The Pennsylvania State University. Department of Agricultural and Biological Engineering

Transcription

1 The Pennsylvania State University Department of Agricultural and Biological Engineering PRE- AND POST- MACROINVERTEBRATE POPULATIONS IN RESTORED STREAM REACHES IN PENNSYLVANIA A Thesis in Agricultural and Biological Engineering by Nathan R Whited 2011 Nathan R Whited Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science August 2011

2 i The thesis of Nathan R Whited was reviewed and approved* by the following: Paul H. Heinemann Department Head of Agricultural and Biological Engineering Albert R. Jarrett Professor of Agricultural and Biological Engineering Thesis Advisor Larry K. Brannaka Adjunct Assistant Professor of Agricultural and Biological Engineering James M. Hamlett Associate Professor of Agricultural and Biological Engineering Gregory A. Hoover Senior Extension Associate of Entomology *Signatures are on file in the Graduate School

3 iii ABSTRACT Three streams in Pennsylvania were sampled to determine if the stream restoration practices implemented affected the macroinvertebrate populations and diversity in the restored reach. Macroinvertebrate data from Roaring Branch, Little Fishing Creek, and Halfmoon Creek taken in 2004 before the restoration work was done is compared to data collected in 2010 after the stream restoration was completed. The macroinvertebrate samples were collected using the Rapid Bioassessment Protocol and counted and scored based on the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) modified bioassessment sheet. The three streams were restored using a variety of stream restoration techniques such as in stream restoration structures, riparian buffer establishment, and streambank fencing. The combination of these restoration techniques increased the habitat for macroinvertebrates in the restored stream reach. As a result of this, there were a number of taxa that were found in the restored reaches that were not present before the restoration work was done. The macroinvertebrate data from the three streams showed a large increase from 2004 to The diversity of the macroinvertebrate community increased by an average of 72% in the restored reaches. The percentage of pollution intolerant taxa (Group 1) also increased in each of the stream reaches, while the percentage of pollution tolerant taxa (Group 3) decreased. This shows that the restored stream reaches have become more accommodating to macroinvertebrates that need cleaner water in which to live. Macroinvertebrates are a good way to assess the water quality of a stream. The water quality score, which is obtained from working through the USEPA bioassessment sheet, is a score assigned to the stream based on the number and types of macroinvertebrates collected. This water quality score increased by an average of 67% from before to after restoration in the three restored reaches.

4 TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Figures... vi List of Tables... vii Acknowledgements... x 1. Introduction Literature Review Stream Assessment Techniques Rosgen s Stream Classification System Stream Visual Assessment Protocol for Stream Health Rock Vanes Used for Stream Restoration Rock Vane Design Construction of Rock Vanes Log Vanes Used for Stream Restoration Construction of Log Vanes Physical Effects of Vanes on the Stream Mud Sills Used for Stream Restoration Mud Sill Design Effects of Mud Sills on the Stream Riparian Buffer Establishment Streambank Fencing Effects of a Healthy Riparian Buffer on the Stream Macroinvertebrates Macroinvertebrates Improve Stream Health Identification of Macroinvertebrates Macroinvertebrates Used as Indicators of Stream Health Habitat for Macroinvertebrates In Stream Habitat Riparian Buffer Zone Habitat State of the Art of Macroinvertebrate Populations in Restored Streams Goals, Objectives, Hypotheses Goal Statement Objectives Hypotheses Methodology Stream Selection Roaring Branch Little Fishing Creek Halfmoon Creek Stream Assessments Rosgen Stream Classification Stream Visual Assessment Protocol Field Collection of Macroinvertebrates Equipment to be Used In Stream Collection of Macroinvertebrates iv

5 4.4 Laboratory Processing of Macroinvertebrates Lab Equipment Needed Subsampling and Sorting Identification and Scoring of Macroinvertebrates Statistical Analysis Results Stream Assessments Rosgen Stream Classification Stream Visual Assessment Protocol Macroinvertebrate Collection Results Roaring Branch Pre-Restoration Post-Restoration Little Fishing Creek Pre-Restoration Post-Restoration Halfmoon Creek Pre-Restoration Post-Restoration Analysis and Discussion Analysis of Data Roaring Branch Little Fishing Creek Halfmoon Creek Statistical Analysis Conclusions Recommendations For Future Research References Appendix A- SVAP Parameters Appendix B SVAP Scoring Sheets Appendix C Benthic Macroinvertebrate Field Data Sheets v

6 vi LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2-1 Rosgen s Stream Classification System....5 Figure 2-2 Design views of rock vanes...8 Figure 2-3 Design view of a log vane structure...11 Figure 2-4 Design view of a mud sill...14 Figure 2-5. Habitat areas that are well suited for macroinvertebrates...22 Figure 4-1 Map showing the locations of the three study sites in Pennsylvania...27 Figure 4-2 Location of Roaring Branch...28 Figure 4-3 Location of Little Fishing Creek...29 Figure 4-4 Location of Halfmoon Creek...30 Figure 4-5 Physical/Chemical field sheet used to determine stream conditions where the macroinvertebrates are to be sampled...33 Figure 4-6 Example calculation for USEPA bioassessment sheet...36 Figure 5-1 Number of macroinvertebrate taxa collected in June 2004 prior to restoration work being done...41 Figure 5-2 Number of macroinvertebrate taxa collected in June 2010 after restoration work was completed Figure 5-3 Macroinvertebrate data collected in September 2004 by the Centre County Pennsylvania Senior Environmental Corps...45 Figure 5-4 Number of macroinvertebrate taxa collected in September 2010 at Little Fishing Creek after restoration work was done Figure 5-5 Number of macroinvertebrate taxa collected from Halfmoon Creek taken during November 2004 before restoration n...49

7 vii Figure 5-6 Number of macroinvertebrate taxa collected in November 2010 after stream restoration work was done on the stream Figure 6-1 Comparison of CCPASEC data and data shown earlier in Figure

8 viii LIST OF TABLES Table 4-1 List of equipment needed to collect macroinvertebrates...32 Table 4-2 Laboratory equipment/supplies needed for benthic macroinvertebrate sample processing...34 Table 4-3 Summary of multiplication factors for USEPA bioassessment score sheet Table 5.1 Stream parameters used to determine stream class Table 5-2 Summary of SVAP scores for the three restored streams...40 Table 5-3 Summary of Roaring Branch values obtained pre-restoration...42 Table 5-4 Summary of Roaring Branch values obtained after restoration Table 5-5 Summary of Little Fishing Creek data obtained in 2010 after restoration work...46 Table 5-6 Summary of Little Fishing Creek data obtained in 2010 after restoration work was done Table 5-7 Summary of Halfmoon Creek data collected in November 2004 before restoration work Table 5-8 Summary of Halfmoon Creek data collected in November 2010 after restoration work was done Table 6-1 Comparison of pre- and post- restoration macroinvertebrate data from Roaring Branch...54 Table 6-2 Comparison of pre- and post- restoration macroinvertebrate data from Little Fishing Creek...55

9 ix Table 6-3 Comparison of pre- and post- restoration macroinvertebrate data from Halfmoon Creek Table 6-4 ANOVA inputs for total taxa and water quality score...58 Table 6-5 ANOVA results for total taxa and water quality score...58

10 x ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank the following people for their assistance and support throughout this research project. Dr. Albert R. Jarrett Thesis Advisor, Department of Agricultural and Biological Engineering For guiding me through the Graduate School process and providing the assistance and information I needed along the way. Dr. Larry K. Brannaka U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service For teaching me the process of stream restoration and providing me with the equipment and resources necessary for my research, and his participation on my committee. Mr. Gregory A. Hoover Department of Entomology For helping me learn about benthic macroinvertebrates and providing information crucial to the completion of my research and his participation on my committee. Dr. James M. Hamlett Department of Agricultural and Biological Engineering For providing valuable input in revising my thesis proposal and my overall thesis as well as his participation on my committee. Lysle Sherwin, Joyce McKay, Ann Donovan For providing me with pre-restoration macroinvertebrate data for the streams. Department of Agricultural and Biological Engineering For giving me the opportunity to conduct this research and further my knowledge in my field of interest. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service For providing the materials and resources necessary to help me conduct my research

11 1 1. Introduction Stream restoration is the process of restoring a stream to the appropriate channel profile and plan dimensions for the class of stream and its setting in order to achieve a stable dimension, pattern, and profile. Stream restoration reduces erosion, stabilizes the streambanks, and creates or restores animal habitat. Stream restoration is a constantly evolving practice, and the techniques and strategies used are frequently evolving. One of the reasons for this is that stream restoration is not an exact science, but rather deals with the hydrology and hydraulics of streams, which are of a stochastic nature (L. Brannaka, personal communication, April 2011). It has been stated that as low as 30% of stream restoration projects actually function properly. (A. Jarrett, personal communication, October 2008). This is a problem because streams are very expensive to stabilize and can cost as much as $1000 per linear foot to restore (A. Jarrett, personal communication, October 2008). Because approximately 7.5 billion dollars have been spent on stream restoration projects in the United States since 1990 (Reese, 2007), it is important that this money is used to benefit not only people who use the stream, but also the stream ecosystem. There are many different techniques and methods used for restoring streams. Restoration structures, riparian buffer establishment, bank stabilization, and streambank fencing are all used to return a stream to its stable dimension, pattern, and profile. This research will focus on these restoration techniques and their impact on the macroinvertebrate populations in the riffles and runs associated with them. One of the most important things to keep in a stable and productive condition in a stream are the aquatic macroinvertebrate populations. Macroinvertebrates are one of the main food sources for trout and other fish in the stream. When trout habitat is being created, people concentrate mainly on creating deep pools for the fish to live in, but good food sources are often neglected (Lutz, 2007). Some macroinvertebrate taxa also eat detritus, bacteria, and fungi from the stream bed that help keep the stream clean.

