EVALUATION OF THE IMPACT FROM TWO POINT SOURCES OF ACID
MINE DRAINAGE UPON FISH AND MACROINVERTEBRATE
ASSEMBLAGES IN SUNDAY CREEK, OH
A thesis presented to
the faculty of
the College of Arts and Sciences of Ohio University
In partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree
Master of Science
Corey O. Kanuckel
March 2003 This thesis entitled
EVALUATION OF THE IMPACT FROM TWO POINT SOURCES OF ACID
MINE DRAINAGE UPON FISH AND MACROINVERTEBRATE
ASSEMBLAGES IN SUNDAY CREEK, OH
By
Corey O. Kanuckel
has been approved for
the Program of Environmental Studies
and College of Arts and Sciences by
Scott M. Moody
Associate Professor of Biological Sciences
Leslie A. Flemming
Dean, College of Arts and Sciences KANUCKEL, COREY O. M.S. March 2003. Ecology Evaluation of the impact from two point sources of acid mine drainage upon fish and macroinvertebrate assemblages in Sunday Creek, OH. (99 pp.) Director of Thesis: Scott M. Moody
The primary goal of this study was to quantify the effects from two point sources of acid mine drainage (AMD) upon the receiving biotic assemblages, specifically fish and macroinvertebrates, along the main branch of Sunday Creek, Southeastern OH. This study focused upon the response zone downstream from the Corning and Truetown point sources of AMD through the establishment of sample monitoring stations. These sample stations were analyzed to determine the extent of AMD disturbance over the spatial gradient of the stream. Selected biotic community parameters were compared to physiochemical parameters and sediment metals using a correlation matrix to determine which aspects of AMD appear most responsible for limiting these assemblages. In addition, this study addressed the relationship between sediment toxicity and the effect it has upon macroinvertebrate populations. This was accomplished through a combination of the field sampling study and lab bioassays aimed at testing the toxicity of the sediment at the Corning and Truetown discharge sites upon selected test organisms. Multiple Comparison Tests were used to compare differences in survival between the impacted sediments and reference sediment from the East Branch of Sunday Creek. Results from the t-Test analyses indicate a significant reduction in macroinvertebrate taxa richness, EPT richness, and % EPT for both AMD inputs. The correlation analysis identified strong relationships among acidity, total metals, and Fe in sediment and most of the biological community parameters for both fish and macroinvertebrates. The lab bioassays resulted in significant mortalities for mayflies (Heptageniidae) at both impacted treatments and for daphnia (Cerodaphnia) test organisms at the Truetown sediment treatment.
Approved: Scott M. Moody Associate Professor Acknowledgements
I would like to thank my advisor Scott Moody for his support, guidance, and approval of this project. I would also like to thank Kelly Johnson for all of her advice and support throughout the length of this project and Brian McCarthy for his advice and assistance. I would like to extend many thanks to Jen Shimala and the Sunday Creek
Watershed Group for all of their support and assistance. Thanks to all of the individuals who provided laboratory assistance: Chris Alexander, Jean D’sa, Melanie Hill, Brian
Kleinman, Jennifer Last, and Kasey Snyder. EcoAnalysts, of Moscow, Idaho also provided some macroinvertebrate identifications. I would also like to thank Don Miles for his support as well for providing me with additional research and employment opportunities aside from this project. Extra thanks to Ben McCament for his continued support and advice and Jennifer Dickson for all of her encouragement throughout this process. Special thanks to my family for their faithful love and support and to all of those individuals and groups not mentioned who provided support, advice, and encouragement. Table of Contents
Acknowledgements...... 4
Table of Contents...... 5
List of Tables ...... 7
List of Figures...... 9
Chapter 1: Introduction...... 10 Bioassessment...... 11 Bioindicators...... 14 Coal Mining and Acid Mine Drainage...... 15 AMD Effects on Fish and Macroinvertebrates ...... 20 Study Objectives ...... 22
Chapter 2: Investigating the impact from two point sources of AMD on the main branch of Sunday Creek upon fish and macroinvertebrates ...... 24 Introduction...... 24 Materials and Methods...... 25 Study Area ...... 25 Site Selections...... 25 Site Descriptions ...... 28 Fish Sampling ...... 31 Macroinvertebrate Sampling...... 31 Water and Sediment Chemistry Analysis ...... 33 Biological Data Analysis ...... 34 Physical Habitat Analysis ...... 36 Results...... 37 Water Chemistry and Sediment Parameters ...... 37 Biological Community Parameters – Fish ...... 43 Biological Community Parameters – Macroinvertebrates...... 44 Correlation Analyses...... 50 t-Test Analyses...... 50 Physical Habitat Analysis ...... 51 Discussion...... 54
Chapter 3: Investigating the toxicity of sediment downstream from the Corning and Truetown AMD discharges through lab bioassays ...... 61 Introduction...... 61 Materials and Methods...... 63 Mayfly Experiment ...... 63 Daphnia Experiment ...... 64 Results...... 65 Mayfly Experiment ...... 65 Daphnia Experiment ...... 66 Discussion...... 69
Chapter 4: Final Conclusions...... 72
References...... 77
Appendix 1. Macroinvertebrate taxa collected ...... 83
Appendix 2. Fish species collected...... 95
Appendix 3. Classification of Ohio stream sediments...... 99
List of Tables
Table 1.1. Ohio EPA Designated Aquatic Life Uses...... 13
Table 1.2. Chemical Reactions in the formation of Acid Mine Drainage ...... 17
Table 1.3. AMD Water Quality Criteria ...... 18
Table 1.4. US EPA Criteria used for Mine Drainage Systems ...... 19
Table 1.5. NY State Benchmark Levels for Sediment Data ...... 19
Table 2.1. Sample station site descriptions...... 28
Table 2.2. IBI scores and rating classifications ...... 35
Table 2.3. Log transformations of variables ...... 40
Table 2.4. Mean values for all water chemistry parameters at sample stations...... 41
Table 2.5. Sediment metals (Al, Fe, Mn, Zn) levels at sample stations ...... 41
Table 2.6. Fish Community Parameters...... 49
Table 2.7. Macroinvertebrate Community Parameters...... 49
Table 2.8. QHEI scores at all sample stations ...... 51
Table 2.9. Correlation coefficients for water chemistry and biological community parameters...... 52
Table 2.10. Correlation coefficients for sediment metals and biological community parameters...... 52
Table 2.11. t-Test results for Corning discharge impact on macroinvertebrate community parameters (Headwater station vs. Corning station)...... 53
Table 2.12. t-Test results for Truetown discharge impact on macroinvertebrate community parameters (Truetown-2 station vs. Truetown-1 station) ...... 53
Table 3.1. Bonferroni Multiple-Comparison Test results – Mayfly Experiment ...... 66
Table 3.2. Bonferroni Multiple-Comparison Test results – Daphnia Experiment...... 67
Table 3.3. Mayfly experiment results for all treatment replicates ...... 67
Table 3.4. Daphnia experiment results for all treatment replicates ...... 68
List of Figures
Figure 2.1. Map of Sunday Creek Watershed and ten sample stations...... 27
Figure 2.2. Photographs of sample stations ...... 29
Figure 2.3. Mean values for pH and specific conductivity at sample stations from Sept. 2000 to Sept. 2001 ...... 38
Figure 2.4. Mean values for total metals (Fe, AL, Mn) in water at sample stations from Sept. 2000 to Sept. 2001 ...... 38
Figure 2.5. Mean water column alkalinity and acidity levels for sample stations from Sept. 2000 to Sept. 2001 ...... 39
Figure 2.6. Mean values for sulfate, hardness, and TDS in water at sample stations from Sept. 2000 to Sept. 2001 ...... 40
Figure 2.7. Comparison of site Fe sediment levels with elevated Fe level...... 42
Figure 2.8. IBI score and fish species richness at all sample stations ...... 43
Figure 2.9. Macroinvertebrate community composition at all sample stations ...... 44
Figure 2.10. Macroinvertebrate Total and EPT abundances...... 46
Figure 2.11. Macroinvertebrate parameter results for Taxa and EPT richness and % EPT Taxa at each sample station ...... 47
Figure 2.12. Seasonal Breakdown for EPT richness...... 48
Figure 2.13. Seasonal Breakdown for Total richness ...... 48
Figure 2.14. IBI vs. QHEI scores in Sunday Creek...... 55
10 Chapter 1: Introduction
The Sunday Creek Watershed, located in rural Southeastern Ohio, is an area rich in natural resources such as coal, oil, clay, and forests. Extraction of these natural resources over the past 180 years has left critical environmental problems, including the pollution and degradation of waterways. The preeminent water quality issue in the watershed is acid mine drainage (AMD). Acidic water with excessive heavy metal loads are created when water is exposed to coal in underground mines and then discharged into the surface water. AMD degrades water quality, inhibiting ecosystem function within the watershed and making streams aesthetically displeasing and undesirable for recreational activities.
In order to properly document the extent of water quality problems in Sunday
Creek, data analysis is needed within the areas of physical, chemical, and biological composition of the watershed before proper restoration decisions can be applied. Fish and macroinvertebrates are known as important biological indicators of stream ecosystem health including stress from AMD. The overall goal of this study was to evaluate the degree of impact from two main point sources of AMD, Corning and Truetown, through comprehensive sampling of fish and macroinvertebrate populations. One objective was to quantify the effects from AMD and determine which aspect(s) of this disturbance appear to be most responsible for structuring these aquatic assemblages. Another study objective was to determine the toxicity of sediment present at the Corning and Truetown discharge locations.
11 Bioassessment
Historically, chemical indicators of water quality have independently characterized the assessment of freshwater streams receiving anthropogenic stresses. This approach was primarily due to a focus on environmental regulation compliance with a known stressor as opposed to the goal of attaining overall ecosystem health. Regulations predominately focused upon point-source permits and toxic chemical concentrations.
While this emphasis has greatly improved the condition of the nation’s freshwater rivers and streams over the past thirty years, it has also overlooked many other forms of perturbation upon receiving waters that chemical monitoring alone has failed to detect.
Habitat destruction and the physical manipulation of flow have also contributed a large proportion of degradation to water resources (Karr et al. 1986). This realization led to a shift towards emphasizing the biological assessment of these freshwater resources. The
Clean Water Act (Title 33, Section 1251a) clearly outlines its objective to “restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters.” To meet this objective, chemical measurements alone cannot be relied upon to fully assess the impact from a given perturbance within a stream ecosystem. Karr et al. (1986) describes aquatic ecosystems as possessing a biotic integrity in which “composition, structure and function have not been adversely impaired by human activities.” Measuring the biotic integrity along with chemical and physical parameters provides the best representation of the overall condition of the aquatic ecosystem.
The risk involved with relying solely on chemical parameters was clearly evident
when the Ohio EPA began to implement biological indicators to re-assess the condition
of the state’s aquatic resources. Out of 645 stream and river segments analyzed using
12 biological parameters, approximately half were found to be impaired where previous chemical parameters characterized these segments as unimpaired (Yoder & Rankin
1998). Other studies have also found that analysis of river systems receiving human- induced disturbance that incorporate biological data have proven to be more representative of the stream community and the impacts from specific stresses (Armitage
1980).
In order to fully assess the degree of impact from a given stressor upon a freshwater stream ecosystem, the biological community of that system must be evaluated.
The assessment of the nation’s water resources has since shifted towards a more integrative approach where the measurement of the biological community has become a recognized priority in order to meet the goals set forth by the Clean Water Act (Barbour et al. 2000). In contrast to lone chemical parameters, biological indicators integrate the chemical, biological, and physical impacts of a stream ecosystem to directly describe aquatic life use attainment or non-attainment (Yoder & Rankin 1998). Measuring the biological components of rivers provides the “most direct and most effective assessment of the status of rivers”(Karr 1995).
13
The Ohio EPA now uses standards based upon the biological integrity of the stream in the form of Designated Aquatic Life Uses (Table 1.1).
Table 1.1. Ohio EPA Designated Aquatic Life Uses.
Designated use Description Exceptional Warm Water Habitat (EWH) The most biologically productive environment characterized by a high diversity of species, particularly those that are highly intolerant and/or rare, threatened, endangered, or special status Warm Water Habitat (WWH) Defines the “typical” warm water assemblages of aquatic organisms for Ohio streams. It is the principal restoration target for the majority of water resource management effort in Ohio. Modified Warm Water Habitat (MWH) Applies to streams with extensive and irretrievable physical habitat modifications, for which the biological criteria for warm water habitat are not attainable. Limited Resource Water (LRW) Applies to streams that have drainage areas of less than three square miles and other water courses which have been irretrievably altered to the extent that no appreciable assemblage of aquatic life can be supported Modified from OAC 3745-1-07
Barbour et al. (2000) outlined three primary functions that a bioassessment
provides for state and local monitoring agencies:
1. Initial assessment of conditions
2. Characterization of impact and diagnosis
3. Trend monitoring to evaluate improvement or further degradation
These functions provide the basic objectives for local monitoring programs seeking to
prioritize water quality programs within a given watershed and set forth restoration goals.
14 The purpose of this study was to provide an integrated assessment of the condition of the main branch of Sunday Creek, where acid mine drainage is known to be a major cause of disturbance.
Bioindicators
Fish and macroinvertebrates are widely used as biological indicators of stream condition. Fish have been well documented as bioindicators not only because they are permanent aquatic residents but also because of the abundance of information available about the identification, life history, and ecology of fishes. Likewise, benthic macroinvertebrates are commonly used because they represent local conditions, perform a variety of ecological functions and exhibit a wide range of sensitivities to different forms of pollution and contaminants (Kiffney & Clements 1994). The use of fish and macroinvertebrates together in the assessment of impacted waters is a logical choice because these groups represent a direct link within the freshwater aquatic community.
Other studies have maintained that using a combination of different trophic levels in stream bioassessments can present a better representation of the stream ecosystem function (Cannon & Kimmel 1992; Rutherford & Mellow 1994; Yoder & Rankin 1995;
Farag et al. 1998; Yoder & Rankin 1998; Barbour et al. 2000). Effects from the elimination of fish by disturbance are directly reflected in the corresponding macroinvertebrate community and vice versa. The main goal of this study is to understand how two point sources of acid mine drainage are affecting fish and macroinvertebrate populations along the main branch of Sunday Creek.
15 Coal mining and Acid Mine Drainage
The Appalachian region is well known for the production of coal, both historically and presently. Ohio has long been one of the largest coal-producing and coal- consuming states in the nation. Coal production in Ohio began as early as 1800 when approximately 100 tons of coal was mined from Jefferson County. Since that time, Ohio has produced 3.4 billion tons of coal - 2.1 billion tons from underground mines and 1.3 billion tons from surface mines (Crowell 1997). These mining operations have left a great deal of waste rock, mine tailings (“gob piles”), and underground tunnels responsible for the introduction of contaminated water into nearby receiving streams. In Appalachia alone, drainage from approximately 66,500 active and inactive coalmines has contributed to the pollution of nearly 10,500 stream/river miles (Cohen & Gorman 1991).
Surface and subsurface mining has occurred throughout the Sunday Creek basin, which includes portions of Athens, Morgan, and Perry Counties. From 1820-1993, approximately 200 million tons of coal was produced in Athens County, approximately
43 million tons from Morgan County (1869-1993), and nearly 219 million tons from
Perry County (1816-1993) (Crowell 1995). Small strip mines and deep mines continue to operate in parts of the Sunday Creek Basin. The Buckingham Coal Company began operation in May 2000 along the main branch of Sunday Creek near the town of Glouster,
OH with a contract to mine 5.1 million tons over a period of five years. The two main seams of coal that are mined in the Sunday Creek basin are the Middle Kittaning
(# 6) and the Upper Freeport (# 7).
As coal production throughout the region increased, the number of abandoned mine lands also increased. The result of these abandoned mines is the production of acid
16 mine drainage (AMD) and the subsequent discharge of AMD into receiving streams causing impairment. Herricks (1977) identified the major causes of damage to a stream ecosystem as:
1. Destruction of habitats through alteration of the physical system
2. Reduction or elimination of any component of the physical, chemical, or
biological system which is essential for continued biotic function
3. Destruction or injury of the biota by addition of toxic materials
Coal mining operations that result in abandoned mine lands and the subsequent discharge of toxic effluent ultimately leads to the damage of the receiving stream through all of these major causes of degradation. The consequences of AMD are the pollution of waterways through salinization, acidity, metal toxicity, and sedimentation (Gray 1996).
Coal mining activities produce great underground caverns which act as reservoirs for water entering the mine. An active mine is typically pumped to remove this excess water, however, once the mine is abandoned the removal of excess water ceases. AMD occurs when iron sulfide minerals are exposed to water, air, and iron oxidizing bacteria.
This takes place when the minerals contained within the wall rock of an underground mine are exposed to the oxygenated water (Robb & Robinson 1995). A series of chemical reactions that take place during the oxidation of pyrite (FeS2) are given in Table 1.2,
starting with the initial equation producing ferrous iron. Ferrous iron (Fe2+) is further
oxidized to ferric iron in the air (reaction 2, Table 1.2).
