‘— v—fiw
.. |.'

 

A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF BENTHIG
MACROFAUNAL PRODUCTION BY STANDING CROP
IN A STREAM AFFECTED DY ACID MINE DRAINAGE

Thesis for the Degree of M. 8..
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY:
ROGER GRIFFITH
ID}?

0 . "-m'”.—oum "Q-”D-m-m

A‘—
A.-

L
. MIB
ichigi:
:1}
ta
(:6

U ruv
m
Irv

   
  

'f
H
f".
‘5‘

ABSTRACT

A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF BENTHIC
MACROFAUNAL PRODUCTION BY STANDING CROP
IN A STREAM AFFECTED BY ACID MINE DRAINAGE

BY

ROGER GRIFFITH

This study investigated the benthic macrofaunal production of a
stream severely damaged by acid mine drainage and a comparison with
a similar stream with minimal damage from acid mine drainage . Produc-
tion in riffle and pool conditions in both streams were compared.

Under normal low flow conditions, biomass relationships in alkaline
and acid portions of the stream tend to be quite similar. The acid riffle
community seems less flexible and tends to be unstable in the face of
rapidly changing conditions such as increased flows . Excessively high
flow conditions tend to reduce the biomass to a universal minimum level
throughout all portions of the stream .

Fish populations and the resultant cropping on the benthic biomass may
have had a significant effect on the relationships discussed.

Further studies are suggested.

A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF BENTHIC
MACROFAUNAL PRODUCTION BY STANDING CROP
IN A STREAM AFFECTED BY ACID MINE DRAINAGE

By

I -‘l
i4 I

In“ I. 1“

RogerfiCriffith

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Fisheries and Wildlife

1972

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank Dr. Eugene Roelofs,
my advisor, who has been most helpful in constructively
criticizing the research and thesis.

I am most grateful to my committee for their
suggestions and recommendations regarding my thesis.

I would also like to thank Dr. Francis Leigery
of Indiana University of Pennsylvania for extending
both laboratory facilities and personal time in helping

me conduct the research.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES.

LIST OF FIGURES .
INTRODUCTION.

PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL METHODS
BIOLOGICAL METHODS.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION.

Physical and Chemical
Benthic Fauna . .

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
BIBLIOGRAPHY.
APPENDIX.

Diversity Index .

iii

Page
iv

vi

10
13

13
22

36
37
39
47

Table

A1.

A2.

A3.

A4.

A5.

A6.

A7.

A8.
A9.

LIST OF TABLES

Summary of flow, alkalinity, acidity,
iron, dissolved oxygen data .

Average weight (ranges in parentheses) of
benthic organisms by date and site,
including crayfish.

Average weight (ranges in parentheses) of
benthic organisms by date and site,
excluding crayfish.

Organisms collected, September, 1967

Organisms collected, February, 1968.

Organisms collected, June, 1968.

Summary of chemical and physical data by
station . . . . . .

September, 1967 Macrofaunal weights
(Mg/sq. ft.). . . . . .

February, 1968 Macrofaunal weights
(Mg/sq. ft.). . . . . . . .

June, 1968 Macrofaunal weights
(Mg/sq. ft.).

Artifical substrate diversity index for
9 67. '

Artificial substrate diversity index for
2 68.

Artificial substrate diversity index for
6 68.

Surber sampler diversity index for 6/68.

Artificial substrate average diversity
index/site for 9/67 . . .

iv

Page

14

16

18
25
27
29

39

44

45

46

48

50

51'
S3

54

Table Page

A10. Artificial substrate average diversity
index/site for 2/68 . . . . . . . . . . 55

A11. Artificial substrate average diversity
index/site for 6/68 . . . . . . . . . . 56

A12. Surber average diversity index/site for
6/68. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

A13. Sites 1 and 2 fish collections 7/20/68 . . 58
A14. Sites 1 and 2 fish collections 7/27/68 . . 59
A15. Sites 3 and 4 fish collections 7/27/68 . . 61

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page

1. Map of Study Area . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

vi

INTRODUCTION

The following description of the study area is
based on an article by James D. Sisler (1961) in the

BITUMINOUS COALFIELDS OF PENNSYLVANIA:

Approximately 45 square miles of land in Cone-
maugh, Young, and Armstrong Townships of Indiana County
and South Bend Township of Armstrong County, Pennsylvania
are drained by Blacklegs Creek and its tributaries. With
the exception of some small portions of the upper and
middle reaches, the drainage area is composed of marginal
farm land with large tracts of second growth, mixed
forest interspersed with brush covered fields and some
open fields. Some open farm land which is currently
active, is found along the upper reaches of the water
shed and the middle portions of the mainstream. The small
town of Clarksburg has some septic tank drainage into
the middle portions of the mainstream as well.

Much of the marginal area has been heavily mined,
both deep and strip, and several of the tributaries are
influenced by acid drainage. Two tributaries of Blacklegs
Creek show a significant effect on Blacklegs Creek itself.
Whiskey Run, above Clarksburg, destroys the alkalinity
for a short distance. Blacklegs Creek quickly recovers

l

2

and maintains its alkaline and biological integrity until
it receives Big Run. From this point on the stream is
acid.

Whiskey Run is acid from headwaters to mouth.
Big Run is turned acid by a major discharge approximately
half way to the mouth.

Much of the mining has been on the Pittsburgh
(No. 8) seam, which averages 6 feet in depth at this
point with an average sulfur content of 1.5%. The
overburden is generally shallow even on deep mines.
The immediate overburden usually consists of neutral or

slightly acid sandstone (Pittsburgh).

Since Big Run is affected by one major discharge,
it was chosen for this study. It has a drainage area of
8.8 square miles in Young, Conemaugh Townships and
South Bend Township in Armstrong County. Above the major
source of pollution, it is relatively unpolluted with
no active mining. No strip mining exists on the main-
stream. Active mining is minimal and restricted to
tributaries entering the stream at or below the major
discharge. The geology is typical of the Blacklegs
Creek watershed. The floor of the stream, as is gen-
erally true of the Blacklegs basin, is shale. The
Pittsburgh limestone lies beneath the shale at a depth
of 8 feet. The boney coal in the seam is 15 inches at

this point creating a potential for high acidity. The

3
cover is strictly marginal with extensive second growth
forest.

Streams in this area are characteristically low
in productivity with moderate diversity. Under normal
conditions the number and type of organisms are deter-
mined by their ability to adapt to stream conditions
and interact. The balance is upset by any type of pol-
lution. The severity of the pollution determines the
composition of the biological community.

Numerous studies beginning with Lackey (1938)
have attempted to define the organisms surviving in acid
mine drainage polluted waters. However, until the
studies of Lind and Parsons (1965, 1968) little attempt
had been made to quantify the amount or productivity of
the organisms existing in acid mine drainage polluted
aquatic environment. The study of Tom's Run in Clarion
County, Pennsylvania by Dinsmore (1968) was the first
comprehensive study, including productivity, conducted
on a stream affected by acid mine drainage. However,
Tom's Run is not a stream severely damaged by acid mine
drainage.

The current study is designed to investigate
the benthic macrofaunal production of a stream severely
damaged by acid mine drainage and compare it to a
similar stream with minimal damage from acid mine
drainage.

Big Run is an ideal selection for this purpose.

