-------
6.2 Time-of-Travel Study
On 8 February a time-of-travel study was conducted
by releasing dye at Coke Plant 1 and monitoring its
passage at locations 580,1,158,1,180, and 3,140 m
downstream. The results of the 8 February time-of-
travel study are shown in Figure 6-1 for the four
downstream stations. The location of the center of
mass trailed the peak concentration by 5-7 minutes
(Figure 6-1). Average velocities calculated between
each station are shown below
Distance Interval
(m)
Velocity
(m/sec)
0-580
579-1,158
1,158-1,880
1,880-3,140
0.32
0.33
0.32
0,35
The average velocity over the 3.14-km section of
the river was 0.4 m/sec. This time-of-travel velocity
is equivalent to an exposure time of 1.3 hours for
each 1.60 km (1 mi) of downstream movement from
the point of discharge for the average water parcel.
Water parcels in the leading edge of the distribution
would have experienced an exposure time of less
than average, whereas parcels in the tail of the dis-
tribution would have longer exposure times. The
average velocity of the leading edge of the dye dis-
tribution over this 3.14-km segment of the river was
0.5 m/sec, which is equivalent to 1.0 hour of expo-
sure time for each 1.60 km (1 mi) of downstream
movement.
6.3 Effluent Configuration—Coke Plant 1
The Coke Plant 1 effluent configuration study was
performed on 8-9 February 1983. The average dye
concentration measured at the point of discharge
between 1600 and 1730 hours on 8 February was
113 ppb. The recorded discharge dye concentration
slowly decayed overnight because of residue build-
ing up inside the flow cell of the fluorometer. From
the uniform dye injection rate measured over the
course of the study (7.24 g/min), it was determined
that the initial 113 ppb value could be used for the
entire study period. The average background fluo-
rescence measured in the discharge was 3 ppb,
yielding a 110 ppb discharge dye concentration that
was corrected to 220 ppb by applying the facto/
20,0-
18.0-
16.0-
14.0-
580 m
Downstream
10.0-
6,0-
4,0-
2.0-
I = Center of Mass
0.25 0.50 0.75 1,00 1.25 1.50 1,75 2,00 2,25 2.50 2.75 3.00 3.25 3.50 3.75 4.00
Hour from Injection
Figure 6-1. Time-of-travel study on Five Mile Creek, February 1983 (injection time 0.0 hour),
6-2
-------
determined from the dye integrity study, which ac-
counts for the high color content of the effluent
(Appendix B). The instream water samples were
collected on 9 February between 1230 and 1630
hours at the 12 transects.
Taking into account the measured background lev-
els of the river water and the effluent, dilution ratios
were calculated for all instream samples using the
220 ppb discharge dye concentration. The resulting
dilution contours for 9 February downstream of the
Coke Plant 1 discharge are shown in Figure 6-2.
Where water depths were greater than 0.5 m, the
surface and bottom dye concentrations stiowed so
little variation that the mean value was used in
preparing Figure 6-2. The rain that caused the daily
average flow to increase from 1.95 to 2.46 m3/sec
between 8 and 9 February did not start until after
the dye samples had been collected.
Due to the small discharge flow of 0.008 m3/sec
from Coke Plant 1 on 9 February compared to the
river flow of approximately 1.95 m3/sec, large dilu-
tion ratios were achieved quickly. At Transect 6,
213 m below the discharge, dilution ratios ranged
from 160 to 200 and the river was approximately 90
5 m
5 m
Coke Plant 1
Dam Discharge
0 m
50 m-
100 m-
150 m-
200m;
Riff le Area
FLOW
300 m-
400 m
Figure 6-2,
T8
Dilution contours in Five Mile Creek downstream
from Coke Plant 1, 9 February 1983.
500 m-
600 m-
700
800 m
u
o
190
Riffle
Area
900 m
190
Railroad
Maintenance
Yard
Discharge
1,000
-T9
200
Figure 6-2. (Cont.)
percent fully mixed (Figure 6-2). Additional mixing
occurred gradually with the river approaching a
fully mixed state (99 percent) at 762 m downstream
at Transect 9 with a dilution ratio of 190.
6.4 Evaluation of Dilution Characteristics
The Five Mile Creek flow and the percent fully
mixed flow contribution at selected sampling sta-
tions from each of the three discharges are summa-
rized in Table 6-2 for the period 7-11 February. Daily
differences in the reported flows at the three dis-
charges were very small compared to the effect of
the changing river stage on the flow contribution at
each station. From 7 February to the afternoon of
9 February, the decreasing river stage resulted in
progressively higher flow contribution to each sta-
tion from the discharges. The rain on 9-10 February
increased river flows, but when river flows again
decreased on 11 February, flow contributions again
increased. The percent flow contribution from both
coke plants had a larger incremental decrease be-
tween Stations 6 and 7 because of the additional
flow from Black Creek.
The contribution of the effluent from Coke Plant 1
varied from a maximum of 0.39 percent of the river
flow on 8 February at Station 3 to a minimum of
6-3
-------
Table 6-2, Percent Flow Contribution From the Three
Discharges at Selected Sampling Stations on
Five Mile Creak, February 1983
Flow Contribution (%!
River Flow
(m3/sec) Coke Plant 1 Coke Plant 2 POTW
__
Sta 3 4.67 0.22
8 5.25 0.20 3.38
6 6.08 0.17 2.92
7 9.54 0.11 1,86 10.09
8FEB
Sta 3 1.95 0.39
S 2.40 0.32 7.12
6 3.11 0.25 5.50
7 5.01 0.15 3.42 17.63
9FEB
Sta 3 2.46 0.33
5 3.00 0.27 8.01
6 3.90 0.21 6.15
7 6.03 0.14 3.99 13.43
10 FEB
Sta 3 5.94 0.15
5 6.51 0.14 3.69
6 6.51 0.14 3.69
7 11.18 0.08 2.15 8.30
11 FEB
Sta 3
5
6
7
3.56
3.39
4,72
7.53
0.26
0.24
0.20
0.12
3.76
3.15
1.98
11.88
0.08 percent of Station 7 on 10 February. The flow
contribution from Coke Plant 2 varied from 8.01
percent at Station 5 to 1.86 at Station 7. Between 10
and 11 February the decreasing Coke Plant 2 flow of
from 0.24 to 0.14 m3/sec was proportional to the
decreasing river flow. The flow contribution from
the POTW of 8.30-17.63 percent varied inversely
with the river flow.
6.5 Summary
Hydrological measurements were made to esti-
mate the instream waste concentration for each of
the three outfalls during February 1983. These mea-
surements were not frequent enough to establish
the value of IWC for the outfalls for each day be-
cause of heavy rains and highly variable stream
flows. An effort was made to estimate flows on
days for which measurements were not made by
use of the watershed area. These estimates were
not reasonable possibly because of storm sewers
or other inputs that were not proportional to the
drainage area.
6-4
-------
7. Hydrological Analysis, October 1983
7.1 Stream/Discharge Flow Measure-
ments
Because flows could not be accurately estimated in
February, they were measured frequently at each
station so that effluent concentration could be esti-
mated for each day in the event stream flows were
variable. Dye studies were also made to determine
mixing characteristics.
Flows measured at sampling stations on Five Mile
Creek in October 1983 are shown in Table 7-1. Also
included are the daily average discharges from
Coke Plant 1, Coke Plant 2, and the POTW. At Coke
Plant 1 and the POTW, the daily average discharge
was calculated from the reported hourly values. At
Coke Plant 2, the discharge flow is measured by
plant personnel once daily at a'flume. Flows from
the USGS gauging station (Station 2457000) which
were included in the February 1983 study were not
available because the gauge was inoperable.
During the week of 3-9 October, the daily average
flow at Coke Plant 1 varied from 0.0074 to 0.0093
m3/sec. During 3-7 October the flows were very uni-
form, whereas on 8 and 9 October (the dates of the
dye study), the hourly flows varied between 0.0076
and 0.0116 m3/sec. Coke Plant 1 flows observed
during this study are comparable to the 0.0076-
0.0105 m3/sec daily average values recorded during
the February 1983 study.
During the study, the daily reported flow at Coke
Plant 2 ranged from 0.066 to 0.122 m3/sec and aver-
aged 0.096 m3/sec. On 5-6 October (the dates of the
dye study), reported flows were 0.122 and 0.116
m3/sec. An additional flow of 0.085 m3/sec was
measured at a current meter transect on 6 October.
These flow values are nearly half of the 0.15-0.24
mVsec flows reported during the February 1983
study.
At the POTW during the week of 3-9 October, daily
average discharges ranged from 0.229 to 0.275 m3/
sec. A minimum flow of 0.14-0.17 m3/sec was nor-
mally reached at 0800 or 0900 hours and a maxi-
mum flow of 0.31-0.37 m3/sec was reached early in
the afternoon. On 7 October from 0900 to 1300
hours there was no reported discharge flow while
the plant was shut down for back flushing. How-
ever, the average discharge from 1400 to 2100
hours increased to 0.445 m3/sec such that the daily
average value of 0.266 m3/sec was typical of the
other days. The POTW flows in October were sub-
stantially lower than the 0.80-0.96 m3/sec flows
recorded during the February 1983 study.
Flows in Five Mile Creek slowly receded during the
week following a 4 October rain event (Table 7-1).
This effect is most noticeable at Station 1 where the
flow decreased from 0.286 to 0.221 m3/sec and at
Station 5 where the flow decreased from 0.527 to
0.362 m3/sec. On 4 October the flow of 0.524 m3/sec
measured at Station 3 was recorded 3.5 hours later
than the downstream flow of 0.470 m3/see at Sta-
tion 5 and is evidence of the rising river stage dur-
ing the rain event. The 0.691 m3/sec flow measured
Table 7-1. Measured Flows (m3/sec) at Biological Sampling Stations on Five Mile Creek, October 1983
October
Location 3
Station 1
Station 2
Station 2A
Coke Plant 1 0.0076
discharge
Station 3
Coke Plant 2 0.066
discharge
Station 5
Station 6 '
Black Creek
(Station B2)
POTW discharge 0.258
Station 7
Station 8
Station 9
4
0.286
0.379
0.0079
0.524
0.079
0.470
0.275
5
0.0076
0.122
0.691
0.047
0.255
0.691
0.906
1.045
6
0.249
0.272
0.0074
0,371
0.116
0.527
0.263
\
0.844
7
0.232
0.348
0.0076
0.092
0.498
0.501
0.021
0,266
0.736
0.575
0.810
8
0.204
0.258
0.0088
0.292
0.101
0.464
0.238
0.779
9
0,215
0.275
0.0093
0.096
0.297
0.394
0.229
0.586
0.586
10
0.221
0.096
0,362
0.598
7-1
-------
at Station 7 on 5 October is much lower than
expected and is regarded as suspect. This is be-
cause the flow measured at Station 6 (0.691 m3/sec)
with the addition of a 0,255 m3/see discharge from
the POTW is consistent with the 0.906 m3/sec flow
measured at Station 8, The 0.575 m3/sec flow at
Station 8 on 7 October is also suspect but it may be
related to the POTW discharge being turned off dur-
ing the back flushing operation.
7.2 Effluent Configuration—POTW
The POTW dye study was performed on 3-4 Octo-
ber. For the period of dye injection, an hourly dis-
charge dye concentration was calculated from the
reported plant flows and the 5.27 g/min dye injec-
tion rate. The calculated values were in good agree-
ment with the four grab samples collected from the
discharge. The measured discharge dye concentra-
tion on 4 October at the start and end of the in-
stream sampling survey was 114 ppb at 0819 hours
and 51 ppb at 1340 hours. The decreasing dye con-
centration was due to the normal morning increase
in discharge at the POTW.
In order to relate the time varying discharge con-
centrations to observed downstream dye concen-
trations, a travel time was estimated between the
discharge and each transect. An average cross-
sectional velocity was calculated at each transect
by dividing the Five Mile Creek flow by each tran-
sect's cross-sectional area. These velocities were
used in conjunction with the transect spacing to
calculate a travel time for an "average" water parti-
cle between each transect.
For the first 300 m (Transects T2 through T7), which
were sampled between 0837 and 1022 hours, the
corresponding water particles left the discharge be-
tween 0836 and 0943 hours. The farther down-
stream transects required successively longer
travel times such that the average water particles
had left the discharge at 0916 hours for Transect T9
(762 m) and before 0830 hours for Transects T10
and T11. Since the discharge times for Transects T2
through T9 were all between 0836 and 0943 hours,
a 4-hour average discharge concentration of 103.0
ppb from 0700 to 1000 hours was used in calculat-
ing the dilution ratios. The appropriate discharge
concentration for use at transects beyond T8
(457 m) is not critical since there was no con-
tourable variation in the observed dye distribution
beyond this point.
The resulting dilution contours are shown in Fig-
ure 7-1. The discharge plume mixed with the
stream flow quickly. During initial mixing, a dilution
contour of 10 was 3 m from the far bank at Transect
T2 (15 m) and reached the far bank by Transect T6
(213 m), A dilution contour of 5 (20 percent effluent)
reached the far bank above Transect T7 (305 m) and
5 m
0 m -i
50m-
100m-
-T7
3.7 - 3.8
7T8
Figure 7-1
Dilution contours in Five Mile Creek downstream
from the POTW discharge, 4 October 1983.
a contour of 3 (33 percent effluent) closed back on
the near shore below Transect T7. At Transect T8
(457 m) the river was fully mixed and the variation
in dye reading along the transect corresponded to
the dilution ratio of 3.7-3.8 (26-27 percent effluent).
7.3 Effluent Configuration—Coke Plant 2
The effluent configuration study at Coke Plant 2
was performed on 5-6 October. During this 2-day
period, grab samples were taken four times in the
discharge to calculate the discharge dye concentra-
tion. Additional discharge dye concentrations can
be calculated from the three measured discharge
flows using the 2.76 g/min dye injection rate. The
average discharge dye concentration calculated
from these seven values is 77.7 ppb and ranged
from 50.5 to 107.5 ppb. (The highest reading corre-
sponds to the flow measurement at 1020 hours on
6 October and the lowest reading corresponds to a
grab sample at 1330 hours on 6 October.) The other
five values ranged from 74,2 to 80.0 ppb and had a
mean of 77.1 ppb. The original value of 77,7 ppb
was used as the average discharge dye concentra-
tion during the study. This dye concentration corre-
7-2
-------
sponds to an average discharge flow of 0.119 m3/
see which agrees favorably with the flows reported
for Coke Plant 2 in Table 7-1.
The instream samples were collected from 0825 to
1150 hours on 6 October. The observed background
fluorescence of 0.1 ppb observed at Transect TO
was subtracted from the data. The resulting dilution
contours using the 77.7 ppb discharge dye concen-
tration are shown in Figure 7-2.
The effluent from the Coke Plant 2 discharge mixed
in fairly quickly. A dilution contour of 8 (12 percent
effluent) reached the far shore by Transect T4
(76 m). A dilution contour of 4 (25 percent effluent)
enclosed back to the discharge bank at Transect T7
(305 m) and a contour of 5 (20 percent effluent)
reached the far bank at approximately 360 m.
Downstream from Transect T8 (457 m), there was
no contourable variation in the observed dye con-
centrations. At Transect T8 the stream narrowed
down to a 4.5-m width through a riffle and the vari-
ation of the dilution contour of 4.3-4.4 corresponds
to the fully mixed stream being 23 percent Coke
Plant 2 effluent.
7.4 Effluent Configuration—Coke Plant 1
The Coke Plant 1 discharge configuration study was
performed on 8-9 October 1983. The stream sam-
ples were collected on 9 October from 0855 to 1110
hours. The daily average flows on these two dates
were 0.0088 and 0.0093 m3/sec, respectively. The
flow variation on these two dates (Saturday, Sun-
day) was greater than earlier in the week. The flow
decreased from a maximum of 0.0116 m3/sec at
0500 hours on 8 October, reached a minimum of
0.0076 m3/sec at 0000 and 0100 hours on 9 October,
and increased to a second maximum of 0.0105 m3/
sec at 0600 hours. Discharge dye concentrations
were calculated from the hourly plant flow data and
the 5.48 g/min dye injection over the duration of the
study.
On 9 October the calculated discharge dye concen-
trations decreased from 165 ppb at 0000 hour to 120
ppb at 0600 hours. From 0800 to 1000 hours, during
the period when the stream samples were being
collected, the discharge concentration had a con-
stant value of 122 ppb (0.0105 m3/sec). Since the
dye concentrations were very uniform (fully mixed)
beyond the first few transects, this value of 122 ppb
was used in forming the nearfield dilution ratios.
The water level in the pool above the lowhead dam
at the Coke Plant 1 site had been drawn down a few
days previous to the study. At this time it was ob-
served that cracks in the discharge pipe which
passes through the pool would increase the volume
discharge on the other side of the dam. During the
study, the pressure of the pool prevented effluent
5 m
0 m
50m-/8
100m
300 m-
FLOW
"400 m
200m:
Figure 7-2.
Dilution contours in Five Mile Creek downstream
from the Coke Plant 2 discharge, 6 October 1983.
from leaking out of the pipe as evidenced by the
0.08 ppb background dye concentration obtained at
Transect TO just above the dam. The undetermined
amount of dilution taking place inside the pipe and
the optical blocking problem addressed in Ap-
pendix B made comparisons of grab samples taken
at the end of the pipe to calculated discharge con-
centrations meaningless.
Taking into account the measured background lev-
els and the concentration adjustment to the stream
samples as a function of the sample effluent contri-
bution, dilution ratios were calculated. The result-
ing dilution contours for the Coke Plant 1 discharge
are shown in Figure 7-3. The effluent mixed in very
quickly. At Transect T2 (15 m), Five Mile Creek
passed through a 3-m wide construction with a
horizontal dilution gradient of 20-40 (2.5-5 percent
effluent). The variation in dye concentration was
too small to contour downstream of Transect T5
(137 m) where the dilution varied from 29 to 37
(2.7-3.4 percent effluent).
7-3
-------
5m
Dam Coke Plant 1 Discharge jco
3
100m
30 -33
200m-
•T6 I 28-29
-T8
The plume from the POTW reached the far bank
within 25 m downstream and was fully mixed at
Transect T8, 457 m downstream of the discharge.
The fully mixed effluent contribution on the day of
the dye study was 26.5 percent of the total down-
stream flow.
The flow contribution of the three discharges are
illustrated in Figure 7-4 in relation to the total Five
Mile Creek flow between biological Stations 1 and
9. The fully mixed (percent) flow contribution of the
three discharges at each biological station is sum-
marized in Table 7-2. The average flows used in the
above figure and table were for the period 4-10
October 1983. Average flows used for the three dis-
charges were 0.008, 0.10, and 0.26 m3/sec for Coke
0.8-
1 0.6
0.4-
0.2-
Coke
Plant 1
Coke Plant 2
I
Black Creek
1235
6 7
Station
Figuro 7-3. Dilution contours in Five Mile Creek downstream
from the Coke Plant 1 discharge, 9 October 1983.
Figure 7-4. Flow contributions to Five Mile Creek from
upstream and from three discharges, October 1983.
7.5 Evaluation of Dilution Characteristics
The dye configuration studies showed that the ef-
fluent from Coke Plant 1, Coke Plant 2, and the
POTW were fully mixed before reaching the next
downstream sampling station. The relatively small
(0.01 m3/sec) discharge from Coke Plant 1 mixed
very quickly. The plume achieved a large amount of
initial mixing by the time it passed through a 3-m
wide constriction 15 m below the discharge, and
the effluent was fully mixed within 100 m down-
stream with a 3 percent effluent contribution at the
time of the dye study.
The plume from Coke Plant 2 reached the far bank
within 50 m downstream of the discharge and was
fully mixed at Transect T8,457 m downstream. The
fully mixed effluent contribution on the day of the
study was 23.0 percent.
Table 7-2. Average Five Mile Creek Flow and Percent Flow
Contribution From Three Discharges for the
Period 4-10 October 1983
Percent Flow Contribution
Station
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
Total Flow
(m3/sec)
0.24
0.29
0.35
0.46
0.48
0.77
0.78
0.87
Upstream
100
100
97.7
76.6
77.5
52.2
52.9
57.7
Coke
Plant 1
2.3
1.7
1.7
1.0
1.0
0.9
Coke
Plant 2
21.7
20.8
13.0
12.8
11.5
POTW
33.8
33.3
29.9
7-9
Worst-Case Condition'8'
0.51
27,8
1.6
19.6
51.0
!a)A conservative approximation of 7Q10 conditions.
7-4
-------
Plant 1, Coke Plant 2, and the POTW, respectively.
Flow contribution from Coke Plant 1 decreased
from 2.3 to 0.9 percent between Stations 3 and 9.
The flow contribution from Coke Plant 2 decreased
from 21.7 to 11.5 percent starting at Station 5, while
the POTW decreased from 33.8 to 29.9 percent
starting at Station 7,
A 7Q10 flow for Five Mile Creek is not available,
making it difficult to address a low-flow condition
from a perspective meaningful to the regulations.
As a worst-case condition, the minimum observed
daily flow at the USGS station located between Sta-
tions 1 and 2 was 0.14 m3/sec on 2 November 1954
based on a gauging record of 1953-1958 and 1972-
1976.
Included in Table 7-2 are the flow contributions for
the three discharges at stations downstream of the
POTW using this worst-case 0.14 m3/sec flow and
assuming that the discharges remain at their cur-
rent discharge rates.
The resulting flow contributions are 1.6, 19.6, and
51.0 percent for Coke Plant 1, Coke Plant 2, and the
POTW, respectively (Table 7-2). It is likely that
under actual 7Q10 conditions, the upstream flow
may be slightly higher and the discharge rates may
decrease, making the above contributions an upper
limit.
7-5
-------
8, Periphytic Community, February 1983
The periphyton study measured chlorophyll a and
biomass and determined periphyton abundance
and composition. The relatively short reproduction
time and rapid seasonal fluctuation in growth of
periphytic algae make that community a useful in-
dicator of changes in water quality. Adverse effects
on the periphytic community may be seen in either
a reduction of an important habitat or food source
for invertebrates and fish, or the enhancement or
dominance of nuisance species of algae that nei-
ther support other trophic levels nor are aestheti-
cally pleasing. A description of sampling and ana-
lytical methods is presented in Appendix C;
additional data are presented in Appendix E,
8.1 Community Structure
Thirty-four algal taxa (31 genera) representing four
major taxonomic divisions were identified in peri-
phyton samples collected from eight stations in
Five Mile Creek and one station in Black Creek
(Table E-1). Total periphyton densities in Five Mile
Creek ranged from 194 to 43,044 units/mm2, diver-
sity varied from 0.85 to 3.37, and equitability
ranged from 0.23 to 0.84 (Table 8-1).
The predominant slate, bedrock streambed at Sta-
tion 1 near Lawson Road could not be sampled
quantitatively, but moderate periphytic growth was
observed on these substrates. Qualitative samples
from small rocks revealed the community was
dominated by the diatom Achnanthes and the fila-
mentous green alga Cladophora (Table E-1),
Achnanthes commonly grows on rock substrates in
rivers and streams {Round 1964; Hynes 1972), and
some species are good indicators of high dissolved
oxygen concentrations (Lowe 1974). Cladophora
usually requires firm rock substrates for maximum
development and profuse growth often occurs
when nutrient (especially phosphorus) concentra-
tions are high (Whitton 1970). Because Cladophora
is a large filamentous alga that is readily colonized,
its presence can greatly influence periphyton com-
position, standing crop, and occurrence of smaller
algae. In Five Mile Creek, Achnanthes was not ob-
served attached to Cladophora, and these algae ap-
peared to occupy different microhabitats on the
rock substrates.
Diversity and equitability was considered moderate
at Station 1 compared to the other stations (Table
Table 8-1, Summary of Periphyton Species Composition and Diversity on Natural Substrates in Five Mile Creek, February
1983
Parameter
Sampling Station
Density (units/mm2)
Diatoms
Green algae
Blue-green algae
Total Periphyton
Percent Composition
32,869
2,095
8,080
43,044
7,733
4,539
12,868
25,140
5,737
6,035
28,079
39,851
750
295
740
1,785
15,589
4,592
227
20,408
111
1,247
82
1,440
86
77
31
194
Diatoms
Green algae
Blue-green algae
Taxa (Genus) Diversity (d)
Taxa (Genus) Equitability (e)
Total Taxa Identified
54.11
32.36
13.53
2.58
0.55
15
76.36
4.87
18.77
2.54
0.47
17
30.76
18.05
51.19
3.37
0.70
21
14.40
15.14
70.46
2.87
0.68
-15
42.02
16.53
41.45
2.56
0.62
13
76.39
22.50
1.11
3.04
0.68
17
7.71
86.60
5.69
0.85
0.23
9
44.33
39.69
15.98
2.14
0.84
7
(a'Not sampled quantitatively for periphyton abundance.
