Investigation of Water Quality and AquaticCommunity Structure in Village and Valley 

Creeks, City of Birmingham, Jefferson County, 

Alabama, 2000–01

Prepared in cooperation with the

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

By Ann K. McPherson, Thomas A. Abrahamsen, and C.A. Journey

Montgomery, Alabama

2002

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

Water-Resources Investigations Report 02–4182
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

GALE A. NORTON, Secretary

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

CHARLES G. GROAT, Director

Cover photographs—Top: Stream reach upstream from USGS streamgaging station 02458450 (site VIL-3). Right: USGS personnel collecting invertebrate samples. Bottom left: USGS personnel using a seine to collect fish at USGS streamgaging station 

02458450 (site VIL-3). Bottom middle: USGS personnel sampling for fish at USGS streamgaging station 02458450 (VIL-3) using a 

backpack electrofisher (photographs taken by A.K. McPherson, USGS).

For additional information write to: Copies of this report can be purchased from:

District Chief U.S. Geological Survey

U.S. Geological Survey Branch of Information Services

2350 Fairlane Drive, Suite 120 Box 25286, Federal Center

Montgomery, AL 36116 Denver, CO 80225

dc_al@usgs.gov 1-888-ASK-USGS

Information about U.S. Geological Survey programs in Alabama is available on the Internet at http://al.water.usgs.gov.

The use of firm, trade, and brand names in this report is for identification purposes only and does not 

constitute endorsement by the U.S. Geological Survey.
Abstract ................................................................................................................................................................................. 1

Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................................... 3

Purpose and scope ....................................................................................................................................................... 4

Study sites ................................................................................................................................................................... 5

Previous investigations................................................................................................................................................ 6

Effects of urbanization on aquatic communities ......................................................................................................... 7

Acknowledgments....................................................................................................................................................... 7

Watershed characteristics ...................................................................................................................................................... 7

Land use in the watershed ........................................................................................................................................... 9

Hydrology ................................................................................................................................................................... 15

Approach ............................................................................................................................................................................... 17

Data-collection methods.............................................................................................................................................. 17

Water-quality samples ....................................................................................................................................... 17

Bed-sediment samples....................................................................................................................................... 19

Fish-tissue samples............................................................................................................................................ 20

Aquatic-community samples............................................................................................................................. 20

Stream-habitat characterization......................................................................................................................... 21

Data analysis and review............................................................................................................................................. 21

Water-quality data ............................................................................................................................................. 22

Quality-control methods and results ................................................................................................................. 24

Bed-sediment data............................................................................................................................................. 25

Fish-tissue data.................................................................................................................................................. 25

Aquatic-community data................................................................................................................................... 25

Stream-habitat data............................................................................................................................................ 27

Results and discussion........................................................................................................................................................... 27

Water quality ............................................................................................................................................................... 27

Basic water chemistry ....................................................................................................................................... 27

Major ions ......................................................................................................................................................... 27

Field and continuous measurements of water properties .................................................................................. 28

Nutrients............................................................................................................................................................ 33

Nitrogen concentrations and distribution ................................................................................................ 37

Phosphorus concentrations and distribution............................................................................................ 39

Chlorophyll a and chlorophyll b concentrations and distribution........................................................... 42

Comparison of nutrient data from urban sites in Birmingham to urban sites nationwide ...................... 42

Instantaneous nutrient loads and yields................................................................................................... 42

Biochemical oxygen demand and total organic carbon .......................................................................... 44

Fecal indicator bacteria ..................................................................................................................................... 44

Wastewater indicators........................................................................................................................................ 48

Trace and major elements.................................................................................................................................. 49

Comparison of trace and major element data from urban sites in Birmingham 

to urban sites nationwide ..................................................................................................................... 56

Pesticides........................................................................................................................................................... 57

Comparison of pesticide data from urban sites in Birmingham 

to urban sites nationwide ..................................................................................................................... 63

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons .................................................................................................................... 64

Bed sediment and fish tissue ....................................................................................................................................... 66

Trace and major elements in bed sediment ....................................................................................................... 66

Trace and major elements in fish-liver tissue.................................................................................................... 68

Comparison of trace-element priority pollutants in bed-sediment and fish-liver samples................................ 69

Organic compounds in bed sediment ................................................................................................................ 69

CONTENTS

Contents III
Organic compounds in fish tissue...................................................................................................................... 74

Habitat.......................................................................................................................................................................... 77

Aquatic community ..................................................................................................................................................... 78

Benthic-invertebrate communities..................................................................................................................... 78

Fish communities............................................................................................................................................... 81

Correlations with land use ..................................................................................................................................................... 83

Summary................................................................................................................................................................................ 86

Selected references ................................................................................................................................................................ 89

Appendixes ............................................................................................................................................................................ 96

FIGURES

1. Locations of sampling sites and physiographic provinces in the Birmingham area, 

Jefferson County, Alabama.................................................................................................................................. 3

2. Mean monthly precipitation for the 30-year period (1961–1990) and monthly precipitation 

(January 2000–May 2001) at the Birmingham International Airport, National Weather Service, 

Birmingham, Alabama......................................................................................................................................... 8

3. 1992 Multi-resolution land characteristics in the Village Creek watershed, Birmingham, Alabama ...................... 10

4. 1992 Multi-resolution land characteristics in the Valley Creek watershed, Birmingham, Alabama ....................... 11

5. 1992 Multi-resolution land characteristics in the Little Cahaba River watershed, 

Jefferson County, Alabama.................................................................................................................................. 12

6. 1992 Multi-resolution land characteristics in the Fivemile Creek watershed, Jefferson County, 

Alabama............................................................................................................................................................... 13

7. Land use in the watersheds of sampling sites in the Birmingham area, Alabama ................................................... 14

8. (A) Mean monthly streamflow and (B) departure of monthly mean streamflow from the mean 

for the period of record (1975–79 and 1988–2000) at U.S. Geological Survey streamgaging 

stations 02458450 (VIL-3) and 02461500 (downstream from VAL-3) in Birmingham, Alabama..................... 16

9. Dissolved oxygen, water temperature, turbidity, discharge, and specific conductivity 

at U.S. Geological Survey streamgaging station 02458450 (VIL-3) during low-flow conditions, 

August 27–31, 2000............................................................................................................................................ 32

10. Dissolved oxygen, water temperature, gage height, discharge, turbidity, and specific conductivity 

at U.S. Geological Survey streamgaging station 02458450 (VIL-3) during two storms, 

August 1–4, 2000................................................................................................................................................ 33

11. Median concentrations of measured forms of dissolved nitrogen in water samples from streams 

in the Birmingham area, Alabama, 2000–01 ...................................................................................................... 37

12. Box plots of dissolved (A) nitrate, (B) nitrite, (C) ammonia, and (D) organic nitrogen 

concentrations in water samples from streams in the Birmingham area, Alabama, 2000–01 ............................ 38

13. Dissolved (A) nitrate, (B) nitrite, (C) ammonia, and (D) organic nitrogen concentrations 

in water samples collected during high and low flow from streams in the Birmingham area, 

Alabama, 2000–01 .............................................................................................................................................. 39

14. Median concentrations of measured forms of dissolved phosphorus in water samples 

from streams in the Birmingham area, Alabama, 2000–01 ................................................................................ 40

15. Box plots of (A) suspended phosphorus, (B) dissolved orthophosphate, and (C) dissolved 

non-orthophosphorus concentrations in water samples from streams 

in the Birmingham area, Alabama, 2000–01 ...................................................................................................... 41

16. Comparison of nutrients in water samples from urban sites in the Birmingham area, Alabama, 

to urban sites nationwide ..................................................................................................................................... 42

17. (A) Escherichia coli, (B) enterococci, and (C) fecal coliform concentrations in water samples 

collected during high and low flow from streams in the Birmingham area, Alabama, 2000–01 ....................... 46

18. Frequencies of detection for selected wastewater indicators in water samples from streams 

in the Birmingham area, Alabama, 2000–01 ...................................................................................................... 48

19. Relations of (A) total cadmium, (B) total recoverable copper, (C) total recoverable lead, and 

(D) total recoverable zinc in water-quality samples to hardness and acute and chronic 

toxicity at streams in the Birmingham area, Alabama, 2000–01........................................................................ 50

IV Contents
20. Frequencies of detection for trace and major elements in water samples from streams 

in the Birmingham area, Alabama, 2000–01...................................................................................................... 54

21. (A) Total cadmium, (B) total recoverable copper, (C) total recoverable lead, (D) total recoverable zinc, 

and (E) total recoverable aluminum concentrations detected in water samples collected 

during high and low flow from streams in the Birmingham area, Alabama, 2000–01 ...................................... 55

22. Comparison of trace and major elements in water samples from urban sites in the Birmingham area, 

Alabama, to urban sites nationwide .................................................................................................................... 57

23. Frequencies of detection for pesticides in water samples from streams in the Birmingham area, 

Alabama, 2000–01 ............................................................................................................................................. 59

24. (A) Dissolved atrazine, (B) dissolved simazine, and (C) dissolved chlorpyrifos concentrations 

detected in water samples during high and low flow at streams in the Birmingham area, 

Alabama, 2000–01 ............................................................................................................................................. 61

25. Comparison of pesticides in water samples from urban sites in the Birmingham area, Alabama, 

to urban sites nationwide .................................................................................................................................... 63

26. Comparison of frequencies of detection for pesticides in water samples from streams 

in the Birmingham area, Alabama, to urban sites nationwide ............................................................................ 64

27. Frequencies of detection for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in water samples from streams 

in the Birmingham area, Alabama, 2000–01...................................................................................................... 65

28. Concentrations of lead detected in (A) bed sediment and (B) fish-liver tissue (Lepomis species) 

from streams in the Birmingham area, Alabama, 2000 ...................................................................................... 66

29. Concentrations of cadmium detected in bed sediment and fish-liver tissue (Lepomis species) 

from streams in the Birmingham area, Alabama, 2000 ...................................................................................... 67

30. The sum of the concentrations of trace-element priority pollutants detected in (A) bed sediment 

and (B) fish-liver tissue (Lepomis species) from streams in the Birmingham area, Alabama, 2000.................. 68

31. Concentrations of chlorpyrifos detected in bed sediment and fish tissue (Lepomis species) 

from streams in the Birmingham area, Alabama, 2000 ...................................................................................... 72

32. Concentrations of DDT and its degradation products detected in (A) bed sediment and 

(B) fish tissue (Lepomis species) from streams in the Birmingham area, Alabama, 2000 ................................. 72

33. Concentrations of (A) total chlordane detected in bed sediment and (B) components of total 

chlordane detected in fish tissue (Lepomis species) from streams in the Birmingham area, 

Alabama, 2000 .................................................................................................................................................... 74

34. Concentrations of total polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) detected in (A) bed sediment and 

(B) fish tissue (Lepomis species) from streams in the Birmingham area, Alabama, 2000 ................................. 76

35. Benthic-invertebrate community richness in streams in the Birmingham area, Alabama, 2000............................. 78

36. Similarity of the benthic-invertebrate community at five sites in the Birmingham area, 

Alabama, to that of a reference site—FMC—(June 2000), compared with the percentage 

of urban land use in the drainage basin............................................................................................................... 78

37. Density of benthic-invertebrate taxa in selected streams in the Birmingham area, Alabama, 

June and October 2000........................................................................................................................................ 79

38. The relative abundance of midges (Chironomidae) in selected streams in the Birmingham area, 

Alabama, June and October 2000 ....................................................................................................................... 79

39. Comparison of the relative abundances of the dominant benthic-invertebrate taxa collected 

from streams in the Birmingham area, Alabama, 2000 ...................................................................................... 80

40. Fish-community richness and catch per unit effort in streams in the Birmingham area, Alabama, 2001............... 81

41. Relative abundance of fish families in streams in the Birmingham area, Alabama, 2001 ...................................... 81

TABLES

1. Description of surface-water sites selected for water-quality and biological sampling 

in the Birmingham area, Alabama, 2000–01...................................................................................................... 5

2. Land-use characteristics in the watersheds of sampling sites in the Birmingham area, Alabama .......................... 6

3. Population changes (1970–90) in the watersheds of sampling sites in the Birmingham area, Alabama................ 14

4. Mean annual streamflow at selected continuous-record stations on Village and Valley Creeks, 

Birmingham, Alabama........................................................................................................................................ 15

Contents V
5. Sampling type and frequency of water-quality and biological constituents at sites in the 

Birmingham area, Alabama, 2000–01 ................................................................................................................ 18

6. Results of the Kruskal-Wallis test and the Tukey multiple-comparison test illustrating statistically 

significant (p < 0.05) differences for selected water-quality constituents at sites in the 

Birmingham area, Alabama................................................................................................................................. 29

7. Water-quality properties of streams in the Birmingham area, Alabama, 2000–01.................................................. 31

8. Summary of selected nutrients at sampling sites in the Birmingham area, Alabama, 2000–01.............................. 34

9. Instantaneous loads of total nitrogen and total phosphorus at sites in the Birmingham area, 

Alabama, 2000–01 .............................................................................................................................................. 43

10. Nutrient yields at sites in the Birmingham area, Alabama, and at sites nationwide ................................................ 43

11. Statistical summary of Escherichia coli, enterococci, and fecal coliform concentrations at sites 

in the Birmingham area, Alabama, 2000–01 ...................................................................................................... 45

12. State and Federal standards and criteria for bacteria in surface water ..................................................................... 47

13. Exceedance frequencies for fecal indicator bacteria detected at sites in the Birmingham area, 

Alabama, 2000–01 .............................................................................................................................................. 47

14. State and Federal standards and criteria for trace and major elements in surface water.......................................... 49

15. Summary of trace and major elements detected in water samples and applicable aquatic life 

criteria at sites in the Birmingham area, Alabama, 2000–01.............................................................................. 51

