Using benthic macro invertebrates to assess stream quality of the , Otsego County, NY

Jennifer Piacente1

INTRODUCTION

Since 1972, aquatic macroinvertebrates have been used to evaluate the water quality of State’s rivers and streams (NYSDEC 2009). Biomonitoring is using benthic, or bottom dwelling, macroinvertebrates from stream and river habitats to assess environmental health. Benthic macroinvertebrates are used to assess stream quality because they are abundant, they are easy and inexpensive to sample, many are sensitive to environmental impacts (i.e., pollution, stress, and habitat changes), and different invertebrates have different tolerances to pollution (NYSDEC 2009). The diversity and types of macroinvertebrates collected from a pristine site will differ from those at a polluted site. There are up to 17 taxonomic orders of benthic stream macroinvertebrates, all of which exhibit a wide range of tolerances to stream impairment (Zimmerman 1993). For example, blood-red midges (Diptera, Chironomidae) have a high tolerance to pollution. Ephemeroptera (mayflies), Plecoptera (stoneflies), and Trichoptera (caddisflies) are orders that generally have low tolerances for pollution. A diverse and numerous quantity of EPT is an indicator of good water quality.

The Unadilla River flows 114 km from south of Utica, NY to Sidney, NY where it drains into the . Most of the Unadilla River forms the western boundary of Otsego County, and the eastern boundaries of Chenango County and Madison County. The Unadilla River runs through suburban, wooded, industrial and agricultural settings. However, most of the areas along the river are agricultural fields. The river forms a variety of microhabitats with a mixture of pools, riffles, and runs as well as a mixture of silty, rocky, and coarse substrate.

Several stream quality assessments have been done on rivers and streams throughout Otsego County (i.e., Bailey 2010, Whitcomb 2012, Buckhout 2013). The Unadilla River is one that is undergoing changes regarding water quality and biological diversity. There have recently been pearly mussel surveys in the Unadilla River (Maricle 2010, Zemken et al. 2013, Lord and Pokorny 2012); mussels are indicators of good water quality. Recent pearly mussel deaths were evident in the Unadilla River, especially near West Edmeston (Lord and Pokorny 2012). The purpose of this research was to evaluate the health of the Unadilla River by assessing its benthic community above and below the area where pearly mussels recently died. As a large river that runs into the Susquehanna River, and eventually the , it is important that we observe water quality changes that may be occurring in the Unadilla River.

1 BFS Intern, summer 2014. Current affiliation: SUNY College at Oneonta. METHODS

Benthic macroinvertebrates were collected at four sites along the Unadilla River (Figure 1 and Table 1). Samples were taken between 23 June and 26 June 2014. Sites were chosen based on ease of access and stream structure to make sampling easier and representative. An ideal site had riffles, coarse substrate, and a depth where the riffles did not exceed one meter.

Figure 1. Map showing the approximate locations of the four sample sites on the Unadilla River.

Table 1. Unadilla River site locations and descriptions.

Site # GPS Coordinates Description N 42.76278 1 West Edmeston Welsh Rd. Bridge W 75.27944 N 42.679982 2 New Berlin, Downstream of Agrofarma, Inc. W 75.326842 N 42.61611 3 New Berlin, Co. Rte 13 Bridge W 75.33111 N 42.317939 4 Where the Unadilla River meets the Susquehanna W 75.409623

In the field, macroinvertebrates were sampled using a cylindrical Wildco® Hess Stream Bottom Sampler at each site. The sampler was placed at least 2” into the substrate in a riffled section of the stream so no organisms could wash out. The substrate in the cylinder was stirred up until most organisms were likely dislodged. The mesh sock on the sampler was downstream so the current would carry the macroinvertebrates into the mesh cup at the end of the sock. Samples were then emptied from the sampling cup at the end of the mesh sock into a Whirl- Pak®. Ethanol was added to preserve the organisms. At each site 5 replicates were taken randomly in riffles where the depth did not exceed the sampler height, and in substrate that would allow the sampler to be inserted. The 5 replicates from each site were later combined to form one sample per site. Also, at each site physical parameters were collected using a YSI® multiprobe.

Back at the lab, organisms were identified to genus when possible and enumerated. Peckarsky et al. (1990) and Merrit and Cummins (1996) were used for identification. Spelling was checked using itis.gov.

Once all the organisms were identified, several biotic indices were applied. Biotic indices reflect features of the invertebrate community that can be related to the health of the water body (NYSDEC 2009). The biotic indices were used to evaluate and compare the water quality at each site. The same biotic indices were used as was used by Bailey (2010), Whitcomb (2012), and Buckhout (2013) to stay consistent with past reports at the Biological Field Station. Two richness indices were calculated: total taxa Richness and EPT Richness. High taxa Richness and high EPT richness indicates more pristine water conditions. The Familial Biotic Index (FBI) was also calculated (Hilsenhoff 1988), as was the Percent Model Affinity (PMA) (NYSDEC 2009). The FBI is used to assess the presence of organic pollutants in the water. Each genus has an assigned tolerance value to pollution, which was taken from NYSDEC’s standard operating procedures for biological monitoring of surface waters (NYSDEC 2009). The number of individuals of a genus was multiplied by the tolerance value for that genus. The products were totaled and then divided by the number of individuals in the sample. The result is the biotic index value. Percent Model Affinity measures the similarity of the sampled site to a non- impacted community (NYSDEC 2009). To measure similarity, the percent abundance of Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera, Coleoptera, Chironomidae, Oligochaeta, and Other is calculated and compared to the model community. The lesser of the two values for each group is taken. The Percent Model Affinity is the sum of the lesser values. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

A taxa list of the number and types of organisms found at each site are shown in Table 2. Figures 2-4 show the results of the biotic indices calculated. Table 3 provides the Familial Biotic Index scale (NYSDEC 2009) and Table 4 provides Percent Model Affinity scale (NYSDEC 2009).

Order Family Genus Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Ephemeroptera Ameletidae Ameletus 1 Ephemeroptera Baetidae Baetis 53 129 30 31 Ephemeroptera Caenidae Caenis 10 7 Ephemeroptera Ephemerellidae Drunella 3 Ephemeroptera Ephemerellidae Ephemerella 3 1 Ephemeroptera Ephemeridae Ephemera 2 22 3 Ephemeroptera Ephemeridae Hexagenia 2 1 Ephemeroptera Ephemeridae Litobrancha 1 12 Ephemeroptera Heptageniidae Cinygmula 2 43 59 8 Ephemeroptera Heptageniidae Epeorus 2 1 5 Ephemeroptera Heptageniidae Heptagenia 1 Ephemeroptera Heptageniidae Leucrocuta 9 21 7 Ephemeroptera Heptageniidae Maccaffertium 8 9 27 15 Ephemeroptera Heptageniidae Stenacron 1 2 11 Ephemeroptera Heptageniidae Unknown 44 41 27 Ephemeroptera Isonychiidae Isonychia 1 1 8 13 Ephemeroptera Leptophlebiidae Paraleptophlebia 1 Ephemeroptera Leptophlebiidae Unknown 1 Ephemeroptera Potamanthidae Anthopotamus 7 3 2 Plecoptera Perlidae Agnetina 2 4 1 Plecoptera Perlidae Neoperla 2 1 Plecoptera Perlidae Paragnetina 13 3 2 4 Plecoptera Leuctridae Leuctra 1 Plecoptera Nemouridae Shipsa 1 Hemiptera Gerridae Trepobates 1 Hemiptera Pleidae Neoplea 1 Hemiptera Veliidae Rhagovelia 1 Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Ceratopsyche 10 3 14 8 Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Cheumatopsyche 4 1 11 7 Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Hydropsyche 4 1 Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Unknown 1 Trichoptera Philopotamidae Chimarra 11 2 1 Trichoptera Rhyacophilidae Rhyacophila 1 1 1 Trichoptera Uenoidae Neophylax 1 1 Coleoptera Elmidae Dubiraphia 4 Coleoptera Elmidae Optioservus 20 7 1 1 Coleoptera Elmidae Oulimnius 25 6 1 3 Coleoptera Elmidae Stenelmis 83 203 87 72 Coleoptera Psephenidae Ectopria 1 3 Coleoptera Psephenidae Psephenus 4 3 35 21 Diptera Athericidae Atherix 1 8 Diptera Ceratopogonidae Unknown 1 1 Diptera Chaoboridae Chaoborus 1 Diptera Chironomidae Unknown 16 34 22 13 Diptera Simuliidae Prosimulium 1 Diptera Simuliidae Simulium 6 Oligochaeta Unknown Unknown 7 117 7 14 Amphipoda Pontoporeiidae Pontoporeia 3 2 Amphipoda Gammaridae Gammarus 2 1 Total Number of Organisms 285 654 418 291

Table 2. Taxa list of the organisms collected at each site (Figure 1, Table 1). Sites 1 and 2 were collected on 23 June 2014. Sites 3 and 4 were collected on 25 July 2014. Figure 2 shows the results of the richness indices used for each site. Total taxa richness was calculated as the total number of different genera from all taxa at each site. EPT richness is the total number of genera from the orders of Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera. According to EPT richness, all four sites are considered non-impacted communities. When comparing each site, higher taxa richness and higher EPT richness indicate greater diversity, and better water quality. Site two has the greatest diversity with 32 taxa, 23 of which were from EPT taxa. Site one had the lowest diversity with 27 total taxa, with 14 being from EPT taxa. However, the diversity of all four sites was similar to each other, which shows little change between each site.

Richness

14 1 27

23 2 32 Site Site

17 3 EPT Richness 26 Taxa Richness

20 4 30

Figure 2. Comparison of Taxa Richness (number of total genera present) and EPT Richness (number of genera from Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera) for all sites sampled. For EPT, values greater than 10 indicate a non-impacted community, values between 6 and 10 indicate slightly impacted, moderately impacted sites are between 2 and 6, and below 2 is a severely impacted community (NYSDEC 2009).

The Familial Biotic Index (FBI) estimates the amount of organic pollution in the water. Table 3 shows how the FBI score relates to the level of organic pollution in the water. Higher values indicate more impairment, and lower values indicate more pristine water conditions. As shown in Figure 3, site one had a value of 4.71 and site two’s FBI value was 5.23. The results for sites one and two imply good water quality. However, “good” water quality still contains some organic pollution. Site three and four had lower values of 3.76 and 4.43 respectively. Therefore, sites three and four have “very good” water quality with possible slight organic pollution. Site two however, with the highest FBI value of all four sites, indicates the most organic pollution.

Table 3. Familial Biotic Index scale (NYSDEC 2009).

Familial Biotic Index

1 4.71

2 5.23

Site

3 3.76

4 4.43

Figure 3. Familial Biotic Index results for all sites sampled along the Unadilla River. Higher values indicate higher amounts of organic pollution.

The Percent Affinity Model (PMA) compares the organisms found at each sample site to a model community. The model community is indicated in Table 4. As shown in Figure 4, sites one and two have values of 60.79 and 62.8 respectively. According to the NYSDEC, since the PMA values are between 50 and 64, sites one and two are slightly impacted. Sites three and four have values of 66.74 and 69.25. The values from sites three and four are over 64 and therefore indicate excellent water quality. Site four has the highest value and most closely resembles a model community. Site one has the lowest PMA value and is therefore the most impacted site of all sites sampled.

192

Table 4. Percent abundance of 7 major macroinvertebrate groups present in a model community used in the calculation of PMA index (NYSDEC 2009).

Percent Model Affinity

1 60.79

2 62.8 Site

3 66.74

4 69.25

Figure 4. Results for Percent Model Affinity for each site. Values greater than 64 indicate excellent water quality. Values between 64 and 50 indicate slightly impacted water. Moderately impacted waters have values between 49 and 35. Values less that 35 indicate severely impacted waters (NYSDEC 2009).

Table 5 shows a summary of physical parameters using a YSI® multiprobe at each site sampled. As the sites continue downstream, temperature begins at 17.22 °C and increases to 21.06 at site four. Conductivity begins at 0.443 and decreases downstream until site four at 0.258. ORP also decreases as the sites continue downstream. All other parameters are rather consistent at each site and show no pattern.

