Ecosystem Services Technical Report - July 2007

Ecosystem Services Technical Report - July 2007 Robert P. Brooks, Ph.D., Editor Authors: Tara Mazurczyk, Peter Backhaus, Jesus Ruiz-Plancarte, Ramzi Tubbeh, Zheng Lin, Travis Young, Timothy Gould, Josh Wisor, Kyle Clark (Penn State - GEOG 550 Wetlands Ecology and Management course, Spring 2017) 1

Background Centred Outdoors project is described by the originators as follows (www.centredoutdoors.org): The Centred Outdoors programs directly tie ClearWater Conservancy s desire to engage people in conservation and protection of our bountiful natural resources here in the heart of central Pennsylvania. We know that getting outside is good for your mind, body and spirit. Getting outside is also good for conservation, helping build a love of place that occurs when you know and explore these places. Centred Outdoors will help engage and build an audience wanting to learn, explore and protect the local gems we have in our own backyards. Centred Outdoors will connect people to nature while benefitting both! Centred Outdoors is an open invitation for people of all ages and fitness levels to explore nine outdoor destinations in Centre County, Pennsylvania, throughout the summer of 2017. Clearwater Conservancy, along with many partnering organizations announces registration for free guided adventures at nine outdoor destinations around Centre County during the summer of 2017. Centred Outdoors is made possible by the 2016 Centre Inspires grant, awarded to ClearWater Conservancy by Centre Foundation. Clearwater Conservancy partnered with many community organizations to develop and implement the program, including Mount Nittany Health, Centre Moves, Penns Valley Conservation Association, Penn State Sustainable Communities Collaborative, Millbrook Marsh Nature Center, Get Outdoors PA, Spring Creek Chapter Trout Unlimited, and Mount Nittany Conservancy. Emily Gates, Director of Strategic Partnerships at PA Recreation & Park Society explains, Centred Outdoors establishes the platform needed to unite various partners in health, conservation and recreation to achieve a common goal with immediate and long-term effects. Centred Outdoors destinations include the Arboretum at Penn State, Bald Eagle State Park, Black Moshannon State Park, Barrens to Bald Eagle Wildlife Corridor, Millbrook Marsh Nature Center, Mount Nittany, Poe Paddy Tunnel, Spring Creek Canyon, and Talleyrand Park. Ecosystem Services As part of Centred Outdoors, we were asked to estimate the ecosystem services of the nine outdoor destinations. The information is being posted, along with information on health benefits, on kiosks located at each of the nine sites. The project was taken on by the students and instructor of GEOG 550 Wetlands Ecology and Management course during the Spring of 2017. Ecosystem services are components of nature, directly enjoyed, consumed, or used to yield human well-being (Boyd and Banzhaf 2006). We chose to explore the following set of services: carbon storage, floodwater storage, water quality, recreation, bird biodiversity, and fish biodiversity. The class creatively found ways to estimate the level of ecosystem services using existing data and information. Methods and the data used are described in the following sections. Boyd, J. and S. Banzhaf. 2007. What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units. Ecological Economics 63:616-626. 2

Carbon Storage and Land Use Tara Mazurczyk & Peter Backhaus General Description Greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide are increasing in the atmosphere as a result of increases in atmospheric activity. There is a pressing need to minimize the emission of carbon dioxide because studies have shown that this greenhouse gas is causing warming and resultant climate change. Major emitters of carbon dioxide include combustion of fossil fuels (from power plants, cars, and planes), land use changes (conversion of forest to agriculture or residential land, for example), and industrial processes (production of cement, metals, chemicals, etc.). In relation to sources of carbon emission, many landscapes serve as carbon sinks. Vegetation and soil, in particular, can store copious amounts of carbon in an organic form. The vegetation layer captures carbon dioxide during photosynthesis, storing it within plant leaves, stems, and roots. When vegetation decays, portions become part of the soil layer and contribute to the soil s organic matter content. All ecosystems have the ability to store carbon, but the amount of carbon each system can theoretically stock varies greatly amongst landcover types. For example, in natural forests, large quantities of tree biomass increase the potential carbon uptake of that ecosystem (Brooks and Wardrop 2013). Conversely, agricultural landscapes have a lower carbon storage potential due to crop production and tillage practices, which elevate the likelihood of erosion and accelerate rates of decomposition (Freibauer et. al. 2004). Here, we provide carbon storage estimates for nine sites within the Centre County region of Pennsylvania as part of the Centred Outdoors project. Sites are organized by geographical location and by key landscape features to identify the relationship between carbon storage potential and landscape dynamics. Results highlight forested and wetland ecosystems as prominent carbon sinks and are, therefore, critical environs for reducing effects of global warming. Methods There were several limitations attributed to measuring carbon storage for each site. Since no prior studies were completed for the nine designated sites, we were limited as far as specific tree measurements (tree diameter at breast height, tree height, tree species) for aboveground carbon storage and soil samples (percent soil organic matter, soil texture, soil bulk density, soil type) for soil carbon storage. Therefore, our calculations are only rough estimates. They do, however, allow us to compare relative differences amongst the sites. We measured the area of each landcover type in acres using the 2016 National Landcover Dataset (NLCD) for each of the nine sites. Open water, developed open space, developed urban (merging developed medium and developed high), barren land, deciduous forest, evergreen forest, mixed forest, grassland/pasture, and cultivated crops (merging the numerous agricultural crops listed in the NLCD). Wetland areas per site and site boundaries were provided to us by the 3

