.:

-r,

'I. New York S,Division 0

onservation

August, 2002

~--------- -----------------

A 2002 Ten Year Follow-upBiological Monitoring Assessment of

Oatka and Spring Creeks inUpstate New York

William L. Sutton

In Cooperation With:

New York State Department of Environmental ConservationDivision of Fish, Wildlife and Marine Resources

Avon, NY

August, 2002

-----------------------------------

ABSTRACT

A baseline biological survey of Oatka Creek and its tributary Spring Creek was conducted

in 1992 and 1993 and a five year follow-up in the Spring and Fall of 1997. This biomonitoring

assessment in the Spring of2002 compares the New York State Department of Environmental

Conservation expected biotic index values for flowing waters with those found in two previous

studies. That comparison shows no deterioration in water quality.

It was observed that if only the Percent Model Affinity community parameter had been

used in the ten year study of Oatka Creek, the conclusion about water quality would have been

the same.

1

-------------------------------------------------------~----

INTRODUCTION

In the Spring and Fall of 1992 and 1993, biological assessments were conducted on Oatka

Creek and its tributary Spring Creek for the purpose of establishing a baseline for periodic

monitoring of benthic macroinvertebrates (Sutton 1995a). A five year follow-up study in 1997

showed no deterioration in water quality (Sutton 1999). This report presents the results of a ten

year follow-up biological assessment in the Spring 2002.

METHODS

The biological assessment method described by Bode et al. (1991), which was used for

the baseline and five year follow-up studies, was also used for this study. The four sampling

sites were the same (Figure 1). They were: (1) Oatka Trail above Mumford and below the Blue

Hole; (2) Spring Creek in Mumford at the Brookside Drive bridge; (3) Garbutt above the bridge

at Union Street; and (4) Scottsville below the Route 251 bridge. The sampling was conducted on

May 7,2002. No Fall samples were taken.

One standardized traveling kick sample was taken in the riffle area at each site. The

samples were inspected in the field and preserved in alcohol. Subsequently, the samples were

uniformly distributed in a white plastic tray with the bottom divided into 20 cells. Using a 2X

illuminated magnifier, organisms of 3 mm or greater were removed from a randomly selected cell

and sorted by major taxons for identification under a stereoscope. The process was continued

until 100 organisms were subsampled. The number of cells required to provide 100 organisms

was recorded to provide a measure of Relative Abundance (RA) of macro invertebrates.

All organisms were identified to species level, where possible. The author identified all

organisms except chironomids, oligochaetes, and black fly larvae, which were identified by the

2

Figure 1.

N

1

Oatka and Spring Creek StudyArea, showing location ofsampling sites.

Oatka and Spring CreekStudy Area

------7I

1-

I

II

I--~II

II

II

II

I

3

-------------------------------

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), Stream Biomonitoring

Unit, Troy, NY. Primary reliance was placed on the taxonomic keys in Peckarsky et al. (1990),

but a number of references were used for more specific identification. Many of them are listed

by Bode et al. (1991). References of particular use were: Schefter and Wiggins (1986) for

Hydropsychidae; Holsinger (1972) for Gammaridae; Bednarik and McCafferty (1979) for

Stenonema; Morihara and McCafferty (1978) for Baetis. Useful for generic identification of

caddisflies was Wiggins (1996), and for stoneflies, Stewart and Stark (1993).

A field data sheet was used for recording site data (Appendix I), and a stream assessment

biologic data sheet was used to record the laboratory subsample data (Appendix II). The results

were evaluated using four expected index values for flowing water (Bode 1990). Also used were

the measure of Relative Abundance and the Family Biotic Index, which was calculated by

classifying the subsample organisms to the family level and assigning family level pollution

tolerances as given by Bode et al. (1990). The six indices used for comparison with the previous

study results were: J:ercent Model Affinity (PMA); Ephemeroptera, J:lecoptera, and Irichoptera

value (EPT); Species Richness (SR); HilsenhoffBiotic Index (HBI); Relative Abundance (RA);

and family Biotic Index (FBI).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The NYSDEC indices and the FBI and RA are shown in Table 1 for the 2002 samples.

The New York State impairment classifications are also shown. Tables 2 and 3 present the 1992,

1993, and 1997 results along with those from 2002 for comparison. The taxa found in the

subsamples are listed in Appendix III.

4

Table 1. Biological index values and biological impairment classifications for samplescollected on Gatka and Spring Creeks in May, 2002.

