U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Open-File Report 2011–1027

Prepared in cooperation with the Alabama Clean Water Partnership

Assessment of Aquatic Macroinvertebrate Communities 

in the Autauga Creek Watershed, Autauga County, 

Alabama, 2009
Cover photograph: View of Bridge Creek sampling reach, Autauga County, Alabama, June 2009. 
Assessment of Aquatic Macroinvertebrate 

Communities in the Autauga Creek Watershed, 

Autauga County, Alabama, 2009

By Will S. Mooty and Amy C. Gill

Prepared in cooperation with the Alabama Clean Water Partnership

Open-File Report 2011–1027

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Department of the Interior

KEN SALAZAR, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Marcia K. McNutt, Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2011

For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, 

natural hazards, and the environment, visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1-888-ASK-USGS

For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, 

visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod

To order this and other USGS information products, visit http://store.usgs.gov

Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the 

U.S. Government.

Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to 

reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report.

Suggested citation:

Mooty, W.S., and Gill, A.C., 2011, Assessment of aquatic macroinvertebrate communities in the Autauga Creek 

watershed, Autauga County, Alabama, 2009: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2011–1027, 18 p.
iii

Contents

Abstract...........................................................................................................................................................1

Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................1

Purpose and Scope .......................................................................................................................................1

Methods...........................................................................................................................................................3

Riffle Habitat ..........................................................................................................................................3

CPOM (Coarse Particulate Organic Matter) Habitat ......................................................................3

Rock/Log Habitat...................................................................................................................................3

Root/Bank Habitat.................................................................................................................................4

Macrophyte Bed Habitat .....................................................................................................................4

Sand/Bottom Habitat............................................................................................................................4

Sample Preservation............................................................................................................................5

Sample Processing........................................................................................................................................5

Water-Quality Field Parameter Measurements......................................................................................10

Results of Macroinvertebrate Sample Analyses....................................................................................15

Summary........................................................................................................................................................17

References....................................................................................................................................................17

Figures

1. Map showing location of sampling sites in the Autauga Creek watershed, 

Autauga County, Alabama, 2009.................................................................................................2

2–4. Graphs showing—

 2. Total, EPT, and chironomid abundance at selected sites in the 

Autauga Creek watershed, Autauga County, Alabama, June 2009.............................15

 3. Total, EPT, and chironomid richness at selected sites in the 

Autauga Creek watershed, Autauga County, Alabama, June 2009.............................16

 4. Total, EPT, and chironomid richness in riffle habitat at selected sites 

in the Autauga Creek watershed, Autauga County, Alabama, June 2009..................16

Tables

1. Sampling sites in the Autauga Creek watershed, Autauga County, Alabama, 2009 .........3

2. Water-quality field parameters measured in the Autauga Creek watershed, 

Autauga County, Alabama, 2009.................................................................................................4

3. List of aquatic macroinvertebrates collected from the Autauga Creek 

watershed, June 23–25, 2009......................................................................................................6

4. Sort report for samples collected at sampling sites in the Autauga Creek 

watershed, Alabama, June 23–25, 2009..................................................................................10

5. Metrics for aquatic macroinvertebrates collected from Autauga Creek 

watershed, June 23–25, 2009....................................................................................................11
iv

Conversion Factors

Multiply By To obtain

inch (in.) 25.4 millimeter (mm)

foot (ft) 0.3048 meter (m)

gallon (gal) 3.785 liter (L)

square mile (mi2

) 2.590 square kilometer (km2)

square foot (ft2

) 0.0929 square meter (m2)

Temperature is given in degrees Celsius (°C), which can be converted to 

degrees Fahrenheit (°F) by the following equation: °F = 1.8 (°C)+ 32
Abstract

Only four families within the Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, 

Trichoptera orders were found during a 1999 survey of aquatic 

macroinvertebrates in Autauga Creek, Autauga County, Alabama, by the Alabama Department of Environmental Management. The low number of taxa of Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, 

and Trichoptera families indicated that the aquatic macroinvertebrate community was in poor condition, and the creek was 

placed on the Alabama Department of Environmental Management 303(d) list.

The U.S. Geological Survey conducted a study in 2009 

to provide data for the Alabama Department of Environmental Management and other water management agencies to 

re-evaluate aquatic macroinvertebrate communities in Autauga 

Creek to see if they meet Alabama Department of Environmental Management water-quality criteria. Aquatic macroinvertebrate communities were evaluated at three sites in the 

Autauga Creek watershed. Macroinvertebrates were sampled 

at two sites on Autauga Creek and one on Bridge Creek, 

the largest tributary to Autauga Creek. Water-quality field 

parameters were assessed at 11 sites. 

During the 2009 sampling, 12 families within the orders of 

Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera were found at the 

Alabama Department of Environmental Management’s assessment site whereas only four were found in 1999. The upstream 

site on Autauga Creek had higher numbers of taxa than either

the Bridge Creek site or the lower site on Autauga Creek, which 

is the Alabama Department of Environmental Management’s 

assessment site. Chironomid richness was noticeably higher at 

the two Autauga Creek sites than at the Bridge Creek site.

Introduction 

The Autauga Creek watershed drains approximately 

121 square miles in Autauga and Chilton Counties, lies primarily within the Fall Line Hills Level IV ecoregion (Griffith 

and others, 2001), and is a tributary to the Alabama River. 

Land use in the watershed is mainly forested, mixed with 

urban, pasture, and cropland (Alabama Department of Environmental Management, 2008b). Autauga Creek is historically 

significant in Prattville, Alabama, because city founder Daniel 

Pratt developed industrial facilities in 1835 on the creek and 

used the creek as a source of power for cotton mills. Though 

the creek no longer powers the mills, it remains a vital part of 

Prattville for its aesthetic appeal to the downtown landscape. 

The Alabama Department of Environmental Management 

(ADEM) uses aquatic macroinvertebrate community health 

as one component of their water-quality standards (Alabama 

Department of Environmental Management, 2009). Some 

species of macroinvertebrates are less tolerant of pollution and 

stream degradation than others. By knowing which species 

are associated with less degraded or more degraded streams, 

water-quality managers can use the macroinvertebrate community makeup as one component to determine stream health. 

In 1999, ADEM conducted a survey of aquatic macroinvertebrates in Autauga Creek, and only four Ephemeroptera, 

Plecoptera, and Trichoptera (EPT) families were found. The 

low number of EPT taxa (Alabama Department of Environmental Management, 2000) indicated that the aquatic macroinvertebrate community was in poor condition, and the creek 

was placed on ADEM’s 303(d) list (Alabama Department of 

Environmental Management, 2006, 2008c). 

Purpose and Scope

The purpose of this study was to provide data for ADEM 

and other water management agencies to re-evaluate aquatic 

macroinvertebrate communities in Autauga Creek to see if 

they meet ADEM criteria (Alabama Department of Environmental Management, 2009). If the communities meet ADEM 

criteria, the creek could be removed from the 303(d) list which 

would allow more uses of Autauga Creek in future development in the Prattville, Alabama, area.

In cooperation with the Alabama Clean Water Partnership, the U.S. Geological Survey sampled aquatic macroinvertebrate communities at three sites and assessed water-quality 

field parameters at 11 sites in the Autauga Creek watershed 

(fig. 1). Macroinvertebrates were sampled at two sites on 

Autauga Creek and one on Bridge Creek, the largest tributary 

to Autauga Creek. The sites were selected to determine if 

inflow from Bridge Creek is affecting aquatic macroinvertebrate communities. Data from all three sites can help city and 

county officials plan any necessary remediation. 

Assessment of Aquatic Macroinvertebrate Communities 

in the Autauga Creek Watershed, Autauga County, 

Alabama, 2009

By Will S. Mooty and Amy C. Gill 
2 Assessment of Aquatic Macroinvertebrate Communities in the Autauga Creek Watershed, Alabama, 2009

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

 Au at uga Creek

 Breakfast Creek

Autauga Creek

Bridge Creek

Mill Creek

Booth

Hunter

Elmore

Cooper

Coosada

Verbena

Millbrook

Prattville

Deatsville

Autaugaville

Mountain Creek

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data 1:100,000

 Hydrography from U.S. Bureau of the Census digital data 1:100,000

Autauga

Elmore

Chilton

Coosa

Montgomery

Lowndes

9

8 7

6

5

3

2

1

11

10

4

0 3 6 MILES

0 4 8 KILOMETERS

¤£82

«¬14

¤£31

¬«111

 ̈§ 65

¬«14

¤£31

¤£82

¬«22

¬«152

Figure 1. Location of sampling sites in the Autauga Creek watershed, Autauga County, Alabama, 2009. LOCATION OF AUTAUGA CREEK

 BASIN IN AUTAUGA COUNTY, 

 ALABAMA

 ̈§ 65

EXPLANATION

Autauga Creek basin boundary

Water-quality measurement

sites (see tables 1 and 2 for

site information)

#

Macroinvertebrate and waterquality sampling locations

Figure 1. Location of sampling sites in the Autauga Creek watershed, Autauga County, Alabama, 2009.
Methods 3

Methods

Water-quality field parameters were measured with 

a multi-parameter sonde at 11 sites in the Autauga Creek 

watershed (fig. 1, table 1). Parameters measured were water 

temperature, dissolved oxygen, specific conductance, pH, and 

turbidity (table 2). The sites were measured during base-flow 

conditions and during a period of storm runoff. 

Sampling techniques for macroinvertebrates followed 

methods established in ADEM SOP #6000 (2008a) with the 

exception of riffle habitat which was modified from U.S. 

Geological Survey (USGS) protocols (Moulton and others, 

2002) and the use of a “D”-frame net described in Barbour and 

others (1999). ADEM protocol states that samples should be 

collected from late April through early July, and all samples 

for this effort were collected in June, within the prescribed 

timeframe. Samples from each of the six habitats were collected, composited, and processed at each of the sampling sites 

using the procedures and methods described below.

Riffle Habitat

A kick net 0.5 meter (m) wide with a 500-micrometer 

(μm) mesh opening was positioned upright and securely on 

the streambed while a 0.25-square-meter (m2) area upstream 

was physically disturbed. Five 0.25-m2 riffle samples were 

collected at each of the three macroinvertebrate sampling sites. 

The five samples reflect the variability in the riffle habitat 

(collected from areas of fast current velocity and from slower 

velocity areas, including both shady and sunny areas). The 

samples were washed and composited in a large bucket sieve. 

Large debris was rinsed, visually inspected, and removed. 

Samples were placed in 500-milliliter (mL) plastic jars and 

preserved with 100 percent ethyl alcohol in preparation for 

shipment to the laboratory. 

CPOM (Coarse Particulate Organic 

Matter) Habitat

A variety of CPOM (coarse particulate organic matter) sources were collected, where available, from at least 

three different areas for each of the three macroinvertebrate 

sampling sites. Sample sources included leaf packs caught 

on woody debris and rocks, and roots extending out into the 

stream. The samples were collected from shore and backwater 

areas. Enough material was collected to fill approximately 

one-half of a number 30 sieve bucket. Recently deposited or 

fully decomposed leaf litter was not collected. 

Rock/Log Habitat

A total of about six rocks, logs, and sticks were washed 

into a large bucket sieve partially filled with water for the 

collection of attached fauna. The surfaces of the rocks, logs, 

and sticks were vigorously brushed or scrubbed to dislodge 

attached fauna. Any decaying logs, especially logs with loose 

bark, were picked apart and rinsed. Larger rocks and logs were 

visually inspected for attached invertebrates and hand-picked 

with forceps to ensure that as many as possible of the remaining organisms had been retrieved.

Table 1. Sampling sites in the Autauga Creek watershed, Autauga County, Alabama, 2009.

[wq, water quality]

Site 

number 

(see 

fig. 1)

Name

USGS 

station 

number

Latitude Longitude Sample type

1 Autauga Creek at County Road 20 near White City, AL 02420268 32°39'16" 86°35'08" wq field parameters

2 Autauga Creek at County Road 42 near White City, AL 02420270 32°36'37" 86°34'24" wq field parameters

3 Autauga Creek at County Road 40 near Old Kingston, AL 02420275 32°34'35" 86°35'29" wq field parameters

4 Autauga Creek at County Road 63 near Booth, AL 02420280 32°32'50" 86°35'10" wq field parameters

5 Bridge Creek at County Road 40 near Pine Level, AL 02420320 32°34'07" 86°30'44" wq field parameters

6 Bridge Creek at County Road 59 near Pine Level, AL 02420330 32°31'45" 86°30'40" wq field parameters

7 Bridge Creek at County Road 57 near Prattville, AL 02420340 32°30'45" 86°31'22" wq field parameters

8 Autauga Creek at County Road 10 near Booth, AL 02420290 32°32'13" 86°34'50" macroinvertebrates, 

wq field parameters

9 Bridge Creek at County Road 10 near Prattville, AL 02420345 32°29'52" 86°32'04" macroinvertebrates, 

wq field parameters

10 Breakfast Creek at County Road 57 near Prattville, AL 02420355 32°28'51" 86°30'12" wq field parameters

11 Autauga Creek adjacent to U.S. Hwy. 82 near Prattville, AL 02420400 32°28'14" 86°30'25" macroinvertebrates, 

wq field parameters
4 Assessment of Aquatic Macroinvertebrate Communities in the Autauga Creek Watershed, Alabama, 2009

Root/Bank Habitat

Three different areas (each about 1 m in length) of 

cut bank with exposed roots were sampled at each site for 

collection of attached organisms. The sampled areas reflect 

the variability in root/bank habitat by differing current flow 

regimes and location on bank. Using a “D”-frame net 0.3 m in 

width and 0.3 m in height with a 500-μm mesh opening, the 

root/bank was physically disturbed and swept in an upstream 

motion. The captured material was rinsed in the net to remove 

fine silt. Large pieces of plant material were rinsed and visually inspected to remove attached organisms.

Macrophyte Bed Habitat

Three, 1-m2 areas on macrophyte beds at each of the three 

macroinvertebrate sampling sites were physically disturbed 

and sampled using a sweeping motion with a “D”-frame net 

previously described. The captured material was rinsed in the 

net to remove fine silt. Large pieces of material were rinsed 

and visually inspected to remove attached organisms. 

Sand/Bottom Habitat

If sand substrate was present at a macroinvertebrate 

sampling site, three areas were sampled at the site for macroinvertebrates. The areas sampled were 1 m long and of differing flow regimes. Samples were collected using a “D”-frame 

net previously described that was shuffled along the bottom 

of the creek with a shaky, scooping action approximately 2 to 

3 centimeters (cm) below the surface of the sand. 

Sample material for the habitat was composited in 

a 5-gallon bucket. Streamwater was added to the sample material, and the resulting slurry was stirred until large particles 

were in suspension. The water portion was decanted into a 

bucket sieve. The elutriation process was repeated at least 

three times. Material remaining in the bucket was inspected 

for heavier invertebrates, such as clams or mussels, which 

were added to the material in the sieve. 

Table 2. Water-quality field parameters measured in the Autauga Creek watershed, Autauga County, Alabama, 2009.

[°C, degrees Celsius; mg/L, milligrams per liter; μS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter; FNU, formazin nephelometric units; ----, no data]

Site 

number 

(see fig. 1)

Date Temperature 

(°C)

Dissolved 

oxygen 

(mg/L)

Specific 

conductance 

(μS/cm at 25 °C)

pH 

(standard 

units)

Turbidity 

(FNU)

Flow 

condition

1 06/23/2009 25.6 6.9 23 5.8 49 Base1

12/15/2009 14.0 9.1 19 5.8 ---- High2

2 06/23/2009 24.1 7.6 25 6.1 4.3 Base

12/15/2009 13.8 8.8 17 5.5 ---- High

3 06/23/2009 24.5 7.0 26 6.1 8.5 Base

 12/15/2009 13.8 8.9 17 5.4 ---- High

4 06/23/2009 24.7 7.4 24 6.2 5.3 Base

12/15/2009 13.7 8.9 17 5.4 ---- High

5 12/15/2009 14.2 9.2 17 5.8 ---- High

6 06/23/2009 29.6 6.4 23 6.2 12 Base 

12/15/2009 13.5 9.3 17 5.9 ---- High

7 06/23/2009 27.6 7.3 23 6.4 13 Base 

12/15/2009 13.2 9.3 17 5.8 ---- High

8 06/23/2009 24.9 7.8 24 5.9 5.4 Base 

12/15/2009 13.2 9.1 17 5.4 ---- High

9 06/23/2009 27.8 7.1 22 6.3 12 Base

 12/15/2009 13.0 9.3 17 5.8 ---- High

10 06/23/2009 26.1 7.7 24 6.3 19 Base

12/15/2009 14.9 9.6 24 6.2 ---- High

11 06/23/2009 26.1 7.4 23 6.8 11.0 Base

12/15/2009 15.1 6.9 59 6.2 ---- High

1

 Base flow is sustained flow of a stream in the absence of direct runoff. It includes natural and human-induced streamflows. 

Natural base flow is largely controlled by groundwater discharge. 

2

 High flow is flow in a stream during periods of stormwater runoff.
Sample Processing 5

Sample Preservation

All samples were preserved separately with 100 percent 

denatured ethanol. Prior to shipping the samples to the laboratory, the ethanol was decanted to avoid the risk of shipping 

hazardous chemicals. Immediately upon receipt of samples at 

the laboratory, they were re-immersed in ethanol. 

Sample Processing

All macroinvertebrate samples were processed by EcoAnalysts, Inc., of Moscow, ID, to a 200-organism subsample using 

a 300-μm sieve. All organisms were identified to the lowest 

practical level of taxonomic identification (table 3). Samples 

were rinsed and placed in a gridded tray. Random grids of 

material were sorted through until the target count was reached. 

The sorted material was placed in one jar marked “SORTED.” 

The remaining material was replaced into the original sample jar(s) and marked “UNSORTED.” The quality-control 

technician then redistributed the SORTED material into an 

appropriately-sized gridded tray, and at least 20 percent of the 

sorted material was checked for missed organisms. If at least 

90 percent of the organisms present in the sorted material were 

picked during the original sorting (table 4; %Efficacy 1 ≥ 90), 

the sample passed the quality-control check, and the sample 

was ready for taxonomy. If less than 90 percent of the organisms were picked from the sorted material during the original sort, then the sample failed, and the sorted material was 

returned to the original sorter to be checked again (table 4; 

%Efficacy 2). The material was checked a second time for 

missed organisms. These steps were repeated until 90 percent 

of the organisms were removed from the subsample (table 4; 

%Efficacy 3). Results of the sorting efficacy are summarized in 

table 4.

EcoAnalysts, Inc., also used taxonomic identifications 

and enumerations to calculate a suite of metrics commonly 

used to assess benthic invertebrate community health. All of 

the metrics provided by EcoAnalysts, Inc., are included in this 

report, but some may be more applicable to the Autauga Creek 

watershed than others (table 5). Summaries of abundance and 

richness metrics are provided in charts as well as in table 5. 

General information on methods for metrics calculations can 

be found in Alabama Department of Environmental Management (2000) and Barbour and others (1999). A brief description of the specific metrics included in this report and references for their calculation methods follows. 

Abundance measures are counts of organisms. The total 

number of organisms in the sample is calculated from the subsample abundance and reported as corrected abundance. EPT 

abundance is the total number of EPT organisms in the sample.

Dominance measures are commonly used to evaluate 

the even distribution of abundance among the taxa present in 

a sample. In table 5, the three most abundant taxa are listed 

along with their abundance. The percentages of total sample 

abundance contained in the most dominant taxon alone, the 

top two most dominant taxa, and the top three most dominant 

taxa are also presented.

Richness measures describe the numbers of distinct taxa 

present. Species richness is the number of species present in 

the sample. EPT richness is the number of distinct taxa within 

the EPT orders. Other richnesses presented in table 5 include 

each of the EPT orders individually, chironomidae (midges), 

oligochaeta (worms), and all organisms that are neither chironomids nor oligochaetes. 

Percentages of individual sample abundance were calculated for orders and families of invertebrates detected at the 

Autauga Creek sites (community composition) and for functional groups (functional group composition). Invertebrates are

placed into functional groups based on the common mode of 

feeding and type of food source. Functional groups are described 

in greater detail in Merritt and Cummins (1996). Richnesses for

the various functional groups are also reported in table 5.

Diversity and evenness measures calculated by EcoAnalysts, Inc., included the Shannon-Wiener diversity index, 

Margalef’s richness, Pielou’s J′, and Simpson’s heterogeneity. 

The Shannon-Wiener diversity index uses species abundance 

data to produce a score indicating the diversity of a biologic 

community (Rosenberg and Resh, 1993; Alabama Department 

of Environmental Management, 1996; Merritt and Cummins, 

1996). Margalef’s richness is an index based on richness and 

abundance (Margalef, 1958; Cuffney, 2003). Simpson’s heterogeneity and Pielou’s J′ are measures of the evenness of the 

community, or the level of distribution of abundance among 

the taxa (Washington, 1984; Rosenberg and Resh, 1993; Cuffney, 2003; EcoAnalysts, Inc., written commun., 2009).

Biotic indices are typically used to identify effects on 

the community from pollutants. The biotic indices included in 

table 5 should be used with caution because they were calculated with tolerance values developed for the western United 

States. The Hilsenhoff Biotic Index (HBI) was developed to 

assess the effects of organic pollution on macroinvertebrate 

communities. Tolerance values are assigned to each taxon, 

and then a weighted average tolerance value is calculated 

for each sample. Tolerance values used by EcoAnalysts, 

Inc., were those assigned to USEPA Region 10. The Metals 

Tolerance Index (MTI) is calculated in a similar manner but 

assesses community tolerance to metals contamination. The 

Fine Sediment Biotic Index (FSBI) was developed to evaluate 

the effects of fine sediment on macroinvertebrate communities in the western United States. FSBI tolerance values are 

assigned to each taxon, and the final score is the sum of tolerance values for the taxa present in the sample. Table 5 also 

includes average and weighted average FSBI tolerance values. 

The Temperature Preference Metric (TPM) was developed to 

evaluate summer temperatures in streams in Idaho (Hilsenhoff, 1987; Bukantis, 1998; Relyea, 2000; Brandt, 2001; 

EcoAnalysts, Inc., written commun., 2009).

Additional metrics that can be used to calculate a benthic 

index of biological integrity (B-IBI; Barbour and others, 1999) 

are included in table 5. These include long-lived taxa (require 
6 Assessment of Aquatic Macroinvertebrate Communities in the Autauga Creek Watershed, Alabama, 2009

Table 3. List of aquatic macroinvertebrates collected from the Autauga Creek watershed, June 23–25, 2009.—Continued 

[Habitat type abbreviations: LOG/R, log/rock; ROOT/B, root/bank; MACRO, macrophytes; CPOM, coarse particulate organic matter; sp., undetermined species; L/R, 

large or rare specimens. Data are NOT adjusted for subsampling and INCLUDE Large/Rare specimens. Shading indicates detections. Site names are listed in table 1]

Site (see fig. 1) 8 8 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 11 11 11 11 11

Date 6/23/

2009

6/23/

2009

6/23/

2009

6/23/

2009

6/23/

2009

6/23/

2009

6/24/

2009

6/24/

2009

6/24/

2009

6/24/

2009

6/24/

2009

6/25/

2009

6/25/

2009

6/25/

2009

6/25/

2009

6/25/

2009

Habitat SAND LOG/R ROOT/B RIFFLE MACRO CPOM SAND LOG/R ROOT/B RIFFLE CPOM SAND LOG/R ROOT/B RIFFLE CPOM

Percent 

Subsampled 100.00 50.00 58.48 20.83 100.00 31.25 100.00 50.00 100.00 100.00 25.58 100.00 31.25 100.00 12.50 100.00

Ephemeroptera

Acerpenna pygmaea 0 1 0 4 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 

Attenella attenuata 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Baetidae 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 

Caenis sp. 0 0 8 1 1 1 1 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 

Heptagenia sp. 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 

Heptageniidae 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 

Isonychia sp. 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 8 40 0 0 1 2 15 0 

Leptophlebiidae 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Maccaffertium exiguum 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 

Maccaffertium sp. 0 7 0 16 9 0 1 5 6 14 0 0 3 6 12 0 

Paracloeodes sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 

Plauditus sp. 0 3 0 1 10 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 

Pseudocloeon dardanum 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 21 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 

Pseudocloeon sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 

Tricorythodes sp. 0 2 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Odonata

Aeshnidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Basiaeschna janata 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Boyeria vinosa 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 

Calopterygidae 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Calopteryx sp. 0 0 12 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 

Coenagrionidae 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Didymops transversa 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Gomphidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 

Macromia illinoiensis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 

Progomphus sp. 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Stylurus sp. 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 

Plecoptera

Acroneuria abnormis 0 2 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 5 0 

Nemouridae 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Neoperla sp. 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 

Perlesta sp. 0 4 0 2 6 0 0 0 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Coleoptera

Anchytarsus bicolor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 

Ancyronyx variegatus 0 3 0 0 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 

Copelatus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 

Gyretes sp. 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Hydrophilidae 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Macronychus glabratus 0 2 0 9 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 2 

Stenelmis sp. 0 16 1 38 3 3 0 15 3 6 1 1 10 0 25 0 

Megaloptera

Corydalus cornutus 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 

Sialis sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 
Sample Processing 7

Table 3. List of aquatic macroinvertebrates collected from the Autauga Creek watershed, June 23–25, 2009.—Continued 

[Habitat type abbreviations: LOG/R, log/rock; ROOT/B, root/bank; MACRO, macrophytes; CPOM, coarse particulate organic matter; sp., undetermined species; L/R, 

large or rare specimens. Data are NOT adjusted for subsampling and INCLUDE Large/Rare specimens. Shading indicates detections. Site names are listed in table 1]

Site (see fig. 1) 8 8 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 11 11 11 11 11

Date 6/23/

2009

6/23/

2009

6/23/

2009

6/23/

2009

6/23/

2009

6/23/

2009

6/24/

2009

6/24/

2009

6/24/

2009

6/24/

2009

6/24/

2009

6/25/

2009

6/25/

2009

6/25/

2009

6/25/

2009

6/25/

2009

Habitat SAND LOG/R ROOT/B RIFFLE MACRO CPOM SAND LOG/R ROOT/B RIFFLE CPOM SAND LOG/R ROOT/B RIFFLE CPOM

Percent 

Subsampled 100.00 50.00 58.48 20.83 100.00 31.25 100.00 50.00 100.00 100.00 25.58 100.00 31.25 100.00 12.50 100.00

Diptera-Chironomidae

Ablabesmyia (Karelia) sp. 0 0 6 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 

Ablabesmyia mallochi 0 0 21 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 5 1 0 0 0 0 

Ablabesmyia sp. 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Brillia sp. 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Bryophaenocladius sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 

Chernovskiia sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 

Chironomini 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Cladotanytarsus sp. 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Corynoneura sp. 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Cricotopus bicinctus gr. 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Cricotopus sp. 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 

Cryptochironomus sp. 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 7 9 0 0 0 0 

Demicryptochironomus sp. 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 

Djalmabatista sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 

Eukiefferiella devonica gr. 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Labrundinia sp. 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Lauterborniella agrayloides 0 0 9 0 1 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Microtendipes pedellus gr. 0 0 4 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 

Nanocladius sp. 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 

Nilotanypus fimbriatus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 

Nilotanypus sp. 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 

Nilothauma sp. 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 

Orthocladiinae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 

Orthocladius Complex 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 

Parachaetocladius sp. 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 5 0 

Paracladopelma sp. 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Parametriocnemus sp. 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 

Paratanytarsus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Phaenopsectra sp. 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Polypedilum aviceps 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Polypedilum fallax gr. 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Polypedilum flavum 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 5 0 3 0 

Polypedilum halterale gr. 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 15 0 0 1 0 

Polypedilum illinoense gr. 0 3 4 2 5 20 0 3 5 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 

Polypedilum ontario 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 

Polypedilum scalaenum gr. 0 3 3 9 0 0 0 0 2 0 4 9 0 0 0 1 

Pseudochironomus sp. 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 1 0 4 0 

Rheocricotopus sp. 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 1 0 

Rheotanytarsus exiguus gr. 0 9 0 8 6 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 6 0 3 0 

Rheotanytarsus pellucidus 

gr.

0 0 0 4 2 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 

Robackia demeijerei 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 1 

Saetheria sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
8 Assessment of Aquatic Macroinvertebrate Communities in the Autauga Creek Watershed, Alabama, 2009

Table 3. List of aquatic macroinvertebrates collected from the Autauga Creek watershed, June 23–25, 2009.—Continued 

[Habitat type abbreviations: LOG/R, log/rock; ROOT/B, root/bank; MACRO, macrophytes; CPOM, coarse particulate organic matter; sp., undetermined species; L/R, 

large or rare specimens. Data are NOT adjusted for subsampling and INCLUDE Large/Rare specimens. Shading indicates detections. Site names are listed in table 1]

Site (see fig. 1) 8 8 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 11 11 11 11 11

Date 6/23/

2009

6/23/

2009

6/23/

2009

6/23/

2009

6/23/

2009

6/23/

2009

6/24/

2009

6/24/

2009

6/24/

2009

6/24/

2009

6/24/

2009

6/25/

2009

6/25/

2009

6/25/

2009

6/25/

2009

6/25/

2009

Habitat SAND LOG/R ROOT/B RIFFLE MACRO CPOM SAND LOG/R ROOT/B RIFFLE CPOM SAND LOG/R ROOT/B RIFFLE CPOM

Percent 

Subsampled 100.00 50.00 58.48 20.83 100.00 31.25 100.00 50.00 100.00 100.00 25.58 100.00 31.25 100.00 12.50 100.00

Diptera-Chironomidae—Continued

Stempellina sp. 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 

Stempellinella sp. 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Stenochironomus sp. 0 1 1 10 1 6 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 

Stictochironomus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 

Tanytarsus sp. 0 2 10 4 8 5 0 15 3 0 3 0 3 1 2 0 

Thienemanniella sp. 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 

Thienemannimyia gr. sp. 0 8 4 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 

Tribelos jucundum 2 0 23 0 0 39 0 0 0 1 94 0 0 0 0 0 

Tribelos sp. 0 0 40 0 0 72 0 0 0 0 77 1 0 0 0 0 

Tvetenia discoloripes gr. 0 5 1 0 5 0 0 11 6 6 1 0 33 5 8 1 

Xylotopus par 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Diptera

Atrichopogon sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Bezzia/Palpomyia sp. 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Ceratopogoninae 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Hemerodromia sp. 0 3 0 1 0 3 0 3 0 0 2 1 12 0 8 0 

Hexatoma sp. 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Neoplasta sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 

Probezzia sp. 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 5 0 0 0 0 

Simuliidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 

Simulium sp. 0 1 1 1 30 0 0 7 1 15 0 0 0 0 3 0 

Tabanidae 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Trichoptera

Anisocentropus sp. 0 0 3 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Brachycentrus nigrosoma 0 0 2 3 5 0 0 0 4 0 0 1 0 1 9 0 

Brachycentrus numerosus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 

Calamoceratidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 

Cheumatopsyche sp. 0 3 0 21 2 0 1 14 2 23 0 1 8 1 45 2 

Chimarra sp. 0 4 0 10 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 11 (L/R) 0 

Heteroplectron americanum 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Hydropsyche sp. 0 60 2 13 3 0 0 69 1 10 0 0 62 0 18 0 

Hydroptila sp. 0 10 2 1 5 0 0 5 1 4 1 0 28 3 12 1 

Hydroptilidae 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Macrostemum sp. 0 11 0 2 0 0 0 11 0 2 0 0 7 0 0 0 

Mayatrichia sp. 0 5 2 4 10 0 0 6 5 2 0 0 6 0 1 1 

Micrasema sp. 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 3 0 1 0 

Nectopsyche sp. 0 1 1 0 2 2 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 

Neotrichia sp. 0 1 4 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Neureclipsis sp. 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 

Oecetis sp. 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 1 5 0 

Oxyethira sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Polycentropodidae 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Triaenodes sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 
Sample Processing 9

Table 3. List of aquatic macroinvertebrates collected from the Autauga Creek watershed, June 23–25, 2009.—Continued 

[Habitat type abbreviations: LOG/R, log/rock; ROOT/B, root/bank; MACRO, macrophytes; CPOM, coarse particulate organic matter; sp., undetermined species; L/R, 

large or rare specimens. Data are NOT adjusted for subsampling and INCLUDE Large/Rare specimens. Shading indicates detections. Site names are listed in table 1]

Site (see fig. 1) 8 8 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 11 11 11 11 11

Date 6/23/

2009

6/23/

2009

6/23/

2009

6/23/

2009

6/23/

2009

6/23/

2009

6/24/

2009

6/24/

2009

6/24/

2009

6/24/

2009

6/24/

2009

6/25/

2009

6/25/

2009

6/25/

2009

6/25/

2009

6/25/

2009

Habitat SAND LOG/R ROOT/B RIFFLE MACRO CPOM SAND LOG/R ROOT/B RIFFLE CPOM SAND LOG/R ROOT/B RIFFLE CPOM

Percent 

Subsampled 100.00 50.00 58.48 20.83 100.00 31.25 100.00 50.00 100.00 100.00 25.58 100.00 31.25 100.00 12.50 100.00

Bivalvia

Sphaeriidae 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Annelida

Enchytraeidae 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 

Haemonais waldvogeli 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 

Lumbriculidae 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 

Nais behningi 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Nais sp. 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Pristina sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 

Slavina appendiculata 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Spirosperma ferox 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Tubificidae with cap setae 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Tubificidae without 

cap setae

0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 

Acari

Acari 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Atractides sp. 0 5 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Hygrobates sp. 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 11 0 1 0 3 7 0 2 0 

Lebertia sp. 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 5 0 

Mideopsis sp. 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Neumania sp. 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Oribatei 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Protzia sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Sperchon sp. 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 

Sperchonopsis sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 

Torrenticola sp. 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Crustacea

Cambaridae 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 (L/R) 0 

Crangonyx sp. 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other organisms

Prostoma sp. 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Turbellaria 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 

Totals

9 210 214 216 179 219 20 210 100 154 220 82 229 58 240 9 
10 Assessment of Aquatic Macroinvertebrate Communities in the Autauga Creek Watershed, Alabama, 2009

more than 1 year for life cycle) richness, clinger (organisms 

adapted to streams with high velocity and a smooth substrate) 

richness, percentage of abundance that is clingers, intolerant 

taxa richness, percentage of total individuals that are tolerant, 

percentage of total taxa that are tolerant, coleopteran (beetle) 

richness (EcoAnalysts, Inc., written commun., August 2009).

Water-Quality Field Parameter 

Measurements

Two series of measurements of water-quality field 

parameters were made at 11 sites in the watershed during 

2009. Measurements were made with a multiparameter sonde 

that measured temperature, dissolved oxygen, specific conductance, pH, and turbidity. 

The first series of measurements were made on June 23 

during base-flow conditions. Temperatures in Autauga Creek 

ranged from a high of 27.6 degrees Celsius (°C) at site 4 to 

a low of 24.1 °C at site 2 (fig. 1; table 2). Temperatures on 

Bridge Creek ranged from a high of 29.6 °C at site 6 to a low 

of 27.6 °C at site 7. The one site on Breakfast Creek had a 

temperature of 26.0 °C. There appeared to be no trends in the 

temperature data. The variations in the readings were mostly 

the result of the amount of tree canopy over the creek near 

each measurement site. 

The second series of measurements were made on 

December 15 during high flow after a period of rainfall. Temperatures in Autauga Creek ranged from 13.2 °C to 14.0 °C. 

The higher streamflow caused more consistent readings 

through the watershed than during base-flow conditions. Temperatures in Bridge Creek ranged from 13.0 °C to 14.2 °C. The 

temperature in Breakfast Creek was 14.9 °C.

Dissolved oxygen levels in the watershed were all within 

normal ranges. Readings in the watershed during the baseflow measurements ranged from 6.4 to 7.7 milligrams per liter 

(mg/L). High-flow measurements ranged from 8.8 to 9.6 mg/L.

Measurements of specific conductance were consistent 

throughout the watershed ranging only from 22 to 26 microsiemens per centimeter (μS/cm) at all of the sites during base 

flow and 17 to 19 μS/cm during high flow. These low readings 

indicate low dissolved solids in the streams. 

Measurements of pH in the watershed ranged from 5.8 

to 6.8 during base flow and 5.4 to 6.2 during high flow. There 

appeared to be no trends in the readings from the upper end of 

the basin to the lower end. Readings during high-flow conditions were slightly lower than base-flow conditions. These pH 

levels indicate slightly acidic to neutral water conditions. 

Turbidity was only measured during base flow. Readings ranged from 49.1 to 4.26 formazin nephelometric units 

(FNU) on Autauga Creek and 12.2 to 12.8 FNU on Bridge 

Creek. Breakfast Creek measured 19.2 FNU. The readings 

do not appear to follow any pattern along the creeks. The 

highest value, 49.1 FNU at site 1, was on the uppermost site 

on Autauga Creek, but silt was possibly stirred up during 

the measurement. The lowest reading, 4.26 FNU at site 2, 

occurred on the very next site downstream. Otherwise, values 

ranged from 4.43 to 19.2 FNU in the rest of the watershed.

Table 4. Sort report for samples collected at sampling sites in the Autauga Creek watershed, Alabama, June 23–25, 2009.

[CPOM, coarse particulate organic matter; L, liter; QC, quality control; %, percent; N/A, not applicable]

EcoAnalysts 

Sample ID

Site/habitat 

(see table 1)

Collection 

date Sort date Primary matrix Pre-rinse volume (L)

Post-rinse 

volume (L) QC date %Efficacy 1

%Efficacy 

2

%Efficacy 

3

5352.1-1 8 Sand 06/23/09 09/16/09 Bugs 0.001 0.001 09/17/09 100.00 N/A N/A

5352.1-2 8 Log/rock 06/23/09 09/16/09 Coarse organic 0.10 0.05 09/17/09 96.41 N/A N/A

5352.1-3 8 Root/bank 06/23/09 09/17/09 Coarse organic 0.20 0.15 09/17/09 97.79 N/A N/A

5352.1-4 8 Riffle 06/23/09 09/16/09 Coarse organic 0.35 0.33 09/17/09 96.51 N/A N/A

5352.1-5 8 Macrophytes 06/23/09 09/17/09 Coarse organic 0.10 0.09 09/17/09 95.70 N/A N/A

5352.1-6 8 CPOM 06/23/09 09/17/09 Coarse organic 0.90 0.85 09/17/09 93.80 N/A N/A

5352.1-7 9 Sand 06/24/09 09/17/09 Fine organic 0.05 0.05 09/17/09 100.00 N/A N/A

5352.1-8 9 Log/rock 06/24/09 09/17/09 Coarse organic 0.05 0.05 09/17/09 98.21 N/A N/A

5352.1-9 9 Root/bank 06/24/09 09/17/09 Fine organic 0.08 0.08 09/17/09 83.51 82.14 100.00 

5352.1-10 9 Riffle 06/24/09 09/18/09 Coarse organic 0.14 0.05 09/19/09 58.62 90.63 N/A

5352.1-11 9 CPOM 06/24/09 09/17/09 Coarse organic 1.10 1.10 09/21/09 95.82 N/A N/A

5352.1-12 11 Sand 06/25/09 09/17/09 Coarse organic 0.05 0.05 09/19/09 95.40 N/A N/A

5352.1-13 11 Log/rock 06/25/09 09/17/09 Filamentous algae 0.10 0.10 09/20/09 100.00 N/A N/A

5352.1-14 11 Root/bank 06/25/09 09/17/09 Coarse organic 0.02 0.02 09/19/09 93.44 N/A N/A

5352.1-15 11 Riffle 06/25/09 09/18/09 Coarse organic 0.40 0.35 09/19/09 92.09 N/A N/A

5352.1-16 11 CPOM 06/25/09 09/18/09 Fine organic 0.02 0.02 09/20/09 77.78 100.00 N/A
Water-Quality Field Parameter Measurements 11

Table 5. Metrics for aquatic macroinvertebrates collected from Autauga Creek watershed, June 23–25, 2009.—Continued[CPOM, coarse particulate organic matter; HBI, Hilsenhoff Biotic Index; MTI, Metals Tolerance Index; FSBI, Fine Sediment Biotic Index; TPM, Temperature Preference Metric; %, percent; N/A, not applicable; B-IBI, benthic index of biological integrity. Data ARE adjusted for subsampling and DO NOT include Large/Rare specimens]

Water body Autauga Creek Autauga Creek Autauga Creek Autauga Creek Autauga Creek Autauga Creek Bridge Creek Bridge Creek Bridge Creek Bridge Creek Bridge Creek Autauga Creek Autauga Creek Autauga Creek Autauga Creek Autauga Creek

Site (see fig. 1) 8 8 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 11 11 11 11 11

Date 06-23- 2009 06-23- 2009 06-23- 2009 06-23- 2009 06-23- 2009 06-23- 2009 06-24- 2009 06-24- 2009 06-24- 2009 06-24- 2009 06-24- 2009 06-25- 2009 06-25- 2009 06-25- 2009 06-25- 2009 06-25- 2009

Habitat SAND LOG/ ROCK ROOT/ BANK RIFFLE MACRO- PHYTE CPOM SAND LOG/ ROCK ROOT/ BANK RIFFLE CPOM SAND LOG/ ROCK ROOT/ BANK RIFFLE CPOM

Percent 

subsampled 100.00 50.00 58.48 20.83 100.00 31.25 100.00 50.00 100.00 100.00 25.58 100.00 31.25 100.00 12.50 100.00

Abundance measures

Corrected 

abundance

9.00 420.00 365.94 1036.80 179.00 700.80 20.00 420.00 100.00 154.00 860.20 82.00 732.80 58.00 1824.00 9.00

EPT abundance 0.00 248.00 61.56 432.00 96.00 51.20 4.00 232.00 63.00 108.00 15.64 7.00 403.20 31.00 1032.00 4.00

Dominance measures

Dominant taxon Tribelos 

jucundum

Hydropsyche

sp.

Tribelos

sp.

Stenelmis

sp.

Simulium sp. Tribelos sp. Djalmabatista

sp.

Hydropsyche

sp.

Pseudocloeon 

dardanum

Isonychia

sp.

Tribelos 

jucundum

Polypedilum 

halteralegr.

Hydropsyche

sp.

Calopteryx

sp.

Cheumatopsyche

sp.

Macronychus 

glabratus

Dominant 

abundance

2.00 120.00 68.40 182.40 30.00 230.40 8.00 138.00 21.00 40.00 367.54 15.00 198.40 11.00 360.00 2.00

2nd Dominant 

taxon

Progomphus

sp.

Stenelmis

sp.

Tribelos 

jucundum

Cheumatopsyche

sp.

Pseudocloeon 

dardanum

Tribelos 

jucundum

Saetheria

sp.

Stenelmis

sp.

Isonychia sp.Cheumatopsyche

sp.

Tribelos sp. Robackia 

demeijerei

Tvetenia 

discoloripesgr.

Pseudocloeon 

dardanum

Stenelmis

sp.

Cheumatopsyche

sp.

2nd Dominant 

abundance

2.00 32.00 39.33 100.80 17.00 124.80 4.00 30.00 8.00 23.00 301.07 11.00 105.60 8.00 200.00 2.00

3rd Dominant 

taxon

Probezzia

sp.

Macrostemum sp.Abla- besmyia 

mallochi

Maccaffertium sp. Acerpenna pygmaea Ablabesmyia mallochi Robackia demeijerei Tanytarsus sp. Maccaffer- tium sp. Simulium sp. Cryptochi- ronomus sp. Cryptochi- ronomus sp. Hydroptila sp. Maccaffer- tium sp. Hydro- psyche sp. Hydroptila sp.

3rd Dominant 

abundance

2.00 22.00 35.91 76.80 15.00 80.00 2.00 30.00 6.00 15.00 27.37 9.00 89.60 6.00 144.00 1.00

% Dominant taxon 22.22 28.57 18.69 17.59 16.76 32.88 40.00 32.86 21.00 25.97 42.73 18.29 27.07 18.97 19.74 22.22% 2 Dominant taxa 44.44 36.19 29.44 27.31 26.26 50.68 60.00 40.00 29.00 40.91 77.73 31.71 41.48 32.76 30.70 44.44% 3 Dominant taxa 66.67 41.43 39.25 34.72 34.64 62.10 70.00 47.14 35.00 50.65 80.91 42.68 53.71 43.10 38.60 55.56

Richness measures

Species richness 6.00 44.00 57.00 50.00 42.00 27.00 9.00 32.00 31.00 26.00 25.00 27.00 36.00 23.00 44.00 7.00

EPT richness 0.00 19.00 15.00 17.00 18.00 5.00 4.00 9.00 15.00 13.00 3.00 7.00 14.00 12.00 15.00 3.00Ephemeroptera 

richness

0.00 6.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 5.00 4.00 0.00 4.00 5.00 4.00 5.00 0.00

Plecoptera 

richness

0.00 3.00 0.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00

Trichoptera 

richness

0.00 10.00 10.00 9.00 10.00 3.00 2.00 7.00 9.00 7.00 2.00 3.00 8.00 8.00 9.00 3.00
12 Assessment of Aquatic Macroinvertebrate Communities in the Autauga Creek Watershed, Alabama, 2009 Table 5. Metrics for aquatic macroinvertebrates collected from Autauga Creek watershed, June 23–25, 2009.—Continued [CPOM, coarse particulate organic matter; HBI, Hilsenhoff Biotic Index; MTI, Metals Tolerance Index; FSBI, Fine Sediment Biotic Index; TPM, Temperature Preference Metric; %, percent; N/A, not applicable; B-IBI, benthic index of biological integrity. Data ARE adjusted for subsampling and DO NOT include Large/Rare specimens] Water body Autauga Creek Autauga Creek Autauga Creek Autauga Creek Autauga Creek Autauga Creek Bridge Creek Bridge Creek Bridge Creek Bridge Creek Bridge Creek Autauga Creek Autauga Creek Autauga Creek Autauga Creek Autauga Creek Site (see fig. 1) 8 8 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 11 11 11 11 11 Date 06-23- 2009 06-23- 2009 06-23- 2009 06-23- 2009 06-23- 2009 06-23- 2009 06-24- 2009 06-24- 2009 06-24- 2009 06-24- 2009 06-24- 2009 06-25- 2009 06-25- 2009 06-25- 2009 06-25- 2009 06-25- 2009 Habitat SAND LOG/ ROCK ROOT/ BANK RIFFLE MACRO- PHYTE CPOM SAND LOG/ ROCK ROOT/ BANK RIFFLE CPOM SAND LOG/ ROCK ROOT/ BANK RIFFLE CPOM Percent subsampled 100.00 50.00 58.48 20.83 100.00 31.25 100.00 50.00 100.00 100.00 25.58 100.00 31.25 100.00 12.50 100.00 Richness measures—Continued Chironomidae richness 3.00 16.00 25.00 16.00 14.00 16.00 4.00 13.00 8.00 7.00 12.00 13.00 14.00 7.00 17.00 3.00 Oligochaeta richness 0.00 1.00 1.00 5.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 4.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 Non-Chiro. Non- Olig. richness 3.00 27.00 31.00 29.00 27.00 11.00 5.00 17.00 21.00 19.00 9.00 13.00 22.00 16.00 25.00 4.00 Community composition % Ephemeroptera 0.00 8.57 7.48 12.04 30.73 0.46 10.00 2.86 39.00 37.66 0.00 4.88 3.06 31.03 13.60 0.00 % Plecoptera 0.00 3.33 0.00 3.24 3.35 1.83 0.00 0.00 2.00 4.55 0.91 0.00 0.87 0.00 2.19 0.00 % Trichoptera 0.00 47.14 9.35 26.39 19.55 5.02 10.00 52.38 22.00 27.92 0.91 3.66 51.09 22.41 40.79 44.44 % EPT 0.00 59.05 16.82 41.67 53.63 7.31 20.00 55.24 63.00 70.13 1.82 8.54 55.02 53.45 56.58 44.44 % Coleoptera 0.00 10.00 0.47 22.22 3.91 1.83 0.00 7.62 4.00 3.90 0.45 2.44 5.24 1.72 14.91 22.22 % Diptera 66.67 26.67 68.69 26.39 38.55 89.95 75.00 28.57 23.00 21.43 94.09 82.93 35.37 22.41 23.25 33.33 % Oligochaeta 0.00 0.48 0.47 5.56 0.56 0.00 0.00 1.43 3.00 0.00 2.27 1.22 0.00 0.00 0.88 0.00 % Baetidae 0.00 1.90 1.40 2.31 23.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 21.00 1.30 0.00 2.44 0.44 13.79 1.32 0.00 % Brachycentridae 0.00 0.00 1.40 1.39 3.35 0.00 0.00 0.95 4.00 0.65 0.00 1.22 1.31 3.45 4.82 0.00 % Chironomidae 44.44 24.76 66.82 24.54 21.23 87.21 75.00 23.81 22.00 9.74 92.27 75.61 28.82 22.41 17.98 33.33 % Ephemerellidae 0.00 0.00 0.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 % Hydropsychidae 0.00 35.24 0.93 16.67 2.79 0.00 5.00 44.76 3.00 22.73 0.00 1.22 33.62 1.72 27.63 22.22 % Odonata 33.33 0.00 9.35 0.00 1.12 0.46 5.00 0.00 7.00 0.00 0.45 1.22 0.00 22.41 0.00 0.00 % Perlidae 0.00 2.86 0.00 3.24 3.35 1.83 0.00 0.00 2.00 4.55 0.91 0.00 0.87 0.00 2.19 0.00 % Simuliidae 0.00 0.48 0.47 0.46 16.76 0.00 0.00 3.33 1.00 9.74 0.00 0.00 0.44 0.00 1.32 0.00 Functional group composition % Filterers 0.00 44.29 9.35 29.63 30.17 3.20 5.00 56.67 18.00 59.74 2.27 1.22 40.17 10.34 38.60 22.22

% Gatherers 33.33 11.90 42.99 19.44 23.46 54.79 25.00 10.95 17.00 10.39 80.91 9.76 20.52 13.79 13.16 11.11

% Predators 44.44 14.76 24.77 10.19 8.38 17.81 50.00 11.90 9.00 9.09 9.55 28.05 12.23 24.14 14.91 0.00

% Scrapers 0.00 14.76 2.34 26.85 12.85 2.28 5.00 12.86 14.00 15.58 0.45 3.66 9.17 13.79 17.11 11.11

% Shredders 0.00 9.05 5.14 9.72 6.70 10.96 5.00 5.24 13.00 1.95 2.73 12.20 5.68 15.52 2.19 33.33

% PiercerHerbivores 0.00 5.24 2.80 1.39 5.59 0.46 0.00 2.38 2.00 2.60 0.45 0.00 12.23 5.17 5.26 11.11
Water-Quality Field Parameter Measurements 13

Table 5. Metrics for aquatic macroinvertebrates collected from Autauga Creek watershed, June 23–25, 2009.—Continued[CPOM, coarse particulate organic matter; HBI, Hilsenhoff Biotic Index; MTI, Metals Tolerance Index; FSBI, Fine Sediment Biotic Index; TPM, Temperature Preference Metric; %, percent; N/A, not applicable; B-IBI, benthic index of biological integrity. Data ARE adjusted for subsampling and DO NOT include Large/Rare specimens]

Water body Autauga Creek Autauga Creek Autauga Creek Autauga Creek Autauga Creek Autauga Creek Bridge Creek Bridge Creek Bridge Creek Bridge Creek Bridge Creek Autauga Creek Autauga Creek Autauga Creek Autauga Creek Autauga Creek

Site (see fig. 1) 8 8 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 11 11 11 11 11

Date 06-23- 2009 06-23- 2009 06-23- 2009 06-23- 2009 06-23- 2009 06-23- 2009 06-24- 2009 06-24- 2009 06-24- 2009 06-24- 2009 06-24- 2009 06-25- 2009 06-25- 2009 06-25- 2009 06-25- 2009 06-25- 2009

Habitat SAND LOG/ ROCK ROOT/ BANK RIFFLE MACRO- PHYTE CPOM SAND LOG/ ROCK ROOT/ BANK RIFFLE CPOM SAND LOG/ ROCK ROOT/ BANK RIFFLE CPOM

Percent 

subsampled 100.00 50.00 58.48 20.83 100.00 31.25 100.00 50.00 100.00 100.00 25.58 100.00 31.25 100.00 12.50 100.00

Functional group composition—Continued

% Unclassified 22.22 0.00 8.88 1.39 10.06 7.31 10.00 0.00 23.00 0.65 0.91 43.90 0.00 15.52 4.82 11.11Filterer Richness 0.00 9.00 6.00 9.00 9.00 2.00 1.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 2.00 1.00 9.00 5.00 8.00 1.00Gatherer Richness 2.00 10.00 16.00 17.00 12.00 6.00 2.00 9.00 8.00 6.00 8.00 8.00 9.00 4.00 13.00 1.00Predator Richness 2.00 11.00 15.00 12.00 7.00 8.00 3.00 8.00 4.00 5.00 8.00 6.00 8.00 4.00 10.00 0.00Scraper Richness 0.00 4.00 4.00 3.00 4.00 2.00 1.00 4.00 3.00 4.00 1.00 3.00 5.00 2.00 4.00 1.00Shredder Richness 0.00 8.00 6.00 4.00 5.00 4.00 1.00 3.00 4.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 4.00 4.00 3.00 2.00Piercer-Herbivore 

Richness

0.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Unclassified 2.00 0.00 6.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 0.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 6.00 0.00 2.00 4.00 1.00

Diversity/evenness measures

Shannon-Weaver H'

(log 10)

0.75 1.33 1.43 1.42 1.39 1.00 0.79 1.16 1.32 1.12 0.74 1.19 1.18 1.20 1.34 0.82

Shannon-Weaver H'

(log 2)

2.50 4.40 4.74 4.73 4.61 3.34 2.62 3.85 4.39 3.72 2.46 3.95 3.92 3.97 4.45 2.73

Shannon-Weaver H'

(log e)

1.74 3.05 3.29 3.28 3.19 2.31 1.82 2.67 3.04 2.58 1.71 2.74 2.72 2.75 3.08 1.89

Margalef’s 

Richness

2.28 7.12 9.49 7.06 7.90 3.97 2.67 5.13 6.51 4.96 3.55 5.90 5.31 5.42 5.73 2.73

Pielou’s J' 0.97 0.81 0.81 0.84 0.85 0.70 0.83 0.77 0.89 0.79 0.53 0.83 0.76 0.88 0.81 0.97

Simpson’s 

Heterogeneity

0.92 0.90 0.93 0.94 0.94 0.83 0.82 0.87 0.93 0.89 0.69 0.92 0.88 0.93 0.92 0.94

Biotic indices

% Indiv. with HBI 

Value

66.67 94.29 85.05 92.13 70.39 87.67 60.00 92.86 73.00 94.81 95.91 54.88 94.76 81.03 85.53 100.00

Hilsenhoff Biotic 

Index

3.83 5.12 5.58 5.06 5.03 5.53 4.25 5.13 4.90 3.91 5.26 5.91 5.12 4.89 4.74 5.22

% Indiv. with MTI 

Value

0.00 64.29 25.23 46.76 40.22 9.13 20.00 75.71 29.00 47.40 8.64 17.07 75.55 31.03 61.84 44.44

Metals Tolerance 

Index

N/A 4.31 2.96 3.73 4.06 3.60 3.75 4.47 3.28 4.55 3.63 3.93 4.39 3.33 4.12 4.50
14 Assessment of Aquatic Macroinvertebrate Communities in the Autauga Creek Watershed, Alabama, 2009 Table 5. Metrics for aquatic macroinvertebrates collected from Autauga Creek watershed, June 23–25, 2009.—Continued [CPOM, coarse particulate organic matter; HBI, Hilsenhoff Biotic Index; MTI, Metals Tolerance Index; FSBI, Fine Sediment Biotic Index; TPM, Temperature Preference Metric; %, percent; N/A, not applicable; B-IBI, benthic index of biological integrity. Data ARE adjusted for subsampling and DO NOT include Large/Rare specimens] Water body Autauga Creek Autauga Creek Autauga Creek Autauga Creek Autauga Creek Autauga Creek Bridge Creek Bridge Creek Bridge Creek Bridge Creek Bridge Creek Autauga Creek Autauga Creek Autauga Creek Autauga Creek Autauga Creek Site (see fig. 1) 8 8 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 11 11 11 11 11 Date 06-23- 2009 06-23- 2009 06-23- 2009 06-23- 2009 06-23- 2009 06-23- 2009 06-24- 2009 06-24- 2009 06-24- 2009 06-24- 2009 06-24- 2009 06-25- 2009 06-25- 2009 06-25- 2009 06-25- 2009 06-25- 2009 Habitat SAND LOG/ ROCK ROOT/ BANK RIFFLE MACRO- PHYTE CPOM SAND LOG/ ROCK ROOT/ BANK RIFFLE CPOM SAND LOG/ ROCK ROOT/ BANK RIFFLE CPOM Percent subsampled 100.00 50.00 58.48 20.83 100.00 31.25 100.00 50.00 100.00 100.00 25.58 100.00 31.25 100.00 12.50 100.00 Biotic indices—Continued % Indiv. with FSBI Value 0.00 39.05 3.27 19.44 24.02 1.37 5.00 48.10 5.00 37.66 1.82 2.44 49.34 10.34 38.16 33.33 Fine Sediment Biotic Index N/A 26.00 24.00 27.00 23.00 5.00 2.00 26.00 15.00 20.00 11.00 7.00 21.00 9.00 24.00 7.00 FSBI—average N/A 0.59 0.42 0.54 0.55 0.19 0.22 0.81 0.48 0.77 0.44 0.26 0.58 0.39 0.55 1.00 FSBI—weighted average N/A 4.73 4.86 3.29 3.40 5.00 2.00 4.40 3.40 2.93 4.00 3.50 4.76 3.50 3.37 3.00 % Indiv. with TPM Value 0.00 53.33 15.89 36.11 43.02 13.24 5.00 60.95 20.00 39.61 5.45 15.85 56.33 17.24 44.74 44.44 Temp. Pref. Metric —average N/A 1.02 0.77 0.80 1.21 0.78 0.11 1.25 0.61 0.85 0.64 0.37 1.56 0.61 0.75 0.71 TPM—weighted average N/A 2.28 2.41 2.18 3.39 2.31 1.00 2.36 1.70 2.36 2.33 2.00 2.46 2.20 1.58 1.50 Karr B-IBI Metrics Long-lived taxa richness 0.00 1.00 5.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 4.00 0.00 Clinger richness 0.00 24.00 15.00 19.00 18.00 8.00 3.00 15.00 11.00 15.00 6.00 4.00 17.00 9.00 17.00 3.00 % Clingers 0.00 77.14 16.82 62.04 58.66 8.68 15.00 77.14 29.00 60.39 4.55 4.88 64.19 31.03 60.96 44.44 Intolerant taxa richness 1.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 3.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 3.00 2.00 4.00 0.00 % Tolerant individuals 0.00 1.01 1.93 1.47 0.79 0.00 0.00 1.54 4.11 0.00 0.61 2.22 0.14 2.13 0.45 0.00 % Tolerant taxa 0.00 11.36 8.77 18.00 2.38 7.41 11.11 9.38 3.23 0.00 24.00 18.52 2.78 4.35 6.82 0.00 Coleoptera richness 0.00 3.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 3.00 1.00
Results of Macroinvertebrate Sample Analyses 15

Results of Macroinvertebrate 

Sample Analyses

 Aquatic macroinvertebrate samples were collected at 

three sites in the Autauga Creek watershed on June 23–25, 

2009. During reconnaissance of the watershed prior to sampling, Bridge Creek, the largest tributary to Autauga Creek, 

was visibly more turbid than Autauga Creek above their confluence. Sites were selected so that any effects of the higher 

turbidity or related water-quality parameters on the aquatic 

macroinvertebrate community could be observed. One of the 

macroinvertebrate sampling sites was at the ADEM basin 

assessment site AUC-2 adjacent to U.S. Hwy. 82 (site 11), 

below the confluence of the two creeks. The second (site 8) 

was on Autauga Creek above the confluence with Bridge 

Creek on County Road 10, and the third (site 9) was on Bridge 

Creek at County Road 10 (fig. 1; table 1).

Taxa identifications and enumerations for these samples 

are listed in table 3, and the calculated metrics are listed in 

table 5. Of particular note in the results is that at ADEM 

assessment site AUC-2 (site 11), 12 families of EPTs 

were found whereas only 4 were found during the 1999 

sampling. Table 4 is the quality-control report from the 

taxonomy laboratory. 

Total, EPT, and chironomid abundance, or the numbers 

of individuals, were highest in the riffle and log/rock habitats (fig. 2). Site 11 had the highest abundance. Sand habitat 

showed low abundance primarily due to low variability in the 

habitat and limited places for macroinvertebrates to attach 

and live. Log/rock, root/bank, and riffle habitats are generally 

more diverse with varying substrates and objects on which 

macroinvertebrates can attach. CPOM also can provide good 

habitat for macroinvertebrates but, as was the case at site 11, it 

is not always available to a large degree. 

Richness, the number of taxa, was consistently higher 

at site 8 than sites 9 and 11 except in sand (fig. 3). Log/rock, 

root/bank, and riffle habitats had higher numbers of taxa due 

to the variability of the substrates in these habitats.

The riffle habitat is generally considered to be the richest 

in macroinvertebrate diversity, although in this study, log/rock 

and root/bank habitats were very similar to riffle habitat in 

terms of richness. EPT richness at sites 8, 9, and 11 in the riffle 

habitat was fairly similar, ranging from 13 to 17 taxa (fig. 4). 

Total and chironomid richnesses, however, were noticeably 

higher at sites 8 and 11 on Autauga Creek than at site 9 on 

Bridge Creek. 

Figure 2. Total, EPT, and chironomid abundance at selected sites in the Autauga Creek watershed, Autauga County, Alabama, 

June 2009. [EPT, Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera; CPOM, coarse particulate organic matter]

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

2,000

SAND LOG/ROCK ROOT/BANK RIFFLE CPOM

NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS

HABITAT TYPE

Figure 2. Total, EPT, and chironomid abundance at selected sites in the Autauga Creek 

watershed, Autauga County, Alabama, June 2009 .

Site 8 Total Abundance

Site 9 Total Abundance

Site 11 Total Abundance

Site 8 EPT Abundance

Site 9 EPT Abundance

Site 11 EPT Abundance

Site 8 Chironomid Abundance

Site 9 Chironomid Abundance

Site 11 Chironomid Abundance
16 Assessment of Aquatic Macroinvertebrate Communities in the Autauga Creek Watershed, Alabama, 2009

Figure 3. Total, EPT, and chironomid richness at selected sites in the Autauga Creek watershed, Autauga County, Alabama, June 2009. 

[EPT, Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera; CPOM, coarse particulate organic matter]

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

SAND LOG/ROCK ROOT/BANK RIFFLE CPOM

NUMBER OF TAXA

HABITAT TYPE

Site 8 Total Richness

Site 9 Total Richness

Site 11 Total Richness

Site 8 EPT Richness

Site 9 EPT Richness

Site 11 EPT Richness

Site 8 Chironomid Richness

Site 9 Chironomid Richness

Site 11 Chironomid Richness

Figure 4. Total, EPT, and chironomid richness 

in riffle habitat at selected sites in the Autauga 

Creek watershed, Autauga County, Alabama, 

June 2009. [EPT, Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, 

Trichoptera] 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Site 8 Site 9 Site 11

NUMBER OF TAXA

Total Richness 

EPT Richness

Chironomid Richness
References 17

Summary

The purpose of this study was to provide data for the 

Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) 

and other water-management agencies to re-evaluate aquatic 

macroinvertebrate communities in Autauga Creek to see if they 

meet ADEM water-quality criteria. ADEM collected aquatic 

macroinvertebrate samples from Autauga Creek in 1999 and 

found only four families within the orders of Ephemeroptera, 

Plecoptera, and Trichoptera at the assessment site. The low 

EPT richness caused the creek to be included in the 2006 

303(d) list, which may limit future use of the creek.

The U.S. Geological Survey collected aquatic macroinvertebrate samples from three sites in the Autauga Creek 

watershed on June 23–25, 2009. One site was at the 1999 

ADEM assessment site on Autauga Creek below the confluence with Bridge Creek (site 11). The second site was on 

Autauga Creek above the confluence with Bridge Creek 

(site 8), and the third was on Bridge Creek (site 9), which is 

the largest tributary to Autauga Creek. The highest numbers of 

taxa and individuals of aquatic macroinvertebrates were found 

at site 11 on Autauga Creek. Twelve families within the orders 

of Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera were found at 

the site. 

Water-quality field parameters of temperature, dissolved 

oxygen, specific conductance, pH, and turbidity were measured at 11 sites in the watershed during base flow on June 23, 

2009, and during high flow on December 15, 2009. No trends 

were apparent in any of the water-quality field measurements 

from the upper end of the watershed to the lower end. Measurements of all parameters were within normal ranges for 

streams in this area. 

References

Alabama Department of Environmental Management, 1996, 

Standard operating procedures and quality control assurance 

manual, volume II—Freshwater macroinvertebrates biological assessment: Alabama Department of Environmental 

Management, 204 p.

Alabama Department of Environmental Management, 2000, 

Surface water quality screening assessment of the Alabama 

River Basin, 2000, Alabama Department of Environmental 

Management, 210 p. 

Alabama Department of Environmental Management, 

2006, 2006 Alabama 303(d) List, accessed December 2, 

2010, at http://www.adem.state.al.us/programs/water/

wquality/2006AL303dList.pdf.

Alabama Department of Environmental Management, 2008a, 

Aquatic macroinvertebrate community wadeable multihabitat bioassessment, sample collection, SOP #6000, 8 p.

Alabama Department of Environmental Management, 

2008b, Alabama’s water quality assessment and listing 

methodology, 88 p.

Alabama Department of Environmental Management, 

2008c, 2008 Alabama 303(d) List, accessed December 2, 

2010, at http://www.adem.state.al.us/programs/water/

wquality/2008AL303dList.pdf.

Alabama Department of Environmental Management, 2009, 

Aquatic macroinvertebrate community wadeable multihabitat bioassessment, data analysis, SOP #6004 Rev. 0.1, 

33 p.

Alabama Department of Environmental Management, 2010, 

2010 Alabama 303(d) List, draft, accessed December 2, 

2010, at http://www.adem.state.al.us/programs/water/

wquality/2010AL303dListpending.pdf.

Barbour, M.T., Gerritsen, Jeroen, Snyder, B.D., and Stribling, 

J.B., 1999, Rapid bioassessment protocols for use in streams 

and wadeable rivers—Periphyton, benthic macroinvertebrates and fish (2d ed.): Washington, DC, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, EPA 841-B-99-002.

Brandt, D., 2001, Temperature response regressions for 162 

common macroinvertebrate taxa and supporting documentation: Boise, ID, Idaho Department of Environmental 

Quality, 90 p.

Bukantis, R., 1998, Rapid bioassessment macroinvertebrate 

protocols—Sampling and sample analysis standard operating procedures: Helena, MT, Montana Department of 

Environmental Quality, 63 p.

Cuffney, T.F., 2003, User’s manual for the National WaterQuality Assessment Program Invertebrate Data Analysis 

System (IDAS) software—version 3: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 03-172, 103 p. + CD-ROM.

Griffith, G.E., Omernik, J.M., Comstock, J.A., Lawrence, S., 

Martin, G., Goddard, A., Hulcher, V.J., and Foster, T., 2001, 

Ecoregions of Alabama and Georgia, (color poster with 

map, descriptive text, summary tables, and photographs): 

Reston, Virginia, U.S. Geological Survey, scale 1:1,700,000.

Hilsenhoff, W.L., 1987, An improved biotic index of organic 

stream pollution: Great Lakes Entomologist, v. 20, p. 31–39.

Margalef, R., 1958, Information theory in ecology: General 

Systems, v. 3, p. 36–71.

Merritt, R.W., and Cummins, K.W., eds., 1996, An introduction to the aquatic insects of North America: USA, Kendall/

Hunt, 862 p.
18 Assessment of Aquatic Macroinvertebrate Communities in the Autauga Creek Watershed, Alabama, 2009

Moulton II, S.R., Kennen, J.G., Goldstein, R.M., and Hambrook, J.A., 2002, Revised protocols for sampling algal, 

invertebrate, and fish communities as part of the National 

Water-Quality Assessment Program: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 02–150, 75 p. 

Relyea, C.D., Minshall, G.W., and Danehy, R.J., 2000, Stream 

insects as bioindicators of fine sediment: Watershed Management 2000 Conference.

Rosenberg, D.M., and Resh, V.H., eds., 1993, Freshwater biomonitoring and benthic macroinvertebrates: USA, Chapman 

and Hall, 488 p.

Washington, H.G., 1984, Diversity, biotic and similarity 

indices—A review with special relevance to aquatic ecosystems: Water Research, v. 18, no. 6, p. 653–694.

Prepared by:

USGS Publishing Network

Raleigh Publishing Service Center

3916 Sunset Ridge Road

Raleigh, NC 27607

For additional information regarding this publication, contact:

Will S. Mooty, Hydrologist

USGS Alabama Water Science Center

75 TechnaCenter Drive

Montgomery, AL 36117

email: wsmooty@usgs.gov

Or visit the USGS Alabama Water Science Center Web site at:

http://al.water.usgs.gov/

Mooty and Gill—Assessment of Aquatic Macroinvertebrate Communities in the Autauga Creek Watershed, Alabama, 2009—Open-File Report 2011–1027