Health & Environment Challenge (HEC) organizers; GIS layers and site boundaries were provided by Alexandra (Lexie) Orr of the ClearWater Conservancy. We used the site boundaries as the clipping area mechanism for evaluating landcover variables. Conducting a comprehensive literature review, we found a series of carbon storage metrics (multipliers for each landcover type) listed below along with a table highlighting metric sources: Table 1. Carbon storage metrics for different land uses. Carbon Storage Metrics (tc/ha) Above-ground Below-ground Soil Wetland 47.0 9.6 709.0 Forest 61.0 12.5 106.3 Grassland/Pasture 7.0 1.4 260.0 Crops 1.0 0.2 89.0 Barren land 1.0 0.2 20.0 Developed Urban 15.0 3.1 10.0 Developed Open 20.0 4.0 40.0 Table 2. Literature sources for carbon storage metrics. Carbon Storage Sources Above-ground Below-ground Soil Wetland Botkin et al. 1993 Forest Botkin et al. 1993 Grassland/Pasture Botkin et al. 1993 Crops Barren land Developed Urban Developed Open Dalsgaars et al. 2016 Dalsgaars et al. 2016 Nowak & Crane 2002 Nowak & Crane 2002 Santantonio et al. 1977, MacDicken 1997, Ponce-Hernandez et al. 2004 Santantonio et al. 1977, MacDicken 1997, Ponce-Hernandez et al. 2005 Santantonio et al. 1977, MacDicken 1997, Ponce-Hernandez et al. 2006 Santantonio et al. 1977, MacDicken 1997, Ponce-Hernandez et al. 2007 Santantonio et al. 1977, MacDicken 1997, Ponce-Hernandez et al. 2008 Santantonio et al. 1977, MacDicken 1997, Ponce-Hernandez et al. 2009 Santantonio et al. 1977, MacDicken 1997, Ponce-Hernandez et al. 2010 Gorte 2009, Birdsey 1992 Gorte 2009 Gorte 2009 Gorte 2009 Jobbagy & Jackson 2000 Pouyat et al. 2006 Pouyat et al. 2006 To reduce any error associated with using landcover as the primary component driving carbon storage, a percentage was measured across the nine sites for both aboveground and soil carbon pools. For instance, in aboveground carbon storage for developed urban areas, there was a total of 472.5 metric tons of carbon for all sites the average metric tons of carbon for each site was divided by the total for all sites to create a percentage value. By processing the data using this 4

method, our sites can more easily be compared, and we do not misrepresent any one particular site. It is difficult to relate carbon storage by site since site areas vastly vary from 3 to 5,750 acres - the larger the site, the larger carbon storage capacity it is likely to have; this does not account for site quality since a small site could have larger trees, but the area extent of another site could outweigh this. Nonetheless to provide viewers with an understanding of site dynamics and the impact of landscape heterogeneity, aboveground carbon storage per site is emphasized in terms of trees (i.e., a site with 5 trees roughly equates to 5 metric tons of carbon). The carbon storage of a standard mature sycamore tree (averaging 1 metric ton per tree) was used to define carbon storage through the number of trees. Additionally, we measured belowground carbon storage, but we removed this carbon pool from our final dataset since belowground is directly proportional to aboveground carbon storage, and thus, the graphs for percent aboveground and percent belowground carbon storage for the different landcover types would be the same. References Birdsey, R. A. (1992). Carbon storage and accumulation in United States forest ecosystems. Botkin, D. B., Simpson, L. G., & Nisbet, R. A. (1993). Biomass and carbon storage of the North American deciduous forest. Biogeochemistry, 20(1), 1-17. Brooks R. and Wardrop D. (2013). Mid-Atlantic Freshwater Wetlands: Advances in Wetlands Science, Management, Policy, and Practice. Springer Science+Business Media, New York. Dalsgaard, L., Lange, H., Strand, L. T., Callesen, I., Borgen, S. K., Liski, J., & Astrup, R. (2016). Underestimation of boreal forest soil carbon stocks related to soil classification and drainage 1. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 46(12), 1413-1425. Freibauer, A., Rounsevell, M. D., Smith, P., & Verhagen, J. (2004). Carbon sequestration in the agricultural soils of Europe. Geoderma, 122(1), 1-23. Gorte, R. W. (2009). Carbon sequestration in forests. DIANE Publishing. Jobbágy, E. G., & Jackson, R. B. (2000). The vertical distribution of soil organic carbon and its relation to climate and vegetation. Ecological applications, 10(2), 423-436. MacDicken, K. G. (1997). A guide to monitoring carbon storage in forestry and agroforestry projects. Nowak, D. J., & Crane, D. E. (2002). Carbon storage and sequestration by urban trees in the USA. Environmental pollution, 116(3), 381-389. Ponce Hernandez R., Koohafkan P., & Antoine J. (2004). Assessing Carbon Stocks and Modelling Win Win Scenarios of Carbon Sequestration through Land use Changes. Food and Agriculutre Organization of the United Nations. Pouyat, R. V., Yesilonis, I. D., & Nowak, D. J. (2006). Carbon storage by urban soils in the United States. Journal of environmental quality, 35(4), 1566-1575. Santantonio, D., Hermann, R. K., & Overton, W. S. (1977). Root biomass studies in forest ecosystems. Pedobiologia. 5

Land Use To determine carbon storage and other aspects of the nine sites included in Centred Outdoors, we obtained the GIS coverages (GIS layers and site boundaries were provided by Alexandra (Lexie) Orr of the ClearWater Conservancy). The overall area of each site and the relative coverage of land uses determine what vegetation types were present, and hence, allowed a conversion to amount of carbon stored in vegetation. For example, forests will necessary have more carbon stored due to the large amount of biomass contained in the boles, branches, leaves, and root systems of trees. Table 3. Land use by site in acres derived from GIS coverage of 2011 National Land Cover Data. 6

