River Crew 2016 Poster Draft
1
Abstract The primary objective of this annual study was to determine the potential impacts of the Zimmer coal-burning power plant on the Ohio River ecosystem. Physiochemical and biological data were collected from upstream control sites and downstream experimental sites. Fish, as bioindicators, were collected by the use of electrofishing, hoop nets, and gill nets. The modified Ohio River Fish Index (mORFIN) was calculated. Data collected downstream and upstream were comparable in terms of abundance, biomass, and the mORFIN. The physiochemical data were within acceptable water quality standards. The physiochemical data were similar across all sites and followed the typical seasonal pattern for the River. Overall, the results suggest that the Zimmer power plant has had no significant impact on these areas of the Ohio River. Introduction The Ohio River has historically served as an important resource for transportation and the development of the interior United States. Currently, it serves as a major navigation route for commercial products, such as coal and grain. These uses greatly impact the local economy, recreational activity, culture, and the river as a site for environmental education (Vicory and Stephenson 1995). Over the past 150 years, the Ohio River has undergone degradation from coal mining that occurs near the riverbank (Moore 1971). Long term monitoring of the Ohio River, specifically surrounding the 49 power plants along its banks, is important for influencing best management practices to improve or maintain water quality (Lohner and Dixon 2013). Additionally, continuous monitoring provides critical information for fisheries management and overall ecological health of the ecosystem (Lohner and Dixon 2013). Since 1971, the faculty and students at the Thomas More College Biology Field Station has conducted annual studies along the Ohio River to determine potential impacts of the coal-burning Zimmer power plant. The specific objectives of the study were to: • Investigate the physiochemical characteristics of the river, • Conduct a bioassessment of the fish populations Study Area The Zimmer power plant is located on the east bank of the Ohio River (RM 444) in Clermont County, Ohio. The study area consists of four sites near the power: two upstream control sites (Z1 and Z2) and two downstream experimental sites (Z3 and Z4). Methods Conclusions Similar to previous studies, no significant impacts to the Ohio River were detected. The physiochemical data displayed typical trends and fell within water quality standards. The significant difference in conductivity was and Secchi depth was most likely due to the power plant effluent (near Z3) and increased barge traffic. The fish population data were similar across all four locations just as the physiochemical data and displayed no significant difference. These scores indicate that the power plants cause no measureable harm to the river. The ORFIn scores continue to indicate good health of the Ohio River and it’s comeback from historical levels of pollution. Figure 6.: ORFIn scores across all sites We intend to continue our annual monitoring and assessment studies for the foreseeable future. Increasing human populations and the demand for large amounts of clean water place constant stress on our nation’s waterways, including the Ohio River. Because there are few large rivers, there is a great need to not only protect them, but to understand the complex biological interactions and the effects human activity may be having on them. Literature Cited Lohner T. and Dixon D. 2013. The value of long-term environmental monitoring programs: an Ohio River case study. Eniron Monit Assess. 185: 9385 – 9396. Moore, B. 2006. The distribution of Pennsylvanian-age coal particles in recent river sediments, Ohio River, Kentucky, as age and sediment rate indicators. Sedimentology. 17: 135 – 139. Stevenson A.K. and Vicory A.H. 1995. What’s a river worth, anyway? A resource valuation survey of the Ohio River. Water Science and Technology. 32: 63. Acknowledgments We would like to thank DUKE Energy, Particularly Pat Coyle and Tom Patt, for their financial support. We would also like to acknowledge the hundreds of former student contributors over the history of this project. Additionally, we would like to thank the 2016 summer interns who assisted with data collection. For further A bioassessment of the fish populations in the Ohio River near Zimmer power plant Lucas Corbin, Rachel Kaiser, Mitchell Kriege, Emily Richardson, Kristen Slodysko, Amanda Smith, Lane Taul and Chris Lorentz, Ph.D. The Center for Ohio River Research & Education Thomas More College Biology Field Station Figure 2: Electrofishing crew sampling on the Ohio River. ●Z4 Results Over the 4-week study period during the months of June and July, the biological and physiochemical data were collected at all four study sites (Table 1).There is no statically significant difference between the physiochemical data taken at all four sites. The biological data (fish populations) have no observable difference upstream or downstream of the plant. These results are shown below (Figure 4). ● Z3 ● Z2 ● Z1 Figure 1: Zimmer Power Plant and surrounding Study Sites (Z1-Z4). Electrofishing was conducted once at each site, starting at ~10:00pm (Figure 2). The DC method was used, and an amplitude of 8.0 was maintained. The sampling lasted 45-60 minutes during which time the boat moved parallel along the shoreline, covering a 500m area. All available habitats were sampled. Physiochemical parameters were measured twice daily at four sites: Z1, Z2 and Z3, Z4. These measurements included conductivity, dissolved oxygen, pH, temperature (air and water), and turbidity (measured with a Secchi disk). The Ohio River stage levels (ft) were also recorded twice daily, provided by the National Weather Service. Gill nets: Four gill nets, 25 feet in length, were set parallel to the shoreline at each zone weekly and checked twice daily, once in the morning and once at night Hoop Nets: Two hoop nets, small and large sizes, were set at each zone weekly and checked twice daily, once in the morning and once at night. Z4 Z3 Z2 Z1 Site ORFIn mORFIn Score Condition Rating Z1 57.7753996 36.22 Good Z2 53.743044 34.92 Good Z3 54.8290144 29.74 Fair Z4 58.2136066 33.63 Good Site Very Good Average Poor ORFIn score 40-66 30-40 13-30 Blue Catfish Bluegill Su n fish Blunt nose Minnow Channel Catf ish Emerald Shin er Fla thead Cat fish Fre shwater D rum Gizza rd Shad Golde n red horse Highfin Longear Su nfish Lon gnose G ar Mimic Sh iner Northern Hogsucker Qui llback River C a rpsucker River S h iner Sauge r Silver redho rse Smallmouth B uffalo Smallmou th Redhor s e Spotted Bass Str iped Bass White Bass 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 1 6 1 2 1 2 2 43 0 5 5 10 483 0 0 2 41 14 0 2 3 4 0 5 0 0 0 14 2 0 3 49 7 13 1 5 186 2 3 6 56 12 1 4 13 0 1 4 Electrofishing Abundance Upstream Downstream Individuals Figure 5. Species abundance around Zimmer Plant from electrofishing Table 1. Physiochemical data for study sites. Figure 3. Longnose gar caught in a gill net
-
Upload
olivia-williams -
Category
Documents
-
view
5 -
download
0
Transcript of River Crew 2016 Poster Draft
AbstractThe primary objective of this annual study was to determine the potential impacts of the Zimmer coal-burning power plant on the Ohio River ecosystem. Physiochemical and biological data were collected from upstream control sites and downstream experimental sites. Fish, as bioindicators, were collected by the use of electrofishing, hoop nets, and gill nets. The modified Ohio River Fish Index (mORFIN) was calculated. Data collected downstream and upstream were comparable in terms of abundance, biomass, and the mORFIN. The physiochemical data were within acceptable water quality standards. The physiochemical data were similar across all sites and followed the typical seasonal pattern for the River. Overall, the results suggest that the Zimmer power plant has had no significant impact on these areas of the Ohio River.
Introduction The Ohio River has historically served as an important resource for transportation and the development of the interior United States. Currently, it serves as a major navigation route for commercial products, such as coal and grain. These uses greatly impact the local economy, recreational activity, culture, and the river as a site for environmental education (Vicory and Stephenson 1995). Over the past 150 years, the Ohio River has undergone degradation from coal mining that occurs near the riverbank (Moore 1971).
Long term monitoring of the Ohio River, specifically surrounding the 49 power plants along its banks, is important for influencing best management practices to improve or maintain water quality (Lohner and Dixon 2013). Additionally, continuous monitoring provides critical information for fisheries management and overall ecological health of the ecosystem (Lohner and Dixon 2013).
Since 1971, the faculty and students at the Thomas More College Biology Field Station has conducted annual studies along the Ohio River to determine potential impacts of the coal-burning Zimmer power plant. The specific objectives of the study were to:
• Investigate the physiochemical characteristics of the river,• Conduct a bioassessment of the fish populations • Determine any potential impacts of the power plant.
The results from this study were combined with the previous years to assess the status of the Ohio River and document any long-term changes and trends.
Study AreaThe Zimmer power plant is located on the east bank of
the Ohio River (RM 444) in Clermont County, Ohio. The study area consists of four sites near the power: two upstream control sites (Z1 and Z2) and two downstream experimental sites (Z3 and Z4).
Methods
ConclusionsSimilar to previous studies, no significant impacts to the Ohio River were detected. The physiochemical data displayed typical trends and fell within water quality standards. The significant difference in conductivity was and Secchi depth was most likely due to the power plant effluent (near Z3) and increased barge traffic.
The fish population data were similar across all four locations just as the physiochemical data and displayed no significant difference. These scores indicate that the power plants cause no measureable harm to the river. The ORFIn scores continue to indicate good health of the Ohio River and it’s comeback from historical levels of pollution.
Figure 6.: ORFIn scores across all sites
We intend to continue our annual monitoring and assessment studies for the foreseeable future. Increasing human populations and the demand for large amounts of clean water place constant stress on our nation’s waterways, including the Ohio River. Because there are few large rivers, there is a great need to not only protect them, but to understand the complex biological interactions and the effects human activity may be having on them.
Literature CitedLohner T. and Dixon D. 2013. The value of long-term environmental
monitoring programs: an Ohio River case study. Eniron Monit Assess. 185: 9385 – 9396.
Moore, B. 2006. The distribution of Pennsylvanian-age coal particles in recent river sediments, Ohio River, Kentucky, as age and sedimentrate indicators. Sedimentology. 17: 135 – 139.
Stevenson A.K. and Vicory A.H. 1995. What’s a river worth, anyway? Aresource valuation survey of the Ohio River. Water Science andTechnology. 32: 63.
AcknowledgmentsWe would like to thank DUKE Energy, Particularly Pat Coyle and Tom Patt, for their financial support. We would also like to acknowledge the hundreds of former student contributors over the history of this project. Additionally, we would like to thank the 2016
summer interns who assisted with data collection.
For further informationChris Lorentz ([email protected]) or visit: www.thomasmore.edu/fieldstation
A bioassessment of the fish populations in the Ohio River near Zimmer power plantLucas Corbin, Rachel Kaiser, Mitchell Kriege, Emily Richardson, Kristen Slodysko, Amanda Smith, Lane Taul and Chris Lorentz, Ph.D.
The Center for Ohio River Research & EducationThomas More College Biology Field Station
Figure 2: Electrofishing crew sampling on the Ohio River.
●Z4
Results
Over the 4-week study period during the months of June and July, the biological and physiochemical data were collected at all four study sites (Table 1).There is no statically significant difference between the physiochemical data taken at all four sites.
The biological data (fish populations) have no observable difference upstream or downstream of the plant. These results are shown below (Figure 4).
● Z3
● Z2
● Z1
Figure 1: Zimmer Power Plant and surrounding Study Sites (Z1-Z4).
Electrofishing was conducted once at each site, starting at ~10:00pm (Figure 2). The DC method was used, and an amplitude of 8.0 was maintained. The sampling lasted 45-60 minutes during which time the boat moved parallel along the shoreline, covering a 500m area. All available habitats were sampled.
Physiochemical parameters were measured twice daily at four sites: Z1, Z2 and Z3, Z4. These measurements included conductivity, dissolved oxygen, pH, temperature (air and water), and turbidity (measured with a Secchi disk). The Ohio River stage levels (ft) were also recorded twice daily, provided by the National Weather Service.
Gill nets: Four gill nets, 25 feet in length, were set parallel to the shoreline at each zone weekly and checked twice daily, once in the morning and once at night
Hoop Nets: Two hoop nets, small and large sizes, were set at each zone weekly andchecked twice daily, once in the morning and once at night.
Z4
Z3
Z2
Z1
Site ORFInmORFIn
ScoreCondition
Rating
Z1 57.7753996 36.22 Good
Z2 53.743044 34.92 Good
Z3 54.8290144 29.74 Fair
Z4 58.2136066 33.63 Good
Site Very Good
Average Poor
ORFIn score
40-66 30-40 13-30
Blue C
atfish
Blueg
ill Sun
fish
Bluntn
ose Minn
ow
Chan
nel C
atfish
Emera
ld Sh
iner
Flathe
ad Ca
tfish
Freshw
ater D
rum
Gizzard
Shad
Golden
redh
orse
Highfin
Longe
ar Sun
fish
Longn
ose Gar
Mimic S
hiner
Northe
rn Hogsuc
ker
Quillba
ck
River
Carps
ucker
River
Shiner
Saug
er
Silver
redhors
e
Smallm
outh
Buffa
lo
Smallm
outh
Redh
orse
Spott
ed Bass
Stripe
d Bass
White B
ass
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
1 6 1 2 1 2 2
43
0 5 5
10
483
0 0 2
41
140 2 3 4 0
5
0 0 0 14 2 0 3
49
7
13
1 5
186
2 3
6
56
121 4 13
0 1 4
Electrofishing Abundance
Upstream Downstream
Indi
vidu
als
Figure 5. Species abundance around Zimmer Plant from electrofishing
Table 1. Physiochemical data for study sites.
Figure 3. Longnose gar caught in a gill net
