.235
Velocity 30-45 cm/s
2.053
Megalithal
6.285
Macrolithal
6.656
Mesolithal
5.637
Microlithal
4.406
Constant
-10.552
Blacknose Dace
Abundance (98.5%)
Road
Velocity 15 cm/s
Velocity 15-30 cm/s
Eroded
Velocity 60-75 cm/s
Constant
1.795
3.486
6.837
2.11
7.074
-9.272
Presence (89.7%)
Riprap
Submerged Vegetation
Woody Debris
Clay
Stabilized
Field
Forested
Rapid
Ruffle
Constant
0.90
-0.97
-0.94
2.29
-2.30
-1.95
-1.97
-2.11
-3.39
1.23
Abundance (93.3%)
Woody Debris
-0.85
Clay
2.57
Forested
-1.24
Rapid
-2.30
Ruffle
-4.17
Constant
-0.74
Longnose Dace
Brown Trout
Presence (67.5%)
Boulders
Undercut Banks
Fastrun
Depth 50-75 cm
Velocity 75-90 cm/s
Pelal
Constant
0.25
-0.82
0.20
1.39
-1.82
-2.42
-2.74
-0.64
Abundance (91.5%)
-0.79
Woody Debris
0.32
Velocity 15 cm/s
1.56
Velocity 15-30 cm/s
2.10
Velocity 30-45 cm/s
2.26
Constant
-4.20
Presence (89.2%)
Clay
Shallow Margins
Eroded
Stabilized
Resident
Road
Velocity 15-30 cm/s
Velocity 45-60 cm/s
Megalithal
Macrolithal
Constant
Abundance (93.4%)
1.32
-1.97
0.69
1.29
-0.68
1.85
2.14
1.86
2.80
2.18
2.17
-6.64
Clay
1.79
Submerged Vegetation -1.34
Shallow Margins
0.60
Eroded
0.82
Resident
1.36
Road
1.49
Velocity 15 cm/s
-4.35
Constant
-4.26
White Sucker
Presence (91.3%)
Riprap
Overhanging Vegetation
Woody Debris
Depth 25 cm
Constant
0.55
0.33
0.38
-1.72
-2.41
Abundance (97.1%)
Riprap
0.70
Depth 75-100 cm
6.37
Velocity 15-30 cm/s
1.68
Microlithal
2.62
Constant
-4.92
Table 2.4 Regression variables associated with each species calculated using logistic regression analysis. The land use
variables (e.g. roads) need to be treated with caution because fish will probably respond to other factors not captured
in the model for which "roads" are only a surrogate.
Biological Water Quality Measurement
Sensitive
Stonefly nymph
Caddisfly larva
Water penny larva
Riffle beetle
Mayfly nymph
Gilled snail
Dobsonfly larva
Somewhat Sensitive
Crayfish
Sowbug
Scud
Alderfly larva
Fishfly larva
Damselfly nymph
Watersnipe fly larva
Cranefly larva
Beetle larva
Dragonfly nymph
Clam
Tolerant
Aquatic worm
Midge fly larva
Blackfly larva
Leech
Pouch snail
Other snails
Table 2.5 List of macroinvertebrate species according to each organism's sensitivity to pollution.
Survey 1 Survey 2 Survey 3 Survey 4
Mayfly
Caddisfly
Scud
Crayfish
Midge
Snail
Sowbug
Leech
Aquatic worm
Total
0
0
1
0
Total
1
2
0
0
0
2
25
65
84
87
261
0
4
3
3
10
60
19
4
7
90
3
1
0
0
4
7
5
4
1
17
3
3
1
0
7
0
3
3
2
8
100
100
100
100
Table 3.1 The distribution of macroinvertebrates among the 4 surveys of Beartrap Creek.
¯
0
Beartrap Creek
Section 1
55
110
220
Meters
Appendix 1.1 Distribution of hydro-morphologic units along Section 1 of the Beartrap Creek study area.
Backwater
Ruffle
Glide
Run
Pool
Sidearm
Riffle
Trash Pool
¯
0
Beartrap Creek
Section 2
45
90
180
Meters
Backwater
Ruffle
Glide
Run
Pool
Riffle
Sidearm
Trash Pool
¯
0
Beartrap Creek
Section 3
45
90
180
Meters
Backwater
Ruffle
Glide
Run
Pool
Riffle
Sidearm
Trash Pool
¯
0
Beartrap Creek
Section 4
45
90
180
Meters
Backwater
Ruffle
Glide
Run
Pool
Riffle
Sidearm
Trash Pool
¯
0
Beartrap Creek
Section 5
45
90
180
Meters
Backwater
Ruffle
Glide
Run
Pool
Riffle
Sidearm
Trash Pool
¯
0
Beartrap Creek
Section 1
55
110
220
Meters
Blacknose Dace Suitability
Not Suitable
Suitable
Appendix 2.1 Blacknose dace suitability along Section 1 of Beartrap Creek.
¯
0
Beartrap Creek
Section 2
50
100
200
Meters
Not Suitable
Suitable
¯
0
Beartrap Creek
Section 3
50
100
200
Meters
Not Suitable
Suitable
¯
0
Beartrap Creek
Section 4
50
100
200
Meters
Not Suitable
Suitable
¯
0
Beartrap Creek
Section 5
50
100
200
Meters
Not Suitable
Suitable
¯
0
Beartrap Creek
Section 1
60
120
240
Meters
Invasives Distribution
None
Moderate
Many
Appendix 3.1 Distribution of invasives along Section 1 of Beartrap Creek.
¯
0
Beartrap Creek
Section 2
50
100
200
Meters
None
Moderate
Many
¯
0
Beartrap Creek
Section 3
50
100
200
Meters
None
Moderate
Many
¯
0
Beartrap Creek
Section 4
50
100
200
Meters
None
Moderate
Many
¯
0
Beartrap Creek
Section 5
50
100
200
Meters
None
Moderate
Many
Appendix 4
Preliminary Beartrap Creek Hydrological Analysis
Prepared by: M.Todd Walter and Pierre Gerard-Merchant
Cornell University Soil and Water Lab, Hydrology Group
