WILLISTOWN CONSERVATION TRUST

DONATE

State of Our Streams Report Chapter 1: Introduction and Basic Stream Parameters

By

By Anna Willig and Lauren McGrath | Willistown Conservation Trust Watershed Protection Program

Cover Photo by Jennifer Mathes

The focus area of Willistown Conservation Trust  (WCT) includes over 190 miles of headwater streams in the Darby Creek, Crum Creek, and Ridley Creek watersheds, which are all tributaries to the Delaware River. Everything that happens in the headwaters of a stream impacts the rest of the system, meaning that any action taken in the WCT focus area has consequences for water quality that extend far beyond our region. 

The Watershed Protection Program was established in 2017 through a generous grant from William Penn Foundation and a strong partnership with the Academy of Natural Sciences of Drexel University. The Watershed Protection Program is part of the Delaware River Watershed Initiative (DRWI), which was established to study existing water conditions within the Delaware River basin and to coordinate efforts, around both data collection and analysis, to develop best management practices for land use that can help improve water quality. With the support of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Drexel University and Stroud Water Research Center, WCT Watershed Protection staff implemented a water quality monitoring program to understand how WCT’s conservation efforts have impacted local stream health. 

Since 2018, the Watershed Protection Program has monitored water quality at ten sample sites in the headwaters of Darby, Crum, and Ridley Creeks (Figure 1). Every four weeks, the team visited each of the ten sites to take in-stream measurements and collect samples for analysis in the lab. We are proud to present our findings on water quality based on analysis of our data collected from 2018 through 2021, which includes 41 monitoring visits and over 7,500 different measurements. 

August is National Water Quality month, and each week we will publish excerpts from one chapter of our report. The full report, which includes more information than is provided in the blog posts, will be released at the end of the month. This week, we are focusing on three parameters that make up the backbone of water quality monitoring: water temperature, dissolved oxygen, and pH.

The full report, which includes more information than is provided in the blog posts, can be found here.

_____________________________________________

Figure 1. Willistown Conservation Trust’s water chemistry sampling sites. Five sample locations are within the Ridley Creek watershed, four are within the Crum Creek Watershed, and one is within the Darby Creek Watershed. Sampling was conducted at each site every four weeks from January 2018 through December 2021.

In the headwater streams studied for this report, water temperature is driven by air temperature, causing strong seasonal variation, with near-freezing temperatures in the winter and high temperatures in the summer. Water temperature is also linked to land use. The removal of trees along streams exposes streams to direct sunlight, warming the water. Additionally, parking lots, roads, and sidewalks all absorb heat in the summer and warm up rainfall before it enters streams, further raising water temperatures. Elevated water temperature is of concern due to its relationship with dissolved oxygen in streams. In waterways, dissolved oxygen represents the amount of oxygen available for use by aquatic organisms. As temperature increases, water can hold less dissolved oxygen, meaning there may not be enough for all organisms living in the stream.  

Another key benchmark for stream health is pH, which measures how acidic or basic the water is. If water is too acidic or basic, it becomes toxic for many aquatic organisms, even if water temperature is not too high and there is enough dissolved oxygen. Thus, measuring water temperature, dissolved oxygen, and pH can quickly reveal how hospitable streams are for aquatic life.

Results from analysis of our data indicate that water temperature is an impairment at our sample sites. Temperature is elevated at all sample sites, especially during summer months, stressing sensitive aquatic organisms such as trout and freshwater mussels. Dissolved oxygen does not drop below levels deemed unsafe for aquatic life, but it is not high enough during summer months to support the reproduction of trout populations. pH remains within the range deemed safe for aquatic life, though it can approach dangerous levels at some sites. 

For a primer on statistical tests and how to read boxplots and scatterplots, click here.