-------
8-1). Diversity ranged from 0.85 to 3.39 and equi-
tability from 0.23 to 0.84. The lowest values for both
community parameters occurred at Station 7.
Maximum density (43,044 units/mm2) observed in
Five Mile Creek occurred at Station 2 located up-
stream from the Coke Plant 1 discharge but down-
stream from the confluence with Loveless Branch
(Table 8-1). Achnanthes was a dominant diatom
downstream to Station 6 (Table E-1). Cladophora
was an important green algae even though it was
variable in abundance. Diatoms that were associ-
ated with Cladophora (e.g., Cocconeis, Cymbella,
and Diatoma) were abundant at Station 2, as were
small species of the blue-green alga Lyngbya. Gen-
erally, composition at Stations 1 and 2 was similar,
and diversity and equitability were only slightly re-
duced at Station 2.
Compared to Station 2, a fourfold reduction in di-
atom abundance occurred at Station 3 which is lo-
cated downstream from the Coke Plant 1 discharge.
Both green and blue-green algae were more abun-
dant at Station 3 (Table E-1), Most of the decline of
diatoms was caused by a decrease in the density of
Achnanthes, although Diatoma and Navicula also
were substantially reduced. The abundance of
green algae doubled, even though Cladophora de-
clined, because another filamentous form, Sti-
geoclonium, became prevalent. Several taxa of
blue-green algae were also abundant at Station 3.
Diversity and equitability increased when com-
pared to Station 2, probably because the domi-
nance of Achnanthes was suppressed.
Diatom abundance declined from Station 3 to Sta-
tion 4. Green algae increased slightly, whereas
blue-green algae increased twofold from Station 3
to Station 4. Total periphyton density at Station 4
was the second highest in Five Mile Creek (39,851
units/mm2). There was little change in composition
within these three major groups between Stations
3 and 4. Diversity declined somewhat at Station 4,
but values for equitability were essentially un-
changed.
A 20-fold decline in total density occurred at Station
5 (relative to Station 4) which was located down-
stream from the Coke Plant 2 discharge (Table E-1).
Substantial reductions were noted for all three ma-
jor taxonomic divisions. Although several taxa that
were of minor importance at upstream stations
were absent at Station 5, the greatest change in
composition was the absence of Cladophora. Di-
versity and equitability, although lower than at Sta-
tion 4, were similar to or slightly greater than re-
spective values at Stations 1 and 2, in spite of the
very low densities at Station 5. At Station 6, located
approximately 8 km farther downstream, the abun-
dance of diatoms and green algae exhibited sub-
stantial increases, but blue-green algae continued
to decline in abundance. The maximum density of
Cladophora occurred at Station 6, and the deposi-
tion of large amounts of sediment and detritus at
this sampling location may have been facilitated by
entrapment of particles in the structural matrix of
this large, branched, filamentous alga. The maxi-
mum abundance of the diatom Navicula (many of
which were very small species related to the ben-
thic habitats) and the benthic diatom Surirella was
probably related to the quantity of sediment
present at Station 6. More sediment was included
in the periphyton sample at this station than at any
other station.
At Station 7, located at least 5 km downstream from
both the POTW and the confluence with Black
Creek, total periphyton density was slightly lower
than that recorded at Station 5. Diatoms and blue-
green algae were very sparse at Station 7. In con-
trast, green algae composed more than 86 percent
of total density. Cladophora was absent, and Sti-
geoclonium was responsible for the dominance
green algae. As a result, diversity and equitability
were lowest at Station 7. The minimum density ob-
served in Five Mile Creek occurred at Station 8 (194
units/mm2). The abundance of each major group
was <100 units/mm2. The most abundant taxa were
the diatom Navicula, the green alga Stigeoclo-
nium, and the blue-green alga Lyngbya. While di-
versity remained low, maximum equitability was
recorded at Station 8.
The qualitative results for Station B2 in Black Creek
could not be compared directly to those for Five
Mile Creek because a wood substrate was sampled
instead of rock (Table E-2). Although the periphyton
were dominated by Navicula, several other taxa
were either common or abundant. These others in-
cluded the diatoms Achnanthes, Frustula,
Nitzschia, and Surirella; the green alga Stigeoclo-
nium; the blue-green algae Lyngbya and Oscillato-
ria; and the filamentous red alga Audouinella. Be-
cause so many taxa were relatively abundant,
diversity and equitability were high at Station 11
(Table E-3).
8.2 Chlorophyll a and Biomass
Large variations in chlorophyll a and ash-free dry
weight (AFDW) measurements were present within
and among stations and appeared attributable to
habitat differences among stations. In addition, Sta-
tion B2 had a totally different substrate than the
other eight stations and therefore could only be
sampled qualitatively. As a result, this station had
the lowest chlorophyll a and second lowest
biomass of any station.
Chlorophyll a standing crop in Five Mile Creek
ranged from 3.9 to 505.1 mg/m2; biomass standing
8-2
-------
crop (AFDW) varied from 2,0 to 137.0 g/m2 (Table
E-4). Chlorophyll a and, to a lesser extent, biomass
appeared to be influenced strongly by the abun-
dance of Cladophora. At Stations 2,4, and 6, where
Cladophora occurred at densities greater than 1,000
units/mm2, chlorophyll a standing crops were
greater than 400 mg/m2. Chlorophyll a values of
20 mg/m2 or less occurred at Stations 5, 7, and 8
where Cladophora was absent. These differences
were statistically significant at P 2= 0.05. Similarly,
biomass was greater than 30 g/m2 at Stations 2, 4,
and 6, and less than 8 g/m2 at Stations 5, 7, and 8.
Stations 2 and 4 were the only sampling locations
where biomass was not significantly less than that
observed at Station 6, Autotrophic Index (Al) values
less than approximately 100 appeared to be typical
for most of Five Mile Creek in this February survey,
indicating periphyton was dominated by au-
totrophic (photosynthetic) rather than hetero-
trophic (nonalgal) taxa (APHA 1981).
Chlorophyll a and biomass measurements pro-
vided the only quantitative data for Station 1 (Table
8-1K These measurements indicated standing crop
was much lower at Station 1 than at Station 2, de-
spite the similarity in composition previously noted
for those sampling locations. Variations in chloro-
phyll a and biomass at the remaining stations in
Five Mile Creek were generally similar to those ob-
served for total density. Standing crops declined at
Station 3, returned to Station 2 levels at Station 4,
and decreased dramatically at Station 5. Substan-
tial recovery occurred at Station 6, where maxi-
mum biomass standing crop probably resulted
from the related factors of high Cladophora abun-
dance and accumulation of nonliving organic mat-
ter. As a result, Al values increased to approxi-
mately 300. Chlorophyll a and biomass were
greatly reduced at Stations 7 and 8. Biomass de-
clined less than chlorophyll a, and Al values at Sta-
tions 7 and 8 were greater (2,015 and 790, respec-
tively) than at other sampling locations in Five Mile
Creek.
The single chlorophyll a measurement at Station B2
in Black Creek was collected from a wood substrate
and indicated that algal biomass was low (Table
E-4). Although biomass appeared low in absolute
terms, it was high relative to chlorophyll a standing
crops, and the resultant Al value was much higher
than any observed in Five Mile Creek. However,
because wood was the substrate sampled in Black
Creek, biomass standing crops may have been in-
creased artificially by the incidental inclusion of
wood fibers in the sample.
8,3 Evaluation of Periphytic Community
Response
Although Stations 1 and 2 were located upstream
from the principal discharges, periphyton chloro-
phyll a and biomass increased significantly be-
tween these sampling locations (Table E-4). How-
ever, these increases had little effect on the
diversity, equitability, and Autotrophic Index or on
the relative abundance of important taxa in Five
Mile Creek. Standing crop on the prevalent bedrock
substrate at Station 1, which could not be sampled,
may have been greater than that observed on occa-
sional loose rocks that were sampled. Other studies
have shown that the abundance of Achnanthes and
Cladophora, the important components of periphy-
ton at Stations 1 and 2, was less on rocks that could
be moved by currents or waves than on larger,
more stable substrates (Douglas 1958; Taft and
Kishler 1973). In either case. Station 2 appeared to
be the most appropriate reference area for assess-
ing effects of the principal discharges being investi-
gated.
Results of an analysis of variance test and Tukey's
multiple comparison test indicated that there were
statistically different (P s 0.05) concentrations of
chlorophyll a and biomass between stations (Table
E-4). The chlorophyll a and biomass content of peri-
phyton at Station 1 increased at Station 2 {P s 0.05).
However, the abundance of diatoms such as
Achnanthes and Nitzschia decreased at Station 3
and continued to decline at Station 4; only a partial
recovery in Cladophora density was noted. Con-
versely, Sttgeoclonium increased substantially at
Station 3 and reached maximum abundance at Sta-
tion 4; blue-green algae (e.g., Lyngbya were also
most abundant at Station 4. These changes in com-
position caused a slight increase in diversity and
equitability relative to the reference locations.
Periphyton standing crop was much lower (signifi-
cantly so for biomass and chlorophyll a at P s 0.05)
at Station 5 than at either Stations 2 or 4 (Table E-4).
All types and genera of algae were affected nega-
tively. Achnanthes, Stigeoclonium, and Lyngbya
were the only taxa which maintained densities
greater than 100 units/mm2, and Cladophora was
absent. Substantial recovery was evident at Sta-
tion 6, where Cladophora reached maximum abun-
dance. There was no statistically significant differ-
ence in chlorophyll a or biomass standing crops
between Stations 6 and 2 (P > 0.05). Only Achnan-
thes, Diatoma, and Lyngbya were much less abun-
dant than at Station 2. Most of the differences be-
tween Stations 6 and 2 probably resulted from the
large quantities of sediment and detritus entrapped
in the profuse Cladophora growths.
Chlorophyll a standing crop at Stations 7 and 8 was
significantly different and lower than those at either
Stations 6 or 2 (P s 0.05); biomass was also signif-
icantly different and lower than at Station 6
(P < 0.05). Diatoms and blue-green algae were
nearly absent at Station 7, Cladophora was absent,
8-3
-------
and the numerical dominance of Stigeoclonium
caused low diversity. An increase in standing crop
was evident at Station 8 even though diversity, eq-
uitability, and Al values showed varying degrees of
improvement.
8-4
-------
9. Sent/lie Macroinvertebrate Community Survey, February 1983
The benthic rnacroinvertebrate survey measured
instream community composition and abundance.
The benthic community is considered to be a good
indicator of instream response to water quality be-
cause of the lack of extensive mobility. The degree
of community stability can be measured by com-
paring species composition and dominance, and
effects would be apparent as alterations in commu-
nity structure or standing crop beyond the limits of
normal fluctuation within the waterbody. Addi-
tional data on the composition and relative abun-
dance are presented in Appendix E. Sampling and
analytical methods for benthic macroinvertebrate
data are discussed in Appendix C.
9.1 Community Composition
The composition of the 38 numerically dominant
components of the benthic community showed
variations among stations (Tables 9-1 and E-6). Sta-
tion 1 was dominated by caddisflies and mayflies,
whereas the remainder of the stations were domi-
nated by oligochaetes and chironomid larvae, al-
though the relative abundance between the worms
and midges varied at downstream stations. The
caddisflies Cheumatopsyche and Chimarra were
the predominant maeroinvertebrates at Station 1
along with the mayflies Stenonema and Caenis.
Tubifex tubifex was the dominant oligocnaete at
other stations with abundance increases of A/a/s
bretscheriand species of Limnodrilus at certain sta-
tions. Cricotopus tremulus was the numerically
dominant midge at all stations; Cricotopus bicinc-
tus exhibited highest densities at Stations 6 and 8.
9.2 Comparison of Community Indices
Among Stations
Community response was summarized by examin-
ing an index of diversity and an index of community
loss based on reference station benthic composi-
tion. Values of the Shannon-Wiener diversity index,
with associated values of evenness, redundancy,
and the community loss index, are presented for
each station (EPA, 1973) (Table 9-2). Station diver-
sity indices reflect a trend of decreasing value from
Stations 1 and 2 to a minimum value at Station 4
and then progressively increasing downstream.
The lowest diversity value found at Station 4 was
primarily due to overwhelming abundance of T.
tubifex (Table 9-1) which contributed to the highest
redundancy value of all stations (Table 9-2). The
highest evenness values and corresponding lowest
redundancy values were found at Stations 1 and 2
which indicated that the most evenly distributed
benthic populations were at these two upstream
stations. Evenness and redundancy values ap-
proached those of Stations 1 and 2 at the farthest
downstream station (Station 8) and in Black Creek
at Station B2 (Tables 9-2 and E-6). The spatial distri-
bution in species diversity reflected this trend of
recovery of the benthic community.
Community loss index calculations indicated that
the greatest loss of reference station community
taxa occurred at Station 5 where the least number
of species and low abundance were found. The in-
dex values at all other stations were similar. The
community loss index, which only takes into ac-
count the presence or absence of taxa, indicates a
different effect from that of species diversity, which
is influenced by species richness and density. At
Station 5, the least number of taxa were captured
and the community loss index was greatest (Table
9-2). Most notable at Station 5 was the absence of
the variety of insect larvae found in the reference
area.
9.3 Taxa Differences Among Stations
Oligochaete species and chironomid larvae were
the numerically dominant taxa, and exerted the ma-
jor effect on fluctuations in abundance. Tubifex
tubifex is the dominant oligochaete and was essen-
tially more abundant (1,850 organisms/m2) than
any other organism at Station 4. This density of
T. tubifex at Station 4 was significantly higher
(P = 0.0066) than densities found upstream of Sta-
tion 4 or at Stations 7 and 8 (Table E-7). However,
the habitat of Station 4 was not sufficiently different
from that at other stations to be an imporatnt factor
influencing the density (see Site Description).
Abundance of T. tubifex decreases to approxi-
mately 130/m2 at Station 5 and was absent from
downstream Stations 7 and 8 and from the refer-
ence stations as well (Table 9-1).
The dominant midge, Cricotopus tremulus, was
present in low levels at Stations 1 and 2 (not ex-
ceeding 20/m2), increased to 177 larvae/m2 at Sta-
tion 3, decreased to 56/m2 at Station 5, increased to
peak abundance (over400/m2) at Station 6, and de-
creased again at Station 7 (124/m2) and Station 8
9-1
-------
Tablo 9-1,
Average Density (No./m2) of the Most Abundant Macroinvertebrate Species at Each Sampling Station From Five
Mile Creek, February 1983
Station
Species
Imm. Tub. W cap, chaot.
Cttcot ttemutus Grp. U
Tvbitax tubiftx
Imm, tub. wo cap, chaet.
Cricof. bieinct, Grp, L,
ChimiHimldat P,
Hfit bftttchert
Ttifansmnnnimvi* Grp. L,
timno&Um hoUmahteri
Umnotfrttuf udckemttnut
Chavtwtopiych* I
Sanonam* H.
Cier.ii N.
Cryptochlianomaus L
Bnlit N,
CcHtunilt
Irtdtdidi
H«pugtniina« H.
BiMldto N,
Honychil N.
HC.TlBrlCl
HtpKsensidaa H.
Hydrapiycht L.
Po.ypid/um icj/jonu/D L.
Chimtm L
Ur:aai
Atnphlntmtin N,
Etmida* L.
Pxephtnus L
fir Mdmift «m»rt>irf
EnehytngMaa
Coryctefus L.
AfJpetui L
Empididao L.
Tutbollxia
PfiUlnt brevisan
Umno, dtsmiedtanut
Aciiin*
Other ipeclei
Station Tola!
1
Number Pet.
Imitv. Comp.
0,00
7,53
0,00
o.oo
0,00
3,77
0.00
7,53
0,00
o.oo
64.03
41,43
37.67
o.oo
18,83
1S.07
11.30
18.83
11.30
11.30
22,60
22.60
0.00
0.00
26.37
11.30
16.07
11.30
15.07
0.00
0.00
o.oo
7.53
3.77
3.77
o.oo
0,00
11.30
75.33
474.60
0.00
1.59
0.00
0.00
0,00
0,79
0.00
1.59
o.oo
o.oo
13.49
8.73
7.94
o.oo
3.97
3.17
2.38
3.97
2.38
2.38
4.76
4.76
0.00
0.00
5.S6
2.38
3.17
2.38
3.17
0,00
o.oo
0.00
1.S9
0.78
0.79
o.oo
o.oo
2.38
15.87
2
Number Pel.
Indiv. Comp.
0,00
18.83
0,00
3,77
0.00
11 JO
30.13
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
11.30
o.oo
18.83
3.77
11.30
0,00
7.53
3.77
3.77
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.53
0.00
3.77
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.77
139.37
0.00
13.51
0.00
2.70
o.oo
8.11
21.62
0.00
0.00
0,00
0,00
o.oo
8.11
0.00
13.51
2.70
8.11
0.00
6.41
2.70
2.70
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.41
0.00
2.70
0.00
0.00
0,00
o.oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
o.oo
0.00
2.70
3
Number Pet.
Indiv. Cornp.
15.07
177.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
48.97
52.73
7.53
0,00
3.77
'0.00
26.37
7.53
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.53
15.07
3.77
15.07
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.oo
0,00
3.77
o.oo
3.77
0.00
0.00
3.77
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
7.53
399.27
3.77
44.34
0.00
0.00
0.00
12.26
13.21
1.89
0.00
0.94
0.00
6.60
1,89
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.89
3.77
0.94
3.77
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.oo
0.00
0.94
o.oo
0.94
0.00
0.00
0.94
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
1.89
4
Number
Imliv.
1212.87
139.37
644.10
30.13
0.00
48,97
71,87
7.53
7.53
48,97
0.00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0,00
3.77
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.oo
o.oo
0,00
3,77
0.00
18,83
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
7.53
0.00
0.00
0.00
26.37
2,271.30
Pet.
Comp,
53,40
6.14
28.36
1.33
0,00
2,16
3.15
0.33
0,33
2.16
0.00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0.17
0,00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.oo
0.00
0.00
0.17
0.00
0.83
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.33
o.oo
0.00
0,00
1,16
5
Number Pet.
Indiv. Cornp,
105,47
56.50
15.07
18.83
3.77
15.07
0.00
7.53
18.83
30.13
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
o.oo
0.00
0.00
o.oo
0.00
o.oo
3.77
o.oo
3.77
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
278.73
37.84
20,27
6.41
6.76
1.35
5.41
0.00
2.70
6,78
10.81
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
o.oo
o.oo
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
1.35
0.00
1,35
0.00
0.00
o.oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
6
Number
tndiv.
37.67
414.33
0.00
116.77
214.70
18,83
3.77
71.57
28.37
18.83
0.00
0.00
0,00
52.73
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
11.30
7.53
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.77
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.53
0.00
0.00
15.07
1,020.77
Pet.
Comp,
3.69
40.59
0.00
11.44
21.03
1,85
0.37
7.01
2,58
1.85
0.00
0,00
0.00
5.17
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.11
0.74
o.oo
0,00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0.37
0.00
0.00.
0.00
0.00
0.74
0.00
0.00
1.48
7
Number
Indiv.
0.00
124.30
0.00
41,43
15.07
33.90
0.00
11.30
22,60
3.77
3.77
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.77
0.00
0,00
0,00
o.oo
0.00
0.00
11.30
15,07
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.77
0.00
7.53
0.00
3.77
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.53
308.87
8
Pet.
Comp.
0.00
40.24
0.00
13.41
4.88
10.98
0.00
3.66
7.32
1.22
1.22
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.22
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.oo
3.66
4.88
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.22
0.00
2.44
o.oo
1.22
0.00
0.00
o.oo
0.00
o.oo
2.44
Numbe
Indiv.
0,00
52.73
0.00
26,37
37,67
26,37
0,00
15.07
15,07
7,53
7.53
0,00
0.00
0.00
7,53
15.07
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.77
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.77
15.07
3.77
0.00
0.00
0.00
11.30
0.00
3.77
262.37
ir Pet.
Comp.
0.00
20.90
0.00
10.45
14,93
10,45
0.00
6.97
5.97
2.99
2,99
0.00
0,00
0.00
' 2.99
5.97
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.49
0.00
o.oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.49
5.97
1.49
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.48
0.00
1.49
Table 9-2. Shannon-Wiener Diversity Indices, Associated Evenness and Redundance Values, and Community Loss (I) Indices
Calculated on Benthic Data From Five Mile Creek, February 1983
Sampling Station
Parameter
Total Densities (No./m2)
Total No. Taxa
Community Loss Index'"'
Diversity Index!b)
Evenness
Redundancy
1
1,423
36
—
4.68
0.90
0.10
2
418
14
1.69
3.43
0,90
0.11
3
1,196
17
1.47
2.83
0.69
0.32
4
6,815
18
1.50
2.00
0,48
0.53
5
836
11
2.45
2.72
0.78
0.22
6
3,063
17
1.71
2.72
0.67
0.34
7
925
16
1.56
2.98
0.75
0.27
8
756
16
1.73
3.55
0.89
0.12
'•'Calculated on log base 2.
'b!Calculated using Station 1 as reference station.
(52/m2), Although station densities were significant
(P = 0.0039), considerable overlap in the trans-
formed (In count) mean abundance existed among
stations (Table E-17).
Abundance data for the major taxonomic groups
illustrate a shift in dominance from a mayfly/cad-
disfly community at Station 1 to a worm/midge
community by Station 4 and continuing down-
stream (Table 9-1). This shift began to disappear at
Stations 7 and 8. Although differences in station
9-2
abundance were significant (P < 0.01) for all major
benthic groups, no consistency in spatial trends
was discerned (Table E-6). Confidence intervals (95
percent) were large for the mean abundance of the
major taxa (Table E-18).
9.4 Evaluation of the Benthic Commu-
nity
In April 1978, EPA Region IV conducted a benthic
survey in conjunction with chemical analyses and
-------
toxieity tests on Five Mile Creek (EPA 1978), The
benthic survey included four sampling stations,
three of which corresponded to sampling stations
in the present survey (FMC-Q04 = Station 1; FMC-
002 = Station 5; FMC-001 = Station 7; FMC-
OOOA = Station 8). EPA (1978) found a decrease in
the number of species and abundance downstream
of Station 3 and some recovery at FMC-OOOA (Sta-
tion 8). These population effects were supported by
diversity indices and one-way analysis of variance
results for the benthic data. In addition, sublethal
effects were observed in the form of morphological
aberrancies in midge larvae. The greatest propor-
tion of deformities was found at the station down-
stream of Station 4. These aberrancies were stated
as minor compared to deformities noted at other
sites (EPA 1978).
Results of the present study generally agreed with
the EPA (1978) study, although the present survey
did elucidate additional community trends. The
benthic community at Station 3 had a different tax-
onomic composition from that observed at Sta-
tion 4. It is likely that habitat differences contributed
to the dissimilarity among the communities since
the habitat at Station 4 was composed mostly of
sediment, and the sparsity of rocks made the riffle
area almost nonexistent. Diversity was lowest at
Station 4 because of the overwhelming dominance
of T. tubifex. In contrast. Station 3 had a rifle area
comparable to Station 1, and a higher diversity
value than Station 4 because of the even distribu-
tion of individuals among taxa. In addition,
Ephemeroptera were relatively abundant at Sta-
tion 3 compared to the other stations.
Station 1 had the highest diversity and evenness
values as a result of the highest number of taxa
collected. The community loss index was above 1.0
at all stations, which indicates a relatively high level
of dissimilarity among the benthic communities at
all stations compared to Station 1. However, the
index values were similarly the lowest at Station 2
near Springdale Road and at Stations 3 and 4. Al-
though community dominants differed among
those stations, the proportion of number of taxa in
common with Station 1 was similarly low among
Stations 2,3, and 4. The benthic community at Sta-
tion 5 was the least similar to Station 1 in composi-
tion.