17
Table 1.2. Chemical Reactions in the Formation of Acid Mine Drainage
AMD Reactions – Oxidation of Pyrite
2+ 2- + 1. FeS2 + 7/2O2 + H2O ⇒ Fe + 2SO4 + 2H Ferrous Iron
2+ + 3+ 2. Fe + ¼ O2 + H ⇒ Fe + ½ H2O Ferric Iron
3+ + 3. Fe + 3H2O ⇔ Fe(OH)3 + 3H Ferric Hydroxide
3+ 2+ 2- + 4. FeS2 + 14Fe + 8H2O ⇔ 15Fe + 2SO4 + 16H Pyrite Breakdown
The rate at which ferrous iron is converted to ferric iron is accelerated by bacteria such as
Ferrobacillus ferrooxidans, F. sulfooxidans, and Thiobacillus ferooxidans below a pH of
~3.5. Thus, the production of AMD is controlled by the supply of oxygen, distribution of
pyrite (FeS2), moisture or water in the mine and presence of iron bacteria in the mine
(Robb 1994). The AMD effluent produced is typically characterized by low pH (high
acidity) and elevated levels of heavy metals associated with the geology of the particular
region (Gray 1998). However, the presence of materials such as calcareous shale, clay,
limestone, and siderite (FeCO3) within the geologic make-up of a given region will tend to buffer the acidity produced by pyrite material (Riley 1960). If the receiving stream is able to neutralize the acidity of the AMD effluent and raise the pH of the water column, then the rate of oxidation will also increase. This results in the formation of ferric hydroxide (Fe(OH)3) - the heavy orange colored precipitate (also known as “yellow-
boy”) - that is characteristic of an AMD impacted stream (Moon & Lucostic 1979). This
precipitate physically covers the stream substrate, leaving a layer of iron flocculate and
trace metals on rocks, sediment, and detritus. If this iron precipitate is produced in large
18 quantities it will act synergistically along with heavy metals and sulfuric acid to contaminate the surface water (Soucek et al. 2000). In the case of AMD from coalmines in southeastern Ohio, higher levels of iron, sulfate, manganese, and aluminum are usually present. Ohio Water chemistry standards for AMD parameters exist for pH (6.5 – 9.0) and Total Dissolved Solids (> 1500 mg.L-1). No other standards exist for the remaining
AMD parameters (sulfate, alkalinity, iron, aluminum, manganese), however, Federal
AMD criteria levels have been established which suggest impact from AMD (Table 1.3)
Table 1.3. AMD water quality criteria (FWPCA, 1968)
Parameter Critical Level pH < 6.0 Alkalinity < 20 mg.L-1 Specific Conductivity > 800 µS/cm Aluminum > 0.3 mg.L-1 Iron > 0.5 mg.L-1 Manganese > 0.5 mg.L-1 Sulfates > 74 mg.L-1 Zinc > 5 mg.L-1
In addition to criteria limits that show the presence of AMD, criteria limits exist for the
effects of heavy metals associated with AMD on aquatic life (Table 1.4). These criteria
are derived from laboratory studies testing the sensitivity of biological organisms to
specific chemicals (OH EPA 1979). For aquatic life criteria, the test organisms include a
variety of fish, benthic macroinvertebrates, and zooplankton (OAC 3745).
19
Table 1.4. US EPA Criteria used for Mine Drainage Systems
Parameter Limit (mg.L-1) Iron 1.0 Aluminum 0.5 Manganese 0.1
Sediment chemistry standards currently do not exist for Ohio waterways. However,
benchmark levels for sediment concentrations have been established in New York State
which demonstrate both low-level and severe impacts to stream biota (Table 1.5).
Table 1.5. NY State Benchmark Levels for Sediment Data
Parameter Lowest effect level (ppm) Severe effect level (ppm) Arsenic 6.0 33.0 Cadmium 0.6 9.0 Chromium 26.0 110.0 Copper 16.0 110.0 Iron (%) 2.0 4.0 Lead 31.0 110.0 Manganese 460.0 1100.0 Mercury 0.2 1.3 Nickel 16.0 50.0 Zinc 120.0 270.0 TOC % 1.0 10.0 Total Phosphate 600.0 2000.0 Iron 29,000.0 mg/kg # 57,000.0 mg/kg # Aluminum 33,000.0 mg/kg # 100,000.0 mg/kg # #- Based on OEPA STORET Database compiled by F.R. Smith (OU MS Thesis 1993).
These levels for sediment criteria are based upon aquatic life toxicity using empirical
evidence from both lab toxicity tests and field studies (NY DOEC 1999). Smith (1993) analyzed the OH EPA database for stream sediments and also developed classifications
20 for sediment metals based upon metal content comparisons of all documented Ohio streams. It should be noted that Smith’s classification was not based upon specific toxicity testing of aquatic organisms but rather a relative comparison of metal contents between unpolluted Ohio streams and varying degrees of polluted/impacted streams. A complete table of this Ohio stream sediment metals classification is given in Appendix 3.
AMD effects on fish and macros
The initial response of the aquatic community to an AMD disturbance is the reduction and/or elimination of sensitive taxa. For macroinvertebrates, a wide range of sensitivities is exhibited not only among taxonomic groups, but also within a particular order. In addition, aquatic macroinvertebrates differ in their sensitivities to different types of pollution. The Ephemeroptera-Plecoptera-Trichoptera (EPT) orders are widely accepted as the most sensitive orders, and therefore, excellent indicators of most types of pollution (Cherry et al. 2001; Clements 1994; DeShon 1995; Nelson & Roline 1996;
Hoiland et al. 1994). Although even among these orders tolerances can be highly variable. Mayflies are an especially sensitive order and are usually the first group to decline and disappear from disturbance. The caddisflies, however, reflect a wider range of sensitivities among genera and species (DeShon 1995). Some, such as the
Hydropsychidae and Rhyacophilidae families, have been found to be highly tolerant of metal mine drainage (Clements 1994; Herricks 1977; Watanabe et al. 2000). The majority of Dipterans often display higher tolerance to stream disturbances, especially the
Chironomidae midges, which have been consistently collected under heavy pollution stress, both organic and toxic (DeShon 1995).
21 For fish, the family Cyprinidae is often used as an indicator of acid pollution due to characteristics such as large population sizes and wide distributions. They are also a dominant trophic group in Midwestern streams. Because cyprinids are insectivorous, they are especially sensitive to changes in the insect community and can reflect deterioration in the stream quality (Karr et al. 1986). These groups are generally reduced or eliminated below a pH range of 5.5-6.0 (Pinder & Morgan 1995). An exception within the
Cyprinidae family is the relatively tolerant Creek Chub, which has been shown to be present and even dominant below inputs from AMD (Burling 1996; Letterman & Mitsch
1978). A pH of 5.5 or higher has been recommended for the successful emergence (>
50%) of most aquatic insects (Bell 1971).
Researchers evaluating the effects from AMD where the pH is relatively high have suggested that the main causative factor for disruption of the aquatic community was the deposition of metal precipitates into the sediment (Cain et al. 1992; Cannon &
Kimmel 1992; Moon & Lucostic 1979). This physical “smothering” reduces the primary productivity of a stream as well as making the habitat unsuitable for the majority of resident aquatic organisms (Herricks 1977). Farag et al. (1998) found that concentrations of metals are highest in biofilm and sediment and that these precipitated metals have bioaccumulated in macroinvertebrates and fish.
It is the complexity and multitude of pollution types from AMD that leads to the severe degradation of the aquatic biota. Studies have shown a general trend in fish and macroinvertebrate responses to AMD stress that result in reduced species richness and diversity in impacted areas as well as shifts from sensitive to tolerant species within the affected community (Cherry et al. 2001; Courtney & Clements 1998; Kiffney &
22 Clements 1994; Rutherford & Mellow 1994; Cannon & Kimmel 1992; Rosemond et al.
1992; Moon & Lucostic 1979).
Study Objectives
Kelly and Harwell (1990) outlined three fundamental concerns for assessing the impact of any environmental stress upon a receiving system:
1. How the variety of biological components of ecosystems are exposed to stress
2. How the ecosystems respond to that disturbance
3. How they adapt or recover with the removal of the stress
This study will concentrate on the second fundamental concern in order to provide a basis for understanding how the aquatic communities are responding spatially to AMD disturbance in Sunday Creek. Many aquatic ecologists contend that there is a great need for applied research to evaluate the response of aquatic systems to disturbance and response variability between ecoregions; as well as the need to develop and understand the recovery process and assess the recovery potential of waters receiving some type of disturbance (Cairns 1990; Gore et al. 1990; Kelly & Harwell 1990; Wallace 1990). The response of the aquatic community to AMD disturbance on the main branch of Sunday
Creek is addressed through a combination of field and laboratory investigations.
The first main objective for this study is to evaluate the effects from two point
sources of AMD upon the biotic integrity of the main branch receiving this stress. It is
believed that disturbance from these inputs are causing severe degradation of the resident
fish and macroinvertebrate communities. The goals of the field investigation was to first,
quantify these point sources of AMD and identify them as the main cause for biological
23 degradation on Sunday Creek, and secondly, determine which of the selected AMD parameters is having the most influence on the biological community parameters. To quantify the immediate impact from AMD, biological parameters at sites above and below both point source discharges were compared in addition to a physical habitat assessment at each sample station. In order to correlate the effects from AMD disturbance with the biological community, the sampled biota was compared to selected chemical and sediment metal parameters at each sampling station. Part of this objective also questions the validity of relying solely upon the measurement of pH in order to effectively determine AMD impact at a given site location.
The second main objective for this study is to evaluate the toxicity of the AMD sediment present below the Corning and Truetown discharge locations. Lab bioassays were conducted to specifically test the toxicity of the sediment upon selected test organisms. The hypothesis tested is that the residual toxicants present in the impacted sediment are toxic to aquatic organisms, specifically macroinvertebrates. Additionally, sediment metals analysis was conducted through the field portion of this study to identify what metals were present at extreme values based upon critical levels discussed previously, and relate these results to the sediment toxicity tests.
24 Chapter 2: Investigating the impact from two point sources of AMD on the main branch of Sunday Creek upon fish and macroinvertebrates
Introduction
The field portion of this study has been designed to determine the extent of impact from point source discharges at Corning and Truetown and evaluate the response of the aquatic community to these disturbances. Moon and Lucostic (1979) identified a single point source of AMD as an excellent opportunity to isolate and analyze the impact upon the receiving stream and determine the rate and extent of downstream recovery. DeShon
(1995) recommended upstream controls and downstream “impact/recovery stations including mixing zone analyses to detect the potential for acutely toxic or rapid lethal conditions” for point source assessments. The current field study analyzes the response zone downstream from these point sources by quantifying the physical, chemical, and biological indicators at each of the selected sampling stations. In order to fully assess the impact from these point sources, it is critical that the magnitude of perturbation upon fish and macroinvertebrate assemblages be determined. Due to the fact that Sunday Creek was not examined prior to AMD disturbance, it is not possible to determine if recovery of the stream will be to pre-disturbance conditions. However, it is possible to examine sample stations downstream from point source discharges to determine the extent of impact, where the furthest sites from impact should show an improvement in the biological community. This is an important consideration for evaluating and predicting the potential recovery of AMD impacted streams upon remediation of this anthropogenic stress.
25
Materials and Methods
Study Area
The Sunday Creek Watershed (SCW), located in the Appalachian foothills of southeastern Ohio, is part of the Hocking River drainage area and lies within portions of
Athens, Perry and Morgan Counties. The watershed is comprised of approximately
88,775 acres draining 138 square miles (222 sq. km). The main branch of Sunday Creek is 27.2 miles long (43.8 km) with the headwaters originating in southern Perry County and draining into the Hocking River in northern Athens County. The main branch has been designated as Limited Resource Water (OAC 3745-1-08). There are three main tributaries in the SCW: the East Branch (15.5 mi/24.9 km long), the West Branch (14.0 mi/22.5 km), and Dotson Creek (5.7 mi/9.2 km). Along the main branch of Sunday Creek there are two main point sources of acid mine discharge. The first of these, south of the headwaters at 23.5 river miles (37.8 km), is the Corning discharge located in the town of
Corning. The second point source discharge is located near the Village of Truetown at 6.6 river miles (10.6 km).
Site Selections
For this study, eight sampling locations were selected on the main branch that represent a relative spatial distribution along the stream gradient as well as providing locations above and below both point AMD discharges. The names of the sampling stations from the headwaters are: Headwater (HW); Corning (CORN); Railroad Route 13
(RR-13); Burr Oak Dam (BOD); Route 78 (RT-78); Truetown-2 (TT-2); Truetown-1
26 (TT-1); Chauncey (CHAUN). Selection of the sample station sites for this study was determined in part because they coincide with long-term monitoring sites used by the
Sunday Creek Watershed Group so that a historical and continuous data record can be established. Two other sample locations selected as reference sites, are located on the two largest tributaries to Sunday Creek, the East Branch (EB) and the West Branch (WB).
The West Branch also serves as a long-term monitoring site located in the town of
Glouster (Figure 2.1). These sites were selected as reference stations because they are not receiving any AMD discharge or runoff. The East Branch is the only stream in the
Sunday Creek Watershed receiving the designation of Exceptional Warmwater Habitat
(OAC 3745-1-08). Both of these sampling stations are located at 0.1 river miles of their respective tributary. Although the reference stations are not located within the main branch, they can still be used to represent comparable biotic conditions for this specific watershed given no impact from AMD.
27
Figure 2.1. Map of Sunday Creek Watershed and ten sample stations.
28 Site Descriptions
Table 2.1. Sample station site descriptions.
Sample Description Station Chauncey Near mouth of Sunday Creek @ 0.1 river miles draining 138 sq.mi. /222 sq.km; access from RT 13 before the town of Chauncey; Orange/yellow iron precipitate visible year-round (Fig. 2.2a). Truetown-1 6.4 river miles draining 122 sq.mi. /196 sq.km; access from RT 685 off RT 13; 1st sample station below Truetown seep; orange/yellow iron precipitate visible year-round (Fig. 2.2b). Truetown-2 7.3 river miles draining 120 sq.mi. /193 sq.km; access from RT 685; last sample station above Truetown seep; no visible impact from AMD (Fig. 2.2c). RT-78 14.60 river miles draining 61 sq.mi. /98 sq.km; access from 1st bridge on RT-78 past town of Glouster; downstream from a current mining operation; no visible impact from AMD (Fig. 2.2d). Burr Oak 18.20 river miles draining 24 sq.mi. /38 sq.km; access from RT 13 @ Dam Tom Jenkins Dam; no visible impact from AMD (Fig. 2.2e). RR-13 21.90 river miles draining 11.2 sq.mi. /18 sq.km; access from RT 13 along railway; orange/yellow iron precipitate visible year-round (Fig. 2.2f). Corning 23.5 river miles draining 6 sq.mi. /9.7 sq.km; access along RT 13 in town of Corning; 1st sample station below the Corning discharge; orange/yellow iron precipitate visible year-round (Fig. 2.2g). Headwater 26.0 river miles draining 3.6 sq.mi. /5.8 sq.km; Sunday Creek headwaters access from bridge along RT 13; no visible impact from AMD (Fig. 2.2h). West Branch Mouth of the West Branch of Sunday Creek @ 0.1 river miles draining 42 sq.mi. /68 sq.km; access in town of Glouster; no visible impact from AMD (Fig. 2.2i). East Branch Near mouth of the East Branch of Sunday Creek @ 0.1 river miles draining 32 sq.mi. /51 sq.km; access near Wildcat Hollow trailhead; no visible impact from AMD (Fig. 2.2j).
29 (a) (b)
(c) (d)
(e) (f)
Figure 2.2. Photographs of sample stations. (a) Chauncey, (b) Truetown-1, (c) Truetown-2, (d) RT-78, (e) Burr Oak Dam, (f) RR-13.
30 (g) (h)
(i) (j)
Figure 2.2 continued. (g) Corning, (h) Headwater, (i) West Branch, (j) East Branch.
31 Fish Sampling
Fish data used for this study was collected by the Ohio EPA during the 2001 field season as part of the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) assessment process. The purpose of the TMDL process is to identify impaired waters within the watershed, assign beneficial use designations, and gather all relevant data to characterize and ascribe all causes and sources of impairment within the watershed (OH EPA DSW-EAU 2001).
Although the study objectives and total number of sites selected differ between the
TMDL study and this project, the specific sites selected for this project were also sampled by the TMDL assessment for fish. Therefore, fish were sampled according to
Ohio EPA protocol (OH EPA 1988) using electro-fishing techniques at all main branch locations (except for the Corning Station) and two reference site locations on the East
Branch and West Branch. Ohio EPA conducts fish sampling between mid-June and late
September in order to avoid the seasonal effects of cold temperatures on sampling efficiency as well as changes in fish distributions (OH EPA 1988). Each station was sampled twice – once in July 2001 and once in August 2001. Results from both passes were combined for a composite measurement at each site.
Macroinvertebrate Sampling
Three collection methods were employed (Hester-Dendy multiple plate samplers,
Surber sampler, & dip net) in an attempt to provide the most comprehensive representation of the macroinvertebrate community at each site. The Dendy samplers were used to represent the quantitative collection of macroinvertebrates. At each site, four samplers were attached to separate rebar rods with plastic ties and driven into the
32 substrate until the sampler rested upon the stream substrate. After 6-7 wks of colonization, samplers were retrieved while still in the water using plastic zip lock bags to ensure that no organisms were lost during retrieval. Samplers were immediately returned to the lab where they were dismantled and rinsed with tap water. The water and material was then sieved through a 500 µm (US #30) sieve and all collected material was preserved in 70% ethanol. Another method, the Surber substrate sampler, was also used to collect benthic macroinvertebrates. The Surber provides both a quantitative and qualitative representation of the natural substrate. The sample frame is placed upon the substrate within a shallow riffle and this area is raked for approximately 60 sec while material and organisms are collected in the receiving mesh bag carried by the current.
This process was repeated for a total of 3 replicates per site. The collected material was rinsed, sieved, and placed in quart jars and preserved in 70% ethanol for processing in the lab. The final sampling method employed was a D-ring dip net. This was a qualitative method that sampled a variety of microhabitats within each site. The dip net made three
20-sec passes along stream banks, root-masses, leaf litter, and multiple riffle and pool areas. The material and organisms collected were then processed and preserved in the same manner as the Surber sample. All ten sites were sampled by the Surber and dip net collection methods during three different seasons (fall 2000, spring 2001, summer 2001) in order to account for seasonal variations that may exist between macroinvertebrate community structures. Organisms were counted and identified under dissecting scopes to the generic level according to Merritt and Cummins (1996) and Peckarsky et al. (1990).
Some of the organisms, including most of the dipterans, were sent to the Ecoanalyst lab located in Moscow, Idaho for identification to the generic level. Due to the fact that
33 Dendy samplers were only placed at five sample stations during fall 2000, this data was not included within data analysis. Only the spring 2001 and summer 2001 Dendy samplers have been used for statistical analyses. In addition, annelids were not included within the statistical analyses. Only taxa that were identified to the generic level were analyzed.
Water and Sediment Chemistry Analysis
Water chemistry parameters selected for data analysis include conductivity, alkalinity, acidity, pH, sulfate, hardness, total dissolved solids (TDS), total Al, total Fe and total Mn. These parameters were sampled monthly from September 2000 to
September 2001 by the Sunday Creek Watershed Group (SCWG) and analyzed by the
Ohio Department of Natural Resources-Cambridge Lab (Cambridge, OH). The selected water chemistry parameters describe the water chemistry that is indicative of AMD over a spatial and temporal scale. For each water chemistry parameter, twelve monthly samples were taken and checked for normality (Hintze 2000). The mean was then used to represent each given parameter at a particular site.
Questions have recently risen throughout the freshwater monitoring community regarding how to properly describe water chemistry patterns over time – mean values or extreme values (highs and lows) – when involving statistical analysis. The purpose of the water chemistry parameters for this study is to establish a pattern of values for each measurement relative to the same measurement at the other sample locations. Using extreme values rather than the mean still results in the same general pattern for measurement values among sites, therefore, the mean is sufficient for this study to
34 represent those patterns when it is retrieved from a normal distribution. The mean values for each parameter from the eight sample stations used for correlation analysis were then checked for normality. The Corning and East Branch sampling stations were not included in the correlation analysis. The Corning site was only sampled twice for water chemistry data over the twelve-month period and therefore deemed insufficient to properly represent water quality patterns at that site. The West Branch sample station was used to represent reference conditions, eliminating the need to include the East Branch water chemistry data, which was also only sampled several times over the twelve-month period.
Sediment from each sample location was also collected and analyzed for metals by the Ohio EPA during the TMDL study (OH EPA Sediment Sampling Guide 2001).
Because the impacted sites in Sunday Creek contain a heavy coating of ferric hydroxide precipitate the measurement of Fe in sediment was included as an AMD parameter in order to demonstrate its contribution to the degradation of the biological community.
Along with Fe sediment, Al, Mn, and Zn in sediment were also included as sediment metal parameters indicative of AMD. The patterns observed for the mean water chemistry and sediment metal parameters were correlated with the patterns observed for the established biological parameters in order to determine which AMD parameters exhibit the most influence on the biological community.
Biological Data Analysis
Fish data analysis includes total number of fish, species richness, and calculation of the Index of Biological Integrity (IBI) for each sample station. The IBI is a metric used to describe the biological integrity at sample locations. The twelve metrics of the IBI
35 consider a range of fish assemblage attributes including species composition, trophic composition, sensitive species, and fish abundance (Karr et al. 1986). These metrics have been slightly modified to account for differing fish assemblages and sampling methods specific to Ohio waterways (OH EPA 1988). The basic IBI score and rating scale, however, remains the same (Table 2.2). The Ohio EPA calculated IBI scores used in this study during the 2001 TMDL study.
Table 2.2. IBI scores and rating classifications.
Total IBI Integrity Attributes score Class 58-60 Excellent All regionally expected species, including most intolerant species; balanced trophic structure. 48-52 Good Species richness slightly below expectation; some intolerant species present with less than optimal abundances; some signs of stress in trophic structure. 40-44 Fair Signs of deterioration include loss of intolerant forms, fewer species, and highly skewed trophic structure. 28-34 Poor Dominated by omnivores, tolerant species, and generalists, with few top carnivores; hybrids and diseased fish often present. 12-22 Very Poor Few fish present, mostly exotic or highly tolerant species; hybrids common; disease, parasites, and fin damage common. < 12 No Fish No fish after repeated sampling. Modified from Karr et al. (1986)
The biological parameters used for analysis of macroinvertebrate populations
include total abundance, taxa richness, EPT abundance and richness, and % EPT
richness. Measurements of richness are widely used to accurately reflect the diversity
within the macroinvertebrate community. Support for these metrics come from the basic
ecological principal that stable and healthy warmwater communities possess higher
taxonomic richness and diversity than unhealthy or impacted communities (DeShon
1995).
36 The eight biological community parameters were checked for normality and then compared with the ten water chemistry parameters and four sediment metal parameters using a Pearson Correlations Matrix (NCSS 2000) to determine which parameters indicative of AMD are most highly correlated with the biological community parameters.
Because none of the variables are dependent, but rather independent of one another, the multiple correlation analysis was chosen to detect significant (p < 0.05) relationships between parameters rather than a multiple regression test, which assumes a dependent variable (Y) and an independent variable (X).
To test the hypothesis that AMD is significantly disrupting the aquatic assemblages, sites directly above and below each point source were analyzed by a two- sample t-Test (p < 0.05). The parameters used for the t-Test included macroinvertebrate taxa richness, EPT richness, and % EPT taxa. Each sample station parameter included measurements from fall 2000, spring 2001, and summer 2001. The specific sample stations used to quantify the immediate impact from the two point source discharges included Headwater vs. Corning and Truetown-2 vs. Truetown-1.
Physical Habitat Analysis
The Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index (QHEI) was used to measure the quality
of riparian habitat at each sampling location. Site features evaluated by the QHEI include;
a substrate characterization, in-stream cover type and amount, channel quality, bank
stabilization/erosion, pool riffle quality, and stream gradient (OHEPA 1989). The metric
is scored 0-100 with 0-46 indicating poor or modified habitat, 46-60 intermediate, and >
60 indicating good/excellent habitat. Ohio EPA personnel calculated the QHEI scores at
37 sample stations during the TMDL study. By including a physical assessment of each site, it is possible to determine if other factors such as erosion and sedimentation are contributing to a decrease in the biotic community condition in addition to the impacts from AMD. A physical evaluation of each site is also useful in determining a recovery potential for the stream upon remediation of the AMD disturbance.
Results
Water Chemistry and Sediment Parameters
The variables that did not pass normality assumptions, which included acidity,
Total Fe, Sediment Fe, and Sediment Zn, were log transformed in order to meet normality assumptions (Table 2.3). Total Al could not be normalized after several data transformation techniques, including log and standard deviation transformations, and was excluded from the correlation analysis. Mean pH values ranged from 6.23 at the RR-13 site to 6.87 at the Truetown-2 site on the main branch. None of the sites are below the critical level for pH (Table 1.3) that is indicative of impact from AMD (Figure 2.3).
Other water chemistry parameters, however, reflect a major influence from
AMD. Chauncey, Truetown-1, and RR-13 all appear to be heavily impacted sites based upon water and sediment chemistry analysis. The data collected for the East Branch and
West Branch reference sites confirms that these sites do not indicate any AMD pollution.
The Headwater site does not appear to be greatly influenced by AMD. The BOD station is indicative of intermediate AMD pollution from the Corning discharge with water and sediment quality steadily improving at the RT-78 and Truetown-2 stations.
38
COND pH
900 7
800 6.8 700 600 6.6 500 6.4 400 pH 300 6.2 200 6 Conductivity (uS/cm) 100 0 5.8 CHAUN TT-1 TT-2 RT-78 BOD RR-13 HW WB Figure 2.3. Mean values for pH and specific conductivity at sample stations from Sept. 2000 to Sept. 2001.
TOTFe TOTAl TOTMn
25
20
15
10
5 Total metals (mg.L-1)
0 CHAUN TT-1 TT-2 RT-78 BOD RR-13 HW WB
Figure 2.4. Mean vales for total metals (Fe, Al, Mn) in water at sample stations from Sept. 2000 to Sept. 2001.
The Truetown-1 sample station indicated the most severe impact from AMD
based upon Total metals with the highest recorded levels for mean Total Fe (23.5 mg.L-
1), Total Al (1.61 mg.L-1), and second-highest level for mean Total Mn (1.13 mg.L-1) concentrations (Figure 2.4).
39 Mean conductivity values at all sites are well below the AMD criteria levels
except for RR-13 and Truetown-1 (Figure 2.3). Truetown-1 also had the highest mean
acidity level and was the only station with mean net acidic conditions (59.91 mg.L-1 acidity – 38.51 mg.L-1 alkalinity) (Figure 2.5). The Chauncey site at the mouth of Sunday
Creek also exhibited a high impact from the Truetown discharge with an elevated level of
Total Fe (8.03 mg.L-1).
The RR-13 site is indicative of a high impact from the Corning discharge with the
highest mean concentrations for conductivity (823.67 µS/cm), sulfate (428.54 mg.L-1), and Total Mn (1.46 mg.L-1) and the second highest levels of Total Fe (9.15 mg.L-1) and
Acidity (24.89 mg.L-1) in addition to the lowest mean alkalinity concentration (27.21
mg.L-1) (Figure 2.5). RR-13 also had the highest levels for hardness (255.55 mg.L-1) and
TDS (709.36 mg.L-1).
ALK ACIDITY
70 60
50 40 30 mg.L-1 20 10
0 CHAUN TT-1 TT-2 RT-78 BOD RR-13 HW WB Figure 2.5. Mean water column alkalinity and acidity levels for sample stations from Sept. 2000 to Sept. 2001.
40 All of the sites show mean sulfate levels well above the critical level of 74 mg.L-1 that suggests AMD impact with the lowest mean level at 97.27 mg.L-1 at the Headwater site above the Corning discharge and the highest mean level observed below the Corning discharge at the RR-13 site with a value of 428.54 mg.L-1 (Figure 2.6). Hardness and
Total Dissolved Solids follow similar trends, with levels rising at the impacted sites of
RR-13, Truetown-1, and Chauncey.
SULFATE HARDNESS TDS
800 700 600 500 400
mg.L-1 300 200
100 0 CHAUN TT-1 TT-2 RT-78 BOD RR-13 HW WB Figure 2.6. Mean values for sulfate, hardness, and TDS in water at sample stations from Sept. 2000 to Sept. 2001.
Table 2.3. Log transformations of variables.
Fish Abundance Acidity Tot Fe Fe Sed Zn Sed CHAUN 1.86 1.29 0.956 5.3 1.85 TT-1 1.8 1.78 1.38 5.32 2.17 TT-2 2.72 1.08 0.501 4.57 1.95 RT-78 2.62 0.88 0.215 4.48 1.84 BOD 2.33 0.959 0.365 4.56 1.83 RR-13 2.51 1.41 1.01 4.99 1.79 HW 2.47 0.973 0.25 4.53 1.96 WB 3.1 0.825 0.158 4.43 1.97
41 Table 2.4. Mean values for all water chemistry parameters at sample stations.
Cond PH Alk Acidity Sulfate Hard TDS Tot Fe Tot Al Tot Mn CHAUN 585.22 6.54 36.49 18.61 233 190.3 429.54 8.03 0.32 0.68 TT-1 780.9 6.56 38.51 59.91 267.51 236.29 605 23.15 1.61 1.13 TT-2 621.9 6.87 63.36 10.98 186.26 205.33 458.33 2.17 0.32 0.43 RT-78 569.56 6.86 50.06 6.58 192.33 170.96 445.18 0.64 0.5 0.48 BOD 706.67 6.55 43.36 8.08 286.1 196.18 528.18 1.32 0.26 0.81 RR-13 823.67 6.23 27.21 24.89 428.54 255.55 709.36 9.15 0.26 1.46 HW 369.22 6.85 57.19 8.39 97.27 134.03 265.27 0.78 0.85 0.87 WB 593 6.93 52.92 5.69 241.45 242.18 454.81 0.439 0.391 0.289
Table 2.5. Sediment metals (Al, Fe, Mn, Zn) levels at sample stations.
Al Sed (mg/kg) Fe Sed (mg/kg) Mn Sed (mg/kg) Zn Sed (mg/kg) CHAUN 10,400 199,000 171 69.2 TT-1 46,400 208,000 444 146 TT-2 26,300 36,900 1,310 88.3 RT-78 32,700 30,000 1,440 68.8 BOD 25,200 36,600 853 67.3 RR-13 14,500 98,700 196 61 HW 29,300 34,100 1,250 90.6
42 The results from sediment metals analysis show extreme levels for Fe sediment at
Chauncey, Truetown-1 and below Corning (RR-13) (Figure 2.7) as well as slightly elevated lowest effect levels for all of the remaining main branch sites. These same main branch sites not directly impacted from an AMD discharge (HW, BOD, RT-78 & TT-2) show elevated levels for Mn sediment while the highly impacted sites below discharges
(CORN, TT-1 & CHAUN) have relatively low levels of Mn sediment. The Truetown-1 station also revealed lowest effect levels for Zn (146 mg/kg) and elevated levels for Al
(46400mg/kg) according to the Ohio sediment metal classification (Appendix 3).
Fe sediment extreme elevated Fe sediment level 250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
0
CHAUN TT-1 TT-2 RT-78 BOD RR-13 HW WB Figure 2.7. Comparison of site Fe sediment levels with elevated Fe level.
43 Biological Community Parameters - Fish
Fish IBI scores ranged from 14 (TT-1) to 38 (TT-2) on the main branch sites, and
38 and 42 at the West Branch and East Branch reference sites, respectively. Chauncey,
Truetown-1 and RR-13 all scored within the very poor range. BOD and RT-78 scored within the poor range while the remaining sites scored within the fair range, including reference sites on the West Branch and East Branch. None of the nine stations sampled scored above the fair range for the IBI parameter. Species richness ranged from 9 at the
Chauncey and Truetown-1 sites up to 24 at the Truetown-2 site above the AMD discharge at Truetown.
IBI Species Richness
45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0
y 1 2 8 ch h ce -7 -13 n nc wn T Dam ra un o town R k RR ha e B C ru Oa st Bra st Truet T Headwater a urr We E B Figure 2.8. IBI score and Fish species richness at all sample stations.
44 These parameters follow trends that suggest a direct impact from the two point discharges upon the fish populations. While all sample stations show reduced levels for fish parameters, numbers are especially low at all sites below AMD inputs (RR-13, TT-1, and CHAUN). Parameter values gradually rise with each downstream location below the
Corning discharge (BOD to RT-78 to TT-2) and then sharply decrease after the Truetown discharge (Figure 2.8). The complete results for Fish community parameters, IBI, Species richness, and Total abundance, are given in Table 2.6. A complete list of all species sampled at each site is reported in Appendix 2.
Biological Community Parameters – macroinvertebrates
Macroinvertebrate sampling over three seasons resulted in 145 genera from a total of 96 families and 15 orders (Appendix 1). The community structure observed at the genus level is categorized and reported in Figure 2.9 for each of the ten sites sampled.
EPT OCM GPD Diptera Other
90 80 70 60
50 40 30 20 10 0
r y 3 ng ch ch n 1 n 2 -78 i ate n n w w BOD w unce to to RT RR-1 d Corn t Bra t Bra Cha rue rue s s T T Hea e a W E Figure 2.9. Macroinvertebrate community composition at all sample stations.
45 Orders were grouped together for the purposes of this table in order to describe community composition at each site and include: EPT –
Ephemeroptera/Plecoptera/Trichoptera, OCM – Odonata/Coleoptera/Megaloptera, GPD –
Gastropoda/Plecypoda/Decapoda. The “other” category includes orders found in lower numbers or not identified to genus (Hemiptera, Hymenoptera, Annelida, Collembola).
The Dipterans were left together as a group because they represent the largest numbers collected from a particular order.
The highest numbers of EPT genera were found at the West Branch (26 genera) and the East Branch (25 genera) reference sites. At the West Branch Site the EPT composition was dominated by Ephemeroptera (15) and followed by Plecoptera (6), and
Trichoptera (5). The East Branch followed the same trend with most EPT genera coming from the order Ephemeroptera (11), followed by Plecoptera (9) and Trichoptera (5). On the main branch, EPT richness was highest at RT-78 (23), then HW (21), TT-2 (19), and
BOD (12). Ephemeroptera dominated all EPT taxa at TT-2, RT-78, and HW while
Trichoptera dominated EPT Taxa at BOD. The HW station had an even distribution led by Ephemeroptera (8), Plecoptera (7), and Trichoptera (6). Plecoptera numbers were much lower at all main branch sites relative to the HW and reference sites. CHAUN, TT-
1, RR-13, and CORN are the only stations with Dipterans comprising over half of the generic richness at each site.
Total abundances of macroinvertebrates collected at each site also reveal large reductions at CORN and RR-13, gradually increasing to highs at TT-2, and then sharply decreasing again at TT-1 and CHAUN (Figure 2.10). EPT abundance follows the same pattern as EPT richness with those orders nearly eliminated from CORN and RR-13. The
46 EPT taxa found at CORN included: two individual mayflies (Caenis–1, Timpanoga–1) and four total caddisflies (Cheumatopsyche–2, Hydropsyche–2). RR-13 consisted of only one single mayfly (Caenis) and four caddisflies (Cheumatopsyche–1, Homoplectura–3).
EPT abundances at TT-1 and CHAUN produced higher abundances than the CORN and
RR-13 sites, however, these numbers were largely dominated by Hydropsychidae caddisflies, which have already been indicated as relatively tolerant to AMD conditions.
TT-1 had four total mayflies (all Caenis) and fifty total caddisflies (Cheumatopsyche-2,
Potamyia-48). A single stonefly at CHAUN (Perlesta) was the only one collected at the
four impacted sites.
Total Abundance EPT Abundance
1400 1200
1000 800
600 400 200 0
-1 -2 3 B B T T -78 E T T BOD HW W RT RR-1 CORN CHAUN Figure 2.10. Macroinvertebrate Total and EPT abundances.
The parameter values reveal a consistent trend among sample stations with reduced
values at CHAUN, TT-1, RR-13, and CORN for Taxa Richness, EPT Richness, and %
EPT Taxa (Figure 2.11). The results for macroinvertebrate community parameters at all
sites are listed in Table 2.7.
47
Taxa Richness EPT Richness %EPT
90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
N N B -1 -2 -78 -13 E TT TT BOD R OR HW WB HAU RT R C C Figure 2.11. Macroinvertebrate parameter results for Taxa and EPT richness and % EPT Taxa at each sample station.
A seasonal breakdown for both EPT richness (Figure 2.12) and Taxa Richness
(Figure 2.13) once again follow the pattern of decreased values at CORN and RR-13, increasing values spatially along the stream gradient from BOD to TT-2 and then once again decreasing at TT-1 and CHAUN following the Truetown discharge.
48
Fall 00 Spring 01 Summer 01
18 16
14 12 10
8 6 4
2 0 r y 8 m ch ch ce -7 ate n Da rning w an a un town1 town2 RT RR-13 d a e e ak Co a Br Br u u O st Ch Tr Tr r He a r West E Bu Figure 2.12. Seasonal Breakdown for EPT Richness.