Department of Biological and Environmental Engineering
The Soil Moisture Distribution and Routing Model (SMDR)
Proper and efficient watershed management must include the assessment and
identification of areas that generate surface runoff. Areas of a watershed which become
saturated during rain or snow-melt events are commonly associated with potential
sources of non-point source pollution (NPS). Variable source hydrology is widely
recognized among hydrologists and is used to identify areas of a watershed that become
saturated, which in turn generate surface runoff and contribute to the rapid transport of
pollutants to streams.
Two processes are known to contribute to surface runoff in a watershed:
infiltration excess runoff (IER) and saturation excess runoff (SER). IER occurs when the
rate of rainfall exceeds the rate of infiltration into the soil, causing surface runoff
(Horton, 1933,1940). SER occurs when the soil is already saturated. SER is dependant on
topography of the area as well as local hydrodynamic properties. Swift upslope interflow,
impaired drainage, and convergent subsurface lateral flows are contributors to SER
(Hewlett and Hibbert, 1967; Hewlett and Nutter, 1970; Beven and Kirby, 1979). These
two processes can dominate at different times of the year at various locations, thus
contributing areas to surface runoff may also change throughout the year.
SMDR is used to locate these areas of surface runoff and examine how they
change in space and time. The model was specifically designed for humid climates with
abundant vegetation, steep to moderately sloped terrains with shallow soils with high
infiltration capacity. This design fits well with the climate, geology, and topography of
rural watersheds in the Northeastern United States.
SMDR is simply a distributed water balance model with only few inputs of
geospatial data: topography or digital elevation models, soil parameters, land use data and
weather information, and also requires little or no calibration. The model can estimate
water loss by evapotranspiration based on vegetation types from the land use data. The
model uses a daily time step to predict saturated-excess overland flow at any point in the
watershed and can also be used to predict stream flow under varying rates of rainfall. It
can also incorporate simulations of water diversions and subsurface drainage, which are
common water management practices (Frankenburger, 1999).
Although Bear Trap Creek’s watershed is largely urban, and a large part of the
watershed contains impervious surfaces, e.g. pavement, we felt that the watershed was a
good candidate in assessing flows from the stream during rain events in the SMdR model.
It will also be useful to be able to predict the sources of non-point source pollution during
rain events, and these impervious surfaces may also contribute to episodic and an
epigrammatic flow pattern in Beartrap Creek.
1
Bear Trap Creek Geospatial Data
The input data for Bear Trap Creek was acquired primarily from government
agencies. Land cover data for this model was taken from the National Land Cover Data
set (NLCD). The NLCD set was created in the mid-1990s was derived from the Landsat
Thematic Mapper satellite data which classified land cover into 21 classifications. The
spatial resolution of this set is in 30 meters and is provided online by the United States
Geological Survey (USGS).
Digital elevation models (DEMs) were also provided by the USGS and are
available online. These data sets were primarily derived from the USGS topographic map
series, of which most were made in the 1960s and 1970s. The spatial resolution of these
DEMs is 10 meters.
The soils data was acquired from the STATSGO database maintained by the
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), National Cooperative Soil Survey and
distributed by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). The data set contains
geospatial data of soil types and also contains a relational database of component soils
and their properties, at one meter grid cell resolution.
The data sets were prepared using ArcInfo then loaded into the GRASS open