16. Pesticides and pesticide degradation products, laboratory reporting levels, and minimum reporting levels........... 58

17. Standards, guidelines, and maximum concentrations of pesticides detected in water samples 

from streams in the Birmingham area, Alabama, 2000–01 ................................................................................ 60

18. Pesticide detection frequencies in water samples from streams in the Birmingham area, 

Alabama, 2000–01 .............................................................................................................................................. 62

19. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon detection frequencies in water samples from streams 

in the Birmingham area, Alabama, 2000–01 ...................................................................................................... 65

20. Concentrations of trace-element priority pollutants detected in bed-sediment samples 

from streams in the Birmingham area, Alabama, 2000....................................................................................... 66

21. Concentrations of trace and major elements detected in fish-liver tissue (Lepomis species) 

from streams in the Birmingham area, Alabama, 2000....................................................................................... 69

22. Concentrations of pesticides and other organic compounds detected in bed-sediment samples 

from streams in the Birmingham area, Alabama, 2000....................................................................................... 70

23. Concentrations of DDT and its degradation products detected in bed-sediment and fish-tissue 

samples at selected stream sites in the Birmingham area, Alabama, 2000 ......................................................... 73

24. Concentrations of pesticides and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) detected in fish tissue 

(Lepomis species) from streams in the Birmingham area, Alabama, 2000 ......................................................... 75

25. Habitat characteristics in selected streams in the Birmingham area, Alabama, 2000.............................................. 77

26. Significant correlations between land use and water quality, bed sediment, fish tissue, 

and aquatic-community structure at the Birmingham study sites, Alabama, 2000–01 ...................................... 84

APPENDIX 1 Quality Control

Table 1-1. Concentrations of nutrients, major ions, trace elements, and wastewater indicators detected 

in blank samples in the Birmingham area, Alabama, 2000–01..................................................................... 97

Table 1-2. Concentrations and relative percentage differences for nutrients, major ions, trace elements, 

pesticides, and wastewater indicators detected in replicate samples in the Birmingham area, 

Alabama 2000–01 ......................................................................................................................................... 98

APPENDIX 2 Summary of Water-Quality Data 

Table 2-1. Summary of major ion concentrations during different flow conditions at sites in the 

Birmingham area, Alabama, 2000–01 .......................................................................................................... 100

VI Contents
Table 2-2. Field water-quality properties, bacteria, and chemical constituents at sites in the 

Birmingham area, Alabama, 2000–01.......................................................................................................... 101

Table 2-3. Wastewater indicators detected in water samples from streams in the Birmingham area, 

Alabama, 2000–01........................................................................................................................................ 103

Table 2-4. Pesticides detected in water samples from streams in the Birmingham area, Alabama, 2000–01 ................. 106

Table 2-5. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons detected in water samples from streams in the 

Birmingham area, Alabama, 2000–01.......................................................................................................... 108

APPENDIX 3 Summary of Ecological Data

Table 3-1. Trace and major elements detected in bed-sediment samples from streams 

in the Birmingham area, Alabama, 2000....................................................................................................... 110

Table 3-2. Benthic-invertebrate taxa, density, and relative abundance in streams in the 

Birmingham area, Alabama, 2000................................................................................................................. 111

Table 3-3. Benthic-invertebrate community metrics in streams in the Birmingham area, Alabama, 2000 ...................... 118

Table 3-4. Fish species collected from streams in the Birmingham area, Alabama, 2001 ............................................... 119

CONVERSION FACTORS, TEMPERATURE, ABBREVIATIONS, AND ACRONYMS

Temperature: Temperature is given in degrees Fahrenheit (°F), which can be converted to degree 

Celsius (°C) as follows:

°C=5/9 (°F - 32)

Abbreviations and Acronyms:

α probability of a Type I error

col/100 mL colonies per 100 milliliters

g gram

g/kg grams per kilogram

kg/d kilograms per day

(kg/ha)/yr kilograms per hectare per year

m2 square meter

m3 cubic meter

μg/kg micrograms per kilogram

μg/g micrograms per gram

μg/L micrograms per liter

Multiply by To obtain

Length

inch (in.) 25.4 millimeter

foot (ft) 0.3048 meter

mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer

Area

acre 0.4047 hectare

square mile (mi2) 2.590 square kilometer

Mass

pound, avoirdupois (lb) 0.4536 kilogram

Volume

gallon (gal) 3.785 liter

acre-foot (acre-ft) 1,233 cubic meter

Flow

inch per year (in/yr) 25.4 millimeter per year

cubic foot per second (ft3/s) 0.02832 cubic meter per second

Contents VII
Abbreviations and Acronyms (Continued):

μm micron

μS/cm microsiemens per centimeter at 25 °C as measure of specific conducance

meq/L milliequivalents per liter

mg/L milligrams per liter

mL milliliter

n sample size

ADEM Alabama Department of Environmental Management

ANOVA analysis of variance

BHA 3-tert-butyl-4-hydroxyanisole

BOD biochemical oxygen demand

BOD5 5-day biochemical oxygen demand

DC direct current 

DDD degradation product of DDT

DDE degradation product of DDT

DDT dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane

DNOC 4,6-dinitro-2-methylphenol

DO dissolved oxygen

DP degradation product

E concentration is estimated

E. coli Escherichia coli

EPT Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera

FDA Food and Drug Administration

GC/MS gas chromatography/mass spectrometry

GIS geographic information system

H herbicide

HPLC high-performance liquid chromatography

I insecticide

IDAS Invertebrate Data Analysis System

K counts greater than or less than ideal

LN natural log

LRL laboratory reporting level

LT-MDL long-term method detection limit

MCL Maximum Contaminant Level

MRL minimum reporting level

MRLC multi-resolution land characteristics

NAS/NAE National Academy of Science/National Academy of Engineering

NAWQA National Water-Quality Assessment

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

NPEO2 diethoxynonylphenol

NTU nephelometric turbidity units

NWQL National Water Quality Laboratory

OPEO1 monoethoxyoctylphenol

OPEO2 diethoxyoctylphenol

OT other, exposed rock

PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons

PCB polychlorinated biphenyl

PEL probable effect level

RW right-of-way

SC specific conductance

SW shrubs or woodland

TEPP trace-element priority pollutants

TOC total organic carbon

UI urban industrial

UR urban residential

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

WY water year (Water year is the period October 1 through September 30 and is identified 

by the year in which it ends.)

VIII Contents
Abstract 1

Investigation of Water Quality and Aquatic-Community 

Structure in Village and Valley Creeks, City of Birmingham, 

Jefferson County, Alabama, 2000–01

By Ann K. McPherson, Thomas A. Abrahamsen, and C.A. Journey

ABSTRACT

The U.S. Geological Survey conducted a 

16-month investigation of water quality, aquaticcommunity structure, bed sediment, and fish tissue in 

Village and Valley Creeks, two urban streams that drain 

areas of highly intensive residential, commercial, and 

industrial land use in Birmingham, Alabama. Waterquality data were collected between February 2000 and 

March 2001 at four sites on Village Creek, three sites 

on Valley Creek, and at two reference sites near 

Birmingham—Fivemile Creek and Little Cahaba 

River, both of which drain less-urbanized areas. Stream 

samples were analyzed for major ions, nutrients, fecal 

bacteria, trace and major elements, pesticides, and 

selected organic constituents. Bed-sediment and fishtissue samples were analyzed for trace and major 

elements, pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls, and 

additional organic compounds. Aquatic-community 

structure was evaluated by conducting one survey of 

the fish community and in-stream habitat and two 

surveys of the benthic-invertebrate community. Bedsediment and fish-tissue samples, benthicinvertebrates, and habitat data were collected between 

June 2000 and October 2000 at six of the nine waterquality sites; fish communities were evaluated in April 

and May 2001 at the six sites where habitat and 

benthic-invertebrate data were collected. The 

occurrence and distribution of chemical constituents in 

the water column and bed sediment provided an initial 

assessment of water quality in the streams. The 

structure of the aquatic communities, the physical 

condition of the fish, and the chemical analyses of fish 

tissue provided an indication of the cumulative effects 

of water quality on the aquatic biota.

Water chemistry was similar at all sites, 

characterized by strong calcium-bicarbonate 

component and magnesium components. Median 

concentrations of total nitrogen and total phosphorus 

were highest at the headwaters of Valley Creek and 

lowest at the reference site on Fivemile Creek. In 

Village Creek, median concentrations of nitrite and 

ammonia increased in a downstream direction. In 

Valley Creek, median concentrations of nitrate, nitrite, 

ammonia, organic nitrogen, suspended phosphorus, 

and orthophosphate decreased in a downstream 

direction. Median concentrations of Escherichia coli

and fecal coliform bacteria were highest at the most 

upstream site of Valley Creek and lowest at the 

reference site on Fivemile Creek. Concentrations of 

enterococci exceeded the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency criterion in 80 percent of the 

samples; concentrations of Escherichia coli exceeded 

the criterion in 56 percent of the samples. 

Concentrations of bacteria at the downstream sites on 

Village and Valley Creeks were elevated during high 

flow rather than low flow, indicating the presence of 

nonpoint sources. Surface-water samples were 

analyzed for chemical compounds that are commonly 

found in wastewater and urban runoff. The median 

number of wastewater indicators was highest at the 

most upstream site on Valley Creek and lowest at the 

reference site on Fivemile Creek. Concentrations of 

total recoverable cadmium, copper, lead, and zinc in 

surface water exceeded acute and chronic aquatic life 

criteria in up to 24 percent of the samples that were 

analyzed for trace and major elements. High 

concentrations of trace and major elements in the water 

column were detected most frequently during high 

flow, indicating the presence of nonpoint sources. Of 
2 Investigation of Water Quality and Aquatic-Community Structure in Village and Valley Creeks, Alabama, 2000 – 01

the 24 pesticides detected in surface water, 17 were 

herbicides and 7 were insecticides. Atrazine, simazine, 

and prometon were the most commonly detected 

herbicides; diazinon, chlorpyrifos, and carbaryl were 

the most commonly detected insecticides. 

Concentrations of atrazine, carbaryl, chlorpyrifos, 

diazinon, and malathion periodically exceeded criteria 

for the protection of aquatic life. 

Trace-element priority pollutants, pesticides, 

and other organic compounds were detected in higher 

concentrations in bed sediment at the Village and 

Valley Creek sites than at the reference site on Fivemile 

Creek. Bed-sediment concentrations of chromium, 

copper, lead, mercury, and silver were highest at the 

most upstream site on Valley Creek; and concentrations 

of cadmium, nickel, selenium, and zinc were highest at 

the second downstream site on Village Creek. Bedsediment concentrations of arsenic, cadmium, 

chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, selenium, 

and zinc from the Village and Valley Creek sites 

exceeded median concentrations observed nationwide. 

Concentrations of cadmium, selenium, and zinc were 

highest in fish-liver tissue samples collected from the 

second downstream site on Village Creek—

concentrations of copper and mercury in fish-liver 

samples were highest at the most downstream site on 

Village Creek. 

The highest total concentration of organic 

compounds detected in bed-sediment samples occurred 

at the most upstream site on Valley Creek and the 

lowest total concentration occurred at Fivemile Creek. 

In Village Creek, concentrations of 75 percent of the 

detected organic compounds increased in a downstream direction; in Valley Creek, concentrations of 

about 70 percent of the detected organic compounds 

decreased in a downstream direction. Concentrations 

of 10 organic compounds in bed-sediment samples, 

including chlordane and p,p'-DDE, exceeded levels 

considered harmful to aquatic organisms at sites on 

Village and Valley Creeks. Concentrations of dieldrin, 

chlordane, and polychlorinated biphenyls in fish-tissue 

samples exceeded National Academy of Science/

National Academy of Engineering guidelines for the 

protection of fish-eating wildlife. 

Fish and benthic-invertebrate community 

structure differed between Village and Valley Creeks 

and the reference streams. Multiple lines of evidence, 

including the richness and density of benthic 

invertebrates as well as fish-community structure, 

indicate that the aquatic community in Village Creek is 

similar to that of Valley Creek, but that the integrity of 

the aquatic communities in both creeks is poor in 

comparison to that observed at the two reference sites. 

The abundance of mayflies and the number of 

EPT (Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera) taxa 

(two well-known indicators of good water quality) 

were negatively correlated with industrial land use. The 

abundance of midges (an indicator of poor water 

quality) was positively correlated with industrial land 

use—and midge density was positively correlated with 

commercial land use, providing additional evidence 

that these streams have been negatively affected by 

urbanization in the basins. The percentage of 

mosquitofishes (a tolerant species) was positively 

correlated with commercial land use. In contrast, the 

numbers of fish species, fish families, and the 

percentage of sunfishes (intolerant species) were 

positively correlated with forested land use, indicating 

that the more diverse fish communities were found in 

basins with a higher percentage of forested land. The 

concentrations of 12 water-quality constituents 

(including several nitrogen species, chloride, copper, 

and molybdenum, and the detection frequency of 

wastewater indicators) and 18 organic compounds 

detected in bed sediment were positively correlated 

with industrial land use. Mercury and molybdenum 

concentrations detected in fish-liver tissue also were 

positively correlated with industrial land use. Bedsediment and water-quality constituents that were 

found to have significant correlations with land use 

often were found to be correlated with many biological 

indicators, further supporting the link between 

increased urbanization and changes in aquaticcommunity structure.

The water quality and aquatic-community 

structure in Village and Valley Creeks are degraded in 

comparison to streams flowing through less-urbanized 

areas. Low community richness and increased density 

of certain species within the fish and benthicinvertebrate communities indicate that degradation has 

occurred during an extended period of time. Decreased 

diversity in the aquatic communities and elevated 

concentrations of trace elements and organic 

contaminants in the water column, bed sediment, and 

fish tissues at Village and Valley Creeks are indicative 

of the effects of urbanization. The degree of 

degradation may be related to point and nonpoint 

sources of contamination originating within the basins. 