4
One major discharge destroys the stream. Only deep
mining of the shallow slope type is involved with only
one coal seam. The upper reaches are relatively
unpolluted.

The study involves a comparison of riffles and
pools in acid and alkaline conditions. The purpose of
the study is to determine whether a reduction in
macrofauna production (as measured by a series of
standing crops) occurs in a grossly acid-mine-drainage
polluted situation when a reduction in variety occurs.
It is also of interest to determine if the acid mine
drainage causes a masking of production differences in

distinct habitats (i.e., riffle and pool).

SAMPLING LOCATIONS

Eight sites which include two alkaline riffles,
two acid riffles, two alkaline pools, two acid pools
were selected. Initially three stations were placed at
each site, (left bank, right bank, and middle) making a
total of 24 stations. However, replacement of "lost"
stations gave us four stations at certain sites, during
given sampling runs.

It was initially planned to have all eight sites
on Big Run. The considerations of similar flow conditions,
cover, etc. precluded this. The four acid sites are
located on Big Run. Only two alkaline sites are located
on Big Run due to the rapidly changing conditions of
flow and cover as the headwaters are approached.

Two alkaline stations were placed on Blacklegs
Creek immediately above the confluence with Big Run.

The flow and cover at this point on Blacklegs Creek is
comparable to the lower reaches of Big Run. Using
Blacklegs Creek for two stations (one pool and one
riffle) has the added advantage of providing a dual
control on the acid stations.

Five chemical sampling stations were used for

the eight sites (Figure l).

Figure 1.

Map of study area.

/')

. O
M, .
R , . kg“

0 .35) .‘fl“\g¥‘fi
.e
O

o" 0
%. ‘ .

Q‘

LEGEND
' Deep Mine
‘ Spoil Pile

Ma Ship Mine
X Sampling Site

 

N‘L
Blackl.9.
e
9
e ’9
9°“
gfi
0 q‘
, ext
.0
' Run
8
7
pond 5 Big '6
0' ’5 '
I

 

PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL METHODS

Stream flows were gaged using the standard
method of tag line and float, measuring Speed and depth
periodically across the width of the stream.

At certain sampling times the flow rates at
various sites could not be measured. Estimated flow
rates were obtained in such situations by taking the
average flow rate at the site and the average flow
rate at another site which was gaged on the dates in
question and setting up an algebraic proportion
(a/b=x/c) where §_is the average flow of the site in
question, b_is the average flow of the site selected
for comparison, 2 is the flow of the site selected for
comparison during the particular sampling time, and x
is the estimated flow of the site in question. All
estimated flows are so marked in the tables.

Temperature was measured by a standard mercury
thermometer. Conductivity was measured by portable
Beckman Conductivity Meter. Dissolved Oxygen was
measured by Delta Scientific D. 0. Meter. Air cali-
bration was normally used due to the time factor.
Chemical analyses were conducted in accordance with the

1964 edition of Standard Methods.

9
The pH, total alkalinity, total acidity, hardness,
manganese, and arsenic were run strictly according to the
procedures described in Standard Methods, 1964 edition.
The analyses for sulfates, ferrous iron and ferric iron
were modified to utilize the packaged dry reagents of

Hach Chemical Company.

BIOLOGICAL METHODS

Benthic sampling for macrofauna in a uniform
manner is a persistent problem. Use of artifical
substrates suggested by Mason (1967 & 1968), Britt
(1955) and others can provide a uniform means of sampling
but these have little relation to the natural substrate.

In this situation it was desirable to have a
uniform substrate which corresponded as nearly as
possible to the natural conditions. Since the base of
the stream bottom is composed primarily of sandstone,
it was decided that a rock substrate using inert sand-
stone would be ideal for the study. The substrates
should be as uniform as possible for all stations, and
they should be set in the stream bottom in such a manner
as to endure the exact conditions to which the natural
substrate is subject.

To meet the above criteria the substrates were
designed as follows: Rectangular plastic dishpans were
cut to form trays with a depth of 2% inches and an
average surface area of one square foot and filled with
a uniform mixture of % to 2 inch inert sandstone. The
substrates were placed flush with the stream bottom

except where bedrock made this impossible.

10

11

All material, mud, debris, etc., collected on
the substrate during the sampling period was processed.
The substrates were washed in a dishpan with a soft-
toothbrush in the manner described by Mason (1967) and
reset. The material in the dishpan was concentrated in
the standard manner with a #30 mesh sieve and initially
preserved in approximately 5-7% formalin. Within 96
hours the preservative in the samples was changed to
70% alcohol, 5% glycerin and Rose-Bengal stain added in
the manner described by Mason (1967).

The original sampling schedule called for
bimonthly samples. However, weather conditions, stream
conditions, and time considerations forced the schedule
to be altered to trimonthly or seasonal.

At convenience, the samples were sorted using a
clear plastic tray with a combination of over- and under-
lighting and a three-inch magnifying glass. The sorted
organisms were keyed to family with an American Optical
Dissection scope.

After identifying the organisms, they were weighed
on a Mettler balance. The total weights for each station
were recorded. The data from all sites were subjected
to statistical comparison and a diversity index was
used to compare acid and clean stations.

On the final sampling run, Surber samples were
collected at pool and riffle sites in both alkaline and

acid portions of the stream for comparison with the

12
substrate samples. When using the Surber sampler in pool
areas, an artificial current was created with the use of
a large dissection pan. Preservation, sorting and
keying followed the procedures discussed above.

Fish in the alkaline portions of the stream
were collected by electric shocker and seine. The
species and numbers collected were recorded. An unsuc—
cessful attempt was made to determine fish population
by mark and recapture method. The second collection of
fish was preserved in alcohol and keyed to Species,
measured and weighed.

An unsuccessful attempt was made to measure
periphyton production by the chlorophyll method. Slides
were mounted in stryrofoam holders and attached to the
substrate. On each run they were collected and frozen.
At a convenient date, they were analyzed following the
procedure of Richards (1952). Due to sample loss in
the stream and various equipment failures, data from

this portion of the study is unusable.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Physical and Chemical

 

The natural stream conditions varied considerably
throughout the year. On all runs, several substrates
were lost, apparently due to flow fluctuations. The
stream flow characteristics (Table 1, Appendix Table A1)
also made it difficult to locate some of the substrates.
As a result, some of the substrates were presumed lost
but were recovered at a later sampling period.

All substrates at some sites were lost on occasion
due to the high stream flows. At site 1, for instance,
they were lost completely in the winter and spring
sampling runs; site 5 also had a considerable problem
with loss.

In the case of site 1, an effort was made to
recover some of the data by the use of Surber sampler
results. The Surber samples were collected during the
final sampling run.

Little significant difference between the Surber
samples and substrates was observed. The substrate
yields ranging from 1.23 gm/square foot to less than
0.01 gm/square foot, and the Surber samples ranged from

0.27 gm/square foot to 0.01 gm/square foot (Tables 2 and 3)

l3

l4

 

 

 

 

o o o m.Hm m.om mmmum><
we\ka\o mo\ma\m mama
o o o o.mH o.HH essaaaz
me\ma\m wo\ka\w mums
o o o o.em o.aoH sesaxmz
Awev ADchamxaa Hence
m.HkN o.~m~ m.kaa 0.0N o.a mmmum><
wo\aa\m wo\ma\m wo\ma\m ke\aH\HH wo\m.ko\aa.~0\w mama
m.mm n.0HH o.mm NH.m o eaeacaz
mo\ka\m ao\m\m ke\ka\m w©\mfi\m wo\ma\m mama
o.~oe 0.5mm o.oeq o.oe o.mH assaxmz
Awev suanflo< Hmuoa
ow.- oo.om mq.mH km.k km.mm ammum><
wo\ka\m
Nm.m om.m mk.H NN.o Hm.e sagaaaz
AmN.o -v ako.NN -v Aaq.om - wo\ma\m
A.ummvoo.*k A.ummvma.mm Hm.om ma.m~ A.ummVNm.wm essaxmz
Amway msoam
m a a o m a a m N a H
mmunm muam muam mmuam mmuflm
.mump cmwmxo po>Homme .couw .mufipwom .huficwamxam .Bon mo mumfifism .H mHan

5
1

 

 

m.HH m.HH N.HH ¢.HH N.HH wo\ma\m
m.HH q.HH N.HH m.oH w.oH mwmuo><
¢.m N.oH ¢.OH 0.5 m.m Esswcwz
mo\mH\HH uo\wH\HH no\wH\HH m©\wH\HH mo\~H\HH comm
m.~H o.mH o.ma o.NH m.NH Esaflxmz
Awev Cowmxo po>HommHn
m.n m.w o.m m.H o.H wo\ma\m
m.m H.HH o.m q.o N.o mwmum><
k©\m\m ke\m\m wo\ma\m ko\ka\a wo\w.wo\m\m.ke\afi mums
o.N o.m o.N H.ov H.ov “Eaficaz
wo\ua\w mo\mH\w mo\na\m wo\ma\m mo\¢H\m mama
w.oH «.5H 0.0 m.H o.H Esawxmz
Awev aouH HouoH

w a n o m a d m N a H

mmuwm muwm muwm mouwm mmufim

 

 

 

.nmsaaucoo--a magma

 

 

AmN.o-No.OV ANN.o-NN.ov AON.N-NN.OV
ON.o N NN.o N om.o N NOON NNUN N
ANO.OV-NO.OVV ANo.o-No.ov ANN.N-NN.OV
No.o.. N No.0 N No.N N NNNNNN NNU< N
ANN.o-No.ovV ANN.o-NN.ov ANN.N-NN.OV
ON.o N NN.o N NN.o N NOON aNua N
AON.H-NN.OV
No.0 N - o 0N.o N mNNNNN aNoN N
ANNN.o-No.vV ANN.N-NN.NV ANN.o-No.oV
No.0 N NN.N N NN.o N Noam chNNNNN N
ANN.N-NN.OV ANN.N-NN.NV ANN.N-No.oV
”m No.0 N NN.N N No.0 N NNNNNN chNNNNN N
ANN.o-No.0v ANN.N-NO.NV ANN.N-NN.OV
NN.o N NN.N N NN.N N mNNNNN chmeNa N
ANN.N-NN.NV
- o - o NN.N N Noam chNmNNN N
N N N
pm>mwuumm pm>owuumm pm>owuumm ouwm
ucmwoz mcoquum unwwmz mcowumum uswwoz mcowumum
mwmuo>< mo Honesz mwmum>< mo Monsaz mwmuw>< mo Honesz
NN\N NN\N NN\N N N Numessm

mumuumpsm NNNUNNNNNN

 

 

.nmwmmmno wchSHocN .muNm

pom comp kn mEmNcmwuo owsucmn mo Amommsucmuma cw mmmcmuv unwwmz mwmuo>< .N canoe

7
1

 

AHo.ovnHo.0v
No.0v

V

Amo.0uHo.ovV

Ho.o

ANo.OV-oV
No.ov

AoN.o-No.ovV

mo.o
Amm.onao.ov
No.0

v

u—INMd'LfiONw

mmHmEmw Honusm

 

unNNmz
wwmuo><

mo\m

pm>owuumm
Naowumum
mo nonadz

unwwo3
owmuo><

wo\m

pm>mwuumm
muowumum
mo Honesz

pm>owuumm
unwwm3 mGoNumum
owmuo>< mo umnEdz

mo\a d w

muNN

aumeesm
oumuuNQSm Hmwowmwuu<

 

 

 

.nmsaNuaoo--N mNNNN

8
1

 

 

NON.0-O0.0V ANN.0-ON.0V A0N.N-NN.0V
0N.0 N NN.0 N 00.0 N NOON ONON N

NN0.0V-N0.0VV AN0.0-N0.00 ANN.N-NN.0V
N0.0v. N 00.0 N N0.N N ONNNNN ONOa N

fiNN.0-N0.0Ov AN0.0-NN.0V NON.N-NO.00
0N.0 O NN.0 N 00.0 N NOON 0NO< N

AN0.0-N0.0OV N0N.N-ON.0V
N0.0 N - 0 NN.0 N ONNNNN ONON N

ANN.0-N0.0OV ANN.O-NN.NV “00.0-N0.00
00.0 N 0N.N N 00.0 N NOON OONNNNNN O

ANN.N-NN.00 ANN.N-NN.V A00.N-N0.00
00.0 N NN.N O NO.0 O ONNNNN OONNONNN N

ANN.N-NN.0V NON.N-00.NV ANN.N-NN.0V
NN.0 N NN.N N 00.0 N ONNNNN OONNONN< N

ANN.0-NN.00
- 0 - 0 NN.0 N NOON OONNONN< N

N N N
pm>mwuumm pm>mwuumm pm>mwuuom ouwm
unwwoz moowumum unwwoa mcowumum uswwmz mdowumum
mwmuo>< mo monasz owmum>< mo umnssz mwmuo>< mo Monasz
NN\N NN\N N0\0 N N

OOONONNON NONONNNON<

 

 

.smwmxmuo wcflpsaoxo .muwm

paw pump Np memwcmwuo ofinucon mo Amommcucmumm aw mowcmuv unwwmz mmmum>< .m manna

9
1

 

AN0.0O-N0.0VV

 

w
Ho.v N N
AN0.0-N0.0v0
Ho. N o
u u m
AN0.0V-.0V
No.0v m a
u I m
A0N.0-N0.0vv
mo.o N N
ANN.0-N0.0VV
No.0 m H
mmHmEmm nonusm
w w w
no>owuuom po>mNuuom po>mwuumm muwm
uanmS mcowumum unwwoz mcoNumum uswwoz mcowumum
mwmum>< mo nonesz owmum>< mo Honesz mwmum>< mo umnEBZ
mo\o wo\N No\m a w

OOONOOOON NONONNNNN<

 

 

 

.OOnaNOcOo--N ONOON

20
and (Appendix Tables A2-A4). The substrates showed a
higher yield; however, the wide range of both substrates
and Surber samples would preclude the assumption of any
significant differences without a more intensive sampling
by both methods.

Extremely high flows occurred just prior to the
final (spring, 1968) sampling run. As a result, scouring
appears to have had a significant effect on the results
of the sampling run, masking the normal differences
between sampling stations and sites (see Tables 1, 2 and
3). Due to the high flows, the substrates were not
lifted until about three weeks after the planned term-
ination point.

Efforts to measure the effects of emergence were
also stymied by the high flows. The high flows occurred
during the prime emergence periods in April and May
and precluded any quantitative measurement of emergence.

Qualitatively, observations suggest that emergence
may have little effect on the production ratios between
acid and clean areas. However, it would require an
additional study of the emergence period under consider-
ably less stringent conditions to gain a clear picture
of the effects of emergence on this type of study.

The flow data shown in Table l for the May, 1968
period are not indicative of the highest flows reached
during this period. They are representative only of the

flows at a period when it was physically possible with

21
a degree of safety to measure them. Observations of the
stream indicated that flows attained considerably
higher values than the ones recorded.

Chemical data from the stream areas studied were
consistent throughout the study as shown in Table 1.

It is interesting to note that even in extremely
high flows, the acid stations maintained an amazing
consistency of quality. The pH never rose above 3.0
and the total acidity never decreased below 150 ppm.

The shallow drift mines with their fractured roofs and
floors are likely responsible for this.

As shown in Figure l, numerous mines are found
in the drainage area. Only a few consistently discharge
into the stream. However, all mines may be assumed to
be constantly oxidizing pyrites to form sulfuric acid.
With increased surface run off and drainage, the
"dormant" mines began discharging acid water via surface
and subsurface drainage into the stream. Thus, the
normal dilution effect of increased flows is minimized
by the additional acid load.

This appears to be true for the highest flows
observed in the spring of 1968.

Another interesting observation, in relation to
the acid portions, is the consistently high D. O.
(Dissolved Oxygen). The fact that much of the material
is already oxidized, as indicated by the small residuals

of ferrous iron (shown in Appendix, Table A1), would be

22
a reasonable explanation for the phenomenon. This is
especially true when one takes into account the additional
oxidative and aereation capabilities of the numerous
riffles found in this section of stream.

The alkaline portions of the stream follow a
much more normal sequence of chemistry in relation to
flows. Decreased alkalinity tends to occur with increased
flows due to surface runoff (Table l). The D. O. was
within normal range for this type of stream. Little D.

O. sag was observed during either high or low flow.

At some of the alkaline sites during high flows,
the total acidity exceeded the total alkalinity. How-
ever, it was not free acidity and the stream remained
alkaline in nature. The pH remained between 6.0 and 7.0.
It seems reasonable to assume that the free alkalinity
and basic water were unchanged by the bound acidity.

It is the writer's view that this part of the
experiment is worth pursuing if someone can devise a
sampling device capable of withstanding the rigors of

this type of situation.

Benthic Fauna

 

Acid mine drainage pollution is toxic. The
type of community which exists in the acid situation is
composed of organisms which have the most tolerance to
the toxic conditions prevalent in the water chemistry.

Typically, the diversity of a natural aquatic community

23
is drastically reduced, often decimated, with the intro-
duction of a severe toxicant into the water. If
sufficient food, etc. are available, the organisms
present in the community may develop large populations
with the fauna operating on a highly simplified predator-
prey relationship. The phenomena is well documented in
the pollution literature with Dinsmore (1968), Lackey
(1939), and others amply demonstrating it for the acid
mine drainage situation.

The diversity index concept was used by Dinsmore
(1968) to aid in the clarification of the phenomena dis-
cussed above. The index is useful in clarifying the
community-organism population relationships in the acid
situation.

Unlike some toxic conditions the acid mine drain-
age condition has a two fold action. Organisms may be
removed from the community due to the direct toxic
effects or they may be removed by the elimination of
water quality parameters necessary for their existence.
For instance, the large amount of free sulfuric acid
available in the acid mine drainage environment effectively
removes calcium from some types of usage by organism of
the community, i.e., protective coverings. Thus,
organisms such as snails, clams, and crayfish may be
effectively removed by the absence of available calcium
for their Special needs rather than any direct toxicity.

Parson (1968) found the number of benthic species

24
in continuously polluted areas was small in comparison
with the total number of individuals. Portions of the
stream sporadically affected by acid mine drainage had
a community composition similar to the surrounding
streams according to Parsons. The data he presented
showed five genera from three families composing the
benthic community in continuously polluted areas; 10
benthic genera from 6 families existing in one sporad-
ically polluted area; a benthic community of 16 genera
from 9 families present in the "normal" unaffected area.

The chemical data presented by Parsons (1968)
suggests that the degree of acid mine drainage pollution
in the stream he studied is similar to the degree of
pollution in Big Run. In Big Run 3 to 4 families were
generally found in the acid portion of the stream and
from 8 to 12 families in "clean" portions of the stream
(Tables 4 - 6).

Dinsmore's (1968) study of Tom's Run includes
estimates of biomass and diversity indices. His study
shows a decrease in the diversity index figure with
increasing acidity. The data for biomass is somewhat
more variable. However, his data generally suggest a
similar biomass production rate for both acid and
alkaline streams. According to Dinsmore's discussion,
the variability of the biomass in the polluted sections
of the stream is likely due to unstable substrate. In

addition to acid mine drainage, Tom's Run is influenced

25

Table 4. Organisms collected, September, 1967.

 

 

Group

Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site

1 2

3 4 5 6 7 8

 

DIPTERA
Chironomidae
Empedidae
Helpidae
Tipulidae

TRICHOPTERA
Hydropsychidae
Phryganeidae
Psychomyiidae
Rhycophilidae

EPHEMEROPTERA
Baetidae
Heptageneiidae

ODONATA
Agrionidae
Gomphidae

MEGALOPTERA
Corydalidae
Sialidae

COLEOPTERA
Dytiscidae
Elmidae

LEPIDOPTERA
Pyralididae

CRUSTACEA
Astacidae
Copepoda
Daphnia
Ostracoda

OLIGOCHAETA

><><><><

><
><

><><

 

26

Table 4--Continued.

 

 

Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site

 

Gr°UP 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

NEMATODA X X X X
PELYCYPODA

Sphaeridae X X
GASTROPODA

Pulmonata X
PLATYHELMINTHES X X

Salamander X X

(redbacked)

Unknown X

 

27

Table 5. Organisms collected, February, 1968.

 

 

Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site
6‘0“? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

 

DIPTERA
Chironomidae
Empedidae
Heleidae
Tabanidae
Tipulidae

><><><><><
><
><><>< ><

TRICHOPTERA
Hydropsychidae
Psychomyiidae
Phryganeidae X X

><><
X
N

PLECOPTERA
Perlodidae X X

EPHEMEROPTERA
Baetidae X
Ephemeridae X
Heptageneiidae X X

ODONATA
Agrionidae X

MEGALOPTERA
Corydalidae X
Sialidae X X X X X

COLEOPTERA
Dyliscidae X
Elmidae X

LEPIDOPTERA
Pyralididae X X

CRUSTACEA
Ascellidae
Astacidae
Hydrocarira
Unknown X

><><><
><

 

28

Table 5--Continued.

 

 

Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site

 

Gr“? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
OLIGOCHAETA X X X
NEMATODA X
PELYCYPODA
Sphaeridae X X
PLATYHELMINTHES X

 

29

Table 6. Organisms collected, June, 1968.

 

 

Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site
Group 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

 

DIPTERA
Chironomidae
Heleidae
Tabanidae
Tipulidae
Unknown

XX
><><><><><
><><><><
><><

TRICHOPTERA
Hydropsychidae X
Phryganeidae

><><

PLECOPTERA
Perlodidae X X

EPHEMEROPTERA
Baetidae X X X

ODONATA
Gomphidae X

MEGALOPTERA
Corydalidae
Sialidae X

XX
IX:
N
X
X
N
X

COLEOPTERA
Dytiscidae X X
ELmidae X X X
Psephenidae X

LEPIDOPTERA
Pyralididae X X X

CRUSTACEA
Ascellidae X
Astacidae X X

OLIGOCHAETA X X X

 

30

Table 6--Continued.

 

 

Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site

 

cr°UP 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
NEMATODA X X
PELECYPODA
Sphaeridae X X

Unknown X

 

31
by brines and other types of drainage from old gas and
oil wells. These added sources of pollution are likely
to change the characteristics of the biota in comparison
with a stream such as Big Run, affected solely by acid
mine drainage. The degradation caused by acid mine
drainage in Dinsmore's study of Tom's Run is not as
severe as the degradation of Big Run in the current
study. Only one station (21) in the Tom's Run study
approaches the water quality of the acid section of Big
Run.

Even with the differences discussed above,
Dinsmore's data tend to support the findings of this
study. Tables (2 to 6) and Appendix Tables (A2 and A5)
show that the initial production and diversity in the
fall of 1967 is similar to that described by Dinsmore.
The diversity also closely follows the descriptive
studies of Parsons (1968).

The winter sampling of this study shows a sig-
nificant increase in standing crop in the "clean" portion
of the stream while a decrease in production is found in
the "acid" portions of the stream. Field observations
suggested that periods of relatively high flows occurred
during this period.

It appears that the "yellow bouy", a flocculent
composition of ferric hydroxide and sulfate, described
by Dinsmore (1968) had created an extremely unstable

shifting substrate, has the same effect in Big Run. The

32
riffle areas tend to be stained with a yellowish-red
crust with little sediment, while the pools tend to
have leaves and debris, normal silt, and a mixture of the
"yellow bouy" type flocculant material. As Tables 2 and
3 and Appendix Tables A2-A4 indicate, biomass in the
pool areas is considerably more stable than the riffle
areas of the acid section. The riffle populations were
almost annihilated, apparently by the scouring effect.
Pools, on the other hand, tend to have a relatively
constant standing crop during the winter season. Since
the population is composed primarily of Chironomidae
with Sialidae as predators, it seems reasonable to
expect the riffle areas to be decimated in high flows.
Both groups of organisms are well adapted to pool con-
ditions and poorly adapted to survive the extreme velo-
city fluctuations that riffles of a small stream like
Big Run tend to have during late fall, winter, and early
spring in this area.

Since they seem to be the most tolerant to acid
mine drainage, the Chiromidae and Sialidae will tend to
inhabit all available habitats Open to them. Those
habitats for which they are least adapted leave them
extremely vulnerable to the physical and other changes
which normally occur.

The "clean" areas, on the other hand, tended
to Show a greater production than the acid areas.

Populations in the clean areas also tend to change

33

character. In general, it seems that the clean areas
have population structures well adapted to the task of
maintaining stability in face of fluctuating conditions.
The "clean" communities tend to be highly stable and
require extremely adverse conditions to decimate them.

Data from.the Spring of 1968 (Tables 1 - 4 and 7)
shows what happens in the face of extremely adverse con-
ditions. As discussed above, the spring of 1968 had
exceptionally severe and prolonged condition of high
water. This condition caused severe reduction in all
populations, both acid and alkaline, within the stream.
The differences in production between riffle or pool,
acid or alkaline, can not be discerned Statistically.
An interesting feature of the phenomenon is that while
the populations of the pools in the acid section were
reduced to Sparse levels by the high flows, the popu-
lations of the riffles were not reduced to a signifi-
cantly higher degree than in the winter sampling period.
Another interesting feature is that the "clean" riffles
and pools tended to be uniform in population and of
levels comparable to the acid sections. This phenomenon
suggests that under conditions of extreme flows there is
a base level of population density which is not reduced
regardless of other limiting factors. This seems to be
a good subject for additional study.

The differences in diversity between "acid" and

"clean" or alkaline stations were also reduced by high

34
flows. Thus, the exceptional conditions of the high
flows masked the real differences between acid and
alkaline areas of the stream.

Surber sampling conducted during this period
reflected the same pattern, suggesting a similar
standing crop for the natural substrate under these
conditions.

This tends to confirm the effectiveness of the
artificial substrate as compared with the Surber for a
sampling device for measuring the real benthic standing
crop under conditions of this study.

The sampling in the fall of 1967 suggested that
under conditions of low flow the biomass in the acid
and alkaline portions of the stream tends to be similar.
The riffle areas in the "acid" portions stream are unable
to maintain a stable biomass under fluctuating conditions
while the riffle of "clean" alkaline portions of the
stream may actually increase biomass. Biomass in the
acid pools remained constant under fluctuating conditions
while biomass in alkaline pools is apparently increasing
according to the winter 1968 sampling. Since the loss
of one site in an alkaline pool occurred during this
period, it is not felt that enough data exist to make a
definite conclusion in this regard.

The exceptionally high flows of the June 1968
sampling run mask the differences between acid and alka-

line portions of the stream found earlier in the sampling

35
run and seem to reduce all portions of the stream to a
common denominator.

Some variation from the expected norm of high
biomass in riffle areas and low biomass in pools occurred
during the study. These differences seemed minor and
may be due to the eXpected anomolies in field situations.
It is possible with very small streams of this type that
the pool riffle distinction is not as clear-cut as in
much larger streams.

Fish studies on the alkaline sections of the
study area were conducted at the conclusion of the study.
An effort, which was unsuccessful, was made to estimate
population by the mark and recapture method. The species,
number, size and weight of the fish collected are shown
in Appendix Tables A12-A15. At sites 1 and 2, the first
collection which was marked but not kept, contained a
great many suckers and the second collection contained
a large number of largemouth bass. Stonerollers and
darters were the other main fish collected. The compo-
sition of the fish population suggests that the benthic
biomass may be cropped to a large degree by the fish in
the stream. It seems reasonable that cropping by fish
may have a significant influence on the apparent rela-
tionships discussed in this paper and should be

investigated further.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Under normal low flow conditions, biomass rela-
tionships in alkaline and acid portions of the stream
tend to be quite similar. The acid riffle community
seems less flexible and tends to be unstable in the face
of rapidly changing conditions such as increased flows.
Excessively high flow conditions tend to reduce the
biomass to a universal minimum level throughout all
portions of the stream, although additional studies are
required for verification.

Fish populations and the resultant cropping on
the benthic biomass may have had a significant effect
on the relationships discussed in this paper. Additional
studies are required to draw definitive conclusions
regarding fish and their effects.

An additional relationship which should be looked
into further is the biomass relationship between pool
and riffle in a small stream such as those discussed in

this paper.

36

LIST OF REFERENCES

Anderson, J. B. and William T. Mason, Jr., 1968, A
Comparison of Benthic Macroinvertabrates Col-
lected by Dredge and Basket Sampler, Part I
Jour. Water Poll. Cont. Fed. 4O (2): 252-259.

Britt, N. Wilson, 1955, New Methods of Collecting
Bottom Fauna from Shoals or Rubble Bottom of
Lakes and Streams, Ecology. 36 (3): 524-525.

Campbell, R. S., O. T. Lind, L. Harp, W. T. Ceiling
and J. E. Letter, Jr., 1965, Water Pollution
Studies in Acid Strip Mine Lakes: Changes in
Weter Quality and Community Structure Associated
with Aging, Symposium on Acid Mine Drainage
Research, Mellon Institute, May, 20- 21: 188- 198.

Dinsmore, Bruce H., 1968, The Aquatic Ecology of Tom's
Run, Clarion County, Pennsylvania Preceding
watershed Reclamation, A Report to the Pennsyl-
vania Dept. of Mines and Mineral Industries,
Bureau of Coal Research and the Pennsylvania
Dept. of Health, Bureau of Sanitary Engineering,
Division of Water Quality. Publication 21.

Lackey, James B., 1939, Aquatic Life in Waters Polluted
bZ Acid Mine Wastes. Public Health Reports 54:
7 0-746.

Mason, William T., J. B. Anderson, George E. Maerison,
1967, A Limestone-Filled, Artificial Substrate
Sampler-Float Unit for Collecting Macroinverta-
brates in Gorge Streams, Prog. Fish Cult. 29

(2): 74

Mason, William T., Jr., and Paul P. Yenich, 1967, The
Use of Phloxine B and Rose Bengal Stains to
Facilitate Sorting Benthic Samples, Trans.
Amer. Microsc. Soc., 86 (2): 221-223.

Parsons, J. D., 1968, The Effects of Acid Stripmine

Effluents on the Ecology of a Stream, Archiv
fur Hydrobiologie, 65 (1): 25-50.

37

38

Richards, F. A. and T. G. Thompson, 1952, The Estima-
tion and Characterization of Plankton Popula-
tion by Pigment Analysis, II, A Spectrophoto-
metric Method for the Estimation of Plankton
Pigments, Jour. Marine Res., 11 (2): 156-172.

 

Sisler, James D., 1961, Bituminous Coal Fields of
Pennsylvania, Part II. Detailed Description of
Coal Fields, Pennsylvania Geological Survey,
Fourth Series, Bulletin #6, Harrisburg, Pa.

Wilhm, Jerry L., 1967, Comparison of Some Diversity
Indices Applied to Populations of Benthic
Macro-Invertabrates in a Stream Receiving
Organic Wastes, Jour. Water Poll. Cont. Fed.,

39 (10): 1673-1683.

Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Waste-
water Including Bottom Sediments and Sludges.
Twelfth Edition. American Public Health
Association, Inc. 1965.

APPENDIX

39

 

 

 

 

N00NN0 NONN A00NNV NONN A0N00 NON N0NN0 0NN NNN ONONO><
N0\NN\N NN\ON\N NN\0N\N NN\0N\N N0\0N\N OONO
0NN 0NN 0NN 0NN 0NN aseNONz
NN\O\0 NN\N\N NN\NN\0 NN\NN\N NN\NN\N OONN
00NN 0NNN 00NN 0NN 000 asewmmz
NOsz NON>NOOONOO0
ANN N.N N.N ON.N N.N N.N ONNNO><
we}?

NN\0N\N N0\0N\N NN\NN\N NN\NN\N N N0\NN\N OOOO
N.N N.N N.N N.N N.N eneNaNz
NN\NN\NN NN\NN\N NN\NN\NN NN\ON\NN N0\NN\NN OOOO
N.N N.N N.N 0.N N.N 5:5 an:

N
NN.NN N0.0N NO.NN NN.N NN.NN ONNNO><
NO\NN\N NN\NN\N N0\NN\N NN\NN\N NN\NN\N OOON
NN.N NN.N NN.N NN. N0.O eaeNaNz
NN\NN\N NN\0N\N NN\0N\N NN\NN\N N0\0N\N OOOO
NN. - N0.NN - NO.0N - eOeNxNz
.OOO 00.NN .ONO NN.ON NN.NN NN.NN .OOO NN.NN NONNN sONN
N N N N N N N N N N N OONNNOEEON «ONO
mOUHm NUHm OUHW www.mm mUUHm Nahumfifimfinv Drum 30Hh

 

 

.coNumum Np mump Hmowmmsa cam HmoNEmao mo NHNEESm

.H< oHan

 

 

 

 

 

 

N.NNN 0.NNN N.NON 0.0N 0.0 6N606><

. NNNN N
N0\0N\N N0\0N\N N0\0N\N N0\0N\NN N0\NN N0\N 6660
N.NN 0.0NN 0.00 NN.N 0 aseNch
N0\NN\N N0\0\0 N0\NN\0 N0\0N\N N0\0N\N 6660
N00 NNN 0.000 00 NN 000006:
N000 N6N6N6< N66ON
0NN N.NNN NN.0 0N.00 6N666>0
N0\0N\N N0\0N\N N0\0N\N 6660
0.NN N.NN 0.0N easNaNz
N0\NN\N N0\NN\N N0\NN\N 6660.
0.NNN 0.NNN 0.0NN EOENNNN
NNEN N6N6N6< NNoo
m 2000 0.000 3000 0.000 8000 0.000 803 0.00N SNNV NNNNN 6N666><
NONON\N N0\0N\N N0\0N\N NNNNNNN N0\N\0 6660
00N 0NN NON NNN 0NN eeeNaNz
N0\NN\N N0\NN\N N0\NN\N N0\NN\N N0\NN\N 6660
000 000 0N0 0NN 000 000N002
A055 mmocpnm:
N.NN 0.NN N.NN N.0N N.0N 6N666><
NONNN\N NONNNNN N0\NN\N N0\NN\N N0\NN\N 6660
0.0 N.0N 0.0N 0.N N.N enaNaNz
N0\NN\NN NONNNNNN N0\NN\NN N0\NN\NN N0\NN\NN 6660
N.NN 0.NN 0.NN 0.NN N.NN 000Nx6z
(Neaav .o .0
N N N 0 N 0 N N N N N 666N660560 6660
033 3.3 3.3 03.3 03.3 360.2095 2.3 00on

 

 

 

.6600N6cou--N< 6N06N

41

 

 

 

 

 

00.N 0N.N 0N.N NN. 0.0 6N666><
N0\0N\N N0\0N\N N0\0N\N N0\0N\0 NONNNNN 6660
0. NN. 0.0 NN. 0.0 aseNaNz
N0\NN\N NNNNNNN NONNNN NONONNN NNNNNN 6660
0.0 N.N N.N 0N.N N.0 000N062
Awev mmmcmwcmz

0.NNN 000 N.NNN 0.NNN N.00N 6N666><
NNNONNN N0\0N\N N0\0N\N N0\0N\N N0\N\N 6660
0NN 0.0NN N.NN N.0N N0N asaNch
NONON0 N0\0\0 N0\NN\0 N0\0N\NN N0\NN\N 6660
NNO NNN 0.000 NNN 0NN BSENNNN
N000 66660N00

0 0 0 N.NN N.0N 6N666><
NNNNNNN NNNNNNN 6660

0 0 0 0.NN 0.NN eaaNcN:
NNNONNN N0\NN\N 6660

0 0 0 0.00 0.00N ENENNNN
NNev N6N0NN6NN< N66ON

N N N 0 N 0 N N N N N 666N660000 6660
mmuwm muwm muam mmuwm mmuwm huumwfimso flaw Seq—Hm

 

 

 

.6600N60O0--N< 6N06N

42

 

 

 

 

om.H N.N NN. no. 0 mwmuo><
mo\mN\m wo\NH\a
wo\n\m No\¢H\HH
N0\a\m No\m\m N0\HH\NN mo\NH\w mumn
o m . H . v o o 050$ch
mo\m\m wo\NH\m mo\NH\m wo\aa\m mama
NN.N m.m Nm. N. o Epemxmz
Awsv coNH msouumm
N.N N.NN o.m q. N.o owmum><
mo\w a
No\m\o No\¢\¢ wo\mH\m N0\NH\¢ mo\n\m N0\HH puma
o.N o.N mo.N H.ov H.0v ESBNGNZ
NN\NN\N wo\NH\w N0\NN\N wo\ma\m mo\mH\m mama
N.0N 0.NN o.m mm.H N.N BSENNAE
AMEV coNH Hmuoa
w a N o m 0 a m N a H pSNNNmEESm mama
NmuNm ouwm ouNm mmuwm mouNm NuumNeSno cam 30am

 

 

 

. UQDG.“ UEOUIIHda GHDwH

43

 

 

0.NN N.NN NN 0.NN N.0N 6N666><
NN 0.NN 0N 0N 0.0N N0\NN\N
0N 0.0N N.0N NN N0\0N\N
0.0 0.0 N.0N NN 0.0N N0\N\N
N wo\qN\N
0 0 0 N0\0N\N
0 wo\o\N
N0\0N\NN
NN NN N.0N N.N 0 N0\NN\NN
NN.0N0 NON0 NONNNNO
NN NN N0\0\0
0N N0\NN\N
66660
m6mNm 66mm 66mm N6mNm MOMNM GOV 60066660060

 

 

 

.6600N60O0--N< 6N06a

44

 

 

 

Table A2. September, 1967 Macrofaunal weights (Mg/sq. ft.)
Site No. Std. Coef. Std.
No. Values Mean D Var. Dev. D Var. Error
1 With
Crayfish 3.000 2.109 0.285 0.533 0.252 0.307
Without
Crayfish 3.000 0.347 0.045 0.212 0.610 0.122
2 With
Crayfish 3.000 1.847 3.090 1.757 0.951 1.014
Without
Crayfish 3.000 0.395 0.027 0.164 0.414 0.094
3 With
Crayfish 4.000 0.668 0.200 0.447 0.669 0.223
Without
Crayfish 4.000 0.472 0.256 0.505 1.069 0.252
4 With
Crayfish 3.000 0.306 0.197 0.443 1.447 0.225
Without
Crayfish 3.000 0.055 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
5 3.000 0.564 0.301 0.548 0.971 0.316
6 3.000 0.936 0.489 0.699 0.746 0.403
7 3.000 1.071 0.101 0.317 0.295 0.183
8 3.000 0.904 0.205 0.452 0.500 0.260

 

45

Table A3. February, 1968 Macrofaunal weights (Mg/sq. ft.).

 

 

 

Site No. Std. Coef. Std.
No. Values Mean D2Var Dev. D Var. Error
1
2

3.000 2.257 3.939 1.984 0.879 1.145
3

4.000 1.253 0.875 0.935 0.746 0.467
4

3.000 2.842 2.785 1.668 0.586 0.936
5
6 2.000 0.829 0.017 0.310 0.156 0.091
7 3.000 0.043 0.001 0.031 0.720 0.017
8 2.000 0.557 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

 

46

 

 

 

Table A4. June, 1968 Macrofaunal weights (Mg/sq. ft.).
Site No. Std. Coef. Std.
No. Values Mean D Var. Dev. D Var. Error
1
2 3.000 0.129 0.004 0.063 0.488 0.036
3 3.000 0.597 0.303 0.550 0.921 0.317
4 3.000 0.071 0.009 0.094 1.323 0.054
5 2.000 0.027 0.001 0.031 1.148 0.021
6 W/O 17A 3.000 0.063 -0.001 0.031 0.492 0.017
With 17A 4.000 0.051 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
7 2.000 0.007 0.007 0.007 2.000‘ 0.007
8 3.000 0.095 0.002 0.044 0.463 0.025

 

47

Diversity Index

The Diversity Index is one adapted from Wilhm
(1967) and used by the Federal Environmental Protection
Agency, Wheeling Office. The Index is

d2 = S-l/ln (#)

where S is the total number of groups and In (#) is the
natural log of the total number of individuals.

On the tables dealing with Diversity Index
several symbolic designations are found:

N'is the average number of individuals per group;

02 is the variance of individuals per group;

0 is the standard deviation of individuals per
group.
In the average Diversity Index per site the
following terms are used:
Mean is the mean average index/site;
Var. is the variance of the mean average index;
S.D. is the standard deviation of the mean

average index.

Table A5.

48

Artificial substrate diversity index for 9/67.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Station
Number Date IN 0 d2

1 9/67 10.875 520.125 22.806 1.567

Site
1 2 9/67 12.000 735.250 27.116 1.709
3 9/67 6.667 209.250 14.465 1.954
S 4 9/67 66.000 10810.250 103.972 1.253

ite
2 5 9/67 8.214 398.335 19.958 2.740
6 9/67 24.091 3355.291 57.925 1.792
7A 9/67 50.000 20420.000 142.899 1.309
S 7B 9/67 50.000 10273.000 101.356 0.724

ite
3 8 9/67 3.250 13.929 3.732 2.148
9 9/67 3.250 9.357 3.059 2.148
10 9/67 3.250 14.917 3.862 1.170

Site
4 11 9/67 3.333 11.467 3.386 1.669
12 9/67 3.000 5.000 2.236 1.971
13 9/67 491.333 675232.35 821.725 0.741

Site
5 14 9/67 139.000 47407.000 217.732 0.332
15 9/67 130.333 37509.333 193.673 0.335
16 9/67 64.250 7615.583 87.267 0.541

Site
6 17 9/67 167.000 23762.000 154.149 0.172
18 9/67 38.667 3817.353 61.784 0.421

 

Table A5--Continued.

49

 

 

Station

 

 

Number Date N 0 d2

S 19 9/67 356.000 475394.01 689.488 .413
ite

7 20 9/67 372.333 37898l.3 615.618 .290

21 9/67 353.000 349957.0 591.572 .287

S 22 9/67 55.667 2970.33 54.501 .390
ite

8 23 9/67 316.333 247632.3 497.623 .292

24 9/67 110.000 19984.0 141.365 .345

 

Table A6.

Artificial substrate diversity index for 2/68.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Station
Number Date N 0 d2

4 4/68 8.923 172.910 13.150 2.524

Site
2 5 2/68 29.583 2269.356 47.638 1.873
6 2/68 23.500 1320.091 36.333 1.950
7A 2/68 6.375 89.125 9.441 1.780
Site 73 2/68 25.571 2237.952 47.455 1.157
3 8 2/68 3.333 5.467 2.338 1 669
9 2/68 22.250 1644.917 40.558 0.656
10 2/68 4.300 24.456 4.945 2.393

Site
4 11 2/68 10.545 246.073 15.687 2.104
12 2/68 8.875 155.839 12.484 1.642
Site 16 2/68 89.000 288.000 16.970 0.193
6 18 2/68 43.000 800.000 28.284 0.225
S 19 2/68 6.500 24.500 4.950 0.390

ite
7 20 2/68 15.000 200.000 14.142 0.294
21 2/68 30.000 1152.000 33.941 0.244
Site 22 2/68 88.500 5304.500 72.832 0 193
8 23 2/68 31.000 679.000 26.058 0.441

 

51

Table A7. Artificial substrate diversity index for 6/68.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Station - 2
Number Date N o 0 d2
4 6/68 18.667 2082.000 45.629 1.561
Site
2 5 6/68 10.667 284.250 16.860 1.752
6 6/68 141.928 11.913 1.755
7A 6/68 9.286 406.571 20.164 1.437
Site
3 7B 6/68 6.833 72.167 8.495 1.346
8 6/68 12.833 585.367 24.194 1.511
10 6/68
Site
4 11 6/68 4 000 35.200 5.933 1.573
12 6/68
Site 14 6/68 3.500 12.500 3.536 0.514
5 15 6/68 2.667 4.333 2.082 0.962
16 6/68 7.333 72.333 8.505 0.647
17A 6/68 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Site
6 17 6/68 3.800 17.700 4.207 1.358
18 6/68 4.250 34.250 5.852 1.059
Site 20 6/68 0.000 0.000 0 000 0.000
7

21 6/68 5.000 18.000 4.243 0.434

 

Table A7--Continued.

52

 

 

 

Station -— 2
Number Date N o 0 d2
22 6/68 3.833 15.367 3.920 1.595
Site
8 23 6/68 7.000 8.000 2.828 0.379
24 6/68 3.500 0.500 0.707 0.514

 

53

Table A8. Surber sampler diversity index for 6/68.

 

 

Station

 

 

 

 

 

Number Date N c 0 d2
1 6/68 0 o 0 0
Site
1 2 6/68 2.200 2.700 1.643 1.668
3 6/68 2.333 5.250 2.291 2.628
Site 4 6/68 7.000 139.143 11.796 1.739
2 6 6/68 4.000 8.000 2.828 0.481
10 6/68 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Site
4 11 6/68 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
12 6/68 0 000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Site 16 6/68 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
6 17 6/68 2.667 4.333 2.082 0.962
Site 19 6/68 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

7 21 6/68 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

 

54

 

 

 

Table A9. Artificial substrate average diversity
index/site for 9/67.

Date Mean (12 Var. S.D.

9/67 1.743 0.0382 0.196
Sta. 1,2,3

9/67 1.928 0.567 0.752
Sta. 4,5,6

9/67 1.583 0.484 0.696
Sta. 7A,7B,8,9

9/67 1.603 0.164 0.405
Sta. 10,11,12

9/67 0.313 0.001 0.034
Sta. 13,14,15

9/67 0.378 0.035 0.188
Sta. 16,17,18

9/67 0.328 0.005 0.073
Sta. 19,20,21

9/67 0.342 0.002 0.050
Sta. 22,23,24

 

55

Table A10. Artificial substrate average diversity
index/site for 2/68.

 

 

Site

 

Number Date Mean (12 Var. S.D.

2 2/68 2.116 0.127 0.356
Sta. 4,5,6

2 2/68 1.912 0.003 0.054
Sta. 5,6

3 2/68 1.316 0.267 0.517
Sta. 7A,7B,8,9

4 2/68 2.046 0.143 0.379
Sta. 10,11,12

5
Sta. 13,14,15

6 2/68 0.209 0.000 0.022
Sta. 16,18

7 2/68 0.303 0.004 0.063
Sta. 19,20,21

8 2/68 0.317 0.031 0.175

Sta. 22,23

 

56

Table All. Artificial substrate average diversity

index/site for 6/68.

 

 

 

Nfiigzr Date Mean d2 Var. S.D.

2 6/68 1.690 0.012 0.111
Sta. 4,5,6

3 6/68 1.432 0.007 0.0823
Sta. 7A,7B,8

4 6/68 1.573 - -
Sta. 11

6 6/68 0.766 0.346, 0.588
Sta. 16,17A,l7,18 .

6 1.021 0.128 0.351
Sta. 16,17,18

7 0.217 0.094 0.307
Sta. 20,21

8 0.829 0.444 0.666
Sta. 22,23,24

 

 

 

 

Table A12. Surber average diversity index/site
for 6/68.
NESSgr Date Mean (12 Var. S.D.

1 6/68 1.456 1.78 1.337
Surber 1,2,3

2 6/68 1.110 0.791 0.890
Surber 4,6

4 6/68 0.000 0.000 0.000
Surber 10,11,12

6 6/68 0.481 0.462 0.680

Surber 16,17

 

58

Table A13. Sites 1 and 2 fish collections 7/20/68.

 

 

cm gm Number wt-gm

Species Number Size wt. Clipped Clipped

 

 

Largemouth Bass 1 12 18.96 0 -
Micropterus salmoides 1 10 12.90 0 -

1 9 7.81 0 -
Bluegill l 6 2.55 0 -

Lepomis macrochirus

 

 

 

 

 

Common sucker 1 12 20.34 0 -
Catastomus commersoni l 9 9.15 0 -
1 8 5.9 0 -
Stoneroller 2 10 25.60 2 25.60
Capostoma anomalum l 9 8.13 1 8.13
3 8 17.01 2 11.53
6 7 28.00 3 14.55
3 6 9.53 0 -
Creek Chub 1 8 6.57 0 -
Semotilus atromaculatus l 7 4.22 0 -
Redside dace ' 2 6 3.45 0 -
Phoximus elongatus 2 5 2.54 0 -
Bluntnose minnow 2 5 3.26 0 -
Pimephales notatus
Fantail darter l 5 1.46 1 1.46
Etheostoma flabellare 1 4 0.78 l 0.78

 

 

59

Table A14. Sites 1 and 2 fish collections 7/27/68.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Species Number STZe 5:.
Largemouth bass 1 14 30.55
Micropterus salmoides l 13 23.45
1 12 22.45
1 11 16.08
3 10 29.51
1 9 7.94
Bluegill
Lepomis macrochirus 1 5 2.15
Common sucker
Catastomus commersoni 2 21 171.00
1 20 85.61
1 18 70.65
3 14 80.72
4 13 78.27
1 11 12.42
4 10 42.72
1 8 5.04
Stoneroller l 12 24.69
Capostoma anomalum 1 10 10-25
1 9 8.38
4 8 26.45
8 7 35.20
4 6 11.95
Creek chub
Semotilus atromaculatus l 7 4.05
1 (2.5 0.15

 

60

Table A14--Continued.

 

 

cm gm
Species Number size wt.

 

Fantail darter
E, flabellare l 6 1.89

 

61

Table A15. Sites 3 and 4 fish collections 7/27/68.

 

 

 

 

 

 

. cm gm
Spec1es Number size wt.
Bluegill 5 2 3.43
L, macrochirus
Spotted sucker l 8 4.88
Minytrema melanops
Creek chub 1 11 16.31
'S. atromaculatus l 9 8.85
l 7 3.12
l 6 2.70

Fish Collection 7/20/68

Bluegill l 4 1.21
L, macrochirus

 

Common sucker 1 10 11.80
E, commersoni l 8 5.32

l 3 0.26
Creek chub 1 7.0 5.11

‘S. atromaculatus 2 (2.5 0.27

 

 

 

M'IIIIIIIIILIIIIJII[IIIIIIIIIIIIIZIIIIII“