Flood Storage Tara Mazurczyk & Jesus Ruiz-Plancarte General Description A flood storage area is comprised of a floodplain and/or other habitats such as wetlands that naturally storage water (i.e., surface runoff, precipitation, stream discharge) within a given watershed. By infiltrating runoff and acting as holding basins, flood storage areas can reduce the amount and duration of flooding in the floodplain immediately downstream (WDNRFP 2015). When an area lacks proper flood storage, sedimentation, erosion, and infrastructure damage may result. Thus, areas capable of performing flood desynchronization (the slow release of flow into receiving waters to reduce downstream flood peaks) are less likely to encounter degradation effects. Wetlands are a great example of natural flood storage systems that act as sponges that hold and slow the release of water. Vegetation also plays a large role in reducing the speed and distribution of floodwaters. More and larger stems break up the flow paths and lengthen the time water is retained in the floodplain or accompanying depressions. Other than landcover composition, geographic, geologic, and hydrologic position are significant factors that cumulatively determine the magnitude and likelihood of flooding in a given area. Soil typology, for example, indirectly relates water infiltration to flooding frequency where a clay dominant soil will less readily prevent water infiltration, increasing surface water runoff in that area. Thus, calculating the amount of runoff expected along a waterway within a watershed and the resultant volume is necessary to determine how much regional discharge a flood storage area is capable of holding back. Here, we measure a rough estimate of the flood storage capacity of the nine sites within Centre County, Pennsylvania, organizing sites by geographical location and by key landscape features to identify the relationship between flood storage and landscape dynamics. Results highlight large forested ecosystems as prominent areas for flood storage and that drier sites had a lower flood risk than larger areas and wetland areas. Methods Similar to evaluating carbon storage potential for each of the nine sites, flood storage was difficult to accurately measure without the availability of flood depth data. Therefore, we applied a standard 1-foot depth to all volumetric calculations, typical in many studies but note that flood depth, particularly in wetlands, can exceed this measure by a multiple of four or more (Cernohous 1979). Water area was calculated in ArcMap using water area boundaries provided by Alexandra (Lexie) Orr of one of the project leaders, the ClearWater Conservancy. We added the water area to areas within the site boundaries deemed floodplain, using the 100-year and 500- year floodplain data from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to generate a total water storage area layer. The total area was multiplied by 1 foot to estimate volume in acrefoot (ac-ft). Volume in ac-ft was emblemized using the number of Olympic swimming pools, which is portrayed as 2.026786 ac-ft or 2500 m 3 (total volume per site /2.026786). 7

Due to the limitations in measuring flood storage, we devised a scoring system to more comprehensively evaluate flood risk for each site based on landcover type and coverage. Three metrics were used to create the flood risk score that ranges from 0.0 1.5 and are subsequently categorized into none, low, moderate, and high flood risk. Flooding frequency is the first metric used that provides an estimate of flood frequency as one of four classes: (1) None one chance out of 500 of flooding in any year or less than 1 time in 500 years, (2) Rare 1-5% chance of flooding in any year or nearly 1 to 5 times in 100 years, (3) Occasional 5-50% chance of flooding in any year or 5 to 50 times in 100 years, and (4) Frequent more than 50% chance of flooding in any year but less than 50% chance in all months in any year (i.e., 50 times in 100 years). Created by the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, the SSURGO dataset measures flood frequency by using various soil characteristics to distinguish areas of concern. Resistance to flow (slowing speed and distribution of water) is the second metric used that examines the influence of percent forest cover in relation to an area s ability to alter flood desynchronization the more vegetation present, the greater resistance there is for water to flow across the landscape. Therefore, the more resistance to flow observed on site, the less likely there is to be issues of flooding since the landscape can readily absorb water. Wetland/Stream contribution is the third metric used that evaluates the capacity of an area to store water. For example, a steep upland site with no wetlands will provide less flood storage than a relatively flat site with wetlands and floodplains present. And so, the percent of wetlands and streams per site was used to calculate this metric. The culmination of flooding frequency, resistance to flow, and wetland/stream contribution creates a final flood risk score, which is then categorized for simplicity four unitless categories (Table 2 below). References Cernohous L. (1979). The Role of Wetlands in Providing Flood Control Benefits. US Fish and Wildlife Services, Bismarck Area Office, Bismarck, North Dakota. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Floodplain Program (WDNRFP). (2015). Flood Storage Area Frequently Asked Questions. Jefferson County. 8

9

Water Quality and Designated Uses Ramzi Tubbeh & Zheng Lin General Description Wetlands treat or remove pathogens, metals, excessive organic compounds and sediments from bodies of water (Brooks, Snyder, & Brinson, 2013; Millenium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005; Reddy & D Angelo, 1994). This ecosystem service has important ecological and human health benefits. By removing waterborne pollutants, wetlands prevent their accumulation in the food chain and sources of drinking water, thereby reducing risks of illness (Millenium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005). Various other threats are mitigated in the process. Acid mine drainage alters the acidity of water, leads to the suffocation of stream substrates with metal precipitates, and may kill most wildlife or at least reduce biodiversity. Wetland soils mitigate these effects by neutralizing acidity levels, while microbial communities process toxic metals, converting them to less harmful forms (Brooks et al., 2013). Excess nitrate and nitrite loads from agricultural runoff can accumulate in bodies of water downstream, leading to eutrophication a phenomenon characterized by algal blooms and reduced concentration of dissolved oxygen, which result in aquatic life die-outs (Jordan, Stoffer, & Nestlerode, 2011). Soil microbes in wetlands significantly reduce these excess loads through a process called denitrification, whereby nitrate and nitrite are converted to atmospheric nitrogen gas and water (Brooks et al., 2013; Jordan et al., 2011; Reddy & D Angelo, 1994). In addition, wetland vegetation reduces downstream water turbidity and pollutants by intercepting sediments and phosphorus or pollutants adhered to sediments (Brooks et al., 2013). Nevertheless, wetlands are not immune to the environmental stressors they treat. Their water purification function can be overwhelmed by excessive pollutant loads or constrained by structural alterations (Millenium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005). For example, high sedimentation in wetlands eliminates the penetration of sunlight and decreases the germination of plants, burying vegetation. With less vegetation and wetland debris, the system loses its capacity to intercept sediments. Similarly, increased runoff upstream of the wetland may result in faster water flows, providing less time for microbes to perform denitrification (Brooks et al., 2013). Clearly, while a healthy wetland provides an effective buffer against various forms of water pollution, a degraded wetland is impaired in its capacity to purify water (Millenium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005). Thus, the reduction of stressors in and upstream of wetland sites is key to maintaining this valuable ecosystem service. Methods The attaining status of the designated uses of the water bodies in five sites that had sufficient aquatic habitats (Black Eagle State Park, Black Moshannon State Park, Spring Creek Canyon, Penns Creek, and Millbrook Marsh) were examined to reveal the water quality. The water purification capacity of an impaired wetland is overwhelmed by pollutants or other 10

perturbations. Therefore, such a body of water has a reduced capacity for water purification. Maps and charts show the proportion of streams in each site that are not attaining their designated uses (i.e., proportion of streams impaired). Designated use 1 is a use that state and federal governments have determined should be attained in a given waterbody, regardless of whether the waterbody could support the use at the time of designation (It might be helpful to think of these as desired uses). For example, a water body may be designated by state regulations for aquatic life support even though it might not contain a healthy aquatic ecosystem now. Designated uses are determined following a number of criteria, including the support of current uses, supporting fishing and swimming to a practicable extent, and consideration of economic and social factors. The following is a list of common designated uses. Drinking water supply (DWS) Water-based recreation (R) Full body contact; noncontact (FBC/NC) Fishing/fish consumption (FC) Aquatic life (AL) Warm water species/habitat (WWS) Cold water species/habitat (CWS) Agriculture water supply (AWS) Industrial water supply (IWS) Cultural/Spiritual Uses (C) Impaired body of water 1 is a body of water is impaired if it does not meet the minimum chemical, physical, or biological water quality standards for its particular designated uses. However, the condition impaired or not impaired does not reflect the water quality itself and should, therefore, be considered an approximation. For example, an impaired wetland could be contributing significantly to floodwater storage, but insufficiently to water purification. On the other hand, if water entering the wetland is already relatively purified, the non-impaired condition of a wetland may overestimate a function that is only marginally being performed. 1 Source: EPA. Introduction to the Clean Water Act. https://cfpub.epa.gov/watertrain/pdf/modules/introtocwa.pdf 11

The information and data were obtained from the 2014 Pennsylvania Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report 2, incorporated with ArcGIS to display the precise location of water body as well as highlight the impaired stream or lake. The overall water quality assessment result was shown in Table 3 below. Figure 1 shows the stream length of the impaired and the unimpaired stream within the site. 2 Source: PA DEP Bureau of Clean Water, Integrated Water Quality Report 2014 http://www.dep.pa.gov/business/water/cleanwater/waterquality/pages/integrated-water-quality-report- 2014.aspx 12

Table 4. Water Quality assessment by site Site Spring Creek Canyon stream: Spring Creek Bald Eagle State Park lake - Foster Joseph Sayers Lake stream - Bald Eagle Creek Millbrook Marsh stream: Slab Cabin Run Penns Creek Canyon stream: Penns Creek Black Moshannon lake: Black Moshannon State Park Lake stream: Black Moshannon Creek Designated use AL AL/FC/DWS/R R AL AL/R R/FC AL Status Impaired attained Impaired Impaired attained Impaired attained Source industrial point source - unknown Urban runoff/storm sewers Flow regulation / modification Golf courses Grazing related agriculture - unknown - Cause organic enrichment/ Low D.O. - pathogens Siltation, flow alterations, thermal modifications - Pollutants - Impaired Area (ac)/ Length (mi) 2.406-0.143 1.03-394.12 - Total lake area (ac)/ stream length in site (miles) 5.45 1730 20.58 1.39 22.69 394.12 7.19 % impaired within site 44.15% - 0.69% 73.88% - 100.00% - 13

25 20 length (mi) 15 10 5 0 Spring Creek Canyon Bald Eagle State Park Millbrook Marsh Penns Creek Canyon Black Moshannon unimpaired stream length Impaired stream length Figure 1. Unimpaired stream length versus impaired stream length by site, for sites with adequate stream extent and data. The impaired stream designation is based on water quality standards of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to conform with the federal Clean Water Act and state regulations. 14

Recreation Travis M. Young General Description Pennsylvania, in general, and the Centre Region, in particular, provide for an abundance of recreation activities that capitalize on the state s diverse landscapes and wildlife offerings. Visitors take advantage of hiking trails, world-class trout streams, and the many boating opportunities in improving healthy lifestyles, connecting with nature, and enjoying the wide array of flora and fauna in the region. According to a survey conducted for the 2014-2019 Pennsylvania Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (PSCORP, 2014), Pennsylvania residents continued to have high participation rates in hiking and gathering (i.e., picnicking) activities, and also saw substantial gains in birding and other wildlife observation pursuits. The survey also noted a desire for more biking trails, educational opportunities, and designated wildlife viewing areas (PSCORP, 2014). In total, the Centre Region offers a plethora of hiking, fishing, boating, and gathering opportunities as illustrated by the nine Centred Outdoors sites (Table 4). We organized the sites by geography, size, and wetness showing the connections between recreation opportunities, landscape dynamics, and wildlife biodiversity. Our results highlight forested and wetland ecosystems as prominent areas for recreation and biodiversity. Methods Without site-specific survey or count data, there were many limitations in determining usage and participation rates for specific recreation activities. Therefore, our evaluation consisted of documentary research, utilizing historical and current management strategies, conservation plans, and previously conducted user surveys. We provide recreation icons for each of the nine Centred Outdoors site posters and kiosks indicating recreation activities listed on official websites and planning and management documents (see Appendix A). Moving forward, we recommend that site-specific usage surveys could contribute to the marketing, educational, and conservation goals of the program providing a richer understanding of residents behaviors and wants/needs. References 2014-2019 Pennsylvania Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan. 2014. Land and Water Conservation Fund; National Park Service. Bellefonte Historical and Cultural Association. 2017. http://www.bellefontearts.org/. Accessed February April 2017. Benner Township. 2009. The Spring Creek Canyon Conservation Strategy. Benner Township and the PA Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. Centre Region Parks and Recreation. 2017. http://www.crpr.org/. Accessed February April 2017. Mt. Nittany Conservancy. 2017. https://mtnittany.org/. Accessed February April 2017. 15