Industrial land use, in particular, was significantly 

correlated to elevated contaminant levels in the water 
Introduction 3

Figure 1. Locations of sampling sites and physiographic provinces in the Birmingham area, Jefferson County, Alabama.

column, in bed sediment, in fish tissue, and to the 

declining health of the benthic-invertebrate 

communities. The results of the 16-month study have 

long-range watershed management implications, 

demonstrating the association of urban development 

and stream degradation. These data can serve as a 

baseline from which to determine the effectiveness of 

stream-restoration programs.

INTRODUCTION

Birmingham, the most populated city in Alabama, 

is located in Jefferson County in the north-central part of 

the State (fig. 1). Covering more than 163 square miles 

(mi2), the city had a population of nearly 243,000 in 2000 

(U.S. Census Bureau, 2001). Once the South’s foremost 

industrial center, supporting iron and steel production, 

Birmingham has developed diverse commercial and 

industrial enterprises including chemical, manufacturing, 

and medical businesses. As a result, this intensely 

urbanized area now contains numerous industrial and 

municipal point and nonpoint sources of contamination 

that influence the water quality in several stream basins 

draining the city, including Village Creek and Valley 

Creek.

The Alabama Department of Environmental 

Management (ADEM) has classified some creeks that 
4 Investigation of Water Quality and Aquatic-Community Structure in Village and Valley Creeks, Alabama, 2000 – 01

drain portions of the Village Creek and Valley Creek 

watersheds as impaired due to poor water-quality conditions (Alabama Department of Environmental Management, 1998). Removal of riparian vegetation and the 

channelization of streams have altered aquatic habitat 

availability by changing the natural flows and temperatures in these streams. Point-source discharges, surface 

runoff, and sewer overflows (combined storm and sanitary) have been reported by ADEM as sources of contamination that degrade water quality, habitat, and biological 

communities in Village and Valley Creeks by contributing 

metals, nutrients, pathogens, silt, organic compounds, and 

oxygen-demanding compounds. In-place contaminants 

(that is, persistent contaminants in bed sediment that continually leach to the environment) and periodic chemical 

spills also have been attributed to the overall impairment 

of water quality in these two urban streams.

In an effort to address water-quality problems and 

flooding in these stream basins, the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers (USACE), in cooperation with the City of 

Birmingham, is conducting a feasibility study of the 

restoration of stream watersheds in Birmingham, called 

the Birmingham Watersheds Project. The project 

objective is to implement stream management zones in 

the floodplains of Village and Valley Creeks, as well as 

other strategies to reduce flood damage, improve water 

quality, and restore the urban ecosystems in these 

watersheds.

Before the effectiveness of these proposed 

management strategies and restoration efforts can be 

assessed, however, sufficient water-quality, aquatichabitat, and biological community data are needed to 

define current conditions in the two urban watersheds. 

In response to this need, the U.S. Geological Survey 

(USGS), in cooperation with the USACE, initiated a 

16-month multidisciplinary study to assess spatial 

information on the chemical, biological, and physical 

properties characterizing baseline water-quality and 

aquatic-ecosystem conditions in Village and Valley 

Creeks.

Assessing water quality at varying temporal and 

spatial scales and understanding the effects of 

urbanization on stream ecosystems reflects one of the 

priorities of the USGS National Water-Quality 

Assessment (NAWQA) Program. NAWQA is designed to 

evaluate water-quality conditions and factors affecting 

water quality on a national and regional basis. The results 

of this study when combined with other NAWQA studies 

from across the Nation will provide resource managers 

and interested partners with a better understanding of how 

ecosystems respond to land-use changes associated with 

urbanization, and how these responses vary across a range 

of environmental settings.

Purpose and Scope

The purpose of this report is to present the results 

of a 16-month study that assessed water-quality 

conditions, aquatic-community structure, habitat, and 

bed-sediment and fish-tissue data collected from Village 

and Valley Creeks, two urban streams draining parts of 

Birmingham, Alabama. The natural and anthropogenic 

characteristics of each watershed are described, including 

the major land-use types present in each watershed. Water 

quality is described over a range of flow conditions, and 

the extent to which point and nonpoint sources influence 

water quality based on low-flow/high-flow conditions, 

respectively, is presented for nutrients, bacteria, and trace 

elements. The structure of the fish and benthicinvertebrate communities is compared among sites 

sampled in the watersheds.

During this investigation, water-quality and 

ecological data were examined in an upstreamdownstream order to identify spatial differences in water 

quality. Data from urban stream sites were compared to 

data from less-urbanized reference sites to evaluate the 

effects of urbanization on water quality. Statistical and 

graphical analyses of selected land-use, chemical, 

sediment, and biological data were used to provide a 

general assessment of current (2000–01) conditions at the 

selected stream sites. 

Data used to characterize water quality and aquatic 

biota were collected during the period from February 

2000 through May 2001. Specifically, stream waterquality data—including major ions, nutrients, trace 

elements, pesticides, selected organic constituents, and 

fecal bacteria—were collected from February 2000 

through February 2001, with one additional sample 

collected in March 2001. Aquatic-community structure 

was evaluated by conducting one survey of fish 

communities and in-stream habitats, and two surveys of 

the invertebrate communities. Bed-sediment, fish-tissue, 

benthic-invertebrate, and habitat data were collected 

between June and October 2000. Fish communities were 

evaluated in April and May 2001. Data from this 

investigation will provide information for planners and 

resource managers to use in selecting appropriate 

restoration options, and provide a baseline from which to 

determine the effectiveness of future stream restoration 

programs.
Study Sites 5

Table 1. Description of surface-water sites selected for water-quality and biological sampling in the Birmingham area, Alabama, 2000–01

[USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; mi2, square mile; —, none]

Site 

label 

(fig. 1)

USGS station 

numbera

a

 USGS station number is based on geographic location and the downstream order of streamflow.

Station name

Site location Drainage 

area 

(mi2

)

Period of continuous record

Latitude Longitude Streamflow Water quality

VIL-1 02458150 Village Creek at Eastlake Park in 

Birmingham

33°34'06'' 86°43'31'' 4.89 1998–2001b

b Continuous record monitored upstream from site VIL-1 at station 02458148.

2000–2001b

VIL-2 02458300 Village Creek at 24th Street at 

Birmingham

33°32'33'' 86°49'03'' 26.0 1988–2001 —

VIL-3 02458450 Village Creek at Avenue W at 

Ensley

33°31'03'' 86°52'45'' 33.5 1975–1979

1988–2001

1991–2001

VIL-4 02458600 Village Creek near Docena 33°32'53'' 86°55'53'' 52.2 1996–2001 1996–2001

VAL-1 02461120 Valley Creek at 5th Avenue and 7th 

Street in Birmingham

33°26'07'' 86°56'15'' 4.94 — —

VAL-2 02461200 Valley Creek at Cleburn Avenue 

near Powderly

33°28'08'' 86°53'18'' 20.1 — —

VAL-3 02461300 Valley Creek at U.S. Highway11 at 

Birmingham

33°26'07'' 86°56'15'' 30.0 — 2000–2001

LCR 02423400 Little Cahaba River near Jefferson 

Park

33°29'59'' 86°36'51'' 24.4 1986–2000 —

FMC 02461670 Fivemile Creek at Freeman Avenue 

near McCalla

33°21'49'' 87°01'09'' 13.0 — —

Study Sites

During the initial phase of the study (December 

1999 through February 2000), field reconnaissance was 

conducted to select representative sampling sites in the 

watersheds (fig. 1; table 1). Sites were selected based on 

land-use characteristics in the drainage area of each 

watershed (table 2). Seven sampling sites, draining areas 

of highly intensive residential, commercial, and industrial 

land use, were identified on Village and Valley Creeks 

(VIL-1, VIL-2, VIL-3, VIL-4, and VAL-1, VAL-2, 

VAL-3, respectively). For comparison with the urban 

sites, two reference sites (FMC and LCR) were identified 

on nearby creeks (Fivemile Creek and Little Cahaba 

River, respectively) where commercial, industrial, and 

residential activities are limited. These reference sites 

were selected because both drain less-urbanized areas, 

thereby minimizing urbanization effects on water quality, 

and yet the natural physical features characterizing the 

reference sites (such as climate, geology, and hydrology) 

are similar to the urban sites in the study area. In this 

report, study area refers to those portions of each 

watershed upstream from the most downstream sampling 

site. For example in Valley Creek, the study area is 

defined as the area upstream from VAL-3, the most 

downstream sampling site (fig. 1).

The sampling network on Village Creek and the 

reference site on Little Cahaba River were adjusted after 

initial sampling and data review. Water-quality data were 

collected from urban site VIL-4 on Village Creek and 

reference site LCR on Little Cahaba River between 

March and July 2000. Urban site VIL-2 on Village Creek 

and reference site FMC on Fivemile Creek were added to 

the sampling network in August 2000, and were sampled 

throughout the remainder of the study period. 

Reference site FMC replaced site LCR and site 

VIL-2 replaced site VIL-4. Site FMC was selected to 

replace site LCR as the reference site because of the 

absence of municipal discharges and reduced influence 

from urbanization at FMC. Although site FMC had 

similar characteristics to site LCR with respect to basin 

size and geology, the degree of urbanization was less. Site 

VIL-4 was replaced in the study by site VIL-2 for the 

following reasons: (1) VIL-4 was located directly 

downstream from a large wastewater-treatment plant, 

(2) the site was located outside the area of consideration 

for stream restoration efforts, (3) VIL-4 was geologically 

different from the other urban sites in Village Creek, and 

(4) the habitat at site VIL-4 differed substantially from 

other sites for biological sampling. Site VIL-2 was 

selected to replace VIL-4 because VIL-2 was situated in 
6 Investigation of Water Quality and Aquatic-Community Structure in Village and Valley Creeks, Alabama, 2000 – 01

an area considered for stream restoration, and because the 

site is geologically similar to sites VIL-1 and VIL-3.

Sites VIL-1, VAL-2, and FMC also are part of the 

national NAWQA Land-Use Gradient Study, currently 

(2000–01) being conducted in Alabama. The Land-Use 

Gradient Study is part of a national focus by the USGS to 

investigate the effects of urbanization on water quality 

and stream biota across the Nation.

Previous Investigations

Little information has been published on the water 

quality of Village and Valley Creeks. Every other year, the 

ADEM provides to Congress a 305(b) report on the water 

quality of rivers, streams, lakes, and ground water in 

Alabama. In the most recent reports, ADEM indicated 

that Village Creek was nonsupportive of its agricultural 

and industrial water-supply classification because of 

elevated concentrations of metals, nonpriority organics, 

and ammonia (Alabama Department of Environmental 

Management, 1998, 2000a). Organic enrichment, high 

dissolved-oxygen concentrations, high pH, and siltation 

problems also were listed as impairments to water quality 

in Village Creek (Alabama Department of Environmental 

Management, 1998, 2000a). Various sources for these 

contaminants have been identified by ADEM, including 

industrial and municipal discharges, urban runoff and 

storm sewers, and abandoned mining operations. 

A number of scientific studies have been 

conducted to investigate the environmental factors 

influencing the watersheds of Village and Valley Creeks 

and other streams in Jefferson County. Several reports 

have been published that describe the geologic structure, 

stratigraphy, and lithology of the Jefferson County area 

(Newton and Hyde, 1971; Thomas, 1972; Kidd and 

Shannon, 1977, 1978; Kidd, 1979; Geological Survey of 

Alabama, 1981). Descriptions of ground-water resources 

in the Jefferson County area are provided in reports by 

Knight, 1976; Moffet and Moser, 1978; Planert and 

Pritchett, 1989; and Hunter and Moser, 1990. The travel 

time of solutes in Village Creek was investigated in a 

report published by the Geological Survey of Alabama 

(Tucker, 1979).

In 1991, Congress appropriated funds for the 

USGS to begin the NAWQA Program, which is an 

ongoing assessment of water-quality conditions in the 

Nation’s surface-water and ground-water resources and 

the effects of land use on these resources. One component 

of the NAWQA Program is to determine the effects of 

urbanization on stream water quality and ecosystem 

health. Results of NAWQA studies for selected river 

basins throughout the United States have been 

summarized in national synthesis reports, including 

descriptions of the occurrence of pesticides (Larson and 

others, 1998; Gilliom and others, 1999; Hoffman and 

others, 2000; Hopkins and others, 2000) and nutrients in 

surface- and ground-water resources (Puckett, 1994; 

Mueller and others, 1995; Mueller and Helsel, 1996; 

Fuhrer and others, 1999; Clark and others, 2000), and the 

presence of organic compounds and trace elements in bed 

sediment and fish tissue (Wong and others, 2000). Strong 

correlations have been identified between the degree of 

urbanization in a watershed and the extent of biological 

impairment (McMahon and Cuffney, 2000). The 

following section briefly summarizes the complex 

relation between urbanization and aquatic-community 

structure.