Fall 00 Spring 01 Summer 01
60
50
40
30
20
10
0 8 er h ey n1 n2 7 am 13 ing c w w n an nch unc D r wat r a a eto eto RT- k RR- u u Co ead t B Ch Tr Tr r Oa H es r W East Br Bu Figure 2.13. Seasonal Breakdown for Total Richness.
49 Table 2.6. Fish Community Parameters.
Sample Station Species Richness Total Abundance IBI Score Chauncey 13 72 21 Truetown-1 9 62 14 Truetown-2 24 528 38 RT-78 20 412 31 Burr Oak Dam 17 215 34 RR-13 9 324 24 Headwater 11 292 36 West Branch 19 1276 38 East Branch 19 2194 42
Table 2.7. Macroinvertebrate Community Parameters.
Sample Station Total Taxa EPT EPT Richness % EPT Abundance Richness Abundance (Genus) Taxa (Genus) Chauncey 93 23 34 5 21.7 Truetown-1 135 25 54 3 12 Truetown-2 1161 69 280 19 27.5 RT-78 844 75 312 23 30.7 Burr Oak Dam 580 45 179 12 26.7 RR-13 85 25 5 3 12 Corning 175 32 6 4 12.5 Headwater 529 68 281 21 30.9 West Branch 1074 72 398 26 36.1 East Branch 761 77 423 25 32.5
50 Correlation Analyses
The correlation analysis revealed several significant (p < 0.05) relationships between water chemistry parameters and biological community parameters (Table 2.9).
For example, Total Fe and Acidity were negatively correlated with all bioparameters except for Fish species richness. Total Mn was negatively correlated with all bioparameters except for Fish abundance and IBI scores. Conductivity, sulfate, hardness, and TDS did not correlate with any parameter except for % EPT for conductivity and
TDS. Alkalinity was positively correlated with all bioparameters except for fish species richness, while pH was positively correlated with all of the macroinvertebrate parameters and none of the fish parameters. All five of the macroinvertebrate parameters correlated with at least 5 of the 9 water chemistry parameters, with % EPT correlating with 7 of the
9. The fish community parameters were less sensitive to the water chemistry parameters with IBI scores correlating with 3 out of 9, and fish abundance and species richness both correlating with only 2 out of 9.
Results for the four sediment metal parameters indicate a significant negative relationship for Fe sediment with all of the bioparameters except for fish species richness
(Table 2.10). Mn sediment was positively correlated with all bioparameters except for fish total abundance. Al sediment and Zn sediment did not reveal any significant correlations.
t – Test Analysis
Results of the two-sample t-Test to quantify the immediate impact from the
Corning discharge indicate a significant difference (p < 0.05) for all of the
51 macroinvertebrate parameters between the Headwater and Corning sample stations
(Table 2.11). A significant difference was also determined at the Truetown discharge between the upper Truetown-2 station and the lower, impacted Truetown-1 station for all three macroinvertebrate parameters (Table 2.12).
Physical Habitat Analysis
Results from the QHEI habitat evaluation are presented in Table 2.8. TT-1 scored the highest with 75.5, followed by RR-13 (75) and WB (74). The other stations scoring in the good/excellent range of > 60 were the BOD site at 70.5, the CHAUN site at 62.5, and
TT-2 just missing at 59.5. The CORN sample station produced the lowest QHEI score of
36, indicating very poor or modified habitat. The other three stations fall within the intermediate range for habitat quality (46-60).
Table 2.8. QHEI scores at all sample stations.
Sample Station Score Chauncey* 62.5 Truetown-1* 75.5 Truetown-2 59.5 RT-78 58.0 Burr Oak Dam 70.5 RR-13* 75.0 Corning* 36.0 Headwater 57.0 West Branch 74.0 East Branch 57.0 *Indicates heavy impact from AMD
52 Table 2.9. Correlation coefficients for water chemistry and biological community parameters.
Cond pH Alk Acidity Sulfate Hard TDS Tot Fe Tot Mn Fish Abundance - - - -0.7474 - - - -0.7663 - Fish Richness - - 0.7098 ------0.8491 IBI - - 0.7731 -0.9012 - - - -0.9198 - Macro Abundance - 0.8309 0.8586 -0.7486 - - - -0.7833 -0.8219 Taxa Richness - 0.8929 0.8795 -0.8230 - - - -0.8906 -0.7343 EPT Abundance - 0.9171 0.8554 -0.8279 - - - -0.8891 -0.7993 EPT Richness - 0.9049 0.8412 -0.8663 - - - -0.9191 -0.7856 % EPT -0.7403 0.8586 0.7823 -0.9329 - - -0.7538 -0.9435 -0.8538 Only significant correlations (p < 0.05) are shown.
Table 2.10. Correlation coefficients for sediment metals and biological community parameters.
Al Sediment Fe Sediment Mn Sediment Zn Sediment Fish Abundance - -0.8510 - - Fish Richness - - 0.7135 - IBI - -0.9393 0.7946 - Macro Abundance - -0.8432 0.8742 - Taxa Richness - -0.9107 0.9728 - EPT Abundance - -0.8899 0.9225 - EPT Richness - -0.8990 0.9241 - % EPT - -0.8425 0.8141 - Only significant correlations (p < 0.05) are shown.
53
Table 2.11. t-Test results for Corning discharge impact on macroinvertebrate community parameters (Headwater station vs. Corning station).
Headwater Corning Equal variance t-Test
Mean Standard Mean Standard Mean Lower/Upper t-value Prob Power deviation Deviation difference 95% CL level (Alpha = .05) Taxa 32.3334 10.1160 12.3334 2.0817 20 3.4445/36.5556 3.3541 0.0142 0.8619 Richness EPT 10 3.6056 1.3334 1.5275 8.6667 2.3897/14.9436 3.8335 0.0093 0.9283 Richness % EPT 31.1 8.9084 11.0333 11.5846 20.0667 -3.3590/43.4923 2.3783 0.0381 0.6238 Taxa
Table 2.12. t-Test results for Truetown discharge impact on macroinvertebrate community parameters (Truetown-2 station vs. Truetown-1 station).
Truetown-2 Truetown-1 Equal variance t-Test
Mean Standard Mean Standard Mean Lower/Upper t-value Prob Power deviation Deviation difference 95% CL level (Alpha = .05) Taxa 31.6667 3.7859 10.6667 4.1633 21 11.9795/30.0205 6.4637 0.0015 0.9997 Richness EPT 7.3334 1.5275 1 1 6.3334 3.4067/9.2600 6.0083 0.0019 0.9991 Richness % EPT 23.3667 5.781291 7.5333 7.1808 15.8333 1.0557/30.6109 2.9748 0.0205 0.7853 Taxa
54 Discussion
One of the main objectives for the field portion of this study was to test the hypothesis that inputs from two point sources of AMD are the main cause for degradation of the biological community on Sunday Creek. The results from the t-Test analyses for both Corning and Truetown support that these point sources of AMD are having an immediate impact upon the macroinvertebrate community with significant reductions for
Taxa richness, EPT richness, and % EPT taxa. Further observations from the sampling of the fish and macroinvertebrate populations show reductions for fish abundance, fish species richness, macroinvertebrate abundance & richness, and EPT abundance & richness for all sample stations directly below point source discharges: Corning and
Truetown-1. In addition, stations directly beyond each of the immediate impact stations
(RR-13 below Corning and Chauncey below Truetown-1) also reveal large reductions in the biological community parameters. The aquatic assemblages at the Burr Oak Dam station are improved relative to the RR-13 station but still indicate some impact from the
Corning point discharge. Further downstream the biota continues to improve at the RT-78 and Truetown-2 stations with numbers comparable to reference stations for fish richness
& IBI, and all macroinvertebrate parameters. This is indicating that the aquatic assemblages of the main branch are responding to the Corning discharge and gradually improving along the spatial gradient of the stream as the impact from this AMD point source lessens with distance away from the source.
A physical habitat assessment at each site helps to further single out AMD as the main source of pollution on Sunday Creek by isolating the factors responsible for this reduction in the aquatic biota. For example, Chauncey, Truetown-1, and RR-13 all scored
55 within the “good” range for QHEI. The field study results show these same sites to have large reductions in biocommunity parameters along with water and sediment chemistry parameters indicative of a heavy impact from AMD. A previous study found QHEI scores to be positively correlated with IBI scores (OH EPA 1989); with high habitat evaluation scores, higher IBI values should also be expected. A comparison of the QHEI and IBI scores for the main branch of Sunday Creek reveal a different trend where the stations with highest QHEI scores conversely have the lowest IBI scores (Figure 2.14).
This is indicating that other forms of pollution not accounted for through the physical habitat analysis are responsible for the disruption of the aquatic community. In the case of Sunday Creek, the “other form of pollution” is AMD, eliminating the possibility that other pollution types associated with physical habitat degradation are responsible for disrupting the aquatic assemblages and identifying AMD from Corning and Truetown as the major sources of perturbation on the main branch.
QHEI IBI poor IBI good QHEI 80
70 60 50
40 30 20 10 0 N -2 8 D U T-1 WB T TT T-7 BO HW WC HA R RR-13 C Figure 2.14. IBI vs. QHEI scores in Sunday Creek.
56 A further objective of the field study was to identify which aspects of AMD (such as pH, heavy metals, and contamination of sediment) are most responsible for structuring fish and macroinvertebrate communities. This was addressed by examining possible significant relationships among water and sediment chemistry parameters and fish and macroinvertebrate community parameters using the correlation analyses.
A previous study investigating the effects from acid and metal effluents from an abandoned metal ore roast yard (Sudbury, Ontario, Canada) found fish and intolerant macroinvertebrates were confined to unimpacted upstream stations while more tolerant invertebrates dominated downstream impacted stations. The station directly below toxic effluent produced only one taxon, a Chironomus spp. (Rutherford & Mellow 1994).
Nelson and Roline (1996) reported that a Colorado stream having high metals but neutral pH had low numbers of sensitive taxa at impacted stations relative to reference stations.
Moon and Lucostic (1979) investigated the effects from AMD on a southwestern
Pennsylvania warmwater stream (Redstone Creek) and discovered that the pH of the stream was not severely reduced, remaining within a range of 5.8 – 7.0 for ten sampling stations. Other AMD parameters such as Fe and Sulfate values, however, greatly increased downstream from the AMD discharge. Taxa that were common at unimpacted sites (Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera) were reduced at impacted sites where other more tolerant invertebrates (Diptera Chironomidae) were abundant. The deposition of ferric hydroxide was credited as the major factor responsible for a reduction in total numbers and species diversity of macroinvertebrates at downstream, impacted stations. A subsequent study of Redstone Creek recorded an absence of benthic feeding fish at impacted stations. Because the water quality was not sufficiently degraded to cause a
57 reduction in fish populations, it was concluded that “the destruction of the substrate as a result of the deposition of metallic precipitates was a primary causative factor in reducing fish populations (Cannon & Kimmel 1992).
Results from the water and sediment chemistry sampling in the current study indicate that influence from the two point source discharges is having a negative impact upon the water quality of the main branch. Likewise, sampling of the fish and macroinvertebrate communities demonstrate a reduction in total abundances, richness, and sensitive taxa at AMD impacted stations. The pathways most responsible for disturbance from these AMD discharges, however, are somewhat atypical of AMD effects seen in nearby watersheds. In a study investigating the impact from AMD in the
Monday Creek and Raccoon Creek Watersheds, results indicate a reduction in taxa richness, EPT abundance, and EPT richness at all impacted sites similar to the results in the current Sunday Creek study. However, results from the water quality sampling recorded pH levels below 4.0 (ranging from 2.72 – 3.98) at 6 of the 11 sample stations. A regression analysis revealed specific conductivity as the most significant (p < 0.05) parameter influencing the macroinvertebrate community (Last 2001). However, based upon the established literature on the known effects from acidic pH, it is clear that the low pH levels in Monday Creek and Raccoon Creek are undoubtedly having a profound effect upon the biology of receiving streams.
The most apparent difference in Sunday Creek is the higher pH levels observed at all sample stations including heavily impacted sites. The OH standard for pH is 6.5 – 9.0 as ideal for maintaining healthy aquatic community function and no direct lethal effects are produced within a 5.0 – 9.5 range (OH EPA 1979). Throughout the 12-month
58 sampling period, mean pH values remained above 6.0 for all sample stations with the lowest pH level of 5.93 recorded at RR-13 in Oct. 2000. For the correlation analysis, pH values were positively correlated with all of the macroinvertebrate parameters and none of the fish parameters. This does not, however, confirm pH levels in Sunday Creek as an important determinant factor for controlling and limiting these aquatic populations. The correlation analysis is used to detect patterns and observe relationships between selected parameters, not to define an exact cause and effect relationship. The sensitivity of this test was able to detect significant patterns between pH values and macroinvertebrate parameters but it does not consider the lethal effects associated with a given parameter.
Because the values observed for pH were between a non-lethal range of 6.0 –7.0, this parameter does not reflect a major influence on the biotic community. The results suggest that other AMD related factors aside from pH are responsible for the reduction of the biological community parameters at AMD impacted sites in Sunday Creek.
Mean acidity values were significantly negatively correlated with all bioparameters except for fish species richness. Mean alkalinity values remained above the 20 mg.L-1 critical level at all sample stations reflecting the higher buffering capacity present along the main branch of Sunday Creek, hence the ability to maintain higher pH values year-round. This is due to the geologic make-up unique to Sunday Creek. The true effect from acidity is best quantified by the measurement of net acidity (acidity values – alkalinity values). This measurement considers the alkalinity levels present at the sample station and produces a net acidic or net alkaline value for the site. The TT-1 sample station was the only site to be net-acidic for mean acidity and alkalinity, while the RR-13 site was nearly net-acidic. However, it is the acidic spikes that occur at these impacted
59 sites at various times of the year, not accounted for by mean values, that contribute to the reduction of the biota.
Although mean sulfate levels did not correlate with any bioparameters, the levels at all sample stations are well above the suggested 74 mg.L-1 critical level. A sulfate
reading greater than 250 mg.L-1 has also been identified as an indicator of impact from
mine effluents (Herricks 1977). Mean sulfate levels exceeded this mark at TT-1, RR-13,
and BOD.
Mean total Fe levels were above the critical level of 0.5 mg.L-1for all main branch
sites. The critical limit of 1.0 mg.L-1 (Table 1.4) suggesting aquatic impairment was
greatly exceeded at CHAUN, TT-1, and RR-13. Mean Total Fe levels also had a strong
negative correlation with all of the bioparameters except for fish species richness,
indicating total Fe as an important measurement influencing the aquatic biota.
Mean total Mn levels were also above 0.1 mg.L-1 for all sample stations, with
levels above 1.0 mg.L-1 at TT-1 and RR-13. Total Mn is negatively correlated with all
bioparameters except fish abundance and IBI scores. The results of the correlation
analysis for water chemistry parameters indicate acidity and metals (Fe, Mn) to be the
most influential parameters.
Turner (2000) investigated the relative contribution of hydrous Fe and Mn oxides
to the accumulation of trace metals in sediments and suggested that, overall, Fe is the
most important oxide phase for the sorption of contaminant metals. For the sediment
metals analysis in the current study, correlations were strongly significantly negative for
Fe sediment and all bioparameters except fish species richness. Fe sediment levels were
relatively high at all main branch stations with severe effect levels occurring at CHAUN,
60 TT-1, and RR-13. Mn sediment was positively correlated with all bioparameters except fish abundance. Mn sediment levels were excessive (> 1100 mg/kg) at stations not directly impacted by AMD (WB, HW, RT-78, TT-2). An inverse relationship was demonstrated between Mn sediment and Fe sediment with a significant (p < 0.05) negative correlation (r = -0.8793). This is most likely the result of precipitation rate differences between Fe and Mn, where Mn precipitates at a higher pH level than Fe hence the higher Mn levels at higher pH sites. A similar trend has been observed in other AMD related studies where correlation analysis revealed Mn sediment and Zn sediment to be positively correlated (p < 0.05) with both water column toxicity and pH while Fe sediment was negatively correlated (Soucek et al. 2000).
Higher pH levels (> 4.5) lead to the precipitation of metals into the sediment.
Armitage (1980) suggested that these metals are released from the sediment by flushes of
acidic water, which in turn increase the toxicity of the stream water. Because pH levels at
the impacted main branch sites are not consistently at toxic levels (> 6.0), other AMD
characteristics appear to be having more of an influence upon the biological community
than pH. Selected field chemistry parameters and sediment analyses have been used to
show that the sediment containing heavy metal precipitates and increased flocculate is
severely impacting aquatic organisms within Sunday Creek. The impact from Fe
precipitates and sediment toxicity in the main branch of Sunday Creek is further
investigated through lab bioassay sediment toxicity tests in Chapter 3 of this study.
61 Chapter 3: Investigating the toxicity of sediment downstream from the Corning and Truetown AMD discharges through lab bioassays.
Introduction
The stream substrate offers a vital component to the stream community providing food, shelter, and anchorage for macroinvertebrates (Gray 1996). Hynes (1970) identified the substrate as the most important factor controlling benthic macroinvertebrates. When heavy Fe precipitate blankets the substrate such as in Sunday Creek, severe habitat degradation occurs because the natural habitat is altered when interstices providing important niches for macroinvertebrates are clogged. Studies have suggested that heavy metals introduced into aquatic environments are ultimately incorporated into the sediment, which in turn, becomes the most concentrated pool of metals (Malmqvist &
Hoffsten 1999; Pourang 1996). Hydrous Fe and Mn oxides contain high adsorptive capacities, allowing for the incorporation of other metals into these oxides. Metals in this oxide phase become available to filter feeding and burrowing organisms (Langston &
Spence 1995). The metals that are bound to the surface of oxide phases may then readily exchange with chemicals into the water column or be released to pore water and subsequently injected into the water column (Turner 2000).
Because pH levels in Sunday Creek are not present at toxic levels, it is believed that the precipitated metals in the sediment are now re-contributing to the further decrease in water quality. Studies have shown that a higher pH does not necessarily represent a lesser impact from AMD disturbance. If the acid is neutralized, the resulting ferric hydroxide precipitate and leaching of heavy metals into the sediment can also disrupt macroinvertebrate assemblages (Moon & Lucostic 1979; Armitage 1980).