9-3
-------
10, Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community Survey, October 1983
The benthic macroinvertebrate survey measured
instream community composition and abundance.
The benthic community is considered to be a good
indicator of instream response to water quality be-
cause of the lack of extensive mobility. The degree
of community stability can be measured by com-
paring species composition and dominance, and
effects would be apparent as alterations in commu-
nity structure, standing crop, or species composi-
tion beyond the limits of normal fluctuation within
the waterbody. Additional data on the composition
and relative abundance are presented in Ap-
pendix E. Sampling and analytical methods for
benthic macroinvertebrate data are discussed in
Appendix C,
Qualitative and quantitative collections were taken
during the October 1983 survey, thus increasing the
number of habitats sampled at each station. As in
the February survey, quantitative collections were
taken in riffle areas. Qualitative collections were
taken along shore zones and pool areas. In addition
to the stations sampled in February, other stations
were sampled during the October survey: Station 9,
Station FO located upstream of Station 'I, Station T1
on Tarrant Branch, and Station B1 on Barton
Branch (Chapter 3).
10.1 Comparison of Community Indices
Among Stations
The number of taxa collected from the mainstream
of Five Mile Creek ranged from 10 to 26 (Table 10-1).
The largest variety of taxa taken were the chirono-
mids which were represented at each station by up
to 13 genera (Table E-9). The benthic community at
one of the tributary stations, B1 (Barton Branch),
comprised the most taxa (29) of any station due to
the great variety of mayflies, caddisflies, beetles,
and midges (Table E-11), The total number of taxa
was low at Stations 2 and 3; Station 5, the least
diverse community, had only 10 taxa, 8 of which
were chironomid larvae. The benthic communities
at Stations 6 through 9 were more diverse, with the
number of taxa (18-25) approaching the number of
taxa at Station 1. The numbers of taxa at Stations 1,
6, 7, 8, and 9 were significantly (P = 0.001) higher
than that at other stations (Table E-19). However,
results of the Tukey's Multiple Comparison Test in-
dicated that there was considerable overlap in the
distribution of number of taxa.
A community loss index was calculated for the
quantitative collections (Table 10-1) and the total
taxa (qualitative and quantitative) (Table E-11). Sta-
tion dissimilarity to Station 1 was high at Stations 2
and 3 and highest at Station 5 where the fewest
number of taxa were collected. Recovery in the de-
gree of similarity with Station 1 began at Station 6
and continued downstream to Station 9. Very little
difference in community loss values resulted when
the qualitative sampling effort (Table E-14) was in-
cluded in the calculations except at one of the up-
stream tributary stations at Tarrant Branch (T1),
which was more similar to Station 1 after adding
the additional species collected in the qualitative
sampling. The other tributary stations, the head-
waters of Five Mile Creek (FO) and Barton Branch
(B1) were similar to Station 1.
Diversity was lowest at Station 5 which also had the
highest community loss value (Table 10-1). Diver-
sity gradually increased downstream to Station 9
which was higher than the observed diversity at
Station 1.
10.2 Community Composition and Distri-
bution
Ephemeropterans (mayflies) and trichopterans
(caddisflies) were present in high densities at Sta-
tion 1 (Tables 10-2 and E-19). Both groups essen-
tially disappeared at Station 2, re-established popu-
lations occurred at Station 6, and were abundant
downstream at levels nearly as high or higher (es-
pecially the mayflies) than at the upstream stations.
Significant station differences (P < 0.001) were de-
tected in the abundances of mayflies and cad-
disflies, with Stations 1, 8, and 9 having the highest
numbers and Stations 2, 3, and 5 having the lowest
numbers (Table E-20). Qligochaete densities were
highest at Stations 3 and 5, where they and chirono-
mids were co-dominant, Chironomid density was
highest at Stations 6, 7, 9, and Barton Branch (B1),
and generally low at all other stations. Station dif-
ferences were significant (P< 0.001) for midges
and worms (Table E-20), and abundances were
highest at Stations 6, 1, and 9 for midges and Sta-
tion 3 for worms. Corbicula, the Asiatic clam, had
significant (P = 0.0001) populations only at Stations
8 and 9 (Table E-21). The greatest benthic abun-
dance was at Station 8, with 6,220 organisms/m2
and was the result of the high density of Corbicula
10-1
-------
Table 10-1. Community Data for Benthic Macroin vertebrates From Quantitative Sampling
Parameter
Total Densities (No./m2)
Total No. Taxaf«>
Community Loss Index"3'
Diversity lndex!c!
Evenness
Redundancy
1
4,475
26
2.84
0.58
0.42
Sampling Station
2356
361 1,671 978 3,596
11 ' 14 10 24
1.55 1.36 2.20 0.46
2.36 2.73 2.14 2.92
0.62 0.68 0.60 0.61
0.39 0.32 0.41 0.39
of Five Mile Creek,
7
3,521
22
0.64
2.95
0.64
0.36
October
8
6,220
18
0.67
2.46
0.56
0.44
1983
9
5,360
25
0.40
3.53
0.73
0.27
'•'Multiple life stages, higher taxonomic levels, Oligochaeta and Nematoda not included in number of taxa.
lb|Calculated using Station 1 as
^'Calculated on log base 2,
Table 10-2. Average Density
Taxa
Ephemeroptera
Isonychia
Baetis
Stenonoma
Trlcorythodes
Total
Plecoptera
Louctridae
Trichoptera
Chimarra
Hydropsyche
Cheumatopsyche
Hydropsychidae pupae
Leucotrichla
Total
Colooptera
Psephenus
Helicus
Stenelmis
Dublraphla
Berosus
Total
Mogaloptera
Corydalis
Diptera
Simuliidae
Antocha
Tipula
Hamorodromia
Probetzia
Chironomidae pupae
Ablabesmyia
Proctadius
Tanypus
Pentaneura
Dlcrotandipes
Polypodllum
Chironomus
Glyptotandtpes
Cryplochironomus
Rheotanytarsus
Tanytarsus
Corynoneura
reference
(No./mz)
1
1,055
359
388
4
1,806
4
65
47
1,783
4
57
1,956
90
14
133
4
241
100
4
22
4
36
80
136
14
station.
of Benthic Macroinvertebrates Collected From Five
Sampling Station
2356
7
93
18
36
7 147
4 4
158
4
4 4 162
4
32 7 7
t
22 29
32 29 40
25
4 4
11
11 90 100 215
144 93 165
133 11
4 4
4
4 29 807
39 32 32
7
79
32
47
4
Mile Creek, October 1983
7
606 2
11
36
653 3
4
165
169
22
22
50
11
269
129
4
11
32
29
4
172
434
8
,329
524
858
,711
4
560
18
582
11
11
25
14
28
25
14
72
4
9
68
692
219
176
1,155
126
391
43
560
50
18
65
133
104
11
176
169
4
36
244
248
4
10-2
-------
Table 10-2. (Continued)
Sampling Station
Taxa
Cricotopus
Psectrocladius
Trichoc/adius
Micropsectra
Nanocladius
Total
Odonata
Dromogomphus
Argia
Total
Oligochaeta
Miscellaneous
Physa
Corbicula
Ferrissia
Planaria
Nematoda
Decapoda
Lirceus
Total
1
14
310
7
7
7
4
11
11
18
44
2
129
144
7
7
140
4
7
4
4
4
4
27
3
233
11
658
54
54
736
50
133
7
190
5
29
72
374
22
22
578
4
4
6
1,478
54
2,935
205
47
14
7
14
82
7
1,374
32
18
2.519
11
11
68
22
7
29
8
36
193
7
7
54
4
1,611
18
4
1,637
9
1,464
22
4
2,382
4
14
18
158
836
7
7
850
Source Table E-9.
and ephemeropterans, especially Baetis. Results of
an ANOVA and multiple comparison test per-
formed on Baetis abundance indicated that al-
though Station 8 had highest abundance, it was not
significantly different from the mean abundance at
Stations 1, 7, and 9 (Table E-21).
10.3 Comparison Between February and
October Surveys
The level of taxa identification between the two sur-
veys was different, so comparisons of relative
abundance are limited. However, the collection
techniques for quantitative assessment were simi-
lar. High, variable flow conditions during the Febru-
ary survey probably affected the data. Trends ob-
served in the data for each survey may be
compared in a relative sense because of consistent
sampling efforts and conditions at each station
within each collection period.
In the October survey, Station 1 had a high number
of taxa which was similar to data from Stations 6,7,
and 9 in contrast to the February data for which the
similarity did not occur. In the February survey. Sta-
tion 5 had the fewest number of taxa, whereas in
the October survey. Stations 2, 3, and 5 had similar
low numbers of taxa. Correspondingly, the commu-
nity loss was highest at Station 5 during both sur-
veys, although during October the community loss
was also high at Stations 2 and 3.
10-3
-------
11. Fish Community Survey, February 1983
The objective of the fish investigation was to col-
lect, identify, and count fishes from locations
throughout the Five Mile Creek watershed with spe-
cial emphasis on the number of taxa present at
each station. The sampling and analytical methods
are presented in Appendix C. Support data are in-
cluded in Appendix E. Heavy rains before and dur-
ing the study resulted in flows which were much
greater than normal and made sampling efforts dif-
ficult.
11.1 Community Structure
The distribution of the fish catch among sampling
stations in February 1983 exhibited a trend of de-
creasing number of specimens and species from
upstream to downstream (Table 11-1). The refer-
ence Stations 1A and 1B yielded the greatest num-
ber of species and specimens. This was largely due
to the relative abundance of stonerollers; had they
been absent, the catch would have been much like
those farther downstream. The number of fishes
collected at Stations 2A and 2B were greatly re-
duced relative to Stations 1A and 1B, owing to the
reduction in stonerollers and, to a lesser extent, the
disappearance of the striped shiner and banded
sculpin. Catches at Stations 3 through 8 on Five
Mile Creek were incidental at best, with no more
than 2 species or 11 specimens occurring at any
one station. The number offish captured increased
sharply at Station B2 in Black Creek (Table E-23).
The number of species and specimens collected at
the Black Creek station were similar to those col-
lected at Stations 1A and 1B. Blacktail shiner and
green sunfish replaced the stoneroller as domi-
nants at Station B2 (Black Creek).
The species diversity index, which is influenced by
number of species and abundance, was zero at Sta-
tions 3 and 5 where the lowest abundance and
number of species were encountered (Table 11-2).
The community loss index was highest at Stations
3 and 5. Recovery, as depicted by both indices, was
beginning at Stations 7 and 8.
11.2 Evaluation of Fish Community Re-
sponse
Heavy rains in the study area produced flows about
seven times as high as the average daily discharge.
This greatly reduced sampling effectiveness, de-
spite the use of electrofishing gear. Upstream sta-
tions consisted primarily of riffle and run habitat,
whereas downstream stations were primarily runs
and pools (Table C-1). Such differences in habitats
will affect the fish species within the community.
The reduction in numbers of stonerollers from up-
stream to downstream roughly corresponds to the
Table 11-1. Numbers of Fish Collected From Five Mile Creek, Birmingham, Alabama, February 1983
Sampling Station
Species
1A
1B
2A
2B
8A
8B
Stoneroller
Striped shiner
Blacktail shiner
Black redhorse
Alabama hog sucker
Mosquitofish
Green sunfish
Bluegill
Longear sunfish
Redear sunfish
29
7
45
15
Spotted bass
Blackbanded darter
Banded sculpin
Total number of fish
Total fish species
2
40
4
1
5
77
6
20
4
1
10
5
4
2
5
2
0
0
11
2
9
3
7
2
4
2
Note: A and B in Station designations refer to subareas of the station.
J1-1
-------
Table 11-2. Shannon-Wiener Diversity Indices, Associated Evenness and Redundancy Values, and Community Loss Index for
Fish Data From Five Mile Creek, February 1983
Station
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Diversity'8'
1.6664
2,0439
0
0.7290
0.9337
1.3699
1.2362
Evenness
0.5936
0.7907
0.7290
0.9337
0.8643
0.7800
Redundancy
0,4096
0,2143
0.2924
0.0692
0.1447
0.2405
Number of
Species
7
6
1
2
0
2
3
3
Number of
Individuals"3'
327
83
8
10
0 '
20
16
11
Community
Loss
lndex(cl
0.8333
6.0000
2.5000
7.0000
2.5000
1.6667
2.0000
'•'Calculated on a log base 2.
(b'Abundance in number per 1,037.3 m2 (sampling area).
'''Calculated using Station 1 as reference station.
reduction in the available riffle habitat; this may be
explained by the fact that the stoneroller is primar-
ily a riffle inhabitant (Pflieger 1975; Trautman
1981). The effect of the poor sampling conditions
cannot be identified at any one station, but appears
to have affected the overall effort. Even at Stations
1A and 1B, catches were lower than would be ex-
pected under better conditions, based on previous
sampling data.
Even considering potential habitat effects and other
influencing factors affecting the fish community,
the results of species diversity and community loss
indices still suggest some general effects on the
fish community downstream from Stations 1A and
1B. Recovery from these effects were noted at Sta-
tions, 7 and 8, although recovery to the extent ob-
served at the reference stations was not attained.
Without the large number of stonerollers collected
at Stations 1A and 1B, the number of individuals
from Stations 1A and 1B would be similar to that
collected at Station 2, However, the number of spe-
cies collected decreased downstream.
11-2
-------
12. Fish Community Survey, October 1983
The fish community of Five Mile Creek was sur-
veyed in October using the same methods and sta-
tions as in February. Lower river flows in October
allowed for a more effective sampling effort. Sam-
pling and analytical methods are presented in Ap-
pendix C, The species list for this fish collection is
presented in Appendix E,
-12,1 Community Structure
Ninety percent of all fish collected were taken in the
two tributary stations and the three upstream sta-
tions on Five Mile Creek. The dramatic reduction in
the total number of fish at Station 3 and below is
primarily due to reductions in stoneroller numbers,
and, to a lesser extent, numbers of Alabama hog
sucker and banded sculpin. There was little differ-
ence in abundance of creek chubs and green sun-
fish between upstream and downstream areas. One
species, the biacktail shiner, occurred almost en-
tirely at the downstream locations. Station 5 was
extreme in that it produced only one fish. Although
none were abundant, 11 species were collected at
Station 9, the most downstream station. This may
reflect a hint of recovery, but it is not very strong
given the low catches of any given species.
12.2 Evaluation of Fish Community Re-
sponse
The number of individuals collected at Stations 1
and 2 was at least eight times higher than at other
stations (Table 12-1). Without the large number of
stonerollers collected at Stations 1 and 2, the num-
ber of fish at those two stations is still greater than
at downstream stations. The greatest number of
species was collected at Stations 1, 2, and 9,
whereas collections at Stations 5 through 8 were
half of those levels.
To provide the best comparison of the fisheries re-
sults among sampling stations, the catch data were
converted to total number offish per 93 m2 (Figure
12-1). Although a 90-m length of stream was sam-
pled at each station, stream widths differed greatly
(Table C-2) and, consequently, the total stream area
sampled differed greatly among stations. The total
number of fish per 93 rnz declined sharply from
Station 2 to Station 3, by a factor of 7. This reduc-
tion continued downstream through Station 9, The
reduction in number offish species downstream of
Station 2 was statistically significant (P<0.05) at
Stations 5, 6, and 7.
12,3 Comparison Between February and
October Surveys
The fish survey results presented for October 1983
are consistent with the results of fish sampling in
February 1983. Although many fewer fish were cap-
tured in February due to high water and resultant
poor sampling conditions, the distribution of fishes
was similar to that recorded in October. That is,
numbers of fish and species were relatively high
down to Stations 2 or 3 and much reduced below.
12-1
-------
Table 12-1. Numbers of Fish Collected From Five Mile Creek, Birmingham, Alabama, October 1983
Sampling Station
Species
Stoneroller
Creek chub
Striped shiner
Blacktail shiner
Bullhead minnow
Alabama hog sucker
Black redhorse
Channel catfish
Blackspotted topminnow
Mosquitofish
Spotted bass
Largemouth bass
Green sunfish
Longear sunfish
Bluegill
Hybrid sunfish
Sunfish sp.
Banded sculpin
Total number of fish
Total fish species
1
716
8
29
32
3
8
88
8
1
1
125
1,019
10
2
525
5
2
1
19
1
1
2
2
15
1
72
646
12
3
27
6
3
3
16
1
25
1
82
8
567
6 14
2 11
1 16
22 13
1
7
1
1 46 47
1 4 4
8
5
5
4
1
6
1
22
5
9
1
2
10
11
1
8
2
1
5
22
1
2
66
11
100-
90-
80-
1 70-
PJ
-------
13. Plankton Community Survey, October 1983
Plankton were only collected during the October
1983 survey using a Wisconsin stream net with a
8Q-|o,m mesh net. The primary emphasis was to col-
lect zooplankton, but those algae collected were
enumerated. Measures of the number of taxa and
individuals collected are used to determine alter-
ation in composition and/or density.
13.1 Community Structure
Rotifers were the dominant taxa and accounted for
the highest zooplankton concentrations taken at
Stations 5, 6, and 7 (Table E-28). Crustaceans oc-
curred at all stations except that only nauplii were
found at Station 1 and were abundant only at Sta-
tion 6 with a total density of 6 organisms/liter.
Copepod nauplii were the most abundant crus-
taceans. Both rotifers and crustaceans were least
abundant at Stations 1, 2, and 8. The number of
taxa ranged from six at Station 9 to 17 at Station 5
(Table 13-1).
Incidental algal components of the plankton com-
munity were also recorded. In the algal community,
only the noncolonial (solitary) diatoms were consis-
tently abundant at most stations with high densities
at Station 6 and the lowest density at Station 8
(Table E-28). The algae Pediastrum and the
desmids were taken in low densities at all stations.
13.2 Evaluation of the Zooplankton Com-
munity
Zooplankton abundance in low numbers at Stations
1 and 2 probably represents normal population lev-
els. However, the substantial density increase at
Station 5 is likely attributable to enhanced condi-
tions and represents high population levels for
zooplankton. The number of taxa at the most down-
stream station. Station 9, was significantly lower
(P ^ 0.05) than the maximum found at Station 5.
Table 13-1. Zooplankton Taxa Present at Ambient Stations, Five Mile Creek, Birmingham, Alabama, October 1983
Station 1
Station 2
Station 3
Station 5
Station 6
Station 7
Station 8
Station 9
Taxs
CRUSTACEANS
Cyclopoid copepod
Bosmina longirostts
Qxyuretla tsnntcardis
Aiona guttata or
A. reticulata
Hoina micrura
Streblocerus serricandatus
Rep. 1 Rep, 2 Rep. 1 Rep, 2 Rap. 1 Rep, 2 Rep. 1 Rap. 2 Rep. 1 Rep. 2 Rep. 1 Rep. 2 Rep. 1 Rep, 2 Rep. 1 Rep. 2
ROTIFERS
Bracnionus angularis
B, calyciflorus
8. urcsolarls
iuchlanis
Keliicottia longtspina
Kgralel/e sp.
Keratella cochiearis
var. 'hisplda
Macrochaelus sp.
Mytilina sp.
Platyas quadficornis
Tfichatria sp.
iepadetla sp.
Lecane sp.
Monastyta bulla
Proales sp.
Cephalodella sp.
Trichocsrca sp.
^scomorpha sp.
Asplanchna sp.
ftVmia sp.
Testvdinetla sp.
PhHodinidae
Total number of
taxa per station
X X
X
X X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
X
10
X
X X
X
X X
X
X
X X
X
X X
X X
X
X X
14
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
16
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
17
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
14
xxx
X
X X X X X X
X X
X
XXX X
X
X X X X
XX X
x x
X
X X
x x x x
14 8 6
Source: Tables E-29 and 6-30
13-1
-------
14. Comparison Between Laboratory Toxicity Tests
and Instream Biological Response
The comparison between toxicity measured in the
laboratory on a few species and the impact occur-
ring in the stream on whole communities must
compensate for a very limited database from which
to predict. The sensitivity of the test species relative
to that of species in the community is almost never
known and certainly not in these effluent toxicity
tests. Therefore, when toxicity is found, there is no
method to predict whether many species in the
community, or just a few, will be adversely affected
at similar concentrations, since the sensitivity of the
species in the community is not known. For exam-
ple, at a given waste concentration, if the test spe-
cies has a toxic response and if the test species is
very sensitive, then only those species in the com-
munity of equal or greater sensitivity would be ad-
versely affected. Conversely, if the test species is
tolerant of the waste, then many more species in
the community would be affected at the concentra-
tion which begins to cause toxic effects to the test
species. It is possible that no species In the commu-
nity is as sensitive as the most sensitive test spe-
cies, but since there are so many species compos-
ing the community, this is unlikely. It is more likely
that a number of species in the community will be
more sensitive than the test species. The highest
probability is that the test species will be near the
median sensitivity of organisms in the community
if the test species is chosen without knowledge of
its sensitivity (as was the case on Five Mile Creek).
In a special case, where toxicants remain the same
and the species composing the community remain
the same, the number of species in the community
having a sensitivity equal to or greater than the test
species also will remain the same. As a result, there
should be a consistent relationship between the de-
gree of toxicity as measured by the toxicity test and
the reduction in the number of species in the com-
munity. In this special case, there should be a tight
correlation between degree of toxicity and the
number of species. If the toxic stress is great
enough to diminish the production of offspring by
a test species, it should also be severe enough to
diminish the reproduction of some species within
the community of equal or greater sensitivity. This
should ultimately lead to elimination of the more
sensitive species. Therefore, a lower number of
taxa should be a predictable response of the com-
munity. For example, there should be a relationship
between the number of young per female Cerio-
daphnia or the growth of fathead minnows (or
other test species) and the number of species in the
community. Obviously, the test species must have
a sensitivity, such that at ambient concentrations to
which the community has responded, a partial ef-
fect is produced in the toxicity test. However, un-
less the special case described above exists, the
correlation between toxicity and species richness
will not be a tight one.
Effluents differ from single chemicals in some im-
portant respects. We know from the literature on
single chemicals that there usually are large differ-
ences in the relative sensitivity of species to a
chemical and that the relative sensitivity changes
with different chemicals. For example the fathead
may be more sensitive to effluent A and Ceriodaph-
nia more sensitive to effluent B. We also know that
effluents vary in their compositon from time to time
and often within a few hours. We should not be
surprised therefore to find fatheads being more
sensitive to an effluent on one day and daphnids
more sensitive on another day.
Effluents begin changing in composition as soon as
they are discharged. Fate processes such as bacte-
rial decomposition, oxidation and many others
change the composition. In addition various com-
ponents will change at different rates. For example
ammonia would be expected to disappear more
rapidly than PCBs. If so, then the composition of the
effluent is ever changing as it moves through the
receiving water. Note that this change is not just a
lessening concentration as a result of dilution but
also a change in the relative concentrations of the
components. In reality the aquatic organisms at
some distance from the outfall are exposed to a
different toxicant than those near the discharge
pont! Therefore it is logical to expect that some-
times one test species would be more sensitive to
the effluent as it is discharged and another species
more sensitive after fate processes begin altering
the effluent. To be sure the source of the effluent is
the same but it is certainly not the same "effluent"
in regard to its composition. If these statements are
true then one should also expect that species in the
community in the receiving water will be affected at
one place near the discharge and a different group
14-1
-------
of species will be affected from the same effluent at
another location.
Compound the above described considerations
with multiple discharges as well as inputs from trib-
utaries and non-point sources such as agricultural
run-off and leachate from landfills and one should
logically expect virtually a "random effect" on vari-
ous components of the community. Reference to
Table 14-2 illustrates well this response in Five Mile
Creek. The number of zooplankton taxa was most
reduced at Stations 1, 8 and 9. Benthic inverte-
brates were least affected at Stations 1 and 9. Fish
were nearly eliminated at Station 5. Only one spec-
imen of one species was captured yet Station 5 had
the highest number of zooplankton taxa of any sta-
tion sampled I The field data obtained are consis-
tent with the predicted response described above.
So are the data from the toxicity tests. Again exam-
ine Table 14-2 which shows that in five of the eight
stations the responses of the Ceriodaphnia and fish
was essentially opposite.
