ML071710048

From kanterella
Revision as of 23:49, 12 July 2019 by StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
the Impact of Construction of Vogtle Electric Generating Plant on the Aquatic Macroinvertebrate Populations of Beaverdam Creek, July, 1973 Through June, 1978, Operating License Stage Environmental Report Technical Document.
ML071710048
Person / Time
Site: Vogtle, 05200011  Southern Nuclear icon.png
Issue date: 04/30/1983
From: Holder S, Nichols M, Staats A
Georgia Power Co
To:
Office of New Reactors
References
+reviewedcja, AR-07-0924
Download: ML071710048 (39)
v • d • e


Text

THE IMPACT OF CONSTRUCTION OF VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT ON THE AQUATIC MACROINVERTEBRATE POPULATIONS OF BEAVERDAM CREEK, JULY, 1973 THROUGH JUNE, 1978 OPERATING LICENSE STAGE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT TECHNICAL DOCUMENTA.A.STAATS, PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATORS.D.HOLDER&M.C.NICHOLS TECHNICAL ADVISORS GEORGIA POtiER ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRSAPRIL,1983 LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES INTRODUCTION RESULTS AND DISCUSSION CONCLUSIONS REFERENCES TABLES FIGURES VEGP-OLSER TABLE OF CONTENTS i ii iii 1 6 13 15 18 36 VEGP-OLSER LIST OF TABLES 1.Period Designation, Year and Month of Sampling, and 18 Stations Sampled During Each Survey in Beaverdam Creek 2.Aquatic Macroinvertebrate Fauna Collected at Stations 19 in Beaverdam Creek With Special Reference to Significant Taxa 3.Number of Significant Taxa at Each Station in Beaverdam 24 Creek for Ekman Samples 4.Number of Significant Taxa at Each Station in Beaverdam 25 Creek for Dendy Samples 5.Probability that Data are Normally Distributed for Ekman 26 Samples 6.Probability that Data are Normally Distributed for Dendy 27 Samplers 7.Tests of Homogeneity of Variances for LOGlO+1), 28 and HBAR from Ekman Samples 8.Tests of Homogeneity of Variances for LOG,OXTAXA, and HBAR from Dendy Samplers;-1), 29 9.Results of Analysis of Va r i.ance for Ekman Samples 10.Results of Analysis of Variance for Dendy Samples 11.Physicochemical Data for Surveys fron 1973 to 1978 on Beaverdam Creek 12.Flow, Total Suspended Solids, and Suspended Sediment Discharge at Stations 3.0, 3.5, and 6.0 in Beaverdam Creek 13.Estimated Bedload Discharge at Station 3.0 Lsing the Schoklitsch Formula 14.Estimated Bedload Discharge at Stations 3.5 and 6.0 Vsing the Schoklitsch Formula ii 30 31 32 33 34 35 VEGP-OLSER LIST OF FIGURES 1.Beaverdam Creek Sampling Stations iii Page 36--

VEGP-OLSER INTRODUCTION As required by Section 6.1.2.2 of the A.W.Vogtle Nuclear Plant Final Environmental Statement (March, 1974), an environmental study assessing the effect of plant construction activities on the resident aquatic fauna of Beaverdam Creek was begun by Environmental Affairs Centersonnel on July 24, 1973.Aquatic macroinvertebrate populations were sampled during construction at approximately six-week intervals from July, 1973, through February, 1975.Sampling was discontinued from February, 1975, to May, 1976, while construction was halted.After construction resumed, sampling began in May, 1976, and continued through June, 1978.Quarterly visual inspections and water quality sampling will be conducted until the end of construction.

Section 4.3.2 of the FES suggested that construction activities could cause adverse effects on the Beaverdam Creek drainage basin receive runoff from the site.The FES further states that the major effect on the aquatic environment would result from the increased suspended particulate matter in the waters.Previous research suggested that increased suspended particulate from construction activities may affect aquatic fauna by habitJ.ttion, changing food availability (e.g.covering detritus), release of toxic substances, clogging of egg membranes and gilt!,

sessile benthic populations and inducing avoidance. j Several studies have shown that the number of organisms and species decreased do\vnstream of sgur 7 ys but recovered rapidly after the sediment load was reduced. In several cases, changes in species8)position were noted with variable effects on numbers of individuals.

'The purpose of this study was to determine the possible environmental effects or plant construction (erosion and siltation) on the aquatic macroinvertebrate community inhabiting Beaverdao Creek.The effects of siltation from access road construction and other land gradingvities were also discussed.

HETHODS Beaverdam Creek is a fourth-order located in Burke County, Georgia, approximately six niles of Girard and about 26 miles south-southeast of Augusta.ThE creek is 3?proximately six Diles in length and f Lows east-northeast to its confluence with the Savannah River.The area is characterized by rolling sandhills and mixedhardwood association.

The average yearly rainfall of the area is 39 inches (Bush Field, Augusta, Oceanic and Atmosphericstration).

Two main tributaries of Beaverdam Creek are Daniels Branch, approximately five miles in length running southeast, and High Head Creek, one mile in length running northeast (figure 1).1 VEGP-OLSER Telfair Pond originated with the damming of Beaverdam Creekstreem from the confluence of the three creeks.Seven sampling stations were located on Beaverdam Creek and Daniels Branch.The stations were designated:

2.0, 3.0, 3.5, 4.0, 6.0, 7.0, and 8.0.Stations 2.0, 3.0, and 6.0 were downstream of and could have been effected by construction.

These stations were considered to be"unaltered habitats".

Stations 4.0 and 8.0 were termed"altered habitats," as they were downstream of the site construction, but were affected by road construction prior to plant construction.

Stations 3.5 and 7.0 were in areas unaffected by construction and, therefore, termed"control stations." Station 2.0: Beaverdam Creek approximately 1.5 miles upstream from the Savannah River and 66.0 feet downstream from the wooden bridge on River Road.Predominant vegetation was hardwoods, low shrubs, andafew grasses.The substrate was composed of sand with scattered areas of detritus.The creek was about 33.0 feet with a depth from 1.5 feet to 5.0 feet.Station 3.0: Beaverdam Creek approximately 1.5 miles upstream from the Savannah River and 33.0 feet supstreamthe wooden bridge on River Road.Predominant was hardwoods, low shrubs, and a few grasses.The substrate was composed of sand and scattered areas of detritus.The creek width was about 33.0 feet a depth from 0.6 feet to 3.0 feet.Station 3.5: Beaverdam Creek approximately 1.6 upstream from the Savannah River and 2bove the confluence of Beaverdam Creek and an unnamed tributary draining ment retention basin::0.1.

vegetation was hardwoods, shrubs, and grasses.The creek was braided in the area of the station;therefore, one channel (6.0 feet wide and 1.5 to feet deep)was chosen for sampling.The substrate was composed of sand and detritus.Station 4.0: Cnnamed tributar',sedi=ent retention basin1 approximately 1.6 niles upstream from the Savannah River and about 33.0 feet of the access road.dominant vegetation was cattails, willows, and low shrubs.Algae growth was prevalent at this station since this area was exposed to full sunlight of the day.The creek width was about 6.0 feet and was from 0.3 to 1.0 feet deep with a substrate composed of sand and silt.2 VEGP-OLSER Station 6.0: Daniels Branch approximately 0.5 miles upstream from Telfair Pond and about 81.0 feet downstream from Telfair Plantation Road.Predominant vegetation was mixed hardwoods, low shrubs, and grasses.Stream substrate was composed of sand, gravel, andafew scattered areas of detritus.The creek was about 9.0 feet wide and 1.0 to 3.0 feet deep.Station 7.0: Daniels Branch about 0.5 miles upstream from Telfair Pond and about 30.0 feet upstream from the confluence of Daniels Branch and the unnamed tributary which drained the area of sediment retention basin No.2.The predominant vegetation was mixed hardwoods withafew shrubs and grasses.The creek was about 6.0 feet wide and 0.6 feet to 3.0 feet deep.The substrate was composed of sand and detritus.Station 8.0: Unnamed tributary from sediment retention basinNo.2mately 0.5 miles upstream from Telfair Pond and about 9.0 feet upstream from its confluence with Daniels Branch.The predominant vegetation was mixed hardwoods withafew shrubs and grasses..The tributary was about 3.0 feet wide and 0.3 feet deep with a sand substrate.

In 1972 and early 1973, prior to the beginning of the study, an access road was built into the plant site.Stations 4.0 and 8.0 were located within 30.0 feet and 450 feet, respectively, of the access road.In September, 1977, a private logging operation upstream of Station 7.0 (a control), caused increased sediment loads resulting in reduced flow, braiding of the creek channel, and increased turbidity.

Aquatic macroinvertebrates were from Stations 2.0 through 4.0 and 6.0 through 8.0 at approximately six-week intervals from September, 1973, through February, 1975.All construction activities were suspended for the remainder of 1975 and the survey was discontinued.

In 1976,struction resumed and the objectives of the sampling program wereevaluated.

As a result, Stations 3.0, 4.0, 6.0, 7.0, and 8.0 werepled in}lay, June, and August of 1976.Station 2.0 was discontinued because it was located within 90.0 feet of Station 3.0 and providedneeded duplication.

In 1977, sampling resumed at Stations 3.0, 4.0, 6.0, 7.0, and 8.0.At this tine, Station 3.5 was added as antional control in the vicinity of Stations 3.0 andStation 8.0 was discontinued in July, 1977, because f100dins caused the creek channel to move and the substrates out of It determined that it was futile for sampling to continue at Station 8.0 where flooding was common.Stations were sampled until June, 1978.Surveillance continues with a quarterly inspection and water quality sampling at each station.3 VEGP-OLSER On each sampling date, four Ekman grab samples (Ekman samples)and three Hester-Dendy multiplate samplers (Dendy samplers)were collected from each station.TheEkman samples were collected along a transect between banks.Ekman samples were washed inaNo.30 field screen and placed in liter jars.The three mu1tip1ate samplers were attached to an aluminum rod for easier handling.Immediately prior to removal from the water, the Dendy samplers were covered with nylon bags to prevent loss of macroinvertebrates.

After retrieval, a replacement rod was placed at the station.All samples were preserved in ten percent formalin and transported to the laboratory.

In the laboratory, Ekman samples were stained with Rose-bengal and washed throughaNo.30 u.s.standard soil sieve.

and detritus were brushed gently from artificial substrates and washed throughaNo.30 sieve.Macroinvertebrates were sorted from detritus and sand using an illuminated magnifier and forceps.Identifications were made using a stereo-zoom were identified to the lowest level.g Macroinvertebrate data were arranged in groups according to sample date and assigned a seasonal (table 1).The months used in each seasonal period mayor may not correspond to traditional seasons, but the periods were incorporated to place the data in an order that would be familiar to the reader.In addition, combining data into periodsvides"replicate" samples for analyzing the variance and distribution of the data.

data from Ekman samples and Dendy samplers were stored on magnetic tape using the Southern Company Services, Inc., IBM computer system.The Shannon-Weiner diversity index (HBAR), total number ofdividuals and number of taxa (NTAXA)were tabulated using SAS 76.6.The Shannon-Heiner diversify" Lndex was calculated for each sample as: T HBAR<..1 to T Hhere T Xumber of taxa (XTA...'C.A) and Pro Proportion of individuals in thei-th taxa(15)l Water samples, instantaneous air and water temperature, pH, andsolved oxygen, measurements were obtained during each collection of macroinvertebrate r,)The water samples were analyzed according to Standard 0 by Georgia Power Company's Central Laboratory.

4 VEGP-OLSER Beginning in April t 1976 t instantaneous discharge measurements were made in Beaverdam Creek and Daniels Branch at Stations 3.0 t 3.5 t and 6.0.At each station t the creek was divided into equal segments across the stream.Width and depths of each segment were recorded and used to determine cross-sectional areas.Velocity measurements were made using a Gurley Hydrological Instrument's Inc't pygmy-type current meter.An instantaneous discharge was calculated from the cross-sectional area and mean velocity.Stations 4.0 t 7.0 t and 8.0 were braided;therefore t flow measurements were not made.Samples for total suspended solids were collected using aintegrating suspended sediment wading-type sampler t U.S.DH-48.nvO suspended sediment samples were collected at Stations 3.5 and 6.0 t and one sample was collected in each segment of the creek at Station 3.0.Instantaneous suspended sediment load (tons per day)waslated using average suspended sediment (mg/l)and instantaneouscharge.In order to determine the amount of bedload discharge t a sample of the bed material was collected and analyzed for size.The Schoklitsch formula was used for bedload The Schoklitsch formula is:

G l is the bedload in Ibs/sec/ft S is the slope 3 Q O is the discharge in ft/sec QOl is the or flow responsible for sediment transport along the channel bed in_3/tt sec 1.088D3/2 QO!=S7/6 D is the particle diameter in feet The slope of the creeK bed at Stations3.0,3.5, and 6.0 were obtained from USGS quadrangle maps.A seasonal qualitative analysis of species composition of each stationwasmade using the r::ore frequent or"significant" taxa.This type of comparison makes use of the biological information on communitysition which is not reflected in numbers of individuals, numbers of taxa, 5 VEGP-OLSER and to a certain extent, taxonomic diversity indices.The objective is to base interpretations on those organisms that have a high probability of being collected during sampling and eliminate those which may be localities or are too infrequent for statistical evaluatl.on.

The for selection of"significant" taxa were those used by Chutter: 1.Taxa composing five percent or more of the individuals in single samples, regardless of the number of samples in which they were found, and 2.Taxa found in more than half the samples collected in a period, regardless of their number.The first criteria was evaluated using the total number of individuals excluding Oligochaetes and chironomids, since a preponderance ofviduals in these two groups eliminated less numerous taxa.This criteria selected those taxa present in large numbers, butmaybe collected for a short period.The second criteria.selects those taxa whichmaybesent in low numbers but were collected with some frequency.

The statistical analysis considered the data in two parts: 1973 through 1974 and 1976 through 1978, due to changes in stations sampled and absence of data from most of 1975.The effect of year and month on the sample statistics could not be examined due to the variable frequency of sampling.Instead, the data were combined into three-month periods (approximating seasons)and analyzed for differences among stations.Variables analyzed were:

diversity index (HBAR);10glO transformation of the total number of individuals (N+1));and number of taxa (NTAXA).Assumptions of normality and honogenel.ty of variances were the G-test and an approximation of the F-max test, respectively.

1 These sample statistics were generated using the KSLTEST procedure of SAS 76.6.An analysis of variance was performed on the samptzoJtatistics using the General Linear:lodels (GL:I)procedure of SAS 76.6.A two-way fixed effects model\.;ith replication was used to test for differences among stations and periods for P-BAR, and LOGlO (N+1).Type III estimable functions were used in computing sums of squares because of missing data and unequal numbers of observations.

The statistical values for HEAR, LOG10 (N+1), and aresented l.n ctppenal.X A.RESULTS Environmental components of each station, such as substrate type, stream width, stream depth, current velocit:;, and vegetation cover, affect its faunal composition.

In order to determine the effects of perturbation, 6 VEGP-OLSER the ph ysit1J make-up of each station should be duplicated as closely as possible.The Beaverdam Creek stations were chosen to monitor sediment-induced perturbations, but faunal differences due to other physical factors were present.Table 2 lists the macro invertebrate taxa and total numbers of individuals found at stations in Beaverdam Creek.The letter code ("E"=Ekman,"D"=Dendy samplers)represents the sampler type that the organism was collected by and occurs only where a particular taxa met the criteria for"signicance." The"significant" taxa unique to the Ekman or Dendy samplers reflected the habitats sampled by these techniques.

During the survey, some of the"significant" taxa were collected by either or both samplers, but the organisms were not collected in great enough numbers or frequency to meet the criteria for"significance" in both samplers.One hundred and fifty-three taxa were collected in Beaverdam Creek the study.The most abundant included Stenonema spp., Cheumatopsyche spp., Ceratopogonidae, Chironomidae, Oligochaeta, and Pelecypoda.

Of the 153 taxa, 126 were considered"significant."For t y-rtwo taxa were"s i gn Lf Lc ant" in Ekmans only and 27 taxa were"s'ignificant" in Dendy samplers only.Sixteen taxa were"significant" at all stations when one or both of the sampling techniques were considered.

