EPA/600/R-97/009
June 1997
Evaluation of Low Order Stream Quality in
Central Iowa
by
John W. Arthur,1 Thomas Roush,2 Jo A.Thompson,1
Charles T. Walbridge,1 and Frank A. Puglisi1
1 Mid-Continent Ecology Division
Duluth, MN 55804
2Gulf Ecology Division
Gulf Breeze, FL 32561
Mid-Continent Ecology Division
National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Duluth, MN 55804
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
Disclaimer
This document has been reviewed by the National Health and Environmental Effects Research
Laboratory's Mid-Continent Ecology Division-Duluth, and approved for publication. The mention of
trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendations for use.
-------
Preface
The Federal Clean Water Act has requested that procedures be developed to protect fish, wild-
life, and water quality and provide definitions for biological integrity. The purpose of this research is
to perform laboratory and field procedures to define the biotic quality of low order streams in Central
Iowa where the land use is primarily agricultural. Past studies have largely relied on individual ap-
proaches such as chemical-specific, toxicological, or biosurvey methods. An integrated approach is
needed to achieve a more holistic appraisal of watershed quality and represent an application of
integrated physical, chemical, and biological procedures.
in
-------
Abstract
Identifying descriptors to characterize watershed quality involves identifying, quantifying, and
associating multiple physical and chemical stressors with biological responses. This research de-
scribes procedures and results obtained to evaluate the baseline (existing) watershed quality in the
low order streams in a tri-county area in central Iowa. The five streams evaluated were located in the
Upper Skunk River Basin. Field work was conducted over a three-year period from 1992 to 1994,
and sampling conducted at 12 locations. The field procedures used physical (habitat), chemical
(surface and sediment pore water quality), toxicological (daphnid and algal bioassays), and biologi-
cal (macrolnvertebrates and fish) techniques. Habitat quality was the highest in the larger drainages.
Non-farmed streamside vegetative buffers were greater at the larger drainage sites. Significant as-
sociations were found among the macroinvertebrate community indices, surface and sediment pore
water quality and drainage area. Correlations were also found between habitat quality and the bio-
togteal community indices. Few associations were found when comparing the fish community re-
sults with the physical/chemical watershed components. Based on our measurements, lowest wa-
tershed quality was present in the upper drainage reaches. This study found that elevated concen-
trations of sediments and nutrients were associated with degraded biological communities found in
low order agricultural streams.
IV
-------
Content
Preface , iii
Abstract iv
tables vi
Figures vii
List of Selected Abbreviations and Symbols viii
Acknowledgments ix
1. Introduction 1
1.1 Background Information 1
1.2 Scope and Purpose 1
2. Methods 2
2.1 Description of Study Area 2
2.2 Habitat 2
2.3 Water and Sediment Analytical Procedures 4
2.4 Toxicity Testing 5
2.5 Macroinvertebrate Community 5
2.6 Fish Community 5
2.7 Data Management and Statistical Analyses 6
3. Evaluation of Watershed Quality 7
3.1 Habitat Assessment 7
3.2 Toxicity Findings •. 7
3.3 Stream Chemistry Profiles 9
3.4 Macroinvertebrate Community Characteristics 11
3.5 Fish Community Characteristics 12
3.6 Integrated Watershed Analyses 12
4. Summary and Conclusions 20
References 21
Appendices
A. Physical, Toxicological, and Chemical Information 23
B. Macroinvertebrate and Fish Community 28
-------
Tables
No. Page
2-1 Description of Sample Locations 4
3-1 Habitat Characteristics , 9
3-2 Chronic Toxicity Test Results 10
3-3 Water Quality Characteristics 1 11
3-4 Macroinvertebrate Artificial Substrate Results. 13
3-5 Macroinvertebrate Qualitative Results , 14
3-6 Macroinvertebrate Community Composition 15
3-7 Rsh Sampling Results ; 16
3-8 Rsh Community Composition 17
3-9 Water Quality and Drainage Correlations 17
3-10 Macroinvertebrate, Water Quality, and Drainage Correlations 18
3-11 Principal Component Analyses 18
3-12 Macroinvertebrate, Habitat, and Drainage Correlations 19
3-13 Fish, Water Quality, and Drainage Correlations 19
VI
-------
Figures
No.
2-1 Stream Sampling Locations.
3-1 Largest Sampling Site
3-2 Smaller Sampling Sites
Page
....3
.8
.8
VII
-------
List of Selected Abbreviations and Symbols
Abbreviations
C
cms
DMW
EDTA
EPT
1BI
ICI
in
m
MED-D
Pfl/l
mg/1
m
mi2
mm
NH.-N
NCUNO.-N
0-PO.
P<0.05
PCB
QHE1
RPM
IDS
TN
TP
TSS
U.S.EPA
WCB
YCT
XG
Symbols
Celsius
cubic meters/second
deionized mineral water solution
ethylenediamine tetraacetic acid
Ephemeroptera/Plecoptera/Trichoptera
Index of Biotic integrity
Index of Invertebrate Community Integrity
inch
microgram
Mid-Continent Ecology Division-Duluth
microgram per liter
milligram per liter
meter
square mile
millimeter
total ammonia nitrogen
total nitrite plus nitrate nitrogen
ortho-phosphorus
probability less than 5% by chance alone
polychlorinated biphenyl compounds
Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index
revolutions per minute
total dissolved solids
total nitrogen
total phosphorus
total suspended solids
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Western Corn Belt Plains ecoregion
yeast-cerophyl-trout chow
times gravity
less than
greater than
less than equal to
greater than equal to
percent
VIII
-------
Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge the following individuals for their important assistance with
this project. LeRoy Anderson, MED-Duluth, assisted with the nutrient and total carbon analyses.
George Rapp and staff, Archeometry Laboratory, University of Minnesota, Duluth, conducted the
sediment particle sizing analyses. Calvin Alexander and staff, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis,
determined the anion concentrations. Don Fruehling, Dyntel Corporation, constructed computer-
ized maps and station locations. Jim Jensen, Integrated Laboratory Systems and Chris Harper
provided technical support for the laboratory chemical and toxicological analyses. George Host and
Ann Lima, Natural Resources Research Institute, performed the Pearson correlation, principal com-
ponent and canonical correspondence analyses (as NRRI report TR-95/40, CWE No. 165).
Tom Grau, Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS) Director, Des Moines,
and ASCS staff located in the Story, Boone, and Hamilton County field offices, Nevada, Boone, and
Webster City, Iowa, respectively, made the streamside non-farmed buffer determinations from aerial
photos.
Jerry Hatfield, USDA/ARS National Soil Tilth Laboratory, Ames and Anthony (Ron) Carlson
provided encouragement and logistical field support throughout the project.
IX
-------
-------
1. Introduction
1.1 Background Information
Agricultural activities are the leading cause of water
quality impairment according to recent state biannual wa-
ter quality reports (U.S. EPA, 1994). Primary river stres-
sors identified in these reports were siltation, nutrients,
pathogens, pesticides, and organic enrichment. Sediment
was found to be the dominant pollutant associated with
stream impairment in Iowa (Iowa DNR, 1994) and was
linked to major impacts along 84% of the state's stream
miles. Identifying descriptors to define impairment can be
complex and involves the consideration of multiple physi-
cal and chemical stressors and biological responses. To
better integrate this information, a watershed protection
approach was recommended by the EPA (U.S. EPA, 1991)
as the definable unit to address water quality and has be-
come the focal unit for diagnostic research.
Demonstration studies continue to be needed to de-
fine and apply diagnostic procedures in assessing water-
shed impairment. Watershed studies at MED-Duluth have
been underway since 1987 with the objective to assess,
consolidate, and classify stressors and responses in
midwestern streams. Habitat quality was influenced by the
amount of row crop farming and instream substrate com-
position, embeddedness and total suspended solids
(Richards et al., 1993). Important chemical stressors iden-
tified were total ammonia and nitrite-nitrate nitrogen, with
the amounts of ammonia being a major factor contributing
to toxic inplace sediments. Factors uncovered that de-
scribed fish and macroinvertebrate quality were total taxa,
percent ephemeroptera/plecoptera/trichoptera (EPT) taxa,
and calculated indices of community integrity (ICI) arrcTbT-
otic integrity (IBI). Structural, rather than functional mea-
sures, have been found to supply more meaningful infor-
mation in defining the biological community quality (Arthur
etal., 1996).
1.2 Scope and Purpose
This study is part of a more comprehensive study
determining the transport, fate and ecological effects of
agrichemicals into a small watershed called Walnut Creek
near Ames, I A. This larger project, called MASTER or (Mid-
west Agrichemical Surface Subsurface Transport and Ef-
fects Research) has involved participants from three fed-
eral agencies (U.S. EPA, USDA, and U.S. Geological Sur-
vey). The National Soil Tilth Laboratory, Ames, IA, was re-
sponsible for the general logistics of the study and per-
formed the agricultural crop measurements. Groups from
the other two agencies concentrated on transport and fate
measurements from the field agrichemical applications and
other ecological studies.
MED-Duluth's assignment was to investigate the eco-
logical and toxicological effects from intensive row crop
farming. In addition to Walnut Creek and the goals of the
MASTER study, four nearby creeks in Story, Boone, and
Hamilton counties were chosen for comparative biological
community analyses. All five streams empty into the Skunk
River Drainage. Biosurveys were done to characterize the
macroinvertebrate and fish communities. The same physi-
cal, chemical, and biological procedures used in our previ-
ous MED-Duluth watershed studies (Arthur and Zischke,
1994; Arthur et al., 1996), were also applied to the Iowa
streams. Our general study hypothesis continues to be that
an integrated physical, chemical, biological approach can
supply meaningful definitions of watershed quality.
-------
2. Methods
2.1 Description of Study Area
The Skunk River Drainage Basin is part of the West-
ern Corn Beit (WCB) Ecoregion, and in the Des Moines
Lobe region of Iowa (Omernick and Gallant, 1988). Wa-
tersheds found in the WCB ecoregion have been described
as Irregular In topography and receive average annual
precipitations between 25-35 inches. Major land uses are
for crop (corn, soybeans, feed grains) and livestock (swine)
production. Dominant native vegetation is tall-grass prai-
rie growing in deep fertile soil. Agricultural practices that
alter water quality are stream channelization and artificial
ditching, and applications of fertilizer and herbicides.
Streams in the Skunk River basin flow through into the
Mississippi River.The drainage area for the entire Skunk
River Basin is 4,355 mi2 (Larimer, 1974).
Five low order streams were sampled in the Upper
Skunk River Basin—Crooked, Squaw, Walnut, Montgom-
ery, and Bear Creeks. Four of the streams (Bear, Crooked,
Montgomery, and Walnut) were small with total drainage
areas covering 18-34 mi2. Total drainage area for Squaw
Creek is larger at 227 mi2 (Larimer, 1974). The streams
are located within a tri-county area in central Iowa (Boone,
Hamilton, and Story counties), Figure 2-1. Three of the
sampled streams cross county boundaries.
Cropland accounts for 82% of the landuse in the tri-
county area (Appendix A.1). Other identified landuses were
urban (5%), forest (4%), and pasture/rural (6%). Most farm
fields adjoining the stream locations were tiled to help
control soil moisture levels. Non-row crop farming in Iowa
has progressively declined from an 82% intensity level in
1940 to 48% in 1964 and further down to 36% in 1987.
Amounts of woodland found on Iowa farms since 1940
have remained at a 5% to 7% level. Iowa records dating
back to 1964 have shown large increases in fertilizers and
insecticides in recent years (Hatfield, 1996). Major urban
centers in this tri-county area and populations are Ames
(46,000), Boone (13,000), Webster City (9,000), and Ne-
vada (6,000).
The Iowa streams were sampled a total of 11 times
during 1ii2 to 1994. There were five sampling periods in
1992 (May, June, August, September, and November); four
in 1993 (April, June, August, and October); and two sam-
pling periods in 1994 (April and July). Twelve locations were
sampled; three stations in Bear Creek, one station in
Crooked and Montgomery Creeks, three stations in Squaw,
and four stations in Walnut Creek. Sample locations in
Crooked and Montgomery Creeks were positioned near
their mouth, while the other streams were longitudinally
sampled. Further descriptions of the sampling locations
and their corresponding upstream drainage areas are given
in Table 2-1. Five of the sites (WC 1, WC 2, WC 3, BC 1,
and MC1) can be classified as headwater sites (< 20 mi2,
using Ohio EPA, 1987 nomenclature). The remaining seven
sites can be classified as wading sites (representing drain-
age areas between 20-500 mi2). Sampling efforts during
1992 were confined to four locations in Walnut Creek, one
location in Montgomery and Squaw Creeks, and two loca-
tions in Bear Creek. Additional locations were added in
1993 to supply a more longitudinal and interstream com-
parability. The sampling sites were positioned either 50 to
200 rn upstream or downstream from the road bridge cross-
ings with a sampling area coverage represented by four to
eight times the width of each stream segment.