An effluent cannot be viewed as just diluting as it
moves away from the outfall. In fact it is a "series of
new effluents" with elapsed flow time. If so, there
are important implications for interpretation of tox-
icity and community data. One should not expect
the various test species to respond similarly to
water collected from various ambient stations. We
should expect one species to be more sensitive at
one station and another species to be more sensi-
tive at the next. The affected components of the
community should vary in a like manner.
An even bigger implication is that the surrogate
species concept is invalid in such a situation. As
one examines the community data in this report, in
the Lima report (Mount et al., 1984) and in the stud-
ies yet to be published, it is clear that there is no
consistent response of the community. Sometimes
the benthic invertebrates and the periphyton have
similar responses and both are different from the
fish. Sometimes the fish and periphyton have simi-
lar responses and these are unlike the benthic in-
vertebrates.
The same is true of the test species. Sometimes the
Ceriodaphnia respond like the periphyton and other
times like the fish. In this study, the fathead minnow
response resembled the fish community response
and the Ceriodaphnia the zooplankton but in other
studies such was not the case. The important point
is that a careful analyses of our knowledge of toxi-
cology, effluent decay, and relative sensitivity tells
us that we cannot expect:
1. Ceriodaphnia toxicity to always resemble toxi-
city to benthic invertebrates
2. Fathead minnow toxicity to always resemble
toxicity to fish
3. Fathead minnows and fish to resemble each
other in sensitivity or to display the same rela-
tive sensitivity to different effluents.
Any test species should have a sensitivity represen-
tative of some components of the community. The
important distinction is that one never can be sure
which components they will represent.
In comparing toxicity test results to community re-
sponse, comparison must be made with the above
in mind. Certainly those community components
that are most sensitive will be most impacted and/
or lost. The response of the most sensitive test spe-
cies should therefore be used to compare to the
response of the most sensitive of the community.
A weakness in using the number of species as the
measure of community response is that species
may be severely affected yet not be absent. The
density of various species is greatly influenced by
competition for available habitat, predation, graz-
ing, and/or secondary effects which may result
from changing species composition. Density is
more subject to confounding causes, other than di-
rect toxicity, and is not as useful as the species
richness in the community to compare community
response to measured toxicity.
Several measures of community structure are
based on number of species, e.g., diversity and
community loss index. Since diversity measures
are little affected by changes in the number of spe-
cies (or taxa) that are in very low densities in the
community, diversity is an insensitive measure for
some perturbations which can be measured by tox-
icity tests. The community loss index is based only
on the presence or absence of specific species rela-
tive to a reference station and would be useful
except that habitat differences between stations
heavily effect this measure. There are several prob-
lems when using the number of (taxa) species mea-
sured. The foremost is that the mere presence or
absence of species is not a comprehensive indica-
tor of community health, especially if the species
are ecologically unimportant. Secondly, a toxic
stress may not eliminate species but yet have a
severe effect on density; presence or absence does
not consider such partial reductions. The presence
or absence of species as the measure of community
impact is influenced by the chance occurrence of
one or a few individuals due to either drift, immi-
gration, or some catastrophic event when in fact
that species is not actually a part of the community
where it is found. Effects other than toxicity, such as
habitat, will always confuse such comparisons to
toxicity data to some extent. They cannot be elimi-
nated.
The October study of Five Mile Creek was con-
ducted after a period of stable river flow. River flow
14-2
-------
had been unstable during the February study be-
cause of heavy rainfall which preceded and contin-
ued during the sampling of Five Mile Creek. The
toxicity data from February are not useful because
the coke plants and the POTW were operating at
several times their design capacities. These efflu-
ents may have different toxicities at high flows and
such changes are dependent on whether removal
efficiencies or dilution were more important in de-
termining the concentration of toxicants in the ef-
fluents. A necessary criteria to complete the valida-
tion of-toxicity tests is that the exposure in the tests
must approximate the one the stream community
receives. During the field sampling, the community
sampled was the result of the past several months
to years of exposure. The effluent being tested dur-
ing the study, because of rain, would not be ex-
pected to be like that to which the community has
been exposed for most of the time, therefore one
would not expect the effluent test data to correlate
well with the community data. In addition, while the
instream biological community may not have been
changed substantially by the high flows, the sam-
pling effectiveness did change. For these reasons,
the February data for Five Mile Creek have not been
used for this comparison although they have been
presented in this report.
14.1 Prediction of Instream Community
Impacts Based on Effluent Dilution
Test Results
Table 14-1 lists the AEC for each effluent. The AEC
is based on the most sensitive endpoint of the most
sensitive species. It is calculated as the geometric
mean of the highest concentration not causing a
significant effect and the lowest concentration pro-
ducing the effect. Table 14-1 also contains the aver-
age effluent concentrations for each ambient sta-
tion during the toxicity testing period. The average
concentration was selected because the organisms
in the tests were exposed to a new and different
sample for each day of the seven-day exposure pe-
riod. Since concentrations did vary due to stream
and effluent flow changes, the average would seem
to be most valid for chronic effects. If the commu-
Table 14-1, The Lowest Acceptable Effluent Concentration
(AEC) and the Average Instream Waste Con-
centration (IWC) for Three Effluents at Six
Stations on Five Mile Creek
IWC percent for Station:
Effluent
Coke Plant 1
Coke Plant 2
POTW
AEC
(percent)
1.7
17.3
55
3567
2.3 1.7 1.7 1.0
21.7 20.8 13
- - - 33.8
8 9
1.0 0.9
12.8 11.5
33.3 29.9
Source: Tables 5-8 and 7-2
nity is limited by short, high level exposures, then
averages are not appropriate.
The effluent dilution tests predict impact at Sta-
tions 3, 5 and 6. That is, the AEC is exceeded at
these stations. Table 14-2 shows that an increase in
toxicity of 26% or more was found at these stations
in the ambient tests. Since the IWCs do not exceed
the AECs by very much, high toxicity would not be
expected. Thus the ambient tests confirm the re-
sults of the effluent dilution tests. The reasons for
using the most sensitive species response and why
the most sensitive species may change from one
station to the next are discussed earlier in this sec-
tion. Since the effluents were diluted with water
containing all upstream effluents any interactive ef-
fects such as additivity, are already incorporated
into the measurement of the AEC.
14.2 Prediction of Instream Community
Impacts Based on Ambient Toxicity
Test Results
The three effluents tested in this study were cer-
tainly not the only potential sources of toxicity.
There were old strip mines in the watershed that
drained into Five Mile Creek through small streams
not shown on Figure 2-1. A portion of the study area
contained numerous industries which had no per-
mit to discharge directly but could contribute con-
taminants through runoff water or spillage. For
these reasons, no one station could be considered
unimpacted for use as a reference station. An alter-
native was to select as the reference station, the
one with the least toxicity and impact. A glance at
Table 14-2 reveals that, as discussed above, the
least toxicity/impact occurred at different stations
for different species. Therefore a decision was
made to use different reference stations for differ-
ent measures or species. One then gets a measure
of relative toxicity and not of absolute toxicity.
There is no intent to imply that there is no impact,
just that the impact was least compared to the other
stations. The reference station was used to calcu-
late the impact at other stations as a percent of the
reference station. These values are shown in Table
14-2. Those values that were significantly different
using ANQVA, Tukey's test, X2 test, and Dunnett's
test are indicated. The statistical analyses were not
intended to identify trends. Thus these analyses do
not address the trend in the benthic macroinverte-
brate data which shows no impact at Station 1, im-
pact at Stations 2, 3, and 5, and then little or no
impact at Station 6,7,8, and 9. While Stations 3 and
5 are located below one or both of the coke plant
outfalls, Station 2 is not. Therefore, the impact of
Stations 3 and 5 cannot be attributed solely to the
coke plant's discharges. The observed trend of the
benthic invertebrate data might be expected if a
14-3
-------
Table 14-2. Percent Increase in Degree of Toxicity and Percent Reduction in Number of Taxa for the Instream Biological
Community'1'
Station
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
Ceriodaphnia
Young Production
BOlW
49
44'W
37>
37'"
Fathead
Minnow Weight
18
0
12
60
26
19
7
4
Zooplankton
Taxa
41
18
6
0
18
18
53
65"»
Benthic
Maeroinvertebrate
Taxa
0
58<»'
46(W
62!W
8
15
31
4
Fish
Taxa
17
0
34
92*1
67""
67
-------
Table 14-3.
Station
Comparison of Ambient Toxicity Test Results and Instream Biological Impact at Four Levels of Percent
Differ en ce!al
Ceriodaphnia
Young
Production
Fathead
Minnow Growth
Zooplankton
Taxa
Benthic
Macroinvertebrate
Taxa
Fish
TilXil
20 percent difference
0 f
0 0
0 0
+ 0
+ 0
0 0
0 I
0 t
40 percent difference
0 i
0 0
0 0
+ 0
0 0
0 0
0 »
0 t
60 percent difference
0 0
0 0
0 0
l 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 i
80 percent difference
la) t indicates a difference • the indicated level of percent difference.
0 indicates a difference - the indicated level of percent difference.
Source: Table 14-2.
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Table 14-4. Percent of Correctly Predicted Impacted
Stations Using Four Levels of Defined Impact
Laboratory
Toxicity Data
20 percent
40 percent
60 percent
80 percent
Combined Instream Biological
20
Percent
87.5
50
25
0
40
Percent
87.5
50
25
0
60
Percent
50
25
62.5
37.5
Data
80
Percent
25
62.5
87.5
87.5
The need to measure toxicity using more than one
species and the need to measure more than one
component of the community for comparison is il-
lustrated by the data. Importantly, the responses in
the toxicity tests and by the community fit the ex-
pected pattern based on our present understanding
of toxicology and relative sensitivity.
tests predicted it would occur. Ambient toxicity was
found at other stations as well. This is not surpris-
ing in view of other potential sources of toxicity.
14-5
-------
References
American Public Health Association, American
Water Works Association, and Water Pollution
Control Federation. 1981. Standard Methods for
the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 15th
Edition. APHA, Washington, D.C. 1,134 pp.
Courtemanch, D. 1978. Main Department of Envi-
ronmental Protection. Personal communication.
Douglas, B. 1958. The ecology of the attached di-
atoms and other algae in a stony stream. J. Ecol.
46:295-322,
Ecological Analysts, Inc. 1983. Effluent Configura-
tion Studies and Instream Community Response
to Multiple Industrial Discharges on the Ottawa
River, Ohio. Report to U.S. EPA, Washington, D.C.
EA, Sparks, Md.
Environmental Protection Agency. 1973, Biological
Field and Laboratory Methods for Measuring the
Quality of Surface Waters and Effluents. U.S. EPA
Report No. 670/4-73-001.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV. 1978,
Biological and Chemical Study on Oppossum,
Valley, Village, and Five Mile Creeks, Birming-
ham, Ala. Internal report, 64 pp. with Appendixes.
Hamilton, M.A. 1984. Statistical Analysis of the
Seven-Day Ceriodaphnia reticulata Reproductive
Toxicity Test. Final Contract Report to ERL-
Duluth.
Hamilton, M.A., R.C. Russo, and R.V. Thurston.
1977. Trimmed Spearman-Karber Method for es-
timating median lethal concentrations in toxicity
bioassays. Environ. Science Technol. (11):714-
719.
Hynes, H.B.N. 1972. The Ecology of Running
Waters. Univ. Toronto Press, Toronto, Ont. 555
PP-
Lowe, R.L. 1974. Environmental Requirements and
Pollution Tolerance of Freshwater Diatoms. U.S.
EPA Report No. 670/4-74-005. 333 pp.
Mount, D.I., N.A. Thomas, T.J. Norberg, M.T.
Barbour, T.H. Roush, and W.F. Brandes. 1984. Ef-
fluent and Ambient Toxicity Testing and Instream
Community Response on the Ottawa River, Lima,
Ohio. EPA 600/3-84-080.
Norberg, T.J. and D.I. Mount. 1985. A new fathead
minnow (Pimephales promelas) subchronic toxi-
city test. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 4(5).
Palmer, C.M. 1977. Algae and Water Pollution. U.S.
EPA Report No. 600/9-77-036. 123 pp.
Pflieger, W.L. 1975. The Fishes of Missouri. Mis-
souri Dept. of Conservation. 343 pp.
Roback, S.S., J. Cairns, Jr., and R.L. Kaesler. 1969.
Cluster analysis of occurrence and distribution of
insect species in a portion of the Potomac River.
Hydrobiologia 34:484-502.
Rogers, J. 1984. University of Wisconsin at Supe-
rior, Wisconsin, and EPA Environmental Re-
search Laboratory at Duluth, Minnesota. Per-
sonal Communication.
Round, F.E. 1964. The ecology of benthic algae, in
Algae and Man (D.F. Jackson, ed.), pp. 138-184.
Plenum Press, New York.
Steel, G.R. and J.H. Torrie. 1960. Principles and Pro-
cedures of Statistics, a Biometrical Approach.
2nd Edition. McGraw-Hill, New York. 633 pp.
Taft, C.E. and W.J. Kishler. 1973. Cladophora as Re-
lated to Pollution and Eutrophication in Western
Lake Erie. Proj. Compl. Rep. No. 332X, 339X,
Water Resources Center, Ohio State Univ.,
Columbus. 103 pp.
Trautman, M.B. 1981. The Fishes of Ohio. Ohio
State Univ. Press, Columbus. 782 pp.
Weber, C.I. 1973. Recent developments in the mea-
surement of the response of plankton and periph-
yton to changes in their environment, in Bioassay
Techniques and Environmental Chemistry (G.E.
Glass, ed.}, pp. 119-138. Ann Arbor Sci. Publ.,
Ann Arbor, Mich.
Whitton, B,A. 1970. Review paper: biology of
Cladophora in freshwaters. Water Res. 4:457-476.
R-1
-------
Appendix A
Toxicity Test and Analytical Methods
A.1 Toxicity Test Methods, February
1983
For the effluent dilution tests, stream water was
collected as a grab sample from just upstream of
each outfall in the morning of the day it was used.
The well water was hauled to the site and one batch
was used for all tests. The effluent was collected as
a 24-hour composite sample by continuously
pumping a small flow from the discharge flow.
Each composite was begun between 0800 and 1000
hours. Samples were not flow proportional be-
cause discharge flows varied due to rainfall.
The ambient samples were collected as a daily grab
sample from the stations listed in Chapter 3. In ad-
dition, dilution water for Coke Plant 1 was collected
just above a low dam at the discharge site.
Stream and effluent samples were warmed to 25°C
on a gas burner in aluminum pans and then, after
dilutions were made, the samples were aerated in
4-liter beakers until dissolved oxygen (DO) was re-
duced to saturation. Ambient toxicity samples were
treated in the same manner. All samples were su-
persaturated with respect to DO when solutions
were made.
The various concentrations were made by measur-
ing effluent and stream water using graduated
cylinders of various sizes and mixing each concen-
tration in 4-liter glass beakers. Two liters of each
concentration were made; 160 ml were used for the
Ceriodaphnia tests and the remainder was used for
fathead minnow tests.
No chemical measurements for specific chemicals
were performed. Routine water chemistry such as
DO and pH were measured initially in the 2-liter
solutions, while still in the 4-liter beaker. DO and pH
were also measured just before changing test solu-
tions to determine the final values as well.
Test solutions were changed daily so that in the ED
tests, the fish and Ceriodaphnia were exposed to a
new 24-hour composite effluent sample each day,
which was made up in a new daily grab sample of
receiving water. For the ambient toxicity test, the
Ceriodaphnia and fathead minnows were placed in
a new daily grab sample each day. The controls for
each of the ED tests in receiving water were in the
same water as the animals in the ambient toxicity
tests for Stations 2A, 3, and 6.
For the fathead minnow larval tests, a chamber 30-
x 15- x 10-cm deep was made and divided by three
glass partitions which resulted in four compart-
ments, 13- x 7,6- x 10-cm deep. The partitions
stopped 2.5 cm short of one side of the chamber
and a piece of stainless steel screen was glued from
one chamber end to the other and across the ends
of each compartment. This left a narrow sump 2.5-
x 30- x 10-cm deep along one side of the chamber
to which each of the four compartments was con-
nected by its screen end. In this way, the compart-
ments could be filled and drained by adding to or
removing water from the sump, without violent
agitation of the fish in the compartments. This de-
sign allowed four replicates for each concentration.
These are not true replicates in the pure statistical
sense because there was a water connection be-
tween compartments; however, there was virtually
no water movement between compartments as
judged by DO measurements where in some cases,
there were measurable DO differences between
compartments. When the compartments were
filled or drained, some water would mix into other
chambers.
Each day the compartments were siphoned using a
rubber "foot" on a glass tube to remove uneaten
brine shrimp. Additional test solution was removed
from the sump until about 500 ml remained in the
four compartments combined. This amounted to
about 1 cm of depth. Then approximately 2,000 ml
of new test solution was added slowly into the
sump. The larval fish were easily able to maintain
their position against the current during filling.
Each day 0.1 ml of newly hatched brine shrimp
were fed three times. Live brine shrimp were avail-
able during the entire daylight period of 16 hours.
Fluorescent lights were mounted over the test
chambers and were operated by a timer.
Fish survival was counted daily and at the end of
the test, the fish were counted and preserved in
4 percent formalin. Upon return to the home labo-
ratory, they were rinsed in distilled water, oven
dried at 98°C for 18 hours, and weighed on an ana-
lytical balance. Fish were assigned to compart-
A-1
-------
merits one or two at a time in sequential order.
They were less than 24-hours hatched at the test
beginning and were obtained from the Newtown
Fish Toxicology Laboratory culture unit. This
method is described in more detail in Norberg and
Mount (1985).
Brood animals were not acclimated to the site
water but were kept in ERL-D culture water. The
Ceriodaphnia from the Duluth culture were placed
one animal to each of ten 30-ml beakers for each
concentration or sample tested. Each treatment re-
ceived one animal before any treatment received a
second animal. Fifteen ml of test water was placed
in each beaker and a newly born Ceriodaphnia, less
than 6 hours old, was used. One drop of yeast con-
taining 250 [ig was added daily. Each day, the ani-
mal was moved to a new 15-ml volume with an eye
dropper and yeast again added. When young were
present, they were counted and discarded. Males
were readily identified by their smaller size, differ-
ent shape and rapid swimming. Temperatures were
maintained at 24-26°C. For the Ceriodaphnia tests,
the same concentration and change schedules
were used as described for the fathead minnows.
For the ambient toxicity tests, 10 animals were used
for each station and a new sample was used daily.
The culture procedures and test method are delin-
eated in Mount and Norberg (1984).
Light was kept very dim to avoid algal growth and
to keep conditions comparable to those used for
culturing at Duluth. The high bacterial content of
the water and waste samples increased available
food and where toxicity was not present, better
young production was obtained than where the
only food was the yeast as was the case for the tests
using well water for dilution.
The data on the four group dry weights for each
treatment are statistically analyzed in the following
manner. Even though the four compartments were
connected, the assumption is made that they be-
have as replicates. The analysis assumes the vari-
ability in mean treatment response is inversely pro-
portional to the number of measurements (or fish)
In the treatment. The analysis is performed using
MINITAB (copyright Pennsylvania State University
1982) by estimating a t-statistic for comparing
mean treatment and control responses using
weighted regression with weights equal to the
number of measurements in the treatments. The
t-statistic is then compared to the critical t-statistic
for the standard Dunnett's test (Steel and Torrie
1960). The survival data is arcsine transformed (a
variance stabilizing transformation) prior to the re-
gression analysis.
The statistical analysis of the Ceriodaphnia results
were performed using the procedure described by
Hamilton (1984) as modified by John Rodgers (per-
sonal communication). The effluent toxicity is ana-
lyzed to obtain the mean number of young per fe-
male (all data method) and the mean survival. A
Dunnett's t-test is then done to compare each treat-
ment to the control to identify significant differ-
ences. For the ambient station data, a matrix is
made to provide comparisons of any station to any
other station using Tukey's Honestly Significant
Difference Test,
A.2 Toxicity Test Methods, October 1983
All procedures were the same as for the February
study with these exceptions:
1. Coke Plants 1 and 2 were operating at about 30
and 50 percent capacity, respectively.
2. Ambient water temperatures were near test
temperatures and required essentially no
heating. Effluent temperatures were a few de-
grees cooler and slight heating was needed.
Aeration of the test solutions was not neces-
sary to reduce supersaturation.
3. All three effluents were tested in dilution
water taken immediately upstream from each
outfall.
4. All testing of Ceriodaphnia was done using
hard, clear plastic cups instead of 30-ml glass
beakers. These cups were not washed but dis-
carded when test solutions were changed.
5. A more downstream station (9) was added be-
low Station 8f Station 9 was located at Little-
ton Cutoff Road. In addition an ambient toxic-
ity station was established at the mouth of
Black Creek (Station B2). Three stations were
added—one on each of the three main head-
water tributaries of Five Mile Creek. They are
designated Barton Branch (B1), Tarrant
Branch (T1), and the headwater of Five Mile
Creek (FO).
6. Composite samples were taken at all ambient
stations except the three headwater stations.
Commercially available battery-powered,
peristaltic samplers were used which sampled
every 15 minutes.
7. A set of acute tests were made to measure
variability of acute toxicity on Coke Plant 2. For
this aspect, a second sampler was used and a
discrete sample was taken each hour. After 24
samples were collected, five animals less than
24 hours old were put in each of two duplicate
15-ml volumes of 100 percent effluent, and
mortality was counted at 1, 2, 4, 8, 24, and 48
hours later. Four sets of 24 samples were
tested.
A-2
-------
8. Concentrations of effluents tested were 100,
30, 10, 3, and 1 percent.
9. Polyethylene beakers and cylinders were used
for mixing effluents.
10. Ceriodaphnia were from cultures at Athens
EPA Laboratory and the University of Wyo-
ming, Laramie. These cultures were subse-
quently identified as Ceriodaphnia dubia by
Dr. Dorothy Bemer of Temple University, Pa.
A-3
-------
Appendix B
Hydrological Sampling and Analytical Methods
B.1 Flow Measurements
Flow measurements were made at the biological
stations during 7-11 February 1983 and 4-10 Octo-
ber 1983. During February, a Model 665 Teledyne
Gurley flowmeter was used and during October a
Teledyne Gurley Pygmy flowmeter was used.
When depths were less than 0.75 m, velocities were
recorded at a depth of 0.6 of the water column.
When depths were >0,75 m, a velocity measure-
ment was recorded at 0.2 and 0,8 of the water
column, and the average of the two readings was
used in the subsequent flow calculation. A mini-
mum of 10 velocity measurements were made
along a transect at each station unless fewer mea-
surements were warranted by the width. A dis-
charge was calculated for each velocity measure-
ment by multiplying the velocity times the
cross-sectional area associated with the segment.
The total flow through the transect is the summa-
tion of the flows through each segment along the
transect.
The 7-day average flows were calculated from
Table 7-1 by interpolating between days and be-
tween stations in order to simulate a complete data
set. The resulting values were adjusted if necessary
so that the flow at each station was greater or equal
to the sum of the next upstream station and an
intervening outfall if present.
B.2 Time-of-Travel Study
On 8 February 1983, 150 g of 20 percent solution
Rhodamine WT dye was released in the Coke
Plant 1 effluent prior to its point of discharge into
Five Mile Creek. The passage of the dye was moni-
tored at four stations located 580,1,158,1,880, and
3,140 m downstream from the point of release. At
the first three stations, grab samples were collected
in 200-ml plastic bottles. At the 3,140-m station, a
Turner Designs fluorometer was set up in the flow-
through mode and readings were recorded manu-
ally. The sampling interval was initially 2-5 minutes
at each station and decreased to 1 minute as the
main dye mass approached.
Grab samples were processed in a Turner Designs
fluorometer set in the discrete sample mode. All
fluorometers used had been calibrated prior to the
study over a range of 0-214 ppb dye and the calibra-
tion was checked when used in the discrete sample
mode with standard dye solutions. Fluorometer
data were converted to dye concentration, C(ppb),
using the relationship:
C(ppb) = SR exp[0.027(T - Tc)] (Equation B-1)
where
S = slope from the calibration regression for the
appropriate fluorometer scale
R = fluorometer reading
T = temperature of the grab sample at the time it
was processed
Tc = reference temperature from instrument cali-
bration
This relationship includes a correction factor for the
temperature dependence of fluorescence. In Febru-
ary a 20°C reference temperature was used,
whereas in October a 25°C reference temperature
was used. At each station the dye concentration
data was plotted against time. The arrival time of
the average water particle at each station was taken
at the center of mass of the dye distribution. From
the intervening times and distances, an average ve-
locity was calculated between each station.
