EIGHTMILE RIVER RAPID BIOASSESSMENT SUMMARY REPORT

Transcription

1 Connecticut River Watch Program EIGHTMILE RIVER RAPID BIOASSESSMENT SUMMARY REPORT Connecticut River Coastal Conservation District dekoven House, 27 Washington Street Middletown, CT

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2 INTRODUCTION 2 BACKGROUND 3 PROJECT SUMMARY 4 RESULTS 7 RECOMMENDATIONS 19 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 20 ATTACHMENTS Attachment A RBV Organisms Attachment B RBV Field Data Sheet Attachment C Site Map Attachment D Data Summary Eightmile River Rapid Biological Assessment Summary Report Jane Brawerman, Connecticut River Watch Program Director Connecticut River Coastal Conservation District dekoven House 27 Washington Street Middletown, Connecticut / November 2009 With support from and in collaboration with the Eightmile River Wild and Scenic Coordinating Committee Eightmile River Rapid Bioassessment Summary Report Page 1

3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring in the Eightmile River watershed has been conducted from 2001 to 2008 as part of a community based effort to document water quality and stream health in the watershed, and conserve and protect this valuable resource. Study streams have included the Eightmile River and East Branch Eightmile River ( ), and Beaver Brook, Burnhams Brook, Harris Brook, and an unnamed stream in Preserve ( ). Assessments were conducted according to the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection protocol, Rapid Bioassessment in Wadeable Streams and Rivers by Volunteer Monitors. Based on the study, streams were classified as having very good to exceptional water quality. Numerous volunteers from the community and area schools have participated in the assessment, raising awareness of local river resources and enhancing local stewardship. The information has been used to support local and regional river/watershed protection and management efforts, most notably, the effort to obtain Federal Wild and Scenic designation for the Eightmile River watershed, and to monitor changes in the Riverʹs water quality over time. INTRODUCTION In the fall of 2001, the Connecticut River Watch Program (CRWP), in cooperation with the Eightmile River Wild and Scenic Study Committee and the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), initiated what was to become an ongoing rapid bioassessment of the Eightmile River Watershed. Beginning with an upstream downstream study of the Eightmile and East Branch Eightmile Rivers, the focus has evolved over the years to four tributary streams: Beaver Brook, Burnhams Brook, Pleasant Valley Preserve brook (unnamed), and Harris Brook. Teams of volunteers, including riparian landowners, town land use commissioners, teachers and students from area high schools and Three Rivers Community College, Boy Scout troops, and members of the community have assisted with the bioassessment, a survey of the benthic macroinvertebrate community following the DEP protocol: Rapid Bioassessment in Wadeable Streams and Rivers by Volunteer Monitors. The monitoring project, now being conducted with leadership from Three Rivers Community College in collaboration with the Eightmile River Wild and Scenic Coordinating Committee, is part of an ongoing community based effort begun in 1999 to assess the health of the Eightmile River and help ensure the protection of this valuable resource. Goals of the monitoring program include: to collect baseline information about the condition of the Eightmile River and its tributaries; to identify areas of the river in need of protection or restoration; and to raise community awareness of the River and the need to protect it. Information collected has been and continues to be used to identify, plan and prioritize conservation and improvement efforts. The CRWP monitoring program was also intended to support the Federal Wild and Scenic designation of the Eightmile River watershed, and complement and enhance ongoing education and conservation efforts. Eightmile River Rapid Bioassessment Summary Report Page 2

4 BACKGROUND The Connecticut River Watch Program Connecticut River Watch Program (CRWP) is the Connecticut River Coastal Conservation District s citizen monitoring protection and improvement program for the Connecticut River and tributaries. Begun in 1992, CRWP initiates, supports and coordinates community based river monitoring, protection and improvement efforts throughout the Connecticut River Basin. Program goals are to collect scientifically credible data to use to identify and correct water quality problems; and build public awareness of local river resources and water quality issues. CRWP information has been used by municipalities to investigate potential sources of pollution, by the state for planning purposes, and by local groups in river protection and management efforts. Project areas include the Mattabesset/ Coginchaug, Eightmile, Salmon, Hockanum and Farmington River watersheds. Funding for the program has come from Connecticut DEP through US EPA grants under Section 319 of the Clean Water Act, and private donations. 1 The Eightmile River Watershed The Eightmile River is a major tributary of the Connecticut River located in the Tidelands Region of the lower Connecticut. The Eightmile flows approximately 15 miles from its headwaters in East Haddam to its confluence with the Connecticut River in Lyme. Its watershed comprises a 62 square mile area draining large portions of East Haddam, Lyme and Salem, and smaller portions of Colchester and East Lyme. Before it meets the Connecticut River, the Eightmile opens up into Hamburg Cove. This largely undeveloped watershed is home to a number of rare and endangered plants and animals. Past water quality assessments of the Eightmile River and its main tributary, the East Branch undertaken by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), have documented good water quality and a healthy benthic macroinvertebrate community, although the most recent 305(b) report and Impaired Waters List include the Eightmile River as not supporting recreation due to bacteria. The Eightmile River Wild and Scenic Study/Watershed Project The Eightmile River is now designated as a Wild and Scenic watershed after years of work by the local community and the Wild and Scenic Study Committee. While our Eightmile River assessment has focused most recently on supporting the designation process, the effort pre dated the bid for wild and scenic status, and was launched as part of the Eightmile River Watershed Project, a joint project of the University of Connecticut Cooperative Extension Program and The Nature Conservancy begun in This project was initiated to assist the watershed communities in protecting their natural resources as they develop their towns, and focused on educating municipal officials and landowners in the watershed about its natural and cultural resources through use of geographic information system (GIS) technology, and promoting use of this information to guide land use decision makers and watershed property owners. An advisory committee with representation from the three major watershed towns (East Haddam, Lyme and Salem) and other interests (e.g. the local land trusts), provided local input, and financial and other support for the project came from the Environmental Protection Agency, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1 For more information about CRWP, go to Eightmile River Rapid Bioassessment Summary Report Page 3