PA Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. 2017. http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/. Accessed February April 2017. Penn State Arboretum. 2017. https://arboretum.psu.edu/. Accessed February April 2017. Pennsylvania Trout Fishing Survey. 2008. Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission. Protection and Management Plan for the Millbrook Marsh Nature Center. 1998. http://millbrook.crpr.org/mgmt- Plan/00MP-Index.html. Accessed February 2017. Table 5. Recreational activities at the nine sites featured in Centred Outdoors. 16

General Description Citizen Assessment of Biodiversity through Birding Timothy J. Gould Biodiversity, commonly conceptualized as the number and variety of species within a given area of interest, can be defined in many different ways. One can consider taxonomic diversity (i.e., the number of different species present), functional diversity (i.e., the number of different functions performed by the species present), or even morphological diversity (i.e., the number of different phenotypes of each species present). Regardless of how biodiversity is being assessed, ecologists generally agree that increased biodiversity leads to greater ecological health and stability (Heywood & Watson 1995). Aside from these environmental benefits, biodiversity has been shown to benefit human society directly in numerous ways. Often, people will associate an increase in biodiversity with an increase in aesthetic value. In addition, an increase in biodiversity almost always generates an increase in the potential for outdoor recreational activities (Wilson 1989). Birding has been cited by many popular news sources as one of the fastest growing hobbies in North America (Strassmann 2010; Kozicka 2015). This is likely due to the low cost of entry, the minimal equipment required, and because it presents an opportunity for those involved in getting outdoors and connecting with nature. It is also a recreational activity that is significantly enhanced by increased biodiversity. As bird diversity at a given location increases, birders will have the opportunity to observe a wider variety of species, and their experience will presumably be enhanced. Methods The goal of this portion of the assessment was to estimate absolute and relative bird diversity at each of the nine sites, and convey this information to constituents in a meaningful yet digestible format. To accomplish this, observational data (i.e., species lists) were collected from ebird, an online tool used by birders to track their observations. Each site s species list was divided into 10 functional groups (Generalist Species, Specialist Species, Waterbirds, Waterfowl, Wetland Birds, Upland Game Birds, Woodpeckers, Hummingbirds, Shorebirds, Birds of Prey), and the proportion of the total number of species in each functional group at each site was calculated. These functional groups served both to make the list more accessible to the average visitor, and to provide a quick overview of the types of birds one might expect to see. They also give some sense of the types of habitats present at each site (e.g., a site with a large diversity of shorebirds will likely contain significant open water). A visual presentation of the relative sizes of the functional groups at each site was generated in Excel using a stacked bar chart and a bird outline. A bar chart showing the proportion of the 17

total number of species in each functional group at a given site was created for each site (nine total). The outline of the bird was laid over these charts, and the bars were clipped to fit inside the outline. The relative width of the bars within the outline represents the relative size of the corresponding functional group at the site of interest. Finally, the Pennsylvania Wildlife Action Plan was consulted to determine the number of bird species of conservation concern that occurred over all nine sites (PA Fish and Boat Commission, PA Game Commission, PA Department of Conservation and Natural Resources). Conclusion As with any project relying on data collected by citizen scientists, there is some degree of uncertainty in the results of this study. Much of the accuracy of a given list is dependent on the aptitude of the individual birder, and more popular and accessible sites will generally have more (and more thorough) data. A more robust assessment of biodiversity at these sites might involve serial field surveys by teams of professional wildlife biologists. However, there is a trade-off involved, as the data utilized here were free to access and collected in a matter of minutes. In the future, it will be up to the project supervisors to determine whether or not a more in-depth study is desired. By consulting the graphics generated for this project, visitors to these sites will be able to quickly and easily assess both bird diversity and their interest in birding at a given site. This marriage of ecological, aesthetic, and recreational ecosystem service information into a single image will hopefully communicate how interrelated these values are, and the multifunctional character of many components of the natural world. References Heywood, Vernon Hilton, and Robert T. Watson. Global biodiversity assessment. Vol. 1140. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. Kozicka, Patricia. "Birding hobby soars in popularity across North America." Global News. N.p., 06 May 2015. Web. 01 May 2017. "PA.Gov." Pennsylvania Wildlife Action Plan. PA Fish and Boat Commission. Web. 01 May 2017. Strassmann, Mark. "The Second Fastest Growing Hobby is... Birding?" CBS News. CBS Interactive, 15 Sept. 2010. Web. 01 May 2017. Wilson, Edward O. "Threats to biodiversity." Scientific American 261.3 (1989): 108-116. 18

Assessment of Biodiversity from Fish Surveys Josh Wisor & Kyle Clark A fish list was generated by searching an existing Microsoft Access database of historic scientific fish collection across the state of Pennsylvania spanning from the mid-1900s until today (developed and maintained by J. R. Stauffer s Laboratory, Pennsylvania State University). The database was queried for results based on the 12 digit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC-12) that corresponded to each site that potentially contained sufficient aquatic habitats to support fish communities. Some sites are encompassed by the same HUC-12, such as Spring Creek and Talleyrand Park; thus, these sites fish lists are identical. The number of records corresponding with each site ranged from 0 at the Penn State Arboretum to 1,911 at Bald Eagle State Park. The fish list for each site was the separated into Families in order to gauge the biodiversity at each site at the Family level. Overall 57 species of fish were observed over all the sites represented by 10 Families. Black Moshannon had the highest number of Families with 10, whereas Millbrook Marsh had the lowest number with only 6. See Appendix A for a list of fish species by site. 19

Appendix A Centred Outdoors Site Maps Ecosystem Services Posters Associated Graphics Fish Species Lists 20

± Hay Grassland / Old Field Habitat Vernal Pools Trails Corridor Boundary Parking Vernal Pools Developed, Open Space Developed, Low Intensity Deciduous Forest Pasture/Hay Cultivated Crops Wildflower Meadow / Pollinator Planting Tree & Shrub Planting Forest Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community Barrens to Bald Eagle Wildlife Corridor Halfmoon Township, PA 1 inch = 400 feet Feet 0 200 400 800

± Trails Freshwater Emergent Wetland Open Water Evergreen Forest Roads Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland Developed, Open Space Mixed Forest State Park Boundary Freshwater Pond Developed Pasture/Hay Riverine Wetland Barren Land (Rock/Sand/Clay) Cultivated Crops Deciduous Forest Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community Bald Eagle State Park Howard, PA & Liberty, PA 1 inch = 4,000 feet Feet 0 2,000 4,000 8,000

± Roads Trails State Park Boundary Freshwater Emergent Wetland Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland Freshwater Pond Riverine Wetland Open Water Developed, Open Space Developed Barren Land (Rock/Sand/Clay) Deciduous Forest Evergreen Forest Mixed Forest Shrub/Scrub Grassland/Herbaceous Pasture/Hay Cultivated Crops Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community Black Moshannon State Park Rush, PA 1 inch = 3,000 feet Feet 0 1,500 3,000 6,000

± Trails Parking Property Boundary Freshwater Emergent Wetland Riverine Wetland Devoped, Open Space Developed Deciduos Forest Pasture/Hay Cultivated Crops Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community Millbrook Marsh Nature Center College, PA 1 inch = 700 feet Feet 0 350 700 1,400

± Conservancy Boundary Riverine Wetland Developed, Open Space Developed Deciduous Forest Evergreen Forest Mixed Forest Pasture/Hay Cultivated Crops Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community Mount Nittany College Township 1 inch = 1,600 feet Feet 0 750 1,500 3,000

± Trails Freshwater Emergent Wetland Open Water Evergreen Forest Boundary Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland Developed, Open Space Mixed Forest Parking Riverine Wetland Developed, Low Intensity Cultivated Crops Private Property Deciduous Forest Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community Penns Creek Penn, PA & Haines, PA 1 inch = 1,400 feet Feet 0 700 1,400 2,800

± Parking Tree Areas Arboretum Boundary Riverine Wetland Developed, Open Space Developed Deciduous Forest Evergreen Forest Mixed Forest Pasture/Hay Cultivated Crops Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community The Arboretum at Penn State University Park, PA 1 inch = 1,600 feet Feet 0 800 1,600 3,200

± Boundary Freshwater Emergent Wetland Freshwater Pond Riverine Wetland Open Water Developed, Open Space Developed Barren Land (Rock/Sand/Clay) Deciduous Forest Evergreen Forest Mixed Forest Pasture/Hay Cultivated Crops Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community Spring Creek Canyon Benner, PA 1 inch = 3,000 feet Feet 0 1,500 3,000 6,000

± Trails Parking Park Boundary Trees Riverine Wetlands Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community Tallyrand Park Bellefonte, PA 1 inch = 250 feet Feet 0 125 250 500

Ecosystem Services Posters 21

22

23

Associated Graphics Carbon Storage Poster Legend 24

Water Quality & Flood Storage Poster Legend 25

Recreation Icons 26

Bird Icons 27

Fish Icons 28

Fish Species Lists Barrens to Bald Eagle Corridor Common Name Family Genus Species HUC-12 Name White Sucker Catostomidae Catostomus commersonii Halfmoon Creek Slimy Sculpin Cottidae Cottus cognatus Halfmoon Creek Pearl Dace Cyprinidae Margariscus margarita Halfmoon Creek Creek Chub Cyprinidae Semotilus atromaculatus Halfmoon Creek Western Blacknose Dace Cyprinidae Rhinichthys atratulus Halfmoon Creek Longnose Dace Cyprinidae Rhinichthys cataractae Halfmoon Creek Bluntnose Minnow Cyprinidae Pimephales notatus Halfmoon Creek Common Shiner Cyprinidae Luxilus cornutus Halfmoon Creek Tessellated Darter Percidae Etheostoma olmstedi Halfmoon Creek Brook Trout Salmonidae Salvelinus fontinalis Halfmoon Creek Brown Trout Salmonidae Salmo trutta Halfmoon Creek Penn State Arboretum NONE Bald Eagle State Park Common Name Family Genus Species HUC-12 Name American Eel Anguillidae Anguilla rostrata Bald Eagle Creek-Marsh Creek (BEC-MC) Northern Hog Sucker Catostomidae Hypentelium nigricans BEC-MC White Sucker Catostomidae Catostomus commersonii BEC-MC Rock Bass Centrarchidae Ambloplites rupestris BEC-MC Redbreast Sunfish Centrarchidae Lepomis auritus BEC-MC Pumpkinseed Centrarchidae Lepomis gibbosus BEC-MC Largemouth Bass Centrarchidae Micropterus salmoides BEC-MC Smallmouth Bass Centrarchidae Micropterus dolomieu BEC-MC Bluegill Centrarchidae Lepomis macrochirus BEC-MC White Crappie Centrarchidae Pomoxis annularis BEC-MC Black Crappie Centrarchidae Pomoxis nigromaculatus BEC-MC Smallmouth Bass Centrarchidae Micropterus dolomieu BEC-MC Slimy Sculpin Cottidae Cottus cognatus BEC-MC Mottled Sculpin Cottidae Cottus bairdii BEC-MC Common Carp Cyprinidae Cyprinus carpio BEC-MC 29

