1	Physical, Chemical, and Biological Assessment of Brush Run, Peters Township, Pennsylvania John Thomas Environmental Studies Program / Department of Biology Washington and Jefferson College Washington, PA 15301
2	Ideal Streams
3	Modernization photos: www.usda.gov
4	Presentation Outline Brush Run and importance of monitoring Types of pollution and typical effects Sampling sites Procedure Physical Chemical Biological Results and conclusion
5	Chartiers Creek One of most diversely polluted streams in PA Agriculture Nutrients Pesticides Urbanization / sewage Abandoned Mine Drainage Metals Reduced oxygen levels Brush Run http://www.washjeff.edu/Chartiers/Chartier/lgmaps/watershed.gif
6	Brush Run
7	Agriculture Increase nutrient content & reduced dissolved oxygen concentrations Ammonium/Ammonia hydroxide pH dependant 9.5 - 1:1 ratio 8 - 30:1 7 - 300:1
8	Urbanization - Physical Increase in impermeable surface cover Increase in runoff Erosion Increase turbidity (photosynthesis & filterers) Devoid of trees Reduction in food & shelter Temperature increase Alter biotic composition
9	Urbanization - Chemical Nutrient increase (lawn fertilizers) Pesticides Chloride ions (deicing and pool cleaning) Metals Concentrated during periods of low flow
10	Peters Township WPCP (Water Pollution Control Plant)
11	Abandoned Mine Drainage Oxidation of pyretic materials (FeS₂) to sulfuric acid Decrease pH Elevates metal concentrations Turbidity increase Lower dissolved oxygen concentrations
12	Goal of Study Evaluate the ecological integrity of Brush Run via physical, chemical, and biological assessment and attempt to determine the sources of pollution
13	Measurements Physical - Determine quality and quantity of habitat GPS DEP Snapshot Discharge Canopy cover Turbidity Temperature Chemical - Determine if toxins are present Nitrate Phosphate Ammonium Chlorine Alkalinity pH Dissolved oxygen
14	Biotic sampling D-net (500 mm mesh) sampling Identified to lowest possible taxonomic level Length measurements Determine mass
15	Why Biotic Sampling? Living Communities Indicate a combination of characteristics Reflect time period prior to sampling Inexpensive Macroinvertebrate populations Limited mobility Short life span Abundant Simple to identify Demonstrate a wide range of tolerance
16	From Bryce et al., 1999
17	Biotic Response Decrease in “EPT” taxa Ephemeroptera (mayflies) Plecoptera (stoneflies) Trichoptera (caddisflies) Increase in Chironomid (Diptera) population EPT illustrations from North Carolina State University - John R. Meyer - www.cals.ncsu.edu Chironomid photo from Soil & Water Conservation Society of Metro Halifax - lakes.chebucto.org
18	Macroinvertebrate Metrics Community Ordination Number of taxa present - D Shannon-Weiner Diversity Index - D Simpson’s Diversity Index - D Percent EPT taxa* - D Percent Chironomid taxa* - I Hilsenhoff Biotic Index* - I D = decrease / I = increase with increasing perturbation * calculated for number and mass of taxa - Productivity
19	Brush Run
20	Upstream Sites (7-4)
21	Downstream Sites (3-1)
22	Sample Dates
23	Green Lick Run Fayette County Tributary to Youghiogheny River 7.2 square mile watershed Land use - Upper portions primarily forested
24	Snapshot Assessment
25	Physical & Chemical Parameters Canopy cover - lowest at sites 4 & 5 Temperature and Discharge Gradual increases Chlorine Never exceeded 1 mg/l Green Lick Run 3 & 4 mg/l Iron Never exceeded 2 mg/l Green Lick Run 165 & 191 mg/l
26	Nutrient Levels
27	Dissolved Oxygen
28	EPT
29	Hilsenhoff Biotic Index
30	Species Richness
31	Species Diversity
32	pH and Ammonium
33	Dissimilarity
34	Community Ordination
35	Conclusions Site downstream of sewage treatment plant most disturbed section of the stream Most degradation during periods of low discharge Minimal risk of ammonia hydroxide pollution Brush Run is moderately impaired compared to Green Lick Run
36	Acknowledgements Robert East James March Vinnedge Lawrence Michael Paul Kristina Tarasan Robert Harper Environmental Defense Fund Howard Hughes Medical Institute PA DEP