3rd State of Stream Report: Aquatic Communities and Habitats in...
95
3 rd State of Stream Report: Aquatic Communities and Habitats in the Tributaries to French Creek, Pennsylvania 2009 Pennsylvania Natural Heritage Program Western Pennsylvania Conservancy
Transcript of 3rd State of Stream Report: Aquatic Communities and Habitats in...
3rd State of Stream Report: Aquatic Communities and Habitats in the Tributaries to
French Creek, Pennsylvania
2009
Pennsylvania Natural Heritage Program Western Pennsylvania Conservancy
Western Pennsylvania Conservancy Mission The Western Pennsylvania Conservancy protects and restores exceptional places to provide our region with clean waters and healthy forests, wildlife and natural areas for the benefit of present and future generations. The Conservancy creates green spaces and gardens, contributing to the
vitality of our cities and towns, and preserves Fallingwater, a symbol of people living in harmony with nature.
The Pennsylvania Natural Heritage Program (PNHP) is a partnership between the Western Pennsylvania Conservancy (WPC), the Pennsylvania
Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR), the Pennsylvania Game Commission (PGC), and the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission (PFBC). PNHP is a
member of NatureServe, which coordinates natural heritage efforts through an international network of member programs—known as natural heritage programs or conservation data
centers—operating in all 50 U.S. states, Canada, Latin America and the Caribbean.
Cover Photo: South Branch French Creek, taken by Tamara Smith, PNHP/WPC
3rd State of the Stream Report on the Health of French Creek:
Aquatic Communities and Habitats in the Tributaries to French Creek, Pennsylvania
Funded by The Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
DCNR Project Number: RC-RCI-11-17
French Creek Watershed Aquatic Biodiversity
Tamara A. Smith, Elizabeth S. Meyer and Mary C. Walsh
December 28, 2009
Pennsylvania Natural Heritage Program Western Pennsylvania Conservancy
800 Waterfront Dr. Pittsburgh, PA 15222
i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The French Creek watershed contains a high degree of aquatic biodiversity and is one of the last remaining high quality watersheds in the Ohio River basin. This project was designed to assess, on a sub-basin by sub-basin level, the physical stream and riparian conditions, and aquatic community health of the major French Creek tributaries as recommended by the French Creek Watershed Conservation Plan (Western Pennsylvania Conservancy and French Creek Project 2002). Recommendations from this project are designed to enable targeted implementation of conservation efforts in the watershed.
Sites on the ten major tributaries of French Creek were surveyed for mussels, fish and macroinvertebrates. A total of 22 mussel species were found in the tributary surveys; 29 species have been recorded from the watershed. Mean species richness and catch per unit effort (CPUE) were significantly lower than on mainstem French Creek survey sites. Mussel species richness and CPUE were generally high at survey sites on LeBoeuf Creek. No mussels were found at survey sites on Sugar Creek or Little Sugar Creek. Fish species richness was highest on Little Sugar Creek. Host fish were detected for most mussel species at the same survey site or in the same tributary. Macroinvertebrates were sampled as indicators of water quality. Macroinvertebrate metrics indicated some sites with water quality problems, including sites on Conneaut Outlet and West Branch French Creek.
In-stream habitat mapping identified riffle-run habitats that are important to many of the mussel and fish species found in French Creek. The highest percent riffle-run habitat was found on Sugar Creek and the highest percent of pool habitat was found on Cussewago Creek. Riparian zone assessments along the length of mapped stream sections provide information about the intactness of the riparian buffer, which has a direct impact on stream ecosystem health. Riparian assessments scores rated the highest on Little Sugar Creek, while West Branch French Creek had the lowest scores. Land use analysis examined relationships between aquatic communities and land cover types. Significant relationships were found between land use and macroinvertebrate communities, indicating a degradation of water quality due to agricultural pollutants.
Conservation efforts in the watershed should include increased use of agricultural best management practices, protection and restoration of riparian buffers, preventing the spread of invasive species and protecting forested areas and wetlands. Implementing agricultural best management practices, and protecting and restoring riparian buffers is a priority throughout the French Creek watershed, because of the high percent of agricultural land use. In particular efforts to reduce the impact of agriculture should focus on LeBoeuf Creek, Conneauttee Creek and West Branch French Creek.
Although a relatively low percent of developed land is present in the watershed, for tributaries that flow through population centers reducing urban run-off should be a priority. In particular this issue should be addressed along Conneaut Outlet and Conneauttee Creek by minimizing impervious surfaces and restoring and maintaining riparian buffers.
The progress of these efforts should be monitored with regular biological and water quality assessments. Additional survey effort is needed to assess mussel population health and species distribution in tributaries where rare species and rich communities occur, including LeBoeuf Creek, Conneauttee Creek and West Branch French Creek. Community attributes and management recommendations are summarized by tributary watershed in Table 1.
Table 1. Summary of sub-basin attributes and conservation recommendations Tributary Watershed Notable Community Attributes Threats and Stresses Recommendations
Conneaut Outlet Rare mussel and fish species present, high mussel species richness and abundance
High percent development, invasive species
Protection and restoration of riparian buffers, preventing spread of invasive species
Conneauttee Creek
Rare mussel and fish species present, high mussel abundance at some sites, high fish species richness
High percent agriculture and development, invasive species
Further characterization of mussel community, protection and restoration of riparian buffers, increased use of agricultural BMPs, preventing spread of invasive species
Cussewago Creek Rare mussel species present (recorded near confluence with French Creek)
Impoundment, moderate percent agriculture and development
Mitigation for or possible removal of dam, protection and restoration of riparian buffers
LeBoeuf Creek
Rare mussel and fish species present, high mussel and fish species richness, high mussel abundance
High percent agriculture, poor macroinvertebrate metric scoring at some sites
Further characterization of mussel community, protection and restoration of riparian buffers, increased use of agricultural BMPs
Little Sugar Creek
High fish species richness present, high scoring riparian assessments, moderate to high scoring macroinvertebrate metrics High percent agricultural land use
Increased use of agricultural BMPs, protection of riparian buffers
Muddy Creek
Rare mussel and fish species present, high mussel and fish species richness, high mussel abundance
Poor scoring macroinvertebrate metrics at some sites, upper reaches designated as impaired by DEP for road runoff and siltation
Further investigation of water quality issues, mitigation of road runoff including restoration and protection of riparian buffers
South Branch Rare fish species present, moderate to high scoring macroinvertebrate metrics
Moderate percent agriculture and development Protection of riparian buffers
Sugar Creek
Rare fish species present, high percent forest land cover, high scoring macroinvertebrate metrics Potential land use changes
Protection of forest land cover and riparian buffers
West Branch Rare mussel and fish species present, high fish species richness
Low scoring habitat assessments, high percent agriculture in portions of riparian zone, poor macroinvertebrate metric scoring at some sites
Further characterization of mussel community, protection and restoration of riparian buffers
Woodcock Creek Rare mussel and fish species present Impoundment, moderate percent agriculture
Mitigation for dam, protection and restoration of riparian buffers
Table of Contents Introduction 1 Methods 2
Study location 2 In-stream habitat mapping 2 Site selection for Biological Sampling 2 Freshwater mussel sampling techniques 3 Fish sampling techniques 4 Macroinvertebrate sampling techniques 4 Watershed Landcover Analysis
Results 6
In-stream habitat mapping 7 Habitat assessments 7 Mussel survey results 7 Fish survey results 10 Macroinvertebrate results 11 Relationships between mussel, fish, and macroinvertebrates 12 Riparian assessment scores and mussel, fish, and macroinvertebrates 12 Land use relationships with mussel, fish, and macroinvertebrates 12
Discussion 31
Conservation Values and Management Recommendations 34 Acknowledgements 43 Literature Cited 44
Tables and Figures
Figure 1: Major tributaries of French Creek 6 Table 1: Summary of stream habitat mapping results 14 Table 2: Site descriptions 15 Table 3: Total numbers, lengths, recruits, and sex, for each mussel species 16 Table 4: Numbers, CPUE, percent total catch, Shannon diversity index per site 17 Figure 2. Mussel species richness by tributary watershed 18 Table 5: Total number of live individuals of each fish species for each site 19 Table 6: Known fish hosts detected 21 Table 7: Number of host fish matches to each mussel species 22 Table 8: Macroinvertebrate results 23 Figure 3: Taxa richness by site 24 Table 9: Percent landcover types for tributary watersheds 25 Table 10: Percent landcover types for survey site watersheds 26 Figure 4: Regression plots of macroinvertebrate metrics by land use 27 Figure 5: Regression plots of mussel CPUE and richness by land use 29 Table 11: Ranking of quality indicator metrics by tributary watershed 35 Table 12: Indicator metric scoring used for ranking 36 Table 13: Percent tributary reaches with high proportions of forested, agricultural, and developed riparian land cover 37 Figure 6: Stream reaches with the highest percentages of riparian agriculture 38 Figure 7: Stream reaches with the highest percentages of riparian development 39
Appendices
Appendix A: Mussel and fish species documented in French Creek 51 Appendix B. Mussel and fish species of concern recorded from tributary watersheds 54 Appendix C: Voucher and Site Photographs 59 Appendix D: Raw riparian assessment scores 75 Appendix E: Habitat mapping by tributary 81
1
INTRODUCTION
The French Creek watershed, located at the headwaters of the Ohio River drainage, is nationally recognized for its high aquatic species diversity because it contains more species of fish and freshwater mussels (Unionidae: Bivalvia) than any other similar sized stream in the northeast United States (Bier 1994, Ortmann 1919, Western Pennsylvania Conservancy and French Creek Project 2002). Twenty-nine native freshwater mussel species have been recorded in the watershed (Western Pennsylvania Conservancy and French Creek Project 2002), including two that are presently listed as Endangered under the U.S. Endangered Species Act and the PA Fish Code, Epioblasma torulosa rangiana (l. Lea, 1838) (northern riffleshell) and Pleurobema clava (Lamarck, 1819) (clubshell). Quadrula cylindrica (Say, 1817) (rabbitsfoot) is listed as endangered in Pennsylvania and is a candidate for federal listing. Villosa fabalis (l. Lea, 1831) (rayed bean) is a candidate for federal listing (U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1991). Epioblasma triquetra (Rafinesque, 1820) (snuffbox) is listed as endangered in Pennsylvania. Thirteen other mussel species documented in the French Creek watershed are considered rare, threatened, endangered or possibly extirpated in Pennsylvania (NatureServe 2008, Appendix A). Over 80 species of fish have been recorded in the French Creek Watershed. Threatened or endangered fish include several madtom and lamprey species, as well as eight of the 15 species of darters found in the French Creek watershed (NatureServe 2008, Appendix A).
Freshwater mussels have an important ecological value and are a vital link in the food chain as food items for many animals including muskrats, raccoons and otters. These filter feeders improve water quality by straining out suspended particles and pollutants from the water. In addition, mussels serve as good indicators of ecosystem health. Freshwater mussels are long lived, typically remain in one place for most of their life and require good water quality, sediment types, and physical habitat. Freshwater mussels are used as biological indicators of past and present water and sediment quality in lakes and streams. Gradual mussel die-offs or sudden mussel kills are signs of water pollution problems and other environmental health concerns. Stable, diverse mussel populations typically indicate clean water and a healthy aquatic system (e.g. Elder and Collins 1991, Green et al. 1989, Metcalfe and Charlton 1990, Naimo 1995).
Macroinvertebrate communities are key indicators of water quality, and can reflect longer trends than snapshot water testing. Stream macroinvertebrates can serve as natural continuous water quality monitors because they generally live for at least one year, are less mobile than fish and many are sensitive to long-term, low-level stress and/or pulsed, highly concentrated discharges of water pollutants (Davis et al. 2001). Many environmental monitoring agencies employ macroinvertebrates to assess biotic integrity of stream ecosystems (Barbour et al. 1999).
The viability of freshwater mussel populations is tied closely to other aquatic organisms, particularly fish. Mussel larvae, called glochidia, are parasitic and need a host fish or amphibian to attach onto and develop, before falling off as a juvenile mussel. This essential life stage is not known to cause any harm for the host fish, but is critical for upstream dispersal of mussels. Some mussel species require a specific fish to act as a host, so if that fish species is absent, the mussel cannot successfully reproduce (McMahon 1991, Parmalee and Bogan 1998, Strayer and Jirka 1997).
Threats to the fish and mussels in the French Creek watershed include development, mineral extraction, water extraction, wastewater treatment plants, pollution and siltation due to improper agriculture and timbering practices (see review in Western Pennsylvania Conservancy and French Creek Project 2002), dams and stream channel alteration (see review in Watters 2000), and invasive species such as Dreissena polymorpha (Pallas, 1771) (zebra mussel) (Biggins et al. 1995, Ricciardi et al. 1998, Strayer and Malcom 2007).
The objectives of this study were to enable targeted conservation efforts by documenting freshwater mussel, fish, and benthic macroinvertebrate communities in the sub-basins of the French Creek
2
watershed. The project was modeled after a previous study of aquatic communities in mainstem of French Creek as recommended in the French Creek Conservation Plan (Western Pennsylvania Conservancy and French Creek Project 2002). In addition, our study aimed to document available habitat for rare freshwater mussels and threats to aquatic communities. Results of this project will facilitate the implementation of cooperative actions such as Best Management Practice implementation, streambank and riparian restoration, and further aquatic community characterization. METHODS Study location
The French Creek watershed, covering an area of approximately 3,200 km2, is part of the Allegheny River watershed and the greater Ohio River drainage. French Creek originates in Chautauqua County in New York State, where headwater streams comprise about 7% of the watershed area. Approximately 93% of the watershed is within Pennsylvania’s Erie, Crawford, Mercer, and Venango counties. French Creek joins the Allegheny River at Franklin, Pennsylvania. The ten major tributaries to French Creek, named from the northernmost to the southernmost, include West Branch French Creek, South Branch French Creek, LeBoeuf Creek, Muddy Creek, Conneauttee Creek, Woodcock Creek, Cussewago Creek, Conneaut Outlet, Little Sugar Creek, and Sugar Creek (Figure 1). Forest, agriculture and wetlands dominate the landscape in the tributary watersheds (Table 1). The tributary streams range from relatively high gradient, fast cold waters to slow, low gradient streams meandering through wetlands (Table 1). In-stream Habitat Mapping
The 10 major tributaries of French Creek were mapped using a Trimble GeoExplorer GPS unit as the surveyors canoed or sometimes walked the stream during low flow conditions. Stream reaches were measured and categorized into one of three flow regimes: pool, run, riffle, or a combination of these regimes. Gravel-sized substrate in riffles and runs comprise what is believed to be essential habitat to many freshwater mussels and fish of special concern in this watershed.
Mapped lengths of tributaries ranged from 4.6 to 16.6 river per tributary (Table 1). Observers stopped at approximate 0.5-1.0 mile intervals to perform detailed habitat assessments (Barbour et al. 1999, Schnier 2003). At each interval, in-stream and riparian habitat were assessed using visual estimation of the following: epifaunal substrate, embeddedness, velocity/depth regime, sediment deposition, channel flow, channel alteration, frequency of riffles, channel sinuosity, bank stability, bank vegetation protection and riparian vegetative zone width. Site Selection for Biological Sampling
One to five sites were randomly selected from the mapped portions of each tributary. Since our main goal was to map mussel communities, site selection favored optimal habitat types for rare species and high mussel species diversity (riffle-run). Gravel-sized substrate in riffles and runs are believed to be essential habitat to many freshwater fish (Etnier and Starnes 1993, Jenkins and Burkhead 1994) and mussels (Butler 2003 and 2006, Parmalee and Bogan 1998, Ortmann 1919, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1994) of special concern in the French Creek Watershed. Pool habitat was surveyed if no riffle-run habitat was documented within a tributary. Between June and October, 14 sites were surveyed for mussels in 2006 and 11 sites were surveyed in 2007. Sites selected for mussel sampling were also sampled for fish and macroinvertebrates.
The goal was to survey at least three sites per major tributary; however some tributaries fell short of that number. Mussel and fish surveys in most of Muddy Creek were conducted very recently (Mohler et al. 2006), so we felt that additional surveys in those areas were not necessary and may even cause
3
stress to the mussels (Haag and Commons-Carson 2008). We did survey one site on Muddy Creek that was upstream of other sites. However we did compliment those studies with detailed habitat mapping and macroinvertebrate sampling. Cussewago Creek and Conneaut Outlet are primarily deep muddy pools which were difficult to survey with our available gear and less likely to be inhabited by the rare mussel species in this watershed (Butler 2003 and 2006, Parmalee and Bogan 1998, Ortmann 1919, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1994). We surveyed the only riffle/run habitat mapped in Conneaut Outlet.
Freshwater Mussel Sampling Techniques
Using the in-stream mapping, we were able to focus mussel sampling efforts in the significant riffle/run habitats, with the assumption that these would be the best available habitats for rare mussels. The goal of the timed mussel surveys was to characterize mussel species richness and abundance as catch per unit effort (CPUE) in French Creek tributaries.
Snorkelers/SCUBA divers collected as many unionid individuals as possible with a standardized search rate of time per area. Starting at the downstream end of the study section, observers zigzagged upstream in equally sized transects (cells), covering the entire stream width. Observers used a combination of tactile and visual methods to search the surface for mussels. While most mussels detected were visible at the surface, observers occasionally brushed away sediment, flipped over non-embedded rocks and did some light substrate excavation. A target search rate of 0.5m2/minute was assumed, and an effective sampling fraction of 0.06 was used as a means of comparison between timed searches (Smith et al. 2001). Search time was calculated by:
Total Search Time = (Effective sampling fraction * Survey Area)/Target search rate.
Live mussels were kept submerged in mesh bags until each survey was completed. Mussels were identified, counted, and returned to the cell in which they were found. Each live mussel was measured in total shell length to the nearest millimeter. Representatives of each species found were photographed for most sites (Appendix E). Catch per unit effort (CPUE) was calculated as number of live unionids collected divided by survey person-hours (p-h). Species richness was defined as the number of unionid species living at each site. Species diversity was calculated using the Shannon diversity index:
H´ = - ∑ pi ln(pi)
where pi is the proportion of individuals in the ith species and ln is the natural logarithm.
All staff on the project were experienced mussel surveyors. At least one Pennsylvania Qualified Mussel Surveyor with substantive experience with Ohio Basin mussel taxonomy oversaw all identifications and was present during all surveys. All taxonomy followed Turgeon et al. (1998). Fish Sampling Techniques
To characterize the fish community present at the mussel survey locations, electro-fishing surveys were conducted using a battery powered backpack electro-fishing unit, with a three to five person crew, each carrying dip nets with 3-mm diameter mesh. A minimum of 50 minutes was spent sampling at each site, sampling various microhabitats over the entire area where the mussel survey took place. Since we were mostly interested in species presence/ absence, we did not employ population estimation techniques (e.g. three–pass depletion surveys). Fish surveys were conducted at 23 of the 25 mussel sampling locations. A fish survey was not conducted at the Cussewago Creek site because our equipment was not
4
adequate to survey the deep water at that location. A fish survey was also not conducted at the Muddy Creek site.
Macroinvertebrate Sampling Techniques
Macroinvertebrate community structure was determined by sampling at 23 of the mussel sampling sites in the French Creek tributaries, as well as three additional sites on Muddy Creek. The macroinvertebrate community was sampled and evaluated using metrics and procedures modified from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Wadeable Streams and Rivers (Barbour et al. 1999). Sampling was standardized to 1-minute kicks with a standard D-frame net for three sub-samples within each site, which were pooled together for site totals. Different habitat types were sampled in approximate proportion to their surface area in the study reach. Collected macroinvertebrates were placed in 95% ethanol for transport to the lab where they were transferred to 70% ethanol. Macroinvertebrates were identified to genus or the lowest possible taxa in the laboratory. Several metrics for evaluating benthic macroinvertebrate data were utilized in this study; including taxa richness, taxa composition and tolerance indices. Family-level biotic index (FBI) was used as the tolerance index (Hilsenhoff 1988). FBI scores range from 0 – 10 based on organic pollution tolerance values assigned to each taxa. FBI is calculated as the number of organisms in each macroinvertebrate family multiplied by the tolerance value. The products are summed and divided by the total number of macroinvertebrates in the sample. Low FBI scores indicate that the taxa are intolerant to pollution and prefer good water quality, while higher scores indicate taxa that are tolerant of poor water quality. Taxa richness tends to increase with higher water quality. Composition indices used included percent Chironomidae and percent Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera (EPT). A high percentage of Chironomidae indicates ‘poor’ water quality and a high percentage of EPT indicates ‘good’ water quality. These indices and their predicted responses to changes in water quality are further described in Barbour et al. (1999). Means were calculated across all sites, and comparisons were made at the p = 0.05 significance level.
Watershed Landcover Analysis
Landcover classes were summarized at three scales: 1) each tributary watershed in its entirety, 2) 100m riparian buffers for all stream reaches in each tributary watershed, 3) the watershed upstream of reaches with study sampling locations. Landcover calculations were based on the National Landcover Dataset (NLCD 1992) (http://seamless.usgs.gov) for hydrologically ordered reaches and catchments in the EPA river reach dataset (Version 3.0) (http://www.epa.gov/waters/doc/techref.html) using watershed tools (Fitzhugh 2000) with ArcView® (ESRI 1982-2000), Visual Basic®, and Arc/INFO® software (ESRI 1982-2000).
We summarized landcover classes from the NLCD into agricultural, development, wetland, and forest, and other classes. Agricultural landcover is the compilation of row crops, pasture/hay, small grains, orchard and urban/recreational grasses NLCD landcover classes. Developed landcover is the sum of commercial/industrial, low intensity and high intensity development NLCD landcover classes. Forest land cover is the sum of deciduous forest and evergreen forest NLCD classes, while wetland landcover is the compilation of woody wetlands and emergent wetland NLCD landcover classes. The other landcover category is the aggregation of bare rock, sand, clay, quarries, strip mines, gravel pits, transitional, and open water classes from the NLCD.
The EPA river reach datasets delineates stream reaches bounded by their upstream and downstream confluences. Stream reaches are hydrologically ordered based on flow direction and position in the watershed. The sum of the area of landcover classes in catchments associated with each stream reach was calculated. Land cover was summed for the catchments draining to the downstream most reach
5
in each watershed and to reaches that contained the project study sites. Then the proportion of land cover classes was calculated for tributary watersheds and riparian buffers.
A 100-m buffer was delineated on each side of stream reaches. Within the riparian buffers we calculated the proportion of land cover in developed, agricultural landcover classes, and forest/ wetland landcover types. Stream reaches having greater than 5% development landcover in the riparian buffer were considered areas where water quality could be affected by pollution related to development (e.g. road and other impervious surface runoff). Riparian buffers with greater than 25% agriculture had the highest amounts of riparian agriculture in the French Creek watershed tributaries; these reaches are locations with the greatest potential for pollution from poorly managed agriculture. The length of all reaches and those reaches meeting the riparian development landcover (>5%) or riparian agricultural landcover criteria (>25%) was summed for each tributary watershed. The percent of total reach length with high development, agricultural, forest/ wetland land cover for each tributary watershed was calculated.
Linear regressions were used to examine the relationships between landcover types and mussel CPUE and species richness, fish species richness, and macroinvertebrate FBI scores and percent EPT (Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera) taxa.
6
RESULTS
Figure 1. Major tributaries of French Creek.
7
In-stream Habitat Mapping
Portions of all ten major tributaries were mapped from 2006 – 2009 (Appendix G). ArcGIS files of completed mapping accompany this report. Little Sugar Creek had the highest percent riffle having over half of the mapped habitat in riffles (Table 1). South Branch also had a high proportion of riffle habitat compared to other tributaries, while Conneauttee Creek had the highest percent run. Highest percent riffle-run series was mapped on Sugar Creek. Combined riffle, run and riffle-run series was highest on Sugar Creek (Table 1). High gradient streams such as Sugar Creek and Little Sugar Creek (Table 1) have high percentages of riffle habitat. Having greater than 99% pool habitat, the largest proportion of habitat in tributary streams was found in Cussewago Creek. Conneaut Outlet, West Branch, and LeBoeuf Creek also had pools in more than half of mapped habitat. Maps showing habitat types and locations of riparian assessments for each tributary are included in Appendix G. Habitat Assessments
A total of 156 habitat assessments were performed from 2006 – 2009 on the 10 major tributaries of French Creek. Table 1 shows mean habitat assessment values by tributary. Raw assessment scores are given in Appendix F. Of the ten streams mapped, Little Sugar Creek had the highest habitat assessment scores in the watershed, with a mean percent of 82.6 (SEM = 1.3). The mean percent habitat assessment score for West Branch was the lowest (63.7, SEM = 1.7). Higher habitat scores indicate a stream with fewer anthropogenic alterations. Individual assessment scores ranged from 52- 98 percent across all mapped stream sections. Of the tributaries, variation of assessment scores was greatest on LeBoeuf Creek where scores ranged from 55-97 percent. Some areas of LeBoeuf Creek showed numerous signs of disturbance, while others were relatively pristine. The lowest range of scores was found on West Branch, where the scores ranged from 52-76 percent. Mapped sections of West Branch showed signs of disturbance including eroded banks and a lack of riparian buffers.
Mussel Survey Results
A total of 25 sites were sampled for freshwater mussels during the 2006 and 2007 field seasons. Of those, we sampled five sites in LeBoeuf Creek, three sites each in West Branch French Creek, South Branch French Creek, Woodcock Creek, Sugar Creek and Conneauttee Creek, two sites in Little Sugar Creek and one site each at Conneaut Outlet, Cussewago Creek, and Muddy Creek (Table 2).
A total of 588 live unionid mussels representing 22 species were detected, as well as 29 live D. polymorpha (Table 3). Two additional species, Epioblasma torulosa rangiana and Ligumia recta (Lamarck, 1819) (black sandshell), were found only as weathered dead. Dreissena polymorpha and Corbicula fluminea were found, but neither is included in species richness, Shannon diversity index or CPUE calculations (Table 4). Lampsilis siliquoidea (Barnes, 1823) (fat mucket) was the most abundant species, found at 12 sites and accounting for 18.8% of the total number of mussels found (Table 3). The second most abundant species was the Amblema plicata (Say, 1817) (threeridge), which was found at seven sites and made up 17.2% of the total catch. The third and fourth most abundant species were Strophitus undulatus (Say, 1817) (creeper) (10.9%, 13 sites) and Actinonaias ligamentina (Lamarck, 1819) (mucket) (8.4%, 10 sites). Pleurobema clava was found live at five sites on LeBoeuf Creek and as dead shells at two sites on Conneauttee Creek. The mean abundance, or the mean number of live mussels found per site, was 31.0 (SE = 7.23). Across all surveys, the mean CPUE was 18.1 mussels/p-h (SE = 4.66) and mean species richness was 6.1 (SE = 1.07). No live mussels were found at Sugar Creek, Little Sugar Creek and one site on South Branch French Creek. Mean abundance, CPUE, and species richness were all significantly lower than the means calculated for main-stem French Creek surveys (p < 0.05) (Smith and Crabtree 2005, in review). Species diversity, measured by the Shannon Index (H´), ranged from 0 to 2.3 among sites, with a mean of 1.2 (SE = 0.19) in the tributary watersheds. LeBoeuf Creek and
8
West Branch had the highest diversity values. Figure 2 illustrates mussel species richness by tributary watershed based on the results of this study as well as available recent records from the PNHP database.
We found evidence of both sexes for sexually dimorphic species and recruitment at several study sites (Table 3). For most species, we used a cut-off length of specimens less than 30 mm to indicate recent recruitment. We used a cut-off of 20 mm for two naturally smaller species, Villosa fabalis and Epioblasma triquetra. We found evidence of recent recruitment for five species: Lampsilis siliquoidea at West Branch sites 1 and 2, Actinonaias ligamentina at Conneaut Outlet site 1, Ptychobranchus fasciolaris (Rafinesque, 1820) (kidneyshell) at Woodcock Creek site 2 and Pleurobema clava and Alasmidonta marginata (Say, 1818) (elktoe) at LeBoeuf Creek site 3. Individual stream results Conneaut Outlet
One site was surveyed on Conneaut Outlet in 2006 (Table 4). CPUE was 28.4 mussels/p-h and six live species were found, including Ligumia nasuta (Say, 1817) (eastern pondmussel), which was not detected in any other tributary in this study. Other species found were Actinonaias ligamentina, Amblema plicata, Lampsilis siliquoidea, Pyganodon grandis (Say, 1829) (giant floater) and Strophitus undulatus. One additional species, Elliptio dilatata, was found as only dead shells. In addition, we detected large amounts of the non-native Corbicula fluminea at this site, which are likely washing down from Conneaut Lake. Numbers of C. fluminea were so high that we did not attempt to enumerate them. Pleurobema clava, documented from Conneaut Outlet in 1988 (PNHP files accessed August 7, 2008), was not detected in our survey. Conneauttee Creek
Three sites were surveyed on Conneauttee Creek (Table 4). Eleven live mussel species were found at site 1; three additional species were found only as dead shells: Alasmidonta marginata, Lasmigona complanata (Barnes, 1823) (white heelsplitter), and Pleurobema clava. Site 1 had the highest CPUE of any of our tributary sites: 83.5 mussels/p-h. In addition, 23 live and one weathered dead zebra mussels were found at site 1. Six live mussel species were found at site 2, and an additional five species were found as dead shells. CPUE at site 2 was 14.4 mussels/p-h. One live Dreissena polymorpha was found at site 2. Only one dead Lasmigona costata (Rafinesque, 1820) (fluted shell) and three live D. polymorpha were found at Conneauttee Creek site 3. Cussewago Creek
Only one live Pyganodon grandis, a species typical of pool habitats, was found at the only site we surveyed in Cussewago Creek (Table 4).The entire length of this creek was mapped as deep pool habitat, so we utilized SCUBA to survey this site. The survey was aborted early because our gear quickly became clogged with silt thereby jeopardizing the safety of the divers. LeBoeuf Creek
Three sites on LeBoeuf Creek were surveyed in 2006 and two additional sites were surveyed in 2007 (Table 4). LeBoeuf Creek had relatively high mussel species diversity and high CPUEs compared to most other tributaries surveyed in this study. Species richness ranged from 7 - 16 species per site and CPUE ranged from 17.5 to 39.6 mussels/p-h. Live Pleurobema clava was found at three sites and live Villosa fabalis was found at sites 1 and 2. Additionally, two weathered dead E. torulosa rangiana, one dead Ligumia recta, and one dead V. fabalis were found on site 3. Previous surveys in LeBoeuf Creek documented federally listed species below Lake LeBoeuf (see Bier 1994). LeBoeuf Creek is the only tributary where we detected Utterbackia imbecillis (Say, 1829) (paper pondshell).
9
Little Sugar Creek Zero mussels were found at either of the two sites surveyed in Little Sugar Creek. Bier (1994)
found six species at one site on Little Sugar Creek (upstream of Mud Run near Pettis Corners, roughly 9.5 km upstream of site 1), and zero mussels at another site (between hwy 428 and East Branch). Muddy Creek
Five species were found at the site we surveyed in Muddy Creek, including Elliptio dilatata, Lampsilis cardium (Rafinesque, 1820) (plain pocketbook), Lampsilis siliquoidea, Pyganodon grandis, and Strophitus undulatus (Table 4). CPUE was 6.0 mussels/p-h. This encounter rate is relatively low compared to most downstream sampling stations in Muddy Creek (Mohler et al. 2006). No federally endangered mussels were found at this site, although Epioblasma torulosa rangiana and Pleurobema clava were both documented downstream (Mohler et al. 2006). South Branch French Creek
Three sites on the South Branch of French Creek were surveyed in 2006. No live or dead mussels were found at site 1 and only live Strophitus undulatus was found at both sites 2 and 3 (Table 4). Dead shells of Lampsilis ovata (Say, 1817) (pocketbook) and Ptychobranchus fasciolaris were found at site 3. Previous studies in the South Branch also detected few mussel species. Bier (1994) found 124 Elliptio dilatata and one Pyganodon grandis at one site on South Branch French Creek, and seven live species at another site, including Anodontoides ferussacianus (l. Lea, 1834) (cylindrical papershell), Elliptio dilatata, Lasmigona costata (Rafinesque, 1820) (fluted shell), Lampsilis fasciola (Rafinesque, 1820) (wavy-rayed lampmussel), Lampsilis siliquoidea, P. grandis, and S. undulatus. Sugar Creek
Zero mussels were found at all three sites surveyed in Sugar Creek. Previous studies in Sugar Creek also found very few mussels; only one live Strophitus undulatus and one relict Pyganodon grandis were found in four surveyed sites (Bier 1994). West Branch French Creek
Three sites on West Branch French Creek were surveyed in 2006 (Table 4). Lampsilis siliquoidea was the only live species found at Site 1 on West Branch French Creek. Two additional species, Pleurobema sintoxia and Strophitus undulatus, were found only as dead shells. Four live species were found at West Branch Site 2, and it is the only site in which we found Lasmigona compressa (l. Lea, 1829) (creek heelsplitter). Nine species were found at West Branch site 3, which had a CPUE of 26.6 mussels/p-h. Epioblasma triquetra and Ligumia recta were found in two sites on the West Branch in previous studies (Bier 1994), but were not found in our 2006 surveys. Woodcock Creek
Three sites were surveyed in Woodcock Creek in 2007 (Table 4). Species richness, CPUE and Shannon index of diversity all decreased going from upstream to downstream. Seventeen live mussels representing 9 species were found in the uppermost site (site 1), which had CPUE of 5.1 mussel/p-h. Villosa fabalis was detected at this site, but only a weathered dead shell. Twelve mussels representing five species were detected at site 2 and the CPUE was 3.0 mussels/p-h. One female Epioblasma triquetra was detected at this site, but only as a weathered dead shell. One earlier survey near Woodcock Lake Reservoir revealed no live or dead mussels (Bier 1994).
10
Fish Survey Results
Fish surveys were conducted at 23 of 25 sites that were surveyed for mussels. At least 49 fish species, including 10 species of darters were detected (Table 5). Etheostoma blennioides (Rafinesque, 1819) (greenside darter) was the most ubiquitous species, found at 22 sites and accounting for 14.5% of the total number of fish found. The second most abundant species was Etheostoma caeruleum (Storer, 1845) (rainbow darter), which was found at 17 sites and made up 10.1% of the total number of fish found. Other commonly found species were Semotilus atromaculatus (Mitchill, 1818) (creek chub), Hypentelium nigricans (Lesueur, 1817) (northern hogsucker), and Etheostoma zonale (Cope, 1868) (banded darter). Species richness ranged from 8 to 23 fish species per site (Table 5). Little Sugar Creek had the highest species richness, with 22-23 species found. Conneauttee Creek (site 1 and site 3), South Branch (site 3), and West Branch (site 1) also had relatively high species richness. Surveys at sites 1 and 3 in LeBoeuf Creek had the fewest fish species.
Several notable species of special concern were found in the tributary fish surveys. Etheostoma maculatum (Kirtland, 1840) (spotted darter), classified as a Threatened species in Pennsylvania, occurred in Woodcock Creek (site 1) (Table 5). Fish classified as Candidate species in Pennsylvania were also found in tributary streams. Amia calva (Linnaeus, 1766) (bowfin) occurred in Conneaut Outlet (site 1). We found Ichthyomyzon bdellium (Jordan, 1885) (Ohio lamprey) in Sugar Creek (site 3). Ichthyomyzon greeleyi (Hubbs and Trautman, 1937) (mountain brook lamprey) was recorded in South Branch (site 2), while Nocomis biguttatus (Kirtland, 1841) (hornyhead chub) (S1 PC) in both South Branch (site 3) and Sugar Creek (sites 1 and 2).
Host Fish and Mussel Relationships
Each mussel species we detected in our surveys was matched with its known fish hosts out of the fish species that we detected in our surveys (Table 6) using hosts listed in the Mussel/Host Database (Cummings and Watters 2009). Most mussel species had at least one fish host detected, if known, at each site or within the same tributary (Table 7), and some species had numerous known hosts present. Hosts for Lampsilis fasciola, including Micropterus dolomieu (Lacepède, 1802) (smallmouth bass) and Micropterus salmoides (Lacepède, 1802) (largemouth bass) are common in the watershed, but likely inhabiting slower and deeper waters than our survey sites. Similarly, some of the confirmed hosts for Lampsilis cardium such as M. salmoides, Lepomis macrochirus (Rafinesque, 1819) (bluegill), Lepomis gibbosus (Linnaeus, 1758) (pumpkinseed), Pomoxis annularis (Rafinesque, 1818) (white crappie), and Pomoxis nigromaculatus (Lesueur, 1829) (black crappie), may not have been detected in Woodcock Creek because of the shallow riffle-run habitat sampled there. Perhaps for the same reason, fish hosts for Lasmigona complanata, including Lepomis cyanellus (Rafinesque, 1819) (green sunfish), M. dolomieu, M. salmoides and Pomoxis annularis (Rafinesque, 1818) (white crappie) were not detected in some surveys on LeBoeuf Creek. Fundulus diaphanus (Lesueur, 1817) (banded killifish) is another confirmed host for L. cardium, L. complanata, Ligumia recta, Pyganodon grandis and Utterbackia imbecillis but is not common in this watershed.
Two mussel species that we found in our surveys have no identified fish host; Ligumia nasuta and Lampsilis ovata. Villosa fabalis has only one known host in the watershed, Etheostoma tippecanoe (Jordan and Evermann, 1890) (Tippecanoe darter), which was not detected in our surveys and is apparently rare in the French Creek Watershed (Smith and Crabtree 2005). Although Ptychobranchus fasciolaris was found at several sites as adults and showed evidence of recruitment, it had relatively few host fish matches.
11
Macroinvertebrate Survey Results
Surveys for aquatic macroinvertebrates were conducted at 23 of sites that were surveyed for mussels, as well as three additional sites on Muddy Creek (Table 8). The mean FBI score amongst all sites was 4.87 (std. deviation = 0.95), mean percent EPT was 25.61% (std. deviation = 16.844), mean family richness was 15.3 (std. deviation = 5.65) and mean generic richness was 18.3 (std. deviation = 6.9).
The macroinvertebrate community was depressed in Conneaut Outlet. Conneaut Outlet site 1 had the lowest total number of macroinvertebrates of all tributary sites. This site had significantly lower generic richness, family richness, and percent Diptera than the mean of all tributary sites (P <0.05), but had the second highest FBI score of all tributary sites. Additionally, no EPT taxa were found at the Conneaut Outlet site. High numbers of the introduced C. fluminea were present in our samples.
Macroinvertebrates indicated moderate to high quality in the Woodcock Creek watershed. All Woodcock Creek sites had significantly higher generic and family richness, and number of EPT families and genera than the mean of all sampled sites (P <0.05). Percent EPT was significantly higher than the mean at sites 1 and 3. Woodcock Creek site 3 had the highest family- and generic-level richness of all tributary sites. Percent Diptera was significantly higher than the mean at sites 2 and 3 on Woodcock Creek. FBI scores for sites 2 and 3 fell within the 95% confidence interval of the mean; the FBI score for site 1 was significantly lower than the mean
Having relatively high quality macroinvertebrate community, sites on Sugar Creek had a significantly higher percentage of EPT taxa than the mean of all tributary sites (P <0.05). Site 2 had the lowest FBI score of all sites. FBI scores were significantly lower than the mean at sites 2 and 3. Taxa richness was significantly higher than the mean at site 3, but significantly lower at site 1. Percent Diptera was significantly lower for Sugar Creek sites 1 and 2 than the mean of all tributary sites. Percent Chironomidae was significantly lower than the mean of all sites at sites 2 and 3.
Similar to Sugar Creek, macroinvertebrate community metrics in Little Sugar Creek suggested good water quality. Little Sugar Creek site 1 had a significantly lower FBI score than the mean of all tributary sites (P <0.05). The FBI score for site 2 was not significantly lower than the mean. Family and generic-level richness fell within the 95% confidence interval of the mean at both sites 1 and 2. Both sites had a significantly higher number of EPT taxa than the mean of all tributary sites. Percent EPT was significantly higher than the mean at site 1, but significantly lower than the mean at site 2. Percent Diptera and percent Chironomidae were significantly lower than the mean of all sites at site 1, but significantly higher than the mean at site 2.
Inconsistent macroinvertebrate metrics in the West Branch French Creek watershed may reflect variable water quality or habitat conditions. Sites on West Branch French Creek had significantly lower generic richness and numbers of EPT taxa than the mean of all tributary sites (P <0.05). Percent EPT taxa was significantly higher than the mean at site 2, but significantly lower at site 1. Percent Chironomidae and percent Diptera were significantly higher at West Branch French Creek sites 1 and 3 than the mean of all sites, and significantly lower than the mean at site 2. FBI scores were significantly higher than the mean at site 1 and site 3, but significantly lower at West Branch site 2.
Good water quality conditions were indicated by the macroinvertebrate community in the South Branch French Creek. At survey site 2 all metrics fell within the 95% confidence interval of the mean of all tributary sites. At site 1 family-level richness and percent Diptera were significantly lower than the mean of all sampled sites (P <0.05). For site 3 on South Branch French the FBI score, percent Diptera, and percent Chironomidae were significantly lower than the mean of all sites. Generic-level richness, number of EPT taxa, and percent EPT were significantly higher than the mean.
Some stress on the macroinvertebrate community was apparent in LeBoeuf Creek sites. On LeBoeuf Creek site 1 had significantly lower generic richness than the mean of all survey sites (P <0.05).