2.2 Habitat
Habitat quality was evaluated using the habitat as-
sessment technique of the Ohio Environmental Protection
(1987).This qualitative and empirical procedure involves a
calculation of a Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index (QHEI)
score. Seven metrics were used to calculate the index: sub-
strate type/quality, instream cover, channel morphology,
riparian zone/bank erosion, pool/riffle-run, gradient, and
drainage area. The individual metric ratings were added
together for a composite score; best attainable score be-
ing 100. This streamside scoring protocol represents best
professional judgement.
A determination of the amount of fine particles (pro-
portion of particles < 2.4 mm) were determined at each
location, and represents substrate embeddedness. Rep-
resentative surficial samples at the sites were collected
with a scoop (approx. upper 6 inches of substrate). Pro-
portion of fine particles from the larger fraction was mea-
sured with a large graduated volumetric cylinder (Richards
et al., 1993). Additional stream substrate sizing was deter-
mined by oven drying the sample, wet-sieving to separate
the silt/clay and sand/gravel fractions using procedures of
-------
Figure 2-1. Stream sampling locations.
-------
Table 2-1. Description of Sample Locations
Stream
Walnut Cr.
Bear Cr.
Stjuaw Cr.
Crooked Cr.
Montgomery Cr.
Station #
WC1
WC 2
WC 3
WC4
BC1
BC2
BC3
SC1
SO 2
SO 3
CC1
MC1
Description
Pothole site
Hilton site
Blacks site
Camp Ridge site
400th StTZublin
1-1/4 mi N Roland R-77
2 mi S Roland,1 mi E. R-77
370th St., (near Fenton Rd)
390th St&Hwy 17
2 mi N Zenorsville
Inkapudata Ave
1 mi N Zenorsvilte
County
Story
Story
Story
Story
Hamilton
Story
Story
Hamilton
Hamilton
Boone
Hamilton
Boone
Drng
Area"
<7
7
12
20
12
20
32
20
62
130
32
18
Active Site
1992
V
V
V
V-
V
V
V
V
1993
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
1994
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
1992 Sampling Periods - during months of May, June, August, September, November.
1993 Sampling Periods - during months of April, June, August, October.
1994 Sampling Periods - during months of April, July.
Longitude
WC1
WC2
WC3
WC4
BC1
BC2
BC3
-93.650
-93.634
-93.582
-93.555
-93.505
- 93.499
-93.476
Latitude
41.963
41.956
41.948
41.938
42.160
42.183
42.216
Longitude
SC1
SC2
SC3
CC1
MC1
-93.891
- 93.786
- 93.752
- 93.820
- 93.741
Latitude
42.254
42.21 1
42.165
42.250
42.123
•Drng Area- Drainage area in square miles, source - Larimer (1974).
Lewis (1984). Particle size classifications were as follows:
gravel > 2,000 ji, sand 50-2,000 n, silt 2-50 p. and clay < 2
M-
The extent of the non-farmed buffer strips on each
side of the stream banks were estimated at location. These
slreamside areas were obtained by tracing the land areas
from aerial 1990 ASCS flight-line photos using a digitized
planlmeter.The longitudinal stream length containing these
buffer strips was also measured with the planimeter.
2.3 Water and Sediment Analytical
Procedures
Water and sediment samples were collected in mid-
slream areas, generally during baseline flows, and away
from shoreline influences. All surface water samples were
grab samples. Sediment samples were collected with a
Ponar grab at three or more representative points at each
sampling location and composited together. The surface
water and sediment samples were kept cold (unfrozen, <
4°C) in ice chests for transportation to the laboratory.
At the laboratory, sediment pore water was prepared
in a refrigerated centrifuge. The sediment samples were
spun at 2500 X G, at 5°C, for 20 minutes, and the super-
natant was collected. Portions of the supernatant were
stored at 4°C for toxicity testing, and the reminder stored
frozen for nutrient analyses.
The surface and sediment pore water samples were
analyzed for six anions (fluoride, chloride, nitrite, bromide,
nitrate, sulfate), five cations (Ca, Mg, Na, K, Mn), and five
nutrients (NH3-N, NO +NO3-N,TN, O-PO4, andTP). Induc-
tive coupled plasma/atomic emission spectrometry (ICP/
AES) techniques were used to measure the cations. Ion
chromatography procedures, Dionex Series, EPA method
300.0 (U.S. EPA, 1989a) were used to analyze the anions.
The detection limits for calcium, magnesium, sodium, and
potassium were 0.1 mg/l; limit for manganese was 0.001
mg/l. Detection limits for anions were < 0.03 mg/l. A Lachat
automated ion analyzer (Lachat, 1988) measured the main
nutrients - total ammonia nitrogen (NH3-N), total nitrite-ni-
trate nitrogen (NO2+NO -N), ortho-phosphorus (O-PO4 as
P), total phosphorus (TP), and total nitrogen (TN). The
detection limits for NH3-N, O-PO4, and TP were 0.02 mg/l,
and for NO2+NO3-N and TN were 0.1 mg/l. A Dohrmann
instrument (using U.S. EPA, 1989a procedures) measured
total organic carbon (nonpurgeable, as C). Surface water
-------
samples were also analyzed for total alkalinity (as CaCO3),
temperature, conductivity, total suspended solids, and to-
tal dissolved solids (TDS) using American Public Health
Association (1980) methods.
Known quality control standards and spikes were
used when analyzing each batch of samples. Individual
analyses were conducted in duplicate or triplicate for 1-2
stations in each analytical batch. Agreement attained was
generally within 10%.
2.4 Toxicity Testing
Toxicity tests were conducted with two standardized
procedures, using a green alga, Selenastrum
capricornutum, and a microcrustacean or daphnid,
Ceriodaphnia dubia. Source of the laboratory cultures for
both test organisms were from MED-Duluth laboratory
cultures. Chronic toxicity tests were conducted only with
the sediment pore water samples and no dilutions.
The C. dubia tests were initiated with animals of
known parentage and < 24 hours old when the chronic
tests were initiated using U.S. EPA (1989b) procedures.
The daphnid tests were 7-days in duration.To begin a test,
one animal was placed into each of ten, 30 ml cups con-
taining 10 ml of sediment pore water. The animals were
fed a mixture of yeast-trout chow (YCT) and green algae
daily. Test solutions were changed during day 2 and day 4
of the test. Determination of the differences between young
production in the samples and control responses was done
with the Kruskall Wallis test. Significance level was set at
P < 0.05.
The S. capricornutum algal tests were conducted
according to the U.S. EPA (1989b). All sediment pore wa-
ter samples were filtered through a 0.45 jx millipore filter
and nutrients and EDTA added to a concentrations of the
control. The control consisted of a stock culture medium
containing 100 ng/l EDTA (Na2EDTA-2H20). Tests were
conducted under continuous illumination of 400 ± 50 foot
candles, 24 ± 2 °C, and continuously shaken. Algal growth
(increase in cell numbers) was determined at 2- and 4-day
intervals with an electronic particle counter. Toxicity was
indicated when the mean algal cell densities were less than
(inhibition) the control response. The test responses were
summarized using the Kruskall-Wallis test, significance
level at P < 0.05.
2.5 Macro!nvertebrate Community
Macroinvertebrate community characteristics were
determined from samples collected using two separate
procedures: artificial substrates and qualitative sampling.
The two procedures followed U.S. EPA (Klemm et al., 1990)
protocols. All biological samples were preserved onsite with
10% formalin. A fixed time interval, 30-45 minutes, was
allowed to complete all the biological sampling activities,
including qualitative sampling at each location.
Hester-Dendy masonite artificial samplers were at-
tached to concrete blocks and placed near the midstream
at each station in 0.75 to 1.5 m depths.The samplers were
allowed to colonize for 7-8 weeks prior to removal. Removal
of the sampling unit was accomplished by placing a dip
net under the unit while submerged to prevent loss of or-
ganisms.
Qualitative sampling was done with the kick method
and shoreline handpicking.The stream substrate was agi-
tated by kick upstream from a dip net allowing the current
to carry the organisms into the net. A representative col-
lection of attached animals were also collected by hand-
picking representative submerged logs, rock, and vegeta-
tion.
Preserved samples were sorted and tabulated in
glass trays over a fluorescent glow box. Initial examina-
tions were done visually; the final sorting completed with a
lighted magnifying (2X) lens. Subsampling procedures were
used to enumerate taxa representing over 100 individuals
in a sample. The subsampler was a glass tray with the
bottom marked-off into quadrants for subdividing the
sample contents.
The macroinvertebrates were identified to the lowest
possible taxonomic level, usually to genus. Midge larvae
were identified from head capsule mounts. Community
metrics were calculated for richness (total taxa), numbers
of EPT taxa, and the ICI as developed by the Ohio EPA
(1987). Functional feeding habit classifications were iden-
tified according to Merritt and Cummins (1984).
2.6 Fish Community
Fish community characteristics were determined with
two procedures: seining and electroshocking. Seining was
the principal collection technique.The two procedures fol-
lowed guidelines after Klemm et al. (1993). All collected
fish were preserved in 10% formalin.
The primary collection technique was with the use of
a bag seine, 30'L X 4'H (0.125 inch mesh) with a 20' wing
span. A backpack, battery-operated Coffelt BT-4 model
electroshocker, was deployed when necessary due to un-
even stream bottoms such as too rocky or cobbly for effi-
cient seining operations. A minimum of two collection runs
were made during each sampling operation, with longitu-
dinal reach sampled at least > 300 ft. Preserved samples
were sorted in the laboratory and tabulated to the species
level. A range in total lengths and weight for each species/
sampling period was obtained.
Pollution-tolerance, feeding, and habitat classifica-
tions were according to the Ohio EPA (1987) and Lyons
(1992). Classifications according to flowing habitat prefer-
ence were from tabulations of Harlan and Speaker (1987).
Metric procedures for calculating an Index of Biotic Integ-
-------
rity (IBI) were those of Bailey et al. (1994). The IBl metrics
dsveloped by Bailey et al. (1994) were for low order streams
In soulhern Minnesota having landscapes similar to the
Upper Skunk drainage.
2.7 Data Management and Statistical
Analyses
Each of the 11 surveys were sequentially numbered,
and separate identification codes given for each analysis,
taxa, and sampling location. The separate year codes and
composite summary identification numbers permitted ad-
ditional temporal and spacial comparisons. All data were
compiled into computerized spreadsheets for management
and analysis.
Multivariate procedures were used to determine re-
lationships among the physical/chemical and
macroinvertebrate information.The dataware analyzed by
correlation, principal component, regression, and canoni-
cal correspondence analyses. The eight chemical/physi-
cal variables selected for analysis were TSS, O-PO4, TP,
TN, NO +NO3-N, TN, NH3-N, and drainage area. For the
regressions, models were selected using the MAXR pro-
cedure in SAS. The Canonical correspondence analyses
were limited to comparing the artificial substrate data with
the environmental information. Spring months were desig-
nated as April and May, summer as June to August, and
fall months when surveys were conducted in September
to November. All variables were analyzed for normality and
transformed where appropriate. Zero values were replaced
by one-half of the detection limit. Comparative analyses
were done on the environmental data with and without
transformation. The levels of strong and medium signifi-
cance were set at P < 0.01, and P < 0.05 and > 0.01,
respectively. Pearson correlations were also calculated to
normalize the effect of unequal sampling among locations.
The weights were the inverse of the number of samples
taken, and only used for the Pearson correlation analyses.
The sum of weights applied to each site equalled one to
approximate equivalent contributions for the analyses.
Additional descriptions on the techniques used for these
multivariant analyses are on file at the Natural Resources
Research Institution, University of Minnesota-Duluth, as
NRRI ReportTR-95/40, CWE 165.
Correlations were also performed using minitab sta-
tistical software for comparing the fish community metrics
with the water quality information, and the
macroinvertebrate community indices with the QHEI habi-
tat index and drainage area. Since the QHEI index and
drainage area each represented a one time measurement,
mean macroinvertebrate community indices were used for
this comparison.
-------
3. Evaluation of Watershed Quality
3.1 Habitat Assessment
Agricultural activity was the dominant land use. Small
discontinuous grass and wooded shelter-belts (approxi-
mately 1-10 acres) were found scattered across the land-
scape, and appeared more prevalent at the larger drain-
age locations. Sampling was conducted in shallow water,
generally In < 2 ft of depth. Bankful widths were not appre-
ciably larger than normal flow stream widths and varied
from 12-76 and 5-53 feet, respectively. Stream bottom sub-
strate was composed of gravel and sand, sand being the
dominant substrate. Some of the upstream locations also
included mixtures of silt and clay material. Stream sub-
strate bottoms were more embedded at the upstream lo-
cations (Table 3-1). Non-farmed streamside buffers varied
from 1.6 to 24.3 acres/1,000 lineal feet of stream mea-
sured. Upstream locations were appreciably less in stream-
side non-farmed buffers than the downstream locations.