12 2 Streams are restored for many different reasons. They could have jumped their banks in a heavy flood event and created a channel avulsion, they might be eroding away at a park or street, or they may need to be restored for aesthetic reasons. When streams are restored, people tend to focus on the reestablishment of the pattern, profile and dimension of the stream reach. They also look at reducing bank erosion and providing effective sediment transport. One issue that has not been addressed as thoroughly as other concerns is in-stream habitat (Doll et al., 2003). Macroinvertebrates are important to study because they are an important component of the food chain. If restoring a stream helps to increase the diversity of benthic macroinvertebrates in an area, it is reasonable to think that more fish will also inhabit the area because of the good food supply. The different taxa and number of macroinvertebrates in a stream is also a good indicator of the stream health (Rosgen and Silvey, 1996). Stream restoration does many things to the stream that should increase the habitat for macroinvertebrates. Stream restoration reduces bank erosion, which decreases the amount of sediment entering the stream. This reduction of fine sediment makes it easier for the macroinvertebrates to breath. Most macroinvertebrates prefer to live in riffles and runs, so establishing proper riffle/pool sequences is important to provide better habitat for the macroinvertebrates. Stream restoration practices will help to improve the riffles in a stream and supply more oxygen to the water. Stream restoration also adds other types of habitat to the stream that are favorable to different macroinvertebrates. Large woody debris, leaf packs, and submerged vegetation all provide excellent habitat for benthic macroinvertebrates. Coe (2009) showed that placing large woody debris in a stream in Washington significantly increased the macroinvertebrate numbers and diversity. Since macroinvertebrates are near the bottom of the freshwater stream food chain, they play a vital role in the health of a stream. If there are no insects and their relatives to eat, fish and other animals will soon move to another location, which will have a negative impact on the stream ecosystem. Because stream restoration may slightly reduce macroinvertebrate numbers initially because of the construction, it is important that rock vanes improve the habitat for macroinvertebrates in the long run.

13 3 2. Literature Review Stream restoration is the process of restoring streams to their stable conditions by realigning the channel, installing structures, and establishing a riparian buffer. This is done by first establishing proper channel dimensions for the slope and bed material of the stream, along with proper plan dimensions such as meander width, belt width, and radii of curvature. Once the channel is set, the structures are installed to maintain the proper conditions of the channel. Rosgen and Silvey (1996) states that Natural stream channel stability is achieved by allowing the river to develop a stable dimension, pattern, and profile, such that over time channel features are maintained. Streams may need to be restored for many reasons. Two of the important driving forces are people encroaching onto the floodplains and stormwater runoff from developed areas increasing bankfull flows. Since people are the cause of unstable streams in the first place, it is only reasonable that society should restabilize them by returning the impacted streams to their stable state. One way of doing this is to install stream restoration structures. These structures, which include rock vanes, log vanes, and mud sills are installed along the banks of heavily eroded areas to stabilize the banks and help prevent further erosion until natural vegetation can take over and hold the banks in place. (Crispell and Endreny, 2009). Riparian buffer establishment is another important part of stream restoration. By installing streambank fencing, seeding the disturbed banks, and planting trees a well vegetated bank is created which will provide habitat for macroinvertebrates. When stream restorations are successful, streambank erosion is significantly reduced. One of the positive changes that receives little attention is the animal habitat, especially that of the aquatic macroinvertebrates. Macroinvertebrates need sufficient cover, healthy water quality, and good riffle sections in which to live. Properly done stream restoration should provide the macroinvertebrates with these criteria. To determine how the stream restoration efforts have affected the stream, it is important to look at the different macroinvertebrate populations along the restored stream

14 4 reaches. Macroinvertebrates should be sampled before and after the restoration work is done to determine how the populations changed as a result of the restoration. 2.1 Stream Assessment Techniques There are many different ways to assess stream characteristics. Rosgen s method is used to determine the class of a stream, and other methods such as the Stream Visual Assessment Protocol (SVAP) provide a stream health rating based on visually determined characteristics of the stream. Examining the results of these evaluations are important because the diversity of macroinvertebrates numbers should correlate to other stream health evaluations. Performing these assessments on the streams is an important step in looking at the pre- and post-restoration populations of macroinvertebrates. If a certain stream is already in fair to good condition before restoration structures are installed, then the diversity and abundance of macroinvertebrates would not be expected to increase as much as if a stream was in poor condition initially Rosgen s Stream Classification System The first and most important method of stream assessment is determining the stream classification. This can be done by using Rosgen s method of stream classification. Streams are categorized by using the letters A through G, running the range of a steep mountain drop-pool stream (A) to an unstable and highly eroding gulley (G). B streams are moderately entrenched and dominated by riffles with infrequently spaced pools. C streams are slower moving streams with point bars and a well defined riffle/pool sequence. D streams are braided, and have a wide channel with eroding banks. E streams are low gradient streams with little deposition and F streams are entrenched meandering streams with a high width/depth ratio. Each stream class has have different entrenchment ratios, width/depth ratios, slopes, and sinuosities, as compiled by Rosgen and Silvey (1996) and presented in Figure 2-1. Each of these stream types behave very

15 5 differently, dictating that different restoration techniques be used for the respective stream types. Determining a stream s class is critical for many reasons. By knowing the class of a stream, one can predict how a stream will behave with time and one can begin to develop hydraulic and sediment relationships for the select stream reach (Rosgen and Silvey, 1996). Figure 2-1. Rosgen s stream classification system (Rosgen and Silvey, 1996) Stream Visual Assessment Protocol for Stream Health The Stream Visual Assessment Protocol (SVAP) provides a basic level of stream health evaluation (Newton, 1998). SVAP is based on the physical conditions of the stream in the assessment reach. By working through this assessment, one can obtain a

16 6 score for a series of the stream reach criteria based on a 1 to 10 scoring range for up to 15 different stream properties. These criteria and scoring are described in detail in Appendix A. Some SVAP criteria pertain to the health and stability of the channel and streambanks. These include hydraulic criteria such as: channel condition, hydrologic alteration, riparian zone, bank stability, pools, and riffle embeddedness. These are important because for a stream to be in good condition the first part that needs to be stable is the channel itself. The quality of the water in a stream is another property assessed by SVAP. This technique considers water quality aspects related to water appearance, nutrient enrichment, manure presence, and salinity. The final criteria that are considered using SVAP are related to animal habitat. This is done by evaluating five categories including barriers to fish movement, in-stream fish cover, invertebrate habitat, canopy cover, and macroinvertebrates observed (Newton, 1998). These scores are then added together and divided by the number of parameters assessed to come up with an SVAP score. 2.2 Rock Vanes Used for Stream Restoration Restorers use several types of in-stream structures incorporated into the stream as part of their restoration projects. One of the more popular restoration structures is the rock vane (L. Brannaka, personal communication, July 2009). Rock vanes are placed on the outside of stream meanders and are used to divert high velocity flow away from the banks and toward the center of the stream. In addition to slowing near bank flow velocities, the rock vane also creates a scour hole on the downstream side of the vane. By backfilling the area between the rock vane and the bank, a ramp is created. This will slow the velocity of the near bank flow and reduce erosion to allow a stable bank to form.

17 Rock Vane Design The installation of rock vanes involves more than just simply placing rocks into a stream. Rock vanes need detailed design, an experienced machine operator, and the proper equipment to be installed correctly. Rock vane structures are typically placed at degree angles to the bank with 20 degrees being the most common. This angle of placement is to make sure the water is directed into the center of the stream. If the angle is too small, the rock vane will not be effective, and if the angle is too large the vane begins to significantly infringe on the cross-sectional flow area causing more erosion on the opposite bank (Jarrett and Brannaka, 2009). The angle at which the rock vane extends into the stream bed is also crucial. The first rock of the vane is placed at bankfull elevation. Additional rocks are placed at a constant slope of 5-7% downward until the final rock is buried in the stream bed (Jarrett and Brannaka, 2009). The design schematics for a typical rock vane are shown in Figure 2-2.

18 Figure 2-2. Design views of rock vanes (Jarrett and Brannaka, 2009). 8

19 Construction of Rock Vanes Even though large equipment and materials are being used, constructing a rock vane is a very detailed and precise process. The rocks used should be approximately 1-5 tons, depending on the energy of the stream, and be as rectangular as possible (Rosgen, 2008). A trackhoe is used to excavate enough bed material to be able to place the first rock. Under each vane rock a footer rock of equal size is placed to serve as a foundation for the vane rock. The footer rock extends below the anticipated scour depth of the streambed (Jennings et al., 1999). The elevation of both the leading and trailing edges of the vane rock are measured. If the elevation is not within one tenth of a foot of the design elevation, both the vane rock and the footer rock are removed and the process is attempted again. The process of excavating the streambed, placing a footer rock, putting a rock on top of the footer rock, and checking the elevation is then repeated until the rock vane is completed. Both the angle to the bank and the slope of the rock vane must be accurately maintained. The vane occupies approximately one third but never more than half the cross-sectional width of the stream. If the bankfull depth of the stream is large, then three or more layers of rocks may be needed to attain the desired elevation from the anticipated scour depth. Once the trackhoe has placed all of the vane rocks, the manual labor begins. The first part of this is called chinking. Chinking is the process of placing smaller rocks, as a type of mortar to fill in the gaps between the vane rocks. Once all of the gaps and crevices have been filled, a geotextile fabric is placed over the upstream side of the rock vane and then held in place with rocks. Fill is then placed over the fabric and used to create the ramp-like structure level with the top rock between the vane and the bank. (Jarrett and Brannaka, 2009).