Oatka 1 3.93 N* 4.37N llN 80N 24 S 9.5Trail

Garbutt 3 2.25N 4.11 N 5M 74N 12 M 8.8

Scottsville 4 3.99N 4.35 N 10 S 78 N 21 S 14.4

Spring 2 2.85 N 3.92N 3M 57 S 6 Sv 3.6Creek

* Biological impairment classifications from Bode et al. (1990):

N Non impactedS Slightly impactedM Moderately ImpactedSv Severely Impacted

5

-----------------------------------~---

Table 2. Comparison of 1992,1993, 1997, and 2002 Spring sampling biological indexvalues.

1. I ~~H 3.05 3.32 4.29 4.99 2.82/~\ 5t ~ . ;

l'\'l...1993 5.04 3.551, t t

RBI1997 2.94 2.78

2002 3.93 2.85

k.~~ 1992 5.37 3.58

e f\)~ II 1993 5.11 4.86FBI

Jrd,t,;L 1997 3.29 3.90

2002 4.37 3.92

. €, ~~t.L-{c. 1992 8 5rP1H"~I ••.• 1993 5 4

EPT11\ ''"*1t ~\ 1997 5 3

2002 11 3

1992 71 73e't~"•

~.)Jd 1993 70 57A 'U1,\,

PMA1997 85 65

2002 80 57

{'t ""< t.s1992 24 15

1993 21 111~'\t.~:;' SR

1997 22 11

2002 24 6

Re lll.t\v'C. 1993 3.5 1.3

~ ~u, RA 1997 2.6 2.8

2002 9.5 3.6

6

Table 3. Comparison of impairment classifications using the PMA and RBI index values in1992, 1993, 1997, and 2002.

S NSpring

2 N N N N S N

1992 1 N S S S S SFall

2 N S N S S S

1 N S N N S SSpring

2 S S N N N S1993

1 S N N N M SFall

2 S S N N S S

119971 s::~g1 1 N N N N S N N N

1 S N N N S S Sv N

~ISpringl 1 N N N N N N S N

OATKA PMA classifications same as RBI 21/33 = 64%PMA one classification better than RBI 7/33= 21%PMA one classification more impaired 5/33 = 15%PMA more than one classification different 0

1

7

-------------------------~----

As show in Table 1, the NYSDEC indices are mostly in the non-impacted or slightly

impacted ranges. The moderately impacted EPT and SR values at Station 3 are due to the very

high percentage of one species of Simulidae. These blackfly larvae were 33 percent of the

subsample as compared with one percent in May 1997. However, the species Prosimulium

magnum are very pollution intolerant with a pollution tolerance rating of 1, so this is not an

indication of a shift to more pollution tolerant organisms. The low Species Richness (SR) of 6 in

the Spring Creek samples is consistent with the low diversity spring creek communities~

previously described (Sutton 1995b, 1<:176, and 1999).

Examination of the values in Table 2 does not indicate any trend toward increasing

impairment. Comparison of the taxa identified in the subsamples (Appendix III) with those seen

previously did not identify new pollution tolerant species. Therefore, there was no evidence of

deterioration of water quality in the ten years between the baseline studies and 2002. As

observed in the previous studies, the FBI values were significantly higher that the HBI, but still

in the non-impacted range.

Percent Model Affinity has been shown to correlate closely with the HilsenhoffBiotic

Index and with Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera species richness (Novak and Bode

1992). Since PMA determination only requires identification to the level of order (except for

chironomids which are easily identified to family), it is a useful biotic index for volunteers who

cannot identify macro invertebrates to species level as required for RBI and SR, or to family level

for FBI. The impairment classifications derived from the PMA and the HBI are shown for

8

comparison in Table 3. This demonstrates that there is considerable congruence between PMA

and RBI in the Oatka Creek samples. If the PMA alone had been used to evaluate Oatka Creek,

the overall monitoring conclusion about water quality would have been the same. The PMA did

not as accurately reflect water quality in the low diversity community of Spring Creek.

Sample site number 3 (1....\ outt at the Union Street bridge) has been evaluated with kick

samples by the NYSDEC Stream Biomonitoring Unit in 1989 and 1990. Slightly impacted water

quality was indicated by the three samples (Bode et al. 1993). Comparing those results with

1973 macro invertebrates studied by Sprague (1974) at Mumford, Bode concluded that the water

quality appears similar. Thus, it appears that there has been no deterioration in water quality in

Oatka Creek in the 29 year period from 1973 to 2002.