12
Site 2 had a significantly lower FBI score and family- and generic-level richness than the mean. Sites 1-4 had a significantly lower percent Diptera than the mean; site 5 had a significantly higher percent Diptera. The number of EPT taxa was significantly higher at sites 4 and 5 than the mean of all tributary sites. At sites 1, 2 and 3 the number of EPT taxa was significantly lower than the mean. LeBoeuf Creek site 5 had a high percentage of Chironomidae. Site 2 had the highest FBI score of all tributary sites. FBI scores were also high at sites 3 and 5 on LeBoeuf Creek. Percent EPT taxa was high at site 1, but low at sites 2 and 3 on LeBoeuf Creek.
A range of high and low quality conditions on Conneauttee Creek were suggested by the macroinvertebrate community. Sites on Conneauttee Creek had a significantly higher percent Chironomidae and a significantly lower percent EPT than the mean of all tributary sites (P <0.05). Taxa richness and number of EPT taxa were significantly higher than the mean at Conneauttee Creek site 3. Both sites 1 and 2 had significantly lower numbers of EPT taxa than the mean. At site 1 the FBI score and generic-level richness was significantly lower than the mean of all tributary sites; site 2 had significantly lower family-level richness than the mean.
Macroinvertebrate community metrics from sampled sites on Muddy Creek indicated varying water quality conditions. Muddy Creek site 2 had significantly higher taxa richness and number of EPT taxa than the mean of all tributary sites (P <0.05). Taxa richness and number of EPT taxa were significantly lower than the mean at sites 3 and 4. Percent EPT was significantly lower than the mean at sites 3 and 4. Percent Chironomidae and Diptera were significantly lower than the mean at site 2. At sites 3 and 4 percent Chironomidae was significantly higher than the mean of all tributary sites. Relationships between Fish, Mussels, and Macroinvertebrates
An analysis using Pearson's correlation coefficient indicates no statistically significant linear relationships between fish species richness and mussel species richness (r = -0.1319476, t= 10.6514, d.f. = 21, P = 0.5484), mussel species richness and macroinvertebrate genus richness (r = -0.1935538, t= 9.9995, d.f. = 21, P = 0.3762), and fish species richness and macroinvertebrate genus richness (r = 0.1539617, t= 4.1447, d.f. = 21, P = 0.4831). Figure 3 illustrates fish, mussel and macroinvertebrate richness for each site. Riparian Assessment scores and Fish, Mussels, and Macroinvertebrates In regression analyses, no significant relationships were found between riparian assessment scores and fish species richness, mussel species richness and CPUE, or macroinvertebrate family-level biotic index (FBI) scores and percent EPT (Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera) taxa. Surrounding Land Use Relationships with Fish, Mussels, and Macroinvertebrates Land cover data for the watershed upstream of each survey sites was variable between tributary streams (Table 10). Percent agriculture and percent development were highest upstream of sites on Conneauttee Creek. LeBoeuf Creek had the second highest percent agriculture. Sugar Creek had the lowest percent agriculture and the highest percent forest. Little Sugar and Sugar Creek had the lowest percent development. Percent development was relatively low throughout the survey area, while percent agriculture was relatively high.
Watershed land cover types upstream of survey sites were related to biological data. Significant relationships were found between macroinvertebrate metrics and percent land use in regression analysis at all scales of land use analysis. Macroinvertebrate FBI scores were significantly negatively related to percent forested landcover and percent EPT (Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera) taxa were significantly positively related to percent forested landcover within the survey site reach riparian zone and catchment, as well as at the upstream watershed scale (Figure 4a - f). Percent agricultural land use in the riparian zone or catchment was not significantly related to macroinvertebrate metrics at the reach level.
13
However at the watershed scale, FBI score was significantly positively related to percent agricultural land use and percent EPT taxa was significantly negatively related to agricultural land use (Figure 4g and 3h). At the watershed scale, mussel catch per unit effort (CPUE) and mussel species richness were significantly negatively associated with percent forested landcover (Figure 5a and b). Mussel species richness was significantly positively associated with percent agricultural land use (Figure 5c). The relationship between mussel CPUE and percent agriculture was not significant. At the reach catchment scale, mussel species richness was also significantly negatively related to percent forested land use (Figure 5d). Mussel CPUE was not significantly related to percent forested land use, and mussel CPUE and richness was not significantly related to percent agriculture at the reach catchment scale. Additionally relationships of mussel CPUE and richness to land cover in the reach riparian zone were not significant.
Regression analysis of fish species richness and land use found no significant relationships to percent agricultural or forested land use in the riparian zone, the reach catchment or at the watershed scale.
14
Table 1. Total mapped stream miles, percent flow regimes and habitat assessment scores by tributary.
Stream Stre
am k
ilom
eter
s m
appe
d
Perc
ent r
iffle
Perc
ent r
un
Perc
ent r
iffle
-run
se
ries
Com
bine
d pe
rcen
t ri
ffle
, run
and
ri
ffle
-run
seri
es
Perc
ent p
ool
Mea
n ha
bita
t as
sess
men
t sco
re
Min
imum
hab
itat
asse
ssm
ent s
core
Max
imum
hab
itat
asse
ssm
ent s
core
West Branch 16.4 15.4 12.0 1.9 29.4 70.6 63.7 52 76 South Branch 16.8 45.3 18.5 11.5 75.3 24.7 75.8 63 85 LeBoeuf Creek 17.1 5.7 23.4 0.0 29.1 70.9 79.0 55 97 Woodcock Creek 26.7 28.3 21.0 3.7 53 47.0 75.9 66 94 Muddy Creek 20.2 0.6 10.9 13.5 25 75.0 79.8 70 87 Conneauttee Creek 13.3 4.2 52.2 0.0 56.4 43.6 72.2 61 85 Cussewago Creek 9.7 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.7 99.3 68.7 55 82 Conneaut Outlet 9.6 4.9 2.6 0.0 7.5 92.4 75.6 65 98 Little Sugar Creek 7.4 59.2 3.9 18.5 81.6 18.4 82.6 78 88 Sugar Creek 12.9 23.1 9.9 53.8 86.8 13.3 75.0 61 98
15
Table 2. Sites and survey dates for French Creek tributary surveys. Exact locations are not given to protect sensitive species.
Site Code Site Name County
Mussel Survey Date
Fish Survey Date
Macroinvertebrate Survey Date
CO01 Conneaut Outlet Site 1 Crawford 25-Jul-06 10-Oct-06 10-Oct-06 CT01 Conneauttee Creek Site 1 Crawford 8-Sep-06 25-Oct-07 25-Oct-07 CT02 Conneauttee Creek Site 2 Crawford 8-Sep-06 25-Oct-07 25-Oct-07 CT03 Conneauttee Creek Site 3 Crawford 13-Sep-07 12-Oct-07 12-Oct-07 CU01 Cussewago Creek Site 1 Crawford 22-Jun-07 NA NA LB01 LeBoeuf Creek Site 1 Erie 6-Jun-06 2-Sep-06 26-Sep-07 LB02 LeBoeuf Creek Site 2 Erie 30-Jun-06 2-Sep-06 26-Sep-07 LB03 LeBoeuf Creek Site 3 Erie 30-Jun-06 26-Sep-06 26-Sep-07 LB04 LeBoeuf Creek Site 4 Erie 2-Jul-07 17-Oct-07 17-Oct-07 LB05 LeBoeuf Creek Site 5 Erie 2-Jul-07 17-Oct-07 17-Oct-07 LS01 Little Sugar Creek Site 1 Crawford 16-Aug-07 15-Oct-07 15-Oct-07 LS02 Little Sugar Creek Site 2 Crawford 16-Aug-07 15-Oct-07 15-Oct-07 MD01 Muddy Creek site 1 Crawford 4-Oct-07 NA NA MD02 Muddy Creek Site 2 Crawford NA NA 10-Oct-07 MD03 Muddy Creek Site 3 Crawford NA NA 5-Oct-07 MD04 Muddy Creek Site 4 Crawford NA NA 1-Oct-07 SB01 South Branch Site 1 Erie 24-Jul-06 31-Aug-06 25-Sep-06 SB02 South Branch Site 2 Erie 24-Jul-06 26-Oct-07 5-Sep-06 SB03 South Branch Site 3 Erie 25-Jul-06 18-Oct-07 22-Sep-06 SC01 Sugar Creek Site 1 Venango 7-Aug-06 19-Oct-07 22-Sep-06 SC02 Sugar Creek Site 2 Venango 7-Aug-06 19-Oct-07 22-Sep-06 SC03 Sugar Creek Site 3 Venango 6-Sep-07 26-Oct-07 19-Oct-07 WB01 West Branch Site 1 Erie 22-Jun-06 7-Sep-06 27-Sep-06 WB02 West Branch Site 2 Erie 22-Jun-06 2-Oct-06 27-Sep-06 WB03 West Branch Site 3 Erie 7-Jul-06 18-Oct-07 18-Oct-07 WK01 Woodcock Creek Site 1 Crawford 1-Aug-07 16-Oct-07 16-Oct-07 WK02 Woodcock Creek Site 2 Crawford 1-Aug-07 16-Oct-07 16-Oct-07 WK03 Woodcock Creek Site 3 Crawford 6-Sep-07 24-Oct-07 24-Oct-07
16
Table 3. Total numbers, percent relative abundance, minimum length, maximum length, mean length, standard error (SE) mean length, number of recruits, number of sites where each species was found, number of sites with recruits of each species, number of male, number of female, number of unreported sex, and female to male ratio for each species for timed searches.
Tota
l num
bers
Perc
ent r
elat
ive
ab
unda
nce
Min
imum
leng
th
(mm
)
Max
imum
leng
th
(mm
)
Mea
n le
ngth
(m
m)
SE m
ean
leng
th
(mm
)
Num
ber o
f rec
ruits
Num
ber o
f site
s
Num
ber o
f si
tes w
ith re
crui
ts
Num
ber o
f fem
ales
Num
ber o
f mal
es
Unr
epor
ted
sex
F:M
ratio
Actinonaias ligamentina 52 8.43 27.0 140.0 109.1 3.33 1 10 1 52 Alasmidonta marginata 4 0.65 29.0 76.0 59.5 10.43 1 5 1 4 Amblema plicata 106 17.18 38.0 139.0 89.6 2.41 7 0 106 Dreissena polymorpha 29 4.70 14.0 27.0 20.6 0.59 NA 3 29 Elliptio dilatata 40 6.48 36.0 109.0 75.8 2.93 7 40 Epioblasma torulosa rangiana* 0 0.00 0 Epioblasma triquetra 4 0.65 32.0 58.0 47.3 5.47 2 1 3 0 0.33 Lampsilis cardium 3 0.49 77.0 104.0 94.7 8.84 3 1 2 0 0.50 Lampsilis fasciola 6 0.97 50.0 80.0 63.5 5.63 4 3 2 1 1.50 Lampsilis ovata 17 2.76 67.0 137.0 102.9 4.65 5 6 8 3 0.75 Lampsilis siliquoidea 116 18.80 16.0 150.0 84.2 2.34 3 12 2 36 74 6 0.49 Lasmigona complanata 3 0.49 98.0 141.0 117.3 12.60 3 3 Lasmigona compressa 7 1.13 48.0 68.0 57.0 3.21 1 7 Lasmigona costata 29 4.70 52.0 127.0 98.0 3.42 9 29 Ligumia nasuta 15 2.43 84.0 108.0 95.9 2.11 1 15 Ligumia recta* 0 0.00 0 Pleurobema clava 29 4.70 22.0 84.0 57.2 2.96 1 5 1 29 Pleurobema sintoxia 12 1.94 43.0 100.0 64.3 5.61 5 12 Ptychobranchus fasciolaris 44 7.13 19.0 113.0 74.7 4.17 1 8 1 44 Pyganodon grandis 21 3.40 40.0 121.0 86.5 3.94 10 21 Quadrula cylindrica 5 0.81 82.0 119.0 95.8 6.60 3 5 Strophitus undulatus 67 10.86 31.0 100.0 62.6 1.61 13 67 Utterbackia imbecillis 2 0.32 60.0 71.0 65.5 5.50 2 2 Villosa fabalis 6 0.97 21.0 40.0 30.7 2.91 2 2 4 0 0.50 Total 617 *Species found only as dead shells.
17
Table 4. Catch per unit effort (CPUE, #/p-h) of live individuals of each mussel species found at each French Creek tributary site. Total number of live individuals, Shannon Index (H´), and number of sites in which freshwater mussels species were found is also given. Zeros for species CPUE indicate species found as only dead shells at a particular site. No live unionid mussels or shells were found at LS01, LS02, SB01, SC01, SC02 and SC03 and those sites are not included in this table.
Species/Site CT01 CT02 CT03 CO01 CU01 LB01 LB02 LB03 LB04 LB05 MD01 SB02 SB03 WB01 WB02 WB03 WK01 WK02 WK03 No.
Sites Actinonaias ligamentina 3.95 1.52 0.55 11.37 2.57 2.57 3.43 1.59 0.30 0.25 12 Alasmidonta marginata 0 0.76 0.39 0.86 0 0.30 7 Amblema plicata 60.00 6.08 3.27 5.85 1.96 1.71 0.30 13 Dreissena polymorpha 18.16 2.28 3.16 10 Elliptio dilatata 3.95 4.56 0 0 0.39 13.71 4.29 1.21 2.12 0 8 Epioblasma t. rangiana 0 7 Epioblasma triquetra 1.18 0 0 0.30 0 5 Lampsilis cardium 0.79 0.40 0.30 9 Lampsilis fasciola 0.79 0.86 0.90 0.25 10 Lampsilis ovata 7.89 1.52 1.18 0.86 0 0 0 0 0.53 5 Lampsilis siliquoidea 2.37 0 6.00 3.66 7.84 0.86 13.71 3.43 1.21 11.36 9.35 2.12 1 Lasmigona complanata 0 0.73 0.39 0.86 3 Lasmigona compressa 2.73 5 Lasmigona costata 1.58 0 0 0.73 0.39 3.43 3.43 0.86 1.56 5.84 0.45 1 Ligumia nasuta 8.18 4 Ligumia recta 0 2 Pleurobema clava 0 0 2.93 5.10 7.71 0.86 1.71 3 Pleurobema sintoxia 0 0 0.78 1.71 0.86 0.86 0 3.19 5 Ptychobranchus fasciolaris 9.27 1.96 1.71 6.00 0.86 0 0 1.59 1.81 0.76 2 Pyganodon grandis 0.43 2.20 1.96 2.57 0.86 0.00 0.81 1.59 0.30 0.25 0.45 2 Quadrula cylindrica 0.01 0.39 2.57 2 Strophitus undulatus 0.03 1.09 2.75 2.57 3.43 2.57 2.42 0.32 1.06 0 5.45 7.96 0.60 1.52 3 Utterbackia imbecillis 0.39 0.86 0 Villosa fabalis 1.46 1.57 0 0 0
Survey area (m2) 635 657 478 920 1165 685 1276 582 1016 385 1244 1570 940 1102 1282 940 1528 1828 1106 Search time (min.) 76 79 57 110 140 82 153 70 122 46 149 188 113 132 154 113 199 237 132 CPUE (#/p-h)* 83.5 14.4 0 28.4 0.4 17.5 40.0 29.1 26.6 30 6 0.3 1.1 11.3 19.1 26.6 5.1 3 0.9 Total no. mussels (live)* 106 19 0 52 1 24 102 34 54 23 15 1 2 25 49 50 17 12 2 588 Total no. species (live)* 10 5 0 6 1 7 17 13 10 9 5 1 1 1 4 9 9 5 2 Total no. species (incl.dead)* 13 10 1 7 1 9 17 17 12 11 5 1 3 3 7 9 10 7 2 Shannon Index (H')* 1.13 1.35 0.00 1.50 0.00 1.72 2.25 2.31 1.83 2.04 1.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.19 1.94 1.93 1.31 0.69
* Total CPUE, abundance, species richness, and Shannon indices do not include Dreissena polymorpha.
18
Figure 2. Mussel species richness by tributary watershed based on this project and additional available data recorded since 1990.
19
Table 5. Total number, percent total catch, and number of sites in which freshwater fish species were found in the French Creek tributary sites.
Species CT
01
CT
02
CT
03
CO
01
LB
01
LB
02
LB
03
LB
04
LB
05
LS0
1
LS0
2
SB01
SB02
SB03
SC01
SC02
SC03
WB
01
WB
02
WB
03
WK
01
WK
02
WK
03
Tot
al
% T
otal
No.
Si
tes
Ambloplites rupestris 5 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 15 0.5 8 Ameiurus natalis 4 1 1 3 9 0.3 4 Ameiurus nebulosus 2 2 0.1 1 Amia calva 6 6 0.2 1 Campostoma anomalum 7 12 42 1 3 4 7 3 3 2 7 1 92 3.0 12 Catostomus commersoni 11 2 4 2 1 2 2 2 9 3 1 1 40 1.3 12 Cottus bairdi 34 51 48 1 18 124 3 1 21 301 9.7 9 Erimystax dissimilis 2 1 2 3 35 9 52 1.7 6 Esox a. verrmiculatus 1 1 2 0.1 2 Etheostoma blennioides 25 5 84 3 2 1 59 8 8 23 32 11 29 40 42 11 16 7 3 5 17 12 443 14.3 22 Etheostoma caeruleum 3 2 50 3 5 8 18 32 6 5 30 81 6 3 8 20 10 290 9.4 17 Etheostoma flabellare 1 1 1 2 4 36 1 11 16 9 82 2.6 10 Etheostoma maculatum 1 1 0.0 1 Etheostoma nigrum 46 25 12 1 1 8 2 10 15 120 3.9 9 Etheostoma variatum 1 11 18 45 24 7 5 13 24 11 5 2 2 6 174 5.6 14 Etheostoma zonale 1 8 4 2 11 2 1 5 16 7 16 7 4 1 7 9 8 109 3.5 17 Fundulus diaphanus 1 1 0.0 1 Hybopsis amblops 21 3 24 0.8 2 Hypentelium nigricans 20 7 64 1 3 10 12 10 13 4 36 3 6 4 27 1 10 11 3 15 260 8.4 20 Ichthyomyzon bdellium 1 1 0.0 1 Ichthyomyzon greeleyi 1 1 0.0 1 Lepomis cyanellus 1 1 2 0.1 2 Lepomis gibbosus 3 1 2 6 0.2 3 Lepomis macrochirus 32 1 1 6 3 1 1 1 46 1.5 8 Luxilus chrysocephalus 3 1 1 5 5 8 7 11 3 1 11 56 1.8 11 Luxilus cornutus 1 1 0.0 1 Micropterus dolomieu 3 5 2 4 3 10 4 13 13 5 4 1 3 5 2 5 82 2.6 16 Micropterus salmoides 3 1 1 1 6 0.2 4 Moxostoma anisurum 1 1 0.0 1 Moxostoma sp. 3 1 2 6 0.2 3 Moxostoma macrolepidotum 24 20 15 12 5 1 1 2 1 2 4 1 88 2.8 12
20
Table 5. Continued.
Species CT
01
CT
02
CT
03
CO
01
LB
01
LB
02
LB
03
LB
04
LB
05
LS0
1
LS0
2
SB01
SB02
SB03
SC01
SC02
SC03
WB
01
WB
02
WB
03
WK
01
WK
02
WK
03
Tot
al
% T
otal
No.
Si
tes
Nocomis biguttatus 2 8 2 12 0.4 3 Nocomis micropogon 10 2 3 15 0.5 3 Notropis atherinoides 3 1 1 12 15 2 2 5 4 6 1 4 59 1.9 13 Notropis buccatus 4 4 0.1 1 Notropis ludibundus 1 39 4 1 7 1 3 10 66 2.1 8 Notropis photogenis 7 1 4 18 5 3 12 3 6 2 12 17 6 1 5 102 3.3 15 Notropis sp. 16 4 3 3 1 27 0.9 5 Notropis volucellus 1 2 1 17 2 10 2 35 1.1 7 Noturus flavus 1 1 1 3 0.1 3 Oncorhynchus mykiss 1 3 4 0.1 2 Perca flavescens 1 5 6 0.2 2 Percina caprodes 1 3 1 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 22 0.7 11 Percina macrocephala 1 3 2 3 8 2 2 2 2 27 0.9 10 Percina maculata 1 2 1 1 1 9 3 20 0.6 8 Pimephales notatus 9 3 9 5 3 27 56 1.8 6 Pomoxis annularis 1 1 0 1 Pomoxis nigromaculatus 5 5 0.2 1 Rhinichthys atratulus 7 2 45 5 1 2 1 1 2 66 2.1 9 Rhinichthys cataractae 2 4 5 4 5 20 0.6 5 Semotilus atromaculatus 13 6 26 1 1 12 11 2 22 15 4 3 2 18 4 2 5 13 160 5.2 18 Unidentified 3 6 10 0.3 3
TOTAL 204 81 335 64 27 36 29 253 62 148 255 193 66 146 263 222 66 162 65 53 71 135 95 3033 No. Species (Richness) 22 14 18 12 8 14 10 17 17 22 23 12 15 19 17 15 15 19 13 14 16 16 13 Area Surveyed 635 657 478 920 685 1276 582 1016 385 1248 1268 1001 1570 940 1000 1003 1447 1102 1282 940 1528 1828 1106 Time Surveyed (min) 36 60 120 60 50 50 50 55 33 60 60 75 40 65 45 45 40 60 50 38 40 59 60
21
Table 6. Mussel species detected in our surveys and known fish hosts out of the fish species that we detected in our French Creek tributary surveys.