source geographical information system. Weather information for the Syracuse area,
including daily high and low temperatures and precipitation, was acquired from the
Northeast Regional Climate Center from January 1 to November 30, 2003, so that the
model can simulate the watershed from real weather information. The flow record from
Ley Creek, which has an adjacent urban watershed, was then compared with the
simulated flow from the model. The model also output a data layer of saturated areas of
the watershed.
Scope of Analysis
This document summarizes a cursory analysis of hydrological processes in the
Beartrap Creek watershed, located near Syracuse, NY. Because there are no substantive
hydrological data for this system, this analysis consisted of one year of hydrological
simulation using the Soil Moisture Distribution and Routing model (SMDR), a
mechanistic hydrological model developed for headwater catchments in the Northeastern
US. The modeling analysis was supplemented by U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
discharge data from a nearby watershed, Ley Creek, which was too large to be directly
analogous to the much smaller Beartrap Creek. The scope of this analysis is limited to a
description of hydrological processes and stream discharge for one year (2003) and as
such should be recognized as a cursory or preliminary analysis. Future flow
measurements should verify the accuracy of the model predictions and allow for more
detailed conclusions on the watershed hydrology.
Methods
Beartrap Creek’s hydrology was simulated for the period of 1/1/2003 –
11/30/2003 using weather data collected at the Syracuse Airport, which overlaps the
2
Beartrap Creek watershed, USGS digital elevation data, Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS) soils data (STATSGO), and NLDC land use data. SMDR was used to
simulate distributed watershed hydrology on a daily time step by mechanistically
modeling individual hydrological fluxes across the landscape. For a full description of
SMDR see Frankenberger et al. (1999) and Mehta et al. (in press). SMDR, originally
SMoRMod (Zollweg et al. 1998) or SMR (Frankenberger et al. 1999), is uniquely
designed to simulate the hydrology of the Northeastern U.S. where shallow, transient
water tables regularly create localized saturated patches that generate runoff during
rainfall events. This process, called saturation excess runoff, has been recognized as the
dominate runoff mechanism in the Northeast since the 1970’s (e.g., Dunne and Black
1970) and requires comprehensive simulation of all hydrological fluxes to accurately
predict stream discharge.
An analysis of Ley Creek discharge for the same period was included for
comparison purposes. Because Ley Creek is much larger than Beartrap Creek, ~77 km2
(30 mi2 ) vs. 12 km2 (4.6 mi2 ), its will tend to store more storm water and subsequently
“smooth-out” stormflows relative to Beartrap Creek.
Results and Discussion
Figure 1 shows the streamflow results from the SMDR simulation and the
associated rainfall and snowmelt. The “flashy” behavior of the creek is indicative of its
small size and the large fraction of impervious (e.g., paved) area. Consistent with
anecdotal, qualitative information, the watershed receives enough groundwater recharge
to maintain baseflows year round.
Most of the precipitation during the 2003 simulation period (877 mm) was in the
form of rainfall (93%), the remainder was snow. Approximately 20% of the
precipitation-water was lost from the system via evapotranspiration. Note that the
simulation did not account for snow that may have fallen late in 2002 and subsequently
melted in 2003. Typical of highly developed or urbanized watersheds like Beartrap
Creek, most of the stream discharge volume was in the form of punctuated runoff (~80%)
and the rest of the discharge was from groundwater baseflow.
Figure 2 shows a flow frequency diagram for Beartrap and Ley Creeks for the
period 1/1/03 – 11/30/03; this figure essentially shows how much time the creeks flow
over a specific discharge rate. For example, about 0.1 of the time both creeks have daily
average discharges greater than 0.75 m3 /s. Ley Cr. discharge data were scaled to so that