20 Log Vanes Used for Stream Restoration Another stream restoration structure that is commonly used in Pennsylvania is the log vane. Log vanes, like rock vanes, are used on the outside of stream meanders to divert high velocity flow away from the streambanks. Log vanes are designed very similarly to rock vanes except logs are used instead of a line of large rocks. The design schematics of a log vane can be seen in Figure 2-3. Depending on the size and flow dynamics of a stream, one or more logs are placed from bankfull down into the stream bed.

21 Figure 2-3. Design view of a log vane structure (Jarrett et al., 2010). 11

22 Construction of Log Vanes Log vanes are constructed in two phases. In the first phase the actual vane is built on the bank. Depending on the size and energy of the stream, two or more logs are pinned together using rebar. As many logs as necessary are used to build the log wall that should extend from bankfull to below the thalweg at a degree angle across the stream. Once all of the logs are pinned together a geotextile fabric is attached to the vane using large staples driven in with a hammer. Two or three ft cables are wrapped around the log vane that will later be used to secure the log vane to large rocks placed in the bank. In the second phase, the constructed log vane is placed into the stream. A trackhoe is used to dig a trench back into the bank so that the end of the vane can be placed at bankfull depth. The log vane is then carefully lowered into the stream and checked to make sure it is at the appropriate elevation. Once the vane is in place, it is staked into the stream bed using 5 ft pieces of rebar driven in with a slam bar. The cable is then stretched out and wrapped around large rocks to serve as anchors to the bank. The ends of the cables are attached and tightened using a gripple. The log vane is then backfilled to create the same type of ramp as the rock vane structure Physical Effects of Vanes on the Stream As long as rock and log vanes are properly installed, they can greatly improve a stream. These vanes reduce near-bank velocity and shear stress. Because of this, bank erosion is reduced and the faster flows are directed into the center of the channel (Rosgen, 2008). A scour hole forms on the downstream side of the vanes because of the swirling water pouring over the vanes at high water levels. The vanes create good trout habitat not only due to the cover, but also due to the upwelling and downwelling currents associated with the vane (Rosgen, 2008).

23 Mud Sills Used for Stream Restoration Mud sills are another popular and effective stream restoration structure used in Pennsylvania (L. Brannaka, personal communication 2009). Mud sills are composed of logs anchored into the bank to form a ledge that hangs out over the water. Mud sills are typically installed on the outside of stream meanders to help prevent erosion. Mud sills also provide excellent cover for fish. The large wood that the mud sill structure will add to the stream provides habitat for macroinvertebrates. The decreased amount of sediment in the stream due to decreased erosion also makes conditions more favorable for macroinvertebrates Mud Sill Design Mud sills are typically installed on the outside of stream meanders to protect the bank and provide cover for fish. For mud sills to work effectively, they must be installed correctly. Figure 2-3 shows how the logs coming out of the bank at either end of the mud sill are installed at 30 degree angles to the bank. Every eight feet, a trench is dug into the bank, facilitating installation of support logs. The support logs are installed so that the deck and face logs are submerged at normal flow levels. Next, flooring and stone are placed across the top of the support logs. The flooring can consist of additional hemlock logs or oak planking. The mud sill is installed so that the front of the sill is half under water during low flow conditions. The face log is pinned to the support logs by using 5/8 inch rebar. Once the mud sill is completed, coir mat is placed over top to establish soil lifts, and grass is planted. The coir mat is layed down by folding it back over itself with bank material in between to form small benches or lifts.

24 Figure 2-4. Design view of a mud sill (Jarrett et al., 2010). 14

25 Effects of Mud Sills on the Stream There are two functions of mud sills. The first is to protect the bank from erosion, and the second is to provide habitat and cover for fish. Mud sills stop erosion because the support logs interfere with active flow, providing reduced flow area in the near bank region, reducing the near bank flow velocity. Mud sills also provide a stable bank with a face log in front for armoring. The slower moving water near the mud sill provides good cover for fish (Lutz, 2007). By stopping the bank erosion, there will be less sediment discharged into the stream. This maintains good water quality and provides higher levels of dissolved oxygen for fish. Good water quality is also more favorable to macroinvertebrates, which provide a good food source for fish. Mud sills also add large wood to the stream, which provides good habitat and cover for macroinvertebrates. 2.5 Riparian Buffer Establishment Having a good riparian buffer is one of the most important things to keeping a stream healthy. There are many different aspects to creating a good buffer when restoring a stream. The first step to reestablishing a buffer is planting grass in all of the areas that were disturbed when working in and around the stream. Coir mat is layed out and then the grass seed is put down. Straw is then scattered over the grass seed. Trees that flourish in a wet environment such as sycamores and willows can then be planted on the floodplain. Once the trees mature, their root systems will further help to hold the bank together and reduce erosion. The tree canopy will also provide shade and cover to the area around the stream.

26 Streambank Fencing Installing streambank fencing is another way of helping to establish a riparian buffer around a stream. Streambank fencing is usually used near agricultural land and is designed to keep cattle and other animals out of the stream. Streambank fencing may also be used with cattle crossings which help to minimize the time that the cows are in the stream when they have to cross from one side to another. By keeping cows away from the stream, the streambanks are given time to become vegetated. This vegetation will help to hold the bank together and reduce erosion in the restored reach Effects of a Healthy Riparian Buffer on the Stream A healthy riparian buffer will positively affect the stream in many different ways. Well vegetated banks will reduce erosion of the streambanks and lower the amount of fine sediment in the stream. Any vegetation near the water will provide habitat for benthic macroinvertebrates. Once the tree plantings get large enough to form a canopy, they will further improve the stream reach. The tree canopy shades the stream as well as adding habitat for fish and macroinvertebrates. The sticks and leaves that fall from the trees can form areas that are well suited for macroinvertebrates. Streambank fencing and the installation of cattle crossings improve the stream reach by reducing the amount of organic enrichment and fine sediment in the stream. By limiting the amount of time that the cows spend near and in the stream, erosion of the banks are reduced and vegetation is given an opportunity to grow. 2.6 Macroinvertebrates Macroinvertebrates are an important, sometimes overlooked, part of a stream ecosystem. There are three different groups of benthic macroinvertebrates. Group 1

27 17 macroinvertebrates, which include caddisflies, mayflies, and stoneflies, are taxa that are most sensitive to pollution. The larger the percentage of Group 1 macroinvertebrates in a stream, the healthier the stream. Group 2 macroinvertebrates are more tolerant to pollution, and include crayfish, crane fly larvae, and scuds (freshwater shrimp). Group 3 macroinvertebrates are tolerant of pollution and are found in varying densities in most streams. Some examples of members in this group are aquatic worms, black fly larvae, and leeches (Merritt et al., 2008) Macroinvertebrates Improve Stream Health Macroinvertebrates benefit a stream ecosystem in many ways and are good indicators of the overall health of a stream. The single most important role that macroinvertebrates play in a stream is as a food source for fish. Most fish thrive on insects and use macroinvertebrates as their primary source of food (NCSU, 2008b). Because fish like to stay in the pools created by rock vanes, it is also important that the riffles and runs in the surrounding area have plenty of food available to the fish. Apart from functioning as a food source, benthic macroinvertebrates eat debris, bacteria, and fungi found in the stream and help to keep the stream clean and reduce the accumulation of decaying organic debris (Water and River Commission, 2001). While not as important as being an integral part of the food chain, macroinvertebrates also provide information on the health of a stream. Since they are found in all streams, have short lives, and vary in their tolerance to pollution, macroinvertebrate taxa found in an area may be a good indication of stream health and if there is any pollution nearby. Generally, streams with greater populations of Group 1 macroinvertebrates will be healthier than streams with greater populations of Groups 2 and 3 macroinvertebrate taxa.

28 Identification of Macroinvertebrates Once macroinvertebrates are collected, they need to be identified and counted. This can be done by using the reference, An Introduction to the Aquatic Insects of North America (Merritt et al., 2008). Group 1 macroinvertebrates consist of Ephemeroptera (mayflies), Plecoptera (stoneflies), and Trichoptera (caddisflies). These three taxa are included in a metric referred to as EPT. Determining these three insect orders is key to identifying and counting the macroinvertebrates. Also included in Group 1 are riffle beetles, hellgrammites, and Psephenids (water pennies).there are other macroinvertebrate taxa that will also be collected. Some of these include Odonata (dragonflies and damselflies), crustaceans, Megaloptera (dobsonflies, fishflies, and alderflies), and Diptera (midges, mosquitoes, and crane flies) Ephemeroptera (Mayflies) Mayflies are Group 1 macroinvertebrates. There are over 2000 species of mayflies in 200 different genera worldwide (Ramel, 1993). Most mayfly larvae have three tails and gills located on their abdomen. Mayfly larvae also have three pairs of thoracic legs. Burrowing mayflies have a set of mandibular tusks that protrude from the front of their mouth. These are used to burrow into soft sediment located on the stream bottom (NCSU, 2008a). Most mayflies are herbivores that feed on algae and detritus that grow or accumulate on the stream bed. This helps to keep the stream clean and prevents debris and organic material from building up (Water and River Commission, 2001). A few mayfly species are collectors and scrapers. This means they feed on floating material and anything that grows on substrate in the stream. According to Ramel (1993), mayflies inhabit a few different areas in the stream. Some species, particularly the herbivores, prefer to associate themselves with aquatic vegetation. In this habitat they are hidden, protected, and also have a good food supply at

29 all times. Other mayfly larvae prefer to cling to the underside of rocks in the fast moving current, or even burrow into the sediment in the stream bottom Plecoptera (Stoneflies) Another Group 1 macroinvertebrate are stoneflies. Stonefly nymphs have two tails and three pairs of thoracic legs (Newman, 2009). There are over 460 species of stoneflies in North America, and they can vary in color from orange and yellow to green, brown, and black. Stonefly nymphs vary in size from 5-50 mm in length, and have two long antennae on their head (NCSU, 2008). Stonefly nymphs need well-oxygenated water to live in, so they are more abundant in riffle sections of a stream. Stonefly nymphs are very poor swimmers and prefer to use their thoracic legs to crawl along the rocks in the fast-moving water. Because of this, they frequently lose their grip and float helplessly downstream to the next pool to become fish food (Newman, 2009). This is why having good macroinvertebrate populations in the riffles around rock vanes are important to the fish living in the scour holes nearby. Different species of stoneflies prefer different kinds of food. Some are herbaceous and will feed on organic and vegetable matter located in the stream. Still others are carnivorous and will eat mayfly and other insect larvae (Newman, 2009). Even though different species of stoneflies act and behave differently, there are a few common characteristics that they all share. Fast moving water and rocks to cling to are two main considerations of good stonefly habitat Trichoptera (Caddisflies) Case-building caddisflies, along with mayflies and stoneflies, are Group 1 macroinvertebrates that are very sensitive to pollution and sedimentation. Caddisfly larvae can range in size from 6-7 mm in length to as large as 30 mm. Caddisflies have

30 20 well developed thoracic legs and a long abdomen, which has eight segments with gills. (NCSU, 2008a). Some caddisfly larvae use small twigs, rocks, and detrital material to make a protective case in which they stay until they develop into adults (Newman, 2009). Other caddisfly larvae spin nets that catch material flowing in the stream on which the larvae feed. Caddisfly larvae can be black, dark green, tan, or even bright green. Caddisfly larvae prefer to live in shallow, cool, well oxygenated water. Caddisfly larvae feed on algae, along with plant and animal material that has settled to the bottom of the stream (Newman, 2009). Because this food source is more available in places that are not filled with mud and sediment, caddisfly larvae prefer to live among the rocks in riffles of gravel bottom streams Other Macroinvertebrate Taxa Since diversity is a crucial part to a healthy stream ecosystem, other macroinvertebrate taxa besides the EPT (Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera) need to be evaluated when assessing stream ecosystem health. As long as the populations of these other taxa do not make up a large percentage of the macroinvertebrates in the stream, it is still beneficial to have them present in the stream. Macroinvertebrate taxa are divided up into three groups as they relate to pollution tolerance. Group 1 macroinvertebrates are intolerant to pollution and only found in the healthiest streams. If the majority of the macroinvertebrates collected in a stream are Group 1, the stream is in good condition. Group 2 macroinvertebrates are somewhat tolerant to pollution and can live in water that may be unsuitable for Group 1 macroinvertebrates. Group 3 macroinvertebrates are the most tolerant to pollution. They can live in streams that are severely impaired and full of fine sediment. Riffle beetles and water pennies are Group 1 macroinvertebrates that need well oxygenated riffle sections in which to live. These taxa are also good indicators of a healthy stream. Crayfish and scuds (freshwater shrimp) which are Group 2 macroinvertebrates are also important to the stream ecosystem. They prefer the same

31 21 environment as the EPT taxa and are good food for fish. While finding these species in a stream reach is good, if there is an overabundance of them, it could be a sign that there is excessive calcium in the water which may not be good for many other species (Newman, 2009). The order Odonata consists of dragonflies and damselflies which are also Group 2 macroinvertebrates and are a favorite food of trout (Newman, 2009). Dragonfly and damselfly larvae prefer to live in dense vegetation near deep water. Aquatic worms and leeches are Group 3 macroinvertebrate taxa. While having a few of these in a stream is normal, an overabundance of them may be an indicator of an unhealthy stream that may have organic enrichment or an abundance of fine sediment Macroinvertebrates Used as Indicators of Stream Health Because macroinvertebrates have short lives, stay in the same area, and vary in their tolerance to pollution, they are often used as indicators of the health of a particular reach of stream. Methods such as the Rapid Bioassessment Protocol (Merritt et al., 2008), and the USEPA s bioassessment data sheet (Barbour et al., 1999) involve collecting macroinvertebrates from the stream and identifying them. The taxonomic level to which the insects need to be identified will be determined by which sampling protocol is used. Depending on the diversity, macroinvertebrate taxa, and quantity of each taxa, a water quality score is obtained for that stream. 2.7 Habitat for Macroinvertebrates When habitat is mentioned in stream restoration, it is usually referring to trout and other fish habitat. Actually, habitat can refer to many things. Besides just providing deep holes for fish, stream restoration structures should provide places for small debris and leaves to accumulate. By stabilizing the banks and allowing vegetation to grow, rock and log vanes allow trees to establish themselves and provide canopy cover and shade. Mud sills also help stabilize the banks which provide a place for trees to grow and establish a

32 22 riparian buffer. Along with this, these structures stop excess sediment from entering the stream, which could clog up the macroinvertebrates gills. Figure 2-5 illustrates various aspects of stream habitat that are well suited for macroinvertebrates. Figure 2-5. Habitat areas that are well suited for macroinvertebrates (Water and River Commission, 2001) In Stream Habitat One of the more noticeable things that vanes and mud sills change is the in-stream habitat. On the downstream side of rock and log vanes, a scour hole usually develops. Sometimes this scour hole is dug when the vane is installed to encourage development and a few large boulders are placed in the hole for armoring. These scour holes provide good cover for fish and also give the fish a place to escape the more rapid currents (Lutz, 2007). The large wood used to construct log vanes and mud sills also provide improved habitat for different macroinvertebrate taxa.

33 Riparian Buffer Zone Habitat One area that is often neglected when stabilizing a stream is the riparian buffer zone (Newton, 1998). This is the area around a stream where there are trees, shrubs, grass, and other vegetation. The effect of mud sills on the buffer zone is easy to observe. They provide a gradually sloping bank with plenty of room for trees and shrubs to grow. Seeing what a rock vane does to the buffer zone is not as easily noticed. The stable banks around the stream can have a chance to establish vegetation, which can hang down over the banks and into the water. This provides good cover and habitat for benthic macroinvertebrates. Also, once the trees get bigger, they can provide canopy cover which shades the stream and improves the habitat for the fish and macroinvertebrates. When installing rock vanes and mud sills, it is important to try to disturb as little of the bank vegetation as possible. When it is necessary to disturb the bank and trees, grass should be planted (Doll et al., 2003). The riparian buffer zone is also important to other animals in the area. Birds, raccoons, muskrats, and other animals that enjoy living around water will thrive in the riparian buffer zone because of the good cover and food provided by the nearby stream. 2.8 State of the Art of Macroinvertebrate Populations in Restored Streams Considering between $35 to $1000/ linear foot can be spent when restoring streams, it is important that everything possible is done to get the most from the funds spent. This means when a stream is restored, not only should people be looking out for themselves and their property, but also restoring the health of the stream ecosystem. While they may seem small and insignificant, macroinvertebrates are a necessary part of a healthy stream and they should be taken into account when restoring a stream. Trying to get big fish out of small water has always been a priority of many wildlife agencies and fisherman (Lutz, 2007). One method of doing this is by increasing the fish s food source. If there are a large number of macroinvertebrates in an area, this will attract more fish to

34 24 the same place. This will in turn improve the stream and benefit fisherman who visit the stream. Since macroinvertebrates are excellent indicators of stream health, an increase in their numbers after stream restoration indicates that the stream restoration performed well and improved the quality of the stream. A study was conducted in Germany that tested the effects of restoring channelized streams on macroinvertebrates by increasing the sinuosity, placing large boulders and logs, and adding cobbles to the stream (Lorenz, 2009). The study does not have numbers of each macroinvertebrate taxa found, but there were 56 taxa found only in the restored reaches. A study in Washington concluded that adding large wood to large coastal rivers also increases macroinvertebrate populations. The study did not increase the percentage of the EPT, but this could be because large logs were just randomly thrown in the river for habitat and not done in a way to restore the stream (Coe, 2009). To date, there have been very few or no studies performed on the effects of stream restoration practices on macroinvertebrate populations in Pennsylvania. Since stream restoration is becoming more popular in Pennsylvania and macroinvertebrates are inexpensive and relatively easy to sample, a study will be conducted to demonstrate whether or not stream restoration increases macroinvertebrate populations in a stream reach, and therefore increase the quality of a lotic ecosystem.

