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 ------- |