the watershed yields (total discharge volumes) were similar; interestingly, although Ley
Cr. Watershed is ~6.5 times larger than Beartrap Cr., a scaling of 4 resulted in similar
watershed yields, probably due to water loss form aquifer pumping in Ley Cr.
Interestingly, the flow frequency relationships for these two systems are more
similar than anticipated. Some subtle differences are that Beartrap Cr. maintained
minimum flows above 0.1 m3 /s whereas the scaled Ley Cr. flow was as low as ~0.05 m3 /s
and is lower than Beartrap Cr. for about 30% of the time. Between roughly 0.8 and 0.1
fractions of time, flow in Ley Cr. is greater than Beartrap Cr. because Ley Cr.’s is able to
store stormwater and release it at a relatively high flow for a prolonged period of time.
3
The trend reverses for 0.1 to 0.03 fractions of time, i.e., Beartrap Cr. > scaled Ley Cr.
illustrating Beartrap Cr.’s flashy, urban hydrology behavior.
It is not entirely clear why Ley Creek’s minimum scaled discharge is lower than
Beartrap Creek’s simulated flow, but it may have to do with groundwater pumping in the
Ley Creek watershed. Regardless, Figure 2 provides a general idea of how flows were
distributed in time for 2003.
A more comprehensive hydrological analysis of the Bear Trap Creek watershed
would require flow data from the creek itself. This would provide a baseline to which the
SMDR model could be calibrated, as well as the verifiability of the model to this
watershed. Then the predictive power of this model for sound management decisions can
be taken advantage of.
4
References
Beven, K., and M. Kirby, A physically based, variable contributing area model of basin
hydrology, Hydrological Science Bulletin, 24, 1979.
Frankenburger, J., E. Brooks, M. Walter, T. Steenhuis, A GIS-based variable source area
hydrology model, Hydrological Processes, 13, 805—822, 1999.
Hewlett, J., and A. Hibbert, Factors affecting the response of small watersheds to
precipitation in humid regions, 275—290, Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1967.
Hewlett, J., and W. Nutter, The varying source area of streamflow from upland basins, in
Proc. of the Symp. on Interdisciplinary Aspects of Watershed Mgmt,. 65—83, ASCE,
1970.
Horton, R., The role of infiltration in the hydrological cycle, Transactions of the
American Geophysical Union, 14, 1933.
Horton, R., An approach toward a physical interpretation of infiltration capacity, Soil
Science Society of America Proceedings, 4, 399—418, 1940.
Mehta, V.K., M.T. Walter, E.S. Brooks, T.S. Steenhuis, M.F. Walter, M. Johnson, J.
Boll, D. Thongs. 2004. Evaluation and Application of SMR for Watershed Modeling in
the Catskills Mountains of New York State. Envir. Modeling & Assessment. <in press>.
Zollweg, J.A., W.G. Gburek, and T.S. Steenhuis. 1996. SmoRMod A GIS-integrated
rainfall-runoff model applied to a small Northeastern U.S. watershed. Trans. ASAE.
5
40
mm
(a) rain/snowmelt
data n/a
20
0
Jan-03
4
Mar-03
May-03
Jul-03
Sep-03
Nov-03
Jun-03
Aug-03
Oct-03
(b) discharge
m3 /s
3
2
1
0
Jan-03
Mar-03
May-03
Dec-03
Figure 1. SMDR simulated results for Beartrap Cr., (a) rainfall (black bars) and
snowmelt (blue bars) and (b) stream discharge. The initial few weeks may appear
anomalous because of inaccurate initialized watershed conditions.
10
Daily Discharge (m^3/s)
Bear Trap
Ley Creek
1
0.1
0.01
1
0.1
0.01
0.001
Fraction of time flow is greater than value on y-axis
Figure 2. Flow frequency diagram for Beartrap Cr. (dashed line) and Ley Cr. for the
period 1/1/03 – 11/30/03. For example, slightly less than 10% of the flows for
either watershed are greater than 1 m3 /s.

Ecological Status Analysis of Beartrap Creek

Transcription

Similar documents

verde creek ranch kerr county, tx - 287 ac +

Slotomania Big Win - Bingo Card Game For Ipad

Patio Party - DuPage Pads

U.S.A. - Raisin-South Nation Source Protection

Sunday Creek Watershed - West Branch 43 Stream Capture

Welcome To 7460 Bathrust St #614, Thornhill, L4J7K9 Batya Mishan

G tsinBarbo le G tsinBarbo le - The Herald

2015 Coldwater Creek Presentation

Lower Pen. - Great Mall 9-1-11.indd

THE SECRET BEHIND SUSHI DEN`S SUCCESS l^H[[i