5 PROJECT SUMMARY Study Goals The Eightmile River Rapid Bioassessment was undertaken as part of an ongoing community based effort to document the health of the Eightmile River watershed. The overall goals of the study include: Collect baseline information about the condition of the Eightmile River and its tributaries Raise public interest in and knowledge of the Eightmile River and its watershed, both about the resources it has to offer to the community and the need to protect it Develop public awareness of water quality issues and human impacts on our rivers Build awareness among riparian landowners of the importance of maintaining streamside buffers Identify areas of concern and potential pollution problems that can be used to plan conservation and improvement efforts Form the basis for ongoing water quality monitoring activities that can be pursued in the future according to needs, level of interest, ability to commit time, and the availability of other resources Actual monitoring activities have been determined based on input from the Eightmile River Wild and Scenic Study/Coordinating Committee. In the first two years, , an upstream downstream study of the Eightmile and East Branch Eightmile Rivers was conducted. In subsequent years, , bioassessments were conducted at sites on four tributary streams: Burnhams Brook in East Haddam, Beaver Brook and the Preserve brook (unnamed) in Lyme, and Harris Brook in Salem. Study Design and Methodology The DEP s Rapid Bioassessment in Wadeable Streams and Rivers by Volunteer Monitors (RBV) is a benthic macroinvertebrate assessment protocol designed specifically for volunteer programs. Benthic macroinvertebrates are bottom dwelling aquatic organisms that can be seen with the unaided eye, such as stonefly, mayfly and caddisfly nymphs. They are good indicators of water quality for several reasons: many are sensitive to pollution, the composition of the community is a good reflection of longterm water quality (since they live there year round), they cannot easily escape pollution, and they are relatively easy to collect. In addition, there are many established methods for using macroinvertebrate data to assess water quality and stream health. Benthic macroinvertebrates are collected from shallow riffle areas by disturbing the stream bottom and catching the dislodged organisms in a net. The DEP uses the riffle dwelling benthic macroinvertebrate community as the primary indicator of biological integrity of freshwater streams. The RBV protocol is designed to help identify streams with pollution sensitive benthic macroinvertebrate communities. It is not a definitive assessment procedure; data are used primarily for screening purposes, to identify streams with either very high or very poor water quality. There are twenty six organisms included in the RBV protocol (see list, Attachment A). They are easy to identify due to their distinct shape, structure, color or behavior. Each also provides key ecological information about the stream environment. RBV organisms are categorized in one of three groups: Most Wanted The most sensitive to pollution, requiring a narrow range of environmental conditions. When abundant they are a sign of a non impaired stream; Eightmile River Rapid Bioassessment Summary Report Page 4

6 Moderately Wanted Less sensitive to pollution and found in a variety of water quality conditions. When abundant, more information is needed about upstream conditions to infer water quality; Least Wanted Least sensitive to pollution and tolerant of the widest range of conditions. When they make up the majority of a sample, they indicate some level of water quality impairment. RBVs are generally conducted in the fall, during October and November, to document the condition of the macroinvertebrate community following the summer, a high stress time for streams due to low flows and higher water temperatures. 2 Volunteers receive instruction in the RBV protocol prior to conducting the assessment. Sampling and analysis equipment and supplies, as well as reference materials to aid in identification of organisms, are provided by the DEP. Benthic macroinvertebrates are collected using a large flat bottom net 12 high X 18 wide with a mesh size no larger than a #30 sieve (0.59 mm). Volunteers collect three replicate samples, each consisting of two one square meter collections or kicks, sort and identify the organisms in the field, and document relative abundance of key organisms on official field data sheets for the RBV protocol (see Attachment B). Volunteers also keep a representative voucher collection consisting of at least one of each type of organism found, preserved in 91% isopropyl alcohol. The voucher collection is returned to the DEP along with the data sheets. RBV data sheets are reviewed and voucher collections examined by the DEP Volunteer Monitoring Coordinator. A list of all organisms included in the voucher collection is generated for each sample site, and an overall assessment of the health of the river is made based on the data collected. 3 Organisms listed on the field data sheet but not in the voucher collection are not counted since they cannot be verified. Eight sites have been included in the study. They are listed below, and shown on the attached site maps (Attachments C and D). In the first two years, sites were selected on the Eightmile and East Branch Eightmile Rivers to provide an upstream downstream assessment of each river. The two downstream sites (#s 2 and 4) are also DEP monitoring sites, last sampled as part of DEP s Connecticut River basin survey. 1) Eightmile River at the Deep Hole Picnic Area, Devil s Hopyard State Park, Route 82, East Haddam 2) Eightmile River downstream of the Route 156 crossing, Lyme 3) East Branch Eightmile River off of Walden Road at The Nature Conservancy preserve, Salem 4) East Branch Eightmile River west of Route 156, at the wooden bridge just upstream of the confluence with the Eightmile River, Lyme In subsequent years, smaller tributaries were monitored. Sites were selected in downstream locations of each stream to obtain information about overall stream health given cumulative upstream impacts. 5) Burnhams Brook, just upstream of the Eightmile River confluence, East Haddam 6) Beaver Brook, downstream of driveway crossing, 55 Beaver Brook Road, Lyme 7) Preserve brook (unnamed), at the Preserve trail crossing, Lyme 8) Harris Brook upstream of confluence with the East Branch Eightmile River, at The Nature Conservancy Walden Preserve (about 1 mile from parking lot just off of the trail), Salem 2 Spring assessments were completed at tributary sites from as a point of comparison with the usual fall bioassessment, but not consistently at all sites. 3 DEP website: Eightmile River Rapid Bioassessment Summary Report Page 5

7 Volunteer Recruitment, Training and Participation Bioassessment volunteers were recruited from the community, initially through local contacts and the press. Flyers were sent to members of the Eightmile River Wild and Scenic Study Committee, who passed the word along; local high school science teachers were contacted; and notices were sent to the local newspapers. Each year, volunteers who had helped with previous monitoring activities were invited to participate again. CRWP staff also coordinated with Three Rivers Community College environmental science professor (and member of the Salem Inland Wetlands Agency) Diba Khan Bureau, who involved her students in the assessment activities each year. In fact, in the most recent three years, , she took over responsibility for organizing and coordinating the bioassessment, and conducted several spring assessments with her students as well. For all but the last two years, RBV volunteers received indoor training before splitting up into teams to complete the field assessment. The agenda usually included an introduction to Eightmile River watershed conservation activities and the Wild and Scenic Study; an introduction to the Connecticut River Watch Program and Eightmile River Study; and an overview of the DEP RBV protocol. In 2007 and 2008, student volunteers received training as part of their class. Community volunteers who participated in the later years were experienced and did not need additional training; they sometimes served as team leaders. The RBV effort began in 2001 with a small, dedicated group of twelve volunteers. In the second year the group grew to 25, and in the third and subsequent years over 30 participated. The group topped out at over 50 in 2004, the fourth year of the monitoring effort. Volunteers were grouped into four teams and assigned a specific stream site. Each team was provided with sampling and analysis equipment and supplies: a kick net, gloves, white plastic trays, forceps, hand lenses, ice cube trays (for sorting), field identification cards, a data sheet, and a vial filled with 91% isopropyl alcohol for the voucher collection. Maps were also provided showing the location of each sample site. Teams proceeded to their sites to complete their fieldwork following the training/orientation session. They first identified three different locations in the riffle where samples would be collected, then collected, sorted and identified organisms from each of the three samples. Relative abundance of each RBV organism was recorded on the RBV data sheet, and at least one of each type of organism found was placed in the vial filled with alcohol for the voucher collection. For all but the last year, 2008, DEP and/or CRWP staff circulated between the sites to assist volunteer teams. After completing the fieldwork, volunteers reconvened at a designated spot to turn in their data sheets, voucher collections, and equipment and supplies. Eightmile River Rapid Bioassessment Summary Report Page 6

8 RESULTS Each year, RBV data sheets were reviewed and voucher collections examined by the DEP Volunteer Monitoring Coordinator, Mike Beauchene. A list of all organisms included in the voucher collection was generated for each sample site, and an overall assessment of the health of the river was made based on this list. Annual rapid bioassessment results are summarized and provided in Attachment D. The tables include information about RBV organisms, as well as additional organisms that were included in the voucher collections. Analysis of results focused on numbers of most wanted, moderately wanted and least wanted organisms found. Results were also compared with a reference site, a compilation of data collected from high quality streams. Further, to supplement the RBV organism data, an analysis of the pollution tolerance values of additional organisms found at the site was conducted 4, along with an analysis of total organism diversity 5. It is important to note that weather, in particular rainfall both too little and too much may affect RBV results. Drought conditions resulting in very low stream flows may render previously good riffle habitat uninhabitable by stream invertebrates. And low flows followed by heavy rain make it difficult to determine which riffle areas did have enough water to support invertebrate populations during low flow periods. There were two instances of near drought/drought conditions from that may have affected Eightmile RBV results. Extremely hot and dry weather conditions in the summer of 2005 and near drought conditions resulted in very low flows in most streams entering the fall sampling period. RBV participants were advised by the DEP to visit their sites to check the flow and determine which portions of the stream channel were wet and dry. According to USGS records, flows at the East Branch Eightmile site in North Lyme were below the 25 th percentile in mid September 2005 for the period of record (see Figures 1 and 2). 6 That year, at the site, the smallest of all the streams included in the RBV, volunteers noted on their field data sheet that riffles were absent, there was no flow, and samples were collected from pool areas. Figure 1. Discharge at the USGS East Branch Eightmile River site in North Lyme, 9/1/05 through 10/1/05. Water flows were very low as compared with median daily statistics over the 48 year period of record. 4 The lower the pollution tolerance value, the more wanted the organism 5 In general terms, the greater the total diversity, or types of organisms found, the healthier the community 6 Rapid Bioassessment in Wadeable Streams and Rivers By Volunteer Monitors 2005 Summary Report, CT DEP. Eightmile River Rapid Bioassessment Summary Report Page 7

9 Figure 2. Discharge at the USGS East Branch Eightmile River site in North Lyme, 9/1/05 through 10/31/05. In October, flows recovered after heavy rains (though sampling took place prior to the rain), illustrating the importance of knowing where riffles were dry prior to the rains and sampling. Sampling occurred 10/1/05, while flows were still low In the summer of 2007, Connecticut experienced a severe hydrologic drought. Most streams in the state were below the 5th percentile, with many close to record low flow for the period of record (see Figures 3 and 4). In September, RBV participants were advised by DEP to check their sites before the next significant rain to determine whether and where riffles areas were dry. Because large parts of riffles may have been desiccated, they were instructed to sample the deepest sections of riffles, areas that would have been last to dry out. Samples could not be collected at all at the site in 2007 due to the stream being dry. Figure 3. Discharge at the USGS East Branch Eightmile River site in North Lyme, 9/1/07 through 10/1/07. Many streams in Connecticut were close to record low flow for the period of record. Eightmile River Rapid Bioassessment Summary Report Page 8

10 Figure 4. Discharge at the USGS East Branch Eightmile River site in North Lyme, 9/1/07 through 10/31/07. Despite several spikes in discharge following rain, flows were still below mean flows for the period of record. Sampling occurred 10/13/07 Eightmile River/East Branch Eightmile River Overall, the 2001 and 2002 RBV data from the Eightmile River and East Branch Eightmile River showed good representation among most wanted and moderately wanted RBV organisms, with more limited numbers of least wanted organisms, as seen in Table 1 below. The majority of organisms found were within the moderately wanted category. On average, the sites had 24 42% most wanted organisms; 50 67% moderately wanted organisms; and 0 17% least wanted organisms. The site with the highest number and percentage of most wanted organisms was the downstream East Branch Eightmile River site. Total numbers of RBV organisms varied between averages of 7.5 and The most commonly collected RBV organisms (found in at least three of the four sites both years) were: Perlidae (Panel 5 Common Stonefly Most); Hydropsychidae (Panel 9 Common Netspinner Caddisfly Moderate); Stenonema (Panel 11 Flat headed Mayfly Moderate); Psephenus (Panel 12 Water Penny Beetle Larva Moderate); Odonata (Panel 14 Dragonfly and Damselfly Nymphs Moderate); Based on numbers of most wanted organisms found, the upstream Eightmile River and E. Branch Eightmile River sites have very good water quality (according to DEP interpretation of RBV data); the downstream Eightmile River site has excellent water quality; and the downstream E. Branch Eightmile River site has exceptional water quality. Both downstream sites, with more than 4 most wanted organisms (on average), are in full support of aquatic life use goals. 7 Of note is the fact that many more organisms were recorded on the data sheet than were actually found in the voucher collection. Eightmile River Rapid Bioassessment Summary Report Page 9

11 Table 1. Eightmile/East Branch Eightmile River Results Summary: Annual occurrence of different types of organisms in each RBV category by site, compared with annual average for the years sampled, and a high quality reference site. Sites with 1-3 organisms in the most wanted category the most sensitive to pollution are considered by DEP to have very good water quality; sites with 3-4 most wanted organisms are considered to have excellent water quality; and sites with 5 or more organisms in the most wanted category are considered to have exceptional water quality. Four or more in the most wanted category is used by the DEP to indicate full support of aquatic life use goals Mean Reference 9 Eightmile upstream Most (33%) 7 (47%) Moderate (67%) 6 (40%) Least (0%) 2 (13%) Total RBV Eightmile downstream Most (32%) 7 Moderate (52%) 6 Least (16%) 2 Total E. Branch Eightmile upstream Most (24%) 7 Moderate (59%) 6 Least (17%) 2 Total E. Branch Eightmile downstream Most (42%) 7 Moderate (50%) 6 Least (8%) 2 Total A review of the non RBV organism data provides further evidence of the good health of the Eightmile and East Branch Eightmile Rivers. Over the two years, 11 additional types of organisms were found at the sites (see Table 2). Seven (64%) had tolerance values of 0 2 (most wanted in RBV terms), and the remaining four (46%) had tolerance values of 4 (moderately wanted in RBV terms). There are a few differences worth noting in comparing results from the four sites. For example, higher numbers of most wanted organisms were found at the downstream sites than at the upstream sites on both rivers; generally, one would expect better habitat and quality in upstream areas of rivers due to the effects of cumulative impacts downstream. Further, the downstream E. Branch Eightmile River site compared most favorably with the reference site. In the same vein, as seen in Table 3 below, total diversity (the total number of different types of organisms found (both RBV and non RBV), is highest at both of the downstream sites. 8 Data interpretation information from RBV Field Data Sheet. 9 Reference statistics compiled and provided by Mike Beauchene, CT DEP, based on DEP data from high quality streams around the state, including the Natchaug River, Eightmile River, Sandy Brook, Salmon River, Saugatuck River, Green Fall River and Whitford Brook. Median values for each category are reported here. Eightmile River Rapid Bioassessment Summary Report Page 10

12 Table 2. Eightmile/East Branch Eightmile River Non-RBV Organisms: Types and tolerance values of all non-rbv organisms found by year. There were many more types of pollution sensitive organisms included in the vouchers in 2002 than in Genus/Family Tolerance Median Psilotreta/Odontoceridae 0 x x Leuctridae 0 x Ephemerellidae 1 x Leptophlebiidae 2 x x Ptilodactylidae 2 x x Hexatoma/Tipulidae 2 x Taeniopterygidae 2 x Total sensitive (0-2) Tipulidae 3 x Tipula 4 x Elmidae 4 x x Sialis/Sialidae 4 x Total moderate (3-5) Total Percent sensitive 50% 78% Table 3. Eightmile/East Branch Eightmile River RBV and Non-RBV Organisms: Annual occurrence of different types of RBV and non-rbv organisms by site, with total diversity for each site Eightmile upstream Total RBV 7 8 Non-RBV 1 3 Total Diversity Eightmile downstream Total RBV Non-RBV 4 4 Total Diversity E. Branch Eightmile upstream Total RBV 12 5 Non-RBV 3 4 Total Diversity 15 9 E. Branch Eightmile downstream Total RBV Non-RBV 4 4 Total Diversity Total diversity includes both RBV and non RBV organisms preserved in the voucher collection Eightmile River Rapid Bioassessment Summary Report Page 11

13 Table 4. Eightmile/East Branch Eightmile River Non-RBV Organisms: Tolerance values of non-rbv organisms by site Eightmile upstream Tolerance Value: Tolerance Value: Total Non-RBV 1 3 Eightmile downstream Tolerance Value: Tolerance Value: Total Non-RBV 4 4 E. Branch Eightmile upstream Tolerance Value: Tolerance Value: Total Non-RBV 3 4 E. Branch Eightmile downstream Tolerance Value: Tolerance Value: Total Non-RBV 4 4 With a few exceptions, 2001 results yielded similar conclusions about stream quality as 2002 results. While there was an overall decline in numbers of most wanted organisms in 2002, according to DEP interpretation of the results, water quality did not change from year to year. At two of the sites, there was an increase in overall diversity, while at the other two there was a decline. Further, in 2002 more pollution sensitive non RBV organisms were found than in Different types of sensitive organisms increased from 3 to 7. Also, out of a total of 16 non RBV organisms included in the 2002 voucher collections, 11 (73%) had tolerance values of 0 2, and there were 2 3 found at each site. In 2001 out of a total of 12 non RBV organisms, just 4 (33%) had tolerance values of 0 2, and only 0 2 were found per site. It is difficult to make any definitive conclusions about differences noted between the four sites in individual years, as well as differences seen between 2001 and These differences may be due to more or less thorough sampling and observation techniques related to the level of experience (and patience!) of volunteer teams, as well as the care taken in ensuring that all types of organisms identified were included in the voucher collection, rather than actual differences in the benthic macroinvertebrate communities. Eightmile River Rapid Bioassessment Summary Report Page 12

14 Burnhams Brook, Beaver Brook, Preserve Brook (Unnamed) & Harris Brook With a few exceptions, the RBV data for Burnhams Brook, Beaver Brook, Preserve brook (unnamed), and Harris Brook show good representation among most wanted and moderately wanted RBV organisms, with more limited numbers of least wanted organisms, as summarized in Table 5 (pg. 15). The majority of organisms found were within the moderately wanted category. The sites had median percentages of 27% to 33% most wanted organisms; 42% to 67% moderately wanted organisms; and 5% to 20% least wanted organisms. Median values of total RBV organisms were between 9 and 12. The most commonly collected RBV organisms (found in at least three of the four sites, in seven or more of the eight years) were: Perlidae (Panel 5 Common Stonefly Most) Hydropsychidae (Panel 9 Common Netspinner Caddisfly Moderate) Chimarra (Panel 10 Fingernet Caddisfly Moderate) Stenonema (Panel 11 Flat headed Mayfly Moderate) Nigronia (Panel 13 Fishfly Larva Moderate) Odonata (Panel 14 Dragonfly and Damselfly Nymphs Moderate) Based on median values of most wanted organisms found, streams were in the very good (1 3 most wanted organisms) and excellent (3 4 most wanted organisms) water quality classifications according to DEP interpretation. The Burnhams and Harris Brook sites would be classified as having very good water quality (respective median values of 2.5 and 2 most wanted organisms), and the Beaver Brook and Preserve sites, excellent water quality (respective median values of 3.5 and 3 most wanted organisms). While some of the sites had 4 or more most wanted organisms in individual years thus would be considered as being in full support of aquatic life use goals, none of the sites had four or more on average over the course of the study. Due to relatively lower numbers of most wanted organisms, none of the sites compare very favorably with the reference conditions, although in individual years ( ), Beaver Brook comes closest (see Table 6, pg. 15). Spring data, as summarized in Table 7 (pg. 16), yield somewhat different conclusions about water quality. Based on numbers of most wanted organisms found, the Beaver, Burnhams and Harris Brook sites would be classified as having excellent water quality with median values of 3.5 to 4.0 most wanted organisms, and the Preserve, very good water quality with a median value of 2.5 most wanted organisms. Overall, the Harris Brook site compares most favorably with the reference conditions. Eightmile River Rapid Bioassessment Summary Report Page 13

15 Table 5. Tributary Stream RBV Organisms: Annual occurrence of different types of organisms in each RBV category by site, compared with median value for the years sampled, and a high quality reference site. Sites with 1-3 organisms in the most wanted category the most sensitive to pollution are considered by DEP to have very good water quality; sites with 3-4 most wanted organisms are considered to have excellent water quality; and sites with 5 or more organisms in the most wanted category are considered to have exceptional water quality. Four or more in the most wanted category is used by the DEP to indicate full support of aquatic life use goals Median* Reference Beaver Brook Most (29%) 7 (47%) Moderate (50%) 6 (40%) Least (21%) 2 (13%) Total Preserve brook Most ** (30%) 7 Moderate ** (40%) 6 Least ** (30%) 2 Total ** Burnhams Brook Most (29%) 7 Moderate (59%) 6 Least (12%) 2 Total Harris Brook Most (25%) 7 Moderate (69%) 6 Least (6%) 2 Total * Numbers do not necessarily add up in the median column ** Site not sampled due to low water Table 6. Tributary Stream Most Wanted RBV Organisms: Most Wanted RBV organisms by site Most Wanted RBV # Median Beaver Brook Preserve brook * Burnhams Brook Harris Brook Total * Site not sampled due to low water 11 Data interpretation information from RBV Field Data Sheet. Eightmile River Rapid Bioassessment Summary Report Page 14

16 Table 7. Tributary Stream Spring RBV Organisms: Comparison of spring RBV organisms by site Median* Reference Beaver Brook Most ** 3 ** (32%) 7 (47%) Moderate ** 6 ** (50%) 6 (40%) Least ** 3 ** (18%) 2 (13%) Total Preserve brook Most ** 2 ** (42%) 7 Moderate ** 3 ** (42%) 6 Least ** 1 ** (16%) 2 Total Burnhams Brook Most ** 3 ** (32%) 7 Moderate ** 5 ** (45%) 6 Least ** 1 ** (23%) 2 Total Harris Brook Most (40%) 7 Moderate (50%) 6 Least (10%) 2 Total * Numbers do not necessarily add up in the median column ** Site not included in the spring assessment A review of the non RBV organism data provides further evidence of the good health of the Eightmile River watershed streams (see Tables 8 10). Over the six years, 20 additional types of organisms were found at the sites. Six (30%) had tolerance values of 0 2 (most wanted in RBV terms), twelve (60%) had tolerance values of 3 5 (moderately wanted in RBV terms), one (5%) had a tolerance value of 7 (least wanted in RBV terms), and one had no assigned tolerance value. The median number of pollution sensitive non RBV organisms (tolerance values of 0 2) was 4; moderately sensitive organisms (tolerance values of 3 5), 5; and pollution tolerant organisms, 1. Eightmile River Rapid Bioassessment Summary Report Page 15

17 Table 8. Tributary Stream Non-RBV Organisms: Types and tolerance values of all non-rbv organisms found by year Genus/Family Tolerance Median Psilotreta/Odontoceridae 0 x x x x Ephemerellidae 1 x x x x x x Leptophlebiidae 2 x x x Athericidae 2 x x x Ptilodactylidae 2 x x x Hexatoma/Tipulidae 2 x x x x x Total sensitive (0-2) Helicopsychidae 3 x Neophylax/Uenoidae 3 x Tipulidae 3 x x x x Elmidae 4 x x x x x Baetidae 4 x x x Psychnopsyche/Limnephilidae 4 x x x Limnephilidae 4 x Sialidae 4 x x x Calopterygidae 5 x Dryopidae 5 x Ectopria/Psephenidae 5 x Pyralidae 5 x Total moderate (3-5) Caenidae 7 x Acariformes x Total tolerant (6-10) Total Percent sensitive 44% 55% 33% 27% 75% 100% Eightmile River Rapid Bioassessment Summary Report Page 16

18 Table 9. Tributary Stream RBV and Non-RBV Organisms: Annual occurrence of different types of RBV and non-rbv organisms by site, with total diversity (both RBV and non-rbv organisms) for each site Median Beaver Brook Total RBV Non-RBV Total Diversity Preserve brook Total RBV ** 9 9 Non-RBV ** 2 2 Total Diversity ** Burnhams Brook Total RBV Non-RBV Total Diversity Harris Brook Total RBV Non-RBV Total Diversity Table 10. Tributary Stream Non-RBV Organisms: Tolerance values of non-rbv organisms by site Beaver Brook Median Tolerance Value: Tolerance Value: Total Non-RBV * Preserve brook Tolerance Value: ** 2 1 Tolerance Value: ** 0 1 Total Non-RBV ** 2 2 Burnhams Brook Tolerance Value: Tolerance Value: Tolerance Value: Total Non-RBV 2 7 7* Harris Brook Tolerance Value: Tolerance Value: Total Non-RBV Total sensitive (0-2) Total moderate (3-5) Total tolerant (6-10) * One organism has no tolerance value assigned ** Not sampled due to low water Eightmile River Rapid Bioassessment Summary Report Page 17

19 There are a few differences worth noting in comparing results from the four sites and looking at trends over the years of the study: The Beaver Brook site had consistently higher numbers of most wanted organisms (3 5; median value of 3.5) and RBV organisms overall. Further, non RBV organisms were more commonly collected at the Beaver Brook site, which, for the most part, also had the highest numbers of pollution tolerant non RBV organisms, and the greatest total diversity overall. The Harris Brook site had the lowest numbers of most wanted organisms (2 4; median value of 2), though not the lowest numbers of RBV organisms overall. It also had the fewest numbers of non RBV organisms and the lowest diversity. Interestingly, in the spring it had the highest numbers of most wanted organisms (2 4; median value of 4), though the data aren t comparable since Harris Brook numbers are based on four years of data as opposed to two years for all the other sites. Numbers of most wanted organisms increased overall between 2003 and 2008, but had a significant drop in 2005 and again in 2007, likely due to the low water conditions in those years (and in 2007, due in part to the Preserve stream not being sampled). While impacts from low water were seen in the macroinvertebrate communities at the smaller streams, Burnhams Brook and the Preserve stream, Beaver and Harris Brooks did not appear to be affected. After an overall increase in total diversity between 2003 and 2004, there was a general decline in subsequent years. In 2007 and 2008, there were many fewer types of non RBV organisms collected, although numbers of different types of pollution sensitive organisms were relatively stable over the years. At individual sites, numbers of tended to vary from year to year, resulting in different conclusions about water quality. From , a general upward trend was seen at the Burnhams and Harris Brook sites; an increase then a decline was seen at the Beaver Brook site; and a decline and recovery was seen at the Preserve site. Total numbers of RBV organisms fluctuated from year to year at individual sites in a similar way to most wanted organisms, as did total diversity. It is difficult to make definitive conclusions about the differences between the four sites in individual years, as well as differences seen between 2003 and These differences may be due to more or less thorough sampling and observation techniques related to the level of experience (and patience!) of volunteer teams, as well as the level of care taken in ensuring that all types of organisms identified were included in the voucher collection, rather than actual differences in the benthic macroinvertebrate communities. 12 The differences may also be due to stream size and, in some cases, are the result of weather related impacts. Future rapid bioassessments will help determine whether they reflect actual differences in the benthic macroinvertebrate communities. 12 According to the data recorded by volunteers on the field sheets, there were some types of most wanted organisms found at the sites each year that were not included in the vials. These numbers ranged from 1 7, with only four instances where none were missing. Either these organisms were misidentified, or some types were mistakenly not included in the voucher collections. Eightmile River Rapid Bioassessment Summary Report Page 18

20 RECOMMENDATIONS Overall, the Rapid Biological Assessments conducted from demonstrate the good health and biological diversity of the Eightmile River watershed rivers and streams. While the Eightmile River and tributaries are still relatively pristine, potential concerns and threats to the health of the river and aquatic life identified in stream walk surveys conducted in 1999 and 2000 (among others identified in the Eightmile River Watershed Management Plan) still need to be addressed. They include inadequate stream buffers, adjacent agricultural uses, lawns mowed to the edge of the river, non native invasive plant species, stormwater runoff, and dams. If these concerns and threats are not addressed in a timely way, water quality may be affected. Ongoing monitoring will help assess changes in water quality and stream health over time. As a follow up to this year s monitoring effort in the Eightmile River watershed, general recommendations include: Conduct a Rapid Biological Assessment on an annual basis; Continue to collect of baseline information by conducting physical surveys of additional streams in the watershed; Follow up on stream walk survey data collected, as recommended in the 1999 and 2000 stream walk summary reports; Conduct additional river monitoring activities to assess in stream health, including additional benthic macroinvertebrate surveys, and analysis of water samples for chemical, physical and biological indicators of water quality; Monitor river segments periodically to assess conditions. This could be accomplished through a stream adoption program whereby volunteers make periodic visual observations, and document and report concerns. For assistance and further information, please contact: Connecticut River Coastal Eightmile River Wild & Scenic Coordinating Committee Conservation District Anthony Irving, Chair dekoven House 27 Washington Street 860/ Middletown, CT Pat Young, Wild & Scenic Project Coordinator 860/ / Eightmile River Rapid Bioassessment Summary Report Page 19

21 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Eightmile River Rapid Bioassessment would not have been possible without the assistance of numerous volunteers and cooperating agencies. Our sincere thanks to everyone who contributed to the bioassessment project! Special thanks to Three Rivers Community College professor Diba Khan Bureau who involved her students in Eightmile River watershed assessment activities every year, and took over planning and coordination of the bioassessments beginning in Volunteers Mary Augustiny David Bingham Ed and Linda Bireley Noreen Blaschik Barb and Will Bloomberg Charles and Sky Button Genevieve Cerf Rich Chyinski Jerry Clark Les and Marta Cone Alice Depret Don Exley Charlie Farrow Karl Goldkamp Wendy Goodfriend Barry Gorfain Michele Guertin Len Guitar Jim Hall Anne and Carla Henrici Britanny Hepp Sue Hessel Art Howe Laurie Hoyt Anthony Irving Dustin Kach Diba Khan Bureau Chuck Landrey Jessica Marshall Lorrie Martin Ed Natoli Mike Richardson Eileen Roark Maria Rodrigues John Rozum Joan Smith Ed Sopneski Martha McLaud Tonucci Scott Tucker Dan Wenzel Ashley Wells Betsy Woodward Cub Scout Pack 17, Den #1 (4 th graders) Dane Baird Ben Lord Austin Newsome Webelos Leaders Carol Lord Krista Newsome Salem Webelos II Troop Chris Aquino Todd & Scott Butler Jerry & Joseph Ferraro David & Karl McCarthy Camilla Melnyck Sean Nixon Three Rivers Community College Students David Autencio Davey Berube Cynthia Besade Casey Blake Michele Blake Sarah Bouley Cindy Britt Colby Burns Sarah Cannon Trisha Caputo Daniel Casillas Martin Chance John Ciesluk Nichole Curioso Georgia Davila Nicole Davis Alan DeLusso Rakiah Detoffol Andrea Dimmock Jamie Dombrowski Casey Dougherty Clarence Dupoux Tabitha Eller David Farrell Ada Filippetti Gerard Fontaine Deb & Madison Hatch Dana Gabianelli Alison Glenn Nancy Greenman Michael Grenier Michelle Grohocki Eric Griswold Robert Haubner Lauren Hayes Thomas Holmes Nathan Homiski Sarah Huntley Brittney Jones Elizabeth Jones Christopher Kaminski Laura Kessler Lindsay Khan Adam King Brandon Knieriem Linda Littlefield Jacqueline Labatte Tracey Laroux James LeMay Carol Lord Zachary Madeira Kaitlin Manter Justin Martin William Maruzo Mary Mazzella Amanda McCarthy Irene McKay Adam Mitchell Christopher Moore Andrew Morse Craig Moses Jarrod Nigrelli Melissa Nilsen Anthony Nipper Michael Nowosadko Kaitlyn Occhionero Eightmile River Rapid Bioassessment Summary Report Page 20

22 Three Rivers Community College Students (cont.) Catherine Pampuro Kim Pelkey Abbie Phillips William Aaron Pratt Amand Prezekop Beth Pytlik Erik Quinn Dan Reid Michael Remondi Katherine Roach Maggie Rosenblatt Keri Rowley William Roy Phil Rutigliano Andrew Ryan Roger Saldi Nicole Sangster Kristen Schaefer Amin Shinal Kaitlin Smith Adam Stefon Erik Sweeney Stephan Tutto Brittany Uphold Bob Van Hoesen Mike Warren Liz Welch Rachel Ward Jerome Warner Henry Witt Marium & Ahmad Zahedi Keith Zanardi Timothy Zeppieri Joseph Zorn STRONG CT Students Rita Aguiar Joseph Baretincic Elizabeth Clemmons Jeff Dumais Clarence Dupox Sara Franklin Nicole Izzo Paula Jackson Amanda McCarthy Nikita Peperni Zach Peterson Samantha Pietrowski Paul Simonds Sheri Smith Jordon Rabon Maeve Riden Arcadia Roderick Daniel Rush John Sutherland Larry Turley Kael Wiersch Denise Zevetchin Cooperating Organizations, Businesses and Municipalities Eightmile River Wild and Scenic Study/Coordinating Committee: Special thanks in particular to members Anthony Irving and David Bingham and (former) National Park Service Project Coordinators Kevin Case and Damon Hearne, who assisted in planning the biological assessments, recruiting volunteers, coordinating with the towns to host the training sessions, presenting at the training, and performing the assessments. Municipalities of Lyme and Salem: Special thanks to the both the Town of Lyme and Town of Salem for hosting the volunteer training sessions at their town halls. Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection: Special thanks to Mike Beauchene, who conducted training sessions, provided field equipment, performed quality assurance checks on voucher collections, and compiled and reviewed results. Eightmile River Rapid Bioassessment Summary Report Page 21

23 Attachments A RBV Organism List B RBV Field Data Sheet C Site Maps D Data Summaries

24 Attachment A RBV Organism List Rapid Bioassessment for Volunteers Organism List RBV Panel # Genus Family Order Common Name RBV Category Tolerance Value 1 Drunella Ephemerellidae Ephemeroptera Body-Builder Mayfly 0 2 Isonychia Isonychidae Ephemeroptera Minnow Mayfly 2 3 Epeorus Heptageniidae Ephemeroptera Flat-headed Mayfly 0 4 Peltoperlidae Plecoptera Roach-like Stonefly 0 5 Perlidae Plecoptera Common Stonefly 1 5 Miscellaneous Plecoptera Stonefly 1 6 Apatania Limnephilidae Trichoptera Cornucopia Case Maker 0 6 Glossosoma Glossomatidae Trichoptera Mini-stone Case Maker 0 6 Rhyacophila Rhyacolphilidae Trichoptera Michelin-Man Caddisfly 0 8 Brachycentrus Brachycentridae Trichoptera Mid-size Plant Case Builder 8 Lepidostoma Lepidostomatidae Trichoptera Mid-size Plant Case Builder 9 Hydropsychidae Trichoptera Common Netspinner 4 10 Chimarra Philopotamidae Trichoptera Fingernet Caddisfly 3 11 Stenonema Heptageniidae Ephemeroptera Flat-headed Mayfly 4 12 Psephenus Psephenidae Coleoptera Water Penny Beetle Larva 4 13 Corydalus Corydalidae Megaloptera Dobsonfly Larva 4 13 Nigronia Corydalidae Megaloptera Fishfly Larva 4 14 Aeshnidae Gomphidae Coenagrionidae Odonata Dragonfly, Damselfly Nymphs 15 Amphipod Amphipoda Scud 8 15 Oligochaeta Aquatic Earth Worm 9 15 Isopod Isopoda Sowbug 8 15 Simulidae Diptera Black Fly Larva 6 15 Hirudinea Leech 8 15 Chironomidae Diptera Midge Fly Larva 6 15 Gastropoda Snail 7 MOST MODERATE LEAST 1 1 3

25 Attachment B RBV Field Data Sheet

26 Attachment C Site Maps Eightmile River/East Branch Eightmile River Sites

27 Eightmile River Tributary Sites

28 Attachment D RBV Data Summaries

29 Eightmile River Rapid Bioassessment Summary of Organism Data from 10/20/01 RBV Panel # Genus Family Order Common name RBV Category Tolerance Value Downstream of Rte156 Bridge Lyme Eightmile River Deep Pool Picnic Area off Rte 82 East Haddam Relative Abundance East Branch Eightmile River Near Eightmile R. confluence Lyme 1 Drunella Ephemerellidae Ephemeroptera Body Builder Mayfly 1 some some 2 Isonychia Isonychidae Ephemeroptera Minnow Mayfly 2 many some many many 5 Perlidae Plecoptera Common Stonefly 1 many many many many 6 Apatania Limnephilidae Trichoptera Cornucopia Case Maker 0 few 6 Glossosoma Glossomatidae Trichoptera Mini-stone Casemakers 0 some some 8 Brachycentrus Brachycentridae Trichoptera Mid-size Plant Case Builders 8 Lepidostoma Lepidostomatidae Trichoptera Mid-size Plant Case Builders MOST 1 few 1 some few 9 Hydropsychidae Trichoptera Common Netspinner 4 few few few 10 Chimarra Philopotamidae Trichoptera Fingernet Caddisfly 3 many many many many 11 Stenonema Heptageniidae Ephemeroptera Flat-headed Mayfly 4 some some some 12 Psephenus Psephenidae Coleoptera Water Penny Beetle 4 few few few Larva 13 Corydalus Corydalidae Megaloptera Dobsonfly Larva 6 many 13 Nigronia Corydalidae Megaloptera Fishfly Larva 4 some some 14 Aeshnidae Gomphidae Coenagrionidae Odonata Dragonfly, Damselfly Nymphs MODERATE 3 1 many (Aeshnidae, Gomphidae) few (Aeshnidae, Gomphidae, Coenagrionidae) 15 Amphipod Amphipoda Scud 8 few few 15 Chironomidae Diptera Midge Fly Larva 6 few few 15 Oligochaeta Aquatic Earth Worm 9 few Additional Organisms In Voucher Collection (not on RBV list) - Psilotreta Odontoceridae Trichoptera Strong Casemakers 0 some - Leptophlebiidae Ephemeroptera Pronggills 2 many many - Ptilodactylidae Coleoptera NA 2 some - Tipulidae Diptera Crane Fly Larva 3 many some many many - Sialis Sialidae Megaloptera Alderfly Larva 4 few - Elmidae Coleoptera Riffle Beetle Larva 4 few few some LEAST Off Walden Rd at TNC preserve Salem many (Aeshnidae, Gomphidae) 1 The RBV protocol assigns these organisms an overall tolerance value of 3. The families found have the following tolerance values: Aeshnidae, 3; Gomphidae, 1; Coenagrionidae, 9.