Water Temperature

Figure 2. Water temperature from January 2018 through December 2021 (a) across ten sample sites in the headwaters of the Darby, Crum, and Ridley Creeks and (b) over time. The lines represent maximum allowable temperatures for a Cold Water Fishery (CWF), Trout Stocked Fishery (TSF), and Warm Water Fishery (WWF). 

Water temperature is the primary parameter by which the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection designates protected uses for streams. Water temperature is closely linked to the amount of dissolved oxygen in the water and, consequently, different species can tolerate different temperatures. The three protected uses that have temperature criteria are Cold Water Fisheries, Warm Water Fisheries and Trout Stocked Fisheries. A Cold Water Fishery supports the survival and reproduction of Salmonidae fish species (including Brook Trout, Salvelinus fontinalis) and other aquatic flora and fauna that require a cold water habitat, while a Warm Water Fishery supports the survival of fish and aquatic flora and fauna that can tolerate a warmer habitat.1 A Trout Stocked Fishery supports the survival of stocked trout from February 15 to July 31 in addition to all the species supported by a Warm Water Fishery.1

There are no significant differences in water temperature between sample sites (Figure 2a). Water temperatures are regularly above Cold Water Fishery maximums at all sample sites throughout the year. In winter and spring months, water temperatures can exceed Warm Water Fishery and Trout Stocked Fishery maximums during unseasonably warm days. During summer months, water temperatures are consistently below Warm Water Fishery maximums but occasionally exceed Trout Stocked Fishery maximums during heat waves. The frequency with which temperature exceeds Cold Water Fishery requirements and the occasional exceedance of Warm Water Fishery and Trout Stocked Fishery maximums signifies that all sites are impaired by elevated temperature (Figure 2b). This stresses sensitive organisms such as Brook Trout, freshwater mussels, and stream insects like mayflies, stoneflies, and caddisflies.

Dissolved Oxygen

Figure 3. Dissolved oxygen content from January 2018 through December 2021 (a) across ten sample sites in the headwaters of the Darby, Crum, and Ridley Creeks and (b) over time.

All living animals require oxygen to breathe, and stream-dwelling organisms like fish and aquatic insects are no exception. Dissolved oxygen is temperature dependent. Cold water can hold a higher concentration of dissolved oxygen than warm water; consequently, dissolved oxygen is highest in the winter and lowest in the summer (Figure 3b). Dissolved oxygen is also related to photosynthesis. As aquatic primary producers, or plants and algae, photosynthesize during the day, they increase the amount of dissolved oxygen in the water. Conversely, as these producers cease photosynthesis at night, they consume oxygen through respiration, decreasing the amount of dissolved oxygen in the water. As a result, dissolved oxygen follows a daily cycle, rising during the day and falling during the night.2

The amount of dissolved oxygen in the water impacts the reproduction and survival of many species. If dissolved oxygen drops below a certain level, aquatic organisms will be too stressed to reproduce. If it drops further, these organisms may suffocate and die. The dissolved oxygen standard for a Cold Water Fishery, according to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, depends on the presence or absence of naturally reproducing fish in the Salmonidae family, which includes all trout species. To the best of our understanding, none of the sampled streams have naturally reproducing salmonids, so the dissolved oxygen standards for a Cold Water Fishery are at least 6.0 mg/L over a 7-day average with a minimum of 5.0 mg/L at any given time.3 Dissolved oxygen has not dropped below 7.0 mg/L at any sample sites, but all measurements were taken during daylight hours and do not capture nighttime dissolved oxygen minimums. Consequently, it is unclear whether dissolved oxygen is within the range of a Cold Water Fishery at the sample sites. 