The Montgomery Creek site had the greatest amounts of
nonfarm streamside buffer (Appendix A.2).
Habitat quality was highest at the larger drainage
areas such as in the lower portions of Squaw Creek (SC 2,
SC 3). Figure 3-1 shows physical conditions at SC 3.
Greater stream gradients and larger wooded riparian ar-
eas were found at Squaw Creek (SC 2, SC 3) and were
reflected by the higher QH El scores of 52 and 67. Streams
with lower habitat quality were Bear, Crooked and portions
of Walnut Creek, and with reduced QHEI scores ranging
from 40-51. A mixture of open grassland, cultivated fields,
absence of instream woody debris and straightened chan-
nels characterized the upstream sites (Figure 3-2). How-
ever, greater amounts of wooded riparian areas and a
higher stream gradient were present at WC 3, WC 4, and
MC 1, and reflected in higher QHEI scores (58,49 and 56,
respectively). There was a noticeable absence of aquatic
macrophytes at all the sampling locations.
Rankin et al. (1995) have attributed channelization
and sedimentation as habitat factors associated with de-
graded biological communities. Poorer habitat qualify in
Ohio has been defined as QHEI scores < 45, intermediate
as 46 to 60, and good habitat scores > 61. Ohio's scores in
the good range usually reflected Intact habitat with little
disturbance. Based on Ohio's classifications, most of our
sites would have habitats in the intermediate range, with
two locations (WC 1 and WC 2) in the poor range, and
one location (SC 3) reflecting the good quality.
Habitat descriptions by Menzel et al. (1984) for a
low order stream study in central Iowa approximated habi-
tat quality found in our study. Sand and gravel were the
dominant stream substrates, and overhanging riparian
and submerged macrophytes rarely found in their streams.
As in our study, they listed only a few sites where clay
was part of the stream substrate. Riffle/Pool development
was low and many of the streams were channelized.
Menzel (1983), in another description of Iowa streams,
depicted the stream channelization process as reducing
cross sectional stream area and reconstructing the bot-
tom Into one composed of more uniform particles.
Richards et al. (1993) found that substrate composition
and fine embedded particles negatively influenced the
quality of macroinvertebrate communities in a study in
central Michigan. In our study, 6 of the 12 sites sampled
had stream bottoms containing > 50% fine particles in
the upper layers. Walnut Creek had the greatest amounts
of embedded substrates.
3.2 Toxicity Findings
Few toxic responses were found in the chronic tox-
icity tests. For C. dubia, toxicity was observed during only
one of the seven test periods. The toxic response was
confined to the upper station in Walnut Creek (WC 1).
For S. capricornutum, toxicity was observed during one
of two sampling periods, and recorded in samples col-
lected at the Walnut Creek (WC 1) and Crooked Creek
(CC1, Table 3-2).
The significant test response with C. dubia was re-
duced survival at WC 1. Reproductive yield during this
test was lower at this site, but was not significant (Ap-
pendix A.3). During this particular test, control reproduc-
tion was suboptimal and lower room temperatures may
have been a contributing factor. Except for this test re-
sponse, similar daphnid responses were obtained across
location and time.
More varied responses were obtained with the S.
capricornutum tests (Appendix A.4). Both inhibitory and
-------
Figure 3-1. Largest sampling site.
Squaw Creek {SC 3)
V-c-i^aSSwi.rac'.-isSsb'SI
Crooked Creek (Station CG1)
Flgura 3-2. Small®* sampling sites.
Bear Creek (Station BC 2)
-------
Table 3-1, Habitat Characteristics
Strm
Loc.
Walnut Creek
WC1
WC2
WC3
WC4
Av. Score
Bear Creek
BC1
BC2
BC3
Av. Score
Squaw Creek
SC1
SC2
SC3 ' •
Av. Score
Crooked Creek
CC1
Montgomery Creek
MC1
Stream
Wdth"
5
10
14
15
19
18
29
11
23
53
12
-
Bnkfl
Wdth"
16
12
30
29
32
38
41
20
44
76
18
-
QHEI
Score
40
41
58
_49_
47
48
49
51
49
46
52
67
55
47
56
Degr
Embd.0
I
I
II
I
i
II
II
II
II
1
-
II
1!
11
II
Drng
Area"
-
-
8
13
. 12
20
-
10
63
130
18
32
Dominant Substrate Type (in %)
Grave! Sand Silt Clay
3
46
22
43
29
51
56
29
45
43
18
50
37
50
33
70
52
78
55
"64"
46
43
70
53
36
82
50
56
46
65
15
1
1
2
5
4
2
< 1
2
11
NM
NM
4
6
1
12
< 1
< 1
< 1
T
1
< 1
< -|
^T
11
NM
NM
4
2
<1
- Not measured
"Stream width in ft.
"Stream bankfull width in ft.
'Percent embeddedness = I - > 50% by volume, II -11% to 50%.
"•Drainage area in mi2.
NM = Not measurable.
stimulatory growth responses relative to control responses
were recorded during the first test in April, while test re-
sponses were inhibitory in July, The two significant toxic
responses were limited to the upper end of Walnut Creek
(WC 1) and the one sampled location in Crooked Creek
(CC1) Table 3-2.
In previous studies conducted at midwestern agri-
cultural locations (Wisconsin - Ankley et al., 1990, Minne-
sota - Arthur et al., 1994, and Michigan - Arthur et al., 1996),
ambient toxicity was limited with sediment pore water
samples. None of the surface water samples exhibited tox-
icity. In all of these previous studies, toxic responses (sur-
vival and growth - Ceriodaphnia dubia, generally occurred
when NH3-N concentrations exceeded 9.4 mg/l. In this
study, the highest sediment pore water NH3-N value ob-
tained was 6.4 mg/l, and apparently insufficient in concen-
tration to demonstrate toxicity.
3.3 Stream Chemistry Profiles
Water quality was generally similar at all locations
(Table 3.3). The primary nutrient differences found were
with sediment pore water concentrations of NH3-N. Two
drainages, Crooked and Walnut creeks, showed the great-
est mean differences between the surface water and sedi-
ment pore water chemistries and had the widest minimum/
maximum values. Montgomery Creek had lower nutrient,
conductivity, and organic carbon levels. Crooked and Wal-
nut Creeks, had lower surface water temperatures and
lower amounts of total suspended solids (TSS). Soluble
(filtered) phosphorus (O-POJ comprised 60% to 80% of
the total phosphorus (TP) measured, and exhibited a uni-
form concentrations profile (0.04 to 0.06 mg/l) in all the
drainages. Lowest concentrations of O-PO4 were at the
two downstream Walnut Creek locations (WC 3 and WC
4). The highest ratio of TP to O-PO4 was 2:1 at Montgom-
ery Creek, otherwise the ratio at the other locations was
about 1.5:1. All of the other routine monitored surface wa-
ter constituents given in Table 3-3 were similar among the
drainages. The Kansas Biological Survey and Iowa State
University (1996) reported on seasonal water quality char-
acteristics in Walnut Creek during 1992 to 1994. Their re-
ported water quality characteristics were similar to those
obtained in our study.
Nutrient comparisons between surface and sediment
pore waters have been reported at other midwestern agri-
cultural sites (Ankley et al.; 1990, Arthur and Zischke, 1994;
and Arthur et al., 1996). These investigations found that
the main difference was the disparity in NH3-N concentra-
tions between the surface and sediment pore waters. In
these studies, elevated sediment pore water NH3-N con-
centrations > 1.0 mg/l were commonly associated with
degraded biological communities. Frazier et al. (1996) re-
-------
Tabl83-2. Chronto Toxfc'ity Test Results
Walnut Creak
WC1
WC 2
WC 3
WC4
Boar Creek
BC1
BC2
BC3
Squaw Creek
SC1
SO 2
SO 3
Montgomery Creek
MC1
Crooked Creek
CC1
NT
NT
NT
NT
-
NT
NT
-
-
NT
NT
-
Ceriodaphnia dubia
06/92 09/92 04/93 06/93
NT NT NT NT
NT NT NT NT
NT NT NT NT
NT NT - NT
NT
NT NT NT NT
NT NT NT -
_
NT
NT NT NT -
NT NT
NT
04/94 07/94
NT T"
NT NT"
NT
NT NT
NT NT
NT NT
-
NT NT
NT NT
NT NT
-
NT NT
Setenastrum capricornutum
Walnut Crock
WC1
WC2
WC3
WC4
Bear Creek
iC1
BC2
BC3
Squaw Creek
SC1
SC2
SC3
Montgomery Creek
MCi
Crooked Creek
CC1
04/94
NT
NT
-
NT
NT
NT
-
NT
NT
NT
-
NT
07/94
T"
NT
-
NT
NT
NT
-
NT
-
NT
.
T-
*Toxfc(P< 0.05 level).
*Nottoxfc.
•No measurements taken.
cently reported on finding appreciably higher concentra-
tions of NH,-N in Mississippi River sediment pore water,
particularly in the summer months, and linked to silt and
volatile solid constituents in the river bottom substrates. In
addition, Frazier*s surface and sediment NH3-N profiles ap-
proximated those found in our study.
Intrastream water quality longitudinal differences oc-
curred in some of the drainages (Appendix A.5). Upstream
to downstream decreases were observed for total conduc-
tivity and alkalinity in Squaw and Walnut Creeks, but not in
Bear Creek. A progressive longitudinal increase was also
found with turbidity and TSS only in Walnut Creek.
Similar anion and cation characteristics were found
(Appendix A.6). Sulfate and chloride were the principal an-
lons, and calcium and magnesium the main cations mea-
sured. Concentrations of bromide and manganese were
at the limit of detectability. Longitudinal downstream in-
creases were also found for chloride.
McCollorand Heiskary (1993) summarized summer-
time Minnesota surface water TP and TSS values in the
Western Corn Belt Plains during the years of 1970-1992.
They concluded that the minimal levels for these two re-
spective constituents would be approximately 0.29 and 58
mg/l. Using these values as a bench mark, our mean sur-
face water TP values were 2-3 times less while the TSS
mean values were 1.5 to 2 times higher. Gosselink (1990)
has concluded that TP values > 0.1 mg/l can be associ-
ated with disturbed stream communities. The only drain-
age with mean TP values > 0.1 mg/l was at Crooked Creek.
Atrazine concentrations were monitored during the
same time periods In Walnut Creek by the Kansas Biologi-
cal Survey and Iowa State University (1996). Mean sur-
10
-------
Table 3-3. Water Quality Characteristics
Bear Creek
Crooked Creek
Montgomery Creek
Squaw Creek
•Average and (minimum - maximum) values.
bLess than three measurements taken.
°No measurements taken.
Walnut Creek
Surface Water
NH3-N mg/l
TP mg/l
N02+N03-N mg/l
O-PO4 (as P), mg/l
TN (as N), mg/l
TSS mg/l
T. Alkalinity mg/l
Turbidity NTU
T. Conductivity jimhos/cm2
T. Organic Carbon mg/l
pH units
Temperature °C
Sediment Pore Water
NH3-N mg/l
TPmg/l
NO2+N03-N mg/l
O-PO4 (as P), mg/l
TN (as N), mg/l
0.03 (<.01 -0.08)
0.07 (<.01-.29)
9.4(5.1-13.8)
0.05 (.01 -.10)
9.9(6.5-13.1)
130(8-397)
335(212-616)
55 (2-99)
532(402-716)
4.4(2.0-18.0)
7.9 (7.3-8.5)
17.8 (8.0-23.8)
0.24 (.02-2.53)
0.06 (.02-. 14)
8.4 (1.2-12.0)
0.05 (.01 -.14)
9.1 (3.8-12.3)
0.05 (.02-.12)
0.12 (.02-.30
9.5(6.2-11.7)
0.09 (.02-.23)
10.3(8.0-12.6)
89(12-150)
357 (260-530)
67(2-128)
575 (430-699)
3.8 (0.4-7.6)
- (7.7-8.3)"
16.8(9.8-23.1)
1.1 2 (.05-2.74)
0.08(.03-.15)
6.7(0.7-11.3)
0.05 (.01 -.08)
9.0(5.6-11.9)
0.03 (.01 -.04)*
0.08(.02-.18)
8.3 (.3-12.9)
0.04 (.01 -.07)
8.5 (.8-1 3.0)
125 (50-263)
358(261-560)
58 (37-88) '
490 (423-573)
2.5(2.1-2.8)
-c
19.3(12.2-25.3)
0.11 (.02-.22)
0.07(.03-.12)
7.3 (.2-1 1.3)
0.05 (.01 -.10)
7.6 (.8-1 1.3)
0.04 (.01 -.14)
0.08 (.01 -.22)
9.0(1.9-13.0)
0.05 (.01 -.18)
9.5(2.3-13.0)
131 (3-369)
343 (238-578)
49 (2-95)
546 (457-655)
3.6 (2.9-5.9)
8.0 (7.6-8.3)
17.3(8.7-25.0)
0.28 (.03-1 .31)
0.07(<.01-.16)
7.8(1.0-11.8)
0.06 (.01 -.15)
8.0 (2.9-1 1 .3)
0.03(<.01-.19)
0.06(<.01-.49)
9.2 (<.1 -16.9)
0.04(<.01-.19)
9.9(4.6-19.0)
84(9-130)
367 (202-740)
39 (1-90)
532(440-716)
3.1 (1.9-10.0)
7.9 (7.4-8.4)
15.3(4.3-25.1)
1.11 (.01-9.05)
0.08(<.01-.45)
6.7 (<. 1-1 3.3)
0.04 (<.01-.23)
8.3(1.7-14.8)
face water values were < 0.5 jig/I. Atrazine was not detect-
able during baseline flows. Solomon et al. (1996) have con-
cluded that atrazine levels need to be at or above 50 jig/I
in surface waters to be ecologically relevant. It then ap-
pears that herbicides in the surface waters may have been
an insignificant variable during this study.
3.4 Macroinvertebrate Community
Characteristics
A total of 77 individual macroinvertebrate taxa were
identified (Appendix B.1).Three orders, represented by 47
taxa, comprised the bulk of the community: Ephemeroptera
(mayflies), Trichoptera (caddisflies), and Diptera
Chironomidae (midges). The most diverse group were the
midges. Only a few individual Hemiptera and no Lepi-
doptera representatives were collected. More plecopter-
ans, oligochaetes, and mollusks were encountered in Wal-
nut Creek, while mayflies and caddisflies were more com-
mon in the other four drainages. A larger taxa list was found
in the qualitative samples.The Montgomery Creek site was
troublesome as on only one occasion were artificial sub-
strate samplers recovered despite numerous attempts at
deployment.
Similar taxa were gathered with both the artificial sub-
strate and qualitative sampling techniques (Appendix B.2).
Mayfly and caddisfly taxa were more diverse and numer-
ous at the Bear and Squaw Creek locations. Common
mayfly genera (>5% in abundance) found were Heptagenia,
Isonychia, Stenacron, and Tricorythodes. Common
caddisfly and midge taxa were Cheumatopsyche
Hydropsyche, and Crictopus, Polypedilum, Tanytarsini, re-
spectively. Other taxa frequently encountered with both
sampling techniques were Physa snails and oligochaetes.
Community structure was more evenly distributed among
the drainages in the qualitative samples, especially with
the mayfly and midge taxa. The Kansas Biological Survey
and Iowa State University (1996) recently sampled the
macroinvertebrate community in Walnut Creek using quali-
tative techniques (D frame sweep net and substrate kick-
ing). Their community was composed of three groups:
Ephemeroptera (48%), Diptera (30%) and Gastropoda
(9%), and represented by baetid and heptageniid mayflies,
orthoclad midges, and physid snails. Dominant taxa within
these three groups were Stenacron, Leptophlebia,
Isonychia, Crictopus, Stictochironomus and Physa. The
benthic community found in our qualitative Walnut Creek
samples was generally similar except for the numerical
dominance of Tanytarsini over the Crictopus midges and
no occurrence of Stictochironomus.
Gammon et al. (1983) has characterized agricultural
streams as having increased numbers of chironomids, oli-
gochaetes, and nematodes relative to other groups. They
found that chironomids continue to increase with further
agricultural intensity, the benthic taxa apparently having a
preference for soft bottomed substrates. In our study, oli-
gochaetes and chironomids comprised greater proportions
of the abundance, especially at the upstream Walnut Creek
(WC 1 and WC 2) and Crooked Creek (CC 1) locations
11
-------
(Tables 3-4 and 3-5). Menzel et al. (1984) described their
Iowa community as lacking predacious insects such as
Megaloptera (absent), Coleoptera (rare), Hemiptera (ab-
sent) and Odonata (rare). The macroinvertebrate commu-
nity In our study was represented by 10% predators. The
Kansas Biological Survey and Iowa State University (1996)
found greater percentages of Odonata and Coleoptera than
in our study, but each group accounting for < 5% of the
total macroJnvertebrate abundance.
Additional community comparisons are given in Table
3-6 and Appendix B.3 and B.4. Highest average abun-
dances, richness (total taxa), EPT and ICI scores were
found In Squaw Creek, while lowest values were present
In Walnut Creek. Too few samples were collected in Mont-
gomery and Crooked Creeks. Higher ratios of EPT to total
taxa were present at the Bear and Squaw Creek locations.
Drainages with higher abundances also showed higher
numbers of taxa. The Kansas Biological Station and Iowa
State University (1996) also noted higher taxa richness
with increased watershed benthic abundance. Collectors
and grazers were the principal functional groups, shred-
ders and predators were less commonly found, and preda-
tors were uniformly £10% of the total. Lower proportions
of shredders (£ 10% of total) occurred with both types of
sampling in Bear and Walnut Creeks. The majority of taxa
were classified as erosional or as erosional/depositional
forms. Lenat (1984) and Richards et al. (1993) have found
few EPT taxa at agricultural dominated sites. Based on
this information, it appears that all of our sites had moder-
ately impacted macroinvertebrate communities. Walnut
Creek was the most impacted drainage based on commu-
nity composition, EPT taxa and ICI scores.
3.5 Fish Community Characteristics
Twenty-one individual fish taxa were identified (Ap-
pendix B.5). The most abundant family was the Cyprin-
idae, and represented by 12 taxa. The bigmouth shiner,
bluntnose minnow, common shiner, creek chub, sand
shiner, and central stoneroller were the most numerically
dominant (each taxa s 5.0% of total abundance, Appendix
B.6). Few catostomids and centrarchids were collected.The
only centrachids collected were green sunfish and small-
mouth bass; and the only darter found was the johnny
darter. Carp, brassy minnow, suckermouth minnow, quill-
back, high fin carpsucker, and black bullhead were found
in very low numbers and at only one or two locations. A
further breakdown of the fish community composition is
given in Table 3-7. Menzel et al. (1984) collected 29 fish
species in their Iowa study, represented by six families. As
in our study, Cyprinidae was the most common family, and
dominant fish were the bigmouth shiner, stoneroller, com-
mon shiner, bluntnose minnow, and creek chub. Twenty
fish species were collected in the Kansas Biological Sur-
vey and Iowa State University (1996) study in Walnut Creek,
with the creek chub being the most numerous followed in
order of abundance by bluntnose minnows, bigmouth shin-
ers, central stonerollers, johnny darters, and the common
shiner. In addition, studies by the Iowa DNR (Paragamian,
1990) found cyprinids to be the dominant group in the Des
Moines lobe and within the Skunk drainage.
Our sampled fish community was mainly comprised,
of equivalent populations of omnivores and insectivores,
less numbers of herbivores, and almost no piscivores Table
3-8. Most insectivores found in our study were represented
by the family Cyprinidae. Karr (1981) has indicated that
fish samples containing < 20% omnivores reflect good
stream sites, > 45% omnivores as degraded locations.
Percentages of omnivores at our sites ranged between 36%
to 47%. Karr (1991) also found that as stream degradation
increases, proportions of omnivores will increase while
cyprinid insectivores and piscivores will decrease. These
functional analyses reflect an Iowa fish community in an
intermediate stage of degradation.
An index of biotic integrity (IBI) has been widely used
to quantify stream conditions and assist in defining water
resource quality (Karr, 1991). IBI scores > 48 were gener-
ally thought to reflect good to excellent conditions. Values
< 34 were indicative of poor quality, with intermediate val-
ues representative of fair conditions. The mean site IBI
scores in our study ranged from 28 to 44 (Table 3-8), and
overall represented a fair to poor fish community accord-
ing to Karr.
Most of the fish collected were tolerant and preferred
flowing water conditions (Table 3-7). Karr's (1991) attributes
for describing a fair to poor fish community are having low
total taxa numbers, increasing proportions of omnivores,
high percentages of tolerant taxa, and few top carnivores.
Based on these attributes, the fish community found in this
study would match these conditions.
3.6 Integrated Watershed Analyses
Significant associations were found among the physi-
cal and chemical measurements. Strong relationships (P
< 0.01) were found with the surface water and sediment
pore water phosphorus (TP, O-PO > and the nitrogen analy-
ses (TN, NO2+NO3-N, NH3-N, Table 3-9). Drainage area
was strongly associated with NH?-N, but had weaker rela-
tionships with TSS and and TN values. Nitrogen was higher
in the smaller drainages, and TSS concentrations were
higher at the larger drainage sites. However, additional
surveys would be needed to more fully determine seasonal
and annual relationships. A strong relationship was found
between surface water TP and TSS values. Gosselink et
al. (1990) also found the same relationship and thought it
may be due to the binding of phosphorus to the stream
sediment particles.
Strong correlations were found among the
macroinvertebrate community indices, water quality val-
ues and drainage area (Table 3-10). Size of drainage area
was strongly and positively correlated with all community
indices and total taxa. Highest correlations were with quan-
titative EPT taxa (from the artificial substrate samplers),
and remained a dominant descriptor when drainage area
12
-------
Table 3-4. Macroinvertebrate Artificial Substrate Results
Ephemeroptera
Tricorythodes
Caenis
Stenacron
Stenonema
Heptagenia
Isonychia
Baetis
Leptophlebia
Baetisca
Plecoptera
Perlesta
Rernarcys
Triehoptera
Cheumatopsyche
Hydropsyohe
Neureolipsis
Nectopsyche
Hydroptldae
Coleoptera
Elmidae
Agabus
Chironomidae
. Psectrocladius
Crictopus
Corynoneuria
Thienemanniella
Brillia
Microtendipes
Dicrotendipes
Polypedilum
Tribelos
Chironomus
Cryptochironomus
Tanytarsini
Ablabesmyia
Other Diptera
Ceratopogonidae
Hemerodromia
Simuliidae
Ephydridae
Mollusca
Physa
Other
Hyalella
Asellus
Hydra
Oligochaeta
Planaria
Hirudinea
Copepoda
Totals
WC1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
45
1
0
0
0
20
0
1
0
0
3
1
0
0
0
0
99
0
0
0
91
0
0
0
262
Walnut Creek
WC 2 WC 3
0
1
31
0
42
0
7
2
0
20
0
11
0
0
0
1
1
4
2
23
1
0
6
0
1
10
1
2
2
334
8
0
0
2
1
10
0
2
0
40
0
1
1
567
0
3
104
0
21
0
18
0
0
4
0
5
2
0
0
1
4
2
1
30
2
0
9
0
1
2
0
7
0
27
9
0
1
1
5
28
1
1
11
5
1
0
2
305
WC4
0
1
2
0
48
2
21
0
0
6
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
4
0
0
2
0
0
0
7
3 ,
1
2
4
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
111
Bear Creek
BC 1 BC 2 BC 3
0
15
24
0
790
29
3
3
0
0
0
271
123
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
33
0
0
2
0
0
0
4
14
0
0
3
4
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
1323
25
29
34
1
295
6
32
4
3
0
0
48
9
125
0
5
1
0
0
43
0
0
2
0
0
3
0
0
0
2
9
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
12
0
0
0
692
6
35
3
0
126
1
1
13
0
1
0
2
1
0
1
1
1
0
, 1
2
0
0
23
0
9
0
0
17
1
19
5
0
2
0
0
4
9
0
1
2
0
3
0
285
Squaw Creek
SC 1 SO 2 SC 3
0
11
700 :
0
979
8
0
10
0
0
0
226
3
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
1
2
10
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
0
1960
11
7
37
36
311
15
3
9
0
0
0
185
31
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
12
0
6
10
0
0
0
3
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
684
124
12
5
49
42
71
76
1
9
11
3
121
65
0
1
54
8
0
3
33
0
2
5
6
7
24
0
30
0
93
39
1
0
0
2
1
0
0
3
6
14
0
0
921
Mntry
MC1"
2
1
0
2
22
0
1
10
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
0
0
8
0
21
0
5
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
107
Crked
CC1»
6
18
55
8
561
6
4
5
0
0
0
435
98
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
0
206
0
0
0
0
0
1
28
33
1
0
78
4
0
32
4
0
87
1
0
0
1679
Percent
Comp.
4.4
1.7
9.5
1.7
24.1
2.6
3.7
0.4
0.3
1.1
0.1
9.2
3.2
2.3
0.1
1.8
0.4
0.1
0.2
4.0
0.1
0.1
1.3
0.2
0.6
12
0.1
1.5
0.1
14.3
2.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.4
2.4
0.2
0.1
0.3
2.9
0.4
0.1
0.1
100.0
"Less than three measurements taken, Mntry = Montgomery Creek, Crked = Crooked Creek.
Note: All values are averages.
13
-------
Table 3-5. Macroinvertebrate Qualitative Results
Walnut Creek
WC1 WC 2 WC 3
Ephemeroplera
TrteorytlKxtes
Caenls
Stenacron
Stenonoma
Heptagenia
Isonychia
Baelis
Paraleptophlebta
Hexagcnia
PsGudocloecn
Pctomanthus
LcplophleWa
Plocoptera
Acroneuria
Pcrlesta
Trichoptera
Choumatopsyche
Hydropsyche
HyckopliKdae
Orchrolrfchia
Colcoptera
ElmWaa
CWfonomtdaa
Psectrodadius
Crictopus
Thiencmanniella
Briffia
Microlendipes
Dtcrotendipes
Potypedilum
Tribetos
Chlronomus
Glyptotendipes
Cryplochironomus
Tanytarsint
RobaWa
AWabesmyia
Procladius
Haterotrissocladius
Other Diptera
Ccfatopogonldaa
Hemerodromia
TipolkJae
Simuliidae
Ephydridae
Mollusca
Physa
Pelecypoda
Other
KyaleHa
Asetlus
Hydra
OlSgochaeta
Pianaria 0
Decapoda
Totals
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
6
0
0
1
4
1
3
0
6
1
0
0
0
0
4
0
97
15
0
0
0
70
0
1
214
0
2
154
0
34
0
39
0
5
0
0
0
0
20
7
2
1
0
0
1
26
0
1
0
0
1
3
0
0
2
107
0
7
0
0
1
0
0
8
0
5
1
0
1
0
9
8
3
445
0
11
61
0
24
0
94
0
0
0
0
0
0
16
5
7
7
0
7
0
30
1
1
1
3
3
1
4
0
2
18
0
4
2
3
2
1
2
6
3
29
2
2
1
0
13
0
1
372
WC4
1
9
7
0
20
0
21
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
5
0
0
7
11
0
1
0
0
1
0
7
0
0
21
0
4
0
2
1
0
0
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
135
Bear Creek
BC 1 BC 2 BC 3
12
8
11
1
126
'16
12
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
26
15
2
0
0
0
35
0
17
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
3
0
8
0
1
0
0
0
7
1
0
0
2
1
0
8
0
0
312
16
56
14
4
40
2
43
1
3
0
0
5
0
0
10
2
0
0
1
0
8
0
2
0
0
4
0
1
0
0
3
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
3
94
1
229
9
42
5
1
71
6
64
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
33
24
19
0
1
1
34
0
1
0
1
55
0
1
0
2
24
0
20
0
0
0
2
0
7
1
0
2
2
0
0
35
9
0
562
Squaw Creek
SC 1 SC 2 SC 3
0
10
12
0
303
2
118
2
0
10
0
0
0
0
159
28
0
0
4
0
557
0
12
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
3
0
0
1
0
9
17
0
0
29
28
0
0
9
1
0
1325
2
2
3
5
6
1
3
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
4
3
0
0
1
0
12
0
3
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
3
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
1
26
0
53
82
16
11
38
25
4
7
0
0
2
2
3
3
4
11
16
31
0
22
13
67
0
1
2
32
5
0
23
2
3
72
2
12
2
0
4
0
0
0
0
2
1
1
0
3
8
0
0
565
, Mntry
MC1a
65
18
0
10
48
41
107
0
0
4
0
0
0
2
30
9
11
10
7
0
33
0
5
0
0
3
0
4
0
0
3
0
9
0
0
0
4
0
10
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
441
Crked
CC1a
4
4
34
1
149
5
25
0
0
3
0
1
0
0
100
46
0
0
4
0
105
1
39
0
0
3
0
1
0
0
14
0
7
0
1
0
0
0
174
2
1
1
27
1
0
107
3.4
0
' 853
Percent
Comp.
4.6
4.3
9.0
1.4
12.2
1.6
11.8
0.1
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.1
1.6
4.7
2.4
2.0
0.3
1.1
0.7
10.3
0.1
1.0
0.1
1.0
1.9
0.2
1.2
0.1
0.3
7.9
0.1
1.8
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
2.9
0.2
2.1
0.5
0.6
0.1
0.1
4.0
0.2
100.0
»Less than three measurements taken, Mntry = Montgomery Creek, Crked =. Crooked Creek.
Note: AH values are averages.
14
-------
Table 3-6. Macroinvertebrate Community Composition
Walnut Creek Bear Creek
Qualitative Sampling
Total Taxa
Community Structure
19(1-20)
Squaw Creek
Mntry Cr.a
20(11-36}
25(10-41)
aMntry = Montgomery Creek, Crked = Crooked Creek.
bAverage and (minimum-maximum) values.
cLess than three measurements taken.
d% Macrophyte Par. = % Macrophyte Parasite.
19 (*)
Crked Cr.a
Artificial Substrates
Total Abundance
Total Taxa
Community Structure
% Mayflies
% Caddisflies
% Midges
% Other
Functional Groups
% Collectors
% Grazers
% Predators
% Shredders
% Macrophyte Par.*
Other Groups
% Erosional
% Depositions!
% Both
EPTTaxa
Total ICI Score
351(52-2014)
16 (9-24)
26 (0-94)
2 (0-17)
51 (2-88)
20(1-79)
43 (3-82)
37 (9-94)
7 (0-32)
8 (0-53)
0
25 (0-95)
6 (0-25)
65 (4-97)
5 (0-10)
24 (4-42)
670(156-1462)
19(15-27)
63 (49-83)
24(0-31)
10(2-41)
3 (1-9)
38 (25-47)
53 (42-73)
2 (0-8)
6(1-16)
0
80 (49-94)
7 (0-25)
13 (4-28)
9(5-12)
36 (26-42)
1114(620-1971)b
27 (30-36)
55 (14-87)
23 (12-33)
18(1-59)
3(0-8)
51 (14-81)
36 (7-85)
6 (0-20)
3 (0-21)
4 (0-14)
69 (22-98)
9 (1-34)
23 (1-58)
12 (9-15)
38 (24-42)
110 (')C
17 O
36(*)
3O
61 (*)
1(')
40 n
23 n
8 (*)
28(*)
0
36 O
28 O
35 (*)
9O
30 O
1704(*)c
26 O
39 O
31 n
17 O
13 n
36 O
44(*)
2(*)
12(*)
0
74 (*)
5O
-21 (*)
12 O
42 O
21 n
% Mayflies
% Caddisflies
% Midges
% Other
Functional Groups
% Collectors
% Grazers
% Predators
% Shredders
% Macrophyte Par.d
Other Groups
% Erosional
% Depositionaf
% Both
EPTTaxa
50 (0-87)
4 (0-15)
31 (0-69)
16(0-100)
41 (0-68)
38(14-100)
9(0-46)
7 (0-26)
1 (0-14)
,
36 (0-91)
7(0-31)
53(6-100)
6(0-9)
49(17-97)
11 (1-23)
22 (0-54)
17(1-61)
52 (26-87)
25 (7-52)
10(0-21)
7(0-42)
2(0-9)
36(17-89)
21 (3-55)
42 (3-75)
11 (8-15)
33(12-69)
11 (4-17)
44(19-54)
11 (4-22)
47 (27-71)
18(10-58)
5(0-13)
22(0-41)
3(0-9)
38 (20-73)
9 (2-19)
44 (4-58)
13(10-16)
65 D
14 n
15 n
en
es n
13 n
4(«)
9O
3D
50 n
8(*)
39 n
11 n
47 n
15 O
14 n
25(*)
49 n
34 n
7(*)
21 n
so
ei n
7f)
29 n
9O
15
-------
Tnbto 3-7. Rsh Sampling Results
Walnut Creek
WC 2 WC 3 WC 4
Central slonoro'tor
Common carp
Brassy minnow
Common shiner
BJgmouth shiner
Red shiner
Sand shiner
Suckermouth minnow
Bluntnose minnow
Fathead minnow
Blacknose dace
Creek chub
Quillback
Highfin carpsucker
Wh'rto sucker
Northern hog sucker
Black bullhead
Green sunfish
Smatlmoulh bass
Johnny darter
Totals
Total Taxa
14
0
0
35
6
1
0
0
149
7
2
35
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
73
322
8
149
0
0
22
22
0
0
0
58
2
0
29
0
0
4
0
1
0
0
47
195
8
29
1
0
70
105
12
24
0
57
18
1
97
0
0
2
0
0
3
0
3
422
10
Bear Creek
BC 1 BC 2 BC 3
3
0
0
20
141
0
36
0
38
1
0
43
0
0
1
3
0
0
0
12
297
9
22
0
0
66
110
10
30
0
72
0
0
19
0
0
2
0
0
1
1
3
333
9
29
0
0
29
34
1
25
0
31
0
0
14
0
0
3
2
0
0
4
9
181
9
Squaw Creek
SC 1 SC 3
12
2
0
13
11
1
0
0
58
12
0
29
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
60
195
8
26
0
0
134
407
4
197
3
315
0
1
35
6
2
6
2
0
0
0
16
1155
11
Crked
CC1
34
0
3
8
32
0
7
1
48
7
0
75
0
0
3
0
0
4
0
27
248
12
Percent
Com p.
5.2
0.1
0.1
12.7
25.8
1.0
9.2
0.1
24.6
1.6
0.1
10.9
0.2
0.1
0.6
0.2
0.1
0.3
0.1
7.0
100.0
Note: AH values are averages.
was removed. Best and highest associations in this study
occurred with surface water TN, NO2+NO3-N, NH3-N ,and
the EPT quantitative index. Arthur and Zischke (1994) and
Arthur et al. (1996) have also found similar significant rela-
tionships with the same community indices to increasing
concentrations of TP, NH3-N and NO2+NO3-N.
Ordination analyses yielded additional interactive in-
formation.The first three factors explained 67% of the vari-
ability (Table 3-11). Most of the variability was explained
by the TN and NO2+NO3-N concentrations. Other associ-
ated chemical factors were surface water TP, surface wa-
ter/sediment pore water O-PO , and sediment pore water
NH3-N.
Less (P < 0.05 and > 0.01) significant correlations
occurred when comparing habitat quality (as QHEI scores),
drainage area values, and mean biological community in-
dices. Good associations were found with the EPT Quan-
titative and Qualitative indices, drainage area, and QHEI
(Table 3-12). The EPT-Quantitative index also correlated
with the QHEI index. No similar correlations were found
using the ICI index.
Fewer associations were found with the fish commu-
nity metrics (Table 3-13). No correlations were found with
fish IBI index and fish abundance, water quality values,
and drainage area. Mixed results were found with the total
taxa comparisons. Fish total taxa correlated with increas-
ing NH.-N and also with decreasing concentrations of
NO_+NO,-N.
16
-------
Table 3-8. Fish Community Composition
Walnut Creek
Bear Creek
Squaw Creek
Crooked Creek"
Total Abundance
Total Taxa
Community Structure
% Minnows
% Shiners
% Suckers
% Bass/Sunfish
% Darters
% Chubs
Functional Groups
% Herbivores
% Insectivores
% Omnivores
% Piscivores
Sensitivity
% Intolerants
% Tolerants
Habitat
% Generalists
% Flowing
Total IBI Score
323(45-1006)
9(5-13)
31 (2-67)
32 (4-67)
1 (0-2)
< 1(0-1)
12 (0-58)
17(4-30)
0
4 (0-24)
50 (35-82)
0
0
52 (25-67)
32 (6-82)
70(18-94)
37 (32-42)
274(20-541)"
9(7-11)
19 (0-27)
61 (35-77)
1 (0-45)
1 (0-8)
3 (0-6)
7 (2-37)
<1 (0-1)
13(7-20)
27(11-33)
< 1(0-1)
1 (0-10)
26(18-47)
20 (2-67)
81 (33-98)
44 (38-54)
771 (47-1736)
9(7-14)
28 (0-51)
59 (0-65)
1 (0-35)
<1 (0-1)
4 (0-32)
4(0-17) ,
0
16(0-19)
34(27-51)
0
< 1 (0-9)
33 (3-49)
17(12-94)
81 (16-88)
28 (23-34)
248 (*)"
12 f)
24 n
19 n
10
1 (*)
11 n
30f)
1 (*)
so
54 (*)
on
on
53 n
20 n
so n
so n
"Average and (minimum-maximum) values.
Two measurements taken.
Table 3-9. Water Quality and Drainage Correlations
Surface Water
DRNG
Surface Water
TSS *
O-PO4 NS
TP NS
TN *"
NO2+NO3-NNS NS
NH3-N NS
Sediment Pore Water
O-PO, NS
TP NS
TN NS
NO2+NO3-N NS
NH3-N H"
TSS
0-PO,
NS - TP
m m -
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS
NS m m
NS m *
* NS NS
m NS NS
*a NS NS
TN
NO2+NO,
m
NS NS
NS NS
NS NS
m m
m m
* «"
,-N
NH3-N
0-PO,
*
m m
NS NS
NS NS
m m*
Sediment Pore Water
TP
TN
NS - NO2+NO3-N
NS m - NH3-N
NS NS a
* - Positive correlation, significant at P < 0.05 and > 0.01.
*" - Negative correlation, significant at P < 0.05 and > 0.01.
m - Positive correlation, significant at P < 0.01.
•• - Negative correlation, significant at P s 0.01.
NS - Not significant.
17
-------
Tob!» 3-10. Macroinvertebrate, Water Quality, and Drainage Correlations
ICI EPT-Qual. EPT-Quant.
Total Taxa
Drainage Area
Surface Water
TSS
O-PO4
TP
TN
NOI+NO,
NHj-N
SexSmeni Pora Water
OP04
TP
TN
NOj+NO,
NH,-N
•
NS
NS
NS
**
**
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
""
** - Negative correlation, significant at P s 0.05
• - Positive correlation, significant at PS 0.01,
•* - Negative correlation, significant at P s 0.01
NS - Not significant.
•
NS
NS
NS
*'
*•
NS
NS
NS
*•
NS
NS
and > 0.01 .
*
NS
NS
NS
H"
»"
B*
NS
NS
•*
NS
*«
•
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS .
NS
NS
Tab!o3-11. Principal Component Analyses
Eigenvalue
% Variance Explained
Cumulative %
1
3.414
28.5
28.5
Factor
2
2.602
21.7
50.2
3
2.049
17.1
67.2
Coordinates
Drainage
Surface Water
TSS
0-PO,
TP
TN
NCL+NO,
NH,-N
Seefmanf Pore Wafer
TP *
TN
NOj+NO,
-0.182
0.318
0.074
0.107
0.895
fl.924
0.162
-0.027
0.124
0.933
0.832
-0.055
0.312
0.476
0.761*
0.714
-0.197
-0.185
0.175
0.858
0.486
- 0.052
0.103
-0.317
-0.545
- 0.389
0.285
0,018
0.250
0,165
0.511
0.157
0.556
-0.108
- 0.453
0.786
•Underlined correlations significant P s 0.05.
18
-------
Table 3-12. Macroinvertebrate, Habitat, and Drainage Correlations
DRNGa QHEI"
Macroinvertebrate Community Index
ICIC
EPT-Qual.d
EPT-Quant."
NS
*
NS
NS
*
*'
"DRNG = Drainage area.
bQHEI = Qualitative habitat evaluation index.
CICI = Index community integrity.
dEPT-QuaI. = Ephemeroptera-Plecoptera-Trtchoptera index, qualitative samples.
'EPT-Quant. = Ephemeroptera-Pleeoptera-Trichoptera index, artificial substrate samples.
'Positive correlation, significant at P < 0.05 and > 0.01.
Table 3-13. Fish, Water Quality, and Drainage Correlations
IBI" Total Taxa
Sediment Pore Water
"IBI - Index of biotic integrity.
*b - Negative correlation, significant at P < 0.05 and > 0.01.
* - Positive correlation, significant at P < 0.05 and > 0.01.
NS - Not significant.
Abundance
Drainage Area
Surface Water
TSS
0-P04
JP
TN
NO2+NO3-N
NH.-N
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
*"
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
O-PO4
JP
TN
NO2+NO3-N
NH3-N
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
*
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
19
-------
4. Summary and Conclusions
This study is consistent with the conclusion by the
U.S. ERA (1994) that sediments and nutrients are the pri-
mary pollutants found in agricultural streams. Agricultural
activity can promote physical changes in streams such as
increases in bottom substrate embedded ness (fine par-
ticles), elevated TSS concentrations, and decreases in
habitat quality. Dominant chemical components adversely
affecting the biological community in this study were
NOa+NO3-N and NH3-N. The principal macroinvertebrate
response linked to these chemical components were low-
ered numbers of EPT taxa. Fewer associations were found
with the macroinvertebrate ICI index and fish community
structure and the chemical constituents. Ammonia nitro-
gen concentrations did not reach the toxicity threshold lev-
els Identified in previous studies (Arthur et al., 1996). Us-
ing U.S. EPA (1984) waterbody quality definitions, these
surveyed central Iowa streams would receive a "fair" rat-
ing based on the macroinvertebrate and fish community
structure, elevated nutrients and sediments, and degraded
habitat conditions.
Menzel et al. (1984) have depicted central Iowa head-
waler streams as composed of "mud-loving" fauna prefer-
ring soft-bottomed substrates and living in turbid stream
conditions. Streamside changes such as channelization
and the general disappearance of strearnside riparian veg-
etation belts account for decreasing allochthonous leaf and
natural organic debris inputs into streams resulting in a
benthic community dominated by scrapers and collectors.
Our study also observed the same type of
macroinvertebrate community. These investigators con-
cluded that the fish community may have changed little
over the past 50 years except for the large declines in sen-
sitive forms species as the southern redbelly dace,
twnyhead chub, rosyface shiner and smallmouth bass.
Of these four sensitive fish species mentioned by Menzel,
we collected only a few smallmouth bass.
Few historical and/or unaltered site descriptions of
prairie streams are available. Lack of reference descrip-
tions will increase the difficulty in devising meaningful strat-
egies to improve watershed integrity. Because of the gen-
eral absence of historical information, Menzel et al. (1984)
recommended an adoption of a holistic land to water man-
agement approach with an emphasis on controlling hydrol-
ogy, instream erosion, and preserving natural undisturbed
stream areas as buffer zones. Of the 12 locations sampled
in our study, the least physically disturbed location, and
most "natural," was at Montgomery Creek. The more dis-
turbed locations were found in the upper reaches of Squaw,
Bear, and Crooked Creeks.
Studies at other midwestern locations (Minnesota and
Michigan) using similar sampling protocols (Arthur and
Zischke, 1994 and Arthur et al., 1996) found associations
among many of the same stressors and biological re-
sponses. The dominant stressors were habitat disruption
(as measured by the QHEI index), TSS, NO2+NO3-N, TP,
and NH3-N. Sensitive biological responses were the
macroinvertebrate community indices and richness (total
taxa). Despite these associations, more data are needed
to further quantify and identify sensitive stressor/responses
linkages in agricultural streams. The EPA Science Advi-
sory Board (1994), in a review of the Iowa MASTER study,
recommended that procedures be developed to separate
specific causes rather than relying on composite indices,
and concentrating on devising multiple metrics to define
stream impairments. This group also called for more em-
phasis on defining reference (undisturbed) conditions and
for devising how this information can be applied into the
impact description process. Both suggestions provide fu-
ture directions in pursuing the definition of watershed in-
tegrity.
20
-------
References
American Public Health Association. 1980. Standard Meth-
ods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater,
15th edition, American Public Health Association,
Washington, D.C.
Ankley, G.T., A. Katko, and J.W. Arthur. 1990. Identification
of ammonia as an important sediment-associated
toxicant in the lower Fox river, Green Bay, Wiscon-
sin. Environmental Toxicoiogical and Chemistry.
9:313-322.
Arthur, J.W. and J.A. Zischke. 1994. Evaluation of water-
shed quality in the Minnesota River Basin. EPA/600/
R-94/143, August, Environmental Research Labo-
ratory-Duluth, Duluth, MN 55804.
Arthur, J.W., T. Roush, J.A. Thompson, F.A. Puglisi, C.
Richards, G.E. Host, and LB. Johnson. 1996. Evalu-
ation of watershed quality in the Saginaw River Ba-
sin. EPA/600/R-95/153, September, National Health
and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory,
Mid-Continent Ecology Division, Duluth, MN 55804.
Bailey, P.A., J.W. Enblom, S.R. Hanson, RA. Renard ,and
K. Schmidt. 1994. A fish community analysis of the
Minnesota River Basin. IN: Minnesota River Assess-
ment Project Report, Volume III, Biological andToxi-
cological Assessment, January, Report to the Leg-
islative Commission of Minnesota Resources, 212
p.
EPA Science Advisory Board. 1994. An SAB Report: Evalu-
ation of draft technical guidance on biological crite-
ria for streams and small rivers. Prepared by the Bio-
logical Criteria Subcommittee of the Ecological Pro-
cesses and Effects Committee.
Frazier, B.E., T.J. Naimo, and M,B. Sandheinrich. 1996.
Temporal and vertical distribution of total ammonia
nitrogen and un-ionized ammonia nitrogen in sedi-
ment pore water from the Upper Mississippi River.
Environmental Toxicology Chemistry. 15:92-99.
Gammon, J.R., M.D. Johnson, C.E. Mays, D.A. Schiappa,
W.L, Fisher, and B.L. Pearman. 1983. Effects of ag-
riculture on stream fauna in Central Indiana. EPA-
600/3-83-020, April, Environmental Research Labo-
ratory, Corvatlis, OR 97333.
Gossefink, J.G., G.P. Shaffer, L.C. Lee, D.M. Burdick, D.L.
Childers, N.C. Leibowitz, S.C. Hamilton, R. Boumans,
D. Cushman, S. Fields, M. Koch ,and J.M. Visser.
1990. Landscape conservation in a forested wetland
watershed. Bioscience. 40:588-600.
Harlan, J.R., E.B. Speaker, and J. Mayhew. 1987. Iowa Fish
and Fishing. Iowa Department of Natural Resources.
Hatfield, J.L. 1996. Description of alternative farming sys-
tems for master assessment. IN: Preliminary master
assessment of the impacts of alternative agricultural
management practices on ecological and water re-
source attributes of Walnut Creek Watershed, Iowa,
J.B. Waide, editor, FTN Associates, Ltd, Little Rock,
AR, Chapter 4, pp. 4-1 to 4-21. IN PRESS.
Iowa Department of Natural Resources. 1994. Water qual-
ity in Iowa during 1992 and 1993. Iowa Department
of Natural Resources, Des Moines, IA 50319.
Kansas Biological Survey and Iowa State University. 1996.
Assessment of the effects of nonpoint source pollu-
tion on the biotic integrity of Walnut Creek. January.
Internal Progress Report
Karr, J.R. 1981. Assessment of biotic integrity using fish
communities. Bioscience. 6(6) :21-27.
Karr, J.R. 1991. Biological integrity: a long-neglected as-
pect of water resource management. Ecological
Applications. 1:66-84.
Klemm, D.J., P.A. Lewis, F. Fulk, and J.M. Lazorchak. 1990.
Macroinvertebrate field and laboratory methods for
evaluating the biological integrity of surface waters.
EPA-600/4-90-030, November, Environmental Moni-
toring Systems Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Klemm, D.J., Q.J. Stober, and J.M. Lazorchak. 1993. Fish
field and laboratory methods for evaluating the bio-
21
-------
logical integrity of surface waters. EPA-600/R-92/111,
March, Environmental Monitoring Systems Labora-
tory, Cincinnati, OH.
Lachat, 1988. Methods manual for the Quickchem auto-
mated ion analyzer. Lachat Instruments, Milwaukee,
Wl.
Larimer, O.J. 1974. Drainage areas of Iowa streams. Bul-
letin No. 7, Iowa State Highway Commission, Iowa
Natural Resources Council.
Lenat, D.R. 1984. Agriculture and stream water quality: A
biological evaluation of erosion control practices.
Env/ro/7. Management. 8:333-344.
Lewis, D.W. 1984. Practical Sedimentology. New York, Van
Nostrand Reinhold Company, Inc., p. 85-108.
Lyons, J. 1992. Using the index of biotic integrity (IBI) to
measure environmental quality in warmwater
streams of Wisconsin. Gen.Tech. Rep. NC-149. U.S.
Dept. Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central For-
est Experimental Station, 51 p.
McCollor, S and S. Heiskary. 1993. Selected water quality
characteristics of minimally impacted streams from
Minnesota's seven ecoregions. Addendum, Febru-
ary.
Menzel, B.W. 1983. Agricultural management practices and
the integrity of instream biological habitat. IN: Agri-
cultural Management and Water Quality, F.W.
Schaller and G.W. Bailey, eds., Iowa State Univer-
sity Press, Ames, p. 305-328.
Menzel, B.W., J.B. Barnum, and L.M. Antosch. 1984. Eco-
logical alterations of Iowa prairie-agricultural streams.
Iowa State Journal Research 59:5-30.
Merritt, R.W. and K.W. Cummins. 1984. An Introduction to
the Aquatic Insects of North America. Second edi-
tion. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co., Dubuque, Iowa.
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. 1987. Biological
criteria for the protection of aquatic life: Volumes II
and III. Users manual for biological field assessments
of Ohio surface waters. Surface Water Section, Divi-
sion of Water Quality, Columbus, OH .
Omernick, J.M. and A.L. Gallant. 1988. Ecoregions of the
upper midwest states. EPA/600/3-88/037, Septem-
ber, Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis,
OR.
Paragamian, V.L. 1990. Fish populations in Iowa Rivers and
Streams. Technical Bulletin No. 3, Iowa Department
of Natural Resources, Des Moines, IA 50319, May.
Rankin, E.T. 1995. Habitat indices in water resource qual-
ity assessments. IN: Biological Assessment and Cri-
teria, Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, p. 183-208.
Richards, C., G.E. Host, and J.W. Arthur. 1993. Identifica-
tion of predominant environmental factors structur-
ing stream macroinvertebrate communities within a
large agricultural catchment. Freshwater Biology.
29:285-294.
Solomon, K.R., D.B. Baker, R.P. Richards, K.R. Dixon, S.J.
Klaine, T.W. La Point, R.J. Kendall, C.P. Weisskopf,
J.M. Giddings, J.P. Giesy, L.W. Hall Jr., and W.M. Wil-
liams. 1996. Ecological risk assessment of atrazine
in North American surface waters. Environmental
Toxicology and Chemistry. 15:31 -76.
U.S. EPA. 1984.Technical support manual: Waterbody sur-
veys and assessments for conducting use attainabil-
ity analyses. November. Office of Water. Washing-
ton DC.
U.S. EPA. 1989a. Methods for the chemical analysis of water
and wastes. EPA-600/4-79/020, March. Environmen-
tal Monitoring Systems Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH,
U.S. EPA. 1989b. Short-term methods for estimating the
chronic toxicity of effluents and receiving waters to
freshwater organisms. EPA/600/4-89/001 and
Supplement EPA/600/4-89/001 A, Second Edition,
Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory,
Cincinnati, OH.
U.S. EPA. 1991. The watershed protection approach. An
overview. EPA-503/9-92-002, December, Office of
Water, Washington DC.
U.S. EPA. 1994. The quality of our nation's water: 1992.
EPA-841-S-94-002, March, Office of Water, Wash-
ington, DC.
22
-------
No.
A-1
A-2
A-3
A-4
A-5
A-6
Appendix A
Physical, Toxicological, and Chemical Information
Page
Land Use by County « 24
Non-Farmed Streamside Buffer Measurements 24
Ceriodaphnla dublaand Sediment Pore Water Test Results 25
Selenastrum capricornutum and Sediment Pore Wateriest Results , 26
Water Quality Measurements - Average Values , 26
Anton/Cation Analyses , 27
23
-------
Table A-1. Land Use by County
Use Designation
% Cropland
% Forest
% Urban
% Pasture/Rural
% Water
% Other
Total Acres
Story
82
3
6
5
<1
3
363,490
Boone
77
7
7
8
<1
2
366,560
Hamilton
87
3
3
4
<1
3
369,920
Overall
Summary
82
4
5
6
<1
3
1,100,420
Source: Agricultural Stabilization Conservation Service Offices in Story, Boone, and Hamilton Counties, 1994.
Table A-2. Non-Farmed Streamside Buffer Measurements
Location
Between WC 1-2
Between WC 2-3
Between WC 3-4
Between BC 1-2
Between BC 2-3
Between SC 1-2
Between SC 2-3
Upstream MC 1
Upstream CC 1
Stream Reach
Measured
(lineal ft)
1,584
13,134
30,162
21,120
29,120
36,261
22,308
15,144
12,719
Total
Non-Farmed
(acres)
3
147
544
51
358
47
254
367
20
Streamside
Buffer
(acres/1 000 ft)
1.9
11.2
18.0
2.4
12.1
1.3
11.4
24.3
1.6
Source: Agricultural Stabilization Conservation Service Offices in Story, Boone, and Hamilton Counties, 1994.
24
-------
Table A-3. Ceriodaphnia dubta and Sediment Pore Water Test Results
Sampling Periods
Station
WC1
WC 2
WC 3
WC4
BC1
BC2
BC3
SC1
SC2
SC3
MC1
CC1
Percent
Gone.
100
50
100
50
100
50
100
50
100
50
100
60
100
50
100
50
100"
50
100 .
50
100
50
100
50
05/92
Surv.
100
100
90
100
100
100
100
100
-
-
100
100
100
"100
V
-
-
-
100
-
100
100
•
-
06/92
Yld
27
24
23
24
25
26
19
24
-
-
24
25
22
25
-
-
-
-
25
-
27
27
_
-
Surv.
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
-
-
100
-
100
-
-
-
-
-
100
-
-
.
-
-
Y!d
28
29
28
28
26
35
32
34
-
-
31
-
32
-
-
-
-
-
29
-
-
-
-
-
09/92
Surv.
100
100
100
90
80
_
100
-
-
-
100
-
100
-
-
-
-
-
100
-
100
-
-
- •
04/93
Yld
20
23
22
20
17
-
22
-
-
-
22
-
21
-
-
-
-
-
22
-
19
-
-
-
Surv.a
100
-
100
-
90
100
-
100
-
100
-
100
-
-.
-
100
-
100
-
100
.
-
-
Yid»
17
-»'
23
-
21
21
-
18
-
28
-
23
-
-
-
26
_
.24
-
22
.
-
-
Samplinq Periods
Station
WC1
WC2
WC3
WC4
BC1
BC2
BC3
SC1
SC2
SC3
MC1
CC1
Percent
Cone.
100
50
100
50
100
50
100
50
100
50
100
50
100
50
100
50
100
50
100
50
100
50
100
50
06/93
Surv.
100
_
100
-
90
.
-
.
-
-
100
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
-
-
-
100
-
Yld
20
_
26
_
19
-
-
_
-
-
22
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
20
-
04/94
Surv.
90
_
100
_
-
.
100
-
100
-
100
-
-
-
100
-
100
.
100
.
-
-
100
-
Yld
21
.
26
_
-
_
24
-
30
-
25
-
-
-
26
-
28
-
25
-
-
-
30
-
07/94
Surv.
100
.
100
"
100
.
100
-
100
-
100
-
-
-
100
-
100
_
90
-
-
-
90
-
Yld
12
.
17
_
17
_
17
_
17
-
17
-
-
-
16
-
17
_
13
-
-
-
15
-
aSurv. = Percent Survival.
bYld = Yield, average number of young produced at end of test
eNo test conducted.
25
-------
Tabl» A-4. Selenastrum caprlcomutum and Sediment Pore Wateriest Results
Sampling Periods
04194
Station
WC1
WC 2
WC 3
WC4
BC1
BC2
BC3
SC1
SC2
SO 3
MC1
CC1
Percent
Cone.
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Final
Biomass
3.5
4.1
-
10.0
5.0
3.3
-
5.4
7.7
6.9
-
4.2
Prop. %
Response
-15
-2
-
145
21
-20
-
30
87
68
-
1
07/94
Final
Biomass*
1.8
3.5
-
6.5
5.8
11.4
-
3.2
-
4.9
1.8
Prop. %
Response
-79"
-58
_C
-23
-31
35
-
-62
-
-42
-79
•Final btoroass in mgfl.
^Proportional percent response from control response.
•No test conducted.
Tabla A-S. Water Quality Measurements - Average Values
Surface Water
MVNmgfl
TPmgfl
NO.+NOa-N mgfl
O-PO. (as P), mgfl
TN(asN),mgfl
TSSmgrt
T. Alkalinity mg/l
TuibJdity NTU
T. Conductivity nmhos/cm*
T. Organic Carbon mg/l
pH units
Tomperalura *C
Se<£menl Pore Water
NHj-N mg.1
TPmgfl
NO.+NOj-N mg/J
Q-PO4 (as P), mg/l
TN (as N), mg/l
Surface Wafer
NH,-N mgfl
TPmgfl
NO,+NO,-N mgfl
O-FO4 (as P), mgfl
TN (as N), mgfl
TSSmgfl
T.AlkaUnHymgfl
Turbidity NTU
T. Conductivity |unhos/cm*
T. Organic Carbon mg/l
pH units
Tomperalura °C
Sediment Pore Water
NHj-N mjjfl
TPmg/l
NO.+NO,-N mgfl
O-PO4 {as P), mg/l
TN (as N}, mg/l
BC1
0.03
0.07
9.3
0.05
9.8
123
317
52
486
6.0
7.8
17.4
0.15
0.03
8.1
0.05
8.8
SC1
0.05
0.08
9.3
0.06
10.2
120
358
39
578
3.6
7.9
16.0
0.35
0.08
7.2
0.06
7.8
Bear Creek
BC2
0.06
0.05
9.6
0.04
10.0
117
339
54
498
3.9
8.1
18.1
0.17
0.05
9.0
0.04
9.6
Sauaw Creek
SC2
0.04
0.08
8.5
0.05
8.9
195
351
52
567
3.8
8.0
16.7
0.22
0.08
7.4
0.08
8.2
BC3
0.03
0.09
9.4
0.06
9.8
150
343
59
520
3.2
7.9
17.7
0.39
0.07
8.0
0.07
8.7
SC3
0.04
0.08
9.1
0.05
9.3
113
338
52
528
3.8
8.0
18.4
0.32
0.06
8.1
0.06
7.5
Crked Cr."
CC1
0:05
0.12
9.5
0.09
10.3
89
357
67
575
3.8
-
16.8
1.12
0.08
6.7
0.05
9.0
WC1
0.04
0.06
11.5
0.04
12.2
66
378
20
605
2.9
7.6
13.9
3.25
0.16
5.6
0.04
9.7
Mntry Cr.a
MC1
0.05
0.08
8.3
0.04
8.5
125
358
58
490
2.5
j>
17.3
0.11
0.07
7.3
0.05
7.6
Walnut Creek
WC 2 WC 3
0.03 0.03
0.07 0.08
9.8 8.3
0.05 0.03
10.4 9.4
82 88
383 370
39 47
554 531
2.6 2.8
7.9 8.0
14.8 16.4
0.56 0.40
0.07 0.05
6.5 8.5
0.05 0.03
7.7 9.1
WC4
0.05
0.03
8.1
0.02
8.4
108
340
56
497
4.1
8.1
16.9
0.19
0.06
7.3
0.03
7.9
*Cfked • Crooked Creek, Mntry •
*No measurements taken.
Montgomery Creek,
26
-------
Table A-6. Anion/Cation Analyses
Bear Creek
Crooked Creek
Montgomery Creek
Squawk Creek
Walnut Creek
Anions
Fluoride mg/l
Chloride mg/l
Bromide mg/l
Sulfate mg/l
Cations
Calcium mg/l
Magnesium mg/l
Manganese mg/l
Sodium mg/l
Potassium mg/l
0.2 (0.1-0.2)
16.8(9.7-27.0)
0.03 (0.02-0.03)
19.3(11.1-35.8)
25.7 (20.0-28.7)
34.5(14.6-53.4)
0.01 (-)
1 .3 (0.8-2.0)
4.7 (3.6-6,0)
0.3 (-)
12.4 (9.4-15.5)
0.02(0.01-0.02)
14.2(13.2-15.2)
28.6(25.0-32.1)
30.1 (2.0-50.4)
0.02 (< 0.01 -0.04)
0.9 (< 0,1 -1.7)
3.2 (0,1-5.6)
0.2 (-)
13.5(15.2-19.8)°
0.03 ( - )
28.3(17.5-36.6)
38.9(24.3-56.0)
36.9(31.4^6.8)
0.01 (-)
5.9 (1 .0-9.5)
3.2(1.6-4.8)
0.2 (0.2-0.3)
16.8(9.2-29.1)
0.02 (0.02-0.03)
25.4(13.6-54.2)
32.9 (24.3-56.0)
34.6 (1 0.8-59.0)
0.01 (-)
2.4 (1 .2-8.9)
5.2 (1 .5-7.9)
0.3 (0.2-0.3)
18.4(10.1-27.3)
0.03 (0.02-0.03)
20.6(12.2-34.4)
39.5 (26.3-69.8)
34.9(11.8-78.0)
0.01 (-)
3.7(0.6-13.3)
4.1 (0.8-7.8)
aAverage and (minimum - maximum) values.
27
-------
Appendix B
Macroinvertebrate and Fish Community
No. Page
B-1 Macroinvertebrate Checklist/Classifications 29
B-2 Macroinvertebrate Community - Dominant Taxa ., 30
B-3 Macroinvertebrate Community Composition - by Major Group (in Percent) 33
B-4 Macroinvertebrate Community Metrics - by Station (Averages) 34
B-5 Fish Checklist/Classifications 35
B-6 Fish Community - Dominant Taxa 35
B-7 Fish Community Metrics - by Station (Averages) 36
28
-------
Table B-1. Macroinvertebrate Checklist/Classifications
Classification
Classification
Ephemeroptera -
Baetis
Baetisca
Caenis
Heptagenia
Hexagenia
Isonychia
Leptophlebia
Paraleptophlebia
Potomanthus
Stenacron
Stenonema
Trfcorythodes
Plecoptera - 3Taxa
Acroneuria
Perlesta
Pteronarcys
Trichoptera -^2Taxa
Agrypnia
Cheumatopsyche
Hydropsyche
Hydroptilidae
Mystacides
Nectopsyche
Nemotalius
Neureclipsis
Nyctiophylax
Orchrotrichia
Psychomyia
Trianodes
Coleoptera-4Taxa
Agabus
ElmFdae
Hydatfcus
Peltodytes
Hemiptera - 1 Taxon
Corixidae
Odonata-3Taxa
Argia
Gomphidae
Ischnura
Total Taxa = 77Taxa
Classification Definitions
c = collector
gz = grazer
Feeding
12 Taxa
c
c
c
gz
c
c
c
c
gz
gz
gz
c
per
Pd
sh
sh
c
c
mp
c
sh
sh
c
pd
c
sh
pd
c
Pd
mp
Habitat
both
dep
ero
ero
ero
ero
ero
ero
ero
ero
both
both
ero
ero
both
both
ero
both
ero
both
ero
Chironomidae -
Ablabesymia
Brillia
Chfronomus
Corynoneuria
Cricotopus
Cryptochironomus
Dicrotendipes
Endochironomus
Glyptotendipes
Heterotrissocladius
Microtendipes
Nilothauma
Nyfotanypus
Polypedilurrv
Proctadius-
Pseudocladius
Robakia
Stenochfronomus
Stictiochironomus
Tanypus
Tanytarsini
Thienemanniella
Tribelos
Other Diptera
Atherix
Anthomyiidae
Ceratopogonidae
Empididae
Ephydridae
Hemerodromia
Psychodidae
Simuliidae
Tabanidae
TTpulidae
Feeding
23 Taxa
Pd
sh
c
c
sh
Pd
c
sh
sh
c
c
c
Pd
Pd
pd
c
c
c
c
Pd
c
c
c
- 10Taxa
pd
pd
Pd
c
pd
c
c
pd
sh
Habitat
both
both
dep
dep
both
dep
dep
dep
both
dep
dep
ero
dep
dep
dep
both
dep
both
both
dep
both
dep
both
dep
ero
dep
both
Amphipoda - 1 Taxon
pd
dep
Hyalella
gz
dep
Isopoda - 1 Taxon
pd
Pd
pd
both
both
dep
Asellus
c
dep
Mollusca - 2 Taxa
Physa
Pelecypoda
Others - 5 Taxa
Copepoda
Decapoda
Hirudinea
Hydra
Oligochaeta
ero =erosional
dep = depositional
gz
c
pd
Pd
Pd
Pd
gz
both
dep
both
both
dep
both
mp = macrophyte parasite
pd = predator
sh = shredder
29
-------
Tablo B-2. Macroinverlebrate Community Composition
Walnut
Creek
Bear
Creek
Squaw Montgomery
Creek Creek
Crooked
Creek
Artificial Substrates-
Tricoryt nodes
Caenis
Stcnacron
Stenonema
Heplagenla
Isonychia
Baelis
ParaleptopMebia
Hcxagon:a
Leptophtebia
Baclisca
Acfoneuna
Porlosla
Rernarcys
Choumatopsyche
Hydfopsyche
Ncuredipsis
Noctopsyche
Hydroptindae
Elmkiae
Agabus
Pscclrociadius
Crictopus
Corynonouria
Th;cnomann;cl!a
Brilfia
Microtendipos
Dicrotendipes
Polypedilum
Trtoetos
Chironomus
Glyptotendlpes
CryptocJiironomus
Tonylarsini
Ftobakia
AWabesmyia
Procladius
Nykilanypus
Coralopogonidae
Hemerodromia
Tipulidae
SimuHidae
Ephydridae
Physa
Hyaletta
Asenus
Hydra
Otigochaeta
Planaria
Hirudinea
Decapoda
Copepoda
+
+
H
continued
30
-------
Table B-2. Continued
Walnut
Creek
Bear
Creek
Squaw
Creek
Mongtomery
Creek
Crooked
Creek
Qualitative -
Tricorythodes
Caenis
Stenacron
Stenonema
Heptagenia
Isonychia
Baetis
Paraleptophlebia
Hexagenia
Ephron
Pseudocioeon
Potomanthus
Leptophlebia
Acroneuria
Perlesta
Rernarcys
Cheumatopsyche
Hydropsyche
Nectopsyehe
Hydro ptilidae
Orchrotrichia
Elmidae
Agabus
Gomphidae
Ischnura
Agrion
Agria
Psectrocladius .
Crictopus
Thienemanniella
Brillia
Microtendipes
Dicrotendipes
Polypedilum
Tribelos
Chironomus
Glyptotendipes
Cryptochironomus
Tanytarsini
Robakia
Ablabesmyia
Procladius
Heterotrissocladius
Ceratopogonidae
Hemerodromia
Tipulidae
Simuliidae
Ephydridae
Physa
Pelecypoda
4-
+
•
+
continued
31
-------
Tofato B-2. Continued
Walnut Bear Squaw Mongtomery Crooked
Creek Creek Creek Creek Creek
Hyaletla
Assllus
Hydra
Oiiflochaeta
Ptanaria
Hirudlnea
Decapoda
+ + + + m
+ m +
•+ - £ 0.05% in abundance.
*•- 2 5.0% In abundance.
32
-------
Table B-3. Macroinvertebrate Community Composition - By Major Group (in percent)
Artificial Substrates
Ephemeroptera
Megaloptera
Plecoptera
Trichoptera
Coleoptera
Hemiptera
Lepidopters
Odonata
Diptera - Chironomidae
Diptera - Other
Amphipoda
Isopoda
Oligochaeta
Mollusca
Platyhelminthes
Others
Qualitative
Ephemeroptera
Megaloptera
Plecoptera
Trichoptera
Coleoptera
Hemiptera
Lepidoptera
Odonata
Diptera - Chironomidae
Diptera - Other
Amphipoda
Isopoda
Oligochaeta
Mollusca
Platyhelminthes
Others
Walnut
Creek
28
0
2
2
<1
0
0
< 1
49
2
0
<1
8
7
0
1
49
0
4
3
< 1
0
0
< 1
28
3
< 1
< 1
4
7
<1
<1
Bear
Creek
63
. °
< 1
24
< 1
0
0
0
10
<1
< 1
0
1
< 1
0
<1
50
0
< 1
12
<1
0
0
< 1
20
2
<1
0
5
< 1
10
<1
Squaw
Creek
56
0
1
23
< 1
0
0
0
18
< 1
0
0
<1
0
<1
<1
34
0
1
12
3
0
0
< 1
42
1
< 1
0
1 .
1
3
0
Montgomery
Creek
36
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
60
0
0
0
< 1
0
0
0
67
0
< 1
14
1
0
0
0
13
3
0
0
<1
0
0
0
Crooked
Creek
39
0
0
32
<1
0
0
0
16
5
2
<1
5
0
<1
0
26
0
0
17
< 1
0
0
0
20
21
3
< 1
13
<1
0
0
33
-------
Tabto B-4, Macroinvertebrate Community Metrics - By Station (Averages)
WC 1 WC 2
Richness - Qual.1
EPT-Qua).«
ft Qua!. Measurements"
10
1
2
20
6
7
WC3
19
7
WC4
Abundance -AS4
Richness - AS"
EPT-AS*
ICId
# AS Measurements*
264
9
0
4
2
580
18
5
24
5
317
20
7
27
5
114,
13
7
35
4
16
6
6
BC1
BC2
BC3
Abundance - AS
Richness - AS
EPT-AS
1CI
tt AS Measurements
Richness - Qual,
iPT-Qual.
# Qua). Measurements
1327
18
g
42
1
19
9
2
700
18
10
37
3
19
9
5
295
21
8
31
2
20
11
5
SC1
SO 2
SC3
Abundance-AS
Richness - AS
EPT-AS
ICI
it AS Measurements
Richness - Qual,
EPT-Qual.
tt Qual. Measurements
1972
23
9
42
1
20
10
2
705
20
11
40
1
16
9
2
925
28
13
36
5
31
14
5
MC1
CC1
Abundance -AS
Richness - AS
EPT-AS
ICI
# AS Measurements
Richness -Qual.
EPT-Qual.
#Qual. Measurements
110
17
9
30
1
20
11
5
1704
26
12
42
1
21
10
2
'Artificial substrates.
'Rtehness or mean number of laxa recovered from artificial substrates.
•Mean number ol Ephemeroptera-Pleeoptera-Trichoptera (EPT) taxa on artificial substrates.
* Mean ICI tndex value, ICI - Index of Community Integrity.
•Number (#) of artificial substrate measurements taken.
'Richness or mean number of qualitative taxa.
•Mean number of Ephemeroptera-Plecoptera-Trichoptera (EPT) taxa in qualitative samples.
"•Number (#) of qualitative measurements taken.
34
-------
Table B-5. Fish Checklist/classifications
Cyprinidae - 12Taxa
Campostoma anomaium
Cyprinus carpio
Hybognathus hankinsoni
Notropis cornutus
Notropis dorsalis
Notropis lutrensis
Notropis stramineus
Phenacobius mirabilis
Pimephales notatus
Pimephales promelas
Rhinichthys atratulus
Semotilus atromaculatus
Catostomfdae • 5 Taxa
Garpiodes cyprinus
Carpiodes velifer
Catostomus commersoni
Hypenteiium nigricans
Moxostoma macrolepidolum
Ictaluridae - 1 Taxon
letalurus melas
Centrachidae - 2 Taxa
Lepomis cyanellus
Micropterus dolomieui
Percidae - 1 Taxon
Etheostoma nigrum
Total Taxa = 21
Central stoneroller
Common carp
Brassy minnow
Common shiner
Bigmouth shiner
Red shiner
Sand shiner
Suckermouth minnow
Bluntnose minnow
Fathead minnow
Blacknose dace
Creek chub
Quillback
'Highfln carpsucker
White sucker
Northern hog sucker
Shorthead redhorse
Black bullhead
Green sunfish
Smallmouth bass
Johnny darter
Toter.
I
T
T
T
T
T
I
T
I
I
I
T
Classification
Feeding
O
H
I
I
I
O
0
0
O
O
0
O
I
i
i
P
I
Habitat
F
HG
F
HG
F
F
F
F
F
HG
F
F
HG
HG
HG
F
HG
HG
HG
F
HG
Classification Definitions
I = Intolerant; T = Tolerant
H = Herbivore; I = Insectivore; O = Omnivore; P = Piscivore
F = Flowing water; HG = No obvious flowing preference
Table B-6. Fish Community - Dominant Taxa
Walnut
Creek
Bear
Creek
Squaw
Creek
Crooked
Creek
Central stoneroller
Common carp
Brassy minnow
Common shiner
Bigmouth shiner
Red shiner
Sand shiner
Suckermouth minnow
Bluntnose minnow
Fathead minnow
Blacknose dace
Creek chub
Quillback
Highfin carpsucker
White sucker
Northern hog sucker
Black bullhead
Green sunfish
Smallmouth bass
Johnny darter
°> 0.05% in abundance.
*>> 5.0% in abundance.
35
-------
Table B.7 Rsh Community Metrics - By Station (Averages)
WC2 WC3 WC4
Abundance"
Richness*
IBC
# Measurements'1
1875 1303 2390
8 8 10
34 38 39
434
Abundance
Richness
IBI
If Measuremtnis
B01
1944
9
41
2
BC2
BC3
3968
9
44
4
2967
9
46
3
SO 1
SO 3
Abundance
Richness
IBI
it Measurements
Abundance
Richness
IBI
# Measurements
1370 3599
8 11
28 26
2 3
CC1
1872
12
30
2
•Abundance (#/30Q meters) of stream length.
•"Richness or mean number of taxa.
•Mean IBI - Index of Btolic Integrity.
* Mean number (#) of measurements taken.
tfcUS, GOVERNMENT WUNTOiG OFFICE: 1991 - S-fMOI/fiOMl
36
------- |