United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Research and
Development
Washington DC 20460
EPA/600/R-95/153
September 1996
vvEPA
Evaluation of Watershed
Quality in the Saginaw
River Basin
-------
EPA/600/R-95/153
September 1996
Evaluation of Watershed Quality in the
Saginaw River Basin
by
John W. Arthur1, Thomas Roush2, Jo A.Thompson1, and Frank A. Puglisi1
1 Mid-Continent Ecology Division
Duluth, MN 55804
2Gulf Ecology Division
Gulf Breeze, FL 32561
and
Carol Richards, George E. Host and Lucinda B. Johnson
Natural Resources Research Institute
University of Minnesota
Duluth, MN 55811
ft n.f
^
Mid-Continent Ecology Division
National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Duluth, Minnesota 55804
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
Disclaimer
This document has been reviewed by the National Health and Environmental Ef-
fects Research Laboratory's Mid-Continent Ecology Division-Duluth, and approved for
publication. The mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute
endorsement or recommendations for use.
-------
Preface
Multiple stressors and responses continually define and shape watersheds. The
purpose of this research is to apply largely existing laboratory and field procedures to
define watershed quality in a river basin where the land use is primarily agricultural.
Section 101 in the Federal Clean Water Act requests that procedures be developed to
protect fish, wildlife, and water quality and provide definitions for biological integrity.
Past studies have relied on individually applying either chemical-specific, toxicological
or biosurvey approaches to define healthy watersheds. Simultaneous physical, chemi-
cal, and biological measurements are required to achieve holistic appraisals of water-
shed quality. This research project addresses the kinds of information necessary to
establish baseline conditions in a river basin. An important product of this research is to
provide regulators with procedures to classify watershed resources for later remediation
activities.
-------
Abstract
The Saginaw River Basin located in eastern central Michigan has been identified
as a region of degraded water quality conditions and uses. This research describes
procedures and results obtained in evaluating existing watershed quality within the ba-
sin. Field work was conducted over a four-year period from 1990 to 1993. Sampling was
conducted at 87 sites. Field procedures deployed were physical (habitat related), chemical
(surface and sediment pore water quality), and biological (lexicological,
macroinvertebrate, and fish) assessments. The watershed assessments were divided
into three geographical sectors: east coastal and west coastal subbasins and the cen-
tral or Saginaw subbasin. Habitat quality was found to be the highest in the upstream
Saginaw subbasin and lowest in coastal subbasins. Toxicity was confined to a portion of
the Saginaw River between the cities of Bay City and Saginaw and restricted to sedi-
ment pore water having total ammonia nitrogen concentrations exceeding 10 mg/l.The
primary chemical difference found in the basin was with nutrients, particularly the find-
ing of elevated ammonia nitrogen and total phosphorus concentrations in the coastal
locations. At the agricultural locations, the macroinvertebrate community was domi-
nated by midges, low taxa diversity, low numbers of Ephemeroptera-Plecoptera-
Trichoptera (EPT) taxa, and low index of community integrity (ICI) scores. The fish com-
munity at the impacted locations was characterized by pollution tolerant minnows and
green sunfish and lower indices of biotic integrity (IBI) scores. Principal stressors linking
the biological community responses to watershed quality were the amounts of agricul-
tural activity, stream sediment composition, surface water total phosphorus, and sedi-
ment pore water ammonia and nitrite+nitrate levels.
IV
-------
Contents
Preface iii
Abstract iv
Tables vi
Figures vii
Acknowledgments viii
List of Selected Abbreviations ix
1. Background Information and Study Objective 1-1
2. Methods 2-1
2.1 Basin Description 2-1
2.2 General Study Approach 2-1
2.3 Landscape and Habitat Patterns 2-4
2.4 Water and Sediment Analytical Procedures 2-4
2.5 Toxicity Testing 2-4
2.6 Macroinvertebrate Community 2-5
2.7 Fish Community 2-5
2.8 Data Management and Statistical Analysis 2-5
3. Evaluation of Watershed Quality 3-1
3.1 Landscape and Habitat Features 3-1
3.2 Toxicity Findings 3-6
3.3 Chemical Characteristics 3-6
3.4 Macroinvertebrate Community 3-6
3.5 Fish Community 3-10
3.6 Subbasin and Watershed Features 3-11
4. Summary and Conclusions 4-1
References R-1
Appendices
A Sampling Locations and Land Use A-1
B Toxicity Tests B-1
C Chemical Measurements C-1
D Macroinvertebrate Community Characteristics D-1
E Fish Community Characteristics E-1
-------
Tables
Page
2-1 Sample Locations by Year 2-3
3-1 Physical Stream Characteristics 3-4
3-2 Chronic Toxicity Tests with Ceriodaphnia dubia 3-7
3-3 Chronic Toxicity Tests with Selenastrum capricornatum 3-8
3-4 Subbasin and Watershed Nutrient and Suspended Solids Characteristics 3-9
3-5 Subbasin Macroinvertebrate Characteristics 3-11
3-6 Watershed Macroinvertebrate Characteristics 3-12
3-7 Subbasin and Watershed Fish Characteristics 3-13
VI
-------
Figures
1-1 Diagnostic Watershed Assessment Steps 1-1
2-1 Principal Saginaw Basin Streams Sampled 2-2
3-1 Large River Sites 3-2
3-2 Smaller Tributary Sites 3-3
VII
-------
Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge the following Mid-Continent Ecology Division-
Duluth (MED-D) individuals and associates for making important contributions to this
project. Charles Walbridge assisted with the Ceriodaphnia bioassays, maintenance of
data records, and performing total suspended solid analyses. LeRoy Anderson assisted
in nutrient and total organic carbon analyses. Tim Westman, AScI, and Don Fruehling,
CSC, provided the computerized maps and station locations. Calvin Alexander, Univer-
sity Minnesota, Minneapolis, and staff performed selected anion and cation analyses.
The following Natural Resources Research Institute (NRRI) individuals provided invalu-
able assistance. Paul Tucker and Tom Jones assisted in field collections. Frank Kutka
conducted portions of the field work and analyzed the physical habitat information. Connie
Host, Jane Keyport, and Tim Aunan assisted with the geographic information system
characterizations.
Greg Goudy, Doug Morse, Tom Young, and Jim Bredin, Michigan Department of
Natural Resources, East Lansing and Saginaw Offices, provided encouragement and
valuable assistance for the completion of this project. Mr. Joe Goergen and staff, Bridge-
port Wastewater Treatment Plant, provided onsite laboratory space and logistical sup-
port throughout the project.
VIII
-------
List of Selected Abbreviations and Symbols
Abbreviations
C
cms
DMW
EDTA
EPT
ft
HELP
IBI
ICI
in
H9
MED-D
mg
mg/l
m
mi2
mm
NRRI
NH3-N
NCUNCyN
0-P04
P < 0.05
PCB
QHEI
RPM
SMNITP
IDS
TN
TP
TSS
U.S. EPA
YCT
Celsius
cubic meters/second
dilute mineral water solution
ethylenediamine tetraacetic acid
Epnemeroptera/Plecoptera/Trichoptera
foot
Huron/Erie Lake Plain
Index of Biotic Integrity
Index of Community Integrity
inch
microgram
Mid-Continent Ecology Division-Duluth
milligram
microgram per liter
milligram per liter
meter
square mile
millimeter
Natural Resource Research Institute
total ammonia nitrogen
total nitrite plus nitrate nitrogen
ortho-phosphorus
probability less than 5% by chance alone
polychlorinated biphenyl compounds
Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index
revolutions per minute
Southern Michigan/Northern Indiana Till Plains
total dissolved solids
total nitrogen
total phosphorus
total suspended solids
United States Environmental Protection Agency
yeast-cerophyl-trout chow
Symbols
<
>
<
>
%
+
XG
less than
greater than
less than equal to
greater than equal to
no information
percent
plus
times gravity
IX
-------
1. Background Information and Study Objective
An important goal of the Federal Clean Water Act is the
definition of conditions necessary for maintaining biologi-
cal integrity in receiving waters. By defining high quality
biological communities, information can be identified on
descriptors necessary for good watershed quality. Plac-
ing sole reliance on either chemical-specific, toxicological
or biosurvey methods can be insufficient to characterize
watershed quality. Traditional kinds of information often
gathered are grouped around physical, chemical, and bio-
logical watershed stressors. Rarely is information on wa-
tershed stressors collected in a concurrent and coordi-
nated fashion with biological responses to give integrated
watershed appraisals. The U.S. EPA (1991) has encour-
aged the development of protocols for watershed protec-
tion, and suggested that water, sediment and habitat qual-
ity and biodiversity are components needing additional
definition. Defining watershed degradation can be achieved
by identifying consolidated basin-wide approaches.
During a four-year study period (1990 to 1993), a demon-
stration study was undertaken by the U.S. EPA's Mid-Con-
tinent Ecology Division-Duluth, Duluth, MN, (MED-D) and
the University of Minnesota's Natural Resources Research
Institute (NRRI), Duluth, MN, on physical, chemical, and
biological approaches to define watershed quality in the
Saginaw River Basin. General assessment procedures
taken are shown in Figure 1-1. The Surface Water Divi-
sion of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources
aided in problem definition by supplying historical data-
base information and watershed features, and initially pri-
oritizing the basin sites for analysis. The physical proce-
dures centered on defining habitat and landscape quality,
chemical methods on sediment and surface water quality,
and the biological procedures on macroinvertebrate and
fish community characteristics. It was our position that the
range of conditions found from all the procedures would
assist in definition of watershed quality. The purpose of
this EPA Series Report is to present the entire watershed
database collected over four years of sampling (1990-
1993). Several reports have already been prepared on
the watershed findings. An initial report identifying 1990
watershed features can be found in Richards era/. (1993).
Descriptions of the Saginaw basin geographic informa-
tion system (GIS) were prepared by Johnson and Richards
(1992). Analyses of the influence of landscape features
on habitat and stream biota and on water chemistry, re-
spectively, were reported by Richards et al. (1995) and
Johnson (1995).
Problem Identification
Identify Watershed Issues
Develop Work Study Plan
Historical
Land Uses
Population Charac.
Biological Community Changes
Existing Databases
Watershed Features
Regulatory Criteria
Stream Use Classifications
Units of Analysis
Select Study Reaches
Conduct Watershed Surveys
Data Analysis
Exploratory Data Analysis
Pattern Recognitions
Multivanate Analyses
Recommendations
Identify Physical/Chemical Stressors
Identify Biological Responses
Identify Watershed Attributes
Figure 1-1. Diagnostic watershed assessment steps.
The Saginaw River Basin has been listed by the Interna-
tional Joint Commission as a Great Lakes Area of Con-
cern (AOC) because of degraded water quality conditions
and impairment to designated water uses. A Phase I Re-
medial Action Plan (RAP) was completed by the Michigan
Department of Natural Resources (1988) and summarized
existing physical, chemical, and biological conditions within
the Saginaw basin. Cultural eutrophication and toxics were
identified as the principal water quality issues needing at-
tention. Because the RAP plans were designed to be long
term in scope, concerned agencies were invited to apply
1-1
-------
approaches to address the identified water quality issues. pacts to aquatic biota was done by Farnworth et al. (1979)
The Saginaw River Basin has watersheds that range from over two decades ago. One of their principal conclusions
heavily impacted by agricultural activities to less disturbed was that watershed information should be integrated into
woodland drainages. Biological components assessed a hierarchical framework. This Saginaw basin study at-
were macroinvertebrate and fish populations. A thorough tempts to link land use with habitat, chemical, and biotic
review on sediment, nutrient, and habitat modification im- features.
1-2
-------
2. Methods
2.1 Basin Description
The Saginaw River Basin is located in east central Michi-
gan and drains approximately 15% of the state's land area
(8,700 mi2). It is the largest drainage basin in the state of
Michigan and covers portions of 22 counties. Agriculture
accounts for 46% of land use. Forest and open lands are
the second and third most common land uses at 29 and
11 %, respectively. Urbanization was reported at 8% (Michi-
gan Department of Natural Resources, 1993).The basin
is divided into three subbasins - East Coastal, Saginaw,
and West Coastal portions. The two coastal subbasins
(East, covering 10% and West, covering 18% of the ba-
sin) have several tributaries discharging directly into
Saginaw Bay (Figure 2-1 ).The Saginaw subbasin, the larg-
est and covering 6,300 mi2 or 72%, includes four addi-
tional subbasin divisionsthe Tittabawassee (2,600 mi2),
Shiawassee (1,400 mi2), Flint (1,200 mi2), and the Cass
(900 mi2) rivers. The Tittabawassee subbasin has been
further divided into three main watercoursesthe
Chippewa, Pine, and Tittabawassee rivers (Michigan De-
partment of Natural Resources, 1988). Average discharge
(in cms, by descending flows) are the Saginaw - 115,
Tittabawassee - 48, Flint - 21, Cass -14, Chippewa -12,
Shiawassee -12, and Pine - 9 (Brandon etal., 1991). Soils
in the lake plain are loam to clay soils, with sandy soils in
the outwash plains and channels. The West Coastal
subbasin has rolling plains, coarse textured soils, and
higher percentages of forested land. The growing season
averages 150 and 115 days in the east and west portions
of the basin, respectively. Major population centers in the
basin are the cities of Flint (430,000), Saginaw (69,500),
and Midland (38,000). Three other towns have popula-
tions exceeding 10,000 (Michigan Department of Trans-
portation, 1993).
Agriculture is the principal land use in the basin. Corn,
soybeans, and sugar beets are common crops. Cropland
erosion is the principal cause leading to degraded water-
shed quality. Agricultural development in areas of heavy
soils has been accompanied by construction of field tile
systems and drainage ditches (Michigan Department of
Natural Resources, 1988). Annual soil erosion has been
estimated at 6.1 million tons from wind and 3.6 million
tons from sheet and rill sources. Annual sediment and
phosphorus loadings to the basin were reported at 970,000
and 690 tons, respectively. Approximately one-half of the
total phosphorus contributions to Saginaw bay was calcu-
lated to be from agricultural nonpoint sources (Michigan
Department of Natural Resources, 1993). The Saginaw
subbasin transports the highest nutrient loading to the bay,
and also accounts for 75% of water input into the bay. East
Coastal subbasin streams convey the highest concentra-
tions of nutrients (nitrates and phosphorus) to the bay. In
addition, the transport of PCB, metals, and nutrient loads
to the bay was mainly associated with the suspended solid
fractions, the summer months being the season for con-
tributing the highest loads (Jude etal., 1993).
The Saginaw River Basin is contained within two
ecoregions (Omernick and Gallant, 1988)the southern
Michigan/northern Indiana till plains (SMNITP) and the
Huron/Erie lake plain (HELP). Watersheds in the HELP
ecoregion have been characterized by low topographic
relief, extensive nearly level plains, poor soil drainage, av-
erage elevations between 600-800 ft, and agricultural (crop
farm) land uses. Watersheds found in SMNITP ecoregion
were characterized as variable in terrain and include greater
amounts of urbanization. Land uses include crop and live-
stock production, forests, and woodlands.
2.2 General Study Approach
Sampling in the basin occurred during 1990 to 1993. Study
emphasis during 1990 was a general baseline assessment
of the entire drainage basin, with principal focus near the
mouths of the rivers emptying into Saginaw Bay. Figure 2-
1 shows the principal streams sampled in the basin. Sam-
pling efforts during the second year (1991) concentrated
on areas where the previous year's sampling showed a
gradient in physical (habitat), chemical (sediment and wa-
ter quality) and macroinvertebrate community conditions.
Study locations during 1992 and 1993 were confined to
the upper reaches of three watersheds located in the
Saginaw subbasin. A small urban drainage ditch located
in the city of Essexville, Bay County (Table 2-1) receiving
localized stormwater runoff, was periodically sampled dur-
ing 1991 -1993.
Sample locations were generally within 50-200 m upstream
of specified road crossings. Eighty-seven locations repre-
senting 29 watersheds were sampled: 6 watersheds and
14 stations in the East Coastal subbasin, 19 watersheds
2-1
-------
Mich/',
"gan
2-2
-------
Table 2-1. Sample Locations by Year
Location
East Coastal Subbasin
1990 1991 1992 1993 Location 1990
Saginaw Subbasin (continued)
1991
1992
1993
Pinnebog River
110a
111
Pigeon River
120
121
122
State Drain
130
Allen Dram
140
141
Quanicassee River
150
150-1
151
152
Drainage Ditch - Essexville
154 *
West Coastal Subbasin
Kawkawlin Ribver
37
300
39
301
302
303
Pine River
40
Rifle Rier
41
Au Gres River
43
Saginaw Subbasin
Saginaw River
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Tittabawassee River
8
9
10
12
13
Big Salt River
250-7
Cass River
200
201
203
200-7
200-8
200-9
White Creek
202
200-5
200-10
Evergreen Creek
200-2
Sucker Creek
200-3
Flint River
210
211
212
213
214
215
210-4
216
210-10
Mud Creek
210-1
Swartz Creek
210-2
* * Thread Creek
210-3
Indian Creek
210-5
Farmers Creek
210-9
Shiawassee River
21
220
221
222
223
224
225
Bad River
230
231
Pine River
240
240-0
241
240-2
240-3
242
Brush Creek
240-4
Chippewa River
250
251
256
252
250-3
253
254
255
250-5
Little Salt River
250-6
8 - Station number.
- Chemical and macromvertebrate station;
Appendix A.1.
- chemical and fish station; * - chemical station only. NOTE: Individual sample year codes are in
2-3
-------
and 65 stations in the Saginaw subbasin, and 4 water-
sheds and 9 stations in the West Coastal subbasin. Saginaw
River was sampled by boat. Detailed descriptions of the
sample locations by year are given in Appendix A.1.
2.3 Landscape and Habitat Patterns
General techniques used to assess the physical habitat
conditions were according to the Ohio Environmental Pro-
tection Agency (1987) using a procedure called the Quali-
tative Habitat Evaluation Index (QHEI). Habitat informa-
tion was evaluated for substrate quality (type and size of
particles), cover (undercut banks, overhanging vegetation,
wood debris), channel morphology (bank development,
degree of sinuosity, pool development), riparian (width,
type, bank erosion), and riffle/pool conditions (depth, cover,
embeddedness). Proportions of sediment particles < 2.4
mm (fines) were measured by using a sieve for separating
particle sizes and volume displacement in a graduated
cylinder to define surficial embeddedness.
Procedures for determining watershed catchment bound-
aries and land use patterns are described by Richards ef
al. (1995). Elevation and slope information were obtained
from U.S. Geological Survey models at a scale of 1:250,000.
Buffer analytical techniques (land usage approximating 100
m of either side of the stream) were previously reported by
Richards and Host (1994).
2.4 Water and Sediment Analytical
Procedures
Fourteen sampling periods comprised this study: three in
1990, five in 1991, four in 1992, and two periods in 1993.
All water and sediment samples were collected away from
shoreline disturbances, generally during baseline flows.
Grab surface water samples were collected using
precleaned polyethylene bottles. Composite sediment
samples were collected with a petite Ponar grab sampler
at three or more representative points at each sampling
location, and composited. All samples were kept cold (un-
frozen, <4ฐC) in ice chests for transporting back to the labo-
ratory. At the laboratory samples were kept frozen prior to
analysis.
Sediment pore water was prepared by centrifugation. Af-
ter transfer to polyethylene centrifuge bottles, the samples
were spun at 2,500 X G in a refrigerated centrifuge for 20
minutes, resulting supernatant decanted and stored in
Cubitainers at 4ฐC. Portions were frozen until the chemical
analyses were performed.
Surface water and sediment pore water samples were
analyzed for 6 anions (fluoride, chloride, nitrite, bromide,
nitrate, sulfate), 9 cations (Ca, Mg, Na, K, Mn, Cu, Zn, Cd,
and Pb), and 5 nutrients (NH3-N, NO2+NO3-N, TN, O-PO4,
and TP). The cation concentrations were determined by
inductive coupled plasma/atomic emission spectrometry
(ICP/AES), Perkin-Elmer/Sciex Elan 5000, EPA method
review pending. Anions were analyzed using ion chroma-
tography procedures, Dionex Series, EPA Method 300.0
(U.S. EPA, 1989). Detection limits for calcium, magnesium,
sodium, and potassium were 0.1 mg/l; limits for manga-
nese were 0.001 mg/l. Detection for the other cations were
< 0.005 mg/l. Anion detection limits were < 0.03 mg/l. Main
nutrients analyzed were total ammonia nitrogen (NH3-N),
total nitrite+nitrate nitrogen (NO2+NO3-N), ortho-phospho-
rus (O-PO4 as P), total phosphorus (TP), and total nitro-
gen (TN as N), and determined on a Lachat automated
ion analyzer (Lachat, 1988) Three dissolved nutrients (NH3-
N, NO2+NO3-N, 0-PO4 were measured colorimetrically, and
two nutrients (TP and TN) were from unfiltered samples
with persulfate digestion and colorimetric analysis. Total
organic carbon (nonpurgeable, as C) was measured on a
Dohrmann instrument using U.S. EPA (1989) procedures.
With each batch of samples, known quality control stan-
dards and spikes were used. Individual analyses were con-
ducted in duplicate or triplicate for one or two stations.
Agreement attained was generally within 10%. Detection
limits for NH3-N, O-PO4, and TP were 0.01 mg/l, and for
NO2+NO3-N and TN were 0.1 mg/l. In addition, surface
water samples were analyzed for total alkalinity (as CaCO3),
temperature, total conductivity, total suspended solids, and
total dissolved solids (TDS) using American Public Health
Association (1980) methods.
Measurement of settleable sediments (solids) in the stream
water was determined with shallow trays. The plastic trays
(12"L x 9"W x 4"H) were positioned near the center of the
stream and left in-place for periods of 7-8 weeks. Settle-
able solids accumulating in the trays were collected, re-
moved from the associated water by filtration, contents dried
for 24-hours at 100ฐC (for dry weight determinations), then
ashed at 600ฐC for 20 minutes to determine the organic
weight fraction.
2.5 Toxicity Testing
Two standardized toxicity procedures (bioassays), with
Ceriodaphnia dubia, a microcrustacean, and Selenastrum
capricornutum, a green alga, were used to evaluate the
sediment pore water. Sediment pore water samples from
all three subbasins were tested with C. dubia. Only pore
water samples from the Saginaw subbasin were tested with
S. capricornutum. The source of C. dubia animals for test-
ing were from laboratory cultures of known parentage and
were < 24 hours old when the chronic tests were initiated
(U.S. EPA, 1989). For the chronic 7-day tests, one animal
was placed into each of ten, 30 ml cups containing 15 ml
test water. This procedure was repeated for a set of 10
replicate controls. Daphnids were fed a mixture of yeast-
cerophyl-trout chow (YCT) and algae daily. Test solutions
were changed during day 2 and day 4 of the test. Determi-
nation of survival and young production differences from
the control responses (P < 0.05) was based on a modified
Tukey's HSD procedure. The S. capricornutum algal test
was conducted according to the U.S. EPA (1989). Dilution
water consisted of stock culture medium containing 100
2-4
-------
ug/l EDTA (Na2EDTA'2H20). All pore water samples were
filtered through a 0.45 |i millipore filter and fortified with
mineral salt media to a concentration equal to the syn-
thetic control media. Tests were initiated by inoculation with
4-day-old algal cultures to achieve an initial concentration
of 10,000 cell/ml. Tests were conducted under continuous
illumination of 400 ฑ 50 foot candles, 24 ฑ 2ฐC, and con-
tinuously shaken. Algal growth (increase in cell numbers)
was determined at 2- and 4-day intervals with an electronic
particle counter. Inhibition (toxicity) was determined when
the mean algal concentration was less than the control
response.