Fish Host Species
Mussel Species A. ru
pest
ris
A. n
atal
is
A. n
ebul
osus
A. c
alva
C. a
nom
alum
C. c
omm
erso
ni
C. b
aird
i
E. c
aeru
leum
E. d
issi
mili
s
E. fl
abel
lare
E. n
igru
m
E. zo
nale
F. d
iaph
anus
H. n
igri
cans
L. c
yane
llus
L. g
ibbo
sus
L. m
acro
chir
us
L. c
hrys
ocep
halu
s
L. c
ornu
tus
M. d
olom
ieu
M. s
alm
oide
s
M. c
arin
atum
M. m
acro
lepi
dotu
m
N. m
icro
pogo
n
N. a
ther
inoi
des
N. l
udib
undu
s
N. v
oluc
ellu
s
P. fl
aves
cens
P. c
apro
des
P. m
acul
ata
P. n
otat
us
P. a
nnul
aris
P. n
igro
mac
ulat
us
R. a
trat
ulus
R. c
atar
acta
e
S. a
trom
acul
atus
Num
ber o
f kno
wn
fish
host
spec
ies p
rese
nt
A. ligamentina x x x x x x x x x x 10 A. marginata x x x x 4 A. plicata x x x x x x x x x x x x 12 E. dilatata x x x 3 E. t. rangiana x x 2 E. triquetra x x x 3 L. cardium x x x x x x x x 8 L. fasciola x x 2 L. ovata 0 L. siliquoidea x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 15 L. complanata x x x x x 5 L. compressa x x x x x x x x 8 L. costata x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 16 L. nasuta 0 L. recta x x x x x x x x x x 10 P. clava x x x x 4 P. sintoxia x x x 3 P. fasciolaris x x 2 P. grandis x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 20 Q. cylindrica x x 2 S. undulatus x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 22 U. imbecillis x x x x x x x x x 9 V. fabalis 0
22
Table 7. Number of host fish matches to each mussel species at each tributary site. Zeros indicate mussel presence, but no fish host matches. Dead indicates mussel presence as dead shells only. The letter u indicates mussel presence but no host fish has been identified for that mussel species.
Species/Site CT01 CT02 CT03 CO01 LB01 LB02 LB03 LB04 LB05 SB03 WB01 WB02 WB03 WK01 WK02 WK03
A. ligamentina 2 0 8 1 2 4 4 3 2 2
A. marginata 3 3 2 0 2 dead 2
A. plicata 2 2 7 2 4 5 3
E. dilatata 0 0 2 dead dead 1 dead 1 dead 0 0 dead
E. t. rangiana 0 dead
E. triquetra 0 0 dead 1 dead 1 0 dead
L. cardium 1 1
L. fasciola 1 2 1 1
L. ovata u u u u u
L. siliquoidea 4 1 dead 6 1 2 4 6 6 3 1 3
L. complanata 0 dead 0 0 1
L. compressa 2
L. costata 6 3 dead 5 dead 6 5 4 7 5 6 3 5
L. nasuta u
L. recta 3 dead
P. clava 3 dead 1 dead 1 0 0 3 2
P. sintoxia 1 dead 2 dead 1 1 2 1 1 dead 1
P. fasciolaris 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 2 2
P. grandis 5 6 5 3 8 dead 3 7 7 4
Q. cylindrica 0
S. undulatus 8 10 6 5 7 6 6 6 6 4 6 6
U. imbecillis 3 4
V. fabalis 0 0 0 dead 0 dead
23
Table 8. Macroinvertebrate community metrics for 26 sites on the tributaries of French Creek.
Site Tot
al N
umbe
r
Iden
tifie
d
Ric
hnes
s - F
amily
FBI
Ric
hnes
s - G
enus
% E
phem
erop
tera
% P
leco
pter
a
% T
rich
opte
ra
% D
ipte
ra
% C
hiro
nom
idae
% E
PT
No.
Eph
emer
opte
ra
Tax
a -
Gen
us
No.
Ple
copt
era
T
axa
- G
enus
No.
Tri
chop
tera
T
axa
- Gen
us
No.
EPT
Tax
a -
G
enus
No.
Eph
emer
opte
ra
Tax
a -
Fam
ily
No.
Ple
copt
era
T
axa
- Fa
mily
No.
Tri
chop
tera
T
axa
- Fa
mily
No.
EPT
Tax
a -
Fa
mily
CO 01 32 9 6.34 9 0 0 0 9.38 3.13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CT 01 321 13 5.36 15 0.31 0 1.56 71.34 68.85 1.87 1 0 4 5 1 0 4 5 CT 02 294 12 4.75 16 0 0 0.34 39.12 37.07 0.34 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 CT 03 632 19 5.04 24 0.63 0.47 16.77 53.32 48.58 17.88 2 1 7 10 2 1 6 9 LB 01 63 14 4.81 15 1.59 0 50.79 17.46 14.29 52.38 1 0 3 4 1 0 2 3 LB 02 66 11 6.89 11 0 0 12.12 4.55 1.52 12.12 0 0 2 2 0 0 2 2 LB 03 122 18 5.84 18 2.46 0 7.38 22.95 22.13 9.84 2 0 2 4 2 0 2 4 LB 04 629 26 4.49 32 10.49 10.49 10.65 15.74 13.2 31.64 3 3 7 13 3 3 5 11 LB 05 549 15 5.68 19 13.66 0.36 1.82 51.18 51.00 15.85 3 1 6 10 3 1 4 8 LS 01 62 15 3.97 19 11.29 1.61 16.13 14.52 12.9 33.87 6 1 4 11 4 1 3 8 LS 02 118 13 4.89 19 5.93 3.39 7.63 54.24 48.31 16.95 5 1 4 10 3 1 3 7 MD 02 147 21 4.58 24 15.65 1.36 6.12 12.93 4.08 23.13 5 1 5 11 4 1 5 10 MD 03 35 7 4.83 9 8.57 8.57 0 20.00 20.00 14.29 1 1 0 2 1 1 0 2 MD 04 43 11 5.63 11 2.33 6.98 2.33 72.09 69.77 11.63 1 2 1 4 1 2 1 4 SB 01 113 12 4.52 16 11.5 0 19.47 2.65 2.65 30.97 3 0 4 7 3 0 2 5 SB 02 54 14 5.26 18 9.26 0 12.96 35.19 31.48 22.22 3 0 3 6 3 0 2 5 SB 03 101 17 3.82 22 34.65 0 5.94 9.90 4.95 40.59 9 0 3 12 6 0 3 9 SC 01 62 11 4.89 14 37.10 0 1.61 22.58 22.58 38.71 6 0 1 7 4 0 1 5 SC 02 204 15 2.04 19 42.16 0.49 15.2 12.25 11.27 57.84 6 1 4 11 5 1 2 8 SC 03 542 24 3.49 30 25.28 1.48 23.43 35.61 13.28 50.18 7 3 8 18 5 3 5 13 WB 01 45 14 5.73 14 6.67 0 4.44 66.67 42.22 11.11 2 0 1 3 2 0 1 3 WB 02 33 7 4.33 10 45.45 0 6.06 12.12 12.12 51.52 3 0 1 4 2 0 1 3 WB 03 58 8 5.5 8 13.79 5.17 1.72 65.52 65.52 20.69 2 1 1 4 2 1 1 4 WK 01 356 23 4.35 28 12.08 1.12 28.09 38.2 16.29 41.29 3 3 8 14 2 3 6 11 WK 02 220 21 4.62 25 20.45 11.36 8.64 44.55 35.91 20.45 3 1 6 10 3 1 5 9 WK 03 304 27 4.92 30 17.11 0.66 20.72 51.32 43.09 38.49 5 1 6 12 3 1 5 9 Mean 200.2 15.3 4.87 18.3 13.4 2.06 10.84 32.90 27.55 25.61 3.2 0.8 3.5 7.5 2.5 0.8 2.8 6.1 Standard Deviation 194.90 5.65 0.95 6.9 13.41 3.455 11.320 22.162 21.430 16.844 2.34 0.98 2.49 4.62 1.58 0.98 1.86 3.46
Lower 95% CI 118.05 12.96 4.48 15.4 7.9 0.65 6.22 23.84 18.79 18.73 2.2 0.4 2.5 5.6 1.9 0.4 2.0 4.7 Upper 95% CI 282.34 17.58 5.26 21.1 18.9 3.47 15.47 41.96 36.30 32.49 4.1 1.2 4.6 9.4 3.2 1.2 3.5 7.5
24
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
WB01WB02WB03SB01SB02SB03LB
01LB
02LB
03LB
04LB
05CT01CT02CT03WK01WK02WK03CO01LS
01LS
02SC01SC02SC03
FishMusselMacroinvertebrate
Figure 3. Fish species, mussel species, and macroinvertebrate genus richness for tributary sites. Sites are listed from the northernmost to the southernmost tributary. Only sites where all 3 taxa were sampled are shown.
25
Table 9. Percent major watershed landcover types for the ten major tributaries of French Creek and for the entire watershed (calculated from the National Landcover Data 1992). Percent watershed land cover type
Watershed %
Developed %
Agriculture
% Natural (Wetland, forest &
shrubland) %
Wetlands % Forest and
shrubland % Other
landcover Conneaut Outlet 2.9 37.3 59.6 10.2 46.6 0.2 Conneauttee Creek 3.9 47.4 48.6 0.9 46.3 0.0 Cussewago Creek 2.3 38.9 58.8 8.4 49.8 0.0 French Creek 1.4 38.6 59.9 3.7 55.6 0.1 LeBoeuf Creek 1.3 44.6 53.8 7.5 45.9 0.3 Little Sugar Creek 0.2 44.1 55.6 2.8 51.4 0.0 Muddy Creek 0.3 38.6 61.0 5.3 55.7 0.0 South Branch 1.4 39.9 58.4 4.3 54.0 0.4 Sugar Creek 0.3 27.4 72.2 1.3 70.7 0.1 West Branch 0.8 35.6 63.4 4.5 57.8 0.1 Woodcock Creek 0.8 39.2 59.9 2.0 57.1 0.1
26
Table 10. Upstream watershed percent agriculture, forest and developed land cover for each survey site.
Site %
Agriculture % Forest %
Developed CO01 35.2 51.5 4.5 CT01 46.8 45.8 4.6 CT02 46.8 45.8 4.6 CT03 46.2 46.4 4.8 CU01 38.9 49.8 2.3 LB01 44.6 45.9 1.3 LB02 44.6 45.9 1.3 LB03 44.6 45.9 1.3 LB04 43.6 46.4 0.9 LB05 43.6 46.4 0.9 LS01 43.3 52.2 0.1 LS02 44.1 51.4 0.2 MD01 42.3 55.9 0.3 MD02 39.1 59.2 0.3 MD03 38.9 58.3 0.4 MD04 38.6 55.7 0.3 SB01 38.8 54.8 1.5 SB02 39.9 54.0 1.4 SB03 37.1 56.2 1.3 SC01 27.4 70.7 0.3 SC02 27.5 70.7 0.3 SC03 27.2 70.9 0.3 WB01 35.6 57.8 0.8 WB02 35.6 57.8 0.8 WB03 34.8 58.6 0.9 WK01 38.8 57.5 0.7 WK02 38.8 57.5 0.7 WK03 38.5 57.7 0.7
27
R2 = 0.2418
012
3456
78
0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00
% forested riparian zone
mac
roin
verte
brat
e FB
I
Figure 4a. Regression of macroinvertebrate FBI scores by percent forest landcover in the riparian zone (p = 0.01).
R2 = 0.2709
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00
% forested riparian zone
% E
PT ta
xa
Figure 4b. Regression of macroinvertebrate percent EPT taxa by percent forested landcover in the riparian zone (p = 0.006).
R2 = 0.4311
012
3456
78
0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00
% forested landcover
mac
roin
verte
brat
e FB
I sco
re
Figure 4c. Regression of macroinvertebrate FBI scores by percent forested landcover in the reach catchment (p = 0.0003).
28
R2 = 0.3137
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00
% forested landcover
% E
PT ta
xa
Figure 4d. Regression of macroinvertebrate %EPT taxa by percent forested landcover in the reach catchment (p = 0.003).
R2 = 0.3228
012
3456
78
0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00
% forested landcover
mac
roin
verte
brat
e FB
I sco
re
Figure 4e. Regression of macroinvertebrate FBI scores by percent forested landcover in the watershed (p = 0.002).
R2 = 0.3082
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00
% forested landcover
% E
PT
taxa
Figure 4f. Regression of %EPT taxa by percent forested landcover in the watershed (p = 0.003).
29
R2 = 0.1949
012
3456
78
0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00
% agriculture
mac
roin
vert
ebra
te F
BI s
core
Figure 4g. Regression of FBI score by percent agricultural landcover in the watershed (p = 0.02).
R2 = 0.2675
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00
% agriculture
% E
PT ta
xa
Figure 4h. Regression of percent EPT taxa by percent agricultural landcover in the watershed (p = 0.007).
R2 = 0.2391
0102030405060708090
100
0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00
% forested
mus
sel C
PUE
(#/h
r)
Figure 5a. Regression of mussel catch per unit effort (CPUE) by percent forested landcover in the watershed (p = 0.01).
30
R2 = 0.3329
02468
1012141618
0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00
% forested
mus
sel s
peci
es ri
chne
ss
Figure 5b. Regression of species richness by percent forested landcover in the watershed (p = 0.003).
R2 = 0.2467
02468
1012141618
0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00
% agriculture
mus
sel s
peci
es ri
chne
ss
Figure 5c. Regression of mussel species richness by percent agricultural landcover in the watershed (p = 0.01).
R2 = 0.2217
02468
1012141618
0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00
% forested
mus
sel s
peci
es ri
chne
ss
Figure 5d. Regression of mussel species richness by percent forested landcover in the reach catchment (p = 0.02).
31
DISCUSSION The French Creek watershed currently contains 27 species of native freshwater mussels, more than
any other watershed in Pennsylvania or anywhere in the northeastern United States. Of these 27 species, two are federally and state endangered: Pleurobema clava and Epioblasma torulosa rangiana; Quadrula cylindrica is a federal candidate and state endangered and Epioblasma triquetra is state endangered. The Pennsylvania Biological Survey lists fourteen other unionid species, found in French Creek, as proposed threatened or endangered in Pennsylvania. Aquatic mollusks, including bivalves and gastropods, are a critically imperiled group across the globe (Bogan 1993, Williams et al. 1993, Riccardi and Rasmussen 1999). This fact makes WPC’s research extremely valuable and places particular importance on the conservation of places like French Creek. To further emphasize the value of this project, P. clava and E. torulosa rangiana have been lost from over 95% of their historic world ranges (U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1994), yet both maintain relatively healthy populations in the French Creek watershed (Crabtree and Smith in review, Mohler et al. 2006, Smith and Crabtree in review, Zanatta and Murphy 2007). This project benefits conservation efforts of these important aquatic species.
In our tributary surveys we detected 23 of the 29 unionid species historically recorded in the French Creek Watershed. Cyclonaias tuberculata (Rafinesque, 1820) (purple wartyback) and Toxolasma parvus (Barnes, 1823) (lilliput) were documented in Ortmann’s early surveys of French Creek (1919); however neither species were documented in a basin wide survey in 1993 (Bier 1994), nor in later surveys on the main stem of French Creek (Environmental Science 2002a, 2002b, Smith and Crabtree 2005, in review). Cyclonaias tuberculata is now considered extirpated from Pennsylvania. Simpsonaias ambigua (Say, 1825) (salamander mussel), also collected by Ortmann (1919) in French Creek, has only been found recently as two dead shells; one collected in 1985 and another in 1995 (PNHP files accessed August 8, 2008). No further evidence of the salamander mussel has been found since the discovery of those two shells (Bier 1994, EnviroScience 2002a, 2002b, Mohler et al. 2006, Smith and Crabtree 2005, in review). Two additional species documented from recent surveys but not detected in our tributary studies include Anodontoides ferussacianus (l. Lea, 1834) (cylindrical papershell) and Villosa iris (l. Lea, 1829) (rainbow mussel), which are generally only found in low numbers in this watershed (Bier 1994, EnviroScience 2002a, 2002b, Mohler et al. 2006, Smith and Crabtree 2005, in review).
No live Epioblasma torulosa rangiana were found in our tributary surveys, and only one dead shell was detected in lower LeBoeuf Creek. It is not known if this shell indicates a population within the tributary, or if it is a remnant of the relatively large population in the main stem of the river. Other studies in the French Creek watershed show that Pleurobema clava is found in very low numbers, has a limited range and has little evidence of recent recruitment (Bier 1994, Smith and Crabtree in review). Live P. clava is only found in the upper portion of the watershed (Bier 1994, Smith and Crabtree 2005, in review), but results from Mohler et al. (2006) and this study indicate that Muddy Creek and LeBoeuf Creek may hold significant numbers of P. clava. Pleurobema clava has also been reported from Conneaut Outlet (PNHP files accessed August 8, 2008), although we did not detect it in our survey. The discovery of dead P. clava shells in Conneauttee Creek necessitates further investigation to determine if there are live individuals present and how the presence of Dreissena polymorpha may be affecting native mussels in this tributary.
Exotic species, such as Dreissena polymorpha, threaten the native biota in aquatic ecosystems where they have invaded (Biggins et al. 1995, Ricciardi et al. 1998, Strayer and Malcom 2007) and are a threat to the French Creek watershed (Western Pennsylvania Conservancy and French Creek Project 2002). Live zebra mussels were found at two sites on Conneauttee Creek, downstream of Edinboro Lake, the location of the first reported zebra mussels in the watershed (DEP 2000 news release). The relative large size and low numbers of zebra mussels detected at these sites indicates that the individuals we found were likely washed down from the lake, rather than actively reproducing (Parendes pers. comm). Dreissena polymorpha have been documented in the main stem of French Creek downstream of Conneauttee Creek (Smith and Crabtree in review). Close monitoring of zebra mussels in Conneauttee Creek and the main stem of French Creek is
32
recommended to determine whether actively reproducing populations will establish in these streams. High numbers of the introduced Corbicula fluminea were present at the Conneaut Outlet site, which likely washed down from Conneaut Lake (Western Pennsylvania Conservancy and French Creek Project 2002). Ammonia toxicity and dissolved oxygen reductions caused C. fluminea die-offs has been shown to be harmful to native unionids (Cherry et al. 2005, Cooper et al. 2005). We did not document C. fluminea in other tributaries.
The threats to freshwater mussels posed by hydrologic and stream channel alterations are well documented (see review in Watters 2000), however the specific threats to aquatic life in the French Creek tributaries need further assessment. Only two U.S. Army Corps of Engineers dams exist in the watershed; one on the main stem French Creek near Union City, and the other on Woodcock Creek, but there are several small dams throughout the watershed (Western Pennsylvania Conservancy and French Creek Project 2002). Dams alter aquatic habitats, affecting water temperature, current velocity and sedimentation, as well as acting as barriers to fish hosts (Watters 2000). Many of the mussel species in the French Creek watershed prefer riffle/run habitat (Butler 2003 and 2006, Parmalee and Bogan 1998, Ortmann 1919, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1994) making the availability of this flow regime important to continued population viability.
Results from Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) water quality studies placed several streams in the watershed on the section 303(d) Clean Water Act impaired stream list. Most of these streams are in the northern portion of the watershed and include portions of Conneauttee Creek LeBoeuf Creek, Muddy Creek and South Branch French Creek, tributaries to Conneauttee Creek: Torry Run and Little Conneauttee Creek and tributaries to French Creek: Boles Run, and Gravel Run; Also on the list are Bentley Run, below Union City Reservoir, and Darrows Creek. The major sources of impairment of these streams include high levels of siltation, organic enrichment, and nutrients which are often attributed to improper agricultural practices (Environmental Protection Agency 2008, Henley et al. 2000, Waters 1995). Siltation can cause reduced feeding and growth rates, clog gills, disrupt metabolic processes, limit burrowing activity and smother freshwater mussels; thereby reducing freshwater mussel assemblages (Brim Box and Mossa 1999, Vannote and Minshall 1982, Waters 1995). Water withdrawals for municipal, industrial and agricultural needs may also cause decreases in flow velocities and dissolved oxygen levels (Johnson et al. 2001). Ammonia, a common pollutant from pesticide and fertilizers (Augspurger et al. 2003, Newton 2003), has been shown to be lethal to freshwater mussels (Havlik and Marking 1987).