Fifteen taxa were"significant" at Station 4.0 only, and four taxawere"significant" only at Station 8.0.Generally, a majority of the remaining"significant" taxa'..cere shared by Stations 2.0,3.0,3.5, 6.0, and 7.0 and occasionally Stations 4.0 and 8.0.Table 3 shows the number of"significant" t axa in Ekman samples for each station.The greatest number of"significant" taxa recorded was 36 at Station 3.5 during the spring, 197"7".The least number of"significant" taxa (4)recorded was at Stations 4.0 and 8.0.It is evident that there was an increase in the number of"significant" taxa after summer, 1974.Those or garu sms that wer e"significant" in Ekman samples only were inhabitants of the sedinent or in close association with the bed of the creek.L'{anples include: 3aetisca spp.,

spp., Dromogomphus spp., Gornphus spp.,

spp.,

spp., Tabanidae, and Corbicula spp., of which are burrowers or live in leaf aQd.-.d de t ri.-'1-d iL, 21, debrls reedlng as pre ators, or rl ter ers.Table 4 gives thenuraber of"signific.:mt" taxa at each station for Dendy samples.The greatest number of"significant" taxa at any station was recorded at Station 6.0 (23)and the least at Station 3.0 (1).Station 2.0 had the highest mean number of"significant" taxa (15.4)and Station 8.0 had the lowest (6.4).Stations 3.0, 6.0, and 7.0 had consistently higher numbers of"significanr" taxa throughout the survey.Station 4.0 7 22)

VEGP-OLSER had low numbers during the fall, 1973, and winter, 1974;increased to control station levels in the spring, 1974, through summer, 1977;and decreased again during winter through summer, 1978.Generally, the number of"significant" taxa at Station 8.0 remained low throughout the time of sampling.The"significant" taxa found only in the Dendy samplers typically inhabit undercut banks, sticks, and debris or the surface of logs and rocks.These organisms include: Acroneuria spp., Corydalus spp., Nigronia spp., Macronema spp., and others.These species are either predatory or collector filter feeders.A majority of the organisms that were"significant" at all stations were tolerant of widely fluctuating environmental conditions.

Tolerant taxa include: Cheumatopsyche spp., Ceratopogonidae, Chironomidae, and Oligochaete.

'The"significant" taxa present in either sample type at all stations except 4.0 and 8.0 were: Hexagenia spp., Phylocentropus spp.,psyche spp., and Ectopria spp.The above taxa require a stable or(12 firm substrate which was not present at either Station 4.0 or 8.0.'14, 21, 23)Access road construction in 1972 eliminated all terrestrial and aquatic vegetation in the area of Station 4.0.The creek substrate was covered with a thick layer of silt (0.5 to 3 feet deep)which was very unstable.The succession of vegetation and stabilization of the substrateout the study created a unique habitat.Due to the habitat, different organisms were"significant" at Station 4.0 when compared to the other stations.The majority of"significant" taxa at Station 4.0 re quin c12 current with abundant algae and rnacrophytic vegetation;

, ,-,These taxa included: Hydropyrus spp.(Ephydra), Nemotelus spp., Cladocera, Ostracoda, Berosus"spp.,::ymphyla spp,, and boides spp.After the substrate at Station 4.0 began to stabilize (post-road construction), the area became overgrown with cattails (Typha latifolia) and willows (Salix nigra).Due to the presence of fulllight most of the day, algal growth was prevalent at this station.No sediment movementswere observed in the area of St.a t Lon 4.0 after the substrate became stabilized, which indicates that on-site construction activities had no significant ef-ie.ct on the station.Station 8.0 was affected by road construction in the saQe Danner as Station 4.0 with heavy silt cover (0.5 to 1.5 feet).but trees and shrubs were not removed.The channel at Station 8.0 shiftedaminimum of three times during the survey, usually after heavv rains and flooding.The relative lack or mac ro Lnver tebra t e species at Station 8.0was probably due to channel Dovement and lack of bank vegetation.

The fournificant" taxa unique to Station 8.awere: (1)Calopteryxspp,, (2)Tipula spp., (3)Bittacomorpha spp., and (4)Trematoda organisms pre-8....

VEGP-OLSER ferring areas of decaying vegetation and detritus.(20, 21, 23)The majority of the above taxa were not found in"significant" numbers prior to the last two'sampling periods.The establishment of these taxa late in the sampling program and their habitat preferences indicated that the creek bed was stabilizing.

The unaltered stations (2.0, 3.0, and 6.0)shared a majority of the"significant" taxa found at the control stations.This indicates that the unaltered stations were not adversely affected by plant or access road construction.

In addition, the"significant" taxa data show that the altered stations (4.0 and 8.0)were generally different from all other stations.The colonization of the"significant" taxa at Stations 4.0 and 8.0 indicated that each station was not receiving largeties of sediment from on-site construction.

The number of"significant" taxa for Ekman samples, shown in table 3, suggested that Stations 4.0 and 8.0 were similar to the control station in the fall, 1974.The fluctuations in numbers of"significant" taxa found at the unaltered stations were very similar to Station 7.0out the survey.Indicating that tpe numbers of fauna at the unaltered stations were not changed by road or plant construction activities.

From the spring, 1977, Station 3.5 had higher numbers of"significant" taxa than the other stations.The increased numbers at Station 3.5 were problbly indicative of the favorable habitat.Recovery of organisms at the altered stations (4.0 and 8.0)occurred within a short time after the stream bed stabilized.

(41apid of impacted has been reported by Tebo,.Gammon, Reed, and Lenat, et al.TheDendy data in table 4 is variable but does show Station 8.0 having had low numbers of"significant" taxa a majority of the time.Thelow numbers of"significant" taxa at 8.0 were probably due to the substrate of shifting sand.An increase in the numbers of"significant" taxa at the altered stations occurred after summer, 1974.The fauna at the unaltered stations were similar to the controls throughout the study.It was recognized that the habitats at Stations 4.0 and 8.0 were changed and a majority of the"significant" taxapresen twere different from the other stations.The biological requirements of the taxa that were present demonstrated that the quality of habitat at Stations 4.0 and 8.0 did improve.Since the Ekman samples were collected in a fixed-spatial design, the samples cannot be considered random.The assumption of spatial randomness is not applicable to the Dendy samplers since the entire sampler was counted.Results of the G and Fmax tests for HBAR, XTAXA.andLog0 (N+1)collected in Ekman and Dendy samplers are presented in tables 5 9 VEGP-OLSER through 8.The data were non-normal in many instances.

approximation of a normal distribution for total number was obtained using the following transformation:

LOGIO (N+1)=10glO (NUM-IND+1)A closer of individuals The Fmax test demonstrated that the variances of the data were not homogeneous in specific cases (tables 7 and 8).Ekman samples obtained in 1973 through 1974 have significant differences among variances for LOGIO (N+1)and NTAXA, but not for HEAR.Ekman samples collected dur1ng 1976 through 1978 showed significant differences amongances for NTAXA and HBAR values, but not for LOG (N+1).Dendy samplers in 1973 through 1974 had significant amongances for LOG (N+1)and NTAXA, but not for HBAR.Dendy samplers collected in through 1978 showed no significant deviationthe assumption of homogeneity for any variable.An analysis of variance was completed recognl.zl.ng that assumptions of normality and homoscedasticity were not met by the data.A two-Hay fixed effect model with replication was used to test for differences among stations and periods for NTAXA, and LOG10+1)data.

no station-period interaction occurred and the variances of the data were homogeneous, further comparisonsamongmean were made using the Bonferronimultiple comparison procedure.

Data obtained fron Stations 2.0, 3.0, 3.5, 4.0, 6.0, 7.0, and 8.0 were used for this analysis.The results of the analysis of variance are summarized in tables9and 10.Heterogeneous variances of station-period interaction precludedtical comparisons arr.ong station means for LOG10+1)and values for the 1973 to 1974.Nultiple c01!1parisons of station means for HBAR in 1973 to 1974 indicated that average vaiues for the unaltered stations (2.0, 3.0, and 6.0)did not significantly differ fron those obtained at the control station (7.0).Also, the mean values for the alteredtions (4.0 and 8.0)\,ere less than those obtained at the unaltered and control stations (see Appendix A-14).Heterogeneous variances or station-period interaction also prevented awong means fron Dendy samplers collected during 1973 and 1974.Data obtained during 1976 to 1978 showed no significant for LOG10+1)andSignificant ruled out turther conpar1son for Dendy samplers collected in 1976 to 1978. detectable differences were found among stations for data collected in 1976 through 1978.The statistical of Log10+1), and HBAR supported the previous conclusions oased on species composition.

The statistical analysis (LoglO1), and for Ekman indicated that there were dl.fterences among statl.ons, but these dl.fferences depend 10 VEGP-OLSER upon the time of year the sample was taken.This was expected since environmental changes have a varying effect on different habitats and the populations which inhabit them.Although a rigorous statistical analysis was not feasible, it is evident that Ekman samples collected in 1973 and 1974 had fewer individuals and taxa at the stations affected by road construction (4.0 and 8.0 of table 7).Multiple comparison among stations for species diversity supported this, indicating that Stations 4.0 and 8.0 were less diverse than the control (7.0)andtered stations (2.0, 3.0, and 6.0).LoglO (N+1), NTAXA, and HBAR were not noticeably lower at Station 4.0 during 1976 through 1978.This suggeted that this station had recovered from the impact of road construction by 1976.Similar results were obtained from the Dendy samplers.Dendy samplers obtained during 1973 through 1974 had fewer individuals and and lower HBAR at the altered stations compared to the control and unaltered stations.A statistical comparison among station means in 1973 through 1974 was not possible due to significant station-period interaction or heteorgeneous variances.

Samples taken 1976 1978 sho\ved no significant differences among stations for+1)and HBAR.Differences among stations in NTAXA were significant but depended on the time of sampling.Thus, construction of the access road in 1972 adversely affected macroinvertebrates at Stations and 8.0.Sampling during 1976 through 1978 indicated that these altered stations had recovered andwere comparable in LoglO (:::+1)and::TAXA wi.t ntions unaffected by road construction.

Table 11 presents the mean, standard deviation, Jnd coefficient of variation of physicochemical data collectedall stations and sampling dates.Seasonal divisions not Water temperatures at Stations 2.p, 3.0, 6.0, and 3.0 were similar to those exhibited at Stations 3.5 dnd 7.0.Station 2.0 had the greatest variability (c.v,=

in wa ter terapera t ure.Themean wat ertures for all stations ranged fron a low of 17.3 C at Station 2.0 to a high of 19.5 C at Station 3.5.Dissolved oxygen levels were within the sane range for all stations.Stations 3.5 and exhibited the;reatest in dissolved oxygen with a coefficient of variation of 22.0 percent.The::lean dissolved oxygen values ranged from a low of 7.6 (Station 4.0)to a high of 8.3 mg/l (Station 8.0).Conductivity

(;::lhosic::l) values at the unaltered and altered stations were similar to those round at the control stations, except thebility was higher at Stations 3.0 and 4.0 (c.v.=21.9%and 48.0%, respectively).

The mean conductivity values for all stations ranged from a low of 35.6 at Station 8.0 to a high of 86.0 at Station 4.0.11 VEGP-OLSER Alkalinity values were similar for unaltered and control stations.Alkalinity values at Stations 4.0 and 8.0 varied more than the other stations (c.v.=51.6%and 29.0%, respectively), while Station 2.0 had the least variation (c.v.=10.2%).The values for alkalinity demonstrate the same general trends that were exhibited by conductivity with high mean value at Station 4.0 (35.4 mg/l)and a low mean value at Station 8.0 (13.9mg/1)*The hardness values at Station 4.0 were higher than the control or other downstream stations.The greatest variation in hardness was exhibited at Stations 4.0 and 8.0 (c.v.=52.0%and 77.3%, respectively), and Station 3.0 had the least variation (c.v.=3.0%).Station 4.0 had the greatest mean hardness value (41.5 mg/l CaC0 3), while Station 8.0 had the lowest mean value (17.2 mg/l CaC0 3).The unaltered and altered stations had approximately thesamepH as the control stations throughout the study.Station 4.0 exhibited the greatest pH fluctuation (c.v.=7.0%), while Station 3.5 showed the leastlvariation

=1.7%).The highest mean pH was obtained at Station 3.5 (7.2)and the lowest was at Station 8.0 (6.6).Stations 4.0 and 8.0 exhibited greater turbidity than the control stations.Stations 2.0 and 3.0 were higher than and Station 6.0 was similar to the controls.Coefficients of variation for turbidity values were high at Stations 3.0 (161.0%), 4.0 (150.0%), and 8.0 (122.0%).Station 8.0 had the greatest mean value (33.8and Station 3.5 had the lowest (3.0 NTU).The total suspended solid data was similar to the turbidity data with Stations 4.0 and 8.0 having higher mean values than the other stations.The coefficient of variations for'all stations were high with the lowest at Stations 3.0 and 3.5 (55.0%and 92.0%, respectively).

Station 8.0 exhibited the greatest range (c.v.=135.0%)in total suspended solids, while Station 3.0 showed the least (c.v.=55.0%).The greatest mean value was obtained at Station 8.0 (45.6 mg/l)and Station 3.0 (5.48 mg/l)had the least.Flow, total suspended solids, tind suspended sealwent discharge data are presented in table 12 for Stations3.0,3.5, and 6.0.It should be noted that Beaverdam Creek in the area of Station 3.5 braided and only that portion of the stream that affected the Dend:; Eknan samples wastored (approximately to 20.0:";of the total f Low).FlO'.at Stations 3.0 and 3.5 did not fluctuate widely during the survey.However, at Station 6.0, flo,.was influenced by releasessedioent retention basin No.2.The total suspended data was used to calculate suspended sediment discharge.

Suspended sediment discharge ranged from 0.12 to 0.82 tons/day at Station 3.0;0.03 to 0.14 tons/day at Station 3.5;and 0.11 to 5.16 tons/day at Station 6.0.The high suspended sediment discharge at Station 6.0 on Ap r i l, 13, 1977, was probably due to high flow and high suspended solids for that date and would not be indicative of normal conditions.

12 VEGP-OLSER Table 13 lists the results of the Schoklitsch formula applied to the data collected at Station 3.0.The estimated bedload discharges ranged from 140 tons/day on July 12 to 510 tons/day on May 7, 1976 and 1978, with an average value of 244 tons/day.It should be noted that these values are approximations.

Table 14 lists the results of the Schoklitsch formula applied to the data collected at Stations 3.5 and 6.0, respectively.

The bedload discharges at Station 3.5 ranged from 5 tons/day to 16 tons/day.The bedload discharges at Station 6.0 ranged from 150 tons/day to 780 tons/day.The physicochemical data (table 11)collected during the study were typical of and did not vary drastically from the control station data.'Generally, conductivity, alkalinity, and hardness had the greatest variation at Stations 4.0 and 8.0.This was probably resulted from excavation on the plant site.Leaching com-ponents can cause differences in the stream chemistry.

'The mean turbidity was greater at Stations 4.0 and 8.0 (34.3 NTU and 46.0 NTU, respectively) but more variable at Station 3.0 (mean 5.6 c.v.of 130.0%).Total suspended solids data had the greatest mean values at Stations 4.0 (30.6 mg/l)and 8.0 (53.5 mg/l)and the greatest variation at Station 7 (144.0%). values for the other stations were a great deal lower ranging from 4.5 mg/l at Station 3.5 to a high of 15.8 mg/l at Station 6.0.It should be noted that the turbidity and totalpended solids data were extremely variable due to the nature of the drainage basin, the sediment input from access road and plantstruction, and sampling variability.

Table 12 shows low concentrations of suspended material at Stations3.0,3.5, and 6.0;therefore, it would be expected to have a small percentage of suspended load aspared to total sediment discharge.

The data collected indicated the suspended sediment discharge to be less than one percent of themated total sediment discharge of Beaverdam Creek.}illst of the sediment discharge in Beaverdam Creek occurred as bedload movement.The bedload movement characterized by sand particles rolling or tumbling or the r-This areawasknown as the unsampled zone.

must be used to estimate the amount of sediment discharge within this unsampled zone.The nost important factor in the amount of sediment discharge fron Beaverdam Creek would be the influence of localized heavy rainfall.The resulting increased flow would the amount of bedload movement and greatly increase the a::lOunt of suspended materials.

13 VEGP-OLSER CONCLUSIONS Species composition at the unaltered stations were similar to the control stations throughout the study indicating that planttion had little or no effect on the macro invertebrate fauna of Beaverdam Creek.Species composition at the altered stations (affected by access road construction) became increasingly similar to that of the control stations after the summer of 1974.This indicated that the altered stations recovered from access road construction and were not affected by plant construction.

The control stations generally had more taxa present than the altered stations due to the more stable substrate at the control stations.Differences among stations for LOG0(N+1)and HBAR were not signficant during 1976 through 1975.This suggested that initial differences among stations were largely due to access roadtion, and that plant construction.had little impact on the indices used.Significant differences among stations for valuesbably reflected differences in habitat at specific stations.Physicochemical data showed differences in conductivity, alkalinity, and hardness bet\veen the control and unaltered and altered stations.The variation in values at Stations 4.0 and 8.0 were probably due to the exposed soils on the plant site.Suspended sediment data indicated that most of the sediment discharge in Beaverdam Creek occurred as be41oad.The on-site sediment retention basins would cause heavier particles to settle out and be deposited in the basin;therefore, the bedload movement results from naturalena and not plant construction.

14 VEGP-OLSER REFERENCES 1.Stern,E.M.and Stickle, W.B., Effects of Turbidity and Suspended Material in Aquatic Environments.

U.S.Army Corps of Engs., Water Exper.Stat., Envr.Lab., Vicksburg, Mississippi; 1978.2.Sorensen, C.L., et a1., Suspended and Dissolved Solids Effects on Freshwater Biota: A Review.Corvallis Envr.Res.Lab., Off.of Res.and Develop., U.S.EPA, Corvallis, Oregon;1977.3.Iwamoto, R.N., et a L, , Sediment and Hater Quality: A Review of the Literature Including a Suggested Approach for Water Quality Criteria.U.S.EPA, Region 10, Seattle, Washington; 1978.4.Tebo, L.B., Effects of Siltation Resulting from Improper Logging on the Bottom Fauna of a Small Trout Stream in the Southernchians.Prog.Fish.Cult.17: p 64-70, 1955.5.Gammon, J.R., The Effect of Inorganic Sediment on Stream Biota.De Paul University, Greencastle, Ind.Report No.W72-00851 (EPA/18050-0WC-12/70);

1970.6.Reed, J.R., Stream Community Response to Road Construction Sediments.

Va.Res.Resear.Cent., VPI, Blacksburg, Va., Bulletin 97;1977.7.Lenat, D.R., Penrose, D.L., and Eagleson,K.W., Biological Evaluation of Xon-point Source Pollution in North Carolina Streams and Rivers.Dept.of Xatura1 Resources and Corom.Develop.Division of Envr, Envr.

Un i t Biol.Monit.Group Biol.Series X.C.State Water Resources Division, Raleigh, N.C.;1979.8.Chutter, F.:'1., The Effects of Silt and Sand on the Invertebrate Fauna of Streams and Rivers: Hydrobio10gia 34: pp 57-76, 1969.9.Ross, H.H., The Caddisf1ies or Trichoptera of Illinois.Ill.Xatura1 His.Surv.Bull.23(1);1944.10.Needharn, J.G.and 1,*:estfa11,.Jr,,J., A Hanua1 of the Dragonflies of::orth A'Jerica (An Lsop ter a).UnLv, of Cal.Press, Berkeley, Cal.;p 615, 195::'.11.Edmondson,:.;.T., (1 ed,), Fresh,vater Biology.John Hiley and Sons,::.'1., p 1248,1959.

12.Edmunds, G.F., Jr., Jensen, S.L., and Berner, L.Xorth and Central America.UnLv, of Press.1976.The Hay-flies of Minneapolis; p 330, 13.Hi1senhoff, W.L.Aquatic Insects of Wisconsin.

Tech.Bull.Xo.89, Dept.of Nat.Res.Hadison, 1975.15 VEGP-OLSER REFERENCES (CONTINUED) 14.Wiggins, G.B., Larvae of the North American Caddisfly Genera (Trichoptera).

Univ.Toronto Press, Toronto, Canada, p 401, 1977.15.Pielou,E.C.Population and Community Ecology-Principles and Methods.Gordon and Breach, Sci.Publishers, Inc.New York, N.Y., p 424, 1976.16.American Public Health Association.

Standard Methods for Examination of Water and Wastewater,"13th ed.Amer, Pub.Health Asscc,, Washington, D.C.;p 874, 1971.17.Shulits, S., and Hill, R.D., Jr.Bedload Formulas, Part A: A Selection of Bedload Formulas, Part B: Program Listings for Bedload Formulas for Soil and'vater Conservation.

Res.Div.Agr, Res.Servo U.S.D.A., Penn.State Univ., Coll.of Eng.Univ.Park, Pennsylvania; 1968.18.Chutter, F.X.Hydrobiological Studies in the Catchment of South Africa Part 1: River Zonation and the Benthic Fauna.Revue.Ges.Hydrobiol.

55(3);pp 445-494, 1970.Vaal Dam, Into 19.Sokal,R.R.and Rohlf, F.I.Biometry.W.H.Freeman and Co., San Francisco, California; 1969.20.Goodnight, J.H.Tests of Hvpotheses in Fixed Effect Linear Models.SAS Technical Report R-I01;SAS Institute, Inc., Raleigh, 1978.21.Hart, C.I,'., Jr., and Fuller, S.L.H.Pollution Ecology of Invertebrates.

Academic York, p 389, 1974.22.Herritt, R.W.and CUrilTIlins, K."I., An Introduction to the Aquatic Insects of::orth ArnerLca.Kendall/Hunt PublishingCo,, Dubuque, Iowa;p 441, 1978.23. J.B.,:*:oodall, l*}.R., and Thvelling-Tube, Capture::et and Food (Trichoptera:

69(1);pp 149-154, 1976.Staats,A.A.The Larval of Phylocentropus placidus Ann.of the Ent.Soc.America.24.Freshwater Invertebrates of the Vnited States.Ronald Press Co.,::etv York,::.\'.;p 769,1953.25.xe t er , J.and:.J.Applied Linear Statistical

}fodels.Richard D.Irwin, Inc.Homewood, Illinois, 1974.26.Ellis,:-1.:-1.,;.Jestbll, B.A., and Ellis,:1.D.Determination of Water Ouality.V.S.Dept.Interior, Fish and Servo Rep.9;1946.16-VEGP-OLSER REFERENCES 27.Reid,G.K.Ecology of Inland Waters and Estuaries.

Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York, N.Y., p 375, 1961.28.Hynes, H.The Ecology of Running Waters.Univ.Toronto Press, Toronto, Canada, p 555, 1970.29.Inter-Agency Committee on Water, Subcommittee on Sedimentation.

A Study of}lethods in Measurement and Analysis of Sediment Discharge.

Superintendent of Documents, U.S.Gov.

Office, Washingt;n, D.C.;1963.17 VEGP-OLSER TABLE 1 PERIOD DESIGNATION, YEAR AND MONTH OF SAHPLING, AND STATIONS SAMPLED DURING EACH SURVEY IN BEAVERDAM CREEK (*=STATION 3.5 WAS Period Year Month Station Sampled Fall 73 9 2.0-8.0 73 10 2.0-8.0 73 11 2.0-8.0 Winter 74 1 2.0-8.0 74 2 2.0-8.0 Spring 74 4 2.0-8.0 74 5 2.0-8.0 Summer 74 7 2.0-8.0 74.8 2.0-8.0 74 9 2.0-8.0 Late Fall 74 11 2.0-8.0&Hinter 74 12 2.0-8.0 75 2 2.0-8.0 Sununer 76 5 3.0-8.0 76 6 3.0-8.0 76 8 3.0-8.0 Spring 77 3 3.0-8.0'" 77 4 3.0-8.77 5 3.0-8.0"<Summer 77 7 3.0-7.0*77 8 3.0-7.0*77 9 3.0-7.0*Fall 77 11 3.0-7.0*Spring 78')3.0 7.0 1'78 3 3.0-7.0'" Summer 78 4 3.0-7.0 1'78 6 3.0-7.0", 18 VEGP-OLSER TABLE 2 (Page 1 of 5)AQUATIC MACROINVERTEBRATE FAUNA COLLECTED AT STATIONS IN BEAVERDlI,H CREEK WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TOItSIGNIFICANT" TAXA.(D=SIGNIFICANT TAXA COLLECTED IN DENDY SA}1PLES: E=SIGNIFICANT TAXA COLLECTED IN SAMPLES).Stations Ephemeroptera Siph10nuridae Ame1etus spp.Isonychia spp.Baetidae Baetis spp.

spp.Pseudoc1oeon spp.Heptageniidae Heptagenia spp.Stenacron spp.Stenonema spp.Leptophlebiidae Habrophlebiodes spp.Leptophlebia spp.Para1eptophlebia spp.Ephemerellidae Ephemerella spp.Tricorythidae Tricorythodes spp.Neoephemeridae Neoenhemera spp.Caenidae Brachycercus spp.Caenis spp.Baetiscidae Baetisca spp.Ephemeridae Hexa2enia S??Odonata Zygoptera Calopterygidae C.::tlonteryx Sp?Hetaerina S??Coenagrionidae Argiaspp, Enallaz.:TIa spp.Iscnnura spp.Agrionidae Anisoptera Cordulegastridae Cordulegaster spp.2.0 E D D D DIE DIE D D DIE DIE E D 3.0 D E DIE D D D DIE D E D E D 19 3.5 E E D DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE E E DIE E E 4.0 E E D E D DIE D DIE D 6.0 E DIE DIE DIE D D DIE D D D D DIE E D D 7.0 D E DIE DIE DIE E DIE DIE E DIE E D 8.0 D DIE D DIE Total Number 18 2 1 364 33 228 4 20 10 1 10 2469 1 1 6 13 257 161 20 1 14 143 5 32 1 2 1 4 10 2 40 2 2 5 ,.L 1 VEGP-OLSER TABLE 2 (PAGE 2 OF 5)Stations Total 2.0 3.0 3.5 4.06.07.0 8.0 Number Gomphidae E E E E 17 Dromogomphus spp EEEE E EE147 Gomphus spp.E E E E E E 45 Hagenius spp.2 Ophiogomphus spp.E 1 Progomphus spp.E E E E E 14 Aeschnidae Aeschna spp.D 2 Boyeria spp.D 8 Libel1ulidae E E DIE 9 Hacromia spp.E EEE 16 Neurocordulia spp.3 Somatoch1ora spp.1 Orthemis spp.1 P1ecoptera D D D E DIE 45 Taeniopterygidae Taeniopteryx spp.DEE 10 Nemouridae D 9 Pteronarcidae Pteronarcys spp.1 Perlidae D DIEDD D 25 Neoper1a spp.1 Faragnetina spp.D D D E D D 29 Acroneuria spp.D D DDD D D 89 Perlesta spp.D D DIE DIE DIE D 181 Atoper1a spp.D 2 Per1ine11a spp.E 3 Per10didae 2 Isogenus spp.D D D 6 Isoper1a sp.?D DIE D 24 Hemiptera r-1 Corixidae E J Ve Ld i.dae E 1 spp.E E 2 Coryda1idae Chau10ides spp.J 6 Coryda1us spp.D D D D D D D 61::igronia spp.D D 11 Sia1idae Sialis spp.DIE DIE DIE D DIE E 45 20 VEGP-OLSER TABLE 2 (PAGE 3 OF 5)Stations Total 2.0 3.0 3.5 4.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 Number TrichopteraED DIE 17 Philopotamidae Chimarra spp,DDDD 135 Psychomyiidae D 5 Lype diversa D D D E 49 Polycentropodidae D 7 Neureclipsis spp.DIEDIE D D 53 Polycentropus spp, DIE DIE D D DIE 56 Phylocentropus spp.E E E DIE E 150 Hydropsychidae DIE DIE DIE D DIE E 96 Diplectrona spp.D 7 Cheumatopsyche spp.DIE DIE DIEDIEDIE DIE DIE 1207 Hydropsyche spp.D E D DIE 26 H.incommoda E D DIE D DIE 92-H.orris D D 5-Nacronema spp.DDD 21 Hydroptilidae DIE D 39 Brachycentridae E EBrachvcentrus spp.E 8 Lhmephilidae PycnoDs\'che spp.t 1:.9 spp.')-Lepidostomatidae Lepidostoi.1.a spp.E 2 Nolannidae spp.E E-6 Leptoceridae 1 Ceraclea spp.E D 2 Nystacides spp.D 1 Triaenodes spp.1 Oecetis spp.'Of':: "'II,:: nit.DIE 107JI_

spp.':" E E 125-..Coleoptera4--Dytiscidae Hydroporus spp.....1)D 16--.-21 VEGP-OLSER TABLE 2 (PAGE 4 OF 5)Stations Total 2.0 3.0 3.5 4.06.07.0 8.0 Xurnber Elmidae Ancyronyx variegatus DIEDD DIE-D 63 Dubiraphia spp.E 3 Macronychus spp.DIE DIE DIE D D DIE D 327 Microcylloepus spp.D 6 Stene1mis spp.E DIE DIE DIE DIE D 144 Psephenidae Ectopria spp.E DDIEDIE D 44 Gyrinidae Dineutus spp.D 7 Gyrinus spp.1 Haliplidae Peltodytes spp.3 Hydrophilidae Berosus spp.E 1 Hydrochus spp.1 Chrysomelidae Donacia spp.E 1 Lepidoptera E 1 Pyra1idae::ymphula spp.E 1 Diptera E 3 Tipu1idae E r, D DIE 10 Eriocera ru1tonensis 1 Tipu1a spp.DIE 23 Ceratopogonidae D DOlE EDIEDIEDIEDIE 1730 Atrichopogon spp.3 ChironomidaeDIEDIEDIEDIEDIEDIEDIE 32757 Simulidae E D E DIEDIEDIE DIE 183 Ptychopteridae Bittaconorpha Spy.£1 StratioI:lyidae Xemote1us spp.D 1 Tabanidae.-r, f L 21 Hydre Ll i a s pp.1 Psychodidae 1 Empididae DIE D/:'DIE D DIE E 178 l-Jf_Ephydridae Hydropvrus spp.E 8 (Ephydra)22 VEGP-OLSER TABLE 2 (PAGE 5 OF 5)Stations Total 2.0 3.0 3.5 4.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 Number Hydrozoa Hydra spp.DIE D.E 15 Turbellaria Planaridae EDIEDIEDIEDIE DIE 560 Rhynchocoela E E E E DIE E 83 Prostoma rub rumDIEDIEDIEDIE DIE 827 Nematoda E E E DIE DIE DIE E 974 Gordioidea E 2 Oligochaeta DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE 16545 Polychaeta Manyunkia spp.1 Hirudinea D EEEED 38 Cladocera E..Ostracoda D j Copepoda E E DIE DIE DIE--03 Amphipoda E DIE D 1'.cO Collembola E E E E t, E56u Hydracarina E E DIE D E 36 Acari E-Hollusca Gastropoda E DIE EDIEDIE DIE DIE 863 Ancylidae Lavapex spp.E 7 Ferrissia spp.E DIE DIE DIE DIE F-E 166 Pelecypoda DIE E E DIE DIE DIE DIE 6649 Corbicula sp.E::: 2 Elliptio spp.E E E 23 Trematoda...4 23 VEGP-OLSER TABLE 3 Nill1BER OF SIGNIFICANT TAXA AT EACH STATION IN BEAVERDM!CREEK FOR EKMAN SAJ.'1PLES.

Station 2.0 3.0 3.5 4.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 Fall 1973 20 14 111415 4 Winter 1974 11 1041219 7 Spring 1974 17 10 4 12 16 6 Summer 19741414 91015 e Fall 19742421 14 20 17 13 Summer 1976 17 13 9'-...:J Spring 1977 163612 12 12',)--Summer 1977 172521 20 8 Fall 1977 5 18 7 7 Spring 1978710 5 i 9 Summer 1978 9138 8 8-= data obtained.24 VEGP-OLSER TABLE 4 NU}fBER OF SIGNIFICANT TAXA AT EACH STATION IN BEA VERDMI CREEK FOR DENDY SMfPLES.Station 2.0 3.0 3.5 4.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 Fall 1973 17 13 820186 Hinter 197415166510 12 Spring 1974 6 11 13615 ,'i Summer 1974 18 17 18 18 11 5 Fall 1974 21 161514 13 7-Summer 1976 2017109 6 Spring 1977161514 23 11 5 Summ.er 1977 11 17 15 16 9 Fall 1977 1 13 8 10 Spring 1978 10895 8 Summer 1978 1013.__9 11 8--

';umber 15.5 12.8 13.212.412.4 11.1 6.4-= data obtained.25 VEGP-OLSER TABLE 5 PROBABILITY THAT DATA ARE DISTRIBUTED FOR EJ.(}1A,N SA}IPLES.1973-1974 LOG10 (N+l)NTAXA HBAR Stati,on P-G P-G P-GP-GP-G P-G 1 2 121 2 2.0 0.029 0.697 0.659 0.574 0.045 0.716 3.0 0.808 0.286 0.1340.3140.136 0.437 4.0 0.282 0.994 0.006 0.753 0.007 0.248 6.0 0.711 0.U6 0.413 0.213 0.359 0.266 7.0 0.009 0.947 0.917 0.135 0.123 0.231 8.00.6120.889 0.000 0.000 0.340 0.205 Haxinum 0.808 0.994 0.977 0.753 0.359 0.716 Ninimum*0.009 0.286 0.000 0.000 0.007 0.205 1976-*-r,_f C)LCGlO c
:+1)::V*.X....;.HB.-\R Station eJ-G P-G.,?-G,?-G')?-G o-G..1-l."'-1...2----3.0 0.383 0.054 0.000 0.122 0.109 0.130 3.5 0.905 0.258 0.250 0.151 0.645 0.058 4.0 0.305 0.131 0.058 0.970 0.427 0.495 6.0 0.637 0.455 0.553 0.926 0.678 0.122 7.0 0.269 0.394 0.012 0.346 0.814 0.905 0.341 0.553 0.970 0.678 0.814:lininum 0.269 ol'0.000 0.114 0.109 0.058*__..,I.....For0.05, P>0.95 indicates that the data are nornal1y distributed.

26 VEGP-OLSER TABLE 6 PROBABILITY THAT DATA ARE DISTRIBUTED FOR DENDY 1973-1974 0.598 2.0 LOG10 P-G 1 0.177 (N+1)P-G 2 0.978 NTAX.-\.P-G 1 P-G 2 0.004 0.662 P-G,.L HBAR P-G 2 0.685 3.0 4.0 6.0 7.0 0.194 0.001 0.083 0.850 0.959 0.533 0.833 0.692 0.058 0.542 0.000 0.0010.0270.010 0.000 0.014 0.846 0.000 0.553 0.197 0.200 0.000 0.540 0.826 8.0 Naximum Hinimum 0.334 0.350 0.001 0.518 0.978 0.518 0.002 0.053 0.000 0.001 0.662 0.001 0.243 0.846 0.000 0.173 D.G85 0.000 1976-1978 Station 3.0 3.5 4.0 6.0 7.0 Haximum Hinimum LOC." p_cl.V.1 0.000 0.000 0.179 0.001 0.041 0.179 0.000 (::+1)P-G..., 0.054 0.000 0.373 0.295 0.329 0.8,.10 P-G 1 0.660 0.822 o.021 0.665 0.795?-c')0.881 0.921 0.083 0.525 rj;-1..........

J 0.921 0.083 l-:!BAR 0.789 0.906 0.107 0.014 0.752 0.906 0.014?-G..., L.0.586 0.440 0.874 0.495 0.996 0.996 0.440 For a 0.05,?>0.95 indica[es tha[ cata are nornal1y distributed.

VEGP-OLSER TABLE 7 TESTS OF HOMOGENEITY OF VARIANCES FOR LOG10 (N+1), NTAXA, NAD HBAR FROM EKMAN SAMPLES.1973-1974_LOG10 (N!l)_};TAXA 2 HBAR')Station N X S X S X S" 2.0 44 1.44 0.20 5.82 13.08 1.58 0.56 3.0 48 1.38 0.30 5.19 10.37 1.34 0.58 4.0 480.910.49 2.25 3.38 0.47 0.37 6.0 48 1.31 0.22 3.92 4.16 1.12 0.35 7.0 48 1.38 0.18 4.60 6.80 1.23 0.41 8.0 480.980.212.692.99 0.91 0.35 Maximum S2 0.49 N 48 13.08:: 44 0.58};48?Hinimum S-0.18 N 48 2.99 x 48 0.35:: 48 Fmax 2.72'" 4.37",*1.55 NS 1: Significant for'J: 0.05, variances not homogeneous

    • Significant for Cl 0.01, variances not homogeneous 1976-1978_LOG10 (X 11):':TAXA 2 HBAR S2 Station N X S-X S X 3.0 56 1.73 0.24 4.96 13.93 1.00 0.64 3.5 56 1.81 0.23 8.81 15.69 1.50 0.71 4.0 56 2.05 0.21 6.25 5.25 1.33 0.27 6.0 56 1.70 0.15 5.02 3.00 1.32 0.23 7.0 44 2.20 0.17 8.77 9.27 1.71 0.19'I:!aximuffi so:.0.24 ,', 56 15.69 N 56 0.71" 56'I., Ninir.1Uffi0.15:!56 3.00 ,-56 0.19 x 56., Fmax 1.60 5.

3.74****Signific3nt for',(=0.01, variances not homogeneous 28 VEGP-OLSER TABLE 8 TESTS OF HOMOGENEITY OF VARIANCES FOR LOG10 (N+1), NTAXA, AND HBAR FROM DENDY SAHPLERS.1973-1974 LOG10_(N+l)S2 NTAXA S2 HBAR?Station N X X X S-2.0 32 1.37 0.39 6.28 15.05 1.68 0.72 3.0 30 1.51 0.14 6.93 9.37 1.86 0.47 4.0 30 1.20 0.50 4.17 16.14 0.77 0.67 6.0 30 1.11 0.31 5.83 16.70 1.67 0.93 7.0 33 1.48 0.49 8.88 33.92 1.95 1.27 8.0 27 1.00 0.36 3.07 8.38 0.90 0.56')}Iaximum S;0.5030 33.92::;=33'"'"'7 x 33.L*.:./Hinimum S-0.14::: 30 8.38 x 27 0.47..30 Fmax 3.57'-'*4.05", 2.70::S*Significant for-0.05, variances not homogeneous

    • Significant for., 0.01, variances not hO;:Jogeneous 1976-1978

(:::+1)')

?HBAR')Station x S-,-.s:."3.0 33 1.62 0.40 7.21 14.11 1.39 0.60 3.5 33 1.72 0.34 8.:'3 18.95 1.60 0.80 4.0 39 1.62 0.25 6.92 1.2.76 1.62 0.40 6.0 36 1.710..'.1 9.00 21.GO-'1 0.60..../7.0 H 1.57O*.a 8.17=.0.90'-3 0.59 L*:Y')21.60'.'36..Xaximum S-0.41 41 O.SO=33..,.'.',-Minimum S-0.25 v-39 10.90..::'1 0.40 v-=39..Fmax 1.64 xs 1.98::S 2.00 xs 29 VEGP-OLSER TABLE 9 RESULTS OF ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR SAMPLES.THESE RESULTS ARE SUMMARIZED FRON ANOVA TABLES 3, 4, 7, 8, 11, AND12IN APPENDIX A.1973-1974 LOG10 (N+1)Source S.1,2 tatJ.on Period Station-Period NTA..'{A P 0.0001 0.0083 0.0015 1976-1978 Source S.2 tatJ.on Period Station-Period P 0.0001 0.0001 0.0025 Source S.1 tatlon Period Station-Period HBAR Source.3 Stat:Lon Period Station-Period P Source--0.0001 Station 1 u.0001 0.0015 Period 0.0055 0.5972 Station-?eriod 0.3632 P Source p 0.0001 Station 1 0.0001 0.0053 Period 0.3359 0.6716 Station-?eriod 0.1659 1.Heterogeneous variances preclucies among Dean values.2.Signiiicant station-period

?rec1udes comparison among 3.Comparison among Dean values indicate: 7=2, J, 6>4, 8, (see Appendix A, Table30 VEGP-OLSER TABLE 10 RESULTS OF ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR SAlIPLES.THESE RESULTS ARE SilllHARIZED FRON ANOVA TABLES 16, 17, 20, 21, 24, AND 25 IN APPENDIX A.1973-1974 LOG10 (N+l)Source S.1,2 tatlon Period Station-Period p 0.0008 0.0001 0.0001 1976-1978 Source Station Per iod St a t Lorr-PcrLod P (p-: 0.1515)0.0002 0.0001 Source.1,2 Statlon Period Station-Period HEAR Source?Station-Period Station-?ericd

?Source:1., 0.0001 Station-'-0.005 0.0116;'eriod 0.Oi6 0.01 Station-Period 0.0002?Source P , 0.0001 S ta Lion.L (P 0.1245):\'S<0.0194?er iod 0.0096 0.0593 Station-?eriod 0.0002 1.

variances precludes c02parison 2ean va I ues, 2.Significant interaction precludes comparison values.31 VEGI'-OLSER TABLE 11 I'IIYSICOCIII,:mCM,1)II'1'1I F()]{SURVEYS FRllH 1973-1978 ON BEAVERDIIH CREEK (MEAN+/-STANDARD DEVIATION)(COEFFICIENTOFVARIATION)

Station 7.0 8.0+19.3+/-7.0 19.1-6.1 32%36%++8.0-1.26 8.3-1.9 16%14%++49.7-5.84 35.6-6.2 12.0%17.0%++21.6-2.8 13.9-4.013.0%29.0%

23.3+/-3.4+17.2-13.3 15%77.3%++6.9-0.28 6.6-0.19 4.0%

++4.2-2.62 33.8-41.4-63%122%+6.9-0.38------5.5%7.0+/-3.6 51%6.0+18.8-6.3 34%4.0++86.0-41.048.8-4.3 48%9.0%-'11.5+/-21.722.4+/-3.4

52%15%+6.8-0.47--_.07*22.6+/-3'30 9--_...-_..._.__._.

3.5 7.2+/-0.12-.-....---_.__._-.--1.7:.'J.O+/-I.G**-----*****__A-5-'1;:].0 1-4.9-7.Y-_.---_._-----16J::;19.2+/-6.5 19.5+/-6.6]9.4+/-7.0--_.-._--._--_......._-_._-_._-_.-

VI/']!j%7.0:!:: 0.20-._.-_.--_.-._...*J.O::: ,.+n.0-2.1,9 2 J.()-I.9-_._.._-.-._----:l.O::-I-+48.4-10.6 47.7-3.3_.--....-,...--------"---"--"---

21.9%6.n 2.0 17.:1+/-6.7**_**_*0_:In 2.0/49.]4.6*..._0._._.._._._..**9.3/')'J I')(),J L.H.O;,:+6.9-0.15 8.0+/-1.53 7.9+/-1.20 7.7+/-1.73 7.6+/-1.65 8.0+/-1.4..--Y9%-----------1"57----------"217.--------

22%---18%I II-+'J".:J-J._.....___..---J 06/.: Co ndu c t IvLtv (1IIIdlllS/CIll) no (lI1g/])pll'l'urb.id Lt y (NTlI)W I-J'l'o t a I SUS]>"II""..!

So I i cis (1111:.1 I)5.LIS:!: 3.0--------_...*-55;,: 5.9+/-5.4_.0...---_._--

.____92;;++++jO.6-40.5 18.3-22.0 11.4-14.9 45.6-61.5.-,---------=-=-,.,----

lJ2Z 120%130%135%Numbc r ofs.unplcs 13 27 11 27 27 19 No d.i t.:ob tnLnod, V EG I'-OLSER TABLE 12 FLO\-], TOTAL SUSPENDED SOUDS, AND SUSPENDED SEDHlENT DISCHARGE AT STATTONS J.O, 3.5, AND 6.0 IN I1EAVEHDAN CREEK.Station 3.0 S t a t l.on 3.5 Station 6.0 Suspended Sediment Discharge (Tons/Day)

Total Suspended Solids (mg/£)Flow (CFS)Tota]Suspended TutLl1 Suspended Su spun.lc-d Sudlmcn t Suspended Scd i.men t So lIds Di:;c!lilrl',l' Flow Solids Discharge.._(!lI t"/v)....

L__

__..

__

__-->----,-"--_-,=,,,-,---,--

__-----,-_--,-_"",,--"-

]I l ow

.._,<

4/12/76:U.()J 2.7 O.H2 5/17/76 b 1.7/1.7 0.78 5/26/76 43.:!.5.8 0.67\..oJ 6/29/76 VI.:!.6.7 0.62\..oJ 8/10/76'I')I 8.7'0.53_..*'I 9/2]/76')t:.)4.4 0.30_.J._3/1/77 3(,.9 1.2 0.12 4/.13/77 17.2 2.(J 0.12 5/23/77 27.1 8.9 0.65 7/]2/77 17.6 3.2 0.15 8/17/77:W.O 4.8 0.26 9/27/77 3J.3 3.4 0.28 11/15/77'\')I 5.8 0.35 z,3/IL 1/7H 35.2 2.6 0.28 L,j25/7H 31.1 2.2 0.18 4.76 3.82 1.93 4.65.7 5.2 10.5 5.1 2.7 4.9 6.1 2.1 0.13 0.05 0.14 0.06 0.09 0.03 22.5 7.2 5.8 6.8 15.6 13.0 85.0 38.5 7.3 8.0 11.0 8.6 5.16 0.75 0.11 0.15 0.46 0.30 No data obtaineJ.NOTE: Station 3.5 was in cue of Lite chnuuc Ls of the braided stream.

VEGP-OLSER TABLE 13 ESTIMATED BEDLOAD DISCHARGE AT STATION 3.0 USING THE SCHOKLITSCH FOR}lliLA.

Estimated Bedload Stream Discharge Date Width (Ft.)Q O D Q01 G 1 Tons/Dav 4/12/76 28 23.9 0.575 0.24 0.14 170 5/17/76 32 61.7 0.464 0.18 0.37 510 5/26/76 31 43.2 0.473 0.18 0.26 350 6/29/76 29.5 34.2 0.503 0.20 0.20 260 8/10/76 30 22.4 0.469 0.18 0.13 175 9/21/76 30 25.2 0.5440.220.15 195 4/13/77 37 17.2*0.593 0.26 0.10 165 5/23/77 33 27.1 0.462 0.18 0.16 230 7/12/77 31 17.6 0.411 0.15 0.11 140 9/27/77 32 31.3 0.554 0.23 0.19 260 11/15/77 32 22.4 0.563 0.23 0.13 185 3/14/78 32 35.2'*0.394 0.14 0.21 290 4/25/78 31 31.1 0.384 0.13 0.19 250 Slope O.00114 NOTE: Because of the empirical nature of the fornu1as, the bedload discharges are not exact values, but appr ox iraa t i.ons , Symbols: 'I Stream discharge.3/"o rt sec D Parcic1e diameter (ft)Q01 Critical flow G=Bedload 34 VEGP-OLSER TABLE 14 ESTIMATED BEDLOAD DISCHARGE AT STATIONS 3.5 and 6.0 USING THE SCHOKLITSCH FORHULA.Station 3.5 Bedload Stream Discharge Date\-lidth (Ft)Q O D Q01 G Tons/Day 4/13/77 13 4.8 0.448 0.17 0.03 15 5/23/77 12 3.8 0.470 0.19 0.02 10 7/12/77 12 1.9 0.3870.140.01 5 11/15/77 12 4.6 0.392 0.14 0.03 13 3/14/78 12 5.7 0.474 0.19 0.03 16 4/25/78 12 5.2 0.438 0.17 0.03 15 Slope at Station 3.5 0.0011 Station 6*9 Bedload Stream Discharge Date (Ft)Q O D Q01 G Tons/Day 4/13/77 24 22.5 0.533 0.06 0.07 780 5/23/77 21 7.2 0.561 0.06 0.24 220 7/12/77 18 5.8 0.491 0.05 0.19 150 11/15/77 20 6.8 0.6360.070.23 200 3/14/78 20 15.6 0.586 0.07 0.52 450 4/25/78 20 13.0 0.643 0.08 0.44 420 Slope at Station 6.0 0.0036 NOTE: Because of the empirical nature of the formulas.the bedload discharges are not exact values.but are approximations.

Symbols: Q O Stream discharge_3/tt sec D Particle diameter (ft)Q01 Critical f10\>" G Bedload 35

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML071710048&oldid=1824505"