The center of mass of the dye distribution at the
four stations was calculated. To calculate the center
of mass of the dye distribution at the second and
third stations, the shape of the tail of the distribu-
tion had to be estimated. The tails were estimated
visually from Figure 6-1. The center of mass was
calculated by numerically integrating the areas
under the 4 curves in Figure 6-1.
B.3 Effluent Configuration Studies
Effluent configuration studies were conducted at
Coke Plant 1 in February 1983 and at Coke Plants 1
and 2 and the POTW in October 1983. Dye was
injected continuously for approximately 24 hours at
each site to establish an equilibrium between the
injection-point dye concentration and the down-
stream dye distribution. On the second day of each
study, water samples were collected at 12 transects
extending from 30 m above to approximately 1,500
m below the point of discharge. The transect loca-
tions with respect to the three discharges are tabu-
B-1
-------
lated in Table B-1, The ratio of the dye concentra-
tion at the point of discharge to the dye
concentration in the water samples collected at the
downstream transects represents the dilution un-
dergone by the effluent. By conducting the studies
from the downstream to the upstream site, contam-
ination of dye from one study to the next is avoided.
Rhodamine WT dye was injected at each site by a
Fluid Metering, Inc. precision metering pump. The
injection system was placed at a sufficient distance
from the river to allow complete mixing of the dye
and effluent prior to the point of discharge. The
weight of the dye container was periodically
recorded to monitor the dye injection rate. The Rho-
damine WT dye used in the study will decay in the
presence of chlorine. Sodium thiosulfate, Na2S203,
reduces the chlorine to chloride when present in a
concentration approximately six times as great as
the chlorine level. At the POTW, a second precision
metering pump injected an appropriate solution of
Na2S203. The line from the dye was inserted
through the side wall of the larger line from the
Na2S203 such that both solutions were injected at
the same point.
A flow-through Turner Designs fluorometer was set
up where the discharge enters the river to provide
a continuous record of discharge dye concentra-
tion. The fluorometer reading was recorded on an
Esterline Angus data logger at 5-minute intervals.
The temperature at the discharge was measured
using a YSl probe and was also recorded because
the fluorometer reading is temperature-dependent.
Table B-1. Transact Locations Used During the Dye Studies
at Three Sites on Five Mile Creek, February and
October 1983
Distance (m) Downstream of Site
Transect
TO
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
T8
T9
T10
T11
POTW
-30
0
15
30
76
137
213
305
457
762
1,067
1,524
Coke
Plant 2
-30
0
15
30
76
137
213
305
457
731
1,067
1,524
Coke
Plant 1
-20
0
15
30
76
137
213
305
457
762
1,067
1,524
At Coke Plant 1, the effluent coated the inside of the
fluorometer flow cell during the February study,
rendering the data obtained after the first few hours
useless. As a result, a fluorometer was not installed
in October at Coke Plant 1. At Coke Plant 2, the point
of discharge is not secured and at the POTW the
discharge is located above the water surface with
no suitable point to sample continuously at the end
of the pipe. Consequently, the discharge dye con-
centrations during the three October studies were
monitored by taking daily grab samples. These
samples were compared to predicted discharge dye
concentrations based upon dye injection rate and
reported plant flow.
During the instream survey on the second day of
dye injection, water samples were collected in 200-
ml bottles. A sample was taken and the water depth
recorded every 3.0 m across the transect, except
near a discharge or at a narrow transect where a
1.5-m interval was used for greater resolution, A
manual sampler was set to take the water samples
0.2 m from the bottom. When the depth was less
than 0.25 m, the sample was taken at middepth. If
the water depth was greater than 0.5 m, a second
sample was taken 0.1 m from the surface.
Water samples were processed on the same day of
the instream survey using a Turner Designs fluo-
rometer in the discrete sample mode. The fluorom-
eter calibration was checked with field standards
each day it was used. The fluorometer data was
converted to dye concentration, C(ppb), using
Equation B-1. The reference temperatures for the
fluorometer calibration were 20°C in February and
25°C in October.
The background levels (equivalent dye concentra-
tion fluorescence) measured upstream of the dis-
charge and in the effluent prior to dye injection
were flow-weighted to determine a background
level which was subtracted from the instream data.
In a similar fashion, the fluorometer readings from
the discharge data logger were reduced every 30
minutes for the duration of the study.
At the time of each of the four dye studies, a dye
integrity study was performed. Rhodamine WT dye
was added to effluent in order to make 50-ppb dye
solutions. The effluent solution for the POTW also
contained sodium thiosulfate. Each solution was
measured in the fluorometer immediately after
mixing and periodically for several hours. No no-
ticeable decay was observed at the POTW or Coke
Plant 2 during October.
At Coke Plant 1, both dye integrity studies resulted
in fluorometer readings which were approximately
50 percent of the expected value. On 12 and 13
February, a dye integrity study was performed by
making a 50-ppb dye solution using an effluent
B-2
-------
sample and an upstream river sample. Each of the g/kg solution of Rhodamine WT dye was injected at
two solutions were measured six times during a an average rate of 5.48 g/min.
24-hour period. Although the two solutions were
stable over the 24-hour period, effluent measure-
ments were only 48 percent of the expected 50-ppb
value, whereas the upstream measurements gave
the expected results. The integrity test was re-
peated in EA's laboratory on 7 March for the efflu-
ent sample by making a new 50-ppb solution; the
measured concentration was 52 percent of the ex-
pected value.
It was determined that the reduced readings were
caused by the high color content of the effluent
blocking the passage of light through the sample in
the fluorometer chamber rather than actual physi-
cal decay of the dye present. Further analysis
showed that the percentage reduction in fluorome-
ter reading was linearly proportional to the fraction
of effluent in the sample, i.e., a 100 percent effluent
sample gives a 50 percent reduction in dye reading,
a 50 percent efluent sample a 25 percent reduction,
and a 1 percent effluent sample a 0.5 percent reduc-
tion. Although the discharge fluorometer would
only record 50 percent of the actual amount of the
dye present, the instream samples, which for all but
one value represented as dilution of effluent with
river water of greater than 1:100, would have a neg-
ligible (<0.5 percent) correction due to the initial
effluent color.
At Coke Plant 1 in the February study, a 20 g/kg
solution of Rhodamine WT dye was injected from
1500 hours on 8 February to 1600 hours on 9 Febru-
ary, The average injection rate during this period
was 7.24 g/min. At the POTW, the injection of a 200
g/kg Rhodamine WT dye solution started at 1025
hours on 3 October and continued until 1340 hours
on 4 October. During this period the average dye
injection rate was 5.27 g/min. A 400 g/liter solution
of Na2S2O3 was also injected at the same point at a
rate of 200 ml/min. The Na2S2O3 injection rate is
equivalent to a 4.9 ppm concentration in a dis-
charge flow of 0.27 m3/sec which would protect the
dye from a chlorine residual of 0.8 ppm.
At Coke Plant 2, a 200 g/kg solution of Rhodamine
WT dye was injected from 1020 hours on 5 Octoer
to 1420 hours on 6 October. The average injection
rate during this period was 2.76 g/min. The dye
weight data indicates that the injection rate may
have decreased from 3.02 to 2.50 g/min during the
study.
At Coke Plant 1, the dye injection was initially
started on 7 October at 1000 hours. At some time
during that night, the dye injection system was
turned off by an unknown person. The system was
restarted on 8 October at 1530 hours. Between the
restart time and 1150 hours on 9 October, a 13.9
8-3
-------
Appendix C
Biological Sampling and Analytical Methods
C.1 Periphyton Methods
Natural substrates (rocks) in Five Mile Creek were
sampled quantitatively using an epilithic algal bar-
clamp sampler. Station 11, located at Black Creek,
had insufficient rock habitat for similar quantitative
sampling, so scrapings were taken from wood sub-
strates (stationary log and wooden board). All other
samples were taken from the lower end of riffle
areas and runs located at each station. Suitable
substrate also was lacking at Station 1, so a quanti-
tative sample was collected for identification and
abundance estimates. Three replicate samples
were taken at each station for chlorophyll a and
biomass measurements. A volumetrically mea-
sured aliquot was removed from these samples
and filtered using 0.45-jjum filters. These filters were
stored with desiccant in an ice chest to await labo-
ratory analysis for chlorophyll a. The remainder of
each sample was stored in a 120-ml glass jar on ice
to await laboratory analysis for biomass. One sam-
ple consisting of a composite of two bar-clamp col-
lections was taken from each station for cursory
identification (genus level) and abundance esti-
mates. These samples were preserved in M3
preservative to await analysis.
Ash-free dry weights (AFDW) and chlorophyll a
were analyzed in the laboratory. For AFDW, sam-
ples were dried at 105°C to a constant weight and
ashed at 5QO°C. Distilled water then was added to
replace the water of hydration lost from clay and
other minerals. Samples were redried at 105°C be-
fore final weighing, and standing crop (biomass)
was expressed in grams per square meter (g/m2).
Filters for chlorophyll a analysis were macerated in
a 90 percent acetone solution, centrifuged, and an-
alyzed spectrophotometrically. A chlorophyll a
standard (Sigma Chemicals) extracted in a 90 per-
cent acetone solution was used for instrument cali-
bration. Chlorophyll a standing crop was expressed
as milligrams per square meter (mg/m2). The
biomass and chlorophyll a data were used to calcu-
late the Autotrophic Index (Weber 1973), which in-
dicates the relative proportion of heterotrophic and
autotrophic (photosynthetic) components in the pe-
riphyton. The biomass and chlorophyll a data were
also statistically tested by analysis of variance
(Steel and Torrie 1980) and multiple comparison
tests to detect significant (P s 0.05) differences be-
tween sampling locations.
Each sample for identification and enumeration
was mixed for 30 seconds in a blender to disrupt
algal clumps,and sample volume, then was in-
creased to 100 or 250 ml depending on the quantity
of material present. Ten percent of each thoroughly
mixed sample was removed to prepare Hyrax
slides, which were examined at 1,250X magnifica-
tion to confirm the identity of diatoms encountered
during the quantitative analyses. Large quantities
of sediment and detritus in the sample from Sta-
tion 6 required dilution to an effective sample vol-
ume of 2,500 ml before further analysis. A 0,2-ml
aliquot from each quantitative sample was placed
in a settling chamber designed for use on an in-
verted microscope. The chamber then was filled
with de-ionized water, and periphytic forms were
allowed to settle to the bottom of the chamber for
24 hours. Samples were examined at 1,OOOX mag-
nification with an inverted microscope, and algae
were identified to genus. For each sample, one to
five diameters of the counting chamber were exam-
ined, and algae containing protoplasm were enu-
merated as units. These units were cells except for
genera of filamentous blue-green algae and the
very large green alga Cladophora, which were
counted in 10-(ji,m units of length. The actual num-
ber of units identified and counted in each sample
ranged from 68 to 863 but was greater than 350 in
all but one sample. Periphyton abundance was ex-
pressed as number units per square millimeter
(units/mm2), and taxa diversity and equitability
were calculated from raw counts by U.S. EPA meth-
ods (EPA 1973).
The chlorophyll a and biomass replicate data for
each station were analyzed quantitatively by using
one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). A Tukey's
Studentized Range Test was performed when a sig-
nificant station effect was obtained from the
ANOVA. Analyses were conducted using SAS
PROC GLM.
C.2 Benthic Methods
C.2.1 Benthic Methods, February 1983
Benthic samples were collected from the riffle habi-
tat at nine stations. Three replicate samples were
C-1
-------
collected from each of the two habitats at each sta-
tion. A Hess sampler (881 cm2) with 500-p.m mesh
was used to sample the benthos in the riffle habitat
Samples were preserved in 10 percent buffered for-
malin and returned to the laboratory for analysis.
Emphasis on the riffle habitat was believed suffi-
cient to detect effects and discern recovery.
Water quality measurements consisting of temper-
ature, dissolved oxygen, pH, and conductivity were
taken at every station. These data are discussed in
Chapter 3.
Samples were sorted with the aid of a Wild M-5
dissecting microscope. Organisms were sorted into
major taxonomic categories and preserved in 80
percent alcohol to await identification; organisms
were identified to the lowest practical taxon using
appropriate keys and references. Oligochaetes and
ehironomfd larvae were mounted on microslides
prior to identification.
C.2.2 Benthic Methods, October 1983
Triplicate benthic invertebrate samples were ob-
tained at quarter points on a transect across the
stream in a riffle area with a Hess sampler with
500-nm mesh. A hand-held net with the same mesh
was used for qualitative sampling in additional
habitats.
Benthic invertebrate samples were picked after
sugar floatation and identified to the lowest conve-
nient taxon, usually genus.
C.2.3 Analytical Methods
A one-way ANOVA was used to test for differences
in abundance of key taxa among stations. The data
were natural log-transformed to ensure a normal
distribution and equal variances at all stations. A
Tukey's Studentized Range Test was performed
when a significant station effect was obtained from
the ANOVA. Analyses were conducted using SAS
PROC GLM,
C.3 Fish Survey Methods
C.S.I Fish Survey Methods, February 1983
Fish collections were made in premeasured sec-
tions of the stream at each of the nine Five Mile
Creek biological sampling stations. Each sampling
area contained pool and riffle habitats with inter-
connecting runs, although in widely varying pro-
portions (Table C-1). Two sections at selected sta-
tions were fished when habitat permitted to obtain
a more complete representation of the community.
Fish collections were conducted using a Coffelt
WP-2C electrofisher. This specific gear consisted of
two hand-held positive electrodes and negative
electrode attached to a small pram which carried
Table C-1.
Station
Station Lengths and Pool, Run, and Riffle
Proportions for Fish Survey, Birmingham,
Alabama, February 1983
Proportion (%)
Length (m)
Pool
Run
Riffle
la(a)
1bl»>
2a<»>
2b<»>
3
4
5
6
7
Sa^l
8b<<"
B2
100
100
100
100
120
120
120
120
120
120
83
120
5
5
30
10
5
0
20
10
10
15
5
85
45
65
40
70
70
75
80
40
90
85
95
10
50
30
20
20
25
25
0
50
0
0
0
5
(3)
'a and b refer to subareas of stations sampled.
the generator and shocking box. Each section of the
stream was fished from bank-to-bank in an up-
stream direction. Fish were held in buckets of
stream water until an entire section was completed.
Captured fishes were identified and counted. Only
those fish of questionable identity and requiring
further examination were preserved and returned
to the laboratory. All other fish were released alive.
Water temperature, dissolved oxygen, specific con-
ductance, and pH were measured during fish col-
lections at each station. A Hydrolab Model 4041
was used for all measurements. These data are dis-
cussed in Chapter 3.
C.3.2 Fish Survey Methods, October 1983
Fish collections were made in premeasured sec-
tions of the stream at each of the nine Five Mile
Creek and two tributary biological sampling sta-
tions. All fish sampling stations were 90 m long and
included a portion of both riffle and pool habitat
(Table C-2).
Most fish collections were made with a Coffelt WP-
2C electroshocker operated out of a towed prarn.
Pulsed direct current was generated through two,
hand-held positive electrodes. At the Five Mile
Creek headwater station (FO) and the tributaries,
Tarrant Spring Branch (T1) and Barton Branch (B1),
a Coffelt BP1C backpack electrofisher was used
with one positive and one negative probe. Each
section of stream was fished from bank-to-bank in
the upstream direction. Captured fishes were held
in buckets of stream water until an entire section
was completed, and then they were identified and
counted. Only those fish of questionable identity
and requiring further examination were preserved
and returned to the laboratory. Remaining fishes
were released alive or, if dead, were properly dis-
posed of.
c-2
-------
Table C-2. Dimensions of Pool and Riffle Habitat at Each Station, Birmingham, Alabama, October 1983
Length (m)
Station
FO
T1
B1
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
Pool
45
45
20
55
70
45
45
31
45
61
61
Riffle
45
45
71
37
22
45
45
61
45
31
31
mean vviam im;
Entire Section
12.1
3.7
6.4
9.4
11.9
9.8
9.2
17.1
21.9
12.8
24.6
esurnaieu maximum
Depth (m) of Pool
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.9
1.2
0.9
0.9
0.6
0.5
0.6
>1.5
In conjunction with fish sampling, stream widths
were measured at four approximately equidistant
points through the 90-m section. This was used in
the computation of number of fish per 93 m2.
C.3.3 Statistical Methods
The fish data were quantitatively analyzed using
the X2 test on the number of taxa per station. Data
for Station 2 were used as the expected values.
C.4 Plankton Methods, October 1983
Duplicate plankton samples were obtained using a
Wisconsin-style plankton net with 80-|xm mesh.
The net was held horizontally as the water flowed
into the mouth for 2 minutes. Timing the drift of a
float over a measured 10-ft distance allowed calcu-
lation of approximate volume of water filtered.
Two 1-ml subsamples were observed from each of
the approximately 120-mi plankton samples in a
Sedgwick-Rafter counting chamber. The organisms
were categorized and enumerated under 100X
magnification. Algal components of the plankton
community which were retained in the net were
also enumerated. For solitary diatoms, one short
dimension strip was observed at 100X and the total
density was calculated.
A one-way ANOVA was used to test for differences
in the number of zooplankton taxa per station. A
Tukey's Studentized Range Test was performed
when a significant station effect was obtained from
the ANOVA. Analyses were conducted using SAS
PROC GLM.
C-3
-------
Appendix D
Toxicological Test Data
Table D-1. Routine Chemistry Data for Three Effluents in Various Waters for Fathead Minnow Tests, Birmingham, Alabama,
February 1983
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1)
/D L.IIIUGI11
Concentration
(v/v)
Coke Plant 1 in
Station 2A Water
Dilution water
0.5
1,0
5.0
Coke Plant 1
in Well Water
Dilution water'"1
0.5
1.0
5.0
Coke Plant 2 in
Station 3 Water
Dilution water
1.0
5.0
10.0
50.0
100.0
Coke Plant 2
in Weil Water
1.0
5.0
10.0
50.0
x pH
(Range)
7.7
(7.4-8.1)
7.7
(7.4-8.1)
7.7
(7.4-8.0)
7.5
(7.4-7.7)
7.5
(7.2-7.8)
7.5
(7.3-7.8)
7.5
(7.3-7.8)
7.4
(7.3-7.5)
7.5
(7.4-7.8)
7.6
(7.4-7.8)
7.5
(7.4-7.7)
7.5
(7.3-7.7)
7.5
(7.3-7.6)
7.3
(6.9-7.5)
7.4
(7.2-7.7)
7.4
(7.2-7.7)
7.4
(7.2-7.7)
7.3
(7.2-7.7)
x Daily Initial
(Range)
8.5
(8.3-8.7)
8.5
(8.3-8.7)
8.5
(8.3-8.7)
8.4
(8.1-8.8)
8.5
(8.2-8.8)
8.3
(8.1-8.7)
8.3
(8.0-8.7)
8.1
(7.0-8.8)
8.5
(8.3-8.8)
8.5
(8.1-8.8)
8.5
(8.1-8.8)
8.5
(8.1-8.8)
8.5
(8.1-8.8)
8.5
(8.1-9.0)
8.6
(8.2-8.8)
8.5
(8.2-9.0)
8.5
(8.4-8.6)
8.5
(8.2-8.7)
x Daily Final
(Range)
6.0
(4.4-7.7)
5.9
(3.3-7.8)
6.0
(3.5-7.7)
4.7
(3.5-5.4)
6.0
(4.2-7.1)
5.9
(3.5-6.7)
5.5
(3.5-6.5)
5.0
(4.3-6.1)
5.0
(4.1-7.1)
5.4
(4.0-7.1)
5.4
(4.5-7.1)
5.0
(4.1-6.2)
4.2
(2.3-5.1)
4,1
(2.6-5.1)
5.4
(4.2-6.8)
4.5
(2.7-5.8)
4.6
(2.0-5.2)
4.5
(3.8-5.6)
Alkalinity Hardness Conductivity
(mg/l) (mg/l) (^mhos/cm)
143 162 310
310
141 168 350
— — 490
64 64
— — —
66 70
— — —
141 166 350
350
140 182 400
480
117 312 83
1 ,280
— — —
6 104
— — —
D-1
-------
Table D-1. (Continued)
% Effluent
Concentration x pH
(v/v) (Range)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1)
x Daily Initial
(Range)
x Daily Final
(Range)
Alkalinity
(mg/l)
Hardness
(mg/l)
Conductivity
!firnohs/cm)
Coke Plant 2 in
Station 1 Water
Dilution water
1.0
5.0
10.0
50.0
POTW in Station 6
Water
Dilution water
1.0
5.0
10.0
50,0
100.0
Sampling Stations
7.7
(7.5-8,0)
7.7
(7.5-8.0)
7.7
(7.5-8.0)
7.7
(7.4-8.0)
7.5
(7.3-7.9)
7.8
(7.7-8.0)
7.9
(7,7-8.1)
7.9
(7.7-8.1)
7.8
(7.7-8.0)
7.7
(7.6-7.9)
7.6
(7,5-7.8)
8,5
S8.0-8.7)
8.4
(8.0-8.7)
8.4
(8.1-8.7)
8.4
(8.1-8.7)
8.3
(8.1-8.6)
8.4
(8.0-8.8)
8.4
(8.1-9.1)
8.3
(8.1-8.6)
8.4
(8.1-8.7)
8.3
(8.1-8.8)
8.2
(8.0-8.7)
5,2
(4.4-6.3)
5.3
(4.4-6.2)
5.0
(4.1-6.2)
4.8
(3,5-6.3)
4.1
(2.2-5.9)
6.3
(4.7-7.3)
6.0
(4.7-7.2)
6.0
(4.4-7.1)
4,8
(4.1-6.3)
5.7
(3,9-6.7)
5.9
(4.6-6,8)
138
138
137
172
172
166
1
2
5
7
8
7.7
(7.3-8.0)
7.7
(7.4-8.0)
7.4
(7.2-7.6)
7.6
(7.3-7.8)
7.6
(7.3-7.8)
8,2
(8.0-8.6)
8.2
(7.9-8.6)
8.2
(7.9-8.3)
8.3
(8.1-8.6)
8.4
(8.0-8,6)
6.7
(4.8-7.6)
6.0 140 154
(4.6-7,3)
5.9 84 212
(4.7-6,8)
5.8
(4.2-7.1)
5,7
(3.6-7.2)
water control was used for the two effluent well water dilution tests.
Table D-2. Final Water Chemistry Data for Ccriodaphnia Tests, Birmingham, Alabama, February 1983
x pH (Range)
% Effluent
Concontration (v/v)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l)
x Daily Final (Range)
Coke Plant 1 in
Station 2A Water
Dilution water
0.5
1.0
5.0
Coke Plant 1
in Well Water
Dilution water
0.5
7.8
(7.6-8.1)
7.8
(7.6-8.1)
7.8
(7,6-8.1)
7.8
(7.6-8.1)
7.6
(7.5-7,7)
7.6
(7.5-7.7)
7.6
(7.3-8.0)
7.7
(7.4-8,2)
7.7
(7.4-8.2)
7.5
(7.0-7.8)
7.3
(7.3-8.0)
7,5
(7.3-7.8)
D-2
-------
Table D-2. (Continued)
% Effluent
Concentration (v/v)
x pH (Range)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/I)
x Daily Final (Range)
1.0
5.0
Coke Plant 2 in
Station 3 Water
Dilution water
1.0
6.0
10.0
50.0
100.0
Coke Plant 2
in Well Water
Dilution water
4.0
5,0
10.0
50.0
POTW in Station 3
Water
Dilution water
1.0
5.0
10.0
50.0
Sampling Stations
1
2
2A
3
5
6
7
8
7.6
(7.5-7.7)
7.6
(7.5-7.7)
7.9
(7.7-8.2)
8,0
(7.9-8.1)
7.9
(7.8-8.0!
7.8
(7.8-7.9)
7.7
(7.6-7.7)
7.5
(7.4-7.5)
(See Coke Plant 1
in Well Water)
7.5
(7.3-7.7)
7.5
(7.3-7.7)
7.4
(7.3-7.6!
7.4
(7.2-7.5)
7.9
(7.7-8.1)
7.8
(7.7-8.1)
7.8
(7.7-8.1)
7.8
(7.7-8.1)
7.8
(7.7-8.0)
7.8
(7.8-7.9)
7.9
(7.8-8.0)
7.8
(7.7-8.0)
7.9
(7.7-8.1)
—
7.9
(7.7-8.1)
7.8
(7.7-7.9)
7.8
(7.7-8.0)
7.4
(7.2-7.7)
7.3
(7.0-7.7)
7.9
(7.6-8.4)
7.8
(7.4-8.1)
7.6
(7.4-8.0)
7.4
(7.2-7.7)
7.1
(6.9-7.7)
6.9
L (6.3-7.5)
7.5
(6.9-8.1)
7.2
(6.6-7.8)
7.2
(6.6-7.6)
6.8
(5.4-7.4)
7.3
(6.9-8,0)
7.3
(6.8-7.5)
7.3
(6.5-8.0)
7.0
(6.5-7.6)
7.0
(6.7-7.3)
7.6
(7.1-8.1)
7.7
(7.2-8.1)
7.2
(7.0-7.6)
7.4
(6.6-8.2)
7.4
(1 value)
7.7
(7.3-8.0)
7.5
(6,8-8.0)
7.5
(7.2-7.8)
0-3
-------
Table D-3. Routine Chemistry Data
Alabama, Octobsr 1983
% Effluent x
Concentration Initial pH
(v/V) (Range)
Coka Plant 1 in
Station 2A Water
Dilution water
1
3
10
30
100
Coka Plant 2 in
Station 3 Water
Dilution water
1
3
10
30
100
POTW in Section 6
Watar
Dilution water
1
3
10
30
100
Sampling Stations
1
2
5
7
8
9
B-1
7,7
(7.5-7.9)
7.8
(7.8-7.8)
7.8
(7.7-7.8)
7.8
(7.7-7.8)
7.6
(7.5-7.7)
7.6
(7.3-7.9)
7.6
(7.4-7.8)
7.7
(7.6-7.7)
7.7
(7.6-7.7)
7.7
(7.6-7.7)
7.7
(7.7-7.7)
7.7
(7.5-8.0)
7.5
(7.2-7.7)
7.6
(7.5-7.6)
7.6
(7.5-7.6)
7.5
(7.5-7.5)
7.4
(7.4-7.4)
7.0
(6.9-7.1)
7.5
—
7.5
—
7.3
—
7.5
—
7.5
—
7.9
—
7.5
—
i for Three Effluents and Various Stream Stations for Fathead Minnow Test!
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l)
x Daily Initial
(Range)
8.5
(7.5-9.3)
7.6
(7.3-7.8)
7.6
(7.4-7.7)
7.5
(7.3-7.6)
7.3
(7.0-7.5)
6.5
(5.2-7.1)
8,4
(7.5-9.0)
7.7
(7.5-7.9)
7.8
(7.6-8,0)
7.8
(7.6-8.0)
7.9
(7.8-8.0)
8.6
(7.9-9.1)
8.5
(7.8-9.3)
7.9
(7.8-7.9)
7.8
(7.7-7.8)
7.8
(7.7-7.8)
7.7
(7.7-7.7)
7.7
(7.2-8.1)
8.0
—
7.5
—
7.3
—
7.7
—
7.5
—
8.6
—
7.9
—
x Daily Final
(Range)
6.4
(5.6-6.8)
6.5
(5.9-6.9)
6.5
(5.9-6.8)
6.4
(5.9-7.0)
6.0
(5.3-7.0)
3.5
—
6.6
(5.9-7.2)
6.8
(6.5-7.3)
6.3
(4.7-7.3)
6.4
(5.5-7.3)
6.6
(6.2-7.8)
6.4
(6.2-6.6)
6.8
(6.2-7.2)
6.8
(6.4-7.4)
6.8
(6.2-7.2)
6.9
(6.0-7.7)
6.7
(6.0-7.5)
6.4
(5.9-6.8)
6,7
(6.3-7.3)
6.6
(6.3-7.2)
6.4
(5.7-7.1)
7,1
(6.5-7.4)
6.6
(6.1-7.2)
6.8
(6.1-7.5)
6.9
(6.5-7.1)
Alkaiinity!ai
(mg/l)
145
365
153
104
146
91
160
162
256
140
144
136
204
Hardness'3'
(mg/l)
158
98
158
552
230
122
180
166
135
200
208
210
290
s, Birmingham,
Initial
Conductivity
((jimohs/cm)
309
330
385
600
1,215
3,329
394
378
400
421
738
1.346
688
725
675
660
613
448
320
300
600
650
650
600
1,152
D-4
-------
Table 0-3. (Continued)
Concentration
(v/v)
Reconstituted
water
FO
B1
T1
Initial pH
(Range)
7.8
—
7.3
—
7.5
—
7.8
—
x Daily Initial
(Range)
7.8
—
6.8
—
7.8
—
8.0
—
x Daily Final
(Range)
6.4
(6.1-6.9)
6.7
(6.2-7.2)
6.7
(6.3-7.2)
6.6
(5.9-7.3)
Alkalinity'3'
(mg/l)
151
172
156
Hardness101
(mg/l)
158
182
164
Conductivity
(ixmohs/cm)
460
235
315
335
la)Alkalinity and hardness were done only once on 10 October 1983.
Table D-4. Final Water Chemistry Data for Ceriodaphnia Tests, Birmingham, Alabama, October 1983
% Effluent Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l)
Concentration (v/v) x pH (Range) x Daily Final {Range}
Coke Plant 1 in
Station 2A Water
Dilution —
1
3 — —
10
30
100
Coke Plant 2 in
Station 3 Water
Dilution water —
1
3
10
30
100
POTW in Station 6
Dilution water 7,7
1 7.7
3 7.8
10 7,8
30 7.8
100 —
7.4
(7.1-7.8)
7.5
(7.2-7.8)
7.3
(7.1-7.6)
7.3
(7.1-7.5)
7.2
(6.6-7.6)
6.9
(6.2-7.4)
7.2
(7.1-7.3)
7.3
(7.1-7.8)
7.3
(7.1-7.6)
7.3
(7.1-7.4)
7.3
(7.1-7.6)
7.2
(7.0-7.3)
7.4
(6.8-8.1)
7.3
(7.1-7.8)
7.3
(6.8-7.8)
7.4
(7.2-7.7)
7.3
(7.1-7.5)
7.0
D-5
-------
Table D-4. (Continued)
% Effluent
Concentration (v/v)
x pH (Range)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/I)
x Daily Final (Range)
Sampling Stations
1
2
2A
3
5
6
7
8
Q
11
Reconstituted
water-1
Reconstituted
water-2
Reconstituted
water«3
B1
T1
FO
7.6
(7.3-7,8)
7.5
(7.2-7.6)
7.5
(7.1-7.6)
7.5
(7.1-7.7)
7.3
(7.2-7.6)
7,4
(7.2-7.8)
7.3
(7.0-7.7)
7.3
(7.0-7.5)
7.2
(6.9-7.5)
7.4
(7.1-7.9)
7.5
(7.1-7.9)
7.5
(7.3-7.9)
7.6
(7.3-7.8)
7.6
(7.4-7.8)
7.5
(7.3-7.8)
7.5
(7.2-7.8)
Table D-6.
Replicate
Seven-Day Percent Survival of Larval Fathead
Minnows Exposed to Water From Various
Ambient Stations, Birmingham, Alabama,
October 1983
Tributary Stations
Table D-7.
Tributary
Station
Percent Survival and Young Production of
Ceriodaphnia Exposed to Water From Ambient
Stations, Birmingham, Alabama, October 1983
Percent Mean Number of Confidence
Survival Young Per Female Intervals
B2
FO
B1
T1
A
B
C
D
100
100
100
100
100
100
90
90
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
B2
FO
B1
T1
100
100
100
90
28,3
15.0
17.7
18.6
22.2-34.4
13.2-16.8
14.6-20.8
16.5-20.5
Mean
100
95
100
100
Table D-6.
Replicate
Mean Individual Weights (mg) of Larval Fathead
Minnows After Seven Days of Exposure to
Water From Various Tributary Ambient Stations,
Birmingham, Alabama, October 1983
Tributary Stations
B2
FO
B1
T1
A
B
C
D
Weighted mean
SE
0.380
0.360
0.289
0.380
0.352
0.018
0,390
0.420
0.328
0.367
0.378
0,019
0.400
0.350
0.435
0.355
0.384
0.019
0.400
0.385
0.405
0.428
0.405
0.018
D-6
-------
Appendix E
Biological Data
Table E-1. • Abundance (units/mm2) of Periphytic Algae on Natural Substrates in Five Mile Creek, February 1983
Sampling Station
Taxa
Bacillariophyta (Diatoms)
Achnanthes
Amphip/eura
Amphora
Asterionetla
Caloneis
Cocconeis
Cyclotella
Cytnbella
Denticu/a
Diatoma
Frustulia
Gomphonema
Gyroslgma
Melosira
Meridian
Navicula
Nitzschia
Pinnularia
Rhoicosphenia
Rhopalodia
Surirella
Synedra
Total Bacillariophyta
Chlorophyta (Green Algae)
Ankistrodesmus
Ctadophora
Stigeoc/onium
Tetrastrum
Total Chlorophyta
Cyanophyta (Blue-green Algae)
Chroococcus
Lyngbya
Oscillatoria
Phormidium
Unidentified #1
Unidentified #2
Unidentified #3
Total Cyanophyta
Total Periphyton
1
Dial
—
R
—
—
R
—
R
—
R
—
R
—
—
R
R
R
—
R
—
—
—
D
—
D
C
—
D
C
R
—
—
R
—
—
A
2
20,599
0
50
0
100
200
0
1,796
0
3,491
0
299
0
0
100
1,895
3,940
0
50
0
349
0
32,869
0
1,995
100
0
2,095
0
6,833
648
599
0
0
0
8,080
43,044
3
2,943
0
0
0
0
150
100
1,347
0
0
0
100
50
0
50
1,047
1,397
50
50
0
449
0
7,733
50
748
3,541
200
4,539
898
5,985
848
0
1,197
3,940
0
12,868
25,140
4
1,197
0
0
0
0
0
0
948
0
150
0
299
0
0
0
2,095
599
0
200
0
249
0
5,737
0
1,147
4,888
0
6,035
1,197
13,466
299
0
5,536
0
7,581
28,079
39.851
5
600
0
0
0
0
0
0
48
0
14
0
17
0
0
3
31
20
0
3
0
14
0
750
0
0
295
0
295
0
465
91
0
65
0
0
740
1,785
6
1,417
0
57
57
0
0
113
1,871
57
340
0
850
0
113
57
4,648
3,798
0
0
0
1,644
567
15,589
0
4,365
227
0
4,592
0
0
227
0
0
0
0
227
20,408
7
14
"0
6
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
65
14
0
0
0
0
3
111
0
0
1,247
0
1,247
0
82
0
0
0
0
0
82
1,440
8
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
57
14
0
0
0
0
6
86
0
0
77
0
77
0
31
0
0
0
0
0
31
194
sampled quantitatively for periphyton abundance. D = dominant (>20 percent of total units counted); A = abundant (10-20
percent); C = common (5-10 percent); R = rare (<5 percent); dashes indicate not observed.
E-1
-------
Table E-2,
Abundance (units/mm2) of Periphytic Algae on
Natural Substrates in Black Creek, February 1983
Taxa
Total Bacillariophyta
Chlorophyta (Green Algae)
Ankistrodesmus
Cladophora
Stigeoclonium
Tetrastrum
Total Chlorophyta
Cyanophyta (Blue-green Algae)
Chroococcus
Lyngbya
Oscillatoria
PhormUium
Unidentified #1
Unidentified #2
Unidentified #3
Total Cyanophyta
Rhodophyta (Red Algae)
Audouinella
Total Rhodophyta
Station B2fa!
Bacillariophyta (Diatoms)
Achnanthes
Amphipleura
Amphora
Asterionella
Colonels
Cocconeis
Cyclotella
Cymbella
Dentisula
Diatoms
Frustulia
Gomphonema
Gyrosigma
Moloslra
Meridion
Navicula
Nitichia
Pinnuiaria
Rhotcosphenia
Rhopalodia
Surirglla
Synedra
A
R
—
—
—
—
—
R
—
R
C
R
—
R
—
D
C
—
R
R
C
R
C
C
"'Not sampled quantitatively for periphyton abundance.
D = dominant (>20 percent of total units counted);
A = abundant (10-20 percent); C = common (5-10 percent);
R = rare (<5 percent);
Dashes indicate not observed.
Note; Wood substrates rather than rocks were sampled in
Black Creek.
Table E-3. Summary of Periphyton Species Composition
and Diversity on Natural Substrates in Black
Creek, February 1983
Station
Parameter B2(al
Density (units/mm2)
Diatoms —(a!i
Green algae —
Blue-green algae —
Total Periphyton —
Percent Composition
Diatoms 58.02
Green algae 18.18
Blue-green algae 14.17
Red algae 9.63
Taxa (Genus) Diversity (d) 3.30
Taxa (Genus! Equitability (e) 0.82
Total Taxa Identified 17
!a)Not sampled quantitatively for periphyton abundance.
Note: Wood substrates rather than rocks were sampled in Black
Creek.
E-2
-------
Table E-4. Chlorophyll a and Biomass Data and Statistical Results for Periphyton Collected From Natural Substrates in Five
Mile Creek, February 1983
Sampling Station
Parameter
Chlorophyll a
Rep 1
Rep 2
Rep 3
Mean
(mg m2)
1
84.6
5.4
12.7
34.2
2
207.6
253.8
907.6
436.3
3
230.8
115.4
70.0
138.7
4
546.2
707.6
261.6
505.1
5
11.9
30.8
17.3
20.0
6
150.8
630.8
538.4
440,0
7
1.0
9.2
1.6
3.9
8
3.6
13.5
8.2
8.4
Biomass (g m2!
Rep 1
Rep 2
Rep 3
Mean
Autotrophic Index (Weber 1973)
7.2
0.2
2.9
3.4
99
22.1
37.0
33.2
30.8
71
33.3
6.1
7.8
15.8
114
45.8
37.9
8.1
30.6
61
2.3
2.1
1.4
2.0
98
92.3
110.2
208.5
137.0
311
6.7
10.4
6.5
7.9
2,015
8.4
5.7
5.8
6.6
790
Statistical Results:131
Chlorophyll
F = 17.52
P < 0.001
Biomass
F = 13.28
P < 0.001
a
Station'"1
Mean(el
Station
Mean
7
1,324
5
1,076
8
2,140
1
1,210
1
2,974
8
2,021
5
2,975
7
1,162
3
4,822
3
2,558
2
5,898
4
3,240
6
5,920
2
3,437
4
6,146
6
4,864
ialResults based on analysis of variance and Tukey multiple comparison test performed on data transformed with natural loga-
rithms (1n(x+1)], Stations underscored by a continuous line were not significantly different (P > 0.05) according to Tukey's test.
(b'Stations are listed in order of increasing mean values.
(cllvleans of transformed data.
Table E-5. Chlorophyll a and Biomass Data 'for Periphyton
Collected From Natural Substrates in Black
Creek, February 1983
Parameter
Station B2
Chlorophyll a (mg/m2)
Rep 1
Rep 2
Rep 3
Mean
Biomass (g/m2)
Rep 1
Rep 2
Rep 3
Mean
Autotrophic Index (Weber 1973)
1.6
1.6
5.2
5.2
3,219
Table E-6. Ranked Abundance Listing of all Macroinvertebrates Collected From Five Mile Creek, February 1983
Species Name
Number
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Imm, tub. w/ cap. chaet,
Cricotopus tremulus Grp. L.
Tubifex tubifex
Imm, tub. w/o cap. chaet.
Cricotopus bicinctus Grp. L.
Chironomidae P.
152.341
112.163
73.241
30.970
30.552
23.019
25.852
19.034
12.429
5.256
5.185
3.906
25.852
44.886
57.315
62.571
67.756
71.662
E-3
-------
Table E-6. (Continued)
Species Name
Nais brotscherl
Thienemannimyia Grp. L.
Llmnodrilus hoffmeisteri
Limnodritus udekemianus
Cheumatopsyche L.
Stenonema N.
Caenls N,
Cryptochironomus L.
Baetis N.
Corblcula
Tricladida
Heptagentlnae N.
Baatidae N.
Isonychla N.
Nemertea
Heptageniidao N.
Hydropsyche L.
Polypedilutn scalaenum L.
Chimarra L.
Lirceus
Amphinemura N.
Elmidao
Psephenus L,
Brenchiura sowerbyi
Enchytraeidaa
Corydalus L.
Agapetus L
Empididae L,
Turbellaria
Pristine brevlseta
Llmno. claparedianus
Acarina
Ephemeroptora N.
Symphltopsyche L,
Slmulium L.
Nais pardalis
Argia N.
Micrasoma L,
Stenelmis A.
Natarsia 'L.
Crlcotopus cylindricus Grp, L.
Grastropoda
Nais variaUlis
Pristine longiseta leidy
Bothrlo. vejdovskyanum
Plecoptera N.
Acroneuria N.
Dotophilodes L.
Diplactrona L,
Glossoma L.
Cotaoptera L.
Optioservus L,
Stenalmis L,
Ablabasmyia L.
Pseudodiamesa L,
Parakiefferiella L.
Rheocricotopus L,
Smittia L.
Simuliidae L.
T/pu/a L,
Ancylidae
Note: L. = larva
P. =» pupa
N. = nymph
A. = adult
Number
17.578
14.230
12.974
12,556
8.370
7,952
7.115
5.859
5.022
4.604
3.767
3.767
3.348
3.348
2.930
2.930
2.930
2.930
2.930
2.511
2.511
2.511
2.511
2.093
2.093
1.674
1.674
1.674
1.256
1.256
1.256
1.256
1.256
1.256
1.256
0.837
0.837
0.837
0.837
0.837
0.837
0.837
0.419
0.419
0.419
0.419
0.419
0.419
0.419
0.419
0.419
0.419
0.419
0.419
0.419
0.419
0.419
0.419
0.419
0.419
0.419
Percent
2.983
2.415
2.202
2.131
1.420
1.349
1.207
0.994
0.852
0.781
0.639
0.639
0.568
0.568
0.497
0.497
0.497
0.497
0.497
0.426
0.426
0.426
0.426
0.355
0.355
0.284
0.284
0.284
0.213
0.213
0.213
0.213
0.213
0,213
0.213
0.142
0.142
0.142
0.142
0.142
0.142
0.142
0.071
0.071
0.071
0.071
0.071
0.071
0.071
0.071
0.071
0.071
0.071
0.071
0.071
0.071
0.071
0.071
0.071
0.071
0.071
Cumulative
Percent
74.645
77.060
79.261
81.392
82.813
84.162
85.369
86.364
87.216
87.997
88.636
89.276
89.844
90.412
90.909
91.406
91.903
92.401
92.898
93.324
93.750
94.176
94.602
94.957
95.313
95.597
95.881
96.165
96.378
96.591
96.804
97.017
97.230
97.443
97.656
97.798
97.940
98.082
98.224
98.367
98.509
98.651
98.722
98.793
98.864
98.935
99.006
99.077
99.148
99.219
99.290
99.361
99.432
99.503
99.574
99.645
99.716
99.787
99.858
99.929
100.000
E-4
-------
Table E-7. Density (No./m2) of
Alabama, February
Species
Imm. Tub. w cap. chaet.
CricoL Eremu/os Grp. L.
Tubifex tubifex
Imm, Tub. w o cap, chaet.
CficoL bicincL Grp. L-
Chtronomidae P.
Nais bretscheri
Thienemannimyia Grp. L.
Umnodrilus hoffmeisteri
Umnodfilus ud&kemianus
Cheumatopsyche L.
Stenonema N.
Caenis N.
Cryptochironomus L.
Baetis N.
Corbicula
Tricladida
Heptageniinae N.
Baetidae N.
Isonychia N.
Nemertea
Heptageniidae N.
Hydropsyehe L.
Polypedilum scs/aenum L.
Chimarra L.
lirceus
Amphinemura N,
Elmidae L
Psephenus L,
Branchiura sowerbyi
Enchytraeidae
Corydalus L
Agapetus L.
Empididae L.
Turbellaria
Pristine breviseta
Limno. claparedianus
Acarina
Other species
Station
Rep 1
Number
Indiv.
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
45.20
22.60
33.90
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
22.60
0.00
22.60
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
11.30
22.60
11.30
0.00
0.00
0.00
11.30
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
45.20
Benthic Macroinvertebrates from Replicate Samples Collected in Five Mile Creek, Birmingham,
1983
1
Pet.
Comp,
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
18.18
9.09
13.64
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
9.09
0.00
9.09
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
4.55
9.09
4.55
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.55
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
18.18
Station
Rep 2
Number
Indiv.
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
11.30
0.00
0.00
56.50
11.30
22.60
0.00
0.00
45.20
0.00
0.00
33.90
0.00
56.50
45.20
0.00
0.00
22.60
22.60
0.00
11.30
11.30
0.00
0.00
0.00
11,30
0.00
11.30
0.00
0.00
11.30
33.90
1
Pet.
Comp.
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
2.70
0.00
0.00
13.51
2.70
5.41
0.00
0.00
10.81
0.00
0.00
8.11
0.00
13.51
10.81
0.00
0.00
5.41
5.41
0.00
2.70
2.70
0,00
0.00
0.00
2,70
0.00
2.70
0.00
0.00
2.70
8.11
Station
Rep 3
Number
Indiv.
0,00
22.60
0.00
0.00
0.00
11.30
0.00
11.30
0,00
0.00
90.40
90.40
56,50
0.00
56.50
0.00
33,90
56.50
0.00
11.30
11.30
0,00
0.00
0.00
56.50
11,30
33.90
0.00
22.60
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
11.30
0.00
0,00
0.00
22.60
146.90
1
Pet.
Conip.
0.00
2.99
0.00 ,
0.00
0.00
1.49
0.00
1.49
0,00
0.00
11.94
11.94
7.46
0.00
7.46
0.00
4.48
7.46
0.00
1.49
1.49
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.46
1.49
4.48
0.00
2.99
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.49
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.99
19.40
Station
Rep 2
Number
Indiv.
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
22.60
0.00
22.60
11.30
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0-00
0.00
0.00
0.00
11.30
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2
Pet.
Comp.
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
33.33
0.00
33.33
16.67
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
16.67
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Station
Rep 2
Number
Indiv.
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
79.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
22.60
0.00
11.30
0.00
0.00
11.30
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
11.30
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
11.30
2
Pet.
Comp.
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
53.85
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
15.38
0.00
7.69
0.00
0.00
7.89
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7,69
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
7.69
StaliO1
Rep 2
Number
Indiv.
0.00
56,50
0.00
11.30
0.00
33.90
11.30
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
11.30
0.00
11,30
0.00
22.60
0,00
22.60
0.00
11.30
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
11.30
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
n 2
Pet.
Comp.
0.00
27.78
0.00
5.56
0.00
16.67
5.56
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.56
0.00
5.56
0.00
11.11
0.00
11.11
0.00
5.56
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.56
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
Station 3
Rep
Number
Indiv.
0.00
192.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
67.80
45.20
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
56.50
11.30
0.00
0.00
0.00
11.30
22.60
0.00
11.30
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
11.30
1
PCI.
Comp.
0.00
44.74
0.00
0.00
0.00
15.79
10.53
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
13.16
2.63
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.63
5.26
0.00
2.63
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.63
Station Total
248.60
418.10
203.40
429.40
£-5
-------
Table E-7. (Extended)
Special
1mm Tub, w c*p chact.
Cneat. inmulus Oip. I,
Tubtlex tutxtix
1mm Tub, w o cap chaef
Ctieoi. bicmcl Grp L,
CtiitonomidM p.
Kill btouchett
Thwrttm*noimyi» Grp, t»
tOTinodrrfus hofftnoisteej
Ltmnodntut udokemtenus
Cttcurtuioptyche L
Stonantmi N,
Caotvi N.
CrYptottwonomu* L
BMIil N
Cortxcul*
TllClWJKJ*
H«ct(sennna« N,
BictidM N,
ijonyehia N,
Nwntnaa
Htpugtniidat N,
Hydroptych* L
Potyp9stitum scilaenum i,
Chbntfi* L
Lirctut
AmphtntmutB N.