In general, results of the macroinvertebrate analyses indicate good to fair water quality at the survey sites on the French Creek tributaries. Agriculture and urban development are likely the major cause of impacted water quality for many sites, particularly those sites located near or just downstream of population centers (Environmental Protection Agency 2008). Indices of water quality varied not only between streams, but also between survey sites. Our results indicated that water quality was consistently good at sampling sites on Sugar Creek, Little Sugar Creek, and Woodcock Creek. These sites had relatively low FBI scores and high taxa richness. Indices showed water quality varied between sites on LeBoeuf Creek, Muddy Creek, West Branch, and South Branch French Creek. Sites on Conneauttee Creek showed fair water quality with a high percentage of Chironomidae and median FBI scores at all sites.
Our surveys indicate that the water quality at the Conneaut Outlet site may be the poorest of the sampled sites, with low numbers of macroinvertebrates, a high FBI score, and no EPT taxa. Most of Conneaut Outlet consists of pool habitat, although the area sampled was a shallow run a short distance downstream of Conneaut Lake. Generally, fewer macroinvertebrates are found in pool habitats and many macroinvertebrates require well oxygenated (e.g riffle-run) water, which is especially true of EPT taxa (Barbour et al. 1999). Additionally, the large number of Corbicula fluminea present at the site may compete for food with other aquatic life (Devick 1991).
Not only do freshwater mussels have to contend with invasive species, pollutants and stream alterations, but they also depend on other species to complete their life cycle. Fish play an essential role in freshwater mussel reproduction; most unionids have a parasitic larval stage (glochidia), where they depend on a vertebrate host, usually a fish. Fish hosts are often found to be the limiting factor in freshwater mussel
33
distribution (Haag and Warren 1998), so we examined each of the mussel sites for fish species presence. Over 80 species of fish have been documented in the French Creek watershed (Western Pennsylvania Conservancy and French Creek Project 2002), and our surveys documented 49 of those species, including many that have been documented as fish hosts. Many of our survey sites had known host fish present for several imperiled mussels.
Our fish surveys had their limitations; more intensive fish survey effort, surveys in other habitats and in different seasons may reveal additional species. These surveys were a one-time snapshot of species presence focusing on relatively small riffle-run habitats. Fish are highly mobile and may utilize several habitat types to derive essential ecological requirements, including spawning, rearing (juveniles), and feeding. In addition, our surveys did not incorporate containment techniques such as block nets, thereby allowing the escape of highly mobile species. In addition to fish hosts, we encountered Necturus maculosus (Rafinesque, 1818) (mudpuppy) at a few study sites, a confirmed host for Simpsonaias ambigua (Roe 2003).
Absence of glochidial hosts would be a limiting factor of freshwater mussel populations. However, we found evidence of fish hosts associated with each mussel species within its tributary watershed with the exception of Ligumia nasuta and Lampsilis ovata. There are no known hosts for L. nasuta and L. ovata. Both species were found in moderate abundances in at least one tributary stream. Although no recruits were found for either species, glochidial host fish could in the watershed. Hosts are not known for all mussels species and many mussels may be able to use additional fish species that have not been documented. Glochidia-host relationships continue to be studied and new hosts continue to be discovered. Villosa fabalis is quite common in French Creek (Smith and Crabtree 2005, in review), but has only one known and fairly uncommon host in the watershed (Smith and Crabtree 2005) indicating perhaps there are other unidentified hosts present in this watershed. Freshwater mussels depend on the conservation and protection of their fish and amphibian hosts.
Although we documented the presence of small individuals of several species, for most mussel species in the tributaries, no evidence of recruitment was found. In the mainstem of French Creek, most mussel species are known to be successfully reproducing. Ninteen of 25 species had evidence of recruitment (Smith and Crabtree 2005). More intensive, quadrat based surveys similar to those conducted on the mainstem of French Creek would be necessary to determine whether significant recruitment is occurring in tributary streams (Hornbach and Deneka 1996, Smith and Crabtree in press, Smith et al. 2001, Vaughn et al. 1997). Evidence of both sexes and recent recruitment are important measures of mussel viability, and should be further examined at these sites. In addition to providing a better representation of sex ratios within each site, quadrat sampling (e.g. using methods described in Smith et al. 2001) would result in accurate population density estimates, which would be useful for monitoring population trends.
Our results find varying fish and mussel and macroinvertebrate populations between tributaries. LeBoeuf Creek stands out as a particularly important tributary, hosting live populations of Pleurobema clava and Villosa fabalis, with evidence of the federally endangered Epioblasma torulosa rangiana. Conneauttee Creek, Muddy Creek and Woodcock Creek also exhibit relatively high species diversity and harbor several mussel species of special concern. These tributary populations may be important contributors to main stem populations. Past studies on Sugar Creek and Little Sugar Creek resulted in few mussels (Bier 1994), and we found no live specimens on these streams. Sugar Creek and Little Sugar Creek had long sections of riffle-run habitat, high riparian assessment scores, high percent forested landcover, and low percent agriculture and developed landcover. An array of fish and macroinvertebrate species are present in these relatively large streams, but the water may be simply too cold to sustain mussel populations.
Land use and its potential impacts on water quality can play a major role in the distribution of mussels and their host fish. Macroinvertebrates can serve as an indicator of the impacts that land use has on water quality. In the French Creek watershed the major land use of concern for water quality is agriculture. Although development and associated pollution is cause for some concern, the percent development land cover in the watershed was generally low and regression analyses did not reveal significant relationships between biological resources and development.
34
Improper agricultural practices can lead to high levels of silt and nutrient inputs to which aquatic organisms are sensitive. In the tributaries agricultural land use ranged from 27 – 47 percent of the sub-watersheds (Table 10). The results of this study indicate high quality macroinvertebrate communities were found at sites with the highest percent forested landcover and the lowest percent agricultural landcover, both within in the riparian zone and in the larger watershed. Interestingly, mussel species richness and CPUE decreased with higher percent forested land cover in the watershed. Mussel species richness also increased with higher percent agricultural land use in the watershed. There are several possible explanations for this trend. Mussel species distribution in the watershed may be related to other factors that correlate with low percent forest and high percent agriculture such as relatively level land with lower gradient streams and soil rich in nutrients. For example, Sugar Creek and Little Sugar Creek are high quality watersheds, but no mussels were found there in our surveys, possibly due to high gradients or cold water. However, regression analyses with these sites removed still showed similar trends. Ideally, to examine the effects of agriculture on mussels one would compare modern and pre-agriculture mussel data for the same streams. However, there is no known appropriate information to which we could compare the current state of French Creek tributaries.
Although eutrophication and siltation from agriculture can be problematic for mussels the relationship is not necessarily a linear one. A certain increase in nutrients provides more food for the mussels. However, too large nutrient inputs can cause blooms of algae and other aquatic vegetation leading to problems with dissolved oxygen (Richter et al. 1997). Large amounts of silt can smother mussels (Brim Box and Mossa 1999). The analysis was not able to detect an effect of land use on fish species richness, possibly because of the mobile nature of fish or due to the presence/absence sampling technique.
Conservation Values and Management Recommendations
Protecting water quality throughout the watershed should be a priority for the continued health of the important aquatic communities that occur in French Creek. High percentages of agricultural land use in the watershed make implementing agricultural best management practices (BMPs) throughout the watershed a priority. The relationships between macroinvertebrate metrics and agricultural land use found in our study demonstrate the connection between agriculture and water quality. Riparian buffer zones are commonly recommended to remediate agricultural run-off and stream bank erosion. Although there is a relatively low level of development in the watershed some of these tributaries flow through the center of towns. Minimizing impervious surfaces, stormwater management, maintaining and creating riparian buffer zones, and avoiding stream channelization are all things that can help minimize the impact of development on water quality and should be considered in community planning.
Any watershed protection and restoration efforts should be coupled with biological assessments to monitor the effectiveness of the efforts. Additional surveys in tributaries containing relatively rich mussel communities and rare mussel species could provide more detailed information about mussel abundance, species distributions, and population health. In particular, future survey efforts should include LeBoeuf Creek, Conneauttee Creek, and West Branch French Creek because of the rare species in these streams and the threats in these watersheds.
French Creek tributary watersheds are compared for their relative water quality, watershed land cover (Table 9), macroinvertebrate communities, habitat assessments, and fish and mussel resources. Categories of ‘Good’, ‘Moderate’, or ‘Poor’ were assigned to each of the watershed attributes (Table 11, Table 12). If any rare fish species, any rare mussel species, or the invasive zebra mussel are known to occur in stream, they are designated as ‘present.’ Some considerations for protection, conservation, and restoration of each watershed are outlined here.
35
Table 11. Ranking of quality indicator metrics by tributary watershed. Watershed
Conneaut
Outlet Conneauttee
Creek Cussewago
Creek LeBoeuf
Creek
Little Sugar Creek
Muddy Creek
South Branch
Sugar Creek
West Branch
Woodcock Creek
Land cover % Agriculture in watershed Moderate Poor Moderate Poor Poor Moderate Moderate Good Moderate Moderate % Natural land cover in watershed Moderate Poor Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Good Moderate Moderate % Development in watershed Poor Poor Moderate Moderate Good Good Moderate Good Good Good Habitat assessment % Total score Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Good Moderate Moderate Moderate Poor Moderate Macroinvertebrate
Richness - genus taxa Poor Moderate to
Good ------ Poor to Good Moderate
Poor to good Moderate
Moderate to Good
Poor to Moderate Good
% EPT Poor Poor to
Moderate ------ Poor to Good Moderate
Poor to Moderate
Moderate to Good Good
Poor to Good
Moderate to Good
FBI Poor Moderate ------ Poor to
Moderate Moderate to Good
Poor to Moderate
Moderate to Good
Moderate to Good
Poor to Moderate
Moderate to Good
Biodiversity and rare species Rare* (S1, S2, PE, PT) mussels Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Rare* (S1, S2, PE, PT) fish Present ------ Present Present Present Present Present Present
Mussel Abundance (CPUE) Good Low to Good Low Moderate to Good Low Good
Low to Moderate Low Moderate
Low to Moderate
Mussel Richness Good Low to
Moderate Low Moderate to Good Low Good
Low to Moderate Low Moderate
Low to Moderate
Fish Richness Moderate Moderate to
Good ------ Poor to Good Good Good Good Moderate
Moderate to Good Moderate
Other threats: Zebra mussels Present * S1 - Critically Imperiled, S2 - Imperiled, PE - Pennsylvania Endangered, PT - Pennsylvania Threatened
36
Table 12. Indicator metric scoring used for ranking. Ranking category Good Moderate Poor Other category Land cover % Agriculture in watershed <30% 30-49% >40% % Natural land cover in watershed >70% 50-69% <50% % Development in watershed <2.5% 2.5-4% >4% Habitat Assessment % Total score ≥ 81.0% 68.0-81.0% ≤ 68.0% Water quality Richness - genus taxa ≤ 4.51 5.51-4.5 ≥ 6.5 % EPT ≥ 38.5% 13.8 - 38.4% ≤ 13.7% FBI ≥ 22.5 22.4-13.25 ≤ 13.25 Watershed Land Cover % Agriculture in watershed <30% 30-49% >40% % Natural land cover in watershed >70% 50-69% <50% % Development in watershed <2.5% 2.5-4% >4% Biodiversity and rare species Rare* (S1, S2, PE, or PT) mussel species Present Rare* (S1, S2, PE, or PT) fish Present Relative abundance of mussels (CPUE) ≥ 28.4 1.1 - 28.3 ≤ 1.0 Mussel Richness ≥ 11 3-10 ≤ 2 Fish Richness ≥ 18 13-17 ≤12 Zebra mussels Present
37
Table 13. The percent of the total reach length in each tributary watershed of reaches having greater than 75% forest and wetland land cover, greater than 25% agriculture, or greater than 5% development in the riparian buffer.
Stream Name % Length of reaches of total watershed reach length
>% 75 Riparian Forest/Wetland
> 25% Riparian Agriculture
> 5% Riparian Development
Conneaut Outlet 46.6 41.4 16.0 Conneauttee Creek 21.5 67.2 13.0 Cussewago Creek 68.2 20.6 0.1 LeBoeuf Creek 44.9 49.3 2.6 Little Sugar Creek 23.9 74.4 1.7 Muddy Creek 58.0 40.8 0.0 South Branch Creek 47.9 45.9 39.4 Sugar Creek 69.9 35.6 0.8 West Branch French Creek 87.5 12.5 0.0 Woodcock Creek 39.4 58.3 33.9
38
Figure 6. Stream reaches with the highest percentages of agriculture within the riparian buffer in study tributary watersheds.
39
Figure 7. Stream reaches with the highest percentages of development within the riparian buffer in study tributary watersheds.
40
Conneauttee Creek In this watershed, residential development and roads around Edinboro and the adjacent
Edinboro Lake, as well as improperly managed agriculture, are a concern for water quality. The proportion of development and agriculture is relatively high in the Conneauttee Creek watershed compared to other tributaries of French Creek. DEP classified numerous streams as “impaired” in the Conneauttee Creek watershed from grazing-related agriculture resulting in siltation, organic enrichment and low dissolved oxygen (DEP 2008). Other streams are degraded by siltation and poor water quality due to urban runoff and storm sewers; a tributary to Edinboro Lake was classified as “impaired” because of pathogens and chlorine from a municipal point source. The creek has a large proportion of reaches where agriculture is more than 25% of land cover in the riparian zone (Table 13 and Figure 6).
The macroinvertebrate community data from this study further indicates stress on the watershed water quality. Macroinvertebrate indicators of water quality are depressed at some sites while other sites indicate moderately good water quality. An additional threat to the watershed is the presence of zebra mussels that originated from Edinboro Lake. Boater education on zebra mussels is important to minimize the spread of zebra mussels to other waterways in the area. Despite the water quality issues, there are rich fish and mussel resources that should be protected in the watershed. The presence of rare mussel species, high numbers of mussels, and rich fish communities make this watershed a priority for water quality improvement efforts. Focusing restoration efforts on reaches with poorly managed agriculture is important for health of the biological resources and the stream habitat. Conneaut Outlet Large numbers of mussels, including some rare species and a moderately rich fish community were recorded in this tributary. However, residential and commercial development around Conneaut Lake has led to water quality degradation. Conneaut Outlet drains Conneaut Lake, flows through the borough of Conneaut Lake and then meanders through Conneaut Marsh, eventually reaching French Creek. Some reaches surrounding Conneaut Lake have relatively large proportions of development in the riparian zone (Table 13 and Figure 7). The section of Conneaut Outlet immediately downstream of the lake and Barber Run, a tributary near the lake outlet, are both classified as “Impaired” by DEP for nutrients, urban/road runoff and siltation (DEP 2008). Invasive species are of concern in this stream, where large amounts of Asian clams (Corbicula fluminea) and Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) were recorded. These species were probably initially introduced to Conneaut Lake through heavy use by recreational boaters. Boater education about invasive species should be emphasized to reduce further spread. Additionally, macroinvertebrate community data collected downstream of the lake outlet indicate poor water quality. Row crop and livestock agriculture in the watershed may also contribute to siltation or nutrient enrichment if not properly managed. The headwaters and tributaries the lower reaches of Conneaut Outlet have relatively high proportions of riparian agriculture (Table 13 and Figure 6). However, the wetlands along the stream may filter some pollutants. Therefore, maintaining Conneaut Marsh as a functioning wetland will help to improve water quality inputs from Conneaut Outlet to the mainstem of French Creek. Cussewago Creek
This low-gradient stream flows through extensive wetlands before its confluence with French Creek. A dam located on Cussewago Creek creates a long section of pool habitat. Many of the rare mussel and fish species in the French Creek watershed prefer riffle-run habitats. A mussel survey at the lower part of the watershed did not reveal rare species occurrences or a very diverse mussel
41
community. No fish or macroinvertebrate data was collected here due to stream depth. The watershed has moderate amounts of agriculture and development that could threaten water quality if not properly managed. However, no impaired streams are currently identified by DEP. The natural land cover along the stream including the wetlands may be protecting the watershed from impairment. Less than a quarter of stream reach length in the watershed has a high proportion of riparian agriculture, while less than 1% of stream reach length has a large proportion of riparian development (Table 13, Figures 6 and 7) LeBoeuf Creek
A large proportion of agricultural land in this watershed is the source of some water quality problems. In the upper portions of the watershed, streams are classified as “impaired’ by DEP because of flow variability, siltation, organic enrichment, and low dissolved oxygen (DEP 2008). Tributaries in the upper part of the watershed and the mainstem upstream of the confluence with French Creek have large proportions or riparian agriculture (Figures 6 and 7); almost of half of the reach length in the watershed has a high amount of riparian agriculture (Table 14). The lower section of LeBoeuf Creek is also degraded, but DEP cites unknown causes. The macroinvertebrate community metrics suggest poor water quality conditions at sampling stations LB01, LB02 and LB03, while further upstream sites support slightly improved communities. Riparian assessments indicate moderately good quality habitat in the stream. Similar to other low gradient tributaries, wetlands along LeBoeuf Creek are likely to retain some siltation and excess nutrients contributed from improperly managed farming operations. Despite some water quality degradation, a diverse fish community was found at some locations on the creek. Additionally, the creek supports a high relative abundance of mussels including rare mussel species. Mussels are tolerant of modest siltation and nutrient enrichment. Yet, poor water quality in some parts of the watershed and degraded habitats are a serious threat to the fish and mussel resources in LeBoeuf Creek. Efforts in this watershed should focus on reducing siltation and organic enrichment through implementation of agricultural best management practices. Little Sugar Creek
Potential threats to water quality come from the large proportion of agriculture in the watershed. Most of the agriculture is pasture, with relatively little row crops. No streams in the watershed are classified “impaired” by DEP even though most of the stream reaches in the watershed have a large amount of riparian agriculture, particularly in the tributaries to Little Sugar Creek, water quality remains in relatively good condition (Table 13, Figure 6).
The creek contains moderate to high quality macroinvertebrate communities which infer that water quality is relatively good despite watershed agriculture. No mussels were found at this project survey sites on Little Sugar Creek, but they are known to occur at other locations in the watershed (Bier 1994). Some sites had diverse fish communities in Little Sugar Creek. Relatively high gradient, coldwater habitat may exclude mussels from some parts of the stream, but may be preferred by some fish species. The stream supports a number of species in the fish community and its habitat was determined to be moderately good. Muddy Creek
The watershed has moderate amounts of agriculture and relatively little development. However, the upper reaches of Muddy Creek are classified as ‘impaired’ by DEP for road runoff and siltation (DEP 2008). Much of the mainstem of Muddy Creek slowly flows through a wetland at the Erie National Wildlife Refuge and State Game Land #85. Macroinvertebrate communities were variable, revealing that conditions are diverse at the sampling locations. Community metrics were
42
rated from good to poor at the three sampling sites. However, communities in slow-flowing streams have different organisms than faster flowing streams; community metrics from low-gradient streams may be incorrectly interpreted as indicating low quality conditions when compared to rapidly flowing streams. At our survey site in the upper portion of the stream moderately high numbers of mussels and mussel species were found, but no rare species. However, the stream was extensively surveyed by U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Mohler et al. 2006) and several rare species of mussels were documented further downstream from our sampling site. Some protection of the stream is ensured by the public landownership. However, it is concerning that macroinvertebrate communities suggest poor water quality in some locations. Additional investigation of the water quality issues, particularly in the upper watershed, should occur. South Branch French Creek
Threats to the water quality in the South Branch French Creek watershed originate from intermediate amounts of agriculture and development, particularly near Union City. Some tributaries to South Branch French Creek are listed as ‘impaired’ by DEP because of nutrient enrichment, siltation, organic enrichment, low dissolved oxygen, and road runoff (DEP 2008). Many of the stream reaches have a high proportion of riparian land cover in development or agriculture (Table 13, Figure 6 and 7). Despite some water quality issues in the tributaries, macroinvertebrate communities suggest that the mainstem had moderate to high quality conditions. While there were only a few mussels found, high numbers of fish species, including rare species inhabit the watershed. Riparian assessments indicate that intermediate quality habitats occur in South Branch French Creek. Improvements to in-stream habitats and riparian buffers in stressed sections of the watershed are suggested. Sugar Creek
The least disturbed tributary to French Creek, Sugar Creek has the highest amount of natural land cover among the tributaries in this study. There are relatively low amounts of agriculture and development in the land cover for the watershed. A moderate proportion of stream length was found to have a relatively high level of agriculture land cover in the riparian zone (Table 13 and Figure 6). There is the potential for pollution to the stream from poorly managed agriculture, but no impaired streams have been identified by DEP in the watershed. The watershed supports high quality and intermediate quality macroinvertebrate communities. Moderately diverse fish communities occur in the watershed, but no mussels were found in this study of Sugar Creek. However, Sugar Creek had the highest gradient of all the tributaries in this study, and high gradient streams are not believed to be supportive of diverse mussel populations. Protection of this high quality watershed will ensure that the aquatic resources here and in the downstream waters of French Creek will be maintained in the long term. West Branch French Creek
Poor water quality from development or agricultural sources is believed to be an intermediate level threat because of moderate levels of those landcover types in the watershed. Overall, relatively little disturbance of natural land cover occurs in the riparian zones. A small proportion of stream reach length has high proportion of riparian agriculture. No watershed reaches had greater than 5% development in the riparian zone (Table 13 and Figure 6). One tributary to the West Branch, Alder Brook, is ‘impaired’ for unknown causes (DEP 2008). Macroinvertebrate communities indicated that a range of conditions occurs among the three sampling sites. Some community metrics indicated rather high water quality while others suggested that water quality was poor. The reason for macroinvertebrate community degradation may be related to habitat. The riparian assessments were worst of the tributaries surveyed. Scores for canopy cover, bank stability, embeddedness, and bank
43
vegetation were low. Nevertheless, a moderately high number of mussels and mussel species, including rare mussel species are present. The number of fish found at the sampling sites was moderate to high. Conservation efforts should focus on riparian buffer improvements such as stream bank fencing and riparian zone plantings, which will help to maintain healthy fish and mussel populations. Woodcock Creek
No notable population centers occur in Woodcock Creek watershed, but moderate levels of watershed agriculture are found. Some disturbances in the watershed occur along the stream corridor, indicating that there is some potential for polluted run-off from improperly managed agriculture or development. A relatively large length of stream in the watershed has a high proportion of riparian agriculture and development (Table 13; Figures 6 and 7). Roads along the creek contribute to proportion of land cover classified as developed, despite the watershed having little development of other types. Riparian assessment scores suggest intermediate habitat conditions. Additionally, a dam impounds Woodcock Creek upstream of Saegertown, potentially disrupting the connection between upstream and downstream populations of fish and mussels. High quality macroinvertebrate communities indicate relatively good water quality. Conservation priorities for the watershed include protecting the rare fish and mussel species, as well as minimizing pollution run-off. Mitigating the impact of the dam on water quality, habitat, and fish and mussel populations should be considered.
Preserving French Creek aquatic biodiversity is among the region’s topmost conservation priorities. The aquatic communities in the French Creek watershed exemplify some of the last remaining high quality natural communities found anywhere in the Ohio River basin. There are a lot of unknowns, such as population genetics and viability, which need further study to fully comprehend these aquatic communities. Threats these organisms face from improper land use, habitat degradation, pollution and invasive species need to be addressed in order to maintain or improve upon habitats and conservation efforts. With continued research, combined with public education we can hope to expand conservation efforts for these important systems. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This project was financed in part by a grant from the Community Conservation Partnerships Program, Environmental Stewardship Fund, under the administration of the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Bureau of Recreation and Conservation. The Western Pennsylvania Conservancy (WPC) provided additional funding. Western Pennsylvania Conservancy would like to thank staff from our partners at French Creek Project, The Nature Conservancy (TNC), Venango and Crawford County Conservation Districts and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service who provided input on sampling design, or assisted in any of the various fieldwork and laboratory components. Also important to the success of this project were many competent student interns and volunteers. Thanks to those who volunteered many hours in the field including: Gerald Lang (TNC), Scott Gast (Allegheny College) and Lauren Hughes (Edinboro University). WPC field crew members Zachary Horn, Amanda Fabis, Nicole Rhodes, Erin Stacy, Erik Weber, and Jacob Winkler provided crucial assistance in the office, field, and laboratory. Thanks to WPC staff members Ryan Miller, Chris Tracey, and Nevin Welte for their assistance with report preparation.
44
LITERATURE CITED Augspurger, T., A. E. Keller, M. C. Black, W. G. Cope, and F. J. Dwyer. 2003. Water quality
guidance for protection of freshwater mussels (Unionidae) from ammonia exposure. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 22: 2569-2575.
Barbour, M. T., J. Gerristen, B. D. Snyder, and J. B. Stribling. 1999. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols
for Use in Wadeable Streams and Rivers: Periphyton, Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish, Second Edition. EPA. 841-B-99-002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Office of Water, Washington, D.C.
Bier, C. W. 1994. A survey of the Mussels (Unionidae) in portions of the French Creek Basin of
Northwestern Pennsylvania. Submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. A publication of the Western Pennsylvania Conservancy. Ii + 97pp.
Biggins, R. G., R. J. Neves and C. K. Dohner. 1995. Draft national strategy for the conservation of
native freshwater mussels. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC: 26pp. Bogan, A. E. 1993. Freshwater Bivalve Extinctions (Mollusca: Unionoida): A search for causes.
American Zoology 33: 599-609. Brim Box, J. and J. Mossa. 1999. Sediment, land use, and freshwater mussels: prospects and
problems. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 18: 99-117. Butler, R. S. 2003. Status assessment for the rayed bean, Villosa fabalis, occurring in the Mississippi
River and Great Lakes systems. Unpublished report prepared by the Ohio River Valley Ecosystem Team Mollusk Subgroup, Asheville, North Carolina, March 2003. 65 pp.
Butler, R. S. 2006 (draft). Status assessment report for the snuffbox, Epioblasma triquetra, a
freshwater mussel occurring in the Mississippi River and Great Lakes Basins. A report for the Ohio River Valley Ecosystem Team. US Fish and Wildlife Service 1994. 234 pp.
Cherry, D. S., J. L. Scheller, N. L. Cooper, and J. R. Bidwell. 2005. Potential effects of Asian clam (Corbicula fluminea) die-offs on native freshwater mussels (Unionidae) I: water-column ammonia levels and ammonia toxicity Journal of the North American Benthological Society 24: 369–380.
Cooper, N. L., J. R. Bidwell, and D. S. Cherry. 2005.. Potential effects of Asian clam (Corbicula fluminea) die-offs on native freshwater mussels (Unionidae) II: porewater ammonia. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 24: 381–394.
Cummings, K.S. and Watters, G.T. 2009. Mussel/host database. Molluscs Division of the Museum of
Biological Diversity at the Ohio State University. http://128.146.250.235/MusselHost/ Crabtree, D. L. and T. A. Smith. 2009. Population attributes of an endangered mussel, northern
riffleshell, Epioblasma torulosa rangiana, in French Creek and implications for its recovery. Northeastern Naturalist 16(3):339–354.
Davis, J. C., G. W. Minshall, C. T. Robinson, and P. Landres. 2001. Monitoring wilderness stream
ecosystems. USDA Rocky Mountain Research Station, General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-70.
45
Department of Environmental Protection. 2000. Zebra mussels found in Edinboro Lake. News
Release. Available at http://www.ahs.dep.state.pa.us/newsreleases/default.asp?ID=683&varQueryType=Detail
Devick, W. S. 1991. Patterns of introductions of aquatic organisms to Hawaiian freshwater habitats. Pages 189-213 in New Directions in Research, Management and Conservation of Hawaiian Freshwater Stream Ecosystem. Proceedings Freshwater Stream Biology and Fisheries Management Symposium. Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of Aquatic Resources, Honolulu, HI
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2008. [website] Available at
http://oaspub.epa.gov/tmdl/huc_rept.control?p_huc=05010004&p_huc_desc=FRENCH Accessed July 14, 2008.
EnviroScience, Inc. 2002a. Mill Village Truss Bridge Replacement Biological
Assessment/Freshwater Mussel Population Survey. Unpublished October 3, 2002 report prepared for M.S. Consultants and PADOT Engineering District 1-0.
EnvironScience, Inc. 2002b. S.R. 1002 Section B00, Venango Veterans Memorial Bridge
Replacement Project Biological Assessment / Freshwater Mussel Population Survey. Unpublished October 3, 2002 report prepared M.S. Consultants and PADOT Engineering District 1-0.
Elder, J. F. and J. J. Collins 1991. Fresh-water mollusks as indicators of bioavailability and toxicity of
metals in surface-water systems. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 122: 37-79.
Etnier, D. A. and W. C. Starnes. 1993. The Fishes of Tennessee. University of Tennessee Press,
Knoxville. 681 pp. Fitzhugh, T. 2000. GIS tools for stream and lake classification and watershed analysis: A
tool primer. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, VA. Green, R. H., S. G. Hinch, J. L. Metcalfe, and V. H. Young. 1989. Use of freshwater mussels
(Bivalvia, Unionidae) to monitor the nearshore environment of lakes. Journal of Great Lakes Research 15: 635-644.
Haag, W.R. and M.L. Jr. Warren. 1998. Role of ecological factors and reproductive strategies in structuring freshwater mussel communities. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science. 55: 297-306
Haag, W. E. and A. M. Commens-Carson. 2008. Testing the assumption of annual growth ring deposition in freshwater mussels. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science. 65: 493-508.
Havlik, M. E. and L. L. Marking. 1987. Effects of contaminants on naiad mollusks (Unionidae): a
review. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Resource Publication 164.
46
Henley, W. F., M. A. Patterson, R. J. Neves, and A. D. Lemly. 2000. Effects of sedimentation and turbidity on lotic food webs: a concise review for natural resource managers. Reviews in Fishery Science 8: 125-139.
Hilsenhoff, W. L. 1988. Rapid field assessment of organic pollution with family-level biotic index.
Journal of the North American Benthological Society 7: 65-68 Hornbach D. J. and T. Deneka. 1996. A comparison of a qualitative and quantitative collection
method for examining freshwater mussel assemblages. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 15: 587-596.
Jenkins, R. E., and N. M. Burkhead. 1994. Freshwater fishes of Virginia. American Fisheries Society,
Bethesda, Maryland. Xxiii + 1079 pp. Johnson, P. M., A. E. Liner, S. W. Golladay, and W. K. Michener. 2001. Effects of drought on
freshwater mussels and instream habitat in Coastal Plain tributaries of the Flint River, southwest Georgia (July-October, 2000). Unpublished report, by the Jones Ecological Research Center for The Nature Conservancy, Tallahassee, Florida. 45 pp.
McMahon, R. F. 1991. Mollusca: Bivalvia. in J.H. Thorp and A.P. Covich eds., Ecology and
classification of North American freshwater invertebrates. Academic Press, San Diego. pp. 315 – 399.
Metcalfe, J. L. and M. N. Charlton 1990. Fresh-water mussels as biomonitors for organic industrial
contaminants and pesticides in the St. Lawrence River. Science of the Total Environment. 97/98: 595 -615.
Mohler, J. W., P. Morrison, J. Haas. 2006. The mussels of Muddy Creek on Erie National Wildlife
Refuge. Northeastern Naturalist 13: 569-582. Naimo, T. J. 1995. A review of the effects of heavy metals on fresh-water mussels. Ecotoxicology: 4:
341-362. NatureServe. 2008. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version
6.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. Accessed: July 9, 2008.
Newton T. J. 2003. The effects of ammonia on freshwater unionid mussels. Environmental
Toxicology and Chemistry 22: 2543-2544. Parmalee, P. W. and A. E. Bogan. 1998. The freshwater mussels of Tennessee. The University of
Tennessee Press. Knoxville, TN. 328pp. Parendes, L. 2007. Personal communication. Edinboro University of Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). 2008. Pennsylvania Integrated Water
Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report. Bureau of Watershed Management, Harrisburg, PA
47
Pennsylvania Natural Heritage Program (PNHP). Files accessed August 8, 2008. Presence record of Pleurobema clava at Conneaut Outlet. Crawford Co. PA. Documented by Charles Bier (PNHP). July 29, 1988.
Pennsylvania Natural Heritage Program (PNHP) a. Files accessed August 8, 2008. Presence record of
Simpsonaias ambigua in French Creek. Crawford Co. PA. Documented by Charles Bier (PNHP) and T.L. Schumann. September 1, 1985.
Pennsylvania Natural Heritage Program (PNHP) b. Files accessed August 8, 2008. Presence record of
Simpsonaias ambigua in French Creek. Crawford Co. PA. Documented by Charles Bier (PNHP). September 11, 1995.
Ortmann, A. E. 1919. Monograph of the naiads of Pennsylvania. Part 3. Systematic account of the
genera and species. Memoirs of the Carnegie Museum. 8: xiv +384pp. Ricciardi A., Neves R. J., and Rasmussen J. B. 1998. Impending extinctions of North American
freshwater mussels (Unionoida) following the zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) invasion. Journal of Animal Ecology 67: 613–619.
Richter, B.D., Braun, D.P, Mendelson, M.A. and L.L. Master. 1997. Threats to imperiled freshwater
fauna. Conservation Biology 11:1081-1093. Roe, K. J. 2003. Conservation Assessment The Salamander Mussel (Simpsonaias ambigua) Say,
1825. USDA Forest Service, Eastern Region. St. Louis, Missouri. Schnier, Melissa D. 2003. Assessment of riparian areas: Tool development, implementation, and
evaluation. M.S. thesis, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA. Smith, D. R., R. F. Villella, and D. P. Lemarie. 2001. Survey protocol for assessment of endangered
freshwater mussels in the Allegheny River, Pennsylvania. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 20: 118-132.
Smith, T. A. and D. Crabtree. 2005. Freshwater Mussel (Unionidae) and Fish Assemblage Habitat
Use and Spatial Distributions in the French Creek Watershed: Reference for Western Pennsylvania Unionid Protection and Restoration. Unpublished July 30, 2005 Final Report submitted to the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission iv + 180pp.
Smith, T. A. and D. L. Crabtree. In press. Freshwater Mussel (Unionidae: Bivalvia) Distributions and
Densities in French Creek, Pennsylvania. Strayer, D.L. 1993. Microhabitats of freshwater mussels (Bivalvia, Unionacea) in streams of the
northern Atlantic Slope. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 12: 236-246. Strayer, D. L. and K. J. Jirka. 1997. The pearly mussels of New York state. New York State Museum
Memoir 26. The University of the State of New York. 113 pp. + figures. Strayer, D. L. and H. M. Malcom. 2007. Effects of zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha) on native
bivalves: the beginning of the end or the end of the beginning? Journal of the North American Benthological Society 26:111–122.
48
Turgeon, D. D., J. F. Quinn, Jr., A. E. Bogan, E. V. Coan, F. G. Hochberg, W. G. Lyons, P. M. Mikkelsen, R. J. Neves, C. F. E. Roper, G. Rosenberg, B. Roth, A. Scheltema, F. G. Thompson, M. Vecchione, and J. D. Williams. 1998. Common and scientific names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Mollusks, 2nd edition. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 26, Bethesda, Maryland.
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Clubshell (Pleurobema clava) and northern riffleshell
(Epioblasma torulosa rangiana) recovery plan. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Hadley MA 68pp.
Vannote, R. L., and G. W. Minshall. 1982. Fluvial processes and local lithology controlling
abundance, structure, and composition of mussel beds. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 79: 4103-4107.
Vaughn, C. C., C. M. Taylor and K. J. Eberhard. 1997. A comparison of the effectiveness of timed
searches vs. quadrat sampling in mussel surveys In: K. S. Cummings, A. C. Buchanan C. A. Mayer and T. J. Naimo, eds., Conservation and management of freshwater mussels II: initiatives for the future. Proceedings of an Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee (UMRCC) symposium, 16–18 October 1995, St. Louis, Missouri. Upper Mississippi RiverConservation Committee, Rock Island, Illinois. Pp. 157–162.
Waters, T. F. 1995. Sediment in streams: sources, biological effects, and control. American Fisheries
Society Monograph 7. 251 pp. Western Pennsylvania Conservancy and French Creek Project (WPC and FCP). 2002. French Creek
watershed conservation plan. Western Pennsylvania Conservancy. Union City, PA 272pp. Williams, J.D., M.L. Warren, K.S. Cummings, J.L. Harris, and R.J. Neves. 1993. Conservation status
of freshwater mussels of the United States and Canada. Fisheries 18:6-22. Zanatta, D. T. and R. W. Murphy. 2007. Range-wide population genetic analysis of the endangered
northern riffleshell mussel, Epioblasma torulosa rangiana (Bivalvia: Unionoida). Conservation Genetics DOI 10.1007/s10592-007-9290-6.
49
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES County Conservation Districts Directory
www.pacd.org/districts/directory.htm MD Native Plant Society Control of Invasive Non-Native Plants: A Guide for Gardeners and Homeowners in the Mid-Atlantic Region
www.mdflora.org/publications/invasives.htm
PA Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Service Foresters
www.dcnr.state.pa.us/FORESTRY/serviceforesters_select.aspx Invasive Plants
www.dcnr.state.pa.us/forestry/wildplant/invasive.aspx PA Department of Agriculture PA Invasive Species Council
www.invasivespeciescouncil.com PA Department Environmental Protection Agriculture and Runoff Areas
www.elibrary.dep.state.pa.us/dsweb/Get/Document-73556/3910-FS-DEP2597.pdf Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP)
www.elibrary.dep.state.pa.us/dsweb/Get/Document-72107/3940-FS-DEP3156.pdf Nutrient Management Program
www.depweb.state.pa.us/watershedmgmt/cwp/view.asp?a=1442&q=513908&watershedmgmtNav=| Home Nitrogen Pollution Tips
www.depweb.state.pa.us/watershedmgmt/lib/watershedmgmt/nonpoint_source/factsheets/know_your_nitrogen.pdf
Common Invasive Plants in Riparian Areas www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/watermgt/wc/subjects/streamreleaf/Docs/Invasive%20Plants.pdf
Streambank Fencing Program
www.elibrary.dep.state.pa.us/dsweb/Get/Document-73642/3910-FS-DEP1971.pdf Stream Re-Leaf
www.elibrary.dep.state.pa.us/dsweb/Get/Document-65485/3940-FS-DEP2206.pdf Sinkholes
www.depweb.state.pa.us/sinkholes/site/default.asp?watershedmgmtNav=| Stormwater Best Management Practices
www.depweb.state.pa.us/watershedmgmt/cwp/view.asp?a=1437&q=529063 PA Game Commission Private Landowner Assistance Program
www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/cwp/view.asp?a=513&q=168220 PA Fish and Boat Commission PA fish, reptiles and amphibians PA aquatic species of special concern Aquatic Invasive Species
www.fish.state.pa.us
50
Landowner Incentive Program (LIP)
www.fish.state.pa.us/promo/grants/lip/00lip.htm> PA Land Trust Association List of conservancies
http://conserveland.org PA Organization for Watersheds and Rivers
http://pawatersheds.org/# PA Sea Grant Aquatic invasive species publications
http://seagrant.psu.edu/publications/ais.htm Penn State Agricultural Extension
http://panutrientmgmt.cas.psu.edu/ Penn State Center for Dirt and Gravel Road Studies Road improvement
www.dirtandgravel.psu.edu/education_training/education_training.html US Department of Agriculture Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP)
www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/CRP/> Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQUIP)
www.nrcs.usda.gov/PROGRAMS/EQIP/> Invasive Species Resources for Pennsylvania
www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/unitedstates/pa.shtml Natural Resources Conservation Service
www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/ Stream Corridor Restoration Guide
www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/stream_restoration/newtofc.htm Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program (WHIP)
ww.nrcs.usda.gov/Programs/whip/>
US Environmental Protection Agency Agricultural Best Management Practices
www.epa.gov/watertrain/agmodule/ US Geological Survey Nonindigenous Aquatic Species
nas.er.usgs.gov/ Western Pennsylvania Conservancy www.waterlandlife.org/
51
Appendix A. Freshwater mussel and fish species documented in the French Creek Watershed
Table A.1. Freshwater mussel species previously documented in French Creek Watershed (WPC and FCP 2002) with global and state ranks according to NatureServe (2008). Key to ranks global ranks; G5=Secure, G4=Apparently Secure, G3=Vulnerable, G2=Imperiled, G1=Critically Imperiled, T2=subspecies. Key to state ranks; S5=Secure, S4=Apparently Secure, S3=Vulnerable, S2=Imperiled, S1=Critically Imperiled, SNR= not ranked.
Scientific Name Common Name Global Rank State Rank
Actinonaias ligamentina (Lamarck, 1819) Mucket G5 S4 Alasmidonta marginata (Say, 1818) Elktoe G4 S4 Amblema plicata (Say, 1817) Threeridge G5 S2S3 Anodontoides ferussacianus (I. Lea, 1834) Cylindrical papershell G5 S2S3 Cyclonaias tuberculata (Rafinesque, 1820) Purple wartyback G5 SX Elliptio dilatata (Rafinesque, 1820) Spike G5 S4 Epioblasma torulosa rangiana (I. Lea, 1838) Northern riffleshell G2T2 S2 Epioblasma triquetra (Rafinesque, 1820) Snuffbox G3 S1 Fusconaia subrotunda (I. Lea, 1831) Long-solid G3 S1 Lampsilis cardium (Rafinesque, 1820) Plain pocketbook G5 S4 Lampsilis fasciola (Rafinesque, 1820) Wavy-rayed lampmussel G4 S4 Lampsilis ovata (Say, 1817) Pocketbook G5 S3S4 Lampsilis siliquoidea (Barnes, 1823) Fatmucket G5 S4 Lasmigona complanata (Barnes, 1823) White heelsplitter G5 S1 Lasmigona compressa (l.Lea, 1829) Creek heelsplitter G5 S2S3 Lasmigona costata (Rafinesque, 1820) Fluted-shell G5 S4 Ligumia nasuta (Say, 1817) Eastern pondmussel G4 S1S3 Ligumia recta (Lamarck, 1819) Black sandshell G5 S3S4 Pleurobema clava (Lamarck, 1819) Clubshell G2 S1S2 Pleurobema sintoxia (Rafinesque, 1820) Round pigtoe G4 S2 Ptychobranchus fasciolaris (Rafinesque, 1820) Kidneyshell G4G5 S4 Pyganodon grandis (Say, 1829) Giant floater G5 S4 Quadrula cylindrica (Say,1817) Rabbitsfoot G3 S1 Simpsonaias ambigua (Say, 1825) Salamander mussel G3 S1? Strophitus undulatus (Say, 1817) Creeper G5 S4S5 Toxolasma parvus (Barnes, 1823) Lilliput G5 S1S3 Utterbackia imbecillis (Say, 1829) Paper pondshell G5 S3S4 Villosa fabalis (I. Lea, 1831) Rayed bean mussel G1G2 S1S2 Villosa iris (I. Lea, 1829) Rainbow mussel G5Q S1
52
Table A. 2. Fish documented in the French Creek watershed (WPC and FCP 2002) with global and state ranks according to NatureServe (2008). Key to ranks global ranks; G5=Secure, G4=Apparently Secure, G3=Vulnerable, G2=Imperiled, G1=Critically Imperiled, T2=subspecies. Key to state ranks; S5=Secure, S4=Apparently Secure, S3=Vulnerable, S2=Imperiled, S1=Critically Imperiled, SNR= not ranked.
Scientific Name Common Name Global Rank State Rank Ambloplites rupestris (Rafinesque, 1817) rock bass G5 S5 Ameiurus natalis (Lesueur, 1819) yellow bullhead G5 S5 Ameiurus nebulosus (Lesueur, 1819) brown bullhead G5 S5 Amia calva (Linnaeus, 1766) bowfin G5 S2S3 Ammocrypta pellucida (Agassiz, 1863) eastern sand darter G3 S1 Campostoma anomalum (Rafinesque, 1820) central stoneroller G5 S5 Carpiodes cyprinus (Lesueur, 1817) quillback G5 S5 Catostomus commersoni (Lacepède, 1803) white sucker G5 S5 Clinostomus elongatus (Kirtland, 1841) redside dace G3G4 S4 Cottus bairdi(Girard, 1850) mottled sculpin G5 S5 Culaea inconstans (Kirtland, 1840) brook stickleback G5 S3 Cyprinella spiloptera (Cope, 1867) spotfin shiner G5 S5 Cyprinus carpio (Linnaeus, 1758) common carp G5 SNA-Exotic Erimystax dissimilis (Kirtland, 1841) streamline chub G4 S3 Erimystax x-punctatus (Hubbs and Crowe, 1956) gravel chub G4 S1 Esox americanus vermiculatus (Lesueur, 1846) grass pickerel G5T5 ? Esox lucius (Linnaeus, 1758) northern pike G5 S3S4 Esox masquinongy (Mitchill, 1824) muskellunge G5 S3S4 Etheostoma blennioides (Rafinesque, 1819) greenside darter G5 S5 Etheostoma caeruleum (Storer, 1845) rainbow darter G5 S5 Etheostoma camurum (Cope, 1870) bluebreast darter G4 S2 Etheostoma exile (Girard, 1859) Iowa darter G5 S1 Etheostoma flabellare (Rafinesque, 1819) fantail darter G5 S5 Etheostoma maculatum (Kirtland, 1840) spotted darter G2 S2 Etheostoma nigrum (Rafinesque, 1820) Johnny darter G5 S5 Etheostoma tippecanoe (Jordan and Evermann, 1890) Tippecanoe darter G3G4 S2 Etheostoma variatum(Kirtland, 1840) variegate darter G5 S4 Etheostoma zonale (Cope, 1868) banded darter G5 S4 Exoglossum laurae (Hubbs, 1931) tonguetied minnow G4 S3S4 Fundulus diaphanus (Lesueur, 1817) banded killifish G5 S5 Hybognathus hankinsoni (Hubbs, 1929) brassy minnow G5 SNA-Exotic Hybopsis amblops (Rafinesque, 1820) bigeye chub G5 S3S4 Hypentelium nigricans (Lesueur, 1817) northern hogsucker G5 S5 Ichthyomyzon bdellium (Jordan, 1885) Ohio lamprey G3G4 S2S3 Ichthyomyzon greeleyi (Hubbs and Trautman, 1937) mountain brook lamprey G3G4 S2 Labidesthes sicculus (Cope, 1865) brook silverside G5 S4 Lampetra appendix (DeKay, 1842) American brook lamprey G4 S3 Lepomis megalotis (Rafinesque, 1820) longear sunfish G5 S1 Lepomis cyanellus(Rafinesque, 1819) green sunfish G5 S5 Lepomis gibbosus (Linnaeus, 1758) pumpkinseed G5 S5 Lepomis gulosus (Cuvier, 1829) warmouth G5 S2 Lepomis macrochirus (Rafinesque, 1819) bluegill G5 S5 Lepisosteus osseus (Linnaeus, 1758) longnose gar G5 S3
53
Table A.2: Continued. Scientific Name Common Name Global Rank State Rank Luxilus chrysocephalus Rafinesque, 1820 striped shiner G5 S5 Luxilus cornutus (Mitchill, 1817) common shiner G5 S5 Lythrurus umbratilis (Girard, 1856) redfin shiner G5 S1 Margariscus margarita (Cope, 1867) pearl dace G5 S4 Micropterus dolomieu (Lacepède, 1802) smallmouth bass G5 S5 Micropterus salmoides (Lacepède, 1802) largemouth bass G5 S5 Moxostoma anisurum (Rafinesque, 1820) silver redhorse G5 S4 Moxostoma carinatum (Cope, 1870) river redhorse G4 S3S4 Moxostoma duquesnei (Lesueur, 1817) black redhorse G5 S4 Moxostoma erythrurum (Rafinesque, 1818) golden redhorse G5 S4 Moxostoma macrolepidotum (Lesueur, 1817) shorthead redhorse G5 S4 Nocomis biguttatus (Kirtland, 1841) hornyhead chub G5 S1 Nocomis micropogon (Cope, 1865) river chub G5 S5 Notemigonus crysoleucas (Mitchill, 1814) golden shiner G5 S5 Notropis atherinoides (Rafinesque, 1818) emerald shiner G5 S5 Notropis buccatus (Cope, 1865) silverjaw minnow G5 S5 Notropis heterodon (Cope, 1865) blackchin shiner G5 S1 Notropis heterolepis (Eigenmann and Eigenmann, 1893) blacknose shiner G4 SX Notropis ludibundus (Cope, 1865) sand shiner G5 S4 Notropis photogenis (Cope, 1865) silver shiner G5 S4 Notropis rubellus (Agassiz, 1850) rosyface shiner G5 S5 Notropis volucellus (Cope, 1865) mimic shiner G5 S4 Noturus eleutherus (Jordan, 1877) mountain madtom G4 S1 Noturus flavus (Rafinesque, 1818) stonecat G5 S4 Noturus miurus (Jordan, 1877) brindled madtom G5 S2 Noturus stigmosus (Taylor, 1969) northern madtom G3 S2 Oncorhynchus mykiss (Walbaum, 1792) rainbow trout G5 SNA- Exotic Opsopoeodus emiliae (Hay, 1881) pugnose minnow G5 SNA- Exotic Perca flavescens (Mitchill, 1814) yellow perch G5 S5 Percina caprodes (Rafinesque, 1818) logperch G5 S4 Percina evides (Jordan and Copeland, 1877) gilt darter G4 S1S2 Percina macrocephala (Cope, 1867) longhead darter G3 S2S3 Percina maculata (Girard, 1859) blackside darter G5 S5 Percopsis omiscomaycus (Walbaum, 1792) trout-perch G5 S4 Phoxinus erythrogaster (Rafinesque, 1820) southern redbelly dace G5 S1 Pimephales notatus (Rafinesque, 1820) bluntnose minnow G5 S5 Pimephales promelas (Rafinesque, 1820) fathead minnow G5 S4 Pomoxis annularis (Rafinesque, 1818) white crappie G5 SNA- Exotic Pomoxis nigromaculatus (Lesueur, 1829) black crappie G5 S4 Rhinichthys atratulus (Hermann, 1804) blacknose dace G5 S5 Rhinichthys cataractae (Valenciennes, 1842) longnose dace G5 S5 Salmo trutta (Linnaeus, 17580 brown trout G5 SNA- Exotic Salvelinus fontinalis (Mitchill, 1814) brook trout G5 S5 Semotilus atromaculatus (Mitchill, 1818) creek chub G5 S5 Stizostedion vitreum (Mitchill, 1818) walleye G5 S4 Umbra limi (Kirtland, 1840) central mudminnow G5 S3
54
Appendix B. Mussel and fish species of concern recorded from French Creek tributary watersheds
Table B. 1. Mussel and fish species of concern recorded from the Conneauttee Creek watershed listed in the PNHP database
Scientific Name Common Name Global Rank
State Rank
Mussels Alasmidonta marginata (Say, 1818) Elktoe G4 S4 Amblema plicata (Say, 1818) Threeridge G5 S2S3 Anodontoides ferussacianus (I.Lea, 1834) Cylindrical Papershell G5 S2S3 Lampsilis fasciola (Rafinesque, 1820) Wavy-rayed Mussel G4 S4 Lasmigona complanata (Barnes, 1823) White Heelsplitter G5 S1 Pleurobema clava (Lamarck, 1819) Clubshell G2 S1S2 Pleurobema sintoxia (Rafinesque, 1820) Round Pigtoe G4 S2 Quadrula cylindrica (Say, 1817) Rabbitsfoot G3 S1 Fish Lampetra appendix (DeKay, 1842) American Brook Lamprey G4 S3 Table B. 2. Mussel and fish species of concern recorded from the Conneaut Outlet watershed listed in the PNHP database
Scientific Name Common Name Global Rank
State Rank
Mussels Amblema plicata (Say, 1818) Threeridge G5 S2S3 Epioblasma triquetra (Rafinesque, 1820) Snuffbox G3 S1 Fusconaia subrotunda (I. Lea, 1831) Long-solid G3 S1 Lasmigona complanata (Barnes, 1823) White Heelsplitter G5 S1 Ligumia nasuta (Say, 1817) Eastern Pondmussel G4 S1S3 Pleurobema clava (Lamarck, 1819) Clubshell G2 S1S2 Pleurobema sintoxia (Rafinesque, 1820) Round Pigtoe G4 S2 Toxolasma parvus (Barnes, 1823) Lilliput G5 S1S3 Utterbackia imbecillis (Say, 1829) Paper Pondshell G5 S3S4 Fish Amia calva (Linnaeus, 1766) Bowfin G5 S2S3 Lepisosteus osseus (Linnaeus, 1758) Longnose Gar G5 S3 Lepomis gulosus (Cuvier, 1829) Warmouth G5 S2 Nocomis biguttatus (Kirtland, 1841) (Kirtland, 1841) Hornyhead Chub G5 S1 Notropis heterodon (Cope, 1865) Blackchin Shiner G5 S1 Notropis heterolepis (Eigenmann and Eigenmann, 1893) Blacknose Shiner G4 SX Umbra limi (Kirtland, 1840) Central Mudminnow G5 S3
55
Table B. 3. Mussel and fish species of concern recorded from the Cussewago Creek watershed listed in the PNHP database
Scientific Name Common Name Global Rank
State Rank
Mussels Alasmidonta marginata (Say, 1818) Elktoe G4 S4 Amblema plicata (Say, 1818) Threeridge G5 S2S3 Anodontoides ferussacianus (I.Lea, 1834) Cylindrical Papershell G5 S2S3 Lasmigona compressa (I. Lea, 1829) Creek Heelsplitter G5 S2S3 Villosa fabalis (I. Lea, 1831) Rayed Bean Mussel G1G2 S1S2 Fish Amia calva (Linnaeus, 1766) Bowfin G5 S2S3 Labidesthes sicculus (Cope, 1865) Brook Silverside G5 S4 Lythrurus umbratilis (Girard, 1856) Redfin Shiner G5 S1 Percina macrocephala (Cope, 1867) Longhead Darter G3 S2S3 Table B. 4. Mussel and Fish species of concern recorded from the LeBoeuf Creek watershed listed in the PNHP database
Scientific Name Common Name Global Rank
State Rank
Mussels Alasmidonta marginata (Say, 1818) Elktoe G4 S4 Amblema plicata (Say, 1818) Threeridge G5 S2S3 Anodontoides ferussacianus (I.Lea, 1834) Cylindrical Papershell G5 S2S3 Epioblasma torulosa rangiana (I. Lea, 1838) Northern Riffleshell G2T2 S2 Epioblasma triquetra (Rafinesque, 1820) Snuffbox G3 S1 Lampsilis fasciola (Rafinesque, 1820) Wavy-rayed Lampmussel G4 S4 Lasmigona complanata (Barnes, 1823) White Heelsplitter G5 S1 Lasmigona compressa (I. Lea, 1829) Creek Heelsplitter G5 S2S3 Pleurobema clava (Lamarck, 1819) Clubshell G2 S1S2 Pleurobema sintoxia (Rafinesque, 1820) Round Pigtoe G4 S2 Quadrula cylindrica (Say, 1817) Rabbitsfoot G3 S1 Utterbackia imbecillis (Say, 1829) Paper Pondshell G5 S3S4 Villosa fabalis (I. Lea, 1831) Rayed Bean Mussel G1G2 S1S2 Villosa iris (I. Lea, 1829) Rainbow Mussel G5Q S1 Fish Etheostoma exile (Girard, 1859) Iowa Darter G5 S1 Ichthyomyzon bdellium (Jordan, 1885) Ohio Lamprey G3G4 S2S3 Labidesthes sicculus (Cope, 1865) Brook Silverside G5 S4 Lepomis gulosus (Cuvier, 1829) Warmouth G5 S2 Notropis heterolepis (Eigenmann and Eigenmann, 1893) Blacknose Shiner G4 SX Percina macrocephala (Cope, 1867) Longhead Darter G3 S2S3
56
Table B. 5. Mussel and fish species of concern recorded from the Little Sugar Creek watershed listed in the PNHP database
Scientific Name Common Name Global Rank
State Rank
Mussels Lampsilis fasciola (Rafinesque, 1820) Wavy-rayed Lampmussel G4 S4 Lasmigona compressa (I. Lea, 1829) Creek Heelsplitter G5 S2S3 Fish Ichthyomyzon bdellium (Jordan, 1885) Ohio Lamprey G3G4 S2S3 Table B. 6. Mussel and fish species of concern recorded from the Muddy Creek watershed listed in the PNHP database
Scientific Name Common Name Global Rank
State Rank
Mussels Alasmidonta marginata (Say, 1818) Elktoe G4 S4 Amblema plicata (Say, 1818) Threeridge G5 S2S3 Anodontoides ferussacianus (I.Lea, 1834) Cylindrical Papershell G5 S2S3 Epioblasma torulosa rangiana (I. Lea, 1838) Northern Riffleshell G2T2 S2 Epioblasma triquetra (Rafinesque, 1820) Snuffbox G3 S1 Fusconaia subrotunda (I. Lea, 1831) Long-Solid G3 S1 Lampsilis fasciola (Rafinesque, 1820) Wavy-rayed Lampmussel G4 S4 Lasmigona compressa (I. Lea, 1829) Creek Heelsplitter G5 S2S3 Pleurobema clava (Lamarck, 1819) Clubshell G2T2 S1S2 Pleurobema sintoxia (Rafinesque, 1820) Round Pigtoe G4 S2 Quadrula cylindrica (Say, 1817) Rabbitsfoot G3 S1 Villosa fabalis (I. Lea, 1831) Rayed Bean Mussel G1G2 S1S2 Fish Amia calva (Linnaeus, 1766) Bowfin G5 S2S3 Culaea inconstans (Kirtland, 1840) Brook Stickleback G5 S3 Erimystax dissimilis (Kirtland, 1841) Streamline Chub G4 S3 Etheostoma camurum (Cope, 1870) Bluebreast Darter G4 S2 Etheostoma pellucida (Putnam, 1863) Eastern Sand Darter G3G4 S1 Ichthyomyzon bdellium (Jordan, 1885) Ohio Lamprey G3G4 S2S3 Ichthyomyzon greeleyi (Hubbs and Trautman, 1937) Mountain Brook Lamprey G3G4 S2 Labidesthes sicculus (Cope, 1865) Brook Silverside G5 S4 Nocomis biguttatus (Kirtland, 1841) Hornyhead Chub G5 S1 Notropis dorsalis (Agassiz, 1854) Bigmouth Shiner G5 S2 Noturus miurus (Jordan, 1877) Brindled Madtom G5 S2 Percina evides (Jordan and Copeland, 1877) Gilt Darter G4 S1S2 Percina macrocephala (Cope, 1867) Longhead Darter G3 S2S3 Umbra limi (Kirtland, 1840) Central Mudminnow G5 S3
57
Table B. 7. Mussel and fish species of concern recorded from the South Branch French Creek watershed listed in the PNHP database
Table B. 8. Mussel and fish species of concern recorded from the Sugar Creek watershed listed in the PNHP database
Scientific Name Common Name Global Rank
State Rank
Mussels None recorded Fish Erimystax x-punctatus (Hubbs and Crowe, 1956) Gravel Chub G4 S1 Percina macrocephala (Cope, 1867) Longhead Darter G3 S2S3 Phoxinus erythrogaster (Rafinesque, 1820) Southern Redbelly Dace G5 S1 Table B. 9. Mussel and fish species of concern recorded from the West Branch French Creek watershed listed in the PNHP database
Scientific Name Common Name Global Rank
State Rank
Mussels Alasmidonta marginata (Say, 1818) Elktoe G4 S4 Anodontoides ferussacianus (I.Lea, 1834) Cylindrical Papershell G5 S2S3 Epioblasma triquetra (Rafinesque, 1820) Snuffbox G3 S1 Lasmigona compressa (I. Lea, 1829) Creek Heelsplitter G5 S2S3 Pleurobema sintoxia (Rafinesque, 1820) Round Pigtoe G4 S2 Villosa iris (I. Lea, 1829) Rainbow Mussel G5Q S1 Fish Ichthyomyzon bdellium (Jordan, 1885) Ohio Lamprey G3G4 S2S3 Ichthyomyzon greeleyi (Hubbs and Trautman, 1937) Mountain Brook Lamprey G3G4 S2 Lampetra appendix (DeKay, 1842) American Brook Lamprey G4 S3 Percina macrocephala (Cope, 1867) Longhead Darter G3 S2S3
Scientific Name Common Name Global Rank
State Rank
Mussels Anodontoides ferussacianus (I.Lea, 1834) Cylindrical Papershell G5 S2S3 Lampsilis fasciola (Rafinesque, 1820) Wavy-rayed Lampmussel G4 S4 Lasmigona compressa (I. Lea, 1829) Creek Heelsplitter G5 S2S3 Fish Culaea inconstans (Kirtland, 1840) Brook Stickleback G5 S3 Ichthyomyzon greeleyi (Hubbs and Trautman, 1937) Mountain Brook Lamprey G3G4 S2 Lampetra appendix (DeKay, 1842) American Brook Lamprey G4 S3 Percina evides (Jordan and Copeland, 1877) Gilt Darter G4 S1S2 Phoxinus eos (Cope 1861) Northern Redbelly Dace G5 SX
58
Table B. 10. Mussel and fish species of concern recorded from the Woodcock Creek watershed listed in the PNHP database
Scientific Name Common Name Global Rank
State Rank
Mussels Alasmidonta marginata (Say, 1818) Elktoe G4 S4 Anodontoides ferussacianus (I.Lea, 1834) Cylindrical Papershell G5 S2S3 Epioblasma torulosa rangiana (I. Lea, 1838) Northern Riffleshell G2T2 S2 Epioblasma triquetra (Rafinesque, 1820) Snuffbox G3 S1 Fusconaia subrotunda (I. Lea, 1831) Long-solid G3 S1 Lampsilis fasciola (Rafinesque, 1820) Wavy-rayed Lampmussel G4 S4 Lampsilis ovata (Say, 1817) Pocketbook G5 S3S4 Pleurobema clava (Lamarck, 1819) Clubshell G2T2 S1S2 Pleurobema sintoxia (Rafinesque, 1820) Round Pigtoe G4 S2 Potamilus alatus (Say, 1817) Pink Heelsplitter G5 S2 Quadrula cylindrica (Say, 1817) Rabbitsfoot G3 S1 Utterbackia imbecillis (Say, 1829) Paper Pondshell G5 S3S4 Villosa fabalis (I. Lea, 1831) Rayed Bean Mussel G1G2 S1S2 Fish Ichthyomyzon bdellium (Jordan, 1885) Ohio Lamprey G3G4 S2S3 Ichthyomyzon greeleyi (Hubbs and Trautman, 1937) Mountain Brook Lamprey G3G4 S2 Percina macrocephala (Cope, 1867) Longhead Darter G3 S2S3
59
Appendix C. Voucher photographs of mussels and fish and survey site photos
Figure C.1: Voucher photograph of freshwater mussel species found at Conneauttee Creek Site 3.