Table 5. Results of physical parameters of water quality using a YSI® multiprobe. Sites 1 and 2 were sampled on June 23 2014. Sites 3 and 4 were sampled on 25 June 2014.

CONCLUSIONS

Benthic macroinvertebrates are a great way to assess water quality because of the different indices that can be used to estimate different water quality parameters. When a pearly mussel survey was done, mussel deaths were evident near West Edmenston (Lord and Pokorny 2012). The results presented here indicate that there is some organic pollution in that area. This area is near an industrial setting, which could be contributing to the slight organic pollution found in the water. However, there is also some organic pollution evident in the water before the industrial area. At this moment, where the organic pollution is coming from is not well known. However, it is evident that something is occurring that is causing the water quality decrease at sites one and two. Some short term incident may have occurred that could have impacted the biota. Because mussels are quite long-lived, they would be expected to take a long time to rebound, whereas most other benthos would likely rebound in a few growing seasons.

Fortunately, besides the evidence of some organic pollutants, the Unadilla River has overall good water quality (Table 6). The Unadilla River is very important to the quality of the Susquehanna River and therefore the Chesapeake Bay. The Unadilla River is the third largest tributary that empties into the Susquehanna River (NYSDEC 2009). Any water quality issues in the Unadilla River will affect the Susquehanna River and the Chesapeake Bay. The water quality issues in the Unadilla River are still recent and there is still hope of restoration. However, if the water quality worsens, the entire aquatic community will be damaged.

Table 6. Summary of the results of the various indices used based on the macroinvertebrate communities present at each site. Sites were ranked based on their degree of impact. (“-“ meaning severely or moderately impacted, “0” indicated slightly impacted, and “+” indicating non-impacted water).

REFERENCES

Buckhout, B. 2013. Benthic macroinvertebrate survey of , Otsego County, NY. In 45th Ann. Rept. (2012). SUNY Oneonta Biol. Fld. Sta., SUNY Oneonta.

Bailey, C. 2010. Macroinvertebrate survey and biological assessment of water quality: tributaries of ; Otsego County, NY. In 43rd Ann. Rept. (2010). SUNY Oneonta Biol. Fld. Sta., SUNY Oneonta.

Heilveil, J. 2014. Personal communication. Associate professor, SUNY Oneonta Dept. of Biology, Oneonta, NY.

Hilsenhoff, W.L. 1988. Rapid field assessment of organic pollution with a family-level biotic index. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, Vol. 7 No. 1 pp. 65- 68.

Lord, P., and T. Pokorny. 2012. 2011 pearly mussel surveys of the Catatonk Creek, Butternut Creek and Unadilla River. In 44th Ann. Rept. (2011). SUNY Oneonta Biol. Fld. Sta., SUNY Oneonta.

New York State – Department of Environmental Conservation. 2009. Standard operating procedure: Biological monitoring of surface waters in New York State. Albany NY.

Maricle, S. 2010. Unadilla River pearly mussel survey. In 43rd Ann. Rept. (2010). SUNY Oneonta Biol. Fld. Sta., SUNY Oneonta.

Merritt, R, and K. Cummins. 1996. An introduction to aquatic insects of North America. 3rd ed. Kendall Hunt Publishing. Dubuque, Iowa.

Peckarsky, B.L., P.R. Fraissinet, M.A. Penton and D.J. Conklim. 1995. Freshwater macroinvertebrates of northeastern North America. Comstock Publishing. Cornell University Press. Ithaca, NY.

Whitcomb, K. 2012. Baseline water quality assessment of aquatic benthic macroinvertebrates in streams. In 44th Ann. Rept. (2011). SUNY Oneonta Biol. Fld. Sta., SUNY Oneonta.

Zemken, S., P. Lord, and T. Pokorny. 2013. Pearly mussels in Unadilla River and tributaries. In 45th Ann. Rept. (2012). SUNY Oneonta Biol. Fld. Sta., SUNY Oneonta

Zimmerman, M.C. 1993. The use of the biotic index as an indication of water quality. Tested studies for laboratory teaching, Vol. 5. pp. 85-98.