There are significant differences in dissolved oxygen between sites, with significantly higher dissolved oxygen  at Ridley Creek at Okehocking Preserve (RCOK1) than at Crum Creek Main Stem Upstream (CC2) and Darby Creek at Waterloo Mills (DCWM1) (Figure 3a). This difference is likely due to sampling time: RCOK1 is sampled in the afternoon, when photosynthesis is highest and dissolved oxygen peaks, while CC2 and DCWM1 are sampled in the morning, when there is less photosynthesis and dissolved oxygen is consequently lower. However, Ridley Creek State Park (RCSP1) and Crum Creek Main Stem Downstream (CC3) are also sampled in the afternoon and are not significantly higher than DCWM1 and CC2, suggesting that other factors, in addition to photosynthesis, may explain the differences in dissolved oxygen at these sites.

pH

Figure 4. Stream pH from January 2018 through December 2021 (a) across ten sample sites in the headwaters of the Darby, Crum, and Ridley Creeks and (b) over time.

Another important water quality parameter is pH, which measures how acidic or basic water is. A pH of 7.0 is neutral, a pH below 7.0 is acidic, and a pH above 7.0 is basic. pH determines how easily an aquatic organism can use nutrients and indicates how toxic pollutants may be. To qualify as a protected fishery by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, a stream must have a pH between 6.0 and 9.0.3 When pH is outside this range, nutrients become difficult to absorb and pollutants become more toxic, stressing organisms and leading to a reduction in biodiversity. Stream pH is influenced by in-stream photosynthesis, local soil type, geology, and human-based pollution. 

The pH of each stream in the study area tends to be slightly basic. No sites have pH measurements outside the 6.0 – 9.0 range designated by Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection as a protected fishery, though RCOK1 and RCSP1 reach over 8.9.3 pH does not exhibit strong seasonal variation (Figure 4b). 

There are significant differences in pH between sites. pH is significantly higher at RCOK1 than at all other sample sites and is also elevated at CC3 and RCSP1 (Figure 4a). Some variation in pH between sites could be explained by the sampling time. Photosynthesis increases the pH of streams by removing carbon dioxide. Photosynthesis peaks in the afternoon and, consequently, pH tends to be higher in the afternoon. RCOK1, RCSP1, and CC3 are always sampled in the afternoon, therefore, photosynthesis likely explains the elevated pH at these sites. 

Key Takeaways

  • Water temperature is a significant impairment at all sample sites and any effort to restore Darby, Crum, and Ridley Creeks must aim to reduce water temperatures.
  • There is generally enough dissolved oxygen to support the survival of aquatic organisms, though it may be low enough in the summer to stress and limit the reproduction of sensitive groups.
  • pH is within a safe range at all sample sites, though it can approach unsafe levels at RCOK1 and RCSP1. 
  • The best way to address water temperature impairments is to plant native trees and shrubs along waterways. Click here for more information on the role of riparian plants, and check out these resources from WCT’s Stewardship Team to learn more about the best native plants to plant in these areas.

To read the full “State of our Streams Report,” click here.

Funding 

This report was made possible through a grant from the William Penn Foundation. The William Penn Foundation, founded in 1945 by Otto and Phoebe Haas, is dedicated to improving the quality of life in the Greater Philadelphia region through efforts that increase educational opportunities for children from low-income families, ensure a sustainable environment, foster creativity that enhances civic life, and advance philanthropy in the Philadelphia region. In 2021, the Foundation will grant more than $117 million to support vital efforts in the region. 

The opinions expressed in this report are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the William Penn Foundation. 

References

1. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. 25 Pa. Code Chapter 93. Water Quality Standards § 93.3. Protected water uses. http://www.pacodeandbulletin.gov/Display/pacode?file=/secure/pacode/data/025/chapter93/chap93toc.html&d=reduce (2009).

2. Wilson, P. C. Dissolved Oxygen. 9 https://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/publication/SS525 (2019).

3. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. 25 Pa. Code Chapter 93. Water Quality Standards § 93.7. Specific Water Quality Criteria. http://www.pacodeandbulletin.gov/Display/pacode?file=/secure/pacode/data/025/chapter93/chap93toc.html&d=reduce (2020).

4. Kellner, E. & Hubbart, J. A. Advancing Understanding of the Surface Water Quality Regime of Contemporary Mixed-Land-Use Watersheds: An Application of the Experimental Watershed Method. Hydrology 4, 31 (2017).

5. Mealy, R. & Bowman, G. Importance of General Chemistry Relationships in Water Treatment. (2004).6. Mesner, N. & Geiger, J. pH. (2005).

— By Anna Willig and Lauren McGrath | Willistown Conservation Trust Watershed Protection Program

Project Plastic and the Hunt for Microplastics

By

By Amy Amatya of Project Plastic

Some of the greatest challenges humanity faces today — pandemics, climate change, water contamination — are invisible. They escalate because we don’t see them coming, or we ignore the data that help us see them. 

Microplastics are no exception. Defined as any plastic smaller than five millimeters in diameter, microplastics pose a big problem to the environment and ourselves. They are easily ingested, potentially toxic, and everywhere. In fact, microplastics are found in nearly every corner of the world, right down to the tissues of living organisms. 

Microplastics exist via two pathways: they are mass-produced to be this size (‘primary’), or they come from the degradation of larger plastics (‘secondary’). Primary microplastics are difficult to target because production is controlled by industries including textiles, cosmetics, and household items. Considerable persuasion of regulators and corporations is necessary to reduce microplastic production. Some progress has been made on this front, as the Microbead-Free Waters Act of 2015 prohibits microplastic use in wash-off cosmetics. However, secondary microplastics are difficult to target because a lot of plastic already exists in the world. The sheer difference in scale between microplastics and the landscapes they inhabit prohibit remediation. Even if we ceased all plastic production today, there are still 200 million tons of plastic circulating in our oceans.

Despite their huge threat, there are no consistent protocols available for the accurate and 

systematic recording of microplastic pollutant concentrations in water. There is also no existing technology available to sequester all microplastics from tributaries, effluent streams, reservoirs and lakes. There are three approaches to reducing microplastic pollution. We can: 

1) Produce less plastic, 

2) Prevent existing plastic from entering the environment, and 

3) Remove microplastics directly from the environment. 

The Project Plastic meets with the ACUA Wastewater Treatment Facility about the future of Plastic Hunters in wastewater management systems. Photo by Project Plastic

Project Plastic was moved by the third approach to develop the world’s first portable, affordable, and environmentally friendly microplastic measuring and sequestration device. Project Plastic is a team of chemists and architectural designers, but we aren’t just a filtration technology company. Driven foremost by the microplastic problem, we follow microplastics to the end of their aquatic lifetime. We strive to collaborate with riverkeepers, water treatment companies, and private bottled water companies to monitor, collect, and upcycle microplastic pollution from waterways. 

Our device utilizes a patented ‘artificial root’ technology that acts as a filter to remove small debris (including microplastics) from the upper water column, where most plastic pollutants accumulate. Our root technology is modeled after organic aquatic plant roots. Long fibrous filaments are suspended in water and sediments physically adhere to the dense fibers on each root. Naturally-occurring biofilms accumulate on the ‘artificial root’ network over time, which further traps small particles. By applying an array of ‘artificial roots’ to the underside of a flotational frame, our device can entrap large quantities of microplastics while allowing aquatic wildlife to swim below or between our filter. Each biofilter is attached to a removable pad, making it easy to swap biofilters once they become saturated. Each pad is housed within a hydrodynamic flotation frame for application in rivers, streams, and reservoirs.

The Plastic Hunter: a portable, affordable microplastic filter inspired by plant roots. Image created by Project Plastic

The Plastic Hunter has a key advantage over conventional filtration technologies: it has no mechanical components, meaning it can operate passively with no electricity and minimal maintenance. This makes the device far cheaper to produce, deploy and maintain compared to any existing microplastic filtration system.

Lastly, our team is currently working on establishing protocols for the separation and purification of contaminated sediments from our filter media. In doing so, our team hopes to extract relatively pure microplastic sediments from our devices to be forwarded to our research collaborators at the University of Washington in St Louis. The aim is to develop a method of converting microplastics into chemical compounds like carotene. If successful, our team may be able to upcycle microplastics into useful chemicals for other industries like pharmaceuticals, turning harmful waste into sustainable resources. This, we hope, will avoid environmentally harmful storage or processing of contaminated sediment through incineration, and instead propagate a circular economy for microplastic waste.

— By Amy Amatya of Project Plastic

Microplastics: The ever present contaminant

By

By Watershed Protection Program Co-Op Vincent Liu

Large-scale plastic production has been around since the 1950s, and while plastics existed prior, it was not until this time where plastics began making their way into many aspects of life. With the rise of plastic as a popular material, microplastics emerged as a new contaminant. Microplastics are small pieces of plastic, less than 5mm in size, and they are everywhere. In even the most remote waters of Earth, microplastics can be found. Microplastics are not a recent environmental concern as they have been extensively studied in the marine environment. The presence and impact of microplastics on freshwater ecosystems, however, has been a topic of interest in recent years. With its ability to persist in the environment and being incredibly difficult to remove efficiently, microplastics have established themselves as a worrying pollutant.

Microplastics are formed when larger pieces of plastic break apart into smaller ones. They can come from a wide variety of sources, such as textiles, industry, and packaging. Single-use plastics that reach the environment gradually break into microplastics that can then wash into a stream from a storm event. Plastic fibers are easily shed in the washing machine and then end up in wastewater that enters streams and rivers. These are just some of the many ways that microplastics are released into water. The biological effects of microplastics are yet to be clearly defined, but harmful impacts have been found in studies involving freshwater fish and bottom-dwelling macroinvertebrates. Macroinvertebrates are small animals that lack a backbone, and some species are often used by scientists as indicators of stream health. A study by Redondo-Hasselerharm et. al in 2018 showed that the impact of microplastics on macroinvertebrates is species dependent, with some species being highly sensitive to microplastics and others not being affected at all. Specific health effects were also found in fish including liver damage and reduced growth.

I did my senior project on observing microplastics in Pennsylvanian streams while working with the environmental policy organization, PennEnvironment, on their citizen science microplastic project. PennEnvironment staff collected samples while I assisted in processing samples and analyzing the data. The samples were collected in glass jars, to help reduce the plastic contamination, and were run through a filtration system that draws the water sample through a filter, leaving just the suspended solid material from the water. The filter is placed under a microscope to detect the presence of microplastics within the sample. The 4 categories of microplastics that this project looked for were fibers, fragments, films, and beads. Fibers are long, thin strands of plastic that usually come from textiles. Films are flat, wide, and typically transparent. Beads are round spheres, often found in personal care products prior to 2015. Fragments are plastics that do not fit any of the other categories. A microplastic was distinguished from a natural material by using the squish test, which is a simple test done by poking the suspected microplastic with tweezers. Plastic will not break. It will either maintain its shape or mold into a different shape. 

Example of a microfiber viewed under a microscope. Photo by Caitlin Wessel

The results of the project confirmed the presence of microplastics in every stream that was sampled. What was particularly interesting was the low amount of microbeads compared to every other category of plastic. Beads were by far the least common category of microplastic. This can most likely be attributed to the Microbead-Free Waters Act in 2015, which banned plastic microbeads in rinse-off cosmetics. It was also notable that samples had wildly varying amounts of microplastic, though concentration was not calculated for this project. The site photos from where the samples were collected often told a story as well. In one of the sites, there was a blue tarp that was hanging from a tree into the stream just upstream of the collection site. During microplastic analysis for that sample, there was a noticeably high count of blue microfibers. 

Filtration system used to filter microplastic from water and the jars that samples are stored in

Finding ways to remediate microplastic already existing in the environment is an ongoing pursuit, but policy changes can reduce microplastic output from the source. The microbead ban leading to almost a complete disappearance of microbeads in waterways is an example of how legislation can lead to reductions of microplastic contamination. Policy changes in reducing unnecessary plastic usage and encouraging the use of alternative materials will reduce the amount of microplastics entering the streams. After over 70 years of mass plastic production, it may be time to switch gears and look for alternatives. 

— By Watershed Protection Program Co-Op Vincent Liu

References

Parker, B., Andreou, D., Green, I. D., & Britton, J. R. (2021). Microplastics in freshwater fishes: Occurrence, impacts and future perspectives. Fish and Fisheries, 22(3), 467–488. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12528

Redondo-Hasselerharm, Paula E., et al. “Microplastic Effect Thresholds for Freshwater Benthic Macroinvertebrates.” Environmental Science & Technology, vol. 52, no. 4, 30 Jan. 2018, pp. 2278–2286, https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.7b05367 

Eerkes-Medrano, D., Thompson, R. C., & Aldridge, D. C. (2015). Microplastics in freshwater systems: A review of the emerging threats, identification of knowledge gaps and prioritisation of research needs. Water Research, 75, 63–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2015.02.012

Birch, Q. T., Potter, P. M., Pinto, P. X., Dionysiou, D. D., & Al-Abed, S. R. (2020). Sources, transport, measurement and impact of nano and microplastics in urban watersheds. Reviews in Environmental Science and Bio/Technology, 19(2), 275–336. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11157-020-09529-x

Geyer, R., Jambeck, J. R., & Law, K. L. (2017). Production, use, and fate of all plastics ever made. Science Advances, 3(7). https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1700782

Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. “The Microbead-Free Waters Act.” U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 2018, www.fda.gov/cosmetics/cosmetics-laws-regulations/microbead-free-waters-act-faqs.b 

The Burden of Expanding Plastic Production and Use: A Great Product or a Horrific Product? Your Choice

By

By Carol L. Armstrong, Ph.D., ABN, Friends of Heinz Refuge, Board of Directors
Cover Photo by Jennifer Mathes

Did you know that right here in our region, we have a wildland that supports over 300 species of birds, of which you will see and hear over 40 on any day? The marshes at the John Heinz National Wildlife Refuge spanned almost 6,000 acres in the time of Lenape stewardship of the land, and now it consists of 1,000 acres where massive biodiversity exists, some endangered species survive, and beautiful streams flow into tidal wetlands. It is a place where you can feel you can get lost, all the time being but a stone’s throw from Philadelphia and the dense suburbs of Delaware County. But there is a hidden problem: plastic debris is inundating the Refuge (Photo copyright: Kim Sheridan).

Darby Creek. Photo Copyright: Kim Sheridan

To manage the plastic debris, the Refuge has both public and non-public clean-ups throughout the year. Volunteers help Refuge staff to remove the hundreds of tires, layers of plastic debris on flood plains, plastic stuck in the riparian trees and shrubs after a storm, and thick accumulation of plastics in coves, marsh, and aquatic plants. The problem is most apparent at low tide (photo copyright: Mary Trzeciak). 

Plastics found during low tide. Photo Copyright: Mary Trzeciak

How do we prevent this sort of pollution? Personal evolution comes from reading about the problem, watching the webinars from the Friends of Heinz Refuge (see videos on our Facebook), reading the Friends of Heinz Refuge e-Newsletter, and joining our Plastics Working Group meetings, held monthly. 

One of our Board members, whose career was in business and not involved in environmental restoration, recently admitted that his view of plastic had changed completely since he joined the Board, and now he “can’t stand plastic.” He is horrified at the stuff, and now refuses to purchase plastic drinking containers. 

In three of the public cleanups at the Refuge, volunteers sorted the types and number of debris using the Ocean Conservancy’s data form. Of plastics, metal, glass, and paper debris, more than 99% were some form of plastic, which, over the next hundreds of years, will flake off microplastics and leach into the water the chemicals that make plastic have the features producers want (e.g., color, flexibility, weight, heat/light resistance), long before the plastic actually decomposes back into organic matter. Plastics begin to break down into microplastics and leach chemicals as soon as they are in the environment.

It’s difficult to make the paradigm shift that this board member made, because we are so accustomed to thinking that we cannot live without plastics. The 4% increase in the production of plastics each year means that it is increasing due to supply and not due to demand. The increasing number of items that are packaged in plastic can be witnessed in any store, often in multiple layers of plastic. For example, cheeses are sold in see-through plastic boxes rather than wrapped in paper, bakery items are all packaged in some amount of plastic, condiments and drinks leave few choices in glass rather than plastic, and organic produce is difficult to find without plastic packaging. There are zero waste businesses dedicated to transforming industries to reusable containers or alternate materials, and they find the uphill road very steep. 

In the U.S., plastic that is recycled has declined from 7 to 9% to 5 to 6%, according to the most recent reports from the EPA and the U. S. Department of Energy. 100% of plastic waste is incinerated in some towns such as Harrisburg, and this practice is  increasing in many cities. Some “chemical recycling” is emerging from burning plastics for energy, which increases the demand for plastic waste, results in more toxic air pollution, and increases greenhouse gas emissions. By 2050, humans will have produced more than 28.5 billion tons of plastic, and we will be dealing with four times more plastic production than currently exists. Borrowing from L-M Miranda’s Hamilton: “Do you support this Earth? Of course. Then defend it.”

The key is to remember that there is always something that each person can do: 

  1. Make purchasing decisions based on the presence or relative amount of plastic in the packaging; 
  2. Do your own home assessment of the sources and amounts of your waste versus recycling (now in Pennsylvania mainly limited to clear or white #1 and #2). The EPA and California provide online instructions for zero waste practices, and a simple site for home is: https://www.thezerowastecollective.com/post/how-to-do-a-trash-audit-at-home;
  3. Work towards cutting in half (or more) the amount that you put out in trash and recyclables;
  4. Avoid plastic sheeting and synthetic textiles used in landscaping, sediment/erosion control, blankets and rugs, and personal clothing as these plastics are filling our air, soil, and water, and there are alternatives for all.  The presence of plastics in our indoor air is disturbing at estimates of 30% of dust;
  5. Give up thin, single-use plastic bags and drinking containers forever; and
  6. Ask your town to ban single-use plastics. 

— By Carol L. Armstrong, Ph.D., ABN, Friends of Heinz Refuge, Board of Directors

A Cycle of Give and Take

By

By Watershed Protection Program Co-Op Sarah Busby

Within our streams, there are many players that work to create a functioning, thriving ecosystem. From the tall trees that hang overhead at the bank’s edge, providing cooling shade and abundant habitat, to charismatic animals like the beaver that literally shape the movement of the stream, some species play a more visible role than others. However, there are plenty more individuals hard at work behind the scenes, — or rather, below the surface of the stream. One such character is the freshwater mussel. Sometimes mistaken for a stone, this unassuming animal quietly resides at the bottom of our streams, often going unnoticed. While an individual mussel may be overlooked, their dramatic impact on a stream is impossible to miss when they work together.

One of many Elliptio complanata mussels found in our very own Crum Creek during a recent mussel survey. Photo by Sarah Busby

Freshwater mussels begin their life in a curious fashion, highly dependent on the fish in their communities. During reproduction, female mussels release packets of larval mussels, or glochidia, carefully timed with the encounter of a suitable host fish. After release, the larval mussels must attach to the gills of their host to survive. Once the larvae have secured a ride, they will travel with their host until they grow big enough to go off on their own, which may take up to a few weeks. When ready to depart, the mussels drop off and settle down into the riverbed. Host fish not only provide a safe haven for the larval mussels to develop in, but also allow for them to disperse much greater distances than freshwater mussels could ever go on their own. While glochidia do not cause harm to their host in most cases, the obligate parasite owes much to the hosts they grow up in. Though freshwater mussels are quick to give back to their neighbors once they come into adulthood.

Freshwater mussels are constantly filtering through water to breathe and feed. Typically, they sit partially buried into the substrate, siphoning in water. As water flows through their gills, they filter out bacteria, algae, phytoplankton, detritus, and other small organic particles to feed on. In this process, they also filter out pollutants from the water, accumulating the contaminants into their own bodies.

The filter-feeding activities of mussel populations greatly improves the water quality of the bodies of water they inhabit. This is beneficial to the rest of their local community. The fecal pellets they expel provide food for other invertebrates, and the mussels themselves are consumed by fish, birds, and mammals alike. Additionally, their shells provide shelter and habitat for aquatic invertebrates like caddisflies, midges, and other insects that fish rely on for sources of food. Much like the fish who sheltered them in their vulnerable state, an adult mussel provides for its community throughout its entire lifetime of up to a century, and even beyond when only its shell remains.

Mussel by Sarah Busby

Freshwater mussels have a long history of providing not only for their aquatic communities, but for humans as well. These mussels were a major food source for many prehistoric [1] and pre-colonial people in North America. Multiple Native American tribes have mussel harvests that date back to over 10,000 years ago. The shells were used for creating tools and jewelry. Before the invention of plastic, buttons were also made from the shells of mussels. The mentioned uses were in addition to the ecological service mussels provide by improving the quality of our water sources. While the cultural use of mussels has shifted over time, this critical service upholds its relevance.

Now in modern times, freshwater mussels are more vulnerable than ever before. From habitat degradation, pollution and impaired water quality, mussels face threats on multiple fronts — many of which are human imposed. As many native host fish species decline, the mussels follow close behind.

Currently, freshwater mussels are considered the most endangered group of organisms in [2] the country. It is our turn to provide for the mussels and the communities that come with them. Protecting the mussels means protecting our rivers and streams. Current efforts are being made to reintroduce [3] freshwater mussels into our streams and foster their growth through research and restoration. But success of these efforts is brought to fruition through community support. It starts with appreciating the role mussels play in a thriving ecosystem and follows by embracing our own part in it.[4] 

— By Watershed Protection Program Co-Op Sarah Busby

Sources:

About freshwater mussels. Pacific Northwest Native Freshwater Mussel Workgroup. (n.d.). Retrieved June 6, 2022, from https://pnwmussels.org/about-freshwater-mussels/

Freshwater Mussels. Center for Biological Diversity. (n.d.). Retrieved June 6, 2022, from https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/freshwater_mussels/

Freshwater mussels. Partnership for the Delaware Estuary. (2020, July 17). Retrieved June 6, 2022, from https://delawareestuary.org/science-and-research/freshwater-mussels/

Jaramillo, C. (2018, May 2). With nation’s first city-owned Mussel Hatchery, Philly employing bivalves in battle to improve water quality. WHYY. Retrieved June 6, 2022, from https://whyy.org/articles/with-nations-first-city-owned-mussel-hatchery-philly-employing-bivalves-in-battle-to-improve-water-quality/

Mussels and Us Prehistory. FMCS – Freshwater Mussels. (n.d.). Retrieved June 6, 2022, from https://molluskconservation.org/MUSSELS/Prehistory.html

Strayer, D. L. (2017). What are freshwater mussels worth? Freshwater Mollusk Biology and Conservation, 20(2), 103–113. https://doi.org/10.31931/fmbc.v20i2.2017.103-113

Wimberly, B. (2021, August 26). The “mussel” Behind the delaware river watershed’s clean water. Audubon Pennsylvania. Retrieved June 6, 2022, from https://pa.audubon.org/news/%E2%80%9Cmussel%E2%80%9D-behind-delaware-river-watershed%E2%80%99s-clean-water