Table 2. Land-use characteristics in the watersheds of sampling sites in the Birmingham area, Alabama

[Data from the 1992 Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics coverage (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1992a)]

Site 

label 

(fig. 1)

Land use, in percentage of basin

Agriculture Forest

Urban land-use categories Total 

urban 

(computed)

Mines 

and 

quarries

Undefined 

or 

transitional Commercial Industrial Residential Transportation

VIL-1 0 9.5 19.4 0.4 64.3 6.2 90.3 0.1 0.1

VIL-2 0 14.4 13.9 19.7 45.4 4.3 83.3 0 2.3

VIL-3 0 14.0 12.4 22.9 42.9 4.3 82.5 1.7 1.8

VIL-4 .6 24.1 10.0 17.3 42.5 2.9 72.7 2.0 .6

VAL-1 0 6.8 42.9 21.3 20.4 5.8 90.4 0 2.8

VAL-2 0 12.2 22.4 10.6 51.0 3.0 87.0 0 .8

VAL-3 1.2 15.3 19.0 9.0 51.3 2.0 81.3 1.7 .5

LCR 15.5 49.6 4.5 2.4 26.0 1.1 34.0 .9 0

FMC 21.0 47.1 3.3 2.8 19.9 5.5 31.5 0 .4
Watershed Characteristics 7

Effects of Urbanization on Aquatic Communities

The distribution of benthic invertebrates and fish in 

surface water is influenced by natural and human factors 

that affect water quality and habitat. Activities related to 

urbanization can modify watershed characteristics and 

influence patterns of runoff into streams. Several recent 

studies have contributed to the documentation of 

disruptive effects of urbanization on stream hydrology 

and ecology (Booth, 1990; Richards and Host, 1994; 

Finkenbine and others, 2000; Wang and others, 2000). 

Aquatic biota can be used as indicators of water quality. 

Walsh and others (2001) determined that the composition 

of benthic-invertebrate communities is a sensitive 

indicator of urban effects, and that urban density appears 

to be a key factor in the degradation of benthicinvertebrate communities.

Urbanization can promote increased loadings of 

nutrients, pesticides, heavy metals, and other 

contaminants to streamwater and bed sediment. Such 

contaminants can have significant detrimental effects on 

invertebrate and fish communities (Wang and others, 

2000). Walsh and others (2001) studied urban streams 

with severely degraded benthic-invertebrate communities 

and speculated that the efficient transport of contaminants 

into receiving streams by storm-water drainage was a 

causative factor. External anomalies on fishes—

including sores, lesions, and tumors—also can result 

from increased loadings of contaminants. 

Detrimental effects of contaminants include lethal 

and sublethal toxicity. Lethal effects include those that 

kill organisms quickly (acute toxicity) and those that kill 

over a longer period of time (chronic toxicity). Sublethal 

effects also can be devastating to individual organisms 

and species. A behavioral deviation caused by damage to 

the nervous system—for example, damage caused by 

exposure to methyl mercury—can prevent an organism 

from mating or from locating food. Lethal and sublethal 

toxicity may result in a decrease in richness, which can be 

followed by an increase in the density of one or more 

tolerant species. Other effects of urbanization can be more 

indirect, such as the reduction of a nutrient source or the 

death of a food organism. 

An increase in the amount of impervious area in an 

urban environment may cause frequent changes in flow 

and rapid fluctuations of water levels, which can lead to a 

reduction in biodiversity. For example, greater stream 

velocity during peak flow can remove established habitat 

that normally provides resources and shelter for fish and 

other organisms (Finkenbine and others, 2000). Likewise, 

more frequent and intense flooding can interfere with the 

life-cycle activities of aquatic organisms (Booth, 1990). 

Low base flow also can be detrimental to aquatic 

communities. As urbanization increases, the amount of 

area available for ground-water recharge decreases, 

resulting in low base flow at certain times of the year 

(Finkenbine and others, 2000), which can interfere with 

breeding cycles by stranding fishes and exposing eggs of 

aquatic insects to desiccation.

Construction activities and removal of riparian 

vegetation have been found to adversely affect stream 

biota by increasing the sediment load in streams (Waters, 

1995). As sediment in the water column settles to the 

bottom, it fills interstitial spaces and may prevent the 

attachment of primary producers, such as intolerant algal 

taxa, leading to a reduction in species richness. The 

negative effects of sediment on stream biota can persist 

for years (Richards and Host, 1994). Alternatively, 

removal of riparian plants can lead to an increase in the 

amount of sunlight that reaches a stream, improving 

conditions for the growth of algae and aquatic plants. 

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully appreciate the contributions 

of Steve McKinney, Geographic Information System 

(GIS) Specialist with the City of Birmingham Storm 

Water Management Authority, who provided written 

information and digital coverages of Village and Valley 

Creeks. The authors would like to thank Jonathan 

G. Kennen, aquatic biologist with the USGS in West 

Trenton, New Jersey, and Douglas A. Harned, hydrologist 

with the USGS in Raleigh, North Carolina, for their 

technical assistance.

WATERSHED CHARACTERISTICS

Causes of water-quality and aquatic-community 

degradation in urban watersheds can be difficult to 

identify because of the diversity of potential 

contamination sources and land-use activities. This 

complicated relation among land-use activities, water 

quality, and aquatic biota in a watershed requires an 

integrated approach designed to identify those factors that 

negatively affect a stream ecosystem. Natural 

environmental factors in a watershed influence water 

quality, aquatic habitat, community structure, and flow 

regime. These natural factors include climate, geology, 

latitude, longitude, altitude, and basin morphology. 

Anthropogenic factors, however, can have greater 

influence on the ecosystem of a stream than natural 

conditions. Industrial or municipal discharges, combined 

sewer overflows, runoff from parking lots, removal of 

riparian cover, and channel or flow modifications can 
8 Investigation of Water Quality and Aquatic-Community Structure in Village and Valley Creeks, Alabama, 2000 – 01

Figure 2. Mean monthly precipitation for the 30-year period (1961 – 1990) and monthly precipitation (January 2000 – May 2001) 

at the Birmingham International Airport, National Weather Service, Birmingham, Alabama (National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, 2001a, 2001b).

alter stream hydrology, affect water quality, and influence 

the aquatic-community structure. 

Birmingham has a temperate climate. Summers are 

characterized by warm, humid weather with frequent 

thunderstorms. Monthly mean temperatures range from 

41.5 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) in January to 79.8 °F in July 

(National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 

1999, 2000). Annual rainfall averages about 55 inches per 

year (in/yr) and is fairly well distributed throughout the 

year (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 

2001a). Most of the rainfall during the summer is from 

scattered afternoon and early evening thunderstorms, but 

rainfall during the winter and spring tends to be of longer 

duration and is usually associated with frontal systems. 

October generally is the driest month of the year with less 

than half the mean precipitation typically observed in 

March (fig. 2). During this study, precipitation amounts 

recorded in Birmingham from May through October 2000 

were the lowest on record. Year-end precipitation 

amounts were 4.5 inches below normal.

The Village Creek and Valley Creek watersheds are 

located in two physiographic provinces—the 

Appalachian Plateau and the Valley and Ridge (fig. 1; 

Sapp and Emplaincourt, 1975). Fivemile Creek, Little 

Cahaba River, and the upper watersheds of Village and 

Valley Creeks are located in the Valley and Ridge 

Physiographic Province. Therefore, to ensure consistent 

geologic and topographic features between reference sites 

and urbanized sites, the focus of this study was on sites 

located only within the Valley and Ridge Physiographic 

Province. 

 The Valley and Ridge Province consists of a series 

of parallel, northeast-trending ridges and valleys formed 

by faulted, folded, and eroded rocks. Resistant sandstone 

units form the ridges, and more easily eroded carbonate or 

shale units form the valleys through which the streams 

flow (Kidd and Shannon, 1977). These sandstone, 

carbonate, and shale units consist of Paleozoic rocks that 

range in age from early Cambrian to early Pennsylvanian. 

The areally extensive geologic units that crop out in the 

watershed are carbonates of Cambrian to Ordovician age 

(Kidd and Shannon, 1977). Stream drainage in the study 

area is aligned in a northeast-southwest trend and exhibits 

a rectangular pattern, demonstrating the strong influence 

of geologic structure on hydrology in the Valley and 

Ridge Province (fig. 1). 

Altitudes in the Village and Valley Creek 

watersheds range from 397 feet (ft) above sea level 

(121 meters [m]) in the valleys to 1,250 ft above sea level 

(381 m) on the ridges (U.S. Geological Survey, 1993). 

Relief is greatest in Village Creek watershed, ranging 

from about 600 ft (183 m) in the headwaters to a little 

more than 800 ft (244 m) at the physiographic boundary. 

Valley Creek watershed has relief that ranges from about 
Land Use in the Watershed 9

470 ft (143 m) in the headwaters to about 630 ft (192 m) 

at the physiographic boundary. The watersheds of the 

less-urbanized sites (FMC and LCR) have relief of about 

300 and 690 ft (91 and 210 m), respectively.

Major soil associations were surveyed in Jefferson 

County by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural 

Resource Conservation Service; and a county map of the 

major soil associations was published based on the survey 

(Spivey, 1982). The Nauvoo fine sandy loam and the 

Montevallo-Nauvoo association are the most 

predominant soil associations in the watersheds of Village 

and Valley Creeks. The Nauvoo fine sandy loam is the 

predominant soil association in the Little Cahaba River 

watershed. The Townley-Nauvoo complex and the 

Sullivan-State complex are the most predominant soil 

associations in the Fivemile Creek watershed. 

Birmingham is situated in the Southwestern 

Appalachian Ecoregion, classified by Omernik (1987) as 

an oak (Quercus), hickory (Carya), and pine (Pinus) 

mesophytic forest with an associated grouping of maples 

(Acer), tulip trees (Liriodendron), and lindens (Tilia). 

Ecoregions are areas in which the effects of human 

activities, environmental resources, and conditions can be 

recognized initially by their distinctive vegetation 

patterns, which are a reflection of soil type, climate, 

rainfall, and human activities. The principal land uses in 

the Southwestern Appalachian Ecoregion are forest, 

woodland, cropland, and pasture.

Land Use in the Watershed 

Land use in the study area is characterized by 

extensive areas of urbanization that include industrial, 

commercial, municipal, and residential activities 

(table 2). These land uses can be sources of both point 

and(or) nonpoint pollution, which affect water quality in 

the streams. Fertilizers and pesticides applied in 

residential and commercial areas can run off into streams 

during storm events or migrate through the soil into 

ground water, which ultimately discharges to nearby 

streams. Exhaust from vehicles and storm runoff from 

parking lots and roadways can contribute trace elements 

and organic compounds present in diesel fuel, gasoline, 

motor oils, and hydraulic fluid. Heavily commercialized 

or industrialized areas can contribute trace metals, motor 

oils, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), solvents, 

bacteria, and nutrients either by direct discharge into the 

stream (point source) or by storm runoff (nonpoint 

source). Elevated levels of bacteria, ammonia, detergents, 

and by-products of human waste can enter a stream by 

combined sewer overflows during storm events and by 

leaking sewer lines during dry periods. Municipal 

discharges of treated wastewater also can be the sources 

of high levels of bacteria, nutrients, and biochemical 

oxygen demand (BOD). 

The 1992 Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics 

(MRLC) map was used to quantify land-use 

characteristics in the selected watersheds of Village and 

Valley Creeks and in the watersheds of the reference sites, 

FMC and LCR. The MRLC is a digital coverage 

(30-m resolution) of LANDSAT satellite imagery of 

major land use and land cover (U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1992a). The total urban land use 

within a watershed was considered to be the sum of the 

industrial, commercial, high- and low-intensity 

residential, and transportation land-use categories within 

the MRLC coverage (table 2). Forested land use includes 

the sum of the deciduous, evergreen, and mixed-forest 

categories in the MRLC; agriculture is the sum of row 

crops, pastures, and hay categories.

Urbanization accounts for about 73 and 81 percent 

of the land use in the Village Creek watershed at VIL-4 

and in the Valley Creek watershed at VAL-3, respectively 

(figs. 3, 4; table 2). Residential land use represents about 

half of the urbanization in both watersheds—about 

43 percent at VIL-4 and 51 percent at VAL-3. The Village 

Creek watershed is more heavily industrial than the 

Valley Creek watershed, and the Valley Creek watershed 

has the greatest percentage of commercial activities. 

Forested land covers only about 24 and 15 percent of the 

Village Creek and Valley Creek watersheds, respectively; 

agricultural land covers about 1 percent of each watershed 

(table 2). 

 The reference sites on the Little Cahaba River and 

Fivemile Creek were selected because they were located 

in less-urbanized areas than the sites along Village and 

Valley Creeks. The watersheds of the reference sites are 

predominantly forested—about 50 percent of LCR and 

47 percent of FMC, respectively (table 2; figs. 5, 6). 

However, these reference sites are not considered pristine, 

because they are influenced by human activities. 

Agricultural land use covers about 16 and 21 percent of 

the LCR and FMC watersheds, respectively. Urban land 

use constitutes about 34 and 32 percent of the LCR and 

FMC watersheds, respectively; of these urban totals, 

industrial and commercial activities combined represent 

less than 10 percent (table 2). 

The headwaters of Village Creek to VIL-1 are 

influenced by a greater percentage of residential and 

commercial land use than the more downstream sites of 

VIL-2 and VIL-3 (table 2; figs. 3, 7). The percentage of 

industrial land use increases downstream from VIL-1 to 

VIL-3. The headwaters of Valley Creek to VAL-1 are 

influenced by a greater percentage of industrial and
10 Investigation of Water Quality and Aquatic-Community Structure in Village and Valley Creeks, Alabama, 2000 – 01

Figure 3. 1992 Multi-resolution land characteristics in the Village Creek watershed, Birmingham, Alabama.
Land Use in the Watershed 11

Figure 4. 1992 Multi-resolution land characteristics in the Valley Creek watershed, Birmingham, Alabama.
12 Investigation of Water Quality and Aquatic-Community Structure in Village and Valley Creeks, Alabama, 2000 – 01

Figure 5. 1992 Multi-resolution land characteristics in the Little Cahaba River watershed, Jefferson County, Alabama.
Land Use in the Watershed 13

Figure 6. 1992 Multi-resolution land characteristics in the Fivemile Creek watershed, Jefferson County, Alabama.
14 Investigation of Water Quality and Aquatic-Community Structure in Village and Valley Creeks, Alabama, 2000 – 01

Figure 7. Land use in the watersheds of sampling sites in the Birmingham area, Alabama (U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1992a).

commercial land use than the more downstream sites of 

VAL-2 and VAL-3 (table 2; figs. 4, 7). The percentage of 

residential land use increases downstream from VAL-1 to 

VAL-3. The percentage of commercial land use decreases 

downstream in both watersheds. The Valley Creek watershed at VAL-1 is influenced by a greater percentage of 

commercial and industrial land-use activities (about 

64 percent) compared to the Village Creek watershed at 

VIL-1 (about 20 percent; table 2). 

