Printer Friendly

Fishes and macroinvertebrates of the upper Cahaba River: a three-year study.

ABSTRACT

In order to assess their degree of impairment, fish and macroinvertebrate communities were examined at fifteen sites on the upper Cahaba River during Summer 2001, Spring 2002, Fall 2002, and Summer 2003. Fishes were sampled by seining, with all individuals released after identification. Macroinvertebrates were sampled and analyzed using three different protocols: 1) "Riffle/Run," a modified EPA method in which only riffle/run areas were sampled; 2) "EPA," a multihabitat method used by Region 4, United States Environmental Protection Agency; and 3) "ADEM," a multihabitat method used by the Alabama Department of Environmental Management.

We found both the fish and macroinvertebrate communities to be generally in-balance throughout this 108-mile river segment, although notable differences were seen. In general, the most stable and varied habitats (largely in the upper and lower sections) support the most taxa and the most pollution-sensitive taxa. The middle reaches--where the gradient flattens and sediment accumulates--contain the sites that appear to be most heavily stressed or impaired.

Because the results of our fish sampling are similar to previous studies that relied on both seining and electroshocking, we find that the use of minnow seines by experienced personnel provides an accurate, reliable, and cost-effective means to monitor these fish communities.

The three macroinvertebrate protocols provided slightly different results, with the ADEM method giving higher numbers for Total Taxa, pollution-sensitive taxa, and pollution-tolerant taxa. (These higher numbers probably result from the inclusion of all taxa from all habitats by this method, except for the riffle/run collections, which are subsampled.) The same general trends as above, however, were obtained with all three methods. We find that the EPA method provides an accurate and efficient means of monitoring macroinvertebrate communities when compared to the more time-consuming Rifle/Run and ADEM methods.

INTRODUCTION

The Cahaba River flows for 191 miles from its headwaters in St. Clair County (northeast of Birmingham, AL) to its confluence with the Alabama River southwest of Selma. Its drainage area, entirely within Alabama, encompasses ca. 1825 square miles, and is bordered on the east by the Coosa River System and on the west and north by the Black Warrior River System (Pierson et al., 1989; Shepard et al., 1997).

The Cahaba River is well known for its wealth of animal species. Pierson et al. (1989) reported 131 fish species from the river, including 18 species known only to occur in the Mobile River Basin. Mayden & Kuhajda (1989) considered the Cahaba to be the most ichthyologically diverse river for its size in North America. Harris et al. (1984) reported 146 species of caddisflies from the Cahaba River System--particularly rich when compared to other Southeastern rivers.

The Cahaba, however, is not without its stresses, nor is it entirely "natural." Although often cited as "free-flowing," the river is impounded by a few low-level dams between its origin and the Fall Line (near Centreville). The largest such dam, 15-feet tall, was constructed at US Hwy 280 in 1937, pooling the water behind it for use by the citizens of Birmingham. (Since this time, the Cahaba--along with Lake Purdy on the Little Cahaba River--has served as the primary water source for metropolitan Birmingham.) Several wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) discharge treated domestic and industrial wastes into the Cahaba near Birmingham. In addition, the Cahaba watershed has been rapidly developed during the past thirty years, as Birmingham's suburbs have spread southward. "Nonpoint sources of pollution such as siltation from strip mining, construction of roads and structures, and runoff of fertilizers and pesticides from managed turf have also increased in the upper Cahaba River drainage as the population of the area has grown" (Shepard et al., 1997).

Due to these stresses, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) required the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) to place segments of the Cahaba on its [section]303(d) list for 1998 (and renewed in 2000, 2002). (Under [section]303(d) of the Clean Water Act, Alabama and other states are required to compile a list of impaired waterways--rivers and streams that fail to meet expected water quality criteria. The list is reviewed every two years.) One segment, from the 1-59 bridge (near Leeds) to the US 82 bridge at Centreville, is considered impaired due to excessive sediments. A smaller portion of that segment, from the US 280 dam to Centreville, is considered impaired due to excessive nutrients.

To assess the ecological health of the upper Cahaba, we conducted a series of biomonitoring surveys over a three-year period. Fish and macroinvertebrate communities were examined June-August 2001, May 2002, September-October 2002, and June 2003 at fifteen sites on the upper Cahaba River. (A map is provided in Appendix 1.) Sites were chosen in order to best assess the river's health, with a variety of physiographic regions purposely selected. The sites are, starting at the headwaters (with river miles from the confluence with the Alabama River in brackets):

Headwater reaches:

1) Goodner Mountain Road [189.6] - T15S, R1E, Sec 30; Jefferson County

2) Deerfoot Parkway above Trussville [186.5] - T16S, R1W, Sec 12; Jefferson County

3) Grants Mill Road [161.3] - T17S, R1W, Sec 33; Jefferson County

Middle reaches:

4) Caldwell Mill Road (Altadena) [144.9] - T19S, R2W, Sec 3; Jefferson County

5) Riverford Drive [141.5] - T19S, R2W, Sec 18; Jefferson County

6) Above the Cahaba WWTP [138.9] - T19S, R2W, Sec 19; Jefferson County

7) Below the Cahaba WWTP [138.6] - T19S, R2W, Sec 19; Jefferson County

8) Chace Lake Country Club [137.3] - R19S, R3W, Sec 24; Jefferson County

9) Bains Bridge off Lorna Road [136.8] - T19S, R3W, Sec 23; Jefferson County

10) Hoover High School near Dodd Branch [134.3] - T20S, R3W, Sec 4; Jefferson County

11) "Deep Pool," ca. one mile upstream from confluence with Buck Creek [131.2] - T20S, R3W, Sec 9; Shelby County

12) Shelby County Highway 52 (Helena) [127.0] - T20S, R3W, Sec 20; Shelby County

Lower reaches:

13) Bibb County Highway 24, ca. one mile downstream from Piper Bridge [95.8] - T24N, R10E, Sec 9; Bibb County

14) Bibb County Highway 26 at Pratts Ferry (Riverbend) [89.3] - T24N, R10E, Sec 33; Bibb County

15) US 82 at Centreville [81.2] - T23N, R9E, Sec 35; Bibb County

MATERIALS AND METHODS

At each site, both physical and habitat assessments were performed using EPA (Barbour et al., 1999) protocols. Physical assessments performed at each site examined watershed features, amount and type of riparian vegetation, presence and type of aquatic vegetation, stream width and depth, plus substrate components--percentages of bedrock, boulder, cobble, etc. These physical assessments were then used to assess ten habitat parameters. (See Results and Discussion.)

Fishes were collected using a 4-by-8-foot nylon seine, with sampling methods modified from Karr et al. (1986) and O'Neil & Shepard (2000). Thirty minutes were devoted to seining all key habitats in each study area--riffles, pools, stream runs, and under bankside vegetation. Fish species were identified in the field (and verified using Mettee et al. [1996]), counted and released; any individuals observed but not captured during the collecting period were also included in the tally for that site. Captured individuals were also examined for any physical anomalies.

Macroinvertebrates were collected using three different protocols. The "Riffle/Run" method was modified from EPA (Barbour et al., 1999) and ADEM (1999) protocols, using only riffle/run areas within a 100-meter reach: At each site, the stream expanse at the downstream end of the riffle was divided into thirds, and a one-meter-square area was "kicked" in each third into a D-frame dip net; three more samples were taken at the upstream end. The contents of the net were preserved in 70% isopropyl alcohol for later analysis, in which all individuals were identified.

The multihabitat "EPA" method followed the protocol developed by the Region 4, Athens (Georgia) office of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (see Howard et al., 2002). This method uses three riffle kicks in fast current, and three in slow; six jabs of undercut banks; five collections of woody debris; three jabs of bottom substrate; and three samples of leaf pack (equivalent to one-half dip net). The resulting composited collection was likewise preserved for later analysis. (Note: In keeping with EPA protocol, a duplicate sample ("52d") was taken at Highway 52 and analyzed in a manner identical to all others; also at this site, a duplicate habitat analysis was conducted by a second investigator in order to assess the consistency of our work.) In that analysis, a random subsample of ca. 200 individuals was utilized.

The "ADEM" method followed the protocol outlined by the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM, 1999). This method uses two 1-meter-square riffle kicks--one in fast current, and one in slow; leaf and woody debris (enough to fill one-half of a sieve bucket); the rinsings from five rocks and/or logs; three sweeps (each one meter in length) of root banks; three sweeps (each one meter in length) through macrophytes; and three sweeps (each one meter in length) of sand, scooping 2-3 cm below the surface. Each of these samples was preserved (in separate containers) for later analysis. In that analysis, the riffle collections were subsampled (with ca. 200 individuals utilized), while all individuals from the other habitats were included.

Macroinvertebrates were identified (to the genus or lowest possible level) using Edmunds et al. (1976), Epler (2001), Harris et al. (1987), Merritt & Cummins (1996), Smith (2001), Thorp & Covich (1991), and Wiggins (1996). Members of the Chironomidae were sent to TAI Environmental Sciences (Mobile, AL) for identification during the first two collecting years, then identified "in-house" in 2003.

Tallies and statistical analyses are included in Tables 1-11; bar diagrams for each table are shown in Figures 1-11.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

A. Habitats

Physical assessments were used to generate the habitat scores listed in Table 1 and shown graphically in Figure 1. Ten habitat parameters were each assessed on a 20-point scale, with more points given to "ideal" conditions. Such conditions best promote the colonization, establishment, and continued presence of aquatic organisms, especially fishes and macroinvertebrates. These conditions provide a variety of habitats in which such organisms can flourish--a stable substrate with a variety of water velocities and depths, little sediment, minimal disturbance, and maximal riparian cover.

According to ADEM (1999), habitat scores are considered "optimal" when 75-100% of the maximum score, "suboptimal" when 50-74%, "marginal" when 25-49%, and "poor" when 0-24%. (On the 200-point EPA scale, these cutoff points would be 150 [suboptimal], 100 [marginal], and 50 [poor]). While many of our sites occasionally scored in the "optimal" range, only one (Deep Pool) was consistently that high. Four others were consistently 130 and above--Deerfoot Parkway, Grants Mill Road, Highway 52, and Piper Bridge. All five of the above sites have stable substrates (with bedrock and boulders), little sedimentation, a diversity of water velocities and depths, frequent riffles and runs, adequate riparian cover, and little human modification or disturbance.

In contrast, three sites scored consistently near or below the "marginal" cutoff of 100: Above the Cahaba WWTP, Below the Cahaba WWTP, and Bains Bridge. Each of these sites is marked by unstable substrates (with frequent sand, gravel and silt bars), much sedimentation leading to embeddedness of boulders and cobble, little variety in water depths and velocities, and much human disturbance (especially of the river banks).

At some sites, much variation is found in the habitat scores from one sampling period to the next; this is especially true of sites with unstable substrates. Also, nine of the fifteen sites had their lowest scores during Summer 2003. These low scores, taken in June, reflect the large amount of streambank erosion and sediment from record-setting floodwaters during May 2003.

B. Fishes

Three standard metrics were used in assessing the fish communities sampled in this study: total number of individuals, total fish taxa, and the Index of Biological Integrity.

1) Total Number: Table 2 and Figure 2 reveal a general trend of total fish numbers, with the highest numbers of individuals collected at the uppermost and lowermost sites. Deerfoot Parkway consistently had the greatest number of individuals, with Piper Bridge next. Numbers of individuals collected in the middle section (Riverford Drive to Bains Bridge) were generally low.

2) Total Fish Taxa: A similar trend can be found in Total Fish Taxa (Table 3 and Figure 3), with the highest number of taxa at the upper sites (Grants Mill and Caldwell Mill) and lower sites (Highway 26 and Centreville). (The uppermost sites, Goodner Mountain and Deerfoot Parkway, show lower numbers, probably due to smaller stream order and drainage area.) Again, sites in the middle section (Riverford Drive to Bains Bridge) had lower numbers than either upstream or downstream sites.

3) Index of Biological Integrity: Fish data were evaluated using the Index of Biological Integrity (IBI) proposed by Karr et al. (1986), as adapted and modified by O'Neil (2002) for the Cahaba River and further modified by us (see Appendix 2 and example below). The fish IBI uses 12 individual metrics of the sampled communities, rating each as 1 (worst), 3, or 5 (best) compared to values expected for an undisturbed community in a similar-sized stream of the same ecoregion. The sum of the 12 metric scores, or Total IBI, thus ranges from 12-60.

After conversations with the aforementioned Patrick O'Neil, we modified the IBI metrics and scale (listed in Appendix 2) to better reflect the ichthyofaunal characteristics of the upper Cahaba River, based on our extensive experience with fish communities throughout the watershed. (It should be noted, too, that the O'Neil method uses both minnow seines and electroshocking, while we used seines only.) For example, while the O'Neil method requires three or more darter species to earn the top rank of "5," only two such species have ever been collected by us in the upper Cahaba River at Goodner Mountain Road; therefore, we used the presence of two (rather than three) darter species in headwater sections to indicate "ideal" conditions. Also, because of the differences in collecting techniques (seining vs seining-electroshocking), we broadened O'Neil's scoring ranges to the following: 50-60, Excellent; 40-49, Good; 30-39, Fair; 20-29, Poor; <20, Very Poor.

During this study, a total of 47 fish collections were made at the fifteen sites. Only two collections (Highway 52, Summer 2001 and Above the Cahaba WWTP, Summer 2003) scored in the Poor range. The majority (28 collections, or 60%) scored Fair; sixteen (34%) were Good, and one (Grants Mill, Fall 2002) was Excellent. In all cases, the three uppermost sites (Goodner Mountain, Deerfoot Parkway, and Grants Mill) scored Good to Excellent. In the middle section (Caldwell Mill to Highway 52), most sites during most seasons scored Fair to Good. In the "big river" section, Piper Bridge scored Fair during all four collecting seasons; the lowermost site, Centreville, scored Good during its two collecting seasons.

It should be noted, also, that our "seine only" approach, using modified IBI scoring and scale, provided results comparable to O'Neil's (2002) more intensive method. In fact, six of the nine sites sampled by both research teams obtained identical ratings. A comparison of IBI ratings for these nine shared sites is provided in Appendix 3.

C. Macroinvertebrates

Seven metrics were used to assess the macroinvertebrate communities sampled in this study. These metrics--selected for their ability to assess community balance and the presence/absence of pollution-sensitive and -tolerant taxa--include Total Number of Individuals, Total Taxa, the Biotic Index, Percent Contribution of Dominant Taxon, EPT Taxa Richness, Percent Chironomids, and the ratio EPT/EPT + Chironomidae.

1) Total Number: The total number of macroinvertebrates collected at each site is listed in Table 5. However, only the number collected using the Riffle/Run method can be compared from site to site, since the other two methods utilize subsampling strategies. For this reason, only the Riffle/Run samples are shown in Figure 5. Here, a definite trend is found in the Summer 2001 data, with increasing numbers of macroinvertebrates related to increasing stream order. However, this trend is not found in either of the subsequent Riffle/Run data sets. The fewest individuals (189) were found Above the Cahaba WWTP during Fall 2002, perhaps due to the low water levels normally found at this site. (Public water supply withdrawal occurs upstream from this site.) In contrast, with the constant water flow provided by the WWTP, the number of individuals Below the Cahaba WWTP increased to 1273 that season.

In all three Riffle/Run collecting seasons, the largest number of individuals--7625, 4296, and 13,294--was found at Piper Bridge, reflecting the large numbers of the tiny hydrobiid snail, Somatogyrus, in its preferred habitat of exposed bedrock riffles (Harris et al., 1987).

2) Total Macroinvertebrate Taxa: The number of macroinvertebrate taxa collected per site is found in Table 6 and shown graphically in Figure 6. Such numbers are used to assess the health and diversity of habitats found at different sites, with more diverse habitats supporting a larger number of species (ADEM, 1999; Barbour et al., 1999).

Our data (using all three collecting/analyzing methods) show relatively high numbers of taxa in the headwaters (Goodner Mountain, Deerfoot Parkway) with a gradual drop in numbers as the river drops in altitude. The flattest and most habitat-poor section of the river (which includes Riverford Drive, Above the Cahaba WWTP, Below the Cahaba WWTP, and Chace Lake) supports the fewest species. These areas also have low habitat scores due to the lack of extensive riffle areas (which are generally quite productive) and the presence of much sediment and disturbance.

Our data for total macroinvertebrate taxa also show differences in the relative effectiveness of the three collecting and analyzing routines. In comparison with the Riffle/Run methodology during Fall 2002, the ADEM protocol provided more taxa in every case--at Hoover High, in fact, over two-and-a-half times as many (83 vs 33). This is undoubtedly due to that protocol calling for the collecting and inclusion of every specimen from all habitats (other than riffle/run, which is subsampled). In contrast, the EPA protocol resulted in the tabulation of the fewest taxa: In all but two of the 12 sites analyzed by the Riffle/Run and EPA methods in Spring 2002, the Riffle/Run method showed more taxa than EPA, sometimes twice as many (e.g., at Caldwell Mill, 41 vs 19). These differing results are most likely due to: 1) riffle/run habitats usually providing the highest macroinvertebrate diversity (Barbour et al., 1999) and 2) the subsampling of the entire composited EPA sample, such that all taxa will not be included.

3) Biotic Index: The Biotic Index is a measure of organic and nutrient pollution based on macroinvertebrate communities, especially those inhabiting riffles (Hilsenhoff 1987). Biotic Index scores are determined by the average of tolerance values given to each represented taxon, with low scores assigned to taxa that are intolerant of poor water quality. In this study, we used the tolerance values listed in Appendix X-1 of the ADEM manual, many of which were generated from North Carolina studies (see Appendix X-2 [ADEM, 1999] for sources). Because no Index scales have yet been established for the Valley & Ridge province of Alabama, we used criteria developed for the North Carolina Piedmont, as listed in ADEM (1999). The ranges are: Excellent (0.00-5.18), Very Good (5.19-5.78), Good/Fair (5.79-6.48), Fair (6.49-7.48), and Poor (7.49-10.00).

The three different collecting and analyzing methods generated similar Biotic Index scores, as shown in Table 7 and Figure 7. Of the 71 total collections analyzed, 40 (56%) rated Excellent, while 16 (23%) were Very Good; the remaining 15 (21%) were Good/Fair. In general, the lowest ("best") scores were obtained at headwater sites like Goodner Mountain and Deerfoot Parkway, as well as at stable downstream sites such as Deep Pool and Highway 52. Higher scores were obtained at middle sites like Above the Cahaba WWTP and Bains Bridge, plus the downstream site at Piper Bridge. The Piper Bridge scores, again, are due to huge numbers of Somatogyrus, with its tolerance value of 6.4.

4) Percent Contribution of Dominant Taxon: The consistently high numbers of Somatogyrus at Piper Bridge also led to high scores for Percent Contribution of Dominant Taxon, listed in Table 8 and shown graphically in Figure 8. (This percentage is an indication of community balance [ADEM, 1999; Barbour et al., 1999] and generally increases with decreasing water quality, such that a single taxon will dominate at stressed sites.) As mentioned previously, Somatogyrus prefers exposed bedrock riffles (Harris et al., 1987), as found at this site; the one-quarter-mile-long stand of Cahaba lilies (Hymenocallis coronaria) and other aquatic plants here also provide the detritus needed for the support of this tiny, prolific snail.

Other sites showed occasional high percentages (>50%) of a single taxon. Using the ADEM method during Fall 2002, Grants Mill had 53% Elimia, a pleurocerid snail; using the EPA method during Spring 2002, Caldwell Mill had 76% Simulium, a blackfly larva; using the Riffle/Run method during Fall 2002, Below the Cahaba WWTP had 71% Elimia; using the ADEM method during Fall 2002, Bains Bridge had 67% Somatogyrus. However, only Piper Bridge consistently showed one dominant taxon (Somatogyrus) under all three collecting/analyzing methods.

5) EPT Taxa Richness: EPT Taxa Richness is based on the number of pollution-sensitive taxa of Ephemeroptera (mayflies), Plecoptera (stoneflies), and Trichoptera (caddisflies). These numbers generally increase with increasing water quality (ADEM, 1999; Barbour et al., 1999).

Our data (Table 9 and Figure 9) for this metric follow the expected trends at the uppermost sites, with the highest numbers in the headwaters (Goodner Mountain, Deerfoot Parkway), then decreasing with decreasing altitude and river gradient (Riverford Drive to Chace Lake). (As mentioned under Total Macroinvertebrate Taxa, these middle sites also lack the extensive riffle areas needed to support mayflies, stoneflies and caddisflies.) EPT numbers then generally increase from Bains Bridge to Centreville, possibly due to the increased presence of adequate riffles.

It should be noted that in every instance during Spring 2002, the Riffle/Run method resulted in higher numbers of EPT taxa than the EPA method. This result is expected, since the first method samples only the riffle/run habitats preferred by these taxa. Also, in every instance during Fall 2002, the ADEM protocol resulted in higher numbers of EPT taxa than the Riffle/Run method. This is a surprising result since, under the ADEM protocol, the riffle/run collection is always subsampled.

6) Percent Chironomids: Midge larvae (family Chironomidae) are generally pollution-tolerant organisms, their numbers increasing with increasing organic enrichment or heavy metal concentration (ADEM, 1999; Barbour et al., 1999). (There are, however, some genera known only from clean water.) They occupy a variety of habitats, including riffle/runs, root banks and leaf packs--even the bodies of other invertebrates.

Surprisingly, four of our six collections showed high numbers of chironomids at the headwaters site, Goodner Mountain. (See Table 10 and Figure 10.) This unexpected result is perhaps due to the presence of two dams and resulting impoundments, 1.0 and 2.5 miles upstream from the site, which store and release organics upon which these larvae depend.

Three collections showed significant rises in the number of chironomids at Hoover High, probably due to the settling of materials (both organic and sediment) in this "flat" river segment. In two of the three collections made at Riverbend and Centreville, chironomid numbers also rose, an expected result in these "big river" sites due to increasing enrichment downstream.

In every instance during Fall 2002, the ADEM protocol resulted in higher percentages of chironomids than the Riffle/Run method. This is an expected result, since the ADEM protocol calls for the inclusion of all multihabitat collections, such as leaf packs and root banks, where chironomids often live.

7) EPT/EPT + Chironomidae: The final metric applied, EPT/EPT + Chironomidae, calculates the ratio of individuals in "sensitive" (Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera) versus "insensitive" (Chironomidae) taxa, thus incorporating EPT Taxa Richness and Percent Chironomids. A value of 0.75 indicates an even distribution between the four groups (ADEM, 1999).

Using the three different collecting and analyzing techniques, most sites scored 0.5-1.0 for this metric (Table 11 and Figure 11), thus indicating generally even distribution between the four taxa. The one exception, Goodner Mountain, had three of the four lowest scores for the entire study--0.49 (Riffle/Run, Summer 2001), 0.41 (ADEM, Fall 2002), and 0.24 (EPA, Summer 2003). These low scores reflect the large numbers of chironomids at this site, as discussed above.

CONCLUSIONS

For three consecutive years, we sampled fishes and macroinvertebrates of the upper Cahaba River during four different seasons and flow conditions (and in the case of macroinvertebrates, using three different collecting and analyzing methods). Our results show that the fish and macroinvertebrate populations within this [section]303(d) segment of the river are generally in-balance.

There are, of course, differences between the study sites in this 108-mile long river segment, as well as differences in their relative health, stress and impairment. These differences appear to be largely due to habitat, with the most stable and varied habitats hosting the most total taxa and the most pollution-sensitive taxa. These stable sites include Deerfoot Parkway and Grants Mill in the upstream reaches and Deep Pool, Highway 52 and Piper Bridge in the middle and downstream reaches. In the middle section, the gradient of the river bed flattens and the river broadens (with fewer exposed rocks and riffle areas), thus creating fewer habitats for colonization (and lower habitat scores). This section also experiences noticeably decreased water flow due to public water supply withdrawals above the US Highway 280 dam, while picking up a high concentration of sediment as it courses through the most rapidly developing part of metropolitan Birmingham.

Fish communities directly reflect these habitat differences. Our three stable headwater sites (Goodner Mountain, Deerfoot Parkway, and Grants Mill) and lowermost site (Centreville) rated "good" for Total IBI, while all sites in-between (including every site in the unstable middle reaches) rated "fair." These results agree with those of Onorato et al. (1998), who assessed fish populations in the upper Cahaba River during Fall 1995, Spring and Fall 1996, and Spring 1997. Using both minnow seines and electroshockers, they found that over 62% of their sampling stations had IBI ratings of "good" or better. They obtained their lowest IBI rating ("fair") near Riverford Drive, where we also obtained our lowest rating (likewise "fair"). Their highest score gave an "excellent" rating for the fish community at Centreville, where we obtained a "good" rating.

The macroinvertebrate data are more difficult to interpret, although similar habitat-based trends occur. Biotic Index scores, based on relative tolerance values, follow the habitat trends rather closely, with the "best" or lowest scores obtained at headwater and stable downstream sites. Total Taxa and EPT Taxa partially follow those trends, being high in the headwaters before dipping to their lowest scores at the beginning of the middle reaches. Both scores, though, rise again at Bains Bridge, Hoover High, Deep Pool, and Highway 52, indicating some improvement or lessening impairment in the lower portion of this unstable middle section.

Only the two macroinvertebrate metrics utilizing numbers of midge larvae, Percent Chironomids and EPT/EPT + Chironomidae, provide surprising results. The unexpectedly high numbers of midge larvae at the uppermost site, Goodner Mountain, are most likely due to impounded water (and the periodic release of organics) upstream. For this reason, Goodner Mountain cannot be considered a pristine headwaters site.

The three different protocols for sampling and analysis of macroinvertebrates--Riffle/Run, EPA and ADEM--produced slightly different results. While the three methods resulted in similar values for overall tolerance (Biotic Index), the ADEM method--by including all organisms of its multihabitat subsamples--gave higher numbers for Total Taxa, pollution-sensitive taxa (EPT), and pollution-tolerant taxa (chironomids). However, despite these differences, the same general trends--from headwaters to middle and lower reaches--were revealed by all three methods.

Because of the similarities of our results to those obtained by seining and electroshocking, we conclude that the use of minnow seines by trained and experienced personnel provides a very accurate and reliable (and less expensive) means to monitor the fish communities of the upper Cahaba River. And, again due to similarity of results, we conclude that the EPA method provides an adequate and efficient means of monitoring macroinvertebrate communities when compared to the more time-consuming Riffle/Run and ADEM methods.

[FIGURE 1a OMITTED]

[FIGURE 1b OMITTED]

[FIGURE 2a OMITTED]

[FIGURE 2b OMITTED]

[FIGURE 3a OMITTED]

[FIGURE 3b OMITTED]

[FIGURE 4a OMITTED]

[FIGURE 4b OMITTED]

[FIGURE 5a OMITTED]

[FIGURE 5b OMITTED]

[FIGURE 6a OMITTED]

[FIGURE 6b OMITTED]

[FIGURE 7a OMITTED]

[FIGURE 7b OMITTED]

[FIGURE 8a OMITTED]

[FIGURE 8b OMITTED]

[FIGURE 9a OMITTED]

[FIGURE 9b OMITTED]

[FIGURE 10a OMITTED]

[FIGURE 10b OMITTED]

[FIGURE 11a OMITTED]

[FIGURE 11b OMITTED]

APPENDIX 1

Study sites on the upper Cahaba River, with abbreviations and "river miles" from the confluence with the Alabama River.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]
APPENDIX 2

IBI Metric Scoring Criteria for the Upper Cahaba River System in Alabama
(modified after O'Neil [2002]).

 Scoring Criteria

 Category Metric Watersbed 5 3 1
 Size

Species Diversity 1. Number of <10 >11 7-11 <7
and Composition species m[i.sup.2] >18 9-18 <9
 10-250 >22 14-22 <14
 m[i.sup.2]
 >250
 m[i.sup.2]

 2. Number of <10 >1 1 0
 darter species m[i.sup.2] >3 2-3 <2
 10-250 >5 3-5 <3
 m[i.sup.2]
 >250
 m[i.sup.2]

 3. Number of <10 >4 2-4 <2
 minnow species m[i.sup.2] >6 3-6 <3
 10-250 >9 4-9 <4
 m[i.sup.2]
 >250
 m[i.sup.2]

 4. Number of <10 >2 1-2 0
 sunfish species m[i.sup.2] >3 1-3 0
 10-250 >4 2-4 <2
 m[i.sup.2]
 >250
 m[i.sup.2]

 5. Number of <10 >1 1 0
 sucker species m[i.sup.2] >2 1-2 0
 10-250 >3 2-3 <2
 m[i.sup.2]
 >250
 m[i.sup.2]

 6. Number of <500 >1 1 0
 intolerant m[i.sup.2] >3 1-3 0
 species >500
 m[i.sup.2]

 7. Proportion as all sizes <15% 15-35% >35%
 sunfishes

Trophic 8. Proportion as all sizes <10% 10-30% >30%
Composition omnivores and
 herbivores

 9. Proportion as all sizes >40% 20-40% <20%
 insectivorous
 cyprinids

 10. Proportion of all sizes >2% 0.5-2% <0.5%
 top carnivores

Abundance 11. Number <100 >250 100-250 <100
 collected per m[i.sup.2] >400 100-400 <100
 hour >100
 m[i.sup.2]

 12. Percent all sizes <2% 2-5% >5%
 anomalies
APPENDIX 3

The following table is a comparison of O'Neil's (2002) IBI ratings
(using minnow seines plus electroshocker and multiple-person collecting
teams) with those obtained by us (using minnow seines only and
two-person collecting teams). Six of the nine sites sampled in common
(I-59 [our Deerfoot site], Grant's Mill, Bain's Bridge, Highway 52,
Piper Bridge, and Centreville) received identical IBI ratings from both
research groups. Eight of O'Neil's sites rated either Fair or Good; one
site, Altadena, rated Poor. All nine of our sites rated Fair or Good.

Site O'Neil IBI Rating, 2002 Davenport et al.,
 2001-03 (1)

I-59 (Deerfoot) Good Good
Grant's Mill Good Good
Caldwell Mill Good Fair
Altadena (Riverford) Poor Fair
Bain's Bridge Fair Fair
Highway 52 Fair Fair
Piper Bridge Fair Fair
Riverbend/Bibb Co 26 Good Fair
Centreville Good Good

(1) Based on average scores from two to four sampling seasons
Table 1. Habitat scores (200 pt scale) for fifteen sites on the upper
Cahaba River: Summer 2001 (Su01), Spring 2002 (Sp02), Fall 2002 (Fa02),
and Summer 2003 (Su03); Goodner Mountain Road (GM), Deerfoot Parkway
(DF), Grants Mill Road (GR), Caldwell Mill Road (CM), Riverford Drive
(RD), above the Cahaba WWTP (UP), below the Cahaba WWTP (DN), Chace
Lake CC (CL), Bains Bridge (BB), Hoover High School (HH), Deep Pool
(DP), Shelby County 52 (52 & 52d), Piper Bridge (PB), Riverbend (26),
and Centreville (CE). River miles (from the confluence with the Alabama
River) are provided for each site.

 GM DF GR CM RD UP DN

 189.6 186.5 161.3 144.9 141.5 138.9 138.6

Habitat Score - Su01 103 149 159 144

Habitat Score - Sp02 113 143 159 114

Habitat Score - Fa02 114 141 159 137 100 112

Habitat Score - Su03 117 152 145 109 96 87 106

 CL BB HH DP 52 52d PB

 137.3 136.8 134.3 131.2 127.0 127.0 95.8

Habitat Score - Su01 156 102 134 175 163 165

Habitat Score - Sp02 112 112 104 160 161 157

Habitat Score - Fa02 99 116 161 150 149

Habitat Score - Su03 94 94 164 136 131 148

 26 CE

 89.3 81.2

Habitat Score - Su01

Habitat Score - Sp02 141 121

Habitat Score - Fa02

Habitat Score - Su03 119 124

Habitat scale: 150-200, optimal; 100-150, suboptimal; 50-99, marginal;
0-49, poor

Table 2. Total number of fishes collected at fifteen sites on the upper
Cahaba River: Summer 2001 (Su01), Spring 2002 (Sp02), Fall 2002 (Fa02),
and Summer 2003 (Su03); Goodner Mountain Road (GM), Deerfoot Parkway
(DF), Grants Mill Road (GR), Caldwell Mill Road (CM), Riverford Drive
(RD), above the Cahaba WWTP (UP), below the Cahaba WWTP (DN), Chace
Lake CC (CL), Bains Bridge (BB), Hoover High School (HH), Deep Pool
(DP), Shelby County 52 (52), Piper Bridge (PB), Riverbend (26), and
Centreville (CE). River miles (from the confluence with the Alabama
River) are provided for each site.

 GM DF GR CM RD UP

 189.6 186.5 161.3 144.9 141.5 138.9

Total Individuals - Su01 39 133 23 27

Total Individuals - Sp02 79 186 38 35

Total Individuals - Fa02 31 167 145 104 45

Total Individuals - Su03 115 298 88 96 21 30

 DN CL BB HH DP 52

 138.6 137.3 136.8 134.3 131.2 127.0

Total Individuals - Su01 21 17 58 48 45

Total Individuals - Sp02 38 44 43 61 67

Total Individuals - Fa02 68 56 103 72 141

Total Individuals - Su03 89 19 67 52 61

 PB 26 CE

 95.8 89.3 81.2

Total Individuals - Su01 60

Total Individuals - Sp02 54 120 176

Total Individuals - Fa02 108

Total Individuals - Su03 192 46 76

Table 3. Total fish taxa collected at fifteen sites on the upper Cahaba
River: Summer 2001 (Su01), Spring 2002 (Sp02), Fall 2002 (Fa02), and
Summer 2003 (Su03); Goodner Mountain Road (GM), Deerfoot Parkway (DF),
Grants Mill Road (GR), Caldwell Mill Road (CM), Riverford Drive (RD),
above the Cahaba WWTP (UP), below the Cahaba WWTP (DN), Chace Lake CC
(CL), Bains Bridge (BB), Hoover High School (HH), Deep Pool (DP),
Shelby County 52 (52), Piper Bridge (PB), Riverbend (26), and
Centreville (CE). Rive miles (from the confluence with the Alabama
River) are provided for each site.

 GM DF GR CM RD UP DN

 189.6 186.5 161.3 144.9 141.5 138.9 138.6

Total Taxa - Su01 8 12 12 9

Total Taxa - Sp02 9 13 16 11

Total Taxa - Fa02 7 12 18 18 13 14

Total Taxa - Su03 8 14 14 16 9 6 12

 CL BB HH DP 52 PB 26 CE

 137.3 136.8 134.3 131.2 127.0 95.8 89.3 81.2

Total Taxa - Su01 10 6 10 11 11 10

Total Taxa - Sp02 11 11 15 10 15 13 17 19

Total Taxa - Fa02 8 15 12 13 12

Total Taxa - Su03 8 16 13 15 11 10 13

Table 4. Total Index of Biological Integrity scores for fishes at
fifteen sites on the upper Cahaba River: Summer 2001 (Su01), Spring
2002 (Sp02), Fall 2002 (Fa02), and Summer 2003 (Su03); Goodner Mountain
Road (GM), Deerfoot Parkway (DF), Grants Mill Road (GR), Caldwell Mill
Road (CM), Riverford Drive (RD), above the Cahaba WWTP (UP), below the
Cahaba WWTP (DN), Chace Lake CC (CL), Bains Bridge (BB), Hoover High
School (HH), Deep Pool (DP), Shelby County 52 (52), Piper Bridge (PB),
Riverbend (26), and Centreville (CE). River miles (from the confluence
with the Alabama River) are provided for each site.

 GM DF GR CM RD UP DN CL

 189.6 186.5 161.3 144.9 141.5 138.9 138.6 137.3

Total IBI Score 42 46 32 32 32
- Su01

Total IBI Score 46 48 38 30 34
- Sp02

Total IBI Score 40 44 50 44 34 36
- Fa02

Total IBI Score 40 46 44 38 32 28 36
- Su03

 BB HH DP 52 PB 26 CE

 136.8 134.3 131.2 127.0 95.8 89.3 81.2

Total IBI Score 36 38 38 28 38
- Su01

Total IBI Score 42 36 36 36 36 42 42
- Sp02

Total IBI Score 30 40 34 36 36
- Fa02

Total IBI Score 30 44 32 36 34 34 4
- Su03

Total IBI scoring: 50-60, excellent; 40-49, good; 30-39, fair; 20-29,
poor; <20, very poor

Table 5. Total individuals of macroinvertebrates collected at fifteen
sites on the upper Cahaba River: Summer 2001 (Su01), Spring 2002 (Sp02),
Fall 2002 (Fa02), and Summer 2003 (Su03); collecting and analysis by
Riffle/Run (R), EPA (E), and ADEM (A) protocols; Goodner Mountain Road
(GM), Deerfoot Parkway (DF), Grants Mill Road (GR), Caldwell Mill Road
(CM), Riverford Drive (RD), above the Cahaba WWTP (UP), below the
Cahaba WWTP (DN), Chace Lake CC (CL), Bains Bridge (BB), Hoover High
School (HH), Deep Pool (DP), Shelby County 52 (52), Piper Bridge (PB),
Riverbend (26), and Centreville (CE). River miles (from the confluence
with the Alabama River) are provided for each site.

 GM DF GR CM RD UP

 189.6 186.5 161.3 144.9 141.5 138.9

Total Individuals - Su01R 492 838 1457 1825

Total Individuals - Sp02R 3705 3542 920 735

Total Individuals - Sp02E 196 212 233 191

Total Individuals - Fa02R 1338 1072 492 1467 189

Total Individuals - Fa02A 1378 921 972 1101 289

Total Individuals - Su03E 196 177 184 232 191 188

 DN CL BB HH DP 52

 138.6 137.3 136.8 134.3 131.2 127.0

Total Individuals - Su01R 1417 2285 1546 4028 4375

Total Individuals - Sp02R 666 856 1347 2829 646

Total Individuals - Sp02E 216 297 * 183 216 247

Total Individuals - Fa02R 1273 1226 719 2884 2771

Total Individuals - Fa02A 428 8470 1310 2300 4799

Total Individuals - Su03E 211 194 231 200 213

 52d PB 26 CE

 127.0 95.8 89.3 81.2

Total Individuals - Su01R 7625

Total Individuals - Sp02R 4296 1151 1142

Total Individuals - Sp02E 200 189 304 *

Total Individuals - Fa02R 13,294

Total Individuals - Fa02A 5260

Total Individuals - Su03E 204 173 156 * 201

* not subsampled

Table 6. Macroinvertebrate taxa collected at fifteen sites on the upper
Cahaba River: Summer 2001 (Su01), Spring 2002 (Sp02), Fall 2002 (Fa02),
and Summer 2003 (Su03); collecting and analysis by Riffle/Run (R), EPA
(E), and ADEM (A) protocols; Goodner Mountain Road (GM), Deerfoot
Parkway (DF), Grants Mill Road (GR), Caldwell Mill Road (CM), Riverford
Drive (RD), above the Cahaba WWTP (UP), below the Cahaba WWTP (DN),
Chace Lake CC (CL), Bains Bridge (BB), Hoover High School (HH), Deep
Pool (DP), Shelby County 52 (52), Piper Bridge (PB), Riverbend (26),
and Centreville (CE). River miles (from the confluence with the Alabama
River) are provided for each site.

 GM DF GR CM RD UP DN

 189.6 186.5 161.3 144.9 141.5 138.9 138.6

Total Taxa - Su01R 49 42 38 44

Total Taxa - Sp02R 66 70 41 45

Total Taxa - Sp02E 28 36 19 32

Total Taxa - Fa02R 62 39 32 36 21 31

Total Taxa - Fa02A 89 71 55 52 36 38

Total Taxa - Su03E 39 30 31 20 18 21 21

 CL BB HH DP 52 52d PB

 137.3 136.8 134.3 131.2 127.0 127.0 95.8

Total Taxa - Su01R 35 35 46 41 42 34

Total Taxa - Sp02R 35 38 41 43 38 33

Total Taxa - Sp02E 39 34 26 27 24 22

Total Taxa - Fa02R 38 33 74 49 54

Total Taxa - Fa02A 69 83 84 74 64

Total Taxa - Su03E 19 22 19 24 18 18

 26 CE

 89.3 81.2

Total Taxa - Su01R

Total Taxa - Sp02R 48 46

Total Taxa - Sp02E 35 52

Total Taxa - Fa02R

Total Taxa - Fa02A

Total Taxa - Su03E 23 26

Table 7. Biotic Index for macroinvertebrates collected at fifteen sites
on the upper Cahaba River: Summer 2001 (Su01), Spring 2002 (Sp02), Fall
2002 (Fa02), and Summer 2003 (Su03); collecting and analysis by
Riffle/Run (R), EPA (E), and ADEM (A) protocols; Goodner Mountain Road
(GM), Deerfoot Parkway (DF), Grants Mill Road (GR), Caldwell Mill Road
(CM), Riverford Drive (RD), above the Cahaba WWTP (UP), below the
Cahaba WWTP (DN), Chace Lake CC (CL), Bains Bridge (BB), Hoover High
School (HH), Deep Pool (DP), Shelby County 52 (52), Piper Bridge (PB),
Riverbend (26), and Centreville (CE). River miles (from the confluence
with the Alabama River) are provided for each site.

 GM DF GR CM RD UP DN

 189.6 186.5 161.3 144.9 141.5 138.9 138.6

Biotic Index - Su01R 5.54 4.72 4.32 5.04

Biotic Index - Sp02R 3.35 4.38 4.85 4.59

Biotic Index - Sp02E 3.39 4.55 4.24 4.77

Biotic Index - Fa02R 4.39 5.19 5.72 5.67 6.48 6.14

Biotic Index - Fa02A 5.26 5.80 5.80 4.88 6.45 5.43

Biotic Index - Su03E 6.13 4.55 5.14 4.78 5.14 4.68 4.86

 CL BB HH DP 52 52d PB

 137.3 136.8 134.3 131.2 127.0 127.0 95.8

Biotic Index - Su01R 4.96 4.76 5.19 5.19 5.09 6.05

Biotic Index - Sp02R 4.87 5.89 4.39 4.21 5.24 6.00

Biotic Index - Sp02E 5.86 6.20 5.35 5.07 5.20 5.08

Biotic Index - Fa02R 6.01 5.30 4.83 4.63 6.27

Biotic Index - Fa02A 6.00 6.23 5.51 5.76 4.76

Biotic Index - Su03E 5.36 5.13 5.18 4.64 4.78 4.50

 26 CE

 89.3 81.2

Biotic Index - Su01R

Biotic Index - Sp02R 5.07 4.67

Biotic Index - Sp02E 5.16 5.51

Biotic Index - Fa02R

Biotic Index - Fa02A

Biotic Index - Su03E 4.51 4.55

Biotic Index ranges: 0.00-5.18, excellent; 5.19-5.78, very good;
5.79-6.48, good/fair; 6.49-7.48, fair; 7.49-10.00, poor

Table 8. Percent Contribution of Dominant Taxon for macroinvertebrates
collected at fifteen sites on the upper Cahaba River: Summer 2001
(Su01), Spring 2002 (Sp02), Fall 2002 (Fa02), and Summer 2003 (Su03);
collecting and analysis by Riffle/Run (R), EPA (E), and ADEM (A)
protocols; Goodner Mountain Road (GM), Deerfoot Parkway (DF), Grants
Mill Road (GR), Caldwell Mill Road (CM), Riverford Drive (RD), above
the Cahaba WWTP (UP), below the Cahaba WWTP (DN), Chace Lake CC (CL),
Bains Bridge (BB), Hoover High School (HH), Deep Pool (DP), Shelby
County 52 (52), Piper Bridge (PB), Riverbend (26), and Centreville
(CE). River miles (from the confluence with the Alabama River) are
provided for each site.

 GM DF GR CM RD UP

 189.6 186.5 161.3 144.9 141.5 138.9

Percent Dominant - Su01R 19 47 17 26

Percent Dominant - Sp02R 28 41 45 24

Percent Dominant - Sp02E 16 23 76 13

Percent Dominant - Fa02R 22 37 43 43 30

Percent Dominant - Fa02A 26 42 53 36 38

Percent Dominant - Su03E 20 18 17 28 27 31

 DN CL BB HH DP 52

 138.6 137.3 136.8 134.3 131.2 127.0

Percent Dominant - Su01R 23 29 17 19 17

Percent Dominant - Sp02R 25 32 25 34 11

Percent Dominant - Sp02E 16 35 13 21 25

Percent Dominant - Fa02R 71 42 25 18 12

Percent Dominant - Fa02A 30 67 16 21 38

Percent Dominant - Su03E 27 19 29 29 24

 52d PB 26 CE

 127.0 95.8 89.3 81.2

Percent Dominant - Su01R 83

Percent Dominant - Sp02R 72 16 23

Percent Dominant - Sp02E 21 14 9

Percent Dominant - Fa02R 73

Percent Dominant - Fa02A 26

Percent Dominant - Su03E 25 44 32 31

Table 9. EPT Taxa for macroinvertebrates collected at fifteen sites on
the upper Cahaba River: Summer 2001 (Su01), Spring 2002 (Sp02), Fall
2002 (Fa02), and Summer 2003 (Su03); collecting and analysis by
Riffle/Run (R), EPA (E), and ADEM (A) protocols; Goodner Mountain Road
(GM), Deerfoot Parkway (DF), Grants Mill Road (GR), Caldwell Mill Road
(CM), Riverford Drive (RD), above the Cahaba WWTP (UP), below the
Cahaba WWTP (DN), Chace Lake CC (CL), Bains Bridge (BB), Hoover High
School (HH), Deep Pool (DP), Shelby County 52 (52), Piper Bridge (PB),
Riverbend (26), and Centreville (CE). River miles (from the confluence
with the Alabama River) are provided for each site.

 GM DF GR CM RD UP DN CL

 189.6 186.5 161.3 144.9 141.5 138.9 138.6 137.3

EPT Taxa - Su01R 13 14 10 10 10

EPT Taxa - Sp02R 25 26 11 12 11

EPT Taxa - Sp02E 16 19 9 11 10

EPT Taxa - Fa02R 20 12 14 12 6 9

EPT Taxa - Fa02A 22 21 17 15 10 13

EPT Taxa - Su03E 11 14 10 9 6 7 7

 BB HH DP 52 52d PB 26 CE

 136.8 134.3 131.2 127.0 127.0 95.8 89.3 81.2

EPT Taxa - Su01R 12 12 12 12 12

EPT Taxa - Sp02R 11 11 15 11 9 16 15

EPT Taxa - Sp02E 9 8 13 8 8 11 14

EPT Taxa - Fa02R 11 10 19 16 14

EPT Taxa - Fa02A 19 16 22 22 25

EPT Taxa - Su03E 7 8 4 8 8 6 5 7

Table 10. Percent Chironomids for macroinvertebrates collected at
fifteen sites on the upper Cahaba River: Summer 2001 (Su01), Spring 2002
(Sp02), Fall 2002 (Fa02), and Summer 2003 (Su03); collecting and
analysis by Riffle/Run (R), EPA (E), and ADEM (A) protocols; Goodner
Mountain Road (GM), Deerfoot Parkway (DF), Grants Mill Road (GR),
Caldwell Mill Road (CM), Riverford Drive (RD), above the Cahaba WWTP
(UP), below the Cahaba WWTP (DN), Chace Lake CC (CL), Bains Bridge (BB),
Hoover High School (HH), Deep Pool (DP), Shelby County 52 (52), Piper
Bridge (PB), Riverbend (26), and Centreville (CE). River miles (from the
confluence with the Alabama River) are provided for each site.

 GM DF GR CM RD UP DN

 189.6 186.5 161.3 144.9 141.5 138.9 138.6

Percent Chiros - Su01R 48 6 6 8

Percent Chiros - Sp02R 11 5 15 11

Percent Chiros - Sp02E 3 5 3 11

Percent Chiros - Fa02R 25 2 2 2 2 1

Percent Chiros - Fa02A 37 6 7 13 7 5

Percent Chiros - Su03E 54 14 4 12 3 11 19

 CL BB HH DP 52 52d PB

 137.3 136.8 134.3 131.2 127.0 127.0 95.8

Percent Chiros - Su01R 7 2 18 9 12 0

Percent Chiros - Sp02R 19 6 17 4 24 1

Percent Chiros - Sp02E 6 7 8 1 3 0

Percent Chiros - Fa02R 2 7 10 3 1

Percent Chiros - Fa02A 3 28 38 10 15

Percent Chiros - Su03E 12 9 2 5 2 8

 26 CE

 89.3 81.2

Percent Chiros - Su01R

Percent Chiros - Sp02R 36 33

Percent Chiros - Sp02E 15 25

Percent Chiros - Fa02R

Percent Chiros - Fa02A

Percent Chiros - Su03E 8 15

Table 11. Ratio of EPT/EPT + Chironomids for macroinvertebrates
collected at fifteen sites on the upper Cahaba River: Summer 2001
(Su01), Spring 2002 (Sp02), Fall 2002 (Fa02), and Summer 2003 (Su03);
collecting and analysis by Riffle/Run (R), EPA (E), and ADEM (A)
protocols; Goodner Mountain Road (GM), Deerfoot Parkway (DF), Grants
Mill Road (GR), Caldwell Mill Road (CM), Riverford Drive (RD), above the
Cahaba WWTP (UP), below the Cahaba WWTP (DN), Chace Lake CC (CL), Bains
Bridge (BB), Hoover High School (HH), Deep Pool (DP), Shelby County 52
(52), Piper Bridge (PB), Riverbend (26), and Centreville (CE). River
miles (from the confluence with the Alabama River) are provided for each
site.

 GM DF GR CM RD UP

 189.6 186.5 161.3 144.9 141.5 138.9

EPT/EPT + Chiros - Su01R .49 .92 .90 .88

EPT/EPT + Chiros - Sp02R .86 .94 .59 .85

EPT/EPT + Chiros - Sp02E .97 .94 .81 .86

EPT/EPT + Chiros - Fa02R .69 .96 .93 .91 .85

EPT/EPT + Chiros - Fa02A .41 .80 .80 .68 .68

EPT/EPT + Chiros - Su03E .24 .81 .93 .86 .96 .82

 DN CL BB HH DP

 138.6 137.3 136.8 134.3 131.2

EPT/EPT + Chiros - Su01R .86 .95 .73 .85

EPT/EPT + Chiros - Sp02R .75 .84 .79 .94

EPT/EPT + Chiros - Sp02E .89 .74 .87 .98

EPT/EPT + Chiros - Fa02R .92 .92 .80 .87

EPT/EPT + Chiros - Fa02A .86 .76 .45 .52

EPT/EPT + Chiros - Su03E .71 .79 .86 .97

 52 52d PB 26 CE

 127.0 127.0 95.8 89.3 81.2

EPT/EPT + Chiros - Su01R .81 .97

EPT/EPT + Chiros - Sp02R .62 .95 .58 .62

EPT/EPT + Chiros - Sp02E .91 .99 .79 .61

EPT/EPT + Chiros - Fa02R .95 .72

EPT/EPT + Chiros - Fa02A .71 .83

EPT/EPT + Chiros - Su03E .91 .97 .80 .90 .72


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This project was supported by Jefferson County Environmental Services, and we thank Jack Swann of that agency. Much of the day-to-day specimen sorting was performed by Rebecca Gibb, Jennifer Spears, and Wendy Wammack. Ron Jenkins aided in taxonomic decisions, while scientists at TAI Strand made the initial chironomid identifications. We also thank Don Blancher and Susan Sklenar of TAI Strand, who helped greatly in project design and implementation.

REFERENCES

Alabama Department of Environmental Management. 1999. Standard operating procedures and quality control assurance manual, vol. 1: Freshwater macroinvertebrate biological assessment. ADEM, Montgomery, AL.

Barbour, M. T., J. Gerritsen, B. D. Snyder, and J. B. Stribling. 1999. Rapid bioassessment protocols for use in streams and wadeable rivers: Periphyton, benthic macroinvertebrates and fish, 2nd ed. EPA 841-B-99-002. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency; Office of Water; Washington, DC.

Edmunds, G. F. Jr., S. L. Jensen, and L. Berner. 1976. The mayflies of North and Central America. Univ. of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN.

Epler, J. H. 2001. Identification manual for the larval Chironomidae (Diptera) of North and South Carolina. NC Dept. of Environment and Natural Res., Div. of Water Quality.

Harris, S. C., P. K. Lago, and P. E. O'Neil. 1984. Trichoptera of the Cahaba River system in Alabama. Entomol. News 95:103-112.

Harris, S. C., R. W. Hanley, K. J. Tennessen, and P. E. O'Neil. 1987. Aquatic invertebrates in the Warrior Coal Basin of Alabama. Bulletin 127, Geol. Survey of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL.

Hilsenhoff, W. L. 1987. An improved biotic index of organic stream pollution. Great Lakes Ent. 20:31-39.

Howard, H. S., B. Quinn, M. C. Flexner, and R. L. Raschke. 2002. Cahaba River: Biological and water quality studies, Birmingham, Alabama; March/April, September and July, 2002. US EPA, Region 4, Science and Ecosystem Support Div., Ecological Support Branch.

Karr, J. R., K. D. Fausch, P. L. Angermeier, P. R. Yant, and I. J. Schlosser. 1986. Assessing biological integrity in running waters: A method and its rationale. Special Publication 5, Illinois Natural History Survey, Champaign, IL.

Mayden, R. L. and B. R. Kuhadja. 1989. Systematics of Notropis cahabae, a new cyprinid fish endemic to the Cahaba River of the Mobile basin. Bull. Alabama Museum Nat. Hist. 9:1-16.

Merritt, R. W. and K. W. Cummins, eds. 1996. An introduction to the aquatic insects of North America, 3rd ed. Kendall/Hunt Publ., Dubuque, IA.

Mettee, M. F., P. E. O'Neil, and J. M. Pierson. 1996. Fishes of Alabama and the Mobile Basin. Oxmoor House, Birmingham, AL.

O'Neil, P. E. 2002. A biological assessment of selected sites in the Cahaba River system, Alabama. Unpubl. MS submitted to the US EPA (Contract #2R-0117-NAGF); Geol. Survey of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL.

O'Neil, P. E. and T. E. Shepard. 2000. Application of the index of biological integrity for assessing biological condition of wadeable streams in the Black Warrior River system, Alabama. Bulletin 169, Geol. Survey of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL.

Onorato, D., K. R. Marion and R. A. Angus. 1998. Longitudinal variations in the ichthyological assemblages of the upper Cahaba River: Possible effects of urbanization in a watershed. J. Freshwater Ecology 13:139-154.

Pierson, J. M., W. M. Howell, R. A. Stiles, M. F. Mettee, P. E. O'Neil, R. D. Suttkus, and J. S. Ramsey. 1989. Fishes of the Cahaba River System in Alabama. Bulletin 134, Geol. Survey of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL.

Shepard, T. E., P. E. O'Neil, S. W. McGregor, M. F. Mettee, and S. C. Harris. 1997. Biomonitoring and water-quality studies in the upper Cahaba River drainage of Alabama, 1989-94. Bulletin 165, Geol. Survey of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL.

Smith, D. G. 2001. Pennak's freshwater invertebrates of the United States, Porifera to Crustacea. John Wiley & Sons, New York.

Thorp, J. H. and A. P. Covich, eds. 1991. Ecology and classification of North American freshwater invertebrates. Academic Press, San Diego, CA.

Wiggins, G. B. 1996. Larvae of the North American caddisfly genera (Trichoptera), 2nd ed. Univ. of Toronto Press, Toronto, Canada.

L. J. Davenport

W. Mike Howell

Department of Biology

Samford University

Birmingham, AL 35229

Kevin J. Morse

Konard Yancie

J. Lynn Wood

Barton Laboratory

1290 Oak Grove Road

Homewood, AL 35209
COPYRIGHT 2005 Alabama Academy of Science
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2005 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Davenport, L.J.; Howell, W. Mike; Morse, Kevin J.; Yancie, Konard; Wood, J. Lynn
Publication:Journal of the Alabama Academy of Science
Geographic Code:1U6AL
Date:Jan 1, 2005
Words:8896
Previous Article:Minutes.
Next Article:Activity of cytochrome P-450 in Xenopus laevis embryos as determined by modified enzyme assay.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2019 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters