Gilbert Creek Monitoring Report, 2004-2005
By: Becca Spaeth, Michelle Washebek, Meg Marshall,
Jared Pierce, Mike Schwartz,
Sara Schmidt, Matt Rassmussen
Introduction
Gilbert Creek is tributary of the Red Cedar River originating from springs in the Knapp Hills about 12 miles west of Menomonie, Wisconsin. Its origins are three spring-fed branches that converge into one creek near Hwy 29. This stream is relatively healthy due to high flow in spring, but heavy agricultural use over the last 100 years has degraded the stream. Eroded banks are a primary source of sediment deposition on the upper portion of Gilbert Creek.
Table 1. Monitoring sites and parameters measured on Gilbert Creek during summers 2003, 2004 and 2005.
|
Site Name |
Branch |
Year(s) Monitored |
Macroinvertebrates |
Temperature |
|
|
|
|
|
Spring |
Fall |
|
|
1 |
North |
2003 |
|
|
2003 |
|
2 |
North |
2003 |
|
|
2003 |
|
3 |
North |
2003, 04, 05 |
2003, 04 |
2003, 04, 05 |
2003, 04, 05 |
|
4 |
South |
2003 |
|
|
2003 |
|
5 |
Main |
2003 |
|
|
2003 |
|
6 |
Main |
2003 |
|
|
2003 |
|
7 |
North |
2004 |
2003, 04 |
2003, 04, 05 |
2004 |
|
8 |
Middle |
2004 |
2003, 04 |
2003, 04, 05 |
2004 |
|
9 |
South |
2005 |
|
|
2005 |
|
10 |
Main |
2005 |
|
|
2005 |
In 2002 trout laid eggs in the North Branch, but fish survey crews in did not find any newly hatched trout in 2003. These eggs were likely smothered by shifting stream bottom sediment. In the spring of 2003 the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, in conjunction with Trout Unlimited and Dunn County Fish and Game Club volunteers, began work at restoring the North Branch of Gilbert Creek. The overall goal of the restoration is to improve trout habitat in Gilbert Creek for a sustainable fishery. Brook trout require stable stream bottoms for spawning and optimal water temperature of 11¡-16¡ C. Brook trout feed on aquatic macroinvertebrates, crayfish, brook lamprey, sculpin, and other small fish, which all necessitate cold-water streams to survive. Temperatures above 23.8 ¼C can be lethal.
The purpose of this monitoring report is to track changes in water quality of Gilbert Creek as the restoration project progresses.
Methods
Water temperature and macroinvertebrates were monitored in Gilbert Creek during the summers of 2003, 2004, and 2005. Six sites were monitored in 2003, three sites in 2004, and three sites in 2005. To obtain additional baseline data, two of the monitoring sites in 2005 were new (Table 1 and Figure 1).
Macroinvertebrates
Macroinvertebrates were sampled at sites 3, 7, and 8 during spring and fall of 2003 and 2004. They were also sampled at the three 2005 sites in the fall of 2005. The samples were collected in a D-Frame net, preserved in alcohol, and taken back to the lab for sorting and identification to family. The primary index for evaluating the data was the Hilsenhoff Biotic Index (Hilsenhoff, 1988), which provides a qualitative measure of organic loading to streams. Family richness, percent EPT (ephemeroptera- plecoptera- trichoptera: a high percentage of these three families indicate good water quality), and MargalefÕs diversity index (using family richness instead of species richness) were also computed and compared (Table 1).
Temperature
HOBOs (ONSET Corporation) are continuous temperature monitoring devices that were placed in the stream at all sites in 2003 and 2004 for the duration of the summer (75 days). In 2005, temperatures were recorded every half hour with a TidBit (ONSET Corporation), another continuous temperature monitoring device.
Results
Macroinvertebrates
Macroinvertebrates found in each family for the sites in 2004 and 2005 are in the appendix. Macroinvertebrate comparisons of Hilsenhoff family biotic index values, water quality, degree of organic pollution, percent EPT, and MargalefÕs diversity index between 2003 and 2004 are listed in Table 1. Values from the 2005 sites are also included. It should be noted that sample sizes in 2005 were small, slightly more than half of the required size of 100. The 2005 samples were collected by a UW-Stout Biology class and data was tabulated by Mike.
Table 1. Macroinvertebrate summaries on
Gilbert Creek (2003 - 2005)
|
Spring 2004 (9 Jul 04) |
Site 1
|
Site 2-04 |
Site 3-04
|
|
Hilsenhoff FBI |
3.30 |
5.54 |
3.21 |
|
Water Quality |
Excellent |
Fair |
Excellent |
|
Degree of Organic Pollution |
none apparent |
fairly significant |
none apparent |
|
% EPT |
55.0% |
11.0% |
62.0% |
|
Family Richness |
6 |
6 |
5 |
|
Margalef's Diversity Index |
1.09 |
1.09 |
0.87 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fall 2004 (30 Oct 04) |
Site 1
|
Site 2-04 |
Site 3-04
|
|
Hilsenhoff FBI |
2.71 |
5.51 |
3.91 |
|
Water Quality |
Excellent |
Fair |
Very Good |
|
Degree of Organic Pollution |
none apparent |
fairly significant |
possible slight |
|
% EPT |
65.0% |
15.0% |
80.0% |
|
Family Richness |
8 |
8 |
5 |
|
Margalef's Diversity Index |
1.52 |
1.52 |
0.87 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Spring 2003 |
Site 1
|
Site 2-04 |
Site 3-04
|
|
Hilsenhoff FBI |
4.64 |
2.87 |
3.01 |
|
Water Quality |
Good |
Excellent |
Excellent |
|
Degree of Organic Pollution |
some |
none apparent |
none apparent |
|
% EPT |
56.0% |
56.9% |
51.5% |
|
Family Richness |
11 |
12 |
6 |
|
Margalef's Diversity Index |
1.84 |
1.78 |
0.94 |
Fall 2003 |
Site 1
|
Site 2-04 |
Site 3-04
|
|
Hilsenhoff FBI |
5.02 |
4.66 |
4.59 |
|
Water Quality |
Good |
Good |
Good |
|
Degree of Organic Pollution |
some |
some |
some |
|
% EPT |
53.9% |
59.9% |
54.0 % |
|
Family Richness |
10 |
10 |
8 |
|
Margalef's Diversity Index |
1.58 |
1.79 |
1.25 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fall 2005 |
Site 1 |
Site 2-05 |
Site 3-05 |
|
Hilsenhoff FBI |
2.28 |
3.25 |
3.16 |
|
Water Quality |
Excellent |
Excellent |
Excellent |
|
Degree of Organic Pollution |
none apparent |
none apparent |
none apparent |
|
% EPT |
45% |
34% |
41% |
|
Family Richness |
10 |
9 |
6 |
|
Margalef's Diversity Index |
2.24 |
1.94 |
1.25 |
Temperature
Temperature data from the summer 2003 restoration sites (#1, #2, #3) are included in Graph 1. Data from the other three 2003 sites is included in Graph 2. Temperature data for summer 2004 sites 1, 2, and 3 are included in Graph 3. Temperature data from 2005 is included in Graph 5. Since the only site that remained the same from 2003 to 2005 was site #1, Graph 4 compares this site over three years.
Of the restoration sites on the North Branch in 2003, site #3 (above the restoration) showed the highest mean (15.7 ¡C) and maximum (32.3 ¡C) temperatures. In 2004, site #1 (end of restoration) showed the highest mean (14.8 ¡C) and maximum (29.4 ¡C) temperatures. In 2005, site #1 continued a warm trend with a mean of 16.4¡C and a maximum temperature of 23.5¡C.
Figure 2.
Temperature data collected by Onset Corporation HOBOs
in Gilbert Creek
Sites 1, 2, and 3 during summer 2003.
Figure 3.
Temperature data collected by Onset Corporation HOBOs
in Gilbert Creek
Sites at Hwy 29, 200th and 550th during summer 2003.
Figure 4.
Temperature data collected by Onset Corporation HOBOs
in Gilbert Creek
Sites 1 (End of Rest.), 2-04
(Spring), and 3-04 (NewRestoration) during summer 2004.
Figure 5. Comparisons of temperature data
in Gilbert Creek Site 1 during summer
2003 and 2004.
Figure 6.
Comparisons of temperature data on Gilbert Creek Sites 1 (GC 1 2k5)
and
Site 2-05 (GC 2 2k5) during summer 2005.
Table 2. Maximum and
Mean Temperatures on Gilbert Creek from June 14th – August
30th, 2005.
Sites in 2005 |
Temperatures in ¼C |
|
|
|
Max |
Mean |
|
Site 1 |
23.5¡ |
16.4¡ |
|
Site 2-05 |
17.7¡ |
11.8¡ |
Discussion
Since the 2003 restoration on the North Branch of Gilbert Creek, a few small changes have been recorded in the temperature of the stream. In 2003, the lone site above the restoration area (GC 3- 2003) recorded a mean temperature (15.7¼C) at the upper limit of the optimal brook trout temperature (11-16¼C) and a maximum temperature (32.3¼C) well above the survival temperature of brook trout (23.8¼C). The restoration, when it is complete, should result in a lowering of these temperatures downstream.
In 2003, the sites in the middle of the restoration (GC 1 & 2- 2003) both showed temperatures too high for trout survival. In 2004, the site at the lower end of the restoration (GC 1) showed a slight but insignificant decrease in mean temperatures as well as a significant increase in maximum temperatures. This increase may be due to placement of the HOBO. If, in 2003, it were placed in a deep area out of reach of the sun and then in 2004, placed in an area where it would be affected by the sun, the result would have matched our Graph 4. In 2005, the maximum temperature dropped to barely within the survival temperature for brook trout. However, the mean temperature in 2005 rose from the previous two years, placing just outside (16.4¡C) of the optimal brook trout temperature (11-16¡C). The restoration, though it has improved stream features including trout spawning beds and habitat, has not yet affected temperatures of the stream.
The HOBO that measured temperatures in the tributary flowing into the creek (GC2- 2004) recorded very low temperatures (mean 9.3¼C, max 16.7¼C), which suggests that the feeder springs flowing into the creek are not the problem. The HOBO placed in the South Branch of the creek also recorded very low temperatures (mean 11.8¡C, max 17.7¡C), which are well within optimal brook trout survival.
In 2003, the HOBO placed in the Middle Branch of Gilbert
Creek (Hwy 29) recorded optimal temperatures for trout survival. The two placed
in the main branch (200th and 550th , 2003) show
significant increases in temperatures, resulting in waters in which trout
cannot survive. Unfortunately, data was lost in the 2005 collection at GC3. The
Middle and South Branches are not contributing to these lowered temperatures.
Therefore, the restoration on the North Branch should show significant
decreases in the overall stream temperatures and water quality downstream as
well.
Macroinvertebrate data suggests that the restoration has improved the stream. In the site at the end of the restoration, Hilsenhoff scores improved significantly in 2004, going from ÒgoodÓ to Òexcellent.Ó This shows that more tolerant macroinvertebrates can now survive in the stream, meaning more food for trout to feed on. 2005 scores show ÒexcellentÓ at all three sites, but as noted before, the sample sizes were small and cannot be equally comparable to the other samples.
Conclusions
After three years of study on the Gilbert Creek restorations, the stream has not yet shown significant improvements in water temperatures. However, habitat and sediment-loading have been improved in the stream, which is shown in the macroinvertebrate data. Macroinvertebrate improvements, along with lowered water temperatures and recovered stream banks and fish cover, will have lasting long-term effects on Gilbert Creek, eventually making it back into the trout stream it once was.
Future studies on the creek should be performed to continue to track changes relating to the restoration. Care should be taken to choose sites that correlate with the sites studied here, for purposes of data comparison.
References
Hilsenhoff, W.L. 1988. Rapid field assessment of organic pollution with a family-level biotic index. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 7(1):65-68.
Acknowledgments
Thanks to Ken Schreiber (Water Resource Specialist), Dan Simonson, and John Sours (Fisheries Biologist) of the Western District of the Wisconsin DNR, as well as Jean Schomisch, supervisor of the Eau Claire County Land Conservation Department for direction, instruction, and guidance in this project.
Appendix 1. Macroinvertebrate family specimens
found in Gilbert Creek (2004 and 2005)
Spring 2004, 9 July 04
|
|||||
|
Site 2-04 |
Site 1 |
Site 3-04 |
|||
|
Chironomidae |
2 |
Baetidae |
9 |
Baetidae |
11 |
|
Corydalidae |
1 |
Brachycentridae |
46 |
Brachycentridae |
50 |
|
Gammaridae |
77 |
Chironomidae |
2 |
Elmidae |
6 |
|
Limnephilidae |
11 |
Elmidae (10A,4L) |
14 |
Gammaridae |
32 |
|
Physidae |
4 |
Gammaridae |
28 |
Pteronarcidae |
1 |
|
Tipulidae |
5 |
Tipulidae |
1 |
|
|
|
Total |
100 |
Total |
100 |
Total |
100 |
|
|
|||||
Fall 2004, 30 Sep 2004
|
|||||
|
Site 2-04 |
Site 1 |
Site 3-04 |
|||
|
Baetidae |
4 |
Baetidae |
1 |
Baetidae |
46 |
|
Chironomidae |
2 |
Brachycentridae |
56 |
Brachycentridae |
31 |
|
Elmidae |
1 |
Elmidae |
6 |
Elmidae |
1 |
|
Gammaridae |
69 |
Gammaridae |
25 |
Gammaridae |
19 |
|
Limnephilidae |
11 |
Glossosomatidae |
6 |
Hydropsychidae |
3 |
|
Physidae |
5 |
Hydropsychidae |
2 |
|
|
|
Planorbidae |
1 |
Physidae |
2 |
|
|
|
Tipulidae |
7 |
Tipulidae |
2 |
|
|
|
Total |
100 |
Total |
100 |
Total |
100 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fall 2005 |
|||||
|
Site 1 |
Site 2-05 |
Site 3-05 |
|||
|
Athericidae |
1 |
Baetidae |
3 |
Baetidae |
5 |
|
Baetidae |
2 |
Belostomatidae |
2 |
Brachycentridae |
14 |
|
Belostomatidae |
2 |
Brachycentridae |
14 |
Gammaridae |
27 |
|
Brachycentridae |
9 |
Gammaridae |
35 |
Limnephilidae |
3 |
|
Gammaridae |
20 |
Hydrophilidae |
1 |
Physidae |
4 |
|
Limnephilidae |
14 |
Hydropsychidae |
1 |
Sialidae |
1 |
|
Nepidae |
1 |
Limnephilidae |
3 |
|
|
|
Physidae |
3 |
Nepidae |
1 |
|
|
|
Sialidae |
3 |
Physidae |
2 |
|
|
|
Tipulidae |
1 |
|
|
|
|
Total
|
56 |
Total |
62 |
Total |
54 |