Population density is considered to be a good 

indicator of urbanization within a watershed. Digital 

coverages of population data for Jefferson County for 

1970–90 were used to compute the population density in 

the watersheds of the sampling sites (table 3) (U.S. 

Census Bureau, 2001). The reference sites (LCR and 

FMC) had a much lower population density throughout 

the 20-year period than the more urbanized sites (table 3). 

Of the two urbanized watersheds (Valley and Village), 

subbasins on Valley Creek had nearly twice the

Table 3. Population changes (1970–90) in the watersheds of sampling sites in the Birmingham 

area, Alabama

[Data from the U.S. Census Bureau digital coverage (2001); mi2, square mile]

Site 

label 

(fig. 1)

Drainage 

area 

(mi2

)

Population Population density, per square mile

1970 1980 1990 1970 1980 1990

VIL-1 4.89 7,868 8,199 11,462 1,609 1,677 2,344

VIL-2 26.0 68,615 71,474 66,752 2,639 2,749 2,567

VIL-3 33.5 86,284 89,877 80,622 2,583 2,691 2,414

VIL-4 52.2 108,940 113,481 109,401 2,087 2,174 2,096

VAL-1 4.94 25,185 26,242 20,905 5,098 5,312 4,232

VAL-2 20.1 84,585 88,107 91,822 4,208 4,383 4,568

VAL-3 30.0 121,265 126,319 120,152 4,042 4,211 4,005

LCR 24.4 8,148 8,485 13,557 334 348 556

FMC 13.0 7,178 8,019 4,162 552 617 320
Hydrology 15

population density of the sites on Village Creek. From 

1980 to 1990, population density decreased at most sites, 

with the exception of LCR, VIL-1, and VAL-2, which 

showed small increases. 

Mining has played a key role in the history and 

development of Birmingham. The three basic raw 

materials necessary to produce steel are iron ore, coal, and 

limestone. All three of these materials occur in close 

proximity to Birmingham. Approximately 63 percent of 

the land surface in Jefferson County is underlain by coal 

(Geological Survey of Alabama, 1981). Iron ore was 

mined until 1974 from the Red Mountain Formation, 

which contains several seams of hematite iron ore. 

Limestone and dolomite are quarried at several different 

locations in the valley. Specifically, mines and quarries 

cover about 2 percent of the watersheds of Village and 

Valley Creeks at each of the most downstream sites 

(VIL-4 and VAL-3) in the study area (table 2). Coal 

mining activity accounts for only a percentage of the 

overall mines and quarries. However, exposure of coal 

and iron ore at the surface can contribute trace elements 

and acidity to streams during weathering, and movement 

of oxidized water through surface and subsurface mines 

can leach trace elements from coal into the ground water 

(Knight and Newton, 1977). 

Hydrology

Urbanization influences the hydrology of streams 

in several ways. As the amount of impervious surface area 

in a watershed increases, the amount and velocity of 

runoff to streams increases (Dunne and Leopold, 1978), 

causing rapid increases in water level and velocity in 

streams during storm events. Urbanization often results in 

channel modification, causing higher flows during storms 

and frequent flooding. Long-term continuous streamflow 

monitoring provides hydrologic data that can be used to 

determine the effects of urbanization on the hydrology of 

streams over time.

 Daily streamflow data have been collected at some 

USGS streamgaging stations in Village and Valley Creeks 

since 1975 (table 4). Two of the long-term record stations, 

Village Creek at Avenue W (VIL-3) and Valley Creek 

near Bessemer (downstream from VAL-3), had mean 

annual streamflow for the period of record (1975–79, 

1988–2000) of 82.4 and 131 cubic feet per second (ft3

/s), 

respectively (Pearman and others, 2001). The region was 

experiencing drought conditions when samples were 

collected for this study. The effects of the drought were 

evident in the mean annual streamflow for water years1

1999 and 2000 at the long-term record stations on Village 

and Valley Creeks (table 4). At the VIL-3 gaging station, 

the mean annual streamflow for the 2000 water year was 

14 percent lower than the mean annual streamflow for the 

period of record. The lowest daily mean streamflow 

(9.4 ft3/s) at this site for the period of record was recorded 

in September 2000. At the Valley Creek near Bessemer 

station, located downstream from VAL-3, mean 

annual streamflow was 19 percent lower than the mean 

annual streamflow for the period of record (1975–79, 

1988–2000). The lowest daily mean streamflow at this 

site for the 2000 water year was 25 ft3/s, recorded in 

September 2000, which was almost equal to the lowest

1

 A water year is defined as the period October 1–September 30, and 

is identified by the year in which it ends.

Table 4. Mean annual streamflow at selected continuous-record stations on Village and Valley Creeks, Birmingham, Alabama

[mi2, square mile; WY, water year is defined as the period from October 1 to September 30 and is identified by the year in which it ends; ft3/s, cubic feet per 

second; data from Pearman and others, 2001]

Location relative to 

surface-water 

sampling site 

(fig. 1)

Station 

number Station name

Drainage 

area 

(mi2)

Period of 

record 

(WY)

Mean annual streamflow (ft3/s)

Period of 

record 1999 WY 2000 WY

Upstream from VIL-1 02458148 Village Creek at 86th Street 

North at Roebuck

4.1 1998–2000 7.32 7.86 6.79

VIL-2 02458300 Village Creek at 24th Street at 

Birmingham

26 1988–2000 52.9 52 48.3

VIL-3 02458450 Village Creek at Avenue W at 

Ensley

33.5 1975–79;

1988–2000

82.4 73.3 71.2

VIL-4 02458600 Village Creek near Docena 52.2 1996–2000 161 152 155

Downstream from 

VAL-3

02461500 Valley Creek near Bessemer 52.5 1975–79;

1988–2000

131 111 106
16 Investigation of Water Quality and Aquatic-Community Structure in Village and Valley Creeks, Alabama, 2000 – 01

Figure 8. (A) Mean monthly streamflow and (B) departure of monthly mean streamflow from the mean for the period of 

record (1975 – 79 and 1988 – 2000) at U.S. Geological Survey streamgaging stations 02458450 (VIL-3) and 02461500 

(downstream from VAL-3) in Birmingham, Alabama.

daily mean for the period of record (23 ft3/s), recorded in 

August 1988 (Pearman and others, 2001). 

The mean monthly streamflow at the long-term 

stations, VIL-3, and the station downstream from VAL-3, 

was computed for the period of record (1975–79, 

1988–2000; fig. 8A). Monthly mean streamflow is the 

arithmetic mean of the individual daily mean discharges 

during a month. The monthly mean streamflow for 

specific months during the sampling period for this study 

was compared to the mean monthly streamflow computed 

for the period of record at these two sites. For most 

months during the sampling period, the monthly mean 

streamflow was less than the mean monthly streamflow as 

represented by the negative departures (differences) 
Approach 17

shown in figure 8B. The exceptions were March and April 

2000.

APPROACH

An integrated approach is needed to assess the 

effects of land use on water quality. Bed sediment, fishtissue, aquatic-community structure, and water chemistry 

are environmental indicators that represent stream 

conditions at differing time scales. Water samples 

represent water quality at the time of sample collection. 

Benthic invertebrates can integrate water-quality 

conditions over a span of many weeks to year(s) and the 

fish-community structure can indicate stream conditions 

over many years (Wynn and others, 2001). Because of 

these varying time scales, it is important to interpret the 

sampling results for these water-quality indicators within 

the context of spatial and temporal scales of condition and 

response.

Authors of previous studies have concluded that 

both bed-sediment and fish-tissue samples are required 

for a complete assessment of the occurrence and 

distribution of trace elements (Wynn and others, 2001). 

Many constituents, such as trace elements and organic 

compounds, may be present in water but commonly are at 

concentrations that are difficult to quantify. These 

constituents are more likely to be detectable or even 

elevated in other sample media such as bed sediment, due 

to the tendency of some contaminants to adsorb onto 

small particles or bioaccumulate in the tissues of aquatic 

organisms. 

 Another important aspect is the condition of the 

hydrologic system at the time of sampling. Surface-water 

samples were collected over a wide range of flow 

conditions, including low flow and high flow, in an 

attempt to characterize the water quality during varying 

hydrological conditions. High flow was defined to 

include samples collected during an actual storm (rising 

limb and[or] peak of the hydrograph), as well as samples 

collected directly after a storm (on the falling limb of the 

hydrograph). If the sample was collected after the stream 

returned to pre-storm levels, then the sample was not 

considered to be a high-flow sample. Of the 14 high-flow 

samples, 2 were collected on the rising limb, 5 were 

collected at the peak of the hydrograph, and 7 were 

collected on the falling limb. Concentrations of 

contaminants from nonpoint sources typically increase 

during a storm as a result of overland runoff, but 

concentrations of contaminants from point sources may 

decrease during a storm as a result of dilution. By 

understanding the hydrologic condition at the time of 

sampling and reviewing the data in this context, the 

influence of point and nonpoint source contributions of 

contaminants on water quality can be examined. 

This study was designed to assess the current 

conditions of Village and Valley Creeks by using three 

specific approaches: (1) water-quality, bed-sediment, 

fish-tissue, and aquatic-community structure data were 

collected from sites on Village and Valley Creeks and 

compared with data from two less-urbanized sites (LCR 

and FMC) to evaluate the effects of urban land use on 

water quality; (2) sites along Village and Valley Creeks 

were evaluated in an upstream-downstream order to 

assess which sites were most affected by specific 

constituents; and (3) water-quality data collected during 

low and high flow at each site were examined to assess the 

potential source(s) of contaminants. 

Data-Collection Methods

The data-collection methods used during this study 

for water quality, bed sediment, fish tissue, aquatic 

communities, and stream habitat are described in this 

section. Field methods and laboratory methods are 

discussed.

Water-Quality Samples

Surface-water samples were collected during the 

period February 28, 2000, through February 14, 2001. 

Additional samples were collected at VIL-1, VAL-2, and 

FMC in May 2000 and at FMC in March 2001 as part of 

the USGS NAWQA Program. The frequency of sampling 

varied at different sites (table 5), primarily due to the 

modification of site selection in August 2000. Samples 

were not collected at FMC in October 2000 because the 

stream was dry. Each surface-water sample was analyzed 

for nutrients, major ions, total organic carbon (TOC), 

wastewater indicators, and fecal bacteria. Sampling for 

other constituents, such as trace elements, pesticides, 

PAHs, 5-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5), and 

chlorophyll a and b was less frequent. Samples for BOD5

and chlorophyll a and b analysis were shipped to the 

USGS Ocala Water Quality and Research Laboratory in 

Ocala, Florida. All other water samples were shipped to 

the USGS National Water Quality Laboratory (NWQL) in 

Denver, Colorado, for analysis. 

Continuous water-quality monitors, installed at 

two sites on Village Creek (VIL-3 and VIL-4) before this 

study was initiated, provided a continuous record of water 

temperature, specific conductivity, and dissolved oxygen 

for the period between March 2000 and March 2001. In 

conjunction with this study, additional monitors were 

installed upstream from VIL-1 and at VAL-3, and
18 Investigation of Water Quality and Aquatic-Community Structure in Village and Valley Creeks, Alabama, 2000 – 01 Table 5. Sampling type and frequency of water-quality and biological constituents at sites in the Birmingham area, Alabama, 2000–01 [NAWQA, National Water-Quality Assessment Program; BOD5, 5-day biochemical oxygen demand; GC/MS, gas chromatography/mass spectrometry; HPLC, high-performance liquid chromatography; PCBs, polychlorinated biphenyls] Site label (fig. 1) NAWQA land-use gradient site Type and frequency of water-quality sampling Field propertiesa

,

 nutrientsb,

major 

ionsc

BOD5

a Chlorophyll

a and ba Enterococcia Escherichia colia Fecal coliforma Waste- water indicatorsd Total organic carbona Trace and major elementse Pesticides (GC/MS)f Pesticides (HPLC)f Polycyclic aromatic hydro- carbonsg

VIL-1 yes 12 5 6 9 12 11 10 10 6 6 6 4VIL-2 no 7 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 4 3 3 3VIL-3 no 10 7 7 8 9 9 10 10 5 3 4 3VIL-4 no 3 0 0 2 3 3 3 3 2 1 1 1VAL-1 no 10 6 6 8 10 10 10 10 6 5 5 6VAL-2 yes 11 6 7 9 11 10 10 10 6 4 4 5VAL-3 no 10 6 6 9 10 10 10 10 6 4 4 4LCR no 3 0 0 2 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2FMC yes 8 7 7 6 8 7 6 5 4h 5 5 2

Site 

label 

(fig. 1)

NAWQA 

land-use 

gradient 

site

Type and frequency of biological sampling

Bed 

sediment 

trace 

and major 

elementsi

Bed 

sediment 

pesticides 

and other 

organic 

compoundsj

Fish 

(liver tissue) 

trace 

and major 

elementsk

Fish

 (whole body) 

pesticides 

and PCBsl

Habitat 

survey

m

Benthic 

invertebrate 

community 

surveyn

Fish 

community 

surveyo

VIL-1 yes 1 1 1 1 1 2 1VIL-2 no 1 1 1 1 0 0 0VIL-3 no 1 1 1 1 1 2 1VIL-4 no 0 0 0 0 0 0 0VAL-1 no 1 1 1 1 1 2 1VAL-2 yes 1 1 1 1 1 2 1VAL-3 no 0 0 0 0 0 0 0LCR no 0 0 0 0 1 2 1FMC yes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

a See appendix table 2-2.b See table 8.c See appendix table 2-1.d See appendix table 2-3.e See table 15.f See table 16 and appendix table 2-4.g See appendix table 2-5.h For mercury only, the sample size was 3.i See appendix table 3-1.j See table 22l See table 24.m See table 25.n See appendix tables 3-2 and 3-3.o See appendix table 3-4.
Data-Collection Methods 19

turbidity probes were added to the monitors at VIL-1, 

VIL-3, and VAL-3. All four measurements were recorded 

at VIL-1 and VIL-3 between April 2000 and February 

2001; all four measurements were recorded at VAL-3 

between June 2000 and February 2001.

Data-collection procedures, which conformed to 

standard USGS protocols (Wilde and others, 1999), 

included equal-width increment sampling (Shelton, 

1994). Equal-width increment sampling produces a 

composite sample that is representative of flow in a cross 

section. Most water samples were collected by using a 

DH-81 sampler (Edwards and Glysson, 1999). Storm 

samples were not flow-weighted composite samples 

taken at specific intervals, as described in a U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) sampling 

guide (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1992b); 

instead, the storm samples were discrete. Field 

measurements of stream discharge, air temperature, water 

temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen, and specific 

conductance were made at the time of sampling.

A Teflon cone splitter and bottles were used to 

composite and split the water samples into separate 

sample bottles for various analyses. After splitting, water 

samples for dissolved nutrients and major ions were 

filtered by using a 0.45-micron (μm) pore size filter that 

was pre-rinsed with deionized water and native 

streamwater. Samples for dissolved pesticide analyses 

were filtered by using a 0.7-μm pore size glass-fiber filter. 

Wastewater indicator samples and PAH samples were 

collected as grab samples directly from the stream in 

1-liter (L) glass bottles. Samples were preserved and 

chilled immediately after filtration and shipped overnight 

to the USGS laboratories in Denver and Ocala. Pesticide 

samples were analyzed by using gas chromatography/

mass spectrometry (Zaugg and others, 1995) or highperformance liquid chromatography (Werner and others, 

1996). All equipment that was used to collect and process 

samples was cleaned with a 0.2-percent nonphosphate 

detergent and rinsed with tap water and deionized water. 

Equipment was rinsed with a solution of 5-percent 

hydrochloric acid followed by deionized water if metals 

were sampled. A rinse of pesticide-grade methanol was 

added if organic compounds were sampled. 

Water samples for analysis of fecal-indicator 

bacteria were processed in the field by USGS personnel 

for fecal coliform, Escherichia coli (E. coli), and 

enterococci (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

1997). Samples were collected by using an autoclaved 

1-L polyethylene bottle with the DH-81 sampler. Samples 

were treated with a solution of 10-percent sodium 

thiosulfate to counteract the effects of residual chlorine in 

the water and processed within 6 hours of collection by 

membrane filtration techniques, as described in the USGS 

National Field Manual (Myers and Wilde, 1999). 

Results were reported as colonies per 100 milliliters 

(col/100 mL). 

Bed-Sediment Samples

Bed-sediment samples were collected in October 

2000 at VIL-1, VIL-2, VIL-3, VAL-1, VAL-2, and FMC 

to determine the concentration of trace and major 

elements. Sediment samples were collected from the 

upper 3 centimeters (cm) of fine sediment in depositional 

areas of each stream reach following the protocols 

described in Shelton and Capel (1994). Several samples 

were collected from each of five depositional areas, 

composited, and homogenized by mixing. The 

composited material was processed through a 

0.063-millimeter (mm) mesh nylon screen. Samples were 

sent to the NWQL for analyses of trace and major 

elements. 

The NWQL analytical procedure for trace and 

major elements in bed sediment uses multi-acid digestion 

and inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry 

techniques. Results are reported in micrograms of analyte 

per gram dry weight of sediment, or as a percentage of dry 

weight (Briggs and Meier, 1999). This method provides a 

total extractable metals concentration that includes 

mineral-bound metals. Nine major elements—including 

aluminum, calcium, iron, magnesium, phosphorus, 

potassium, sodium, sulfur, and titanium—were reported 

as a percentage of dry weight. Concentrations of total 

carbon, organic carbon, inorganic carbon, and 36 trace 

elements were reported in concentrations as microgram(s) 

per gram (μg/g) of bed sediment (dry weight). Trace 

elements are defined as elements that usually occur in 

concentrations less than 1,000 μg/g (Forstner and 

Wittmann, 1979). Ten trace elements—arsenic, 

cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, 

selenium, silver, and zinc—are classified as priority 

pollutants (Code of Federal Regulations, 1996) because in 

low concentrations they are toxic to aquatic organisms; 

however, some of these trace elements are necessary for 

metabolic processes in aquatic organisms.

A subsample of the composited bed-sediment 

material, collected before the remainder was processed 

through the screen, was analyzed for particle-size 

composition at the USGS Cascades Volcano Observatory 

Laboratory in Vancouver, Washington, by using a sandonly procedure (Guy, 1969). The sand-only analysis was 

used to determine the percentage of bed-sediment 

material that was less than 0.063 mm in diameter. 

Particulate size is important in understanding the 

concentration and distribution of trace element in the
20 Investigation of Water Quality and Aquatic-Community Structure in Village and Valley Creeks, Alabama, 2000 – 01

environment because trace elements tend to adsorb onto 

the fine particulates of bed sediment (Horowitz, 1991). 

Sediment samples from six sites were analyzed for 

the presence of organochlorine pesticides, chlorpyrifos, 

six other organophosphate pesticides, and other organic 

compounds. Initial sample collection for the analysis of 

pesticides and other organic compounds was the same as 

for the trace elements. However, aliquots of the 

homogenized mixture were processed through a 2-mm 

mesh stainless steel sieve, placed in a methanol-washed 

glass container, and preserved on dry ice for transport to 

the NWQL. The NWQL analytical procedure for organics 

in bed sediment includes dual capillary-column gas 

chromatography with electron-capture detection. Results 

are reported in microgram(s) of analyte per kilogram of 

the wet weight of the sediment (Foreman and others, 

1995). 

Fish-Tissue Samples 

Fishes were collected in October 2000 at six sites 

coincident with bed-sediment sample collections. The 

fishes were collected by use of a backpack mounted, 

DC-powered electrofishing unit following NAWQA 

protocols (Meador and others, 1993). The targeted fish 

species was the longear sunfish (Lepomis megalotis) 

because of its reported abundance and feeding habits. 

However, fish collections at the FMC site failed to yield 

enough longear sunfish to provide adequate liver tissue. 

Therefore, bluegill sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus) also 

were collected. The longear sunfish was not captured at 

VIL-1, so the bluegill sunfish was used for tissue 

assessment at that site. Fish-tissue samples were taken 

from the targeted species and processed in accordance 

with NAWQA protocols (Crawford and Luoma, 1993). 

Fishes were processed on site for two types of 

tissues, liver and whole-body tissue minus the livers. 

Tissue samples from the two species of fishes collected 

from FMC were composited and submitted to NWQL as 

a single sample. For analysis of trace-element 

concentrations, the livers of at least five individuals from 

each site were removed by use of a ceramic knife and 

Teflon forceps, weighed, placed in acid-cleaned glass 

containers, preserved with dry ice, and shipped overnight 

to the NWQL. In the laboratory, tissue samples were 

processed by nitric acid and hydrogen peroxide digestion. 

Acid-processed samples were dried, reconstituted with a 

5-percent nitric acid solution, and filtered. The filtrate 

was diluted to a specific volume. The analysis of fishliver tissue for concentrations of trace elements was 

conducted by using inductively coupled plasma/mass 

spectrometry or inductively coupled plasma/atomic 

emission spectroscopy for all trace elements except 

mercury. Procedures for mercury analysis incorporate 

cold vapor atomic absorption spectrophotometry (Olson 

and DeWild, 1999). All results were reported as dry 

weight, total recoverable concentrations in microgram(s) 

of analyte per gram of tissue, as detailed by Hoffman 

(1996). 

For the analyses of organochlorine pesticides and 

polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), the remainder of each 

fish (whole body minus the liver) was wrapped in 

aluminum foil and preserved with dry ice. The fish tissues 

were shipped overnight to the NWQL and analyzed for 

organochlorine pesticides by capillary-column gas 

chromatography with electron-capture detection (Leiker 

and others, 1995). Successful detection of organic 

compounds and the levels of detection can vary from site 

to site because of the inherent variability of biological 

tissues. Results are reported as microgram(s) of analyte 

per kilogram of tissue (μg/kg), wet weight. Values 

reported with a “less than” symbol (<) are considered to 

be nondetections. Values reported with an “E” are 

considered to be estimates because definitive 

quantification was not possible. Estimated values are 

considered to approximate actual values for the purpose 

of comparative evaluations and statistical analysis. 

Aquatic-Community Samples 

 Benthic invertebrates and fishes were collected 

following procedures outlined in Cuffney and others 

(1993) and Meador and others (1993), respectively. The 

health of these organisms is often directly related to 

changes in water quality and habitat. Changes in the 

composition of an aquatic community and functional 

changes in the ecosystem can result from exposure to 

contaminants, changes in the riparian zone, or changes in 

the hydrology of the aquatic system. For example, 

changes in the numbers and types of algae and aquatic 

plants due to exposure to herbicides or nutrients, may 

result in changes in the numbers and types of aquatic 

organisms that use them for shelter and resources. Benthic 

invertebrates occupy diverse functional niches in aquatic 

ecosystems. They recycle organic matter, consume 

smaller organisms, and are important components in the 

diet of fishes. Benthic invertebrates are commonly used to 

assess the health of aquatic communities because they are 

easy to collect and identify, usually abundant, and 

relatively sessile (Merritt and Cummins, 1996). 

Benthic-invertebrate samples were collected at 

VIL-1, VIL-3, VAL-1, VAL-2, FMC, and LCR. One 

collection was made at each of six sites in June 2001. A 

second collection was made at the same sites in October 

2000, except at FMC, where the stream was dry. All 

samples of benthic invertebrates were sent to the NWQL 
Data Analysis and Review 21

for taxonomic evaluation and determination of benthicinvertebrate density, as described in Moulton and others 

(2000). 

Quantitative samples of benthic invertebrates were 

collected from five riffle habitats at each site by using a 

0.25 square meter (m2) Slack sampler with a 425-μm 

mesh net (Cuffney and others, 1993) and then composited 

into one sample (1.25 m2

 total area). The quantitative 

collection provided an estimate of aquatic invertebrate 

richness and density in the targeted habitat. Qualitative 

samples were collected from all accessible habitat types at 

each site by using a D-frame net (210-μm mesh) and by 

hand-picking invertebrates from rocks and other 

substrates. The qualitative collection further characterizes 

the invertebrate taxa present throughout the sampling 

reach.

Fishes were collected in April and May 2001 at the 

same six sites. The primary fish-collection device was a 

backpack-mounted, DC-powered electrofishing unit. Two 

passes were made along the stream reach. Stunned fishes 

were netted and placed in a collection bucket. At the 

completion of the first pass, the collected fishes were 

identified, weighed, measured (standard length and total 

length), and evaluated for anomalies such as lesions, 

tumors, parasites, and eroded fins (Meador and others, 

1993). Once processing was completed, the fishes were 

placed in a holding container to prevent them from 

returning upstream and being recaptured during the 

second pass. The second pass was made along the length 

of the reach and the fishes were processed in a like 

manner. Additional collections of fishes were made with 

a seine at VIL-1, VIL-3, VAL-2, and LCR to capture 

species that might have eluded the shocking effort. Fishes 

captured by seining were processed in the same manner as 

those captured by electrofishing. Seine collections at 

VAL-1 were impractical because of shallow depth and 

obstructions. 

Fishes that could not be readily identified at each 

site were preserved in 10-percent buffered formalin and 

were sent to the USGS laboratory at the Florida Caribbean 

Science Center in Gainesville, Florida, for identification. 

All remaining fishes were released unharmed to the 

stream when processing was completed. 

Stream-Habitat Characterization 

 Measures of habitat conditions and structure are 

important components of any ecological study. Several 

measures of biological condition are related to stream 

habitat (Fitzpatrick and others, 1998). For example, 

removal of trees from the riparian zone during 

construction may cause increased amounts of solar 

radiation to reach a stream’s surface. Increased sunlight 

may lead to an increase in the number of photosynthetic 

organisms, such as algae and plants, which can influence 

the density of organisms that use them for food and 

shelter. The amount of infrared radiation that reaches a 

stream’s surface can have a direct influence on the 

invertebrate community. Invertebrate emergence periods 

are often regulated by water temperature, and the effects 

of temperature influence the distribution patterns of 

aquatic insects (Ward, 1992). 

Aquatic insects are closely associated with the bed 

material of the stream in which they live, at least for a 

portion of their lives. Bed substrate provides food, shelter, 

and habitat space. Therefore, the type of substrate in a 

stream influences the abundance and distribution of 

aquatic insects (Minshall, 1984). The size of substrate 

particles, the amount of organic material in and on the 

substrate, and the stability and texture of the substrate 

have been found to be of ecological importance (Ward, 

1992; Allen, 1995).

Habitat assessments were made at six sites (VIL-1, 

VIL-3, VAL-1, VAL-2, LCR, and FMC) following the 

protocols described in Fitzpatrick and others (1998). 

Stream reaches ranging in length from 150 to 349 m were 

sampled. Within each reach, habitat characteristics were 

measured at 11 transects. A transect is an imaginary line 

across the stream, oriented perpendicular to stream flow. 

The first and last transect defined the start and end, 

respectively, of the stream reach. Transects were 

established at approximately equidistant intervals along 

each reach, and the habitat characteristics of at least seven 

points along each transect were evaluated. The points 

included the left and right edges of the water, three or 

more sites in the stream that corresponded to the thalweg 

(the deepest part of the channel) and one location on each 

side of the thalweg, and one or more points on each bank.

Three collection points in the wetted channel were 

made along each of the 11 transects resulting in a total of 

33 collection points. Observations and measurements 

within the reaches and along the transects included many 

physical characteristics of the stream channel, 

quantitative evaluation of riparian-zone shading, and the 

amount and type of geomorphic channel units (runs, 

pools, riffles) in each stream reach (Fitzpatrick and 

others, 1998).

Data Analysis and Review

This section includes data analysis and review for 

water quality, bed sediment, fish tissue, aquatic 

communities, and stream habitat in the study area. 

Specific methods used to interpret data, including 

graphical and statistical presentation, are discussed. 
22 Investigation of Water Quality and Aquatic-Community Structure in Village and Valley Creeks, Alabama, 2000 – 01

Water-Quality Data 

Methods used to interpret water-quality results in 

this report include various graphical tools and statistical 

methods. Graphical tools include the use of bar charts, 

which illustrate the speciation of certain nutrients 

(nitrogen and phosphorus) and the frequency of detection 

for other constituents (trace and major elements, 

wastewater indicators, pesticides). Box plots are used to 

display the variability in nutrient concentrations, and 

high-flow/low-flow figures are used to illustrate the 

concentrations of different constituents, as well as the 

hydrologic condition at the time of sampling. Only 

detected values (including estimated concentrations) 

are shown on the high-flow/low-flow figures—

non-detections are not shown. If the concentrations 

detected during low flow were consistently higher than 

those during high flow, a “P” was placed on the graph, 

indicating point sources. If the concentrations detected 

during high flow were consistently higher than those 

during low flow, an “NP” was placed on the graph, 

indicating nonpoint sources. If the results were mixed, a 

“B” was placed on the graph, indicating that both point 

and nonpoint sources may be contributing. No symbols 

were placed on sites if this designation could not be made 

from the available data, such as at LCR, where high-flow 

samples were not collected. Data also were examined in 

terms of maximum concentrations and(or) ranges of 

concentrations, with respect to flow. Statistical methods 

could not be applied to evaluate the relation between 

discharge and concentration because the samples were 

collected over such a limited range of discharge (either 

high flow or low flow). This interpretation of the data, 

using high-flow/low-flow figures, can be useful in 

defining the influence of point and nonpoint source 

contributions of contaminants on water quality; however, 

the interpretation is limited because of the small sample 

size, and results should be viewed as preliminary or 

exploratory rather than conclusive.

 The USGS NWQL has implemented new 

procedures for interpreting and reporting lowconcentration data in water-quality samples (Childress 

and others, 1999). Concentrations of analytes that either 

were not detected or were not identified are reported as 

“less than” the laboratory reporting level (<LRL) and are 

considered to be nondetections. Analytes that were 

detectable at concentrations between the LRL and the 

long-term method detection level (LT-MDL), which is 

usually one-half the LRL, and that pass identification 

criteria were estimated. Estimated concentrations are 

noted with the remark code “E”. The uncertainty 

associated with the magnitude of estimated 

concentrations is greater than that associated with values 

that were not estimated (Martin and others, 1999). The 

sample matrix and the instrument condition sometimes 

limit the reliable measurement of an analyte in the 

laboratory. The minimum reporting level (MRL) and(or) 

LRL for organic compounds have been calculated by the 

NWQL. The NWQL collects quality-control data on a 

continuing basis to determine the MRLs, LT-MDLs, and 

LRLs. These values are re-evaluated each year and, 

consequently, may change from year to year. Values listed 

in this report were those in effect on October 1, 2000. 

Sensitive analytical methods used in this study 

resulted in low detection limits and higher frequencies for 

many pesticides. Comparison of detection frequencies 

among pesticides can be misleading because of the 

different LRLs associated with each of the pesticides. For 

example, atrazine has an LRL of 0.007 micrograms per 

liter (μg/L) and may have been detected more often than 

prometon, which has an LRL of 0.015 μg/L, even though 

prometon may have been present at significantly higher 

concentrations than atrazine. To reduce this type of bias 

when calculating detection frequencies, pesticide data 

were adjusted by censoring to a common threshold of 

0.01 μg/L so that values less than 0.01 μg/L were not 

considered detections. These adjusted procedures were 

used when comparing the pesticide detection frequency 

between national data from the NAWQA Program and 

data from this investigation as part of the Birmingham 

Watersheds Project. Non-adjusted data were used when 

evaluating the frequency of detection for pesticides in the 

Birmingham area. 

 Median concentrations of constituents were used 

when comparing constituent levels between sites along 

the urban streams. Median concentrations represent the 

50th percentile of the concentration data and are less 

affected than mean concentrations by the value of 

extremely high or low concentrations. Median 

concentrations were not computed at two sites (LCR and 

VIL-4) because of the limited number of samples (three) 

at each site and the brief time that the samples were 

collected (February 28–July 1, 2000). 

Nonparametric hypothesis tests were used to 

evaluate relations between water-quality parameters and 

land-use characteristics. The Spearman-rho rank sum 

correlation test was used to assess the strength of these 

relations (SAS Institute Inc., 1989). In this nonparametric test, data are represented by ranks rather than 

actual values. Median values of selected water-quality 

constituents were calculated and then compared to landuse characteristics. Logarithmic probability regression 

was used to predict the values of data below the detection 

limit prior to calculating median values. In many 

instances, median values at particular sites could not be 
Data Analysis and Review 23

calculated due to either the large number of nondetections, multiple-detection levels, or the limited 

sample size. Correlation coefficients were calculated only 

for those parameters with high detection rates (greater 

than 50 percent). Correlation coefficients were examined 

only when median values could be determined at a 

minimum of five sites. Although statistically significant 

differences were found, the significance of the results and 

the power of the tests used are limited because of the 

small sample size. The results should be viewed as 

preliminary or exploratory rather than conclusive. 

Correlation tests calculate a probability statistic (p) 

and a correlation coefficient (rho). The probability 

statistic relates to the confidence level. A probability 

statistic of 0.05, as used in this report, means that there is 

a 95-percent probability that the correlation is statistically 

significant. The correlation coefficient can range from 

-1 to +1 and describes the strength of the correlation and 

how the correlated parameters vary. The correlation 

coefficient, rho, is positive when one variable increases 

with the other and negative when one variable increases 

as the other decreases. For this report, significant 

correlation was determined by an absolute rho value of 

0.7 or greater, provided that the p value was less than or 

equal to 0.05. All data sets with rho and p values within 

the designated ranges were verified by scatter plots to 

determine the distribution of the data. Plots that indicated 

poor distribution by showing grouped data points or 

outliers were not considered in the correlation analysis. 

The determination that a correlation existed meant that 

the data sets varied with each other in a constant pattern, 

but did not necessarily indicate a cause and effect relation 

(Helsel and Hirsch, 1995).

The Kruskal-Wallis test and the Tukey multiplecomparison test were used to test whether water-quality 

constituent concentrations at one site were significantly 

different from constituent concentrations at other sites 

(SAS Institute Inc., 1989). The Kruskal-Wallis test is a 

one-way nonparametric analysis of variance (ANOVA) 

that was used to determine whether significant differences 

existed between independent data groups—sites on 

Village Creek, sites on Valley Creek, and the combined 

sites (VIL-1, VIL-2, VIL-3, VAL-1, VAL-2, VAL-3, and 

FMC). The Tukey multiple-comparison test was then 

used to compare the differences in concentrations in an 

upstream-downstream order on each stream and to 

compare the concentrations of selected constituents in 

Village and Valley Creeks to concentrations at FMC. The 

simplest procedures for performing nonparametric 

multiple comparisons are rank transformation tests 

(Helsel and Hirsch, 1995). Ranks were substituted for the 

original data and the Tukey multiple-comparison test was 

performed on the ranks. Data were censored to the highest 

detection level whenever multiple detection levels were 

present. Statistical tests were not performed on 

parameters if censoring resulted in a severe (near 

50 percent or more) loss of data (Helsel and Hirsch, 

1995). As stated earlier, the significance of the results and 

the power of the tests used are limited because of the 

small sample size and the inherent limitations of 

statistical tests performed on small data sets. The results 

should be viewed as preliminary or exploratory rather 

than conclusive.

The USEPA has water-quality standards and 

guidelines for certain chemicals that can have adverse 

effects on human health, aquatic organisms, and wildlife. 

Although the Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCL) 

established by the USEPA pertain to finished drinking 

water supplied by a community water supply, they 

provide values with which the sampled concentrations 

can be compared (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

2001). Aquatic life criteria established by the USEPA and 

ADEM provide for the protection of aquatic organisms 

for short-term (acute) and long-term (chronic) exposures. 

In some instances, Canadian guidelines were used for 

comparisons when other criteria were not available. 

Fecal-bacteria concentrations were compared to 

established State and Federal standards and criteria. The 

USEPA defines criteria for single sample densities for 

E. coli and enterococci based on the designated use of the 

water (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1986). 

The ADEM defines criteria for fecal coliform based on 

water-use classification, single sample density, and the 

geometric mean of at least five samples taken over a 

30-day period (Alabama Department of Environmental 

Management, 2000d). Exceedance frequencies were 

calculated by summing the number of exceedances and 

dividing by the total number of samples collected for each 

type of bacteria.

 Concentrations of total nitrogen, total phosphorus, 

and chlorophyll a in the study basins were compared to 

recommended criteria developed for Nutrient Ecoregion 

XI (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2000a). The 

USEPA has identified quantified endpoints for these 

variables to provide for the protection and propagation of 

aquatic life and recreation, and to provide sufficient 

protection of uses (and to maintain downstream uses) on 

rivers and streams. Instantaneous loads, in kilograms per 

day, were calculated for total nitrogen and total 

phosphorus and were computed as the product of 

discharge and concentration at the time of sampling. 

Instantaneous yields, in kilograms per hectare per year, 

were computed as the product of the instantaneous load 

and the numbers of days in the year divided by the 
24 Investigation of Water Quality and Aquatic-Community Structure in Village and Valley Creeks, Alabama, 2000 – 01

drainage area in hectares. Accurate estimates of daily or 

annual loads could not be computed from the limited 

amount of data available. 

The following equation was used to calculate 

instantaneous load: 

. (1)

The following equation was used to calculate instantaneous yield:

, (2)

where:

Li = Instantaneous load in kilograms per day (kg/d) 

based on the discharge and concentration at the 

time of sampling;

Yi = Instantaneous yield in kilograms per hectare per 

year (kg/ha)/yr;

Qi = Instantaneous discharge in ft3/s;

K = 2.447, correction factor for unit conversion from 

(ft3–mg)/(sec–L) to kg/d;

Ci = Instantaneous concentration in milligrams per 

liter (mg/L);

T = 365.25, the number of days per year;

DA = Drainage area, mi2; and 

J = 259, correction factor for unit conversion from 

square miles to hectare.

Quality-Control Methods and Results

Quality-assurance and quality-control measures 

were practiced throughout the study according to 

established USGS guidelines (Mueller and others, 1997). 

Laboratory and field blank samples were processed using 

water certified to contain undetectable concentrations of 

constituents to be analyzed. Data from blank samples 

were used to determine the extent of contamination 

potentially introduced during sampling, sample 

processing, shipping, or laboratory analysis. Blank water 

used for the inorganic constituent sample was distilled, 

deionized water obtained from the Ocala Water Quality 

Research Laboratory in Ocala, Florida. Blank water used 

for the organic constituent sample was either pesticidegrade or volatile-organic-compound-grade blank water 

obtained from the NWQL. 

Four blank samples were analyzed for nutrients, 

major ions, organic carbon, and trace metals. No 

constituents were detected at levels greater than the LRL. 

Constituents that were detected in field blanks at levels 

below the LRL include dissolved nitrogen (ammonia + 

organic), total organic carbon, dissolved phosphorus, 

silica, copper, and chloride (appendix table 1-1). 

Constituents that were detected in the equipment blank at 

levels below the LRL include calcium, magnesium, and 

silica—zinc was detected at a level exceeding the lowlevel MRL for the equipment blank (appendix table 1-1). 

Six out of 75 environmental samples had nutrient 

concentrations at or near the levels found in the field 

blanks. One out of 41 environmental samples had copper 

concentrations at or near the level found in the field 

blanks. The concentrations of silica, chloride, calcium, 

magnesium, zinc, and total organic carbon found in the 

field and equipment blanks were substantially lower than 

concentrations found in stream samples. Three additional 

blank samples were analyzed for PAHs and 

pesticides—no constituents were detected in these blanks. 

These low-level detections indicate little potential for 

contamination of streamwater samples. 

The method designed by the NWQL for 

wastewater indicators was considered experimental 

during this sampling period. Data were censored 

according to the detection level of constituents found in 

laboratory and field blanks. If a constituent were found in 

either a laboratory blank or a field blank and also detected 

in a stream sample during that same sampling trip at the 

same magnitude, then the detection was not included. The 

NWQL analyzed 18 laboratory blanks on batches 

including samples from this study. Eight of the 16 

constituents that were examined in detail for this report 

were detected in laboratory blanks (appendix table 1-1). 

Seven field blanks were sent to the NWQL. Triclosan was 

the only one of the 16 constituents to be detected in a field 

blank (appendix table 1-1); triclosan was also detected in 

the laboratory blank for that particular batch of samples. 

Sample replicates were collected to quantify the 

reproducibility of the results. Data from replicate samples 

were used to assess variability due to sample processing 

and laboratory analysis. The relative percentage 

difference (relative percentage difference = |A – B| / 

[(A + B)/2]) between the environmental samples and the 

corresponding replicate samples ranged from 0 to 

54.6 percent with a median of 2.8 percent. Replicate 

results from nutrients, major ions, and metals indicated 

good reproducibility of data (less than 10-percent 

difference) in 95 percent of the detections (appendix 

table 1-2). Replicate results from pesticides indicated 

good reproducibility of data in 73 percent of the 

detections. For some pesticides, such as diazinon 

and simazine, the relative percentage difference 

(9.3–13.6 percent) was consistently higher than other 

pesticides, such as atrazine or prometon (2.0–4.0 percent; 

Li = Qi × Ci × K

Yi

Li × T

( ) J DA × = ---------------------
Data Analysis and Review 25

appendix table 1-2). Replicate results from wastewater 

indicators showed good reproducibility of the data in 

50 percent of the detections (appendix table 1-2). 

The effectiveness of sterilization and processing 

procedures for bacterial analyses was checked by 

processing a sterile water blank at each site. Additional 

procedures included the regular analysis of procedure 

blanks as well as the frequent analysis of replicate 

samples. 

Bed-Sediment Data

Sediment samples with particles larger in size than 

0.063 mm have lower concentrations of trace elements 

because there is less surface area available for adsorption. 

A grain size <0.063 mm was selected for analysis for 

trace elements in bed sediment because of the underlying 

assumption that most, if not all, of the trace elements 

would be contained within that fraction (Horowitz, 1991). 

Concentrations of trace elements detected in the 

<0.063-mm fraction of the bed sediment may not be 

biologically available because of the strong attraction of 

the elements to particulates of this size. Therefore, 

particulate-bound concentrations of trace elements that 

exceed a known toxic limit may not present a toxic 

hazard. Changes in water chemistry (such as a decrease in 

pH), however, can facilitate the release of sedimentbound trace elements. Biological activity, such as the 

methylation of metallic mercury by microorganisms, also 

can remove elements from bed-sediment particulates and 

make them biologically available. Resuspension in the 

water column and transport of sediment-bound elements 

during storms and floods to locations downstream also 

may occur. Reservoirs, small impoundments, and 

backwaters can become sinks for trace elements, which 

can increase in concentration and toxicity as sediment is 

accumulated. 

To determine whether a trace-element 

concentration may have an adverse effect on aquatic 

biota, it is useful to compare the concentration with a 

known toxic-effect level. Sediment-quality guidelines for 

the protection of aquatic life commonly are used for 

determining the potential toxicity of bed-sediment trace 

elements to aquatic organisms (Canadian Council of 

Ministers of the Environment, 1995). The probable effect 

level (PEL) is the concentration of an element or 

compound that is likely to cause an adverse effect on 

aquatic biota. The concentrations of trace elements in bed 

sediments were compared with the PELs and also with 

median concentrations determined from bed-sediment 

samples collected at sites across the Nation as part of the 

NAWQA Program (Rice, 1999). 

Fish-Tissue Data

Aquatic organisms can accumulate trace elements 

and organic compounds in their bodies. This 

bioaccumulation can provide useful evidence about the 

occurrence and distribution of these substances. 

Concentrations of organic compounds and trace elements 

in fish tissue can be biomagnified to concentrations that 

are higher than those in the surrounding water or bed 

sediment (Laws, 1993; Brigham and others, 1998). It is 

important to quantify the concentration of specific 

substances in fish tissue because, while they may be 

detected in very low levels in the environment and thus be 

considered harmless, biomagnification can yield 

concentrations that may result in detrimental effects not 

only to biota that contain them but to organisms that 

consume them. Many trace elements are deposited in the 

liver, which is the primary detoxifying organ of the body. 

Organochlorine pesticides, such as DDT (1,1,1-trichloro2,2-bis(p-chlorophenyl)ethane), are lipophilic and are 

stored in fat tissue. 

In general, standards and guidelines aimed at the 

protection of human health apply to contaminant 

concentrations in the edible portion of the fish. The only 

national guidelines that apply to whole fish tissue are the 

preliminary recommendations made by National 

Academy of Science/National Academy of Engineering 

(NAS/NAE) in 1972, and these are aimed at the 

protection of fish-eating wildlife (National Academy of 

Science/National Academy of Engineering, 1973). Most 

standards and guidelines for pesticides in fish tissue apply 

to edible portions of fish rather than whole fish—and 

contaminant-residue data in whole fish cannot be 

compared directly with them—except as a screening 

procedure to determine whether additional sampling is 

warranted (Nowell and Resek, 1994). NAS/NAE and 

Canadian standards for trace-element concentrations in 

fish-liver tissue do not exist. The concentrations of trace 

elements, organochlorine pesticides, and PCBs detected 

in fish tissue were compared among sites and to the 

available standards and guidelines.

Aquatic-Community Data

Benthic-invertebrate community data were 

processed by using the Invertebrate Data Analysis System 

(IDAS), a computer program developed for evaluating 

invertebrate communities for the NAWQA Program 

(T.F. Cuffney, U.S. Geological Survey, written commun., 

October 2001). The output of the program includes 

diversity and similarity indices that allow comparisons of 

community attributes. For this study, two analyses were 

conducted. The first was based on the results of the 
26 Investigation of Water Quality and Aquatic-Community Structure in Village and Valley Creeks, Alabama, 2000 – 01

quantitative data collected in each stream, and provided 

information on invertebrate density and community 

composition. The second analysis included the combined 

results of the quantitative and qualitative invertebrate data 

and, using IDAS, provided species-richness information 

and calculated an index of similarity. The invertebrate 

collections were divided into three groups: (1) insects 

without midges (Chironomidae), (2) midges, and (3) noninsect invertebrates. Results of the community 

assessments were used to evaluate possible relations with 

bed sediment, habitat, and land use for each sample site.

Community metrics based on benthic-invertebrate 

structure may be indicative of water quality. For streams 

in the Birmingham area, the metrics were chosen from a 

subset of rapid bioassessment protocols used by the 

USEPA (Plafkin and others, 1989). These metrics 

include: 

Community richness – This metric is a measure of 

the number of taxa present in the community. In general, 

the number of taxa decreases as the water quality 

decreases. The fewer taxa, the more likely the community 

has been degraded.

Diversity – The Shannon index of diversity 

(sometimes called the Shannon-Wiener index) was used 

to evaluate the diversity of the benthic-invertebrate 

community at the study sites. This index is based on the 

proportional abundance of species and accounts for both 

species richness and evenness (Magurran, 1988). 

Density – This measurement refers to the total 

number of individual organisms within a specified area, 

such as a square meter. Density can be calculated for the 

entire community or for individual species or trophic 

levels. The density of the benthic-invertebrate community 

may be indicative of changes in habitat or water quality in 

a stream. Under stressful conditions, sensitive organisms 

disappear and tolerant organisms increase in numbers. 

Communities with only a few dominant species generally 

are considered to be stressed.

Similarity – Similarity is a measure of how alike 

two communities are. The use of similarity indices is 

based on the assumption that communities become more 

dissimilar as stress increases (Rosenberg and Resh, 1993). 

The measure is a comparison of the taxonomic structure 

of a representative sample of the community at a selected 

site and time with that of an index site. The higher the 

value of the similarity index, the more similar the two 

communities. A Pinkham-Pearson similarity index was 

calculated for the benthic-invertebrate communities 

sampled in streams in the Birmingham area, comparing 

the benthic-invertebrate community in each site to that in 

FMC. This index measures the degree of similarity in 

communities between sites, incorporating presence/

absence data, abundance, and the types of taxa present. 

The Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera (EPT) 

index – This index refers to the number of mayfly 

(Ephemeroptera), stonefly (Plecoptera), and caddisfly 

(Trichoptera) taxa in a sample. Total EPT richness is an 

important indicator of water quality because these insects 

are known to be relatively sensitive to contamination. The 

EPT index has been empirically shown to track other 

indicators of ecological degradation (Wallace and others, 

1996). 

The ratio of EPT abundance to chironomid 

abundance – This ratio can be indicative of changing 

water quality. As the ratio decreases in magnitude, the 

proportion of EPT taxa decreases. A disproportionate 

number of chironomids relative to the EPT taxa may be 

indicative of environmental stress.

Relative abundance – The relative abundance of a 

taxon is the proportional abundance of that taxon within 

the sample or community; that is, the percentage of the 

total number of individuals in the community that is 

represented by that taxon. Relative abundance can 

indicate whether one or more taxa comprise an unusually 

large percentage of the community. If there is an equitable 

distribution of individuals within all of the taxa, the 

community appears to be well balanced with no taxon 

being unusually dominant. In general, when the number 

of individuals in a few taxa or a single taxon is 

disproportionately greater than that of any other taxon of 

the same type, it is likely there has been an environmental 

perturbation. 

 Community metrics (measures of community 

structure and function) have been developed to evaluate 

the relative health of fish communities and can be used as 

an indicator of environmental stress (Plafkin and others, 

1989). Metrics used in this study include: (1) total number 

of fish species, (2) community diversity, (3) similarity of 

fish communities among sample sites, (4) the number and 

identification of darter and sculpin species, (5) the relative 

abundance and identity of sunfish species, (6) the number 

and identity of minnow or sucker species, (7) the relative 

abundance of green sunfishes, (8) the number of 

intolerant taxa, and (9) the relative abundance of 

anomalies among the fishes.

The sampling time for each reach differed, 

depending on the length and width of the reach and the 

complexity of habitat. To reduce the bias associated with 

different sampling times, the total electrofishing time 

(application of power to the water) was converted to units 

of effort. A unit of effort was defined as 300 seconds 

(5 minutes) of power application. Total numbers of fishes 

captured at each site were divided by the units of effort to 
Results and Discussion 27

provide a more equitable comparison of fish capture 

among sites. 

The Sorenson similarity index was calculated to 

determine how similar the fish communities were 

between the reference site (FMC) and the other sampling 

sites. This is a widely used index based on species 

presence and absence, and is designed to equal 1 in the 

case of complete similarity (Magurran, 1988): 

, (3)

where 

S = Index of similarity,

a = the number of species occurring in the first site,

b = the number of species occurring in the second 

site, and

c = the number of species common to both sites.

Benthic-invertebrate data and fish-community data also 

were compared among the streams, with land-use and 

habitat characteristics, and with chemical and physical 

characteristics of the bed sediment by using the Spearman-rho rank correlation test (SAS Institute Inc., 1989). 

Stream-Habitat Data 

The habitat data evaluated in this report represent 

major components of habitat along each transect and in 

each stream reach. The habitat features evaluated include 

the physical characteristics of the stream channel, the 

water depth and wetted channel width, the amount of 

shading by riparian vegetation, the amount of ground 

cover along the banks, and the percentage of each type of 

geomorphic channel units (pools, runs, riffles) in the 

reaches. Habitat characteristics were compared among 

the streams and with benthic-invertebrate and fishcommunity data, land-use data, and with chemical and 

physical characteristics of the bed sediment by using the 

Spearman-rho rank correlation test (SAS Institute Inc., 

1989).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This section includes the analytical results and 

discussion related to water chemistry, bed-sediment and 

fish-tissue samples, and an evaluation of the benthicinvertebrate and fish communities in the study area. 

Water Quality

This section includes the results and discussion of 

water-quality data evaluated for this study. Topics 

discussed include analytical results related to basic water 

chemistry, major ions, field and continuous 

measurements of water properties, nutrients, fecal 

indicator bacteria, wastewater indicators, trace elements, 

pesticides, and PAHs. 

Basic Water Chemistry

The chemistry of surface water is the result of 

interactions between rain, ground water, rocks, and soils 

near the Earth’s surface. Dissolved and particulate 

constituents enter a stream by surface runoff, 

precipitation, or ground-water discharge. The major 

dissolved constituents that give water its characteristic 

chemistry are cations and anions. Cations are positively 

charged and include calcium, magnesium, sodium, and 

potassium. Anions are negatively charged and include 

chloride, nitrate, sulfate, bicarbonate, and carbonate. The 

concentrations of these dissolved ions generally are 

reported in parts per million (milligrams per liter). 

Streamwater chemistry varies with flow conditions 

because flow pathways change in the watershed. Under 

low-flow conditions, streamwater is predominantly 

ground-water discharge. The nature and concentration of 

dissolved constituents are dependent on the composition 

of the aquifers through which the ground water flows. 

During and immediately after a storm event, streamwater 

is a mixture of rainwater and surface runoff, shallow 

subsurface flow through the soil zone, and ground-water 

discharge. Precipitation produces an overall dilution of 

the major ion composition. Human activity also can alter 

water chemistry by contributing additional ions, such as 

sodium and chloride, from leaking or overflowing sewer 

systems, industrial discharge, or urban runoff. Although 

basic ions are not considered contaminants, elevated 

levels (above natural background levels) may indicate 

potential sources of contaminants (nutrients, trace 

elements, synthetic organic compounds). 

Major Ions

Major ions constitute the greatest part of the 

dissolved solids in water. A summary of major ion 

concentrations, expressed in milliequivalents per liter 

(meq/L), during low, median, and high flow is presented 

in appendix table 2-1. Concentrations were summarized 

for all sites except VIL-4 and LCR (due to the small 

sample sizes). All sites exhibited similar water quality, 

characterized by a strong calcium-bicarbonate 

S 2c

( ) a b + = ----------------
28 Investigation of Water Quality and Aquatic-Community Structure in Village and Valley Creeks, