1 / 19

Clearwater River Habitat/Bioassessment: The Key to Understanding River Health

In the Clearwater River Habitat/Bioassessment study done in 2003, various methodologies were employed to assess the health of the river, including fish sampling, macroinvertebrates analysis, habitat assessment, physical characterization, zooplankton sampling, and vegetation mapping. The study aimed to evaluate the impact of human activities on the river ecosystem and provide valuable data for conservation efforts. Results and discussions highlight the importance of reference conditions, site selection criteria, and the influence of bridges on habitat assessment. For detailed findings and inquiries, contact Corey Hanson, Water Quality Coordinator at Red Lake Watershed District.

kaya
Download Presentation

Clearwater River Habitat/Bioassessment: The Key to Understanding River Health

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Clearwater River Habitat/Bioassessment By Corey Hanson Water Quality Coordinator Red Lake Watershed District

  2. Clearwater River Habitat/Bioassessment • The Clearwater Nonpoint Study identified a need for a detailed habitat/bioassessment on the Clearwater River • Sampling completed in August 2003 • Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) • Scores a 100 meter reach of a river based upon a set of standardized metrics • Different Types of IBIs • Fish • Macroinvertebrate • Habitat

  3. Methods Used • EPA Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Wadeable Rivers: Periphyton, Benthic Macroinvertebrates, and Fish • Barbour, M.T., J.Gerritsen, B.D. Snyder, and J.B. Stribling. 1999

  4. Site Selection • More targeted than probabilistic. • Sites were associated with water quality monitoring stations and access points along the river. • Sites needed to be wadeable • Reaches were located upstream of bridges in order to minimize (although arguably not eliminate) the influence of the bridge. • 100 ft between starting point of reach and the bridge.

  5. Site Selection • For this study, tried to pick some sites that were minimally impacted, such as sites 3 and 4 in the NLF ecoregion, 6 in the NCHF ecoregion, as well as 14 and 15 in the RRV ecoregion • Some sites on channelized sections of the river were picked to show the effect of channelization on habitat and aquatic life

  6. Fish Sampling • Backpack electrofishers • Fish identified, weighed, and counted in the field

  7. Fish Sampling • Scores based upon • Number of natives • Number of native darters • Number of native sunfish • Number of native suckers • Number of intolerants • Percentage of tolerants • Percentage of omnivores • Percentage of insectivores • Percentage of piscivores • Percentage of hybrids • Percentage of abnormalities • catch rate

  8. Fish Results

  9. Clearwater River Habitat/Bioassessment Macroinvertebrates • D-Frame Nets • Same area sampled at each site (# of jabs) • Habitat types sampled proportionally • Riffles • Woody Debris • Vegetation • Samples preserved in 99% Isopropyl Alcohol • Sorted, Counted, Identified

  10. Clearwater River Habitat/Bioassessment • Habitat Assessment • Scores based on 10 metrics • Epifaunal substrate • Embeddedness • Velocity/depth regime • sediment depostion • channel flow status • channel alteration • frequency of riffles or bends • bank stability • vegetative protection • riparian vegetative zone width

  11. Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet

  12. Habitat Assessment Results

  13. Physical Characterization • Watershed Features • Predominant land use, NPS pollution, local erosion • Riparian Vegetation • In-stream Features • Reach length, width, area, depth, velocity, canopy • Large Woody Debris (cubic meters) • Aquatic Vegetation • Water Quality • Temp, Cond, Do, pH, Turbidity, odors, oils • Sediment/Substrate • Odors, deposits, oils, inorganic and organic components

  14. Clearwater River Habitat/Bioassessment – Zooplankton Sampling • Plankton Net • Preserved with 99% Isopropyl Alcohol • Analyzed by MNDNR Aquatic Invertebrate Biology Lab

  15. Clearwater River Habitat/Bioassessment – Vegetation Mapping

  16. Positive and Negative aspects of Methods Used • Positives • Standard • Available, easy to understand • Results comparable if same methods are used • Repeatable – sites are easy to locate • Negatives • Habitat assessment open to subjectivity, personal judgements on %’s • Subsampling of macroinvertebrates can exclude species that don’t occur in abundance such as Nepidae and Belostomatidae • Metrics used may differ among IBI studies • Differing techniques of samplers could effect results

  17. Reference Condition Discussion • The presence of a bridge may technically rule out the use of any of our sites as reference sites, but the data can be used to find areas in which reference sites may be found (upstream of reaches that scored well in this study) • There were some reaches where the bridge downstream of the reach was the only anthropogenic factor “impacting” the stream • Is there an acceptable buffer between a monitored reach and impoundments, bridge areas, and large tributary confluences? • Do bridges affect some IBI types more than others (fish more than macroinvertebrates and habitat)?

  18. The End • Corey Hanson Water Quality Coordinator Red Lake Watershed District 218-681-5800 coreyh@wiktel.com

More Related