35 25 3. Goals, Objectives, Hypotheses When assessing the health of a stream, there are many variables to consider. One of the variables that is often overlooked is the benthic macroinvertebrate populations. Macroinvertebrates help the stream in many ways, such as providing food for fish and helping keep the streambed free of rotting debris. During the process of stream restoration, flow dynamics of the stream and the habitats for fish and macroinvertebrates are changed. When the stream restoration is complete, there will be reduced erosion and stabilized banks. There should be an increase in animal habitat and more dissolved oxygen in the stream. These changes to a lotic ecosystem should also be beneficial to macroinvertebrate populations. 3.1 Goal Statement The goal of this research was to compare pre-restoration macroinvertebrate health with similar post-restoration health around stream restoration projects to show that the stream restoration increases macroinvertebrate populations in the surrounding area, and therefore show that the quality of the stream has increased because of the use of stream restoration. The benthic macroinvertebrate Rapid Bioassessment Protocol (RBP) collection technique, and the USEPA s bioassessment data sheet outlined in (Barbour et al., 1999) will be used to evaluate and quantify the macroinvertebrate sample. 3.2 Objectives 1. Obtain and evaluate pre-restoration macroinvertebrate data from three different streams that have been restored within the last 2 to 5 years.

36 2. Use Rosgen stream classification and Stream Visual Assessment Protocol (SVAP) to determine the stability and health of the streams to be studied Use the RBP collection method and USEPA s bioassessment data sheet to evaluate macroinvertebrate populations in the restored reaches of the streams. 4. Assess and compare the pre-restoration data with the post-restoration data to determine the stream health improvement that occurred relative to the stream restoration activities. 3.3 Hypotheses The following two hypotheses will be implemented: A. After the process of stream restoration, the diversity of macroinvertebrates found in the restored reach will be increased relative to the pre-restoration reach. B. After the process of stream restoration, the water quality score (Barbour et al., 1999) in the restored reach will be increased relative to the pre-restoration reach.

37 27 4. Methodology 4.1 Stream Selection Three streams in Pennsylvania were selected for the macroinvertebrate collections. These three streams were restored within the last 2-5 years with stream restoration structures, bank stabilization techniques and riparian buffer establishment. All three of these streams had macroinvertebrate data collected before the stream reaches were restored. Roaring Branch, Little Fishing Creek, and Halfmoon Creek all met these requirements and were chosen for this study. The general locations of these streams are shown in Figure 4-1. Figure 4-1. Map showing the general locations of the three study sites in Pennsylvania (Google Maps).

38 Roaring Branch Figure 4-2. Location of Roaring Branch (Google Maps). Roaring Branch is a freestone stream located in the Lycoming Creek Watershed in Lycoming County along State Route 14. (see Figure 4-2). Roaring Branch is a class B3 stream with a bankfull depth of 2.7 ft. The data for Roaring Branch were obtained in June of 2004 during a bioassessment survey conducted by Mel Zimmerman at Lycoming college. The survey was done in the riffle section near the bridge at 41 degrees 33 minutes, 15.9 seconds north latitude and 76 degrees 57 minutes 45.8 seconds west longitude. The survey was done in the riffle section near the bridge at. This section of Roaring Branch was restored in the summer of The stream was returned to its stable dimension, pattern, and profile and restoration structures were installed. At the upstream end of the reach, a mud sill was installed. Six log vanes and six rock vanes were also constructed along the 2200 ft length of the restored reach. The

39 29 disturbed areas were then seeded and trees were planted to establish a stable bank. The restoration ended at the route 14 bridge, which is where the macroinvertebrates were collected in This should be a good location because it s directly downstream from the restoration and should provide a good indication of what the restoration has done to improve the macroinvertebrate populations Little Fishing Creek Figure 4-3. Location of Little Fishing Creek (Google Maps). Little Fishing Creek is a class B4 limestone stream that runs through farmland near Hublersburg, PA (Figure 4-3). The bankfull depth of Little Fishing Creek is 2.2 ft. It is located in Centre County in the Bald Eagle Watershed. Little Fishing Creek was restored using mud sills and riparian buffer establishment in This restoration work was done to stabilize the stream and prevent further erosion caused by farming. Cattle crossings and fencing were then added in the summer of This was done to keep cattle out of the stream to further reduce erosion and prevent excess nutrients from

40 30 entering the stream. Macroinvertebrate data had been collected several times since 2003 by the Centre County Pennsylvania Senior Environmental Corps (CCPASEC) ( The collection site is at the Tice property which is located at 40 degrees 57 minutes 45 seconds latitude and 77 degrees 36 minutes 9 seconds longitude Halfmoon Creek Figure 4-4. Location of Halfmoon Creek (Google Maps). Halfmoon Creek is also a limestone stream, located near Pennsylvania Furnace, PA (Figure 4-4). Halfmoon Creek is a class B3 stream and has a bankfull depth of 2.4. Samples were collected near the bridge located at 40 degrees 43 minutes 45 seconds north latitude and 78 degrees 1 minute 50 seconds west longitude. Halfmoon Creek has had many restoration projects done on it from Many different types of stream restoration structures were used including rock vanes, mud sills, rock cross vanes, log vanes, and riparian buffer restoration. The pre-restoration data was from 2004, and was

41 31 obtained for the Spruce Creek Watershed Assessment and Stewardship Plan. (Sherwin, 2004) Macroinvertebrates were collected in the Weaver Tract just upstream from the bridge using D-frame nets. Nine kicks were performed for twenty seconds each, with the kicks disturbing a total of one square meter of stream bed. 4.2 Stream Assessments Rosgen Stream Classification For the Rosgen stream classification method, four values were obtained. The entrenchment ratio, width/depth ratio, slope, and sinuosity of each stream were measured along the three restored reaches. The D50 of each stream was also found by doing a pebble count. This was done to determine what size of bed material the streams had. These values were used along with Figure 2-1 to determine the class of each stream Stream Visual Assessment Protocol The post-restoration SVAP was conducted at each stream when macroinvertebrates were collected. This was done by walking the restored reach and assigning a score for each of the fifteen criteria. Visually observed clues were used to give each category a score. These scores were then added together and divided by the total number of categories used to give the stream a 1-10 rating. 4.3 Field Collection of Macroinvertebrates The Rapid Bioassessment Protocol (RBP) for benthic macroinvertebrates collection method was used to collect the macroinvertebrates. This protocol, as outlined by Barbour et al. (1999), was used because it has been the most popular set of protocols

42 32 since The single habitat approach was used to collect macroinvertebrates in riffles and runs near the stream restoration structures. Once the macroinvertebrates were collected, they were taken back to the lab to be identified, sorted, and counted. The USEPA bioassessment sheet was used to get an overall water quality score Equipment to be Used Table 4-1. List of equipment needed to collect macroinvertebrates (Barbour et al., 1999). Standard D-frame net, 500 µm mesh opening 95% ethanol sample containers, sample container labels forceps pencils, clipboard Benthic Macroinvertebrate Field Data Sheet waders All of the equipment listed in Table 4-1 was used to collect the macroinvertebrate samples. First, a D-frame net was used to collect the macroinvertebrates from the stream. The composite sample was then placed in a container with ninety-five percent ethanol for preservation. The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Field Data Sheet was also filled out In Stream Collection of Macroinvertebrates By using the RBP single habitat approach, macroinvertebrates were collected in riffles and runs near the downstream end of the restored reach. The first step for field sampling was to select a 100 m reach that best represented the stream reach being sampled. In this case, the locations of the pre-restoration data samples were known, and the post-restoration data were collected in the same place. Before sampling, the

43 physical/chemical field sheet was used to document site description, weather condition, and land use (see Figure 4-5). 33 Figure 4-5. Physical/Chemical field sheet used to determine stream conditions where the macroinvertebrates are to be sampled (Barbour et al., 1999). The D-frame net was used to collect the samples in riffles and runs near the end of the restored reaches. Two kicks were done, one in a riffle and one in a run, for each of the restored streams. The kicks were done from the downstream end of the reach working upstream. This prevented already disturbed material from floating down the stream and introducing a bias to the results (Barbour et al., 1999). To perform the kicks, the net was jabbed into the stream bed, and 1 square meter upstream of the nets was disturbed by kicking the cobbles and gravel to dislodge the macroinvertebrates from the underlying bed material (USEPA, 2008). The two kicks taken at each stream were placed in one sample container to create a single composite sample. This sample was preserved with 95% ethanol to prevent deterioration of the macroinvertebrates collected. Once preserved, the sample was appropriately labeled and taken back to the lab for sorting, counting, and identification.

44 Laboratory Processing of Macroinvertebrates All macroinvertebrate samples collected were processed in the laboratory under controlled conditions. Laboratory processing includes subsampling, sorting, and identification of the macroinvertebrates (Barbour, et al., 1999) Lab Equipment Needed The equipment needed for identifying and counting the macroinvertebrates is summarized in Table 4-2. Table 4-2. Laboratory equipment/supplies needed for benthic macroinvertebrate sample processing (Barbour et al., 1999). Two standardized gridded pans (30 cm x 36 cm) with approximately 28 grids (6 cm x 6 cm) forceps white plastic or enamel pan (15 cm x 23 cm) for sorting specimen vials with caps or stoppers sample labels standard laboratory bench sheets for sorting and identification microscope for organism identification 70% ethanol for storage of specimens Subsampling and Sorting When the samples were brought back to the lab, they were first rinsed off. The leaves, twigs, and algae were removed and inspected for hidden macroinvertebrates and discarded. Once this was done, the sample was soaked in water for approximately 15 minutes to rinse off any ethanol. After washing, the sample contents were spread evenly across a pan marked with 6 cm by 6 cm grids. Any large or obviously abundant

45 35 organisms were noted because of the high probability that they would be excluded from the targeted grids (Barbour et al., 1999). Four random numbers were then selected that correspond to the numbers on the grid. This was done by putting the numbers 1-28 in a hat and randomly picking numbers All material is then removed from the four corresponding grid squares and put into a separate similarly gridded pan. Once the organisms were in the second pan, the random number selection was repeated to obtain a sample of 200 macroinvertebrates plus or minus 20%. Once this number was reached, the organisms were placed in a vial with 70% ethanol to preserve them Identification and Scoring of Macroinvertebrates All macroinvertebrates in the sample were identified to the lowest taxonomic level necessary for the USEPA bioassessment. Once each organism was identified using a microscope, it was labeled and tallied on the bioassessment sheet. Based on the diversity and number of each taxa, a water quality score was tallied. An example of the calculations for Halfmoon Creek is shown in Figure 4-6. There are many columns of data, with each one representing a different collection location along the stream. The first one to the right of the macroinvertebrate names (labeled HM-C/HM1) will be used in this example.