Cutlips Minnow Cyprinidae Exoglossum maxillingua BEC-MC Fallfish Cyprinidae Semotilus corporalis BEC-MC Blacknose Dace Cyprinidae Rhinichthys atratulus BEC-MC Longnose Dace Cyprinidae Rhinichthys cataractae BEC-MC Comely Shiner Cyprinidae Notropis amoenus BEC-MC Spottail Shiner Cyprinidae Notropis hudsonius BEC-MC Swallowtail Shiner Cyprinidae Notropis procne BEC-MC Rosyface Shiner Cyprinidae Notropis rubellus BEC-MC Central Stoneroller Cyprinidae Campostoma anomalum BEC-MC Bluntnose Minnow Cyprinidae Pimephales notatus BEC-MC Fathead Minnow Cyprinidae Pimephales promelas BEC-MC Satinfin Shiner Cyprinidae Cyprinella analostana BEC-MC Spotfin Shiner Cyprinidae Cyprinella spiloptera BEC-MC Common Shiner Cyprinidae Luxilus cornutus BEC-MC Goldfish Cyprinidae Carassius auratus BEC-MC Golden Shiner Cyprinidae Notemigonus crysoleucas BEC-MC Creek Chub Cyprinidae Semotilus atromaculatus BEC-MC River Chub Cyprinidae Nocomis micropogon BEC-MC Tiger Muskellunge Esocidae Esox lucius x masquinongy BEC-MC Margined Madtom Ictaluridae Noturus insignis BEC-MC Yellow Bullhead Ictaluridae Ameiurus natalis BEC-MC Brown Bullhead Ictaluridae Ameiurus nebulosus BEC-MC Channel Catfish Ictaluridae Ictalurus punctatus BEC-MC Tessellated Darter Percidae Etheostoma olmstedi BEC-MC Shield Darter Percidae Percina peltata BEC-MC Fantail Darter Percidae Etheostoma flabellare BEC-MC Yellow Perch Percidae Perca flavescens BEC-MC Walleye Percidae Sander vitreus BEC-MC Tiger Trout Salmonidae Salmo trutta x Salvelinus intergeneric BEC-MC fontinalis Rainbow Trout Salmonidae Oncorhynchus mykiss BEC-MC Brown Trout Salmonidae Salmo trutta BEC-MC Brook Trout Salmonidae Salvelinus fontinalis BEC-MC Black Moshannon State Park Common Name Family Genus Species HUC-12 Name Bowfin Amiidae Amia calva Black Moshannon Creek (BMC) American Eel Anguillidae Anguilla rostrata BMC 30

Creek Chubsucker Catostomidae Erimyzon oblongus BMC White Sucker Catostomidae Catostomus commersonii BMC Northern Hog Sucker Catostomidae Hypentelium nigricans BMC Pumpkinseed Centrarchidae Lepomis gibbosus BMC Rock Bass Centrarchidae Ambloplites rupestris BMC Bluespotted Sunfish Centrarchidae Enneacanthus gloriosus BMC Bluegill Centrarchidae Lepomis macrochirus BMC Largemouth Bass Centrarchidae Micropterus salmoides BMC Black Crappie Centrarchidae Pomoxis nigromaculatus BMC Slimy Sculpin Cottidae Cottus cognatus BMC Golden Shiner Cyprinidae Notemigonus crysoleucas BMC Creek Chub Cyprinidae Semotilus atromaculatus BMC Blacknose Dace Cyprinidae Rhinichthys atratulus BMC Longnose Dace Cyprinidae Rhinichthys cataractae BMC Common Carp Cyprinidae Cyprinus carpio BMC Cutlips Minnow Cyprinidae Exoglossum maxillingua BMC Fallfish Cyprinidae Semotilus corporalis BMC River Chub Cyprinidae Nocomis micropogon BMC Tiger Muskellunge Esocidae Esox lucius x BMC masquinongy Northern Pike Esocidae Esox lucius BMC Chain Pickerel Esocidae Esox niger BMC Muskellunge Esocidae Esox masquinongy BMC Margined Madtom Ictaluridae Noturus insignis BMC Brown Bullhead Ictaluridae Ameiurus nebulosus BMC Tessellated Darter Percidae Etheostoma olmstedi BMC Fantail Darter Percidae Etheostoma flabellare BMC Yellow Perch Percidae Perca flavescens BMC Brown Trout Salmonidae Salmo trutta BMC Brook Trout Salmonidae Salvelinus fontinalis BMC Tiger Trout Salmonidae Salmo trutta x BMC intergeneric Salvelinus fontinalis Rainbow Trout Salmonidae Oncorhynchus mykiss BMC Penns Creek Common Name Family Genus Species HUC-12 Name American Eel Anguillidae Anguilla rostrata Penns Creek-Coral Run (PC-CR) Northern Hog Sucker Catostomidae Hypentelium nigricans PC-CR White Sucker Catostomidae Catostomus commersonii PC-CR Smallmouth Bass Centrarchidae Micropterus dolomieu PC-CR Rock Bass Centrarchidae Ambloplites rupestris PC-CR Redbreast Sunfish Centrarchidae Lepomis auritus PC-CR Bluegill Centrarchidae Lepomis macrochirus PC-CR Pumpkinseed Centrarchidae Lepomis gibbosus PC-CR Black Crappie Centrarchidae Pomoxis nigromaculatus PC-CR Smallmouth Bass Centrarchidae Micropterus dolomieu PC-CR Slimy Sculpin Cottidae Cottus cognatus PC-CR Mottled Sculpin Cottidae Cottus bairdii PC-CR Cutlips Minnow Cyprinidae Exoglossum maxillingua PC-CR Fallfish Cyprinidae Semotilus corporalis PC-CR 31

Blacknose Dace Cyprinidae Rhinichthys atratulus PC-CR Longnose Dace Cyprinidae Rhinichthys cataractae PC-CR River Chub Cyprinidae Nocomis micropogon PC-CR Rosyface Shiner Cyprinidae Notropis rubellus PC-CR Common Shiner Cyprinidae Luxilus cornutus PC-CR Common Carp Cyprinidae Cyprinus carpio PC-CR Creek Chub Cyprinidae Semotilus atromaculatus PC-CR Spottail Shiner Cyprinidae Notropis hudsonius PC-CR Bluntnose Minnow Cyprinidae Pimephales notatus PC-CR Spotfin Shiner Cyprinidae Cyprinella spiloptera PC-CR Blacknose Shiner Cyprinidae Notropis heterolepis PC-CR Chain Pickerel Esocidae Esox niger PC-CR Margined Madtom Ictaluridae Noturus insignis PC-CR Yellow Bullhead Ictaluridae Ameiurus natalis PC-CR Brown Bullhead Ictaluridae Ameiurus nebulosus PC-CR Tessellated Darter Percidae Etheostoma olmstedi PC-CR Yellow Perch Percidae Perca flavescens PC-CR Shield Darter Percidae Percina peltata PC-CR Greenside Darter Percidae Etheostoma blennioides PC-CR Banded Darter Percidae Etheostoma zonale PC-CR Walleye Percidae Sander vitreus PC-CR Johnny Darter Percidae Etheostoma nigrum PC-CR Brown Trout Salmonidae Salmo trutta PC-CR Brook Trout Salmonidae Salvelinus fontinalis PC-CR Tiger Trout Salmonidae Salmo trutta x Salvelinus intergeneric PC-CR fontinalis Palomino Trout Salmonidae Oncorhynchus mykiss PC-CR Millbrook Marsh Common Name Family Genus Species HUC-12 Name White Sucker Catostomidae Catostomus commersonii Slab Cabin Run Bluegill Centrarchidae Lepomis macrochirus Slab Cabin Run Largemouth Bass Centrarchidae Micropterus salmoides Slab Cabin Run Slimy Sculpin Cottidae Cottus cognatus Slab Cabin Run Pearl Dace Cyprinidae Margariscus margarita Slab Cabin Run Goldfish Cyprinidae Carassius auratus Slab Cabin Run Cutlips Minnow Cyprinidae Exoglossum maxillingua Slab Cabin Run Creek Chub Cyprinidae Semotilus atromaculatus Slab Cabin Run Western Blacknose Dace Cyprinidae Rhinichthys atratulus Slab Cabin Run Longnose Dace Cyprinidae Rhinichthys cataractae Slab Cabin Run Tessellated Darter Percidae Etheostoma olmstedi Slab Cabin Run Rainbow Trout Salmonidae Oncorhynchus mykiss Slab Cabin Run Brown Trout Salmonidae Salmo trutta Slab Cabin Run Brook Trout Salmonidae Salvelinus fontinalis Slab Cabin Run 32

Mount Nittany, Spring Creek Canyon & Talleyrand Park Common Name Family Genus Species HUC-12 Name American Eel Anguillidae Anguilla rostrata Spring Creek Northern Hog Sucker Catostomidae Hypentelium nigricans Spring Creek White Sucker Catostomidae Catostomus commersonii Spring Creek Rock Bass Centrarchidae Ambloplites rupestris Spring Creek Bluegill Centrarchidae Lepomis macrochirus Spring Creek Pumpkinseed Centrarchidae Lepomis gibbosus Spring Creek Largemouth Bass Centrarchidae Micropterus salmoides Spring Creek Black Crappie Centrarchidae Pomoxis nigromaculatus Spring Creek Smallmouth Bass Centrarchidae Micropterus dolomieu Spring Creek Slimy Sculpin Cottidae Cottus cognatus Spring Creek Mottled Sculpin Cottidae Cottus bairdii Spring Creek Golden Shiner Cyprinidae Notemigonus crysoleucas Spring Creek Common Carp Cyprinidae Cyprinus carpio Spring Creek Goldfish Cyprinidae Carassius auratus Spring Creek Cutlips Minnow Cyprinidae Exoglossum maxillingua Spring Creek Fallfish Cyprinidae Semotilus corporalis Spring Creek Creek Chub Cyprinidae Semotilus atromaculatus Spring Creek Western Blacknose Dace Cyprinidae Rhinichthys atratulus Spring Creek Longnose Dace Cyprinidae Rhinichthys cataractae Spring Creek River Chub Cyprinidae Nocomis micropogon Spring Creek Spottail Shiner Cyprinidae Notropis hudsonius Spring Creek Rosyface Shiner Cyprinidae Notropis rubellus Spring Creek Emerald Shiner Cyprinidae Notropis atherinoides Spring Creek Central Stoneroller Cyprinidae Campostoma anomalum Spring Creek Bluntnose Minnow Cyprinidae Pimephales notatus Spring Creek Fathead Minnow Cyprinidae Pimephales promelas Spring Creek Common Shiner Cyprinidae Luxilus cornutus Spring Creek Muskellunge Esocidae Esox masquinongy Spring Creek Amur Pike Esocidae Esox reichertii Spring Creek Chain Pickerel Esocidae Esox niger Spring Creek Brown Bullhead Ictaluridae Ameiurus nebulosus Spring Creek Tessellated Darter Percidae Etheostoma olmstedi Spring Creek Greenside Darter Percidae Etheostoma blennioides Spring Creek Fantail Darter Percidae Etheostoma flabellare Spring Creek Yellow Perch Percidae Perca flavescens Spring Creek Brown Trout Salmonidae Salmo trutta Spring Creek Brook Trout Salmonidae Salvelinus fontinalis Spring Creek Tiger Trout Salmonidae Salmo trutta x Salvelinus fontinalis intergeneric Spring Creek Palomino Trout Salmonidae Oncorhynchus mykiss Spring Creek 33