Evaluating threats to the water quality of Little Buffalo Creek and Sarver Run watersheds through water quality analysis and backpack electrofishing
Voiceover
Presenter (s)
Riley Williams
Abstract or Description
The Buffalo Creek watershed in southwestern Pennsylvania has a total drainage area of 171 square miles. The focus of this study is on Little Buffalo Creek and its major tributary, Sarver Run, which comprise about 21% of the drainage area of the Buffalo Creek Watershed. 64.8% and 52.2% of the stream miles within Little Buffalo Creek and Sarver Run are impaired. Impairment sources to Little Buffalo Creek include agriculture, riparian deforestation, on-site wastewater, and urban runoff. However, impairment sources to Sarver Run are unknown. The Audubon Society of Western Pennsylvania (ASWP) has coordinated conservation efforts to improve the health of the Buffalo Creek Watershed. Our goal was to gain a better understanding of the water quality of Little Buffalo Creek and Sarver Run. Over 70 water samples were collected from June to December of 2020. Dionex ion chromatography and inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (IC-PMS) were conducted to analyze chemical composition. Mass ratio analysis comparing Br/SO4 and Mg/Li, Ca/Mg and Ca/Sr, Mg/Na and SO4/Cl, and SO4/Cl and Mg/Li were performed on each grab sample to assess possible sources of water pollution. Six backpack electrofishing surveys were conducted and Ohio Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) was calculated for each site. Results of these fish surveys were compared to those calculated for the same sites in 2013. Mass ratio analysis suggests that conventional gas and mine drainage may be influencing the water quality of both systems. A significant decrease in IBI ranking is observed at two of the locations surveyed in both 2013 and 2020. Percent lithophilic species decreased significantly at one site, indicating potentially increased sedimentation. Our data will help guide conservation efforts outlined in ASWP watershed conservation plan.
Comments
Christine Pollock5 years ago
Riley - thank you for doing such important research.
• • 1 comment
Riley Williams5 years ago
Thank you!
Kristin Klucevsek5 years ago
Hi Riley! Great poster! I have questions! What conservation efforts can be done to address the sedimentation over time? Do you expect effects on the other types of fishes or arthropods based on your data in this study and the types of species you see most affected?
• • 1 comment
Riley Williams5 years ago
Hi Dr. K, thanks for the questions! Bank stabilization is one way to combat sedimentation and can be done a number of ways. Increasing vegetation along the riparian zone of a stream is one way to stabilize a weak stream bank, as roots can effectively hold sediment in place. There are a variety of native plants that can be used to support weak and eroding stream beds. Riprap or gabion baskets, which both utilize rocks as a form of stabilization, can also be used. Simple lithophilic fish species are especially affected by sedimentation because they lay their eggs on rocky substrates. Sedimentation can suffocate fish eggs, which can influence not only that species, but also other organisms that may rely on those eggs as a food source. Sedimentation can also clog fish gills. Macroinvertebrates, like the mayfly nymph, can also suffocate under sedimentation, as they prefer to cling to rocks for support. I hope that answers your questions!