62 Researchers have recommended combining field studies with manipulative lab experiments in order to provide a more rigorous approach to evaluating the impacts from disturbance (Cherry et al. 2001; Goodyear & McNeill 1999; Kiffney & Clements 1994).
Few studies have examined the toxicity of AMD water and/or sediments in the lab relative to the number of field investigations of the impact upon the aquatic biota.
Sediment samples from Corning and Truetown were analyzed for heavy metals through the 2001 TMDL study. This data was used in the previous chapter to demonstrate what metals characteristic of AMD, specifically Al, Fe, Mn, and Zn, are present at elevated levels at each of the two impacted sites and determine the severity of sediment metal- levels below Corning and Truetown. In addition to the field survey evaluating fish and macroinvertebrate assemblages in Sunday Creek, lab bioassays were conducted to relate in situ results with specific toxicity tests in order to quantify the effects from metal laden sediments. In combination with the field study results, these assays can help to identify patterns that suggest which pollutant pathway from AMD is most responsible for decimation of the aquatic biota in Sunday Creek.
63 Materials and Methods
Mayfly Experiment
Sediment was collected from below the Corning discharge, below the Truetown discharge, and at a reference site located on the East Branch of Sunday Creek for this experiment. The collection of sediment involved the use of a hand-held garden shovel to dig up the substrate randomly across a riffle/run area at each location. A combination of fine sediment, cobble-rock, and small rock was taken from the top 3-5 inches of substrate. Samples were then taken to the lab, drained of excess water and stored overnight in a walk-in cooler. The next morning, 600g of sediment was placed into each of the 7000mL circular plastic containers used to represent the artificial stream (3 replicates x 3 treatments). In order to simulate natural clean freshwater, Kent Marine® salts - a mixture of dissolvable solids (salts of Na, Mg, Ca, & K, and trace minerals) - were added to the de-ionized and distilled reference water (2.264g per 8L H2O). This
reference water (1500mL) was then added to each replicate. The replicate streams were
placed into a control chamber, which regulated both light (14 hrs light; 10 hrs dark) and
temperature (24˚C day; 20˚C night). Lowell et al. (1995) recommend that short-term
toxicity tests using lotic organisms should incorporate some type of flow in experimental
microcosms in order to ensure that lab conditions are more representative of natural
conditions. Each replicate was equipped with a micro-jet flow pump (120v;60Hz;6w) in
order to simulate flow.
In a study investigating the effects from varying levels of heavy metal mixtures
(Cd, Cu, & Zn) Heptageniidae mayflies were the most sensitive to metal treatments.
These researchers recommend Heptageniidae mayflies as sensitive organisms to use for
64 the detection of metal pollution (Kiffney & Clements 1994). Because Heptageniidae mayflies are grazers and rely directly upon the substrate surfaces for food, they are well suited for determining the effects from sediment coated with flocculate. Additional AMD studies have supported the use of mayfly species for detecting mortality in experimental designs (Clements 1994; Courtney & Clements 1998; Lowell et al. 1995).
Heptageniidae mayflies were collected in August 2001 from the East Branch reference location using a kick-net, taken back to the lab and added to the replicates (17 mayflies per replicate). During the 7-day experiment, conductivity was monitored using a hand conductivity tester (Oaklon®) and pH was measured using a pocket-sized pH meter
(Hanna instruments®). After 7 days of exposure, mayfly mortality was recorded for each replicate artificial stream container. A Bonferroni multiple comparison test was used to detect significant (p < 0.05) differences between treatments.
Daphnia Experiment
Cladoceran species such as Cerodaphnia dubia and Daphnia magna have been identified as excellent test organisms because they use both the sediment and water column portions of the aquatic environment (Soucek et al. 2000). The US EPA relies upon the Cerodaphnia dubia test organism for chronic toxicity tests that help determine criteria levels for toxic pollutants.
The Cerodaphnia experiment utilized the same measurement equipment and control chamber settings, along with the same sediment (from Corning, Truetown, & East
Branch) and reference water as the mayfly experiment. Unlike the mayfly experiment, however, this experiment used static 1000mL plastic containers (5 replicates x 5
65 treatments). Each replicate contained 200g of sediment and 800mL of reference water. A total of 5 Cerodaphnia were placed into each replicate and monitored for mortality along with pH and conductivity over the 7-day period. A Bonferroni multiple comparison test was used to detect significant (p < 0.05) differences between treatments.
Results
Mayfly Experiment
Each replicate was monitored for pH, conductivity, and survival over the 7-day experiment. The pH measurements for all three Corning treatments remained constant at around a pH of 7.5, while conductivity measurements steadily increased over the length of the experiment to elevated levels (Table 3.3). Out of 51 mayflies (17 per treatment) a total of 43 survived the exposure period (Corn 1 [14/17]; Corn 2[14/17]; Corn 3[15/17]).
The Truetown treatments had similar results for pH measurements, which remained steady around pH of 7.4. Conductivity measurements also increased to elevated levels as well (Table 3.3). A total of 41 mayflies survived the Truetown treatments resulting in the lowest survival rates for the experiment (TT 1[15/17]; TT 2[14/17]; TT
3[12/17]).
There were no mortalities observed for the East Branch treatments with all 51 mayflies surviving. Results from the Bonferroni Multiple Comparison Test show a significant (p < 0.05) difference between mean survival rates at the Control compared to the Corning and Truetown treatments (Table 3.1). No difference was detected between the Corning and Truetown treatments.
66 Table 3.1. Bonferroni Multiple-Comparison Test – Mayfly Experiment.
Group Count Mean Different From Groups (Alpha = 0.05) Control 3 17 Corning, Truetown Corning 3 14.34 Control Truetown 3 13.67 Control
Daphnia Experiment
For the Corning treatments, pH measurements steadily increased between 6.1-7.3 over the 7-day experiment. Conductivity measurement also increased for each replicate, ranging from 629 µS/cm to 906 µS/cm (Table 3.4). Survival of Cerodaphnia decreased during the experiment for all replicates except for Corn 2, which had a 5/5 survival. A total of 18 out of 25 Cerodaphnia survived the Corning treatment.
Although pH measurements increased throughout the Truetown treatment, the initial measurement was lower relative to the Corning treatment for all replicates (Table
3.4). Conductivity measurements increased for all replicates, ranging from 616 µS/cm to
1131 µs/cm. Survival rates were much lower for the Truetown treatment with only 7 out of the total 25 Cerodaphnia surviving.
All 25 Cerodaphnia survived for the Control treatment, with numbers actually increasing (reproduction) for all replicates. The Bonferroni Multiple Comparison Test detected a significant difference for mean survival of Cerodaphnia between Truetown and the other two treatments – Corning and the Control (Table 3.2). A significant difference was not detected between the Control and Corning treatments.
67 Table 3.2. Bonferroni Multiple-Comparison Test – Daphnia Experiment.
Group Count Mean Different From Groups (Alpha = 0.05) Control 5 5 Truetown Corning 5 3.6 Truetown Truetown 5 1.4 Control, Corning
Table 3.3. Mayfly Experiment results for all treatment replicates.
Treatments Mean pH Cond range (µS/cm) Mayfly Survival Control 1 7.7 495-589 100%
Control 2 7.7 518-618 100%
Control 3 7.7 520-573 100%
Corning 1 7.6 1650-2000 82%
Corning 2 7.6 1685-2000 82%
Corning 3 7.7 1385-1820 88%
Truetown 1 7.4 941-1213 88%
Truetown 2 7.4 1009-1320 82%
Truetown 3 7.5 987-1370 70%
68 Table 3.4. Daphnia Experiment results for all treatment replicates.
Treatments pH range Cond. Range (µS/cm) Daphnia Survival Control 1 6.6-7.5 552-659 100%
Control 2 6.6-7.5 547-652 100%
Control 3 6.5-7.5 550-660 100%
Control 4 6.5-7.5 546-654 100%
Control 5 6.6-7.5 552-671 100%
Corning 1 6.1-7.0 652-906 80%
Corning 2 6.2-7.2 640-893 100%
Corning 3 6.2-7.2 629-868 60%
Corning 4 6.3-7.3 632-866 60%
Corning 5 6.4-7.3 645-874 60%
Truetown 1 3.5-6.4 755-1131 0
Truetown 2 5.4-6.7 640-940 20%
Truetown 3 5.7-6.8 625-918 0
Truetown 4 5.9-6.8 620-911 40%
Truetown 5 5.9-6.9 616-849 80%
69 Discussion
Results from the Heptageniidae mayfly experiment reveal that significant mortality occurred at both the Corning sediment treatment and the Truetown sediment treatment. Observations of mayfly at both impacted treatments showed organisms with an orange discoloration indicating that the flocculate from the Fe III sediment had physically settled onto the bodies of the organisms. This experiment did not specifically test the toxicity of individual heavy metal contaminants to the test organisms. For this reason, the exact cause of mortality is not known. Several possibilities, however, can be eliminated.
Courtney and Clements (1998) investigated the effects from acidic pH on several benthic insect orders including Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera, and Diptera. Most organisms were reduced below a pH of 4.0, however mayflies were the only significantly
(p < 0.05) reduced order and no differences were detected between the control (pH 7.4) and the pH 6.5 and 5.5 treatments for all orders. In the current study, the pH remained constant at a non-toxic level of > 7.0 for both impacted treatments (Table 3.3), for this reason it is believed that the pH of the water column is not responsible for causing mortality. Specific conductivity did, however, increase to levels indicative of AMD impact. This would mean that the potential for metals in sediment to be transported into the water column was greatly increased.
Doherty (1978) investigated the toxic mode of action of AMD water on aquatic invertebrates and found that AMD water had no short-term effect (3-5 hrs) on the oxygen consumption of the species examined (a mayfly – Ameletus and stonefly – Acronevria).
He concluded that the toxic mode of action appeared to involve the effect of ions on
70 physiological processes other than respiration and recommended further investigations involving the larval cuticle, an organ in osmoregulation and the nervous system.
Researchers have demonstrated that a pH of 4.6 or lower is lethal to Cerodaphnia
(Belanger & Cherry 1990). For the Cerodaphnia sediment experiment, Truetown replicate # 1 was the only replicate to have a pH below this level (Table 3.4). Low pH is most likely the cause for acute toxicity of Cerodaphnia with this replicate. All of the other Truetown replicates, however, remained above a pH of 5.4 but still demonstrated significant mortality relative to the Control where no mortalities were recorded. In fact,
Cerodaphnia were reproducing in most of the Control replicates. No significant difference was observed between the Corning treatment and the Control. The Corning and Truetown treatments observed similar measurements for specific conductivity as well as pH (Truetown pH levels were slightly lower than Corning levels, but still well above the lethal 4.6 level). This suggests that once again, mechanisms aside from pH, such as the uptake of metals in sediment through the water column and/or the interference from ferric hydroxide on test organisms, are contributing to mortality in the current study.
Soucek et al. (2000) investigated the relative toxicity of AMD water column and sediments to Daphnia in order to determine which abiotic factors were the best indicators of toxicity in the Puckett’s Creek Watershed, VA. AMD metals analyzed for that study included Fe, Al, Mn, and Zn. In addition, ferric hydroxide was also examined to test the potential toxicity of this precipitate upon Daphnia. Results from this study indicated that
Fe sediment levels and elevated water column metals were the best predictors of sediment toxicity while water column pH was the best predictor of water toxicity. The ferric hydroxide toxicity tests resulted in mortality of all test organisms within 48 hours.
71 These researchers suggested that precipitated Fe may be imparting physical impairment upon test organisms, which could also be acting in combination with dissolved metals and acid present in sediment water.
72 Chapter 4: Final Conclusions.
The purpose of this study was to quantify the impact from two AMD discharges upon fish and macroinvertebrate communities on the main branch of Sunday Creek and determine which detrimental pathway resulting from AMD is having the most negative influence on the biological community. These are questions that must be addressed specifically within the water body in question given the heterogeneity of AMD disturbances. The immediate impact from an AMD discharge into a receiving stream is largely dependent upon the geologic make-up and buffering capacity of that particular stream. This is a site specific dynamic that changes from one ecoregion to the next as well as from one watershed to the next within the same region. Doherty (1978) reported that “...the chemical composition of acid mine water is highly variable from one effluent to another as well as mutable within a particular effluent. Variability results from local physiographical conditions, whereas mutability is a function of the volume of water present.” In a study investigating the ecological effects from waters associated with strip- mining in southeastern Ohio, extreme variations were reported for pH, plant toxicity, and soil structure not only between watersheds but also within an area the size of an acre
(Riley 1960).
Traditionally, the preliminary assessment of a watershed known to be receiving
AMD has relied upon the initial measurement of pH alone. The measurement of pH has become a widely accepted “tell-all” in determining whether a site is impacted or non- impacted from AMD. This can result in misleading preliminary assessments and failure to properly describe the true overall effects from AMD disturbance within an impacted watershed. Much like assessments that rely solely upon chemical parameters for
73 characterization of impact, reliance upon the measurement of pH alone only tells half the story. It is commonly accepted that when the alkalinity of the receiving waters is high enough to neutralize the pH of the effluent, then other disruptive consequences will result, such as the precipitation of Fe III flocculate and the leaching of heavy metals associated with that particular region. Due to the high variability of low pH, sulfate, and metals, which can vary spatially and temporally across different regions, Gray (1996) recommended a visual assessment of the formation and presence of Fe III deposition as the best indicator of impact from AMD.
Analysis of the physical, chemical, and biological components at sampling stations used for the field portion of the current study helped to illustrate the extent of community and environmental stress to AMD conditions. Community abundance and richness was significantly reduced directly downstream from both the Corning and
Truetown discharges. The biological community remained depleted at the RR-13 sample station, approximately 1.6 miles downstream from the Corning discharge. Some improvement of the biota was observed at the Burr Oak Dam sample station (5.3 miles from Corning) relative to the upstream impacted sites. The biological community responded positively further along the spatial gradient of the stream at the RT-78 (8.9 miles from Corning) and Truetown-2 (16.2 miles from Corning) sample stations. These two sites reflected community parameter values comparable to reference site conditions on the East and West Branches as well as the Headwater sample stations. The biota was heavily disrupted at the Truetown-1 sample station and remained unresponsive at the
Chauncey station near the mouth of Sunday Creek approximately 6 miles from the
Truetown discharge. By drawing comparisons between significant correlations and
74 critical parameter levels, results demonstrated pH to be a poor predictor of biological community condition, while acidity, total metals and Fe sediment proved to be excellent predictors of community structure.
To further quantify the impact from AMD sediment, lab bioassays in the current study tested the hypothesis that sediment from Corning and Truetown exhibits toxicity toward macroinvertebrates. The goal of these assays was to determine if significant (p <
0.05) differences in survival of test organisms exist between the control sediment and impacted sediments. Conductivity and pH were both measured during the lab bioassays in order to directly relate the influence of each upon the survival of test organisms, which included Heptageniidae mayflies and Cerodaphnia. Sediment from both Corning and
Truetown was toxic in the mayfly experiment, while only sediment from Truetown was toxic to Cerodaphnia relative to the East branch Control treatment. The results from these assays suggest that when the pH drops below 4.0 acute toxicity of Cerodaphnia occurs
(Table 3.4, Truetown replicate #1). However, the majority of all replicated remained above a pH of 5.4 for the Cerodaphnia experiment and above 7.0 for the mayfly experiment. This suggests that it could be a combination of the physical effects from ferric hydroxide and possible physiological effects from concentrations of metals that are acting together to impart toxicity upon aquatic invertebrates. Because the assays are a preliminary investigation into the toxicity of these sediments, where metal concentrations were not measured, these causes are only suggestive. The specific mechanisms responsible for mortality cannot be determined from these experiments. Further studies should be directed at identifying the exact pathways responsible for causing mortality
75 upon aquatic test organisms from these sediments. The preliminary goal of identifying these sediments as toxic, however, was accomplished.
Prior to this study, little or no data collected on aquatic species within the Sunday
Creek Watershed has been analyzed. Likewise, the degree of impact from the two point sources of AMD in the main branch upon fish and macroinvertebrate assemblages has not been documented. These two point sources of AMD along the main branch represent the most visible and detectable sources of degradation upon the stream biota. The severity of degradation could not be determined until all aspects of ecosystem health – physical, chemical, and biological – have been evaluated. This study served to document the extent of degradation upon fish and mancroinvertebrate richness and diversity in order to provide essential data for use in the assessment of restoration objectives for the Corning and Truetown point sources of AMD. It is critical to know what aspect of AMD is most responsible for the disruption of fish and macroinvertebrate assemblages so that specifically, those pathways can be targeted.
These point sources are top priority restoration goals for the Sunday Creek
Watershed Group. A paramount concern of management is to understand to some degree how much a disturbed system is capable of recovering and what conditions should be expected upon remediation and removal of a given stressor. The information gained from this study will add to the understanding of how aquatic assemblages respond to varying types of AMD disturbance and more importantly assess the potential of this ecosystem to recover (relative to reference site conditions) from this stress. For example, the existence of good suitable habitat at the most impacted sites is encouraging for improvement and recovery of the aquatic community upon restoration of these impacted areas. This
76 information is highly beneficial to the assessment process and can be directly applied to priority determinations. In determining priority objectives for AMD in Sunday Creek, the most feasible applications must be considered. Other studies have been aimed at characterizing the Corning and Truetown point sources respectively (Ben McCament unpublished data; Light 2001). By combining these characterizations with the information produced by this study, a priority target resulting in the greatest initial improvement of the overall quality for the main branch of Sunday Creek can be determined.
77 References
Armitage, P.D. 1980. The Effects of Mine Drainage and Organic Enrichment on Benthos in the River Nent System, Northern Pennines. Hydrobiologia 74, 119-128.
Barbour, M.T., W.F. Swietlik, S.K. Jackson, D.L. Courtemanch, S.P. Davies & C.O. Yoder. 2000. Measuring the attainment of biological integrity in the USA: a critical element of ecological integrity. Hydrobiologia 422/423, 453-464.
Belanger, S.E., & D.S. Cherry. 1990. Interacting effects of pH acclimation, pH, and Heavy metals on acute and chronic toxicity to Ceriodaphnia dubia (Cladocera). Journal of Crustacean Biology 10, 225-235.
Bell, H.L. 1971. Effect of Low pH on the Survival and Emergence of Aquatic Insects. Water Research 5, 313-319.
Burling, H.L. 1996. Assessment of Fish Isolation due to Acid Mine Drainage in the Monday Creek Watershed. Ohio University Thesis (M.S.). August 1996.
Cain, D.J., S.N. Luoma, J.L. Carter & S.V. Fend. 1992. Aquatic insects as bioindicators of trace element contamination in cobble-bottom rivers and streams. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 49, 2141-2154.
Cairns, Jr., J. 1990. Lack of Theoretical Basis for Predicting Rate and Pathways of Recovery. Environmental Management 14, 517-526.
Cannon, W.E. & W.G. Kimmel. 1992. A comparison of fish and macroinvertebrate communities between an unpolluted stream and the recovery zone of a stream receiving acid mine drainage. Journal of the Pennsylvania Academy of Science 66, 58-62.
Cherry, D.S., R.J. Currie, D.J. Soucek, H.A. Latimer & G.C. Trent. 2001. An integrative assessment of a watershed impacted by abandoned mined land discharges. Environmental Pollution 111, 377-388.
Clements, W.H. 1994. Benthic invertebrate community responses to heavy metals in the Upper Arkansas River Basin, Colorado. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 13, 30-44.
Cohen, R.R.H., & J. Gorman. 1991. Mining-Related Nonpoint-Source Pollution. Water Environment & Technology 3, 55-59.
Courtney, L.A. & W.H. Clements. 1998. Effects of acidic pH on benthic macroinvertebrate communities in stream microcosms. Hydrobiologia 379, 135-145.
78 Crowell, D.L. 1995. History of the coal mining industry in Ohio. Ohio Department of Natural Resources. Division of Geological Survey. Columbus, 1995.
Crowell, D.L. 1997. History of Coal Mining in Ohio. GeoFacts 14. Ohio Department of Natural Resources. Division of Geological Survey.
DeShon, J.F. 1995. Developement and application of the invertebrate community index (ICI). Biological Assessment and Criteria: Tools for water resource planning and decision making. W.S. Davis & T.P. Simon (eds.). Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL. pp. 217- 243.
Doherty, F.G. 1978. A preliminary study on the toxic mode of action of acid mine water on aquatic invertebrates (Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera) through respirometry. Ohio University Thesis (M.S.). November 1978.
Farag, A.M., D.F. Woodward, J.N. Goldstein, W. Brumbaugh & J.S. Meyer. 1998. Concentrations of Metals Associated with Mining Waste in Sediments, Biofilm, Benthic Macroinvertebrates, and Fish from the Coeur d’Alene River Basin, Idaho. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 34, 119-127.
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration (FWPCA). 1968. Stream pollution by coal mine drainage, Ohio river basin. U.S. Department of Interior, Ohio Basin Region.
Goodyear, K.L. & S. McNeill. 1999. Bioaccumulation of heavy metals by aquatic macro- invertebrates of different feeding guilds: a review. The Science of the Total Environment 229, 1-19.
Gore, J.A., J.R. Kelly, & J.D. Yount. 1990. Application of ecological theory to determining recovery potential of disturbed lotic ecosystems: research needs and priorities. Environmental Management 14, 755-762.
Gray, N.F. 1996. A Substrate Classification Index for the Visual Assessment of the Impact of Acid Mine Drainage in Lotic Systems. Water Research 30, 1551-1554.
Gray, N.F. 1998. Acid mine drainage composition and the implications for its impact on lotic systems. Water Research 32, 2122-2134.
Herricks, E.E. 1977. Recovery of streams from chronic pollutional stress-acid mine drainage. Recovery and restoration of damaged ecosystems. J. Cairns, K.L. Dickson, & E.E. Herricks (eds.). University of Virginia Press, Charlotesville. pp. 43-71.
Hintze, J.L. 2000. Number Cruncher Statistical System (NCSS). Statistical System for Windows.
79 Hoiland, W.K., F.W. Rabe, & R.C. Biggam. 1994. Recovery of macroinvertebrate communities from metal pollution in the South Fork and mainstem of the Coeur d’Alene River, Idaho. Water Environmental Research 66, 84-88.
Hutchens, Jr., J.J., K.Chung, & J.B. Wallace. 1998. Temporal variability of stream macroinvertebrate abundance and biomass following pesticide disturbance. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 17, 518-534.
Hynes, H.B.N. 1970. The Ecology of Running Waters. University of Toronto Press. 555 pp.
Karr, J.R. 1995. Protecting Aquatic Ecosystems: Clean Water Is Not Enough. Biological Assessment and Criteria Tools for Water Resource Planning and Decision Making. pp. 7- 13
Karr, J.R., K.D. Fausch, P.L. Angermeier, P.R. Yant, & I.J. Schlosser. 1986. Assessing biological integrity in running waters: a method and its rationale. Illinois Natural History Survey Special Publication 5. 28 pp.
Kelly, J.R. & M.A. Harwell. 1990. Indicators of Ecosystem Recovery. Environmental Management 14, 527-545.
Kiffney, P.M. & W.H. Clements. 1994. Effects of heavy metals on a macroinvertebrate assemblage from a Rocky Mountain stream in experimental microcosms. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 13, 511-523.
Langston, W.J., & S.K. Spence. 1995. Biological factors involved in metal concentrations observed in aquatic organisms. Metal Speciation and Bioavailability in Aquatic Systems. 407-478.
Last, J.L. 2001. Impact of specific acid mine drainage contaminants on macroinvertebrate communities in southeastern Ohio streams. Ohio University Thesis (M.S.). November 2001.
Letterman, R.D. & W.J. Mitsch. 1978. Impact of mine drainage on a mountain stream in Pennsylvania. Environmental Pollution 17, 53-73.
Light, D.M. 2001. A hydrogeochemical characterization and interpretation of the Truetown mine complex, Athens County, Ohio. Ohio University Thesis (M.S.). June 2001.
Lowell, R.B., J.M. Culp & F.J. Wrona. 1995. Toxicity testing with artificial streams: effects of differences in current velocity. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 14, 1209-1217.
Malmqvist, B., & P. Hoffstein. 1999. Influence of drainage from old mine deposits on benthic macroinvertebrate communities in central Swedish streams. Water Research 33, 2415- 2423.
80 Merritt, R.W. & K.W. Cummins. 1996. An Introduction to the Aquatic Insects of North America. Third edition. Kendal/Hunt Publishing. Dubuque, Iowa.
Moon, T.C. & C.M. Lucostic. 1979. Effects of acid mine drainage on a Southwestern Pennsylvania stream. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 11, 377-390.
Nelson, S.M. & R.A. Roline. 1996. Recovery of a stream macroinvertebrate community from mine drainage disturbance. Hydrobiologia 339, 73-84.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 1999. Technical Guidance for Screening Contaminated Sediments. Division of Fish, Wildlife and Marine resources. 25 January 1999. 39 pp.
Ohio Administrative Code. 2002. Hocking River Drainage Basin. Water Use Designation Index. Chapter 3745-1-08. 21 July 2002.
Ohio Administrative Code. 2002. Water Use Designations and Statewide Criteria. Chapter 3745- 1-07. 21 July 2002.
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Division of Surface Water. 2001. Sediment Sampling Guide and Methodologies (2nd edition). November 2001.
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Division of Surface Water. 2001. Ecological Assessment Study. Monday Creek and Sunday Creek Study Plan. 18 June 2001. 9 pp.
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency – Division of Water Quality. 1989. The Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index (QHEI): Rationale, Methods, and Application. E.T. Rankin. 6 November 1989. 72 pp.
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency – Division of Water Quality Planning & Assessment. 1988. Biological Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Life: Volume II: Users Manuel for Biological Field Assessment of Ohio Surface Waters. 1 January 1988.
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. 1979. Initial water quality management plan, pp. IV – 4.
Peckarsky, B.L., P.R. Fraissinet, M.A. Penton, & D.J. Conklin, Jr. 1990. Freshwater Macroinvertebrates of Northeastern North America. Cornell University Press.
Pinder, M.J. & R.P. Morgan. 1995. Interactions of pH and habitat on cyprinid distributions in Appalachian streams of Maryland. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 124, 94-102.
Pourang, N. 1996. Heavy metal concentrations in surficial sediments and benthic macroinvertebrates from Anzali wetland, Iran. Hydrobiologia 331, 53-61.
81 Riley, C.V. 1960. The Ecology of Water Areas Associated With Coal Strip-Mined Lands In Ohio. The Ohio Journal of Science 60, 2 March 1960.
Robb, G.A. 1994. Environmental Consequences of Coal Mine Closure. The Geographical Journal 160, 33-40.
Robb, G.A. & J.D.F. Robinson. 1995. Acid drainage from mines. The Geographic Journal 161, 47-57.
Rosemound, A.D., S.R. Reice, J.W. Elmwood & P.J. Mulholland. 1992. The effects of stream acidity on benthic invertebrate communities in the south-eastern United States. Freshwater Biology 27, 193-209.
Rutherford, J.E. & R.J. Mellow. 1994. The Effects of an Abandoned Roast Yard on the Fish and Macroinvertebrate Communities of Surrounding Beaver Ponds. Hydrobiologia 294, 219- 228.
Smith, F.R. 1993. A classification of Ohio stream sediments based on metal content. Ohio University Thesis (M.S.). November 1993.
Soucek, D.J., D.S. Cherry, & G.C. Trent. 2000. Relative acute toxicity of acid mine drainage water columnm and sediments to Daphnia magna in the Puckett’s Creek Watershed, Virginia, USA. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 38, 305-310.
Turner, A. 2000. Trace metal contamination in sediments from U.K. estuaries: An empirical evaluation of the role of hydrous iron and manganese oxides. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 50, 355-371.
Wallace, J.B. 1990. Recovery of Lotic Macroinvertebrate Communities from Disturbance. Environmental Management 14, 605-620.
Watanabe, N.C., S. Harada, & Y. Komai. 2000. Long-term recovery from mine drainage disturbance of a macroinvertebrate community in the Ichi-kawa River, Japan. Hydrobiologia 429, 171-180.
Whiles, M.R. & J.B.Wallace. 1995. Macroinvertebrate production in a headwater stream during recovery from anthropogenic disturbance and hydrologic extremes. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 52, 2402-2422.
Yoder, C.O. & E.T. Rankin. 1995. Biological Criteria Program Development and Implementation in Ohio. Biological assessment and criteria tools for water resource planning and decision making. Wayne S. Davis & Thomas P. Simon (eds.) Lewis Publishers 1995.
82 Yoder, C.O. & E.T. Rankin. 1998. The Role of Biological Indicators in State a Water Quality Management Process. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 51, 61-88.
83 Appendix 1. Macroinvertebrate taxa collected.
Site Order Family Genus Fall Spring Summer Total Chauncey Ephemeroptera Baetidae Baetis 1 1 Chauncey Ephemeroptera Caenidae Caenis 1 1 Chauncey Plecoptera Perlidae Perlesta 1 1 Chauncey Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Cheumatopsyche 30 30 Chauncey Trichoptera Phryganeidae Ptilostomis 1 1 Chauncey Coleoptera Gyrinidae Dineutus 4 4 Chauncey Megaloptera Corydalidae Nigronia 1 1 Chauncey Megaloptera Sialidae Sialis 2 3 5 Chauncey Diptera Tanytarsini 4 4 Chauncey Diptera Tanytarsini Cladotanytarsus 1 1 Chauncey Diptera Chironominae Chironomini 10 10 Chauncey Diptera Chironominae Chironomus 2 2 Chauncey Diptera Chironominae Polypedilum 4 1 5 Chauncey Diptera Chironominae Stenochironomus 3 3 Chauncey Diptera Orthocladiinae Orthocladius 9 9 Chauncey Diptera Orthocladiinae Parametriocnemus 1 1 Chauncey Diptera Tanypodinae 3 3 Chauncey Diptera Tanypodinae Natarsia 1 1 Chauncey Diptera Tanypodinae Thienemannimyia 1 1 Chauncey Diptera Tanypodinae Zavrelimyia 1 1 2 Chauncey Diptera Chironomidae Chironomidae 3 3 Chauncey Diptera Chironominae Phaenopsectra 3 3 Chauncey Diptera Tipulidae Dicranota 1 1 Chauncey Annelida 4 1 5
Chauncey Totals 23 7 68 98 Truetown-1 Ephemeroptera Caenidae Caenis 4 4 Truetown-1 Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Cheumatopsyche 2 2 Truetown-1 Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Potomyia 48 48 Truetown-1 Coleoptera Elmidae Stenelmis 2 2 Truetown-1 Megaloptera Sialidae Sialis 1 5 6 Truetown-1 Hemiptera Corixidae Trichocorixa 1 1 Truetown-1 Plecypoda Sphaeriidae Pisidium 1 1 Truetown-1 Diptera Orthocladiinae Cricotopus bicinctus 1 1 Truetown-1 Diptera Orthocladiinae Orthocladius 1 1 2 Truetown-1 Diptera Orthocladiinae Rheocricotopus 2 2 Truetown-1 Diptera Orthocladiinae Thienemeniella 1 1 Truetown-1 Diptera Orthocladiinae Tvetenia bavarica 1 1 Truetown-1 Diptera Ceratopogonidae 1 1 Truetown-1 Diptera Ceratopogonidae Bezzia/Palpomyia 3 3 Truetown-1 Diptera Ceratopogonidae Probezzia 1 1 Truetown-1 Diptera Tanypodinae Ablabesmyia 1 1 Truetown-1 Diptera Tanypodinae Natarsia 2 2 Truetown-1 Diptera Tanypodinae Thienemannimyia 5 2 7 Truetown-1 Diptera Tanytarsini Rheotanytarsus 1 1 Truetown-1 Diptera Tanytarsini Tanytarsus 8 8
84 Truetown-1 Diptera Chironominae Chironomini 12 12 Truetown-1 Diptera Chironominae Paratendipes 4 4 Truetown-1 Diptera Chironominae Phaenopsectra 1 1 7 9 Truetown-1 Diptera Chironominae Polypedilum 10 2 12 Truetown-1 Diptera Chironominae Tribelos 1 1 Truetown-1 Diptera Simulidae Simulium 2 2 Truetown-1 Annelida 1 2 3 Truetown-1 Oligochaeta 1 3 4 Truetown-1 Totals 7 51 84 142 Truetown-2 Ephemeroptera Ameletidae Ameletus 8 8 Truetown-2 Ephemeroptera Baetidae Procleon 9 5 14 Truetown-2 Ephemeroptera Caenidae Caenis 2 3 5 Truetown-2 Ephemeroptera Ephemerellidae Eurylophella 3 3 Truetown-2 Ephemeroptera Ephemeridae Hexagenia 1 1 Truetown-2 Ephemeroptera Heptageniidae Cinygmula 1 1 2 Truetown-2 Ephemeroptera Heptageniidae Stenacron 1 1 2 Truetown-2 Ephemeroptera Heptageniidae Stenonema 2 2 Truetown-2 Ephemeroptera Isonychiidae Isonychia 4 4 Truetown-2 Ephemeroptera Trichorythidae Tricorythodes 1 1 Truetown-2 Plecoptera Perlodidae Diploperla 2 2 Truetown-2 Plecoptera Taeniopterygidae Taeneopteryx 2 2 Truetown-2 Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Cheumatopsyche 190 190 Truetown-2 Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Hydropsyche 2 36 38 Truetown-2 Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Potamyia 2 2 Truetown-2 Trichoptera Philopotamidae Chimarra 1 1 Truetown-2 Trichoptera Rhyacophilidae Rhyacophila 2 1 3 Truetown-2 Odonata Gomphidae Dromogomphus 1 1 Truetown-2 Odonata Corduliidae Macromiinae 1 1 Truetown-2 Odonata Coenagrionidae Argia 3 3 Truetown-2 Odonata Calopterygidae Calopteryx 1 1 Truetown-2 Megaloptera Corydalidae Nigronia 1 1 Truetown-2 Megaloptera Sialidae Sialis 5 1 6 Truetown-2 Coleoptera Elmidae Ancyronyx 4 2 6 Truetown-2 Coleoptera Elmidae Dubiraphia 6 6 Truetown-2 Coleoptera Elmidae Gonielmis 1 1 Truetown-2 Coleoptera Elmidae Macronychus 1 1 2 Truetown-2 Coleoptera Elmidae Stenelmis 64 17 81 Truetown-2 Gastropoda Lymnaeidae Pseudosuccinea 3 1 4 Truetown-2 Gastropoda Physidae Physella 2 3 5 Truetown-2 Gastropoda Planorbidae Planorbella 8 8 Truetown-2 Gastropoda Ancylidae Laevapex fuscus 3 5 13 21 Truetown-2 Plecypoda Corbiculidae Corbicula fluminea 5 2 3 10 Truetown-2 Plecypoda Sphaeriidae Pisidium 1 1 Truetown-2 Decapoda Cambaridae Orconectes 1 2 3 Truetown-2 Diptera Cecidomyiidae 1 1 Truetown-2 Diptera Ceratopogonidae 2 2 Truetown-2 Diptera Ceratopogonidae Bezzia/Palpomyia 1 1 Truetown-2 Diptera Ceratopogonidae Probezzia 3 3
85 Truetown-2 Diptera Orthocladiinae Diplocladius 1 1 Truetown-2 Diptera Orthocladiinae Orthocladius 3 3 Truetown-2 Diptera Chironomidae 1 1 Truetown-2 Diptera Chironominae Chironomus 13 13 Truetown-2 Diptera Chironominae Chironimini 30 16 46 Truetown-2 Diptera Chironominae Parachironomus 1 1 Truetown-2 Diptera Chironominae Paratendipes 3 3 Truetown-2 Diptera Chironominae Phaenospectra 15 2 17 Truetown-2 Diptera Chironominae Polypedilum 3 2 1 6 Truetown-2 Diptera Chironominae Sergentina 2 2 Truetown-2 Diptera Chironominae Stenochironomus 1 1 Truetown-2 Diptera Chironominae Tribelos 6 6 Truetown-2 Diptera Empididae Hemerodromia 4 10 14 Truetown-2 Diptera Tanypodinae Larsia 2 2 Truetown-2 Diptera Tanypodinae Thienemannimyia 15 15 Truetown-2 Diptera Tanytarsini Microspectra 1 1 Truetown-2 Diptera Tanytarsini Paratanytarsus 13 13 Truetown-2 Diptera Tanytarsini Rheotanytarsus 7 7 Truetown-2 Diptera Tanytarsini Tanytarsus 1 398 399 Truetown-2 Diptera Orthocladiinae 65 65 Truetown-2 Diptera Orthocladiinae Cricotopus bicinctus 8 2 10 Truetown-2 Diptera Orthocladiinae Hydrobaenus 1 2 3 Truetown-2 Diptera Orthocladiinae Orthocladius 21 48 69 Truetown-2 Diptera Orthocladiinae Parametriocnemus 3 4 7 Truetown-2 Diptera Orthocladiinae Parakiefferiella 1 1 Truetown-2 Diptera Orthocladiinae Rheocricotopus 4 4 Truetown-2 Diptera Orthocladiinae Thienemeniella 1 1 Truetown-2 Diptera Tipulidae Tipula 1 1 Truetown-2 Diptera Simuliidae Simulium 1 1 Truetown-2 Annelida 7 28 35 Truetown-2 Oligochaeta 1 1 Truetown-2 Totals 162 250 785 1197 RT-78 Ephemeroptera Ameletidae Ameletus 2 2 RT-78 Ephemeroptera Baetidae Procleon 10 59 13 82 RT-78 Ephemeroptera Baetiscidae Baetisca 5 2 7 RT-78 Ephemeroptera Caenidae Caenis 9 62 12 83 RT-78 Ephemeroptera Heptageniidae Cinygmula 7 4 11 RT-78 Ephemeroptera Heptageniidae Stenacron 0* 36 36 RT-78 Ephemeroptera Heptageniidae Stenonema 9 1 10 RT-78 Ephemeroptera Isonychiidae Isonychia 1 1 RT-78 Ephemeroptera Leptophlebiidae Leptophlebia 1 1 RT-78 Ephemeroptera Leptophlebiidae Paraleptophlebia 1 1 RT-78 Ephemeroptera Trichorythidae Tricorythodes 2 14 16 RT-78 Plecoptera Capniidae Allocapnia 3 1 4 RT-78 Plecoptera Perlidae Perlesta 1 1 RT-78 Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Cheumatopsyche 31 1 1 33 RT-78 Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Hydropsyche 3 1 4 RT-78 Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Potamyia 6 5 11
86 RT-78 Trichoptera Limnephilidae Pseudostenophylax 1 1 RT-78 Trichoptera Philopotamidae Chimarra 2 2 RT-78 Trichoptera Phryganeidae Hagenella 2 2 RT-78 Trichoptera Phryganeidae Ptilostomis 1 1 RT-78 Trichoptera Polycentropodidae Polycentropus 4 4 RT-78 Trichoptera Polycentropodidae Cernotina 3 5 8 RT-78 Trichoptera Psychomyiidae Lype 5 5 RT-78 Odonata Aeshnidae Boyeria 2 2 RT-78 Odonata Gomphidae Dromogomphus 1 1 RT-78 Odonata Gomphidae Gomphus 1 1 RT-78 Odonata LIbellulidae LIbellula 1 1 RT-78 Odonata Calopterygidae Calopteryx 1 2 1 4 RT-78 Odonata Coenagrionidae Argia 1 1 RT-78 Odonata Coenagrionidae Chromagrion 4 1 5 RT-78 Coleoptera Elmidae Dubiraphia 7 10 2 19 RT-78 Megaloptera Corydalidae Corydalus 2 2 RT-78 Megaloptera Corydalidae Nigronia 1 2 1 4 RT-78 Megaloptera Sialidae Sialis 1 1 RT-78 Hemiptera Gerridae 1 1 RT-78 Gastropoda Lymnaeidae Pseudosuccinea 1 1 2 RT-78 Gastropoda Physidae Physella 2 4 6 RT-78 Gastropoda Planorbidae Menetus dialatus 1 1 RT-78 Gastropoda Planorbidae Planorbella 1 1 RT-78 Gastropoda Planorbidae Planorbula 1 1 RT-78 Gastropoda Ancylidae Laevapex fuscus 1 12 13 RT-78 Plecypoda Corbiculidae Corbicula fluminea 26 13 9 48 RT-78 Plecypoda Sphaeriidae Pisidium 1 2 3 RT-78 Decapoda Cambaridae Orconectes 7 3 5 15 RT-78 Diptera Culicidae Anopheles 2 2 RT-78 Diptera Empididae Clinocera 1 1 RT-78 Diptera Empididae Hemerodromia 5 6 11 RT-78 Diptera Tipulidae Tipula 1 1 RT-78 Diptera Ceratopogonidae Bezzia/Palpomyia 5 1 6 RT-78 Diptera Ceratopogonidae Culicoides 1 1 RT-78 Diptera Ceratopogonidae Probezzia 4 4 RT-78 Diptera Ceratopoginae 4 4 RT-78 Diptera Chironomidae 4 4 RT-78 Diptera Chironominae Cryptochironomus 2 2 RT-78 Diptera Chironominae Chironomini 32 23 19 74 RT-78 Diptera Chironominae Dicrotendipes 2 6 8 RT-78 Diptera Chironominae Polypedilum 1 28 29 RT-78 Diptera Chironominae Tribelos 1 1 RT-78 Diptera Orthocladiinae 6 6 RT-78 Diptera Orthocladiinae Cricotopus bicinctus 9 9 RT-78 Diptera Orthocladiinae Orthocladius 31 11 42 RT-78 Diptera Orthocladiinae Parakiefferiella 1 1 RT-78 Diptera Orthocladiinae Rheocricotopus 5 5 RT-78 Diptera Orthocladiinae Thienemeniella 2 2 RT-78 Diptera Pseudochironominus Pseudochironominus 1 1
87 RT-78 Diptera Tabanidae 1 1 2 RT-78 Diptera Tanypodinae 14 14 RT-78 Diptera Tanypodinae Ablabesmyia 2 32 34 RT-78 Diptera Tanypodinae Labrundinia 1 1 RT-78 Diptera Tanypodinae Natarsia 1 1 RT-78 Diptera Tanypodinae Pentaneurini 2 2 RT-78 Diptera Tanypodinae Thienemannimyia 1 8 9 RT-78 Diptera Tanytarsini 3 3 RT-78 Diptera Tanytarsini Cladotanytarsus 1 1 RT-78 Diptera Tanytarsini Microspectra 1 1 2 RT-78 Diptera Tanytarsini Paratanytarsus 1 1 2 RT-78 Diptera Tanytarsini Tanytarsus 3 42 50 95 RT-78 Diptera Tanytarsini Phaenopsectra 1 1 RT-78 Diptera Tanytarsini Rheotanytarsus 2 2 RT-78 Annelida 3 51 54 RT-78 Oligochaeta 3 3 RT-78 Collembola 1 1 RT-78 Totals 210 362 327 899 BurrOakDam Ephemeroptera Baetidae Procleon 2 4 3 9 BurrOakDam Ephemeroptera Baetiscidae Baetisca 34 34 BurrOakDam Ephemeroptera Caenidae Caenis 12 5 5 22 BurrOakDam Plecoptera Chloroperlidae Sweltsa 1 1 BurrOakDam Plecoptera Nemouridae Amphinemoura 1 1 BurrOakDam Plecoptera Perlodidae 1 1 BurrOakDam Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Cheumatopsyche 1 17 38 56 BurrOakDam Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Hydropsyche 7 10 17 BurrOakDam Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Potamyia 8 8 BurrOakDam Trichoptera Phryganeidae Ptilostomis 1 1 BurrOakDam Trichoptera Polycentropodidae Cernotina 22 22 BurrOakDam Trichoptera Polycentropodidae Polycentropus 7 7 BurrOakDam Odonata Aeshnidae Boyeria 1 1 2 BurrOakDam Odonata Calopterygidae Calopteryx 4 12 16 BurrOakDam Odonata Coenagrionidae Argia 2 2 BurrOakDam Odonata Coenagrionidae Chromagrion 1 2 3 BurrOakDam Odonata Gomphidae Dromogomphus 1 1 BurrOakDam Coleoptera Gyrinidae Gyrinus 1 1 BurrOakDam Coleoptera Haliplidae Haliplus 1 1 BurrOakDam Megaloptera Salidae Sialis 1 1 BurrOakDam Gastropoda Lymnaeidae Pseudosuccinea 2 2 BurrOakDam Gastropoda Planorbidae Menetus dilatatus 1 1 BurrOakDam Decapoda Cambaridae Orconectes 2 2 BurrOakDam Diptera Ceratopogonidae 2 2 BurrOakDam Diptera Ceratopogonidae Bezzia/Palpomyia 5 2 2 9 BurrOakDam Diptera Ceratopogonidae Probezzia 2 2 BurrOakDam Diptera Chironominae Chironomini 146 15 161 BurrOakDam Diptera Chironominae Dicrotendipes 1 1 BurrOakDam Diptera Chironominae Phaenopsectra 2 2 BurrOakDam Diptera Chironominae Polypedilum 1 1
88 BurrOakDam Diptera Empididae Clinocera 2 2 BurrOakDam Diptera Empididae Hemerodromia 6 5 11 BurrOakDam Diptera Orthocladiinae 15 5 20 BurrOakDam Diptera Orthocladiinae Cricotopus bicinctus 1 1 BurrOakDam Diptera Orthocladiinae Orthocladius 4 4 BurrOakDam Diptera Orthocladiinae Parakiefferiella 1 1 BurrOakDam Diptera Orthocladiinae Parametriocnemus 3 3 BurrOakDam Diptera Orthocladiinae Rheocricotopus 1 1 BurrOakDam Diptera Tapanidae 1 1 2 BurrOakDam Diptera Tanypodinae 31 24 55 BurrOakDam Diptera Tanypodinae Alabesmyia 2 1 3 BurrOakDam Diptera Tanypodinae Thienemannimyia 4 4 BurrOakDam Diptera Tanytarsini 70 11 81 BurrOakDam Diptera Tanytarsini Paratanytarsus 2 2 BurrOakDam Diptera Tipulidae Tipula 1 1 BurrOakDam Annelida 12 39 51 BurrOakDam Collembola 1 1 BOD Totals 368 136 128 632 RR-13 Ephemeroptera Caenidae Caenis 1 1 RR-13 Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Cheumatopsyche 1 1 RR-13 Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Homoplectra 3 3 RR-13 Odonata Gomphidae Hagenius 1 1 RR-13 Odonata Lestidae Lestes 1 1 RR-13 Hemiptera Veliidae 3 3 RR-13 Gastropoda Lymnaeidae Pseudosuccinea 2 2 RR-13 Diptera Ceratopogonidae Bezzia/Palpomyia 2 2 RR-13 Diptera Chironomidae 1 1 RR-13 Diptera Chironominae 2 2 RR-13 Diptera Chironominae Chironomini 20 3 23 RR-13 Diptera Chironominae Phaenopsectra 1 1 2 4 RR-13 Diptera Chironominae Polypedilum 1 2 9 12 RR-13 Diptera Chironominae Chironomus 6 6 RR-13 Diptera Orthocladiinae Diplocladius 1 1 RR-13 Diptera Orthocladiinae Parametriocnemus 1 1 RR-13 Diptera Tanypodinae 2 2 RR-13 Diptera Tanypodinae Larsia 2 2 RR-13 Diptera Tanypodinae Natarsia 9 9 RR-13 Diptera Tanypodinae Thienemannimyia 1 2 3 RR-13 Diptera Tanypodinae Zavrelimyia 1 1 RR-13 Diptera Tanytarsini Tanytarsus 1 1 RR-13 Diptera Tipulidae Dolichopeza 1 1 RR-13 Diptera Tipulidae Gonomyia 1 1 RR-13 Diptera Tipulidae Tipula 2 2 RR-13 Annelida 64 13 6 83 RR-13 Oligochaeta 1 1 RR-13 Totals 83 43 44 170 Corning Ephemeroptera Caenidae Caenis 1 1
89 Corning Ephemeroptera Ephemerellidae Timpanoga 1 1 Corning Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Cheumatopsyche 2 2 Corning Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Hydropsyche 2 2 Corning Odonata Aeshnidae Boyeria 1 1 Corning Odonata Calopterygidae Calopteryx 1 1 Corning Odonata Cordulidae Corduliinae 1 1 Corning Odonata Gomphidae Dromogomphus 1 1 Corning Coleoptera Elmidae Dubiraphia 3 3 Corning Coleoptera Elmidae Stenelmis 1 1 Corning Megaloptera Sialidae Sialis 11 11 Corning Hemiptera Veliidae 1 1 Corning Hymenoptera Diapriidae 1 1 Corning Gastropoda Physidae Physella 6 6 Corning Gastropoda Planorbidae Planorbula 2 2 4 Corning Diptera Ceratopogonidae 2 2 Corning Diptera Ceratopogonidae Bezzia/Palpomyia 2 2 Corning Diptera Chironomidae 2 2 Corning Diptera Chironominae Chironomini 80 80 Corning Diptera Chironominae Chironomus 3 7 1 11 Corning Diptera Chironominae Dicrotendipes 1 4 5 Corning Diptera Chironominae Paratendipes 1 1 Corning Diptera Chironominae Phaenopsectra 2 2 Corning Diptera Chironominae Polypedilum 2 2 4 Corning Diptera Orthocladiinae Orthocladius 1 1 Corning Diptera Orthocladiinae Parametriocnemus 1 1 Corning Diptera Orthocladiinae Thienemeniella 3 3 Corning Diptera Tanypodinae Larsia 20 20 Corning Diptera Tanypodinae Psectrotanypus 1 1 Corning Diptera Tanypodinae Thienemannimyia 1 1 Corning Diptera Tanytarsini Tanytarsus 1 1 Corning Diptera Tanytarsini Microspectra 3 3 Corning Annelida 4 76 80 Corning Collembola 1 1 Corning Totals 25 100 133 258 Headwater Ephemeroptera Ameletidae Ameletus 1 1 Headwater Ephemeroptera Baetidae Procleon 3 4 3 10 Headwater Ephemeroptera Caenidae Caenis 3 18 6 27 Headwater Ephemeroptera Ephemerellidae Timpanoga 7 7 Headwater Ephemeroptera Ephemeridae Hexagenia 1 1 Headwater Ephemeroptera Heptageniidae Stenonema 3 21 24 Headwater Ephemeroptera Leptophlebiidae Leptophlebia 2 2 Headwater Ephemeroptera Leptophlebiidae Paraleptophlebia 7 1 8 Headwater Plecoptera Capniidae Allocapnia 3 3 Headwater Plecoptera Chloroperlidae Haploperla 15 15 Headwater Plecoptera Chloroperlidae Sweltsa 1 1 Headwater Plecoptera Leuctridae Leuctra 2 2 Headwater Plecoptera Nemouridae Amphinemoura 4 4 Headwater Plecoptera Perlodidae Isoperla 3 3 Headwater Plecoptera Perlidae Perlesta 3 3
90 Headwater Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Cheumatopsyche 80 4 84 Headwater Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Hydropsyche 67 1 68 Headwater Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Potomyia 6 6 Headwater Trichoptera Philopotamidae Chimarra 14 14 Headwater Trichoptera Polycentropodidae Polycentropus 1 1 2 Headwater Trichoptera Polycentropodidae Cernotina 2 2 Headwater Odonata Gomphidae Dromogomphus 1 1 4 6 Headwater Odonata Gomphidae Hagenius 2 2 Headwater Odonata Libellulidae Libellula 1 1 Headwater Odonata Calopterygidae Calopteryx 3 2 5 Headwater Odonata Coenagrionidae Chromagrion 3 3 Headwater Coleoptera Dryopidae Helichus 1 1 Headwater Coleoptera Elmidae Dubiraphia 5 3 11 19 Headwater Coleoptera Elmidae Macronychus 1 1 Headwater Coleoptera Elmidae Stenelmis 50 29 79 Headwater Megaloptera Sialidae Sialis 2 1 11 14 Headwater Hemiptera Gerridae 2 2 Headwater Hemiptera Vellidae 5 5 Headwater Decapoda Cambaridae Orconectes 2 2 Headwater Diptera Ceratopogonidae 10 10 Headwater Diptera Ceratopogonidae Ceratopogon 2 2 Headwater Diptera Ceratopogonidae Bezzia/Palpomyia 2 2 Headwater Diptera Ceratopogonidae Probezzia 1 1 Headwater Diptera Chironomidae 2 2 Headwater Diptera Chironominae Chironomini 4 4 Headwater Diptera Chironominae Chironomus 7 1 8 Headwater Diptera Chironominae Dicrotendipes 1 1 Headwater Diptera Chironominae Microtendipes pedellus 1 1 2 Headwater Diptera Chironominae Paratendipes 1 1 Headwater Diptera Chironominae Phaenopsectra 1 1 Headwater Diptera Chironominae Polypedilum 1 4 4 9 Headwater Diptera Chironominae Stenochironomus 3 3 Headwater Diptera Chironominae Tribelos 1 1 Headwater Diptera Empididae Hemerodromia 1 1 Headwater Diptera Orthocladiinae 2 2 Headwater Diptera Orthocladiinae Cricotopus 3 3 Headwater Diptera Orthocladiinae Eukiefferiella 1 1 Headwater Diptera Orthocladiinae Orthocladius 1 1 Headwater Diptera Orthocladiinae Parakiefferiella 4 4 Headwater Diptera Orthocladiinae Parametriocnemus 1 1 Headwater Diptera Platypezidae 1 1 Headwater Diptera Tabanidae 1 1 Headwater Diptera Tanypodinae 1 1 Headwater Diptera Tanypodinae Ablabesmyia 6 2 8 Headwater Diptera Tanypodinae Clinotanypus 1 1 Headwater Diptera Tanypodinae Procladius 3 3 Headwater Diptera Tanypodinae Thienemannimyia 3 5 1 9 Headwater Diptera Tanypodinae Zavrelimyia 4 4 8 Headwater Diptera Tanytarsini Micropsectra 1 1
91 Headwater Diptera Tanytarsini Tanytarsus 2 3 5 Headwater Diptera Tipulidae Hexatoma 3 8 11 Headwater Diptera Tipulidae Tipula 4 4 Headwater Diptera Tipulidae Pseudolimnophila 1 1 Headwater Annelida 4 3 7 Headwater Totals 338 109 101 548 West Branch Ephemeroptera Baetidae Acentrella 4 4 West Branch Ephemeroptera Baetidae Barbaetis 2 2 West Branch Ephemeroptera Baetidae Procleon 3 8 25 36 West Branch Ephemeroptera Baetiscidae Baetisca 1 1 West Branch Ephemeroptera Caenidae Caenis 7 21 4 32 West Branch Ephemeroptera Ephemerellidae Eurylophella 2 1 3 West Branch Ephemeroptera Ephemeridae Hexagenia 1 1 West Branch Ephemeroptera Heptageniidae Cinygmula 1 1 West Branch Ephemeroptera Heptageniidae Heptagenia 3 3 West Branch Ephemeroptera Heptageniidae Stenacron 3 3 West Branch Ephemeroptera Heptageniidae Stenonema 2 2 West Branch Ephemeroptera Isonychiidae Isonychia 2 2 West Branch Ephemeroptera Leptophlebiidae Paraleptophlebia 4 4 West Branch Ephemeroptera Siphlonuridae Siphlonurus 1 1 West Branch Ephemeroptera Trichorythidae Tricorythodes 10 10 West Branch Plecoptera Capniidae Allocapnia 3 3 West Branch Plecoptera Leuctridae Leuctra 1 1 West Branch Plecoptera Nemouridae Amphinemoura 1 1 West Branch Plecoptera Perlidae Neoperla 1 1 West Branch Plecoptera Perlidae Perlesta 3 3 West Branch Plecoptera Taeniopterygidae Taeniopteryx 77 44 121 West Branch Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Cheumatopsyche 32 3 2 37 West Branch Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Hydropsyche 9 1 3 13 West Branch Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Potamyia 7 7 West Branch Trichoptera Philopotamidae Chimarra 27 4 74 105 West Branch Trichoptera Polycentropodidae Neureclipsis 1 1 West Branch Odonata Aeshnidae Boyeria 1 1 2 West Branch Odonata Calopterygidae Calopteryx 2 2 West Branch Odonata Coenagrionidae Argia 1 1 West Branch Odonata Coenagrionidae Chromagrion 1 1 West Branch Odonata Gomphidae Dromogomphus 1 1 2 West Branch Odonata Gomphidae Gomphus 1 1 West Branch Odonata Libellulidae Libellula 1 1 West Branch Coleoptera Elmidae Dubiraphia 5 10 109 124 West Branch Coleoptera Elmidae Gonielmis 7 7 West Branch Coleoptera Elmidae Macronychus 1 1 West Branch Coleoptera Elmidae Stenelmis 2 2 West Branch Hemiptera Corixidae Trichocorixa 1 1 West Branch Megaloptera Sialidae Sialis 8 8 West Branch Gastropoda Lymnaeidae Pseudosuccinea 4 3 4 11 West Branch Gastropoda Physidae Physella 10 4 9 23 West Branch Gastropoda Planorbidae Planorbella 1 1
92 West Branch Gastropoda Planorbidae Planorbula 1 5 6 West Branch Gastropoda Ancylidae Laevapex fuscus 46 3 13 62 West Branch Plecypoda Corbiculidae Corbicula fluminea 48 21 69 West Branch Plecypoda Sphaeriidae Pisidium 10 5 27 42 West Branch Decapoda Cambaridae Orconectes 5 5 West Branch Diptera Ceratopogonidae Culicoides 1 1 West Branch Diptera Ceratopogonidae Bezzia/Palpomyia 1 2 1 4 West Branch Diptera Ceratopogonidae Probezzia 3 1 4 West Branch Diptera Chironomidae 3 3 West Branch Diptera Chironominae Chironomini 2 23 3 28 West Branch Diptera Chironominae Chironomus 2 1 3 West Branch Diptera Chironominae Cryptochironomus 1 1 West Branch Diptera Chironominae Demicryptochironomus 1 1 West Branch Diptera Chironominae Paratendipes 1 1 2 West Branch Diptera Chironominae Polypedilum 1 1 West Branch Diptera Diamesinae Diamesa 1 1 West Branch Diptera Empididae Hemerodromia 7 6 13 West Branch Diptera Orthocladiinae 134 134 West Branch Diptera Orthocladiinae Diplocladius 2 2 West Branch Diptera Orthocladiinae Orthocladius 3 3 6 West Branch Diptera Orthocladiinae Cricotopus bicinctus 1 1 2 West Branch Diptera Orthocladiinae Parametriocnemus 1 1 West Branch Diptera Orthocladiinae Rheocricotopus 2 1 3 West Branch Diptera Pseudochironomimi Pseudochironomus 2 2 West Branch Diptera Simuliidae Simulium 6 10 32 48 West Branch Diptera Tanypodinae 12 12 West Branch Diptera Tanypodinae Ablabesmyia 9 9 West Branch Diptera Tanytarsini Rheotanytarsus 5 5 West Branch Diptera Tanytarsini Tanytarsus 12 2 14 West Branch Diptera Tipulidae Hexatoma 2 2 4 West Branch Annelida 10 10 West Branch Oligochaeta 6 6 West Branch Totals 317 385 388 1090 East Branch Ephemeroptera Ameletidae Ameletus 1 1 East Branch Ephemeroptera Baetidae Acerpenna pygmaea 1 1 East Branch Ephemeroptera Baetidae Procleon 11 1 22 34 East Branch Ephemeroptera Caenidae Caenis 4 7 9 20 East Branch Ephemeroptera Ephemerellidae Timpanoga 2 2 East Branch Ephemeroptera Ephemeridae Hexagenia 1 1 East Branch Ephemeroptera Heptageniidae Cinygmula 1 11 12 East Branch Ephemeroptera Heptageniidae Stenacron 6 6 East Branch Ephemeroptera Heptageniidae Stenonema 5 11 10 26 East Branch Ephemeroptera Leptophlebiidae Leptophlebia 16 2 18 East Branch Ephemeroptera Leptophlebiidae Paraleptophlebia 1 4 5 East Branch Plecoptera Capniidae Allocapnia 40 40 East Branch Plecoptera Chloroperlidae Haploperla 3 3 East Branch Plecoptera Chloroperlidae Sweltsa 3 3 East Branch Plecoptera Leuctridae Leuctra 1 1
93 East Branch Plecoptera Nemouridae Prostoia 33 33 East Branch Plecoptera Perlidae Eccoptura 1 1 East Branch Plecoptera Perlidae Neoperla 24 24 East Branch Plecoptera Perlidae Perlesta 13 13 East Branch Plecoptera Perlodidae Isoperla 10 10 East Branch Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Cheumatopsyche 7 155 162 East Branch Trichoptera Philopotamidae Chimarra 1 1 East Branch Trichoptera Polycentropodidae Cernotina 2 2 East Branch Trichoptera Polycentropodidae Polycentropus 3 3 East Branch Trichoptera Rhyacophilidae Rhyacophila 1 1 East Branch Odonata Aeshnidae Boyeria 5 5 East Branch Odonata Calopterygidae Calopteryx 1 1 East Branch Odonata Coenagrionidae Argia 5 5 East Branch Odonata Coenagrionidae Chromagrion 1 1 East Branch Coleoptera Elmidae Dubiraphia 3 3 East Branch Coleoptera Elmidae Oulimnius 1 1 East Branch Coleoptera Elmidae Stenelmis 2 2 10 14 East Branch Megaloptera Sialidae Sialis 2 2 East Branch Plecypoda Corbiculidae Corbicula fluminea 16 4 20 East Branch Plecypoda Sphaeriidae Pisidium 2 1 3 East Branch Gastropoda Lymnaeidae Fossaria 3 3 East Branch Gastropoda Physidae Physella 7 7 East Branch Gastropoda Planorbidae Menetus dialatus 2 2 East Branch Decapoda Cambaridae Orconectes 1 1 2 East Branch Diptera Empididae Clinocera 6 6 East Branch Diptera Tipulidae Hexatoma 8 8 East Branch Diptera Tipulidae Tipula 2 2 East Branch Diptera Simulidae Simulium 3 3 East Branch Diptera Cecidomyiidae Dixella 3 3 East Branch Diptera Ceratopogonidae Bezzia/Palpomyia 3 2 5 East Branch Diptera Ceratopoginae 1 1 East Branch Diptera Chironominae Axarus 12 12 East Branch Diptera Chironominae Chironomini 22 22 East Branch Diptera Chironominae Chironomus 1 1 East Branch Diptera Chironominae Cryptochironomus 3 3 East Branch Diptera Chironominae Dicrotendipes 1 1 East Branch Diptera Chironominae Microtendipes pedellus 3 3 6 East Branch Diptera Chironominae Nilothauma 2 2 East Branch Diptera Chironominae Paratendipes 3 3 East Branch Diptera Chironominae Phaenopsectra 1 1 East Branch Diptera Chironominae Polypedilum 5 9 14 East Branch Diptera Chironominae Stenochironomus 1 1 East Branch Diptera Empididae Hemerodromia 5 5 East Branch Diptera Orthocladiinae 27 27 East Branch Diptera Orthocladiinae Orthocladius 22 22 East Branch Diptera Orthocladiinae Diplocladius 3 3 East Branch Diptera Orthocladiinae Cricotopus bicinctus 2 6 8 East Branch Diptera Orthocladiinae Parametriocnemus 8 8 East Branch Diptera Orthocladiinae Rheocricotopus 2 2
94 East Branch Diptera Sciomyzidae 2 2 East Branch Diptera Tabanidae 1 1 East Branch Diptera Tanypodinae 6 6 East Branch Diptera Tanypodinae Ablabesmyia 1 1 East Branch Diptera Tanypodinae Labrundinia 1 1 East Branch Diptera Tanypodinae Natarsia 3 3 East Branch Diptera Tanypodinae Thienemannimyia 1 33 34 East Branch Diptera Tanypodinae Zavrelimyia 1 2 3 East Branch Diptera Tanytarsini 9 9 East Branch Diptera Tanytarsini Paratanytarsus 2 4 6 East Branch Diptera Tanytarsini Rheotanytarsus 21 21 East Branch Diptera Tanytarsini Stempellinella 1 1 East Branch Diptera Tanytarsini Tanytarsus 7 7 East Branch Diptera Tipulidae Hexatoma 2 1 3 East Branch Diptera Tipulidae Tipula 2 2 East Branch Annelida 2 2 East Branch Totals 221 130 405 763
95 Appendix 2. Fish species collected.
Site Species Total Chauncey Least Brook lamprey 1 Chauncey Grass Pickerel 1 Chauncey Golden Redhorse 1 Chauncey Northern Hog Sucker 2 Chauncey White Sucker 7 Chauncey Creek Chub 5 Chauncey Striped Shiner 1 Chauncey Spotfin Shiner 7 Chauncey Silverjaw Minnow 10 Chauncey Bluntnose Minnow 11 Chauncey Central Stoneroller 7 Chauncey Green Sunfish 13 Chauncey Bluegill Sunfish 4 Chauncey Green Sf x Bluegill Sf 1 Chauncey Green Sf x Hybrid 1 72
Truetown-1 Grass Pickerel 6 Truetown-1 White Sucker 20 Truetown-1 Golden Shiner 1 Truetown-1 Creek Chub 14 Truetown-1 Bluntnose Minnow 1 Truetown-1 Yellow Bullhead 1 Truetown-1 Warmouth Sunfish 3 Truetown-1 Green Sunfish 11 Truetown-1 Bluegill Sunfish 4 Truetown-1 Green Sf x Bluegill Sf 1 62
Truetown-2 Grass Pickerel 2 Truetown-2 Silver Redhorse 3 Truetown-2 Golden Redhorse 3 Truetown-2 Northern Hogsucker 35 Truetown-2 White Sucker 14 Truetown-2 Spotted Sucker 1 Truetown-2 Common Carp 1 Truetown-2 Creek Chub 17 Truetown-2 Striped Shiner 5 Truetown-2 Sand Shiner 20 Truetown-2 Silverjaw Minnow 4 Truetown-2 Bluntnose Minnow 35 Truetown-2 Central Stoneroller 240 Truetown-2 Channel Catfish 1 Truetown-2 Yellow Bullhead 8 Truetown-2 White Crappie 5 Truetown-2 Rock Bass 2
96 Truetown-2 Spotted Bass 4 Truetown-2 Warmouth Sunfish 2 Truetown-2 Green Sunfish 28 Truetown-2 Bluegill Sunfish 33 Truetown-2 Johnny Darter 21 Truetown-2 Orangethroat Darter 1 Truetown-2 Fantail Darter 24 Truetown-2 Green Sf x Hybrid 19 528
RT-78 Northern Hogsucker 13 RT-78 White Sucker 28 RT-78 Spotted Sucker 5 RT-78 Creek Chub 34 RT-78 Striped Shiner 1 RT-78 Sand Shiner 13 RT-78 Silverjaw Minnow 11 RT-78 Bluntnose Minnow 109 RT-78 Central Stoneroller 14 RT-78 Yellow Bullhead 3 RT-78 White Crappie 22 RT-78 Rock Bass 4 RT-78 Largemouth Bass 10 RT-78 Warmouth Sunfish 1 RT-78 Green Sunfish 51 RT-78 Bluegill Sunfish 24 RT-78 Longear Sunfish 2 RT-78 Logperch 2 RT-78 Johnny Darter 54 RT-78 Fantail Darter 8 409
Burr Oak Dam Grass Pickerel 1 Burr Oak Dam Northern Hog Sucker 1 Burr Oak Dam Spotted Sucker 3 Burr Oak Dam Creek Chub 4 Burr Oak Dam Sand Shiner 18 Burr Oak Dam Silverjaw Minnow 19 Burr Oak Dam Bluntnose Minnow 21 Burr Oak Dam Central Stoneroller 1 Burr Oak Dam Channel Catfish 10 Burr Oak Dam Yellow Bullhead 4 Burr Oak Dam White Crappie 5 Burr Oak Dam Largemouth Bass 4 Burr Oak Dam Warmouth Sunfish 1 Burr Oak Dam Green Sunfish 41 Burr Oak Dam Bluegill Sunfish 49 Burr Oak Dam Redear Sunfish 2 Burr Oak Dam Johnny Darter 21
97 Burr Oak Dam Green Sf x Hybrid 10 215
RR-13 White Sucker 6 RR-13 Blacknose Dace 38 RR-13 Creek Chub 233 RR-13 S. Redbelly Dace 10 RR-13 Silverjaw Minnow 2 RR-13 Bluntnose Minnow 5 RR-13 Central Stoneroller 4 RR-13 Green Sunfish 11 RR-13 Johnny Darter 15 324
Headwater White Sucker 13 Headwater Blacknose Dace 34 Headwater Creek Chub 143 Headwater S. Redbelly Dace 33 Headwater Silverjaw Minnow 9 Headwater Bluntnose Minnow 6 Headwater Central Stoneroller 12 Headwater Yellow Bullhead 1 Headwater Green Sunfish 4 Headwater Bluegill Sunfish 21 Headwater Johnny Darter 16 292 West Branch Grass Pickerel 1 West Branch Northern Hog Sucker 33 West Branch White Sucker 2 West Branch Creek Chub 7 West Branch Striped Shiner 68 West Branch Sand Shiner 55 West Branch Silverjaw Minnow 4 West Branch Bluntnose Minnow 54 West Branch Central Stoneroller 390 West Branch Yellow Bullhead 6 West Branch Rock Bass 13 West Branch Spotted Bass 7 West Branch Largemouth Bass 1 West Branch Green Sunfish 5 West Branch Bluegill Sunfish 5 West Branch Logperch 1 West Branch Johnny Darter 18 West Branch Fantail Darter 18 West Branch Green Sf x Hybrid 2 690
East Branch Gizzard Shad 13 East Branch White Sucker 15
98 East Branch Spotted Sucker 14 East Branch Common Carp 5 East Branch Golden Shiner 3 East Branch Bluntnose Minnow 4 East Branch Channel Catfish 1 East Branch Brown Bullhead 1 East Branch Brook Silverside 1 East Branch White Crappie 1332 East Branch Black Crappie 4 East Branch Largemouth Bass 4 East Branch Warmouth Sunfish 14 East Branch Green Sunfish 12 East Branch Bluegill Sunfish 156 East Branch Longear Sunfish 2 East Branch Redear Sunfish 16 East Branch Yellow Perch 19 East Branch Green Sf x Hybrid 24 East Branch Sauger x Walleye 10 1650
99 Appendix 3. Classification of Ohio Stream Sediments (mg/kg).
Metal Non- Slightly Elevated Highly Extreme Elevated Elevated Elevated Aluminum <33,000 >33,000 >56,000 >100,000 >188,000 Arsenic <13.4 >13.4 >19.9 >33.0 >59.2 Barium <140 >140 >193 >298 >508 Cadmium <0.62 >0.62 >0.93 >1.55 >2.79 Calcium <51,000 >51,000 >84,000 >149,000 >279,000 Chromium <20.5 >20.5 >28.4 >44.4 >76.2 Copper <47 >47 >77 >136 >254 Iron <29,000 >29,000 >38,000 >57,000 >93,000 Lead <32 >32 >44 >69 >120 Magnesium <16,000 >16,000 >27,000 >47,000 >87,000 Manganese <2,020 >2,020 >2,940 >4,790 >8,490 Nickel <39 >39 >57 >94 >166 Potassium <1,450 >1,450 >2,120 >3,460 >6,130 Selenium <0.30 >0.30 >0.38 >0.54 >0.86 Sodium <122 >122 >160 >235 >385 Strontium <25.2 >25.2 >35.1 >55.0 >94.6 Zinc <106 >106 >143 >218 >368 Based upon OHEPA STORET Database compiled by F.R. Smith (OU MS Thesis 1993).