ML073240715

Report No.01-16F, 2000 Savannah River Biological Survey for Westinghouse Savannah River Company, WSRC-TR-2002-00057

ML073240715
Person / Time
Site:	Vogtle
Issue date:	09/30/2001
From:	Arnett M Academy of Natural Sciences
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NL-07-2097, V-400, WSRC-TR-2002-00057 01-16F
Download: ML073240715 (271)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:V-400 Arnett 2001 WSRc-TR-2002..Q0057 2000 Savannah River Biological Surveys for Westinghouse Savannah River Company by M.Arnett Westinghouse Savannah River Company Savannah River Site Aiken, South Carolina 29808 DOE Contract No.DE*AC09*96SR18500 This paper was prepared in connection with work done under the above contract number with the U.S.Department of Energy.By acceptance of this paper, the publisher and/or recipient acknowledges the U.S.Government's right to retain a nonexclusive, royalty*free license In and to any copyright covering this paper, along with the right to reproduce and to authorize others to reproduce all or part of the copyrighted paper. 2000 Savannah River Biological Surveys for Westinghouse Savannah River Company Report No.OI-16F South Carolina DHEC Laboratory I.D.#89011 Patrick Center for Environmental Research 1900 Benjamin Franklin Parkway Philadelphia, PA 19103-1195 30 September 2001 This document was prepared in conjunction with work accomplished under Contract No.AC09-96SR18500 with the U.S.Department of Energy.DISCLAIMER This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights.Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof The views.and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof This report has been reproduced directly from the best available copy.Available for sale to the public, in paper, from: U.S.Department of Commerce, National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161 phone: (800)553-6847 fax: (703)605-6900 email: orders@ntis.fedworld.gov online ordering: http://www.ntis. gov/support/index.html Available electronically at http://www.osti.gov/bridge Available for a processing fee to U.S.Department of Energy and its contractors, in paper, from: U.S.Department of Energy, Office ofScientificand Technical Information, P.O.Box 62, Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062 phone: (865)576-8401 fax: (865)576-5728 email: reports@adonis.osti.gov NON-TECHNICAL SYNTHESIS 2000 Savannah River Studies Overview and Rationale The Academy's monitoring program, conducted since 1951, assesses the effects of the Savannah River Site on the health of the Savannah he Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia has been conducting biological and water quality studies of the Savannah River since 1951.These studies are designed to assess potential effects of Savannah River Site (SRS)contaminants and warm-water discharges on theeral health of the river and its tributaries. They therefore look for spatial patterns of biological disturbance that aregraphically associated with the site, and for temporal patterns of change that indicate improving or deteriorating conditions. Prior to 1997, four basic types ofstudieswereducted by the Academy: Comprehensive Surveys,sory Surveys, Diatometer Studies, and Plant Vogtleveys.Comprehensive Sur-Patrick Center for Environmental Research GEORGIA Components of the Academy's Savannah River studies have included basic waterchemistry,diatoms, other attached algae, aquatic macrophytes (mosses and rooted aquatic plants), protozoa, aquatic insects,insect macroinvertebrates, and fish.The study designcludes multiple biological groups spanning a broad range of ecological roles, both because no single group is the best indicator of every component of water quality and because there isspread agreement thating the entire system is important. To Aiken+*New Ellenton River ecosystem. II*I I 0 2 4 Miles The Academy of Natural Sciences 2000 Savannah River Studies Cursory*Conducted Every Year*Four*Sampling Periods*Fewer Study Components

• Fewer Sampling Stations Comprehensive
• Roughly Every Four Years*Two Sampling Periods*All Study Components*.All Sampling Stations The Academy of Natural Sciences NON-TECHNICAL SYNTHESIS veys included the largest number of study components, were carried out rougWy every four years, and included twopling periods during the year.Cursory Surveys included aduced set of study components-typically attached algae, insects, and fish-but were conducted annually, with four sampling periods per year (except in years with sive Surveys, which substituted for two of the usual Cursory sampling periods).Thus, Cursory Surveys provided morerowly focused information, but on a more frequent basis.tometer Studies addressed only the diatom flora but provided year-round annual monitoring.

Plant Vogtle Surveys, which included the same components as Comprehensive Surveys but different sampling stations, were initiated in 1985 in order to assess potential impacts of Georgia Power and Light's Vogtle Nuclear Power Plant so that these could be separated from potential SRS impacts.Beginning with the 1997 study, several changes were made in the monitoring program in order to reduce the number of types of studies conducted. Aspects of the Diatometer Study and the Cursory, Comprehensive, andPlantVogtle Surveys were combined into a single, comprehensive study.Theber of study components was reduced by eliminatingments of water chemistry and protozoa.The scale of the diatometer component was also reduced, with both theber of sampling stations and the number of exposure periods being decreased. Components of the new study design include diatomstometer sampling using artificial substrates), attached algae and aquatic macrophytes (hand collections from naturalstrates), aquatic insects,non-insectmacroinvertebrates, and fish.Diatometers are deployed for one two-week exposureriod in each month of the year.Four sampling stations areployed in each study component: three exposed to SRS influence (Stations 2B, 5, and 6)andupstream reference station that is thought not to be exposed to SRS influencetion 1).(Station locations are shown in the map on thevious page.)Multiple exposed stations are employed because of the complex pattern of SRS inputs along the river.As in previous Academy studies on the Savannah River,tential impacts of the SRS are assessed in the new studysign by determining whether differences exist between the exposed and reference stations that are either greater or of a ii NON-TECHNICAL SYNTHESIS 2000 Savannah River Studies different character than would be expected if they were due merely to natural differences among sampling sites.Forple, the character of differences among stations is judged in part by comparing the individual species collected. Evidence of impact exists if a station shows elevated abundances ofcies known to be moderately or highly tolerant of pollution and depressed abundances of species known to be ,intolerant of pollution. If this pattern is detected at the exposed stations but not at the reference station, then there is evidence that the impact originates within the study area and further studies would be recommended to determine the exact type and source of pollution. If, however, the pattern is seen at theerence station, then the impact must be due to sourcesstream from the study area.Other potential types of evidence for impact includecreased numbers of species, decreased numbers ofals, and numerical dominance by a small proportion of the species present.These patterns arise because pollution tends to reduce population sizes in a majority of species, while a few tolerate or thrive in such conditions. Determining whether exposed and reference stations differ is complicated by the fact that considerable variation exists even among samples collected at the same time from the sametion.Apparent differences may therefore be spurious if each station is characterized by only a single sample.For thisson, several components of the Academy's studies collect multiple samples from each station;making it possible to quantify both of the important components of variation: within and among stations.Compelling evidence for station differences exists if average variation among samples from different stations is significantly greater than averageation among samples from the same station, as judged bypropriate statistical techniques (e.g., analysis of variance). When statistically significant biological differences among stations are found, it is advisable to*determine whether these might be caused by differences in physical characteristics of the stations rather than pollution. For example, the fish fauna at a station with shallow, fast-moving water is likely to differ from that at a station with deep, slow-moving water.Thesible role of differences in physical characteristics such as water depth, current speed, and substrate type can begated using astatisticaltechnique called analysis of covari-The Academy of Natural Sciences iii Patrick Center for Environmental Research 2000 Savannah River Studies The Academy of Natural Sciences NON-TECHNICAL SYNTHESIS ance.The basic idea is to determine a simple statisticaltionship between the measured physical and biologicalteristics, then use this relationship to remove the effect of station differences in physical characteristics from thecal data.If station differences persist after this adjustment, they probably are caused by something other than theured physical factors.Another type of variation that the Academy's studies address is variation over time.Important components of temporalation include seasonal trends, multiyear trends, and trendless (random)variation. All of these components can be assessed using the unique dataset generated by the Academy'sterm monitoring program in the Savannah River.Regular sampling has continued with relatively little change inods since the early 1950s, making this one of the mostprehensive ecological datasets available for any of the world's rivers.Such long-term records of biological change are valuable for several reasons.Smce they-aUow the norrriaf degree of year': to-year variability at a site to be quantified, changes observed from one survey to the next can be assessed to determine whether they fallwithinthe normal range, much as one would use a control chart.Changes that are outside this rangevide evidence of altered conditions at the study site.These datasets are also useful in distinguishing betweential impacts of the Savannah River Site and variation caused by other factors.For example, part of the biological variation observed over time is caused bydocumentedchanges in river flow, wastewater treatmentmethods,dredging activities, and so on.Identifying correlations between the known history of such changes on the one hand, and components of variation in long-term datasets on the other, provides evidence that these components of biological variation are not attributable to SRS operations. Finally, long-term datasets can provide compelling evidence for multiyear trends of improvement or deterioration insystem health.The Academy's long-term data suggest, forample, that there has been a relatively steady increase in the number of species of aquatic insects living in the river during the last 35 years.Since aquatic insect diversity is believed to be a sensitive measure of environmental quality, this pattern iv NON-TECHNICAL SYNTHESIS 2000 Savannah River Studies may indicate a long-term trend of improving water quality in the Savannah River.Styrofoam Frame Float!\!Summary of Results Diatometer Study atherwood diatometers were deployed at Stations 1, 2B, 5, and 6 for 12 2-week exposure periods, withtrieval dates spanning 18 January to 27 December 2000.All diatoms were identified to species.(Diatometers were also deployed at Station 2A;these samples werechived but were not analyzed.) The diatom flora on diatometer slides was analyzed forcies richness (=number of species), percent dominance (=percent of total specimen count on a slide comprising domi-.-nant species, where a dominant species-is operationallyfined as one with more than 1024 counted cells), Shannon-Wiener diversity (=a joint measure of speciesness and the similarity of species abundances, derived fromformation theory), and relative abundances of dominant species.To remove the pronounced seasonal variation from station comparisons, data on species richness at the fourtions were ranked for each exposure period, and the ranks were then statistically analyzed via analysis of variance.Data on percent dominance and Shannon-Wiener diversity were analyzed in the same way.The species composition of the diatom assemblage waslar at all stations.No statistically significant differences among stations were detected for species-richness rank, but the reference station (Station 1)showed significantly lower dominance rank and higher diversity rank than did theposed stations (Stations 2B, 5, and 6).The reduction insity at Station 6 was not as severe as found in studies conducted in 1986 through 1996.Variation among seasons in 2000 was found to be more pronounced than variation among stations.Ecological and pollution tolerances of the dominant species were found to be similar at all stations, with most of the dominant species being characteristic of alkaline waters with moderately high nutrient concentrations. The fact that the reference station showed lower dominance rank and The Academy of Natural Sciences v Patrick Center for Environmental Research

.mUU Savannah River Studies NON*TECIINICAJJ I';;SIS"-higher diversity rank than any of the exposed stations I!\(.'011-sistent with an SRS impact;but there was no corresponqin pattern in ecological or pollution tolerances of the species.Evidence is therefore equivocal regarding a SRS impact on water-quality components to which a are most sensitive.

Attached Algae and Aquatic Macrophytes vi ttached algae and aquatic macrophytes werequalitatively (via hand collections) at Stations5 and 6 during 8-11 September 2000.All specir\were identified to species.Station and year comparisons were based on the numberspecies in major taxonomic groups and on known polluti\l tolerances and relative abundances of species.The algal flora was siIniIar at all four stations.It alsoevidence of nutrient enrichment at all stations, apparentl)' from sources upstream from the study site.No significant beds of submerged aquatic vegetation were observed, asbeen true since 1990 (inclusive). Species richness and coI1\sition of both algae and aquatic macrophytes were similar II those of previous studies.These results provide no evideIlQ of an SRS impact on the algal flora or aquatic macrophytes. With the exception of mussels, the non-insect brate fauna in 2000 was broadly similar to that inveys (1976 to 1999), with four major assemblages clominati(bivalves, snails, crustaceans, and leeches).In total, 30 taxa were collected. This total is significantly below the average for the previous 9 studies (=42.33)and is less than the total ualitative samples of non-insect macroin vertebrawere collected at Stations 1, 2B, 5 and 6 during:;2)28 August and 8-11 September 2000.Sampling eh ing the August period concentrated on mussel habitats.All specimens were identified to the lowest practical taxonomic level.Non-insect Macroinvertebrates The Academy of Natural Sciences NON*TECHNICAL SYNTHESIS 2000 Savannah River Studies for any of the previous four studies (range=37 to 49), though it is within the range for the previous 9 studies (=27 to 60).Relatively low taxa richness was also observed in 1999 (total taxa=37).The decrease in 2000 compared to 1999 mainlyflects a decrease from 13 to 8 in the number of mussel species collected. The reasons for these low totals are not known.The number of taxa collected in 2000 was higher at Stations 2B and 5 (=20 and 21, respectively) than at Stations 1 and 6 (=17 and 16, respectively). This pattern is opposite thetern observed in 1999 and is not consistent with an SRSpact.Aquatic Insects uantitative and qualitative saniples of aquaticsects were collected at Stations 1, 2B, 5 and 6ing 25-28 April and 10-13 September 2000.The quantitative cial substrates, which permit replicate samples at each station and rigorous statistical comparisons. Qualitative samples were collected from a wide variety of natural substrates and habitat types.Specimens were identified to the lowestcal taxonomic level (usually species).Station and season comparisons were based both on visualspection of data from the qualitative collections and oncal analysis (analysis of variance)of quantitative estimates of several types of indices.These indices include densities oflected taxa, total species richness, richness of selected groups of pollution-sensitive taxa (Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera) and pollution-tolerant taxa (Chironomidae), Shannon-Wiener species diversity, relative abundance ofronomids (%Chironomidae), relative abundance of the most abundant taxon and the five most abundant taxa (%nance-I,%Dominance-5), and overall degree of pollutionerance (Hilsenhoff Biotic Index, North Carolina Biotic Index).Total species richness in the qualitative collections was much higher than in the quantitative samples.For the April andtember samples combined, qualitative samples contained 195 taxa while quantitative samples contained only 104 taxa;46 taxa were unique to the qualitative collections while only 10 taxa were unique to the quantitative samples.These differ-The Academy of Natural Sciences vii Patrick Center for Environmental Research 2000 Savannah River Studies NON*TECHNICAL SYNTHESIS ences probably are due mainly to the fact that qualitativeples were collected from all major habitat types whiletative samples largely reflect species typical of snag and debris habitats.The species composition of insect faunas found in the April and September collections was similar to those in previous years and contained numerous and abundant tive taxa.Of the major insect groups found in qualitativelections, the most species-rich were dipterans (61 taxa, mainly Chironomidae), beetles (39 taxa), dragonflies and damselflies (27 taxa), mayflies (26 taxa), and caddisflies (26 taxa).Total species richness was much higher than in most previous years, including the highest recorded numbers of mayfly,disfly, beetle, dragonfly/damselfly, and dipteran species at one or more stations and seasons.Most of the additional taxa collected in 2000, however, were not common.TPe dominant taxa were therefore similar to those in previous years and were also similar among the four sampling stations.--Statistical analysis of the quantitative samples revealed a few differences among stations and between seasons, but none of these differences was consistent with the pattern expected for an SRS impact.On the contrary, the results indicate that the condition of the aquatic insect assemblage at the exposedtions tends to be superior to the condition at the referencetion.The same conclusion was demonstrated by results of the 1999 study.Overall, results of the 2000 aquatic insect study suggest that differences detected among sites and seasons reflect natural spatial and temporal variation found in all rivers and streams.The results provide no evidence of a negative SRS impact on the aquatic insect assemblage. Fish The Academy of Natural Sciences F ish were sampled at Stations 1, 2B, 5 and 6 during 8-.12 September 2000.The main collecting techniques were seining, boat electrofishing in the main channel, and walk-along electrofishing in backwaters. All specimens were identified to species.Species richness, species diversity (Shannon-Wiener index), and densities of individual species were estimated for each viii NON-TECHNICAL SYNTHESIS 2000 Savannah River Studies quantitative seine sample.These data were analyzed using analysis of variance and analysis of covariance. Densities and total population sizes of fish collected in backwater areas via electrofishingwereestimated statistically by a depletionnique.In total, 50 species of fish were collected in the 2000 survey, with five species (spottail shiner, bannerfm shiner, bluegill, brook silverside, and whitefm shiner)composingmately three fourths of the total catch.No statisticallycant among-station differences were found for species richness, species diversity, or density.These results arelar to those of the 1999 study and provide no evidence of an SRS impact on the fish assemblage. Conclusions s in previous Savannah River studies, the 2000sult§Jor diatometersamples and for attached algae and aquatic macrophytes indicate nutrientment at all stations, evidently due to sources upstream from the study area Several differences among stations weretectedin various components of the survey, but the onlyterns consistent with an SRS impact were that dominance rank was significantly lower and diversity rank wascantly higher in diatometer samples at the reference station than at any of the exposed stations, Because evidence from other study components did not corroborate this pattern, and because there was no corresponding pattern in ecological or pollution tolerances of the dominant diatom species intometer samples, we conclude that results of the 2000hensive study do not provide compelling evidence of an SRS impact on water quality or biological communities in thevannah River.The Academy of Natural Sciences ix Patrick Center for Environmental Research QUALITY ASSURANCE STATEMENT 2000 Savannah River Studies Study Number: 760 Study Title: 2000 Savannah River Biological Surveys for Westinghouse Savannah Riverpany.This study was performed under the general provisions of the Patrick Center's Quality Assurance hnplementation Plan (Rev.1, June 1998).The final report was determined to be an accurate reflection of the data obtained.9/25/01 9/21/01 9/19/01 9/22/01 9/20/01 9/27/01 The dates that Quality Assurance activities on this study are given Pelow.Data Review: Gauge Height: Diatometer: Algae: Macroinvertebrates: Aquatic Insects: Fish: Report Review: 8/27-30/01 ARCHNING: Raw data and the final report are ftled in the Patrick Center's archives.I Date Robin S.Davis Quality Assurance Unit Patrick Center for Environmental Research Academy of Natural Sciences The Academy of Natural Sciences x Patrick Center for Environmental Research TABLE OF CONTENTS 2000 Savannah River Studies Page NON-TECHNICAL SYNTHESIS i Overview and Rationale................................................i Summary of Results000******************* v Diatometer Study..0*****0*****00**0****0****0*0***0**0**00*******v Attached Algae and Aquatic Macrophytes000************************** vi Non-insect Macroinvertebrates 0******00******0 vi Aquatic Insects...0****0******************** 0****0*0**0*0*******vii Fish..0****00******0*******0**0**00000*********0*********** 0**vii Conclusions .00************** 0*************00****************** viii QUALITY ASSURANCE STATEMENT 0*****0*********** 0.00 oX INTRODUCTION .0*0************* 0******000************************** 1 PERSONNEL AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS '" 0****00******0***********00*5 STUDY DESIGN...0******0************* 0*****0*************** 0*******7 LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF STATIONS...0********** 0************ 9 0***************** 00*************** 15 A.DIATOMETER STUDIES" 0******0********** 0********************** 17 Methods and Procedures 17 Results..0******0*********0*********************** 0****0*0*********23 Discussion 0************************** 0********'**00***************** 38 Appendix A.....0'*****00*********0**0'"********0***********000**47 B.ATTACHED ALGAE AND AQUATIC MACROPHYTES0*0******0**62 Introduction ....0*************** 0***0********0*0*0***0*0*****000****62 Materials and Methods 0*******0********0*0******0****0******;****0***63 Results.0********************* 0*****00 o...o..".0***0.0****0**0****64 Discussion 0******000*****0********** 0*********** '.0*0****68 Appendix B 0*******0********0**00********** 0*****000**00 71 C.NON-INSECT MACROINVERTEBRATES ...0*****0****************** 74 Introduction .....00************** 0************* 0************00****0*74 Materials and Methods.00********** 0********0****0***0**************** 76 Results 0******0***0********0***o 0******78 Conclusions 0*****0************ 0*****0*************0************ 111 Mussel Fauna 0***00********** 0***00********0*****114 Species Diversity Among Years 0****0*****0*************00********** '.0 115 Species Diversity Among Stations 0************* 0***0**000*****117 Summary..0***'**0******************* '"**0****0******0******0****118 Appendix Coo 0************************* 0*********0**120 The Academy of Natural Sciences xi Patrick Center for Environmental Research TABLE OF CONTENTS 2000 Savannah River Studies Page D.AQUATIC INSECTS 122 Introduction 122 Materials and Methods: 123 Results 135 Discussion 201 E.FISH 207 Introduction 207 Methods 208 Site and Sampling Descriptions and Conditions 218 Results 221 G.LITERATURE CITED 251 The Academy of Natural Sciences xii Patrick Center for Environmental Research INTRODUCTION In the longest study of a large river in the U.S., The Academy has monitored the biology and chemistry of the Savannah River Site since 1951, and near Plant Vogtle since 1985, to assess potential effects of those facilities on the river ecosystem. 2000 Savannah River Studies n 2000, The Academy of Natural Sciences ofphia (ANSP)conducted biological monitoring of thevannah River for Westinghouse Savannah River Company.This was the forty-ninth in a series of multiplephiclevelbiological studies of the river in the vicinity of the Savannah River Site, near Augusta, Georgia.The fIrst survey was conducted in 1951 and 1952 before the operation of the Savannah River Site and the construction of Clark Hill Dam"to establish an objective measure of the aquatic life...so that any signifIcant effect...could be determined in theture" (ANSP, 1953:2).This study was conducted during each of the spring through winter seasons to establish baseline water quality conditions, as reflected primarily in the diversity of the aquatic biota, in the vicinity of the plant prior totions.Theftrstpostoperational (SRS and Clark Hill Darn)study was undertaken in 1955 and 1956"to determine whether any change had occurred...in the aquatic life and general environmental factors in the Savannah River" (ANSP, 1957:1).The operation of Clark Hill Darn reduced the wide seasonal variations in discharge and reduced the silt loads,cept as determined by local meteorological conditions.tation was able to become more generally established in sheltered areas.Since the ftrst postoperational study,hensive river investigations were conducted approximately every four years (1955/56, 1960, 1965, 1968,1972,1976, 1980, 1984, 1989 and 1993)to monitor spatial and temporal chemical and biological patterns in the river.The comprehensive surveys were augmented by lesssive, but more frequent cursory studies.These cursorytigations were intended to provide a relatively frequent, cost-effective interim assessment of whether there has been any major change in the biota since the most recenthensive survey.Generally, fewer elements of the biota[ftshes, algae and macroinvertebrates (primarily insects)]were studied at various times of the year (once, twice and The Academy of Natural Sciences 1 Patrick Center for Environmental Research INTRODUCTION 2000 Savannah River Studies four times*a year for the fishes, algae and macroinvertebrates, respectively) in cursory surveys.Within the Savannah River study area (Fig.1), studies have alsobeenconducted in the vicinity of Georgia Power and Light's Vogtle Nuclear Power Plant.The first survey wassigned and conducted in 1985 with an additionaltional study in 1986.The purpose of the 1985 and 1986 studies was to establish baseline water quality conditions, as reflected primarily in the diversity of the aquatic biota, in the vicinity of the plant prior to plant operation. Commercialduction of the Vogtle facility commenced in early summer 1987, after which the first operational survey was undertaken. Since that time seven more operational studies (1988, 1990,1991,1993, 1994, 1995 and 1996)have been undertaken to monitor spatial and temporal chemical and biological changes in the river.The presence of the Plant Vogtle survey stations can be seen as additional data poil1ts in thelongestcomprehensive study of a large river in the United States.The Catherwood Diatometer program, conducted for the past 48 years, is designed for continuous biological monitoring of the Savannah River.Diatoms are used as biological indicator organisms because they represent the predominant periphyton (attached algae)in most water bodies, and because they areliable indicators of adverse impact on water quality due to their characteristic patterns of species composition andblage structure. These studies consist of analyses of thetom flora growing on Diatometer substrates (glass slides)in the river.The exposed substrates are retained at Theemy as a permanent record of water conditions. The results of these various studies (comprehensive, cursory, Plant Vogtle, Diatometer) constitute the primary biological history of the Savannah River in the region of the Savannah River Site from 1951 through 1996.Beginningwiththe 1997 survey, modifications in the program were implemented. These changes combined aspects of all four studies into agle program that is referred to herein as a comprehensive study.The primary changes included sampling at Station 2B (formerly Vogtle Station V-2)rather than Station 3,ter monitoring monthly (biweekly in 1996), quantitativesect sampling semiannually (semiannually in 1996 and quart;erly in 1995), qualitative algal and macrophyte studies The Academy of Natural Sciences 2 Patrick Center for Environmental Research INTRODUCTION 2000 Savannah River Studies To Aiken'" SOUTH CAROLINA GEORGIA Sweetwater Creek24 Miles...Jackson e.o Figure 1.Survey stations on the Savannah River in the vicinity of the Savannah River Site.Stations 1, 2A, 28, 5 and 6 were sampled for the 2000 Diatometer studies and Stations 1, 28, 5 and 6 were sampled for the comprehensive investigation. The Academy of Natural Sciences 3 Patrick Center for Environmental Research INTRODUCfION 2000 Savannah River Studies annually[annually in 1996 (generally biannually in cursory studies and quarterly in comprehensive investigations)].ther modifications were made in the program beginning in 1999.These included the qualitative algal study ing on fIlamentous algae (archiving diatom samples)anding only significant changes in the aquatic vascular plant flora. surveys were omitted from the Academy studies in 1999.Major alterations in the river during the survey years have been due to dredging and the creation of oxbows by cutting off meanders.These modifications have changed base flows and altered or removed sheltered habitats, as well as resulted in spoil deposition and siltation. The increased development of beds of aquatic plants that started with upriver controls of river flows reached their peak by the time of the 1972 survey.At this time luxuriant beds of aquatic vascular plants weresent in the river and presumably reflected elevated organic loadings from effluents emanating from the Augusta, Georgia area.By the 1976 survey, improved effluent treatmentssulted in an improvement in water quality and a sharption in the extent of the vascular plant beds.Since 1990, submerged aquatic vascular plant beds have been absent from the main stem of the Savannah River.For 2000, a comprehensive study was conducted in April and August/September (comprehensive studies in the September to October period have historically been referred to as the fall survey).The impacts of water conditions and vegetation to particular elements or sampling methods are discussed in each section.See the section River Gauge Height for asion of river heights and their relevance to the field sampling effort.The Academy of Natural Sciences 4 Patrick Center for Environmental Research PERSONNEL AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 2000 Savannah River Studies hese studies were performed under the supervision of Dr.David D.Hart, Director, of the Patrick Center of Environmental Research of The Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. Dr.Raymond W.Bouchard, Project Leader, was responsible for the professional quality of all field and laboratory work.Robin S.Davis, Scientific Editor, coordinated all the data for the report for this program.Therection and implementation of individual project elements were the responsibility of the Principal Scientific tors.The f()llowing are the personnel who participated in the 2000 Savannah River studies.Diatometer Studies Supervisor and Principal Scientific mvestigator: Frank Acker, M.S.Laboratory Biologists: Frank Acker, M.S., Heidi Brabazon, Erin Hagen and Eduardo Morales, Ph.D.Graphics: Su-ing Y ong Quality Assurance: Charles W.Reimer, Ph.D.Algae Studies Supervisor, Field Biologist and Principal Scientific Investigator: Robert Grant, Jr.Laboratory Biologists: Robert Grant, JI.and Frank Acker, M.S.Macroinvertebrate Studies Supervisor and Principal Scientific Investigator: Raymond W.Bouchard, Ph.D.Field Biologists: Raymond W.Bouchard, Ph.D., Judith W.Bouchard, M.S.Roger Thomas and Paul Overbeck Laboratory Biologist: Raymond W.Bouchard, Ph.D.The Academy of Natural Sciences 5 Patrick Center for Environmental Research STUDY DESIGN 2000 Savannah River Studies the sun's energy into forms usable by other organisms. Free oxygen as a by-product of this process is an essential element of most aquatic organisms. Macrophytes and largetous algae are important as shelter and habitat for the aquatic fauna.Macroinvertebrates are an eclectic assemblage thatvide the main route of energy flow between the primaryducers (algae)and particulate organic matter to higher trophic levels such as fishes.Because of the sedentary nature of many species and their wide range of pollution tolerances, they are viewed by state and federal environmental agencies as one of the most important measures of the health of an aquatic ecosystem. In general, fishes are the top carnivores in the ecosystem and those species of greatest interest to thelic.Because of their value and popularity, they constitute, with invertebrates, the groups of most concern by regulatory agencies in monitoring the health of aquatic ecosystems. Shallow-water habitats are generally considered to contain the greatest proportion of species in a riverine environment, and therefore these areas were studied most intensively. Benthic organisms which are sessile or which move only relatively short distances give the most accurate indication of conditions in a river over time, while bacterial and chemical studiescate conditions only at the time of sampling.In addition to the impact of river heights on the biota and the sampling thereof, which are discussed in the section"River Gauge Height," there has been a conspicuous absence of submerged aquatic vascular plant beds beginning with the 1990 study.Loss of this vegetation and factors that may have led to itssence (e.g., rapid changes in the hydrodynamics of the river from flooding andshiftingsubstrates and turbidity) aredent with changes reflected in the biota.The Academy of Natural Sciences 8 Patrick Center for Environmental Research f I LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF STATIONS 2000 Savannah River Studies Monitoring programs include routine examination of both reference and indicator locations to assess potential impacts.T he areas of a river chosen for comparative study should include stations which have comparablelogical habitats.This assures that the possibility of finding a particular species is equal at all stations.The total area of the station is considered less important than thesion of all types of habitats.Among the general conditions considered in selecting stations are: (1)structure, contour and stability of the riverbed;(2)current and sedimentation; (3)type and quantity of debris;(4)surrounding vegetation; (5)logistic factors.To assess the impact of a particular effluent upon its receiving waters, sampling must be conducted in ecologically similar habitats in river segments influenced by the discharge and in an area unaffected by the specific discharge. In this manner, the effects of the discharge on the aquatic community can be isolated from natural factors or non-point sources oftion.The general survey area is depicted in Figure L Four stations have been utilized for the comprehensive Savannah River studies.Although every effort is made to make thetions as comparable as possible in terms of habitat types,tions and 5 and 6 appear to be more similar physically than the other stations.They occur in a more downrivering section of the river and contain nearby oxbows and sloughs as potential sources of biota.The locations anderal habitats of the stations are discussed below.Due tofications of the river by the US Army Corps of Engineers between the 1955/56 and 1960 studies, Station 5 was stranded in a newly created oxbow.Since the main channel bypassed this station, a new Station 5 was established a short distance away in 1960.This new station has been utilized in allsequent surveys.Modifications to the river have also changed distances of the stations from the mouth of thevannah River.Therefore, the river mile (RM)designations The Academy of Natural Sciences 9 Patrick Center for Environmental Research LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF STATIONS 2000 Savannah River Studies for stations herein will not correspond to those in the older studies at all stations in 1951/52 to 1965 and Stations 1,5 and 6 in 1968.Also the lengths of stations have been designated in certain past studies as slightly smaller or larger thanently depicted.Sampling slightly outside the designated areas has also occurred in order to include a particular biotope among the station samples.Station 1 (Fig.1)T his station comprises a section of the river from Upper Three Runs Creek and any potentialpacts of the SRS.The area lies approximatelytween RM 160.35 and RM 160.85, Burke County, Georgia, ,and Aiken County, South Carolina.The upper limit of thetion is about 1.0 river mile downriver from Shell Bluffing, Burke County, Georgia.Pilings (#78)are present near the upper limit of the station on the left (oriented downriver) or South Carolina side of the river, and the lower boundary is marked by a rip rap right bank and small tributary on the Georgia side of the river.Sandy beaches are present among the pilings.Electrofishing (rotenone in the past)sitesnally consisted of residual pools behind a low levee to the pilings.Due to siltation of these pools, two new upriver localities were selected.The first appropriate sites occurred downriver from Jackson's Landing,'Aiken County, South Carolina.These two areas, associated with oxbows, arecated at RM 168.9 in the upstream arm of an incipient oxbow near the main course of the Savannah River and in thespicuous upstream arm of an oxbow near RM 169.6.This reach of the river is here designated as Station 1A.At higher water levels electro fishing may still occur at Station 1.Station 3 (Fig.1)S tation 3 comprises a section of the river downriver from Fourmile Branch and upstream from Steel Creek.This station has only been surveyed during thehensive surVeys every three to five (usually four)years from 1951 through 1993.Station 3 was not examined in the 1997 comprehensive investigation and is noted herein as a refer-The Academy of Natural Sciences 10 Patrick Center for Environmental Research LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF STATIONS 2000 Savannah River Studies ence when historical comparisons are made of the biota.It lies between RM 143.6 and RM 144.0, Burke County,gia,and Barnwell County, South Carolina.The lower limit of the station is near Brigham's Landing, Burke County,gia, and beaches on the opposite (South Carolina)side of the river.Pilings (#56A and#58)are present on the Southlina side of the river with sandy beaches among the set ofings.Near the lower boundary of the station is a steep rip rap right bank and small tributary on the Georgia side of the river near the landing.Electrofishing (rotenone in the past)areas occur in a backwater portion of the river below the most (=ultimate)row of pilings and in a residual pool behind a low levee between the penultimate and ultimate sets ofings.The water level in this latter pool is controlled by a small outlet between the two aforementioned sets of pilings.Station 5 (Fig.1)T his station comprises a section of theriverdownriver from Steel Creek and upstream from Lower Three Runs Creek.It lies between RM 135.35 and RM 135.85, Allendale County, South Carolina, and Burke County, Georgia.The lower end of the station ismately 0.8 river miles upstream from the oxbow entrance to Little Hell Landing, Allendale County, South Carolina.ings (#55)are present on the Georgia side of the river near the upriver limit of the station.The oxbow at Devil's Elbow, Georgia, and a large sandy beach on the South Carolina side of the river mark the lower end of Station 5.A small outlet stream of the Savannah River occurs on the left bank (Wild Horse Slough or Swift Gut)with a steep rip rap bankriver.Electrofishing'(rotenone in the past)sites lie at thetrance of Wild Horse Slough and in an area behind a levee opposite Devil's Elbow.Behind the levee occurs a series of pools and the second downriver one is usually sampled.The present Station 5 was established in 1960 a short distance from its original siting after dredging and removal of riveranders between the 1955/56 and 1960 studies stranded the original station in a newly created oxbow.The Academy of Natural Sciences 11 Patrick Center for Environmental Research LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF STATIONS 2000 Savannah River Studies Station 6 (Fig.1)T he downrivermost Savannah River station lies below the confluence with Lower Three Runs Creek,ven County, Georgia, and Allendale County, South Carolina.The upper end ofthe station is 1.75 river miles downriver from Johnson's Landing, Allendale County.The station consists of two sections referred to in the 1984, 1989 and 1993 studies as reaches.The upper reach, locatedtween RM 123.00 and 123.55, contains a large sand beach on the left (South Carolina)bank near its upper end and another sand beach and large backwater along the right (Georgia)bank.The lower reach ranges from RM 122.85 downstream to RM 122.35.The upper limit of this reach includes a large left (oriented downriver) bank backwater at Ring Jaw Point and the lower extent is marked by a set of pilings (#42)on the same side of theriver.A large sand bar extends out andward the left bank at Ring Jaw Point.Presentlyelectrofishing (rotenone in the past)takes place at the back end of thewater and along the peninsula behind Ring Jaw Point or, as in 1996, at the back end of the backwater and at the#42 pilings.Rotenone sampling began at Ring Jaw Point in 1968 injunction with the traditional Station 6 (large right bankwater in the upper reach).From 1972 to 1994, the use of rotenone was confined to the South Carolina side of the river because sampling with rotenone was no longer permitted on the Georgia side.Beginning with the 1981 cursory survey, the pilings at the lower reach of Station 6 were sampled forgae.This same habitat was utilized for the next sive study in 1984 by both the algal and protozoan investigators. In the 1989 comprehensive study, the insect, non-insect macroinvertebrate and fisheries (gill nets at pilings and rotenone at Ring Jaw)sampled the lower reach of Station 6.Prior to 1981, other groups also, at times, extended their sampling from the upper reach into the backwater behind Ring Jaw Point.Currently only the fisheries comprehensive investigation continues to utilize the upper (seining along the sandy left bank beach)and lower reaches of Station 6.The Academy of Natural Sciences 12 Patrick Center for Environmental Research LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF STATIONS 2000 Savannah River Studies Station 2A (Fig.1)T his station comprises a section of the river upstream from Plant Vogtle at Mile 151.2, approximately 0.75 mi downstream (east)from Hancock Landing, Burke County, Georgia, across from Barnwell County, Southlina.Pilings (#72)are present on the South Carolina side of the river and mark the downstream limit of the station.Sandy beaches are present among the pilings, and a sandy beach is present at the upstream limit of the station on the Georgia side of the river.Electrofishing (rotenone in the past)areas occur up-and downriver from the downstreammost row of pilings.Only Diatometer monitoring took place at this station in 1997 and a mussel survey in 1998.This Station was not studied in 1999 or 2000.Station 2B (Fig.1)T his station comprises a section of the river at Mile 149.8, approximately 0.25 mi downstream (east)from Blue Bluff, Burke County, Georgia, across from Barnwell County, South Carolina.This station iscated approximately 1 mi downstream from the Vogtle Plant cooling water discharge. Pilings (#68)are present on the South Carolina side of the river and mark the downstream limit of the station.Pilings (#69)are also present on thegia side of the river and mark the upstream limit of thetion.There are sandy beachesamongboth sets of pilings.Electrofishing (rotenone in the past)areas occur up-and downriver from the downrivermost row of pilings.Reference Materials The locations, mileages and piling numbers in this description are taken from the following sources: 1.United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 1990.Navigation Charts, Savannah River, GA&SC, Savannah.to Augusta.USACE.Savannah, GA.49 pp.The Academy of Natural Sciences 13 Patrick Center for Environmental Research LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF STATIONS 2000 Savannah River Studies 2.Nautical chart 635-SC, Savannah River, Brier Creek to Augusta, South Carolina-Georgia.U.S.Department of Conunerce, National Oceanic and Atmosphericstration, National Ocean Survey.The pilings themselves are marked with readily visiblebers attached near the top of one piling in each set.The Academy of Natural Sciences 14 Patrick Center for Environmental Research RIVER GAUGE HEIGHT 2000 Savannah River Studies R iver discharge levels, both prior to and duringveys, are an important factor to consider whenparing survey results with those of prior years.The extent to which suitable shallow-water habitat is available for the colonization of riverine organisms is often correlated with river stage, as well as with the degree of daily fluctuations in flow.Generally, larger, more diverse populations arelected throughout a study area when flow is low to moderate and has been rather constant for two or more weeks prior to field collections. In contrast, unusually high flow, or large daily fluctuations in discharge just prior to or during a survey can lead to smaller, less diverse population samples.This is often merely a reflection of habitat accessibility to thegator;however, it may also reflect true differences in habitat availability to the organisms of interest.Figure 2 displays the estimated mean daily gauge heights for the Savannah River at Augusta, Georgia, for 2000, with the survey periods highlighted. The Academy of Natural Sciences 15 Patrick Center for Environmental Research RIVER GAUGE HEIGHT Estimated Mean Daily Gauge Height (ft)15 2000 Savannah River Studies 10-------------------------- 5 SPRING SURVEY FALL SURVEYS o 1/1 1/15 2/1 2/15 3/1 3/15 4/1 4/15 511 5/15 6/1 6115 7/1 7115 8/1 8/15 911 9115 101110115 11/111/15 12/112/15 Date Figure 2.Estimated 2000 mean daily gauge heights of the Savannah River at Augusta, Georgia.A few original gauge height values were missing from the original USGS dataset.These values were calculated or derived from existing USGS discharge and gauge height data recorded at the same site.Shaded vertical bars indicate the approximate sampling time for aquatic insects in April, mussels in August, and algae, macroinvertebrates, aquatic insects and fishes in September. Diatometer monitoring occurred semimonthly from January through December 2000.The Academy of Natural Sciences 16 Patrick Center for Environmental Research A.DIATOMETER STUDIES 2000 Savannah River Studies Methods and Procedures Sampling Method D iatoms were collected by a device called awood Diatometer (Fig.A-I), an apparatus designed to sample the diatom flora in a continuous andlective manner.Vertically oriented glass slides serve ascial substrates for colonization by diatoms.The diatometers are designed to float so that the slides remain just below the water's surface.They are secured to pilings and/or tree branches by means of nylon cord and, by adjusting the length of this cord, they are kept afloat at all times, regardless of changing water levels.'Frame Styrofoam Float Figure A-1.Diagram of a Catherwood Diatometer. The Academy of Natural Sciences 17 Patrick Center for Environmental Research A.DIATOMETER STUDIES 2000 Savannah River Studies Diatometers were deployed at five stations (l, 2A, 2B, 5 and 6;Fig.1)along a 59.9-km (37.2-mi)stretch of the Savannah River in the vicinity of the SRS.At each station, twoters were placed near the left bank and one diatometer wascated near the right bank (by convention, right and left banks are determined by facing downstream). With the exception of Station 2A, slides from one diatometer at each station were analyzed for 12 monthly 2-wkexposureperiods (slides for Station 2A were stored for future reference). When possible, slides from a diatometer positioned on the side nearest the SRS (left bank)were analyzed (diatometers at Station 6 were lost during deployment for the October exposure period).Previous studies (Patrick, Hohn and Wallace 1954)havetermined that an exposure period of two weeks is optimal for the collection of a representative growth of diatoms.Exposure periods for 2000 studies are shown in Table A-I.Aftersure, the glass slides are removed from the diatometers andlowed to air dry.The diatometers are replaced by cleaned diatometers and the exposed slides are shipped to Theemy's laboratory in Philadelphia for processing and retention as a permanent record of water conditions. Table A-1.Dates of Installation and removal of diatometer slides for the report period 4 January through 27 December 2000, Savannah River, South Carolina.Slides from near the left bank at each of four stations (1, 28, 5 and 6)were analyzed according to the semi-detailed method (slides from Station 2A were stored for future reference). Exposure Period*Installation Date Removal Date 2 January 4, 2000 January 18,2000 4 February 1,2000 February 15,2000 7 March 21, 2000 April 4, 2000 9 April 18, 2000 May 2, 2oo0 a 11 May 17, 2000 May 30, 2000 12 June 13,2000 June 27, 2000 14 July 5, 2000 July 18,2000 17 August 15, 2000 August 29, 2000 19 September 6,2000 September 19, 2000 22 October 17, 2000 October 31, 20oo a ,b 24 November 14,2000 November 28, 2000 26.December 12, 2000 December 27 , 2000*Exposure period refers to the closest approximation to one of the 26 yearly 2-wk exposure periods monitored from 1978 through 1997.al n addition to the semi-detailed reading analysis, the detailed reading analysis was performed during these exposure periods.bDiatometers at Station 6 were lost during deployment. The Academy of Natural Sciences 18 Patrick Center for Environmental Research A.DIATOMETER STUDIES 2000 Savannah River Studies Laboratory Techniques T he dried slides are fIrst soaked in distilled water,ing it possible to remove the diatoms withoutage by scraping the glass slides.The material is then cleaned by a nitric acid digestion procedure (CEM Model 2000 microwave digestor)and, after rinsing by a repeated sedimentation and decanting process, resuspended in 20 ml of distilled water.This procedure removes all organic material from the sample, leaving the empty siliceous shells (frustules) of the diatoms.A known quantity of the cleaned material is placed on an 18 x 18-mm coverslip, air-dried and mounted in Naphrax (a synthetic mounting medium of refractive index 1.6;ANSP SOP P-13-49)on a glass microscope slide.Identification and Counts S pecimens on the prepared slides were progressively identifIed to species and variety, and counted andcorded using a compound microscope with an oilmersion objective and a minimum magnifIcation of l000x.The semi-detailed reading method (ANSP SOP P-13-09)was employed for all exposure periods, while the detailed reading method (ANSP SOP P-13-39)was also employed for theposure periods ending 2 May and 31 October 2000.In thetailed readings, between6,000and 28,000 specimens were counted and identifIed until the criteria for a lognormalbution, as described in Patrick,Hohn and Wallace (1954), were met.In the semi-detailed readings, after an initial count of one row or an approximately 2.5-mm 2 area of the coverslip, the total number of specimens per species was no longer recorded.The coverslip was then scanned for newcies over an area determined from previous detailed readings to represent the area of a completed lognormal curve, asscribed by Hohn (1961).These methods ensured thatrable units of assemblages were compared from station to station and from year to year.The Academy of Natural Sciences 19 Patrick Center for Environmental Research A.DIATOMETER STUDIES 2000 Savannah River Studies Data Analysis T he underlying assumption of the reading methods is that the relative abundance o(diatomspecies ofluted rivers closely follows a lognormal distribution, with a few species very abundant and a few very rare, but the majority of the species represented by populations ofate abundance. This type of distribution is represented inure A-2, with numbers of species in a hypothetical diatom assemblage grouped as a function of the numbers ofals representing each species.The vertical axis identifies the numbers of species whose respective individuals fall within the log-scaled intervals of the horizontal axis.The mode of an extended count needed to produce such a curve is ideallytioned in the third interval.The body of the curve isposed of the majority of species, which are represented by populations of moderate abundance. In Figure A-3, a hypothetical diatom assemblage that might be found in a polluted river is represented. Pollutedtions are often indicated by the loss of many species in the system.The body of the curve is composed of many fewer species represented by populations of moderate abundances and the tail of the curve is extended as the abundances of the dominant species become relatively greater.40 35 30 BODY OF CURVE TAIL OF CURVE 25 5!:l;:::\00I MOO"OF 10.......... I CURVE TRUNCATIONl I: I I ..lo l=-. '::-.:16:"'::-

"'::6"':""**-'-:-:12:':"0.-'-::25':'"6

--':2:':"0 3::::8':""4 120 256 512 1024 2040 4098 8193'18384 32768 65536131072 INTERVALS=06789 10 11 12 13 141516 17 Figure A-2.Example of a lognormal curve fit to the frequency distribution of species within a hypothetical diatom assemblage not affected by pollution. The Academy of Natural Sciences 20 Patrick Center for Environmental Research A.DIATOMETER STUDIES 2000 Savannah River Studies--" I I TAIL OF CURVE I I i I I I I_!!__A_____-A_BODY OF CURVE 3 4*8 8-18 10-3232*84 64-128-258-512-1024-2048-4008-128 258 512 1024 2048 4098 8192'18384 32188 6553013101256.,89 10 n 12 13 If 15 16 11 MODE OF CURVE 40 35 30 25 15 20 10 INTERVALS*", 0 o INDIVIDUALS =1-2 2-4 Figure A-3.Example of a lognormal curve fit to the frequency distribution of species within a hypotheticaldiatomassemblage severely affected by pollution. The method used to construct these curves was adapted from procedures described by Patrick, Hohn and Wallace (1954), Cohen (1961)and Hendrickson (1998).The model of a truncated normal curve to express theture of a natural community of organisms was fIrst used by Preston (1948)to express the structure of the communities of birds and moths.Patrick, Hohn and Wallace (1954)found that this method of analysis was excellent to show theture of natural diatom communities. Observed Species Number: Richness Parameter T he number of observed species (the number of species recorded at the termination of the count)in anblage is used asa direct measure of richness aspressed by species numbers.The termination of the count was based on the area determined from previous detailed readings of Savannah River diatometer slides to represent the area of a completed lognormal curve, as described by Hohn (1961);thus, the numbers of observed species can be compared.among stations and reflect the species richness of the sample.The Academy of Natural Sciences 21 Patrick Center for Environmental Research A.DIATOMETER STUDIES 2000 Savannah River Studies Percent Dominance: Assemblage Dominance Parameter T he degree of assemblage dominance is a measure of unevenness of an assemblage. In the majority ofral situations, most species have medium-sizedtions;a few species are more common, and a few more rare.In this report, percent dominance is operationally defined as the percentage of the total specimen count made up of species with abundances greater than 1,024 individuals in apleted detailed reading (those populations falling beyond the 10th interval of a lognormal frequency distribution; Fig.A-3).In assemblages not affected by pollution in soft water rivers, the curve may extend over 12 intervals, thus exhibiting some degree of dominance. Shannon-Wiener Diversity Index T he Shannon-Wiener Diversity Index (SWDI)is arameter based on information theory (Shannon and Wiener 1949)that expresses the concept ofnity diversity. The parameter is composed of both richness and evenness components. Species Relative Abundances R elative abundances of the dominant diatom species were calculated and plotted for the entire studyriod.Data were examined graphically to determine any seasonal or spatial patterns in the distribution of thesecies.Statistical Methods T he parameters tested by statistical analyses (richness, dominance and Shannon-Wiener Diversity) were ranked among the four stations for each exposureriod and an analysis of variance (ANOV A)was performed on these ranked values.A level of a=0.05 was chosen ascant.A multiple range test (Ryan-Einot-Gabriel-Welsch; SAS Institute) was performed to locate any significant pairwiseferences found in the ANOV A.The Academy of Natural Sciences 22 Patrick Center for Environmental Research A.DIATOMETER STUDIES 2000 Savannah River Studies Results Semi-Detailed Reading Analyses Diatom Community Parameters S imilar to the previous three study years (1997 to 1999), diatom assemblages were analyzed from more stations (4 in 2000 compared with 2 or 3 prior to 1997)and for fewer exposure periods (12 in 2000 compared to 26 in years prior to 1997)in 2000 than earlier studies (1978 through 1996).There were fewer consistent trends, though a fewsonal and spatial (i.e., station)trends are evident.The results of the statistical analyses (ANOVA;Table A-2)indicate that assemblage evenness (converse of percent dominance) andversity (Shannon-Wiener Diversity Index)were consistently higher at the reference station (Station 1)than at the SRStions (Stations 2B, 5 and 6;a=0.05).The number of diatom species (a parameter of assemblage species richness;Fig.4)showed no statistically significant pairwise differences among stations (means of 94, 82, 73 and 68 and medians of 97,71, 72 and 48, at Stations 1, 2B, 5 and 6, respectively;ble A-3), and few values exceeded 100 (only 2 to 4 values at each station exceeded 100 in 2000).Frequent largeences (50%or more)between the reference and SRS stations Table A-2.Results of analyses of variance of diatom community parameters of richness, evenness and diversity for the 2000 study year;Savannah River, South Carolina.Stations in the last colun are listed in order of decreasing mean for each parameter. Degrees of Multiple Freedom Range Error/Station F P Test Number of Diatom Species 10/4 4.834 0.0055 1 2B56 Percent Dominance 10/4 10.308 0.000165 2B 1 Shannon-Wiener Diversity Index 10/4 7.968 0.0002 1 2B56 The Academy of Natural Sciences 23 Patrick Center for Environmental Research >n IIIg,a-a1:3.g a.Table A-3.Number of observed diatom species (#Spp.), percent dominance (%Dom.)and Shannon Wiener Diversity Index (8WDI)from biweekly diatometer readings for the 2000 study year;Savannah River, South Carolina.I i5".n g"1 Q'"1::l.i III g.Station 1 Station2B StationS Station 6 Month#Spp.%Dom.SWDI#Spp.%Dom.SWDI#Spp.%Dom.SWDI#Spp.%Dom.SWDI Jan 111 10.1 4.195 103 31.4 3.794 90 26.1 3.618 120 32.7 3.630 Feb 95 12.4 4.080 118 30.0 3.867 113 0.0 4.168 89 no 2.430 Mar 99 52.7 2.734 65 86.0 1.312 65 77.3 2.207 40 93.8 0.737 Apr 105 91.4 1.091 107 75.2 2.314 111 81.8 2.154 112 82.2 1.699 May 79 70.7 2.251 73 78.2 1.991 70 67.0 2.829 48 94.2 0.829 Jun 98 40.7 3.662 66 64.4 2.900 73 55.6 1.779 39 95.0 0.668 lui 79 71.8 2.512 68 78.0 2.052 61 66.1 2.285 47 91.9.1.078 Aug 76 81.4 1.575 59 83.8 1.532 22 93.1 1.812 28 92.2 1.635 Sep 70 33.6 3.467 64 92.9 0.971 47 83.1 2.262 47 96.8 0.859 Oct 117 71.6 2.610 98 76.8 2.012 70 90.2 1.331 ND ND ND Nov 107 0.0 4.185 66 35.3 3.532 77 75.1 2.289 78 43.9 3.269 Dec 92 0.0 4.010 92 21.5 3.852 82 68.3 2.085 103 12.2 4.035 mean: 94 44.7 3.031 82 62.8 2.511 73 65.3 2.402 68 73.8 1.897 median: 97 46.7 3.101 71 76.0 2.183 72 71.7 2.235 48 91.9 1.635range: 70-117 0.0-91.4 1.091-4.195 59-118 21.5-92.9 0.971-3.867 22-113 0.0-93.1 1.779-4.168 28-120 12.2-96.8 0.668-4.035III-<!III==III=-C?-<!..."1a-s-: A.DIA TOMETER STUDIES 2000 Savannah River Studies Number of Diatom Species 140..------------------------, 120------------------------------------- 100 80 60 40 20-------------------------.---------- Ol.------------------------.J Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec I-e-Sta 1*-Sta 28....Sta 5......Sta 61 Figure A*4.Number of diatom species from diatometer readings for exposure periods ending 18 January through 27 December 2000;Savannah River, South Carolina.(See Table A*1 for dates of installation and removal of diatometers.) were observed only for the station below Lower Three Runs (Station 6;decreases of 39-63%occurred for 5 of the 6sure periods from March through August).The number ofcies was usually lower at the upper SRS stations than at the reference station (for 9 and 10 of the 12 exposures periods at Stations 2B and 5, respectively); however, these differences were not usually large and not significant in the statistical analyses (a=0.05).Seasonally, the number of species was higher in the cooler months (all values that exceeded 100 were observed from January through April and October through December). The assemblage parameter of evenness (converse of percent dominance; Fig.A-5)indicates that assemblages werecantly (a=0.05)more even at the reference station than at the SRS stations (percent dominance means of 44.7,62.8,65.3 and 73.8 and medians of 46.7, 76.0, 71.7 and 91.9 at Stations 1, 2B, 5 and 6, respectively; Table A-3).Excessivenance (values greater than 90%)was more common in 2000 than 1999 (21%of the percent dominance values were greater than 90%), but still less frequent than in prior studies.Similar to prior studies, the cooler exposure periods (January-ary and November-December) had the highest assemblage evenness (i.e., lowest percent dominance values).The Academy of Natural Sciences 25 Patrick Center for Environmental Research A.DIATOMETER STUDIES Percent Dominance 2000 Savannah River Studies 100 ,----------------------, 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec l-i3-sta 1.....Sta 28......Sta 5.....Sta 61 Figure A-5.Percent dominance values for diatom communities from diatometer readings for exposure periods ending 18 January through 27 December 2000;Savannah River, South Carolina.(See Table A-1 for dates of installation and removal of diatometers.) Trends in the species diversity parameter (Shannon-Wiener Diversity Index[SWDI];Fig.A-6)were similar to theness parameter, with significantly (a=O.05)higher speciesversity at the reference station than at the SRS stations (a=O.05)(means of3.031, 2.511, 2.402 and 1.897 andans of 3.101,2.183,2.235 and 1.635 at Stations 1, 2B, 5 and 6, respectively). The highest SWDI was observed during the coolest months (January-February and November-December) at all 4 stations (12 of the 13 values that exceeded 3.5curred during these months).Diatom Species Relative Abundances T he seasonal and spatial patterns for the dominanttom species found during the study period 4 January through 27 December 2000 are discussed below.Autoecological data for each species are compiled fromeral sources (Lowe 1974;Beaver 1981)including the ecology file of the Diatom Herbarium at the Academy of Naturalences of Philadelphia (ANSP).Data for comparison with other study periods came from previous reports (ANSP 1982;1984a;1984b;1985a;1988a;1988b;1990b;1991c;1992a;1992b;1993a;1994c;1995;1996; 1997;1998;1999;2000). The Academy of Natural Sciences 26 Patrick Center for Environmental Research A.DIATOMETER STUDIES 2000 Savannah River Studies Shannon-Wiener Diversity Index 4.5 ,....---------------------, 4.25 4 J;.-7"-'\\ 3.75 3.5 3.25 3 2.75 2.5 2.25 2 1.75 1.5 1.25 1 0.75 0.5-.w-------_------w------------------- 0.25-----------------------------------0'-----------------------' Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec I-s-sta 1+Sta 28.....Sta 5-+-Sta 61 Figure A-S.Shannon-Wiener Diversity Index values for diatom communities from diatometer readings for exposure periods ending 18 January through 27 December 2000;Savannah River, South Carolina.(See Table A-1 for dates of installation and removal of diatometers.) The rating of natural or polluted water species is from Patrick and Palavage (1994).In addition to the discussions of the 2000 study year trends, Appendix A-I discusses the updated taxonomy and ecology of the dominant diatom species from 1978 through 2000.Appendix A-2lists the updatedomy of the diatom species found in 2000 (compared to pre,.vious Savannah River Diatometer studies).Achnanthes lanceolata subsp.biporoma (previous listed as A.biporoma and A.lanceolata var.biporoma;Fig.A-7)-was.found only during the warmer months (June through October;relative abundances less than 3%January through May andNovemberthrough December). Relative abundances were lower at Station 1 (all<5%)and it was rarely abundant attion 2B (only 1 greater than1%in June).The largesttions bfthis species occurred in June (64.6%at Station 5)and August (33.7%at Station 6).Achnanthes lanceolata v.biporoma was noted from 1982 through 1999 (except 1992), usually with highest relative abundances in warmer months and highest relative abundances at Station 5 (1983,1991, 1993-1995 and 1998).This species is characteristic of waters with pH near 7 and is found in natural waters.The Academy of Natural Sciences 27 Patrick Center for Environmental Research A.DIATOMETER STUDIES 2000 Savannah River Studies Achnanthes lanceolata subsp.biporoma%Relative Abundance 70 r--------------------, 60---------------------------------- 50---------------------------------- 40 30 20 10 0.L-__ Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec I-s-Sta 1......Sta 28.....Sta 5.....Sta 61 Figure A-7.Relative abundances (%)of Achnanthes lanceolata v.biporoma for the 2000 study year;Savannah River, South Carolina.Cocconeis jluviatilis--overalilow in relative abundance; abundances were higher during the summer (exceeded1%only in July and August).Highest relative abundancescurred at Station 5 (11.4%in August;higher at Station 5 for two of the three values that exceeded1%in the 2000 study year).This species has been a dominant in a few other study years (1981 through 1982, 1996 and 1999), but with very low relative abundances. Cocconeis placentula v.lineata (Fig.A-8)-highestdances occurred in warmer months (all relative abundance values that exceeded 5%were observed from July through November)with largest populations in August (22.0 and 9.2%at Stations 5 and 6, respectively) and September (22.3%at Station 5).Overall relative abundances were highest attion 5 (four offive exposures that exceeded 5%)and lowest at Station 2B (maximum of3.2%in June).This species has been observed consistently as a dominant, with low relative abundances (1982 through 1989, 1994,1996 and 1999),ally during warmer exposure periods with few apparenttial patterns.Cocconeis placentula v.lineata is characteristic of waters with pH greater than 7 (however, a large range,9.0)and is found in natural waters.Cyclotella meneghiniana--overalilow in relative abundance (highest relative abundance of2.4%at Station 5 in January)with highest values in cooler exposure periods (all values The Academy of Natural Sciences 28 Patrick Center for Environmental Research A.DIATOMETER STUDffiS 2000 Savannah River Studies Cocconeis placentula var.lineata%Relative Abundance 25 ,--------------------, 20 15 10 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sap Oct Nov Dec I-e-sta 1......Sta 28.....Sta 5......Sta 61 Figure A-B.Relative abundances (%)of Cymbel/a minuta for the 2000 study year;Savannah River, South Carolina.greater than1%were observed in January through April and December). There were no discernible spatial patterns during the 2000 study year (exceeded1%at each station in 2000).Encyonema minutum (previously listed asCymbella nuta)-low in overall abundance (highest relative abundances of 4.3, 3.2 and1%at Stations 1, 2B and 5, respectively, for the May exposure period).This species was found mostly in April and May (less than 2%in all other months).Relative abundances were lowest at Station 6 (all values less than 1%).This species has been observed consistently in the Savannah River diatometer studies (1982 through 1999), usually during warmer months (1998 through 2000 were exceptions) and usually with higher relative abundances at Stations 1 and 5 than at Station 6.E.minuta is found in natural waters.Fragilaria capucina (Fig.A-9)-highest relative abundances occurred during cooler exposure periods (relative abundances exceeded 2%only during January through February andcember).Spatial trends were hard to discern with largestlations during February (highest values of 10.8and19.4%at Stations 6 and 2B, respectively). Fragilaria neoproducta (previously listed as Fragilariastruens var.venter;Fig.A-1O)-highest relative abundances occurred during cooler exposure periods (relative abundances exceeded 5%only in January through April and November through December). Relative abundances at Station 6 were The Academy of Natural Sciences 29 Patrick Center for Environmental Research A.DIATOMETER STUDIES Fragilaria capucina%Relative Abundance 2000 Savannah River Studies 15----------------------------------- 10-----.---.------------------------ 5------------------------------ Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec I-e-sta 1......Sta 28"'Sta 5......Sta 61 Figure A-g.Relative abundances (%)of Fragilaria capucina for the 2000 study year;Savannah.River, South Carolina.Fragilaria neoproducta %Relative Abundance 15---------------------------.------- 10----------------------------------- 5 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec I-e-Sta 1......Sta 28"'Sta 5......Sta 61 Figure A-10.Relative abundances (%)of Fragilaria neoproducta for the 2000 study year;Savannah River, South Carolina.lowest (highest relative abundance was 1%)with mostdant populations in different months at different stations (populations of 8.0, 7.0 and 6.9%at Stations 2B, 5 and 1,spectively for the exposure periods ending in April, February and January).Fragilaria vaucheriae (Fig.A-ll)-generally low in relative abundance (all values less than 8%)with largest populations The Academy of Natural Sciences 30 Patrick Center for Environmental Research A.DIATOMETER STUDIES Fragilaria vaucheriae 2000 Savannah River Studies%Relative Abundance 16 ,---------------------, 14--------.-.--.-- ...-.-------..--.--12 ,----.---.---.-.-.--- ..----..-.----10.-.-.-.-.-- ..--.--.--.--------.----8------..-.-.------.- ..----.-.-----. 4 2 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec I-s-Sta 1......Sta 28.....Sta 5....St861 Figure A-11.Relative abundances (%)of Fragilaria vaucheriae for the 2000 study year;Savannah River, South Carolina.in cooler exposure periods (relative abundances exceeded 2%only in January through May and November throughber).There were no notable spatial trends with largesttions in February (7.1, 7.7, 5.8 and 5.0%at Stations 1, 2B, 5.and 6, respectively). F.vaucheriae has been foundtently (1982 through 1999), during cooler exposure periods and from 1982 through 1988 with generally higher relative abundances at Station 5.This species is found in waters with pH between 6.5 and 9.0, develops optimally near pH 9 and is found in polluted waters.Gomphonema affine (Fig.A-12)-low relative abundances occurred during cooler exposure periods (3%or less inary, February, November and December)with largesttions in different months (18 and 12.8%at Station 1 in September and June;15.4 and 8.8%at Stations 5 and 2B in May and 7.8%in April at Station 5).Few discernible spatial patterns with possibly lower relative abundances at Station 6 (values exceeded 5%only once at Station 6).Gomphonema gracile (Fig.A-13)-low relative abundances occurred at the start of the study year (less than 3%in January through June)with largest populations in October (16.7 and 9.7%at Stations 1 and 2B, respectively). Relative abundances were lower at Stations 5 and 6 (all values less than 3%)than at Stations 1 and 2B.The Academy of Natural Sciences 31 Patrick Center for Environmental Research A.DIATOMETER STUDIES Gomphonema affine 2000 Savannah River Studies%Relative Abundance 25 ,...-----------------------, 20----------------------------------- 15 10 5 ...... jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec I-s-sta 1.......Sta 28....Sta 5....Sta 61 Figure A-12.Relative abundances (%)of Gomphonema affine for the 2000 study year;Savannah River, South Carolina.Gomphonema gracile%Relative Abundance 25....---------------------, 20----------------------------------- 15 10 5 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec I-s-Sta 1.......Sta 28....Sta 5....Sta 61 Figure A-13.Relative abundances (%)of Gomphonema gracile for the 2000 study year;Savannah River, South Carolina.Gomphonemaparvulum (Fig.A-14)-was the most abundant diatom during the 2000 study year with relative abundances exceeding 75%at each station (only 3 of 27 relativedance values from April through October were less than 25%).Relative abundances were lowest in the coolest months (11 of 12 values in January, February and December were less than 10%).Highest values were observed at Station 6ceeded 80%from May through July at Station 6).phonema parvulum has been the most abundant diatom in all The Academy of Natural Sciences 32 Patrick Center for Environmental Research A.DIATOMETERSTUOffiS 2000 Savannah River Studies Gomphonema parvulum%Relative Abundance 100 ,----------------------, 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 Or!l-===.....er-------------'""-----l:l:=::lII Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec I-e-Sta 1.......Sta 28......Sta 5.....Sta 61 Figure A-14.Relative abundances (%)of Gomphonema paNulum for the 2000 study year;Savannah River, South Carolina.recent study periods (1982 through 1999), with highesttive abundances during warmer exposure periods.Thiscies has a large ecological span and is tolerant of a range of pollution conditions, is considered a facultative nitrogenerotroph, is usually indicative of a large organic load and is found in polluted waters.Gomphonema pumilum-overalilow in relative abundance (only exceeded 3%once, at Station 2B in June)with novations from August through December.Lowest relative abundances of this species occurred at Station 6 (always less than 1%).Melosira varians (Fig.A-15)-low in relative abundance from June through September (always less than 6%).The highest relative abundances were observed at Station 5est at Station 5 for 6 of the 8 exposure periods when values exceeded 5%;highest values of 63.4 and 52.8%for thecember and November exposure periods)and lowest attion 1 (always less than 10%).This species has been found consistently in previous studies (1982 through 1999);usually with several large populations and, unlike 2000, with unclear seasonal and spatial trends.Melosira varians has a large range of ecological tolerances with pH optimum near 8.08.2).Meridion circulare var.constrictum (Fig.A-16)-was found only in February (less than1%in all other exposure periods)The Academy of Natural Sciences 33 Patrick Center for Environmental Research A.DIATOMETER STUDIES Melosira varians 2000 Savannah River Studies%Relative Abundance 70 r---------------------, 60---------------------------------- 50------------------------------ 40 30 20 10 o Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jut Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec I-e-Sta 1......Sta 28-+Sta 5-+-Sta 61 Figure A-iS.Relative abundances (%)of Melosira varians for the 2000 study year;Savannah River..South Carolina.Meridian circulare var.constrictum %Relative Abundance 70 ,----------------------, 60---------------------------------- 50---------------------------------- 40 30 20 100___<>--_-__-_-_-111--_-_11_-_--111-_ Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec I-e-sta 1-Sta 28-+Sta 5-+-Sta 61 Figure A-i6.Relative abundances (%)of Meridian circulare var.constrictum for the 2000 study year;Savannah River, South Carolina.with several large populations (47.5, 19.6 and 12.4 at Stations 6,2B and 1, respectively), though it was not found at Station 5.This species has been a dominant in 1993, 1995 and99 Savannah River diatometer studies.Meridian circulare v.constrictum has been found in cooler exposure periods.Meridion circulare (nominate variety)has a wide pH range (acid conditions through 9+), but is found mostly at pH 7timum 6.7-9.0)and in nutrient-rich (eutrophic) waters where The Academy of Natural Sciences 34 Patrick Center for Environmental Research A.DIA TOMETER STUDIES 2000 Savannah River Studies pollutants have been broken down.This species is found in natural waters.Navicula cryptocephala (Fig.A-17)-was found during the early, cooler exposure periods (relative abundances were less than2%from March through December)with highest relative abundances in January (10.1, 5.5,8.4 and 7.5%at Stations 1, 2B, 5 and 6, respectively). There were no notable spatialterns.Navicula cryptocephala has been found sporadically in previous studies (1982, 1983, 1987, 1994, 1997 and 1999), usually in cooler exposure periods.This species has anmum pH near 8, but has been found in a wide range (5.4 to 9.0), is considered tolerant of pollutants and is found inent-rich waters (eutrophic). This species is found in polluted waters.Navicula cryptocephala %Relative Abundance 16 ,---------------------., 14..12..10..8..6..4 2..o Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec I-s-Sta 1......Sta 28.....Sta 5....Sta 61 Figure A-17.Relative abundances (%)of Navicula cryptocephala for the 2000 study year;Savannah River, South Carolina.Navicula gregaria (Fig.A-18)-was found only during the cooler exposure periods (exceeded 2%only in January,ary, November and December)with no notable spatial trends.Highest abundances were observed in January (9.3, 8.1, 4.9 and 7.9 at Stations 1, 2B, 5 and 6, respectively). Nitzschia paleacea (Fig.A-19)-highest abundancescurred in the warmer exposure periods(Juneand July;tive abundance exceeded 2%only once in the other study months).Populations were most abundant at the upstream sta-The Academy of Natural Sciences 35 Patrick Center for Environmental Research A.DIA TOMETER STUDIES Navicula gregaria 2000 Savannah River Studies%Relative Abundance 16.---------------------, 14--------------------------------- 12--------------------------------- 10----------------------------------8-----------------------.---------- 6 4 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec I-e-Sta 1......Sta 26.....Sta 5.....Sta 61 Figure A-i8.Relative abundances (%)of Navicula gregaria for the 2000 study year;Savannah River, South Carolina.Nitzschia paleacea%Relative Abundance 16 ,-----------------------, 14--------------------------------- 12--------------------.------------ 10----------------------------------8---------------------------------- 6--------------- 2 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec I-e-Sta 1......Sta26.....Sta5.....sta61 Figure A-i9.Relative abundances (%)of Nitzschia pa/eacea for the'2000 study year;Savannah River, South Carolina.tions (5.5 and 6.6%at Station 1 and 3.7 and 4.4%at Station 2B for the June and July exposure periods, respectively). Synedra ulna (Fig.A-20)-was found at the start (January and February)of the study year and in the fall (September through December)of the study year with highest abundances at different times (peaks of 15.6%at Station 1 in September, 12.2%at Station 6 in December, 11.8 at Station 5 inber and 10.9 at Station 2B in January).Synedra ulna has been found consistently in recent studies (1983, 1986-1987 and The Academy of Natural Sciences 36 Patrick Center for Environmental Research A.DIATOMETER STUDIES Synedra ulna 2000 Savannah River Studies%Relative Abundance 16 ,---------------;;-------, 14---------------------------------- 12 10 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec I-e-Sta 1......Sta 28"'-Sta 5.....Sta 61 Figure A-20.Relative abundances (0/0)of Synedra ulna for the 2000 study year;Savannah River, South Carolina.1989 through 1999)during cooler exposure periods.Thiscies has a large ecological span, including a pH range of9.0 (usually alkaline), and it is found in polluted waters.Synedra ulna var.contracta--overalllow in relativedance with highest values in May, July and Novemberest relative abundance was 3.3%at Station 6 for the July exposure period).Abundance was low at Stations 1 and 5ways less than 1%).Detailed Reading Analyses D etailed diatometer readings were carried out for the exposure period ending 2 May and 31 October 2000.The modes of the species distribution(Figs.21 and A-22), are positioned as follows: Distribution Mode Exposure Period 5/2/00 10/31/00 S13.1 1.366 1.588 S13.2B 2.'109 2.244 S13.5 2.290 1.312 S13.6 2.072 no data The Academy of Natural Sciences 37 Patrick Center for Environmental Research A.DIATOMETER STUDIES 2000 Savannah River Studies Detailed Readings-5/2/2001

1:4567B9 10 111213 14 15 Interval (A)24 22 20 1B 16 14 12 10 B 6 4 2 123 10 111213345678 Interval r--=-:-=---=-:-=---=--=-:

--=-:-=---=-:-=---=-:---:-1 20 18 16 14 12 10 8'6 4 2 o'---------------====" 1 (B)5789 10 11 12 13 Interval (C)24 r--=-:-=---=-:-:--:-:-:.rl-==s=ta=tio=n

51-

-*

--=-:-:--=-:-:--:-:-:, 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0'--------------===---' 1456789 10 11 12 13 14 Inlerval (D)24 r--=-:-=---=-:-=---=-:-:;J=-==sl==el==;on=6:=;'-:-* --=-:-=---=-:-=---::--:-:1 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0'-------------=====--' 1 Figure A-21.Frequency distributions of diatom species at (A)Station 1 f (8)Station 28, (C)Station 5 and (D)Station 6 from the detailed reading for the exposure period ending May 2, 2000;Savannah River, South Carolina.The Academy of Natural Sciences 38 Patrick Center for Environmental Research A.DIATOMETER STUDIES (A)(8)(C)2000 Savannah River Studies Detailed Readings-10/31/2001:::::::::::::::::: 20------------------- 18------*-**--**--------**16---*-.-*----- .*-*-*---*-14-**-*..*---------------- 12-------------------

• • • --10----..*-----**-*-*****-8--*--**---------------*6*-------*----------*--*

4**--**------_.*--------2----***------------*--- o134567 9 10 11 12 Inlerval:::::::::::::::::: 20--*-------*--.--*--*--*- 18-.---*--*--------------- 16------.*-----------*-.-- 14-----*-.-.*-----*-12**-*---_.--*--*----*--* 10.--*------*-----*-

• .-*-8.--*----*--

.*--*------.*6**--*-*-*--*--*--------4-----*---*----

• .----.*-2-**-*-***--*-*---*-
  • -o123456789 10 111213 14 Inlerval:::::::::::::::::: 20-----.---------
  • -*---*-18----*-------
• ..---------16.-*---*--*-*-.--*---

..--14.****.--------*------*-- 12--*--.----*-

• • ----*-*---

10--------**--*----*--*--- 8**---*-------*----*-

• • --6*---*------
    • • • ---*-*--4--*-***--**---*-**---**2---*--*-*-
  • --*--*-***-o123456789 10 111213 Interval Figure A-22.Frequency distributions of diatom species at (A)Station 1, (B)Station 2B and (C)Station 5 from the detailed reading for the exposure period ending October 31, 2000;Savannah River, South Carolina.Comments on the Structure of the Lognormal Curve T he following comments are based on the detaileding analyses and Appendix A-3.In May, the structure of the lognormal curve at Station 1 had a mode of approximately 17 species and extended over 15 intervals.

The Academy of Natural Sciences 39 Patrick Center for Environmental Research A.DIATOMETER STUDIES 2000 Savimnah River Studies This indicates that there was some organic enrichment. This statement is substantiated by the common occurrence of Gomphonema parvulum, which formed 84.27%of the population of diatoms.This diatom is known to become more common in the presence of organic pollution. The results at Station 2B in May were similar.However, the mode was roughly 17 and the curve covers 13 intervals, whereas at Station 1 it extended to 15 intervals. The dominant diatom, as at Station 1, was Gomphonema parvulum, which indicates the presence of organic matter.At Station 5 in May the height of the mode was 17.3.The curve extended over 13 intervals. Gomphonema parvulum was the most common species.At Station 6 the height of the mode was 18.7 or approximately 19 species indicating some improvement. The curve extended over 13 intervals indicating an organic load.The communities at Stations 5 and 6 were very similar in May.In October at Station 1, the heighth of the mode was 21.5 species and the length of the curve was 12 intervals which indicates natural river conditions. At Station 2B thetions were not quite as good as at Station 1, as the height of the mode was 15.4 and the number of observed species was 132withthe curve extending over 13 intervals, indicating some organic enrichment. At Station 5 in October, the height of the mode was 11.7 species and the curve extended over 13 intervals. Station 5 shows degradation as compared to Stations 1 and 2B.Organic enrichment is indicated, but perhaps some toxic material is present as the curve is not excessively long.There are no data for Station 6 in October.In conclusion, it would appear that in the fall of the year conditions were not as good in the vicinity of the plant site as they were in the spring of the year.In both the fall and spring of the year, the condition of the river in Station 1 seems to be healthy or normal.The Academy of Natural Sciences 40 Patrick Center for Environmental Research A.DIATOMETER STUDIES 2000 Savannah River Studies Discussion T he assessment of water quality in the vicinity of the SRS during 2000 (the 48 th year of studies)involves comparing diatom assemblages growing on artificial substrates at the reference station (Station 1)with those found at the SRS stations below the Georgia Power and Light's Vogtle Nuclear Power Plant (Station 2B), below Steel Creek (Station 5)and below Lower Three Runs (Station 6), andtermining how the assemblages found during 2000 compare with previous studies, over a long period of time.Highersemblage diversity, as richness (higher number of diatomcies)and evenness (lower percent dominance), suggests better conditions with respect to components of water quality to which diatoms are most sensitive.Smalldifferences, though consistent, might not indicate a difference in thesenents of water quality, since variation from other sources (physical and seasonal factors)could have a similar effect.Comparisons with previous studies must consider the large number of spatial comparisons (i.e., more stations in 1997 through 2000 than previous years)and fewer seasonalparisons (11-12 exposure periods compared with 20-26 invious Savannah River diatometer studies).The statistical analyses of diatom assemblage parameter data for 2000*indicate differences between the reference and SRS stations.There was significantly higher assemblage evenness (decreased percent dominance) and diversity ner Diversity Index)at the reference station than at the other SRS stations.No consistent trend of lower richness (number of diatom species), lower diversity and higher unevennesscreased percentdominance)at the station below Lower Three Runs (Station 6;compared to the reference Station 1)wasserved in 2000 (as it was for the study years 1985 through 1996), but the overall means for these parameters were lower at Station 6.The 2000 study year is the fourth year (including 1997 through 1999)with monthly exposure periods and anditional station below Plant Vogtle and the fourth year where diatom assemblage parameters at Station 6 were notcantly different from other SRS stations.Comparisons were made of diatom assemblage parameters from 1999 studies with means developed from previous stud-The Academy of Natural Sciences 41 Patrick Center for Environmental Research A.DIATOMETER STUDIES 2000 Savannah River Studies ies (ANSP 1978;1980a;1981b;1982;1984a;1985a;1988a;1988b;1988c;1990b;1991c;1992a;1993a; 1994c;1995;1996;1997;1998;1999,2000) in which semi-detailedings were used for continuous monitoring (1978-2000 fortions 1 and 6;1982-2000 for Station 5;26 two-week exposure periods per year except1976,1997, 1998, 1999,2000; Figs.A-23 and A-24).The number of diatom species was lower than the established mean during 2000, especially in the warmer months.At the upper stations (Stations 1 and 5)the trend was apparent for 10 of the 12 exposure periods, by 1 s.d.for the exposure periods from July through September; a similar trend was observed at Station 6 (7 of 11 exposureods)especially from May through September (all 5 exposure periods were less than the established mean by 1 s.d.).Overall, values for percent dominance were lower at Station 1 (8 of 12 exposure periods, by 1 s.d.for 6 exposure periods)and Station 5 (7 of the 12 exposure periods, by 1 s.d.for 3posure periods)during 2000 studies,*especially at thening of the study year(allfour values for January and February at Stations 1 and 5 were less than the established mean by 1 s.d.).To the contrary, 2000 percent dominanceues were usually higher than the established average attion 6 (for 8 of 11 exposure periods, 1 by 1 s.d.), especially from March through September. Detailed lognormal readings have been made for Stations 1 and 6 in the spring (usually April)and fall (usually October)beginning in 1954 (no fall 1996 or 2000 reading;ANSP, 1974b;1978;1980a;1981b;1982;1984a;1985a;1988a;1988b;1990b;1991c;1992a; 1992b;1993a;1994c; 1995;1996;1997;1998;1999, 2000 appendix and original data sheets).The number of species varied considerably (Figs.25 and A-26), and for the 2000 studies was nearly equal (no comparison for the October readings). Although many distribution patterns were observed for the relative abundances of dominant species, most trends were seasonal, not spatial, nor related to the operation of the SRS.Most species exhibited maximum development during the.early, cooler portion of the study year.Because of thewhelming dominance at all stations of Gornphonerna[urn, and the presence, in at least low abundance, of most species at each station, the overall species composition was similar at the four stations in the vicinity of the SRS during The Academy of Natural Sciences 42 Patrick Center for Environmental Research A.DIATOMETER STUDIES 2000 Savannah River Studies Number of Diatom Species 1978 to 2000 ,.-p---200 ,---------------------, 175 150 125" 75...""'---B-;::::' ........,'50 25 0'---------------------' 12345678 91011121314151617181920212223242526 Exposure Period (Station 1)Number of Diatom Species 1978 to 2000 150 r-..125" 100 75 50 25-P-------./---- 0'---------------------'12345678 91011121314151617181920212223242526 Exposure Period (Station 5)Number of Diatom Species 1978 to 2000 150----/--'\.125--100 75 50 25 0'----------------------'12345678 91011121314151617181920212223242526 Exposure Period (Station 6)Figure A-23.Number of observed species from 2000 diatometer studies on the Savannah River (line connecting squares)compared with mean and 1 standard deviation of data from diatometer studies conducted from 1978 through 2000 (lines connecting dashes;Station 5 data are from 1982 through 2000)using semi-detailed reading method.Exposure periods represent 26 two-week exposures, starting in January and ending in late December.Note that only 20 exposure periods were analyzed in 1996.The Academy of Natural Sciences 43 Patrick Center for Environmental Research A.DIA TOMETER STUDIES 2000 Savannah River Studies Percent Dominance 1978 to 2000/2 345678 91011121314151617181920212223242526 Exposure Period (Station 1)Percent Dominance 1978 to 2000 100 r-------------------, 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0L-----------------.e--l!J 1/2345678 91011121314151617181920212223242526 Exposure Period (Station 5)100 r--------- __

------., 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 OL--_l!_-----------------'

1 Percent Dominance 1978 to 2000/2345678 91011121314151617181920212223242526 Exposure Period (Station 6)100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 OL--------------------' 1 Figure A-24.Percent Dominance from 2000 diatometer studies on the Savannah River (line connecting squares)compared with mean and 1 standard deviation of data from diatometer studies conducted from 1978 through 2000 (lines connecting dots;Station 5 data are from 1982 through 2000)using semi-detailedreadingmethod. Exposure periods represent 26 two-week exposures, starting in January and ending in late December.Note that only 20 exposure periods were analyzed in 1996.The Academy of Natural Sciences 44 Patrick Center for Environmental Research A.DIATOMETER STUDIES 2000 Savannah River Studies Savannah River 1954 to 2000 Detailed Reading Method Number of Diatom Species 250 225 200 175 150 125 100 75 50 25 o 5456586062646668707274767880828486889092949698'00 year (April Reading)1-8-Station 1-+-Station 61 Figure A-25.Total number of diatom species from the fall (usually April)exposure period, 1954 through 2000 using the detailed lognormal reading method;Savannah River, South Carolina.2000 studies.Ecological tolerances of diatom species found on diatometer slides in the Savannah River in the vicinity of the SRS during 2000 studies, determined from a compilation of diatom literature (Lowe 1974;Beaver 1981;ANSPcal records), were similar for the dominant species at alltions.Nearly all of the dominant species were characteristic of alkaline waters (optimum growth when pH greater than 7).The most abundant diatom, Gomphonema parvulum, issidered pH indifferent, but with an optimum above pH 7.Most of the dominant diatoms are considered characteristic of waters with moderately high nutrient concentrations (i.e.,trophic;Lowe 1974).The most abundant species (especially Gomphonema parvulum)have wide tolerances and can adjust to a range of conditions; however, they are not usuallytive of severe conditions. In summary, the composition and tolerances of diatomcies on the Savannah River above and below the SRS were similar during the 2000 study.Differences in diatomblage structure (lowered evenness and diversity at the SRS The Academy of Natural Sciences 45 Patrick Center for Environmental Research A.DIA TOMETER STUDIES 2000 Savannah River Studies Savannah River 1954 to 2000 Detailed Reading Method Number of Diatom Species 250 225---------------------------------------------- 200--------------------- 175-------------------- 150 125 100 75 50 25--------------------- ..-..------..------o 54 56 5860626466 68 70 72 74 76 7880 82 84 86 88 90929496 98'00 year (October Reading)1-&Station 1......Station 61 Figure A-26.Total number of diatom species from the spring (usually October)exposure period, 1954 through 2000 using the detailed lognormal reading method;Savannah River, South Carolina.stations)were not as severe as the lowered diversity noted at the station below Lower Three Runs for biweekly studies from 1986 through 1996.The data in 1997 through 2000 (Le., compared with the earlier 11 years), appear to indicate thatteriorated conditions (as noted by the lower diversity) ob-.served previously on the Savannah River below Lower Three Runs were not present in 1997 through 2000.However, a less consistent and less severe trend of lowered diversity at the SRS stations (below Plant Vogtle, below Steel Creek andlow Lower Three Runs)was noted for at least short periods in the 1998, possibly 1999 and now 2000 studies.Most of the dominant species observed in the 2000 study, similar tovious studies, are characteristic of alkaline, nutrient-enriched waters.The Academy of Natural Sciences 46 Patrick Center for Environmental Research APPENDIX A-I 2000 Savannah River Studies On the Adoption of New Diatom Genera Names for the Savannah Diatometer Study by Eduardo A.Morales Introduction' R ecent advances in light microscopy (LM)techniques and optics and the development of powerful scanning electron microscopy tools (SEM)have revolutionized diatom taxonomy.In recent years the number of diatomera (arguably, the taxonomic level that has been morepacted)has increased dramatically. Since the account presented by Round et al.(1990)there has been a substantial increase in the total number of diatom genera and today this number borders 1,000 (Fourtanier and Kocioleck 1999).though these taxonomical changes are mainly based onphological features of siliceous valves, many genus names seem to correlate with cytological, ecological, and molecular information. As broader geographical and ecological regions are studied more information is accumulated, whichutes to a more natural state in the classification of diatoms.With the objective of incorporating recent systematic and taxonomic studies into the taxonomy used by analysts at the The Academy of Natural Sciences 47 Patrick Center for Environmental Research APPENDIX A-I 2000 Savannah River Studies Academy of Natural Sciences (ANSP), the latter hasized several workshops. These workshops primarily have served to update the taxonomy used for the analyses ofples from the National Water Quality Assessment Program (NA WQA), a cooperative agreement between the United States Geological Survey (USGS)and the Patrick Center for Environmental Research (PCER)at ANSP.During the NA WQA workshops, extensive review of thecent and past literature and thorough discussions about the majority of newly proposed names resulted in the acceptance or rejection of new genus names and subcategory taxonomic transfers (Morales and Potapova 2000).Subsequentshops have dealt with specific groups of species and theirrieties.Again, extensive research and discussion lead to clarification of the taxonomy of these groups (Morales 2001a,b).In an effort to update the taxonomy used in the Savannah River project, many of the decisions from the NA WQAshops mentioned above have been adopted.Hence, many changes at the genus, species, and variety levels have beentroduced during counts of samples collected during year 2000.A list of equivalent species and variety names between the taxonomy used for samples collected in year 2000 and the previous year is presented in Appendix A-2.Here, weclude a brief discussion on the reasons for adopting newnus names.Appropriate literature is cited where needed.New Genus Names Adopted for Year 2000 Samples Centric Diatoms Cyclosteplumos T his genus was created to contain species previously misidentified as taxa within Stephanodiscus (Theriot et al.1987).Striae in Cyclostephanos continue onto The Academy of Natural Sciences 48 Patrick Center for Environmental Research APPENDIX A-I 2000 Savannah River Studies the valve mantle, where they are composed of numerous rows of circular areolae.Cyclostephanos also possess internal ribs as does Cyclotella, however, in the latter the striae arerupted midway toward the center of the valve face and there is a lack of a distinct ring of spines.Pleurosira This genus has been separated from Biddulphia. Its valve structure and ecology are different from true Biddulphiacies.Pleurosira can be readily recognized by the presence of two large ocelli located opposite each other on the valve face.In addition, Pleurosira species are common in brackishtats as opposed to the strictly marine habit of taxa in the genus Biddulphia (Round et al.1990).Araphid Diatoms Cterwphora The name Ctenophora had been applied as a subgenus of Synedra by Grunow (1862).In their revision of the genus Synedra, Williams and Round (1986)proposed the use of Ctenophora at the genus level due to the distinctivelogical features exhibited by C.pulchella, which then became the type of Ctenophora. Round et al.(1990)remark that Ctenophora is currently a monotypic genus, but that morecies might be discovered as more detailed studies of brackish water diatoms are performed. Pseudostaurosira This name was introduced to the literature by Williams and Round (1987)in their revision of the genus Fragilaria. Pseudostaurosira has very distinctive features especiallygarding areolae and closing plates features, as well as apical.pore fields and the position of the spines.These features are very different from those in Fragilaria (sensu stricto).Since Williams and Round's paper, many new species have been transferred to Pseudostaurosira, among them a number of brackish water species (Hallegraeff and Bufford 1996;Sabbe and Vyverman, 1995).One of the most ubiquitous species within this genus if P.brevistriata, the former Fragilariavistriata. The Academy of Natural Sciences 49 Patrick Center for Environmental Research APPENDIX A-I 2000 Savannah River Studies Staurosira This name was originally utilized by Ehrenberg to refer to Fragilaria construens, which then became the type of thisnus.Williams and Round resurrected Staurosira based on conspicuous morphological differences between speciescated in this genus and taxa in Fragilaria (sensu stricto).The main differences are absence of rimoportulae (labiateesses), areolae and closing plate structure, and apical pore field and spine characteristics. Currentlythisgenus hosts many species associated with Staurosira construens. Staurosirella Williams and Round (1987)separated the species associated with Fragilaria lapponica from Fragilaria (sensu stricto)and devised aseparategenus (Staurosirella) to include them.cies of Staurosirella can be distinguished from closelyated genera such as Staurosira by the characteristics of the striae, closing plates and apical pore fields.Additionally, spines in Staurosirella are profusely branched oftening complex arrangements at junctions between neighboring frustules. This genus also includes many species among which S.pinnata and S.leptostauron are the most cally widespread. Tabularia This genus also resulted from the revision of the genusdra by Williams and Round (1986).Tabularia has since been studied in more depth and several species have been transferred into it (Snoeijs 1992).The type of areolae andcal pore fields are the most relevant features isolating thisnus from other Synedra-like taxa.Monoraphid Diatoms Achnanthidium This name had been applied by Ktitzing (1844)to thethes minutissima and Achnanthes microcephala group.Round et al (1990)and Round and Bukhtiyarova (1996)rected and re-defined this genus.Species associated to the type of the genus (Achnanthidium microcephalum) are differ-The Academy of Natural Sciences 50 Patrick Center for Environmental Research APPENDIX A-I 2000 Savannah River Studies ent from taxa in Achnanthes (sensu stricto)in many regards, including areolae, raphe, girdle and plastid structure. Eucocconeis This has also been recently separated from Achnanthes (sensu stricto).Eucocconeis had been used before by several authors as a subgenus within Achnanthes. Round et al.(1990)use this name at thegenuslevel to include organisms related to Achnanthes jlexella (now Eucocconeis jlexella and the type of the genus).The contorted nature of the valves, and the striae characteristics justify the separation ofconeis from other Achnanthes-related taxa.KerayeviaThisgenus also contains species previously classified innanthes.The characteristics of the areolae composing the striae in both the raphe and pseudoraphe valves are different from those in Achnanthes, thus justifying the separation of Kerayevia as a distinct genus (Round and Bukhtiyarova, 1996).Lemnicola This genus has been based on Achnanthes hungarica (Round and Basson 1997)Although the morphology of the genustinguishes it from other true achnanthoid taxa, its ecology is probably one of the most outstanding features.Lemnicola hungarica lives in the roots of Lemna minor, an aquaticcotyledoneous plant.Psanwthidium This genus was erected to contain species in the Achnanthes marginulata group (Bukhtiyarova and Round 1996).The characteristics of this genus, especially concerning theture of the raphe and features of the axial and central areas in both raphe and pseudoraphe valves distinguish it from other Achnanthes-related taxa.The Academy of Natural Sciences 51 Patrick Center for Environmental Research APPENDIX A*I 2000 Savannah River Studies Biraphid Diatoms Brachysira This genus was reestablished by Round and Mann (1981)and includes species commonly placed in the genus Anomoeoneis. Brachysira is different from Anomoeoneis in several aspects of its frustule morphology. The striae are composed ofgated areolae.There is a conspicuous clear area running along the valve edge and a single row of rectangular areolae on the valve mantle.Craticula Resurrected by Round et al.(1990), Craticula contains aber of species previously classified within Navicula.These species are different from Navicula (sensu stricto)by thelae, which are round and lie on longitudinal channels.Other distinguishing features include the structure of the raphe,dle bands and conspicuous pyrenoids in the cWoroplasts of live cells.Diadesmis Also resurrected by Round et al.(1990)were members of the genus Diadesmis. Diadesmis contains species associated with N.confervacea. The valves of these species have apletely different morphology than taxa in Navicula sensu stricto.The striae are composed by rectangular orcally elongated areolae that never touch either the axial area where the raphe lies or the valve edge.The valve mantle is characterized by the presence of a single row of round ortangular areolae.Species of Diadesmis usually formlike chains with the aid of spines.Encyonema Encyonema comprises a group of species thatwerepreviously classified within the genus Cymbella.Encyonema isterized mainly by the terminal ends of the raphe, which are bent toward the ventral side of the valves, and the fact that these produce mucilaginous tubes along which the frustules move.In contrast Cymbella (sensu stricto)possess terminal raphe ends that are bent toward the dorsal portion of the The Academy of Natural Sciences 52 Patrick Center for Environmental Research APPENDIX A-I 2000 Savannah River Studies valves and are usually adnate to substrata by means oflaginous stalks.Falfacia This genus includes a group of species characterized by ashaped thickening on the valve face (Round et ai.1990).Thisthickeninglacks additional ornamentation and can be clearly seen under the LM.Striae are composed of uniseriate areolae.Kobayasiella This genus has been devised to contain taxa related to Navicula subtilissima. The faint appearance of the striae and raphe make these taxa readily recognizable under the lightcroscope.At the SEM level, the striae appear as slits, which are completely different from the type of striae found in Navicula (sensu stricto).This genus was originally described as Kobayasia (Lange-Bertalot 1996).However, the latter name had already been used for a group of organismsing to the Fungi.Therefore Kobayasia was changed tobayasiella and K.bicuneus was made the type of the genus (Lange-Bertalot 1998).Luticola This genus was created by Mann (in Round et al.1990)to contain species related to Navicula mutica.The raphe and pore structure, as well as the presence of a conspicuous stigma at the central area clearly distinguish this genus from other naviculoid genera.Placoneis This genus was created resurrected by Cox (1987)to include taxa associated with Navicula gastrum, which then became the type of the genus.Placoneis has very distinctive features separating it form other naviculoids. The characteristics of the chloroplasts, as well as the morphology of the frustulephe structure, striae and areolae characteristics) isolate thisnus from Navicula and reveals that Placoneis is more closely related to Cymbella and Gomphonema (Round et al.1990)The Academy of Natural Sciences 53 Patrick Center for Environmental Research APPENDIX A-I 2000 Savannah River Studies Sellaplwra* This genus was resurrected from the literature by Mann (1989;see also Round et al.1990)to include the Naviculapula group.Among the most prominent features are theeningsat the apical ends of the valves, which are usually seen as clear areas under the light microscope. Also, the striation is different from that in species of the genus Navicula (sensu stricto).The areolae in Sellaphora are round becoming larger along the axial region and delimiting a thick structure along which the raphe runs.Tryblionella This genus was resurrected to contain the Nitzschianata group (Round et al.1990).Species in Tryblionella differ from Nitzschia by the wavy characteristic of the valveface, elongate fibulae, and uni of biseriate striae interrupted by a single (or sometimes two)clear areas running along the apical axis of the valves.References Cox, E.J.1987.Placoneis Mereschowsky: The re-evaluation of a diatom genus originally characterized by its chloroplast type.Diatom Research 2: 145-157.Fourtanier, , E.&Kocioleck, J.P.1999.Catalogue ofthe diatom genera.Diatom Research 14: 1-190.Grunow, A.1862.Die osterreichischen Diatomaceen nebst Anschluss einiger neuen Arten von andem Lokalitaten und einer kritischen Uebersicht der bisher bekannten Gattungen und Arten.Verhandlungen der kaiserlich-koniglichen zoologisch-botanischen Gesellschaft in Wien Xli: 40-472.Hallegraeff, G.M.&Buford, M.A.1996.Some new or little known nanoplankton diatoms cultured from tropical and subtropical Australian shelf waters.Nova Hedwigia, Beiheft 112: 329-342.Lange-Bertalot, H.1994.Kobayasia bicuneus gen.et spec.nov.Iconographia Diatomologica4: 277-287.The Academy of Natural Sciences 54 Patrick Center for Environmental Research Appendix A-2.Updated taxonomy of the diatom species found in 2000 Savannah River studies compared to previous study years.III;10-;10-OldANS ID Old Taxon Name 2000ANSID 2000 Taxon Namet':>IlO=-2121 Achnanthes biporoma Hohn et HeHerm.2227 Achnanthes lanceolata subsp.biporoma (Hohn et HeHerm.)L-Bert.=2004 Achnanthes clevei Gron.125001 Karayevia clevei Gron.in Cl.et Gron.'<0 2042 Achnanthes detha Hohn&HeHerm.2182 Achnanthes subatomoides (Hust.)L-Bert.et Arch.;10-.....2059 Achnanthes hungarica (Gronow)Gron.188001 Lemnicola hungarica (Gron.)Round and BassonS-2030 Achnanthes minutissima Kiitz.1010 Achnanthidium minutissimum (Kiitz.)Czarnecki"'f eo 7002 Amphora ovalis var.affinis (Kiitz.)V.H.ex DeT.7031 Amphora libyca Ehr.til a.7003 Amphora ovalis var.pediculus (Kiitz.)V.H.ex DeT.703 Amphora libyca Ehr.eg 7004 Amphora perpusilla (Gron.)Gron.7043 Amphora pediculus (Kiitz.)Gron.t':>'" 8007 Anomoeoneis vitrea (Gron.)Ross 18005 Brachysira brebissonii Ross 11002 Biddulphia laevis Em.158001 Pleurosira laevis (Ehr.)Compere 16001 Cocconeis diminuta Pant.16019 Cocconeis neodiminuta Krammer 23009 Cymbella lunata W.Sm.110009 Encyonema lunatum (Smith)V.H.23012 Cymbella minuta HUse ex Rabh.110004 Encyonema minutum (HUse in Rabh)Mann 23015 Cymbella minuta var.silesiaca (Bleisch ex Rabh.)Reim.110010 Encyonema silesiacum (Bleic.in Rabh.)Mann 27004 Diatoma vulgare Bory 27013 Diatoma vulgaris Bory 1Il 34003 Fragilaria brevistriata Gron.76001 Bacillaria paradoxa Gmelin34012 Fragilaria construens (Ehr.)Gron.172001 Staurosira construens (Em.)Williams&Round 34016 Fragilaria construens var.venter (Ehr).Gron.172006 Staurosira construens var.venter (Em.)Hamilton 34022 Fragilaria leptostauron (Ehr.)Hust.175004 Staurosirella leptostauron Ehr.34023 Fragilaria leptostauron var.dubia (Gron.)Hust.175007 Staurosirella leptostauron var.dubia (Gron.)Edlund"tl 34025 Fragilaria pinnata Ehr.175005 Staurosirella pinnata (Em.)Williams&Round IlO s: 44002 Melosira distans (Ehr.)Kiitz.10009 Aulacoseira distans (Ehr.)Simons.t':>:>;" 44005 Melosira granulata (Em.)Ralfs 10018 Aulacoseira granulata (Ehr.)Simons.(j 44006 Melosira granulata var.angustissima O.Miiiin.10018 Aulacoseira granulata (Em.)Simons.III=;-46309 Navicula accomoda Hust.21003 Craticula accomoda (Hust.)Mann"'f 8'46115 Navicula confervacea (Kiitz.)Gron.197001 Diadesmis confervacea Kiitz.N"'f Navicula contenta Gron.ex V.H.197002 Diadesmis contenta (Gron.ex V.H.)Mann g t':l 46246=Navicula cryptocephala var.veneta (Kiitz.)Rabh.46504 Navicula veneta Kiitz.til:S.46170 IlO-<!a 46488 Navicula heufleri var.leptocephala (Breb ex Gron.)Perag.46648 Navicula erifuga Lange-Bert. Q,l§5 46032 Navicula laevissima Kiitz.170001 Sellaphora laevissima (Kiitz.)Mann=46370 Navicula luzonensis Hust.46562 Navicula subminuscula Mang.e: 46042 Navicula mutica Kiitz.130002 Luticola mutica (Kiitz.)Mann-<!"'f46303 Navicula mutica var.ventricosa (Kiitz.)Cl.&Gron.130003 Luticola ventricosa (Kiitz.)Mann til'"S-IlO 46105 Navicula omissa Hust.115006 Fallacia omissa (Rust.)Mann a-s-: 46051 Navicula pupula Kiitz.170006 Sellaphora pupula (Kiitz.)Meresckowsky46155 Navicula salinarum var.intermedia (Gron.)Cl.46661 Navicula capitatoradiata Germain 46070 Navicula seminulum Grun.170014 Sellaphora seminulum (Gron.)Mann APPENDIX A-3 2000 Savannah River Studies Appendix A-3.Summary of Catherwood Diatometer detailed readings parameters. Savannah River, SC, 1953 through 2000.SPECIES SPECIES IN IN OBSERVED THEORETICAL MODE SPECIES UNIVERSE** Station Station Station MONTH 1 6 1 6 1 6 OCT 1953 22 22 150 160 178 173 JAN 1954 19 21 151 147 181 172 APR 1954 24 20 169 148 200 184 JUL 1954 23 21 153 140 193 179 OCT 1954 21 23 142 181 168 181 JAN 1955 19 21 132 148 166 200 APR 1955 25 29 165 193 221 259 JUL 1955 20 21132124 180 180 OCT 1955 27 15 171 107 253 133 JAN 1956 30 27 185 175 229 207 APR 1956 35 23 215 145 252 168 JUL 1956 24 23 147 137 185 171 OCT 1956 23 13 149 89 206 100 JAN 1957 29 21 177 125 233 175 APR 1957 21 24 132 141 185 171 JUL 1957 29 28 181 168 203 223 OCT 1957 25 25 157 160 232 210 JAN 1958 27 24 152 149 212 237 MAY 1958 14 27 76 153115187 JUL 1958 22 24 139 149 191 211 OCT 1958 22 23 149 142 206 190 JAN 1959 24 23 147 144 197 193 APR 1959 26 27 154 157 186 184 JUL 1959 27.6 30.5 168 161 227 194 OCT 1959 27.4 24.2 165 148 212 194 JAN 1960 19.8 24.2 118 143 194 195 APR 1960 30.2 26.7 172 142 242 200 JUL 1960 28.2 30.3 169 169 257 204 OCT 1960 31.0 28.6 185 183 212 224 JAN 1961 31.5 36.5 188 206 254 264 APR 1961 36.5 21.8 204 139 258 176 JUL 1961 25.8 25.5 143 140 167 200 OCT 1961 20.4 20.8 120 126 141 182 JAN 1962 24.1 24.9 156 146 203 180 APR 1962 24.3 26.2 145 154 192 220 JUL 1962 24.0 25.8 143 145 208 204 OCT 1962 20.4 20.4 135 127 175 171 JAN 1963 30.6 31.6 186 191 272 265 APR 1963 21.6 27.3 135 155 196 208 JUL 1963 28.8 24.4 163 147 225 202 OCT 1963 29.3 25.7165160 205 223 The Academy of Natural Sciences 58 Patrick Center for Environmental Research APPENDIX A*3 2000 Savannah River Studies Appendix A-3 (continued). Summary of Catherwood Diatometer detailed readings parameters. Sa-vannah River, SC, 1953 through 2000.SPECIES SPECIES IN IN OBSERVED THEORETICAL MODE SPECIES UNIVERSE** Station Station Station MONTH 1 6 1 6 1 6 JAN 1964 20.5 33.8 144 185 195 211 APR 1964 23.1 13.3 134 90 192 128 JUL 196425.924.2150157 185 245 OCT 1964 24.0 22.6 138 123 168 155 JAN 1965 25.4 24.9 149 131 225 164 APR 1965 29.1 28.4 171 160 216 245 JUL 1965 30.4 31.4 183 171 244 186 OCT 1965 35.1 36.0200204 254 235 JAN 196627.329.8 169 175 208 209 APR 1966 28.4 35.2174197 231 276 JUL 1966 31.3 34.3 200 186 217 202 OCT 1966 29.3 30.4178177 197 180 JAN 1967 26.2 27.6 154 167176190 APR 196722.928.6 129 170 140 200 JUL 1967 23.7 22.9 135 139 163 160 OCT 1967 24.2 21.6144130 169 153 JAN 1968 27.8 21.4 148 130170150 APR 1968 15.5 18.2 101 111 120 130 JUL 1968 24.3 24.0 145 138 159 147 OCT 1968 18.7 29.1 116 150 132 169 JAN 1969 29.7 24.5 174 145 197 165 APR 1969 25.0 26.4 152 152 177 178 JUL 1969 14.4 26.0 90 152 104 172 OCT 1969 22.0 28.1132159 152 191 JAN 197024.424.6 141 142 166 161 APR 1970 17.4 22.9 105 125 155 146 JUL 1970 27.6 30.8 149 151172172 OCT 197028.527.8 155 159 178 179 JAN 1971 25.8 26.3 144 154 166 177 APR 1971 25.2 31.4 151 185 180 222 JUL 1971 28.8 20.7 174 124 298 198 OCT 1971 15.8 23.2 93 138 108 221 JAN 1972 49.2 52.3 305 307377363 APR 1972 25.9 30.3 157 174 188 214 JUL 1972 28.7 26.8183168 222 207 OCT 1972 27.9 16.0 158 99 180 116 JAN 1973 33.8 23.2 181 141 211 170 APR 1973 22.7 17.3 142 119167145 JUL 1973 15.0 20.4 96 131 163.160 OCT 1973 29.7 16.8 165 117 186 143 JAN 1974 24.5 19.5 170 141 219 177 APR 1974 10.4 8.67664 95 77 JUL 1974 21.8 13.1 133 91 180 122 OCT 1974 24.8 15.6 124 104159146 The Academy of Natural Sciences 59 Patrick Center for Environmental Research APPENDIX A-3 2000 Savannah River Studies Appendix A-3 (continued). Summary of Catherwood Diatometer detailed readings parameters. Sa-vannah River, SC, 1953 through 2000.SPECIES SPECIES IN IN OBSERVED THEORETICAL MODE SPECIES UNIVERSE** Station Station Station MONTH 1 6 1 6 1 6 JAN 1975 19.4 13.7 98 81 119 116 APR 1975 20.7 11.1 124 76 178 102*JUL 197513.611.2 73 70 97*101 OCT 1975 10.4 18.0 75 122 99*165 JAN 1976 25.2 21.2 153 122 223 196*APR 197632.232.8 193 120 311*384*JUL 1976 82.7 51.8 176 159 913*t 628*t OCT 197628.226.4 161 150 213 283*JAN 1977 23.2 15.5 98 86 275*120 APR 1977 19.1 29.3 134 202 198*273*JUL 1977 23.7 22.7 144 138 200*193 OCT 1977 33.6 28.3 162 167 199 263 JAN 1978 38.0 30.9 210 176294234 APR 1978 30.5 31.9 182 188 230 291*JUL 1978 30.5 51.5 159 232 296 41St ocr 197838.232.4 211 187 281 230 JAN 1979 45.0 28.8 221 154 275 207 APR 1979 16.9 7.8 102 57 140 73*JUL 1979 37.6 25.7 191 139 239 249*OCT 1979 31.0 54.5 178 142 246*645*JAN 1980 73.0 36.9 133 158 200*486t APR 1980 24.1 13.0 98 83 311 t 105 JUL 198030.030.4 119 177 378t 282 ocr 1980 24.6 50.2.2 119 177 155 550*t JAN 1981 33.8 24.0 155 129 265*193 APR 1981 17.5 20.7 102 110 141 156 JUL 1981 18.1 19.0 111 121 152 158 OCT 1981 25.5 22.7 143 131 238 217*The Academy of Natural Sciences 60 Patrick Center for Environmental Research APPENDIX A*3 2000 Savannah River Studies Appendix A-3 (continued). Summary of Catherwood Diatometer detailed readings parameters. Sa-vannah River, SC, 1953 through 2000.SPECIES SPECIES IN IN OBSERVED THEORETICAL MODE SPECIES UNIVERSE** MONTH 1 5 6 156 1 5 6 APR 1982 27.0 13.0 20.4 133 83 121 186 118 237 OCT 1982 23.0 11.8 24.4 129 60 129 172 90*237 APR 1983 18.4 12.0 14.7 110 74 99 151 86*t 146 OCT 1983 25.6 6.7 31.8 137 44 167 247 65*298t APR 1984 22.4 8.2 33.1 129 54 164 182 62*206 OCT 1984 27.6 13.0 27.0 154 80 131 200 113*267*APR 1985 14.5 40.4 18.3 90 136 113 133 510t 165 OCT 1985 28.0 21.7 17.4 151 135 106 192 184 137*APR 1986 19.6 22.6 23.1 113 130 128 168 193*206*OCT 1986 27.4 26.0 15.0156148 91 201 205 142 APR 1987 13.4 13.4 8.8 108 91 58 115*139 87 OCT 1987 26.0 23.9 15.4 152 145 90 211 201*115*APR 1988 26.5 22.8 20.2 155 141 132 204 192 191*OCT 1988 29.1 20.7 12.2 143 121 66 180 132 105*APR 1989 17.2 26.1 11.9103148 77 135 206 111*OCT 1989 19.2 26.9 7.6 98 153 45 215*226 60*APR 1990 16.8 25.4 9.9112148 64 165*239*80*OCT 1990 18.8 28.3 17.9 121 137 104 164*183 156*APR 1991 11.7 17.6 10.9 82 111 64123*176*163*OCT 1991 23.4 30.7 16.6 129 129 93 197*314*145*APR 1992 13.0 20.7 13.0 92 129 88 157 232*128 OCT 199222.625.6 10.4 135 139 70200*206*89*APR 1993 15.720.725.8 81 120 91 233*t 230*330*t OCT 1993 26.324.723.7144142 138 232*192*189*APR 1994 11.2 12.2 7.1 79 70 48 102*t 102*56*OCT 1994 6.6 11.7 2.7 36 66 20 59*103*24*APR 1995 14.3 11.2 8.6 96 71 58 134*105*t 74*OCT 1995 14.1 9.4 9.6 77 57 53 137*76*95*APR 1996 11.7 9.7 9.1 78 71 65 142 98*88*APR 1997 11.1 12.0 10.07276 56 88*103*76*OCT 199720.426.3 31.7 97 110 152 186*224*259 APR 199815.012.019.0 98 86 69 154 113 82 OCT 1998 45.0 14.0 18.0 192 75 90 346 111 130 APR 1999 29.3 27.4 23.7 146 106 117 230.7 257.7 165.5 OCT 1999 22.4 41.3 13.4 111 168 67 173.5 36D.4 121.4 APR 2000 16.3 35.1 31.7105108 112 151 510 415 OCT 2000 25.9 13.9 ND 115 68 ND 256 154 ND'Curve fit produced a negative mode;the first local minimum was substituted."See Patrick, Hohn and Wallace (1954)for an explanation of this term.tBest curve fit was not a good truncated lognormal. §Calculations for these parameters are based on only 10 intervals; data used to generate the detailed curves in the report.The Academy of Natural Sciences 61 Patrick Center for Environmental Research B.ATTACHED ALGAE AND AQUATIC MACROPHYTES 2000 Savannah River Studies Introduction Algae and aquatic macrophytes are ideal for water quality assessment: being mostly imnwbile, they must adapt to existing conditions, and the ability of many diatom species to tolerate pollution is known and can be used to characterize aquatic environments. A ttached algae and aquatic macrophytes are oferable importance in riverine ecosystems. Asmary producers, algae and macrophytes synthesizefoodresources (principally carbohydrates) from carbonide, thus transforming solar energy into a form available for other organisms. Photosynthetic activity of algae and aquatic plants results in the net production of oxygen, an essentialment for nearly all aquatic life.In addition to their role inergy transfer and oxygen production, algal and aquatic plant communities provide habitat and shelter for diverse aquaticganisms and are often critical for the successful growth andproductive activities of various species of invertebrates and fish.Attached algae and aquatic macrophytes can be used ascators of ecological conditions in aquatic systems.Since these plants are sessile, they can be presumed to reflect prevailing physical and chemical conditions at a given location.Algae are particularly sensitive to water quality with respect to dissolved nutrients, metals and organics (e.g., Weitzel 1979).Among the various classes of algae commonlyring in the river environment, diatoms (golden-brown algae)are invariably the most diverse.The analysis of diatomblages has proven to be especially important in water quality studies.Knowledge of the growth requirements and pollution tolerances of freshwater diatoms and blue-green algae has grown considerably over the years (Sladecek 1973;Lowe 1974;Beaver 1981;VanLandingham 1982;Patrick andage 1994).On the other hand, aquatic macrophytes are often mostenced by the physical nature of the environment (Ferren and Schuyler 1980;Schuyler 1988).Factors such as substrate The Academy of Natural Sciences 62 Patrick Center for Environmental Research B.ATTACHED ALGAE AND AQUATIC MACROPHYTES 2000 Savannah River Studies type, water clarity and river velocity, whether varyingrally or as a result of anthropogenic perturbations, often de-.fine the kinds of macrophytes present as well as their areal extent within river reaches.The presence (or absence)andpanse of various macrophyte assemblages can have afound influence on the kinds and numbers ofotherorganisms supportedwithinthe water body (Hynes 1972).The purpose of this study was to characterize the attachedgae and aquatic macrophyte communities at the stations on the Savannah River in the vicinity of the Savannah River Site.The one Comprehensive Survey (at Stations 1, 2B, 5 and 6)was conducted during 8-11 September 2000.Speciessition data of algal and aquatic macrophyte communities are compared with data from previous Comprehensivegust/September algal surveys (1955-1999) conducted on the Savannah River..Materials and Methods S everal different techniques were employed to sample the algae adequately. The varied habitats in whichgae can grow necessitate such a procedure. Allable habitats were sampled within each station and sampling was continued for at least 30 min after the last obviously new species was discovered. On relatively solid habitats, such as surfaces of logs, twigs, stones, etc., forceps or a knife was used.The material, ifmentous or in patchy colonies, was picked off with forceps.In cases of more uniform growth, the material was scraped off the substrate with a knife.On soft sand or mud surfaces or thickly coated stems and logs, a pipette with a suction bulb was used to avoid picking up material deposited under thegal colonies during previous seasons.Moss colonies, other aquatic plants and rootlets were usually collected in a mass and placed in a white pan;with thetion of a little clean water the algae were easily picked out against this background. If the algal material separatedily from the moss plants or rootlets, the algae were thenmoved from the pan.If the material and the algae did not separate, the entire substrate was placed in a collecting con-The Academy of Natural Sciences 63 Patrick Center for Environmental Research B.ATTACHED ALGAE AND AQUATIC MACROPHYTES 2000 Savannah River Studies tainer.Sometimes algae are so fIrmly associated with astrate that it is necessary tocollectthe entire substrate. All samples were fInally placed in 17-ml vials.The untreated collections were brought to the fIeld laboratory where aple from each was examined.This was necessary for several reasons.First, certain of the fragile algae are more readily identified in a living condition. Second, it is important toserve the condition of the cell contents in the various algae.nally, the relative number of empty frustules gives a very good index of the overall condition of the diatom community. Blue-green algae and other important filamentous forms were dried on herbarium cards and wrapped in packets for transfer to The Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia (ANSP)where they were curated into the permanent collections. Diatom samples were removed from collections containing abundant diatoms and preserved with 1-2 drops hyde.The remaining collections were preserved withdehyde (final concentration was 3-5%)and transferred to ANSP.At the ANSP laboratory, diatom collections were placed in permanent storage, but no slides were made.Collections ofgae other than diatoms were re-examined on wet mounts at 400x and 100x magnifIcation. Further identifications were made by comparison with previous voucher collections and specimens in The Academy herbarium. The most abundant species were determined, and the samples were cataloged and saved as voucher specimens. A list of the algal species other than diatoms collected during the 2000 survey and thetions where they were collected is presented in Appendix B-1.Results Station 1 T he water level was moderately low during thetember 2000 survey, but there was evidence that the water level had recently risen at least 2 ft.Algal growth was light with small, scattered colonies of green-gae,-blue-green algae and diatoms at the station.No The Academy of Natural Sciences 64 Patrick Center for Environmental Research B.ATTACHED ALGAE AND AQUATIC MACROPHYTES 2000 Savannah River Studies low-green algae were found at the station.There was no dominant group of algae at Station 1.Green algae were represented by four species at Station 1ble B-1).Three of the four species were collected from aony of alligator weed growing among the pilings on the South Carolina side of the river.These were Oedogonium sp., Characium pringsheimii and Stigeoclonium lubricum.The other species of green algae (Closterium moniliferum) was present in several of the diatom collections. Table B-1.Comparison of numbers of algal species, by division, found at Stations 1, 2B, 5 and 6 during the September 2000 survey conducted on the Savannah River by ANSP.Station Algal Division 1 2B 5 6 Chlorophyta 4 5 7 8 Chrysophyta 0 1 0 2 Cyanophyta 5 5 6 8 Rhodophyta 0 0 0 1 TOTAL 9 11 13 19Blue-greenalgae were widespread at the station, but always in small colonies.A total of five species was recorded attion 1.Three species were present in a number of collections. These were Microcoleus vaginatus, Schizothrix calcicola and Porphyrosiphon splendidus. Entophysalis lemaniae wassent on the alligator weed with the green algae and E.laris was scraped from a log caught on pilings.Diatom growth was scattered about the station, similar to the other algal groups, as diatom communities were present in a variety of floating habitats such as trailing ropes, floating plants or logs caught on pilings.All the diatom collectionsamined were in good condition. Aquatic macrophytes observed at this station were the mosses Fissidens jontanus, Fontinalis filiformis and Amblystegium fluviatile, the liverwortPorellapinnata, some Lemna sp.with alligator weed (Alternanthera philoxeroides), parrotfeather (Myriophyllum aquaticum) and water hyacinths (Eichornia crassipes) among the pilings and Micranthemum umbrosum on a trailing rope.No submerged beds of aquatic macrophytes were observed.The Academy of Natural Sciences 65 Patrick Center for Environmental Research B.ATTACHED ALGAE AND AQUATIC MACROPHYTES Station2B 2000 Savannah River Studies T he water level was moderately low during thetember 2000 survey with flooded terrestrial plants giving evidence of a recent rise.Algal growth was light and no one algal group was dominant.Five species of green algae were recorded at Station 2B.dogonium sp.was present on a log caught on pilings,crospora sp.was locally common on a fallen tree, and several of the diatom collections contained colonies ofterium moniliferum. A second species of Closterium, C.lunula was present with blue-green algae in fast water.A fringe of Spirogyra sp.filaments was found on a fallen tree.A patch of the yellow-green alga Vaucheria sp.was growing with the Spirogyra on the fallen tree.Blue...;green algae were present in small, scattered colonies.Two of the five species recorded at Station 2B were present in a number of collections. These were Microcoleus vaginatus and Schizothrix calcicola. Two of the other three (S.arenaria and Oscillatoria lutea)were present in two collections while Nostoc commune was locally common in only one collection (taken from a log on the pilings).No red algae were observed at this station.Diatom growth was modest at Station 2B.All of thetions examined were in good condition. The aquatic macrophyte flora was almost identical to the flora at Station 1.The only difference was the presence ofcotyl americana at Station 2B and not at Station 1.Nomerged beds of aquatic macrophytes were observed.Station 5 T he water level was moderately low during thetember 2000 survey with evidence of a recent rise in water level.Algal growth was light with scattered colonies on floating habitats.No one algal group was notably more abundant than the others.Seven species of green algae were recorded at Station 5.A mix of Oedogollium Sp.Cllld sunken log.Growing nearby on a submerged branch were The Academy of Natural Sciences 66 Patrick Center for Environmental Research B.ATTACHED ALGAE AND AQUA TIC MACROPHYTES 2000 Savannah River Studies Cladophora glomerata, Microspora sp.and Characiumsheimii.Closterium moniliferum was abundant in one of the diatom collections and Stigeoclonium lubricum was collected from a log on pilings near the South Carolina shore.No red or yellow-green algae were observed at Station 5.A total of six species of blue-green algae was recorded from Station 5.Four of these species were collected from a sunken log between sets of pilings on the Georgia side of the river.These were Microcoleus vaginatus, Schizothrix calcicola, Oscillatoria lutea and Anabaena oscillariodes. In addition Porphyrosiphon splendidus was collected from the deep end of a sunken log and Schizothrix arena ria was collected from shallow water.Diatoms were present as small colonies in a number of habitats.All the diatom collections examined were in good condition. The three aquatic mosses and the liverwort were growing in the usual habitats such as pilings and submerged branches.Duckweed (Lemna sp.)was common among the debris below the pilings along with a little alligator weed (Alternanthera philoxeroides). Micranthemum umbrosum was present onmerged branches along both banks of the river.Somegled water hyacinths (Eichornia crassipes) were floating in a backwater and a colony of Hydrocotyl americana wasing on a very muddy log.No submerged beds of aquatic macrophytes were observed.Station 6 T he water level was moderately low at Station 6ing the September 2000 with evidence of a recent rise.Algal growth was light with the bestsentation on floating habitats.No one algal group wasnant over the others.The 19 species of algae recorded here were present in widely scattered small colonies.Green algae were represented by eight species.Oedogonium sp., Stigeoclonium lubricum, Closterium moniliferum, Spirogyra sp., Microspora sp.and Characium pringsheimii were all present at two or more of the other stations.The remaining two species were notserved at any of the other stations.These were Ulothrix._..--zonatamixed with blue-green algae ona muddy log and a thin fringe of Zygnema sp.onlog near the South Carolina The Academy of Natural Sciences 67 Patrick Center for Environmental Research B.ATTACHED ALGAE AND AQUATIC MACROPHYTES 2000 Savannah River Studies shore.Yellow-green algae were present as a few colonies of Vaucheria sp.on pilings and one colony of Tribonema sp.among aquatic moss.Blue-green algae were widespread with small colonies on both sides of the river.The most diverse collection was taken from a diatometer cord.Four species were present therecluding Schizothrix calcicola, Microcoleus vaginatus, S.arenaria and Calothrix parietina. Also, Porphyrosiphon splendidus was collected from a punky log, Entophysalismaniae was collected from two locations on pilings, ria lutea was common in one location in shallow water and Anabaena oscillariodes was taken from a muddy log.The only colony of red algae was recorded from Station 6.This was Compsopogon coeruleus which was present on a sunken log.Diatom communities were small and scattered about the station.All of the diatom collections examined were in good condition. The ubiquitous mosses Fissidens fontanus, Amblystegiumviatile and Fontinalisfiliformis were recorded at this station along with the liverwort Porella pinnata.Duckweed (Lemna sp.)parrotfeather (Myriophyllum aquaticum) and alligator weed(Alternantheraphiloxeroides) were floating behind the pilings and colonies of Micranthemum umbrosum weresent on submerged branches on both sides of the river.A few water hyacinths (Eichornia crassipes) were caught behind the pilings and some Hydrocotyl americana was growing on a log caught on the pilings.No submerged beds of aquatic macrophytes were observed.Discussion T he water level was moderately low during thetember 2000 survey, but it had risen several feeting the recent past and as a result, the algal growth was mainly restricted to floating habitats at the four stations.Overall algal growth was light and no one algal groupnated the assemblage at any station.No differences wereparent in the field when the four stations (1, 2B, 5 and 6)were compared with each other.All the diatom collectionsined were in good condition. The Academy of Natural Sciences 68 Patrick Center for Environmental Research B.ATTACHED ALGAE AND AQUATIC MACROPHYTES 2000 Savannah River Studies The aquatic macrophyte growth was similar at all fourtions.The three aquatic mosses and the liverwort weresent at all four stations along with duckweed, alligator weed, water hyacinths and Micranthemum umbrosum.Hydrocotyl ranunculoides and parrotfeather were present at three of the four stations (Appendix B-2).The number of recorded algal species other than diatoms ranged from 9 to 19 at the 4 stations during the September 2000 survey (Table B-2).These figures all fall within the range recorded for previous August and September (1955 to 1999)surveys at Stations 1,5 and 6 (Station 2B has beenpled only once previously during August or September.) The 12-year observed species averages for algae other thantoms at Stations 1, 5 and 6 are very similar.They are,tively, 15.25, 14.25 and 14.42.The two year average for Station 2B is 12.50.The most common species encountered during the September 2000 study were included among the species that have been recorded regularly at all the stations since the studies were initiated. These include the green algae Oedogonium sp., Spirogyra sp.and Closterium moniliferum, the blue-green algae Microcoleus vaginatus, Schizothrixcola and S.arenaria and the yellow-green alga Vaucheria sp.Despite the light growth the usual array of species wassent at the four stations during the September 2000 study.The results of the September 2000 algal and aquaticphyte survey show no evidence that the operations of the SRS were having a detrimental effect on water quality of the Sa-Table B-2.Comparison of numbers of algal taxa other than diatoms found at Stations 1, 2B, 5 and 6 during the AugusVSeptember Comprehensive Surveys conducted on the Savannah River, 1955-2000. Station Survey Date 2B 5 6 Aug./Sept. 1955 13**19 16 Aug./Sept. 1960 10**12 9 Sept.1965 17**16 14 Aug./Sept. 1968 17**14 10 Sept.1972 26**18 24 Aug.1976 13**13 12 Sept.1980 18**10 11 Sept.1984 16**15 15 Sept.1989 15**11 13 Sept.1993 15**16 14 Sept.1999 14 14 14 16 Sept.2000 9 11 13 19 The Academy of Natural Sciences 69 Patrick Center for Environmental Research B.ATTACHED ALGAE AND AQUATIC MACROPHYTES 2000 Savannah River Studies vannah River.The differences noted in the aquatic flora were all consistent with seasonal and moderately low watertions.The algal and aquatic macrophyte communities were fundamentally similar to those present during previousnah River surveys and represent typical Southeastern Coastal Plain river flora.Evidence of some organic loading continues to be present at all stations.The blue-green algae Microcoleus vaginatus, M.lyngbyaceus and Schizothrix calcicola and the green alga Stigeoclonium lubricum are listed as associated with pollution (Patrick and Palavage 1994;VanLandingham 1982).The Academy of Natural Sciences 70 Patrick Center for Environmental Research B.ATTACHED ALGAE AND AQUATIC MACROPHYTES 2000 Savannah River Studies Appendix B-1.List of algal species collected at Stations 1, 2B, 5 and 6 on the Savannah River dur-ing the September 2000 survey.Station Taxa 1 2B 5 6 Division Cyanophyta Class Myxophyceae Order Chroococcales Family Entophysalidae Entophysalis lemaniae (Ag.)Dr.&Daily X X E.rivularis (Kutz.)Dr.&Daily X Order Horrnogonales Family Oscillatoriaceae Microcoleus vaginatus (Vauch.)Gom.X X X X Oscillatoria lutea Ag.X X X Porphyrosiphon splendidus (Grev.)Dr.X X X Schizothrix arenaria (Berk.)Gom.X X X S.calcicola (Ag.)Gom.X X X X Family Nostocaceae Anabaena oscillariodes Bory X X Nostoc commune Yauch.X Family Rivulariaceae Calothrix parietina (Nag.)Thur.X Division Rhodophyta Class Rhodophyceae Order Bangiales Family Erythrotrichiaceae Compsopogon coeruleus (Balb.)Mont.X Division Chlorophyta Class Chlorophyceae Order Ulothricales Family Ulothricaceae Ulothrix zonata (Web.&Mohr)Kutz.X Order Microsporales Family Microsporaceae Microspora sp.X X X Order Chaetophorales Family Chaetophoraceae Stigeoclonium lubricum (Dillw.)Klitz.X X X Order Cladopherales Family Cladophoraceae Cladophora glomerata (L.)Kutz.X Order Oedogoniales Family Oedogoniaceae Oedogonium sp.X X X X Order Chlorococcales Family Characium Characium pringsheimii A.Braun X X X*Order Zygnematales Family Zygnemataceae Spirogyra sp.X X X Zygnemasp. X Family Desmidiaceae -._----Closteriumlunula Nitz.***X C.moniliferum Breb.X X X X The Academy of Natural Sciences 71 Patrick Center for Environmental Research B.ATTACHED ALGAE AND AQUATIC MACROPHYTES 2000 Savannah River Studies Appendix B-1 (continued). List of algal species collected at Stations 1, 2B, 5 and 6 on the Savannah River during the September 2000 survey.Station Taxa Division Chrysophyta Class Xanthophyceae Order Heterotrichales Family Tribonemamataceae Tribonema sp.Order Heterosiphonales Family Vaucheriaceae Vaucheria sp.1 x 2B 5 x x 6 The Academy of Natural Sciences 72 Patrick Center for Environmental Research C.NON*INSECTMACROINVERTEBRATES Introduction 2000 Savannah River Studies Non-insect macroinvertebrates are reliable indicators of water pollution because many species are sedentary and are sensitive to a wide range of ecological perturbations. T he Savannah River survey of non-insect tebrates was conducted on 25 to 28 August and 8 to 11 September 2000 in order to (1)compare antory of these organisms with earlier surveys for possibleoping faunal trends, (2)relate the faunal characteristics and trends to such variables as habitat (e.g., relative aquaticlar plant densities), river hydrodynamics and water quality changes as reflected by the sensitivities of the non-insect macroinvertebrates and (3)compare the faunas amongtions upriver and downriver from the Savannah River Site.This report will also provide habitat and distributiontion on the biota.The 25 to 28 August survey concentrated on mussel habitats to monitor the Savannah River populations of the most endangered invertebrate group in North America.In order to provide a comprehensive and comparativenation of the 2000 results of the non-insect macroinvertebrate fauna of the Savannah River at the four stations (Appendix C)with those from previous surveys, a data summary thatcludes previous studies is included (TablesC-l and C-2).The 1997 through 1999 surveys were the only years that Stations 1, 2B, 5 and 6 were sampled as a single study for non-insect macroinvertebrates. In 1993, these same stations wereined as part of two separate studies[comprehensive attions 1,3,5 and 6 and Plant Vogtle at Stations V-I (=2A)and V-2 (=2B)].For comparisons among the 1993 through 1999 years, data will be extracted from the 1993 studies fromtions 1, 2B, 5 and 6.Comparisons will also be made with the August or September portion of previous comprehensiveveys from Stations 1,5 and 6 back to 1976 when phic conditions existed.Eutrophic conditions prevailed in the ill t272, and parisons, where applicable. Four station comparisons of the The Academy of Natural Sciences 74 Patrick Center for Environmental Research C.NON*INSECT MACROINVERTEBRATES 2000 Savannah River Studies Table C-1.Numbers of taxa collected by hand from the Savannah River at Stations 1, 28 (1993, 1997,1998,1999 and 2000),3 (1989 to 1972), 5 and 6 in August to October 1972,1976, 1980, 1984, 1989, 1993, 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000.Numbers for 1993 (except for Station 28),1997,1998,1999 and 2000 include the mussel studies.Stations Year 1 3/2B 5 6 Total 2000 17 20 21 16 30 1999 29 25 23 29 37 1998 20 25 33 39 47 1997 32 37 38 37 49 1993 26 13 26 32 47 1989 21 16 14 17 27 1984 16 18 28 26 36 1980 16 9 20 23 33 1976 26 18 31 21 45 1972 37 30 34 47 60, Table C-2.Numbers of taxa in the dominant classes collected by hand from the Savannah River at Stations 1, 2b (1993, 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000), 5 and 6 in August to October.Species totals for 1993-2000 include mussel surveys.[Numbers in parenthesis (1989 to 1972)represent additional species from Station 3[e.g., 6(1)=7 species at Stations 1, 3, 5 and 6 to permit four station comparisons 1999 to 1972].ClamsIMussels Leeches Snails Bivalves Crustaceans Mites 2000 4 5 4/8 4 1 1999 3 6 2/13 5 2 1998 4 7 7/13 7 1 1997 6 10 6/14 5 2 1993 4 8 5/13 6 2 1989 2(1)7 4(1)/2 4 1 1984 2(1)6(1)3(1)/9 5 0 1980 2 7 5/9 5 1 1976 6 8 4/14 4(1)2 1972 10 11 5/15 5 7 1993 through 1999 data with the 1972 through 1989 studies are made in Tables C-1 and C-2 utilizing Station 3 from these earlier surveys.Comparisons of the mussel data will be across all Academy comprehensive Savannah River surveys (1951 through 1999)at all stations (1, 2B, 3, 5 and 6)and seasons (typically two)beginning with the fIrst study in 1951.Com-parisons of data sets among years permits the best and most thorough understanding of the fauna, their distributions, and-_.----,...------ ..,. "-'-..-- ..The Academy of Natural Sciences 75 Patrick Center for Environmental Research C.NON*INSECT MACROINVERTEBRATES 2000 Savannah River Studies their habitats under various conditions, and it providesnomic consistency among the years.Biological inventories are widely recognized as establishing necessary baseline data against which important comparisons with later investigations can be made to discernmental changes.Traditionally, benthic non-insectvertebrates have been chosen as reliable indicators of water pollution because many species exhibit sedentary habits, some taxa are long-lived with low reproductive rates, anders exhibit complex, easily interrupted reproductive liferies and different tolerances to stress.Together the group possesses phylogenetic, physiological, behavioral andcal diversity with a sensitivity to a wide range of ecological perturbations. Alterations in community composition and population sizes reflect changes in the ecosystem.quently, studies of benthic macroinvertebrates are antant component of synoptic surveys that are designed for environmental impact assessment (Wilhm and Dorris 1968, Starrett 1971, Hynes 1972, 1974, Goodnight 1973, Hart and Fuller 1974, Olive and Smith 1975, Whitton 1975, Taylor 1980, Downing and Rigler 1984, Krueger et al.1988, Maret 1988, Abel 1989, Root 1990, Rosenberg and Resh 1993,terson 1993, Bright 1994,Loeb and Spacie 1994, Norris et al.1995, Bournaud et al.1996, Barbour et al.1996, Brown 1996, Karr and Chu'1998 and Rabeni et al.1999).Materials and Methods T he comprehensive non-insect macroinvertebrate study consisted of a survey of the mussel fauna on 25 to 28 August and the remaining groups on 10 to 14 September 1999.The non-insect macroinvertebrates were sampled at four stations (1, 2B, 5 and 6)on the Savannah River (see Location and Description of Stations).mately 5 to 7 hr were spent at each station, including time to survey the area by foot or boat to identify accessible habitats that differ in substrate type, current velocityandwater depth.Sampling was done in shallow water areas that could becessed in waders.No attempt was made to sample anysitic (e.g., leeches, crustaceans) or commensal (e.g.,------branchiobdellids,-mite) species from their-vertebrate tebrate hosts during the survey.The Academy of Natural Sciences 76 Patrick Center for Environmental Research C.NON*INSECTMACROINVERTEBRATES 2000 Savannah River Studies Because non-insect macroinvertebrates exhibit numerousphologies and behaviors, they were sampled in a number of ways.Slow moving and sedentary forms usually were best collected by hand, with smaller species being more easilymoved with small forceps from the substrate. In deeper water these animals were collected with a variety of dip nets.bottomed sandy, silty or muddy substrates were sampled with a Wildco bottom aquatic dip net (#425-A50) and a Wildco dip net (#484-D82) with a 3-mm (lI8-in)ace mesh.Harder, packed sand substrate areas in swifter currents were collected with the dip net placed perpendicular to the bottom and in front of the collector who disturbed the substrate with his feet while moving backwards upstream;any dislodged infauna were swept by the current into the dip net.More mobilemals were taken by dipnets which were swept through debris, leaf litter, aquatic vascular plants, flooded grasses andposed root mats of riparian trees.Rip rap, woody deadfalls and debris trapped around pilings or in shallows along the shore were examined and organisms removed with forceps.The pilings themselves were also searched in the samener for specimens. The contents of the nets were rinsed in the river to remove sediment and then were placed in a shallow aluminum tray.In this Illanner even small animals were easily observed andmoved.Common species were immediately identified,corded and released.Some reference material and taxa which could not be identified with certainty in the field wereserved in 95%ethyl alcohol and taken to the Philadelphia laboratory for identification. Before storage in alcohol, highly contractile organisms such as planarians, leeches, earthworms and tubificid worms were relaxed.They were passed through an intetmediate step in 10%formalin solution and washedfore storage in 80%alcohol.The habitat and relativedance of all the taxa were noted and the macroinvertebrates later identified to the lowest practical taxon.Relativedances were defined on the basis of the number of animals collected as rare (1 individual), uncommon (2 to 3),ately common (4 to 15), common (16 to 30)and abundant (31 or more).Mussels and Asian clams (Corbiculafluminea) werelected quantitatively from areas delineated with a 1.0-m 2 ofa sample areaw-as-delineated-with-- ...flagged rebar at the 0.6 ill depth.Study areas chosen in 2000 The Academy of Natural Sciences 77 Patrick Center for Environmental Research C.NON-INSECT MACROINVERTEBRATES 2000 Savannah River Studies occurred immediately downriver from the downrivermost set of pilings (Stations 1 and 2B)or at the junction of the main channel and a backwater oxbow (Stations 5 and 6UR).Tocompass a variety of flows, substrates and depths, threesects were established rougWy perpendicular to the shoreline. Along each transect, three quadrats were set at various depths (=nine quadrats). Based upon depth, substrate and flow, a tenth quadrat was selected in likely mussel habitat.This last quadrat was chosen to add species and specimens toute mussel size distribution information. Sediments were scooped to a depth of approximately 19.5 cm (7.75 in)with a 2-L polyethylene scoop and passed through a 30.5-0D X 8.89-D cm (12 X 3.5-in)sieve with a 2-mm (0.0787-in) mesh.The sediment within each quadrat was then searched by hand for animals that might o"ccur deeper than the bite of the scoop.Allbivalve molluscs were counted and all mussels measured.Animals were returned to areas near where they werenally found.The common and scientific names of molluscs follows Turgeon et al.(1998).Results I n 2000, low water levels (mean river height of 1.2 and 2.4 ft on 25 to 28 August and 8 to 11 September 2000, respectively) were present during the mussel andhensive non-insect macroinvertebrate surveys.Water levels were so low that 2000 marked the first mussel survey in which the assistance of the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers was not needed to control water levels.Although whenpared to other Savannah River studies, water levels were low, they were higher than prior water levels in the summer months of 2000 (q.v., Fig.2).The less vagile to sessilesect macroinvertebrate fauna primarily existed below the base level established during the low water summer months.Higher water levels during the comprehensive non-insect macroinvertebrate study resulted in less access to the biotaing below the base level water line.Riparian grasses,ing paspalum grass (Paspalum species), at the newly established river margin were flooded by high (relatively) water levels and provided habitat for macroinvertebrates (e.g., crustacea and some snails).The beds of submerged aquatic.-vascular plants absent froin the study area-since-I9-90were-- The Academy of Natural Sciences 78 Patrick Center for Environmental Research C.NON*INSECT MACROINVERTEBRATES 2000 Savannah River Studies still absent in 2000.Present, however, were scattered growths of water hyacinth (Eichomia crassipes), alligator weednanthera philoxeroides) , shade mudflower (Micranthemum umbrosum), water-milfoil (Myriophyllum species)and water pennywort (Hydrocotyl ranunculoides). These patches of aquatic vascular plants provided habitat for a range of macroinvertebrates (see individual accounts below).Sponges (porifera) T he 2000 survey included the observation of colonies of an undetermined species of sponge at all stations.It was uncommon at Stations 5 (branch)and 6 (small log), moderately common[woody debris (e.g., logs and branches)] at Station 2B and common at Station 1 (woodybris).From the 1999 survey, colonies this undeterminedcies of sponge were found to be moderately common on woody substrates at Stations 1 and 2B and rare at Station 6.In 1998, small colonies of sponge were abundant on rocky rip rap and a log and branch at Station 5, common on logs and roots at Station 6 and branches and logs at Station 1 andcommon on a log at Station 2B.In 1997, large colonies of sponge were abundant on rocky rip rap and common on logs at Station 1.This taxon was found on roots and logs at themaining stations where it was common at Station 2B and moderately common at Stations 5 and 6.In 1993, colonies of sponge were common on logs and were encrusting riparian roots at Station 1.Sponges were common at Station 2B as small colonies on logs and branches.This sponge was also found to be common on the left bank rip rap downriver from Wild Horse Slough (=Swift Gut)at Station 5.Thetion of two large colonies on a small branch at Station 6 marks the fIrst time this species had been sampled from this area[6UR (=upper reach)or 6LR (=lower reach)](seetion and Description of Stations)since May 1972.In 1989, large colonies of sponge were common on rocks near shore along one of the pilings at Station 1 and this sponge wastered on logs trapped by pilings at Station 5.Sponges were present in the 1980 (Station 1)and August 1976 (Station 1)studies.The Academy surveys reveal this sponge to generally be a widespread and common component of the Savannah___Ri_*,.-v_er it __._.wherever rocky substrata have been introduced. The Academy of Natural Sciences 79 Patrick Center for Environmental Research C.NON*INSECT MACROINVERTEBRATES 2000 Savannah River Studies Flatworms (platyhelminthes) T he 2000 study found Dugesia tigrina rare at Stations 1 (bark)and 6 (crawling on the outside of a plastic bottle)and moderately common at Station 5ately common on woody debris).In 1999, this species wascommon in muddy stick litter at Station 1 and on a log at Station 6.The 1998 survey found this same species ofworm to be moderately common on a plastic cup at Station 1 and under the bark of a log at Station 5 and rare in watercinth roots and uncommon in willow roots at Station 6.In 1997, this planarian was found to be common on leaves and logs and among roots at Station 1, uncommon on leaf and stick liter at Station 2B, moderately common among roots and on loose bark and a branch at Station 5 and on alligator weed and willow roots at Station 6.Planarians were most often taken in 1993 from the surface of logs.On this habitat it was common at Station 2B, moderately common at Stations 1 and 6 and uncommon at Station 5.The 1989 study found thiscies usually living among growths of aquatic vascular plants such as alligator weed, coon-tail (Ceratophyllum demersum)and waterweed (Egeria densa)at all stations.This flatworm was also collected at all stations during the 1984 survey,tions 5 and 6 in 1980 and Stations 1,5 and 6 in August 1976.This planarian has been and remains an uncommon to locally common part of the Savannah River fauna in the areasveyed.Roundworms (Nematoda) A s in recent surveys, no roundworms were taken in 2000.They occupy a wide range of habitats, andthough they, along with ceratopogonid (biting midges)larvae, display a distinctive thrashing mode ofmotion in samples, they are often overlooked because of their small size.Roundworms were rare in collections of leaf litter at Station 1 in 1993.In 1989 these small worms were found in muddy to peaty sediments and among the root masses of aquatic vascular plants at Stations 1, 5 and 6.This group was collected from unnamed habitats in 1984 at Stations 5 and 6.No representatives of this group were recorded at Stations 1, The Academy of Natural Sciences 80 Patrick Center for Environmental Research C.NON-INSECT MACROINVERTEBRATES 2000 Savannah River Studies 5 and 6 in 1980 or August 1976.Their poor representation in collections is probably a reflection of their small size.Horsehair Wonns (Nematomorpha) A n undetermined species of horsehair worm of the family Chordodidae was uncommon in 2000 attion 2B in floating grasses.Horsehair worms were rare in 1999 at Stations 1 and 2B and uncommon at Station 5.The nematomorph at Station 2B was noted from open water, while those taken from Stations 1 and 5 were removed from root mats.Horsehair worms were rare in 1998 at Stations 1,5 and 6.All worms were taken from open water habitats either by dip net (Stations 1 and 5)or seine (Station 6 by theies team).Single horsehair worms were collected fromtions 1 and 5 in 1997.The individual from Station 1 was collected by seine, while the horsehair worm at Station 5 was scooped up by hand while it was"swimming" in open water.A single animal was recorded in 1993 after it was found in a pile of small branches and leaf litter at Station 5.Not since May 1972, when a single horsehair worm was collected from undefined habitat at Station 1, had this group beensented in the Savannah River surveys.Nematomorphs arefrequently taken in aquatic surveys and less so in large rivers.The reason for their more widespread or common appearance in samples during the last four surveys is unknown.Moss Animals (Ectoprocta) F rom a backwater at Station 5 in 2000, three smallnies of the gelatinous bryozoanPlumatellamagnifica were observed on a section of old trot line.This is the first time this species has been noted from the Savannah River studiesandis probably more a reflection of the quietter habitat and low flows in 2000.The branching ectoproct Plumatella repens is the typical bryozoan found in the main stem of the river.Although no ectoprocts were observed in the 1999 investigation, in 1998 P.repens was moderately common on rocky rip rap and two sparse colonies were found on a branch at Station 5 and one meager colony was noted from a log at Station 1.Plumatella repens was uncommon on----flreek-s-at-Station-5-and portions-of-a-eolony-were foundin-a--- The Academy of Natural Sciences 81 Patrick Center for Environmental Research C.NON*INSECT MACROINVERTEBRATES 2000 Savannah River Studies sample of riparian roots at Station 6 in 1997.In 1993, thiscies was found at only Station 5.Here two large colonies were noted from flat rocks at the rip rap bankdownriverfrom Wild Horse Slough (=Swift Gut).This bryozoan was not found in 1989 but was taken from unspecified habitats attions 5 and 6 in 1984.A second bryozoan, Pottsiella erecta was recorded that same year from Station 6.In 1980, P.pens was tentatively identified from submerged wood attions 1,5 and 6.The bryozoan from the August 1976 investigation was tentatively identified as P.emarginata. It was found on"submerged vegetable trash" at all stations (ANSP 1977:40).Plumatella repens is generally rare tocommon on hard substrates such as rip rap, finished board and logs in this portion of the Savannah River.Segmented Worms (Annelida) A nnelids found free living in the Savannah River are represented bytubificids, earthworms and leeches.The 2000 study was marked by the lack of bothficids and earthworms. Both groups are found in sediments and woody debris.Sediments were less accessible during the period of the comprehensive survey in 2000 due to relatively higher water levels.In 1999, two species of tubificids werecorded.One was common in root mats and associated with logs at Station 1, while the second taxon was uncommon at Stations 2B and 5 and rare at Station 6.This latter species was found in muddy stick litter at Station 2B, root mats (rarely)and logs at Station 5 and from an undetermined habitat attion 6.During the 1998 survey the tubificid Branchiuraerbyi was moderately common in muddy detritus and fine muds at Station 5, while an undetermined species wasmon in detritus and fine muds at Station 5, common in muddy leaf litter and under the bark of logs at Station 2B and rare in root mats and muddy detritus at Stations 1 and 6,tively.An undetermined species oftubificid was uncommon at Stations 2B, 5 and 6 and rare at Station 1 in 1997.Habitat at the various stations included root mats (Stations 2B and 6), leaf and stick litter (Station 2B), woody detritus (Station 1), a log (Station 5)and detritus (Station 5).They were poorlyresented in the 1993 study.At this time they were rare under.__.-!hePQll!tI!K tree 12 and in __root mats (Station 6).Tubificids were collected from The Academy of Natural Sciences 82 Patrick Center for Environmental Research C.NON*INSECT MACROINVERTEBRATES 2000 Savannah River Studies 1989 to 1976 at the following stations: 1989 at Station 1, 1984 at Stations 5 and 6, 1980 at Station 1 and in August 1976 at Stations 1 and 5.The earthworm, Lumbriculus variegatus, in 1999, wasately common in,root mats and associated with logs attions 1 and 6 and uncommon at Stations2B(root mats and muddy stick litter)and 5 (root mats an.d logs).In 1998,worms were moderately comrilOn under the bark of logs at Station 2B and rare in, a sandy substrate, muddy detritus and muddy leaf litter at Stations 1,5 and 6, respectively. This same species of earthworm was, in 1997, rare in a log andlery within a branch at Stations 1 and 6, respectively, and in leaf and stick litter at Station 2B.This species wasately common under the bark of a log at Station 5.In 1993, this taxon was poorly represented in terms of numbers and distribution. A single individual was found among a pile of branches at Station 5.No earthworms were found in 1989, and specimens were taken at Stations 1,5 and 6 in 1984.Earthworms are widespread and generally uncommon in the study areas of the Savannah River.Despite the elevated water levels, the leech fauna was asverse, on average, as has been found in the study segments of the river between 1976 and 1999.In 2000, the leech fauna consisted of Desserobdella phalera, Helobdella triserialis, Placobdella papillifera and an undetermined species ofdellid leech.A single Desserobdella phalera was collected from the shell of a living Savannah lilliput (ToxolasmaIus)taken at Station 6 during the mussel portion of the study.Desserobdella phalera has been found free living or ing the bluegill, Lepomis macrochirus (Klemm 1985).The leeches Helobdella triserialis and P.papillifera were rare at Stations 5 (paspalum grass)and 2B (seined by the fisheries team).The undetermined species of erpobdellid leech was found in flooded grasses at Station 5.The 1999 leech fauna consisted of H.triserialis, P.montifera and P.parasitica. At Station 1 the leeches H.triserialis and P.montifera were rare.They were found in root mats and on a log, although the specific habitat for each species was not defined.Helobdella triserialis was also collected from root mats at Station 6.The leech P.parasitica, a parasite of turtles___(-=-Kl_emm_ in of root mats and leaf litter.The Academy of Natural Sciences 83 Patrick Center for Environmental Research C.NON-INSECT MACROINVERTEBRATES 2000 Savannah River Studies The leech fauna in 1998 consisted of D.phalera, H.alis, P.papillifera and P.parasitica. Desserobdella phalera was rare in leaf litter at Station 2B, while H.triserialis was rare in muddy leaf litter at Station 6.Placobdella papillifera and P.parasitica each occurred at two stations.Placobdella papillifera was uncommon on a branch and in leaf litter attion 5 and rare in muddy leaf litter at Station 6.Placobdella parasitica was uncommon in leaf litter and on a log at Station 2B and one individual each was found in detritus and root mats at Station 5.In 1997, the leech fauna consisted of D.phalera, H.triserialis, P.montifera, P.nucha lis, P.era and P.parasitica. Desserobdella phalera was rare on roots at Station 1, rare on the variable spike (Elliptio icterina)at Station 2B and uncommon in water pennywort and roots at Station 6.Helobdella triserialis was uncommon in antermined habitat at Station 1 and on the variable spike (E.icterina)and Carolina slabshell (E.congaraea) at Station 5 andrareon water pennywort at Station 6.Placobdellaera was found on the variable spike and rayed pink fatmucket (Lampsilis splendida) at Station 2B and P.nuchalis in roots at Station 5.Placobdella papillifera was the mostcies of leech in 1997.It was rare (log)at Station 1,ately common at Station 2B (one on the eastern elliptio, E.complanata, and three in leaf and stick litter), rare at Station 5 (on the eastern creekshell, Villosa delumbis)and rare on the Carolina slabshell at Station 6.Placobdella parasitica was present on undefined habitat at Station 2B and on a log attion 5.Leeches collected in September 1993 included Mooreobdella melanostoma (Station 6), D.phalera (Stations 2B and 6), P.multilineata (Station 6)and P.parasitica (Stations 5 and 6).Leeches were rare to uncommon in 1993.None of thecies was represented by more than one or two individuals. The erpobdellid leech M.melanostoma was taken from root mats and the root tuft of a water hyacinth at Station 6.The habitats for the remaining species included logs (D.phalera, P.papillifera and P.parasitica), root mats (D.phalera, P.multilineata and P.parasitica), mud (P.papillifera) and the surface of the Atlantic spike (E.producta). Two species of leeches were found in September 1989 (H.triserialis and P.parasitica). Most specimens were collected-although-one parasitica was taken while swimming in open water.In The Academy of Natural Sciences 84 Patrick Center for Environmental Research C.NON*INSECT MACROINVERTEBRATES 2000 Savannah River Studies 1984, two species of leeches were collected as follows: B.phalera at Stations 5 and 6, and P.parasitica at Station 6.The 1980 survey produced two species ofleeches: B.phalera at Stations 1 and 5 and P.parasitica"at Station 5."In thegust 1976 study six taxa of leeches were observed.della phalera was found at the same stations as in the 1980 survey, P.papillifera at Station 5, P.montifera at Stations 5 and 6 and Myzobdella lugubris, an unidentified leech (sight record)and an unidentified erpobdellid leech at Station 1.The four species of leeches in 2000 at Stations 1, 2B, 5 and 6 is equal to the four species collected at these same stations in 1998 and September 1993.The 2000 species richness is less than that of 1997 and August 1976 (six species each)but greater than the September 1980 to 1989 and 1999 surveys at Stations 1,5 and 6 (two species in 1980, two each in 1984 and 1989 and three in 1999).Inasmuch as the comparisons of four stations in 2000 through 1993 are with three sites from the earlier surveys, asecondcomparison utilizing fourtions from earlier studies incorporates the results from Station 3 in the 1972 through 1989 surveys (Table C-2).However, among these surveys, only in 1984 and 1989 is an additional species of leech added to the diversity of this group.The 6 species of leeches in 1997 and 1976 is decidedly lower than the 10 species (with or without Station 3)collected in 1972.The differences among the surveys are due to water levels,tent and distribution of vegetation and collecting effort in other habitats during years when vegetation was lessdant.Ingeneral, the extent, density and distribution ofmerged aquatic vascular vegetation has varied since 1972.These vegetated areas not only included stands in shelteredeas, but also patches of aquatic vasculars in the current.In 1972, when eutrophic conditions existed, dense stand ofmerged aquatic vegetation existed in the Savannah River.Molluscs (Mollusca) Snails I n 2000, five species of snails were noted: Campelomacisum (pointed campeloma), Pseudosuccinea columella (mimic lymnaea), Physella heterostropha (pewter---pnysa),Feff'issia rlvUliifi.s--(creeping ancylid)"and NovisuZ..:--------- The Academy of Natural Sciences 85 Patrick Center for Environmental Research C.NON*INSECT MACROINVERTEBRA TES 2000 Savannah River Studies cinea ovalis (oval ambersnail). The pointed campeloma was common in sand at Station 1 and moderately common attions 2B, 5 and 6 in sands and muds.The mimic lymnaea was common at Station 1, where it was primarily found on woody debris and pilings with an uncommon presence on alligator weed.This species was moderately common at Stations 2B, 5 and 6 in woody debris with an uncommon occurrence on a plastic bottle at Station 6.The pewter physa occurred in a range of abundances and habitats.It was moderately common at Stations 1 and 2B, common at Station 5 and abundant at Station 6.It occurred on woody debris, emergent and floating vascular plants (water hyacinth, shade mudflower and water pennywort), mud surfaces, undetermined flooded grasses and paspalum grass.The creeping ancylid was moderatelymon on plastic floats at Station 1 and uncommon on alligator weed stems at Station 2B.In the past, the amphibious oval ambersnail has not been well represented in the Savannah River surveys.In past studies it has been rarely collected and only at Station 6 in 1997 and 1993.In 2000, a yearduced flows and flooding events,thisland snail was found at all stations where it was moderately common at Station 1 and uncommon at the remaining study sections of the river.It was collected from woody debris at Stations 1, 2B and 5,tic bottles at Stations 5 and 6 and alligator weed at Station 6.Six species of snails were collected in 1999.They included the pointed campeloma, Amnicola limosus (mud amnicola), mimic lymnaea, pewter physa, creeping ancylid and Laevapexfuscus (dusky ancylid).The pointed campeloma was common at Station 1 (root mats andonlogs), moderately common at Station 6 (muddy substrates, root mats and logs)and uncommon at Stations 2B (root mats and muddy stickter)and 5 (root mats and logs).The mud amnicola wasserved in root mats and logs where it was moderately common at Station 1 and uncommon at Station 6.The mimic lymnaea was moderately common in root mats and on logs at Stations 5 and 6 and uncommon at Station 1 on logs.The pewter physa was abundant at Stations 1 and 6 on logs and in root mats and moderately common at Stations 2B and 5 on logs and in root mats and muddy stick litter.The creeping ancylid was slightly less widespread than its ancylid relative the dusky ancylid.In the Savannah River, the creeping____an_cylid prefers fIrm to _ters.Here it was found to be uncommon on woody substrates The Academy of Natural Sciences 86 Patrick Center for Environmental Research C.NON*INSECT MACROINVERTEBRATES 2000 Savannah River Studies at Stations 1 and 2B and rare at Station 5.The dusky ancylid prefers static or slow moving waters and was uncommontions 1 and 2B)to rare (Stations 5 and 6)on logs and in leaf litter and root mats.The seven species of snails represented in 1998 included the pointed campeloma, mud amnicola, mimic lymnaea, bugle sprite (Micromentetus dilatatus), marsh rams-hombella trivolvis) ), pewter physa and dusky ancylid.The pointed campeloma was abundant at all stations in a range of sand to muddy-sand and mud substrates with occasionalviduals found on logs and in root mats at Station 1.The mud amnicola was moderately common at Stations 1 (root mats)and 6 (log with a single animal taken from muddy leaf litter)and uncommon at Station 2B (leaf litter).The mimicnaea was moderately common on pilings at Stations 2B and 6 (one snail was collected from a patch of pennywort at Station 6)and rare at Station 1 on a log.The bugle sprite was rare in root mats and on a log at Stations 5 and 6, respectively. The marsh rams-hom was uncommon at Stations 1 and 5 on logs and one marsh rams-hom was found crawling on wet sandshore at Station 5.The pewter physa was common at Station 1 in root mats and on logs and moderately common attions 2B, 5 and 6.At Stations 2B and 5 the pewter physacurred in the same root and log habitat as the population at Station 1, while at Station 6 it was found in both root mats and patches of pennywort. The dusky ancylid was the only ancylid collected in 1998.It was moderately common on logs at Station 1.The snail fauna in 1997 consisted of 10 species: pointedpeloma, mud amnicola, mimic lymnaea, Helisoma anceps (two-ridge rams-hom), bugle sprite, marsh rams-hom, pewter physa, creeping ancylid, dusky ancylid and oval ambersnail. The pointed campeloma was abundant at all stations in sand and mud substrates with a single snail removed from a rotten log at Station 1.The mud amnicola was moderately common at Station 5 and abundant at the remaining stations.They were picked from branches (Stations 1 and 2B)and a logtion 5), separated from leaf and stick litter (Station 2B)and found in samples of root mats (Stations 1, 2B and 6)and a patch of alligator weed (Station 6).The mimic lymnaea was moderately common at Station 6 (logs), uncommon at Sta-------tiens 1 (piling)and 5{piling and 10g)and-rare at-Station2B---*--*(piling).An uncommon snail in the 1997 survey was the two-The Academy of Natural Sciences 87 Patrick Center for Environmental Research C.NON-INSECTMACROINVERTEBRATES 2000 Savannah River Studies ridge rams-hom.Two snails were obtained from logs attion 1.The bugle sprite was collected from logs and roots.It was moderately common at Stations 1 and 5 and rare attion 6.At Station 1, this species was more common in roots than on logs.Similar to the two-ridge rams;'hom, the marsh rams-hom was uncommon at Stations 1 and 6 and rare attion 2B.At each of these stations the marsh rams-hom was found in a different habitat as follows: Station 1 on logs,tion 2B in leaf and stick litter and Station 6 in willow roots.The pewter physa was found in a variety of habitats that can be basically lumped into hard surfaces such as logs, branches and sticks (Stations 1, 2B and 5)and fine roots (all stations). The pewter physa was abundant at Stations 1 and 6,ately common at Station 5 and common at Station 2B.Of the two ancylid snails, the dusky ancylid was the more abundant and widespread. It was abundant at Station 2B, moderately common at Station 1 and rare at Station 5.At Station 1, single snails occurred on a log and among roots, while mostviduals were collected from willow and sycamore leaf litter.The population at Station 2B was found on sticks, especially fresh, less seasoned, ones.The one dusky ancylid taken attion 5 was found on a log.The less common creeping ancylid was rare on a log at Station 5 and on roots at Station 6.A single oval ambersnail was recorded from willow roots at Station 6.Eight species of gastropods were obtained during theber 1993 survey at Stations 1,5 and 6.The following snails were collected from the surfaces of logs: mud amnicolations 1, 2B and 6), pewter physa (all stations), marshhom (Station 1), two-ridge rams-hom (Station 1), and dusky ancylid (Station 1).Two of the species mentioned above (dusky ancylid and pewter physa)occurred in other habitats.One dusky ancylid was found on a leaf and one was removed from an artificial insect substrate. Besides logs, the pewter physa grazed a wide range of habitats that included rocks, root mats and leaf litter.Of the two remaining species, one of them, the mimic lymnaea had a spotty distribution on pilings and logs.Where found, they were moderately to verymon on from one to three pilings but lackingfromother such structures. Besides the pilings, the mimic lymnaea wassent on a branch.The pointed campeloma, was collected in mud, muddy priI!!aril)'!ll areas with The Academy of Natural Sciences 88 Patrick Center for Environmental Research C.NON-INSECT MACROINVERTEBRATES 2000 Savannah River Studies at least some mud at all stations.Single individuals were also collected from a log and among a root mass.Seven species of gastropods were obtained during theber 1989 survey.The following snails were collected from aquatic vascular plants in sheltered areas as follows: mudnicola, pewter physa, marsh rams-hom and mimic lymnaea.Two of the species mentioned above occurred more (mimic lymnaea)or less (pewter physa)in other habitats.Most mimic lymnaea were found on the leeward side of pilings.Pewter physa were also picked off logs trapped by pilings and swept from riparian grasses hanging into the water, while the pointed campeloma was collected in muddy, muddy sand and detrital substrates. The oval ambersnail was taken fromian vegetation hanging into the water at Station 6.The dusky ancylid was removed from rocky substrates with oneual found on a decaying leaf.In 1984, six species of snails were collected at Stations 1,5 and 6.The dusky ancylid (Laevapexfuscus as Lepyrium showalteri) was found at Stations 1 and 5, the pointedpeloma (c.decisum as Campeloma sp.)at Stations 1,5 and 6, the mud arnnicola (A.limosus as A.limosa)at Stations 1, 5 and 6, the mimic lymnaea at Stations 1, 5 and 6, the bugle sprite (P.dilatatus as Promenetes sp.)at Station 1 and the pewter physa (Physelia heterostropha as Physa sp.)tions 1, 5 and 6.The 1980 survey found the following seven species: pointed campeloma (c.decisum as Campeloma sp.)at Stations 5 and 6 in September, mud amnicola (A.limosus as A.limosa)at Stations 1 and 6, mimic lymnaea at Stations 1, 5 and 6, two-ridge rams-hom at Station 1, bugle sprite[Promenetus dilatatus as Menetus (Micromenetus) dilatatus] at Station 1, pewter physa (Physella heterostropha as Physa sp.)at Stations 1,5 and 6 and three-ridge valvata (Valvatacarinata)at Station 6.'The August 1976 survey collected eight taxa of snails which included the pointed campeloma (c.decisum as Campeloma sp.)at all stations, mud arnnicola (A.limosus asA.limosa)at Stations 1 and 5, mimic lymnaea (Pseudosuccinea columella as Lymnaea columella) at Stations 1 and 5, marsh foss aria (Fossa ria humilis as Lymnaea humilis)at Station 1, bugle , sprite (Promenetus dilatatus as Menetes dilatatus) at Stations____ physa (Physella sp.)'------_ at Stations 1,5 and 6, an unidentified ancylid snail at Station The Academy of Natural Sciences 89 Patrick Center for Environmental Research C.NON-INSECT MACROINVERTEBRATES 2000 Savannah River Studies 6 and an unidentified snail probably belonging to the family Valvatidae at Station 5.The snail assemblage of the 2000 survey (five species)attions 1, 2B, 5 and 6 was only slightly less than the six species in 1999 and September 1984, seven species in 1998,ber 1989 and September 1980 and eight species in September 1993 and August 1976.Only in the 1997 (10 species)and September 1972 (11 species)studies were significantly more species collected than in the other study years (Table C-2).The above comparisons of the 1999 through 1993 surveys at Stations 1, 2B, 5 and 6 were with earlier surveys having three sites (Stations 1, 5 and 6).A second comparison utilizing four stations from the earlier studies incorporates the results from Station 3 in the 1972 through 1989 surveys.However, amongthesesurveys, only in 1984 was an additional species of snail added to the diversity of this group (total of sevencies, q.v., Table C-2).Snails occupy a wide range of habitats from hard substrates to vegetation, and many of the species are more abundant in submerged aquatic vegetation in this portion of the Savannah River (e.g., mud amnicola, two-ridge rams-hom, bugle sprite, marsh rams-h0!ll' pewter physa and creeping ancylid).Species that are more common ontion are still present in the river, although in smaller numbers.During the late summer to fall, it appears that a large number of the taxa present in the Savannah River can be collected irre-.spective of the amount of vegetation present[see section above on Segmented Worms (Annelida) ], althoughdance for these species will be relative to the presence andtent of submerged aquatic vegetation. Bivalves ivalve molluscs in this portion of the Savannah River consist of the Asian clam, fingemailclams, peaclarns and mussels.Because of the importance of the mus-'sel fauna, the following discussion of the bivalve faunaitially compares the distributions and habitats of the clams among surveys, with a separate discussion of the mussels.The bivalve fauna in 2000 consisted of 12 taxa dividedtween 4 species of clams and 8 mussel taxa.The Academy of Natural Sciences 90 Patrick Center for Environmental Research C.NON*INSECT MACROINVERTEBRATES Clams 2000 Savannah River Studies he clam fauna in 2000 consisted of the Asian clam, a fingernailclam and peaclams.The introduced Asian clam, Corbicula fluminea, was abundant at all sta-tions in the quantitative mussel survey.It occurred in a range of substrates that graded from silts and muds through sands and gravel scattered rocks.In areas consisting of fmerparticles,detritus was common and algae covered thestrate at some areas of Station 5.Most of the fmgernailclams and peaclams were also primarily collected during the mussel survey.Musculium securis, swamp fingernailclam, Pisidium compressum, ridgebeak peaclam, and P.dubium, greaterern peaclam.The swamp fingernailclam was moderatelymon at Station 5, where it was rare in willow roots and moderately common in muds sifted as part of the quantitative mussel survey.Except for one greater eastern peaclam taken from muds at Station 6 in the comprehensive survey, all other greater eastern and ridgebeak peaclams were obtained while sifting mud sediments during the mussel study.The ridgebeak peaclams were moderately common at Stations 2B and 5, while the greater eastern peaclam was rare at Station 1 and moderately common at Station 2B.Of the clam species collected from the Savannah River in 1999, the Asian clam was collected at Stations 1, 5 and 6.At.all three stations it was found in fast flowing sand and gravel substrates. It was common at Station 1, moderately common at Station 6 and uncommon at Station 5.The ubiquitous peaclam, P.casertanum, was the only species of clam collected in 1999.This species was uncommon inroot mats and an unidentified habitat at Station 6.The Asian clam, in 1998, was present at all stations.It was abundant in substrates ranging from sand (Stations 2B and 5)to muddy-sand (Station 2B).This species was common in sand substrates at Station 6 and moderately common in muddy leaf litter at Station 1.Three species of clams (M.transversum, long fmgernailclam, nailclam, and Eupera cubensis, mottled fingernailclam) and two taxa of peaclams (ridgebeak peaclam, and greater eastern peaclam)were also noted.The long fingernailclam wascommon at Station 5 in fine mud, while the numbers of the----,s=wampfingemaildamrangedTrom abunoanr(Station 6-in The Academy of Natural Sciences 91 Patrick Center for Environmental Research C.NON*INSECT MACROINVERTEBRATES 2000 Savannah River Studies mud), to common (Station 1 in muddy leaf litter), toately common (Station 5 in fine muds)and rare (Station 2B in muddy leaf litter).In 1998, mottled fingernailclams were only noted from Station 6 in root mats where they were moderately common.The ridgebeak peaclam was abundant at Station 2B in mud and leaf litter, while the greater eastern peaclam was abundant in root mats and fine muds at Station 5 and rare in mud at Station 6.In 1997, the clam species included the Asian clam at alltions in sand and mud substrates of slow to moderate currents.Three species of fmgernailclams (long fmgernailclam, swamp fingernailclam and mottled fingernailclam) and two taxa of peaclams (ridgebeak peaclam and greater eastern peaclam)were also noted.All the sphaeriids were sampled from root mats, with the ridgebeak peaclam and greater eastern peaclam found as well in leaf and stick litter at Station 2B.The long fingernailclam was rare at Station 5, swamp fmgernailclam common at Stations 5 and 6 and moderately common attion 1 and mottled fingernailclam abundant at Station 5,mon at Station 2B, moderately common at Station 6 and rare at Station 1.The ridgebeak peaclam was abundant at Station 2B, uncommon at Station 1 and rare at Station 6.The greater eastern peaclam was moderately common at Station 2B and uncommon at Station 1.Theclamscollected in September 1993 includedtheAsian clam at all stations.It occurred in sand and mud substrates as well as the roots of riparian trees.Thisspeciesoccurred in high densities and was the only bivalve in the packed sandeas with at least a moderate current.In the Septemberprehensive study and October mussel survey, an examination of oxbow areas found the substrate away from the mouth of the oxbows to consist of an especially fme, soupy mud.valves in this substrate were rare with only occasional paper pondshells, Utterbackia imbecillis, and the Asian clam.The three genera of sphaeriids or fmgernailclams and peaclams collected from the Savannah River in 1993 included the swamp fingernailclam, mottled fingernailclam and two taxa of peaclams (ubiquitous peaclam and greater eastern peaclam).All the sphaeriids were collected from root mats.The swamp fingernailclam was collected at Stations 1, 5 and 6, the mottled fmgernailclam at Stations 5 and 6, ubiquitous gIeater-eastern-peaelam-at-8tati ft ofiA-+"1.,.----- The Academy of Natural Sciences 92 Patrick Center for Environmental Research C.NON-INSECTMACROINVERTEBRATES 2000 Savannah River Studies The sphaeriids and corbiculid in 1989 were represented by four species at Stations 1,5 and 6.The four species included two species of Pisidium (greater European peaclam,cum, at Station 6 and ridgebeak peaclam at Station 1)as well as a single member of the genus Musculium (swampnailclam, securis as transversum) at Station 1 and the Asian clam at Stations 1, 5 and 6.The clam fauna in 1984 included the ubiquitous peaclam only at Station 1, greater eastern peaclam at Stations 5 and 6 and the Asian clam at Stations 1, 5 and 6.Clams collected in 1980 included the ubiquitous peaclam and ridgebeak peaclam at Stations 1 and 6, greater eastern peaclam at Station 6, long fingernailclam at Station 1 and Asian clam at Stations 1,5 and 6.In August 1976, the*mottled fingernailclam (Station 5), long fingernailclam,culium transversum (as Sphaerium transversum, at Station 1), an unidentified species of pea clam (Pisidium at Station 1)and Asian clam C.fluminea (as C.manilensis at Stations 1,5 and 6)were taken.From the September 1972 survey four species of sphaeriids were found at Stations 1,5 and 6 as follows: ridgebeak peaclam, ubiquitous peaclam, long fingernailclam, Musculium transversum (as Sphaerium transversum) andtled fingernailclam. Mussels omparisons of the 2000 mussel survey results with those from previous years will include not only those stations (1, 2B, 5 and 6)surveyed in 2000 but also Station 3, which was part of the comprehensiveally two times a year)river studies unti11993 (q.v., Tables3 and C-4).In 2000, 118 mussels were recorded from a quantitativevey using 1.0-m 2 quadrats.Past surveys have includedtive hand collections in shallow waters and diving in deeper areas.The addition of a quantitative aspect was initiatedmarily to address the statement that there was an"almostform distribution" of mussels"from juveniles through old adults (over eight years of age)" in the 1960 survey (ANSP 1961:48).With the exception of the Savannah lilliput in 1998 and Savannah lilliput and paper pondshell in 1997 and 1993 there has been a scarcity of juveniles in qualitative collec-_______________ ... In the quantitative collections would provide information on the population size of the introduced Asian The Academy of Natural Sciences 93 Patrick Center for Environmental Research Table C-3.Species of mussels collected during comprehensive surveys of the Savannah River, near the Savannah River Site, Georgia and South Carolina, from 1951 through 2000.('51=1951&1952,'55=1955&1956)(X=present,-=absent)(*identified as E.complanata in earlier surveys).'51'55'60'65'68'72'76'80'84'89'93'97'98'99'00 Alasmidonta triangulataXXXXX X A.couperiana XXXXXXXXX Elliptio complanata XXXX XXXXX X XXX X E.congaraeaXXXX XXXX X XXXX E.fratema X E.icterinaXX XXXXXXXX X X E.productaXXXXXXXXX X XXX X E.roanokensis*XXX X Lampsilis cariosaXX X*X X XXXXXXX X L.splendida XXXXXXXXXXXXX Pyganodon cataracta XXXXX XXX XXX X Strophitus undulatusXXX Toxolasma pullus X XXXXXXXX X Uniomerus carolinian us XXXXX X XXX X Utterbackia imbecillisXXXXXXXXXXXXX Villosa delumbis XXXXX XXXXXXXX X X I , I I C.NON*INSECT MACROINVERTEBRATES 2000 Savannah River Studies Table C-4.Species of mussels and stations collected during comprehensive surveys of the Savannah River, near the Savannah River Site, Georgia and South Carolina, from 1951 through 2000.(X=present,-=absent).Station 1 2B 356 Alasmidonta triangulata XXX Anodonta couperiana X X XXX Elliptio complanata XXXXX E.congaraeaXXXX X E*fratema X E.icterinaXXXXX E.producta X XXX X E.roanokensisXXXX X Lampsilis cariosaXXX X X L.splendidaXXXX X Pyganodon cataracta XXX X Strophitus undulatus X Toxolasma pullus X X X X Uniomerus carolinianusXXX X X Utterbackia imbecillis X X X X X Villosa delumbisXXXX X---..The Academy of Natural Sciences 94 Patrick Center for Environmental Research C.NON*INSECT MACROINVERTEBRATES 2000 Savannah River Studies clam, a competitor to the mussel fauna for habitat and foodsources in the Savannah River.Although employingtive measures by passing sediments through a sieve does a better job of collecting small individuals, the intensity of the labor involved results in a much smaller survey area.The smaller areal coverage tends to miss some taxa, especially rarer species.The fauna at the four stations consisted of 8 species aslows: Elliptio icterina (variable spike), E.congaraea (Carolinashell), E.producta (Atlantic spike), E.complanata (eastern elliptio), Lampsilis splendida (rayed pink fatmucket), Villosa delumbis (eastern creekshell), Toxolasma pullus (Savannahliput)and Utterbackia imbecillis (paper pondshell). Species collected in 1999 and not 2000 included E.roanokensis (Roanoke slabshell), Uniomerus carolinianus (as U.obesus)(Florida pondhorn), L.cariosa (yellow lamp mussel)and Alasmidonta triangulata (southern elktoe).The remaining taxon collected in recent surveys, Anodonta couperianarel floater), was last taken in 1998 (diving)and 1997 (hand collecting). The Uniomerus in the Savannah River is assigned to the species carolineanus following Turgeon et al (1998).Although Clarke (1981)synonymyzed triangulata with A.dulata, it is the opinion of Dr.Arthur Bogan (North Carolina State Museum of Natural Sciences)that, due to the continuing confusion concerning the taxonomic status of triangulata, it is tentatively recognized in spite of the conchological work of Clarke.Therefore, the name triangulata is applied herein to the Alasmidonta from the Savannah River.The 2000 species richness is lower thanthehighest numbers in hand collections in 1972 (15), 1976 (14), 1993 (13), 1997 (14)1998 (13)and 1999 (13), similar to the species totals in 1980 and 1984 (9 species)and greater than 1989 (5 species).Only the Savannah lilliput was found at all four stations.vannah River populations of T.pullus were originallyscribed as a separate species, Carunculina patrickae Bates, 1966 (see Johnson 1967, 1970)).Three species were taken at three stations and included the Atlantic spike and eastern creekshell at Stations 1, 2B and 5 and the rayed pinkmucket at Stations 1, 2B and 6UR.Only the eastern elliptio was collected at two stations (2B and 6UR), while the Caro-The Academy of Naturw Sciences 95 Patrick Center for Environmental Research C.NON*!NSECTMACROINVERTEBRATES 2000 Savannah River Studies lina slabshell (Station 5)variable spike (Station 2B)and paper pondshell (Station 5)were collected at a single station.The Savannah lilliput constituted 55.1%(65 animals)of the mussels collected in 2000.Together with the easternshell (19, 16.1%)and variable spike (12, 10.2%)theysented 81.4%(96 animals)of the mussel fauna in 2000.The numbers of mussels and percent abundance of the remaining five species from highest to lowest are as follows: Atlantic spike (8, 6.8%), eastern elliptio (6, 5.1%), rayed pinkmucket (5, 4.2%), paper pondshell (2, 1.7%)and Carolina slabshell (1, 0.8%).The quadrat sampling was successful in collecting youngsels of the eastern elliptio, rayed pink fatmucket, Savannahliput, paper pondshell and eastern creekshell. Asian clams and sphaeriids (fingernailclams and peaclams)were also taken.The survey at 4 stations (40 quadrats)produced 4,073valves consisting of 25 sphaeriids (0.61%), 118 mussels (2.9%)and 3,930 Asian clams (96.5%).Of the 40 quadrats sampled, 36 were placed along transects in a variety oftats (e.g., river flow, substrate, depth, organic content)and 4 were chosen in likely mussel habitats to slightly increase the opportunities to add to a small 2000 mussel database.The mean number of mussels in quadrats 1 to 9 was 2.1, while the mean number of mussels in quadrat 10 was 6.8.From these 40 quadrats 98.25%of the bivalves taken were Asian dams, 2.9%were mussels of 8 species and 0.61%were sphaeriids of 3 species.It is apparent that the introduced Asian clammerically dominates the benthic habitat of the Savannah River and because of its great numbers competes with the mussels for space and food resources. Yearly ranking of abundance between 1993 and 1999 in hand collections deviate slightly, but the five most abundantlina slabshell, Savannah lilliput, variable spike, Atlantic spike and eastern creekshell) taxa, five least abundant (Florida pondhorn, eastern floater, yellow lamp mussel, barrel floater and southern elktoe)and four moderately abundant (paper pondshell, eastern elliptio, rayed pink fatmucket and Roanoke slabshell) species generally fall within the same three main categories each year.Five of the most abundant and three of the moderately abundant taxa were represented in 2000.Of note was the most abundant species in the long-term handlection data set, tlieCarolma eIghth m 2000.The Academy of Natural Sciences 96 Patrick Center for Environmental Research C.NON*INSECT MACROINVERTEBRATES 2000 Savannah River Studies One of themoderatelyabundant species and all five of the least abundant taxa were not collected in 2000.The use of quadrats in 2000 produced the expected results of doing ater job of collecting small mussels but performing less well at collecting the range of species present, especially the rarer taxa.The drought and low flows in the Savannah River in 2000sulted in low water levels that left many mussel habitats dry or with reduced water levels at Station 5.Mussel habitat downriver from the downrivermost (ultimate) set of#55ings at Station 5 was left dry and covered with a mix oftrial and emergent aquatic vegetation. An abundant.population of mussels was collected here in 1997 and 1999.As with many such habitats downriver from the ultimate set of pilings, a ridge of sand separates a diagonally oriented shoreside trough of fine muds, leaves and sticks from the main channel.Most mussels collected here in 1997 and 1999 occurred in the trough.Unfortunately the physiognomy of this habitat traps mussels behind the ridge of sand when water levels are lowered, and its impact on the mussel population downriver from theultiinateset of#55 pilings was probably catastrophic. A series of muddy pools is present on the South Carolina side of the river opposite the mouth of Devil'sbow (Georgia). This area, for the most part, is separated from the river by a vegetated sand ridge and is connected with the river at its up-and downriver ends during periods of high water.This region was surveyed in 1993 and 1999 andported a variety of mussels dominated by the Savannahliput.On 10 September 2000, the uprivermost pool at its maximum depth (following an 8 September 2000 tion)was 18 in and was choked with emergent vegetation. The substrate was slightly compacted and one large adult male Savannah lilliput and several Asian clams were found.There was insufficient time to sample the entire site, but it seems apparent that the mussel population here is severelyduced.A third locale outside Station 5 consisted of a perched, left bank (oriented downriver) shallow depression of muds and muddy sand upriver from the entrance to Little Helling.In 1993 and 1997, this site supported a small variety of mussels dominated by the Savannah lilliput.In 2000, itsisted of an area approximately 12 by 18 ft and 4 to 5 inmum depth.This small region was thoroughly surveyed and a---------=-- single Savannah lilliput, eight Asian clams, four pointed cam-The Academy of Natural Sciences 97 Patrick Center for Environmental Research C.NON*INSECT MACROINVERTEBRATES 2000 Savannah River Studies pelomas and two bluegills were collected. The substrate in this pool had apparently dried out and consisted of hard pan.The Savannah lilliput was lying on the surface of the hardtom.This population of the Savannah lilliput was all but eliminated by low water levels in 2000.In 1999, 2,002 mussels were recorded from hand collections at all sites with 1,645 of them collected at Stations 1, 2B, 5 and 6.The fauna at the four stations consisted of 13 species.Eight of the mussel species were found at all four stations and included the variable spike, Carolina slabshell, Atlantic spike, eastern elliptio, Roanoke slabshell, rayed pink fatmucket, U.carolineanus (as U.obesus)(Florida pondhorn)and eastern creekshell. Three species were found at three stations andcluded L.cariosa (yellow lamp mussel)and Pyganodonacta (eastern floater)at Stations 1, 2B and 5 and Savannah lilliput at Stations 2B, 5 and 6.Two taxa were found at two stations and consisted of paper pondshell at Stations 1 and 2B and southern.elktoe at Stations 2B and 6.The remaining taxon collected in prior recent surveys, the barrel floater, was not represented in the 1999 study.The Carolina slabshell, eastern creekshell, Atlantic spike,vannah lilliput and variable spike were the most commoncies, while the southern elktoe, yellow lamp mussel, paper pondshell, eastern floater and eastern elliptio were the least common species.The numbers of mussels and percentdance at these four stations in order from highest to lowest are as follows: Carolina slabshell (668, 40.6%), eastern creekshell (257, 15.6%), Atlantic spike (194, i 1.8%), Savannah lilliput (185,11.2%), variable spike (157, 9.5%), rayed pinkmucket (85,5.2%), Roanoke slabshell (30, 1.8%),Florida pondhorn (24, 1.5%), eastern elliptio (20, 1.2%), eastern floater (11, 0.7%), paper pondshell (6,0.4%), yellow lamp mussel (5, 0.3%)and southern elktoe (3, 0.2%).The 1,916 mussels recorded from all hand and divetions in 1998 were distributed among 14 species.The 802mals tabulated from only hand collections at Stations 1, 2B, 5 and 6LR were divided among 13 species.In 1998, thenah lilliput, Carolina slabshell, variable spike, Atlantic spike and eastern creekshell were the most common species, while the yellow lamp mussel, rayed pink fatrnucket, Florida pond----.horn.eastern elliptio, floater and southem elktoe were uncommon to rare.The numbers of mussels and percent abun-The Academy of Natural Sciences 98 Patrick Center for Environmental Research C.NON*INSECT MACROINVERTEBRATES 2000 Savannah River Studies dance from hand collections at Stations 1, 2B, 5 and 6 inder from highest to lowest are as follows: Savannah lilliput (332,41.4%), Carolina slabshell (129, 16.1%), variable spike (121,15.8%), Atlantic spike (67,8.3%), eastern creekshell (57,7.1%), paper pondshell (28, 3.5%), Roanoke slabshell.(20,2.5%), rayed pink fatmucket (13, 1.6%), eastern floater (13, 1.6%), eastern elliptio (12, i.5%),Florida pondhorn (8, 1.0%), yellow lamp mussel (1, 0.1%)and southern elktoe (1, 0.1%).The 1,648 mussels recorded in 1997 hand collections attions 1, 2B, 5, 6LR were distributed among 14 species.The numbers of mussels and percent abundance in order from highest to lowest were as follows: Carolina slabshell (710, 43.1%), variable spike (281, 17.0%), Savannah lilliput (180, 10.9%plus fresh shells from 31 individuals recently stranded by low water levels just upriver from the entrance to Little Hell Landing and one from Station 6), Atlantic spike (175, 10.6%), eastern creekshell (136,8.3%), rayed pink fatmucket (48,2.9%), Roanoke slabshell (41, 2.5%), eastern elliptio (34, 2.1%), paper pondshell (13, 0.8%),yellowlamp mussel (11, 0.7%), Florida pondhorn (9, 0.5%), eastern floater (5, 0.3%), barrel floater (4, 0.2%)and southern elktoe (1, 0.1%).In 1997, the Carolina slabshell, variable spike, Savannahliput, Atlantic spike and eastern creekshell were the mostmon species, while the paper pondshell, yellow lamp mussel, Florida pondhorn, eastern floater, barrel floater and southern elktoe were uncommon to rare.Like the 1998 survey, the 1993 mussel study included both shallow water hand collecting and sampling of deeper waters with divers.It should be noted that Station 3 was examined as part of the 1993 comprehensive program and not Station 2B (a mussel survey was not part of the Plant Vogtle program).This explains the low number of species at Station 2B inble C-1.The 1,483 mussels recorded from all sites weretributed among 13 species.The original report of the 1993 study (ANSP 1994b)listed 14 species from Stations 1, 3, 5 and 6.Molecular comparisons of the Savannah River mussel fauna by Dr.Margaret Mulvey (formerly of the Savannah River Ecology Laboratory) revealed the pod lance, E.lata, collected at Station 3 in 1993 to be conspecific with the Atlantic spike.The only other times the pod lance morph has-------.-b-ee-n-r-e-co-r-.deOfrom the Academy surveys was in th'-e-su-mm--e-r

---

The Academy of Natural Sciences 99 Patrick Center for Environmental Research C.NON*INSECT MACROINVERTEBRATES 2000 Savannah River Studies and fall surveys of 1951 (as the delicate spike, E.arctatus)from Station 3.From the two collecting methods in 1993 (i.e., shallow water hand collections and diving), eight species were taken in greater numbers in shallow waters.These included theern floater (8 vs 0 diving), barrel floater (7 vs 0), papershell (79 vs 5), variable spike (123 vs 29), rayed pink fatmucket (19 vs 3), Savannah lilliput (266 vs 2),Florida pondhorn (7 vs 0)and eastern creeks hell (27 vs 3).Only the Roanoke slabshell (13 vs 77)and the yellow lampmussel (1 vs 8)were much more common in the deeper water.Thelantic spike (96 vs 59 diving)was approximately a third more common in the shallow water collections, while the easternliptio (46 vs 41 divil).g)and Carolina slabshell (267 vs 297)were rougWy equally common in both shallow and deep water areas.The four species that were the most common in the October 1993 shallow water hand collections by total and percent abundances were as follows: Carolina slabshell (247, 27.8%), Savannah lilliput (266, 27.7%plus fresh shells of 36 animals found in a drying muddy depression on the left bank oftion 6UR),variable spike (123, 12.8%)and Atlantic spike (96, 10.0%).The four least common species in hand collectionscluded the eastern floater (8, 0.8%), Florida pondhorn (7, 0.7%), barrel floater (7,0.7%)and yellow lamp mussel (3, 0.3%).The collection of mussels in 1989, as part of the sive non-insect macroinvertebrate surveys, was augmented by a late summer survey of this group downriver from Station 1 (17 August)and in a wide area from Johnson's Landing downriver almost to U.S.Highway 301 (18 August).Thister area encompasses both the upper (historic) and.lowersent)reaches (UR and LR)of Station 6.The survey by Dr.Arthur Bogan concentrated solely on mussels and produced single specimens of the Florida pondhorn (near Station1)and the variable spike (near Station 6).Both of these species had been collected during the June 1989 period.The mussel fauna in 1989 consisted of the barrel floater (Station 6LR in June), Savannah lilliput, (Station 6LR in June andber), Florida pondhorn (Station 3 in June and in the area of Station 6LR in August), variable spike (Station 3 in June and in the area of Station 1 in August), and the eastern creekshell The Academy of Natural Sciences 100 Patrick Center for Environmental Research C.NON*INSECT MACROINVERTEBRATES 2000 Savannah River Studies (Station 1 in September).

The barrel floater and Savannahliput were collected from a backwater mud substrate, while the Florida pondhom and variable spikes taken in June were found in a muddy backwater vegetated with emergent aquatic vasculars and isolated from the main stream by low waterels.Shallow water substrates of sand, gravel and mixtures of the two were searched but produced no bivalves or only the introduced Asian clarno With the exception of the common presence of the Savannah lilliput and paper pondshell, the other species were rare.In 1984, nine species of mussels were collected as follows: the paper pondshell, Utterbackia imbecillis (as Anodontabecillis)at Stations 5 and 6, eastern floater, Pyganodonacta (in part as Anodonta catamta (misspelling) and A.gibbosa)at Stations 5 and 6, Carolinaslabshellat Stations 5 and 6, eastern elliptio, E.complanata, at Stations 5 and 6, variable spike at Station 5, Atlantic spike, E.prdducta (as E.lanceolata) at Stations 5 and 6, rayed pink fatmucket,silis splendida (as L.radiata splendida at Stations 5 and 6, yellow larnpmussel at Station 5, and eastern creekshell attions 5 and 6.The mussel faunas between 1980 and 1984 are essentially the same.The ten species found to occur at the four stations in 1980resented a return to the typical numbers of species found prior to the nutrient enrichment seen in 1972 (ANSP 1974a).ever, in contrast to the mussel faunas of the early surveys, this group was rare at Stations 1 and 3 where only the variable spike (Station 1)and yellow lamp mussel (Station 3)werelected.The paper pondshell, Utterbackia imbecillis (asdonta (U)imbecillis), Atlantic spike, E.producta (as E.lanceolata) , rayed pink fatmucket, L.splendida (as L.diata splendida) and eastern creekshell were collected attions 5 and 6.The Carolina slabshell and eastern elliptio were taken at Station 5, eastern floater, Pyganodon cataracta (as Anodonta (P.)C.cataracta and A.(U.)gibbosa)at Station 6, yellow larnpmussel at Stations 3 and 6 and the variable spike at Stations 1, 5 and 6.In 1980, the mussel fauna in the mouth of the oxbow at Devil's Elbow at Station 5 (right bank)had disappeared. A small variety of mussels, mostly Elliptio, persisted in a muddy backwater area along the left bank.In 1993, this muddy area had a shallow connection with the river[covered The Academy of Natural Sciences 101 Patrick Center for Environmental Research

• C.NON-INSECT MACROINVERTEBRATES 2000 Savannah River Studies by grasses in 2000, reflecting an extended period(s)of low flow(s)]atits upper end and was divided into a series of pools that are contiguous only during high water.For the most part this series of pools is separated from the river by a vegetated sand ridge.At this site in 1993, the paper pondshell was the most common species, while in 1999 it was thevannah lilliput.The only members of the genus Elliptiolected in recent surveys were icterina and producta in 1993 and 1999, respectively.

In 1980, a reasonably diverse mussel fauna was encountered principally in the large backwater along the lower end of the right bank at the upper reach oftion 6.The population of the eastern floater, Pyganodontaracta (asAnodonta (P.)cataracta) found at Station 6 was considered to be on the increase.Mussels were all butnated at Stations 1 and 3 (only the variable spike and rayed pink fatmucket were found), and greatly reduced at Stations 6 (upper reach)and 5 (to a lesser extent).Fuller attributes this decline in fauna to competition from the Asian clam.The Asian clam frrst appeared in collections in 1972 and by 1976 (present at all stations)it was apparent to Fuller that through competition it was damaging the native mussel fauna (Fuller and Richardson 1977).The single August 1976 sampling period found only one less species (brother spike)than the two surveys in 1972.Thetributions of the 14 species include the Florida pondhorn, U.carolinianus (as U.tetralasmus) at Stations 3 and 5;nahJilliput, Toxolasma pullus (as Carunculina pulla)attion 6;Strophitus undulatus (creeper)at Station 5;and A.triangulata (as A.undulata)at Stations 5 and 6.The Carolina slabshell and variable spike were collected at all stations;rayed pink fatmucket, Lampsilis splendida (as"Lampsilis" radiata splendida), yellow lampmussel and eastern creekshell at Stations 3, 5 and 6;paper pondshell, Utterbackia imbedllis (as Anodonta imbedllis) and eastern elliptio at Stations 1,5 and 6;E.producta (as E.lanceolata) at Stations 5 and 6;rel floater at Station 5;and eastern floater, Pyganodon catar-.acta (as Anodonta c.cataracta) at Station 6.The Asian clam was identified as the chief threat to the survival of freshwater mussels in the study areas.The 1972 studies were conducted in May-June andber.The highest number of mussel species (15)ever re----------------p,coAliCl'f'jdJp,cdA-FIduring a comprehensive collected that year.All the species known to occur in the The Academy of Natural Sciences 102 Patrick Center for Environmental Research C.NON-INSECTMACROINVERTEBRATES 2000 Savannah River Studies river at that time, including three of the rarest taxa in the study area, the brother spike and southern elktoe at Station 6 and creeper at Station 5, were part of the 1972 survey.The brother spike was found in 1972 for the fIrst time since it was originally described in 1852 (ANSP 1974a:73). Thenomic status of the Savannah River population of the brother spike is still uncertain at this time (q.v., Britton and Fuller, 1979: 12).The other taxa and the stations from which they were recorded are as follows: Carolina slabshell at Stations 3, 5 and 6;eastern elliptio at Stations 1,5 and 6;Atlantic spike,£.producta (as E.lanceolata)atStations 1,5 and 6;variable spike at all stations;U.carolineanus (as U.tetralasmus) at Station 6;eastern floater, Pyganodon cataracta (as Anodonta c.cataracta) at Stations 3, 5 and 6;paper pondshell,backia imbecillis (as Anodonta imbecillis) at Station 6;barrel floater at Station 5;eastern creekshell at all stations;yellow lampmussel at Stations 3, 5 and 6;rayed pink fatmucket, L.splendida (as L.radiata splendida) at all stations;andnah lilliput, Toxolasmapullus (as Carunculina pulla)attion 6.The 15 species listed in the 1972 survey constitute more than half of the 25 taxa presently recognized from the whole drainage basin.In 1972, the importance was noted of habitat at the mouth of the right bank backwater (substation 6B)at the lower end of the upper reach of Station 6 for the greater portion of the macroinvertebrates, probably also including the mussels.Fuller, in Britton and Fuller (1979:12), indicates the habitat of the 1972 specimens of the brother spike to be sand barsneath one or two feet of water.The fIve species that were the most common in the combined 1993 through 1999 shallow water hand collections (totals and percent abundances) were as follows: Carolina slabshell (1774,35.1 %), Savannah lilliput (963,19.1%), variable spike (682, 13.5%), Atlantic spike (531, 10.5%)and easternshell(477,9.4%). The eastern creekshell, in 1993, is the only one of the fIve species that was not the most abundant in hand collection in each of the four surveys.The fIve least common species in hand collections during this period included the southern elktoe (5, 0.1%), barrel floater (11,0.2%), yellow lamp mussel (20, 0.4%), eastern floater (37,0.7%)andida pondhorn (48, 0.9%).The remaining species include the eastem-elliptiG.,..-rnyed pink Roanoke slabshell. The fIve species that were the most com-The Academy of Natural Sciences 103 Patrick Center for Environmental Research C.NON*INSECT MACROINVERTEBRATES 2000 Savannah River Studies mon in the combined 1993 and 1998 deeper water divetions were as follows: Carolina slabshell (447, 54.3%), Roanoke slabshell (101, 12.3%), Atlantic spike (87,10.6%) variable spike (82, 10.0%)and eastern elliptio (55, 6.7%).The five least common species in dive collections during this period included the southern elktoe (0), eastern floater (0), barrel floater (1, 0.1%), Savannah lilliput (3, 0.4%)andida pondhorn (4, 0.5%).The remaining species in the dive collections include the paper pondshell, eastern creekshell, yellow lampmussel, and rayed pink fatmucket. From the two collecting methods in 1998 and 1993 (i.e.,low water hand collections and diving), six species were taken in greater numbers in shallow waters.These included the Savannah lilliput, southern elktoe, eastern floater, barrel floater, paper pondshell and eastern creekshell. Only the Roanoke slabshell and the yellow lampmussel were much more common in the deeper water.This distribution of the lampmussel is especially interesting considering its once prominence in earlier Academy investigations. The Atlantic spike, eastern elliptio, Carolina slabshell, variable spike, rayed pink fatmucket and Florida pondhorn were rougWy as common in both shallow and deep water areas.Any adverse impacts on the Savannah lilliput are especially important because of its limited range.This species is known only from four localities in North Carolina as follows:versity Lake, Orange County;Lake Waccamaw;and two populations in Uwharrie National Forest (John Alderman, pers.com.).A fifth population is known from the Saluda River drainage in South Carolina (John Alderman, pers.com.)and a sixth as scattered populations in the Savannah River from RM 160.5 (#78 Pilings at Station 1)downriver to RM 118.9 (#38 Pilings, immediately upriver from the U.S.Highway 301 bridge).Only marginal populations have been found at the upriver sites at the#70 (Station 2A)and#69tion 2B at RM 149.8)pilings.To date the Savannah lilliput has been found to be common only at#78 Pilings at Station 1 and from River Mile 138.1 (#54 Pilings, upriver from Jack of Clubs Point, between Stations 3 and 5)downriver to River Mile 118.9.Of note is no populations of this species werecated downriver from the U.S.Highway 301 bridge by John Alderman and Chris McGrath (Nongame and Endangered North mission)in October 1993.Thisspecies was originally known The Academy of Natural Sciences 104 Patrick Center for Environmental Research C.NON*INSECT MACROINVERTEBRATES 2000 Savannah River Studies only from Station 6.In view of the range extensions of this species to Station 5 in 1993, Station 2B in 1997, Station 2A and the U.S, Highway 301 bridge in 1998 and Station 1 in 2000, reexamining sites upriver from Station 1 and downriver from the U.S.Highway bridge is warranted. The mussel fauna in the Savannah River in the area of thevannah River Site has changed in character since 1951 (ANSP 1953).The yellow lampmussel and eastern elliptio were the two most common species in the 1951/52 and 1955/56 studies.In the 1993 through 1999 period, 5056mens divided among 14 species were taken in handtions at the study stations and theyellowlamp mussel ranked twelfth in abundance (20 specimens, 0.4%)and the easternliptio eighth (112 specimens, 2.2%).In 1960, these twocies along with the Carolina slabshell and Atlantic spike were the dominant taxa.Surveys in the years from 1993 through 1999, the Carolina slabshell was the most common species in hand collections (1,774 specimens, 35.1%), while the spike ranked fourth (532 spycimens, 10.5%).The 1968 (ANSP 1970)study discusses the reduced mussel fauna from 1965 (ANSP 1966)with only the"hardier forms" having"persisted as widely as in recent years" (ANSP 1970:65).These"hardier forms" included the eastern elliptio and yellow lampmussel of earlier surveys and the variable spike and rayed pink fatmucket. The variable spike, a species whose type locality lies in the Savannah River near Augusta, was not reported with certainty until 1965.This species may well have been considered a variant of the eastern elliptio in earlier surveys.The variable spike is presently one of the more common species in the Savannah River.It ranked third in abundance from 1993 through 1999 (682 specimens, 13.5%)and rayed pink fatmucket ranked sixth (165mens, 3.3%).In the 1980 study, mussels were considered all but eliminated at Stations 1 and 3, reduced at Station 5nated from.the mouth of the oxbow at Devil's Elbow)andisting with a reasonably diverse fauna only at Station 6.Six species of mussels were collected from the mouth and along the downstream side of the oxbow at Devil's Elbow in 1993 and 1998.This area was not sampled in 1997 or 1999.One noteworthy observation in the 1960 survey not addressed until the 2000 study was the"almost uniform distribution" of mussels"from juveniles through old adults (over eight years The Academy of Natural Sciences 105 Patrick Center for Environmental Research C.NON-INSECT MACROINVERTEBRATES 2000 Savannah River Studies of age)" in 1960 (ANSP 1961: 48).Oneconspicuous tion concerning the mussel surveys was the scarcity ofniles.The Savannah lilliput in 1998 and Savannah lilliput and paper pondshell in 1997 and 1993werethe only taxaresented by a uniform distribution of age classes.In the 2000 survey, young mussels of the Savannah lilliput and paper pondshell were again collected as well as individuals of the eastern elliptio, rayed pink fatmucket and eastern creekshell. From the 1993 through 1999 period, it appears that the yellow lampmussel and rayed pink fatmucket have been reduced in numbers, while the Savannah lilliput appears to be moremon.The greater abundance of the Savannah lilliput, a species that was only discovered in the river in 1962, and fIrst appeared in the comprehensive surveys in 1965, may well be related to the regulated flows of the Savannah River.The speciesfers shallow waters, and many of these habitats are lessject to drying with certain base flows being maintained in the-rFver.However, extended periods of extremely low waterels in the Savannah River in 2000 have had an impact on this species by stranding populations in shallow linear depressions separated from the main channel by sand bars or shallowsins perched above the main channel.The impact of thetended period of low water levels in 2000 has been to severely reduce or extirpate some populations of thenah lilliput.With the return of normal water levels,ing the temporal scale of this species'population structure, growth rates and ability to repopulate areas in which it was formerly abundant will contribute to the knowledge of theology of the Savannah lilliput.Besides the brother spike, creeper and southern elktoe, which have always been rare in the Savannah River, recent mussel surveys reveal that the barrel floater, eastern floater andida pondhorn are also rare to uncommon but their abundance in previous studies is unknown.The record for the creeper at Station 5 between 1965 and 1976 was based upon a singledividual which was recollected during this period (Samuel L.H.Fuller, pers.com.).Most ofthe mussels in backwater areas seem to be confmed to deep troughs downriver from the last set of pilings and can only be hand collected if watertions are low.Specimens are rarer in shallow shoreline areas*--------"ar .....or<TuTFnrndl-tt-hhe.,.-+,LI ......o."ughs-and-aiongihe-shorelines among the ings.The construction of dykes, upriver dams and removal of The Academy of Natural Sciences 106 Patrick Center for Environmental Research C.NON*INSECT MACROINVERTEBRATES 2000 Savannah River Studies meanders has resulted in changes in flow characteristics of the river and the slow development of mussel beds outside the original river banks, overflow channels, backwaters and shelves and has resulted in a change in the mussel fauna.It is expected that without wet collecting by hand during low water conditions, reduced numbers of mussels will mark the comprehensive surveys and close monitoring of the mostdangered group of animals in North America is warranted. Crustaceans (Crustacea) F our species of crustaceans were collected in 2000: the crayfish Procambarus enoplostemum, the riverine grass shrimp, Palaemonetes paludosus, thephipods (scuds or sideswirnrners) Hyalella azteca and andetermined species of Gammarus.Procambarus enoplostemum was uncommon at Stations 1 and 6 in flooded grasses, root mats of the water hyacinth, a log gallery and one specimen Was shocked intothewater column by the Fisheries team.At Station 2B, this species was moderately common in flooded grasses and alligator weed, while at Station 5 it was moderately common in willow roots.The riverine grass shrimp was rare at Stations 1 in flooded grasses andately common at the remaining stations in flooded grasses,ligator weed, willow roots, paspalum grass and root mats of the water hyacinth.The arnphipod H.azteca was abundant at Stations 1 (flooded grasses, water-milfoil, alligator weed and woody branches)and 6 (paspalum grass, water-starwort and water pennywort) and common at Stations 2B (flooded grasses and alligator weed)and 5 (root tufts of flooded grasses, paspalum grass and woody branches). The garnrnarid arnphipod was uncommon at Station 5 and rare at Station 6 in root mats, woody debris, and wort.Crustaceans collected in 1999 included the crayfishes P.enoplostemum and white river crayfish, P.acutus, theine grass shrimp, the arnphipod H.azteca and the isopod (water slater)Caecidotea communis.Procambarus enoplostemum will?found in root mats and leaf litter attions 1, 2B (moderately common)and 6 (uncommon), while the abundance of the white river crayfish ranged from moder-ate1y common (Station 1)to uncommon (Station 6)and rare The Academy of Natural Sciences 107 Patrick Center for Environmental Research C.NON.INSECT MACROINVERTEBRATES 2000 Savannah River Studies (Station 5)in seine samples collected by the fisheries team.The riverine grass shrimp was moderately common attions 2B and 6 in root mats and leaf litter and was uncommon at Station 5 in the same habitat.The amphipod H.azteca was predominantly found in root mats where is was common at Station 6, moderately common at Stations 1 and 2B, andcommon at Station 5.The only other habitat noted for this species was its rare occurrence in muddy stick litter at Station 2B.The remainiJ;J.g species collected in 1999 was the isopod, C.communis, which was rare at Station 6 in root mats.Crustaceans collected in the 1998 survey included thefishes P.enoplostemum and white river crayfish, the riverine grass shrimp, the amphipods H.azteca, an undeterminedcies of Crangonyx and an undescribed species of Gammarus and the isopod C.communis.The crayfish P.enoplostemum was found in root mats and leaf litter at Stations 1 and 2B (moderately common), root mats at Station 5 (abundant) and willow roots, detritus and leaf litter at Station 6 (common).The white river crayfish was moderately common in muddy leaf litter at Station 5, uncommon in willow roots at Station 6 and one crayfish was captured from an isolated pool attion 1.The riverine grass shrimp was common at Station 6 in willow roots and moderately common at theremainingthree stations in root mats as well as leaf litter at Stations 1 and 2B.The amphipod H.azteca was abundant at Stations 5 and 6 and moderately common at Station 2B.At Station 5 it was collected from root mats, under the bark of logs and in leafter, while at Station 6 it was abundant in pennywort anderately common in water hyacinth roots.At Station 2B it was picked from the fissures of rough bark and a clump ofish moss (Tillandsia usneoides) that had fallen into the river.The crangonyctid amphipod was uncommon at Station 6 in the same habitat as the other amphipods and rare at Stations 1 (root mats)and 2B (Spanish moss).The undescribedmarus was abundant at Station 6 in willow roots, detritus and from undercut banks and moderately common at Station 5 in the same habitat as the hyalellid amphipod.The isopod, C.communis, was common at Station 6 in root mats andtus, moderately common in leaf liter and on logs at Station 2B and rare in muddy leaves at Station 5.Crustaceans collected in the 1997 survey included five s;{ltUlIlnl2gC-{o)f-1f tB.&*filyfish P. grass shrimp, the amphipods H.azteca and an undescribed The Academy of Natural Sciences 108 Patrick Center for Environmental Research C.NON-INSECT MACROINVERTEBRATES 2000 Savannah River Studies species of Gammarus and the isopod C.communis.barus enoplostemum was common in the roots of riparian trees at all stations and pennywort and leaf and stick litter at Station 6.The riverine grass shrimp was common in root mats at all four stations.The amphipod H.azteca wasdant at Stations 1 and 6 and moderately common at Station 5 and uncommon at Station 2B.At Station 1 it was moremon in moss and less so in root mats, while at Station 6 it was equally abundant in root mats and pennywort. At Stations 2B.and 5 it was found only in root mats.The undescribedmarus was also collected from root mats, where it wasdant at Station 6 and moderately common at Station 5.The isopod, C.communis, was moderately common at Station 6 in root masses.Crustaceans were especially well represented in the 1993vey with six species that included the crayfish P. num, the riverine grass shrimp, the isopod, C.communis;and amphipods, H.azteca, an undescribed species ofmarus-and an undetermined species of Crangonyx. The only crayfish collected in 1993 was P.enoplosternum. It wascommon to common in the fine roots of riparian trees and leaf litter at Stations 1, 5 and 6 and uncommon at Station 2B where it was associated with brush piles and dense tions of root mats.The riverine grass shrimp was rare to very common at Stations 1,5 and 6 and moderately common inparian roots at Station 2B.The isopod was uncommon to.very common at all study areas except Station 1 where it did not appear in samples.It was primarily found in the roots of riparian trees at all stations and the furrows of rugose logs at Station 5.The talitrid (Hyalella) and gammarid amphipods collected at all stations, while the crangonyctid was found only at Station 6.All three amphipods were takenmarily from the same root mat and log habitats as the water slater.The gammarid was also recorded from leaf litter attion 1.This is the first time that the crangonyctid had been collected from the main stem of the Savannah River since 1965 (ANSP 1966).Four species of crustaceans were collected in September 1989 and included the crayfish P.enoplosternum (as P.pubescens), the riverine grass shrimp and the amphipods H.azteca and an undescribed species of Gammarus.Procambarus enoploster-both banks in beds of submerged aquatic vascular plants, leaf litter, brush piles as well as the The Academy of Natural Sciences 109 Patrick Center for Environmental Research C.NON-INSECT MACROINVERTEBRATES 2000 Savannah River Studies fme roots of riparian trees at Stations 1, 5 and 6.The riverine grass shrimp was very abundant in submerged weed beds in both backwater areas and in the current at Stations 1, 5 and 6.The talitrid amphipod H.azteca and an undescribed species of gammarid in the genus Gammarus, were collected attions 5 and 6.Hycilella azteca was taken from submerged beds of aquatic vascular plants in backwater areas and among the stems of riparian grasses hanging in the water along the shore.The undescribed species of Gammarus was collected froni weed beds in moderate current.Five species of crustaceans were found in September 1984 at Stations 1, 5 and 6 and consisted of Caecidotea communis (as Asellus communis), H.azteca, Gammarus species, theine grass shrimp, and P.enoplostemum (as P.pubescens). The 1980 and 1976 surveys produced five andfourspecies of crustaceans, respectively, as follows: the water slater attion 5 (September 1980 and August 1976), talitrid amphipod at Stations 1, 5 and 6 in September 1980 and Stations 1 and 5 iii August 1976, the-gammaridamphipod (as G.fasciatusin 1976 and an undetermined species of gammarid in 1980)at Stations 5 and 6(September1980 and August 1976), the riverine grass shrimp P.paludosus (as P.kadiakensis in 1976)at Stations 5 and 6 in September 1980 and Stations 1,5 and 6 in August 1976 and the crayfish P.enoplostemum (as P.pubescens)atStations 1,5 and 6 in 1980.Mites (Arachnida) ites have generally been uncommon in Academy surveys dating back through the 1976 study.though only a single species (Lebertia) of mite was discovered in 2000, it was common at Station 1 in flooded grasses at the river margin.In 1999, an undetermined species of Lebertia was represented in root mat habitat where it was moderately common at Station 1 and rare at Station 6.An undetermined species of aquatic mite was rare in the same root mat habitat at Station 6.In 1998, an undeterminedcies of Lebertia was rare in leaf litter at Station 2B and root mats at Station 6.In 1997, an undetermined species'ofmite was moderately common in roots at Station 2B, while thedetermined Lebertia species was moderately common at Sta-and pennywort. A single undetermined species of mite oc-The Academy of Natural Sciences 110 Patrick Center for Environmental Research C.NON-INSECT MACROINVERTEBRATES 2000 Savannah River Studies curred in litter samples from Station 6 in September 1993 and an undetermined species of Hydrachna was removed from a log at Station 2B.The undetermined species of Lebertia was moderately common at Stations 1 and 6 in 1989.No aquatic mites were collected in 1984 and the 1980 survey found only the Lebertia species at Station 6.The August 1976 studylected the Lebertia (?)species at Stations 1 and 5 and a mite of the genus Arrenurus at Station 1.During the 1972 survey six of seven species of mites (individuals of Unionicola are.parasitic or commensal in the gills or mantle cavities ofsl?ls)were collected from the luxuriant weed beds which were so prevalent at that time.With the decline in extent of these beds of aquatic vascular plants has been a decrease in the mite fauna that inhabits them.This group is most abundant intated areas and is another of several taxa whose presence and/or abundance reflect the areal extent of submerged aquatic vascular plants.Conclusions Dominant Macroinvertebrate Groups he results of the 2000 survey indicate that thepal groups of non-insect macroinvertebrates in thevannah River in the vicinity of the Savannah River Site, with the exception of the mussels, are broadly similar to studies in the 1976 to 1999 period (ANSP 1977, 1981a, 1985b, 1991b, 1994a,1994b,1998 and 1999)with four major assemblages dominating. In 2000, these four groups,lected at Stations 1, 2B, 5 and 6, consisted of the bivalves[12 species: mussels (8)and clams (4)], snails (5), crustaceans (4)and leeches (4).These same four groups dominated theinsect macroinvertebrate fauna of the previous eight studies (1999, 1998, 1997, 1993, 1989, 1984, 1980 and 1976)(Table C-2).Only in 1972 did an additional group, the mites, exhibit a diversity that made them a significant part of the faunable C-2).The remaining, less well-represented, taxonomic groups have been historically either widely collected (e.g., the planarian, Dugesia tigrina;the earthworm, Lumbriculus vari-egatus;and an undetermined species of sponge), spotty in dis-The Academy of Natural Sciences 111 Patrick Center for Environmental Research C.NON-INSECT MACROINVERTEBRATES 2000 Savannah River Studies tribution (e.g., the ectoprocts and a nematomorph), usually rarely collected (e.g., the nemertean, Prostoma rubrum)or are not given the collecting and/or taxonomic effort of larger forms (e.g., nematodes and tubificids). The four species of leeches taken in 2000 are within the range of measures comparing the years 1972 through 1999 (range of2 to 10, mean of 4.6, mode 3 to 4 species), butably lower than the 10 species collected in 1972.The number of snail taxa collected during the 1972 through 1999 surveys varies from 6 to 11 with an average of 7.6 species.Thecies totals from 1972 (11)and 2000 (5)represent the high and low ends of the range of species collected between these years;the 2000 total is below the modal (7)and mean (7.6)values for this period.As in the leech fauna, the greatestber of species (11)was collected in 1972 when eutrophicditions created large areas of habitat in the form of submerged vascular plants.The slightly lower numbers in 2ooofollow a trend observed in 1999 (6 species)and in 2000 primarilyflect the absence of the mud amnicola and any of thehom snails (q.v., Results, Molluscs (Mollusca), Snails, for a review of the distribution (1972 to 1998), abundances (1997 and 1998)and habitats (1989 to 1998)of the rams-hom snails).A review of vegetation levels in the 1972 through 2000 period and other factors affecting species totals iscussed below in the section"Species Diversity Among Years.".The number of clam species collected has varied from 2 to 7 (mean 4.7, mode 5)taxa over this time period.The elevated water levels in 2000, relative to levels prior to the survey,ited access to permanently watered bed sediments during the comprehensive study, and several taxa that inhabit thesestrates (e.g., earthworms, tubificid worms, mud amnicola, sphaeriid clams)were little or not collected in the handtions.Of the 27 sphaeriid clams taken in 2000, 25 werelected only in sediments during the mussel study when water levels were lower than during the comprehensive study.Of the two specimens taken in the comprehensive survey, one was taken from muds and the other from root mats.The number of mussel species recorded from hand collections in the Savannah River surveys during the August to October_______________ from 2 to 15 species with an average of 11.3 taxa.The most salient trend in the mussel data can be The Academy of Natural Sciences 112 Patrick Center for Environmental Research C.NON*INSECT MACROINVERTEBRATES 2000 Savannah River Studies seen in the decrease of species from 1972 to 1989 (q.v., Table C-2).Prior to 1993, comprehensive studies were conducted twice a year and comparisons within and among years were made using both seasonal and combined data sets.Thebined June and September 1989 total of 5 mussel speciestinued the trend of decreasing mussel diversity[15 (1972)to 14 (1976), 9 (1980 and 1984)to 5 (1989)].In addition, avannah River mussel survey undertaken by Dr.Arthur Bogan (formerly of the Academy's Malacology Department) ingust 1989 produced only single specimens of two of the five species collected in the June and September studies.The 1972 through1989trend prompted a more thorough mussel survey in 1993.Part of the 1993 effort included a review of theterm data set of Academy studies and discussions withsent and former personnel associated with the earlier Academy Savannah surveys.It was surmised that sampling the macroinvertebrate fauna to a depth that could beoughly searched in waders and spreading the field effort across alltCiXonomic groups had resulted in the collec;tion of a more diverse non-mussel macroinvertebrate fauna but fewer mussels[q.v., Tables C-l (dominant taxa)and C-2 (totalbers oftaxa)].Between 1972 and 1984, samples werelected in waters up to neck deep.The effort in deeper water resulted in access to more permanently watered substrates and the collection of more mussel species (9 to 15).However, fewer non-mussel taxa were collected during this period.ies from 1993 through 2000 have included both deeper water sampling at low water levels for mussels and a sive sampling of the other macroinvertebrates. The twopling efforts typically result in a more thorough assessment of the complete macroinvertebrate fauna[i.e., more species (see 1993 through 1998)including.mussels (see 1972 to 1976 and 1993 through 1999)].The conclusions of the mussel survey are discussed in a separate section below.Thenumber of crustacean taxa in 2000 (four species)is slightly below the mean (5.2)and modal (5)values ofceans'collected at four Savannah River stations.This number is at the lower end of the 4 to 7 range of previous studies.Other species of crustaceans that have been collected in past surveys and not 2000 include several species of crayfishes, an isopod and a crangonyctid amphipod.They have all been taken in small numbers, and their presence in the surveys has been spotty, although one or more are typIcally collected. The Academy of Natural Sciences 113 Patrick Center for Environmental Research C.NON-INSECT MACROINVERTEBRATES 2000 Savannah River Studies However, their absence from a survey would not bepected.Additionaldetailson habitat, abundance, frequency ofrence and range of the dominant groups (leeches, snails,valves and crustaceans), as well as the once diverse mite fauna (q.v., Table C-2), can be found in the section Results, for each group.Mussel Fauna he nature of the mussel fauna in the Savannah River in the area of the Savannah River Site has changed since the early 1951 to 1968 studies when the yellow lamp mussel, eastern elliptio, Carolina slabshell, Atlantic spike, variable spike and rayed pink fatmucket were alllisted as the most abundant species.Only the Carolina slabshell, variable spike and Atlantic spike were among the dominant taxa in hand collections in 1993 through 1999.The easternliptio and rayed pink fatmucket were moderately common and theyellowlamp mussel uncommon in the recent surveys.The"almost uniform distribution" of mussels"from juveniles through old adults (over eight years of age)" reported in 1960 was only observed in the paper pondshell in 1993 and 1997 and the Savannah lilliput in 1993, 1997 and 1998.Thenah lilliput is known from only six populations (four in North Carolina, one in South Carolina and the Savannah Riverlation in the area of the Savannah River Site, Georgia and South Carolina). Near the Savannah River site, most mussels are found in backWater areas near pilings and can only be studied by hand collecting at low water levels.Reasons for the decline in some species is unknown at this time.The reduced numbers of juvenile mussels in hand collections since 1960 prompted the use of a quantitative method in 2000 that would pass sediments through a sieve to recover small mussels.In addition, this method would provide abundance measures of mussels and Asian clams relative to one another.The schedule of one day per station did not permit a sufficient number of quadrats to be sampled to provide relativedances for the species in the study sections of the river.The quadrat sampling was successful in collecting young mussels of the eastern eIIiptio, rayed pink fatmucket, Savannah lil-The Academy of Natural Sciences 114 Patrick Center for Environmental Research C.NON*INSECT MACROINVERTEBRATES 2000 Savannah River Studies liput, paper pondshell and eastern creekshell. Young Asian clams and sphaeriids (fingernailclams and peaclams)were also taken.The survey at 4 stations (40 quadrats)produced 4,073 bivalves consisting of 25 sphaeriids (0.61%),118sels (2.9%)and 3,930 Asian clams (96.5%).Of the 40rats sampled, 36 were placed along transects in a variety of habitats (e.g., river flow, substrate, depth, organic content)and 4 were.chosen in likely mussel habitats to slightlycrease the opportunities to collect young mussels.From these 40 quadrats, 98.25%of the bivalves taken were Asian clams, 2.9%were mussels of eight species and 0.61%wereids of 3 species.It is apparent that the introduced Asian clam numerically dominates the benthic habitat of the Savannah Riverandbecause of its great numbers competes with the mussels for space and food resources. The impact of low flows severely reduced or extirpatedsel populations, especially the Savannah lilliput at and near Station 5 (see Results, Mussels).Species Diversity Among Years he total number of species collected during the 1972 through 2000 surveys has varied from a low of 27 (1989)to a high of 60 (1972).The 2000 total (30cies)is less than the average (mean 41.1), significantly lower than recent studies (47 to 49 in 1993 through 1998)and slightly lower than 1999 (37 species).The total for 2000 is more similar to the results of 1999 (37), 1989 (27), 1984 (36)and 1980 (33).Species totals in 1989 were low, compared to 2000, as a result of storm events and an impending hurricane during the September survey.Stations 3 and 5 were collected the same day under rising water levels and Station 6 wasveyed under high water conditions. Compared to the nextest total in 1999 (37 species), the lower numbers in 2000 (30 species)reflect less diversity in the mussel community (5cies), and 1 less species of snail and crustacean. Theences in the mussel fauna reflect quantitative sampling that surveyed much smaller areas of substrate that would be ex-pected to miss many of the rarer taxa.The water Iev-The Academy of Natural Sciences 115 Patrick Center for Environmental Research C.NON-INSECT MACROINVERTEBRATES 2000 Savannah River Studies els in 2000, relative to levels prior to the survey, limitedcess to pennanently watered bed sediments during theprehensive study, and several taxa that inhabit these substrates (earthworms, tubificid worms, mud arnnicola, sphaeriid clams)were not collected in the hand collections. The modal number of crustaceans taken during the 1972 to 1999 period is 5 species.All the other crustaceans that have been collected in past surveys (several species of crayfishes, an isopod and a crangonyctid amphipod)have occurred in small numbers in the past and their occasional absence from a survey would not be unexpected. Differences in thecean fauna may also be related to the generally very low water levels in 2000, washing fewer taxa into the mainnel from backwater or tributary areas and/or the elevated water levels during the comprehensive study limiting access to permanently watered areas.The addition of the mussels alone would place the 2000 results in line with those from 1999, 1989, 1984 and 1980.The higher numbers of species in some groups, as well as the total number of taxa in 1972, correlates with the dense stands of submerged aquatic plants.With the exception of thesels, most members of the dominant five groups in Coastal Plain regions are typically abundant in areas associated with these dense stands, and their species richness and/ordance reflects the areal extent of these growths.Since 1990 (ANSP 1991a, 1991b), the weed beds have been absent from the study areas, and population densities of many species have declined (e.g., snails sphaeriid clams, crustaceans and mites).The differences between the 1989 to 1976 and 1972 surveys reflect variation in effort, water levels and density of vegetation. In 1976, relative to 1972, there was a nearpearance of submerged vascular vegetation at Station 1 (ANSP 1977:37), vegetation among the pilings at Station 3 disappeared (op.cit: 38), the weed beds at Station 5 all but disappeared (loc.cit.)and Station 6 was expanded downriver into the present day lower section of Ring Jaw Point to reach weed beds (op.cit: 39).Almost no weed beds were present in the upper portion of Station 6 (loc.cit)in 1976.In 1980 there was a loss of vegetation at Station 1 (ANSP 1981a:78), no weed beds at Stations 3 and 5 (op.cit:80)and smaller weed beds at Station 6 (op.cit:81).In 1984, submerged aquaticcular plants varied from scarce at Stations 1 and 3 (ANSP 1985b:107) to lush and dense beds at Stations 5 and 6 (op.The Academy of Natural Sciences 116 Patrick Center for Environmental Research C.NON-INSECT MACROINVERTEBRATES 2000 Savannah River Studies cit:107, 108).In 1989 (ANSP 1991b), patches of aquatic plants were common, but by 1990 the submerged aquatic flora was either lacking, reduced to an occasional patch orresented by a few plants carried into the station by the river's current and ensnared by branches or logs.The greater species richness in 1972 reflects an abundance of this habitat (=dense growths of submerged aquatic vascular plants).Submerged macrophytes provide one of the most important habitats in Coastal Plain streams, since this region generally lacks the well-indurated substrates of rock and cobble typical of lotic habitats above the Fall Line zone.The higher numbers ofcies in 1993 and 1997, when the submerged flora wasduced, are due to a greater effort in other habitats (see individual species accounts). Two areas of strongestences since the 1972 survey can be found in a comparison of the leech and mite species richness.A slightly higher total number of snail taxa was also collected in 1972.The decline in total numbers of taxa and dominance and abundance of some groups (leeches, snails, fmgemailclams, peaclams,taceans and mites)is probably a reflection of the areal extent of the vegetation. The bagging of bottom debris and sorting of samples in a field laboratory in 1972 likely contributed some taxa to the species list.Species Diversity Among Stations comparison of the species numbers of non-insect macroinvertebrates collected between 1972 and 2000 at Stations 1, 2B (1993-2000), 3 (1972-1989), 5 and 6 reveals a generally higher average number of species collected at Stations 5 (26.8)and 6 (28.7)than at Stations 1 (24.0)or 2B/3 (21.1).The long-term database for the August to October period indicates that, in a given survey, slightly more species are typically collected at Stations 5 and 6 than at Stations 1 or 2B.The 1989 study is the only survey in which more species have been collected at Station 1 than any other station.The lower numbers in 1989 at Stations 3, 5 and 6, as noted above (q.v., Table C-1), were the result of sampling at______________

---

'-'Stations 3 and 5 for of a day and high water\conditions limiting collecting at Station 6.The high numbers The Academy of Natural Sciences 117 Patrick Center for Environmental Research C.NON-INSECT MACROINVERTEBRATES 2000 Savannah River Studies of species at Station 1 in 1999 reflects a greater effort over a two-day period.No sampling year between 1972 and 2000 has resulted in more species being collected at Stations 2B or 3.The 2000 study is the only year in which the fewestber of species has been collected at Station 6.There were'no obvious reasons for the decline in species diversity other than the high water levels relative to flows for most of the year (q.v., Table C-l).Summary T he most salient aspects of the 2000 study are the lower to slightly lower numbers of species in the dominant groups (Table C-2)and lower total number of species (Table C-l).These lower numbers are aation of a trend that began in 1999 and primarily reflect drought conditions in the basin and lower flows in thenah River dUring these years.Water levels in the Savannah River have been low since June 1998.Low summer flows are normal, but these conditions have persisted with only a few occasional spikes in water levels into 1999 and 2000 (cf., ANSP 1994b, 1998, 1999,2000 and Figure 2 herein).The 2000 study was conducted in a year with the lowest flows to date.Compared to 1999, the lower numbers in 2000 were, in part, the result of limited access to habitats because of,cally, higher water levels during the survey and, primarily, the use of a quantitative sampling technique (quadrats) forsels.Continued low flows during the summer months of 2000 lowered the base water level of the river.A new shoreline was established, root mat habitat was left high and dry and many populations of sessile and less vagile macroinvertebratecies were extirpated.

Elevated water levels during the study, although still low in an historical context, limited access to species that occurred below the newly established base level.Quadrat sampling for mussels, although collecting a wider range of size classes, produces fewer species.This iscially true for the rarer taxa due to the smaller area surveyed.Most of the taxa collected in 1999 but not in 2000 were the rarest mussel species in the study area.Although the results of the 2000 study produced fewer taxa than recent studies (1993, 1997, 1998 and 1999), the numbers fall within the long-term trends (1972 to 1999)(Table C-l).With its large number of The Academy of Natural Sciences 118 Patrick Center for Environmental Research C.NON*INSECT MACROINVERTEBRATES 2000 Savannah River Studies less vagile species, non-insect macroinvertebrates appear to have been impacted by this extended period of low flows,cluding the loss of some mussel populations. The 2000 results reflect the drought conditions in the Savannah River and are part of a faunal trend that was first apparent in the 1999 study.The 2000results do not indicate an impact on the non-insect macroinvertebrate biota of the Savannah River by thenah River Site.The Academy of Natural Sciences 119 Patrick Center for Environmental Research C.NON-INSECT MACROINVERTEBRATES 2000 Savannah River Studies Appendix C.List of taxa of non-insect macroinvertebrates collected 25.to 28 August and 8 to 11 September 2000 at Stations 1, 2b, 5 and 6 on the Savannah River, Georgia and South Carolina (X=present;-=not present).Station Taxa 1 2B 5 6 Phylum Porifera Class Demospongiae Order Haplosclerina Family Spongillidae Undet.sp.XXX X Phylum Platyhelminthes Class Turbellaria Order Tricladida Family Dugesiidae Dugesia tigrina (Girard)XXX Phylum Nematomorpha Order Gordioidea Family Chordodidae Undet.sp.X Phylum Ectoprocta Class Phylactolaemata Family Pectinatellidae Pectinatella magnifica (Leidy)X Phylum Annelida Class Oligochaeta Class Hirudinea Order Rhynchobdellida Family Glossiphoniidae Desserobdella phalera (Graf)X Helobdella triserialis (Blanchard) X Placobdella papillifera (Verrill)X Order Pharyngobdellida Family Erpobdellidae Undet.sp.X Phylum Mollusca Class Gastropoda Order Mesogastropoda Family Viviparidae Campeloma decisum (Say)XXXX Order Basommatophora Family Lymnaeidae .Pseudosuccinea columella (Say)XX X X Family Physidae Physella heterostrop/ia (Say)X X X X The Academy of Natural Sciences 120 Patrick Center for Environmental Research C.NON*INSECT MACROINVERTEBRATES 2000 Savannah River Studies Appendix C (continued). List of taxa of non-insect macroinvertebrates collected 25-28 August and 8-11 September 2000 at Stations 1, 2B, 5 and 6 on the Savannah River, Georgia and'South Carolina (X=present;-=not present).Station Taxa 1 2B 5 6 Family Ancylidae Ferrissia rivularis (Say)X X Order Stylommatophora Family Succineidae Novisuccinea ovalis (Say)X XXX Class Bivalvia Order Unionida Family Unionidae Elliptio icterina (Conrad)X E.complanata (Lightfoot) X X E.congaraea (Lea)X E.producta (Conrad)X X X Lampsilis splendida (Lea)X X X Villosa delumbis (Conrad)XXX Toxolasma pullus (Conrad)XXXX Utterbackia imbecillis (Say)X Order Veneroida Family Sphaeriidae Musculium securis (Prime)X P.compressum Prime X X P.dubium (Say)XX X Family Corbiculidae Corbiculafluminea (Muller)XXX X Phylum Arthropoda Class Crustacea Order Amphipoda Family Gammaridae Gammarus sp.XX Family Hyalellidae Hyalella azteca (Saussure) X XXX Order Decapoda Family Cambaridae Procambarus enoplostemum Hobbs XXX X Family Palaemonidae Palaemonetes paludosus (Gibbes)XXX X Class Arachnoidea Lebertia sp.X Total 17 20 21 16 The Academy of Natural Sciences 121 Patrick Center for Environmental Research D.AQUATIC INSECfS 2000 Savannah River Studies Introduction Caddisfly (Hydropsyche orris)quatic organisms have provided water qualityment programs with valuable insight for more than 100 years (Cairns and Pratt 1993), and benthic (i.e., bottom-dwelling) macroinvertebrates (especially aquatic in-sects, but also crustaceans, worms, molluscs, and othersects)are the most common group of aquatic organisms included in these programs (HellawellI986). Aquatic insects are included ill water quality lli)sessment programs because:..(1)they provide an extended temporal perspective (relative to traditional water samples that are collected periodically) as a result of their limited mobility and relatively long life spans (e.g., a few months for some chironomid midges to a year or more for some beetles and dragonflies); (2)they are antant link in the aquatic food web, converting plant andbial matter into animal tissue that is then available to fish;(3)the group has measurableresponsesto a wide variety of environmental changes and stresses;and (4)they aredant and their responses can be easily analyzed statistically (Weber 1973).Thus, the presence or conspicuous absence of certain aquatic insect species at a site is a meaningful record of environmental conditions during the recent past, includingephemeralevents that might be missed by assessmentgrams that rely only on periodic sampling of water chemistry. The structure and function of the aquatic assemblage in the Savannah River can be affected by a diverse group ofmental factors, including direct and indirect interactions with.depth, temperature, current velocity, volume of water input.and release, nutrient levels, dissolved oxygen concentration, substrate type, sedimentation, erosion, metals, pesticides,bicides, food availability, intra-and interspecific competitors, and predators. These factors can vary temporally and spa-tially in response to natural processes (e.g., river topography, The Academy of Natural Sciences 122 Patrick Center for Environmental Research D.AQUATIC INSECTS 2000 Savannah River Studies riparian vegetation, seasonal and annual changes inture or precipitation), as well as human influences (e.g., local estry, mining, and/or industrial developments that result in non-point sources and discharges from numerous point sources within the watershed). The Savannah River monitoring program uses long-term and recent data for aquatic insects to: (1)use spatial variation in the aquatic insect assemblage to assess current habitat and water quality in the Savannah River near the Savannah River Site (SRS), (2)evaluate these current conditions with regard to conditions observed at these stations in previous surveys, and (3)identify the effect (if any)of upstream factors (i.e., above Station 1)that may be affecting habitat and waterity in the Savannah River near SRS, and (4)understand mechanisms that determine the distribution and abundance of aquatic insect populationswithinthe Savannah River.These goals are addressed in the 2000 report by describing the aquatic insect assemblage at Stations 1, 2B, 5, and 6 in April and September 2000, and by comparing the 2000 aquaticsect assemblage at these stations with the assemblages ob-.served in recent surveys.Materials and Methods Location and Habitat Characteristics of the Study Area n 2000, qualitative and quantitative aquatic insecttions were made at four stations (Stations 1, 2B, 5, and 6, numbered from upstream to downstream; Fig.1)in April (25-28)and September (10-13)(Table D-l).Spring sampling in 2000 (and also in 1999)was earlier than in 1998, because there were no delays due to high river discharge. Specifi-.cally, 2000 samples were collected about eight weeks earlier than 1998 samples while 1999 samples were collected about six weeks earlier than 1998 samples.In contrast, fallpling during all recent surveys (1998-2000) has beenpleted during the same general time period (September 10-20)due to low river flows.The Academy.of Natural Sciences 123 Patrick Center for Environmental Research D.AQUATIC INSECTS 2000 Savannah River Studies Table D-1.Information concerning the placement, retrieval, and processing of Conservation Webbing traps from four stations (on the Savannah River in the vicinity of the SRS)in 2000.Qualitative collections were made on the same dates as traps were retrieved. Station Placement RetrievalNumberNumber Number Date Date Placed Retrieved Processed I 21 Mar 2000 26 Apr 2000 4 3 3 15 Aug 2000 lOSep 2000 4 4 4 2B 21 Mar 2000 25 Apr 2000 4 3 3 15 Aug 2000 13 Sep2000 4 4 4 5 21 Mar 2000 28 Apr 2000 4 4 3 15 Aug 2000 11 Sep 2000 4 4 3 6 21 Mar 2000 27 Apr 2000 4 4 3 15 Aug 2000 12 Sep 2000 4 3 3 All effluentandrunoff from the SRS enter the Savannah River downstream of Station 1.Thus, river conditionsserved at Station 1 are unaffected by the SRS, and the station was designated a priori as a reference site for this study.The aquatic insect sampling area at Station 1 included all available habitats among the pilings near marker 78 on the left bank (facing downstream) and along the right bank opposite theings.In addition, anyuniquehabitats observed withinproximately 75 m upstream or downstream of these areas (on either bank)were also sampled.Station 2B is exposed to discharge from the Georgia Power and Light's Vogtle Nuclear Power Plant as well as discharge and runoff from the northern portion of the SRS (primarily from Four Mile Branch, but also the lower portion of Upper Three Runs).Station 2B was designated a priori as atial impact site, integrating the effects of the Plant Vogtle and the northern portion of the SRS.The aquatic insect sampling area at Station 2B included all available habitats among the pilings near marker 68 on the left bank (facing downstream) and along the right bank opposite the pilings.In addition, any unique habitats observed within approximately 75 mstream or downstream of these areas (on either bank)were also sampled.Station 5 is downstream of Steel Creek and upstream of Lower Three Runs.Aquatic insects at this station areposed to discharge from Plant Vogtle as well as discharge and runoff from the entire SRS (except what is carried in Lower Three Runs).Station 5 was designated a priori as a potential nnpact SIte, Integrating the effects of Plant Vogue and most of The Academy of Natural Sciences 124 Patrick Center for Environmental Research D.AQUATIC INSECfS 2000 Savannah River Studies the SRS.The aquatic insect sampling area at Station 5cluded all available habitats among the pilings near marker 55 on the right bank and along the left bank opposite the pilings.In addition, any unique habitats observed withinmately 75 m upstream or downstream of these areas (on either bank)were also sampled.Station 6 is the downstream most site on the Savannah River, below the confluence with Lower Three Runs.Aquaticsects were collected in the lower reach of this station,tween RM 122.35 and 122.85.Aquatic insects at this station are exposed to discharge from Plant VogUe and anycharge/runoff from the entire SRS, including what is carried in Lower Three Runs.Station 6 was designated a priori as a potential impact site, integrating the effects of Plant Vogtle and the SRS.The aquatic insect sampling area at Station 6cluded all available habitats among the pilings near marker 42 on the left bank (facing downstream) and along the right bank opposite the piling§._:rnaddition, any unique habitatsserved within approximately 75 m upstream or downstream of these areas (on either bank)were also sampled.Stations 1, 5 and 6 have typically been sampled as part of the Academy's Savannah Cursory and Comprehensive surveys.Station 2B has historically been sampled as part of theemy's Savannah River surveys related to Plant VogUe.Qualitative Sampling he strategy for the qualitative sampling program was to collect the insect fauna from all possiblehabitats within each station that could be safely sam-pled.This includes root masses (primarily willow);submerged and floating woody debris;floating andmerged vegetation; river pilings;rock, sand, and siltments;and edge habitat (very shallow areas along the shoreline). Collecting was generally along the margin of the river where the water was not as deep.We attempted tocate the same microhabitats at each station so that thetions were comparable. Overall, any recognizable microhabitat was examined intensively and the fauna present collected. Two people collected at each station, and the dura-------ftlK:* 8-1 0 .....s-lp,-"e",-rIn general, if no new recognizable species were found after The Academy of Natural Sciences 125 Patrick Center for Environmental Research D.AQUATIC INSECTS 2000 Savannah River Studies collecting at a site for a few hours, it was assumed that thejority of species from the station had been collected. This method was the standard protocol used during previousveys by The Academy of Natural Sciences (ANSP SOP01), although the overall collecting effort in 2000 (and also 1998-1999) may exceed recent efforts (e.g., 1990-1997) at these same sites.Aquatic insects were collected from each station by sweeping a D-net through roots and submerged detritus;by removing medium-sized rocks and woody debris from the river, placing them in a bucket, and scrubbing them with a brush;bybing submerged substrates (e.g., pilings in the river)with a net held downstream to collect dislodged specimens; bypicking specimens from natural substrates (leaves, wood, etc.);and by sieving smaller sediments through 4.76-mm, 1.47-mm, and 125-llm mesh sieves.Collected material was examined in enamelpans,insects were separated into larger taxonomic groups (e.g., orders), and all specimens wereserved in 90%ETOH immediately. ObserVations concerning important ecological characteristics such as depth, velocity, siltation, algal and weed growth, and physical disturbance were noted in the field.Additional notes were madeing the distribution, relative abundance, and habitatence of particular species.All specimens were brought to the Stroud Water Research Center (SWRC).In the laboratory, the contents of eachple jar were transferred to petri dishes, and specimensfied to the lowest practical level (usually species), depending on size and condition of the individual specimens, and the availability of taxonomic keys.Identifications were done with the aid of a dissecting microscope (4-50 X tion)or compound microscope (40-1000 X magnification). Chironomids were not subsampled in 2000, and all collected specimens were identified to genus.Selected specimenslected in 2000 have been incorporated into the permanentlections at the SWRC.Various terms including uncommon, rare, moderately abundant, abundant, and dominant are used in discussing the results of qualitative sampling and refer only to the relative size of populations in the opinion of thetors.Hypotheses concerning potential effects of effluent/runoff from the SRS were defined a priori.For aquatic insects, a The Academy of Natural Sciences 126 Patrick Center for Environmental Research D.AQUATIC INSECTS 2000 Savannah River Studies negative impact resulting from SRS effluent was defined as a meaningful decrease in Total Richness, a decrease in richness of a pollution-sensitive group such as mayflies, or a decrease..in relative abundance of a pollution-sensitive group such as mayflies (Weiderholm 1984).These decreases could beparent at Stations 2B, 5 and/or 6.Declines in richness would reflect the rareness or absence of species (or species groups), especially those known to be pollution sensitive (Hilsenhoff 1987,Lenat 1993).Concurrently, the relative abundance of pollution-tolerant species (or species groups)may increase (Weiderholm 1984).Personal judgment (Le., for J.K.son, Ph.D., D.A.Lieb, D.H.Funk)based on>40 years of field and laboratory experience, the 2000 data, and thecal data from the Savannah River near the SRS was used to evaluate the conditions at each station and the significance of differences among stations.These data were summarized in tables and figures that list all taxa found at the separate stations, total numbers of species in each major order for each station and across stations, and total numbers of species for each station and across stations.term qualitative data (1965-2000) for late spring/summer were available for Stations 1, 5 and 6, but not Station 2B.Long-term qualitative data for late summer/fall were available for Stations 1,5 and 6 (1955-2000) and Station 2B2000).The long-term data for the Savannah River near the SRS presented in this report are from ANSP (1974a), ANSP (1977), ANSP (1980b), ANSP (1981a), ANSP (1985b), ANSP (1990a), ANSP (1991a), ANSP (1992b,c), ANSP (1993b), ANSP (1994a,b), ANSP (1996a), and ANSP (1996b).Additional data may be available from otherveys, and will provide further perspective in futurements as these data are incorporated into the comparisons. Quantitative Sampling loating artificial substrates (insect"traps")were used to provide quantitative samples of insect abundance, even if high flow conditions made qualitative collec-tions difficult. Traps were constructed of O.64-cm (0.25-in)mesh hardware cloth in the form of a box, with dimensions of 15.2 cm x 20.3 cm x 30.5 cm (6x8x 12 in).Each trap was sheets cm)of Conservation Webbing (3M Company)to provide an The Academy of Natural Sciences 127 Patrick Center for Environmental Research D.AQUATIC INSECTS 2000 Savannah River Studies interior substrate for aquatic insects.One rectangular piece of Styrofoam was added to the top of each trap for buoyancycause traps that sink tend to fIll with silt, contain fewersects, and can be difficult to retrieve in the field.The traps were tied to tree branches or pilings and left floating in the water.Four traps were placed in the field at the beginning of the colonization period.After colonization, the traps thatmained (3-4 of the 4 placed in the field)were removed from the river and placed separately in large plastic tubs.Upontrieval, current velocities varied among traps (i.e., some traps were retrieved from slow current while others were retrieved from fast current).On shore, the insects were removed from the traps by placing the traps in a water-filled basinIon)and rinsing each piece of Conservation Webbing with clean river water from a battery powered pump.Slapping the webbing against the side of the basin also helped dislodge some specimens. Then, each piece of webbing was scrubbed with a large plastic brush and clean river water was sprayed onto the webbing toremove the last of the llttached sects.Finally, the contents of the holding tub and wash basin were poured through a pair of sieves which included amade sieve with 1.8 x l.4-mm rectangular mesh (used in 1997 and earlier and referred to as the coarse sieve)followed by a standard 0.5 x 0.5-mm mesh sieve (used in 1998 and 1999 and referred to as the fme sieve).All material (bothsects and detritus)retained by the coarse sieve was transferred into a jar containing 10%buffered formalin.All materialtained by the fme sieve was transferred into a separate jar which also contained 10%buffered formalin.Materialtained by the coarse sieve was kept separate from thattained by the fme sieve in order to examine the potential impact of a reduction in mesh size (from 1.8 x 1.4-mm to 0.5 x 0.5-mm;done at the request of the SRS)on the quantitative data and allow samples collected in 2000 to be compared to those collected prior to 1998.Each sample was labeled (with permanent black ink)on the lid and outside of the jar withformation concerning river, station, date, and trap number.Notes pertaining to trap placement, conditions,andany other pertinent information were recorded in the field notebook.Samples were transported to the Stroud Center and storedtil processing. In the laboratory, 3-4 trap samples from each site and sam-pIing date were processed. Each trap sample was split into The Academy of Natural Sciences 128 Patrick Center for Environmental Research D.AQUATIC INSECfS 2000 Savannah River Studies four subsamples (each=1/4th of a sample unit), one of these subsamples was split again int<;>four subsamples(each =1/16th of a sample unit), and[mally one of these subsamples was split into four subsamples (each=l/64th of a sample unit).Subsamples were then processed (sorted and identified) until 100-200 individuals were examined.Since tebrate densities varied across sites and seasons, someples required more processing than others (i.e., some samples were processed in their entirety while for other samples a l/64th produced the required number of insects).Sample processing involved separating the aquatic insects from thetritus under a dissecting microscope and, as with thetive samples, specimens were identified to the lowesttical level (usually species).The level of identificationpended on the size and condition of the individual specimens and the availability of taxonomic keys.Identifications were done with the aid of a dissecting microscope (4-50 Xcation)or compound microscope (40-1000 X magnification). All chironomids (as ,opposed to a subset as in years prior to 1998)in a subsample were identified to genus.Individuals of each taxon from a given sample were enumerated and most taxa were placed in separate vials and preserved in 80%ETOH for future reference. Selected specimens collected in 2000 have been incorporated into the permanent collections at the SWRC.Our ability to separate insects from detritus and other material (i.e., our removal efficiency) was tested bysorting 15%of the samples we processed. Results ofing indicate that our removal efficiency averaged 95%.There is no single descriptor of aquatic insect assemblages that is generally accepted as better than all others (i.e., most accurate, most sensitive, most reliable, etc).Thus, thetative data were summarized as estimates of density forvidual species or groups of species.Nine metrics, which are commonly used in water quality monitoring programs, were also calculated. Each of the variables described below isculated from the same data set, which results in a certaingree of redundancy among the descriptors. Thus, when meaningful changes in aquatic insect assemblages occur, those changes would be expected to affect more than onescriptor.The Academy of Natural Sciences 129 Patrick Center for Environmental Research D.AQUATIC INSECTS 2000 Savannah River Studies Density ensities of selected genera/species (i.e., usually those that averaged>100 individuals/trap at any station in at least one season)were examined.This included pollution-sensitive taxa[e.g., many Ephemeroptera (may-.flies), Plecoptera (stoneflies), Trichoptera (caddisflies)] and pollution-tolerant taxa[e.g., many Diptera (true flies),nata (dragonflies, damselflies), and Coleoptera (beetles)]. In response to moderate exposure to pollution, a decrease in the density of pollution-sensitive taxa accompanied by ancrease in density of pollution-tolerant species would bedicted.In some cases,speciesdensities were pooled together (Le., to estimate densities of genera, families, orders, etc.)cause densities were low and/or pooled groups provided atistical resolution that was not available otherwise. Densities of Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera are commonly pooled together and analyzed as a group (EPT density)tosess changes in waterlhabitat quality in streams and rivers.Species in this group are generally more pollution-sensitive than other taxa;thus, a decrease in EPT density would bedicted in response to moderate exposure to pollution. Allsity data were In transformed, a standard procedure to correct for the clumped spatial dispersion of invertebrate populations in rivers (Elliott 1977).Total Richness T otal Richness summarizes species responses (asence/absence but not abundance) of all taxa,ing pollution-sensitive and pollution-tolerant taxa.It is reported as the mean number of aquatic insect taxa found in each subsample. Total Richness generally decreases in re-.sponse to moderate to severe pollution. Total Richness is often split into EPT Richness and Chironomid Richness.tal Richness calculations, as with other calculations ofness, were conservative for all groups except chironomids. This means that a genus (family)was not included in counts of richness if one or more species (genera)within that genus (family)had already been counted.In addition, an order was not included in richness counts if one or more genera orlies within the order had already been counted.In contrast, all taxa were included in chironomid richness counts (e.g., both The Academy of Natural Sciences 130 Patrick Center for Environmental Research D.AQUATIC INSECTS 2000 Savannah River Studies Cricotopus spp.and Cricotopus bicinctus grp.were included in richness counts).EPT Richness PT Richness is reported as the mean number ofmeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera species found in each subsample. These three insect orders contain many pollution-sensitive taxa;thus, this metric summarizes re-sponses of mostly pollution-sensitive taxa.EPT Richness generally decreases in response to moderate to severetion,andcan be somewhat more responsive to environmental change than Total Richness.Chironomid Richness hironomid Richness is reported as the mean number of chironomid midge genera/species found in each subsample. In terms of richness and abundance, the family Chironomidae is generally the most dominant family of aquatic insects in streams and rivers.In the Savannah River, chironomid midges represent about 30%of Totalness and about 50%of density.Pollution tolerances among the species range from sensitive (e.g., similar to manymeroptera,.Plecoptera, or Trichoptera) to very tolerant, and are similar to the range generally observed across allronomid species of aquatic insect species.Chironomidness generally decreases in response to moderate to severe pollution, as more sensitive species are no longer able tovive at a site.Because some species are very tolerant,nomid Richness often represents most of Total Species Richness in cases of severe pollution. Species Diversity pecies diversity (Shannon-Wiener Index)integrates both Total Richness and evenness (Le., howals are apportioned across taxa);all taxa are included.Species diversity is estimated with data from each sample, and summarized as a mean.SpeciesDiversitygenerallycreases in response to moderate to severe pollution. The Academy of Natural Sciences 131 Patrick Center for Environmental Research D.AQUATIC INSECTS 2000 Savannah River Studies%Chironomidae hironomids are an important part of the aquaticsect assemblage in the Savannah River, oftensenting 50%of total insect abundance in the traps.While some chironomid species are sensitive to pollution (see Chironomid Richness above), other chironomid species are very tolerant of pollution (more than any Ephemeroptera,coptera, or Trichoptera) and actually increase in abundance in response to moderate to severe pollution. Thus, whilenomid Richness may decrease as more sensitive species are lost,%Chironomidae (i.e.,%of total insect density)oftencreases in response to moderate to severe pollution. As with other percentage based metrics (see%Dominance-1, and%Dominance-5 below), percent Chironomid data were arc sine square root transformed before statistical analyses, a standard procedure for percentage data (Elliott 1977).%*I>ominance-l** ercent Dominance-1 is the percent contribution (%of total density)of the taxon with the greatest abundance in a given sample.Percent Dominance often increases in response to moderate to severe pollution, similar to%ronomidae. %Dominance-5 ercent Dominance-5 is the percent contribution (%oftotaldensity) of the five taxa (rather than a single taxon, see above)withthe greatest abundance in a given sample.Percent Dominance-5 often increases insponse to moderate to severe pollution, similar to%nomidae.This metric was recently found to be more informative than%Dominance-1 using data from over 450 sites in Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia and West Virginia (Smith and Voshell 1997).Hilsenhoff Biotic Index..nalyses involving abundance (i.e., density)or pres-_enceLabsence (richness) are only able.loJnc.orp'Uo:ura:ute"'-- _pollution tolerance information indirectly, through The Academy of Natural Sciences 132 Patrick Center for Environmental Research D.AQUATIC INSECTS 2000 Savannah River Studies the interpretation of results for individual taxa or groups of taxa;Biotic indices combine abundance data and pollution tolerance values for each taxon to form a weighted average for the aquatic insects at that site.A biotic index is estimated with data from each sample, and summarized as a mean per sample.Tolerance values (values range from 0 to 10, with 10 being most tolerant and 0 being least tolerant of pollution) for the Hilsenhoff Biotic Index (RBI)were obtained fromhoff (1987)and Platkin et al.(1989).These tolerance values generally address only genera;thus, family values wererived from generic identifications. NC Biotic Index imilar to the Hilsenhoff Biotic Index, the Northlina Biotic Index (NCB I)combines abundance data and pollution tolerance values for each taxon to form a weighted average for the aquatic insects at that site.Tolerance values forthis analysis were obtained during intensive studies by David Lenat andhiscolleagues (Lenat 1993, personalmunication) in numerous streams and rivers throughout North Carolina.Thus, the data may be more applicable to thevannah River than tolerance values derived by Hilsenhoff (1987)or Platkin et al.(1989).Tolerance values aremated for species when possible (values range from 0 to 10, with 10 being most tolerant and 0 being least tolerant totion).The variation among species within some generatrate the value ofspeciesidentifications, and contribute to the differences often observed between HBI and Statistical Analysis of Abundance and Community Structure Data.he primary objective of our quantitative data analysis of the 2000 data was to examine two principaltions: (1)How did the aquatic insect assemblages at the individual stations compare with each other in 2000, and (2)How did the aquatic insect assemblages in April andtember compare with each other in 2000.More specifically, we sought to determine whether the aquatic insect assemblage (as described by abundance of certain species or groups of species, or summary indices)at Stations 2B, 5 and 6 (three The Academy of Natural Sciences 133 Patrick Center for Environmental Research D.AQUATIC INSECTS 2000 Savannah River Studies stations potentially affected by SRS)differed significantly from Station 1 (the reference station), if the aquatic insectsemblages differed among Stations 2B, 5 and 6, or if aquatic insect assemblages differed among seasons.Our primaryproach to addressing these questions involved using all of the data collected in 2000.Variation among stations and seasons was examined using a two-way fixed effects analysis ofance (ANOV A;station, season, station-season interaction), with a Tukey's multiple range test to determine thecance of station or season differences. The null hypothesis was that the aquatic insect assemblages did not differ signifi-.cantly among stations or between seasons in 2000.Allses employed the General Linear Models procedure of the SAS (1985)StatisticalAnalysisSystem. If differencestween stations were observed for any variable, we attempted to determine whether these differences could be attributed to an effect of effluent or runoff from SRS by comparing theferences with responses predicted a priori for that variable, and V\iitllr,ysponsesobserved for other variables. Differences that did not conform or appeared to be contradictions (e.g., Total Richness increases while EPT Richness decreases) with respect to a priori predictions were considered inconsistent with a SRS effect.Differences found for only one variable (e.g., for one sensitive species but not several other sensitive species)were interpreted cautiously as differences amongtions can also result from natural variability that is not related to SRS.Means and standard errors presented in this report were calculated with untransformed data.In addition to our primary objective (see above), we sought to determine if a reduction in the size of the mesh used during field processing (see qualitative sampling method section for details of this change)affecteddensityestimates for common taxa and groups of taxa (Total Density, EPT Density, andronomidae Density).We also sought to determine if this change affected estimates of selected community structuredices (Total Richness, EPT Richness, Chironomidaeness,%Dominance-5 taxa,%Chironomidae,Wiener Diversity, and NCB!).This evaluation includedparisons of stations and seasons based on both density and community structure. Results based on pooled collections, which consisted of individuals caught by the coarse sieve (1.8 x 1.4 mm)combined with individuals that passed through the coarse sieve but were caught by the fme sieve (0.5 x 0.5 mm), The Academy of Natural Sciences 134 Patrick Center for Environmental Research D.AQUATIC INSECTS 2000 Savannah River Studies were compared to those based on the coarse-sieve collections. The results needed for these comparisons were obtained using ANOVAs and Tukey's tests as described in the preceding paragraph. Prior to comparisons of community structure (but not density), all samples and fractions were standardizedcause the pooled collections retained more insects than the coarse-sieve collections. Standardization was necessarycause some measures of community structure (those based on richness)generally increase as the number of individualsamined increase.Therefore, richness measures would bepected to be higher in the pooled collections than in the coarse-sieve collections due to the presence of moreals in the pooled collections. To compensate for this potential bias, we used a computer program that employed apIing without replacement routine, to standardize samples to a preset number of individuals. In this case, 92 was selectedcause92 individuals were found in all subsamplesined.Because we were able to standardize samples (i.e., eliminatetlIe bias respIting from the retention of moreviduals by the small mesh than by the large mesh), the effect of a reduction in mesh size on estimates of communityture could reliably be assessed.esults Qualitative Collections at Station 1 April 2000 total of 89 taxa including 29 EPT taxa was cqllected in April 2000 from Station 1 (Tables D-2 and D-3).Of these EPT taxa one mayfly (Baetis intercalaris), one stonefly (Perlesta spp.), and three caddisflies che mississippiensis, Hydropsyche rossi, and Ceraclealata)were abundant.The mayfly Baetis intercalaris and the hydropsychid caddisflies were most abundant among woody debris in moderate to fast current.The corixid Trichocorixa calva and the dytiscid beetles (mainly Neoporus venustus and Coptotomus or.loticus)were abundarit in backwater areas.Another beetle, Stenelmis hungerfordi, was also abundant.A rare taxa[I.e., iliose taxa represented The Academy of Natural Sciences 135 Patrick Center for Environmental Research D.AQUATIC INSECTS 2000 Savannah River Studies Table 0-2.List of aquatic insects collected from the Savannah River at Stations 1, 28, 5 and 6 in the vicinity of the SRS in April and September 2000.Qualitative columns represent hand collections from all available habitats at each station.Quantitative columns are data from traps suspended on the river's surface.X indicates presence of a taxon;-indicates none was collected at that station.Qualitative April September 12B56 12B5 6 Quantitative April September 12B56 12B5 6 Phylum Arthropoda Class Insecta Order Odonata Suborder Anisoptera Family Aeshnidae Boyeria vinosa Nasiaeschna pentacantha Family Corduliidae Subfamily Corduliinae Epitheca (=Epicordulia) princeps Neurocordulia spp..Neurocordulia alabamensis Neurocordulia molesta Subfamily Macromiinae Didymops transversa Macromia spp.Macromia illinoiensis georgina Family Gomphidae Dromogomphus spinosus Gomphussp. Gomphus lividus Gomphus parvidens Gomphus vastus Hagenius brevistylus Promogomphus sp.Stylurus sp.Stylurus ivae Stylurus nr.notatus Family Libellulidae Libellula sp.Suborder Zygoptera Family Calopterygidae Calopteryx maculata Hetaerina americana Hetaerina titia Family Coenagrionidae Argiaspp.Argia apicalis Argia moesta/translata Argia sedula Argia tibialis Argia translata Enallagma spp.Enallagma basidens Enallagma nr.divagans Enallagma signatum Ischnura pesitax-x-x-x x-----x---xxxxxxxxxxx x x--x---xxxxx---x---xxxxx--x-xxxxx--xxxxxxx-xx -xxx x--xxxx--x-x-----xxxxx-x X x-x-:--x--xxxxxxxxxx-xx-x-----x----'-xx-xx x---x-----x-x-x--xx-x--x-x---xxxxX----'-: XX-XXXX--x-x-xx-x-x--xxxx--xx x-xxxxxxx-x-xx--xxxxx--x..*_--------------------------------------- The Academy of Natural Sciences 136 Patrick Center for Environmental Research D.AQUATIC INSECTS 2000 Savannah River Studies Table D-2 (continued). List of aquatic insects collected from the Savannah River at Stations 1, 28, 5, and 6 in the vicinity of the Savannah River Site in April and September 2000.Qualitative columns represent hand collections from all available habitats at each station.Qualitative columns are data from traps on the river's surface.X indicates presence of a taxon;-indicates none was collected at that station.Qualitative April September 12B56 12B5 6 Quantitative April September 12B56 12B5 6 Order Ephemeroptera Family Baetidae Acerpenna pygmaea Baetisspp. Baetis intercalaris Callibaetis spp.CentroptilumIProcloeon spp.Labiobaetis propinquus grp.Plauditus spp.Family Caenidae Amercaenis ridens Caenisspp. Caenis diminuta Caenis diminuta/amica Caenis nr.hilaris Family Ephemerellidae Ephemerella spp.Ephemerella argo Ephemerella dorothea Eurylophella doris Serratella sp.Setratella deficiens Family Ephemeridae Hexagenia spp.Family Heptageniidae Heptagenia spp.Heptagenia diabasia H eptagenia flavescens Macdunnoa sp.Stenonema spp.Stenonema exiguum Stenonema mexicanum integrum Stenonema modestum Stenonema terminatum Family Leptophlebiidae Leptophlebia spp.Paraleptophlebia spp.Family Isonychiidae Isonychia spp.Family Neoephemeridae Neoephemera youngi Family Tricorythodes spp.---x-x----xxxxxxxxxx-xxx-xxx--x*x x-x--xx x xxx x x x x x x x x---x x--xxx-xxxx x-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx--x--x---xx-x-x---x---x-xxxxxx xxx x x xxx x---x x----x-xxxxx--x---xxxxxxxxxxxx-xxxxxxx-x xxxxxxxxxxx-xxxxxx-xxx-x----xxx x x x-x x x-xx xxxxx x xxxxxx-xxxxxx----x---x--xxx-xx-x-x-xxxx-xxxxx xxxxx--x--xxxx-xxxxxxxx x x x x xxxx xxxxx xxx x--------xxxxxxx Order Plecoptera----Family Perlidae-x--Acroneuria mela----. spp;---..----.------Paragnetina kansensis--xx---x-xx---xxxxx---x---x---x--x----x The Academy of Natural Sciences 137 Patrick Center for Environmental Research D.AQUATIC INSECTS 2000 Savannah River Studies Table D-2 (continued). List of aquatic insects collected from the Savannah River at Stations 1, 2B, 5, and 6 in the vicinity of the Savannah River Site in April and September 2000.Qualitative columns represent hand collections from all available habitats at each station.Qualitative columns are data from traps suspended on the river's surface.X indicates presence of a taxon;-indicates none was collected at that station.Perlesta spp.complex Family Pteronarcyidae Pteronarcys dorsata Qualitative Quantitative April September April September 1 2B56 1 2B 5 6 1 2B56 1 2B 5 6 xxxx----x xxx---xxx-xx x x x x----x---x-xxx--------x x---x x-xxx x xxxxxx-xx x x x x x xxxx xxxx------xxx x x--x---x------xxxxxx xxxxx-x----x x------x---x--------x-,-x x x-x x x----xx x----x--x----X lC X X X..x: x: x: --"-x.-"j[_.j[._. x-Order Heteroptera Family Belostomatidae Belostoma spp.Belostoma lutarium Family Corixidae Palmacorixa spp.Palmacorixa nana/buenoi Trichocorixa spp.Trichocorixa calva Trichocorixa louisianae Family gerridae Metrobates spp.Metrobates hesperius Rheumatobates spp.Rheumatobates palosi Rheumatobates tenuipes Rheumatobates trulliger Trepobates spp.Family Naucoridae Pelocoris femoratus Order Megaloptera Family Corydalidae Chauliodes rastricornis Corydalus cornutus Order Lepidoptera Family Pyralidae Parapoynx spp.Order Trichoptera Family Brachycentridae Brachycentrus numerosus Micrasema spp.Family Hydropsychidae Cheumatopsyche spp.Hydropsyche spp.Hydropsyche mississippiensis Hydropsyche rossi Hydropsyche simulans Macrostemum spp.Macrostemum carolina Family Hydroptilidae

---

HTTy"aroptila spp.xx--x--xx--xx-xx---xx-xx---x x------x x---xxx xxx---x-xx-xx-xxx-x-x--xx xxxx-x--xxx x----xxx---x-x-x x-------The Academy of Natural Sciences 138 Patrick Center for Environmental Research D.AQUATIC INSECTS 2000 Savannah River Studies Table D-2 (continued).

List of aquatic insects collected from the Savannah River at Stations 1, 2B, 5, and 6 in the vicinity of the Savannah River Site in June and September 1998.Qualitative columns represent hand collections from all available habitats at each station.Qualitative columns are data from traps suspended on the river's surface.X indicates presence of a taxon;-indicates none was collected at that station.Qualitative Quantitative April September 12B56 12B5 6 April September 12B56 12B5 6------xxxxxxxxx----xxxx--------x----------------xxx-xx x----xxx-----------x-------x-------xxx xxx xxxxxxxxx---x Family Leptoceridae Ceraclea spp.Ceraclea alagma Ceraclea cancellata Ceraclea maculata Ceraclea nr.punctata Ceraclea slossonaelmenteia Ceraclea submaculata/punctata Ceraclea tarsipunctata Ceraclea transversa Oecetis spp.Nectopsyche spp.Nectopsyche candida.Nectopsyche exquisita.Triaenodes spp.Triaenodes nr.injustus Triaenodes in justus Triaenodes tardus Family Limnephilidae Pycnopsyche sp.Family Philopotamidae Chimarra spp.Chimarra aterrima Family Polycentropodidae Cyrnellus sp.Cyrnellus fraternus N eureclipsis crepuscularis Polycentropus sp.Polycentropus remotus Family Dipseudopsidae Phylocentropus spp.--xxxxx x---xxxxxxxxxxxxx xxx x xxx x xxxx x x-x----xxxx--xxxxxx-x-xxxxx x--xx----xxx-xx-xxxx----x------x---x--------x x--------x---------xx-xxxx x x------x--x------xxx-x---xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx x x xxxxxx---xx-x---x x xx-x-x x--x----x----x--xxx-xx-xx-xxxx--x x--x x x---xxxx---X x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Order Coleoptera Family Curculionidae Family Dytiscidae genus 1 Bidessonotus inconspicuus/pulicarius Coptotomus spp.Coptotomus nr.loticus Liodessus sp.Neoporus (=Hydroporus) spp.Neoporus clypealis Neoporus hybridus Neoporus nr.carolinus Neoporus nr.dixianus Neoporus undulatus Neoporus venustus.._--.Family Eimidae Ancyronyx variegata The Academy of Natural Sciences 139 Patrick Center for Environmental Research D.AQUATIC INSECTS 2000 Savannah River Studies Table D-2 (continued). List of aquatic insects collected from the Savannah River at Stations 1, 28, 5, and 6 in the vicinity of the Savannah River Site in April and September 2000.Qualitative columns represent hand collections from all available habitats at each station.Qualitative columns are data from traps suspended on the river's surface.X indicates presence of a taxon;-indicates none was collected at that station.Qualitative April September 12B56 12B5 6 Quantitative April September 12B56 12B5 6 xxx-x x x x x x x-xxxxx----x x x--x xxx Dubiraphia spp.Dubiraphia vittata Macronychus glabratus Microcylloepus pusillus Optioservus sp.Stenelmis spp.Stenelmis antenna lis Stenelmis hungerfordi Family Gyrinidae Dineutus spp.Dineutus assimilis Dineutus discolor Gyrinus spp.Gyrinus analis/lugens Family Haliplidae Haliplus fasciatus Haliplus triopsis Peltodytes spp.Peltodytes bradleyi Peltodytes dietrichi Peltodytes dunavani Peltodytes muticus Peltodytes sexmaculatus Hydrophilidae Berosus peregrinus Enochrus blatchleyi Hydrochus inaequalis Hydrochus squamifer Hydrochus nr.squamifer Phaenonotum exstriatum Sperchopsis sp.Sperchopsis tessellatus Tropistemus sp..Tropistemusblatchleyiblatchleyi Tropistemus collaris striolatus Noteridae Hydrocanthus sp.Suphisellus bicolor punctipennis Suphisellus gibbulus Suphisellus puncticollis Scirtidae Cyphonsp.Order Diptera Family Ceratopogonidae Dasyhelea sp.PalpomyiaIBezzia spp.complex FamilyChabboridae .._-.._.-Chaoborus spp.---xx-xxxxx--x-xxx xxxxx---x---x---x x------xx--xxxxx--x----x--x----x x--x---x xx xx-x------xxxx-x---xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxx-xxxxx--x--x-----x x----xxxxx x------x-x-x-xx-x--x-x-x x---x--xx--xxx-xxxxxxxx-x--x---x--The Academy of Natural Sciences 140 Patrick Center for Environmental Research D.AQUATIC INSECTS 2000 Savannah River Studies Table 0-2 (continued). List of aquatic insects collected from the Savannah River at Stations 1, 28, 5, and 6 in the vicinity of the Savannah River Site in April and September 2000.Qualitative columns represent hand collections from all available habitats at each station.Qualitative columns are data from traps suspended on the river's surface.X indicates presence of a taxon;-indicates none was collected at that station.Qualitative Quantitative April September 12B56 12B5 6 April September 12B56 12B5 6-----x-------x-----x-------xx'x xxxxxx-xxxxxxxxxx-xxxx-xx--xx-xxxxxxxxx-xx-x x---x-x-xx--xxxx x--xxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxx---xxxxx----x----------------------xxx x-----x------xx x x----------x x x---x xxxx--xxx x x----------x-----x--------xx----x----x-------xx x---------x-----------xxxxxxxxxxx-xxxxxxxx--------x---------x x--x------x--x--xxxx----x---------------xxxx------x----x----x x-x x--x-x--xxxxxxx x xxxx x x x x-----xx xxxx-xxxxx---x-x-x----x x---x------xxx------xx------'xx---x----- Family Culicidae Culexsp.Family Empididae Hemerodromia spp.Family Simuliidae Simulium spp.Family Stratiomyidae Stratiomys sp.Family Tabanidae nr.Chlorotabanus Chrysops spp.Family Tipulidae Cryptolabis sp.Tipulaspp. -Family: Chironomidae Subfamily: Diamesinae Potthastia longimana grp.Subfamily: Tanypodinae Ablabesmyia spp.Ablabesmyia mallochi Ablabesmyia ramphe grp.Clinotanypus sp.Coelotanypus sp.Labrundinia sp.Labrundinia pilosella Nilotanypus spp.Nilotanypus fimbriatus Pentaneura nr.inconspicua Procladius sp.Rheopelopia sp.Trissopelopia spp.Subfamily: Orthocladiinae Corynoneura spp Cricotopus spp.Cricotopus bicinctus grp.Cricotopus/Orthocladius spp.Mesomittia sp.Nanocladius spp.Orthocladius sp.Parakiefferiella sp.Psectrocladius sp.Rheocricotopus spp.Rheocricotopus nr.robacki Thienemanniella spp.Thienemanniella sp.2 Tvetenia spp.Tvetenia discoloripes grp.spp._..------XyloiojiiiS"/JiiY ---The Academy of Natural Sciences 141 Patrick Center for Environmental Research D.AQUATIC INSECTS 2000 Savannah River Studies Table D-2 (continued). List of aquatic insects collected from the Savannah River at Stations 1, 28, 5, and 6 in the vicinity of the Savannah River Site in April and September 2000.Qualitative columns represent hand collections from all available habitats at each station.Qualitative columns are data from traps suspended on the river's surface.X indicates presence of a taxon;-indicates none was collected at that station.Qualitative Quantitative April September 12B56 12B5 6 April September 12B56 12B5 6-----x------x-xxxxxxxxxx--x-x--x x--x x--x-------x------x-x------x-xx-----xx x---x-------xxxxxxxx---x-------x-----xx--x--xxxx------.--.-x------xxxx--x-xxx xxxxx-------x--------x x--x-------xxxxxxxxx x.------xxxx xxxxxxxxxx x--xxxxxxx x---xxxxxxxxxxxx-x----xx x---xxxxxxxx-xxxxxxxx-xxxxxxxxxx-x-x-x-xxxxx x*x--------x---xxxxxxxx---xxx---x-xxxxxxxxx----x-----x-xxxxx--xx----x----x-x---Subfamily: Chironominae Tribe: Chironomini Chironomus sp.Cladopelma sp.Cryptochironomus spp.Cryptotendipes sp.Dicrotendipes spp.Dicrotendipes neomodestus Dicrotendipes nr.modestus Endochironomus spp.Microtendipes spp.Microtendipes pedellus grp.Nilothauma sp.Parachironomus spp.Parachironomus nr.carinatus Paracladopelma spp.Paralauterbomiella nigrohalteralis Phaenopsectra sp.Phaenopsectra obedians grp.Polypedilum spp.Polypedilum illinoensi grp.Polypedilum convictum grp.Polypedilum fallax Polypedilum longimana grp.Polypedilum scalaenum grp.Polypedilum halterale grp.Stelechomyia perpulchra Stenochironomus spp.Tribelos sp.Tribelos fuscicome Tribelos jucundum Xenochironomus xenolabis Xestochironomus sp.Xestochironomus subletti Tribe: Tanytarsini Cladotanytarsus sp.Rheotanytarsus spp.Stempellinella spp.Tanytarsus sp.2 Funk Tanytarsus sp.3 Funk Tanytarsus sp.4 Funk Tanytarsus sp.A Epler Tanytarsus sp.E Epler Tanytarsus sp.0 Epler Tanytarsus spp.The Academy of Natural Sciences 142 Patrick Center for Environmental Research D.AQUATIC INSECTS 2000 Savannah River Studies Table D-3.Total number of insect taxa, number of EPT (Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera) taxa, and number of insect taxa by order (O=Odonata, E=Ephemeroptera, P=Plecoptera, H=Hemiptera, M=Megaloptera, L=Lepidoptera,T=Trichoptera, C=Coleoptera, D=Diptera) collected in Spring (April)and Fall (September) 2000 from the Savannah River in the vicinity of the Savannah River Site.Numbers are for qualitative samples, only.Spring Fall AU Stations Order 1 2B 5 6 AU 1 2B 5 6 All and Seasons a 13 8 12 12 23 10 7 10 10 17 27 E 14 15 17 17 23 7 11 12 13 17 26 P 1 233301 2 2 2 3 H 4 035673428 10 M 0 0000 2 110 2 2 L 1 0001 11011 1 T 14 16 19 19 26 10 13 12 11 16 26 C 14 9 17 20 331414 10 11 20 39 D 28 32 24 32 45 41 27 25 27 51 61 EPT 29 33 39 39 52 17 252626 35 55 Total 89 82.95 108 160 92 78 76 77 134 195"bined total of three or fewer specimens during recent2000)surveys]were collected including the mayflytagenia diabasia, the dragonfly Gomphus lividus, the damselfly Ischnura pesita, the beetle Suphisellus bicolor punctipennis, and the chironomid midge Potthastiamana grp.Although chironomid densities were high inwater areas, chironomid taxa richness was only moderate (26 taxa collected), with most (72%)of the individuals belonging to 3 taxa (Chironomus sp., Tvetenia discoloripes grp., and Polypedilum illinoensi grp.).Dierotendipes fif.modestus was the only other abundant chironomid at Station 1.Although a large number of taxa was collected from Station 1 (many of which were EPT taxa), most stoneflies including Paragnetina, Acroneuria, and Pteronarcys, two mayflies (Isonyehia and Labiobaetis), two caddisflies ehe and Macrostemum) a beetle (Stenelmis antennalis), and a damselfly (Argia sedula)were missing from Station 1tions in April.In addition to the absence of these taxa, most mayfly taxa were uncommon at Station 1.This waslarly true of Stenonema mexieanum integrum, whichwas resented in the April collection at Station 1 by one individual. The Academy of Natural Sciences 143 Patrick Center for Environmental Research D.AQUATIC INSECTS 2000 Savannah River Studies September 2000 total of 92 taxa including 17 EPT taxa werelected in September 2000 from Station 1 (Tables2 and D-3).*Five mayfly taxa (Baetis intercalaris, Labiobaetis propinquus grp., CentroptilumIProcloeon, Caenis diminuta, and Tricorythodes spp.), one caddisfly taxa (Hydropsyche rossi), two gerrids (Metrobates andbates), and two beetle taxa (Ancyronyx variegata and Gyrinus analisllugens) were abundant at Station 1.Four of these taxa were primarily collected among woody debris (Baetislaris, Labiobaetis propinquus grp, and Hydropsyche rossi in moderate to fast current and Ancyronyx variegata in slow to no current)while two others (Caenis diminuta and lumIProcloeon) were abundant in backwater areas.Another taxon (Tricorythodes spp.)was abundant in slow current root masses.A number of rare taxa were collected in September 2000 including the mayfly Callibaetis sp., the caddisflycentropus* remotus, the beetle Tropistemusblatchleyi blatchleyi, the dragonfly Libellula sp., the hemipteranmatobates palosi, the megalopteran Chauliodes rastricomis, and the dipterans Dasyhelea sp., Culex sp., Cryptolabis sp., and Tanytarsus sp.0 Epler.Although chironomid abundance and richness (35 taxa collected) were high and many taxa (7)were abundant, no individual taxon dominated chironomid collections. The three most common chironomid taxa, which comprised 46%of the individuals collected, werelum illifwensi grp., Polypedilum halterale grp., andbesmyia ramphe grp.Similar to April collections, some EPT groups were missing from September collections. The most obvious group was the stoneflies, which were absent.Additional EPT taxa including the mayflies Isonychia and Stenonema, and the caddisflies Macrostemum, Triaenodes, and Neureclipsis were alsosent.In addition, the beetle Stenelmis antenna lis and thedisfly Chimarra were uncommon at Station 1 (one individual of each taxon collected). Similarities Between Seasons lthough the total number of taxa collected was high---foFboth sampling seasons (89 in April and 92 intember), only 5 taxa were abundant across seasons at The Academy of Natural Sciences 144 Patrick Center for Environmental Research D.AQUATIC INSECTS 2000 Savannah River Studies Station 1.These taxa are the caddisfly Hydropsyche rossi, the beetle Gyrinus analisllugens, the mayfly Baetislaris, the chironomid Dicrotendipes (although the abundant species in April was not the same as the abundant species in September), and chironomid Polypedilum illinoensi grp.In contrast, most stoneflies (except Perlesta spp.), the mayfly Isonychia spp., the caddisfly Macrostemum, and the elmid beetle Stenelmis antennalis were absent or very uncommon at Station 1 during April and September collections. For both seasons, a total of at least five rare taxa including at least one mayfly, one dragonfly, one beetle, and one chironomid taxa were collected at Station 1.Qualitative Collections at Station 2B April 2000 espite less than ideal habitat compared with the other stations (i.e., backwater-and submerged willow root habitats were absent), 82 taxa including 33 EPT taxa were collected from Station 2B in April (Tables D-2 and3).A number of EPT taxa including the mayfliesphella doris, Ephemerella dorothea, and Baetis intercalaris, the stonefly Perlesta spp., and the caddisflies che spp., Nectopsyche candida, and Chimarra spp.weredant.Eurylophella doris was found largely among shoreline roots in slow to no current while Ephemerella dorothea was collected primarily amongpilingsand large woody debris in fast current.Baetis intercalaris, Chimarra spp., andmatopsyche spp.were found in several habitat types thatcluded woody debris of all sizes in moderate to fast current.Additional taxa including the beetles Ancyronyx variegata (found principally among woody debris in slow to no current)and Gyrinus analisllugens and a number of chironomidscluding Cricotopus spp., Tvetenia discoloripes grp.,chironomus spp., Polypedilum illinoensi grp., Rheotanytarsus spp., and Tanytarsus spp.were abundant at Station 2B.Many rare taxa were collected from Station 2B including theflies'Micrasema spp.and CymeUus fratemus, the beetletioservus sp., and the dipterans Tipula sp., Parakiefferiella sp., and Xylotopus par.Chironomid richness was high (30___taxa),_but 3 taxa (Tveteniadiscoloripes-¥AJ., Rheotanytarsus _The Academy of Natural Sciences 145 Patrick Center for Environmental Research D.AQUATIC INSECTS 2000 Savannah River Studies spp., and Tanytarsus spp.)comprised 54%of the individuals collected. A number of groups were absent from Station 2B but present at Station 5 and/or Station 6 including the mayfly Isonychia spp., the beetle Stenelmis antennalis, and all hemipteran groups (probably due to the absence of backwater habitat).Other groups includi.ng most stoneflies (Perlesta spp.was abundant but only three other stonefly specimens werelected)and Chiromomus spp.were relatively scarce at Station 2B compared to the other stations.The relative scarcity of Chironomus spp.was probably due to differences inter habitat at Station 2B compared to the other stations.September 2000 total of 78 taxa including 25 EPT taxa was collected from Station 2B in September (Tables D-2 and D-3).Some EPT taxa were abundant including several baetid mayflies (Baetis{ntercalaris, Lablobaetis propinquus grp., and Centroptilum/Procloeon spp.)and two caddisflies (Cheumatopsyche spp.and Chimarraspp.). Additionaldant taxa included two hemipterans(Metrobates hesperius and Trepobates spp.), several beetles (Ancyronyx variegata, Stenelmis hungerfordi, Dineutus discolor, and Gyrinus analisllugens), and several chironomids (Tanytarsus sp.2 Funk, Polypedilum illinoensi grp., Polypedilum convictum grp., Ablabesmyia ramphe grp., and Polypedilum halterale grp.).Two*of the beetles (Ancyronyx variegata and Stenelmis hungerfordi) were found primarily on woody debris in slow to no current.Corydalus comutus was much more abundant than in previous collections (i.e., 17 individuals werelected from Station 2B in September 2000 whereas thevious record for a collection at any station was 7 individuals) and was found primarily (along with Chimarra spp.)among woody debris and pilings in moderate to fast current.ous rare taxa were collected from Station 2B in Septembercluding the mayfly Callibaetis sp., the beetles Bidessonotus inconspicuus/pulicarius and Enochrus blatchleyi, andans Tabanidae and Nilothauma sp.Twenty-three chironomid taxa were collected with 55%belonging to three taxa (Tanytarsus sp.2 Funk, Polypedilum illinoensi grp., and--__JJJ1;ypedilum convictumgrp.). The Academy of Natural Sciences 146 Patrick Center for Environmental Research D.AQUATIC INSECfS 2000 Savannah River Studies Although a number ofEPT taxa were abundant (see above)others were absent or scarce.For example, the mayflych.ia spp.was absent and stoneflies in general along with the caddisflies Macrostemum and Triaenodes were scarce.(i.e., only one or two specimens were collected). In addition, hemipterans other than gerridswere uncommon (one totaldividual collected) and the chironomid Chironomus spp.was absent (probably due to the scarcity of backwater habitat).Similarities Between Seasons cross sampling periods, Total Richness, EPTness, and the abundances of Baetis intercalaris, Cheumatopsyche spp., Chimarra spp., Ancyronyx variegata, Gyrinus analisllugens, and Polypedilum illinoensi grp.were high.In contrast, Isonychia spp.were absent and hemipterans other than gerrids were uncommon (onemen collected) at Station 2B in April and September. Intion, Chironomus was absent or uncommon (probably due to the lack of backwater habitat)and stoneflies other thanlesta spp.were uncommon.In both April and September, the three most abundant chironomids accounted for about 50%of the midges collected; although the most abundant taxa in April were not the same as those in September. At least one rare beetle and two raredipterantaxa were collected. Qualitative Collections at Station 5 April 2000 total of 95 taxa including 39 EPT taxa was collected from Station 5 in April (Tables D-2 and D-3).Many of these taxa including the mayflies Baetis interca-laris, Ephemerella dorothea, and Heptageniaflavescens, the stoneflies Perlesta spp.and Pteronarcys dorsata, theflies Cheumatopsyche spp.Macrostemum carolina, Ceraclea Uf.punctata, and Nectopsyche candida, the beetle Stenelmis hungeifordi, and the chironomids Tvetenia discoloripes grp., Chironomus sp., and Polypedilum illinoensi grp.weredant.Of the abundant mayflies, stoneflies, caddisflies, and beetles listed above all except Nectopsyche candida were pri-.._marilycollected from willow_roots and woody_debris in mod,._erate to fast current.In contrast, Nectopsyche candida was The Academy of Natural Sciences 147 Patrick Center for Environmental Research D.AQUATIC INSECTS 2000 Savannah River Studies collected mostly from willow roots in slow to no current.Many rare taxa were collected including two mayfliesdunnoa and Neoephemera), two caddisflies (Ceraclealata and Polycentropus sp.), one dragonfly (Neurocordulia alabamensis), and seven beetles (Bidessonotusspicuus/pulicarius, Neoporus nr.dixianus, Microcylloepus pusillus, Hydrochus nr.squamifer, Sperchopsis sp.,Ius puncticollis and Cyphon sp.).Chironomid richness was moderate (22 taxa)with the 3 most abundant taxa (Tvetenia discoloripes grp., Chironomus sp., and Polypedilum illinoensi grp.)comprising most of the chironomids collected (85%).Although richness (both Total and EPT)was high and a large number of taxa were abundant, two taxa (the mayflychia spp.and the beetle Stenelmis antennalis) were absent from April collections at Station 5.September 2000 total of 76 taxa including 26 EPT taxa was collected from Station 5 in September (Tables D-2 and D-3).A number of EPT taxa including three mayflies (Labiobaetis propinquus grp., Isonychia spp., andrythodes spp.)and fouf caddisflies (Nectopsyche canida,marra, Cheumatopsyche, and Macrostemum carolina)were abundant.Additional taxa including the hemipterantobates, the coleopterans Stenelmis hungerfordi, Stenelmistennalis, Dineutus discolor, and Gyrinus analisllugens, and the dipterans Simulium, Polypedilum illinoensi grp.,sus sp.2 Funk, Ablabesmyia ramphe grp., Rheotanytarsus, and Polypedilum halterale grp.were abundant.Several of these taxa including Labiobaetis propinquus grp., Stenelmis hungerfordi, and Stenelmis antennalis were predominantly found among pilings and associated woody debrisbaetis propinquus grp.in slow current and Stenelmis inerate to fast current).Several other taxa were collected mainly among willow root masses (Tricorythodes spp.in slow current and Chimarra, Simulium,-and Isonychia in fast current).A number of rare taxa (to the study sites)including the dragonfly Promogomphus sp., the mayfly Acerpenna pygmaea, the beetles Dineutus assimilis and Berosusgrinus, and the chironomid Nilotanypus fimbriatus were col-._. from clJ.ironomid faunCl_was moderately rich (23 taxa were collected)withthe 3 most The Academy of Natural Sciences 148 Patrick Center for Environmental Research D.AQUATIC INSECTS 2000 Savannah River Studies abundant taxa (Tanytarsus sp.2 Funk, Rheotanytarsus, and Polypedilum halterale grp.)comprising 48%of thenornids collected. Although many taxa were abundant, two groups including the plecopterans (two specimens collected) and most hernipterans (gerrids were the exception) were uncommon in September collections at Station 5.Similarities Between Seasons he caddisflies Cheumatopsyche, Nectopsychedida, and Macrostemum carolina, the beetle Stenelmis hungeifordi, and the chironornid Polypedi-lum illinoensi grp.were abundant across sampling periods.Furthermore, chironomid richness was nearly constant across sampling periods (22 chironornid taxa were collected in April and 23 in September). In addition, at least one rare mayfly taxa and two rare beetle taxa were collected during eachson.Qualitative Collections at Station 6 April 2000 total of 108 insect taxa including 39 EPTtaxa was collected from Station 6 in April (Tables D-2 and3).Of the 108 taxa collected, a large number (20)were abundant including the mayflies Baetis intercalaris,troptilum/Procloeon, Ephemerella dorothea, Eurylophella doris, and Heptageniaflavescens, the stoneflies Perlesta spp.and Pteronarcys dorsata, the hemipterans Trichocorixa calva and Rheumatobates spp., the caddisflies Cheumatopsyche spp., Macrostemum carolina, Ceraclea fif.punctata, andto psyche candida, the beetles SteneJmis hungerfordi and Stenelmis antennalis, and the dipterans Ceratopogonidae,cladius sp., Tveteniadiscoloripes grp., Chironomus spp., and Tanytarsus spp.Of the taxa listed above, all tp.e hernipterans and two of the dipterans (Ceratopogonidae, and Chironomus spp.)were collected mainly from backwater areas and the mayflies Baetis intercalaris and Ephemerella dorothea and caddisfly Nectopsyche candida were collected predominantly from willow roots in moderate-Tjilit:i taiiwere aoun-The Academy of Natural Sciences 149 Patrick Center for Environmental Research D.AQUATIC INSECTS 2000 Savannah River Studies dant among pilings and associated woody debris in moderate to fast current including Cheumatopsyche spp., Macrostemum carolina, and Ceraclea nr.punctata.Still other taxa were abundant in both willow roots and pilings/woody debris in moderate to fast current including the mayfly Heptagenia flavescens, the stoneflies Per1esta spp.and Pteronarcyssata, and the beetles Stene1mis hungeifordi and Stene1mistennalis.Seventeen rare taxa were collected from Station 6 in April: the mayfly Macdunnoa sp.(also rare across its range), the caddis fly Micrasema spp., the dragonflies Gomphusdens, Nasiaeschna pentacantha, and Sty1urus ivae, theteran Pe1ocorisfemoratus, the beetles Bidessonatus inconspicuus pulicarius, Neoporus undu1atus, Neoporusbridus, Halip1us triopsis, Pe1todytes muticus, Tropistemus b1atch1eyi b1atch1eyi, Phaenonotum exstriatum, andcanthus sp., and the dipterans Stratiomys sp., Pentaneura nr.inconspicua, and Ste1echomyia perpu1chra. A large number of chironomids (both in terms of number of individuals and taxa)were collected from Station 6in April with the three most abundant chironomids (Chironomus sp., Tveteniaoripes grp., and Tanytarsus spp.)comprising 66%of theviduals collected. September 2000 total of 77 taxa including 26 EPT taxa was collected from Station 6 in September (Tables D-2 and 0-3).A number of taxa including the mayflies Baetisca1aris, Labiobaetis propinquus, Stenonema mexicanumgrum, and Isonychia spp., the caddisflies Nectopsyche candida and Chimarra, the beetles Stene 1m is hungeifordi and Stene 1m is antenna lis, and the dipterans Po1ypedilum ha1tera1e-grp., Tanytarsus sp.2 Funk, and Po1ypedilum illinoensi grp.were abundant at Station 6 in September. Of the taxa listed above the baetid mayflies (Baetis interca1aris and Labiobaetis propinquus) were collected primarily from pilings andated woody debris in moderate to fast current while thetles were collected mainly from willow roots in moderate to fast current.Other abundant taxa including Isonychia, Nec-to psyche candida, and Chimarra were abundant among both willow roots and woody debris in moderate to fast current.In contrast to the April collections, which included many rare_ one rare taxbn (the ---.------. The Academy of Natural Sciences 150 Patrick Center for Environmental Research D.AQUATIC INSECTS 2000 Savannah River Studies.was collected from Station 6 in September. Chironomidlections also differed from April with fewer individuals and taxa collected and the three most abundant taxa (Tanytarsus sp.2 Funk, Polypedilum illinoensi grp., and Polypedilumterale grp.)comprising fewer of the chironomids collected (only 46%in September compared to 66%in April).Except.for the collection of two gerrid taxa, other hemipteran taxa were absent from Station 6 collections in September. ommunity composition differed greatly betweensons in 2000 with much higher richness anddance in April compared to September for most groups.Thus there were few similarities across seasons.The.exceptions included the mayfly Baetis intercalaris, thefly Nixtopsyche candida, and the beetles Stenelmisfordi and Stenelmis antennalis, which were abundant across seasons.Station Comparisons for 2000 Based on Qualitative Collections* of Stations 1 and 2B in April 2000 lthough fewer individuals and taxa (all groups pooled)were collected at Station 2B compared to Station 1, EPT Richness and the abundance oferal groups including the mayflies, stoneflies, and somedisflies were higher at Station 2B than Station 1.Most mayfly families including the baetids (particularlybaetis propinquus grp.and Baetis intercalaris), themerellids (particularly Eurylophella doris and Ephernerella dorothea), and the heptageniids (particularly Stimonemacanum integrum)were more abundant at Station 2B than at Station 1.Differences in the stonefly fauna, which consisted primarily of Perlesta spp.at both stations, included higher overall abundance at Station 2B than at Station 1 and theence of Pteronarcys dorsata at Station 2B but not Station 1.Although overall caddisfly abundance was higher at Station I, two genera (Cheumatopsyche and Macrostemum) werelected from Station 213 but not Statton Tand-another genus---The Academy of Natural Sciences 151 Patrick Center for Environmental Research D.AQUATIC INSECTS 2000 Savannah River Studies (Chimarra) was more abundant at Station 2B than Station 1.Other taxa, including the beetles Ancyronyx variegata andneutus discolor and the dipterans Nanocladius spp.,lum halterale grp., Rheotanytarsus spp., Cryptochironomus spp., and Tanytarsus spp.were also more abundant at Station 2B than at Station l.A number of other groups (mainly non-EPT taxa)including the dragonflies (especially Corduliidae), damselflies,terans, four beetles (Dytiscidae, Haliplidae, Hydrophilidae, and Dubiraphia), two caddis flies (Hydropsyche andaclea), two mayflies (CentroptilumIProcloeon and Caenis), and five dipterans (Simulium spp.and the chironomidscladius sp., Chironomus spp., Dicrotendipes nr.modestus and Tanytarsus sp.2 Funk)were more abundant at Station 1 than at Station 2B.Some of these differences were large andcluded the complete absence of some taxa from Station 2B (Hemiptera, Corduliidae, Hydrophilidae, Dubiraphia, Simulium, and Dicrotendipes nr.modestus)and order ofnitude higher abundances at Station 1 compared to Station 2B for another taxon (Chironomus spp.).The abundances ofgia apicalis, Enallagma basidens and Enallagma nr.gans in slow-current, backwater habitats at Station 1 was responsible for most of the difference in damselfly abundance between stations.The abundance of the dytiscid beetles Neoporus and Coptotomus, the haliplid beetle Peltodytes, and the hemipteran Corixidae in backwater areas resulted invated dytiscid, haliplid, and hemipteran abundances at Station 1 compared to Station 2B.Similarly, Chironomus spp.was more abundant at Station 1 than at Station 2B due to itsdance in backwater areas at Station 1.Generally, differences in slow current habitat between Stations 1 and 2B appeared to contribute to most of the abundance differences described above (i.e., extensive backwater areas were present at Station 1 but not Station 2B, possIbly resulting in higher abundances of backwater taxa at Station 1 compared to Station 2B).Comparison of Stations 1 and 2B in September 2000 s in April, fewer individuals and taxa (all insect groups pooled)were collected at Station 2Bpared-to Station-Lin September.,-buLEPT Richness was higher at Station 2B than at Station 1.EPT Richness at The Academy of Natural Sciences 152 Patrick Center for Environmental Research D.AQUA TIC INSECTS 2000 Savannah River Studies Station 2B was higher mainly due to the higher number of mayfly and caddisfly taxa collected at Station 2B compared to Station 1.In addition to higher EPT Richness, thedances of several taxa including the dobsonfly Corydalusnutus, the caddis fly Chimarra, the beetles Stenelmis, Dineutus, and Ancyronyx and the chironomids Tanytarsus sp.2 Funk and Rheotanytarsus spp.were higher at Station 2B than at Station 1.The mayfly Stenonema (mainly Stenonema mexicanum integrum)was collected in moderate numbers from Station 2B, but was absent from Station 1.Additional taxa including the stonefly Pteronarcys dorsata and thedisflies Triaenodes and Macrostemum and the chironomid Nanocladius were collected in low numbers from Station 2B but were absent from Station 1.A number of other groups including the dragonflies andselflies (especially the dragonfly Corduliiclae and thefly Enallagma), the mayflies (especially Centroptiluml Procloeon, Caenis, and Tricorythodes spp.)the hemipteran Corixidae, the caddisfly Hydropsyche and Oecetis, the beetle Dubiraphia and Peltodytes, and the chironomidsbesmyia, Procladius, Chironomus, Dicrotendipes nr.tus, Polypedilum illinoensi grp., and Polypedilum halterale grp.were more abundant at Station 1 than at Station 2B.Some of these differences were large with the completesence of Dubiraphia, Procladius, Dicrotendipes nr.modestus, and Chironomus spp.from Station 2B.The association of many of these taxa with backwater areas (Caenis, Corixidae, Dubiraphia, Peltodytes, Chironomus, cloeon, Corduliidae, and Enallagma) or willow root masses (Tricorythodes), both of which were absent from Station 2B may have been responsible for the abundance differencesscribed above.Chironomid richness was greater at Station 1 than at Station 2B (again possibly due to the presence of large quantities of backwater habitat at Station 1 but not Station 2B)and rare taxa were more frequently collected from Station 1 than from Station 2B (10 rare taxa were collected at Station 1 compared to 5 at Station 2B).The Academy of Natural Sciences 153 Patrick Center for Environmental Research D.AQUATIC INSECTS 2000 Savannah River Studies Comparison of Stations 1 and 2B Across Seasons in 2000 he following differences were consistent across both sampling periods.EPT Richness and the abundances of the mayfly Stenonema (especially Stenonema mexi-canum integrum), the caddisflies Macrostemum andmarra, the beetles Ancyronyx and Dineutus, and the chironomids Nanocladius, Rheotanytarsus, and Tanytarsus were higher at Station 2B than at Station 1.Differencestween stations were particularly large for Nanocladius (20dividuals collected from Station 2B, but none from Station 1).Similarly, the stonefly Pteronarcys dorsata and the caddisfly Macrostemum were collected from Station 2B (although in low numbers), but were absent from Station 1.Higher EPT Richness and the abundance of the previously mentioned taxa at Station 2B (compared to Station 1)did not appear to be due to greater habitat quality or quantity at Station 2B.In fact, habitat quality and quantity generally appeared to be higher at Station 1 than at Station 2B (i.e., backwater areas and willow root masSes were present at Station 1, but absent at Station 2B).Overall abundance and richness (all groups pooled)and the abundances of several groups including the damselfliescially Enallagma), dragonflies (especially Corduliidae), the mayflies CentroptilumIProcloeon and Caenis, the hemipteran Corixidae, the caddisfly Hydropsyche, the beetles Dubiraphia and Peltodytes, and the chironomids Procladius, Chironomus, and Dicrotendipes nr.modestus were higher at Station 1 than at Station2B across seasons.Differences between stations were particularly large for Dubiraphia (16 individuals were collected from Station 1, but none from Station 2B), Corixi-.dae (154 individuals were collected from Station 1, but only 1 from Station 2B), Procladius (46 individuals were collected from Station 1, but only 1 from Station 2B), Chironomus (279 individuals were collected from Station 1, but only 17 from Station 2B), and Dicrotendipes nr.modestus (26viduals were collected from Station 1, but none from Station 2B).Habitat differences (i.e., extensive backwater areas were present at Station 1, but not Station 2B)may have contributed to greater damselfly, dragonfly, corixid, CentroptilumIPro-

• -----eloeon,-

Gaenis,-Dubiraphia,P-eltodytes;and Chironomus abundances at Station 1 compared to Station 2B because The Academy of Natural Sciences 154 Patrick Center for Environmental Research D.AQUATIC INSECTS 2000 Savannah River Studies these groups are generally abundant in slow currentter areas but uncommon elsewhere. Differences in thedance of Hydropsyche, Procladius, and Dicrotendipes Uf.modestus probably did not result from habitat differencestween stations.Comparison of Station 1 with Stations 5 and 6 in April of 2000 otal Richness, EPT Richness, and the abundance of a number of groupsincludingthe mayflies and the stoneflies were higher at downstream Stations 5 and 6 than at Station 1.Elevated mayfly abundance at Stations 5 and 6 was mainly due to the much higher abundances of three genera (Baetis, Ephemerella, and Heptagenia) at Stations 5 and 6 compared to Station 1.A few individuals of another mayfly (Isonychia) were collected from Station 6, but nottions 1 or 5.All three of the stonefly taxa collected in April (Perlesta, Paragnetina, and Pteronarcys) were moredant at Stations 5 and 6 than at Station 1.A number offlies including Cheumatopsyche, Macrostemum, Nectopsyche and Ceraclea Uf.punctata were much more abundant attions 5 and 6 than at Station 1.Low numbers of two other caddisflies (Pycnopsyche and Phylocentropus) were collected from Stations 5 and 6, butnotStation 1.The damselfly Argia sedula was absent from Station 1 but moderate numbers were collected from Stations 5 and 6.Two beetles (Ancyronyx and Macronychus) were also much more abundant at Stations 5 and 6 than at Station 1.Another beetle (Stenelmis antennalis) was abundant at Station 6, but absent from Stations 1 and 5.Differences among stations (see above)were particularly large for Heptagenia (35 individuals were collected fromtion 5 37 individuals from Station 6 but only 2als were collected from Station 1), Pteronarcys dorsata (25 individuals were collected from Station 5 and 23 from Station 6 but none was collected from Station 1), Cheumatopysche (46 individuals were collected from Station 5 and 29 fromtion 6 but none was collected from Station 1), andmum (21 individuals were collected from Station 5 and 22 from Station 6 but none was collected from Station 1).Rare taxa were collected more frequently from Stations 5 and 6 (12 and 17 taxa, respectively) than Station 1 (5 taxa)with rare exfiihiting ilie-greaiest difference ( beetle------The Academy of Natural Sciences 155 Patrick Center for Environmental Research D.AQUA TIC INSECTS 2000 Savannah River Studies taxa was collected from Station 1 compared to 7 and 8 fortions 5 and 6, respectively). Several groups including the dragonfly Corduliidae,teran Corixidae, the caddisflies Hydropsyche and Ceraclea maculata, the beetle Gyrinus analisllugens and severalnomids including Psectrocladius, Dicrotendipes nr.modestus, and Tanytarsus sp.2 Funk were more abundant at Station 1 than at Stations 5 and 6.An additional beetle, Peltodytes, was more abundant at Station 1 than Station 5 but not Station 6.Comparison of Station 1 with Stations 5 and 6 in September 2000 PT Richness was higher at downstream Stations 5 and 6 than at Station 1.This was mainly due to higher mayfly richness at Stations 5 and 6 than at Sta-tion 1 (i.e., 12 and 13 mayfly taxa at Stations 5 and 6,tively but only 7 mayfly taxa at Station 1).Stoneflies were absent from Station 1, but low numbers of two stonefly taxa (Paragnetina kansensis and Pteronarcys dorsata)werelected from both Station 5 and Station 6.The abundances of a number of additional taxa including three mayfliesbaetis propinquus grp.Stenonema, and Isonychia), several caddisflies{Macrostemum, Nectopsyche, Triaenodes, andmarra), and the beetles (mainly Stenelmis hungerfordi, Stenelmis antennalis, and Dineutus discolor)were higher at Stations 5 and 6 than at Station 1.Another taxon, thefly Argia sedula, was collected in low numbers from Stations 5 and 6 but was absent from Station 1.Differences among stations (see above)were particularly large forStenonema (27 individuals were collected from Station 5 and 30 from Station 6 but none was collected from Station 1), Isonychia spp.(44 individuals were collected from Station 5 and 33 from Station 6 but none was collected from Station 1), Macrostemum (21 individuals were collected from Station 5 and 16 from Station 6 but none was collected from Station 1), Chimarra (44viduals collected from Station 5 and 31 from Station 6 but only 1 was collected from Station 1), Stenelmis antennalis (25 individuals were collected from Station 5 and 44 from Station 6 but only 1 was collected from Station 1), and Dineutus dis-------color (83 individuals were collected from Station 5 and 25dividuals from Station 6 but only 1 was collected from The Academy of Natural Sciences 156 Patrick Center for Environmental Research D.AQUATIC INSECTS 2000 Savannah River Studies Station 1).Rare taxa were more frequently collected from Station 1 (10)than from Stations 5 (5)or 6 (1).Higher EPT Richness, mayfly richness, and abundance of the previously mentioned taxa at Stations 5 and 6 (compared to Station 1)could have been due to the availability of willow root masses in medium to fast current at Stations 5 and 6 but not Station 1.Total Richness (all groups pooled)was higher at Station 1 than at Stations 5 and 6 (mainly due to the collection of 35 chironomid taxa at Station 1 compared to 23 and 24nomid taxa at Stations 5 and 6, respectively). Chironomid abundance was also much higher at Station 1 than at Stations 5 or 6.Several additional groups including the dragonflyduliidae, two mayflies (Centroptilum/Procloeon and Caenis), the hemipteran Corixidae, the caddisfly Hydropsyche, thetle Peltodytes, and the several chironomids includingbesmyia, Procladius, Polypedilum and Dicrotendipes nr.modestus were more abundant at Station 1 than at Stations 5 and 6.Differences were particularly large for Hydropsyche [52 individuali:fwere collected'from Station 1 but only 2viduals were collected from Station 5 and 3 from Station 6]and Procladius (30 individuals were collected from Station 1 but none was collected from Station 5 and only 2 fromtion 6).Comparison of Station 1 with Stations 5 and 6 Across Seasons in 2000 he following differences were consistent acrosspling periods.EPT Richness was much higher at downstream stations 5 and 6 than at Station 1 (9 more EPT taxa were collected at each of the downstreamtions in April than at Station 1 and 10 more EPT taxa at each of the downstream stations in September than at Station 1).Furthermore, several taxa were collected from Stations 5 and 6 but were absent from Station 1 including the stoneflies Paragnetina kansensis and Pteronarcys dorsata, thefly Argia sedula, and the caddis fly Macrostemum. Other taxa including the caddisfly Nectopsyche and the mayfly Stenonema mexicanum integrum were more abundant attions 5 and 6 than at Station 1.Differences among stations were particularly large for Stenonema mexicanum integrum--, was collected inApril-and-none intember at Station 1 but moderate to large numbers were col-The Academy of Natural Sciences 157 Patrick Center for Environmental Research D.AQUATIC INSECTS 2000 Savannah River Studies lected at Stations 5 and 6 during both seasons).The beetles Stenelmis antennalis and Dineutus were also uncommon at Station 1 but large numbers were collected at Station 6 during each sampling period.Stenelmis antennalis was partiCularly uncommon at Station 1 with one individual collected intember but none in April.Similarly, the mayfly Isonychia was absent at Station 1 but collected at Station 6 during each sampling period.There were noobviousdifferences inity or quantity of habitat among Stations 1, 5 and 6 that could explain the differences described above.Several groups were more abundant at Station 1 than at the Stations 5 and 6 during both sampling periods including the hemipteran Corixidae, the dragonfly Corduliidae, thefly Hydropsyche, and the dipteran Dicrotendipes nr.tus.In addition, the beetle Peltodytes was more abundant at Station 1 than at one downstream station (5)across seasons.Differences in the abundance of backwater habitat (it was more common at Station 1 compared to Station 5 during both.sampling periods)may have contributed to higher Peltodytes, Corixidae, and Corduliidae abundances at Station 1 compared to Station 5.In contrast, other differences between thestream and downstream stations (see above)could nottently be attributed to differences in habitat among stations.Differences Among Stations Based on Recent Qualitative Collections orne differences among stations have been observedpeatedly during recent (1998-2000) qualitativeveys.These include the lower abundance of most.stoneflies at Station 1 compared to Stations 2B, 5 and 6cept Perlesta spp., which has been abundant at all thepling stations during recent spring surveys).Stoneflies have been absent from Station 1 during all recent fall surveyscept 1998 (one individual collected), but have been collected from each of the downstream stations (2B, 5 and 6)during all recent fall surveys.Additionally, other than Perlesta spp., the stonefly Perlidae has been absent from Station 1 during most recent surveys (the exception was the collection of severalmature specimens from Station 1 in Spring 1998)but has..__ from Stations 5 and 6 dlllingilllrec;ent and Station 2B from all but one recent survey.As with the The Academy of Natural Sciences 158 Patrick Center for Environmental Research D.AQUATIC INSECTS 2000 Savannah River Studies perlids, the caddisfly Macrostemum has been absent fromtion 1 during most recent surveys (the exception was thelection of one individual from Station 1 in May 1999), but has been collected from Stations 2B, 5 and 6 during all recentveys.Other taxa, including the mayflies Ephemerellidae and Heptagenia, were much less abundant at Station 1 than at the downstream stations during most recent spring surveys.The difference in Ephemerellidae and Heptagenia abundance was not evident in 1998, possibly because most individuals emerged prior to sampling (sampling was delayed until late June in 1998 due to high water).Additionally, the damselfly Argia sedula was always absent from Stations 1 and 2B, but was sometimes collected from Station 5 and always collected from Station 6 during recent surveys.Similarly, the mayfly Isonychia was usually absent from Stations 1 and 2B (a few individuals were collected in Spring 1998), but wasately abundant to abundant at Station 5 during all recent fall surveys and abundant at Station 6 during most spring and fall surveys.Other consistent differences among stations included lower abundance of Chironomus and the hemipteran Corixidae and lower abundance and richness of the Odonata (damselflies and dragonflies) at Station 2B compared to most othertions during many oftherecent surveys.The preference of these taxa for backwater, no-current areas, which have been uncommon at Station 2B during recent surveys, may explain their scarcity at Station 2B.Long-term Trends in Taxa Richness Based on Qualitative Collections he results of most late spring-summer surveyscate that Total, EPT, Ephemeroptera, Trichoptera, and Diptera Richness has generally increased since 1965 at Stations 1,5 and 6 (spring-summer long-term data are not available from Station 2B)(see Figs.D-1 to D-8).Theception to this pattern was high Total Richness in 1989pared to 1988 and 1990.High Total Richness in 1989 was mainly due to the collection of large numbers of Coleoptera and Odonata taxa, many of which may have been present at-----------the sampling stations in 1989 dueto the pronounced rise and subsequent fall in water level during the six days proceeding The Academy of Natural Sciences 159 Patrick Center for Environmental Research D.AQUATIC INSECTS Total Richness in late-Sprin g/Su mmer 2000 Savannah River Studies 120"C Q)-80 o (.)CG><I!!.40 CG-o I-o ElFigure D-1.Total number of insect taxa qualitatively collected (total richness)at each station during late spring-summer surveys of the Savannah River in the vicinity of the Savannah River Site (1965-2000). ElFigure D-2.Total number of EPT (Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera) taxa (EPT richness)qualitatively collected at each station during late spring-summer surveys of the Savannah River in the vicinity of the Savannah River Site (1965-2000).------* The Academy of Natural Sciences 160 Patrick Center for Environmental Research D.AQUATIC INSECTS 2000 Savannah River Studies E phem eroptera Richness in late-S pring/Sum mer 20 u CI)-0 15..!!!0 0 ea 10><ea t-ea-5 0'.t-,., , o..'...00 0 ll)00 C\I 0)0'<t 0)....C\I C')ll)00 0)0<D<D f'-.f'-.0000000)0)0)0)0)0)0 0)0)0)0)0)0)0)0)0)0)0>0)0)0....................................C\I El G;J Figure 0-3.Total number of Ephemeroptera taxa (Ephemeroptera richness)qualitatively collected at each station during late spring-summer surveys of the Savannah River in the vicinity of the Savannah River Site (1965-2000). Plecoptera Richness in Late-Sprin g/Su m mer ,0',p....o'.., 5"C 4 CI)-0..!!!0 3 0 ea><ea 2 t-ea-0 1 , t-,., ,;.., , 0'.ll)co C\I<D<D f'-.0)0)0)........0)0:;;-....'<t co 0)....0)....00 0)0)0)........ll)0)0).......co 0)0)0)0)0)....," , , o o o C\I ElFigure 0-4.Total number of Plecoptera taxa (Plecoptera richness)qualitatively collected at each station during late spring-summer surveys of the Savannah River in the vicinity of the SavanriahHiver Site ---The Academy of Natural Sciences 161 Patrick Center for Environmental Research

• D.AQUATIC INSECTS 2000 Savannah River Studies 20 Trichoptera Richness in Late-Spring/Summer

'C 15 Cll-0.9!l3 0 0 10 eu><--lr-6 eu I-eu 5-0 I-0 It)to C\I m 0'<t m....C\I (')It)to m 0<0<0 ,...,...ex>ex>to mmmmm m 0 mmm m mmm mmmmm m 0......................................... ....C\I Figure D-5.Total number of Trichoptera taxa (Trichoptera richness)qualitatively collected at each station during late spring-summer surveys of the Savannah River in the vicinity of the Savannah River Site (1965-2000). o donate Richness in Late-S pring/S urn rn er 20-g Cll"0 15.9!o o eu 10><eu I-of!5 o I-o A ," ," , , , , ,.0 p...ot.A',-....I."l:r-I I El Gd It)ex><0<0 m (l)...N m 0'<t m ,...,...ex>to ex>m (l)mmm............C\I (')It)0)0)0)0)0)0)0)0).........ex>m 0mm 0 m (l)0...C\I Figure D-6.Total number of Odonate taxa qualitatively collected (Odonate richness)at each station during late_l>pr!l'lg=-s_Y'!1mer sUl'\leys of the Savannah_ il'l.viciDi!Y_<:lf _River Site (1965-2000). The Academy of Natural Sciences 162 Patrick Center for Environmental Research D.AQUATIC INSECfS Coleoptera Richness in late-Sprin g/Su mmer 2000 Savannah River Studies 30"C II)-u..!20 0 0 Cll><Cll t-10 Cll-0...o ElFigure 0-7.Total number of Coleoptera taxa qualitatively collected (Coleoptera richness)at each station during late spring-summer surveys of the Savannah River in the vicinity of the Savannah River Site (1965-2000). D iptera Rich ness in late-S prin g/5um mer 40...II)-u 30..!0 0 Cll 20><Cll I-Cll 10-0 t-o II)co C\I 0"<t-O>..-C\I C'l II)co 0>0 (l)(l)I'-co co co0>0>0>0>0>0>0 0>0>0>0>0>0>0>0>.0>0>0>0>0..-..-..-..-..-..-..-C\I ElFigure 0-8.Total number of Oiptera taxa (Oiptera richness)qualitatively collected at each station during late spring-summer surveys of the Savannah River in the vicinity of the Savannah -.....-..------.....The Academy of Natural Sciences 163 Patrick Center for Environmental Research D.AQUATIC INSECfS 2000 Savannah River Studies sampling (see ANSP 1991 for additional details concerning water level fluctuations in 1989).Richness of other aquatic insect orders including Plecoptera, Odonata, and Coleoptera has generally increased since the early 1990s (see Figs.D-1 to D-8).For many orders, richness in April 2000 was highpared to past spring-summer surveys.For example, a record number of Ephemeroptera taxa were collected at Stations 1,5 and 6 in April 2000 relative to previous spring-summerveys (data available from 1965 to present).Also in April 2000, Total, EPT, and Trichoptera Richness at Stations 5 and 6, Odonata Richness at Station 1, and Diptera Richness attions 1 and 6 were the highest recorded.Except for 1989,tal Richness at Station 1 and Coleoptera Richness at Station 6 in April 2000 were the highest on record.Similarly, except for 1999, Diptera Richness at Station 5 in April 2000 was the highest on record.The results of late summer-fall surveys indicate that Total Richness and richness within most major orders of aquaticsects have generally increaSed since the late 1980s/early 1990s (Figs.D-9 to D-16).Richness in September 2000 was especially high at Stations 1 and 2B compared to pastveys.For example, a record number of total (all groups pooled)and Diptera taxa were collected at Stations 1 and 2B relative to previous summer-fall surveys (data available from 1955 to present for Station 1 and 1985 to present for Station 2B).Also in September 2000, Trichoptera, and Coleoptera Richness at Station 2B, was the highest recorded.Odonata Richness at Stations 1 and 5 was nearly the highest on record.in September 2000 (at Station 1 Odonata Richness was higher in 2000 than in all years except 1976 and at Station 5it was higher in 2000 than in all years except 1955).Dipteraness at Stations 5 and 6 was also nearly the highest on record in 2000 (at Station 5 Diptera Richness was higher in 2000 than in all years except 1999 and at Station 6 it was higher in 2000 than in all years except 1998).April and September 2000 Quantitative Collections otal insect densities (all taxa pooled)among the 4 sta-_ti()ns .April.__3,670-7,043 insects/trap in September (Table D-4a).The Academy of Natural Sciences 164 Patrick Center for Environmental Research D.AQUATIC INSECTS 2000 Savannah River Studies Total Richness in late-Summer/Fall 80 100'C S u60 o (.)m40 I-...()..-1-11-28--6--5--*.-6.....;0't-" , IIi."I*,0 20 19 o I-o000m 000 rn 0M00 rn 0 m w w wro 00mmmmmmmmmm 0mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm 0N Figure D-9.Total number of insect taxa qualitatively collected (total richness)at each station during late summer-fall surveys of the Savannah River in the vicinity of the Savannah River Site (1955-2000). EPT Richness in late-Su mmer/Fall 40'C 30 s u J!!'0 20 (.)m><m l-i 10 0 I-000W rn 0 m 00 rnM00 m 0WWW00000000 rnrnrnrnrnrn m 0rnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrn rn rn rn m 0Figure D-10.Total number of EPT (Ephemeroptera, Trichoptera, and Plecoptera) taxa (EPT-richness) qualitaJhtsly station dudngJatl? summer-fall surveys of the Savannah River in the vicinity of the Savannah River Site (1955-2006): . The Academy of Natural Sciences 165 Patrick Center for Environmental Research D.AQUATIC INSECTS Ephemeroptera Richness in Late-Su mmer/Fall 2000 Savannah River Studies 20'tJ 15 oS (,.)0 10 (.)tU><tU l-i;5-0 I-o\\\\ ,/t:.,..\\\l\'",I!i\'\.'",I\'r:f d?\'{..... \\V\':\\. ....._'<04...".6.*.0......;.'.\,-_*.."\,.P f'j ,'.-0 O.:*'0.*.*'0.***0***1___2B--6--5-.*.-60romm 0ro mM vro m 0mmmroro 00 rommmmmmm 0mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm 0N Figure 0-11.Total number of Ephemeroptera taxa (Ephemeroptera richness)qualitatively collected at each station during late summer-fall surveys of the Savannah River in the vicinity of the Savannah River Site (1955-2000). Plecoptera Richness in Late-Summer/Fall 5.,.-------------------, 4 lO 0lOmmmmmrom mmm Ol.....m 0 lO ro000000mmmm,...,...,...,...lO 00mmmmOl 08***0-**1___2B--6--5-.*.-6 Figure 0-12.Total number of Plecoptera taxa (Plecoptera richness)qualitatively collected at each station during late summer-fall surveys of the Savannah River in the vicinity of the SavannahHiVE:ir Site-(1955-2000).----- .The Academy of Natural Sciences 166 Patrick Center for Environmental Research D.AQUATIC INSECfS 2000 Savannah River Studies Trichoptera Richness in late-Su rrroerlFall 20 15 I'0 10 05A.I:f"\.I CIt 0, , ,;...IlL**'.0.;-4."', T"-:"co.....If(*,*IT ,.0..-0*****0***1----.-28--6--5-.*.-6 Figure 0-13.Total number of Trichoptera taxa (Trichoptera richness)qualitatively collected at each station during late summer-fall sUiveys of the Savannah River in the vicinity of the Savannah River Site (1955-2000). Odonate Richness in Late-Su mme r/FaII 15...,------------------,.q ,..,\.\,:\':','0 ,.\.':\: ,\\.,4 ,:..:...-t-A'I\\',''..\I"'\,/.l!,:,...., PO,.,.,,' ,': ""\i'""" 0,'"'to:...-......._..t.,\\..I-.-: '......'\\...., 6...t1'fll"'\, I'*tt ,'0...:0 o

• ....:;.

_....-.----,r--,--,---,-...,_-!

• • • 0-**1-11I-28--6--5-.*.-6 Figure 0-14.Total number of Odonate taxa qualitatively collected (Odonate richness)at each station during late summer-fall surveys of the Savannah River in the vicinity of the Savannah River Site (1955=2000)-:--

---

The Academy of Natural Sciences 167 Patrick Center for Environmental Research D.AQUATIC INSECTS Coleoptera Richness in late-Summer/Fall 2000 Savannah River Studies 20"C 15.!!!'0 10 0<<l5 s{!.0*.*0-*.1-11-28--6--5-*0*-6gffigmm 8mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm 0rrrr N Figure 0-15.Total number of Coleoptera taxa qualitatively collected (Coleoptera richness)at each station dUring late summer-fall surveys of the Savannah River in the vicinity of the Savannah River Site (1955-2000).

Diptera Richness in Late-Sumner/Fall 50-.----------------, 40"C S g 30'0 o as 2010 o***0-**1___28--£\--5-*.*-6 Figure 0-16.Total number of Oiptera taxa (Diptera richness)qualitatively collected at each station during late summer-fall surveys of the Savannah River in the vicinity of the Savannah River Site (1955-2000): --.-----.-- The Academy of Natural Sciences 168 Patrick Center for Environmental Research Table D-4a.Summary of the abundance (density as individuals/trap, x+/-1 SE)of selected taxonomic categories of aquatic insects at Stations 1, 28, 5, and 6 in April and September 2000.Data collected with coarse sieve (1.8 x 1.4-mm mesh)combined with that collected with the fine sieve (0.5 x O.5-mm mesh)prior to these calculations. April September 1 2B 5 6 1 2B 5 6 Total Densities 17067+/-2750 5348+/-1894 3148+/-791 6224+/-1507 6698+/-2076 3670+/-2258 7043+/-4160 3737+/-1156 EPTDensity 3097+/-12221032+/-497 1092+/-88 2347+/-443 2314+/-768 1860+/-1492 3414+/-2231 2804+/-1094 Ephemeroptera 668+/-211 307+/-158 276+/-60 973+/-110 811+/-343 466+/-254 1137+/-768 1182+/-424 Diptera 13842+/-1515 4192+/-1516 2023+/-728 3845+/-1067 4344+/-1321 1732+/-748 3581+/-1949 874+/-176 Trichoptera 2254+/-985 504+/-299 520+/-129 1096+/-194 1503+/-454 1394+/-1243 2266+/-1462 1611+/-781 Coleoptera 96+/-96 100+/-79 30+/-11 27+/-11 18+/-7 54+/-32 18+/-8 9+/-5 Plecoptera 174+/-65 221+/-79 296+/-45 277+/-150 O+/-O O+/-O 11+/-11 11+/-2 Odonata 32+/-19 24+/-20 3+/-3 5+/-5 17+/-7 17+/-7 25+/-20 21+/-11 Megaloptera O+/-O O+/-O O+/-O O+/-O 4+/-4 4+/-4 5+/-5 16+/-16 D.AQUATIC INSECTS 2000 Savannah River Studies Table D-4b.Summary of the results of statistical tests (2-way ANOVA with station x season interaction (inter.))used to evaluate station (Stations 1, 2B, 5, 6)and season (A=April, S=September) differences (p<0.05)for selected taxonomic categories of aquatic insects in 2000.Data collected with the coarse sieve (1.8 x.4-mm mesh)combined with that collected with the fine sieve (0.5 x 0.5-mm mesh)prior to these analyses.NA indicates that statistical analyses were not applied because densities were too low.Blanks for season or station comparisons indicate no significant difference (p>0.05).P Season 1 vs 2B 1 vs51 vs 6 2B vs 5 2B vs65 vs 6 Total Density EPTDensity Ephemeroptera Diptera Trichoptera Coleoptera Plecoptera Odonata.Megaloptera Station Season Inter.Station Season Inter..Station Season Inter.Station Season Inter.Station Season Inter.Station Season Inter.Station Season Inter.Station Season Inter.Station Season Inter.0.106 0.147 0.742 0.706 0.415 0.643 0.078 0.373 0.789 0.026 a 0.016 A>S 0.622 0.248 0.945 0.982 0.662 0.700 0.771 0.022<0.001 A>S 0.095 0.746 0.327 0.784 NA 6>1 6>2B Lepidoptera Station NA Season Inter.aNo significant differences were found using TUkey's pairwise comparisons The Academy of Natural Sciences 170 Patrick Center for Environmental Research D.AQUATIC INSECTS 2000 Savannah River Studies Diptera (predommantly chironomid midges)were the most abundant group in April and September samples (62-81%of total insect density in April and 23-65%in September)lowedbyTrichoptera (9-18%oftotal insect density in April and 22-43%in September)(Table D-4a).Diptera collections were composed primarily of chironomid midges while Trichoptera collections were composed primarily offeeding hydropsychids and philopotomatids. Ephemeroptera were also common in quantitative collections at some stations and represented 4-16%of total insect density in April and32%of total insect density in September (Table D-4a).coptera (mostly perlids)were present in most April trap samples (1-9%of total insect density)but were absent from most September samples (0-0.3%of total insect density)ble D-4a).A total of 104 aquatic insect taxa was collected in the insect traps across the 4 stations in 2000, 77 in April and 68 intember (Table D-2).Most of the taxa collected belonged to four orders (Diptera, Trichoptera, Ephemeroptera, and Coleoptera). These orders accounted for 30, 14, 18 and 8 taxa, respectively in April and 28, 12, 11 and 7 taxa,tively in September. Other groups (orders)accounted for less than six taxa per season.All but 10 of the taxa found in the traps were also collected in the qualitative sampling program.None of these"unique" taxa was common in the trapples.Taxa collected in traps were clumped into variousnomic groups that could be analyzed statistically (i.e., species were often pooled together to increase the number ofals per sample).Overall, we were able to examine eight.higher taxonomic groups.These groups are Total Density (all insects pooled), EPT density (Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera pooled), and the densities of six common orders including Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera,teni., Diptera, and Odonata (Table D-4b).A total of 31 lower taxonomic groups (7 families, 24 genera/species) ofmeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera, and Diptera and 9 metrics summarizing community structure were also analyzed (Tables D-5b to D-8b).Some Megaloptera and Lepidoptera werelected, but were not common enough to analyze statistically (Table D-4b).Likewise, none of the lower taxonomic groups of Coleoptera and Odonata was common enough to analyze .The Academy of Natural Sciences 171 Patrick Center for Environmental Research Table D-5a.Summary of the abundance (density as individuals/trap, x+/-1 SE)of selected taxonomic categories of Ephemeroptera at Stations 1, 26, 5, and 6 in April and September 2000.Data collected with the coarse sieve (1.8 x 1.4-mm mesh)combined with that collected with the fine sieve (0.5 x 0.5-mm mesh)prior to these calculations. April September 1 2B 5 6 1 2B 5 6 Ephemeroptel"a Baetidae 448+/-244 221+/-129 81+/-42 200+/-23 195+/-95 149+/-116 68+/-55 304+/-127 Baeiis intercalaris 96+/-19 89+/-79 32+/-19 147+/-21 20+/-12 48+/-43 1+/-1 75+/-39 Unident.Baetis 235+/-149 29+/-29 25+/-4 O+/-O 12+/-12 10+/-8 O+/-O 24+/-8 Labiobaetis propinquus grp 21+/-11 58+/-51 3+/-3 11+/-5 146+/-86 91+/-67 45+/-34 186+/-74 Caenidae Amercaenis ridens O+/-O O+/-OO+/-OO+/-O O+/-O O+/-O O+/-O 198+/-86 Ephemerellidae O+/-O 34+/-17 58+/-26 67+/-39 O+/-O O+/-OO+/-OO+/-O Heptageniidae 64+/-19 41+/-19 91+/-13 139+/-35 57+/-10 60+/-30 111+/-25 184+/-69 Isonycpiidae IsonychiaO+/-OO+/-O 32+/-19 520+/-92 O+/-O 24+/-24 480+/-403 188+/-125 i TricorYtmdae Tricorythodes 11+/-11 O+/-O 7+/-7 43+/-43 540+/-245 197+/-74 338+/-248 258+/-124 D.AQUATIC INSECTS.2000 Savannah River Studies Table D-Sb.Summary of the results of statistical tests (2-way ANOVA with station x season interaction (inter.))used to evaluate station (Stations 1, 2B, 5, 6)and season (A=April, S=September) differences (p<0.05)for Ephemeroptera. Data collected with the coarse sieve (1.8 x A-mm mesh)combined with that collected with the fine sieve (O.S x O.S-mm mesh)prior to these analyses.Blanks for season or station comparisons indicate no significant difference (p>0.05).P Season 1 vs 2B 1 vs51 vs 6 2B vs 5 2B vs65 vs 6 Ephemeroptera Baetidae Baetis intercalaris Unidentified Baetidae Labiobaetis propinquus grp.Station Season Inter.Station Season Inter.Station Season Inter.Station Season Inter.0.096 0.226 0.873 0.161 0.017 a 0.926 0.750 0.287 0.022 a 0.359 0.0l9 a 0.692 Caenidae Americaenis ridens Station<0.001 Season<0.001 S>A Inter.<0.001 6>1 6>2B 6>5 Ephemerellidae Heptageniidae Station Season Inter.Station Season Inter.0.005<0.001 0.005 0.013 a 0.532 0.942 A>S 5>1 6>1 Isonychiidae lsonychia Station<0.001 Season 0.711 Inter.0.441 5>1 6>1 6>2B Tricorythidae Tricorythodes Station Season Inter.a Primary model not significant ([>0.05).The Academy of Natural Sciences 0.564<0.001 0.854 S>A 173 Patrick Center for Environmental Research Table D-6a.Summary of the abundance (density as individuals/trap, x+/-1 SE)of selected taxonomic categories of Plecoptera and Trichoptera at Stations 1, 28, 5, and 6 in April and September 2000.Data collected with the coarse sieve (1.8 x 1.4-mm mesh)combined with that collected with the fine sieve (0.5 x 0.5-mm mesh)prior to these calculations. April September 1 2B 5 6 1 2B 5 6 Plecoptera Perlidae 164+/-74 21O+/-77 293+/-46 272+/-152 O+/-O O+/-O 11+/-11 10+/-3 Perlesta 89+/-29 193+/-73 247+/-39 256+/-152 O+/-O O+/-O O+/-O O+/-O.Trichoptera Hydropsychidae 2105+/-913 340+/-330 356+/-111 829+/-151 728+/-217 218+/-205 514+/-325 319+/-161 Cheumatopsyche 267+/-117 91+/-87 176+/-24 267+/-51 562+/-193 202+/-200 247+/-137 153+/-68 MacrostemumO+/-OO+/-O O+/-O O+/-O O+/-O 1O+/-8 96+/-81 129+/-81 Unident.Hydropsychidae 1806+/-777 238+/-233 152+/-73 520+/-79 146+/-31 7+/-7 171+/-113 32+/-12 Hydroptilidae Hydroptila 14+/-14 5+/-5 27+/-23 45+/-10 438+/-224 10+/-4 32+/-32 11+/-5 Leptoceridae Ceraclea 114+/-58 85+/-30 92+/-9 93+/-33 O+/-OO+/-OO+/-O O+/-O Philopotamidae ChimarraO+/-OO+/-O 11+/-5 43+/-19 182+/-79 1076+/-1008 1670+/-1136 1177+/-642 D.AQUATIC INSECTS 2000 Savannah River Studies Table D-6b.Summary of the results of statistical tests (2-way ANOVA with station x season interaction (inter.>>used to evaluate station (Stations 1, 2B, 5, 6)and season (A=April, S=September) differences (p<0.05)for selected taxonomic categories of Plecoptera and Trichoptera. Datacollectedwith the coarse sieve (1.8 x A-mm mesh)combined with that collected with the fine sieve (0.5 x 0.5-mm mesh)prior to these analyses.Blanks for season or station comparisons indicate no significant difference (p>0.05).P Season 1 vs 2B 1 vs51 vs 6 2B vs 5 2B vs65 vs 6 Plecoptera Periidae Perlesta Trichoptera Hydropsychidae l7heunu2topsyche Macrostemum Station 0.029 Season<0.001 A>S Inter.0.177 Station 0.229 Season<0.001 A>S Inter.0.229 Station 0.018 a Season 0.283 Inter.0.993 Station 0.029 a Season 0.748 Inter.0.836 Station 0.030 Season<0.001 S>A Inter.0.030 6>1 6>1 6>1 6>2B 6>2B Unidentified Hydropsychidae Station 0.003 1>2B 6>2B Season 0.006 A>S Inter.0.790 Leptoceridae Station 0.746 l7eraclea Season<0.001 A>S Inter.0.746 Philopotamidae l7hinu2rra Station 0.085 Season<0.001 S>A Inter.0.887 aPrimary model not significant (p>O.05).The Academy of Natural Sciences 176 Patrick Center for Environmental Research I I Table!D-7a. Summary of the abundance (density as individuals/trap, x+/-1 SE)of selected taxonomic categories of Diptera at Stations 1, 28, 5, I and 6 in April and September 2000.Data collected with the coarse sieve (1.8 x 1.4-mm mesh)combined with that collected with the i fine sieve (0.5 x 0.5-mm mesh)prior to these calculations. April September 1 2B 5 6 1 2B 5 6 Dipteta ChirJOmidae 13810+/-1498 4160+/-1492 2020+/-731 3835+/-1063 4160+/-1371 1691+/-735 3409+/-1815 838+/-173!!TanJP10dinae Ablabesmyia 281+/-128 53+/-11 22+/-5 16+/-9 530+/-258 128+/-32 11+/-11 51+/-51 Rhebpelopia 89+/-47 11+/-11 3+/-3 16+/-9 77+/-28 88+/-88 149+/-105 35+/-18 Tanytksini Rhebtanytarsus 2183+/-823 364+/-279 213+/-78 1309+/-399 2626+/-1244 656+/-539 2457+/-1362 320+/-137 Tanytarsus 2261+/-1694 228+/-36 130+/-85 304+/-56 85+/-28 79°+/-18 27+/-26 81+/-27 Chiro:iJ.omini Polrpedilum 2236+/-361 2220+/-1655 1129+/-812 747+/-491 384+/-90 377+/-156 488+/-242 232+/-78 I Orthot:ladiini Critotopus 121+/-38 69+/-69 12+/-6 64+/-33 8+/-8 O+/-O 5+/-5 O+/-O Nanocladius 644+/-327 234+/-162 83+/-75 48+/-17 44+/-30 23+/-6 O+/-O 21+/-11 Parakiefferiella 124+/-81 4+/-2 O+/-O O+/-O O+/-O O+/-O O+/-O O+/-O Rheocricotopus nr.rohacki 32+/-32 106+/-95 57+/-32 112+/-12 O+/-O O+/-O O+/-O O+/-O Thienemanniella 107+/-43 O+/-O O+/-O 40+/-26 12+/-8 O+/-O O+/-O 13+/-10 Tvetenia discoloripes grp.5422+/-2379 648+/-640 249+/-95 939+/-280 O+/-O O+/-O O+/-O O+/-O I Uniddrtified Chironomidae O+/-O O+/-O O+/-O O+/-O°111+/-45 136+/-99 92+/-55 24+/-8 Simuliidae Simulium 21+/-21 O+/-O O+/-O 11+/-5 143+/-117 18+/-15 128+/-128 28+/-9 D.AQUATIC INSECTS 2000 Savannah River Studies Table D-7b.Summary of the results of statistical tests (2-way ANOVA with station x season interaction (inter.>>used to evaluate station (Stations 1, 2B, 5, 6)and season (A=April, S=September)differences (p<0.05)for selected taxonomic categories of Diptera.Data collected with the coarse sieve (1.8 x A-mm mesh)combined with that collected with the fine sieve (0.5 x O.5-mm mesh)prior to these analyses.Blanks for season or station comparisons indicate no significant difference (p>O.05).P Season Ivs2B Ivs5 Ivs6 2BvsS 2Bvs6 5vs6 DiJ?tera Chironomidae Station Season Inter.0.028 a 0.013 A>S 0.611 Tanypodinae Ablabesmyia Rheopelopia Station Season Inter.Station Season Inter.0.002 0.665 0.433 0.379 0.269'0.772 1>5 1>6 2B>6 Tanytarsini Rheotanytarsus Station Season Inter.0.054 0.947 0.404 Tanytarsus Station 0.005 Season<0.001 A>S Inter.0.488 1>5 6>5 Chironomini Polypedilum Station Season Inter.0.405b 0.011 0.925 Orthocladiini Cricotopus Nanocladius Parakiefferiella Station Season Inter.Station Season Inter.Station Season Inter.0.258 0.002 A>S 0.489 0.051 0.003 A>S 0.621 0.031 a 0.013 A>S 0.031 Thienemanniella Unidentified Chironomidae Tvetenia discoloripes grp.Rheocricotopus nr robacki 6>2B 6>5 1>2B 1>5 1>2B Station 0.365 Season<0.001 A>S Inter.0.365 Station<0.001 Season 0.078 Inter.0.139 Station 0.019 Season<0.001 A>S Inter.0.019 Station 0.924 Season<0.001 S>A Inter.0.924 Simuliidae Station 0.323b Season 0.033 0.974 aNo significant differences were found using TUkey's pariwise comparisons. bPrimary model not significant (p>O.05).The Academy of Natural Sciences 177 Patrick Center for Environmental Research I Table D-8a.!Summary of selected indicies (x+/-1 SE)describing the aquatic insect assemblages at Stations 1, 28, 5, and 6 in April and September 2000.Data collected with the coarse sieve (1.8 x 1.4-mm mesh)combined with that collected with the fine sieve (0.5 x 0.5-mm mesh)prior to these calculations. April September 1 2B 5 6 1 2B 5 6 Total Richness 24+/-2 26+/-2 25+/-3 31+/-1 27+/-2 31+/-2 26+/-5 28+/-3 I I, EPT 8+/-1 11+/-2 13+/-2 14+/-1 12+/-I 13+/-2 12+/-2 15+/-1 Chirotmid'" Richness 14+/-1 11+/-1 1O+/-I 14+/-0 12+/-1 11+/-1 8+/-2 8+/-2%Do'nance-1 Taxa 37+/-6 50+/-13 29+/-15 21+/-6 38+/-4 29+/-6 31+/-7 26+/-10 I%DoJ.ninance-5 Taxa 83+/-3 76+/-6 62+/-10 64+/-5 73+/-3 68+/-3 71+/-9 60+/-6%Chironomidae 83+/-5 79+/-4 60+/-7 61+/-3 62+/-4 59+/-9 46+/-8 28+/-10 Shannon Diversity 2.05+/-0.13 1.99+/-0.33 2.55+/-0.41 2.68+/-0.15 2.33+/-0.11 2.51+/-0.14 2.36+/-0.29 2.70+/-0.29 HBI 5.7+/-0.3 5.7+/-O.l 5.1+/-0.1 5.1+/-0.1 5.9+/-0.2 5.9+/-0.1 5.4+/-0.1 5.0+/-0.3 NCB!: 5.4+/-0.4 5.9+/-0.2 5.6+/-0.1 5.4+/-0.1 6.3+/-0.1 6.5+/-0.2 6.1+/-0.2 6.0+/-0.1 I).AQUATIC INSECTS 2000 Savannah River Studies Table D-8b.Summary of the results of stati.stical tests (2-way ANOVA with station x season interaction (inter.>>used to evaluate station (Stations 1, 2B, 5, 6)and season (A=April, S=September) differences (p<0.05)for selected indices describing the aquatic insect assemblages at Stations 1, 2B, 5 and 6 in spring and fall 2000.Data collected with the coarse sieve (1.8 x A-mm mesh)combined with that collected with the fine sieve (0.5 x 0.5-mm mesh)prior to these analyses.Blanks for season or station comparisons indicate no significant difference (p>0.05).P Season Ivs2B Ivs5 Ivs6 2Bvs52Bvs6 5vs6 Total Richness EPT Richness Station Season Inter.Station Season Inter.0.322 0.368 0.539 0.022 a 0.156 0.471 Chironomidae Richness Station Season Inter.0.065 0.007 A>S 0.299%Dominance-1 Taxa%Dominance-5 Taxa Station Season Inter.Station Season Inter.0.288 0.578 0.421 0.057 0.484 0.351 1>62B>52B>6%Chironomidae Station 0.002 Season<0.001 A>S Inter.0.602 Shannon Diversity Station 0.191 Season 0.376 Inter.0.497 HBI Station 0.001 Season 0.218 Inter.0.847 NCB I Station 0.088 Season<0.001 S>A Inter.0.588 a Primary model not significant (p>0.05).1>6 2B>6 The Academy of Natural Sciences 179 Patrick Center for Environmental Research D.AQUATIC INSECTS 2000 Savannah River Studies Reference Conditions Upstream of SRS.tation 1 was used to describe reference conditionsstream of SRS because it was not exposed to effluent or runoff from SRS.Mean total insect density at Sta-tion 1 was 17,067 individuals/trap in April and 6,698als/trap in September (Table D-4a).In April, Diptera (mainly chironomids) averaged>13,000 individuals/trap andcounted for 81%of the individuals found at Station 1 (Table D-4a).Most of these individuals were Tvetenia discoloripes grp.(5,422 individuals/trap), Tanytarsus (2,261als/trap), Polypedilum (2,236 individuals/trap), andtanytarsus (2,183 individuals/trap)(TableD-7a). Trichoptera were also common at Station 1 in April (2,254als/trap, 13%of total insect density)and consisted principally of unidentified, early-instar Hydropsychidae (1,806als/trap), Cheumatopsyche (267 individuals/trap), andaclea (114 individuals/trap)(Tables D-4a and D-6a).Although Ephemeroptera (mainly Baetidae)were oftencountered in trap samples at Station 1 in April (668als/trap, 4%of total insect density)(Table D-5a), they were much less abundant than Diptera or Trichoptera. Other groups including Plecoptera, Coleoptera, and Odonata were present, but were encountered infrequently at Station 1 in.April (<200 individuals/trap)(Table D-4a).These groupslectively accounted for<2%of the individuals found intion 1 traps in April.Despite the scarcity of Plecoptera, the presence of large numbers of Trichoptera (see above)resulted in EPT densities of 3,097 individuals/trap (18%oftotal insect density)at Station 1 in April (Table D-4a).In September, Diptera (mainly Chironomidae) remained the dominant order at Station 1 (4,344 individuals/trap, 65%tal insect density)followed by Trichoptera (1,503als/trap, 22%of total insect density)(Table D-4a).Although Diptera and Trichoptera were dominant in both April andtember at Station 1, there were large differences betweensons in the importance of specific taxa within these orders (Tables D-6a and D-7a).For example, the most commonteran in April (the chironomid midge Tvetenia discoloripes _._..grp.,5,422.individuals/trap) was not collected in September (Table D-7a).Similarly, the densities of two other common The Academy of Natural Sciences 180 Patrick Center for Environmental Research. D.AQUATIC INSECTS 2000 Savannah River Studies dipterans (also chironomid midges)were lower in September than in April: Tanytarsus (2,261 individuals/trap in Aprilpared to 85 individuals/trap in September) and Polypedilum (2,236 individuals/trap in April compared to 384als/trap in September)(Table D-7a).In contrast, sus densities were similar in April and September (2,183 individuals/trap in April and 2,626 individuals/trap inber)(Table D-7a).As with dipterans, the most dominant trichopteran in April (unidentified Hydropsychidae) was not the most dominant trichopteran in September (1,806als/trap in April compared to 146 individuals/trap inber)(Table D-6a).Ceraclea densities were also markedly lower in September than in April (114 individuals/trap in April but absent in September)(Table D-6a).In contrast,sities of other trichopterans were higher in September than in April including Cheumatopsyche (267 individuals/trap in April compared to 562 individuals/trap in September),droptila (14 individuals/trap in April compared to 438viduals/trap in September), and Chimarra (absent from trap collections in April compared to 182 individuals/trap intember)(Table 6a).Although Ephemeroptera (mainlyrythodes)accounted for 12%of total density (811 individuals/trap) in September (Table D-5a), they remained less abundant than Diptera or Trichoptera. Coleoptera and Odonata were collected from Station 1, but were againcommon (only 35 individuals/trap collectively) and accounted for<1%of the individuals found in Station 1 traps inber (Table D-4a).Despite the absence of Plecoptera,ate densities of Ephemeroptera and Trichoptera resulted in EPT densities of2,314 individuals/trap (35%of total insect density)at Station 1inSeptember (Table D-4a).Total Richness, which accounts for both common (mentioned previously) and uncommon taxa, averaged 24 taxalsubsample in April and 27 taxalsubsample in September at Station 1ble D-8a).Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera (EPT)Richness averaged 8 taxa in April (33%of Totalness)and 12 taxa in September (44%of Total Richness)at Station 1 (Table D-8a).Chironomidae Richness alsocounted for a large part of Total Richness in both seasons (i.e., 58%in April and 44%in September)(Table D-8a).No single taxon dominated aquatic insect traps at Station 1 in either season (%Dominance-1 taxa averaged 37%in April.and 38%In Septemberfbut wheu*theflve most common taxa The Academy of Natural Sciences 181 Patrick Center for Environmental Research D.AQUATIC INSECTS 2000 Savannah River Studies were pooled together (%Dominance-5 taxa), they accounted for most of total insect density (83%in April and 73%intember)at Station 1 (Table D-8a).Many of these common taxa were chironomids, which comprised 83%of total density in April and 62%of total density in September at Station 1 (Table D-8a).The dominance of Chironomidae may havefected community structure at Station 1.For example,cause diversity has an evenness component, chironomid dominance probably reduced Shannon Diversity at Station 1 in April (Shannon Diversity averaged 2.05 and was near the low end of the range measured at the sampling stations in 2000)(Table D-8a).Lower relative abundance of dae in September may have contributed to higher diversity in September (Shannon Diversity averaged 2.33 in September compared to 2.05 in April)(Table D-8a).The abundance of Chironomidae, which are generally pollution tolerant,ably also contributed to elevated HBI scores at Station 1 (RBI scores averaged 5.7 in April and 5.9 in September and were near the high end of the range measured at the samplingtions in 2000)(Table D-8a).HBI scores indicate that water quality at Station 1 was fair in April and September based on ranges provided in Hilsenhoff (1987).NCBI scores averaged 5.4 in April and 6.3 in September indicating that water quality was good in April and good-fair in September (Table D-8a)(Lenat 1993).Comparison of Reference and Downstream Conditions I n order to assess changes potentially associated with SRS, Station 1 (i.e., the reference site consisting of aquatic insects that had not been exposed to effluent or runoff from the SRS)was compared with Stations 2B, 5, and 6 (i.e., sites where insects were potentially exposed to effluent or runoff from the SRS).A negative impact was defmed a priori as lower densities of pollution-sensitive taxa (e.g.,flies)downstream of Station 1, potentially accompanied by higher densities of pollution-tolerant taxa (e.g.somenomid species).Lower Total Richness, the richness oftion-sensitive groups (i.e., EPT Richness), and the richness oflargegroups containing sensitive and tolerant species (i.e.,)downstieam of Station 1 w*ereaIso deslgnated'- The Academy of Natural Sciences 182 Patrick Center for Environmental Research D.AQUATIC INSECTS 2000 Savannah River Studies a priori as evidence of a negative impact.Meaningfulences in relative abundance and richness (as described above)would be expected to result in lower species diversity and higher%Chironomidae,%Dominance-I,%Dominance-5, RBI, or NCB!.Because Stations 2B, 5 and 6 each represent different conditions, the above differences could be apparent at anyone or all of the downstream stations.Of the eight higher taxonomic groups analyzed (Total Insect Density, EPT Density, Ephemeroptera Density, Dipterasity, Trichoptera Density, Coleoptera Density, Plecoptera Density, and Odonata Density)only Plecoptera fered among stations with higher densities at Station 6 than at Stations 1 and 2B (Table DAb).Indices that describe thelective response of aquatic insects (community levelsponses)also showed few differences among stations.Chironomids comprised a larger fraction of total density (i.e.,%Chironomidae) at Stations 1 and 2B than at Station 6ble D-8b).The presence of large numbers of generallyerant chironomids at Stations 1 and 2B may have contributed to higher RBI scores at Stations 1 and 2B than at Station 6 and higher RBI scores at Station 2B than Station 5 (Table 8b).None of these differences conformed to our a prioripotheses concerning a negative response to exposure toent or runoff from SRS.For example,%Chironomidae and RBI scores, which are expected to increase in response tolution, were lower at one or more potential impact Stations (2B, 5, and 6)than at the reference Station (1).Furthermore, Plecoptera Density, which is expected to decrease in response to pollution, was higher at one or more potential impacttions than at the reference station.Important responses are sometimes more easily observed or interpreted when examined using individual taxa or small groups of taxa (Le., lower taxa).Ten (Amercaenis ridens, Ephemerellidae, Isonychia, Perlidae, Macrostemum,fied Hydropsychidae, Ablabesmyia, Tanytarsus, niella, and Tvetenia discoloripes grp.)of the 31 lower taxa examined in 2000 exhibited a significant difference between the reference station (1)and one or more potential impacttions (2B, 5, and 6)(Tables D-5b to D-7b).Additionally,nificant differences between potential impact stations were found for all but three of these taxa (Ephemerellidae, and Tvetenia-discoloripes grp.) to D-7b).Densities of several EPT taxa including the may-The Academy of Natural Sciences 183 Patrick Center for Environmental Research D.AQUATICINSECTS 2000 Savannah River Studies flies Ephemerellidae, Amercaenis ridens, and Isonychia, the stonefly Perlidae, and the caddisfly Macrostemum were higher at Stations 5 and/or 6 than at Station 1 (Tables D-5b and D-6b).Densities of the majority of these taxa (Isonychia, Perlidae, and Amercaenis ridens)were also higher at Station 6 than at Station 2B (Tables D-5b and D-6b).In contrast to the above EPT taxa, densities of a number of chironornid taxa were higher at.Station 1 than.at one or more of the potential impact stations including Tanytarsus (Station1>Station 5), Ablabesmyia (Station 1>Stations 5 and 6), and niella (Station1>Stations 2B and 5)(Table D-7b).Densities of Unidentified Hydropsychidae were also higher at Station 1 than at one of the potential impact stations (2B)(Table D-6b).For several of the above taxa (Ephemerellidae, Amercaenisdens, Macrostemum, and Tvetenia discoloripes grp.), theaction factor (station x season)was significant, indicating that differences among stations varied seasonally (Tables D-5b to D-7b).For example, station differences were apparent during April for Tvetenia discoloripes grp.and Ephemerellidae whereas these taxa were absent at all stations in September. Conversely, station differences were apparent in September for Amercaenis ridens and Macrostemum whereas these taxa were absent in April at all stations.Seasonal changes indance are expected because the life cycles of many aquaticsects involve time periods where eggs, very small larva, and adults are present (these stages occur following emergence and are not collected by traps).None of the differences in lower taxa conformed to our aori hypotheses concerning a negative response to exposure to effluent/runoff from the SRS.For example, the densities of the mayflies Ephemerellidae, Amercaenis ridens, andchia, the caddisflies Macrostemum, and the stonefly Perlidae were higher and the densities of the chironomids Tanytarsus, Ablabesmyia, and Thienemanniella were lower at one or more of the potential impact stations than at the reference station.These differences do not confirm to our a priori hypotheses because mayfly, caddis fly , and stonefly densities are expected to decrease and chironornid densities are expected to increase in response to pollution. These results do not reveal a common pattern among indices, higher taxa, or lower taxa that conformed to our a priori hy-coIfc'etning a negatiVe response ttl eXpdsurelbeffltF"--"*,* ent or runoff from SRS.In fact, these results indicate that The Academy of Natural Sciences 184 Patrick Center for Environmental Research D.AQUATIC INSECTS 2000 Savannah River Studies conditions at the potential impact stations (downstream of SRS inputs)are generally superior to those at the upstream reference station.Thus, there was no evidence that suggests a general response to environmental disturbance in thenah River near the SRS.Rather, the differences that weservedamong stations in 2000 presumably reflect the differences that occur naturally among spatially separate sites (i.e., natural spatial variation). Seasonal Differences in 2000 ifferences among stations near SRS are evaluated at different times of the year primarily because (1)the volume and concentration of effluent and runoff from the SRS can change throughout the year and (2)the composition of the aquatic insect assemblage sence and abundance) can change throughout the year.The aquatic insect assemblage in the river changes throughout the year in response to biological phenomena (e.g., life history characteristics, food quality or quantity, interactions with predators or competitors) and physicochemical phenomena (e.g., floods, droughts, temperature extremes). This has been observed in warm and cold environments, in mountains and coastal plains, in small streams and large rivers.The aquatic insect community of the Savannah River is also temporally variable (i.e., April samples were different from those collected in September). For example, densities of two higher taxa (Diptera and Plecoptera) and twelve lower taxa (Ephemerellidae, Perlidae, Perlesta, Ceraclea, Unidentified Hydropsychidae, Chironomidae, Tanytarsus, Cricotopus, Nanocladius, Parakiefferiella, Rheocricotopus ill.robacki, and Tvetenia discoloripes grp.)were higher in April thantember while densities of five additional lower taxarythodes, Amercaenis ridens, Macrostemum, Chimarra, and Unidentified Chironomidae) were higher in September than April (Tables D-4b to D-7b).Seasonal differences in a few of theindicesthat describe the collective response of aquaticsects (community level responses) were also found with higher Chironomidae Richness and%Chironomidae in April than September and higher NCBI scores in September than in April (Table D-8b).The Academy of Natural Sciences 185 Patrick Center for Environmental Research D.AQUATIC INSECTS 2000 Savannah River Studies Although there were seasonal differences in the aquatic insect community of the Savannah River, these differences werepected (i.e., caused by differences in life history patterns such as emergence times)and there was no indication that they were caused by exposure to effluent or runoff from the SRS.Together, the station and season analyses provide no evidence that would suggest that there was a general negative response indicative of environmental disturbance in the Savannah River near the SRS.Rather, the station and seasonalences observed in 2000 presumably reflect the differences that occur naturally among sites and seasons in streams and rivers (i.e., natural spatial and temporal variation). Effects of a Reduction in Mesh Size on Quantitative Collections rior to 1998, samples were cleaned in the field by passing them through a coarse sieve with 1.8 xmm mesh..Starting in 1998 the coarse sieve was re-placed by a sieve that is commonly used in benthic studies (referred to as the fme sieve).Although the switch to a more standard mesh will facilitate comparisons between the SRS data and data collected elsewhere, direct comparisonstween long-term SRS (that collected prior to 1998)and more recent data (that collected from 1998-1999) arerently not possible due to the reduction in mesh size.One of the objectives of the 2000 sampling program was tomine if switching to a smaller mesh size affected quantitative collections. This was accomplished by separating eachple into a coarse-mesh fraction (material retained by the coarse sieve)and a fine-mesh fraction (material that passed through the coarse sieve but was retained by the fine sieve).The combination of the coarse-mesh and fine-mesh fractions represent the material that would have been retained if it had not first been passed through the coarse-mesh sieve.sons of the coarse-mesh data with the combined (pooled)data provided estimates of the effect of the switch to the fine mesh.Prior to discussing comparisons involving mesh size, it isportant to note that station and season comparisons discussed in previous sections and in previous reports (1998 and 1999)reflect the analysis of pooled data.The Academy of Natural Sciences 186 Patrick Center for Environmental Research D.AQUATIC INSECTS 2000 Savannah River Studies The use of a smaller mesh generally resulted in densitymates that were much higher than those provided by the coarse mesh indicating that many of the individuals collected in the traps passed through the coarse mesh but were retained by the fme mesh.This was evident for groups of taxa (Total Density, EPT Density and Chironomidae Density)andvidual taxa (Table D-9a).For example, the total number ofdividuals (Total Density)retained by the fine mesh was 2.1 (Station 2B in April)to 3.6 (Station 6 in April)times higher than for the coarse mesh (these calculations completed byviding'pooled Total Density'by'coarse mesh Totalsity', Table D-9a).In other words, in April at Station 2B about the same number of individuals passed through the coarse mesh as were retained by it and in April at Station 6 about times more individuals passed through the coarse mesh than were retained.Similar results were observed for other higher taxonomic groups including EPT and dae, and for a number of individual taxa includingmatopsyche, Chirnarra, Unident.Polypedilum, Tvetenia discoloripes grp., and Rheotanytarsus (i.e., pooled densities were usually about 2-4 times higher than coarse-meshties)(Table 9a).Differences between densities were even more dramatic for a number of other taxa.For example, most of the Isonychia, Tanytarsus, Tricorythodes, and Unident.dropsychidae that were present in trap collections in April were too small to be retained by the coarse mesh.quently, pooled densities were generally about 4-15 times higher than coarse-mesh densities for these taxa in Aprilble 9a).Similarly most of the Tricorythodes, Ablabesmyia, and Unident.Hydropsychidae present in September traplections passed through the coarse mesh resulting in pooled densities that were usually about 5-21 times higher than coarse-mesh densities (Table 9a).In contrast, many Perlesta and Polypedilum illinoensi grp.were too large to pass through the coarse mesh, which usually resulted in higher densities in the coarse-mesh fraction than in the fme-mesh fraction (Table D-9a).Although mesh size had a major effect on density estimates, many measures of community structure (Total Richness, EPT Richness,%Chironomidae, and NCB!)were basicallychanged by the switch to a smaller mesh size (see TableJ9ll:tTf:!:ose smaller mesh size showed smaller changes than were ob-The Academy of Natural Sciences 187 Patrick Center for Environmental Research

D-9a.Summary of the abundance (density as individuals/trap, x+/-1 SE)of selected taxonomic categories of aquatic insects found in the 0.5 x 0.5-mm (fine mesh)and 1.8 x 1.4-mm (coarse mesh)fractions of samples collected at Stations 1, 2B, 5, and 6 in 2000.Fine and coarse mesh fractions were combined (pooled)and presented with the individual fractions. The fine mesh fraction included all individuals that passed through the coarse mesh but were retained by the fine mesh.Pooled densities are repeated from Tables D-4a to D-7a.Some pooled densities are slightly<or>the sum of densities in the individual fractions due to rounding errors.April September 1 2B 5 6 1 2B 5 6 Total Density fine mesh 9280+/-2160 2757+/-1010 1972+/-535 4499+/-747 4704+/-1803 2232+/-1158 4486+/-2552 2643+/-805 coarse'mesh 7787+/-1552 2591+/-1317 1176+/-278 1725+/-802 1994+/-823 1438+/-1106 2557+/-1614 1094+/-543 pooled 17067+/-2750 5348+/-1894 3148+/-791 6224+/-1507 6698+/-2076 3670+/-2258 7043+/-4160 3737+/-1156 EPTDensity fine mesh 2123+/-744 505+/-390 521+/-42 1725+/-249 1728+/-713 1282+/-991 2451+/-1540 2021+/-768 coarse mesh 974+/-555 527+/-162 571+/-87 621+/-193 586+/-271 578+/-501 963+/-696 783+/-471 pooled 3097+/-1222 1032+/-497 1092+/-88 2347+/-443 2314+/-768 1860+/-1492 3414+/-2231 2804+/-1094 Ephemeroptera Iso,*ychia 93+/-54 fine: mesh O+/-O O+/-O 32+/-19 486+/-94 O+/-O 16+/-16 373+/-297 cOafsemesh O+/-O O+/-O O+/-O 35+/-12 O+/-O 8+/-8 107+/-107 95+/-73 pooled O+/-O O+/-O 32+/-19 520+/-92 O+/-O 24+/-24 480+/-403 188+/-125 TriCorythodes fine mesh 11+/-11 O+/-O 7+/-7 43+/-43 464+/-233 124+/-36 264+/-188 213+/-112 coarse mesh O+/-O O+/-O O+/-O O+/-O 75+/-25 73+/-45 74+/-59 44+/-17 11+/-11 O+/-O 7+/-7 43+/-43 540+/-245 197+/-74 338+/-248 258+/-124 Plecoptera Perlesta fine;mesh 32+/-19 25+/-7 60+/-12 139+/-123 O+/-O O+/-O O+/-O O+/-O coatsemesh 57+/-38 168+/-67 187+/-49 117+/-29 O+/-O O+/-O O+/-O O+/-O 89+/-29 193+/-73 247+/-39 256+/-152 O+/-O O+/-O O+/-O O+/-O i ,

-Table D-9a (continued).

Summary of the abundance (density as individuals/trap, x+/-1 SE)of selected taxonomic categories of aquatic insects I found in the 0.5 x 0.5-mm (fine mesh)and 1.8 x 1.4-mm (coarse mesh)fractions of samples collected at Stations 1, 28, 5, and 6 in 2000.Fine and coarse mesh fractions were combined (pooled)and presented with the individual fractions. The fine mesh fraction included all i individuals that passed through the coarse mesh but were retained by the fine mesh.Pooled densities are repeated from Tables D-4a to D-7a.Some pooled densities are slightly<or>the sum of densities in the individual fractions due to rounding errors.April September 1 2B 5 6 1 2B 5 6 Cheumatopsyche fine mesh 139+/-65 43+/-43 80+/-24 112+/-9 376+/-161 96+/-96 108+/-76 91+/-37 coarse mesh 128+/-74 48+/-44 96+/-24 155+/-56 186+/-97 106+/-104139+/-69 62+/-35 podled 267+/-117 91+/-87 176+/-24 267+/-51 562+/-193 202+/-200 247+/-137 153+/-68 Chimarra fine mesh O+/-O O+/-O O+/-O 21+/-5 116+/-58 776+/-724 1195+/-744 803+/-419O+/-OO+/-O 11+/-5 21+/-14 66+/-29 300+/-284 475+/-405 374+/-239 p 0 9 ledO+/-OO+/-O 11+/-5 43+/-19 182+/-79 1076+/-1008 1670+/-11361177+/-642 i Un(let.Hydropsycbidae 453+/-28 fin6mesh 1344+/-544 196+/-190 133+/-62 132+/-26 6+/-6 149+/-93 13+/-10 coarse mesh 462+/-289 43+/-43 19+/-12 67+/-55 14+/-81+/-1 22+/-21 19+/-15 pooled 1806+/-777 238+/-233 152+/-73 520+/-79 146+/-31 7+/-7 171+/-113 32+/-12 Chironomidae fine Ihesh 7040+/-1441 2224+/-659 1433+/-560 2744+/-520 2812+/-1146.916+/-231 1883+/-931 576+/-148 coarse mesh 6770+/-1004 1936+/-1083 587+/-205 1091+/-607 1348+/-562 775+/-554 1526+/-901 262+/-90 I 13810+/-1498 4160+/-1492 2020+/-731 3835+/-1063 4160+/-1371 1691+/-735 3409+/-1815 838+/-173 fin mesh 139+/-77 53+/-11 20+/-6 11+/-5 524+/-259 122+/-30 10+/-10 51+/-51 142+/-75 O+/-O 3+/-3 5+/-5 6+/-4 6+/-21+/-1 O+/-O i 281+/-128 53+/-11 22+/-5 16+/-9 530+/-258 128+/-32 11+/-11 51+/-51 pOl?led I I Table D-9a (continued). Summary of the abundance (density as individuals/trap,x+/-1 SE)of selected taxonomic categories of aquatic insects found in the 0.5 x 0.5-mm (fine mesh)and 1.8 x 1.4-mm (coarse mesh)fractions of samples collected at Stations 1, 28, 5, and 6 in 2000.Fine and coarse mesh fractions were combined (pooled)and presented with the individual fractions. The fine mesh fraction included all individuals that passed through the coarse mesh but were retained by the fine mesh.Pooled densities are repeated from Tables D-4a to D-7a.Some pooled densities are slightly<or>the sum in the individual fractions due to rounding errors.April September I 2B 5 6 1 2B 5 6 Poiypedilum illinoensi grp. 672+/-164 844+/-478 709+/-554 333+/-181O+/-OO+/-OO+/-O O+/-O 1550+/-235 1376+/-1184 416+/-267 413+/-314 O+/-OO+/-OO+/-OO+/-O 2222+/-352 2220+/-1655 1125+/-814 747+/-491 O+/-OO+/-OO+/-O O+/-O Unldent Polypedilum find mesh O+/-O O+/-O 4+/-4 O+/-O 252+/-50 214+/-118 237+/-127 128+/-49 coakse meshO+/-OO+/-OO+/-OO+/-O 132+/-49 163+/-54 251+/-127 104+/-29 poqledO+/-OO+/-O 4+/-4 O+/-O 384+/-89 377+/-156 488+/-242 232+/-78: Rhiwtanytarsus fine mesh 875+/-241 213+/-166 176+/-94 1027+/-383 1548+/-981 212+/-132 1285+/-661 208+/-107 coarse mesh 1308+/-584 151+/-114 37+/-30 283+/-77 1078+/-472 444+/-407 1172+/-722 112+/-49 pooled 2183+/-823 364+/-279 213+/-78 1309+/-399 2626+/-1244 656+/-539 2457+/-1362 320+/-137 Ta",ytarsus 60+/-23 22+/-21 61+/-31 fine mesh 1707+/-1324 206+/-40 119+/-85 256+/-46 56+/-25 coa:rse mesh 555+/-379 21+/-7 11+/-7 48+/-32 29+/-.l3 19+/-11 5+/-5 20+/-7 poiled 2261+/-1694 228+/-36 130+/-85 304+/-56 85+/-28 79+/-18 27+/-26 81+/-27 discoloripes grp.O+/-O O+/-OO+/-OO+/-O fine mesh 2507+/-1060 356+/-350 190+/-74 651+/-104 coa:rse mesh 2916+/-1346 292+/-290 59+/-23 288+/-178 O+/-OO+/-OO+/-O O+/-O poJled 5422+/-2379 648+/-640 249+/-95 939+/-280 O+/-O O+/-O O+/-O O+/-OI D.AQUATIC INSECTS 2000 Savannah River Studies Table D-9b.Summary of the results of statistical tests (2-way ANOVA with station x season interaction (inter.))used to evaluate station (Stations 1, 26, 5, 6)and season (A=April, S=September) differences (p<0.05)for selected taxonomic categories of aquatic insects in 2000.Statistical tests were completed for the fine sieve (0.5 x 0.5-mm mesh)and coarse sieve (1.8 x A-mm mesh)fractions individually and for the fine and coarse mesh fractions combined (pooled).The results of statistical tests on the pooled data are repeated from Tables D-4b to D-7b.P Season 1 vs 2B 1 vs51 vs 6 2Bvs 5 2B vs65 vs 6 Total Density fine mesh coarse mesh pooled EPT Richness fine mesh coarse mesh pooled Ephemeroptera Isonychia fine mesh coarse mesh pooled Station Season Inter.Station Season Inter.Station Season Inter.Station Season Inter.Station Season Inter.Station Season Inter.Station Season Inter.Station Season Inter.Station Season Inter.0.035 a 0.322 0.179 0.018 a 0.061 0.026 0.106 0.147 0.742 0.575 0.285 0.578 0.943 0.858 0.824 0.706 0.415 0.643 0.025 0.906 0.024 0.319 0.158 0.567<0.001 0.711 0.441 5>1 6>1 6>1 6>2B The Academy of Natural Sciences 191 Patrick Center for Environmental Research D.AQUATIC INSECTS 2000 Savannah River Studies Table D-9b (continued). Summary of the results of statistical tests (2-way ANOVA with station x season interaction (inter.))used to evaluate station (Stations 1, 28, 5, 6)and season (A=April, S=September) differences (p<0.05)for selected taxonomic categories of aquatic insects in 2000.Statistical tests were completed for the fine sieve (0.5 x 0.5-mm mesh)and coarse sieve (1.8 x A-mm mesh)fractions individually and for the fine and coarse mesh fractions combined (pooled).The results of statistical tests on the pooled data are repeated from Tables D-4b to D-7b.Tricorythodes fine mesh coarse mesh pooled Plecoptera Perlesta fine mesh coarse mesh pooled Trichoptera Cheumatopysche fine mesh coarse mesh pooled P Season 1 vs2B 1 vs51 vs6 2Bvs5 2Bvs6 5vs6 Station 0.582 Season O.Ol3 a Inter.0.583 Station 0.951 Season 0.007 a Inter.0.951 Station 0.564 Season<0.001 S>A Inter.0.854 Station 0.504 Season 0.038 a Inter.0.504 Station 0.178 Season<0.001 A>S Inter.0.178 Station 0.229 Season<0.001 A>S Inter.0.229 Station 0.188 Season 0.276 Inter.0.535 Station 0.761 Season 0.766 Inter.0.732 Station 0.029 a Season 0.748 Inter.0.836 The Academy of Natural Sciences 192 Patrick Center for Environmental Research D.AQUATIC INSECTS 2000 Savannah River Studies Table D-9b (continued). Summary of the results of statistical tests (2-way ANOVA with station x season interaction (inter.))used to evaluate station (Stations 1, 28, 5, 6)and season (A=April, S=September) differences (p<0.05)for selected taxonomic categories of aquatic insects in 2000.Statistical tests were completed for the fine sieve (0.5 x 0.5-mm mesh)and coarse sieve (1.8 x A-mm mesh)fractions individually and for the fine and coarse mesh fractions combined (pooled).The results of statistical tests on the pooled data are repeated from Tables D-4b to D-7b.P Season 1 vs 2B 1 vs51 vs 6 2B vs 5 2B vs65 vs 6 Chimarra fine mesh coarse mesh Station Season Inter.Station Season Inter.0.653 0.030 a 0.658 0.744 0.051 0.783 pooled Station Season Inter.0.085<0.001 0.887 S>A Unidentified Hydropsychidae fine mesh Station Season Inter.0.010 0.003 A>S 0.022 1>2B coarse mesh pooled Diptera Chironomidae fine mesh coarse mesh pooled Station Season Inter.Station Season Inter.Station Season Inter.Station Season Inter.Station Season Inter.0.091 0.066 0.093 0.003 0.006 A>S 0.790 0.001 0.007 A>S 0.075<0.001 0.004 A>S 0.002 0.028 b 0.013 A>S 0.611 1>2B 1>2B 1>2B 1>5 1>5 1>6 1>6 6>2B The Academy of Natural Sciences 193 Patrick Center for Environmental Research D.AQUATIC INSECTS 2000 Savannah River Studies Table D-9b (continued). Summary of the results of statistical tests (2-way ANOVA with station x season interaction (inter.))used to evaluate station (Stations 1, 28, 5, 6)and season (A=April, S=September) differences (p<0.05)for selectedtaxonomiccategories of aquatic insects in 2000.Statistical tests were completed for the fine sieve (0.5 x 0.5-mm mesh)and coarse sieve (1.8 x.4-mm mesh)fractions individually and for the fine and coarse mesh fractions combined (pooled).The results of statistical tests on the pooled data are repeated from Tables D-4b to D-7b.P Season 1 vs2B 1 vs5 1 vs6 2Bvs5 2Bvs6 5vs6 Ablabesmyia fine mesh Station 0.060 Season 0.179 Inter.0.373 coarse mesh Station 0.016 b Season 0.062 Inter.0.023 pooled Station 0.002 1>5 1>6 2B>6 Season 0.665 Inter.0.433 Polypedilum illinoensi grp.fine mesh Station 0.774 Season O.o02 a Inter.0.774 coarse mesh Station 0.376 Season 0.005 a Inter.0.376 pooled Station 0.311 Season<0.001 A>S Inter.0.311 Unidentified Polypedilum fine mesh Station 0.836 Season<0.001 S>A Inter.0.844 coarse mesh Station 0.583 Season<0.001 S>A Inter.0.583 pooled Station 0.946 Season<0.001 S>A Inter.0.617 The Academy of Natural Sciences 194 Patrick Center for Environmental Research D.AQUATIC INSECTS 2000 Savannah River Studies Table D-9b (continued). Summary of the results of statistical tests (2-way ANOVA with station x season interaction (inter.))used to evaluate station (Stations 1, 28, 5, 6)and season (A=April, S=September) differences (p<0.05)for selected taxonomic categories of aquatic insects in 2000.Statistical tests were completed for the fine sieve (0.5 x 0.5-mm mesh)and coarse sieve (1.8 x A-mm mesh)fractions individually and for the fine and coarse mesh fractions combined (pooled).The results of statistical tests on the pooled data are repeated from Tables D-4b to D-7b.P Season 1 vs2B 1 vs5 1 vs6 2Bvs5 2Bvs6 5vs6 Rheotanytarsus fine mesh Station 0.302 Season 0.525 Inter.0.331 coarse mesh Station 0.100 Season 0.395 Inter.0.373 pooled Station 0.054 Season 0.947 Inter.0.404 Tanytatsus fine mesh Station 0.212 Season 0.102 Inter.0.221 coarse mesh Station 0.088 Season 0.124 InteL 0.113 pooled Station 0.005 1>5 6>5 Season<0.001 A>S Inter.0.488 Tanytarsus discoloripes grp.0.015 b fine mesh Station Season 0.002 A>S Inter.0.D15 coarse mesh Station 0.013 b Season 0.012 A>S Inter.0.013 pooled Station 0.019 1>2B SeaSon<0.001" A>S Inter.0.019 aPrimary model not significant (p>O.05).b No significant differences were found using Tukey's pairwise comparisons. The Academy of Natural Sciences 195 Patrick Center for Environmental Research D.AQUATIC INSECTS 2000 Savannah River Studies served for density.For example, fme-mesh fractions usually resulted in samples that contained 20-60%more chironomid taxa, were somewhat more diverse (as shown by Shannonversity), and slightly less dorllinated by the five mostdant taxa than the coarse-mesh fractions. In contrast, fine-mesh fractions usually contained 30-50%fewer EPT taxa in the spring than coarse-mesh fractions (Table D-lOa).In an attempt to determine if the change to a smaller mesh size altered comparisons among stations and between seasons for individual taxa and groups of taxa, statistical results based on coarse-mesh data were compared to those based on pooled data.These comparisons indicate that a number ofences among stations and between seasons were onlycant with pooled data.For example, based on themesh data there were no differences in Isonychia density among stations.In contrast, the pooled data indicate that Isonychia density was higher at Station 6 than at Stations 1 and 2B and that Isonychia density was also higher at Station 5.than at Station!(Table D-9b).Similar results were obtained for Unident.Hydropsychidae, Ablabesmyia, Tanytarsus, and Tvetenia discoloripes grp.For each of these taxa pooled data indicate station differences that were not significant with the coarse-mesh data (Table D-9b).As with the stationences, a number of seasonal differences were significant with the pooled data but not the coarse-mesh data.Forexample, based on coarse-mesh data Tricorythodes density was the same in April and September. In contrast, pooled datacate that Tricorythodes density was higher in September than April (Table D-9b).Similar results were obtained formarra, Polypedilum illinoensi grp., and Tanytarsus. Again, the standard sieve data indicate significant seasonalences that were not indicated with the coarse-mesh datable D-9b).Only Chironomidae exhibited a difference based on coarse-mesh data but not pooled data-density was higher at Station 1 than at Stations 2B, 5, and 6 based onmesh data but not pooled data)(Table D-9b).Overall,12% of the 90 station comparisons involving density (15 measuresx6 pairwise comparisons for each)were significant based on pooled data while only 3%were significant based onmesh data.Similarly, seasonal comparisons involvingsity were more often significant when based on pooled (60%)than coarse-mesh (27%)data.The Academy of Natural Sciences 196 Patrick Center for Environmental Research Table p-10a.Summary of selected indices (X"+/-1SE)describing the aquatic insect assemblages at Stations 1, 28,5, and 6 in 2000.Index values were calculated for the 0.5 x 0.5-mm (fine mesh)and 1.8 x 1.4-mm (coarse mesh)fractions individually and for the fine and coarse mesh fractions combined (pooled).Index values in this table based on 92 individuals per sample/fraction whereas previous index values (those in Table D-8a)were based on complete samples/fractions. April September 1 2B 5 6 1 2B 5 6 I TotallUchness fine m¢sh 14+/-1 15+/-1 17+/-4 18+/-1 18+/-1 18+/-1 16+/-2 18+/-3 I coarse!mesh 11+/-2 15+/-1 17+/-1 18+/-2 15+/-2 18+/-2 16+/-3 19+/-2 13+/-1 16+/-1 18+/-3 19+/-2 17+/-1 19+/-1 17+/-3 20+/-3 I EPT Richness fine mesh 4+/-O 4+/-1 7+/-1 7+/-O 8+/-1 8+/-1 8+/-0 10+/-1 coarse:mesh 4+/-1 8+/-1 10+/-1 1O+/-1 8+/-1 8+/-1 8+/-1 12+/-1 pooled 4+/-O 7+/-1 9+/-1 9+/-1 8+/-0 8+/-1 8+/-1 11+/-O Chironomidae Richness fine mesh 1O+/-1 9+/-1 9+/-2 1O+/-1 8+/-O 8+/-1 6+/-1 6+/-2 coarse mesh 7+/-2 5+/-1 6+/-1 7+/-1 5+/-1 6+/-1 4+/-1 4+/-1 pooled 9+/-1 8+/-1 8+/-1 9+/-1 7+/-1 8+/-1 6+/-1 6+/-1%Dominance-5 Taxa fine mesh 80+/-2 80+/-8 66+/-12 67+/-5 71+/-4 69+/-4 72+/-7 65+/-7 coarse, mesh 89+/-4 80+/-3 70+/-7 71+/-5 79+/-5 76+/-3 82+/-5 69+/-6 pooleq 83+/-2 78+/-4 63+/-10 65+/-6 74+/-3 70+/-4 75+/-7 62+/-7%Chlronomidae fine mesh 78+/-5 85+/-7 67+/-11 61+/-3 59+/-6 57+/-12 44+/-6 28+/-12 coarse mesh 89+/-5 68+/-7 48+/-7*58+/-6 64+/-5 61+/-6 49+/-16 28+/-8 pooled 81+/-5 76+/-4 59+/-8 60+/-3 62+/-3 60+/-7 47+/-9 28+/-8 Table D-10a (continued). Summary of selected indices (x+/-1SE)describing the aquatic insect assemblages at Stations 1,28,5, and 6 in April and September 2000.Index values were calculated for the 0.5 x 0.5-mn;J (fine mesh)and 1.8 x 1.4-mm (coarse mesh)fractions individually and for the fine and coarse mesh fractions combined (pooled).Index values in this table based on 92 individuals per sample/fraction whereas previous index values (those in Table D-8a)were based on complete samples/fractions. April September I 2B 5 6 I 2B 5 6 Diversity 2.45+/-0.15 fine$esh 2.05+/-0.13 1.83+/-0.35 2.32+/-0.46 2.32+/-0.14 2.36+/-0.17 2.27+/-0.24 2.47+/-0.30 coarse mesh 1.74+/-0.16 1.76+/-0.28 2.30+/-0.29 2.38+/-0.13 1.90+/-0.24 2.09+/-0.17 1.89+/-0.17 2.39+/-0.17 poolt 1.98+/-0.11 1.87+/-0.29 2.44+/-0.40 2.53+/-0.17 2.18+/-0.17 2.33+/-0.15 2.19+/-0.27 2.58+/-0.26 NCBt fine dtesh 5.2+/-0.5 6.0+/-0.3 5.5+/-0.2 5.1+/-0.1 5.8+/-0.1 5.9+/-0.1 5.5+/-0.2 5.5+/-0.3 coarse mesh 4.9+/-0.4 5.7+/-0.5 5.6+/-0.1 5.2+/-0.1., 5.8+/-O.O 5.7+/-O.O 5.7+/-0.1 5.4+/-0.2 poole,d 5.1+/-0.5 5.8+/-0.5 5.5+/-0.1 5.1+/-0.1 5.8+/-0.1 5.8+/-0.1 5.6+/-0.1 5.4+/-0.3 D.AQUATIC INSECTS 2000 Savannah River Studies Table D-10b.Summary of the results of statistical tests (2-way ANOVA with station x season interaction (inter.>>)used to evaluate station (Stations 1,28, 5, 6)and season (A=April, S=September) differences (p<0.05)for selected indices describing the a"quatic insect assemblages at Stations 1, 28, 5, and 6 in 2000.Statistical tests were completed for the fine sieve (0.5 x 0.5-mm mesh)and coarse sieve (1.8 x A-mm mesh)fractions individually and for the fine and coarse mesh fractions combined (pooled).Analyses were based on 92 individuals per sample/fraction whereas previous analyses (those in Table D-8b)were based on complete samples/fractions. Total Richness fine mesh coarse mesh pooled p Station 0.795 Season 0.214 Inter.0.518 Station 0.050 a Season 0.271 Inter.0.654 Station 0.170 Season 0.248 Inter.0.458 Season 1 vs 2B 1 vs51 vs 6 2B vs 5 2B vs65 vs 6 EFT:Richness fine mesh coarse mesh pooled Chironomidae Richness fine mesh coarse mesh pooled Station 0.002 Season<0.001 S>A Inter.0.081 Station 0.001 Season 0.300 Inter.0.021 Station<0.001 Season 0.009 S>A Inter.0.027 Station 0.408 Season O.OlOa Inter.0.662 Station 0.669 Season 0.043 a Inter.0.267 Station 0.462 Season 0.008 a Inter.0.395 5>1 6>1 6>1 6>1 6>2B 6>2B 6>2B The Academy of Natural Sciences 199 Patrick Center for Environmental Research D.AQUATIC INSECTS 2000 Savannah River Studies Table D-10b (continued). Summary of the results of statistical tests (2-way ANOVA with station x season interaction (inter.))used to evaluate station (Stations 1, 28, 5, 6)and season (A=April, S=September) differences (p<0.05)for selected indices describing the aquatic insect assemblages at Stations 1, 28, 5, and 6 in 2000.Statistical tests were completed for the fine sieve (0.5 x 0.5-mm mesh)and coarse sieve (1.8 x A-mm mesh)fractions individually and for the fine and coarsemeshfractions combined (pooled).Analyses were based on 92 individuals per sample/fraction whereas previous analyses (those in Table D-8b)were based on complete samples/fractions. %Dominance-5 Taxa fine mesh coarse mesh pooled p Station 0.432 Season 0.300 Inter.0.560 Station 0.046 a Season 0.635 Inter.0.132 Station 0.082 Season 0.581 Inter.0.283 Season Ivs2B IvsS Ivs6 2Bvs52Bvs6 5vs6%Chltonomidae fine mesh coarse mesh pooled Shannon Diversity fine mesh coarse mesh pooled Station 0.Ql8 Season<0.001 A>S Inter.0.869 Station 0.001 Season 0.011 A>S Inter.0.145 Station 0.001 Season<0.001 A>S Inter.0.560 Station 0.540 Season 0.303 Inter.0.673 Station 0.079 Season 0.880 Inter.0.385 Station 0.183 Season 0.494 Inter.0.508 1>5 1>5 1>6 1>6 2B>6 2B>6 The Academy of Natural Sciences 200 Patrick Center for Environmental Research D.AQUATIC INSECTS 2000 Savannah River Studies Table D-10b (continued). Summary of the results of statistical tests (2-way ANOVA with station x season interaction (inter.))used to evaluate station (Stations 1, 2B, 5, 6)and season (A=April, S=September) differences (p<0.05)for selected indices describing the aquatic insect assemblages at Stations 1, 2B, 5, and 6 in 2000.Statistical tests were completed for the fine sieve (0.5 x 0.5-mm mesh)and coarse sieve (1.8 x A-mm mesh)fractions individually and for the fine and coarse mesh fractions combined (pooled).Analyses were based on 92 individuals per sample/fraction yvhereas previous analyses (those in Table D-8b)were based on complete samples/fractions. P Season 1 vs 2B 1 vs51 vs 6 2B vs 5 2B vs65 vs 6 NCBI fine mesh coarse mesh Station Season Inter.Station Season Inter.0.055 0.212 0.433 0.243 0.067 0.233 pooled Station 0.167 Season 0.116 Inter.0.453 Bprimary model not significant (p>O.05).Although mesh size had a major effect on comparisons ofsity among stations and between seasons, it had a much smaller effect on comparisons involving community structure (see Table D-lOb).For example, mesh size did not tion or season comparisons for five of the measures ofmunity structure examined and only resulted in minor differences for two others (Table D-IOb).EPT Richness was higher at Station 5 than at Station 1 based on pooled but not coarse-mesh data (Table D-IOb).Pooled data also indicate that EPT Richness was greater in September than April but based on coarse-mesh data there was no significant difference between seasons (Table D-IOb).In addition, based on pooled (but not coarse mesh)data,%Chironomidae was higher at Station 2B than at Station 6 (Table D-lOb).These resultsdicate that although the fine and coarse-mesh fractionsfered with regard to some measures of community structure (i.e., EPT Richness in April and Chironomidae Richness, Shannon Diversity,%Dominance-5 taxa in both seasons), analyses based on pooled data usually proyided the samesults as those based on individual fractions. Overall, of the 42 station comparisons involving community structure (7 meas-___ of community structure X 6CQIDparisons similar number were significant based on the pooled and The Academy of Natural Sciences 201 Patrick Center for Environmental Research D.AQUATIC INSECTS 2000 Savannah River Studies coarse-mesh data (6 for the pooled and 4 for the coarse mesh).Likewise, a similar number of seasonal<;:omparisons were significant based on the pooled and coarse-mesh data (two for the pooled and one for the coarse mesh).Discussion he primary objective of the 2000 study was toscribe qualitatively and quantitatively the assemblage of aquatic insects inhabiting the Savannah Riverstream (Station 1)and downstream (Stations 2B, 5 and 6)of effluent/runoff from the SRS.Observed similarities andferences between the upstream and downstream sites were used to evaluate the effect of SRS on the Savannah Riversystem in 2000.For the qualitative analysis, lower species richness at Stations 2B, 5 and/or 6 relative to Station 1 would suggest a loss of species in response to exposure to effluent alid runoff from the SRS.This decrease in richness wouldflect the absence of species (or species groups), especially those known to be pollution sensitive (Hilsenhoff 1987, Lenat 1993).Concurrently, the relative abundance of pollution-toerant species (or species groups)may increase. ment was used to evaluate the significance of differences in richness or relative abundance observed in the qualitative data.A parallel approach was used in the quantitative analysis of the aquatic insects at the four stations.Lower speciesness, species diversity, densities of pollution-sensitive species (or species groups)and/or increases in densities or relative abundance (dominance) of pollution-tolerant species (orcies groups)at Stations 2B, 5 and/or 6 relative to Station 1 would have suggested that differences among stations weretributable to effluent or runoff from the SRS.Thecance of these differences was determined statistically; the probability of erroneously identifying a difference was::;;5%.The Academy of Natural Sciences 202 Patrick Center for Environmental Research D.AQUATIC INSECTS 2000 Savannah River Studies Environmental Conditions

in 2000 as Indicated by Aquatic Insect Collections wide variety of species, many of which weredant, was found in both qualitative and quantitative aquatic insect collections from all four sampling sta-tions in 2000.The qualitative and quantitative assessments of the aquatic insect assemblages did not indicate that inputs from SRS had a negative effect on aquatic insects in thevannah River.Conditions (as indicated by aquatic insectmunities)at the potential impact stations (downstream of SRS inputs)were as good as or better than those at an upstreamerence station.Likewise, species composition at all fourtions in 2000 was generally similar to observations from previous surveys.The qualitative collections provide a thorough description of the overall composition of the insect fauna'at each of the four stations because all habitats are sampled.Forty-six taxa were unique to the qualitative collections (not found in trapples), whereas only ten taxa were unique to the trap samples.This difference primarily represents the greater number of habitats included in the qualitative samples relative to the trap samples.The insect faunas in the qualitative collections from April and September 2000 were generally similar to those found in earlier studies;a total of 195 taxa was collected across the two dates (160 taxa in April and 134 taxa intember)and 4 stations in 2000.This includes 27 dragonfly and damselfly taxa, 26 mayfly taxa, 26 caddisfly taxa, 10 true bug taxa, 3 stonefly taxa, 39 beetle taxa, and 61 Dipteramarily Chironomidae) taxa.Total Richness estimated in both April and September 2000 was higher than in most previous surveys;this reflects thehighestrecorded numbers of mayfly, caddis fly , beetle, Odonata, and Diptera species at one or more stations and in one or both seasons.Most of these additional taxa were not common;thus, the dominant species werelar across the four stations and similar to those found at these stations in previous surveys.The 2000 data continue aterm trend of increasing Taxa Richness across these sites on the Savannah River that has been observed over the laSteral years.There were some differences in: the insecffatiiias The Academy of Natural Sciences 203 Patrick Center for Environmental Research D.AQUATIC INSECTS 2000 Savannah River Studies of the four stations, but these differences did not conform to our a priori hypotheses regarding negative responses tosure to effluent and runoff from the SRS (i.e., conditions were generally better downstream of SRS inputs than at anstream site).Therefore, the qualitative aquatic insect data do not appear to indicate significant environmental degradation in the Savannah River in the vicinity of SRS.When 2000 qualitative data were combined with data collected as part of previous surveys, we found no evidence that long-termsure to effluent or runoff from the SRS had an adverse effect on the taxonomic composition of the insect assemblages downstream of SRS in 2000.The trap samples are quantitative examinations of the many species that inhabit snag and debris habitats.Most of these species are also in the qualitative samples (only 10 species were unique to the quantitative samples, and all were rare), but the quantitative data can be examined using rigoroustistical techniques that cannot be applied to the qualitative data.Quantitative examination of the aquatic insects (i.e., as measures of population density of individual species, and overall community structure) found no evidence that effluent or runoff from the SRS resulted in changes in the aquaticsect assemblages downstream of the SRS.Some differences were observed among stations and between seasons, but these differences do not appear indicative of environmentaldation downstream of the SRS.Rather, these results indicate that conditions at the potential impact stations (downstream of SRS inputs)are generally superior to those at the upsu:eam reference station.The quantitative data show that there were seasonal differences in the aquatic insect community of the Savannah River, but these differences were expected (i.e., caused by differences in life history patterns such asgence times)and there was no indication that they were caused by exposure to effluent or runoff from the SRS.The available data suggest that the differences among sites andtween seasons reflect natural spatial and temporal variation that is characteristic of all streams and rivers.In summary, Stations 1, 2B, 5 and 6 supported aquaticblages in 2000 that contained numerous species, many of which were quite numerous and pollution sensitive.ences were observed among stations, both between upstream"_" and downstream stations and among downstream stations._However, aquatic insect composition and abundance at the The Academy of Natural Sciences 204 Patrick Center for Environmental Research D.AQUATIC INSECTS 2000 Savannah River Studies downstream stations were generally similar to the upstream (reference) station.Thus, exposure to effluent and runoff from the SRS did not appear to have a measurable effect on the aquatic insect assemblage.

Consequences of a Reduction in Mesh Size ne of the objectives of the 2000 sampling program was to determine if a reduction in the size of the mesh used during field processing (see qualitative sampling method section for details of this change)affected density estimates for common taxa and groups of taxa (Total Density, EPT Density, and Chironomidae Density).We also sought to determine if this change affected estimates oflected community structure indices (Total Richness, EPT Richness, Chironomidae Richness,%Dominance-5 taxa,%Chironomidae,Shannon-WienerDiversity, and NCB!).This evaluation included comparisons of stations and seasons based on both density and community structure. This wascomplished by separating each sample into a coarse-mesh fraction (material retained by the coarse sieve)and amesh fraction (material that passed through the coarse sieve but was retained by the fme sieve).The combination <;>fthe coarse mesh and fme-mesh fractions represent the material that would have been retained if it had not first been passed through the coarse-mesh sieve.This method was used in 1998 and 1999 whereas pre-1998 data represent only material retained in the coarse mesh.Comparisons of the coarse-mesh data with the combined (pooled)data provided estimates of the effect of the switch to the fine mesh.Density estimates based on the fme-mesh dataweregenerally much greater (usually 2-4 times, but up to 21 times greater for some taxa)than those based on the coarse-mesh data.This was evident when taxa were grouped and when they wereamined individually. Differences between the mesh sizes were particularly large for Isonychia and Tanytarsus in April, Ablabesmyia in September, and Unident.Hydropsychidae across seasons.This indicates that most of the Isonychia, Tanytarsus, Tricorythodes, and Unident.Hydropsychidae col-__ AnApril 2000 _besmyia, Tricorythodes, and Unident.Hydropsychidae The Academy of Natural Sciences*205 Patrick Center for Environmental Research D.AQUATIC INSECfS 2000 Savannah River Studies collected in the September 2000 trap samples were too small to be retained by the wire screen.In contrast, most measures of community structure were little changed by the switch to a smaller mesh size and those measures that were affectedronomidae Richness, Shannon Diversity, and%Dominance-5 taxa)were not changed dramatically based on the 2000 data.Aswiththe density estimates themselves, the change to a smaller mesh size had amajoreffect on comparisons based on density.For 8 of the 13 taxa analyzed, differences intion and/or season were significant with the pooled data but not the coarse-mesh data.This was particularly true forchia, Unident.Hydropsychidae, Ablabesmyia, andsus.These results suggest that although densities are consistently higher in fine-mesh fractions than in coarse-mesh fractions, the magnitude of these density increases was not consistent across stations or seasons for many taxa.In con-.trast to the major effect of mesh size on comparisons ofsity among stations and between seasons, the effect of mesh size oilcomparisonsiilvolvingcommunity structure wastively minor.For example, mesh size did not affect station or season comparisons for five of the seven measures ofnity structure analyzed and differences between mesh sizes were relatively minor for the other two measures ofnity structure. In conclusion, it appears that based on the 2000 data the switch toa fine sieve with smaller mesh had amajoreffect on density estimates and the station and season comparisons based on these estimates. The fine sieve provided densitymates that were commonly 2-4 fold higher than thosemated using the coarse sieve.Furthermore, a number of differences among stations and/or between seasons weretected with the fme sieve that were not detected with the coarse sieve suggesting that the magnitude of densitycreases was not consistent across stations or seasons.Intrast, the switch to a fine sieve appeared to have a minimal effect on community structure. Because year to yeartions in density and community structure are common for riverine insect assemblages efforts will be made to repeat these mesh size analyses in subsequent years.The Academy of Natural Sciences 206 Patrick Center for Erivironmental Research E.FISH 2000 Savannah River Studies Introduction The Academy has studied the fish of the Savannah River for almost 50 years, and this information is useful in determining the he structure and dynamics of fish assemblages are commonly used to assess the health of aquatictems.Fishes are good indicators of overall system in..:.tegrity because assemblages include a diversity of species that occupy a variety of trophic levels whose presence or absence can be indicative of local conditions. The presence orsence of fishes intoleranttopollution or tolerant to physical and chemical habitat degradation, and the presence ofduced species and various life stages of fishes and theirlation dynamics have also been used to measure the health of aquatic systems.The study of fish assemblages and the changes in these assemblages over time are importantments in the monitoring and evaluation of human impacts upon aquatic ecosystems. Monitoring the structure of fishsemblages in Savannah River has been an integral part ofvironmental assessments of the Savannah River Site by The Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia (ANSP)since 1951.of the river.Savannah River Site long-term effects of the operations, on the health Unti11997 these assessments included comprehensiveies, cursory studies and independent monitoring of locations near Plant Vogtle.Comprehensive studies included a twice per year assessment every 4-5 years at four stations.Thesory studies were annual assessments at three of the fourtions.The Vogtle study was an annual assessment of two stations, upstream and downstream of Plant Vogtle, bothstream from the SRS.The last cursory and Vogtle studies.were conducted in 1996 and the last comprehensive study was conducted in 1993.The current study design is an annual, early fail assessment, which has been conducted since 1997.This report documents---.-.th-e-"'200u study:-sampling is-done in representative-riveranrl------*------ The Academy of Natural Sciences 207 Patrick Center for Environmental Research E.FISH 2000 Savannah River Studies backwater habitats at four stations, using walkalongtroshocking in shallow backwater areas, boat electro shocking in channels and deeper backwaters, and seining along shores of the main channel.Three of the stations, Stations 1, 5 and 6, have been sampled in previous years in both cursory andprehensive surveys.The fourth station, 2B, was sampled prior to 1997 as the downstream Vogtle station (V-2)andported as part of the Plant Vogtle studies.There are historical data from each of these four stations that can be used toine changes in occurrence of fish species over time.Theamination of temporal variation in fish assemblage structure is necessary for the detection of any perturbations that may be related to SRS because there are few reliable.data fromnah River that fish assemblage dynamics prior to plant construction. The main objectives of the 2000 survey were to: 1)evaluate possible effects of the SRS through comparison of fishcies richness, abundance, and occurrence at stations upstream and downstream of the plant;and 2)compare results with those of the 1997-1999 surveys and previous comprehensive surveys to identify temporal variation in fish assemblage structure related to SRS.Methods ishes were sampled at four stations in the Savannah River on 8-12 September 2000.Station 1 is the most upstream station and Station 6, the most downstream. Stations 1, 2B, and 5 are on the river adjacent to the SRS and Station 6 is downstream from the site.All stations have been sampled in previous Academy surveys.Seining, walk-along electro fishing in backwaters, and boat electrofishing in the main channel were the primarycollectiontechniques used in the 2000 survey.Additional fish specimens were collected with dip nets and from traps during macroinvertebrate andsect sampling and were incorporated into the fisheries results.Singularly, each of the primary methods was more efficient for the assessment of specific habitats and the collection of particular species than other methods.Together, theniques were complementary and resulted in an adequate as-the river reach.The Academy of Natural Sciences 208 Patrick Center for Environmental Research E.FISH 2000 Savannah River Studies Changes in sampling methods among surveys must beered in any comparisons of these data among years.Sampling methods used in 1997-2000 are most comparable to those used in previous comprehensive surveys (at Stations 1, 5 and 6)and previous Vogtle surveys (at Station 2B;ANSP 1990a, 1994a).The comprehensive surveys were conducted twice each year, while the current program includes only onevey per year.More seine samples were taken in the2000 surveys than in previous cursory surveys (no seining was done in most cursory surveys), but fewer compared to comprehensive surveys.In 1995, walk-along electrofishing sampling replaced rotenone sampling in backwater areas in all surveys.Boat electrofishing was employed in 1995 tolect fishes from the main channel at Station 1 during a cursory study, in 1996 for Vogtle stations and used extensively in the 1997-2000 studies at all stations.The boat electroshocking sampling provides valuable data on fish populationsing the main river channels, replacing gill netting andping, which were used in previous comprehensive surveys.Seine Samples eine samples were taken along both river banks using a 6.1-m x 1.2-m (20-x 4-ft)bag seine with 0.318-cm (lI8-in)mesh and extra chain on the lead line.Seine.hauls were taken in the direction of river flow in lengthsing from 24-45 m (median 28 m)depending on availabletat.The area seined was calculated for each haul for standardization of fish densities. In samples where the seine was not opened to its full extent, the area of the sample was adjusted accordingly. Habitat variables weremeasuredwithin the area seined, and these data were used in statisticalses to investigate differences among stations.Fishes from each seine sample were preserved separately for subsequent identification and enumeration. Habitat Variables ithin each seine sampling area, water depth (m), water current velocity (m/s), and most prevalent substrate material were measured at three points wlthin ea-ctnetn-e-samptin-g-area-:-thellpstreanroutelr-' the midpoint and the downstream outer comer.Water depth The Academy of Natural Sciences 209 Patrick Center for Environmental Research E.FISH 2000 Savannah River Studies was measured with a metal meter stick.Velocity wasured with a Swoffer model 201 digital current metering to Patrick Center Standard Operating Procedure No.P-13-14.Current velocity was measured at 0.6 of depth in water less than I-m deep and at 0.2 and 0.8 of depth in water deeper than 1 m.Dissolved oxygen, conductivity and water temperature were measured at one location with the sample area.Dissolved oxygen (mglL)and water temperature (DC)were measured with a YSI (Yellow Springs Instrument Co., Model 58E)meter.Conductivity (J..Imhos) was measured with a YSI model 33 SCT meter or a TDS Tester ity Pen.Dominant substrate types in the area (i.e., in a 15-cm diameter circle)around each measurement point in seine sample areas were recorded*as gravel, sand, silt, or organic detritus.strates were categorized by referring to a scale of particle sizes.Where a mix of substrate sizes was present, two types were noted_in order of decreasing dominance. Substrateposition was coded for usein analyses by assigning a value of seven to gravel, nine to sand, and ten to silt, and eleven to organic detritus.In areas where two substratescurred together, a weighted average of the two numbers was takenwiththe dominant substrate weighted at 75%.The average of the three point measurements in each station was used as an index of habitat conditions. Since thepling points are on the middle and outside of the sampling area, these averages are indices of habitat condition, but are not unbiased estimates of averages over the entire sampling area.In particular, average depth over the site will usually be less than the average over the three measurement points.Water temperature, dissolved oxygen and conductivity were also measured in walk-along shocking samples using the same equipment as at the seine sampling sites.W a1k-Along Shocking sing a walk-along electroshocker, depletionpling was done at one location within each station (1, 5 and 6)in backwater areas along the South Caro-lina bank.Prior to 1993, these sites had been sampled using The Academy of Natural Sciences 210 Patrick Center for Environmental Research E.FISH 2000 Savannah River Studies ator and a Coffelt VVP-: 15 controller that generated 500 volts and output current of 2-7 amps.Positive electrodes were hoops covered with 0.32-cm mesh netting and mounted onberglass poles carried by two collectors. The negativetrode was a single stainless steel cable that was submerged into the sampling area.Blockseines with mesh size ofcm were installed around the sampling area, providing anstructed perimeter from which fish presumably could not escape.Operators wading with anodes and 0.32-cm mesh dip nets shocked the blocked area and collected effected fishes.The stunned fishes were held in river water during each pass until they were identified, measured and released, orserved.Three successive electrofishing passes were made in each blocked area, until depletion of the fish populationing within that area was apparent.Each pass sample wasserved as a separate distinct sample.Fishes were either removed from the perimeter block nets after each pass and tabulated with fish from that pass, or were removed from the block nets only at the end of sampling.Where fish weremoved from block nets only after allpasses,the catches in the block nets were mathematically apportioned to the catch from each of the passes for analysis of catch rates (see below).Each area was mapped and distances between variousary points were measured using a Leitz metric tape measure, a Bushnell Laser rangefinder, or a Sonin laser rangefinder. The size of the area was calculated as the sum of the areas ofgons (trianglesandparallelograms) drawn on a scale map of the site.The number of fishes in each successive ing pass was used to calculate a depletion estimate (seelow)of the total number and density of those species present in the samples.Walkalong shocking is done at consistent sites within each station.These sites are given individual numbers consistent over different surveys.Depending on water level, sampling may only be possible at some sites during each survey.Forample, no appropriate habitat was present at Station 2B, as in many previous surveys.Several types of backwater habitats are present and sampled at the different stations.Differences in the topography anddrology of these sites may affect fish use.Major types include:..Small pools off the main channel, connected to the main channel by inlets and outlets which may be shallow or dry The Academy of Natural Sciences 211 Patrick Center for Environmental Research E.FISH 2000 Savannah River Studies at low water levels.These sites fill during high water levels and shrink in area and volume as water levels falL These area and volume changes create a potential for concentration of fish, although fish may be able to leave the sites when inlets and outlets are open.These pools are typically len tic, with little current velocity even at high water levels.Examples of this type occur at Station 1 (site 2 not sampled in 2000, but routinely sampled in higher water years)and Station 5 (the"levee" sites, 2 and 3, not sampled in 2000).These particular pools may be partly artificial in origin, created by deposition below pilings or shore dumping of dredge spoils.*Small inlets between the shoreline and bar deposits, e.g., behind sand/mud bars which build up below pilings.The bars are typically covered at high water levels, so that the sites are part of the main channel at high flows.At low flows, they are broadly connected to the main channel at the bottom, and may have input flows at the top.Thus, these sites have less potential for concentration of fish at low water levels.The sites may have some current, so may provide habitat for fish preferring lotichabitatsas well as more lentic species.Examples of this type occur at Station 1 (site 1 sampled in 2000)and Station 6 (site 1 not sampled in 2000).*Portions of side channels.These channels divert a portion of the channel's flow at high water levels, but may dry up at lower levels.These areas have a potential for concentration of fish.They may be lotic at high flows, although they become more lentic as the lower portions dry up.As a result, they may be favorable to riverine and backwater species at different times.An example of this type is the top of Wild Horse Slough at Station 5 (site 1 sampled in 2000).*Coves.These are the lower part of current or historical side channels, abandoned meander bends, etc.These sites may have inflow from the top at high flows, but these typically dry up at low flows.They remain broadly connected to the main channel at the lower end.Because of this downstream connection, these sites probably have less potential for concentration of fish as water levels falL They probably also contain water for longer periods than'some of the other types.These sites tend to be lentic, with The Academy of Natural Sciences 212 Patrick Center for Environmental Research E.FISH 2000 Savannah River Studies little current velocity and soft substrates. Ring Jaw Cove.at Station 6 is an example of this type of habitat.Portions of this cove (site 2, which is routinely sampled, including the 2000 surveyat the upper part of the cove)are routinely sampled.Boat Electrofishing Samples oat electroshocking was done using an 18-ft Coffelt electroshocking boat with the same generator and'VVP unit used for walk-along shocking.Shocking was done using a40-inWisconsin ring with droppers.The voltage ranged from 190-250 volts to maintain a current of6 amps.Samples were taken following Patrick Centerard Operating Procedure No. One crew member operated the boat while one or two technicians used longdled dip nets with 0.32-cm square mesh to collect fishes.pling was done in a variety of bank habitats, including debris dams and areas with downed trees, swift currents and under:'cut banks along the fringes of the main river channel.pling was also done in the deeper, lower parts of backwaters (e.g., Ring Jaw Cove at Station 6 and Devil's Elbow attion 5), as well as along the main channel.The distanceersed during the sample was measured to the nearest meter using a Bushnell Yardage Pro 400 laser rangefinder; usinging sets or overhanging trees as target marks.Three samples were taken at each station ranging in length from80-180 m (median 142 m), and in duration from 15 to 16.2 min.Hand Collections mall fish specimens (particularly catfishes) were turned over to fisheries persomiel by the Academy macroinvertebrate crew for subsequent laboratorytification. The fish were mainly collected by hand dip nets with fine mesh.Only a few, notable specimens were recorded from these samples.The Academy of Natural Sciences 213 Patrick Center for Environmental Research E.FISH 2000 Savannah River Studies Specimens ost fishes collected were preserved in the field with 10%buffered formalin for subsequentratory identification and enumeration. Many large fish were identified, measured and released in the field.In the laboratory, fishes were transferred to 50%ethanol after a two-day water rinse and, subsequently to 70%ethanol for storage and long-term curation.All fishes were identified to the species level using standard references, including Blair et al.(1968), Miller and Robinson (1973), Bennett and McFarlane (1983), Menhinick (1991)and Jenkins andhead (1994).We used nomenclature from Robins et al.(1991), except that Elassoma zonatum was placed inmatidae rather than Centrarchidae. Selected fish specimens will be accessioned into the permanent Ichthyology fishlection at the Academy.A number of young-of-year (YOY)minnows of the genus Cyprinella (either C.nivea or C.leedsi,'both of which are-common in the fiver)were collected which were too small to be identified by external characters.lected individuals were identified to species, but a number of specimens are reported as Cyprinella species.Some cyprinids were not identifiable to genus and are listed as cyprinidcies;many or all of these are probably Cyprinella as well, based on the frequency of various small cyprinids at the time of sampling.Analyses Diversity Measures pecies richness (the number of species present)wastermined for all individual samples taken by eachnique.Shannon-Wiener Diversity index values were calculated for each quantitative seine sample.TheWiener Diversity index incorporates the number of taxasent and the evenness of the distribution of taxa in a sample to provide an assessment of the structure of the assemblage. Thus, if a sample has a large number of taxa and the taxa are evenly proportionateacrossthe sample, the diversity index value for the sample will be high.The Academy of Natural Sciences 214 Patrick Center for Environmental Research E.FISH Depletion Estimates 2000 Savannah River Studies otal populations and densities of fish species inwater sample sites were estimated. These estimates are comparable to the rotenone sample densities, since rotenone sampling was considered to collect virtually all fish in the sample area.The total population sizes of eachcies in the electrofishing samples were calculated usingcroFish 3.0 (Van Deventer and Platts 1989;1983), which provides maximum likelihood estimates (MLE)of density from successive removal data.This technique is analogous to the linear regression method based on Seber (1973)which was used for the 1996 and 1997 analyses.MicroFish alsovides confidence intervals of population estimates. Bothods are based on the following assumptions of the removal-depletion method: the popUlation isclosed,allisms within each group (each species in this case)have the same probability of being captured and that probability isstant for each pass, and sampling effort is constant.Theracy of the estimate is dependent upon how strictly these assumptions are met.Reliable MLEs cannot be calculated in several cases: 1)all fish of a species are caught on the first pass;2)only one individual of a taxon is caught over all passes;3)the pattern of catches on successive passes does not form a decreasing trend.For the first two cases, the totalber of fish caught was used as the population estimate, which is reasonable given the conditions when these cases occur.The third condition is analogous to the requirement of ative slope for the regression method.Non-decreasing trends can arise from violation of the assumptions, or from sampling error (for rare species).In these cases, MicroFish arbitrarily assigns an estimate of 1.5 times the total catch.In past years, groups of similar species were grouped together in order to provide reliable estimates of population sizes.This was not necessary for the 1998-2000 data.'For two of the three samples, fish were recovered from the block nets at the end of sampling (Le., block nets were kept in place throughout sampling to avoid escape of fish).These fish could have been chased into the nets during any of the passes.These fish were apportioned among the sample passes in the proportion that each species occurred in the passes.For exam-in four passes-w.eIe,_caught in the first pass, 25%in the second pass, 15%in the The Academy of Natural Sciences 215 Patrick Center for Environmental Research E.FISH 2000 Savannah River Studies third pass, and none in the fourth pass, then 60%of the net fish would be added to the first pass results, etc.Apportioning net fish among samples results in fractional numbers of fish caught, which were rounded to integers as required by thepletion estimation procedure. Because of the rounding, thetal number of fish after apportionment for net fish can sometimes be one more or less than the total number caught.In these cases, the population estimates anddence bounds are increased (where the adjusted number was less than the actual number caught)or decreased by one.These cases are indicated by mle+net and mle-net in the table of depletion estimates (e.g., in the 1998 study).Occasionally, the only specimens of a species may be recovered from the.net (this occurred for one species in one sample in 2000).In these cases, it is assumed that these were the only fish of those species in the sample site, i.e., the total number caught is used as the total population estimate.Densities of fish in the backwater sampling areas werematecffrom the total population estimates for each species and the calculated sample areas.Fish densities from seine samples were standardized to number of fish per 100 m 2 as a measure of catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE).Statistical Analysis Of Seine Data ish densities from seine samples were standardized to number of fish per 100m 2 as a measure of CPUE.Two types of analyses of seine data were used.The first, analysis of variance/analysis of covariance (ANOV AlANCOVA)was used to test differences indances of species among stations.The second, canonicalrelation analysis (CANOCO), was used to investigate differences in overall community structure among stations across several surveys.The fish densities were transformed to In(CPUE+1)for the ANOV AI ANCOV A statistical analyses.Statistical Analysis Systems (SAS 1990)was used for all analyses.Catch-per- .unit-effort of fishes present in at least 10%of the samples, mean species richness, and mean diversity of fishes at each station were compared using a general linear model (PROC GLM)analysis of covariance (ANCOVA)and least squares among stations.Species ricn-The Academy of Natural Sciences 216 Patrick Center for Environmental Research E.FISH 2000 Savannah River Studies ness was transformed to square root of richness.AnCOV A was the most appropriate analysis because it adjusts for differences in microhabitat among stations and focuses on differences among densities of species.The habitatabIes used were average depth, current velocity and substrate composition. Habitat variables were also compared among stations in an ANOV A (PROC GLM).Probability values for all statistical tests were considered significant at a levelmined by a Bonferroni correction (O.05/number of tests run)which reduces the likelihood of erroneously rejecting a true hypothesis. CANOCO was performed using the CANOCO software (ter Braak and Smilauer 1998).This technique fmds suites ofrelated biological and environmental data.This enablestion of patterns of occurrence among groups of species, including uncommon species.CANOCO positions species along dominant environmental gradients, Le., it assumescies have unimodal responds to one or more gradients, anderatively finds optimal gradients and species'positions along these gradients. Tests of significance of relationships areformed by permutations of species/environmental scores.For CANOCO, the In-transformed densities of individualcies were used.Veryrarespecies were not included in the analysis, and greater weight was given to more commoncies.Two types of environmental data were used:..the measured microhabitat variables, including averagedepth,velocity, and substrate types, and dissolved oxygen, conductivity, water temperature, and pH;..ordinal variables representing position along the river;one variable indexed longitudinal position along the river to look for community differences related to consistent upstream-downstream patterns;the second variable.indexed position relative to SRP (minimum value at Station 1, maximum value at Station 5 and intermediate values at Stations 2B and 6).The Academy of Natural Sciences 217 Patrick Center for Environmental Research E.FISH 2000 Savannah River Studies Site and Sampling Descriptions and Conditions lthough ANSP collections on the Savannah River have been made at the same stations over time, the precise sampling locations and volume of areaspled have varied with changes in water level and floodplain morphology. In 2000, the water levels during the sampling period (early September) had increased to a low level from a very low level experienced during late August (at the time of the Patrick Center mussel collection survey).The partial flooding of grasses, wild rice and other terrestrialphytes along river banks andsandbars was evidence thatmer water levels were relatively low allowing growth of these grasses to the river's edge.Most of the areas sampled bying and boat shocking in 2000 progressed along thesecently flooded shorelines. The water level change affected inundation of side channels and pools, which are sampled by backwater sampling.For example, the river edge pool site at Station 1 was quite low during the mussel survey, but became filled when water levels increased in early September. Thecrease in level permitted more complete sampling of this area and its associated fauna.The water levels were typical of the levels experienced in the previous surveys, but much lower than the higherlevels experienced during the 1995 and 1996 surveys.Station 1 eine samples at this station were collected along a long sand-gravel beach on the right bank (facingstream)and between and below pilings in silt-sand ar-eas with high organic detritus and flooded terrestrial grasses along the left bank.One walk-along electrofishing sample, site, last sampled in 1999, was a river connected side pool area, downstream of piling set#78.The site was bordered by the river side.The shoreline consisted of a moderately high, The Academy of Natural Sciences 218 Patrick Center for Environmental Research E.FISH 2000 Savannah River Studies terrestrial grass-covered mud bank with submerged logs and brush and a group of willow trees.The fringes of the areatained recently flooded terrestrial grasses.The substratesisted of sand/gravel in the middle of the sample area and silt/sand along the shoreline. The maximum depth of this area was 1.2 m.No submerged aquatic vegetation was present at this site.Boat electrofishing samples were taken along both banks.One location sampled along the left bank included the shoreline downstream of piling set#78,whichcontainedmerged tree/brush snags and flooded terrestrial grasses with moderate flow.Another location between the pilings along the left bank was also sampled.The area contained backeddy currents with debris jams along pilings and flooded shoreline grasses.The right bank was sampled by boat shocking from the vicinity of an intermittent creek at the lower end of thetion to the upper sand beach across the river from the piling sets.Some rock rip-rap was present at the lower end of thetion, forming the upstream mouth of the creek.The areaspled contained swift waterwith deeply cut banks, snag piles, submerged trees and flooded grasses.Station2B L ocations seined at this station included two locations along the right bank in silt/sand areas between andlow piling sets;these areas had soft to moderately firm substrates and negative (upstream) to low, positiverent velocities. A firm sand beach with flooded terrestrial grasses along the left bank downstream of piling set#68 was also sampled.No adequate backwater habitat was present at the station for walk-along shocking.Boat electroshocking samples were taken along both banks.Two samples werelected on each side of the river between the piling sets.Theeas collected included mud beaches with areas of flooded terrestrial vegetation, debris jams between and on the piling sets and the outer edges of the pilings in deeper swift water.Two additional boat shock samples were taken in moderately flowing water, one above the pilings on the left bank along moderate cut banks with tree and brush snags and another downstream of the piling set on the right bank along moderate to steeply sloping banks with submerged tree and brush snags.The Academy of Natural Sciences 219 Patrick Center for Environmental Research E.FISH 2000 Savannah River Studies Station 5 small beach was seined on the right bank 150 m downstream of piling set#55.The area contained a frrm sand substrate with a moderately sloping shore-line and flooded terrestrial vegetation and willow rootsing into the water.A seine sample was also taken on the right bank in a back eddy (minimal to low upstream flow)tional area with flooded terrestrial vegetation between piling set#55 and the next upstream set.An additional seine sample was taken on the left bank along a beach at the levee with flooded terrestrial vegetation on moderately soft silt/sandstrate.The walk-along electrofishing sample was taken in a side channel at Wild Horse Slough.The Slough contained large submerged logs and branches with steep, soft mud banks and shallow sloping sand shoreline with brush piles at the inner end.The ,maximum depth of this area was 0.9 m and thestrate varied between very soft mud and firm sand at thelet to the main river.Boat electroshocking was conducted in areas on both banks.The areas sampled on the left bankcluded the cut banks and submerged logs and willow tree branches just upstream of Wild Horse Slough.The right bank shocking was done between the pilings along the main river upstream of Devil's Elbow.The areas shocked includedbris dams along the pilings, swifter outer edges of pilings, and submerged tree and woody debris, and flooded terrestrial grasses.Two boat shock samples were collected into the backwater area at Devil's Elbow on the right bank.Areaspled included open shorelines with flooded terrestrialtion and alligator weed, and submerged logs/trees and brush piles along both banks of this backwater. Station 6 ne depositional, back-eddy (minimal to no flow)area with flooded terrestrial grasses was seined at the pilings along the left bank.The substrates in this depositional site were variable from frrm sand to soft silt.The large open beach area along the right bank at the upstream of fmn sand with flooded terrestrial grasses along the shore-The Academy of Natural Sciences 220 Patrick Center for Environmental Research E.FISH 2000 Savannah River Studies line: An additional area along the left bank 200 m upstream of Ring Jaw Cove was also seined.This area was an open fIrm sand beach with some floodedterrestrialgrasses and overhanging willow trees.One walk-along electroshocking site was sampled in Ring Jaw Cove at Station 6.Thecally sampled inner area of this cove was unavailable forpling because of low water.An area along the north shore towards the mouth of the cove was sampled.This areatainedfloodedshoreline grasses and groups of overhanging willow trees and a large open area offshore.The maximum depth of the sample site was 1.0 m.The area containedate to soft silt substrate, with no aquatic vegetation.merged log/snags and brush piles were present along the shoreline of the sampling area.Boat shocking samples were taken along both banks.The piling area on the left bank was.sampled and the adjacent moderately cut bank area along the right bank was sampled.Both areas contained piles, overhanging trees, and open areas with flooded terrestrial grasses and wooc!y debris jams.Additionally, the area just.downstream and into the mouth of Ring Jaw Cove was also shocked.This area contained steep to gradual sloping banks with snag piles, exposed root masses and stumps, open water areas with no cover, and shallow muddy areas with flooded terrestrial grasses.The large cove area along the right bank downstream of the upper sand beach was also boat shocked.The area contained submerged treesllogs and brush piles with flooded grasses along mud covered shorelines. esults total of 4,599 individuals of 50 species of fIsh was captured in the 2000 ANSP Savannah River survey (Table B-1).The sportail shiner (Notropissonius)was the most abundant species followed by thenerfin shiner (Cyprinella leedsi).The bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), brook silverside (Labidesthes sicculus)and whitefm shiner (c.nivea)were also common.Together, 74%of the total catch was comprised of these fIve speciesing that unidentified minnows were Cyprinella). Theseterns are very similar to those in the 1999 survey, where the spottail shiner was also the most common sQecies, and 77%of the total catch was comprised of the same five species.The Academy of Natural Sciences 221 Patrick Center for Environmental Research E.FISH 2000 Savannah River Studies Table E-1.T atal number of fish caught at each station by all techniques in the 2000 ANSP Savannah River survey.Station%of Scientific Name Common Name 1 2B 5 6 Total Total Lepisosteidae Lepisosteus osseus longnose gar 2 1 3 0.07 Lepisosteus platyrhincus Florida gar 1 2 0.04 Amiidae Amia calva bowfin 4 2 4 2 12 0.26 Anguillidae Anguilla rostrata American eel 4 5 14 23 0.50 Clupeidae Alosa aestivalis blueback herring12 3 0.07 Alosa sapidissima American shad 3 3 0.07 Dorosoma cepedianum gizzard shad 5 3 3 11 22 0.48 Dorosoma petenense threadfin shad 1 1 0.02 Cyprinidae Cyprinella leedsi bannerfin shiner 84 106 144 205 539 11.72 Cyprinella nivea whitefin shiner 136 69 53 43 301 6.54 Cyprinella species shiner species 1 61 62 1.35 Cyprinidae species minnow 1 17 96 114 2.48 Hybognathus regius Eastern silvery minnow44 0.09-Nocbfhisleptocephalus -bluehead chub 1 1 0.02-Notemigonus crysoleucas golden shiner 1 4 2 7 0.15 Notropis chalybaeus ironcolor shiner 1 2 1 4 0.09 Notropis cummingsae dusky shiner82 5 15 0.33 Notropis hudsonius spottail shiner 154 684 401 441 1680 36.53 Notropis lutipinnis yellowfin shiner31 4 0.09 Notropis maculatus taillight shiner 4 11 15 0.33 Notropis petersoni coastal shiner 4 50 3 31 88 1.92 Notropis rubescens rosyface chub 40 9622 140 3.04 Opsopoeodus emiliae pugnose shiner 10 12 12 24 58 1.26 Catostomidae Minytrema melanops spotted sucker 6 5 13 49 73 1.59 Ictaluridae Ameiurus catus white catfish 422 8 0.17 Ameiurus platycephalus flat bullhead33 6 0.13 Ictalurus punctatus channel catfish121 4 0.09 Noturus gyrinus tadpole madtom 1 1 0.02 Noturus leptacanthus speckled madtom 5 5 5 15 0.33 Esocidae Esox americanus redfin pickerel 2 3 5 0.11 Esoxniger chain pickerel 321 7 0.15 Aphredoderidae Aphredoderus sayan us pirate perch 1 1 2 4 0.09 Cyprinodontidae Fundulus lineolatus lineated topminnow 8 4 12 0.26 Poeciliidae Gambusia holbrooki eastern mosquitofish 1656 28 0.61 Atherinidae Labidesthes sicculus brook silverside 8 12 98 189 307 6.68 The Academy of Natural Sciences 222 Patrick Center for Environmental Research E.FISH 2000 Savannah River Studies Table E-1 (continued). Total number of fish caught at each station by all techniques in the 2000 ANSP Savannah River survey.Station%of Scientific Name Common Name 1 2B 5 6 Total Total Centrarchidae Centrarchus macropterus flier 2 2 0.04 Enneacanthus gloriosus bluespotted sunfish 3 3 6 0.13 Lepomis auritus redbreast sunfish 38 24 31 39 132 2.87 Lepomis gibbosus pumpkinseed41 23 5 33 0.72 Lepomis gulosus warmouth61 18 7 32 0.70 Lepomis macrochirus bluegill 54 22 238 181 495 10.76 Lepomis marginatus dollar sunfish 5 41 33 79 1.72 Lepomis microlophus redear sunfish11 12 10 24 0.52 Lepomis punctatus spotted sunfish 215 8 0.17 Lepomis species sunfish species22 0.04 Micropterus salmoides largemouth bass 15 9 21 21 66 1.44 Pomoxis nigromaculatus black crappie 1 24 25 0.54 Percidae Etheostoma fusiforme swamp darter11 0.02 Etheostoma olmstedi tesselated darter 135 3 12 0.26 Percaflavescens yellow perch1113 0.07 Perciriiinigrofasciata blackbanded darter 4.'2 1 23*0.50 Mugilidae Mugil cephalus striped mullet 1 0.02 SoIeidae Trinectes maculatus hogchoker 1 32 41 10 84 1.83 Total: 631 1178 1239 1551 4599 100 Number of Species:3632 43 40 Other species collected are typical of those recorded in recent surveys.Uncommon species collected include bluehead chub (Nocomis leptocephalus) at Station 5, yellow perch (Perea flavescens) at Stations 1, 2B and 6, dusky shiner (Notropis cumrriingsae) at Stations 2B, 5 and 6, and yellowfin shiner (N.lutipinnis}collected at Stations 2B and 5.Backwater Electroshocking Samples epletion sampling in backwater and eddy habitats was done using waIkalong shocking at one site at each of Stations 1, 5 and 6.As in most years, nopropriate habitat was present at Station 2B.A total of 612dividuals of 28 species was caught (Tables E-2, E-3), with more species at Station 6 (21 species)than at Stations 1 and 5 (15 and 13 species).A variety of sunfishes was caught at each station.Relatively high numbers of minnows, suckers, The Academy of Natural Sciences 223 Patrick Center for Environmental Research E.FISH 2000 Savannah River Studies Table E-2.Total numbers of fish collected in walkalong electroshocking samples in the2000ANSP Savannah River survey.Site Scientific Name lWSl 5WSl 6WSl TOTAL Ameiurus platycephalus 3 3 Anguilla rostrata 1 10 11 Aphredoderus sayanus 1 1 2 Centrarchus macropterus 2 2 Cyprinella leedsi 7 7 Cyprinella species 1 1 Cyprinidae species 8 8 Enneacanthus gloriosus 3 3 6 Esox americanus 2 3 5 Esoxniger 2 2 Etheostoma fusiforme 1 1 Etheostoma olmstedi 1 1 Fundulus lineolatus 5 4 9 Gambusia holbrooki 16 2 18 Labidesthes sicculus 136 136 Lepomis auritus 1 17 18 Lepomis gibbosus 1 16 4 21 Lepomis gulosus 5 14 6 25 LepomiS inacrochirus 15 25 108 148 Lepomis marginatus 4 17 25 46 Lepomis microlophus 1 3 4 8 Lepomis punctatus 3 3 Lepomis species 1 1 Micropterus salmoides 1 12 14 Minytrema melanops 33 33 Notemigonus crysoleucas 1 1 Notropis hudsonius 51 51 Notropis maculatus 11 11 Opsopoeodus emiliae 4 4 Pomoxis nigromaculatus 1 12 13 Trinectes maculatus 1 2 3 Totals 2 59 92 461 612 Sample Areas (m)2 176 114 259 Min total density (per 100m)33.52 80.70 177.99 No.of Passes 3 3 3 No.of Species 15 13 21 and brook silverside were caught at Station 6.Total catches and richness were lower than that in 1999, when two samples were collected at each station.The total population in each sampling site was estimated by the depletion method (maximum likelihood method).mates depend on having a decreasing pattern of catches.Indition, the algorithm cannot estimate populations if only one fish is caught or if all fish of a species are caught on the first The Academy of Natural Sciences 224 Patrick Center for Environmental Research

T ble E-3(continued). Number of fish caught and population estimates for backWater samples in the 2000 ANSP Savannah River survey.Columns show the number of fish caught on each sampling pass within each site, the total number caught, the estimated total population, the 95%confidence interval, the method of estimation, the category of estimation (see key at bottom), the estimated percentage of the total population caught, and the estimated probability of capture on each catch.Pass Est.%Est.Capt.Species Site 123 N Total Pop.Est.Com.Int.Method Cat.Caught Prob.An uilla rQstrata 6WS-1 5 3 9 10 10-11.MLE 0 90 0.73 C rinella leedsi 6WS-1 223 7 24 7-200 MLE 0 29 0.11 C rinella species 6WS-1 1 1 1 Tot caught 1 100 C prinidae species 6WS-14488 8-10 MLE 0 100 0.67 Et eostoma fusifonne 6WS-1 111 Tot caught 1 100 Et ostoma olmstedi 6WS-l 111 Tot caught 1 100 Fu dulus lineolatus 6WS-l 3 144 9-12 MLE 0 100 0.67 G mbusia holbrooki 6WS-l11 2 2 2-26 MLE 0 100 0.40 La idesthes sicculus 6WS-l 76 54 6 136 146 136-157 MLE 0 93 0.59 Le omis auritus 6WS-l 11 5 17 17 17-18 MLE 0 100 0.77 Le omis gibbosus 6WS-l 444 Tot caught 2 100 Le omis gulosus 6WS-l1416 6 6-10 MLE 0 100 0.55 Le omis macrochirus 6WS-l 72 23 7 6 108 109 107-113 MLE 0 99 0.71 Le omis marginatus 6WS-l 18 6 12525 25-26 MLE 0 100 0.76 Le omis microlophus 6WS-l3144 4-5 MLE 0 100 0.80 Le omis species 6WS-l11 Tot caught 1 100 Mz ropterus salmoides 6WS-l 9 2 11212 12-13 MLE 0 100 0.75 Mz ytrema melanops 6WS-l 19 6 6 2 33 35 32-36 MLE 0 94 0.54 M temigonus crysoleucas 6WS-l 1 28 1 Tot caught 1 100 M tropis hUdsonius 6WS-l 16 27 7 1 83 51-140 MLE 0 61 0.27 M tropis maculatus 6WS-l37 1 51 14 11-26 MLE 0 79 0.38 0 sopoeodus emiliae 6WS-1 1 2 11 4 4-7 MLE 0 100 0.57 Po oxis nigromaculatus 6WS-l 8 2 2 4 12 12-14 MLE 0 92 0.67 T.nectes maculatus 6WS-1 2 11 2 Tot caught 2 100 TOTAL 6WS-l 260 151 36 14 459 Maximum Likelihood Estimate (MLE)feasible Only one fish caught All fish on first pass E.FISH 2000 Savannah River Studies pass.In these cases, the total caught is a reasonable estimate of the total population. For the 2000 samples, reliable depletion estimates wereble for common species (Tables E-3, E-4).For a few species (e.g., Lepomis macrochirus at Station 1, L.gulosus at Station 5, and Cyprinella leedsi, Notropis hudson ius and N.tus at Station 6), MLE estimates were feasible, but thedence intervals were relatively large (Table E-3).Except for these species at these sites, collection efficiency appeared high (it was estimated that 90-100%of the species were caught over the three passes)resulting in low confidence inter-Table E-4.Estimated densities (no.per 100 m 2)of fishes in backwater sites in 2000 ANSP Savannah River survey.Station*Scientific Name 1 5 6 Ameiurus platycephalus 0.00 2.63 0.00 Ameiurus species 0.00 0.00 0.00 Anguilla rostrata 0.00 0:88 3.86 Aphredoderus sayanus 0.57 0.88 0.00 Centrarchus macropterus 0.00 2.63 0.00 Cyprinella leedsi 0.00 0.00 9.27 Cyprinella species 0.00 0.00 0.39 Cyprinidae species 0.00 0.00 3.09 Enneacanthus gloriosus 1.70 2.63 0.00 Esox americanus 1.14 2.63 0.00 Esoxniger 1.14 0.00 0.00 Etheostomafusiforme 0.00 0.00 0.39 Etheostoma olmstedi 0.00 0.00 0.39 Fundulus lineolatus 2.84 0.00 1.54 Gambusia holbrooki 9.09 0.00 0.77 Labidesthes sicculus 0.00 0.00 56.37 Lepomis auritus 0.57 0.00 6.56 Lepomis gibbosus 0.57 14.04 1.54 Lepomis gulosus 2.84 14.04 2.32 Lepomis macrochirus 14.20 21.93 42.08 Lepomis marginatus 2.27 14.91 9.65 Lepomis microlophus 0.57 2.63 1.54 Lepomis punctatus 0.00 2.63 0.00 Lepomis species 0.00 0.00 0.39 Micropterus salmoides 0.57 0.88 4.63 Minytrema melanops 0.00 0.00 13.51 Notemigonus crysoleucas 0.00 0.00 0.39 Notropis hudsonius 0.00 0.00 32.05 Notropis maculatus 0.00 0.00 5,41 Opsopoeodus emiliae 0.00 0.00 1.54 Pomoxis nigromaculatus 0.57 0.00 4.63 Trinectes maculatus 0.57 0.00 0.77 Total 2 39.20 83.33 203.09 Area(m)176.00 114.00 259.00 The Academy of Natural Sciences 227 Patrick Center for Environmental Research E.FISH 2000 Savannah River Studies vals for the total estimate.Overall, it was estimated thatlections caught 85%, 98%and 87%of all fish in each of the three sampling areas (and that almost all of the fish which were not caught were of the species noted above).Estimates of total density (Table E-4)varied greatly among sites.The lowest densities were found in the most isolated site, the flood plain pool at Station 1, whilethehighestties were found in the sample from Ring Jaw Cove in Station 6, which is in a cove connected to the main river.This issistent with patterns noted in 1999 and other years.As noted above, sunfishes dominated samples at Stations 1 and 5, while a variety of species was common at the Station 6 site.Seine Samples: 2000 Samples eine samples were taken at each of the stations.ing sites included open sand or sand/gravel beaches, sand-silt areas along the shoreline, and shorelines be-tween pilings.These shoreline areas between pilings are mainly fme sediments (silts and detritus), but some areas had firm sand as well.Many of the beach sites had slow areas of flooded grasses at their edges, because water levels hadcently risen to areas where grasses had grown during themer low flow period.As a result, seine sampling sites were not as clearly divisible into discrete habitat types (unvegetated sand beaches versus vegetated fine substrate areas).Analyses were done using three discrete habitat descriptors, but these were not informative and are not presented here.ships between fish occurrence and microhabitat for the 2000 samples were assessed using averages of microhabitatables (depth, veloCity, substrate) measured within eachple site as a continuous measure of microhabitat (used as covariates in analysis of covariance). A total of 1,456 individuals of 22 species was collected in the seine samples (Table E-5).Minnows (the spottail shiner and/or the whitefm shiner)were the most abundant species in the samples.The bannerfm shiner (Notropis leedsz), pugnose minnow (Opsopoeodus emiliae), brook silverside (Labthes sicculus), redbreast sunfish (Lepomis auritus), and bluegill (L.macrochirus) were the only other specieslected at every station.The Academy of Natural Sciences 228 Patrick Center for Environmental Research E.FISH 2000 Savannah River Studies Table E-5.Average (arithmetic mean)CPUE (number of fish per 100 m 2)in quantitative seine samples in the 2000 ANSP Savannah River survey.Station Scientific Name Common Name 1 2B56 Lepisosteus osseus longnose gar 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 Cyprinella leedsi bannerfin shiner 0.27 0.20 0.26 4.69 Cyprinella nivea whitefin shiner 20.16 0.78 6.61 4.15 Cyprinella species shiner species 0.27 0.00 0.00 8.30 Cyprinidae species minnow0.000.00 3.30 13.04 Nocomis leptocephalus bluehead chub 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.00 Notemigonus crysoleucas golden shiner 0.24 0.000.000.00 Notropis chalybaeus ironcolor shiner 0.00 0.440.000.00 Notropis hudsonius spottail shiner 18.41 98.64 40.85 16.46 Notropis petersoni coastal shiner 0.67 1.480.000.00 Notropis rubescens rosyface chub 0.33 4.90 0.00 0.00 Opsopoeodus emiliae pugnose shiner 1.00 0.74 1.59 4.17 Noturus leptacanthus speckled madtom 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.00 Esoxniger chain pickerel 0.33 0.00 0.26.0.00 Fundulus lineolatus lineated topminnow 1.00 0.000.000.00 Gambusia holbrooki eastern mosquitofish 0.000.000.950.63 Labidesthes sicculus brook silverside 0.33 0.20 7.63 6.60 Lepomis auritus redbreast sunfish 0.67 1.18 0.19 1.04 Lepomis gibbosus pumpkinseed 0.33 0.00 0.35*Lepomis macrochirus bluegill 2.95 0.25 1.66 2.78 Micropterus salmoides largemouth bass 0.67 0.39*0.19 0.00 Etheostoma olmstedi tesselated darter 0.00 0.200.830.17 Percina nigrofasciata bfackbanded darter 0.54 0.48 0.19 0.00 Trinectes maculatus hogchoker 0.00 6.69 7.11 1.33 Average No.of Species 6 6.67 9.33 5 Average S-W Diversity 1.10 0.89 1.25 1.26 Statistical comparisons of abundance of the four mostmon taxa (spottail shiner, whitefm shiner, brook silverside and hogchoker) and of species richness (square rootmation)and Shannon-Wiener diversity were done using ANOV A and ANCOV A.These show no significant station difference for any species (using a Bonferroni-adjusted p level of 0.009), with or without inclusion of microhabitatables.Whitefin shiner show significant regressions withity, maximum velocity or substrate type (more common in higher velocities and coarser substrates). Comparisons ofcrohabitat variables (Table E-6)shows a marginallycant difference in average depth among station (p<0.04).The Academy of Natural Sciences 229 Patrick Center for Environmental Research E.FISH 2000 Savannah River Studies Table E-6.Habitat characteristics within quantitative seine sampling sites in the 2000 ANSP Savannah River survey.Averages, minima and maxima are calculated over the average of three point measurements within each sampling area.Station Habitat Characteristics 1 2B 5 6 Average of ave.Depth (m)0.96 0.65 0.72 0.81 Minimum of ave.Depth (m)0.87 0.60 0.60 0.70 Maximum of ave.Depth (m)1.03 0.73 0.90 0.93 Average of ave.velocity (mls)0.18 0.04 0.16 0.22 Minimum of ave.velocity (mls)0.00-0.15-0.13 0.03 Maximum of ave.velocity (mls)0.48 0.17 0.34 0.39 Average of ave.substrate meas.10.00 9.67 9.53 9.25 Minimum of ave.substrate meas.9.83 9.00 9.08 9.00 Maximum of ave.substrate meas.10.25 10.25 9.75 9.75 Seine Samples: Comparison of 1996-2000 Samples tatistical analyses of the seine-data from the 1996-2000 surveys did not provide evidence of significant station differences, although they did show differences among years and relationships between abundance and microhabitat in the seining sites.ANOV A and ANCOV A were used tolyze year differences, station differences and microhabitatlationships for species richness (square root transformation), Shannon-Wiener diversity, and the In-transformed abundance of the eight most common taxa (spottail shiner, Easternvery minnow, whitefin shiner, Eastern mosquitofish,fin shiner, redbreast sunfish, brook silverside and bluegill). These analyses did not show ally significant stationences (at the Bonferroni-adjusted p-value of 0.0(05).There were highly significant differences among years in thedances of spottail shiner (p<O.OOOI), Eastern silvery minnow (p<O.OOOI), redbreast sunfish (p<O.OOOI), and bannerfm shiner (p<O.OOI). In addition to the year effects, thedance of redbreast sunfish was correlated with averageity (p<0.OOO2). Regressions of abundance against microhabitat variables (i.e., with no year or station difference included in the model)resulted in significant relationshipstween average substrate and abundances of whitefin shiner (p<O.OOOI), Eastern mosquitofish (p<0.OOI2), redbreastfish (p<O.OOOI),andbluegill (p<O.OOOI), and between aver-The Academy of Natural Sciences 230 Patrick Center for Environmental Research E.FISH 2000 Savannah River Studies age velocity and the average abundances of whitefm shiner (p<O.OOOl) and redbreast sunfish (p<0.0005). In addition, CANOCO was used to investigate associations between fish assemblages, microhabitat variables, andtion variables (which could include plant effects)over the 1996-2000 surveys.The CANOCO analysis identifies major axes reflecting the occurrence of various species.These axes are related to the microhabitat variables, showingships among different species and among microhabitat andcation/year variables, as well as relationships between fish abundance and the microhabitat and location/year variables. For the analysis of 1996-2000 seine samples, two majorents explained 59.2%of total assemblage variation. Thesults are summarized in Figure B-1, which shows locations of peak species abundance along the gradients as points, androws representing the microhabitat and location/positionables.The direction of the arrows indicates correlations (axes and variables in the same direction are more positivelylated), and the length indicates the magnitude of the correla..: tion.The first axis was correlated with substrate and velocity, i.e., it reflects the gradient from fme substrates in slow water (e.g., behind pilings)to coarser substrates in areas with greater current velocities (e.g., along beaches).The whitefin shiner (CYNIV in figure), bannerfm shiner (CYLEE), dusky shiner (NOCUM), bluehead chub (NOCLEP)andbanded darter (PENIG)are correlated with higher velocities (and coarser substrates). In contrast, the swamp darterFUS), taillight shiner (NOMAC), lineolated killifish (FULlN), pickerels (ESAME and ESNIG), golden shiner (NOCRY), coastal shiner (NOPET), Eastern mosquitofish (GAHOL)and the various species of sunfishes (LEMIC, LEGrn, LEMAC, LEMAR, LEAUR)are more associated with fmer substrates. The ANCOV As of individual species abundance fmd similar correlations between abundance and substrate and velocity.Although these results parallel those of the ANCOV As, they provide additional information, since they 1)show relationships for uncommon as well as common species;and 2)fit species abundances to a unimodal curve (Le., they fit a microhabitat of peak abundance, rather thanting monotonic relationships between abundance andhabitat).The second axis correlates most strongly WIlli.year.This axIS models species found mainly in single years or groups of The Academy of Natural Sciences 231 Patrick Center for Environmental Research E.FISH 2000 Savannah River Studies Cl.....+Savannah Seines 1997-2000 FULIN..Year Substrat LEGm ,OPEMI."'ESNIG:" III , L.....C NOCR" LASIi/TRMAC.........**NORUBS III Depth CYPRINID NOMAl: "" III:--'" ID III NOPET , ,/'LEMAR N0!I!ID LEMIC LEAUR 110 oil, P'oSltlOn------------ ---

---------------------

G.AHOL NOTLEP ,PENIG II II CYPRlNEL ETOLl<<';'CYLEE: " NOCLEP/G l:Y.NIVDOIII NO CUM Velocity ,., , , Cl:.....'I--+-' -1.0+1.0 Figure E-1.Relationships between environmental parameters and abundance of fish in seine samples from the 1996-2000 ANSP Savannah River surveys.Relationships are calculated by CANOCO (see text), whichpositionsspecies on composite environmental gradients. Arrows show the direction and magnitude of correlations between raw environmental parameters and the two most important composite gradients. Species locations show the modeled position of maximum abundance along the environmental gradients. years, such as the ironcolor shiner, hogchoker, rosyface chub and pugnose minnow.Boat Electroshocking Samples total of 2,434 individuals of 41 species were caught by boat electroshocking (Tables E-7 to E-9).As in previous surveys, several species were recorded mainly or only in the boat electroshocking samples, including American shad (Alosa sapidissima), blueback herring (A.tivalis), gizzard and threadfm shad (Dorosoma cepedianum

---

.aanIlJd'l-LDJ....-r;.ptee:rete.nense},-bowfiIL(Amia calva), Florida,g_arL-...

_(Lepisosteus platyrhyncus), bannerfin shiner, channel catfish The Academy of Natural Sciences 232 Patrick Center for Environmental Research E.FISH 2000 Savannah River Studies Table E-7.Average CPUEL (In-transformed catch per 100 m)in boat electroshocking samples in the 2000 ANSP Savannah River survey.Station Scientific Name 1 2B 5 6 Alosa aestivalis 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.31 Alosa sapidissima 0.00 0.00 0.81 0.00 Ameiurus catus 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 Amia calva 0.63 0.33 0.73 0.32 Anguilla rostrata o.n 0.00 0.75 1.25 Aphredoderus sayanus 0.00 0.16 0.31 0.00 Cyprinella leedsi 12.83 17.58 36.17 28.96 Cyprinella nivea 9.34 11.46 5.10 2.53 Cyprinella species 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.63 Cyprinidae species 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 Dorosoma cepedianum 0.76 0.47 0.57 2.98 Dorosoma petenense 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.00 Esoxniger 0.00 0.16 0.19 0.31 Etheostoma olmstedi 0.14 0.16 0.17 0.16 Gambusia holbrooki 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 Hybognathus regius 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.25 Ictalurus punctatus 0.19 0.32 0.19 0.00 Labidesthes sicculus 1.23 1.90 11.09 7.34 Lepisosteus osseur 0.19 0.00'0.19 0.00 Lepisosteus platyrhincus 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.16 Lepomis auritus 5.90 3.13 6.61 3.30 Lepomis gibbosus 0.37 0.16 1.47 0.00 Lepomis gulosus 0.18 0.16 1.12 0.31 Lepomis macrochirus 5.15 3.57 41.83 14.90 Lepomis marginatus 0.19 0.00 5.72 2.35 Lepomis microlophus 0.00 0.18 1.84 1.41 Lepomis punctatus 0.33 0.19 0.34 0.00 Micropterus salmoides 1.94 1.22 3.78 I.n Minytrema melanops 1.04 0.85 2.56 3.60 MugU cephalus 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.16 Notemigonus crysoleucas 0.00 0.00 0.76 0.42 Notropis chalybaeus 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.16 Notropis cummingsae 0.00 1.28 0.63 0.81 Notropis hudsonius 13.95 32.73 46.75 46.61 Notropis lutipinnis 0.00 0.48 0.31 0.00 Notropis maculatus 0.00 0.00 0.77 0.00 Notropis petersoni 0.30 7.20 0.94 5.67Notropisrubescens 2.88 3.78 0.17 0.16 Opsopoeodus emiliae 1.06 1.45 0.74 1.26 Perea jlavescens 0.19 0.18 0.00 0.31 Percina nigrofasciata 0.33 2.31 0.31 0.16 Pomoxis nigromaculatus 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.60 Trinectes maculatus 0.00 0.18 0.87 0.00 Total 61.14 91.89 179.34 139.10 Average Sample Length 155 147.5 122.5 138.75 Average Number of SpecieS 12.5 14.5 17 15.25 Station Total 25 27 34 29 Total Number of Individuals 380 545 789 no.The Academy of Natural Sciences 233 Patrick Center for Environmental Research Ta Ie E-8.Ln-transformed catch rate of fishes in boat electroshocking samples from the 2000 ANSP Savannah River survey.Scientific Name lBSl lBS2 IBS3 lBS4 2BBSl 2BBS2 2BBS3 2BBS45BSI SBS2 SBS3 SBS4 6BSI 6BS2 6BS3 6BS4 Alo a aestivalis 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.74 0.00 1.25 0.00 0.00 Alo a sapidissi700 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.50 0.00 0.74 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 A iurus catus 0.00 0.00 0.74 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Am.calva 0.56 0.00 0.74 1.21 0.00 0.00 0.63 0.71 1.38 0.00 1.54 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.65 0.63 An uilla rostrata 0.00 2.14 0.74 0.000.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.69 0.00 2.31 0.00 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Ap redoderus sayan us 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.63 0.00 0.00 1.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Cy rinella leedsi 13.89 11.43 2.96 23.03 19.26 37.42 9.38 4.29 40.69 102.500.770.74 21.25 53.75 26.45 14.38 Cy rinella nivea 16.11 8.57 2.96 9.70 28.89 11.61 2.50 2.86 4.14 16.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.25 3.23 5.63 Cy rinella species0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.000.00 0.00 2.50 0.00 0.00 Cy rinidae species0.000.00 0.00 0.000.000.00 0.630.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Do osoma cepedianum 0.000.000.00 3.030.000.00 1.88 0.000.000.00 1.54 0.74 10.00 0.00 1.94 0.00 Do oso7oo petenense0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.770.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Es:X niger 0.00 0,00 0.000.000.00 0.65 0.00 0.00 0.000.000.00 0.74 1.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 Et eosto7OO olmstedi 0.56 0.000.000.000.000.00 0.630.000.690.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.63 0.00 0.00 G usia holbrooki 0.00 0.000.000.000.00 0.65 0.00 0.00.0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hy ognathus regius 0.000.000.000.000.000.000.00 0.00 0.000.000.00 0.00 5.00 0.000.000.00 Iet lurus punctatus 0.00 0.00 0.74 0.00 0.00 1.29 0.000.000.000.000.00 0.74 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 idesthes sicculus 0.00 3.57 0.74 0.611.481.29 1.25 3.57'.16.55 3.75 9.23 14.81 16.25 13.13 0.00 0.00 Le isosteus osseus 0.000.000.740.000.000.000.00 0.00.0.00 0.00 0.740.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Le isosteus platyrhincus0.000.000.000.00.0.000.000.000.000.690.000.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.63 Le omis auritus 3.89 12.86 4.442.422.96 5.81 3.75 0.00 7.59 11.25 5.38 2.22 2.50 5.00 1.94 3.75 Le omis gibbosus0.000.00 1.48 0.00 0.00 0.65 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.25 4.62 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Le omis gulosus 0.00 0.71 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.63 0.00 0.00 3.75 0.00 0.74 1.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 Le omis macrochirus 1.11 2.86 14.81 1.82 4.44 5.81 1.88 2.14 0.00 28.75 81.54 57.04 37.50 10.00 7.74 4.38 Le omis marginatus 0.00 0.00 0.74 0.000.000.000.00 0.00 2.07 12.50 4.62 3.70 8.75 0.00 0.65 0.00 Le omis microlophus0.000.00 0.000.000.000.000.00 0.71 0.00 1.25 4.62 1.48 3.75 0.63 0.65 0.63 Le omis punctatits 0.00 0.71 0.00 0.610.740.000.000.00 1.380.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Mi ropterus salmoides2.782.142.22 0.61 2.22 1.94 0.00 0.71.1.38 2.50 3.85 7.41 2.50 3.13 0.65 0.63 Mi ytrema melanops 0.56 2.86 0.740.000.00 0.00 1.25 2.14 0.00 1.25 3.08 5.93 8.75 4.38 1.29 0.00 M gil cephalus 0.000.000.00 0.000.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.000.00 0.65 0.00 No emigonus crysoleucas

• 0.000.000.00 0.000.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.000.00 2.31 0.74 1.250.000.00 No opis chalybaeus 0.56 0.000.000.000.000.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.000.000.000.00 0.65 0.00 No ropis cummingsae 0.00 0.00 0.000.000.00 3.87 1.25 0.00 0.00 2.500.000.000.000.00 3.23 0.00 T ble E-8 (continued).

Ln-transformed catch rate of fishes in boat electroshocking samples from the 2000 ANSP Savannah River survey.Scientific Name lBSI IBS2lBS3lBS4 2BBS1 2BBS22BBS32BBS4 5BS1 5BS25BS35BS4 6BSI 6BS2 6BS3 6BS4 N, tropis hudsonius N, tropis lutipinnis N, tropis maculatus N, tropis petersoni N, tropis rubescens o sopoeodus emiliae Pe caflavescens Pe dna nigrofasciata P oxis nigromaculatus T.nectes maculatus 9.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.71 0.00 0.00 1.48 0.00 0.00.0.00 0.00 0.00 0.74 0.00 0.00 0.00 40.61 37.04 58.06 14.38 21.43 35.860.000.00 1.94 0.00 0.00: 0.000.000.00 0.000.000.00 0.00 1.21 0.00 10.32 10.63 7.86 0.00 11.52 2.22 12.26 0.630.000.69 4.24 0.00 2.58 2.50 0.71 0.69 0.000.000.000.00 0.71 0.00 0.61 1.48 5.81 1.25 0.71 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.000.000.000.000.000.00 0.71 0.69 83.75 1.25 0.00 3.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.25 0.00 1.25 39.23 0.00 3.08 0.00 0.00 1.54 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.54 28.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.74 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.25 105.63 46.45 23.130.000.00 0.00*0.00 0.00 0.000.000.00 6.25 8.13 5.81 2.50 0.00 0.63 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.75 1.29 0.00 1.250.000.00 0.000.000.00 0.65 0.00 13.75 0.00 0.65*0.00 0.000.000.000.00 49.44 52.86 37.04 101.21 100.74 161.94 55.63 49.29 115.17 282.50 171.54 128.15 157.50 213.75 104.52 56.25 180.00 140.00 135.00165.00135.00155.00160.00140.00 145.00 80.00130.00135.00 80.00 160.00 155.00 160.0010.0012.0016.0014.0010.0017.0018.0014.00 15.00 19.0018.0018.0018.0015.0018.0010.00ChannelChannel Channel Pilings Pilings Channel Channel Pilings Channel Pilings Backwater Channel Backwater Backwater Piling Channel E.FISH 2000 Savannah River Studies Table E-9.Numbers of fish and catch per sample length (calculated as total catch divided by total length sampled)caught in boat electroshocking samples in 1997-2000 ANSP Savannah River surveys.Scientific Name Common Name 1997 1998 1999 2000:It:It:It/100m:It:It/100m:It:It/100m Alosa aestivalis blueback herring 3 0.13 Alosa sapidissima American shad 5 0.30 3 0.13 Ameiurus brunneus snail bullhead 4 22 0.75 Ameiurus catus white catfish 5 3 0.10 0.06 1 0.04 Ameiurus platycephalus flat bullhead 2 1 0.03 Amia calva bowfin1415 0.51 17 1.01 12 0.53 Anguilla rostrata American eel69 0.31 11 0.66 12 0.53 Aphredoderus sayanus pirate perch 12 0,41 3 0.182 0.09 Cyprinella leedsi bannerfin shiner 10 25 0.86 95 5.66 498 22.08 Cyprinella nivea whitefin shiner 15 38 1.30 56 3.34 161 7.14 Cyprinella species shiner species 4 0.18 Cyprinidae species minnow 2 1 0.04 Dorosoma cepedianum gizzard shad55 0.17 2 0.12 22 0.98 Dorosoma petenense threadfin shad31 0.03 1 0.04 Elassoma zonatum banded pygmy sunfish 1 0.03 Enneacanthus gloriosus bluespotted sunfish11 0.03 Erimyzon sucetta lake chubsucker 3 0.10 Esox americanus redfin pickerel 3 0.10 Esoxniger chain pickerel 10 0.34 1 0.06 3 0.13 Etheostoma olmstedi tesselated darter 2 0.07 4 0.18 Gambusia holbrooki eastern mosquitofish 12 0.41 1 0.06 1 0.04 Hybognathus regius eastern silvery minnow 11 267 9.14 45 2.68 4 0.18 letalurus punctatus channel catfish 11 2 0.07 1 0.06 4 0.18 Labidesthes sicculus brook silverside 2 111 3.80 119 7.10 111 4.92 Lepisosteus osseus longnose gar 4 3 0.18 2 0.09 Lepisosteus platyrhincus FIoridagar 1 3 0.18 2 0.09 Lepisosteus species gar species 1 0.03 Lepomis auritus redbreast sunfish 14 79 2.70 116 6.92 103 4.57 Lepomis gibbosus pumpkinseed 4 0.14 18 1.07 10 0.44 Lepomis gulosus warrnouth 2 58 1.98 9 0.54 7 0.31 Lepomis macrochirus bluegill 6 152 5.20 140 8.35 321 14.24 Lepomis marginatus dollar sunfish 1 42 1.44 7 0.42 33 1.46 Lepomis microlophus redear sunfish 11 24 0.82 22 1.31 16 0.71 Lepomis punctatus spotted sunfish 1 17 0.58 11 0.66 5 0.22 Micropterus salmoides largemouth bass 4 14 0.48 31 1.85 47 2.08 Minytrema melanops spotted sucker 19 19 0.65 37 2.21 40 1.77 Moxostoma anisurum silver redhorse 13 2 0.12 Mugil cephalus striped mullet31 0.03 9 0.54 1 0.04 Nocomis leptocephalus bluehead chub 1 0.06 Notemigonus crysoleucas golden shiner 11 0.38 5 0.22 Notropis chalybaeus ironcolor shiner 2 0.09 Notropis cummingsae dusky shiner 16 0.55 1 0.06 15 0.67 Notfopis hudsonius spottaiI shiner15 0.17 695 41.44 780 34.59 Notropis lutipinnis yellowfin shiner 4 0.18 Notropis maculatus taillight shiner 15 0.51 4 0.18 Notr.opis petersoni coastal shiner 3 84 2.87 95 5.66 80 3.55 Notropis rubescens rosyface chub 30 1.79 44 1.95 Noturus leptacanthus speckled madtom 2 Qmnnneodus emiliae pllgnose shiner 1 17 058 16 0.95 28 1.24 r A Percajlavescens yellow perch 3 23 0.79 3 0.18 3 0.13 The Academy of Natural Sciences 236 Patrick Center for Environmental Research E.FISH 2000 Savannah River Studies Table E-9(continued). Numbers of fish and catch per sample length (calculated as total catch divided by total length sampled)caught in boat electroshocking samples in 1997-2000 ANSP Savannah River surveys.Scientific Name Common Name 1997 1998 1999*2000###/100m##/loom##/lOOm Percina nigrofasciata blackbanded darter 3 10 0.34 6 0.36 1 0.80 Pomoxis nigromaculatus black crappie13 0.10 1 0.06 12 0.53 Trinectes maculatus hogchoker 1 1 0.06 5 0.22 Total 185 1138 38.94 1614 96.24 2434 107.94 Ave nnmber per sample 18.5 51.7 124.2 152.1 Nmnber of samples 10 22 13 16 Shoreline sampled 2923 1677 2255*(Ictalurus pundatus), striped mullet (MugU cephalus)andlow perch (Percaflavescens). Some uncommon minnows, such as the Eastern silvery minnow (Hybognathus nuchalis), shiner (Notropiscu1]1mingsae), yellmvfin shiner (N.tipinnis), were caught only in the boat shocking samples,though these species have been caught in other techniques in other surveys.Several species of minnows, including thetail shiner, bannerfm shiner, whitefin shiner, and the bluegill were the most abundant species, while several other species of minnows and sunfishes and the brook silverside (Labthes sicculus)were also frequent.More species were caught at Stations 5 and 6 (33 and 29)than at Stations 1 and 2B (25 and 27);the average number of species per sample was also higher at Stations 5 and 6 than at Stationsl and 2B.The catch varied among individual samples, but there were someences in species composition between the upper stations (l.and 2B)and the lower stations (5 and 6).For example, the whitefm shiner and rosyface chub were more common inples from the upper stations, while the blueback herring,nerfin shiner, brook silverside, several sunfishes (redbreast, dollar, redear, and bluegill), and spotted sucker were more common at Stations 5 and 6.The blackbanded darter was most common at Station 2B.There were few clear differences in abundance between main channel (most samples)andwater samples (three samples from Devil's Elbow and Ring Jaw.Cove in Stations 5 and 6), or between channel samples taken around pilings and those on open shoreline. Channel--------------eealatfitttRShlrViwffl*alScs,:-:amppropriately-;-eatIght-ooly in samples.Dusky shiner, yellowfm shiner, taillight shiner, and The Academy of Natural Sciences 237 Patrick Center for Environmental Research E.FISH 2000 Savannah River Studies blackbanded darter were caught only in channel samples, and the rosyface chub was most common in channel samples.zard shad, bluegill and redear sunfish were most common in backwater samples.Hand Samples few specimens were collected by dip nets during macroinvertebrate sampling (Table E-lO).These samples show the widespread occurrence of small catfishes, including speckled madtom (Noturus leptacanthus), white catfish (Ameiurus catus).and flat bullhead (A.cephalus)in the study area.Table E-10.Numbers of fish collected in hand samples in the 2000 ANSP Savannah River survey.Station Scientific Name Ameiurus catus Ameiurus platycephalus Etheostoma olmstedi Notorus gyrinus Noturus leptacanthus 1 2B 3 1 1 5 5 1 4 6 1 5 Overall Proportions n index of relative abundance at each station wasculated (Table E-ll), based on relative abundance within each collecting type.Since differentniques are used in different habitats and have different effi-ciencies on different species, the overall proportions of different species (e.g., Table E-2)are sensitive to the relative effort by each technique. To reduce the dependence ontive effort, the overall index averages the relative proportion of species by each major collecting technique (seining, boat electro shocking, and walkalong electro shocking), giving equal weight to each collecting technique. The resultant frequencies of occurrence show differences in occurrence across the stations.For a number of species, these show several patterns of occurrence: _______________ J.. relative abundance at Station 2B (eg, American eel, Eastern mosquitofish, bluegill, dollar and redear The Academy of Natural Sciences 238 Patrick Center for Environmental Research E.FISH 2000 Savannah River Studies Table E-11.Average (%)relative abundances of fish at each station by major sampling techniques (seine, boat shocking, and walkalong shocking)in the 2000 ANSP Savannah River survey.Station Scientific Name Common Name 1 2B 5 6 All Alosa aestivalis blueback herring0.0000.0000.042 0.093 0.034 Alosa sapidissima American shad 0.000 0.000 0.1270.0000.032 Amiacalva bowfin 0.351 0.092 0.169 0.093 0.176 Ameiurus catus white catfish0.0900.000 0.0000.0000.022 Ameiurus platycephalus flat bullhead 0.000 0.000 1.0870.0000.272 Anguilla rostrata American eel 0.3510.0000.4900.9080.448 Aphredoderus sayanus pirate perch 0.565 0.092 0.405 0.000 0.265 Centrarchus macropterus flier 0.000 0.000 0.725 0.000 0.181 Cyprinella leedsi bannerfin shiner 7.6359.7736.159 11.113 8.670 Cyprinella nivea whitefin shiner 20.259 6.344 4.035 3.235 8.468 Cyprinella species shiner species 0.1970.0000.000 5.429 1.407 Cyprinidae species minnow 0.000 0.092 1.614 8.707 2.603 Dorosoma cepedianum gizzard shad 0.437 0.277 0.127 0.509 0.337 Dorosoma petenense threadfin shad 0.0000.0000.0420.000 0.011 Enneacanthus g loriosus blue spotted sunfish 1.695 0.000 1.087 0.000 0.695 Esox americanus redfin pickerel 1.130 0.000 1.087 0.000 0.554 Esoxniger chain pickerel 1.327 0.092 0.137 0.046 0.401 Etheostoma fusiforme swamp darter 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.073 0.018 Etheostoma olmstedi tesselated darter 0.090 0.179 0.422 0.211 0.226 Fundulus lineolatus lineated topminnow 3.417 0.000 0.000 0.290 0.927 Gambusia holbrooki eastern mosquitofish 9.040 0.092 0.475 0.515 2.530 Hybognathus regius Eastern silvery minnow 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.185 0.046 lctalurus punctatus channel catfish 0.090 0.185 0.042 0.000 0.079 Labidesthes sicculus brook silverside 0.824 1.102 6.206 13.207 5.335 Lepomis auritus redbreast sunfish 4.096 2.178 1.367 2.392 2.508 Lepomis gibbosus pumpkinseed 0.941 0.092 6.094 0.383 1.878 Lepomis gulosus warmouth 2.914 0.092 5.242 0.482 2.183 Lepomis macrochirus bluegill 13.046 2.024 18.459 11.595 11.281 Lepomis marginatus dollar sunfish 2.349 0.000 7.1772.1862.928 Lepomis microlophus redear sunfish 0.565 0.092 1.4690.5690.674 Lepisosteus osseus longnose gar 0.287 0.000 0.042 0.000 0.082 Lepisosteus platyrhincus Florida gar 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.046 0.012 Lepomis species sunfish0.0000.000 0.000 0.073 0.018 Lepomis punctatus spotted sunfish 0.179 0.092 1.172 0.000 0.361 Minytrema melanops spotted sucker 0.526 0.369 0.551 3.138 1.146 Micropterus salmoides largemouth bass 2.035 0.820 1.263 1.289 1.352 Mugil cephalus striped mullet 0.000 0:000 0.000 0.046 0.012 Notropis chalybaeus ironcolor shiner 0.0900.1740.000 0.046 0.077 Nocomis leptocephalus bluehead chub 0.000 0.000 0.0950.0000.024 Notemigonus crysoleucas golden shiner 0.197 0.000 0.170 0.119 0.121 Notropis cummingsae dusky shiner 0.000 0.738 0.0850.2320.264 Notropis hudsonius spottail shiner 20.473 60.500 27.150 26.520 33.661 Notropis lutipinnis yellowfin shiner 0.000 0.277 0.042 0.000 0.080 Notropis maculatus taillight shiner0.0000.000 0.170 0.799 0.242 Notropis petersoni coastal shiner 0.574 4.581 0.127 1.437 1.680 Notropis rubescens rosyface chub 1.900 4.296 0.042 0.046 1.571 Noturus leptacanthus speckled mad tom 0.000 0.000 0.095 0.000 0.024 Opsopoeodus emiliae'" pugnose shiner 1.219 1.091 0.929 1.769 1.252 Perca flavescens yellow perch 0.090 0.092 0.000 0.046 0.057 Percina nigrojasciata blackbanded darter 0.574 1.465 0.137 0.046 0.556 Pomoxis nigromaculatus black crappie 0.565 0.000 0.000 1.423 0.497 Trinectes msculatus hogchoke r 0.565 2.788 3.683 0.884 1.980 Total100100 100100100 The Academy of Natural Sciences 239 Patrick Center for Environmental Research E.FISH 2000 Savannah River Studies sunfishes); this presumably reflects the absence of backwater habitat at this station;e higher relative abundance at Station 2B(spottailshiner, coastal shiner Notropis petersoni, rosyface chub N.rubescens); this reflects the paucity of backwater habitats and dominance of main channel fishes;..high relative abundance of whitefin shiner at Station 1;the analysis of seine results indicates relationships between this species and current velocity and substrate; its abundance at Station 1 may reflect abundant habitat, combined with poorer habitat for other species;e higher relative abundance at Stations 5 and 6 (American shad, blueback herring, taillight shiner, spotted sucker, brook silverside); this may reflect the presence of backwater habitats (taillight shiner)and large cove habitats (other species).Some of these pattemsare explicable by occurrence ofwater habitats at the stations, which were most extensive at Stations 5 and 6, and absent from Station 2B.For example, the differences between Station 2B and the others-may reflect absence of backwaters there (with no backwater ing done), and the presence of bars with relatively coarse (sand, gravel)substrates. Condition Analysis omparisons of length-weight relationships of four common species were done using ANCOV A.ses were done on 197 spottail shiner, 186 whitefin shiner, 117 redbreast sunfish,"and 249 bluegill.ExaIIlination of length-weight regressions (Figs.E-2 to E-5)and statistical analysis indicate that the length-weight relationships were very similar among stations for each of the four species.amination of the relationships indicates some apparent outlier points.Three clear outliers were corrected (based onnation of specimens) and one outlier was deleted.A few other specimens also appear to be outside the main length-weight regressions. These may represent true outliers or erroneous measurements, but were not clearly different enough torant exclusion from the analyses.The Academy of Natural Sciences 240 Patrick Center for Environmental Research E.FISH 2000 Savannah River Studies Spottail shiner (Notropis hudsonius) Condition Analysis Ln Length (em)vs.Ln Mass (g)*Station 1 v Stalion 28 11II Station 5<>Stalion 6-Station 1 Regression--Station 28.......Station 5 Regression _..Station 6 Regression 2-2§01'---------'

2 s:::...J 3 2-4-t---.a..:...L----,--------,----------;

o Ln Length (em) Length-weight relationships of spottail shiner (Notropis hudsonius) in the 2000 ANSP Savannah River surveys.See text for information on significance of difference slopes and intercepts of regressions. Whitefin shiner (Cyprinella nivea)Condition Analysis Ln Length (em)VS.Ln Mass (g) GIl Station 1 V Stalion 28 II Station 5<>Station 6-Station 1 Regression--Station 28 Regression.......Station 5 Regression -..Station 6 Regression -2*3..1.-----£..<:----,------- ..,.---1 2 Ln Length (em)Figure E-3.Length-weight relationships of whitefin shiner (Cyprinella nivea)in the 2000 ANSP Savannah River surveys.See text for information on significance of difference among slopes and Intercepts of regressions. The Academy of Natural Sciences 241 Patrick Center for Environmental Research E.FISH 2000 Savannah River Studies Redbreast sunfish (Lepomis auritus)Condition Analysis Ln Length (cm)vi>.Ln Mass (g)6*Station 1" Station 28 11II Station S 4<>Station 6--Station 1 Regression--Station 28 Regression §2.......Station S Regression -..Station 6 Regression til til ell:2 0 c:-'-2-4-6 0 2 3 Ln Length (em)Figure relalionshipsof redbreast sunfish (LepOmis8uritus) in the 2000 ANSP Savannah River surveys.See text for information on significance of difference among slopes and intercepts of regressions. Bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) Condition Analysis Ln Length (cm)vs.Ln Mass (g) 4§2:2 5 0-2..Station 1" Station 28 11II StationS<>Station 6--Station 1 Regression--Station 28 Regression .......Station S Regression -..Station 6 Regression 3 2-4 o Ln Length (em)Figure E-5.Length-weight relationships of bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) in the 2000 ANSP Savannah River surveys.See text for information on significance of difference among slopes and intercepts of regressions. The Academy of Natural Sciences 242 Patrick Center for Environmental Research E.FISH 2000 Savannah River Studies Differences in slopes and intercepts of the length-weighttionships were tested.Because of the large number ofviduals analyzed, tests have the power to detect very small differences in the regressions, and some of the observedferences may havebeenaffected strongly by a few outliers.For the spottail shiner, there were higWy significantences in slopes (p<0.0001) andintercepts(p<0.0002) among stations.The adjusted means (least squares means)were higher at Stations 5 and 6 than at Stations 1 and 2B, and the apparent difference may have been due to single specimens at Stations 1 and 2B which had low weight for size (Fig.E-2).For whitefm shiner, there was a significant difference incepts (p<0.0045), but no difference in slopes.The order of least squares means (1)5>2B>6) does not correspond toous spatial patterns relative to plant operation or rivertions and may reflect the influence of a few outliers (Fig.E-3).There was no difference in intercepts or slopes forbreast sunfish.There was marginally significant difference in_intercepts (p<0.048)Jor bluegill, but no difference in slopes (p<0.08).Discussion Temporal Trends in River Fish Communities he 2000 survey results are directly comparable to those of the 1997-1999 studies (Tables E-9 and E-12)and can also be compared to earlier comprehensive, cursory and Vogtle surveys (Table E-12), although these dif-fered somewhat in sampling methods.The most directparisons are with the 1995-1997 walk-along backwater. samples and with the rotenone backwater samples fromlier cursory surveys (summarized in ANSP 1997;1998).Over time, there has been an apparent increase in the total number of species collected in the backwater samples (around 22-33 species before 1989, compared with 30-49 species from 1989 to 1999), with a smaller rise in the average number from each station.The increase is probably partly due to increasingfort, with only one sample per station in the earlier samples and two per station in the most recent samples.In 2000, only The Academy of Natural Sciences 243 Patrick Center for Environmental Research T ble E-12.Total number and relative abundance of fish caught at each station by all techniques in the 1997-2000 ANSP Savannah River surveys.2000 Survey 1999 Survey 1998 Survey 1997 Survey Scientific Name Common Name Total%of Total Total%of Total Total%of Total Total%of Total osseus longnose gar 3 0.07 6 0.11 4 0.09 platJ.rhincus Florida gar 2 0.04 4 0.07 1 0.02 Isosteus specIes gar species 2 0.03 Amiidae (bowfin)bowfin 12 0.26 18 0.32 15 0.20 14 0.30 AnguOOdae (eels)A guilla rostrata American eel 23 0.50 17 0.30 10 0.13 21 0.45 Clupeidae (herrings) A sa aestivalis blueback herring 3 0.07 1 0.01 A osa sapidissima American shad 3 0.07 5 0.09 D rosoma cepedianum gizzard shad 22 0.48 4 0.07 9 0.12 5 0.11 D rosoma petenense threadfin shad 1 0.02 121 1.63 5 0.11 Cyprinidae (mmno'ws and carps)C'Prinella leedsi bannerfin shiner 539 11.72 296 5.21 58 0.78 280 5.97 C'Prinella nivea whitefin shiner 301 6.54 499 8.79 281 3.79 223 4.75 C'Prinella species shiner species 62 1.35 506 8.91 52 1.11 C rinidae species minnow 114 2.48 3 0.06 bognathus regius eastern silvery minnow 4 0.09 77 1.36 3666 49.47 676 14.40 N comis leptocephalus bluehead chub 1 0.02 3 0.05 2 0.04 temigonus crysoleucas golden shiner.7 0.15 15 0.26 37 0.50 36 0.77 tropis chalybaeus ironcolor shiner 4 0.09 38 0.51 11 0.23 tropis cummingsae dusky shiner 15 0.33 1 0.02 17 0.23 tropis hudsonius spottail shiner 1680 36.53 1821 32.07 30 0.40 399 8.50 tropis lutipinnis yellowfin shiner 4 0.09 tropis maculatus taillight shiner 15 0.33 9 0.16 344 4.64 33 0.70 tropis petersoni coastal shiner 88 1.91 114 2.01 111 1.50 67 1.43 tropis rubescens rosyface chub 140 3.04 98 1.73 8 0.17 sopoeodus emiliae pugnose shiner 58 1.26 27 0.48 90 1.21 7 0.15 Catostomidae (suckers)rpiodes cyprinus quillback 4 0.05'myzon oblongus creek chubsucker 8 0.11 3 0.06 myzon sucetta lake chubsucker 4 0.07 21 0.28 4 0.09 ypentelium nigricans northern hog sucker 1 0.02 inytrema melanops spotted sucker 73 1.59 123 2.17 132 1.78 5Si 1.26 oxostoma anisurum silver redhorse 2 0.04 13 0.28 Ta Ie E-12 (continued). Total number and relative abundance of fish caught at;each station by all techniques in the 1997-2000 ANSP Savannah River surveys.2000 Survey 1999 Survey 1998 Survey 1997 Survey Scientific Name Total%of Total Total i%of Total Total%of Total Total%of Total Ictaluridae (catfishes) eiurus brunneus snail bullhead 22 0.30 4 0.09 eiurus catus white catfish 8 0.17 12 0.21 8 0.11 12 0.26 eiurus natalis yellow bullhead 1 0.02 eiurus nebulosus brown bullhead 1 0.02 1 0.02 A eiurus platycephalus flat bullhead 6 0.13 1 0.01 29 0.62 Ie lurus punctatus channel catfish 4 0.09 3 0.05 4 0.05 11 0.23 tv, turus gyrinus tadpole madtom 1 0.02 3 0.04 5 0.11 IV<turus leptacanthus speckled madtom 15 0.33 15 0.26 20 0.27 4 0.09 Esocidae (pikes)x americanus redfin pickerel 5 0.11 5 0.09 26 0.35 10 0.21 x niger chain pickerel 7 0.15 2 0.04 36 0.49 15 0.32 Aphredoderidae (pirateperch) A hredoderus sayanus pirate perch 4 0.09 12 0.21 69 0.93 85 1.81 Belonidae (needlefish) St ongylura marina Atlantic needlefish 1 0.02 1 0.01 Cyprlnodontidae (killifishes) F dulus chrysotus golden topminnow 1 0.02 1 om 1 0.02 F ndulus lineolatus lineated topminnow 12 0.26 10 0.18 10 5 0.11 Poeciliidae (livebearers) G mbusia holbrooki eastern mosquitofish 28 0.61 202 3.56 247 3.33 862 18.37 Amblyopsidae (cavefishes) C ologaster co.muta swampfish 1 om 8 0.17 therinidae (silversides) bidesthes sicculus brook silverside 307 6.68 436 7.68 252 3.40 155 3.30 Percichyidae (temperate basses)orone americana white perch orone saxatilis striped bass Centrarcmdae (sunfishes) C ntrarchus macropterus flier 2 0.04 16 0.28 16 0.34 E neacanthus gloriosus bluespotted sunfish 6 0.13 2 0.04 10 0.13 16 0.34 pomis auritus redbreast sunfish 132 2.87 174 3.06 222 3.00 404 8.61 pomis gibbosus pumpkinseed 33 0.72 52 0.92 26 0.35 18 0.38 T ble E-12 (continued). Total number and relative abundance of fish caught at each station by all techniques in the 1997-2000 ANSP Savannah River surveys.2000 Survey 1999 Survey 1998 Survey 1997 Survey Scientific Name Common Name Total%of Total Total%of Total Total%of Total Total%of Total pomis gulosus wannouth 32 0.70 45 0.79 196 2.65 171 3.64 pomis macrochirus bluegill 495 10.76 619 10.90 715 9.65 349 7.44 pomis marginatus dollar sunfish 79 1.72 126 2.22 200 2.70 130 2.77 pomis microlophus redear sunfish 24 0.52 45 0.79 80 1.08 118 2.51 pomis punctatus Eastern spotted sunfish 8 0.17 32 0.56 32 0,43 31 0.66 pomis species sunfish species 2 0.04 56 0.76 10 0.21 icropterus coosae redeye bass 1 0.02 icropterus salmoides largemouth bass 66 1.44 65 1.14 29 0.39 57 1.21 moxis nigromaculatus black crappie 25 0.54 23 0,41 11 0.15 19 0,40 Elassomatidae (pygmy sunfishes) assoma zonatum banded pygmy sunfish 31 0,42 77 1.64 Percidae (perches and darters)heostoma fricksium Savannah darter 1 0.02 heostoma fusiforme swamp darter 1 0.02 1 0.02 14 0.19 59 1.26 heostoma olmstedi tesselated darter 12 0.26 23 0,41 22 0.30 46 0.98 heostoma serrifer sawcheek darter 4 0.05 1 0.02 rca flavescens yellow perch 3 0.Q7 3 0.05 47 0.63 10 0.21 rcina nigrofasciata blackbanded darter 23 0.50 62 1.09 26 0.35 5 0.11 Mugilidae (mullets)ugil cephalus striped mullet 0.02 10 0.18 1 0.01 5 0.11 Bothidae (flounders) ralichthys lethostigma s uthem flounder Soleidae (soles)'nectes maculatus hogchoker 84 1.83 29 0.51 2 0.03 16 0.34 TOTAL 4599 100 5678 100 7410 100 4693 100 Numberofs des 53 52 53 60 ENDLINE= E.FISH 2000 Savannah River Studies one sample was taken per station and the total speciesness (29 species)and the richness at each station (14-24cies)was similar to that of the earlier surveys.Typically, abundances of some species have varied overferent surveys (Tables E-9, E-12 and E-13).Variations in abundance have been prominent in a number of speciesciated with vegetation (e.g., ironcolor shiner, chubsuckers, banded pygmy sunfish, bluespotted sunfish), bullheadcies, and the Eastern silvery minnow.For example, theern silvery minnow was rare or absent in most of the 1980s and early 1990s.It appears to have increased in the1990s.In 1996 and 1997, it was common at one of the Station 6 backwater sites.In 1998, it was the most abundant species in seine samples at all stations, and at two of the.backwater sites, where it was found in very high densities. Overall, it was the most commonly collected species.In contrast, it was uncommon in both the 1999 and 2000 surveys, while thetail shiner was abundant in both of these surveys.Theern silvery minnow has apparently fluctuated in abundance in the past;it was apparently common in the 1960s and early 1970s, as well.A few species were more common in 2000 than in previous surveys, including the American shad,back herring, and hogchoker. In 1999-2000, a number of species associated with vegetation or other cover were absent or less common than in recentveys.These species include the creek and lake chub suckers and banded pygmy sunfish (none caught in 2000)andcolor shiner, redfm pickerel, chain pickerel, taillight shiner, pirateperch, warmouth, bluespotted sunfish, and swamp darter (less common in 1999).The Eastern mosquitofish was very uncommon in 2000 (0.61%of total catch), compared with low numbers in 1998-1999 (3.3%and 3.6%,tively), and high numbers in 1997 (18.4%).The boat shocking samples provide standardized sampling of a variety of fishes in the main channel.These samples have been taken since 1997 (Table E-9), although improvements in sampling efficiency after 1997 make the 1997 samples less comparable than the 1998-2000 data.These data show similar patterns as the overall changes in relative abundance noted above.There appears to have been a decrease in the catch rates of Eastern silvery minnow and warmouth, and an in-crease in the catch rates of bannerfm shiner and spottail The Academy of Natural Sciences 247 Patrick Center for Environmental Research _._..*__._._._--_..__.._------Table E-13.Percentage of species in 1989 and 1993 comprehensive surveys and survey.m:a 1989 1993 1997 1989-1993 1997 1989 1993 1m]:I 5 5.5 6 6 6...Species 1 1 1 tf.l loo." 0.85 0.21 0.05;..Lepisosteus osseus 0.43 Q.34 0.22 1.95 0.491 Lepisosteus platyrhincuS 0.17-0.D7 0.05 S Amiaca1va 0.66 0.13 0.11 0.27 1:1 5 Anguilla rOSlrata 0.22.'0.20 051 0.81 I tf.l Alosa aestivalis 0.43 0.17 0.34 0.16 8 Alosa sapidissima 9.16-2.92 0.49 3.90 0.05 aDorosoma cepedianum 0.43."1.0;3 0.88 3.69.1;1l 0.Q7 0.17 1.16 Ie Dorosoma pelenense 0.66 0.Q7 6.68 oS Cyprinella leedsi 1.20 1.10 L04 1755 0.17 0.21 0.43 j1 Cyprinella lutrensis 0.68Cyprinetla nivea 6.87 38.94 18.06 0.22'M.27 3.03'0.68 17.47 0.05 i1 Hybognathus regius 0.34 3.52 0.28.2.82 0.17 3.21 23.87 12 NOlropis cha1ybaeus 2.43 0.22 7.38 Q.47 0.05Nocomis leptocephalus 0.29 0.05 NotemigoTUlS crysoleucas 0.22 8.76 5.42 0.11 0.05 Notropis cummingsae Notropis hudsonius 2.43 206 7.27 0.87 14.60 6.72 10.85 17.05 10.09 Notropis maculatus LOO 0.69 in 1.88 0.34 1.32 Notropis petersoni 1.72 2.40 5.07 3.25 1.41 3.90 0.42 0.81 Notropis rubescens 3.15 11.49 0.28 0.05 Opsopoeodus emiliae 0.07 0.07 051 0.22 Carpiodes cyprinus-Q.22 0.21 Erimyzon oblongus 0.17 0.97 0.07-Erimyzon sucetta 0:87 1.46 0.20 Hypentelium nigricans..J-Minytrema melanops 0.14 0.86 1.98 0.43 278 0.81 051 653 I Moxostoma anisurum 0.14 0.44 0.87 0.21 (l.13.051 0.21 0.27 Ameiurus brunneus 0.57 0.65 0.13 0.34 Ameiurus calus 0.43 0.69 0.07 0.22 j Ameiurus natalis 057 0.17 0.22 0.85 0.05 Ameiurus nebulosus 0.43 0.85 Ameiurus platycephalus 0.43 0.86 0.66 0.43 0.49 0.87 0.68 0.05 b.27'islctalurus punctatus 1.03 0.88 0.43'0.49 153 0.16 0.27 i Noturus gyrinus 0.29 0.17 0.22 0.Q7 0.05 0.16f;r;'j Noturus leptacanthus 0.34 0.22 0.21 0.01 0.05 0.05Esox americanus 0.72 0.21 0.47 0.05'" Esoxniger 0.43 051 0.22 0.21 0.54 0.16 0.16 .-.._--...-._------*...Table E*13 (continued). Percentage of species in 1989 and 1993 surveys and 1997 survey*J.a rI.l 1.01989 1993 1997 1989 1993 1997 1989 1993 1997 E-;l Species 1 1 1 5'3 5 6 (;6 JAphredodelUS sayanus 258 1.20 2.42 0.65.153 1.82 0.42 1.47Chologaster comuta--0.07*0.11 0.38 i tr.l 0.05 i Fwululus chrysotus 4.99 2.37 r.1 Fundulus lineolatus 1.29 0.44 3.90 0.13 037 0.05 1.0 oS Gambusia holbrooki 16.88 2.40 6.17 29.72 292 23.34*20.34 1053 21.38...fl Labidesthes siccu1us 1.14 0.86 3.08 13.23 16.27 4.91 14.07 2.63 157 S Centrarchus macropterus 0.72 0.22 0.14 0.87 0.05 gloricsus 1.86 051 0.22 20.82 0.21 0.27 0.68 0.16.0.49Lepomis auritus 11.44 652 1057.0.65 4.31 9.68 153 053 8.95 Lepomis gibbosus 0.72 1.03*1.39 1.21 0.34 0.37 cf Lepomis gulosus 2.86 3.26 3.30 0.87 2.29 4.24 3.73 2.05 3.15 Lepqmis macrochirus 9.01 7.89 12.11 0.65 4.10 5.78 7.97 11.74 9.82 Lepomis marginatus 2.29 2.06 6.61 0.22 1.60 2.69 153 1.47 3.04 Lepomis microlophus 5.29 2.06 2.42 0.43 0.14 155 7.46 753 3.85 C'I Lepomis puncJa.UlS 6.72 0.69 0.66 0.65 ,0.83 0.74 3.90 058 0.71MicroptelUS coosae 0.22 Micropterus salmoides 1.86 1.37 220 056 0.61 1.19 0.47 1.68 Pomoxis annularis 0.22 Pomoxis nigromaculatus 057 Q.44 153 0.67 1.02 2.68 0.16 Elassoma'l.Onatum 0.72 0.44 0.87 0.07 1.08 1.37 1.74 ElJzeostoma fricks/urn 0.14 0.05 Elheostoma fusiforme 0.72 0.69 2.42 0.49 0.40 0.26 0.98Etheostoma 0.72 2.06 2.20 0.07 0.20 053 0.16 Etheostoma serrifer 0.17 0.14 0.11 0.05'""tl Percaflavescens 1.10 0.22 0.37 0.16 tr.l Percina nigrofasciata 0.69 0.22 0.07 0.05 0.05 E Mugil cephalus 1_0.13 0.05 0.16Trinectes maculatus 0.22 0.13 0.17 0.27....0 tl:l TOTAL 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 B" t: '1;1ro:l E.FISH 2000 Savannah River Studies shiner.Catch rates of rosyface chub, largemouth bass andnose minnow may have increased as well, but these species are not as common and the changes not as large.It is plausible that these changes reflect short-term effects of water level fluctuations. Water levels were low prior to the 2000 survey and during the 1999 survey relative to recentvious surveys.Moreover, the presence of terrestrial andgent grasses on the shoreline indicate that water levels had been low prior to the sampling period in both years.This could*result in decreased volume of backwater habitat,ing vegetated habitats, and lead to reductions in speciesciated with these habitats.Variations may also reflectterm changes in river ecology.Forexample,there was ajor decrease in the amount of submergent vegetation in the river after 1989, and some fish populations may be showing gradual responses to the change in the amount of vegetated habitat.Differences Among Stations onsistent differences in the fish communities at the survey stations attributable to plant operations have not been detected in the surveys.Much of the spatial variation in fish communities is attributable to differences in habitat.There has been a general trend of higher speciesness at the lower stations.Backwater sampling indicates that there is high variability in richness and abundance among sites, so that there is no consistent station difference in these habitats.However, the surveys at Stations 5 and 6 indicate backwaters and other habitats with much higher abundance and richness than other sites within the same station or at other stations.The greater complexity of the river at the lower stations, with complex backwaters, side channels andder bends likely promotes these local sites of abundance. Other habitats, such as the open shores and bars, have usually shown similar patterns of fish occurrence among the different stations.The monitoring of several habitat types, along with the repeated temporal sampling has demonstrated complex patterns of consistent temporal changes in abundance ofcies over different habitats and stations, superimposed onferences in assemblages among different habitat types.The Academy of Natural Sciences 250 Patrick Center for Environmental Research 2000 Savannah River Studies F.Literature Cited Abel, P.D.1989.Water Pollution Biology.Ellis Horwood Limited.Chichester, England.John Wiley&Sons, Inc.New York (distributor). 231 pp.Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia (ANSP), 1953.Savannah River biological survey, South Carolina and Georgia, June 1951-May 1952.Final Report for E.I.du Pont de Nemours and Company Savannah River Plant.Acad.Nat.Sci.Phila.____'1957.Savannah River biological survey, South Carolina and Georgia, August-September 1955, May 1956.Progress Report for E.I.du Pont de Nemours and Company Savannah River Plant.Acad.Nat.Sci.Phila.210pp.____', 1961.Savannah River biological survey, South Carolina and Georgia, May-June and August-September 1960 for the E.I.duPont de Nemours and Company.Acad Nat.Sci.Phila.____. Savannah River biological survey, South Carolina and Georgia, May-June and September, 1965, forthethe E.I.duPont de Nemours and Company.Acad.Nat.Sci.Phila.112 pp.____.1970.Savannah River biological survey, South Carolina and Georgia, May and August 1968 for the E.I.duPont de Nemours and Company.Acad.Nat.Sci.Phila.130 pp.____.1974a.Savannah River biological survey, South Carolina and Georgia, May and September 1972 for the E.I.du Pont de Nemours and Company.Acad.Nat.Sci.Phila.173 pp.____.1974b.Catherwood Diatometer readings for the E.I.du Pont de Nemours and Company, Savannah River Plant, January through December 1973.Acad.Nat.Sci.Phila.23 pp.The Academy of Natural Sciences 251 Patrick Center for Environmental Research 2000 Savannah River Studies F.Literature Cited____,.1977.Savannah River biological survey South Carolina and Georgia, August 1976 for the E.I.du Pont de Nemours and Company.Rept.No.77-37.Acad.Nat.Sci.Phila.118 pp.____.1978.Savannah River Catherwood Diatometer ,studies for the Savannah River Plant, E.!.du Pont de Nemours and Company, January through December 1977.Report No.88-38.Acad.Nat.Sci.Phila.31 pp.____.1980a.1979 Savannah River Catherwood Diatometer studies for E.I.du Pont de Nemours and Company.Report No.80-12.Acad.Nat.Sci.Phila.44 pp.____.1980b.Savannah River Cursory Surveys for E.!.du Pont de Nemours&Company 1979.Report No.80-5.Acad.Nat.Sci.Phila.____.1981a.Savannah River biological surveys, S()u!h<;arolina and Georgia, June and 1980 for the E.I.du Pont de Nemours Company.Rept.No.81-14.Acad.Nat.Sci.Phila.128 pp.____.1981b.1980 Savannah River Catherwood Diatometer studies for E.I.du Pont de Nemours and Company.Report No.81-17.Acad.Nat.Sci.Phila.43 pp.____.1982.1981 Savannah River Catherwood Diatometer studies for E.I.du Pont de Nemours and Company.Report No.82-13.Acad.Nat.Sci.Phila.40 pp.____,.1984a.1983 Savannah River Catherwood Diatometer studies for E.I.duPont de Nemours and Company.Report.No.84-10.Acad.Nat.Sci.Phila.56pp.____.1984b.1982 Savannah River Catherwood Diatometer studies for the E.!.du Pont de Nemours and Company.Report No.84-4.Acad.Nat.Sci.Phila.60 pp.____,.1985a.1984 Savannah River Catherwood Diatometer Studies for E.I.du Pont de Nemours and Company.Acad.Nat.Sci.Phila.47 pp.The Academy of Natural Sciences 252 Patrick Center for Environmental Research 2000 Savannah River Studies F.Literature Cited 1985b.Savannah River Biological Surveys, June and September 1984 forE.I.du Pont de Nemours&Company.Report No.85-14.Acad.Nat.Sci.Phila 173 pp.____.1988a.1985 Savannah River Catherwood Diatometer Studies for theE.I.du Pont de Nemours and Company.Report'No.87-9F.Acad.Nat.Sci.Phila.36 pp.____.1988b.1986 Savannah River Catherwood Diatometer studies forE.I.du Pont de Nemours and Company.Report No.88-6.Acad.Nat.Sci.Phila.34 pp.____.1988c.1987 Savannah River Catherwood Diatometer studies forE.I.du Pont de Nemours and Company.Report No.88-16.Acad.Nat.Sci.Phila.45 pp.__'----_,.1990a., 1988 Savannah River biological survey in the vicinity of Georgia Power and Light's Vogtle Nuclear Power Plant site for E.I.du Pont de Nemours&Company.Rept.No.89-i7F.128 pp.____.1990b.1988 Savannah River Catherwood Diatometer studies for the E.I.du Pont de Nemours and Company.Report No.89-13F.44 pp.____.1991 a.1990 Savannah River biological survey in the vicinity of Georgia Power and Light's Vogtle Nuclear Power Plant site for Westinghouse Savannah River Company.Rept.No.91-18F.151 pp.____.1991b.Savannah River biological surveys, June.and September 1989 for Westinghouse Savannah River Company.Rept.No.90-25F.Acad.Nat.Sci.Phila.221 pp.____.1991c.1989 Savannah River Catherwood Diatometer studies for theE.!.du Pont de Nemours and Company.Report No.90-22F.44 pp.____,.1992a.1990 Savannah River Catherwood Diatometer studies for the Westinghouse Savannah River Company.Report No.91-15F.47 pp.The Academy of Natural Sciences 253 Patrick Center forEnvironmentalResearch 2000 Savannah River Studies F.Literature Cited____,.1992b.1991 Savannah River Catherwood Diatometer studies for Westinghouse Savannah River Company: Report No.92-13F.50pp.____.1992c.1991 Savannah River biological survey in the vicinity of Georgia Power and Light's Vogtle Nuclear Power Plant Site for Westinghouse Savannah River Company.Report No.92-27F.Acad.Nat.Sci.Phila.169 pp.____.1993a.1992 Savannah River Catherwood Diatometer studies for the Westinghouse Savannah River Company, Rept.No.93-9F.40 pp.____.1993b.Savannah River cursory surveys for Westinghouse Savannah River Company 1992.Report No.93-8F.Acad.Nat.Sci.Phila.93 pp.____.1994a.1993 Savannah River biological survey in the vicinity of Georgia Power and Light's Vogtle Nuclear Power Plant siteJor Westinghouse Savannah River Company.Rept.No.94-9F.188 pp.____,.1994b.Savannah River biological surveys 1993 for Westinghouse Savannah River Company.Rept.No.94-14F.341 pp.____.1994c.1993 Savannah River Catherwood Diatometer studies for the Westinghouse Savannah River Company, Rept.No.94-lOF.48 pp.____,.1995.1994 Savannah River Catherwood Diatometer studies for the Westinghouse Savannah River Company, Rept.No.95-1OF.49 pp.____.1996a.1995 Savannah River biological survey in the vicinity of Georgia Power and Light's Vogtle Nuclear Power Plant Site for Westinghouse Savannah River Company.Report No.96-11F.Acad.Nat.Sci.Phila.221 pp.____.1996b.Savannah River Cursory Surveys for Westinghouse Savannah River Company 1995.Report No.96-13F.Acad.Nat.Sci.Phila.104 pp.____.1997.1996 Savannah River biological surveys for Westinghouse Savannah River Company.Rept.No.97 14F.336 pp.The Academy of Natural Sciences 254 Patrick Center for Environmental Research 2000 Savannah River Studies F.Literature Cited____.1998.Savannah River biological surveys 1997 for Westinghouse Savannah River Company.Rept.No.98-lOF.Acad.Nat.Sci.Phila.201 pp.____.1999.Savannah River biological surveys 1998 for Westinghouse Savannah River Company.Rept.No.99-12F.Acad.Nat.Sci.Phila.246 pp.____.2000.Savannah River biological surveys 1999 for Westinghouse Savannah River Company.Rept.No.00-14F.Acad.Nat.Sci.Phila.235 pp.Barbour, M.T., 1 Gerritsen, G.B.Griffith, R Frydenborg, E.McCarron, IS.White and M.L.Bastian.1996.A framework for biological criteria for Florida streams using benthic macroinvertebrates. J.N.Am.BenthoI.Soc.15(2):185-211. Beaver, 1 1981.Apparent ecological characteristics of some common freshwater diatoms.Ministry of the Environment. Rexdale, Ontario.517 pp.Bennett, D.H.and RW.McFarlane. 1983.The Fishes of the Savannah River Plant: National Environmental Research Park.Savannah R Ecology Lab, SRO-NERP-12. 152 pp.Blair, W.F., AP.Blair, P.Brodkorb, F.R.Cagle and G.A Moore.1968.Vertebrates of the United States, 2nd ed.McGraw-Hill Book Co., NY.Bournaud, M., B.Cellot, P.Richoux and A Berrahou.1996.Macroinvertebrate community structure and environmental characteristics along a large river: congruity of patterns for identification to species or family.1 N.Am.BenthoI.Soc.15(2):232-253. Bright, G.R 1994 (1988).Recent water quality in the Grand Calumet River as measured by benthic invertebrates. Proc.Indiana Acad.Sci.98:229-233. Britton,I C.and S.L.H.Fuller.1979.(1980 cover)Freshwater bivalve mollusca (Unionidae, Sphaeriidae, Corbiculidae) of the Savannah River plant, South Carolina.Savannah River plant National Environmental Research Park Program, U.S.Dept.of Energy SRO-NERP-3, 37 pp.------------------tBttr"flOMWtf'nt:-, --t!-'>9'\j9'fl6r::-. community patterns in relation to physico-chemical parameters measured at The Academy of Natural Sciences 255 Patrick Center for Environmental Research 2000 Savannah River Studies F.Literature Cited two land-based trout farms affecting streams in the south-western Cape, South Africa.Arch.Hydrobioi. 138(1):57-76. Cairns, land J.R.Pratt.1993.A history of biological monitoring using benthic macroinvertebrates. Pages 1O-27in: D.M.Rosenberg and V.H.Re&h, eds.FreshwaterBiomonitoringand Benthic Macroinvertebrates. Chapman and Hall, New York.Clarke, AH.1981.The tribe Alasmidontini (Unionidae: Anodontinae), Part I: Pegias, Alasmidonta, and Arcidens.Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology.Number 326:iii+101 pp.Cohen, AC.1961.Table for maximum likelihood estimates: Singly truncated and singly censored samples.Technometrics 3:535-541. Downing, lA and F.H.Rigler, eds.1984.A Manual on Methods of Productivity in Freshwaters. Second edition.Blackwell Scientific Publications. Oxford, England.389 pp.Elliott, lM.1977.Some methods for the statistical analysis of samples of benthic invertebrates. 2nd ed.Freshwat.BioI.Assoc.Sci.Pubi.No.25.156 pp.Ferren, W.and A.E.Schuyler.1980.Intertidal vascular plants of river systems near Philadelphia. Proc.Acad.Nat.Sci.Phila.132:86-120. Fuller, S.L.H.and J.W.Richardson. 1977.Arnensalistic competition between Corbicula manilensis (Philippi), the Asiatic clam (Corbiculidae), and fresh-water mussels (Unionidae) in the Savannah River of Georgia and South Carolina.The Association of Southeastern Biologists Bulletin.24(2):52.Goodnight, C.J. The use ofaquaticmacroinvertebrates as indicators of stream pollution. Trans.Arner.Micro.Soc.92:1-13.Hart, C.W., Jr.and S.L.H.Fuller, eds.1974.Pollution Ecology of Freshwater Invertebrates. Academic Press, New York.89 pp.The Academy of Natural Sciences 2S6 Patrick Center for Environmental Research 2000 Savannah River Studies F.Literature Cited Hellawell, J.M.1986.Biological Indicators of Freshwater Pollution and EnvironmentalManagement.Elsevier Applied Science, London, England.Hendrickson, l 1998.A study on the estimation of parameters of the normal distribution from singly truncated samples, with application to diatom communities. Revised draft report submitted to Dr.Ruth Patrick.Hilsenhoff, W.L.1987.An improved biotic index of organic stream pollution. Great Lakes Entomol.20:31-39.Hohn, M.H.1961.Determining the pattern of the diatom flora.l Water Pollut.Contr.Fed.33:48-53.Hynes, H.RN.1972.The Ecology of Running Waters.University of Toronto Press.555 pp.____.1974.The Biology of Polluted Waters.University of Toronto Press.202 pp.Jenkins, RE.and N.M.Burkhead.1994.Freshwater Fishes of Virginia.American Fisheries Society Bethesda, MD.Johnson, RI.1967.Carunculina pulla (Conrad), an overlooked Atlantic drainage unionid.Nautilus.80(4):127-131. ____'.1970.The systematics and zoogeography of the Unionidae (Mollusca: Bivalvia)of the Southern Atlantic Slope Region. Zool.140(6):263-450. Karr, lR and E.W.Chu.1998.Restoring life in running waters: Better biological monitoring ..Island Press, Washington, D.C.207 pp.Klemm, D.l 1985.Freshwater leeches (Annelida: Hirudinea). Pages 70-198 in D,J.Klemm, ed.A Guide to the Freshwater Annelida (Polychaeta, Naidid and Tubificid Oligochaeta, and Hirudinea) of North America.Kendall Hunt Publishing Company.Dubuque, IA.198 pp.Krueger, H.O., J.P.Ward and S.H.Anderson.1988.A resource manager's guide for using aquatic organisms to assess water quality for evaluation of contaminants. Biological Report 88(20).Fish and Wildl.Serv., U.S.Dept.Int.45 pp.The Academy of Natural Sciences 257 Patrick Center for Environmental Research 2000 Savannah River Studies F.Literature Cited Lenat, D.R 1993.A biotic index for the southeastern United States: Derivation and list of tolerance values, with criteria for assigning water-quality ratings.1.N.Am.BenthoI.Soc.12:279-290. Loeb, S.L.and A.Spacie, eds.1994.Biological monitoring of aquatic systems.Lewis Publishers. Boca Raton, FL.400pp.Lowe, RL.1974.Environmental requirements and pollution tolerance of freshwater diatoms.National Environmental Research Center, USEP A.Cincinnati, Ohio.334 pp.Maret, T.R 1988.A water-quality assessment using aquatic macroinvertebrates from streams of the Long Pine Creek watershed in Brown County, Nebraska.Trans.Nebraska Acad.Sci.XVI: 69-84.Menhinick, E.F.1991.The Freshwater Fishes of North Carolina.North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, Charlotte, NC.Merritt, RW.and KW.Cummins, eds.1984.An Introduction to the Aquatic Insects of North America, 2 nd ed.KendalIlHunt Publishing Co., Dubuque, IA.____.1996.An Introduction to the Aquatic Insects of North America, 3 rd ed.Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co., Du];mque, IA.Miller, R.I.and H.W.Robison.1973.The Fishes of Oklahoma.Oklahoma State University Press, Stillwater, OK Norris, RH., RT.Hart, M.Finlayson and KR Norris;eds.1995.Use of biota to assess water quality.An international conference. Australian J.EcoI.20: 1-227.Olive, J.H.and KR Smith.1975.Benthic macroinvertebrates as indexes of water quality in the Scioto River basin.Ohio Bull.Ohio BioI.Surv., New Series.5:124 pp.Patrick, R, M.H.Hohn and 1.H.Wallace.1954.A new method for determining the pattern of the diatom flora.Notul.Natur.259:1-12.The Academy of Natural Sciences 258 Patrick Center for Environmental Research 2000 Savannah River Studies F.Literature Cited Patrick, Rand D.M.Palavage.1994.The value of species as indicators of water quality.Proc.Acad.Nat.Sci.Phila.145:55-92. Peterson, C.E.1993.The extent of anthropogenic disturbance on the aquatic assemblages of the East Branch of the DuPage River, illinois, as evaluated using stream arthropods. Trans.lllinois Acad.Sci.87(1-2):29-35. Platkin, lL., M.T.Barbour, KD.Porter, S.K Gross and R.M.Hughes.1989.Rapid bioassessment protocols for use in streams and rivers: Benthic macroinvertebrates and fish.U.S.EPA, Assessment and Watershed Protection Rept.EPA-444/4-89-001. Preston, F.W.1948.The commonness, and rarity, of species.Ecology 39:254-283. Rabeni, C.F., N.Wang and Rl Sarver.1999.Evaluating adequacy of the representative stream reach used in.invertebrate monitoring programs.J.N.Am.Benth.Soc.18(2):284-291. Robins, C.R., R.M.Bailey, C.E.Bond, lR Brooker,E.A. Lachner, R.N.Lea and W.B.Scott.1991.Common and Scientific Names Of Fishes from the United States and Canada.5th ed.Amer.Fish.Soc.Spec.Pub!.No.20.183 pp.Root, M.1990.Biological monitors of pollution. BioScience. 40:83-86.Rosenberg, D.M.and V.M.Resh.1993.Freshwater Biomonitoring and Benthic Macroinvertebrates. Chapman and Hall, NY.488 pp.SAS Institute Inc.1985.SAS User's Guide: Statistics, Version 5 edition.SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC.956 pp.____.1990.SAS/STATUser's Guide, Release 6.04 Edition.Cary, NC.Schuyler, A.E.1988.Submergent and planmergent flora of the freshwater portion of the Delaware estuary.Chap.10 in: S.K Majumdar, E.W.Miller and L.E.Sage, eds.Ecology and Restoration of the Delaware River.Pa.---------------AA.c"'"a...-ld'-!. SQ..c-'<-i. The Academy of Natural Sciences 259 Patrick Center for Environmental Research 2000 Savannah River Studies F.Literature Cited Seber, G.A.F.1973.The estimation of animal abundance and related parameters. Hafner Press.New York.506 pp.Shannon, C.E.and W.Wiener.1949.The Mathematical Theory of Communication. Univ.ill.Press, Urbana, a.125 pp.Sladecek, V.1973.System of water quality from the biological point of view.In Elster and W.Ohle, eds.Ergebnisse der Limnologie. Vol.7.Archiv fur Hydrobiologie. 218 pp.Smith, E.P.and IR.Voshell, Jr.1997.Studies of benthic macroinvertebrates and fish in streams within EPA Region 3 for development of biological indicators of ecological condition. Part 1.Benthic Macroinvertebrates. Final report for Cooperative Agreement CF8214620 10.U.S.Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.e.Starrett,W.e. 197L A survey'of the mussels (Unionacea) of the illinois River: A polluted stream.Bull.illinois Nat.Hist.Survey.30:265-403. Taylor, RW.1980.A survey of the freshwater mussels of the Ohio River from Greenup Locks and Dam to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Rept.to U.S.Army Corps of Engineers, Huntington District, Huntington, West Virginia.71 pp.Ter Braak, C.1F.and P.Smilauer.1998.CANOCO Reference manual and user's guidetoCanoco for Windows: Software for Canonical Community Ordination (version 4).Centre for Biometry Wageningen. Microcomputer Power.Ithaca, NY.352 pp.Turgeon, D.D., AE.Bogan, E.V.Coan, W.K.Emerson, W.G.Lyons, W.L.Pratt, e.F.E.Roper, A Scheltema, F.G.Thompson, and J.D.Williams.1988.Common and scientific names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Mollusks.Amer.Fish.Soc.Spec.Publ.16:vii+277 pp.Van Deventer, J.S.and W.S.Platts.1983.Sampling and estimating fish populations from streams.Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 48:349-354. The Academy of Natural Sciences 260 Patrick Center for Environmental Research 2000 Savannah River Studies F.Literature Cited____.1989.Microcomputer software system for generating population statistics from electro fishing data-User's Guide for MicroFish 3.0.United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service.Intermountain Research Station.General Technical Report INT-254.VanLandingham, S.L.1982.Guide to the Identification, Environmental Requirements and Pollution Tolerance of Freshwater Blue-green Algae (Cyanophyta). Envir.Mon.Supp.Lab.Off.Res.Develop.USEPA EPA-6oo/3-82-073. 341 pp.Weber, C.I.1973.Biological field and laboratory methods for measuring the quality of surface waters and effluents. EPA-670/4-73-00 1.Weiderholm, T.1984.Responses of aquatic insects to environmental pollution. Pages 508-557 in: V.H.Resh and D.M.Rosenberg, eds..The Ecology of Aquatic Insects.praeger Publishers, New York.Weitzel, R.L.1979.Periphyton measurements and applications. Pages 3-33 in R.L.Weitzel, ed.Methods and measurements ofperiphyton communities: A review.ASTM STP 690.183 pp.Whitton, B.A., ed.1975.River Ecology.Studies in Ecology.Vol.2.Univ.California Press, Berkeley.725 pp.Wilhm, IL.and T.C.Dorris.1968.Biological parameters for water quality criteria.Bioscience. 6:477-481. The Academy of Natural Sciences 261 Patrick Center for Environmental Research}}