2.6 Macroinvertebrate Community
Macroinvertebrate characteristics were assessed by de-
ploying artificial substrates (masonite Hester-Dendy sam-
plers) and using instream kicking and shoreline qualitative
procedures after the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
(1987) and U.S. EPA (Klemm et a/., 1990) procedures.
Three masonite samplers were attached to a concrete patio
block and placed in approximately 0.75-1.5 m of water.
Artificial substrate samplers were allowed to colonize in
the streams for 7-8 weeks prior to removal. Removal of the
sampling unit was done by placing a dip net under the sam-
pler while still submerged to reduce loss of organisms. The
kick samples were taken with a dip net, the substrate agi-
tated and current allowed to carry organisms into the net.
In addition, efforts were made to secure a representative
collection of animals along the shoreline from mud, rocks,
and logs. A fixed unit of time, approximately 30-45 min-
utes, was devoted to the biological sampling activities at
each site. All the biological samples were preserved onsite
with 10% formalin.
Samples were sorted and tabulated in a glass tray over a
glow box. Initial sample examinations were made visually;
final examinations with the aid of a lighted magnifying (2X)
lens. Taxa represented by over 100 individuals in a sample
were enumerated by subsampling in a glass tray where
the chamber bottom was delineated into quarter units.
All macroinvertebrates were identified to the lowest pos-
sible taxonomic level, usually to genus. Midges were iden-
tified using head capsule mounts on glass slides with the
aid of a compound microscope. Community metrics calcu-
lated were according to richness (total taxa),
Ephemeroptera-Plecoptera-Trichoptera (EPT) taxa, and the
Index of Community Integrity (ICI) developed by the Ohio
EPA (1987). Functional analyses were according to feed-
ing habits classifications by Merritt and Cummins (1984).
2.7 Fish Community
Fish community characteristics were assessed by using
seining and electroshocking procedures after Klemm et
al., (1993). This was an supplemental project conducted
only during 1993. All fish collection sites were in the wade-
able category. The primary collection technique was using
a 0.125 inch mesh bag seine, 30 foot long by 4 foot high
bag seine with a 20 foot wing span, covered the sampled
area from surface to bottom in depth. A backpack, battery-
operated Coffelt BT-4 model electroshocker was also de-
ployed where necessary because of the stream bottom
being too rocky for efficient seining. The sampling reach
ranged from 100 to 250 feet in length. Two collection runs
were performed at each site. All fish collected were pre-
served with 10% formalin.
The samples were sorted in the laboratory, and the fish
identified to species. For each species, a range in length
and total weights were obtained. Determinations of trophic
level and pollution tolerance were according to Plafkin et
al.,(\ 989). Classifications according to flowing water habitat
and adult feeding preferences were according to Harlan
and Speaker (1987), and general environmental tolerance
(Carlander, 1977).
2.8 Data Management and Statistical
Analysis
Each of the 14 surveys were sequentially numbered. Sepa-
rate identification codes were given to analysis and sam-
pling location. The sampling locations had separate year
codes and were also given a composite identification num-
ber for comparative purposes. All the data was compiled
into computerized spreadsheets for data management and
analysis purposes. All summary tabular results by location
are according to the composite identification number (see
Appendix A.1).
The watershed information was analyzed across two
scales: by subbasin and individual watershed. Analyses
were performed for each watershed where two or more
locations were sampled. All the variable information was
analyzed for normality and appropriate log transformations
performed. Differences in the macroinvertebrate commu-
nity and the nutrient and total suspended solid concentra-
tions were examined using multiple regression and
Spearman rank correlation (rho) techniques. The Spearman
rank correlation is a nonparametric procedure that is in-
sensitive to deviations from normality or the presence of
outliers.
2-5
-------
3. Evaluation of Watershed Quality
3.1 Landscape and Habitat Features
Twenty-two counties were listed by the State of Michigan
as having all or portions of their land included within the
Saginaw River Basin. Our sampling efforts covered por-
tions of 17 counties; with Bay, Huron, Isabella, Saginaw,
and Tuscola counties receiving the majority of sampling
coverage. Appendix A.2 shows the sampling coverage by
year. Locations according to the yearly codes are given in
Appendix A.1. Sampling during 1990 was confined to
mouths of the streams surrounding the periphery of
Saginaw Bay. Sampling of the Saginaw River was con-
ducted in 1990. Sampling of West Coastal streams oc-
curred during 1990 and 1991. Emphasis beginning in 1991
was directed at longitudinal evaluations of selected
streams, with efforts in 1992-1993 on the quality of low
order feeder streams.
Watershed catchment size ranged from approximately
1,200 to 300,000 hectares (Johnson etal., 1995). Water-
shed elevation differences (as standard deviation units)
ranged from < 30 feet for the Cass and Kawkawlin to > 90
feet in the Shiawassee and Chippewa/Pine catchment
basins. Greatest land use and cover diversity was found
in the Chippewa/Pine and Kawkawlin watersheds. With
exception of the Tittabawassee and Saginaw rivers, all
watersheds surveyed represented second through fourth
order streams (Richards etal., 1995).The larger river sam-
pling sites were characterized by slow moving currents
and soft substrate bottoms (Figure 3-1). Smaller streams
(Figure 3-2) exhibited considerable differences in over-
hanging stream-side vegetative canopies ranging from
almost none (Allen Drain) to a mix of grassland and
wooded areas (Chippewa River). Slumping banks were
especially common in the coastal watersheds and down-
stream locations in the Saginaw subbasin.
Croplands (Appendix A.2) exceeding 60% of total land
use were found in counties that contained the cities of
Bay City and Saginaw and counties within the Cass and
the lower Flint watersheds. Forest land use was > 40% in
counties west of Midland and in counties containing the
Pine and Chippewa watersheds. Open land (comprising
15% land use) was more common in counties east and
south of the city of Flint, and in the upper Flint River wa-
tershed. Urbanization was only common (> 20%) in
Genessee county where the city of Flint is located. High-
est percentages of cropland use were reported for Bay,
Gratiot, Huron, Saginaw, Sanilac, Shiawassee, and Tuscola
counties. The East Coastal subbasin exhibited the highest
degree of agricultural land usage. Gladwin and Midland
counties reported the lowest usage. Rowcrop agriculture
was the principal land use (Richards etal., 1995), followed
by deciduous forest. Watersheds with the highest amount
of rowcrop agriculture were located in the East Coastal
subbasin. Largest amounts of forest land were located in
the Chippewa/Pine watersheds, and urban land use in the
Shiawassee watershed.
We expected and found that many of the streams in the
Saginaw basin appeared to be largely autotrophic, open
canopied, mud bottomed and wadeable, with a low topog-
raphy. The sampled streams varied in width from 2 to 168
meters. The majority of samples were collected in streams
< 30 meters in width and in water < 1 meter deep. Saginaw
River samples were collected by boat away from the ship-
ping channel in depths ranging from 1 - 4 meters. Surficial
substrate embeddedness generally exceeded 50% in the
downstream major rivers reaches (Table 3-1). A more var-
ied substrate texture (embeddedness < 50%) was present
in the rivers away from the lake plain. The East and West
Coastal subbasin streams had greater proportions of slow
water reaches than in the Saginaw subbasin. Surficial
stream sediments (upper 1/3 to 1/2 ft) ranged from areas
dominated by clay and sand (Saginaw and Quanicassee
rivers, State and Allen drains) cobble (Cass, Pine and
Chippewa rivers) to gravel and rock (the Pine River in West
Coastal basin plains).
Within the subbasins, habitat quality (based on the QHEI
scores) was more uniform in the West Coastal subbasin
sites (Table 3-1). A more varied habitat quality was found
in the Saginaw subbasin, especially in the Cass and Flint
watersheds. Downstream habitat scores were generally
lower than at upstream locations. Downstream stations also
had lower gradients. At sites of lesser habitat quality, stream
substrates were composed of sand, clay, and mud. Loca-
tions of higher habitat quality showed a varied stream sub-
strate ranging from sand and gravel to cobble and rock.
Lower scores were generally found in both the coastal
subbasins. Streams showing highest habitat quality and
larger proportions of riparian cover were in the Pine and
Chippewa watersheds. Wooded land cover, more overhang-
3-1
-------
Kawkawlin River (Station 300)
Saginaw River (Station 3)
Figure 3-1. Large river sites.
3-2
-------
North Branch Chippewa River (Station 254)
Allen Drain (Station 140)
Figure 3-2. Smaller tributary sites.
3-3
-------
Table 3-1. Physical Stream Characteristics
Location
Pmnebog River
110
111
Pigeon River
120
121
122
State Drain
130
Allen Dram
140
141
Quanicassee River
150
151
152
Drainage Ditch
154 -Knight Road
Subbas. Av.
Range
Sagmaw River
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Tittabawassee
8
9
10
12
13
Cass River
200
201
203
200-7
200-8
200-9
White Creek
202
200-5
200-10
Evergreen Creek
200-2
Sucker Creek
200-3
Flint River
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
210-10
210-4
Mud Cr.
210-1
Stream
Width3
18
11
7
11
4
5
17
_d
59
2
-
6
13
(2-59)
-
168
152
-
-
-
156
-
104
38
-
-
41
40
22
10
10
16
11
9
6
3
8
25
48
27
-
11
8
15
8
7
4
QHEI Degree
Score Embed6
East Coastal Subbasm
53 II
65 II
51 II
47 I
56 I
55 I
37 I
26 I
34
29 I
I
-
45 I
(26-65) (l-ll)
Saginaw Subbasm
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I
-
-
II
II
42 I
58 II
70 II
75 II
61 II
48 II
77 II
66 II
41 II
47 II
71 II
42
68
61
-
60
60
73 II
69 II
38 I
51 I
Drainage
Area'
130
88
127
54
12
64
5
4
22
-
-
-
56
(4-130)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
888
649
385
33
83
141
143
49
15
10
64
1155
994
544
-
204
115
220
58
47
7
Dominant
Substrate Type
Sand, Gravel
Sand, Cobble, Gravel
Sand, Gravel, Rock
Sand, Silt
Sand, Gravel
Clay, Sand, Cobble
Sand, Clay, Mud
Gravel
Sand, Mud, Clay
Gravel
Sand
Gravel
Sand, Mud
Sand, Clay, Mud
Sand, Clay, Silt, Mud
Sand, Clay, Mud
Mud, Sludge, Oil
Sand, Clay, Mud, Silt
Clay, Sand, Gravel
Sand, Silt
Sand
Clay
Sand, Silt, Mud
Sand, Gravel
Sand, Mud
Sand, Cobble, Mud
Sand, Gravel, Cobble
Gravel
Gravel
Gravel, Clay
Sand, Gravel, Rock
Cobble
Sand
Gravel
Cobble
Sand, Silt, Mud, Clay
Sand, Mud, Silt
Sand, Gravel
Sand
Sand, Silt
Sand, Cobble, Gravel
Gravel
Sand
Sand, Mud
3-4
(continued)
-------
Table 3-1. Continued
Location
Swartz Creek
210-2
Thread Creek
210-3
Indian Creek
210-5
Farmers Creek
210-9
Shiawassee River
21
220
221
222
223
224
225
Bad River
230
231
Pine River
240
240-0
241
240-2
240-3
242
Brusch Creek
240-4
Chippewa River
250
251
256
252
250-3
253
254
255
250-5
Little Salt River
250-6
Big Salt River
250-7
Subbas. Av.
Range
Kawkawlin River
37
300
39
301
302
303
Pine River
40
Rifle River
41
Au Gres River
43
SUBBAS. AV.
Range
Stream
Width3
8
7
7
8
-
21
26
22
14
6
25
7
2
35
32
30
21
16
17
9
36
23
24
8
16
5
5
14
12
13
-
26
(2-168)
-
41
-
18
6
6
-
-
-
18
(6-41)
QHEI Degree
Score Embed"
Sagmaw Subbasin (continued)
54 I
65 I
37 I
46 I
-
47
65 I
65
53
50
60
52
49
66 II
II
71 II
62 I
63 I
67 II
51 I
59 II
69 I
73 II
65 I
81 II
II
32 I
67 II
62 II
55 I
I
59 II
(32-81) (l-ll)
West Coastal Subbasin
I
52 I
-
44 I
50 II
52 II
II
II
-
50 I
(44-52) (l-ll)
Drainage
Area0
40
633
29
160
-
633
561
510
188
50
-
128
22
420
346
316
213
69
126
33
611
397
312
75
187
-
44
152
76
50
_
280
(7-1155)
-
101
-
75
86
71
-
-
-
83
(75-101)
Dominant
Substrate Type
Gravel
Gravel
Sand
Sand
Sand, Mud
Sand, Gravel, Mud
Gravel
Sand, Gravel, Rock
Sand, Gravel, Rock
Sand, Silt, Mud
Sand, Gravel, Rock
Sand
Sand, Gravel
Sand, Cobble, Gravel
Gravel
Sand, Cobble, Gravel
Gravel
Gravel
Sand, Rock
Sand
Sand, Silt, Gravel
Sand, Gravel, Silt
Sand, Gravel, Cobble
Sand, Clay, Cobble
Cobble, Gravel
Sand, Gravel, Rock
Sand, Clay, Silt
Sand, Gravel, Silt
Gravel
-
.
Clay, Sand, Gravel
Sand, Mud, Clay
Sand, Clay, Mud
Silt
Silt
Sand
Gravel, Rock
Sand, Gravel, Rocks
Sand, Gravel
'Stream width in meters.
"Embeddedness or fines < 2 mm, I = > 50%, II = < 50%.
ฐDrainage area in square miles.
d-No information.
3-5
-------
ing terrestrial vegetation and aquatic macrophytes were
the usual characteristics in the upper reach areas of the
Saginaw subbasin. An open canopy and slumping stream
banks were commonly observed in the East and West
Coastal locations.
3.2 Toxicity Findings
Toxicity was confined to the sediment pore water samples.
None of the surface water samples collected during June
1990 were toxic (inhibitory) to the Ceriodaphnia. Toxicity
was found at 5 of the 33 locations tested. Toxicity was con-
fined to the Saginaw subbasin (Table 3-2). Except for one
location (in the Shiawassee River - station 220), toxic re-
sponses were limited to the Saginaw River in a reach be-
tween the cities of Saginaw and Bay City (from station 3 to
station 6. Station 5 (located near the Weiss drain, City of
Saginaw) was the most toxic site. Reproduction was the
most sensitive test response found for Ceriodaphnia (Ap-
pendix B.1). Few samples showed reduced responses in
both reproductive and survival responses. Test significance
for toxicity was placed at yields < 50% from the control
response. Toxic responses were similar among sampling
periods.
Due to the absence of toxicity found with the daphnid tests,
all Selenastrum tests were conducted with the sediment
pore water and only with samples collected in the Saginaw
subbasin. Similar responses were generally obtained be-
tween the two sampling periods except at station 3 where
the pore water was more toxic in June. Toxicity (inhibition
in cell numbers) was found in the Saginaw River samples
at stations 3 to 6 (Table 3-3), and confined to the river reach
between the cities of Saginaw and Bay City. The most toxic
location was at station 5. Cell yields > 50 % of the controls
occurred with samples collected in the upper reaches of
the Chippewa and Pine rivers (stations 241, 255) and in
the lower reach of the Saginaw River (stations 1 and 2).
3.3 Chemical Characteristics
Most of the chemical differences found were with the nutri-
ent concentration profiles (Table 3-4). Ammonia nitrogen
concentrations were appreciably higher in the sediment
pore water than in the surface water samples. Sediment
pore water ammonia nitrogen concentrations exceeding
25 mg/l were measured in the Saginaw River and limited
to stations between the cities of Bay City and Saginaw
(Appendix C.1). Other major nutrient differences were with
total phosphorus and nitrite+nitrate concentrations. Across
subbasins, surface water total phosphorus concentrations
were two to four times higher in the western subbasin, and
nitrite+nitrate and total nitrogen levels two times greater in
the eastern subbasin.The overall range in ortho-phospho-
rus (O-PO4) was less than a factor of two among all samples
while total phosphorus (TP) ranged up to a factor of five
times (Appendix Table C.4). Where TP concentrations were
higher, much of the phosphorus may have been bound to
the paniculate fraction. Higher total suspended solids and
sediment trap yields were present in the Saginaw subbasin
samples, while turbidity levels were highest in the western
subbasin (Table 3-4). Highest amounts of organic material
in the sediment traps were found in the western subbasin
(Appendix C.4). No subbasin differences were apparent
for total conductivity, dissolved, organic carbon and tem-
perature (Appendix C.2).
No consistent location differences were found from the
anion and cation measurements (Appendix C.3). Anions
were measured only with the Saginaw subbasin samples.
Five cations (cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, and zinc)
were near or at the limits of detectability in both the sur-
face and sediment pore water samples. Five other cations
(calcium, magnesium, manganese, sodium, and potas-
sium) generally varied from 60 to 120, 20 to 40, 0.2 to 1.0,
20 to 50, and 2 to 6 mg/l, respectively. Fluoride and bro-
mide concentrations were generally < 0.1 mg/l. Chlorides
and sulfates ranged from 10 to 30, 30 to 60 mg/l, respec-
tively.
Highest surface water nutrient concentrations occurred in
the Quanicassee River (Table 3-4). With exception of
Pinnebog River, East Coastal watersheds had mean total
nitrogen concentrations that exceeded 4.0 mg/l. Drainages
located west of the Cass River had lower nutrient but higher
turbidity and suspended solids concentrations. Highest
phosphorus values were obtained in the Kawkawlin water-
shed. Highest amounts of total alkalinity, conductivity, and
dissolved solids were present in the Pinnebog and Pigeon
river locations (Appendix C-4). Surface water temperatures
were warmer in the slower moving East Coastal drainages
(Allen drain and Quanicassee River) and the streams in
the southwest portions of the Saginaw basin (Pine and
Shiawassee rivers). Lowest nutrients were obtained in the
Pinnebog, Shiawassee, Pine, and Chippewa rivers.
Highest sediment pore water nutrient concentrations were
present in the Allen drain, and Quanicassee and Kawkawlin
rivers (Table 3-4). Highest phosphorus levels were found
in the Quanicassee and Kawkawlin rivers and greatest
nitrite+nitrate concentrations in the Quanicassee River and
Allen drain. Mean sediment pore water ammonia concen-
trations < 1.0 and total nitrogen < 3.0 mg/l were generally
restricted to the Saginaw subbasin watersheds. Nutrient
levels were low in the Pinnebog, Shiawassee, Pine, and
Chippewa rivers.
Ammonia nitrogen and phosphorus were the two nutrients
appreciably elevated in the urban stormwater drainage
canal (station 154, Appendix C.1). Nitrite+nitrate concen-
trations were also generally higher in the surface water
than in the sediment pore water samples. Concentrations
of total alkalinity, conductivity, and dissolved solid concen-
trations were also higher than found at this site.
3.4 Macroinvertebrate Community
A total of 157 individual macroinvertebrate taxa were iden-
tified (Appendix D.1). Community richness (numbers of
taxa) was highest in the Saginaw subbasin. Three orders
3-6
-------
Table 3-2. Chronic Toxicity Tests with Ceriodaphnia dubia
06/90
08/90
11/90
East Costal Subbasin
Pigeon River
120
121
State Drain
130
Allen Drain
140
Quamcassee River
150
West Coastal Subbasin
Kawkawklin River
Not toxic
Not toxic
Not toxic
Not toxic
aNo significant differences in survival or young production.
b-No test conducted.
ฐRange between the no effect level (50%) and effect level (100%).
Not toxica
Not toxic
Not toxic
Not toxic
Not toxic
_b
Not Toxic
Not toxic
37
300
39
Pine River
40
Rifle River
41
Saginaw Subbasin
Sagmaw River
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Tittabawassee River
8
9
12
13
Cass River
200
201
203
Flint River
210
211
212
Shiawassee River
21
220
224
Bad River
230
Pine River
240
241
Chippewa River
250
251
252
255
Not toxic
Not toxic
-
Not toxic
Not toxic
Not toxic
-
50-100%
50-100%
25-50%
50-100%
Not toxic
Not toxic
-
-
-
Not toxic
Not toxic
-
Not toxic
Not toxic
-
Not toxic
Not toxic
Not toxic
-
Not toxic
Not toxic
Not toxic
Not toxic
Not toxic
Not toxic
Not toxic
Not toxic
Not toxic
-
Not toxic
Not toxic
Not toxic
50-100%
-
12-25%
25-50%
Not toxic
Not toxic
Not toxic
Not toxic
Not toxic
Not toxic
Not toxic
Not toxic
Not toxic
Not toxic
Not toxic
Not toxic
50-100%c
Not toxic
Not toxic
Not toxic
-
-
Not toxic
Not toxic
Not toxic
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Not toxic
-
-
Not toxic
Not toxic
-
-
-
-
-
-
Not toxic
-
-
_
_
Not toxic
_
-
Not toxic
3-7
-------
Table 3-3. Chronic Toxicity Tests with Selenastrum capricornatum
06/90
Sagmaw Subbasin
aGiven as percent of control response, significantly different at P<0.05.
"Not significantly less from control response.
c- No test conducted
08/90
Saginaw River
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Tittabawassee River
8
9
10
12
13
Cass River
200
201
203
Flint River
210
211
214
Shiawassee River
21
224
Pine River
240
241
Chippewa River
250
251
252
255
Not toxic
Not toxic
32%a
49%
73%
Not toxic
Not toxic
Not toxic
Not toxic
Not toxic
_c
-
Not toxic
Not toxic
-
Not toxic
Not toxic
-
-
Not toxic
Not toxic
-
-
Not toxic
Not toxic
Not toxic
Not toxic
Not toxic
Not toxicb
-
97%
42%
Not toxic
Not toxic
Not toxic
-
Not toxic
Not toxic
Not toxic
Not toxic
Not toxic
Not toxic
Not toxic
Not toxic
Not toxic
Not toxic
Not toxic
Not toxic
Not toxic
Not toxic
Not toxic
Not toxic
comprised most of the benthic community structure:
Ephemeroptera (mayflies), Trichoptera (caddisflies), and
Diptera-Chironomidae (midges, Appendix D.11). Midges
(chironomids) were the most dominant structural compo-
nent found on the artificial substrates in all three of the
subbasins. Community structure was more evenly distrib-
uted in the qualitative samples. Coleoptera (beetles) and
Hemiptera (bugs) were additional dominant groups found
in the qualitative samples (Appendices D.6 to D.9). Rela-
tively few (< 1% abundance) dipterans (other than midges),
beetles, bugs, amphipods, and mollusks were present in
the artificial samples (Appendices D.2 to D.5). Saginaw
subbasin samples had the highest numbers of
Ephemeroptera-Plecoptera-Trichoptera (EPT) taxa and ICI
scores (Table 3-6). Plecoptera (stoneflies) were only col-
lected in the Saginaw subbasin watersheds.
Generally similar individual taxa were encountered with
the Hester-Dendy artificial substrate and qualitative sam-
pling techniques (Appendix D.12). Common (>5% in abun-
dance) mayfly genera were Caenis, Stenonema and
Stenacron. Stenonema was a common mayfly genus only
in the Saginaw subbasin. Common caddisfly genera were
Cheumatopsyche and Hydropsyche. Common beetle and
bug families were Elmidae and Corixidae. Three midge taxa
were numerically dominant; they were Glyptotendipes,
Cryptochironomus, and Tanytarsini. Glyptotendipes was
largely restricted to the East Coastal subbasin,
Cryptochironomus to the West Coastal subbasin, and
Tanytarsini to the Saginaw subbasin. Fewer insect orders
were found on the artificial substrates than in the qualita-
tive samples.
Watershed community composition by station is given in
Appendix D.10. Although highest abundances occurred in
the Allen drain and Quanicassee River, numbers of may-
flies and caddisflies were low. Watersheds with the most
diverse average assemblages were found in the Pine and
Chippewa rivers. Lowest numbers of EPT taxa and ICI
scores occurred in the two coastal subbasins (Table 3-6).
Watersheds averaging < 4 EPT taxa were the Allen drain,
Pinnebog, Quanicassee, and Kawkawlin rivers. Watersheds
3-8
-------
Table 3-4. Subbasin and Watershed Nutrient and Suspended Solids Characteristics
Subbasin
Eastern
Saginaw
Western
Surface Water'
NH3-N mg/l
TPmg/l
NO2+NO3-N mg/l
O-PO4 {as P), mg/l
TN (as N), mg/l
TSS mg/l
T. Alk. mg/l
Turbidity NTU
Cond. - nmhos/cm2
TDS mg/l
Temp "C
Sed. Trap-drywt/trap, gm
Sed. Trap-%orgwt/trap
TOC (as C), mg/l
Sediment Pore Water"
NH3-N mg/l
TPmg/l
NO2+NO3-N mg/l
O-PO4 (as P), mg/l
TN (as N), mg/l
0.04 (<.01-.35)
0.07 (.01-.58)
2.5 (<.1-13.6)
0.05 (<.01-.32)
3.7 (<.2-15.4)
37 (1-180)
214 (100-318)
13 (3-78)
666 (465-1419)
447 (324-947)
17 (9-26)
118 (24-51)
36 (10-91)
7 (4-22)
0.86 (.04-5.40)
0.07 (<.01-.75)
1.9 (<.1-13.1)
0.04 (.01-0.27)
3.9 (0.6-15.0)
0.05 (<01-.47)
0.05 (<.01-.37)
1.1 (<1-9.6)
0.04 (<.01-.17)
1.7 (<.1-10.1)
72 (<1-332)
227 (145-306)
12 (1-40)
604 (291-1404)
407 (194-934)
19 10-28)
257 (23-1231)
24 (7-50)
8 (3-19)
1.58 (.01-90.40)
0.06 (<01-0.94)
0.7 (<0.1-7.8)
0.04 (<.01-0.62)
3.6 (0.4-88.1)
0.04
0.16
1.0
0.04
1.6
57
179
20
575
383
19
74
49
15
1.24
0.13
0.7
0.05
3.1
(.02-2.32)
(<. 1-6.9)
(.4-4.5)
(8-133)
(110-246)
(3-40)
(210-942)
(140-627)
(11-23)
(15-124)
(20-84)
(10-22)
(.06-4.54)
(.04-1.21)
(0.9-7.4)
Watershed
Surface Water"
NH3-N mg/l
TPmg/l
NO,+NO3-N mg/l
O-PO4(asP), mg/l
TN (as N), mg/l
TSS mg/l
T. Alk. mg/l
Turbidity NTU
Cond. nmhos/cm
TDS mg/l
Temp ฐC
Sed. Pore Water*
NH3-N mg/l
TPmg/l
NO,+NO3-N mg/l
O-PO4 (as P), mg/l
TN (as N), mg/l
Pinnebog
0.04
0.06
1.0
0.05
1.8
31.4
251
6.2
947
630
18.6
0.29
0.06
0.8
0.04
2.4
Pigeon
0.06
0.07
2.2
0.05
3.6
29.7
280
10.2
763
504
17.4
0.32
0.05
2.6
0.05
3.9
Allen Dr.
0.05
0.05
2.7
0.04
3.8
24.0
173
9.4
663
448
21.0
2.33
0.08
2.0
0.03
4.6
Quanicassee
0.09
0.14
3.5
0.07
3.7
107.1
228
28.1
609
413
19.4
1.37
0.16
2.3
0.07
4.9
Cass
Flint
3-9
Shiawassee
Pine
Surface Water"
NH3-N mg/l
TPmg/l
NCX+NO3-N mg/l
O-PO4 (as P), mg/l
TN (as N), mg/l
TSS mg/l
T. Alk. mg/l
Turbidity NTU
Cond. nmhos/cm
TDS mg/l
Temp ฐC
0.05
0.04
I.7
0.03
2.4
86.7
253
13.9
693
462
18.0
0.06
0.06
0.9
0.04
1.6
93.0
251
17.2
692
464
18.2
0.05
0.06
0.5
0.04
1.8
45.2
230
7.9
698
465
20.5
0.07
0.04
1.2
0.03
1.8
72.7
221
15.7
575
383
20.8
(continued)
-------
Table 3-4. Continued
Sed. Pore Water"
NH3-N mg/l
TP mg/l
NO2+NO3-N mg/l
O-PO4 (as P), mg/l
TN (as N), mg/l
Cass
Watershed (continued)
Flint Shiawassee
Pine
0.64
0.04
1.0
0.03
2.4
1.00
0.05
0.7
0.03
2.4
0.90
0.06
0.3
0.04
2.2
0.51
0.05
0.9
0.04
2.1
Surface Water"
NH3-N mg/l
TPmg/l
NO2+NO3-N mg/l
O-PO4 (as P), mg/l
TN (as N), mg/l
TSS mg/l
T. Alk. mg/l
Turbidity NTU
Cond. timhos/cm
TDS mg/l
Temp ฐC
Chippewa
0.04
0.04
1.0
0.03
1.4
51.5
191
2.8
501
334
18.8
Kawkawlin
0.04
0.20
1.1
0.04
1.8
57.4
179
20.1
545
382
18.8
Sed. Pore Water"
NH3-N mg/l
TP mg/l
NO2+NO3-N mg/l
O-PO4 (as P), mg/l
TN (as N), mg/l
0.53
0.05
0.8
0.03
2.0
1.30
0.15
0.4
0.05
3.3
"Average value and minimum, maximum values.
"Average values.
exhibiting > 8 EPT taxa were the Cass, Shiawassee, Pine,
and Chippewa rivers. A similar pattern was present with
the ICI index scores. Lowest values were recorded in the
Allen/Quanicassee/Kawkawlin drainages and highest
scores at the Cass/Shiawassee/Pine/Chippewa river sites.
Collectors and grazers were the two main benthic feeding
groups (Table 3-6). Shredders and predators were com-
mon groups on the artificial substrates. Collectors and graz-
ers dominated the qualitative samples. Only the Saginaw
subbasin samples showed similar functional patterns ob-
tained with the two sampling procedures. Large collections
of two taxa recovered from the artificial substrates,
(Glyptendipes - a shredder and Cryptochironomus - a
predator), numerically dominated and skewed the functional
distributions in the two coastal subbasins. Highest propor-
tions of collectors (> 50%) were present in the Pigeon,
Cass, Flint, Chippewa and Pine watersheds. Overall, col-
lectors were the dominant feeding group in the Saginaw
subbasin, shredders in the eastern, and predators in the
western subbasin.
3.5 Fish Community
A total of 47 individual taxa were collected (Appendix E-
1). No fish sampling was done at the West Coastal subbasin
sites. The common shiner and johnny darter were the most
common fish collected (Appendix E.2).Total catch was high-
est in the East Coastal subbasin sites. Three fish families
comprised 75% of the community: cyprinids (minnows,
chubs), percids (darters), and centrachids (mainly sunfish).
Centrachids were more common in the eastern subbasin.
Fish common to both subbasins were bigeye shiners,
bluntnose minnows, creek chubs, white suckers, and johnny
and blackside darters. The fish community structure was
different in the East Coastal sites and may be related to its
close proximity to Lake Huron. Gizzard shad, rock bass,
green and pumpkinseed sunfish, and channel catfish were
common in the east subbasin locations. No shad and few
sunfish and channel catfish were collected from the
Saginaw subbasin locations.
A similar community composition was found between the
Chippewa and Cass watersheds. Fish collected from the
3-10
-------
Table 3-5. Subbasin Macromvertebrate Characteristics
Eastern
Subbasin
Artificial Substrate8
Abundance/sample
Richness/sample
Community Structure
% Mayflies
% Caddisflies
% Midges
% Others
Functional Groups
% Collectors
% Grazers
% Predators
% Shredders
Other Groups
% Erosional
% Depositional
% Both
EPTTaxa
ICI Index
Qualitative3
Richness
Community Structure
% Mayflies
% Caddisflies
% Beetles
% Bugs
% Midges
% Others
Functional Groups
% Collectors
% Grazers
% Predators
% Shredders
EPTTaxa
3131
21
1
1
93
5
7
3
10
82
2
95
4
4
20
24
25
10
17
9
14
18
43
32
18
5
5
(60-30188)
(9-30)
(0-93)
(0-30)
(2-98)
(1-71)
(<1-79)
(<1-94)
(<1-92)
(0-97)
(0-95)
(3-97)
(1-49)
(0-8)
(12-35)
(16-35)
(1-64)
(0-37)
(0-46)
(0-57)
(0-63)
(6-82)
(8-91)
(3-66)
(2-69)
(0-39)
(1-12)
Sagmaw
Subbasin
1319
26
15
21
54
10
52
12
20
12
35
33
24
9
37
23
27
18
9
2
25
15
59
21
9
5
8
(36-10971)
(4-53)
(0-84)
(0-85)
(2-97)
(<1-64)
(<1-97)
(<1-77)
(0-93)
(0-94)
(0-95)
(1-96)
(<1-78)
d-22)
(18-50)
(4-50)
(0-95)
(0-68)
(0-49)
(0-93)
(<1-83)
(5-97)
(3-88)
(1-89)
(0-95)
(0-34)
(0-20)
Western
Subbasin
2075
24
3
1
75
21
8
13
60
12
4
76
10
5
24
27
21
3
3
15
16
41
35
37
23
2
5
(89-9179)
(19-35)
(<1-42)
(0-8)
(28-94)
(5-71)
(2-58)
(2-51)
(3-94)
(0-75)
(<1-43)
(17-96)
(3-45)
(2-13)
(14-30)
(21-36)
(<1-49)
(0-8)
(1-11)
(0-82)
(5-34)
(7-87)
(9-37)
(7-63)
(2-84)
(<1-11)
(1-14)
"Average value and minimum, maximum values.
Flint watershed differed by having higher proportions of
shiners and minnows (Appendix E.2). Community quality
was higher at the Chippewa and Cass sites due to a greater
occurrence of chubs, dace, and darters.
Most fish caught were classified as pollution tolerant and
generalists toward flowing water conditions (Table 3-7).
Similar percentages of tolerant and generalists occurred
in all three Saginaw watersheds. By comparison, most fish
sampled in eastern drainages were in a generalist flow
group.
Insectivores and omnivores were the principal fish feeding
groups (Table 3-7). Insectivores, represented by chubs,
shiners, dace, and darters, were restricted to the Saginaw
subbasin. Insectivore fishes comprised the vast majority
(98%) of the catch in the Chippewa watershed.
3.6 Subbasin and Watershed Features
Forested areas found in the western portions of the
Saginaw subbasin (Chippewa and Pine watersheds) had
the best quality due to the highest habitat (QHEI) scores,
biological community richness and lowest substrate
embeddedness and nutrient levels. Watersheds in the East
Coastal subbasin were found to have the lowest quality
consistent with low habitat scores and biological richness,
and high substrate embeddedness and nutrient levels. Jude
etal. (1993), in their Saginaw basin study, found high nu-
trients associated with agricultural sites and low surface
water nutrients with forested locations. They also showed
a strong positive association between total suspended
solids and land use activities. Almendinger and Mitton
(1995) found appreciably higher nitrate and dissolved phos-
phorus levels in agricultural areas, while low phosphorus
and nitrates were related to lower agricultural intensity sites.
3-11
-------
Table 3-6. Watershed Macroinvertebrate Characteristics
Pinnebog Pigeon Allen Dr.
Quanic
Cass
Flint
Shiaw
Pine
Chipp
Kawkawl
Artificial Substract3
Abundance/sample
Richness/sample
Community Structure
% Mayflies
% Caddisflies
% Midges
% Others
Functional Groups
% Collectors
% Grazers
% Predators
% Shredders
Other Groups
% Erosional
% Depositional
% Both
EPTTaxa
ICI Index
Qualitative3
Richness
Community Structure
% Mayflies
% Caddisflies
% Beetles
% Bugs
% Midges
% Others
Functional Groups
% Collectors
% Grazers
% Predators
% Shredders
EPTTaxa
156
19
4
4
54
37
26
6
39
25
8
75
8
2
17
23
19
7
6
22
33
13
39
23
32
4
5
299
21
29
7
37
27
52
34
12
<1
41
34
23
5
22
27
27
16
26
3
7
21
54
34
9
<1
6
1379
21
<1
5
80
14
20
5
18
55
5
72
14
3
22
18
8
2
7
<1
12
70
30
25
31
9
2
13512
14
<1
< 1
97
3
2
2
5
90
<1
95
3
2
13
20
16
<1
6
17
23
36
29
26
28
13
3
1628
26
8
36
30
5
63
6
8
20
40
22
34
9
37
25
26
17
13
7
28
9
63
12
12
8
9
1304
24
14
42
36
8
76
11
7
3
53
12
27
7
33
14
31
19
10
<1
23
17
57
24
11
3
5
879
25
17
9
61
13
29
19
8
40
28
57
13
9
36
21
19
6
6
2
19
48
37
48
11
2
6
1642
29
29
26
29
16
70
17
8
2
54
15
24
10
38
25
58
13
3
0
11
16
74
19
4
2
10
787
28
29
13
52
6
70
16
10
2
40
14
25
11
40
30
21
31
10
<1
24
12
59
21
9
4
11
2381
23
2
1
81
16
6
14
66
14
4
83
11
3
24
25
19
3
3
16
15
44
34
37
24
2
3
aAverage values.
They were unable to find associations between conduc-
tance and chloride concentrations and agriculture. In our
study, the nutrient levels were elevated only at the agricul-
tural sites. We did not find relationships between land use
and the other anions, cations, and conductance.
Higher sediment trap yields were measured in the Saginaw
subbasin, particularly at the Flint, Cass, and Shiawassee
watershed sites. Highest yields were at downstream Flint
locations. Sediment trap yields were progressively greater
at downstream stations while associated organic materi-
als correspondingly reduced and indicated greater quanti-
ties of settleable solids in the water column. Highest oc-
currence of organic materials in the traps were recovered
from the Kawkawlin River site. Jude etal. (1993) also found
highest sediment bedload rates in the Flint River of the 16
Saginaw streams examined.
Farnworth era/. (1979) classified surface water nutrients
and sediment into three profile groups. Low, medium, and
high profile concentrations of total phosphorus were 0.005-
0.03, 0.9-2.0, and 270-1900 mg/l. Low, medium, and high
profile concentrations of total nitrogen were < 0.005, < 0.9,
and < 270, and for respective levels for suspended sedi-
ments > 0.03, > 2.0, and > 1900 mg/l. Using their profile
classifications, the total phosphorus concentrations within
the Saginaw basin would generally fall into a medium to
high profile, total nitrogen into a medium, and total sus-
pended solids indicative of low classification profile. The
East and West Coastal subbasins generally had higher
surface water profiles for total nitrogen and phosphorus
concentrations. Highest total suspended solid concentra-
tions were found in the Saginaw subbasin. Of these three
profile groups, Farnworth etal. (1979) found the best as-
sociations between phosphorus and sediment.
The Michigan Department of Natural Resources (1994)
defined reference (undisturbed) physical and chemical
properties in two ecoregions (HELP, SMNITP) within the
Saginaw basin. Their designations of reference ammonia
nitrogen, total phosphorus, and total suspended solid val-
ues were < 0.04, 0.06, and < 15 mg/l, respectively. In our
study, only the upstream sites approached these reference
levels. No metal comparisons could be made because all
the measurements were below detection limits. Although
many East Coastal subbasin nutrients were above the ref-
3-12
-------
Table 3-7. Subbasin and Watershed Fish Characteristics
A. By Subbasin8
Eastern
Saginaw
Abundance/sample
Richness/sample
Community Structure
% Shad
% Chubs
% Minnows/shiners
% Suckers
% Bass/sunfish
% Darters
Functional Groups
% Herbivores
% Insectivores
% Omnivores
% Piscivores
Sensitivity
% Tolerant
% Intolerant
Habitat
% Flowing Water
% Generalist
477
9
(99-3021)
(5-19)
10 (0-64)
0
38 (4-80)
7 (0-35)
21 (0-76)
15 (<1-46)
0
68 (6-100)
26 (0-90)
6 (0-28)
80 (33-98)
20 (2-67)
10 (0-28)
90 (72-97)
211 (20-672)
10 (5-18)
1 (0-16)
3 (0-8)
43 (5-96)
11 (0-45)
3 (0-15)
22 (0-72)
1 (0-6)
80 (2-100)
17 (0-90)
2 (0-11)
83 (51-100)
17 (0-49)
44 (13-87)
56 (13-87)
Abundance/sample
Richness/sample
Community Structure
% Shad
% Chubs
% Minnows/shiners
% Suckers
% Bass/sunfish
% Darters
Functional Groups
% Herbivores
% Insectivores
% Omnivores
% Piscivores
Sensitivity
% Tolerant
% Intolerant
Habitat
% Flowing Water
% Generalist
Flint
153
8
3
3
45
14
2
29
0
66
32
3
85
15
43
57
B. By Watershed6
Cass
310
12
0
0
40
9
6
28
1
82
14
4
74
26
49
51
Chippewa
196
10
0
5
45
8
1
10
<1
97
1
1
89
11
41
59
"Average value and minimum, maximum values.
"Average value.
erence levels, total suspended solids concentrations met
these conditions. Baker (1985) pointed out that suspended
solids in many small streams decrease rapidly following
rainfall events. The lower total suspended solid concentra-
tions found in the east subbasin streams reflect their smaller
physical size and rapid decreases in TSS concentrations
would be expected following episodic rainfall events.
Ammonia nitrogen can reach toxic concentrations in river
sediments. Previous studies have shown total ammonia
nitrogen concentrations > 10 mg/l significantly inhibited
daphnid and algal yields in sediment pore water samples
collected from the Fox (Ankley et al., 1990) and the Min-
nesota Rivers (Arthur et al., 1994). In this study, toxic im-
pacts were also uncovered where ammonia nitrogen con-
centrations exceeded > 10 mg/l. Additional Saginaw River
sediment pore water tests were reported by Schubauer-
Berigan et al. (1990) and toxic compounds identified be-
sides ammonia were hydrogen sulfide, metals, and non-
polar compounds.
3-13
-------
Macroinvertebrate communities found in agricultural wa-
tersheds have been characterized as having taxa tolerant
of soft stream substrates (Menzel, 1984) and containing
fewer EPT taxa (Lenat, 1984). As stress increased, chi-
ronomids became more abundant while mayflies and
caddisflies were less common (Gammon et a/., 1983). In
our study, higher percentages of chironomids were found
in the Quanicassee and Kawkawlin watersheds (Appendix
D.2 and D.4). Mayfly and caddisfly populations were gen-
erally scarce. At these sites, the macroinvertebrate com-
munity had low community richness, EPT, and ICI index
values (Appendix D.10).
On a functional basis, Lenat (1984) characterized agricul-
tural streams by scraper, collector-gatherer, and filter-feeder
groups. He attributed their dominance to higher quantities
of suspended particulate organics and increased periphy-
ton. In our study, we did not find distinctive benthic group-
ings related to the measured water quality differences.
Fish communities collected from an agricultural watershed
in Indiana were characterized as having lower proportions
of bass and sunfish, darters, and sensitive minnows groups
(Gammon et a/., 1983) than in less disturbed watersheds.
In our study, sunfish and several minnow species were
common in the east subbasin locations, but few darter spe-
cies were collected. Menzel (1984), in his survey of low
order streams in Iowa, found cyprinids to be numerically
dominant. He found few sunfish and bass and darters. His
Iowa list of intolerant fish were the northern hogsucker,
rosyface shiner, hornyhead chub, and the southern red belly
dace. Ruhl's (1995) intolerant list of fishes for the Upper
Illinois River were the fantail darter, stoneroller, bigmouth
shiner, and smallmouth bass; the tolerant group was com-
posed of green sunfish, fathead minnows, and creek chubs.
The distribution of fish species found in our study agrees
with these two lists. The intolerant species generally oc-
curred at the upstream sites in the Saginaw subbasin, and
tolerants commonly occurring in the lower downstream sta-
tions and in the East Coastal subbasin.
Allan (1991) reported on fish collections at 12 headwater
stream sites within the Cass, Flint, and Chippewa water-
sheds. Only one of their station locations matched ours
(station 255). Most abundant fish collected were the creek
chub, common shiner, hornyhead chub, mudminnow, and
the white sucker. His reference IBI scores ranged from 34
to 44, and the best associations with the IBI index were
with the percent of omnivores and insectivores.
The north branch of the Chippewa River is a marked vi-
sual contrast to the largely forested southern branch of the
Chippewa River. The middle portion of North Branch of the
Chippewa River contains a channelized agricultural reach
demarked by upper and lower forested reaches. King et al.
(1993) did a comparative study in the forested and agricul-
tural reaches and found lower species richness for both
the benthic and fish communities in the agricultural reach.
In addition, stoneflies and glossosomatid caddisflies were
restricted to the nonchannelized portions. Three of King's
benthic stations were the same as in our study (stations
252-254). We observed similar changes in this agricultural
reach.
The Michigan Department of Natural Resources (1991)
addressed reference biological conditions in preparation
defining state biocriteria. Their definition of a high quality
reference fish community included occurrences of large
proportions of darters, sunfish, and sucker fish species. A
reference macroinvertebrate community was defined as
having high numbers of total taxa (richness) and EPT taxa.
Using these definitions, high quality fish locations would
be in the upper portions of the Flint (station 210-10) and
Chippewa (station 256) rivers. For the macroinvertebrate
community, high quality sites would be identified as in the
upstream portions of the Flint (station 216), Chippewa (255)
and also the Pine (241) rivers.
The Ohio EPA (1987) has derived ICI macroinvertebrate
biocriteria for Ohio streams including the HELP ecoregion
covering a portion of the Saginaw basin. Their recom-
mended HELP biocriteria index for headwater and wade-
able streams would be an ICI of 32. Several upstream sites
within the Saginaw subbasin met or exceeded this protec-
tive level (Appendix D.10). By contrast, neither the East or
West Coastal subbasin sites met the recommended ICI
biocriterion. Ohio's recommended fish IBI HELP biocriterion
is 32, and three locations in the East Coastal and six loca-
tions in the Saginaw subbasin met this value (Appendix
E.3). On a proportional basis, fewer stations had ICI val-
ues exceeding the recommended macroinvertebrate
biocriterion than the fish value, indicating that in our study
the ICI biocriterion measure was more sensitive and dis-
criminating.
Significant associations were found among the
macroinvertebrate community metrics and the nutrients and
total suspended solid measurements (Appendix D.12). Sig-
nificant correlations were found (P< 0.01) between the bio-
logical measures of total taxa, EPT and ICI indices and
the three chemical/sediment factors of surface water TP,
sediment pore water NH3-N and NO +NO3. Highest asso-
ciations were between these chemical/sediment factors and
the ICI index. Results from the Spearman nonparametric
tests showed that benthic abundance was positively cor-
related while the community metrics were negatively cor-
related with the nutrients and total suspended solids.
Benthic macroinvertebrate abundance was more strongly
correlated with total suspended solids than the nutrients.
Higher sediment pore water NK-N concentrations were
related to decreasing total taxa, EPT, and ICI values. How-
ever, increasing community metric values were positively
related to higher amounts of NO2+NOX Mixed associations
were found between the metrics and O-PO4. Overall, sedi-
ment pore water NH3-N and NO2+NO3 and the
macroinvertebrate EPT and ICI metrics were the factors
most strongly associated together.
3-14
-------
More detailed examinations on these interrelationships
within the Saginaw subbasin have been reported using
principal component and other multivariate techniques.
Richards etal. (1993) analyzed the 1990 survey data and
found significant benthic associations with substrate com-
position and embeddedness. Additional physical features
influencing the biological community were stream eleva-
tion, width, and the watershed size. Higher nutrient con-
centrations were associated with corresponding decreases
in habitat QHEI scores. Johnson etal. (1995) found rowcrop
agriculture to be the dominant landscape factor in the ba-
sin that appeared to influence the instream chemical gra-
dients. The Shiawassee, Chippewa/Pine, and Kawkawlin
watersheds had the lowest nutrient concentrations. Strong
associations were found between rowcrop and alkalinity,
TSS and the summer nutrients. Differences in land char-
acteristics adjacent to the steams accounted for more vari-
ance than catchment features. The phosphorus gradients
appeared to be regulated by factors other than landscape.
A similar study was conducted in an agricultural river ba-
sin located in central Minnesota (Arthur et al., 1994). Sig-
nificant associations were found between surface water
ammonia, the QHEI habitat index, and macroinvertebrate
community richness, EPT, and ICI. The Minnesota River
study differed from this study by finding stronger correla-
tions between ammonia in the surface water rather than in
the sediment pore water measurements.
3-15
-------
4. Summary and Conclusions
Multiple "lines of evidence" are frequently used to infer
causality from field studies (Sheehan and Loucks, 1994).
Comparative information is necessary on stressors and
responses at several sites and in other regional systems.
All impacted locations in our study were related to agricul-
tural land uses. More impacted locations were present in
the East Coastal subbasin. Forested watershed sites had
the highest quality biological communities. This study has
shown linkages among several physical and chemical stres-
sors to macroinvertebrate and fish community response
indicators. Prominent physical stressors identified were the
low habitat scores related to the soft stream substrate sedi-
ments and elevated total suspended solid concentrations.
Elevated chemical constituents were total phosphorus,
ammonia nitrogen, and nitrite+nitrates. Despite the impor-
tance and interrelationship of these components, ascrib-
ing causality from any one stressorto a biological commu-
nity response may be inconclusive because of potential
roles by other unknown stressors. However, ammonia ni-
trogen appeared to be an important stressor due to its pre-
viously demonstrated association with toxic inplace sedi-
ments and being commonly associated with degraded
stream biological communities.
This study has shown the value of ecoregional information
in assisting with the definition of attainable biological con-
ditions. The results gathered from this study and from state
ecoregional reference studies indicated relatively
unimpacted biological communities existed in upstream
portions within the Flint, Pine, and Chippewa rivers. How-
ever, descriptive data from more pristine watershed loca-
tions would furnish additional important quantitative infor-
mation to serve as benchmarks for enhancing watershed
quality.
Our Saginaw River Basin study has demonstrated the value
of applying integrated methods that include physical, chemi-
cal, and biological components. We have shown that these
watershed procedures need to be applied in a step-wise
fashion for evaluating quality. Lacking information on any
component can render incomplete descriptions about wa-
tershed quality. However, more comparative stream stud-
ies are needed to fully develop these quantitative relation-
ships. Additional comparisons will help to further discrimi-
nate and rank the watershed stressors and responses.
4-1
-------
References
Allan, J.D. 1991. Fish assemblages of the Saginaw Bay
watershed. Report of project findings. University of
Michigan.
Almendinger, J.E. and G.B. Mitton. 1995. Hydrology and
relation of selected water-quality constituents to se-
lected physical factors in Dakota County, Minnesota,
1990-1991. U.S. Geological Survey, Water-Resources
Investigations Report 94-4207, Mounds View, MN, 26
pp.
American Public Health Association. 1980. Standard Meth-
ods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 15th
edition, American Public Health Association, Washing-
ton, DC.
Ankley, G.T., A. Katko, and J.W. Arthur. 1990. Identification
of ammonia as an important sediment-associated toxi-
cant in the lower Fox River, Green Bay, Wl. Environ.
Toxicol. Chem. 9:313 322.
Arthur, J.W. and J.A. Zischke. 1994. Evaluation of water-
shed quality in the Minnesota River basin. EPA/600/R-
94/143, August, Environmental Research Laboratory-
Duluth, Duluth, MN.
Arthur, J.W., J.A. Thompson, C.T. Walbridge, and H.W.
Read. 1994. Ambient toxicity assessments in the Min-
nesota River basin. Minnesota River Assessment
Project, Volume III, 10 p. and appendices, January,
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Legislative Com-
mission River Resources.
Baker, D.B. 1985. Impacts of cropland runoff on nutrient
and pesticide concentrations in river systems. IN: The
Off-site Costs of Soil Erosion, T.E. Waddell, ed., Sym-
posium Proc., May, Conservation Foundation, Wash-
ington DC, pp. 63-80.
Barbour, M.T., J.L. Plafkin, B.P. Bradley, C.G. Graves, and
R.W. Wisseman. 1992. Evaluation of EPA's rapid
bioassessment benthic metrics: metric redundancy and
variability among reference stream sites. Environ.
Toxicol. Chem. 111:437- 449.
Brandon, D.L., C.R. Lee, J.W. Simmers, H.E.Tatem, and
J.G. Skogerbe. 1991. Information summary, area of
concern: Saginaw River and Saginaw Bay. Department
of the Army, Waterways Experiment Station, Corps of
Engineers, Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199, March, Misc.
PaperEL-91-7.
Carlander, K.D. 1977. Handbook of Freshwater Fishery
Biology, Vols. 1-2, Iowa State University Press, Ames,
Iowa.
Farnworth, E.G., M.C. Nichols, L.N. Vann, L.G. Wolfson,
R.W. Bosserman, P.R. Hendrix, F.B. Golley, and J.L.
Cooley. 1979. Impacts of sediment and nutrients on
biota in surface waters of the United States. EPA-600/
3-79-105, October, Environmental Research Labora-
tory, Athens, GA.
Gammon, J.R., M.D. Johnson, C.E. Mays, D.A. Schiappa,
W.L. Fisher, and B.L. Pearman. 1983. Effects of agri-
culture on stream fauna in central Indiana. EPA-600/
3-83-020, April, Environmental Research Laboratory,
Corvallis, OR 97333.
Gosselink, J.G., G.P. Shaffer, L.C. Lee, D.M. Burdick, D.L.
Childers, N.C. Leibowitz, S.C. Hamilton, R. Boumans,
D. Cushman, S. Fields, M. Koch, and J.M. Visser. 1990.
Landscape conservation in a forested wetland water-
shed. Bioscience 40:588-600.
Harlan, J.R. and E.B. Speaker. 1987. Iowa Fish and Fish-
ing. Iowa Department of Natural Resources.
Jude, D.J., D. Francis, J. Barres, and S. Deboe. 1993. Sus-
pended solids and bedload transport of nutrients, heavy
metals, and PCBs in 16 major tributaries to Saginaw
Bay, 1990-1992. Center for Great Lakes and Aquatic
Sciences, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Ml 48109-
2099, October.
Johnson, L.B. and C. Richards. 1992. Investigation of land-
scape influences on stream macroinvertebrates. Wa-
ter Resources Update 87:41-48.
R-1
-------
Johnson, L, C. Richards, G. Host, and J. Arthur. 1995.
Landscape influences on water chemistry in
midwestern stream ecosystems. Environmental Man-
agement (IN PRESS).
King, R., D. Wujek, H. Lenon, S. Rier, and R.Yuill. 1993.
North Branch Chippewa River water quality study. East
Central Michigan Planning and Development Region
Project #4900 CHIPRVR, August.
Klemm, D.J., P.A. Lewis, F. Fulk, and J.M. Lazorchak. 1990.
Macroinvertebrate field and laboratory methods for
evaluating the biological integrity of surface waters. En-
vironmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory-Cincinnati,
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268, November, EPA-600/4-90-030.
Klemm, D.J., Q.J. Stober, and J.M. Lazorchak. 1993. Fish
field and laboratory methods for evaluating the bio-
logical integrity of surface waters. Environmental Moni-
toring Systems Laboratory- Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio
45268, March, EPA-600/R-92/111.
Lachat, 1988. Methods Manual for the Quikchem Auto-
mated Ion Analyzer. Lachat Instruments, Milwaukee,
Wl.
Lenat, D.R. 1984. Agriculture and stream water quality: a
biological evaluation of erosion control practices.
Environ. Management 8:333-344.
Menzel, B.W., J.B. Barnum, and L.M. Antosch. 1984. Eco-
logical alterations of Iowa prairie-agricultural streams.
Iowa State Jour. Research 59:5-30.
Merritt, R.W. and K.W. Cummins, eds. 1984. An Introduc-
tion to the Aquatic Insects of North America. Second
edition. Kendal/Hunt Publishing Co., Dubuque, IA.
Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 1988. Reme-
dial action plan for Saginaw River and Saginaw bay
area of concern. September, 588 pp.
Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 1991. Refer-
ence site scores for wadeable streams, 1990-1991.
Surface Water Quality Division, November, MI/DNR/
SWQ91/291.
Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 1993. Saginaw
Bay National Watershed Initiative. Communication Fact
Sheets, Saginaw Valley State Univ., April.
Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 1994. Refer-
ence Site Monitoring Report 1992-1993. Surface Wa-
ter Quality Division, May, MI/DNR/SWQ-94/048.
Michigan Department of Transportation. 1993. Highway
map.
Michigan United Conservation Clubs. 1993. Saginaw bay
watershed land use & zoning study. September.
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. 1987. Biological
Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Life: Volumes II
and III. Users Manual for Biological Field Assessments
of Ohio Surface Waters. Surface Water Section, Divi-
sion of Water Quality, Columbus, OH 43212.
Omernick, J.M. and A.L. Gallant. 1988. Ecoregions of the
upper midwest states. Environmental Research Labo-
ratory, Corvallis, OR , September, EPA-600/3-88-037.
Plafkin, J.L., M.T. Barbour, K.D. Porter, S.K. Gross, and
R.M. Hughes. 1989. Rapid bioassessment protocols
for use in streams and rivers. U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, Assessment and Watershed Protec-
tion Division, Washington , DC, May, EPA-444/4-89-
001.
Richards, C., G.E. Host, and J.W. Arthur. 1993. Identifica-
tion of predominant environmental factors structuring
stream macroinvertebrate communities within a large
agricultural catchment. Freshwat. Biol. 29:285-294.
Richards, C. and G. Host. 1994. Examining land use influ-
ences on stream habitats and macroinvertebrates: a
GIS approach. Water Resources Bulletin 30:729-738.
Richards, C., L. Johnson, and G. Host. 1995. Assessing
the influence of landscape scale catchment features
on physical habitats and stream biota. . (IN PRESS).
Ruhl, P.M. 1995. Surface-water-quality assessment of the
Upper Illinois River basin in Illinois, Indiana, and Wis-
consin: Analysis of relations between fish-community
structure and environmental conditions in the Fox, Des
Plaines, and Du Page River basins in Illinois, 1982-
1984. U.S. Geological Survey, Water-Resources Inves-
tigations Report 94-4094.
Schubauer-Berigan, M.K., J.R. Dierkes, and G.T. Ankley.
1990.Toxicity identification evaluations of contaminated
sediments in the Buffalo River, NY and the Saginaw
River, Ml. National Effluent Toxicity Assessment Cen-
ter Technical Report 20-90, December, Environmental
Research Laboratory-Duluth, Duluth, MN.
Sheehan, P.J. and O.L Loucks. 1994. Issue paper on ef-
fects characterization. IN: Ecological Risk Assessment
Issue Papers, Risk Assessment Forum, Washington
DC, November, EPA/630/R-94/0090.
R-2
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1989. Methods for
the chemical analysis of water and wastes. U.S. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency, Environmental Monitor-
ing Systems Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH, March. EPA-
600/4-89-020.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1989. Short-term
methods for estimating the chronic toxicity of effluents
and receiving waters to freshwater organisms. Sec-
ond edition, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, En-
vironmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory, Cincin-
nati, OH. EPA-600/4-89-001.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1991. The water-
shed protection approach. An Overview. Office of Wa-
ter, Washington, DC, December. EPA-503/9-92-002.
R-3
-------
APPENDIX A
STATION LOCATIONS AND LAND USE
Page:
A.I STATION DESCRIPTIONS AND SAMPLE CODES A-2
A. 2 SITE LOCATIONS A-6
A. 3 LAND USE BY COUNTY A-8
A-l
-------
Appendix Table A.I STATION DESCRIPTIONS AND SAMPLE CODES.
I
rv>
Location
(Comp. Sta. #)
County
1990
1991
EAST COASTAL SUBBASIN
Pinneboq River
Hwy 25 (110)
Filion Road (111)
Pigeon River
Kinde Road (120)
Kilmanagh Road (121)
McAlpin Road (122)
State Drain
Rescue Road (130)
Allen Drain
Bay Park Road (140)
Dutcher Road (141)
Quanicassee River
Briggs Road (150)
Cotter Road (150-1)
Gilford Road (151)
Dutcher Road (152)
Drainage Ditch
Knight Road (154)
Subbasin Totals
SAGINAW SUBBASIN
Saginaw River
D&M Railroad Bridge (1)
GD TR Railroad Bridge (2)
Brennan Marine (3)
Saginaw WWTP (4)
Weiss St. Drain (5)
Above Weiss Drain (6)
Wickes Park (7)
Tittabawassee River
Center St. (8)
Caldwell Boat Ramp (9)
No. Saginaw Road (10)
Hay Road (12)
Sugar River Road (13)
Bid Salt River
Chippewa Road (250-7)
Huron
Huron
Huron
Huron
Huron
Huron
Tuscola
Tuscola
Bay
Bay
Tuscola
Tuscola
Bay
Bay
Bay
Bay
Saginaw
Saginaw
Saginaw
Saginaw
Saginaw
Midland
Midland
Gladwin
Gladwin
Isabella
31
32
33
35
36
5/'90 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
110
111
120
121
122
130
140
141
150
151
152
154
L2/'91
-
1992 1993
111
121
130
140
150-1
154 154
l/'92 6/'93
In Decimal Degrees
Longitude Latitude
-83.0755
-83.1547
-83.2416
-83.2443
-83.1737
-83.428
-83.5658
-83.5183
-83.7116
-83.6086
-83.5982
-83.8591
-83.8970
-83.9056
-83.9103
-83.9423
-83.9461
-83.9693
-84.4116
43.99358
43.8908
43.9395
43.75832
43.70263
43.71187
43.65247
43.55236
43.55082
43.49407
43.55147
43.61887
43.60733
43.55305
43.48767
43.44127
43.43661
43.40014
44.14233
250-7
-------
Appendix Table A.I STATION DESCRIPTIONS AND SAMPLE CODES (Cont.).
3=-
CO
Location (Comp. Sta. ft) County
Cass River
Dixie Highway (200) Saginaw
Wells Road (201) Tuscola
Dodge Road (203) Tuscola
Germania Road (200-7) Sanilac
Leslie Road (200-8) Sanilac
Shabonna Road (200-9) Sanilac
White Creek
Murray Road (202) Tuscola
Deckerville Road (200-5) Tuscola
Adams Road (200-10) Sanilac
Evergreen Creek
Waterman Road (200-2) Tuscola
Sucker Creek
Albion Road (200-3) Tuscola
Flint River
Creswell Road (210) Saginaw
Mount Morris Road (211) Genesee
Irish Road (212) Genesee
Highway 90 (213) Lapeer
Plum Creek Rd (214) Lapeer
Taggart Road (215) Lapeer
Columbiaville Rd (216) Lapeer
Higley Road (210-10) Lapeer
Hutchinson Rd (210-4) Lapeer
Mud Creek
Potter Road (210-1) Genesee
Swartz Creek
Bristol Road (210-2) Genesee
Thread Creek
Bristol Road (210-3) Genesee
Indian Creek
Barnes Road (210-5) Lapeer
Farmers Creek
Nepissing St. (210-9) Lapeer
Shiawassee River
Natl. Wildlfe Refuge (21) Saginaw
Fergus Road (220) Saginaw
Juddville Road (221) Shiawassee
In Decimal Degrees
1990
28
29
30
1991
200
201
203
202
25
26
27
210
211
212
213a
214
215
216
1992 1993
200-1 200-1
200-6
200-7
200-8 200-8
200-9 200-9
200-4
200-5
200-10
200-2 200-2
200-3
210-7
210-6
210-8 210-8
210-10 210-10
210-4
210-1
210-2
210-3
210-5
210-9
210-2
210-3
210-9
21
22
220
221
Longitude
-83
-83
-83
-83
-83
-83
-84
-83
-83
-83
-83
-83
-83
-83
-83
-83
-83
-83
-83
-83
-83
-83
-83
-83
-83
-84
-84
.8302
.4411
.232
.0178
.035
.0439
.3087
.2615
.0686
.4761
.3473
.993
.8598
.5576
.3216
.3452
.2709
.3511
.2654
.1965
.8229
.7682
.6356
.2296
.3081
.1090
.1812
Latitude
43.
43.
43.
43,
43.
43.
43.
43.
43,
43,
43.
43,
43,
43.
43,
43,
43,
43,
43.
43.
43.
42,
42.
43,
43
43.
43
.32982
.45011
.56965
.65976
.5479
.53186
.5132
.5122
.44392
.39447
.48459
.31907
.11759
.10269
.20453
.09222
.25066
.15976
.02241
.21568
.04555
.9729
.97488
.26679
.05576
.25777
.05672
-------
Appendix Table A.I STATION DESCRIPTIONS AND SAMPLE CODES (Cont.).
Location
(Comp. Sta. #)
County
1990
1991
1992
1993
Kerby Road
Duffield Road
Chase Lake Road
Lansing Road
Bad River
Ring Road
Chapin Road
Pine River
Prairie Road
MaGrudder Road
McGregor Road
St. Charles Road
Fremont Road
Crystal Road
Brush Creek
Redstone Road
Chippewa River
(222)
(223)
(224)
(225)
(230)
(231)
(240)
(240-0)
(241)
(240-2)
(240-3)
(242)
(240-4)
Homer Road (250)
Lincoln Road (251)
Bluegrass Rd (256)
Meridan Road (252)
Drew Road (250-3)
Herrick Road (253)
Rosebush Road (254)
10th Ave. (255)
Hoover Road (250-5)
Little Salt River
West Stewart Road (250-6)
Subbasin Totals
WEST COASTAL SUBBASIN
Kawkawlin River
State Park Road
Wheeler Road
Wheeler Road
Eight Mile Road
Seven Mile Road
Linwood Road
(37)
(300)
(39)
(301)
(302)
(303)
Shiawassee
Genesee
Livingston
Shiawassee
Saginaw
Saginaw
Midland
Midland
Gratiot
Gratiot
Isabella
Montcalm
Midland
Midland
Isabella
Isabella
Isabella
Isabella
Isabella
Mescosta
Mescosta
Mescosta
Midland
Bay
Bay
Bay
Bay
Bay
Bay
15
16
18
17
37
38
39
250
251
256
252
253
254
255
240-4
250-1
250-2
250-3
250-4
250-5
29/'90 30/'91
300
301
302
303
250-1
250-2
250-4
250-4
250-5
250-6
32/'92 16/'93
In
Decimal Degrees
Longitude
-84.
-83.
-83.
-84.
-84.
-84.
-84.
-84.
-84.
-84.
-84.
-84.
-84.
-84.
-84.
-84.
-84.
-85.
-84.
-84.
-85.
-85.
0686
8957
9827
0543
1922
3066
303
5087
5978
7833
9855
9057
4975
3305
8092
8488
8481
0305
9071
8583
1081
1328
Latitude
42
42
42
42
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
.97595
.81674
.70863
.89585
.2667
.19818
.59737
.4929
.42967
.30664
.49524
.43345
.48063
.6005
.58702
.57674
.59192
.66126
.79899
.69817
.74898
.77743
-84.423
-83.9764
-84.0282
-84.0489
-84.012
-84.1234
43.57481
43.63875
43.70106
43.63154
43.698
43.73966
-------
Appendix Table A.I STATION DESCRIPTIONS AND SAMPLE CODES (Cont.).
Location
Pine River
State Road
Rifle River
State Road
(Comp. Sta. tt) County
(40) Arenac
(41) Arenac
1990 1991
40
41
1992 1993
In Decimal Degrees
Longitude Latitude
Au Gres River
State Road
Subbasin Totals
(43)
Arenac
43
6/'90
4/'91 0/'92
OVERALL =29 Drainages 87 Stations
0/'93
DRAINAGE SUMMARY
i
on
EAST COASTAL SUBBASIN
Pinnebog River 2
Pigeon River 3
State Drain 1
Allen Drain 2
Quanicassee River 5
Knight Road Drain !_
6 Drainages 14 stations
WEST COASTAL SUBBASIN
Kawkawlin River 6
Pine River 1
Rifle River 1
Au Gres River !_
4 Drainages 9 stations
SAGINAW RIVER BASIN
Saginaw River
Tittabawassee River
Big Salt River
Cass River
White Creek
Evergreen Creek
Sucker Creek
Flint River
Mud Creek
Swartz Creek
Thread Creek
Indian Creek
Farmers Creek
Shiawassee River
Bad River
Pine River
Brush Creek
Chippewa River
Little Salt River
19 Drainages
7
5
1
6
3
1
1
9
1
1
1
1
1
7
2
6
1
9
1
64 stations
-------
APPENDIX A. 2. SITE LOCATIONS.
1990 STATIONS
1991 STATIONS
-------
APPENDIX A.2. SITE LOCATIONS (Cont.)
1992 STATICS
1993 STATIONS
-------
Appendix Table A. 3 LAND USE BY COUNTY.
East Coastal Subbasin
West Coastal Subbasin
3=-
i
00
Huron
Use Designation
% Agriculture
% Forest
% Open
% Wetlands
% Urban
% Other
Total Acres 537,
Use Designation
% Agriculture
% Forest
% Open
% Wetlands
% Urban
% Other
Total Acres 287,
82
10
3
3
2
< 1
400
Bay
68
14
6
2
7
4
400
Midland
Use Designation
% Agriculture
% Forest
% Open
% Wetlands
% Urban
% Other
Total Acres 340,
30
47
10
4
6
3
000
Tuscola Overall
66
18
9
4
2
1
521,700
Genesee
41
14
17
2
22
5
415, 600
Montcalm
53
27
9
6
3
3
461,200
1,059
Gladwin
21
53
13
9
2
2
330,200
Saginaw
64
18
4
1
11
3
522,200
74
14
6
3
2
1
,100
Saginaw
Gratiot
76
14
5
3
2
1
365,800
Saginaw
Sanilac
78
9
6
4
2
1
617,000
Arenac Bay
36 68
45 14
11 6
4 2
2 7
2 4
235,500 287,400
Subbasin
Overall
53
28
8
3
5
3
522,900
Isabella Lapeer Livingston Mecosta
59 57
23 18
10 13
4 5
3 5
2 3
369,700 424,100
Subbasin (cont) .
Shiawassee Tuscola
73 66
10 18
9 9
2 4
4 2
2 1
346,200 521,700
35
21
22
7
9
5
374,600 365,
Overall
58
17
13
4
4
3
1, 666, 600 3,
35
42
15
4
2
3
600
OVERALL
SUMMARY
63
18
10
4
4
2
248,500
Source: Michigan United Conservation Clubs (1993)
-------
APPENDIX B
TOXICITY TESTS
B.I CERIODAPHNIA DUBIA AND SEDIMENT PORE WATER B-2
B.2 SELENASTRUM CAPRICORNATUM AND SEDIMENT PORE WATER . . . B-4
B-l
-------
APPENDIX TABLE B.I
Station
Percent
Cone.
CERIODAPHNIA DUBIA AND SEDIMENT PORE WATER.
Sampling Period
11/90
Surv.a Yieldb
120
121
130
140
150
1
2
3
4
5
9
12
13
200
201
201
203
210
211
214
100
50
100
50
100
50
100
50
100
50
100
50
100
50
100
50
25
100
50
100
50
25
12
6
3
100
50
25
100
50
100
50
100
100
100
100
50
100
50
100
100
50
100
50
100
06/90
Surv.
East
100
100
100
100
-
100
100
100
Yield
08/90
Surv.
Yield
Coastal Subbasin
23
21
20
20
-
16
18
22
100
-
100
-
100
100
100
_
19
_
22
-
33
37
18
_
Saqinaw Subbasin
100
100
-
-
100
100
-
0
100
0
0
100
-
-
-
40
100
-
100
100
100
100
-
-
-
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
90
100
17
18
-
-
3
17
-
0
11
0
0
16
-
-
-
2
28
-
23
18
19
24
-
-
-
27
15
24
27
16
18
13
27
29
100
100
100
100
80
50
100
-
_
-
0
0
90
100
100
10
10
90
100
-
100
-
100
100
100
100
100
-
100
100
-
100
-
100
43
53
33
51
3
14
20
-
_
_
0
5
19
29
30
0
0
20
22
-
44
-
40
16
17
19
18
_
19
19
-
21
-
18
100
100
100
100
19
20
20
20
90
100
80
100
90
100
100
26
26
21
20
20
22
20
5-2
-------
APPENDIX TABLE B.I
CERIODAPHNIA DUBIA AND SEDIMENT PORE WATER
(Cont.).
Sampling Period
Station
21
220
224
230
240
241
250
251
252
255
37
300
39
40
41
Percent
Cone.
100
50
100
50
100
50
100
100
50
100
50
100
50
100
50
100
50
100
50
100
50
100
50
100
100
100
50
06/90
Surv.
100
100
100
100
100
100
-
80
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
West
100
100
100
100
-
-
100
100
Yield
18
17
20
24
14
20
-
15
17
24
23
20
24
20
24
15
18
24
26
Coastal
16
20
29
17
-
-
21
18
08/90
Surv.
100
-
10
90
100
-
100
100
-
100
-
100
-
100
-
100
-
100
-
Subbasin
100
-
100
-
100
100
100
Yield
20
-
0
14
20
-
20
23
-
43
-
15
-
18
17
-
20
-
20
-
17
-
18
18
22
11/90
Surv." Yieldb
-
100 22
100 23
-
- -
-
_ __
_ _
_ _
- -
90 25
100 22
- -
- _
- _
- -
- _
- -
_
- _
_ _
- _
- _
_
- Surv. - Percent Survival
b - Yield - Average number of young produced at end of test.
0 - No Test.
B-3
-------
APPENDIX TABLE B.2
SELENASTRUM CAPRICORNATUM AND SEDIMENT PORE
WATER.
Sampling Period
06/90
08/90
Percent
Station
Cone.
Final Prop . %
Final Prop. %
Biomass Response Biomass* Response13
East Coastal
Subbasin
No Tests Conducted
Sacfinaw Subbasin
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
200
201
203
210
211
214
21
224
240
241
250
251
252
255
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
24
25
15
11
6
22
28
33
25
26
-
-
17
17
-
16
20
-
18
18
20
-
-
25
17
25
West Coastal
10
15
- 32
- 49
- 73
- 2
25
47
11
18
-
-
- 9
- 5
-
- 15
7
-
- 5
- 2
9
-
-
36
- 9
35
Subbasin
21
17
17
-
< 1
7
18
22
19
-
20
19
21
20
19
20
20
23
17
20
15
25
20
21
18
18
88
48
52
_c
- 97
- 42
30
92
40
-
29
22
35
25
17
44
45
43
24
46
9
58
25
81
30
57
No Test Conducted
- Biomass in mg/1.
b - Proportional percent response from control response.
c - No Test.
B-4
-------
APPENDIX C
CHEMICAL MEASUREMENTS
Page
C.I NUTRIENT AND SUSPENDED SOLIDS - BY STATION C-2
C.2 ROUTINE SURFACE WATER MONITORING RESULTS - BY STATION . C-6
C.3 SUBBASIN ANIONS/CATIONS C-8
C.4 SEDIMENT TRAP YIELDS C-9
C-l
-------
Appendix Table C.I
NUTRIENT AND SUSPENDED SOLIDS - BY STATION.
Eastern Subbasin
Station
Surface Water
NH3-N mg/1
TP mg/1
N02+N03-N mg/1
0- P04 mg/1
TN mg/1
TSS mg/1
Sed. P. Water
NH3-N mg/1
TP mg/1
N02+NO3-N mg/1
0-CP04 mg/1
TN mg/1
Station
Surface Water
NH3-N mg/1
TP mg/1
NO2+N03-N mg/1
O- P04 mg/1
TN mg/1
TSS mg/1
Sed. P. Water
NH3-N mg/1
TP mg/1
NO2+N03-N mg/1
0- P04 mg/1
TN mg/1
110
0.04
0.06
1.0
0.03
2.1
33.6
0.45
0.06
1.2
0.02
1.8
I
1
0.15
0.07
1.2
0.08
2.2
-
4.59
0.01
0.3
0.08
6.2
111
0.04
0.05
0.9
0.05
1.6
28.4
0.29
0.06
0.7
0.04
2.7
2
0.24
0.11
0.9
0.09
1.8
-
4.35
0.09
0.8
0.10
6.5
120
0.08
0.12
4.4
0.08
6.8
30.0
0.22
0.04
3.0
0.07
4.6
3
0.14
0.09
1.1
0.07
2.0
-
10.24
0.16
0.3
0.18
12.8
121
0.04
0.03
0.9
0.02
1.5
12.9
0.28
0.05
0.4
0.04
2.3
4
-
-
-
-
-
-
17.40
0.12
0.6
0.18
15.6
122
0.03
0.04
0.4
0.02
0.6
40.6
0.53
0.05
1.1
0.02
4.2
5
0.17
0.12
0.9
0.07
2.0
67.25
0.81
0.3
0.48
65.4
130
0.03
0.05
2.8
0.02
4.1
23 .1
0.13
0.05
3.0
0.02
3 .8
Saginaw
6
0.08
0.04
1.1
0.06
1.8
18.50
0.08
0.4
0.12
19.7
140
0.05
0.04
2.7
0.06
3.8
10.1
2.84
0.08
1.9
0.04
4.1
Subbasin
7
0.02
0.06
1.0
0.05
1.8
0.60
0.10
0.5
0.04
2.0
141
0.02
0.05
2.5
0.02
3 .8
10.0
0.31
0.05
2.7
0.02
5.8
8
0.07
0.05
1. 0
0.06
1.7
0.53
0.08
0.8
0.07
2.3
150
0.13
0.19
3.5
0.08
5.0
169.6
2.37
0.24
0.9
0.12
4.6
9
0.26
0.04
0.8
0.05
1.7
~
0.95
0 .07
0.8
0.10
3 .0
151
0.03
0.05
3.6
0.06
4.9
10.4
0.15
0.05
4.1
0.02
5.1
10
0.01
0.04
< 0.1
0.02
0.6
0.22
0.06
0.4
0.11
1.5
152
0.02
0.05
3.6
0.07
4.8
16.4
0.10
0.05
3 .9
0.02
5.3
12
0.01
0.02
< 0 .1
0. 03
0.4
1.61
0.05
0 .2
0 . 07
2.7
-------
o
I
CO
Appendix Table C.1
Station
Surface Water
NH3-N mg/1
TP mg/1
N02+N03-N mg/1
0- P04 mg/1
TN mg/1
TSS mg/1
Sed. P. Water
NH3-N mg/1
TP mg/1
NO2+N03-N mg/1
O- PO4 mg/1
TN mg/1
Station
Surface Water
NH3-N mg/1
TP mg/1
N02+N03-N mg/1
O- P04 mg/1
TN mg/1
TSS mg/1
Sed. P. Water
NH3-N mg/1
TP mg/1
NO2+NO3-N mg/1
0- P04 mg/1
TN mg/1
NUTRIENT AND SUSPENDED SOLIDS - BY STATION (Cont.).
Saginaw Subbasin
13
0.02
0.01
< 0.1
0.05
0.1
-
0.06
0.06
0.1
0.03
0.7
200-3
0.02
0.02
0.7
0.02
1.2
80.5
0.18
0.03
0.6
0.09
1.4
200
0.04
0.05
1.0
0.02
1.7
54.3
1.00
0.05
0.7
0.03
2.7
210
0.06
0.15
2.7
0.07
3.7
57.8
1.86
0.10
1.9
0.06
5.0
201
0.09
0.05
1.6
0.02
2.3
74.4
0.24
0.04
1.4
0.02
2.4
211
0.05
0.09
2.0
0.09
2.9
62.1
2.30
0.07
1.2
0.03
5.6
203
0.03
0.04
2.0
0.02
2.7
68.1
0.18
0.04
1.3
0.02
2.2
212
0.07
0.05
0.2
0.02
1.0
83.2
1.02
0.05
0.1
0.02
1.9
200-7
0.06
0.02
2.9
0.02
3.4
162.0
0.91
0.03
1.4
0.01
2 .8
213
0.05
0.06
0.8
0.03
1.4
82.3
1.86
0.08
0.2
0.02
2.7
200-8
0.06
0.04
0.7
0.02
1.4
73 .1
0.25
0.05
0.6
0.02
1.8
Saginaw
214
0.04
0.07
0.6
0.03
1.2
72.8
0.08
0.06
2.0
0.04
2.7
200-9
0.04
0.06
2.8
0.03
3.5
108.5
0.81
0.04
1.7
0.02
3.0
Subbasin
215
0.08
0.05
0.5
0.02
0.6
85.9
0.86
0.05
0.1
0.03
2.1
202
0.03
0.04
1.0
0.05
1.8
45.1
0.23
0.06
0.5
0.02
2.4
216
0 .05
0.04
0.3
0.02
0.8
73.3
0.38
0.05
0.2
0.02
0.9
200-5
0.04
0.03
1.9
0.04
2.5
88.2
0.37
0.02
1.3
0.02
2.2
210-10
0.04
0.02
0.2
0.02
0.6
99.9
0.40
0.03
0.1
0.02
1.1
200-10
0.05
0.04
4.6
0.02
5.5
101.2
5.80
0.05
0.1
0.02
6.6
210-4
0.20
0.07
1.2
0.03
2.3
240.2
0.67
0.03
0.9
0.02
2.3
200-2
0.04
0.03
0.2
0.02
0.5
45.1
0.07
0.04
0.2
0.01
1.2
210-1
0.05
0.03
0.4
0.02
0.9
70.3
0.28
0.03
0.3
0.02
1.1
-------
Appendix Table C.I NUTRIENT AND SUSPENDED SOLIDS - BY STATION (Cont.).
o
Station
Surface Water
NH3-N mg/1
TP mg/1
N02+N03-N mg/1
0-P04 mg/1
TN mg/1
TSS mg/1
Sed. P. Water
NH3-N mg/1
TP mg/1
N02+N03-N mg/1
0-PO4 mg/1
TN mg/1
Station
Surface Water
NH3-N mg/1
TP mg/1
N02+N03-N mg/1
0-PO4 mg/1
TN mg/1
TSS mg/1
Sed. P. Water
NH3-N mg/1
TP mg/1
N02+N03-N mg/1
0-P04 mg/1
TN mg/1
210-2
0.08
0.04
0.8
0.02
1.4
113 .1
0.64
0.03
0.5
0.02
2 .0
230
0.04
0.05
1.1
0.02
1.7
24.7
0.18
0.05
1.2
0.03
2.5
210-3
0.04
0.02
0.3
0.02
0.9
72.3
0.79
0.03
0.2
0.02
1.6
231
0.06
0.05
1.5
0.03
2.2
48.7
0.32
0.05
1.3
0.03
2.1
210-5
0.11
0.09
2.1
0.05
3.0
139.9
0.48
0.04
1.2
0.03
2.5
240
0.03
0.05
1.1
0.04
1.8
49.7
0.43
0.06
0.9
0.06
2.2
210-9
0.06
0.02
0.3
0.01
0.8
100.6
0.43
0.06
0.2
0.01
1.2
240-0
0.04
0.02
0.5
0.02
1.1
88.0
0.98
0.02
0.4
0.02
1.8
21
0.11
0.08
1.5
0.13
2.2
-
5.83
0.14
0.2
0.11
-
241
0.14
0.05
0.8
0.02
1.5
71.1
0.43
0.06
0.6
0.04
1.9
220
0.03
0.07
0.6
0.03
1.2
77.9
0.46
0.06
0.5
0.04
1.9
Saginaw
240-2
0.04
0.02
0.6
0.01
0.9
80.6
0.11
0.03
0.5
0.02
1.0
221
0.03
0.07
0.6
0.03
1.4
42.6
0.37
0.06
0.4
0.03
1.6
222
0.04
0.06
0.1
0.03
1.1
47.7
0.21
0.06
0.4
0.03
1.1
223
0.05
0.05
< 0.1
0.02
0.6
33 .3
0.61
0.06
< 0.1
0.03
1.5
224
0.20
0.07
0.9
0.04
1.3
47.7
1.75
0.05
0.3
0.07
3 .0
225
0.04
0.05
0.2
0.02
0.7
55.8
0.28
0.05
0.1
0.03
1.0
Subbasin
240-3
0.05
0.03
0.7
0.02
1.0
95.8
0.32
0.05
0.4
0.02
1.3
242
0.03
0.05
0.6
0.03
1.1
35.6
0.86
0.08
0.4
0.03
2.0
240-4
0.04
0.01
5.0
0.01
5.6
86.7
0.58
0.04
4.8
0.02
6.1
250
0.05
0.04
0.9
0.03
1.4
37.4
1.98
0.05
0.5
0.05
3 .4
251
0.04
0.04
0.7
0.03
1.2
29.4
0.67
0.06
0.5
0.05
2.0
-------
o
I
Appendix Table C.I
Station
Surface Water
NH3-N mg/1
TP mg/1
N02+NO3-N mg/1
0-PO4 mg/1
TN mg/1
TSS mg/1
Sed. P. Water
NH3-N mg/1
TP mg/1
N02+N03-N mg/1
O-P04 mg/1
TN mg/1
Station
Surface Water
NH3-N mg/1
TP mg/1
N02+N03-N mg/1
0-P04 mg/1
TN mg/1
TSS mg/1
Sed. P. Water
NH3-N mg/1
TP mg/1
N02+NO3-N mg/1
0-P04 mg/1
TN mg/1
NUTRIENT AND SUSPENDED SOLIDS - BY STATION (Cont.).
Saginaw Subbasin
256
0.03
0.03
0.2
0.01
0.5
26.8
0.35
0.09
0.1
0.02
1.1
I
39
0.02
0.15
0.3
0.07
1.4
-
0.35
0.16
0.30
0.13
3.0
252
0.05
0.04
2.3
0.04
2.8
81.9
0.51
0.12
1.8
0.05
3.2
250-3
0.03
0.02
0.4
0.02
0.8
73 .9
0.10
0.04
0.2
0.01
0.8
253
0.02
0.05
< 0.1
0.02
0.5
15.8
0.30
0.05
< 0.1
0.02
0.9
254
0.09
0.06
2 .3
0.03
1.5
71.2
0.38
0.05
0.7
0.03
1.6
255
0.03
0.03
0.2
0.02
0.7
42.2
0.13
0.05
0.8
0.03
1.6
Western Subbasin
301
0.07
0.08
1.0
0.02
2.1
74.3
0.48
0.05
1.1
0.01
2.2
302
0.04
0.06
0.4
0.03
1.4
30.4
0.31
0.05
0.1
0.02
1.3
303
0.05
0.05
0.3
0.03
1.3
26.8
0.38
0.08
0.1
0.02
1.6
40
0.04 <
0. 04
1.6
0.03
2 .5
-
0.32
0.04
1.0
0.04
3.5
41
0.01
0.08
0.1
0.03
0.4
-
0.20
0.05
0.3
0.16
1.6
250-5
0.03
0.02
0.2
0.02
0.6
50.9
0.05
0.02
0.2
0.02
0.7
I
43
0.02
0.07
1.3
0.02
1.3
-
_
-
-
-
-
250-6
0.05
0.02
2.5
0.02
3.0
87.1
0.20
0.01
2.0
0.02
2 .7
I_
250-7
0.06 0
0.03 0
1.9
0.03 0
2.5
83 .6
0.38 1
0.03 0
0.9
0.02 0
1.9
Drainage I
154
0.18
0.08
2.8
0.03
1.5
134.3
2.09
0.07
0.9
0.02
3.8
37
.04
.10
2.0
.05
2.7
-
.08
.05
0.6
.10
4.0
300
0.03
0.46
2.2
0.06
2.1
82.4
2.61
0.28
0.5
0.07
5.0
-------
Appendix Table C.2 ROUTINE SURFACE WATER MONITORING RESULTS - BY STATION.
Eastern Subbasin
o
I
T.
Cond
T.
Cond
T.
Cond
T.
Cond
Station
Alk. mg/la
Turb . NTU
. [imhos/cm
TDS mg/1
Temp. ฐC.
Station
Alk. mg/1
Turb . NTU
. (imhos/cm
TDS mg/1
Temp. ฐC.
Station
Alk. mg/1
Turb . NTU
. |o,mhos/cm
TDS mg/1
Temp. ฐC.
Station
Alk. mg/1
Turb . NTU
. |imhos/cm
TDS mg/1
Temp . ฐC .
110
251
8
770
512
21
I
1
-
-
-
-
-
13
_
-
-
_
200-3
223
-
526
349
17
111
252
5
1036
690
17
2
-
-
-
-
-
200
222
30
629
421
19
210
204
32
727
484
21
120
275
5
827
549
18
3
-
-
-
-
201
253
30
699
467
19
211
209
6
669
446
21
121
266
12
683
455
18
4
-
-
203
267
9
776
517
19
212
225
25
578
384
19
122
304
13
780
518
17
5
-
-
200-7
256
-
718
478
18
213
271
34
696
465
18
130
175
15
587
395
18
Saginaw
6
-
Saginaw
200-8
270
-
765
510
16
Saginaw
214
251
29
672
447
19
140
169
12
703
472
19
Subbasin
7
-
Subbasin
200-9
257
-
830
553
18
Subbasin
215
270
8
693
469
16
141
181
6
545
375
25
8
-
~
~
202
261
2
457
467
19
216
250
8
625
417
17
150
226
57
583
397
19
9
-
200-5
266
-
661
440
17
210-10
259
-
559
395
18
151
252
5
681
447
21
10
-
~
200-10
286
807
537
18
210-4
244
-
688
459
18
152
206
7
589
410
19
12
-
~
~
200-2
261
481
320
17
210-1
278
1118
741
16
-------
Appendix Table C.2
ROUTINE MONITORING RESULTS - BY STATION (Cont.).
Saginaw Subbasin
o
I
Station
T. Alk. mg/1
Turb . NTU
Cond. |lmhos/cm
TDS mg/1
Temp . ฐC .
210-2
275
-
887
592
17
210-3
234
-
661
441
16
210-5
243
-
672
447
21
210-9
262
-
619
413
20
21
-
-
-
-
220
218
27
669
445
23
221
229
6
630
420
21
222
224
4
613
409
22
223
193
2
496
329
21
224
300
4
1191
792
22
225
216
3
609
405
20
Saginaw Subbasin
Station
T. Alk. mg/1
Turb. NTU
Cond. (imhos/cm
TDS mg/1
Temp . ฐC .
Station
T. Alk. mg/1
Turb . NTU
Cond. (imhos/cm
TDS mg/1
Temp . ฐC .
230
217
4
724
484
17
256
181
2
416
277
19
231
242
9
775
517
18
252
268
21
627
418
17
240
216
8
577
384
20
250-3
199
-
434
275
19
240-0
222
-
600
399
22
253
199
3
356
238
16
Western Subbasin
Station
T. Alk. mg/1
Turb . NTU
Cond. [imhos/cm
TDS
Temp. ฐ C.
39
_
-
-
-
301
202
33
778
518
19
302
148
5
385
257
18
303
140
7
344
228
18
241
222
25
587
392
22
254
237
17
544
363
17
I
40
_
-
-
-
240-2
232
-
543
361
22
255
170
3
352
234
18
I_
240-3
231
-
480
319
19
250-5
167
-
347
231
19
Special
153
_
-
-
-
242
221
3
470
314
18
250-6
205
-
647
431
21
240-4
206
-
758
505
22
I
250-7
231
-
896
598
19
250
191
7
406
336
18
I
37
_
-
-
-
-
251
192
4
437
291
18
300
225
36
792
527
20
Drainages I
Kn Rd
310
-
865
574
17
- = No Info, T. Alk = Total Alkalinity, Turb. = Turbidity, Cond = Total Conductivity,
Cond. = Total Conductivity, TDS = Total Dissolved Solids, Temp = Temperature.
-------
Appendix Table C.3 SUBBASIN ANIONS/CATIONS.
Eastern Saginaw Western
Subbasin Subbasin Subbasin
Surface Water
Anions
Fluoride - mg/1 - 0.2
Chloride - mg/1 33
Bromide - mg/1 - 0.1
Sulfate - mg/1 49
Cations
Calcium - mg/1 102 71 88
Magnesium - mg/1 31 24 28
Manganese - mg/1 0.8 0.4 0.8
Sodium - mg/1 28 30 34
Potassium - mg/1 53 4
Othersa
Sediment Pore Water
Cations
Calcium - mg/1 83 57 91
Magnesium -mg/1 34 24 38
Manganese - mg/1 0.1 0.6 0.4
Sodium - mg/1 23 33 43
Potassium - mg/1 44 4
- No measurements
copper - <0.03, zinc - <0.01, cadmium - <0.02, lead - < 0.09
mg/1.
C-8
-------
Appendix Table C.4 SEDIMENT TRAP YIELDS.
Station
Dry Weight /Trap - gm
07/91 09/91 10/91
% Organic Matter/Trap
07/91 09/91 10/91
East Coastal Subbasin
110
100
111
120
122
130
140
150
Avg
52
25
-
33
-
55
119
118
31
14
-
_
307
71
86
105
(14-561)
53
-
42
_
303
28
-
561
N=16
Saqinaw River
200
201
202
210
211
213
215
216
220
222
230
240
250
252
255
256
Avg
300
302
Avg
105
-
50
_
-
499
-
-
533
-
95
179
-
32
-
-
257
132
15
74
-
-
51
581
633
-
101
91
656
480
33
352
_
163
40
114
(23-1231)
West
134
16
(15-134)
412
203
44
1231
391
-
171
48
402
287
-
79
168
183
23
44
N=33
Coastal
-
-
N= 4
32
58
-
46
-
47
27
_
36 %
Subbasin
26
-
32
_
18
-
-
7
-
32
20
42
-
-
24 %
Subbasin
28
65
49 %
45
91
-
_
10
23
34
30
(10-91)
-
-
32
17
12
-
32
21
14
11
50
14
28
45
17
( 7-50)
20
84
(20-84)
30
-
36
15
46
-
11
10
22
35
7
16
-
14
28
12
13
-
34
20
15
55
35
_
_
C-9
-------
APPENDIX D
MACROINVERTEBRATE COMMUNITY
Page
D.I MACROINVERTEBRATE CHECKLIST/CLASSIFICATIONS D-2
D.2 EAST COASTAL SUBBASIN - ARTIFICIAL SUBSTRATE COMMUNITY
(AVERAGE CHARACTERISTICS) D-4
D.3 SAGINAW RIVER SUBBASIN - ARTIFICIAL SUBSTRATE COMMUNITY
(AVERAGE CHARACTERISTICS) D-5
D.4 WEST COASTAL SUBBASIN - ARTIFICIAL SUBSTRATE COMMUNITY
(AVERAGE CHARACTERISTICS) D-10
D.5 SAGINAW AND TITTABAWASSEE RIVERS - ARTIFICIAL
SUBSTRATE COMMUNITY (AVERAGE CHARACTERISTICS) .... D-ll
D.6 EAST COASTAL SUBBASIN - QUALITATIVE SAMPLED COMMUNITY
(AVERAGE CHARACTERISTICS) D-12
D.7 SAGINAW SUBBASIN - QUALITATIVE SAMPLED COMMUNITY
(AVERAGE CHARACTERISTICS) D-14
D.8 WEST COASTAL SUBBASIN - QUALITATIVE SAMPLED COMMUNITY
(AVERAGE CHARACTERISTICS) D-17
D.9 SAGINAW AND TITTABAWASSEE RIVERS - QUALITATIVE
SAMPLED COMMUNITY (AVERAGE CHARACTERISTICS) D-19
D.10 COMMUNITY METRICS - BY STATION (AVERAGES) D-20
D.ll COMMUNITY CHARACTERISTICS - BY ORDER (AVERAGES) . . . D-22
D.12 COMMUNITY CHARACTERISTICS BY DOMINANT TAXA D-23
D.13 STATISTICAL TESTS D-27
D-l
-------
Appendix Table D.I MACROINVERTEBRATE CHECKLIST/CLASSIFICATIONS,
Classification"
Feeding Habitat
EPHEMERQPTERA -20 taxa
Baetis c both
Baetisca c
Brachycercus c
Caenis c dep
Callibaetis c
Cinygmula gz ero
Cloeon c
Ephemera c dep
Ephemeralla c both
Ephoron c
Heptagenia gz ero
Hexagenia c
Isonychia c ero
Leptophlebia c ero
Paraleptophlebia c ero
Potamanthus gz
Pseudocloeon c ero
Stenacron gz ero
Stenonema gz ero
Tricorythodes c ero
Meqaloptera - 4 taxa
Chauliodes pd dep
Corydalus pd both
Neohermes pd ero
Sialis pd both
Plecoptera - 6 taxa
Acroneuria pd ero
Allocapnia sh
Perlinella pd ero
Perlesta pd both
Pteronarcys sh both
Taeniopteryx sh both
Trichoptera - 21 taxa
Agrypnia sh
Brachycentrus c ero
Ceraclea c
Cheumatopsyche c ero
Chimarra c ero
Helicopsyche gz ero
Hydroptilidae mp both
Hydropsyche c ero
Limnephilus c both
Macronema c ero
Mystacides c
Nectopsyche sh both
Nemotalius sh
Neureclipsis c ero
Classification
Feeding Habitat
Trichoptera (cont).
Nyctiophylax pd both
Oecetis pd both
Polycentropus c ero
Psilotreta gz
Psychomyia c ero
Pycnopsyche sh
Setodes c both
Trianodes sh
Coleoptera - 13 taxa
Berosus mp
Dytiscus pd
Elmidae c ero
Gyrinus pd
Haliplus mp dep
Hydaticus mp
Hydrobius c
Hydrophilus c
Laccophilus pd
Peltodytes mp
Psephenidae gz
Scirtidae gz dep
Tropisternus c
Hemiptera - 5 taxa
Belostoma pd
Corixidae pd dep
Neoplea pd
Notonectidae pd
Ranatra pd
Lepidoptera - 2 taxa
Neocataclysta sh
Petrophila gz
Odonata - 12 taxa
Aeshna pd
Anax pd
Argia pd both
Argion pd both
Basiaeschna pd
Boyeria pd both
Calopterynx pd
Gomphidae pd both
Ischnura pd dep
Libellula pd
Macromia pd
Neurocordulia pd
Chironomidae - 41 taxa
Ablabesymia pd both
Brillia sh both
D-2
-------
Appendix Table D.I MACROINVERTEBRATE CHECKLIST/CLASSIFICATIONS
(Cont).
Classification
Classification
Feeding
Chironomidae (cont)
Chironomus
Cladopelma
Clinotanypus
Corynoneuria
Cricotopus
Crypt ochironomus
Crypt otendipes
Dicrotendipes
Endochironomus
Glyptotendipes
Harnischia
Heterotrissocladius
Labrundinia
Metriocnemus
Mi cr otendipes
Nanocladius
Nilotanypus
Nilothauma
Orthocladius
Parachironomus
Para t any tarsus
Paratendipes
Parametriocnemus
.
c
c
c
c
sh
pd
c
c
sh
sh
c
c
pd
c
c
c
pd
c
c
pd
c
c
c
Habitat
Feeding
Habitat
Other Diptera - 11 taxa
dep
dep
both
dep
dep
dep
dep
both
dep
ero
dep
ero
both
dep
Paralauterborniella c
Pentaneura
Polypedilum
Procladius
Pseudochironomus
Pseudocladius
Rheocri cot opus
Stelechomyia
Stenochironomus
Stictochironomus
Synorthocladius
Tanytarsini
Thienemanniella
Tanypus
Tribelos
Trichocladius
pd
pd
pd
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
Pd
c
c
aClassif ication
dep
dep
both
dep
ero
both
dep
ero
both
both
dep
Athericidae
Ceratopogonidae
Chaoboridae
Culicidae
Dixidae
Empididae
Ephydridae
Simuliidae
Stratiomyidae
Tabanidae
Tipulidae
Pd
pd
pd
c
c
Pd
c
c
pd
pd
sh
both
dep
both
both
dep
ero
dep
both
Amphipoda - 2 taxa
Gammarus
Hyalella
Isopoda - 2 taxa
Asellus
Lircius
Mollusca - 7 taxa
Ferrissia
Gyraulus
Helisoma
Lymnaea
Pelecypoda
Physa
Valvata
Others - 9 taxa
Cladocera
Copepoda
Decapoda
Ecoprocta
Hirudinea
Hydra
Hydracarina
Oligochaeta
Planaria
gz
gz
c
c
gz
gz
gz
gz
c
gz
gz
c
pd
pd
c
Pd
pd
P
gz
c
dep
dep
dep
ero
both
both
both
dep
dep
both
both
dep
both
both
both
Definitions :
c = collector, mp = macrophyte parasite, p - parasite
pd = predator, gz = scraper, sh = shredder
ero = erosional, dep = depositional taxa
TOTAL TAXA = 156
D-3
-------
Appendix Table D.2
EAST COASTAL SUBBASIN - ARTIFICIAL
SUBSTRATE COMMUNITY (AVERAGE
CHARACTERISTICS).
PINNEBOG
Ephemeroptera
Caenis
Stenonema
Stenacron
Trichoptera
Trichoptera pupae
Cheumatopsyche
Neureclipsis
Coleoptera
Elmidae
Berosus
Hemiptera
Corixidae
Odonata
Ischnura
Chironomidae
Chironomid. pupae
Paratendipes
Endochironomus
Stictochironomus
Cricotopus
Micro tendipes
Dicrotendipes
Polypedilum
Tribelos
Metriocnemus
Glyp to tendipes
Cryptochironomus
Tanytarsini
Ablabesymia
Procladius
Other Diptera
Ceratopogonidae
Amphipoda
Gaitunarus
Hyalella
Mollusca
Physa
Others
Planaria
Asellus
Hydracarina
Oligochaeta
110
8
13
15
1
1
2
2
20
7
10
9
9
143
1
I
199
8
2
3
15
111
3
2
5
12
7
2
7
15
14
2
2
13
2
5
1
2
120
1
28
91
12
22
26
4
i_
3
1
27
1
13
23
9
17
1
1
1
13
9
5
7
3
10
44
29
9
PIGEON
121
2
1
3
1
1
1
7
1
6
16
46
13
3
1
1
2
122
2
2
31
1
2
5
9
2
6
4
11
1
21
3
1
26
1
1
1
9
4
3
2
STATE
130
5
3
3
6
3
2
6
1
1
4
4
8
13
9
3
14
3
29
ALLEN
140 141
3 3
9
76
1
13
1 1
12
19
2
28
5
1
2
8
4
78
891 1
247
36 1
7
7
7
2
31
2 1
104
10
61
QUANICASSEE
150 152
2
4
12
5
6
5
266
2
g
18
10
14553
847
3
1
4
203
1
216
2
38
89
10
33
1
6
1
64
7
8
2
7
7
Percent
0 . 1
0 . 3
i n
-L . U
0 1
0 . 1
0 . 7
0 . 2
0 . 1
0 . 1
0 . 1
1 . 6
0 . 1
n 9
u . *i
n 9
U . <ฃ
0 1
0 . 1
0 . 3
0 . 2
0 . 3
0 . 5
82.6
5 . 8
0 . 5
0 . 2
0 . 1
0 . 3
0 . 1
0 . 1
0 . 1
2 . 0
0 . 2
0 . 1
1. 6
Percent Composition
D-4
-------
Appendix Table D.3
SAGINAW SUBBASIN - ARTIFICIAL SUBSTRATE
COMMUNITY (AVERAGE CHARACTERISTICS).
CASS
Ephemeroptera
Tricorythodes
Caenis
Stenonema
Stenacron
Isonychia
Baetis
Paraleptophlebia
Ephemera
Ephemerella
Plecoptera
Acroneuria
Taeniopteryx
Trichoptera
Tricoptera pupae
Cheumatopsyche
Hydropsyche
Neureclipsis
Nyctiophylax
Hydroptilidae
Brachycentrus
Oecetis
Chimarra
Coleoptera
Elmidae
Odonata
Agrion
Argia
Chironomidae
Chironomid. pupae
Paratendipes
Stenochironomus
Stictiochironomus
Pseudocladius
Cricotopus
Corynoneuria
Thienemanniella
Brillia
Trichocladius
Microtendipes
Dicrotendipes
Stelechomyia
Polypedilum
Tribelos
Chironomus
Metriocnemus
Glyptotendipes
Cryptochironomus
Tanytarsini
Cladopelma
Parametriocnemus
Ablabesymia
Nylototanypus
Rheocricotopus
Heterotrissocladi
Synorthocladius
Other Diptera
Tipulidae
Simuliidae
Ephydridae
Amphipoda
Gammarus
Hyalella
Mollusca
Physa
Lymnaea
Valvata
Ferrissima
Pelecypoda
Others
Planaria
200
5
1
4
45
3
1
1
55
1
25
15
0
1
5
16
0
1231
57
13
15
16
10
29
16
3
56
38
1
4
230
412
111
4
4
8
70
15
46
4
51
36
1
590
10
415
87
12
1
11
201 200-6 200-7 200-8 200-9
14
6
92
60
16
15
20
477
698
24
2
16
1
4
2
37
3
89
2
54
2
4
1
22
14
22
45
120
10
240
7
57
2
3
4
2
3
7
48
278
46
288
972
694
6
32
6
12
12
352
786
14
6
76
1698
28
8
6
216
18
1
1
4
37
6
10
4
165
73
2
6
6
10
51
4
6
10
33
1
146
25
13
1
5
1
11
3
6
7
32
18
2
54
24
1
2
201
250
24
4
16
88
170
32
11
2
7
3
239
2
2
918
94
6
41
1
7
24
2
6
95
62
10
54
10
61
1
4
385
383
5
3
8
16
92
2
46
2
13
17
1
1
146
28
4
2
156
21
2
1
202 200-5 200-10 200-2 200-3
11
9
37
38
4
18
43
3
193
269
2
28
3
3
1
88
1
310
3
9
19
6
98
1
436
33
2
21
1
13
7
10
4
3
4
4
10
6
4
25
1
22
15
20
1
3
6
142
4
1
21
123
5
35
1
187
70
2
3
4
2
23
4
9
4
2
5
3
50
4
2
8
2
26
20
7
3
400
59
16
1
182
94
2
38
2
66
5
1
1
21
35
8
5
1
6
23
6
1
2
15
3
48
1
2
170
21
17
84
2
78
9
10
569
43
3
2
1
10
23
1
3
2
20
80
30
2
44
1
40
1
2
3
35
1
22
49
1
1
8
1
24
2
76
107
10
5
1
1
7
3
11
46 23
D-5
-------
Appendix Table D.3
SAGINAW SUBBASIN - ARTIFICIAL SUBSTRATE
COMMUNITY (AVERAGE CHARACTERISTICS, Cont)
Asellus
Hydracarina
Hydra
Oligochaeta
Ephemeroptera
Tricorythodes
Caenis
Stenonema
Stenacron
Isonychia
Baetis
Paraleptophlebia
Ephemera
Ephemeralla
Plecoptera
Acroneuria
Taeniopteryx
Trichoptera
Tricoptera pupae
Cheumatopsyche
Hydropsyche
Neureclipsis
Nyctiophylax
Hydroptilidae
Brachycentrus
Oecetis
Chimarra
Coleoptera
Elmidae
Odonata
Agrion
Argia
Chironomidae
Chironomid. pupae 4
Paratendipes
Stenochironomus
Pseudocladius
Cricotopus
Corynoneuria
Thienemanniella
Brillia
Trichocladius
Microtendipes
Dicrotendipes
Stelechomyia
Polypedilum
Tribelos
Chironomus
Metriocnemus
Glyptotendipes
Cryptochironomus
Tanytarsini
Cladopelma
Parametriocnemus
Ablabesymia
Nylototanypus
Rheocricotopus
Heterotrissoclad
Synorthocladius
Other Diptera
Tipulidae
Simuliidae
Ephydridae
Amphipoda
Gammarus
Hyalella
Mollusca
Physa
Lymnaea
Valvata
Ferrissima 1
210
a
14
37
3
1
11
e 4
3
3
19
2
25
2
2
2L
5
7
211
21
32
24
1
2
1
2
1
2
17
18
3
17
50
2
54
1
28
4
8
53
4
9
212
7
135
28
2
9
78
167
23
5
6
15
1
7
7
30
5
85
1
106
2
19
18
22
10
213
12
6
143
96
1657
792
513
4
2
4
18
1
10
5
8
14
36
64
16
2
122
25
32
19
50
93
2
2
28
214
7
276
66
9
6
5
195
51
13
1
3
6
1
1
11
15
1
4
16
11
1
16
12
2
1
215
1
88
39
26
35
9
9
457
7
20
1
38
1
39
27
1
5
20
8
5
142
2
239
28
17
1
189
96
20
48
29
37
1
17
1
9
FLINT
216
4
1
181
118
26
74
8
6
1
122
303
8
9
12
4
1
72
8
39
4
92
26
9
11
0
117
1
3
1
503
35
20
8
6
5
3
4
13
210-10
1
1
8
126
3
66
2
35
1
18
25
270
1
2
24
18
5
18
1
45
3
12
1
9
2
10
16
2
3
41
100
29
304
1
1
1 10
210-4
1
23
1
6
8
1
11
21
647
45
16
41
4
36
20
29
33
6
105
10
24
224
4
194
30
19
4
3
230
70
38
125
19
21
1
31
11
1
3
210-1
2
60
2
3
11
159
3
3
2
17
14
26
72
18
12
3
2
5
13
210-2
1
89
111
16
2
6
2
9
18
14
1
22
72
8
20
93
30
3
5
132
97
1
3
6
14
1
13
210-3
126
43
25
2
7
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
46
1
12
1
1
1
38
210-5
23
30
4
86
2
576
37
2
5
225
29
178
165
3
13
81
69
22
29
1
3
318
106
186
140
14
10
22
10
3
6
210-9
2
35
255
11
1
27
380
8
36
3
7
46
2
11
46
3
8
8
5
15
5
3
11
6
5
60
7
32
6
2
3
36
22
43
90
41
70
1
2
1
4
D-6
-------
Appendix Table D.3
SAGINAW SUBBASIN - ARTIFICIAL SUBSTRATE
COMMUNITY (AVERAGE CHARACTERISTICS, Cont.).
Pelecypoda
Others
Planaria
Asellus
Hydracarina
Hydra
Oligochaeta
9 51 118
121
4
1
6
1
2
6
3
6
38
1
1
1
1 31
6 20
1
1
3
6
1
20
21
2
8
SHIAWASSEE
21 220
Ephemeroptera
Tricoryth.21 8
Caenis
Stenonema 14 316
Stenacron
Isonychia 31
Baetis 2 7
Paraleptophlebia
Ephemera 1
Ephemerella
Plecoptera
Acroneuria
Taeniopteryx
Trichoptera
Tricopterapupae 1
Cheumatopsyche 22
Hydropsyche 144
Neureclip.32 10
Nyctiophylax
Hydroptilidae 1
Brachycentrus 1
Oecetis
Chimarra 3
Coleoptera
Elmidae 2 25
Odonata
Agrion
Argia
Chironomidae
Chir.pupa 56 4
Paratendipes
Stenochir. 2
Stictiochir .
Pseudocladius
Cricotopus 2 2
Corynoneuria
Thienemanriiel la
Brillia
Trichocladius
Micro tendipes
Dicrotend. 4 8
Stelechomy.7 1
Polyped. 14 6
Tribelos 9 3
Chironomus 1 1
Metriocn. 1
Glypto. 2991 3
Cryptch. 271 5
Tanytarsini 10
Cladopelma
Parametriocnemus
Ablabesym . 6 6
Nylototanypus
Rheocricotopus
Heterotrissoclad
Synorthocladius
Other Diptera
Tipulidae
Simuliidae 1
Ephydridae
Amphipoda
Gammarus 79 3
Hyalella
Mollusca
221
39
1
21
120
1
1
1
23
1
12
2
15
9
3
2
11
4
1
1
4
2
14
1
1
3
1
222
14
12
106
89
18
1
10
3
25
8
39
2
36
4
4
1
5
1
6
13
5
1
1
21
1
8
1
1
223
1
37
93
2
13
1
1
3
40
3
1
3
10
2
2
18
3
2
108
1
17
33
4
100
3
1
9
1
2
1
140
224
1
9
21
1
1
54
18
3
2
26
8
3
26
58
3
1
2
10
5
21
9
3
144
1
13
6
2
7
93
225
13
180
2
12
62
191
3
8
56
50
31
68
11
25
22
18
2
1
9
22
2
16
14
12
68
102
7
59
4
123
98
1
77
230
3
5
12
31
3
1
13
8
3
2
5
3
11
19
19
12
2
4
9
3
2
231
1
41
5
1
23
2
4
1
1
1
25
1
2
2
112
28
21
3
144
1
2
31
240
180
11
245
21
114
41
1
1
10
51
10
1
2
30
9
1
46
2
1
3
2
1
1
13
18
6
1
240-0
600
15
1
277
4
92
7
332
208
5
29
7
16
2
4
10
2
5
1
9
28
9
33
2
121
2
1
1
39
36
39
4
241
89
0
78
90
3
194
11
451
647
7
2
2
2
16
1
2
15
35
2
5
1
2
2
66
54
15
25
82
28
11
16
29
4
3
187
11
12
7
4
PINE
240-2
1
13
44
112
10
1
263
1
1
3
95
1
36
21
1
8
30
45
1
20
3
53
1
3
49
161
39
9
27
1
222
322
28
14
2
38
1
1
6
4
20
240-3
32
25
154
6
81
10
4
1
176
126
10
10
10
19
52
2
6
43
15
8
59
1
68
63
69
55
5
130
298
64
91
26
6
1
2
1
6
9
1
88
242
13
4
408
30
6
5
20
1
46
7
1
3
15
2
41
6
2
7
29
1
9
14
4
3
1
2
1
8
5
1
15
8
26
240-4
6
11
8
9
10
58
2
7
14
1
13
7
4
3
1
12
6
1
4
18
2
4
2
2
345
47
64
36
1
1
1
29
4
D-7
-------
Appendix Table D.3
SAGINAW SUBBASIN - ARTIFICIAL SUBSTRATE
COMMUNITY (AVERAGE CHARACTERISTICS, Cont.)
Physa 3 1
Lymnaea
Valvata
Ferrissiraa 3 1
Pelecypoda
Others
Planaria 6 1
Asellus
Hydracar. 42
Hydra 1 5
Oligoch. 20 1 1
2
1
3
6
1
2
3
7
28
4
2
2
4
2
24
1
1
11
3
2
1
169
1
1
17 1
1
2
42 165
27 9
18 31
1 1
3 27
1 1
2 17
17
56
1 5
8 12
CHIPPEWA
250
Ephemeroptera
Tricorythodes 83
Caenis 5
Stenonema 127
Stenacron 7
Isonychia 106
Baetis 1
Paraleptophlebia 13
Ephemera 7
Ephemerella
Plecoptera
Acroneuria 2
Taeniopteryx
Trichoptera
Tricoptera pupae 1
Cheumatopsyche 14
Hydropsyche 17
Neureclipsis 27
Nyctiophylax
Hydroptilidae
Brachycentrus 8
Oecetis
Chimarra
Coleoptera
Elmidae 16
Odonata
Agrion 1
Argia 7
Chironomidae
Chironomid. pupae 7
Paretendipes
Stenochironomus 5
Stictiochironomus 2
Pseudocladius
Cricotopus 1
Corynoneuria
Th i enemann i e 1 1 a
Brillia
Trichocladius
Microtendipes 2
Dicrotendipes 12
Stelechomyia 6
Polypedilum 6
Tribelos 7
Chironomus 4
Metriocnemus
Glyptotendipes 1
Cryptochironomus
Tanytarsini 22
Cladopelma
Parametriocnemus
Ablabesymia 5
Nylototanypus
Rheocricotopus
Heterotrissoclad.
Synorthocladius
Other Diptera
Tipulidae
Simuliidae
Ephydridae
251
3
1
102
44
6
1
6
4
1
1
84
25
1
6
2
5
8
1
2
4
7
1
1
3
17
2
1
4
79
4
2
256
2
4
47
38
37
45
3
45
6
2
115
8
3
2
1
10
5
1
26
1
9
10
79
3
2
28
21
15
2
7
4
48
2
256
2
4
47
38
37
45
3
45
6
2
115
8
3
2
1
10
5
1
26
1
9
10
79
3
2
28
21
15
2
7
4
48
2
252
20
21
16
12
28
1
1
24
21
8
3
4
1
8
1
2
6
10
21
2
2
22
2
30
19
9
1
27
7
5
9
5
6
2
250-3
15
13
74
4
2
9
40
5
3
7
28
50
13
9
5
10
4
12
66
3
22
3
213
4
4
15
903
22
18
133
66
23
69
3
1
1
253
0
74
7
1
2
13
1
16
3
1
3
8
3
12
12
3
2
24
7
84
0
6
2
254
6
2
374
22
8
10
13
2
1
4
136
149
5
1
15
1
8
21
1
1
18
11
1
1
73
1
9
1
1
255
9
10
54
44
4
13
58
35
6
3
32
13
1
2
8
3
8
7
2
8
23
10
2
5
6
3
29
3
7
85
10
217
43
5
10
35
44
17
34
2
7
7
250-5 250-6
1
56
24
31
2
67
120
11
5
96
6
1
8
1
20
35
1
41
10
62
5
41
50
254
59
18
4
1
381
100
60
84
9
6
3
10
12
1
4
8
12
38
213
1
4
24
15
6
9
7
7
10
536
68
1
4
250-7
3
53
2
69
90
315
2
26
24
5
1
1
2
21
45
1
8
86
3
3
17
22
39
36
1
251
2
100
3
1
3 1
1 2
4
1
9 157
10
26
i 4
1 fi
5 6
Percent
2 1
0 6
6 . 5
3 .4
i 1
J. . J.
2 5
1 . 9
0 . 1
0 5
n 9
U . ฃ,
0 1
0 4
12 4
11 2
1 i
j. . /
0 . 1
n d
U . fฑ
n 9
U . ฃ
A 1
U . J.
0 . 3
1 1
0 1
0 . 2
1 . 7
0 . 7
0 2
0 , 5
O-i
. JL
3 . 5
0 . 2
1 .4
0 . 1
0 . 2
2 . 5
0 . 7
3 .2
3 . 0
0 . 8
0 , 6
0 . 1
7 .7
0 .9
11 . 5
2 .4
0 .1
2 . 5
1 .3
0.5
0.4
0 . 1
0 . 1
0 . 1
0.7
D-8
-------
Appendix Table D.3 SAGINAW SUBBASIN - ARTIFICIAL SUBSTRATE
COMMUNITY (AVERAGE CHARACTERISTICS, Cont.)
Amphipoda
Gammarus
Hyalella
Molluscs
Physa
Lymnaea
Valvata
Ferrissima
Pelecypoda
Others
Planaria
Asellus
Hydracarina
Hydra
Oligochaeta
I
1
3
1
1
21
1
1
2
5
9
1
3
3
3
1
1
1
3
3
3
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
0
3
1
1
1
1
3
2
2
5
13
1
2 11
1 11
1
2
4
10
1
4
2
6
2
2
1
1
24
1
13
1
9
75
2
8
1
1
9
25
14
0.
0
0,
0.
0.
0
1
0
0
0
0
.5
.6
.1
.1
.3
.1
.9
.1
.4
.1
.9
" Percent Composition
D-9
-------
Appendix Table D.4
WEST COASTAL SUBBASIN - ARTIFICIAL SUBSTRATE
COMMUNITY (AVERAGE CHARACTERISTICS).
KAWKAWLIN
Ephemeroptera
Tricorythodes
Caenis
Stenonema
Stenacron
Isonychia
Megaloptera
Neohermes
Trichoptera
Neureclipsis
Hydroptilidae
Coleoptera
Elmidae
Berosus
Odonata
Ischnura
Argia
Chironomidae
Chironomid. pupae
Endochironomus
Stenochironomus
Stictochironomus
Cricotopus
Microtendipes
Dicrotendipes
Polypedilum
Tribelos
Glyptotendipes
Cryptochironomus
Tanytarsini
Ablabesymia
Procladius
Other Diptera
Ceratopogonidae
Helidae
Amphipoda
Gamma rus
Hyalella
Mollusca
Physa
Lymnaea
Valvata
Gyraulus
Ferressima
Others
Hydra
Planaria
Oligochaeta
Cladocera
37
1
76
36
7
39
54
1
14
1
73
716
1060
4
5
6
3
287
6
16
262
10
87
197
38
3
2
10
2
2
9
44
31
6
37
1
11
2
600
4261
8
3
9
15
101
2
91
169
5
300
7
1
2
109
10
9
39
18
9
4
5
21
14
218
1889
6
3
3
2
8
2
1
2
53
100
2
301
26
2
1
21
8
5
3
1
1
2
39
580
80
2
2
1
4
6
5
105
3
302
6
11
1
1
8
4
7
1
2
6
1
12
7
104
3
8
1
1
1
16
105
10
6
1
19
5
RIFLE
303
7
146
1
3
1
5
5
19
7
14
13
9
1
65
309
21
8
14
6
8
1
22
24
25
25
41
22
27
70
11
2
6
9
2
10
7
51
17
3
47
11
24
10
59
4
21
4
4
3
36
Percent
Comp . a
0.2
0.5
1.1
1.2
0.1
0.1
1.1
0.1
0.2
0.4
0.7
0.2
1.0
0.7
0.1
0.6
0.2
0.2
0.5
0.4
1.0
11.9
58.5
1.0
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
3.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
2.7
0.2
0.3
0.2
1.7
4.4
0.3
Percent Composition
D-10
-------
Appendix Table D.5
SAGINAW AND TITTABAWASSEE RIVERS -
ARTIFICIAL SUBSTRATE COMMUNITY (AVERAGE
CHARACTERISTICS).
SAGINAW
Ephemeroptera
Stenonema
Trichoptera
Neureclipsis
Chironomidae
Chironomid. pupae
Endochironomus
Stictochironomus
Cricotopus
Tribelos
Glyptotendipes
Crypt ochironomus
Tanytarsini
Pseudochironomus
Ablabesymia
Amphipoda
Gammarus
Mollusca
Physa
Helisoma
Others
Hydra
Oligochaeta
Planaria
1 2
293 160
11 19
1 5
412 442
3
595 637
25 32
57 83
4
109
248
174
11
10360
2
17
1
22
152
22
5
1
77
1
4757
12
1
28
91
3400
1
6
2
266
271
42
5330
1
1
1
129
34
7
1
126
169
2
2
3
3552
1
9
3
9
122
89
TITTABAWASSEE
8
7
67
140
1
6224
6
17
10
3
1
108
71
12
3
9
17
42
2
52
38
223
2
2
20
9
13
14
14
228
5
1
25
23
6
89
Percent
Comp
0 .
1.
2.
0.
0.
1.
0.
15.
62 .
0.
0.
0.
3
0.
0.
0.
10.
0.
_ a
1
9
4
1
6
2
1
8
3
2
6
1
2
1
2
1
2
9
Percent Composition
D-ll
-------
Appendix Table D.6
EAST COASTAL SUBBASIN
- QUALITATIVE SAMPLED COMMUNITY
CHARACTERISTICS).
(AVERAGE
FINNEBOG
110
Ephemeroptera
Caenis 1
Stenonema
Stenacron 10
Baetis 1
Callibaetis
Megaloptera
Sialis
Trichoptera
Trichopterapup 1
Cheumatopsyche 1
Hydropsyche
Neureclipsis
Hydroptilidae 1
Limnephilus
Oecetis
Helicopsyche
Chimarra
Ceraclea
Coleoptera
Elmidae 1
Haliplus
Berosus 1
Psephenidae
Tropisternis
Laccophilis
Hydrophilus
Peltodytes
Hemiptera
Corixidae 42
Belostoma
Notonectidae
Lepidoptera
Neocataclysta
Odonata
Boyeria
Ischnura 2
Agrion
Argia 2
Chironomidae
Chironomid.pup 1
Endochironomus 3
Stictochironomus
Cr icotopus
Microtendipes
Dicrotendipes
Polypedilum 7
Tribelos
Chironomus
Glyptotendipes
Cryptochiron. 1
Tanytarsini 4
Cladopelma
Ablabesymia
Procladius 1
Other Diptera
Empididae
Aetherix
Tipulidae
Tabinidae
Arophipoda
Gammarus 1
Hyalella 9
Molluscs
Physa I
Lymnaea
Valvata
Helisoma
Pelecypoda 1
111
2
28
20
1
2
2
20
1
1
17
1
5
30
1
1
4
3
9
8
6
2
51
1
6
1
2
1
1
2
120
6
45
238
5
2
6
2
1
5
1
2
44
1
1
4
9
1
4
3
1
1
4
8
2
1
15
15
3
5
1
13
PIGEON
121
8
1
1
1
1
1
3
2
5
31
3
2
1
1
6
2
1
7
1
1
9
1
122
2
22
20
1
111
50
48
290
1
3
1
2
1
2
11
13
1
1
1
10
1
2
10
2
18
1
2
STATE ALLEN
130 140 141
21 31
7
81 1
10
7
2
2
10
1
2
1
1
9
1 2
3 5
1 1
1 1
1
2
1 33
2
6
1
1
2
1 1
2
3 3
6
1 1
2
1
10 4
QUANICASSEE
150 151 152
3 49 46
6
4 35
6
2 61 22
4
2
,
14
5 11
3 536
1
1 1
4
1 12
75 41
1 1
1
35 5 7
1
3
2
1 1
27
62
1
5226
1
4 6
2
159 24
32
3 44
6
6 2
Subbasin
Hi.
2 .2
1 . 5
7 . 3
0 . 7
1 . 5
0 . 2
0 . 1
5 .2
1 . 7
0 . 3
0 d
u . y
0 . 1
0 1
2 . 0
0 . 1
0 . 1
14 . 7
0 .5
1 .4
0 . 3
0 . 1
0 . 1
0 . 2
0 .4
11 .2
0 . 1
0 . 1
0 . 1
0 . 1
4 .8
0 . 1
0 . 1
0 . 6
0 .4
0.2
0 . 7
0 .7
0.2
1 . 7
0 . 1
1 .8
4 .4
0.2
4 . 3
0 . 1
0 . 8
0.2
0 . 1
0 .4
0 . 1
0.7
4 . 5
3 .2
1.2
0 . 1
0.4
0 . 1
1.3
D-12
-------
Appendix Table D.6 EAST COASTAL SUBBASIN
- QUALITATIVE SAMPLED COMMUNITY (AVERAGE
CHARACTERISTICS, Cont.).
Others
Planaria 1 1 15 22 11
Asellus 3 1 47 1 4 1 27 1
Hydracarina 2
Hirudinea 1 96
Decapoda 32312 4
Copepoda 2
Cladocera 4 24
Oligochaeta 23216 21 24 16
2 .2
4.8
0.1
0.3
0.6
0.1
0.5
2.6
Percent Composition
D-13
-------
Appendix Table D.7
SAGINAW SUBBASIN
- QUALITATIVE SAMPLED COMMUNITY (AVERAGE
CHARACTERISTICS).
Cass
Ephemeroptera
Tricorythodes
Caenis
Stenonema
Stenacron
Isonychia
Baetis
Paraleptophlebia
Ephemerella
Megaloptera
Sialis
Chauliodes
Plecoptera
Acroneuria
Trichoptera
Cheumatopsyche
Hydropsyche
Nyctiophylax
Hydroptilidae
Helicopsyche
Chimarra
Coleoptera
Hydrobius
Elmidae
Hemiptera
Corixidae
Chironomidae
Chironomid. pupae
Parachironomus
Crictopus
Microtendipes
Dicrotendipes
Polypedilum
Tanytarsini
Ablabesmyia
Other Diptera
Tipulidae
Simuliidae
Amphipoda
Gammarus
Hyalella
Hollusca
Physa
Valvata
Pelecypoda
Others
Planaria
Oligochaeta
200
7
28
7
1
55
23
31
4
132
2
1
1
16
1
2
8
201 203 200-7 200-8
35 35
56 44
34 62
56 14
4
56 23
1 15
1
2
1 4
39 7
47 4
6 2
24 12
44
27 13
32 12
1 4
32
26 4
103 46
11 5
4 10
2 2
11
7 1
6
25 6
1
1
22
24
3
71
26
1
2
129
9
60
1
16
70
24
2
4
1
2
19
9
8
1
4
44
1
4
105
24
7
2
273
1
11
11
6
39
49
3
2
6
1
1
24
8
7
200-9 202 200-5 200-10 200-2 200-3
36 55
95
28
8 32
3
40 23
70
3
4 3
52 27
44 66
5
3
16 46
4 9
20 74
28 133
17
48
22
64 163
8
8
7
9
8 8
16
4 11
14
7
18
2
13
1
4
5
14
3
2
4
28
9
23
15
1
3
19
3
1
6
7
22
4
12
90
20
4
52
10
50
2
86
18
6
5
102
3
98
3
2
12
g
139
104
2
15
54
227
3
5
121
9
31
52
g
6
24
156
59
11
6
7 2
52
ฃ
D
0
o
4
3 0
g
1
23
4
2
1 9
-L Z
44
3 8
142
64
2
58
4
4
8
4
2
2 6
2
6
FLINT
210 211
Ephemeroptera
Tricorythod. 8 33
Caenis 1
Stenonema 17 26
Stenacron 23 29
Isonychia
Baetis 2 3
Paraleptophlebia
Ephemerella
Megaloptera
Sialis 1
Chauliodes
Plecoptera
Acroneuria
Trichoptera
Cheumatopsy. 1
Hydropsyche
Nyctiophylax
212
25
3
72
27
5
1
15
37
213 214
4
1
48
5 49
1 2
2
1
1
5 7
1 5
215
1
35
2
8
216
17
1
68
1
17
36
3
1
7
3
31
51
210-10 210-4
6
14
16
4
16 10
2
4
10
8 202
210-1
1
5
7
2
1
210-2
21
4
104
3
1
2
2
210-3
1
96
38
2
3
210-5
1
1
3
1
13
3
210-9
12
1
1
1
D-14
-------
Appendix Table D.7
SAGINAW SUBBASIN
- QUALITATIVE SAMPLED COMMUNITY (AVERAGE
CHARACTERISTICS, Cont.).
Hydroptilidae 22
Helicopsyche 2 3
Chimarra
Coleoptera
Hydrobius
Elmidae 1 3 18
Hemiptera
Corixidae 2 1
Chironomidae
Chiron, pupae 239
Parachironomus
Crictopus 3
Microtendipes 2
Dicrotendipes 3 1
Polypedilum 5 11
Tanytarsini 3 42
Ablabesmyia 1 5
Other Diptera
Tipulidae 2
Simuliidae
Amphipoda
Gammarus 10
Hyalella
Hollusca
Physa 1
Valvata
Pelecypoda 115
Others
Planaria 2 12
Oligochaeta 164
8
5
1
1
5
8
3
6
1
2
3 4
1 1
1 1
4
1
2 5
1 1
1
1 1
23
2
17
81
5
21
3
34
127
2
3
36
15
15
27
SHIAWASSEE
220 221
Ephemeroptera
Tricorythodes 2 7
Caenis 4
Stenonema 44 3
Stenacron 12 15
Isonychia 4
Baetis 13 9
Paraleptophlebia 1
Ephemerella
Megaloptera
Sialis
Chauliodes
Plecoptera
Acroneuria
Trichoptera
Cheumatopsyche
Hydropsyche 4
Nyctiophylax
Hydroptilidae
Helicopsyche
Chimarra
Coleoptera
Hydrobius
Elmidae 6 7
Hemiptera
Corixidae 5 3
Chironomidae
Chironomid. pupae 3 3
Parachironomus
Crictopus 1 1
Microtendipes
Dicrotendipes 17 9
Polypedilum 1 8
Tanytarsini 6 6
Ablabesmyia 1 1
Other Diptera
Tipulidae
Simuliidae
222
6
6
2
28
4
13
2
3
2
2
1
1
4
1
7
2
21
8
42
2
2
223 224
2
43
23 2
6 4
2
1 1
1
1
3 4
4
8
11
29
18 91
30
3 3
2 2
4
1
10 24
8 41
2 8
2 2
225
31
54
35
30
1
53
7
2
1
1
2
5
5
6
25
16
13
13
14
80
6
1
4 1
6 2
52 20 36 15 41 26 1
3 47
2 4 4 5 3 16 1
16 8 15 11 1 37 3
244 1
15 1
282181
24 14 28 9 2 40 2
12 4 5 1 2 4
8 6 2 10
12 244
20 35
14
8 15
22 22 300 1
17 11 1
2463461
PINE
230 231 240 240-0 241 240-2 240-3 242
92 617 212 1
3 2 18 13 21 9
12 11 78 252 48 25 72
71 23 216 8 32 25 4 32
33 42 7 13
1 99 85 138 173 2
142 1 3 13
1 42
1181 1
539
6 1
5 2 54 78 22
8 116 81 10 17 1
326
461 1
1
5 11 54 2 1 19 38 7
49
11 1 8 18 3 33
1 1 8 12 12 25 7
11 4 28 2 1
2
5 3 3 31 21 4 28
28 6 18 22 25 66 4
12 6 86 1 72
114
21 15 30 1 27 1
240-4
16
7
1
7
2
1
76
12
25
7
6
7
8
273
10
1
D-15
-------
Appendix Table D.7
SAGINAW SUBBASIN
- QUALITATIVE SAMPLED COMMUNITY (AVERAGE
CHARACTERISTICS, Cont.).
Amphipoda
Gammarus
Hyalella
Mollusca
Physa
Valvata
Pelecypoda
Others
Planaria
Oligochaeta
1
1
15
9
2
1
2
1
293
1
4
4
2
1
259
25
275
61
25
32
60
4
2
10
9
1
1
12
1
I
1
10
5
3
4
14
28
12
28
11
12
62 13
36
26 7
Chippewa
Ephemeroptera
Tricorythodes
Caenis
Stenonema
Stenacron
Isonychia
Baetis
Paraleptophlebia
Ephemerella
Megaloptera
Sialis
Chauliodes
Plecoptera
Acroneuria
Trichoptera
Cheuma topsyche
Hydropsyche
Nyctiophylax
Hydroptilidae
Helicopsyche
Chimarra
Coleoptera
Hydrobius
Elmidae
Hemiptera
Corixidae
Chironomidae
Chironomid. pupae
Parachironomus
Crictopus
Microtendipes
Dicrotendipes
Polypedilum
Tanytarsini
Ablabesmyia
Other Diptera
Tipulidae
Simuliidae
Amphipoda
Gammarus
Hyalella
Mollusca
Physa
Valvata
Pelecypoda
Others
Planaria
Oligochaeta
250
13
2
12
16
2
46
1
2
1
6
23
5
2
3
19
3
3
1
1
8
251
1
76
2
44
12
1
1
1
2
17
6
1
1
18
4
10
2
6
32
1
1
7
2
2
256
38
5
21
1
14
59
2
7
1
1
3
12
63
68
3
22
6
16
8
10
20
3
2
9
2
1
18
41
1
3
252
15
2
1
13
2
1
9
9
3
3
1
2
1
7
1
1
2
1
1
6
250-3
18
50
28
13
6
13
14
11
7
15
2
22
18
33
2
34
19
57
61
12
42
4
11
1
2
4
34
1
18
253
103
2
58
18
1
9
2
351
57
5
189
61
5
9
5
59
79
2
4
2
5
35
1
254
6
2
62
5
5
13
1
1
16
19
1
23
5
6
7
2
16
1
1
1
61
2
2
1
4
255
18
23
71
2
4
106
2
27
1
5
11
14
76
142
279
38
170
4
24
46
117
83
66
3
20
2
4
2
76
10
12
250-5
10
66
1
3
192
53
87
12
68
228
39
244
5
388
32
159
45
102
378
3
33
7
4
18
42
23
250-6
21
24
171
119
112
13
141
7
5
17
38
1
20
13
19
13
7
129
19
6
18
32
61
75
18
250-7
15
44
25
88
123
47
10
2
101
71
18
13
320
1
33
105
21
28
38
564
60
13
8
12
81
6
254
51
67
86 1
6 2
Q T
O J
52 4
62 24
20 2 119
3 5 58
Percent
5 . 8
2 . 7
5 . 7
4 . 9
0 . 8
7 . 3
1 5
0 . 5
0 . 2
0 . 3
0 4
6 . 0
4 7
1 9
3 . 5
1 . 4
9 . 2
1 . 7
2 . 2
4 . 7
2 . 3
1 . 0
2 . 9
11 . 6
0 . 9
0 . 6
1 . 0
1 . 1
2 . 3
0 . 5
1 . 2
4 . 3
2 . 1
2.0
Percent Composition
D-16
-------
Appendix Table D.8
WEST COASTAL SUBBASIN
- QUALITATIVE SAMPLED COMMUNITY
(AVERAGE CHARACTERISTICS).
KAWKAWLIN
37 300 301 302 303
Ephemeroptera
Tricorythodes
Caenis
Stenonema
Stenacron
Isonychia
Baetis
Paraleptophlebia
Hexagenia
Pseudocloeon
Megaloptera
Sialis
Neohermes
Plecoptera
Acroneuria
Tricoptera
Cheumatopsyche
Neureclipsis
Hydroptilidae
Mystacides
Coleoptera
Elmidae
Berosus
Psephenidae
Scirtidae
Hemiptera
Corixidae
Odonata
Ischnura
Argion
Argia
Chironoxnidae
Chironomid. pupae
Endochironomus
Stenochironomus
Stictochironomus
Psectrocladius
Cricotopus
Microtendipes
Dicrotendipes
Polypedilum
Tribelos
Chironomus
Glyptotendipes
Cryptochironomus
Tanytarsini
Ablabesymia
Procladius
Clinotanypus
Other Diptera
Empididae
Simulidae
Amphipoda
Gammarus
Hyalella
13
17
55 76
1
17 220
4
2
2
32
2
5
RIFLE
41
40
93
34
17
20
1
4
9
23
14
3
1
15
1
4
1
3
6
3
4
3
45
6
2
1
1
5
4
1
15
14
4
1
11
3
2
12
1
3
8
1
24
1
1
4
2
349
3
3
5
1
1
4
9
2
5
2
21
3
3
35
2
1
1
10
7
1
4
5
2
23
2
1
4
4
100
15
4
5
36
2
2
6
3
23
1
5
1
61
1
15
6
10 160
11 23
21
6
Percent
Comp."
6.5
2 .1
10.6
0.4
0.7
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
1.5
0.5
0.8
0.2
2.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
15.6
2.6
0.1
0.2
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.7
0.2
0.5
1.9
0.2
0.1
1.0
0.3
8.0
0.8
0.5
0.1
0.1
0.4
7.7
1.9
D-17
-------
Appendix Table D.8
Mollusca
Physa
Valvata
Gyraulus
Ferrissima
Pelecypoda
Others
Planaria
Asellus
Hydracarina
Hirudinea
Cladocera
Hydra
Oligochaeta
52
16
WEST COASTAL SUBBASIN
- QUALITATIVE SAMPLED COMMUNITY
(AVERAGE CHARACTERISTICS, Cont.).
58
5
2
37
2
2
1
49
12
10
61
2
20
3
229
9
22
4
62
1
1
21
1
8
1
14
1
25
8
67
21
0.2
1.6
0.1
0.6
1.6
2.5
5.5
0.4
0.1
2.7
0.6
12.1
Percent Composition
D-18
-------
Appendix Table D.9 SAGINAW AND TITTABAWASSEE RIVERS
- QUALITATIVE COMMUNITY (AVERAGE
CHARACTERISTICS).
SAGINAW
1237
Ephemeroptera
Tricorythodes
Caenis 1 1
Stenonema 1
Isonychia
Baetis
Ephemerella
Plecoptera
Acroneuria
Trichoptera
Hydropsyche
Neureclipsis 2
Nectopsyche
Hydroptilidae
Coleoptera
Elmidae
Hemiptera
Corixidae 1 1
Neoplea
Odonata
Boyeria
Ischnura
Argion
Chironomidae
Chironomid. pupae 3 1
Endochironomus
Psectrocladius
Crictopus 19 1
Thienemanniella
Microtendipes 1
Polypedilum 2
Chironomus
Glyptotendipes 3 1 43 5
Tanytarsini 1
Ablabesmyia
Procladius 1 1
Nylotanypus
Athericidae
Tipulidae
Simuliidae
Dixidae
Amphipoda
Gammarus 9 69 57 10
Hyalella 1
Mollusca
Physa 6 1
Valvata 1 1
Gyraulus
Ferrissima 111
Pelecypoda 1 1
Others
Planaria 3661
Asellus 6
Hydracarina
Oligochaeta 53 2 7 4
Cladocera
TITTABAWASSEE
8 9 12
1 2
7 1
3
2
3
4
187 83 1
87
3 14
31
4
11
4
4
1 1
1 1 49
1 4
1
3
4
168
1 1
139
21
1 11
25
1 4 19
63
13
3
13
2
451
51
3
39
1
9
7
2
2
7
7
3
2
10
7
1
10
162
2
15
8
1
3
Percent
Com]
0
0
0
0
23
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
13
0
0
4
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
3
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
8
8.
0
7
1.
0.
0
1 .
0.
1 ,
4 .
3 .
?/
.3
.1
. 7
. 1
.2
.6
.2
.0
.3
. 1
.6
.6
.8
.1
.1
.4
.4
.4
.6
.2
.6
.2
.2
.8
.2
.7
.0
.3
.2
.2
. 5
2
.2
.1
. 1
. 6
.9
.1
.1
.2
.1
.4
.3
.3
.7
.2
Percent Composition
D-19
-------
Appendix Table D.10 COMMUNITY METRICS - BY STATION (AVERAGES).
o
i
ro
O
Eastern Subbasin
Station
"Abundanc e - AS
bRichness-AS
CEPT-AS
aICI
e#AS Meas .
Richness-Qual
EPT-Qual
E# Qual Meas .
Station
Abundance -AS
Richness-AS
EPT-AS
ICI
# AS Meas .
Richness-Qual
EPT-Qual
# Qual Meas.
Station
Abundance -AS
Richness-AS
EPT-AS
ICI
# AS Meas .
Richness-Qual
EPT-Qual
# Qual Meas .
Station
Abundance-AS
Richness-AS
EPT-AS
ICI
# AS Meas .
Richness-Qual
EPT-Qual
# Qual Meas .
Station
Abundance-AS
Richness-AS
EPT-AS
ICI
# AS Meas.
Richness-Qual
EPT-Qual
# Qual Meas .
110
286
26
4
18
1
18
4
2
I
1"
1373
9
1
h
1
-
-
-
~13
493
23
8
-
1
34
13
1
200-3
602
26
9
38
2
15
4
2
111
91
16
2
16
2
31
7
2
1349
8
1
-
1
8
0
1
loo
1537
19
6
28
4
20
7
3
2~io
67
11
3
18
2
14
7
2
120
433
21
5
26
4
30
7
3
3s
2862
15
1
_
1
13
1
1
201
2247
31
11
39
6
37
13
5
121
223
20
3
17
4
23
4
3
Saginaw
4s
10971
13
2
_
1
-
-
-
Saginaw
122
150
22
8
24
2
30
6
2
Subbasin
53
5014
19
2
_
1
-
-
-
Subbasin
203 200-7
5614
24
11
42
1
24
9
4
630
27
9
40
2
24
9
2
130
125
21
6
19
2
25
9
2
6s
5952
13
2
_
1
_
-
200-8
2424
31
11
41
2
24
8
2
140
16
23
3
24
4
23
3
2
7ฐ
3976
20
3
_
1
14
3
1
200-9
1537
25
9
38
2
15
6
1
141
43
11
2
14
1
5
2
1
8"
6578
21
5
_
1
7
1
1
202
1747
26
10
36
4
29
11
3
150
56
12
1
13
4
18
2
3
9
_
_
10
1
1
200-5
748
23
9
34
2
25
9
2
151
16
_
_
_
19
3
1
10
_
_
_
_
_
200-10
1042
23
7
38
2
20
3
1
152
158
21
7
11
30
8
1
12
467
25
2
1
29
5
1
200-8
1252
35
10
39
2
27
9
2
Saginaw Subbasin
211
386
22
5
25
4
16
5
4
212
1124
23
7
33
2
32
15
2
213
2589
20
5
36
3
10
3
3
214
729
23
11
43
2
19
9
2
215
1720
25
7
37
3
10
4
3
216
2059
31
14
40
3
19
7
4
210-10
1198
24
10
37
2
9
5
2
210-4
2145
34
10
44
2
8
2
1
210-1
438
21
4
30
2
6
3
1
Saginaw Subbasin
210-2
797
23
6
30
2
7
2
2
210-3
332
16
5
22
2
10
3
2
210-5
2493
25
8
35
1
13
2
2
210-9
1440
39
9
37
2
6
2
2
21
3590
20
4
-
2
-
-
-
220
673
25
11
34
3
20
4
3
221
299
25
10
32
2
17
3
2
222
439
23
12
36
2
7
4
2
223
667
29
11
43
2
30
12
2
224
608
32
7
41
4
40
8
2
225
1574
53
22
48
1
30
15
1
-------
Appendix Table D.10 COMMUNITY METRICS - BY STATION (Averages, Cont.)-
Saginaw Subbasin
O
I
ro
Station
Abundance -AS
Richness-AS
EPT-AS
ICI
# AS Meas .
R i chnes s - Qua 1
EPT-Qual
# Qual Meas .
Station
Abundance -AS
Richness-AS
EPT-AS
ICI
# AS Meas.
Richness-Qual
EPT-Qual
# Qual Meas .
Station
Abundance-AS
Richness-AS
EPT-AS
ICI
# AS Meas .
Richness-Qual
EPT-Qual
# Qual Meas .
230
183
16
5
27
2
18
4
3
256
651
29
12
39
4
32
15
4
39
-
-
-
-
-
-
231
452
20
7
32
2
16
5
2
252
437
28
10
37
6
16
4
4
Western
301
1877
30
3
-
1
23
2
2
240
953
23
11
38
4
23
10
3
250-3
1904
35
15
42
2
33
16
2
Subbasin
302
347
22
3
28
2
26
2
2
240-0
2055
28
7
32
2
25
11
2
253
294
24
9
-
3
20
8
2
303
760
25
3
18
2
31
7
2
241
2396
25
9
36
6
21
9
5
254
928
32
14
48
2
30
11
2
I
40
-
_
-
_
-
-
240-2
1709
38
12
42
2
26
10
2
255
403
28
12
36
6
40
17
5
240-3
1923
37
11
42
2
29
9
2
250-5
2023
34
13
40
2
33
14
2
I Drainagel
154
_
_
_
_
-
-
242
717
31
14
42
2
34
15
2
250-6
1742
34
13
43
2
31
9
2
240-4
970
34
7
36
2
26
5
2
I
250-7
1098
19
6
-
2
37
9
2
250
559
28
11
36
4
24
8
3
I
37
2998
24
4
-
2
21
4
1
251
447
22
9
42
4
28
12
2
300
3980
20
4
26
4
25
4
1
"AS - Artificial Substrates.
'Richness or mean number of total taxa.
cMean number of Ephemeroptera-Plecoptera-Trichoptera (EPT) taxa.
aTotal number (#) of artificial substrate measurements at the station.
*Mean Id-Index of Community Integrity value.
'Total number (#) of qualitative sampling measurements at the station.
"Ponar dredge used rather than artificial substrates to sample stations 1-10.
h - No measurements taken.
-------
Appendix Table D.ll
COMMUNITY CHARACTERISTICS - BY
ORDER (AVERAGES).
bast Coastal Subbasin Saqinaw Subbasin
Allen Pigeon Pinbog Quanc
Cass ]
Flint
Shiaw
Pine
Artificial Substrates
Percent Composition -
Ephemeroptera < 1
Megaloptera
Plecoptera
Trichoptera
Coleoptera
Hemiptera
Lepidoptera
Odonata
Diptera-Chir.
Diptera-Other
Amphipoda
Isopoda
Oligochaeta
Mollusca
Platyhelminthes
Others
< 1
0
5
< 1
< 1
0
< 1
80
< 1
< 1
0
4
< 1
6
< 1
Percent Composition -
Ephemeroptera
Megaloptera
Plecoptera
Trichoptera
Coleoptera
Hemiptera
Lepidoptera
Odonata
Diptera-Chir .
Diptera-Other
Amphipoda
Isopoda
Oligochaeta
Mollusca
Platyhelminthes
Others
8
0
0
2
7
< 1
2
27
12
0
4
< 1
18
2
2
16
by Order
29
< 1
0
7
6
< 1
0
< 1
37
< 1
2
2
2
3
9
< 1
by Order
27
< 1
0
16
26
3
0
1
7
2
5
7
< 1
3
2
< 1
4
< 1
0
4
< 1
1
0
< 1
54
30
2
0
< 1
< 1
2
< 1
19
< 1
0
7
6
22
0
2
33
1
3
1
1
< 1
< 1
1
< 1
0
0
< 1
0
0
0
0
97
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
Qualitative
16
0
0
< 1
6
17
0
8
23
< 1
14
2
6
4
2
1
9
< 1
< 1
32
< 1
< 1
0
< 1
54
2
< 1
< 1
< 1
< 1
< 1
0
Surveys
24
< 1
< 1
15
11
4
0
< 1
34
2
3
0
2
3
< 1
< 1
15
0
< 1
36
2
0
0
< 1
40
3
< 1
< 1
1
< 1
2
< 1
29
< 1
< 1
14
10
< 1
0
< 1
22
5
< 1
1
2
10
2
< 1
17
< l
< l
10
2
0
0
< 1
61
< 1
6
< 1
< 1
< 1
< 1
< 1
19
< 1
< 1
6
6
2
< 1
4
19
1
23
0
2
14
1
3
29
< i
< l
26
1
o
0
< 1
29
4
2
o
< 1
< 1
5
< 1
58
< 1
< l
13
3
0
0
< 1
11
3
< 1
o
2
6
3
2
Chipp
29
< i
< i
13
1
o
0
< i
52
2
< l
< 1
< 1
< l
< 1
< 1
21
< i
< i
33
10
< l
o
< 1
24
2
< l
< i
1
4
1
< 1
WCS a
Kawkl B
2
< i
g
< 1
ri
u
o
1
81
< 1
3
< 1
5
4
2
< 1
19
< 1
r\
u
3
16
Q
3
1 6
13
4
3
< 1
WCS - Western Coastal Subbasin
Pinbog - Pinnebog; Quanc - Quanicassee; Shiaw - Shiawassee;
Chipp - Chippewa; Kawkl - Kawkawklin Watersheds.
D-22
-------
Appendix Table D.12
COMMUNITY CHARACTERISTICS - BY
DOMINANT TAXA.
East Coastal Subbasin Saginaw Subbasin
Allen Pigen Pinbg Quanc Cass Flint Shiaw Pine Chipp
A. Artificial Substrates - By Dominant Taxaฐ
WCSa
Kawklc
Tricorythes
Caenis
Stenonema
Stenacron
Heptagenia
Isonychia
Baetis
Paraleptophlebia
Hexagenia
Ephemera
Pseudocloeon
Potamanthus
Leptophlebia
Ephemerella
Sialis
Neohermes
Acroneuria
Perlesta
Perlinella
Taeniopteryx
Cheumatopsyche
Hydropsyche
Neureclipsis
Nyctiophylax
Nectopsyche
Hydroptilidae
Brachycentrus
Limnephilus
Oecetis
Polycentropus
Helicopsyche
Chimarra
Macronema
Elmidae
Berosus
Corixidae
Ranatra
Ischnura
Agrion
Agria
Parachiron
Paratendipes
Endochironomus
Stenochironomus
Stictiochironomus
Psectrocladius
Crictopus
Corynoneuria
Thienemanniella
Brillia
Trichocladius
Microtendipes
Dicrotendipes
Stelechomyia
Polypedilum
Tribelos
Chironomus
Metriocnemus
Glyptotendes
Cryptochironomus
Tanytarsini
Cryptotendipes
Cladopelma
D-23
-------
Appendix Table D.12 COMMUNITY CHARACTERISTICS - BY
DOMINANT TAXA (Cont.).
Paralauterborniella +
Robackia +
Parametriocnemus + + + +
Orthocladius +
Nanocladius + +
Ablabesymia +++ +++++
Procladius + + + + +
Nylotanypus + + + + +
Rheocricotopus + + + +
Heterotrissocladius + + +
Synorthocladius +
Ceratopogonidae + Oy +
Athericidae + +
Tipulidae + +
Tabanidae +
Simuliidae + + + + +
Ephydridae + + + +
Gammarus +++ + + + + +
Hyalella + + + + +
Asellus + + +
Oligochaeta ++ ++ ++ +++
Physa + + + + + + +
Lymnaea
Valvata + + +
Gyraulus
Helisoma +
Ferrissima + + + + + +
Sphaeridae + + + +
Planaria 0ฎ ++ ++ +0 +
Hirudinea + +
Others + + + + + +
B. Qualitative Surveys ...
Tricorythodes _ + -t X + + W +
Caenis ฎAAฎ ฎAAAX
Stenonema !ซH+ + H ฎ H ฎ
Stenacron +ฎฎ+ +ฎ + ฎ +
Heptagenia + + + +
Isonychia A + + A A
Baetis + + + ฎ + + ฎ0
Paraleptophlebia + + + + + +
Hexagenia + + +
Ephoron +
Pseudocloeon +
Potamanthus _ + + + + +
Callibaetis + ฎ
Ephemerella + + +
Brachycercus +
Baetisca + +
Sialis
Neohermes
Chauliodes
Corydalus
Acroneuria
Pternarcys
Cheumatopsyche
Hydropsyche
Neureclipsis
Nectopsyche
Hydroptilidae
Brachycentrus
Limnephilus
Oecetis
D-24
-------
Appendix Table D.12 COMMUNITY CHARACTERISTICS - BY
DOMINANT TAXA (Cont.)-
Polycentropus + _
Helicopsyche + + + + 09
Chimarra + + + + +
Macronema + +
Ceraclea +
Trianodes +
Mystacides
Psychomyia +
Elmidae
Halipus H
Berosus H
Psephenidae
Helodidae H
Tropisternus H
Laccophilus
Hydrophilus
Peltodytes
Corixidae ^
Belostoma H
Notonectidae
Neoplea
Neocataclysta ^
Anax
Basiaeschna
Gomphidae
Libellula
Boyeria ,
Ischnura <
Agrion
Agria H
Parachironomus
Paratendipes
Endochironomus ^
Stenochironomus
Stictiochironomus
Crictopus H
Corynoneuria
Thienemanniella
Brillia
Trichocladius
Microtendipes
Dicrotendipes ^
Polypedilum H
Tribelos H
Chironomus
Glyptotendipes H
Cryptochironomus
Tanytarsini ^
Pseudochi ronomus
Cryptotendipes
Cladopelma
Paralauterborniella
Parametriocnemus
Ablabesmyia
Procladius ^
Nylotanypus
Clinotanypus
Rheocricotopus
Nilothauma
Ceratopogonidae
Empididae
Athericidae
Tipulidae
Tabanidae
Simuliidae
Culicidae
Dixidae
Ephydridae
D-25
-------
Appendix Table D.12 COMMUNITY CHARACTERISTICS - BY
DOMINANT TAXA (Cont.).
Gammarus
Hyalella
Asellus
Oligochaeta
Physa
Lymnaea
Valvata
Gyraulus
Helisoma
Ferrissima
Sphaeridae
Planaria
Hirudinea
Others
a WCS - Western Coastal Subbasin; b + = > 0.05 %, 8 = > 5.0 % in abundance.
c Pigen - Pigeon; Pinbg - Pinnebog; Quanc - Quanicassee; Shiaw - Shiawassei
Chipp - Chippewa; Kawkl - Kawkawklin Watersheds.
D-26
-------
Appendix Table D-12. STATISTICAL TESTS.
Multiple Regression Results
Dependent Independent
Variable Variables rf. p_
Total Taxa SW T-Pa 0.09 0.005
PW NH3-Nb
PW N02+N03ฐ
EPT SW T-P 0.19 < 0.001
PW NH3-N
PW N02+N03
ICI SW T-P 0.28 < 0.001
PW NH3-N
PW N02+N03
Spearman Rank Order Correlationsd
TSSe SW N0,+N0,f SW TNg PW NH,-N
Abundance 0.47 0.22 0.21
Total Taxa - 0.21
EPT -0.26 -0.24
ICI - 0.25
PW N0,+N0, PW 0-PQ.h SW T-P1
Abundance 0.21
Total Taxa 0.20 - 0.34
EPT 0.30 0.23
ICI 0.32 0.24
a Surface water total phosphorus
b Sediment pore water total ammonia nitrogen
c Sediment pore water total nitrite+nitrate nitrogen
d Spearman test correlation values > 0.20
e Total suspended solids
f Surface water total nitrite+nitrate nitrogen
g Surface water total nitrogen
h Pore water ortho-phosphorus
1 Surface water total phosphorus
D-27
-------
APPENDIX E
FISH COMMUNITY
Paqe
E.I FISH CHECKLIST/CLASSIFICATIONS E-2
E.2. COMMUNITY CHARACTERISTICS (AVERAGES) E-4
E.3. COMMUNITY METRICS - BY STATION (AVERAGES) E-6
E-l
-------
Appendix Table E.I FISH CHECKLIST/CLASSIFICATIONS.
Classification9
Checklist
CLUPEIDAE - 1 taxon
Dorosoma cepedianum
UMBRIDAE - 1 taxon
Umbra 1 imi
ESOCIDAE - 2 taxa
Esox amer . vermiculatus
Esox lucius
CYPRINIDAE - 16 taxa
Campostoma anomalum
Cyprinus carpio
Hybognathus hankinsoni
Nocomis biguttatus
Nocomis micropogon
Notemigonus crysoleucas
Notropis boops
Notropis cornutus
Notropis rubellus
Notropis spilopterus
Notropis umbratilis
Notropis volucellus
Phoxinus erythrogaster
Pimephales notatus
Pimephales promelas
Rhinichthys atratulus
Semotilus atromaculatus
CATOSTOMIDAE - 2 taxa
Catostomus commersoni
Hypentelium nigricans
ICTALURIDAE - 4 taxa
Ictalurus natalis
Ictalurus punctatus
Noturus flavus
Noturus gyrinus
Toler Feeding Habitat
gizzard shad
central mudminnow
grass pickerel
northern pike
central stoneroller
common carp
brassy minnow
hornyhead chub
river chub
golden shiner
bigeye shiner
common shiner
rosyface shiner
spotfin shiner
redfin shiner
mimic shiner
southrn redbelly dace
bluntnose minnow
fathead minnow
blacknose dace
creek chub
white sucker
northern hog sucker
yellow bullhead
channel catfish
stonecat
tadpole madtom
T
T
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
T
T
T
I
I
I
I
I
T
T
T
T
T
I
T
T
I
I
0
0
P
P
H
0
0
I
I
0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0
0
I
I
I
I
o
0
I
I
HG
HG
HG
HG
F
HG
F
F
F
HG
F
HG
F
F
F
F
F
F
HG
F
F
HG
F
HG
HG
F
HG
GASTEROSTEIDAE - 1 taxon
Culaea inconstans
CENTRACHIDAE - 9 taxa
Ambloplites rupestris
Lepomis cyanellus
Lepomis gibbosus
Lepomis humilis
Lepomis macrochirus
Lepomis megalotis
Micropterus dolomieui
Micropterus salmoides
Pomoxis nigromaculatus
PERCIDAE - 9 taxa
Etheostoma blennioides
brook stickleback
rock bass
green sunfish
pumpkinseed sunfish
orangespotted sunfish
bluegill
longear sunfish
smallmouth bass
largemouth bass
black crappie
greenside darter
I
I
T
I
T
T
I
I
T
I
I
I
P
I
I
I
I
I
P
P
P
I
HG
HG
HG
HG
HG
HG
HG
F
HG
HG
F
E-2
-------
Appendix Table E.I FISH CHECKLIST/CLASSIFICATIONS (Cont.).
Etheostoma caeruleum rainbow darter I IF
Etheostoma exile Iowa darter I I EG
Etheostoma flabellare fantail darter I IF
Etheostoma microperca least darter I I HG
Etheostoma nigrum johnny darter T I HG
Perca flavescens yellow perch I I HG
Percina caprodes logperch I I HG
Percina maculata blackside darter I IF
COTTIDAE - 1 taxon
Cottus bairdi mottled sculpin I IF
"Classification Definitions:
T=Tolerant; I-Intolerant
H-Herbivore; I=Insectivore; 0=0mnivore; P=Piscivore
F=Flowing water; HG=No obvious flowing preference
TOTAL FISH TAXA = 47
E-3
-------
Appendix Table E-2. COMMUNITY CHARACTERISTICS (AVERAGES).
FLINT WATRSHD
Station 210-2 210-3 210-8 210-9 210-10
CASS WATRSHD
201 200-2 200-8 200-9
CLUPEIDAE
Gizzard Shad 62
UMBRIDAE
Central mudminnow
ESOCIDAE
Grass pickerel 1
Northern pike 3
CYPRINIDAE
Stoneroller
Common carp 1
Brassy minnow
Hornyhead chub
River chub
Bigeye shiner
Common shiner 9
Blacknose shiner
Rosyface shiner
Spotfin shiner
Redfin shiner
Mimic shiner
Bluntnose minnow
Fathead minnow
S. redbelly dace
Blacknose dace
Creek chub 4
CATOSTOMIDAE
White sucker 59
No. hog sucker
ICTALURIDAE
Black bullhead
Channel catfish
Stonecat
GASTEROSTEIDAE
Brook stickleback
CENTRACHIDAE
Rock bass
Green sunfish
Orngesptd sunfish 1
Bluegill 4
Longear sunfish
Smallmouth bass
Largemouth bass 2
Black crappie
PERCIDAE
Greenside darter
Rainbow darter
Iowa darter
Fantail darter
Johnny darter 5
Yellow perch
Blackside darter
10
25
6
167
578 189 30
14
13
68
35
5
9
10
67 51 20 11
1
73 2
53
10
50
1
2
147
5
2
32
5
539
79
5
93
27
1
1
144
7
104
1
34
1
40
1
2
165
5
23
103
96
1
22
7 12
61
3
4 18
72 37
18 15
E-4
-------
Appendix Table E-2. COMMUNITY CHARACTERISTICS (AVERAGES, Cont.).
CHIPPEWA WATRSHD E. COASTAL SUBBASIN
Station 256 252 254 255 250-5 111 121 130 140 150
CLUPEIDAE
Gizzard Shad 478 9
UMBRIDAE
Central mudminnow 1
ESOCIDAE
Grass pickerel 2 4
Northern pike 2 3
CYPRINIDAE
Stoneroller 3 1
Common carp 4 24
Brassy minnow 3
Hornyhead chub 4 16 35 4 18
River chub 5 3
Golden Shiner 50
Bigeye shiner 30 16
Common shiner 219 29 200 10 261 674 136 108 28
Blacknose shiner 2 19
Spotfin shiner 4
Redfin shiner
Mimic shiner 18
Bluntnose minnow 432 11 18 21 33
Fathead minnow 1 1 2512
Blacknose dace 16 60 1
Creek chub 38 63 155 27 18 179
CATOSTOMIDAE
White sucker 8 89 35 3 46 260 6 1
No. hog sucker 1
ICTALURIDAE
Channel catfish 184
Yellow bullhead 4
Stonecat 4
Tadpole madtom 7 15
GASTEROSTEIDAE
Brook stickleback 1 21
CENTRACHIDAE
Rock bass 3 1 17 47
Green sunfish 11 29 421
Pumkinsd sunfish 2 51 251 53
Smallmouth bass 1 7
Largemouth bass 22 10 23
Black crappie 1
PERICIDAE
Rainbow darter 3
Fantail darter 1 3
Least darter 2
Johnny darter 1 109 33 8 341 146 10 6
Yellow perch 1 13 2
Log perch 4
Blackside darter 3 52 12 3 12
COTTIDAE
Mottled sculpin 1 1
E-5
-------
Appendix Table E.3 COMMUNITY METRICS - BY STATION.
Eastern Subbasin
Station
Catch /sample3
Rich, /smpl .a-b
IBIa
# Measurements
I
Station
Catch /sample3
Rich. /smpl.a'b
IBIa
# Measurements
Station
Catch/sample3
Rich. /smpl.3'b
IBI3
# Measurements
Station
Catch/sample3
Rich, /smpl . 3'b
IBI3
# Measurements
111 121 130 140
563 753 120 612
6 7 9 16
33 30 37 44
212 2
Saginaw Subbasin
200-1 200-2 200-8 200-9
178 572 143 282
13 16 10 12
26 47 33 37
1 222
Saginaw Subbasin
210-2 210-3 210-8 210-9
369 134 108 28
9689
21 24 30 29
2222
Saginaw Subbasin
250-1 250-2 254 255
164 166 265 50
11 9 12 8
33 29 29 30
2221
150-1
3021
6
22
1
210-10
133
12
38
2
I
250-5
33
10
32
1
a Average values.
b Rich./snr1"" = richness/sample.
U.S. E
r -
^o, ;
*U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFF ICE.1996-549-001/60101 REGION 5-II
E-6
------- |