1 / 29

Comparison of Benthic Invertebrate Communities Upstream and Downstream of Proposed Culvert Installations in Alabama

Comparison of Benthic Invertebrate Communities Upstream and Downstream of Proposed Culvert Installations in Alabama. Amy C. Gill USGS, Alabama Water Science Center. Problem.

mauve
Download Presentation

Comparison of Benthic Invertebrate Communities Upstream and Downstream of Proposed Culvert Installations in Alabama

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Comparison of Benthic Invertebrate Communities Upstream and Downstream of Proposed Culvert Installations in Alabama Amy C. Gill USGS, Alabama Water Science Center

  2. Problem • Concerns have arisen concerning the use of culverts at highway crossings of streams. The primary concerns are the culvert’s impact on: • Stream Geomorphology • Suspended Sediment Concentrations • Turbidity • Stream Biology/Ecology

  3. Study Design • ALDOT and USGS are conducting a scientific investigation to determine the impacts of culverts on streams. • Evaluate 8 to 10 proposed culvert construction sites. • Before, during, and post construction • Coastal Plain sites • Basins having little to no anthropogenic influence (stable streams) are targeted. • Data will be used to improve culvert installation, if possible.

  4. Site Selection Eight sites located in Lamar, Tuscaloosa, Bibb, Russell, Choctaw, and Clarke Counties. • Drainage areas range from • 0.39 to 16.4 mi2 • Channel slopes range from • 9 to 65 ft./mi • Channel widths range from • 12 to 35 ft. Stream Ecology Site

  5. Potential Effects of Poor Culvert Design or Placement • Barriers to animal passage • Fish • Invertebrates • Loss of riparian and instream habitat complexity • Reduced downstream movement of large woody debris • Scouring due to increased velocities • Thermal differences • Increased algal growth in response to loss of riparian cover • Shifts in invertebrate communities to scrapers and grazers

  6. Benthic Macroinvertebrates • Sampled as indicator of stream biological/ecological health • Important for food chain • Indicator for measuring sedimentation impact • Both population and diversity important • Site specific – upstream vs. downstream comparison • For pre-construction and post-construction sampling periods

  7. Approach • Collect & identify benthic invertebrates at cross-sections above and below the culvert. • Use functional feeding group information to look at community changes caused by existence of the culvert • Spring/summer collections before and after culvert construction

  8. Methods • Visual survey of available instream habitats both upstream & downstream. • Collection of invertebrates by netting, scraping, brushing from the richest habitats available.

  9. Methods • 500-micron mesh nets and sieves • Composite sample into 5 gallon buckets • Reduced sample volume as much as possible by inspection and removal of larger woody debris • Attempt to keep upstream and downstream sampling efforts comparable • Same number of woody snags, length of root/bank, etc. • Similar amount of sampling time

  10. USGS National Water Quality Laboratory Biological Unit 100-counts of invertebrates were identified from each sample by the USGS National Water Quality Laboratory in Denver, Colorado

  11. The Invertebrate Data Analysis System – IDAS • Summarizes invertebrate data • Calculates sample metrics • Self-archives settings and stores output in Excel files

  12. Analysis • Comparison of upstream and downstream reaches at each site • Are differences observed at all or some of the sites?

  13. Community Metrics • Abundance – numbers of individuals • Total Numbers of Taxa • EPT Taxa – Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera • Tolerance to impaired water quality • Functional Feeding Groups • Similarity Indices

  14. Oakmulgee

  15. Oakmulgee

  16. Northington Branch

  17. Northington Branch

  18. Tributary to Cahaba

  19. Tributary to Cahaba

  20. Preliminary Findings • Most sites have relatively pollution intolerant communities, good abundance and taxa richness values. • Upstream and downstream samples did not reflect nearly identical communities like we had expected. • Feeding group structure seems to show promise as a way to identify changes in the site pairs.

  21. Next Steps • Continue working with this data to see if we can find better ways to see differences and similarities. • Summarize taxa in different ways (ambiguous taxa, metrics at a different taxonomic level) • Look at the changes in this data along with geomorphology and sediment transport data. • Prepare to do post-construction sampling using what we have already learned about these sites.

  22. Questions?

More Related