CONCLUSION

This ten year follow-up assessment does not.show a significant change in the water

quality of Oatka Creek or Spring Creek. Both continue to have an abundance of pollution

intolerant benthic macroinvertebrates.

9

------------------------------~-----

LITERATURE CITED

Bednarik, A.F. and W.P. McCafferty. 1979. Biosystematic revision of the genus Stenonema(Ephemeroptera: Heptageniidae). Can. Bull. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 201. 73pp.

Bode, R.W., M.A. Novak, and L.E. Abele. 1990. Biological impairment criteria for flowingwaters in New York State. N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation. Albany,NY. 110pp.

Bode, R.W., M.A. Novak andL.E. Abele. 1991. Methodsfor rapid biological assessment ofstreams. N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation. Albany, NY. 196pp.

~Bode, RW., M.A. Novak~ L.E. Abele. 1993. 20 Year Trends in water quality of rivers and

streams in New York State based on macroinvertebrate data 1972-1992. N.Y.S.Department of Environmental Conservation. Albany, NY. 196pp.

Hilsenhoff, W.L. 1988. Rapid field assessment of organic pollution with a family level bioticindex. J N. Am. Benth. Soc. 7(1):65-68.

Holsinger, J.R 1972. The freshwater amphipod crustaceans (Gammaridae) of North America.u.s. Environmental Protection Agency. Biota of Freshwater Ecosystems IdentificationManual No.5. 89pp.

Morihara, D.K. and W.P. McCafferty. 1978. The Baetis larvae of North America(Ephemeroptera: Baetidae). Trans. Amer. Ent. Soc. 105: 139-22l.

Novak, M.A. and R.W. Bode. 1992. Percent Model Affinity: A new measure ofmacro invertebrate community composition. J. N. Am. Bentho!. Soc. 11(1):80-85.

Peckarsky, B.L., P.R Fraissinet, M.A. Penton and DJ. Conklin, Jr. 1990. Freshwatermacro invertebrates of Northeastern North America. Comstock Publishing Associates,Division of Cornell University Press. Ithaca, NY. 442pp.

Schefter, P.W. and G.B. Wiggins. 1986. A systematic study of the Nearctic larvae of theHydropsyche morosa group (Trichoptera: Hydropsychidae). Life SciencesMiscellaneous Publication. Royal Ontario Museum. Toronto, Canada. 94pp.

Sprague, B.E. 1974. Oatka Creek biological survey, 1973. U.S. EPA, Region II, June 20,1974.

Stewart, P.W. and G.B. Wiggins. 1986. A systematic study of the Nearctic larvae of theHydropsyche morosa group (Trichoptera: Hydropsychidae). Life SciencesMiscellaneous Publication. Royal Ontario Museum. Toronto, Canada. 94pp.

10

-----------------------------------

Sutton, W.L. 1995a. Biological monitoring of Gatka Creek in upstate New York. N.Y.S.Department of Environmental Conservation. Division ofFish and Wildlife. Avon, NY.29pp.

Sutton, W.L. 1995b. Biological assessment of Spring Creek. N.Y.S. Department ofEnvironmental Conservation. Division ofFish and Wildlife. Avon, NY. 23pp.

Sutton, W.L. 1998. Biological exploration of spring creeks in Western New York State. N.Y.S.Department of Environmental Conservation. Division ofFish, Wildlife and MarineResources. Avon, NY. 17pp.

Sutton, W.L. 1999. A five year follow up b' . -gical monitoring assessment ofOatka and SpringCreeks in upstate New York. N.Y.S. -,-,cpartment of Environmental Conservation.Division ofFish, Wildlife and Marine Resources. Avon, NY. 23pp.

Wiggins, G.B. 1996. Larvae of the North American caddisfly genera, Second Edition.University of Toronto Press. Toronto" Canada. 457pp.

11

-----------------------------------

--------------------------- ---------------------

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The New York State Department of Environrnental Conservation provided much

appreciated and need support for this study. Lawrence Abele and Robert Bode ofthe Stream

Biomonitoring Unit identified the black flies, midges, and worms. Gary Neuderfer ofthe Avon

Office put this report in final form for printing and distribution. Fellow fisherman Lawrence

Garfield helped with the sampling, and Albert Anderson formatted the data sheets.~

12

------------------------------

APPENDIX I: Stream Assessment Field Data Form

13

----------------------------------

STREAM ASSESSMENT FIELD DATA

STREAM COUNTY STATE

DATE(Month/Day/Year)

Station Number

FIELD PERSONNEL

location Time

, Basic Stream Information

Width (Meters) Depth (Meters) Velocity (ern/see)

Canopy (% Cover) Turbidity Water Temp. (0C)

Dissolved O2 (ppm) pH Conductivity

Photo Taken

Aquatic Vegitation

Type of Biologic Sample

Banks - Describe

Substrate (Percent)

_R_O_C_k -+t_R_U_b_b_le I_G_r_a_ve_1 _

Sand . Silt, .. Other

Macroinvertebrates Observed

Epherneroptera Tricoptera Plecoptera

Coleoptera Chironomidae Oligochaeta

Other

14

APPENDIX II: Stream Assessment Biologic Data Form

15

-----------------------------------------------

~---- ---- -----------~------------ ----- ----~--~

;:)neet I

STREAM ASSESSMENT BIOLOGIC DATA

STREAM COUNTY STATE

DATE(Month/Day/Year)

Station Number

Field Personnel

Location Time

(I) MAIOR GROUPS Number (TAXA Model Differencein Parentheses)

Oligochaeta 5

Ephemeroptera 40

Plecoptera 5

Coleoptera 10

Trichoptera -- 10

Chironomidae 20

Other 10

TAXA SORTED (List)

Total 100

Percent Model Affinity

EPT Value

Species Richness

(2) FAMILIES SORTED Number Tolerance Subtolerance

GO TO SHEET 2

16

--------------------------------~-----

Sheet 2

STREAM ASSESSMENT BIOLOGIC DATA

STATIONNUMBER

Nurriber Tolerance Subtolerance(2) FAMIUESSORTED,Continued

Total

Family Biotic Index

Number. Tolerance Subtolerance(3) TAXA Sorted

GO TO SHEET 3

17

--------------------------------------

-

Sheet 3

STREAM ASSESSMENT BIOLOGIC DATA

STATION NUMBER

(3) TAXA Sorted, Continued Number Tolerance Subtolerance

-

Total

Hilsenhoff Biotic Index

Completed by:

18

--------------------------------------

-

APPENDIX III: Macroinvertebrate Taxa Present in 100 Organism Subsamples

19

----------------------------

Appendix ill. Macroinvertebrate taxa present in 100 organism subsamples collected from Oatkaand Spring Creeks in May, 2002.

OLIGOCHAET A

Unidentified Lumbricina

Tubificidae

Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri 2

CRUSTACEA

AMPHIPODA (Gammaridae)

Gammarus fasciatus

G. pseudolimnaeus

DECAPODA

Cambaridae

Unidentified Cambaridae 2 1 2

EPHEMEROPTERA

Baetidae

Acentrella sp. 1

Baetis insignificans 4

B. tricaudatus

1 1B. sp.

Heptageniidae

Heptagenia sp. 1

Stenacron interpunctatum 1

Stenonema vicarium 1

s. sp. 1 2

Ephemerellidae

20

6

26

11

Ephemerella invaria gp. 21 37 22 55

PLECOPTERA

Perlidae

4Agnetina capitata 4

~----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

COLEOPTERA

Elmidae

Optioservus sp. 2

Stenelmis sp. 14 26Psephenidae

Psephenus sp.

MEGALOPTERA

Corydalidae

Nigronia sp

TRlCHOPTERA

Hydropsychidae

Cheumatopsyche sp. 3

Hydropsyche bronta

H. sparna

7 3H. slossonae

Brachycentridae

Micrasema sp. 5

Odontoceridae

Psilotreta sp. 5

Polycentropodidae

Polycentropus sp.

Limnophilidae

21

.\; ..•...Sf~:::······.;~:;·cr~t.~:.~~~i~!~;t~~~~;1"'}'I :~<>i' '::1'" .',; ,.j'~'':~~;;.'1/4~i'T'" '2;" -'-'I

I:I SLTEff:'

Pycnopsyche sp.

DIPTERA

Simuliidae

Prosimulium magnum 233

Simulium venustum 2

Simulium sp. 2

Chironomidae

Tanypodinae Subfamily

Thienemannimyia gr. spp 2 2

Diamesinae Subfamily

15 12Diamesa sp.

Orthoc1adiinae Subfamily

Eukiefferiella devonica 2

Cricotopus vierriensis

3 9Orthocladius obumbratus 14

60. nr dentifer

Chironominae Subfamily

Polypedilum flavum 5

3P. laetum

22