E!iruiJ30 L,
Ptcphcnm L.
Bnrtchiuri sowttbyi
CndtyU*eidM
Cotydihis L
Agupvlui L,
EmpiASJ* L,
TurtMllwii
Priiho* 6/»v,jfij
tHTino ctipiuJtinus
Acarin*
Oihtr ip«cies
Station
Rep 3
Number
locliv.
45.20
124.30
0.00
0,00
0.00
11.30
22,60
22.60
0.00
11.30
0.00
22.80
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
11.30
11.30
0.00
33.90
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
11.30
o.oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.oo
0.00
3
Pet,
Comp.
13.79
37.93
0.00
0,00
0.00
3.45
6.90
6.80
0.00
3.45
0.00
6.90
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.45
3,45
0.00
10.34
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.4S
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Station 3
Rep 3
Number Pet.
Indiv, Comp.
0.00 0.00
214.70 48.72
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
67.80 15.38
90.40 20.51
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0,00 0,00
11.30 2,56
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0,00
0,00 0,00
11.30 2.56
11.30 2.56
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0,00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0,00
11.30 2.S6
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
11.30 2.56
0.00 0.00
0,00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
11.30 2.56
Station
Rep 1
Number
tndiv.
1412.50
293.80
452.00
33.90
5.00
56.50
113.00
22.60
0.00
90.40
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
11.30
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
11.30
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
45.20
4
Pet.
Comp.
55.56
11.56
17.78
1.33
0.00
2.22
4.44
0.89
0.00
3.56
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.44
o.oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.44
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.78
Station
Rep 2
Number
Indtv.
2214.80
56.50
1469.00
33.90
0.00
67.80
22.60
0.00
22.60
56.50
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0,00
o.oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
11.30
0.00
45.20
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
22.60
0.00
0.00
0.00
22.60
4
Pet,
Comp.
54.75
1.40
36.31
0.84
0.00
1.68
0.56
0.00
0.56
1.40
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.28
0.00
1.12
0,00
o.oo
0.00
0.00
0.56
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.56
Station
Rep 3
Number
Indiv.
11.30
67.80 .
11.30
22,60
0,00
22.60
79.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00.
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
11.30
4
Pet.
Comp.
5.00
30.00
5.00
10.00
0.00
10.00
35.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.00
Station
Rep 1
Number
Indiv.
11.30
56.50
11,30
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
11.30
0.00
11.30
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5
Pet.
Comp.
11.11
55.56
11.11
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
11.11
0.00
11.11
0.00
O.DO
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.oo
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.oo
0.00
Station 5
Rep 2
Number Pet.
Indiv. Comp.
293.80
79.10
33.90
56.50
11.30
33.90
0.00
11.30
56.50
79.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.oo
11.30
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
44.07
11.86
5.08
8.47
1.69
5.08
0.00
1.69
8.47
11.86
0.00
O^OO
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.69
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.on
0.00
0.00
0.00
SiJtxjn Tom
327.70
440.70
2542.50
226,00
101.70
666.70
E-6
-------
Table E-7. (Extended)
Species
!mm. Tub. w cap. chaet.
CficoL tremuius Grp. L.
Tubifex tubifex
Imm, Tub, w o cap. chaet.
Cricot. bicinct. Grp. L.
Chironomidae P.
Nais bretscheri
Thienemannimyia Grp. L.
Umnodrilus hoffmeisteri
Limnadrilus udek&fnisnus
Cheumatopsyche L.
Stenonema N.
Caenis N.
Cryptochironomus L.
Baelis N.
Corbicula
Tricladida
Heptageniinae N.
Saetidae N.
Isonychia N.
Nemenea
Heptageniidae N.
Hydropsyche L.
Polypeditum scalaenism L.
Chcmarra L.
Lirceus
Amphinemura N.
Elmidae L.
Psephengs L,
Branchiura sowerbyi
Enchyiraeidae
Corydalus L.
Agapetus L.
Emprdidae L.
Turbellaria
Pristina breviseta
Limno. claparedianus
Acarina
Other species
Station
Hep 3
Number
Indiv.
11.30
33.90
0.00
0.00
0.00
11.30
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
11.30
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5
Pet.
Comp.
16,6?
50.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
16.67
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
16.67
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Station
Rep 1
Number
Indiv.
90.40
655.40
0.00
237.30
293.80
33.90
0.00
169.50
56,50
33.90
0.00
0.00
0.00
146.90
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
33.90
22.60
0.00
" 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
11.30
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
11.30
0.00
0.00
11.30
6
Pel.
Comp.
5.00
36.25
0.00
13.12
16.25
1.87
0.00
9.37
3,12
1.87
0.00
0,00
0.00
8.12
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.87
1.25
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.62
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.62
0,00
0.00
0.62
Station
Rep 2
Number
Indiv.
0,00
67.80
0.00
11,30
113.00
22.60
0,00
11.30
22.60
11.30
0.00
0,00
0,00.
0.00
0.00 .
0,00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
6
Pa.
Comp.
0,00
26.09
0.00
4.35
43.48
8.70
0.00
4.35
8.70
4.35
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0-00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
Station
Rep 3
Number
tndiv.
22.60
519,80
0.00
101.70
237.30
0.00
11,30
33.90
0,00
11.30
0.00
0,00
0,00
11.30
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
11.30
0,00
0.00
33.90
6
Pel.
Comp.
2.27
52.27
0.00
10.23
23.86
0.00
1.14
3.41
0,00
1.14
0.00
0-00
0.00
1.14
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0-00
0.00
1.14
0.00
0.00
3.41
Station
Rep 1
Number
Indiv.
0.00
158,20
0.00
33.90
22.60
56.50
0.00
11.30
0,00
11.30
11.30
0,00
000
0.00
0.00
11.30
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
11.30
33,90
0.00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0,00
22,60
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7
Pet.
Comp.
0.00
41.18
0-00
8.82
5,88
14.71
0.00
2.94.
0.00
2.94
2.94
0.00
0-00
0.00
0-00
2.94
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2-94
8,82
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
5.88
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0-00
0.00
0.00
Station 7
Rep 2
Number
Indiv.
0,00
124.30
0.00
45.20
22.60
33.90
0.00
22.60
56.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
22.60
11,30
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
11.30
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0.00
22.60
Pet.
Comp.
0.00
33.33
0.00
12.12
6.06
9.09
0.00
6.06
15.15
0,00
0.00
' 0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
6.06
3.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0,00
6.06
Station
Rep
Number
Indiv,
0.00
90.40
0.00
45.20
0.00
11.30
0,00
0.00
11.30
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
11.30
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00.
7
3
Pet.
Camp.
0.00
53,33
0.00
26.67
0.00
6,67
0,00
0.00
6.67
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0,00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
6.67
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Station Total
E-7
-------
Table E-7, {Extended)
Station 8 Station 8 Station 8
Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3
Number Pet. Number Pet. Number Pet.
Indiv. Comp. indiv. Comp. Indiv, Comp,
Imtn, Tub, w cap. chaot, 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Crlcat inmalut Gfp. L 0.00 0.00 45,20 16.00 113.00 28.57
Tutxlen tuWtx 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0,00 0.00
titim, Tub, w o cap. chaet. 0.00 0.00 56.50 20,00 Z2.60 8.71
Cttcot, bicina, Grp. L. 22.60 28.57 33.90 12.00 56.50 14.29
Choum alo psycho L 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 79,10 20.00
Nut tHUKherl 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Thienom»nnimyia Grp, L, 11.30 14,29 11.30 4.00 22.60 6.71
Limnoiitilia hoHmeisiari 0.00 0.00 33.90 12.00 11.30 2.86
Limnadnlut uttekemlinus 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 22.60 5.71
Chtumitopiyehs L 11.30 14.29 0.00 0.00 11.30 2.86
Stcnoncm* N. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00
Ca«ffiiN. o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo
Cryptoehiionomui L, 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
BltltiN 22.60 28.S7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Cwbicula 0,00 0.00 33.90 12,00 11.30 2.86
Triclltiidl 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Htptis*ntinie N. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00
Sjetidao N, 0,00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00
ItonychuN 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Nero«ftea 0.00 0,00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00
HBpUaantfdii N, 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hydroptyche I, 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.30 2.86
Potffiaititum tctlatnum L. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00
Chim*tr*L. 0.00 0,00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00
Urceul 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Amphinemura N, 0,00 0,00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00
Elmidjel. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Picpfconutl. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Bnr.chturi lowefft^ 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
EnchyiriaWsa 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11,30 2.86
CorydllutL. 0.00 0.00 22.60 8.00 22.60 5.71
AgtpelulL. 11.30 14,29 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00
EmpidldatL 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00
TmbcHxn 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Ptisbn* btevbeu 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0,00 0.00
Umno. eloarxiiinut 0,00 0.00 33.90 12.00 0.00 0,00
Acarma 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Qthar fpectas 0.00 0,00 11.30 4.00 0.00 0.00
Station Total 73.10 282.50 396.50
£-8
-------
Table E-8. Density (No./m2) of Benthic Macroinvertebrates From Replicate Samples Collected in Black Creek, Birmingham,
Alabama, February 1983
Station B2
Species
Imm, Tub. w cap. chaet.
Cricot. tremulus Qrp. L.
Tubtfex tubifex
Imm. Tub. w/o cap. chaet.
Cricot. bicinct. Grp. L.
Chironomidae P.
Nais bretscheri
Thienemannimyia Grp. L.
Limnodrilus hoffmeisterl
Limnodrilus udekemianus
Cheumatopsyche L.
Stenonema N,
Caenis N.
Cryptochironomus L.
Baetis N.
Corbicula
Tricladida
Heptageniinae N.
Baetidae N.
Isonychia N.
Nemertea
Heptageniidae N.
Hydropsyche L.
Polypedilum scalaenum L.
Chimarra L.
Lirceus
Amphinemura N.
Elmidae L.
Psephenus L.
Branchuira sowerbyi
Enchytraeidae
Corydalus L.
Agapetus L.
Empididae L.
Turbellaria
Pristina breviseta
Limno. claparedianus
Acarina
Other species
Station Total
Number
Indiv.
0.00
33.90
0.00
90.40
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
79.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
11.30
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
11.30
0.00
0.00
11.30
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
11.30
0.00
11.30
0.00
0.00
11.30
271.20
Pet.
Comp.
0.00
12.50
0.00
33.33
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
29.17
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.17
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.17
0.00
0.00
4.17
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.17
0.00
4.17
0.00
0.00
4.17
Number
Indiv.
0.00
0.00
0.00
11.30
11.30
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
11.30
11.30
0.00
0.00
11.30
0.00
0.00
11.30
0.00
0.00
11.30
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
11.30
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
11.30
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
22.60
124.30
Pet.
Comp.
0.00
0.00
0.00
9.09
9.09
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
9.09
9.09
0.00
0.00
9.09
0.00
0.00
9.09
0.00
0.00
9.09
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
9.09
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
9.09
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
18.18
Number
Indiv.
0.00
22.60
0.00
22.60
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
11.30
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
22.60
79.10
Pet.
Comp.
0.00
28.57
0.00
28.57
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
14.29
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
28.57
E-9
-------
Table E-9, Density of Benthic Macroirwertebrates in Replicate Samples From Five Mile Creek, Birmingham, Alabama, Octo-
ber 1983
Station 1 Station 2 Station 3 Station 5
Ephemeroptera
Isonychla
Baotis
Stenonema
Trlcorythodes
Pleeoptera
Louctridae
Trichoptsra
Chlmarrs
Hydropsyche
Cheumatopsychg
Hydropsychidae P.
Laucotrichia
Colooptera
Psephenus
Hallcus
Stonelmis
DublrapMa
Berosus
Megaloptera
Corydalls
Dlptora
Slmulldae
Antocha
Tlpula
Hemerodromia
Probezzia
Chlronomldae P.
Ablabcsmyia
procladius
Tanypus
Pentaneura
Dicrotandipes
Polypedilum
Cblronomus
Glyptotandipes
Cryptochimnomus
Rheotanytarsus
Tanytarsus
Corynoneura
Cflcoptopus
Psactrocladius
Trlchocladius
Micropsectra
Nanocladius
Odonata
Dromogomphus
Argia
Other
Physa
Corbicula
Ferrisslma
Planaria
Oligochaete
Nematoda
Docapoda
Lirceus
1
1,475
323
409
183
86
3,186
11
54
11
151
11
161
11
32
11
86
32
32
2
1,163
527
388
11
11
22
1,270
75
118
11
183
43
22
11
65
108
215
43
22
22
11
11
22
3
527
226
366
11
32
893
97
97
22
65
97
43
11
118
108
22
32
11
Mean
1,055
359
388
4
4
65
47
1,783
4
57
90
14
133
4
100
4
22
4
36
80
136
14
14
7
4
11
11
7
18
1 2 3 Mean 1 2 3 Mean 1 2 3 Mean
11 11 7
11 4 11 4
43 54 32 22 7
22 43 22
11 4 11 4
32 11 97 97 75 90 172 75 54 100
75 183 172 144 151 32 97 93
32 129 237 133 11 22 11
11 4
11 4
11 4 32 54
29
11 108 39 54 22 22 32
183 118 86 129 161 215 323 233 86 29
11 22 11 151 11 54 72
22 7 54 75 32 54 32 11 22 22
86 66 50
1 4
22 7 97 151 151 133 11 4
11 4
75 344 140 581 1,162 463 736 603 592 538 578
11 4
11 4 22 7
11 4
£-70
-------
ible E-9. (Continued)
ihemeroptera
Isonychla
Baetis
Stenonema
Tricorythodes
scoptera
Leuctridae
ichoptera
Chimarra
Hydropsyche
Cheumatopsyche
Hydropsychidae P.
Leycotrichia
leoptera
°sephenus
Heticus
Steneltnis
Jubiraphia
3erosus
igaloptera
lorydalis
Jtera
Simulidae
\ntocha
r/pote
•lemerodromia
*robezz/a
"Mronomidae P.
\btabesmyia
^rocladius
^anypus
'entaneura
)icrotendipes
'olypedilum
".hironomus
jlyptofendipes
".ryptochironom us
"ribelos
Iheotanytarsus
"anytarsus
'orynoneura
'ricoptopus
'sectrocladius
'richocladius
Hcrospectra
lanocladius
jnata
'romogomphus
rgia
er
hysa
orbicula
srrissima
lanaria
ligochaete
ematoda
ecapoda
'rceus
1
140
11
75
248
1
22
11
54
355
140
1,033
54
54
11
86
2,110
65
75
11
118
Station 6
2
118
32
22
226
11
54
11
205
75
936
22
11
75
86
22
11
1,765
65
11
140
22
-43
3
22
11
11
22
11
32
86
280
11
452
22
11
108
32
560
97
22
355
Station 7
Mean 1 2
93 1,001 560
18 11 22
36
11
158 409 54
4
4
7 32
29
25 75
22
11
215 151 301
165 22
4
807 43 32
32 22
7
79
32 43 151
47 474 431
4
1,478 1,152 1,733
54 65 11
22 22
47.
14 22
205 54 11
7
11
14
3
258
108
32
32
75
11
355
366
11
32
22
65
11
323
398
1,238
22
11
43
140
Mean
606
11
36
4
165
22
50
11
269
129
4
11
32
29
4
172
434
1,374
32
18
32
22
68
7
Station 8
1 2 3 Mean
1,528 2,207 3,251 2,329
301 538 732 524
592 1,442 538 858
11 4
22 592 1,066 560
11 44 18
22 11 11
32 43 25
22 22 14
32 32 22 28
11 54 11 25
11 32 14
32 22 161 72
11 4
43 43 22 36
22 7
11
11 4
86 377 4,370 1,611
54 18
65 43 54 54
11 4
Station 9
1
161
452
11
43
11
22
32
258
463
11
108
248
710
1,808
65
22
464
22
258
11
2
32
1,195
183
75
474
43
54
118
118
118
11
161
1
1,324
11
1
22
1,389
65
11
3
172
883
312
377
689
129
65
65
172
151
32
323
32
1,259
657
151
Mean
68
692
219
176
126
391
43
50
18
65
104
11
176
169
4
36
244
248
4
1,464
22
4
4
14
836
7
158
7
£-11
-------
Table E-10. Density (No./m2) of Benthic Macroinvertebrates From Replicate Samples of the Tributaries to Five Mile Creek,
Birmingham, Alabama, October 1983
Head Waters (FO) Barton Branch (B1) Tarrant Creek (T1)
1 2
Ephemeroptera
Isonychla 32 1 1
Baetis 592 732
Stanonema 129 140
Caonis 22 22
Trtcorythodes 22 32
Total
Plecoptera
Louctridae
Trichoptera
Chimarra
Hydropsycha 43 43
Cheumatopsyche 366
Hydropsychidae P. 1 1
Leucotrichia
Anagopetus
Total
Coleoptera
Psephenus 1 1
Helicus 1 1
Stenalmis 22 43
Dubiraphia
Serosus 22 118
Pattodytes
Laccobius
Total
Megaloptera
Corydalis
Diptera
Limnophora
SImulidae
Antocha
Jipula
Hemerodromia
Probe&ia
Chironomidae P. 11
AUabesmyia 75 32
Pmctadius
Tanypus
Pantaneura
Dlcrotendipes 1 1
Potypedilum 22
Chtronomus
Glyptotendlpes
Cryptochironomus 1 1
Trlbalos
Rheotunytarsus
Tanytarsus 1
Corynoneura
Cricoplopus 54 32
Psectrocladius 32
Trichoctadius
Micropsectra
Nanocladius
Total
3 Mean
97 47
2,293 1,206
237 169
43 29
43 32
1,483
151 93
1,195 520
11 7
620
4
4
11 25
151 97
130
22 11
97 68
4
7
4
11 7
97 61
11
173
1
32
97
43
172
22
11
161
22
11
54
11
22
11
54
291
420
108
22
194
118
1,109
54
151
2
11
108
11
118
22
11
172
22
11
11
11
11
11
366
549
194
140
495
1,119
86
54
3
22
75
108
75
11
65
22
11
11
43
11
22
65
226
581
118
11
97
624
893
118
65
Mean
22
93
54
122
18
309
7
133
7
147
11
14
36
4
14
79
14
4
43
298
517
140
11
.
144
413
1,041
86
90
2,787
1 2 3 Mean
1,033 969 420 807
807
75 32 36
54 1,281 151 495
108 54 54
32 11
596
11 32 14
14
22 75 32 43
75 86 32 65
86 161 65 104
22 7
75 11 32 39
1,022 291 151 488
746
E-12
-------
Table E-10, (Continued)
Head Waters (FO)
Barton Branch (B1)
Tarrant Creek (T1)
Odonata
Dromogomphus
Boyeria
Argia
Hetaerina
Other
Physa
Corbicula
Ferrissima
Planaria
Oligochaete
Nematoda
Decapoda
Lirceus
Hyalella
1 2 3 Mean 1 2 3 Mean
11 11 7 65 22
11 4
22 11 11
420 280 291 330
32 43 25 312 237 603 384
11 11 22 14
323 549 183 352
1 2 3 Mean
11 4
388 549 22 319
54 301 388 248
11 4
398 452 258 370
Table E-11. Occurrence of Benthic Macroinvertebrates of Five Mite Creek From Quantitative and Qualitative Samples,
October 1983
Sampling Station
Taxa
Ephemeroptera
Isonychia
Baetis
Stenonema
Caenis
Tricorythodes
Plecoptera
Leuctridae
Trichoptera
Chimarra
Hydropsyche
Cheumatopsyche
Hydropsychidae pupae
Leucotrichia
Anogapetus
Coleoptera
Psephenus
Helicus
Stenelmis
Dubiraphia
Berosus
Peltodytes
Laccobius
Megaloptera
Corydalis
Diptera
Limnophora
Simuliidae
Antocha
Tipula
Hemerodromia
Probezzia
Chironomidae pupae
Ablabesmyia
Procladius
Tanypus
Pentaneura
Dicrotendipes
Polypedilum
Chironomus
Glyptotendipes
Cryptochironomus
1
X
X
X
0
o
o
o
X
o
o
X
o
X
0
o
o
o
o
X
o
2356
X
X
o
X
X O
o
0
o
X O O
X X
X
o
o o
X
O X X X
X O O X
o o
0 X
o
o o o
o o o
o
0
789
X
XXX
XXX
X
XXX
O X X
XXX
X
X O O
O X X
X O
o
XXX
X
o
XXX
X X O
O X O
o
o
XXX
X
o
FO
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
o
o
X
X
X
X
X
o
o
o
o
o
B1
o
X
X
X
o
X
0
X
X
o
o
X
X
X
o
0
X
X
0
0
X
T1
X
X
X
X
X
o
o
X
X
X
X
X
X
0
X
E-13
-------
Table E-11. (Continued)
Taxa
Tribelos
Rheotanytarsus
Tanytarsus
Corynoneura
Crlcotopus
Psectrocladius
Trichocladius
Micropsectra
Nanocladius
Odonata
Dromogompbus
Boyeria
Argla
Hetaerina
Oligochaeto
Miscellaneous
Physa
Corbicula
Ferrissia
Tricladida
Nematoda
Dccapoda
Llrceus
Hyatatla
Total No, Taxa'*'
w Qua),
Community Loss Index
(Qual. Si Quant.)
'•'Multiple life stages, higher
1
X
o
X
X
o
o
o
o
X
26
2
X
X
X
o
o
o
o
o
o
12
1.33
taxonomic levels,
3
X
o
o
X
o
o
o
15
1.27
Sampling Station
5 6 7 8 9 FO B1
X
XXX
0 X X X 0 X
O X O
O X X O X O X
O X O O O
o
o
o o
X O
X
O X O X O
X X
X X X X O O X
X X X O O
X XX
O X X X O O
X X
o o o o
XXX
OX XX
11 27 26 23 25 24 29
2.00 0.33 0.46 0.52 0.40 0.42 0.24
T1
X
X
X
o
X
X
o
X
X
20
0.60
Oligochaeta and Nematoda not included in number of taxa.
Note: o = presence of species in quantitative samples
only.
x » presence of species in qualitative samples (may include quantitative samples).
Tablo E-12. Community
brates From
Data
for Benthio
Macroinverte-
Tributaries to Five Mile
Creek,
October 1983
Parameter
Total Densities (No..m2)
Total No, Taxa<»!
Community Loss lndexlb|
Diversity Index1*1
Evenness
Redundancy
FO
2,768
20
0.60
2.75
0.61
0.40
Sampling
B1
4,123
28
0.29
3.68
0.74
0.26
Station
T1
3,108
13
1.31
3.07
0.75
0.25
B2
473
18
1.73
3.54
0.85
0.17
'•'Multiple life stages, higher taxonomic levels, Oligochaeta,
and Nematoda not included in number of taxa.
•""'Calculated using Station 1 as reference station.
tclCalcuIated on log base 2.
£-14
-------
Table E-13. Qualitative Sampling of Benthic Macroinvertebrates From Five Mile Creek, Birmingham, Alabama, October 1983
Sampling Station
Ephemeroptera
Isonychia
Baetis
Stenonema
Caenis
Tricorythodes
Trichoptera
Hydropsyche
Cheumatopsyche
Hydropsychidae pupae
Leucotrichia
Coleoptera
Psephenus
Stenelmis
Dubiraphia
Berosus
Peltodytes
Megaloptera
Corydalis
Diptera
Hemerodromia
Probezzia
Chironomidae pupae
Ablabesmyia
Procladius
Tanypus
Dicrotendipes
Polypedilum
Rheotanytarsus
Tanytarsus
Corynoneura
Cricotopus
Psectrocladius
Odonata
Dromogomphus
Boyeria
Argia
Hetaerina
Other
Physa
Corbicu/a
Ferrissia
Planaria
Oligochaete
Decapoda
Lirceus
123567
7 3
11 1 114
17 1
1 7
1
6 26
1
1
10 1
4 2
6
8
1
1
1 3 1 14 10
9 1 2
1
10
1
10 4 1
17
121 26 7
1
43 9
3
1 1 1
1
2 1
1
17233
1 1
1 1
8
193
115
1
90
1
53
1
20
13
3
5
4
2
2
6
2
2
2
218
2
5
1
9
6
13
6
2
14
1
1
1
2
3
1
2
2
52
F-/5
-------
Tablo E-14.