Figure C.2: Voucher photograph of freshwater mussel species found at Cussewago Creek Site 1.
60
Figure C.3: Photograph of Cussewago Creek Site 1.
Figure C.4: Photograph of mussel surveyors at Cussewago Creek Site 1.
61
Figure C.5: Voucher photograph of freshwater mussel species found at LeBoeuf Creek Site 1.
Figure C.6: Voucher photograph of freshwater mussel species found at LeBoeuf Creek Site 2.
62
Figure C.7: Voucher photograph of freshwater mussel species found at LeBoeuf Creek Site 3.
Figure C.8: Voucher photograph of freshwater mussel species found at LeBoeuf Creek Site 4. Label in photograph incorrectly labeled as site 3.
63
Figure C.9: Photograph of WPC crewmembers Tamara Smith and Beth Meyer processing mussels found in LeBoeuf Creek Site 4.
64
Figure C.10: Photograph of LeBoeuf Creek Site 5.
65
Figure C.11: Voucher photograph of freshwater mussel species found at LeBoeuf Creek Site 5. Label in photograph incorrectly labeled as site 4.
Figure C.12: Photograph of Little Sugar Creek Site 1.
66
Figure C.13: Voucher photograph of freshwater mussel species found at Muddy Creek Site 1.
Figure C.14: Photograph of Muddy Creek Site 1.
67
Figure C.15: Photograph of Sugar Creek Site 3.
Figure C.16: Voucher photograph of freshwater mussel species found at West Branch French Creek Site 1.
68
Figure C.17: Voucher photograph of freshwater mussel species found at West Branch Site 2.
Figure C.18: Voucher photograph of freshwater mussel species found at West Branch Site 3.
69
Figure C.19: Photograph of West Branch French Creek Site 3.
Figure C.20: Voucher photograph of freshwater mussel species found at Woodcock Creek Site 1.
70
Figure C.21: Photograph of WPC field crew, Jacob Winkler, Beth Meyer and Nicole Rhodes preparing to survey Woodcock Creek Site 1.
Figure C.22: Photograph of Woodcock Creek Site 2.
71
Figure C.23: Voucher photograph of freshwater mussel species found at Woodcock Creek Site 2.
Figure C.24: Voucher photograph of freshwater mussel species found at Woodcock Creek Site 3.
72
Figure C.25: WPC crewmembers Zachary Horn and Tamara Smith electro-fish at Conneaut Outlet.
Figure C.26: Bowfin (Amia calva) caught in electro-fishing survey at Conneaut Outlet site.
73
Figure C. 27: Streamline chub (Erimystax dissimilis) caught in electro-fishing survey.
Figure C. 28: Variegate darter (Etheostoma variatum) caught in electro-fishing survey.
74
Figure C. 29: Mottled sculpin (Cottus bairdi) caught in electro-fishing survey.
75
Appendix D. Riparian Assessments Table D.1. Riparian assessment locations and scores.
Stream Lat Long Date
Assessed RAP No.
Section No.
Percent total score
Conneaut Outlet -80.299333 41.602591 9/23/2009 1 1 77 Conneaut Outlet -80.299126 41.598212 9/23/2009 2 2 73 Conneaut Outlet -80.298927 41.596308 9/23/2009 3 3 98 Conneaut Outlet -80.298026 41.592057 9/23/2009 4 4 76 Conneaut Outlet -80.294188 41.590121 9/23/2009 5 5 88 Conneaut Outlet -80.288598 41.587290 9/23/2009 6 6 68 Conneaut Outlet -80.283326 41.586161 9/23/2009 7 7 67 Conneaut Outlet -80.274403 41.587423 9/23/2009 8 8 92 Conneaut Outlet -80.128453 41.541019 10/5/2009 9 1 65 Conneaut Outlet -80.122023 41.544435 10/5/2009 10 2 68 Conneaut Outlet -80.112730 41.546346 10/5/2009 11 3 67 Conneaut Outlet -80.110353 41.541474 10/5/2009 12 4 77 Conneaut Outlet -80.105287 41.539906 10/5/2009 13 5 68 Conneauttee Creek -80.077643 41.822471 5/25/2006 14 1 72 Conneauttee Creek -80.077609 41.819583 5/25/2006 15 2 72 Conneauttee Creek -80.076748 41.814280 5/25/2006 16 3 61 Conneauttee Creek -80.132546 41.871814 10/9/2008 17 1 66 Conneauttee Creek -80.128523 41.866067 10/9/2008 18 2 63 Conneauttee Creek -80.124610 41.862843 10/9/2008 19 3 70 Conneauttee Creek -80.097203 41.849774 10/1/2009 20 1 73 Conneauttee Creek -80.092514 41.848801 10/6/2009 21 2 76 Conneauttee Creek -80.087460 41.848057 10/6/2009 22 3 85 Conneauttee Creek -80.081997 41.845464 10/6/2009 23 4 77 Conneauttee Creek -80.081363 41.841682 10/6/2009 24 5 76 Conneauttee Creek -80.083566 41.829438 10/6/2009 25 6 66 Conneauttee Creek -80.078829 41.825372 10/6/2009 26 7 78 Conneauttee Creek -80.077507 41.821964 10/6/2009 27 8 76 Conneauttee Creek -80.079273 41.818669 10/6/2009 28 9 75 Conneauttee Creek -80.076821 41.814233 10/6/2009 29 10 79 Conneauttee Creek -80.076880 41.811917 10/6/2009 30 11 64 Cussewago Creek -80.213766 41.672468 7/1/2006 31 1 58 Cussewago Creek -80.212977 41.667675 7/1/2006 32 2 74 Cussewago Creek -80.205245 41.661444 7/1/2006 33 3 55 Cussewago Creek -80.197219 41.655494 7/1/2006 34 4 72 Cussewago Creek -80.189896 41.651146 7/1/2006 35 5 69 Cussewago Creek -80.169764 41.646802 7/1/2006 36 6 55 Cussewago Creek -80.214387 41.672076 10/15/2008 37 1 73 Cussewago Creek -80.212877 41.668440 10/15/2008 38 2 71 Cussewago Creek -80.211414 41.663136 10/15/2008 39 3 73 Cussewago Creek -80.204984 41.658117 10/15/2008 40 4 74 Cussewago Creek -80.197824 41.655069 10/15/2008 41 5 82 Cussewago Creek -80.190498 41.653413 10/15/2008 42 6 80 Cussewago Creek -80.183792 41.649859 10/15/2008 43 7 72
76
Cussewago Creek -80.172133 41.647277 10/15/2008 44 8 57 LeBoeuf Creek -79.977231 41.923570 5/1/2006 45 1 60 LeBoeuf Creek -79.976603 41.920036 5/1/2006 46 2 69 LeBoeuf Creek -79.979506 41.919452 5/1/2006 47 3 74 LeBoeuf Creek -79.981226 41.916717 5/1/2006 48 4 75 LeBoeuf Creek -79.984373 41.914763 5/1/2006 49 5 73 LeBoeuf Creek -79.986479 41.912312 5/1/2006 50 6 58 LeBoeuf Creek -79.985175 41.906381 5/1/2006 51 7 55 LeBoeuf Creek -79.977110 41.922017 10/8/2008 52 1 82 LeBoeuf Creek -79.984565 41.915444 10/8/2008 53 2 81 LeBoeuf Creek -79.986295 41.909819 10/8/2008 54 3 75 LeBoeuf Creek -79.972302 41.961214 9/22/2009 55 1 84 LeBoeuf Creek -79.966397 41.959372 9/22/2009 56 2 96 LeBoeuf Creek -79.962970 41.954552 9/22/2009 57 3 83 LeBoeuf Creek -79.965907 41.947145 9/22/2009 58 4 88 LeBoeuf Creek -79.964422 41.944529 9/22/2009 59 5 97 LeBoeuf Creek -79.964496 41.941232 9/22/2009 60 6 89 LeBoeuf Creek -79.966152 41.938335 9/22/2009 61 7 93 LeBoeuf Creek -79.968610 41.935211 9/22/2009 62 8 91 LeBoeuf Creek -79.970847 41.932786 9/22/2009 63 9 82 LeBoeuf Creek -79.973852 41.936940 9/22/2009 64 10 78 Little Sugar Creek -80.012087 41.537420 10/10/2008 65 1 82 Little Sugar Creek -80.013486 41.532352 10/10/2008 66 2 79 Little Sugar Creek -80.023325 41.526987 10/10/2008 67 3 85 Little Sugar Creek -80.030690 41.525239 10/10/2008 68 4 88 Little Sugar Creek -80.039194 41.526932 10/10/2008 69 5 83 Little Sugar Creek -80.043686 41.522477 10/10/2008 70 6 78 Little Sugar Creek -80.049405 41.522463 10/10/2008 71 7 78 Muddy Creek -79.931741 41.760420 5/30/2006 72 1 77 Muddy Creek -79.936111 41.764223 5/30/2006 73 2 80 Muddy Creek -79.948290 41.771372 5/30/2006 74 3 84 Muddy Creek -79.953410 41.779780 5/30/2006 75 4 80 Muddy Creek -79.960958 41.782801 5/30/2006 76 5 87 Muddy Creek -79.969133 41.786840 5/30/2006 77 6 79 Muddy Creek -79.907757 41.750038 10/7/2009 78 1 70 Muddy Creek -79.969901 41.786531 10/7/2009 79 1 78 Muddy Creek -79.976450 41.787449 10/7/2009 80 2 73 Muddy Creek -79.980155 41.786767 10/7/2009 81 3 79 Muddy Creek -79.984428 41.788284 10/7/2009 82 4 86 Muddy Creek -79.986224 41.792359 10/7/2009 83 5 84 Muddy Creek -79.988354 41.797216 10/7/2009 84 6 82 Muddy Creek -79.990790 41.799966 10/7/2009 85 7 81 South Branch -79.846550 41.899301 8/26/2008 86 1 67 South Branch -79.851431 41.901466 8/26/2008 87 2 73 South Branch -79.858480 41.902464 8/26/2008 88 3 67 South Branch -79.864927 41.901150 8/26/2008 89 4 78 South Branch -79.870324 41.902716 8/26/2008 90 5 63 South Branch -79.875741 41.899043 8/26/2008 91 6 85
77
South Branch -79.881158 41.900864 8/26/2008 92 7 85 South Branch -79.885479 41.902381 8/26/2008 93 8 79 South Branch -79.897194 41.902826 8/26/2008 94 9 73 South Branch -79.795933 41.888697 10/9/2008 95 1 84 South Branch -79.807637 41.892807 10/9/2008 96 2 72 South Branch -79.815814 41.896816 10/9/2008 97 3 85 South Branch -79.823991 41.893199 10/9/2008 98 4 82 South Branch -79.832031 41.893092 10/9/2008 99 5 80 South Branch -79.837828 41.897462 10/9/2008 100 6 76 South Branch -79.844726 41.897119 10/9/2008 101 7 84 Sugar Creek -79.897445 41.454265 5/9/2006 102 1 61 Sugar Creek -79.897759 41.447130 5/9/2006 103 2 61 Sugar Creek -79.896948 41.439361 5/9/2006 104 3 63 Sugar Creek -79.880297 41.428881 5/9/2006 105 4 64 Sugar Creek -79.898455 41.448652 10/16/2008 106 1 73 Sugar Creek -79.894933 41.435522 10/16/2008 107 2 67 Sugar Creek -79.882608 41.431027 10/16/2008 108 3 76 Sugar Creek -79.874798 41.420422 10/16/2008 109 4 68 Sugar Creek -79.881283 41.480392 9/24/2009 110 1 87 Sugar Creek -79.880741 41.472213 9/24/2009 111 2 98 Sugar Creek -79.885841 41.467858 9/24/2009 112 3 98 Sugar Creek -79.891019 41.461657 9/24/2009 113 4 92 Sugar Creek -79.893071 41.454012 9/24/2009 114 5 79 West Branch -79.846425 42.068799 5/4/2006 115 1 55 West Branch -79.846967 42.067092 5/4/2006 116 2 52 West Branch -79.847293 42.064043 5/4/2006 117 3 56 West Branch -79.841915 42.064165 5/4/2006 118 4 68 West Branch -79.839187 42.060738 5/4/2006 119 5 54 West Branch -79.840268 42.055911 5/4/2006 120 6 56 West Branch -79.836972 42.052690 5/4/2006 121 7 69 West Branch -79.837388 42.044197 5/4/2006 122 8 55 West Branch -79.827200 42.031164 5/4/2006 123 9 55 West Branch -79.831650 42.028101 5/4/2006 124 10 62 West Branch -79.817819 42.025069 5/4/2006 125 11 55 West Branch -79.814912 42.021422 5/4/2006 126 12 68 West Branch -79.812722 42.016358 5/4/2006 127 13 69 West Branch -79.811831 42.008657 5/4/2006 128 14 57 West Branch -79.812435 42.000883 5/4/2006 129 15 63 West Branch -79.847021 42.069633 8/27/2008 130 1 62 West Branch -79.847109 42.067082 8/27/2008 131 2 75 West Branch -79.845287 42.064432 8/27/2008 132 3 73 West Branch -79.840640 42.063192 8/27/2008 133 4 73 West Branch -79.839963 42.058382 8/27/2008 134 5 73 West Branch -79.837003 42.052667 8/27/2008 135 6 70 West Branch -79.834628 42.046549 8/27/2008 136 7 76 West Branch -79.832016 42.039389 8/27/2008 137 8 73 Woodcock Creek -79.964963 41.664892 9/14/2007 138 1 72 Woodcock Creek -79.965530 41.678204 9/14/2007 139 2 80
78
Woodcock Creek -79.966839 41.691194 9/14/2007 140 3 75 Woodcock Creek -79.968784 41.693359 10/14/2008 141 1 78 Woodcock Creek -79.975186 41.696057 10/14/2008 142 2 72 Woodcock Creek -79.981065 41.696810 10/14/2008 143 3 73 Woodcock Creek -79.988553 41.698036 10/14/2008 144 4 75 Woodcock Creek -79.994550 41.698890 10/14/2008 145 5 91 Woodcock Creek -80.114020 41.696180 9/30/2009 146 0 70 Woodcock Creek -80.002671 41.698700 9/30/2009 147 1 67 Woodcock Creek -80.007175 41.700376 9/30/2009 148 2 66 Woodcock Creek -80.010177 41.697398 9/30/2009 149 3 78 Woodcock Creek -80.016797 41.697401 9/30/2009 150 4 78 Woodcock Creek -80.022602 41.697749 9/30/2009 151 5 76 Woodcock Creek -80.031484 41.695332 9/30/2009 152 6 94 Woodcock Creek -80.126863 41.702810 10/8/2009 153 1 73 Woodcock Creek -80.129437 41.704077 10/8/2009 154 2 81 Woodcock Creek -80.136268 41.709081 10/8/2009 155 3 86 Woodcock Creek -80.144116 41.709604 10/8/2009 156 4 87
79
RIPARIAN ASSESSMENT Schnier, Melissa D. 2003. Assessment of riparian areas: Tool development, implementation, and evaluation. M.S. thesis, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.
Riparian Buffer Width
Poor Marginal Moderate Good Excellent 0-3 meters 3-10 meters 10-25 meters 25-50 meters 50+ meters
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Riparian Vegetation Type Poor Marginal Good Excellent
Grasses/herbaceous plants (grazed or
mowed short)
Grasses/herbaceous plants (full height)
Shrub or shrub and grasses mix
Forested or forest mixed with shrubs and/or
grasses 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Riparian Vegetation Thickness
Poor Marginal Good Excellent Vegetation very sparse, covers less than 25% of the ground. Large bare
spots are visible.
Vegetation somewhat sparse, several bare
spots are visible. Covers 25-50% of
ground.
Vegetation fairly thick, a few gaps or bare spots.
Covers 50-80% of ground.
Vegetation very thick and well-developed. No
gaps or bare spots. Coverage nearly 100%.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Bank Vegetation Type Poor Marginal Good Excellent
Grasses/herbaceous plants (grazed or mowed
short)
Grasses and other herbaceous material
(full height)
Shrub or shrub and grasses mix
Trees or tree mix
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Bank Vegetation Thickness Poor Marginal Good Excellent
Vegetation very sparse, covers less than 25% of
the banks.
Vegetation somewhat sparse, several bare
spots are visible. Covers 25-50% of
banks.
Vegetation fairly thick, a few gaps or bare spots.
Covers 50-80% of banks.
Vegetation very thick and well-developed. No
gaps or bare spots. Coverage nearly 100%.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Bank Stability Poor Marginal Good Excellent
Unstable; eroded or “raw” areas frequent,
bare roots visible, slopes nearly vertical.
Largely unstable; almost half of the bank has
areas of erosion, bare roots visible.
Moderately stable; some small area of erosion, mostly healed over.
Stable; no evidence of erosion or bank failure,
bank slopes are moderate.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
80
Water Pathways
Poor Marginal Good Excellent Many rills and gullies
visible-banks are deeply scarred with gullies all
along the stream.
Breaks in the vegetation frequent with some rills or scars every 50 meters.
Very few rills or gullies visible, breaks in the vegetation occur less then every 50 meters.
No rills or gullies visible. Riparian area
intact, with no breaks in the vegetation.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Channel Modification Poor Marginal Good Excellent
Channel is highly modified. Stream is
confined to a concrete channel or both sides are
modified.
Channel has been slightly modified. One
side of channel has been rip rapped or stabilized.
Channel has slight alteration, occasional
modifications are present, but overall free-
flowing.
Channel is not modified. Stream is completely free-flowing on both
sides.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Shading (Canopy Cover) Poor Good Excellent
Little to no canopy cover (<25% of the stream is shaded).
Partial canopy cover (25-75% of the stream is shaded).
Nearly complete canopy cover (>75% of the stream is shaded).
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
In-stream Cover Poor Marginal Good Excellent
Not much fish habitat-lack of habitat is
obvious.
Some stable habitat, but examples are infrequent, further than 25 meters
apart.
There are several examples of habitat or cover within 10 meters
of each other.
Habitat examples are frequent, and are
continuous throughout the stream.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Embeddedness Poor Marginal Good Excellent
Rocks are deeply stuck into sand, silt or mud. Rocks barely visible.
Rocks are more than half surrounded by fine
sediments. Kicking does not dislodge rocks.
Rocks are partially surrounded by fine
sediment. Rocks are easily flipped over.
Rocks free from fine sediments-little sand, silt
or mud on stream bottom.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Aquatic Vegetation Poor Good Excellent
Aquatic vegetation is abundant on or below the surface of the water.
Some aquatic vegetation is present, mainly under the water
surface.
No aquatic vegetation is present.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Land Use Outside the Buffer Urban (pavement,
roads, parking lots) Row-crow agriculture
Residential lawn, golf course, sports
fields or parks
Pasture or fallow agriculture
Forest
81
Appendix E. Habitat Mapping by Tributary
Figure E.1. Mapped section of Conneauttee Creek and locations of riparian assessments.
82
Figure E.2. Mapped section of Conneaut Outlet and locations of riparian assessments.
Figure E.3. Mapped section of Cussewago Creek and locations of riparian assessments.
83
Figure E.4. Mapped section of LeBoeuf Creek and locations of riparian assessments.
84
Figure E.5. Mapped section of Little Sugar Creek and locations of riparian assessments.
Figure E.6. Mapped section of Muddy Creek and locations of riparian assessments.
85
Figure E.7. Mapped section of South Branch French Creek and locations of riparian assessments.
86
Figure E.8. Mapped section of Sugar Creek and locations of riparian assessments.
87
Figure E.9. Mapped section of West Branch French Creek and locations of riparian assessments.
88
Figure E.10. Mapped section of Woodcock Creek and locations of riparian assessments.
![Interpolation via Barycentric Coordinates · • Moving least squares coordinates [Manson and Schaefer, 2010] • Cubic mean value coordinates [Li and Hu, 2013] • Poisson coordinates](https://static.fdocuments.in/doc/165x107/6062738927364e51e610e629/interpolation-via-barycentric-coordinates-a-moving-least-squares-coordinates-manson.jpg)
