Index of Biotic Integrity on Turkey Creek in the Town of Farragut Final Report September 24, 2009
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
INDEX OF BIOTIC INTEGRITY ON TURKEY CREEK IN THE TOWN OF FARRAGUT FINAL REPORT SEPTEMBER 24, 2009 CONDUCTED BY: FORT LOUDOUN LAKE ASSOCIATION REPORT PREPARED BY: Michael S. Gaugler, Stormwater Services Program Director IBI DATA PROVIDED BY: Fish lBl Data Provided By: Michael S. Gaugler Macroinvertebmle 181 Data Provided By: Michael S. Gaugler Habitat Analysis Data Provided By: Michael S. Gaugler INDEX OF BIOTIC INTEGRITY ON TURKEY CREEK IN THE TOWN OF FARRAGUT FINAL REPORT SEPTEMBER 24, 2009 INTRODUCTION This document represents data collected from Turkey Creek at one location in Farragut, TN by the Fort Loudoun Lake Association (FLLA) for the Town of Farragut. Turkey Creek was surveyed forthe Index of Biotic Integrity for Macroinvertebrates (IBI. M) on September 14,2009. In addition to lhe IBI-M collection, a physical habitat assessment was conducted following sampling. Within this document we will state our plan, describe the study areas, explain methodology. and discuss results. OBJECTIVES I. Perform a macroinvertebrate survey at the sampling location. 2. Perform a habitat assessment at the sampling location. 3. Perform water quality testing at the sampling location. 4. Provide photographic evidence ofcurrent conditions and envirOlUllental pressures at the sampling location. 5. Score the IBI-M and habitat assessment and deliver write-up to the Town of Farragut. STUDY AREAS FLLA assessed one site along Turkey Creek. The site was adjacent to the Turkey Creek Harbor walking trail off ofConcord Road and Turkey Creek Road (see Figure I). It is located approximately 1.6 miles upstream from the bridge on Northshore Drive SW. Sampling was conducted in the forested area parallel to Concord Road near the stone dam. Please see photos in Appendix A for current habitat conditions. 2 Figure 1. Location for IBI-M on Turkey Creek on September 14,2009. 3 METHODS INDEX OF BIOTIC INTEGRITY FOR MACROINVERTEBRATES (IB1-M) FLLA followed the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation's (TDEC) Quality System Standard Operating Procedure for Macroinvertebrate Stream Surveys (Arnwine 2006) for sampling procedures ofcollecting biological samples. The biological conditions ofTurkey Creek were assessed by collecting and identifying the benthic macroinvertebrates (IBI-M) present at one site in the creek. The sampling site was considered suitable based upon the presence of riffles ofdifferent flow conditions. A semi-quantitative rime kick (SQKICK) was used to collect samples. A one meter kick net with 500 micron mesh was used to sample the riffles. At the site, four collection kicks were performed. Two kicks were perfonned in slower current velocity rimes and two kicks were performed in faster current velocity rimes. Sampling was conducted from the downstream rime to the upstream sample. After each kick approximately one minute passed before removing the net from the rime to allow all debris to wash into the net. Next all debris collected was washed into a sampling bucket with a 500 micron screen on the bottom. All kicks were combined and all debris was washed into a labeled I L (1000 ml) bottle and samples were stored in 70% isopropyl alcohol. Any aquatic macroinvertebrates remaining on the net were removed and placed in the storage container. After sampling both net and bucket were thoroughly washed to prevent contamination at the next sampling site. Before sampling the physical and chemical field sheet was completed. After sampling the top portion ofthe "Benthic Macroinvertebrate Field Data Sheet" (Appendix A-3: Form I Barbour et al. 1999) was completed as well as a habitat assessment for high gradient streams (Appendix A·I Form 2 of Barbour et al. 1999). In the laboratory, samples were washed onto a 500-micron mesh sieve and washed with water to remove additional sediment and residual alcohol. Each sample was processed completely and all macroinvertehrates were removed and stored in a second container for identification purposes. The processed sample was returned to the original container and stored. A random subsample was taken ofall macroinvertebrates collected and those from the subsample were identified to the lowest possible taxon, either genus or species. All macroinvertebrates were identified using a Fisher Scientific microscope and several identification keys. These included Brigham et al. (1982) along with recent corrections to this edition, Merritt and Cummings (1995) and Perez et al. (2004). A macroinvertebrate index using seven biometrics was created based upon semi· quantitative macroinvertebrate surveys (Arnwine and Denton 200 Ia). The index is based upon ecoregional reference data and calibrated by bioregion. The seven biometrics are: EPT (Ephemeroptera Pleeoptera Triehoptera Riehness) TR (Taxa richness) % EPT (EPT abundanee) %OC (% oligochaetes and chironomids) NCB! (North Carolina Biotie Index) % NUTOL (% nutrient tolerant organisms) % Clingers After calculating the seven biometric values, the data are equalized and assigned a score of0, 2, 4, or 6 based upon the reference database of the bioregion. The seven 4 scores are totaled and the biological condition of each site is determined. There are three categories of the index score: Non-impaired (supporting) is equal to or greater than 32. Slightly impaired (partially supporting) is 21 - 3J. Moderately impaired (partially supporting) is equal to or less than 20. WATER QUALITY Water parameters recorded included dissolved oxygen, pH, temperature and conductivity. Parameters were recorded using YSI meters. The YSI pH 100 meter recorded temperature and pH and the YSI 85 was used to compare temperature and to measure 00 and conductivity. Before each field day the meters were calibrated per the manufacturer's directions and tested for reading drift at the end of each sampling day. HABITAT ANALYSIS A visual habitat assessment was conducted at the sampling site following Barbour et. al (1999) methodology to evaluate the integrity of the habitat. The Physical Characterization and Water Quality Field Data Sheet (Appendix A-l, Form I of Barbour et aJ. 1999) and the Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet (Appendix A-I, Form 2 of Barbour et al. 1999) were used. Because samples were collected in ecoregion 67f, the High Gradient Stream assessment sheet was used to evaluate habitats. In all, ten parameters were evaluated: Epifaunal substrate/available cover Embeddedness Velocity/Depth combinations Sediment deposition Channel flow status Chalmel alteration Frequency of riffles or bends Bank stability Bank vegetative protection Riparian vegetative zone width Each parameter was individually scored 0 to 20 with 20 being the highest attainable score for a maximwn score of 200 points. Scores were divided into four categories (Optimal, Suboptimal, Marginal and Poor) with a range of five points per category. After totaling the scores, the final score was compared with the Habitat Assessment Guidelines for ecoregion 67f from Tennessee's Department of Envirolunent and Conservation Quality System Standard Operating Procedure for Macroinvertebrate Stream Surveys (Arnwine 2006) to detennine if the habitat is capable ofsupporting a healthy macroinvertebrate community. Scores for the Habitat Assessment are: Scores greater than or equal to 130 indicate the habitat is not impaired. Scores 103 - 129 indicate the habitat is moderately impaired. Scores less than or equal to 102 indicate the habitat is severely impaired. 5 RESULTS Table l. Summary oflBI-M and habitat assessment scores of Turkey Creek, September 14,2009. TURKEY CREEK SAMPLING SITE IBI-M score 28 Ratin2 Sliehtlv imnaired Habitat score 131 Ratin!! Not imDaired At the sampling site, the scores indicated that the physical habitat has not been impacted due to alterations ofthe area and was rated as not impaired. The biological community however has been impacted and scored a 28, which is below the target score of32 for streams in this area ofTennessee. Table 2. Densities of macroinvertcbrates collected on Turkey Creek September 14, 2009. TAXA SAMPLING SITE OLIOOCHAETA (aquatic worms) Lumbricidae Eclipidrilus sp. I EPHEMEROPTERA (mavflies) Baetidae Boelis flavislrif!o S HePlageniidae S,enacron infervunctatum 26 TRJCHOPTERA (Caddisflies) HvdroDsvchidae Chematopsyche spp. 61 HvdroDsvche demora 1S Hydropsychevenular~ 2 COLEOPTERA (beetles) Dytiscidae Hvdaticus modes/us 1 Elmidae Promoresia rardella 2 S/enelmis SOD. 25 larvae 8 adult Psephenidae Psevhenus herricki 10 DIPTERA (Flies) Chironomidae Paramerriocnemus fundbecki 8 Polypedilum spp. S 6 Thienemannimvia SOD. 8 CeratopO~onidae Dasvhelea f!risea 3 Tipulidae Antoeha SOD. 7 Simuliidae Simulium snowi 12 Simulium laxodium 3 MESOGASTROPODA (snails) Planorbidae Planorbella spo. 8 Pleuroceridae Elimia spp. 6 TUBIFICIDA Naididae Nais SOD. 2 AMPHIPODA Cranaonvctidae Cran/Zonyx spp. 2 Total 220 A total of220 specimens were collected at the sampling site. Specimens from the caddistly genera, Chemalopsyche, and Hydropsyche, dominated the biological community at this site. Other numerous species included the mayfly, Slenacron inlerpunclalum, and black fly larvae from the genus, Simulium. Table 3. Summary Table for Macroinvertebrate Index of Sampling Sites on Little Turkey Creek, October 21, 2008. METRIC Taxa EPT % % NCBI % % Index Richness Richness EPT OC Clinaers NUTROL Score Site Value 19 4 49.54 10.0 5.21 73.64 58.64 Score 2 2 6 6 4 6 2 28 INDEX SCORE INDEX SCORE RATING SITE 28 Sliahtlv Imnaired The macroinvertebrate community at the Turkey Creek sampling site scored a 28 that classified it as slightly