46 Figure 4-6. Example calculation for USEPA bioassessment sheet. 36

47 37 The chart is divided into three sections, Group 1 at the top followed by Group 2 and Group 3. On the left is a list of the macroinvertebrates within each group. In the first column, is a summary of the macroinvertebrates collected at that particular site on Halfmoon Creek. In this example, for Group 1, there are: 2 water pennies, 75 mayflies, 10 riffle beetles, and 1 stonefly. A score was then assigned based on the numbers of each macroinvertebrate taxa collected at the sampling. These scores are Rare (1-9 individuals), Common (10-99 individuals), and Dominant (>100 individuals). A summary of the multiplication factors is given below. Table 4-3 Summary of multiplication factors for USEPA bioassessment score sheet. Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Rare x 5.0 Rare x 3.2 Rare x 1.2 Common x 5.6 Common x 3.4 Common x 1.1 Dominant x 5.3 Dominant x 3.0 Dominant x 1.0 For Group 1 in this example, there are two rare species (water pennies and stoneflies) and two common species (mayflies and riffle beetles). The score would be 2 x 5 for rare and 2 x 5.6 for common. Added together these total The same process is then repeated for Groups 2 and 3. In Group 2, there are two common species (crane fly larvae and sowbugs) and two dominant species (beetle larvae and net-spinning caddisflies) The Group 2 score for this sample would be 2 x 3.4 for common and 2 x 3.0 for dominant. In Group 3, there is one common species (black fly larvae) and one dominant species (midge larvae). The Group 3 score is 1 x 1.1 for the common species and 1 x 1.0 for the dominant species. The total score for the three groups is added together to get the water quality score for the stream reach. A Poor (< 20), Fair (20-40), or Good (>40) rating is then given to the stream based on the water quality score. In this example, the total score is 36.1, which gives this reach of stream a Fair rating.

48 Statistical Analysis Once the data were recorded, ANOVA was then used to prove the hypothesis that stream restoration practices do increase the macroinvertebrate populations and water quality score in the restored reaches of streams. A p-value was obtained to assign a confidence interval to the data.

49 39 5. Results 5.1 Stream Assessments The Rosgen stream classification system was used on the three streams to determine their type. The SVAP was also done along the reaches where macroinvertebrates were collected. Since the SVAP is another way of defining the health of a stream, it was expected that there would be a correlation between it and the macroinvertebrate assessment Rosgen Stream Classification A summary of the parameters used to determine stream type is shown in Table 5-1 below. All three streams in this study were B class streams with cobble or gravel substrate. B class streams are found on moderately steep to gently sloped terrain. The stream morphology is dominated by rapids and scour pools below constriction areas (Jarrett et al., 2010). Point bars and pools in B streams are poorly developed, and the stream does not have a lot of meandering. The floodplain development in B streams is usually limited because of the narrow valleys they occupy. Habitat for macroinvertebrates in B class streams is created mostly by large woody debris and well oxygenated riffle sections. Table 5-1. Stream parameters used to determine stream class. Entrenchment Stream W/D ratio Ratio Sinuosity Slope Class Roaring Branch B3 Little Fishing Creek B4 Halfmoon Creek B3

50 Stream Visual Assessment Protocol All three of the restored stream reaches scored in the good or excellent range. The overall SVAP scores are shown in Table 5.2. The SVAP scoring sheets are located in Appendix B. Table 5-2. Summary of SVAP scores for the three restored streams. Stream SVAP Score Rating Roaring Branch 8.82 Good Little Fishing Creek 7.50 Good Halfmoon Creek 9.25 Excellent According to the SVAP, all streams were in good or excellent condition, and therefore, should be home to many different species of macroinvertebrates. 5.2 Macroinvertebrate Collection Results Macroinvertebrates were collected in 2004 before any restoration work was done on each of the three study streams, and then again in 2010 after the restoration work had been completed for 2-5 years. The macroinvertebrate collection results are summarized in the following section Roaring Branch Pre-Restoration The pre-restoration data from Roaring Branch were collected in June of 2004 and are summarized in Figure 5-1.

51 41 Roaring Branch (Pre-restoration) Number of macroinvertebrates Group 1 Group 2 Group Mayflies Stoneflies Crayfish Net-spinning caddisfly Aquatic moths Crane flies midges Aquatic worms Figure 5-1. Number of macroinvertebrate taxa collected in June 2004 prior to restoration work being done. (Zimmerman and Ford, 2004) There were eight different taxa of macroinvertebrates collected in Roaring Branch in The majority of these macroinvertebrates were mayflies, stoneflies, and netspinning caddisflies. All three of these types of macroinvertebrates are indicators of good water quality. On the other hand, Group 3 macroinvertebrates (midges and aquatic worms) made up a small percentage of the total number of macroinvertebrates collected. Some of the other values obtained are in Table 5-3 below.

52 42 Table 5-3. Summary of Roaring Branch values obtained pre-restoration Taxa 8 % EPT 61.0 Group 1 (% Intolerant) 61.0 Group Group 3 (% Tolerant) 6.5 Water Quality Score 26.6 These values show that Group 1 individuals made up the majority of the macroinvertebrates in this stream, while the pollution tolerant Group 3 macroinvertebrates made up just a small percentage. The water quality score for Roaring Branch in 2004 was This water quality score translates into a Fair rating for the stream. The reason for this could be because the bank erosion and overall bad condition of the stream did not provide adequate habitat for macroinvertebrates before any restoration work was done. Post-Restoration The post restoration data for Roaring Branch was collected in June 2010 and are summarized in Figure 5-2.

53 43 Roaring Branch (Post-restoration) Number of macroinvertebrates 107 Group 1 Group 3 Group Figure 5-2. Number of macroinvertebrate taxa collected in June 2010 after restoration work was completed. Figure 5-2 illustrates that the diversity of the macroinvertebrates in Roaring Branch has increased from 8 different macroinvertebrate taxa to 11. Also, three of the new taxa collected are Group 1 individuals. This is a very strong indicator that the water quality of the stream improved. The values obtained from the macroinvertebrates collected are summarized in Table 5-4 below.

54 44 Table 5-4 Summary of Roaring Branch values obtained after restoration. Taxa 11 %EPT 63.0 Group 1 (% Intolerant) 69.0 Group Group 3 (% Tolerant) 6.0 Water Quality Score 41.5 After examining these values, the %EPT, intolerant, and tolerant species remained almost the same. The number of taxa and water quality score both increased after the restoration work was done. These increases show that the health of the stream has improved since the restoration work was completed Little Fishing Creek Pre-Restoration Pre-restoration macroinvertebrate data have been collected by the Centre County Pennsylvania Senior Environmental Corps (CCPASEC) in Little Fishing Creek since So that all pre-restoration data was collected in 2004, the data collected in September, 2004 was used. These data are summarized in Figure 5-3 below.

55 45 Figure 5-3. Macroinvertebrate data collected in September 2004 by the Centre County Pennsylvania Senior Environmental Corps. The macroinvertebrate community in 2004 in Little Fishing Creek was dominated by two different taxa as shown in Figure 5-3. These taxa were net spinning caddisflies and aquatic worms. Net spinning caddisflies are a Group 2 taxon, and are moderately tolerant to pollution. Aquatic worms are a Group 3 taxon and are very tolerant to pollution. The large presence of aquatic worms could be the result of excessive amounts of organic enrichment or fine sediment being deposited in the stream reach. From personal communication with landowners, it was discovered that before the restoration work was done, many cows had access to the stream, and were the cause of the severely eroded streambanks. This could explain both the organic enrichment and the excess fine

56 sediment in the stream. A summary of the analysis of the 2004 sampling at Little Fishing Creek is shown in Table Table 5-5. Summary of Little Fishing Creek data obtained in 2004 before restoration work. Taxa 9 % EPT 6.0 Group 1 (% Intolerant) 13.0 Group Group 3 (% Tolerant) 28.7 Water Quality Score 34.3 After examining the data in Table 5-5, Little Fishing Creek was not a very healthy stream prior to restoration. Pollution tolerant species made up 30% of the total macroinvertebrates, while the intolerant species made up only 13% of the macroinvertebrates collected. Of these intolerant species only about half are members of the EPT orders. The diversity was the only positive result indicated by the pre-restoration data. Because there were a few individuals in Group 1, the water quality score was boosted to Post-Restoration The macroinvertebrate data collected in September, 2010 at Little Fishing Creek are summarized in Figure 5-4.