Qualitative Sampling of Benthic Macroinver-
tebrates From Tributaries to Five Mile Creek,
Birmingham, Alabama, October 1983
Station
FO
B1
T1
Ephemoroptera
tsonychia
Baotls
Stenonema
Caenis
Trlcorythodes
Trichoplera
Chlmarra
Hydropsyche
Cheumatopsyche
Leucotrichia
Coleoptera
Holicus
Stanelmis
Dubiraphia
Boro$us
Laccobius
Mogaloptera
Corydalis
Diptora
Simuiiidae
Antocha
Chironomidae pupae
Abtabesmyia
Dicrotendipas
Tanytarsus
Crlcotopus
Nanocladius
Odonata
Argia
Hotasrina
Other
Planaria
Oligochaete
Lirceus
Hyatella
7
126
39
3
5
12
33
1
2
36
1
1
2
1
11
1
4
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
5
2
1
31
1
96
1
1
12
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
6
1
10
10
61
2
Table E-15, Synopsis of Benthic Invertebrate Data From Five Mile Creek, Birmingham, Alabama, October 1983 (No./m2)
Station
Parameters
FO
B1
T1
Density organisms
No, taxa
Density mayflies
Percent mayflies
Density caddisflies
Percent caddisflies
Density chironomids
No, chironomids genera
Percent chironomids
No, oligochaoies
Percent oligochaetes
No, Corbicula
Percent Corbicula
Taxa in qual. only
Total toxa
Additional chironomid
taxa from qual.
4,475
28
1,806
40.36
1,956
43.71
280
4
6,26
7
0.16
4
0.09
1
29
1
361
12
7
1.94
4
1.11
140
1
38.78
140
38.78
4
1.11
1
13
1
1,671
16
4
0.24
654
6
39.14
736
44.05
3
19
978
11
374
8
38.24
578
59.10
1
12
3,598
26
147
4.09
162
4.50
2,922
11
81.21
205
5.70
47
1.31
2
29
3,521
23
653
18.55
169
4.80
2,508
11
71.23
68
1.93
5
28
1
6,220
20
3,711
59.66
582
9.36
193
6
3.10
54
0.88
1,611
25,90
6
26
1
5,380
27
1,155
21.47
560
10.41
2,391
9
44.44
158
2.94
836
15.54
0
27
2,768
22
1,483
53.58
620
22.40
162
7
5.85
25
0.90
4
26
4,132
30
309
7.49
147
3.56
2,740
8
66.46
384
9.29
1
31
3,108
16
807
25.97
596
19.18
638
4
20.53
248
7.98
7
23
2
£-16
-------
Table E-16. Analysis of Variance and Tukey's Studentized Range Test Results for Major Groups of Benthic Macroinverte-
brates. Five Mile Creek, February 1983
Chironomidae
Dependent Variable:
Source
Model
Error
Corrected total
Station
(mean In count)
Dependent Variable:
Source
Model
Error
Corrected total
Station
(mean In count)
Dependent Variable:
Source
Model
Error
Corrected total
Station
(mean In count)
Dependent Variable:
Source
Model
Error
Corrected total
Station
{mean In count)
In count
df
7
16
23
6
(4.0)
4n count
df
7
16
23
1
(2.6)
In count
df
7
16
23
4
(4.5)
In count
df
7
16
23
1
(2.4)
Sum of Mean
Squares Square
25.07 3.58
10.37 0.65
35.44
Tukey's Studentized Range Test
3748
(3.0) (2.9) (2.7) (2.3)
Ephemeroptera
Sum of Mean
Squares Square
22.57 3.22
2.39 0.15
24.96
Tukey's Studentized Range Test
3248
(1.9) (1.5) (0.4) (0.4)
Oligochaeta
Sum of Mean
Squares Square
36.31 5.19
19.77 1.24
56.08
Tukey's Studentized Range Test
6375
(2.7) (2.1) (2.0) (2.0)
Trichoptera
Sum of Mean
Squares Square
14.69 2.10
2.77 0.17
17.45
Tukey's Studentized Range Test
7862
(1.0) (0.7) (0.5) (0)
F Value PR > F
5.52 0.0023
5 1 2
(2.0) (1.0) (0.7)
F Value PR > F
21.58 0.0001
675
(0) (0) (0)
F Value PR > F
4.20 0.0083
8 2 1
(1.5) (1.1) (0)
F Value PR > F
12.14 0.0001
345
(0) (0) (0)
E-17
-------
Table E-17. Analysis of Variance and Tukey's Studentized Range Test Results for Key Species of Benthic Macroinvertebrates,
Five Mile Creek, February 1983
Cricotopus tremulus
Dependent Variable: In count
Source
Model
Error
Corrected total
Station
(mean In count)
df
7
16
23
6
(36.7)
Sum of
Squares
22.87
10.56
33.43
Tukey's Studentized
3 4
(15.7) (12.3)
Mean
Square
3.27
0.66
Range Test
7 5
(11.0) (5.0)
F Value
4.95
8
(4.7)
PR>F
0.0039
2 1
(1.7) (0.7)
Tubifex tubifex
Dependent Variable: in count
Source
Model
Error
Corrected total
Station
(mean In count)
df
7
16
23
4
(4.0)
Sum of
Squares
41.13
21.27
62.40
Tukey's Studentized
5 6
(1.7) (1.1)
Mean
Square
5.88
1.33
Range Test
3 1
(0.5) (0)
F Value PR > F
4.42 0.0066
278
(0) (0) (0)
£-18
-------
Table E-18, Abundance Statistics for
Taxa Station
Ephemeroptera
(mayflies)
Trichoptera
(caddisflies)
Chironomidae
(midges)
Oligochaeta
(worms)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Major Benthic
Mean
161.97
41.43
71.57
7.53
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.53
128.07
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
11.30
18.83
15.07
26.37
30.13
233.53
195.87
82.87
791.00
203.40
131.83
0,00
33.90
79.10
2,041.53
188.33
218.47
75.33
67.80
Taxa, Five Mile Creek,
Standard
Deviation
94.77
6.52
13.05
13.05
0.00
0.00
0.00
13.05
76.92
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
19.57
6.52
13.05
28.44
52.19
66.21
154.25
47.05
560.12
92.49
123.96
0.00
40.74
22.60
1,865.88
287.28
202.25
23.52
67.80
February 1983
Standard
Error
54.71
3.77
7.53
7.53
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.53
44.41
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
11.30
3.77
7.53
16.42
30.13
38.23
89.06
27.16
323.39
53.40
71.57
0.00
23.52
13.05
1,077.27
165.86
116,77
13.58
39.14
95% Confidence
Lower C.I.
-73.47
25.23
-24.88
-24.88
0.00
0.00
0.00
-24.88
-63.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-37.32
2.63
-17.35
-44.28
-99.53
69,04
-187.34
-34.01
-600.53
-26,39
-176.12
0,00
-67.32
22.95
-2,593.9
-525.37
-283.98
16.89
-100,64
Interval
Upper C.I.
397.40
57,64
39.95
39.95
0.00
0.00
0.00
39.95
319.16
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
59.92
35.04
47.48
97.02
159.80
398.03
579.07
199.74
2,182.53
433.19
439.78
0.00
135.12
135.25
6,677.01
902.04
720.91
133.77
236.24
£-19
-------
Tablo E-19, Abundance Statistics
Taxa Station
Ephemeroptera
(mayflies)
Trichoptera
(caddisflies)
Chironomidae
(midges)
Oligochaeta
(worms)
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
for Major Benthic
Mean
1,805.00
7.33
0.00
0.00
147.33
653.33
3,709.67
1,155.00
1,955.33
3.67
3.67
0.00
161.67
168.67
582.00
560.00
280.33
139.67
653.00
356.00
2,925,00
2,509.67
194.33
2,368.00
7.33
139.67
735.33
577.67
204.33
68,33
54.00
158.00
Taxa, Five Mile Creek,
Standard
Deviation
588.11
6.35
0.00
0.00
93.47
328.85
1,128.44
473.08
1,320.33
6.35
6.35
0.00
140.12
217.94
519.56
596.67
163.05
67.17
280.57
177.49
1,150.90
454.88
78.21
1,131.30
6.35
180.89
374.18
34.79
130.94
65.68
11.00
96.69
October 1983
Standard
Error
339.55
3.67
0.00
0.00
53.97
189.86
651.51
273.13
762.29
3.67
3.67
0.00
80.90
125.83
299.97
344.49
94.14
38.78
161.98
102.47
664.47
262.63
45.16
653.16
3.67
104.44
216.04
20.09
75.60
37.92
6.35
55.82
95% Confidence
Lower C.I.
343.92
-8.44
0,00
0.00
-84.89
-163.65
906.23
-20.29
-1,324.8
-12.11
-12.11
0.00
-186.43
-372.77
-708.76
-922.32
-124.74
-27.22
-44.02
-84.93
65.78
1,379.59
0.02
-442.53
-8.44
-309.72
-194.27
491.24
-120.98
-94.85
26.67
-82.21
Interval
Upper C.I.
3,266.08
23.11
0,00
0.00
379.55
1,470.32
6,513.10
2,330.29
5,235.48
19.44
19.44
0.00
509.76
710.10
1,872.76
2,042.32
685.40
306.55
1,350.02
796,93
5,784.22
3,639.74
388.64
5,178,53
23.11
589.05
1,664.94
664.10
529.64
231.51
81.33
398.21
£-20
-------
Table E-20. Analysis of Variance and Tukey's Studentized Range Test Results for Major Groups of Benthic Macroinverte-
brates, Five Mile Creek, October 1983
Chironomidae
Dependent Variable:
Source
Model
Error
Corrected total
Station
(mean In count)
In count
df
7
16
23
6
(5.5)
Sum of
Squares
31,21
3.03
34,24
Tukey's Studentized
7 9
(5.4) (5.3)
Mean
Square
4.46
0.19
Range Test
3 5
(4.1) (3.5)
F Value PR > F
23,53 0.0001
1 8 2
(3.2) (2.9) (2.6)
Ephemeroptera
Dependent Variable:
Source
Model
Error
Corrected total
Station
(mean In count)
In count
df
7
16
23
8
(5.8)
Sum of
Squares
120.93
3.04
123.97
Tukey's Studentized
1 9
(5.1) (4.6)
Mean
Square
17,28
0.19
Range Test
7 6
(4.0) (2.5)
F Value PR > F
91.02 0.0001
23 5
(0.5) (0) (0)
Oligochaeta
Dependent Variable:
Source
Model
Error
Corrected total
Station
(mean In count)
In count
df
7
16
23
3
(4.2)
Sum of
Squares
32.53
10.37
42.91
Tukey's Studentized
5 6
(4.0) (2.9)
Mean
Square
4,65
0.65
Range Test
9 2
(2.6) (1.9)
F Value PR > F
7.17 0.0006
8 71
(1.8) (1.7) (0,5)
Trichoptera
Dependent Variable:
Source
Model
Error
Corrected total
Station
(mean In count)
In count
df
7
16
23
1
(5.1)
Sum of
Squares
68.28
26.02
94.30
Tukey's Studentized
8 9
(3.4) (3.1)
Mean
Square
9.75
1,63
Range Test
7 6
(2,3) (2.1)
F Value PR > F
6.00 0.0015
325
(0.2) (0.2) (0)
£-27
-------
Table E-20. (Continued)
Dependent Variable: In count
Source
Model
Error
Corrected total
Station
(mean)
df
7
16
23
6
(19,0)
Tnblo E-21. Analysis of Variance and
Five Mile Creek, October
Dependent Variable: In count
Source
Model
Error
Corrected total
Station
(mean In count)
df
7
16
23
3
0.8)
Benthic Number
Sum of
Squares
535.62
105.33
640.96
Tukey's Studentized
1 9
(18,3) (17,7)
of Taxa
Mean
Square
76.52
6.58
Range Test
7
(16.0)
Tukey's Studentized Range Test Results for
1983
Argia spp
Sum of
Squares
7.21
4.18
11.39
Tukey's Studentized
5 9
(1.1) (0.7)
Mean
Square
1.03
0.26
Range Test
7
(0.5)
F Value PR > F
11,62 0.0001
8352
(14.7) (10.3) (7.7) (6.0)
Key Species of Benthic Macroinvertebrates,
F Value PR > F
3.94 0.0109
2186
(0,4) (0.4) (0) (0)
Baetis spp.
Dependent Variable: In count
Source
Model
Error
Corrected total
Station
(mean In count)
df
7
16
23
8
(5.3)
Sum of
Squares
88.81
16.91
105.71
Tukey's Studentized
7 1
(3.9) (3.5)
Mean
Square
12.69
1.06
Range Test
9
(3.0)
F Value PR > F
12.01 0.0001
6352
(2.1) (0) (0) (0)
Corbicula spp.
Dependent Variable: In count
Source
Model
Error
Corrected total
df
7
16
23
Sum of
Squares
69.02
11.40
80.42
Mean
Square
9.86
0.71
F Value PR > F
13.84 0.0001
£-22
-------
Table E-21. (Continued)
Tukey's Studentized Range Test
Station
(mean In count)
Dependent Variable: In count
9
(4.3)
8
(3.9)
6
(1.3)
2
(0.2)
1
S0.2)
3
(0)
7
(0)
5
(0)
Station
(mean In count)
9
(4.9)
Cricotopus spp.
Source
Model
Error
Corrected total
df
7
16
23
Sum of
Squares
69.08
5.83
74.91
Mean
Square
9.87
0.36
F Value
27.08
PR>F
0.0001
Tukey's Studentized Range Test
7
(4.8)
6
(4.8)
3
(3.1)
2
(2.5)
8
(1.4)
5
(0.7)
1
(0.7)
Table E-22. List of Fish Species and Families Collected From Five Mile Creek, Birmingham, Alabama, February 1983
Family Scientific Name Common Name
Cyprinidae
(minnow)
Castostomidae
(sucker)
Poeciliidae
(livebearers)
Centrarchidae
(sunfish)
Notemigonus crysoleucas
Semotilis atromaculatus
Campostoma anomalum
Notropis chrysocephalus
N. venustus
Hypentelium etowanum
Moxostoma duquesnei
Gambusia affinis
Lepomis cyanellus
L. macrochirus
L. megalotis
L. micmlophus
Micropterus punctulatus
Lepomis x Lepomis
Golden shiner
Creek chub
Stoneroller
Striped shiner
Blacktail shiner
Alabama hog sucker
Black redhorse
Mosquitofish
Green sunfish
Bluegill
Longear sunfish
Redear sunfish
Spotted bass
Hybrid sunfish
Percidae
(perches!
Cottidae
(sculpins)
Percina nigrofasciata
Cottus carolinae
Blackbanded darter
Banded sculpin
£-23
-------
Table E-23. Numbers of Fish Collected From Black Creek
Near Birmingham, Alabama, February 1983
Species Station B2
Golden shiner
Creek chub
Blacktail shiner
Mosquitofish
Groan sunfish
Bluogill
Hybrid sunfish
Total number of fish
Total fish species
1
5
20
5
26
1
59
7
Table E-24. Shannon-Wiener Diversity Indices, Associated Evenness and Redundancy Values, and Community Loss Index for
Fish Data From Black Creek, February 1983
Station
B2
Diversity !al
1.9733
Evenness
0,7029
Redundancy
0.3015
Number of
Species
7
Number of
Individuals'"1
157
Community
Loss
lndex(c)
0.7143
'•^Calculated on a log base 2,
iblAbundance in number per 1,037.3 m2 (sampling area).
''•Calculated using Station 1 as a reference station.
Table E-2S. Numbers of Fish Collected From Tributaries to
Five Mile Creek, Birmingham, Alabama,
October 1983
Sampling Station
Species
Stoneroller
Creek chub
Alabama hog sucker
Mosquitofish
Spotted bass
Largemouth bass
Green sunfish
Longear sunfish
Hybrid sunfish
Sunfish sp.
Rcdfin darter
Banded sculpin
Total number of fish
Total fish species
FO
101
1
4
4
7
1
1
1
2
122
8
T1
254
21
1
1
48
325
4
B1
220
10
8
4
19
1
3
27
292
8
E-24
-------
Table E-26. List of Fish Species and Families Collected From Five Mile Creek and Tributaries, Birmingham, Alabama, October
1983
Family
Cyprinidae
(minnows)
Catostomidae
(suckers)
Ictaluridae
(catfishes)
Cyprinodontidae
(kiliifishes)
Poeciliidae
(livebearers)
Centra rchidae
(sunfishes)
Percidae
(perches)
Cottidae
(sculpins)
Scientific Name
Campostoma anoma/um
Semotitus atromacuiaws
Notropis chrysocephalus
Notropis venustus
Pimephales vigilax
Hypentelium etowanum
Moxostoma duquesnei
Ictalurus punctatus
Fundulus olivaceus
Gambusia affinis
Micropterus punctulatus
Micropterus salmoides
Lepomis cyanellus
Lepomis megalotis
Lepomis macrochirus
Etheostoma whippiei
Cottus carolinae
Common Name
Stoneroller
Creek chub
Striped shiner
Blacktail shiner
Bullhead minnow
Alabama hog sucker
Black redhorse
Channel catfish
Blackspotted topminnow
Mosquitofish
Spotted bass
Largemouth bass
Green sunfish
Longear sunfish
Bluegill
Redfin darter
Banded sculpin
Table E-27. Mean Densities (No./liter) of Plankton From
Tributaries to Five Mile Creek, Birmingham.
Alabama, October 1983
Organisms FO
Crustaceans
Copepods
Nauplii 0,09
Cladocerans 0.09
Rotifers
Large Braehionidae 4.05
Small Braehionidae 0.64
Philodina
Algae
Desmids 1 .64
Pediastrum 9,72
Ceratium 0.73
Solitary diatoms 6,397
Filamentous green 1.36
Other
Chironomidae
Nematoda
Tardigrade 0.54
Total organisms
minus algae 6.87
Total crustaceans 0.18
Total rotifers 5.74
B1 T1
0.04
0.07
0.04
1.90 0.53
0.47
1.05 0.07
0.76 0,08
0.65 0.61
2,066 359
1.57
0.16
0.34
3.02 0.60
0.08 0.07
2.44 0.53
£-25
-------
Tabla E-28. Mean Densities (No./liter) of Plankton From Five Mile Creek, Birmingham, Alabama, October 1983
Sampling Station
Organisms
Crustaceans'*5
Copepods
Nauplii
Cladocerans
Rotifers*'
Ploima
Flosculariacea
Bdoiloida
Algae
Dosmids
Patiiestrum
Ceratium
Staurastrum
Solitary diatoms
Filamentous diatoms
Filamentous green
Other
Chironomidae
Nomatoda
Tardiagrada
Total organisms
minus algae
Total crustaceans
Total rotifers
1
0.15
1.27
0.02
1.00
0.12
298,60
1.93
0.27
0.08
0.04
1.83
0.15
1.29
2
0.02
0.05
0.02
2.17
0.12
0.36
1.87
0.05
272.16
2.84
0.02
0.04
2.44
0.09
2.29
3
0.17
1.18
0.40
4.69
0.05
0.54
1.75
8,69
1.07
406.44
6.25
0.33
7.36
1.75
5.28
5
0.09
1.39
0.40
36.96
0.62
1.67
1.49
0.23
218.67
2.27
39.64
1.88
37.58
6
0.12
4.58
1.73
44.46
0.12
0.24
2.96
4.14
1,606
12.33
0.06
51.31
6.43
44.82
7
2.30
0.14
45.65
1.51
2.14
1.90
128.1
0.11
0.18
50.22
2.44
47.16
8
0.17
0.11
0.40
0.10
0.29
0.46
24.48
0.78
0.28
0.50
9
0.18
13.37
2.23
0.68
235.3
360.9
0.39
0.04
13.98
0.18
13.37
"'Species identifications of crustaceans are listed in Table 13-1.
!b'Species identifications of rotifers are listed in Tables 13-1 and E-29.
Station 1 Station 2
Taxa
Brachionus angularis
B. calyciflorus
B. urceolaris
Euchlanis
Kelttconia longispina
Keratetla sp.
Keratalla cochlearis
var. hlsplda
Macrochaotus sp.
Mytitlna sp.
Platyas quodricornis
Trichotria sp.
Lopadella sp.
Lecane sp.
Monastyla bulls
Proales sp.
Cephalodella sp.
Trichocerca sp.
Ascomorpha sp.
Asplanchna sp.
Filinla sp.
Testudinella sp.
Philodinidae
Total Taxa
Rep. 1
0.48
0.05
0.79
0.02
0.02
0.15
0.08
0.08
0.13
9
Rep. 2 Rep. 1
0.34
0.34 1.47
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.05 0.19
0.08
0.03
0.03
4 7
Rep. 2
0.21
1.32
0.01
0.03
0.03
0.22
0.18
0.30
0.19
0.04
0.22
10
Station 3
Rep. 1
0.40
1.60
1.66
0.10
0.37
0.07
0.20
0.23
0.86
0.10
0.53
11
Rep. 2
0.32
1.30
0.87
0.25
0,04
0.32
0.18
0.61
0.54
9
Station 5
Rep. 1
29.89
10.31
0.18
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.53
0.53
0.18
1.24
10
Rep. 2
22.3
6.03
1.10
0.18
0.18
0.55
0.55
0.36
8
Station 6
Rep. 1
22.92
12.65
5.01
0.24
0.24
0.24
1.90
1.19
0.24
0.24
10
Rep. 2
23.28
13.16
5.06
1.26
0.25
1.01
0.50
0.25
8
Station 7
Rep. 1
0.85
0.42
0.28
0.14
0.71
28.22
13.75
0.14
0.28
0.14
0,99
11
Rep. 2
2.71
0.27
0.14
1.36
20.47
20.88
0.54
'2,03
8
E-26
-------
Table E-29. {Extended}
Station 8
Taxa Rep. 1 Rep. 2
Brachionus angularis 0.1 1
B. calyciflorus
B. urceotaris
Euchlanis 0.11 0.04
Kellicottia longispina
Kerate/la sp.
Keratella cochlearis
var. hispida
Macrochaetus sp.
Mytilina sp.
Platyas quadricornis
Trichotria sp.
Lepadella sp. 0.04
Lecane sp.
Monastyla bulla 0.31 0.15
Proales sp.
Cephalodella sp. 0.04
Trichocerca sp.
Ascomorpha sp.
Asplanchna sp.
Filinia sp.
Testudinella sp.
Philodinidae 0.15 0.04
Total Taxa 6 3
Table E-30. Presence of Crustacean
Station 1
Taxa Rep. 1 Rep. 2
Cyclopoid copepod
Bosmina longirostis
Oxyurella tennicardis
Alona guttata or
A. reticulata
Moina micrura
Streblocerus
serricandatus
Total Taxa 0 0
Table E-30. (Extended)
Station 8
Taxa Rep. 1 Rep. 2
Cyclopoid copepod
Bosmina longirostis
Oxyurella tennicardis X
Alona guttata or
A. reticulata
Moina micrura
Streblocerus
serricandatus X
Total 2 0
Station 9 Station FO Station B1 Station T1
Rep. 1 Rep. 2 Rep. 1 Rep. 2 Rep. 1 Rep. 2 Rep. 1 Rep. 2
0.06 0.15
13.06 13.18 3.68 2.49 3.45 2.58 0.38 0,66
0.09
0.06
0.07
0,09 0.21
0.14 0.15 1.03 0.77 0.34 0.37
0.07 1.21 0.77 0.49 0.95
0.58 0.18 0.20 0,63 0.15
0.07
0.36 0.37 0.34 0.16
0.04 0.15 0.34
0.04 0.21
0.02
2.38 1.51 0.02 0.26
5 1
Taxa in Five Mile Creek and Tributaries, Birmingham, Alabama, October 1983
Station 2 Station 3 Station 5 Station 6 Station 7
Rep. 1 Rep. 2 Rep. 1 Rep. 2 Rep. 1 Rep. 2 Rep. 1 Rep. 2 Rep. 1 Rep. 2
XXXXXXXXXX
X
X X
XXX j X X X X X
X X X X X
XX X
1 244234423
Station 9 Station FO Station B1 Station T1
Rep. 1 Rep. 2 Rep. 1 Rep. 2 Rep. 1 Rep. 2 Rep. 1 Rep. 2 Total
XX 12
1
3
8
4
4
1 1 33
£-27
-------