57 47 Group 1 71 Little Fishing Creek (Post-Restoration) Number of Macroinvertebrates Group 2 Group Figure 5-4 Number of macroinvertebrate taxa collected in September 2010 at Little Fishing Creek after restoration work was done. The post-restoration macroinvertebrate sample looked much better than the prerestoration data. There were 14 different macroinvertebrate taxa collected in September 2010 compared to only 9 that were collected in 2004 before the restoration. While netspinning caddisflies still make up a large portion of the sample, aquatic worms no longer do. This decrease in Group 3 macroinvertebrates demonstrates that the water quality of this stream reach has increased. Mayflies and riffle beetles also make up approximately 50% of the sample in Since these are both Group 1 insects, this is a good sign that the stream health has improved. The values obtained from the data are listed in Table 5-6.

58 48 Table 5-6 Summary of Little Fishing Creek data obtained in 2010 after restoration work was done. Taxa 14 % EPT 16.5 Group 1 (% Intolerant) 54.0 Group Group 3 (% Tolerant) 13.0 Water Quality Score 43.4 In the 2010 post restoration survey, the percentage of intolerant species significantly increased from 13 % to 54 %. This is due to the large increase in both mayflies and riffle beetles. The percentage of tolerant species decreased from 28.7% to 13 %. Both of these changes are why the water quality score has improved over the past couple years. Both the number of macroinvertebrate taxa and water quality score between the pre- and post-restoration surveys increased Halfmoon Creek Pre-Restoration The pre-restoration macroinvertebrate data for Halfmoon Creek were obtained in November of 2004 and recorded by Lysle Sherwin (Sherwin, 2004). The data from the sampling are summarized in Figure 5-5. It should be noted that once the collector in 2004 got to 100 of a certain taxon, they stopped counting that particular taxon because it would no longer have an effect on the water quality score.

59 49 Halfmoon Creek (Pre-Restoration) Number of Macroinvertebrates Group 1 Group 2 Group Mayflies Riffle beetles Stoneflies Beetle larvae Crane fly larvae Net-spinning caddisflies Black flies Midges Figure 5-5. Number of macroinvertebrate taxa collected from Halfmoon Creek taken during November 2004 before restoration (Sherwin, 2004). Eight different macroinvertebrate taxa were collected from Halfmoon Creek before any restoration work was done. In this study, for whatever reason, more than 200 insects were collected. However, this will not make any difference because the percentages and water quality score are both based on averages. Over 100 mayflies, net spinning caddisflies, black flies, and midges were collected before restoration occured. This shows that Halfmoon Creek can support large numbers of both tolerant and intolerant species. The values obtained from the 2004 collection are listed in Table 5-7.

60 50 Table 5-7. Summary of Halfmoon Creek data collected in November 2004 before restoration work. Taxa 8 % EPT 22.0 Group 1 (% Intolerant) 23.0 Group Group 3 (% Tolerant) 42.7 Water Quality Score 28.4 There were a large number of pollution tolerant species collected in Black flies and midges are both Group 3 taxa, and they make up almost half of the macroinvertebrates collected in that survey. Because of the lack of diversity and high number of tolerant species, the water quality score before the restoration of the stream reach was only Post-Restoration The post-restoration macroinvertebrate data were collected in November 2010 and are listed in Figure 5-6.

61 51 Group 1 34 Halfmoon Creek (Post-Restoration) Number of Macroinvertebrates Group 2 38 Group Figure 5-6. Number of macroinvertebrate taxa collected in November 2010 after stream restoration work was done on the stream. The diversity of macroinvertebrates in Halfmoon Creek increased from 8 to 18 different taxa based on the assessment conducted in All of the taxa collected in 2004 were also collected in 2010 along with ten additional macroinvertebrate taxa. These include water pennies, hellgrammites, fishflies, dragonfly larvae, and a few other taxa. It should also be noted that a few taxa no longer dominate the entire stream reach. No one macroinvertebrate taxon makes up more than 20% of the total sample collected. The values calculated from the macroinvertebrates collected in Halfmoon Creek in November 2010 are listed in Table 5-8.

62 52 Table 5-8. Summary of Halfmoon Creek data collected in November 2010 after restoration work was done. Taxa 18 % EPT 11.0 Group 1 (% Intolerant) 31.5 Group 2 34 Group 3 (% Tolerant) 34.5 Water Quality Score 61.8 The data in Table 5-8, illustrate that both the number of different taxa and the water quality score both increased by over 100 percent. The percentage of intolerant species increased, and the percentage of tolerant species decreased. All of these changes show that restoration caused an increase in macroinvertebrate health as well as diversity in this stream reach.

63 53 6. Analysis and Discussion 6.1 Analysis of Data The data collected both before the restoration in 2004 and after the restoration in 2010 were organized using Microsoft Excel. The results were then statistically analyzed using ANOVA Roaring Branch Table 6-1 is a summary and comparison of the macroinvertebrates collected at Roaring Branch. The number of different macroinvertebrate taxa collected in Roaring Branch increased by 3 from 2004 to 2010, which is a 37.5 % increase. Two of the new macroinvertebrate taxa found in the stream reach were Group 1 insects and very intolerant to pollution. These were hellgrammites and water pennies. Hellgrammites and water pennies need good quality water and well developed riffle sections in which to live. The appearance of these macroinvertebrates shows that the stream restoration practices have made conditions more favorable for pollution sensitive benthic macroinvertebrates. The other different species found after restoration were fishflies. Fishflies are Group 2 macroinvertebrates and are closely related to hellgrammites. The %EPT and intolerant taxa both increased, but for the most part remained constant from before to after the restoration. One unusual observation was the significant drop in the stoneflies from before to after restoration. When the macroinvertebrate sampling was conducted in June 2010, I noticed that there were many stonefly nymphal exoskeletons in the family Perlidae on the rocks near the bank of the stream. This suggests there was a recent emergence of these stoneflies which would account for the lower numbers collected in The water quality score increased from 26.6 in 2004 to 41.5 in 2010 after restoration. This is an improvement from a Fair to a Good rating, and a 56% increase

64 in the water quality score. The reason for the change in water quality score is mostly from the appearance of three species that weren t sampled in the 2004 survey. 54 Table 6-1. Comparison of pre- and post- restoration macroinvertebrate data from Roaring Branch. Pre (June 2004) Post (June 2010) Taxa % Increase % EPT Group 1 (% Intolerant) Group Group 3 (% Tolerant) Water Quality Score % Increase Collected By: M. Zimmerman N. Whited Little Fishing Creek The data collected at Little Fishing Creek in Hublersburg, PA during September 2004 and 2010 is shown in Table 6-2. The number of types of macroinvertebrates found in Little Fishing Creek increased by five different taxa from before to after restoration. A crane fly larva and two beetle larvae were collected. These are both Group 2 macroinvertebrates and show that more macroinvertebrate taxa have been moving into the stream. Three damselfly larvae were also found in the stream reach. Along with this, many damselfly and dragonfly adults were observed flying around the stream when macroinvertebrates were being collected. Black flies, leeches, midges, and snails were also found in the stream. None of these macroinvertebrates were in the stream before the restoration work was done. Although these macroinvertebrate taxa are all in Group 3 and tolerant of pollution, there is not an overabundance of them so the macroinvertebrate diversity is still good for this stream reach.

65 55 The %EPT taxa also increased from 6% up to 16.5%.in Little Fishing Creek. Going This is mostly because of an increase in the number of mayflies. Only three mayflies were collected before restoration, compared to 32 that were found after. Because mayflies are one of the best indicators of water quality, this shows that the water quality of the stream reach has improved. The increase of intolerant species and decrease of tolerant species further shows that the stream has gotten healthier. The water quality score of Little Fishing Creek went from 34.3 to 43.4 which is a 26.5% increase. Table 6-2. Comparison of pre- and post- restoration macroinvertebrate data from Little Fishing Creek. Pre (Sept 2004) Post (Sept 2010) Taxa % Increase % EPT Group 1 (% Intolerant) Group Group 3 (% Tolerant) Water Quality Score % Increase Collected By CCPASEC N. Whited The CCPASEC also collected data during September A comparison of the macroinvertebrate taxa they collected and the macroinvertebrates collected during this study s survey in September 2010 are shown in Figure 6-1. Both sets of data are very similar in macroinvertebrate taxa and number of benthic macroinvertebrates collected. The CCPASEC collected 14 different taxa and their survey resulted in a water quality score of 43.

66 56 September 2010 Sample Comparison Little Fishing Creek N Whited Sept 2010 CCPASEC Sept Figure 6-1. Comparison of CCPASEC data and data shown earlier in Figure 5-4. CCPASEC data obtained from ( =com_content&view=article&id=157&itemid=98)

67 Halfmoon Creek A comparison of the Halfmoon Creek macroinvertebrate data from 2004 to 2010 is shown in Table 6-3. The number of macroinvertebrate taxa collected increased from eight before restoration to 18 after restoration. This is an increase of 125% and shows that the stream restoration practices have increased both the diversity and quality of macroinvertebrates in the stream reach. The water quality score also showed a large increase. Before restoration, the score was 28.4, whereas after restoration the score increased to There were many macroinvertebrate taxa found in Halfmoon Creek in the postrestoration survey that were not there before restoration. Some of these include hellgrammites, scuds, dragonflies, fishflies, and water pennies. This increase in diversity shows that the stream restoration improved the habitat for different macroinvertebrate taxa. The percentage of intolerant species went up, and the percentage of tolerant species decreased. In this case, the %EPT taxa decreased. The diversity of these insects increased from three taxa to six, but the overall percentage dropped from 22% to 11%. This could be attributed to the fact that over 100 mayflies were collected in the first sample in Table 6-3. Comparison of pre- and post- restoration macroinvertebrate data from Halfmoon Creek. Pre (Nov 2004) Post (Nov 2010) Taxa % Increase % EPT Group 1 (% Intolerant) Group Group 3 (% Tolerant) Water Quality Score % Increase Collected By L. Sherwin N. Whited

68 Statistical Analysis The results for number of taxa and water quality score were analyzed using Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) in Minitab. ANOVA is used to test if the mean value of a variable differs across groups defined by categorical variables. In ANOVA, the null hypothesis is that the mean values of the different groups are equal. The p-value of the test shows the chance that the groups are equal. The inputs and results of the ANOVA test are shown in Tables 6-4 and 6-5. Table 6-4. ANOVA inputs for total taxa and water quality score. Stream Status Total Taxa Water Quality Score Roaring Branch Pre Roaring Branch Post Little Fishing Creek Pre Little Fishing Creek Post Halfmoon Creek Pre Halfmoon Creek Post Table 6-5. ANOVA Results for total taxa and water quality score. R squared p-value Total Taxa Water Quality Score The p-value for number of taxa was This means the certainty of the total taxa before and after restoration being different is about 88%. The p-value for the water quality score was 0.102, meaning the certainty the water quality scores are different is 90%. Even though these values are less than the typically accepted p-values of <.05, they still show significance. Rarely can things be said about nature and the environment with much certainty. Stating that stream restoration increases the total taxa and water quality score with 88 and 90% confidence respectively illustrates that the stream

69 59 restoration has increased the water quality score and number of benthic macroinvertebrate taxa in the restored reach.

70 60 7. Conclusions Correctly planned and implemented stream restoration projects do increase the diversity and number of benthic macroinvertebrate taxa in restored reaches of Pennsylvania streams. Stream restoration projects also increase the water quality score in restored Pennsylvania streams. The combination of restoration structures, proper channel alignment and elevation, and riparian buffer establishment all improve the habitat for benthic macroinvertebrates. Roaring Branch, Little Fishing Creek, and Halfmoon Creek all showed increases in number of taxa, water quality score, and percentage of Group 1 benthic macroinvertebrates. These three stream reaches also showed a decrease in Group 3 macroinvertebrates. This demonstrates that restored stream reaches have become more suitable to macroinvertebrates that are less tolerant to pollution. The number of macroinvertebrate taxa at Roaring Branch increased from 8 to 11. While this is only three new taxa, they include water pennies, hellgrammites, and riffle beetles. All three of these families are Group 1 macroinvertebrates that need well oxygenated, pollution free water in which to live. The appearance of these three new taxa shows that the restoration work done at Roaring Branch has improved the habitat for macroinvertebrates in the restored reach. Another important result was the dramatic decrease in aquatic worms in Little Fishing Creek from before to after restoration. Aquatic worms are known to live in streams with an overabundance of fine sediment, such as those accessed by cattle. The stream restoration work done there which included the installation of mud sills along with streambank fencing and cattle crossings appear to have significantly reduced the amount of excess fine sediment entering the stream. The decrease of aquatic worms and increase of Group 1 macroinvertebrates are good indications that the restoration work has been successful. The SVAP scores also showed a correlation to the water quality scores obtained from the USEPA bioassessment sheet. The restored reach inhalfmoon Creek had the highest SVAP score of 9.25 (excellent), the highest water quality score at 61.8, and the greatest number of taxa. The SVAP scores for the restored stream reaches of Roaring

71 61 Branch and Little Fishing Creek were slightly lower than Halfmoon Creek and in the Good rating with scores of 8.82 and 7.5 respectively. The water quality scores for these two stream reaches were 41.5 and 43.4, which are also lower than Halfmoon Creek but still in the Good rating. One of the possibilities for Halfmoon Creek getting higher ratings could be because of the extent of the restoration in thisproject. Many different sections of Halfmoon Creek have been restored, and the combination of these restoration activities may have had a greater positive impact on the overall macroinvertebrate community.

72 62 8. Recommendations For Future Research There are many things that could be done to help further the knowledge of the impact of stream restoration on macroinvertebrate diversity and stream health. The sampling conducted in this research was done in 2004 (pre-restoration) and 2010 (postrestoration). Macroinvertebrates could be sampled in the same location and the same time of year to further investigate how the macroinvertebrate populations respond to stream restoration. This would provide a timeline of how the macroinvertebrate taxa change following stream restoration. The significant decline in the number of mayflies in Halfmoon Creek and stoneflies in Roaring Branch was another interesting outcome. While the total macroinvertebrate taxa and water quality score went up in both streams, the number of these taxa went down. This could be attributed to a number of different things. The first being different emergence times. The weather is different every year, which may cause macroinvertebrates to emerge at different times throughout the year. Another possibility is that the increased number of other macroinvertebrates has caused a decline in the populations of the mayflies at Halfmoon Creek and stoneflies at Roaring Branch. This could be the result of increased competition with other new taxa in the area. Increasing the number of samples taken at different times of the year would provide a better understanding of how macroinvertebrates respond to stream restoration work. Conducting multi-habitat samples would be another way to improve the knowledge of how stream restoration affects macroinvertebrate populations. In this research samples were collected in riffles and runs at the downstream end of the restoration work. Since restoring a stream involves more than just improving the channel, sampling in microhabitats such as submerged vegetation and woody debris would give a better representation of the different macroinvertebrate taxa in a stream reach. Another area of research that would improve the understanding of the impact of stream restoration on macroinvertebrates is investigating different areas of the restored stream. Sampling macroinvertebrates both upstream and downstream as well as in the restored reach may provide insight into changes associated with the stream restoration.

73 63 This would show if the restoration efforts had any impact on the stream further away from the actual restored reach. This research demonstrated that stream restoration efforts do increase the health and diversity of macroinvertebrates near the restored reach, but does not give much information on the impact of the restoration on the entire lotic system. These recommendations for future research would further the understanding of macroinvertebrate population response to stream restoration. Collecting more macroinvertebrate samples may make it possible to see how stream restoration affects macroinvertebrates over many years instead of just a few years after the restoration work has been completed.

74 64 References Barbour, M.T., J. Gerritsen, B.D. Snyder, and J.B. Stribling Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Wadeable Rivers: Periphyton, Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish, Second Edition. Washington, D.C.: EPA Office of Water Available at: Coe, H. J., P. M. Kiffney, G. R. Pess, K. K. Kloehn, M.L. Mchenry Periphyton and invertebrate response to wood placement in large pacific coastal rivers. River Research and Applications 25(8) Centre County Pennsylvania Senior Environmental Corps (CCPASEC) Clearwater Conservancy. Available at: page&itemid=1 Crispell, J. K., and T. A. Endreny Hyporheic exchange flow around constructed in-channel structures and implications for restoration design. Hydrological Processes 23(8): Doll, B. A., G. L. Grabow, and R. K. Hall Stream Restoration A Natural Channel Design Handbook. Raleigh, N.C.: North Carolina State University. Jarrett, A. R Effectively Managing Water. Engineering Copy Center. Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA. Jarrett, A. R., and L. Brannaka Stream Restoration: Elements of an Effective Design. Stream Restoration Workshop II. University Park, PA. The Pennsylvania State University, Department of Agricultural and Biological Engineering. Jarrett, A. R., L. K. Brannaka, T. Ballestero, C. Woodard Elements of Stream Restoration. Engineering Copy Center, PA. Pennsylvania State University, University Park PA. Jennings, G. D., D.R. Clinton, and J.L. Patterson Stream Restoration Design Experiences in North Carolina. American Society of Agricultural Engineers. Lorenz, A. W., S. C. Jahnig, and D. Hering Re-meandering german lowland streams: Qualitative and quantitative effects of restoration measures on hydromorphology and macroinvertebrates. Environmental Management 44(4): Lutz, K. J Habitat Improvement for Trout Streams. Harrisburg, PA: Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission

75 65 Merritt, R. W., and K. W. Cummins., M. B. Berg An introduction to the Aquatic Insects of North America. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt. Newman, R Insect Profiles. Interactive Broadcasting Corporation. Available at: Accessed Noverber Newton, B Stream Corridor Restoration. Natural Portland, OR: Resource Conservation Service. North Carolina State University (NCSU). 2008a. An Introduction to the Taxonomy and Ecology of EPT Families. Available at: pdf Accessed October North Carolina State University (NCSU). 2008b. Dichotomous Key to Stream Macroinvertebrates. Available at: y.pdf Accessed October Ramel, G Mayflies Ephemeroptera. The Earth Life Web. Available at: Accessed, November Reese, V Using benthic macroinvertebrates to evaluate the effectiveness of stream restoration for improving biological integrity. Available at: Accessed December, Rosgen, D. and H.L. Silvey Applied River Morphology. Fort Collins, CO: Wildland Hydrology. Rosgen, D Applied Fluvial Geomorphology. Fort Collins, CO: Wildland Hydrology. USEPA Rapid Bioassessment Protocals: Watershed Academy Web. Available at: Accessed October Water and River Commission Water Facts, 2 nd Edition. Available at: Accessed, October 2009 Accessed, October, Zimmerman,M. and B. Ford Lycoming Creek Watershed Assessment. Lycoming College. Williamsport, PA.

76 Appendix A- SVAP Parameters 66

77 67

78 68

79 69

80 70

81 71

82 72

83 73

84 74

85 75

86 76

87 Appendix B SVAP Scoring Sheets 77

88 78

89 79

90 Appendix C Benthic Macroinvertebrate Field Data Sheets 80

91 81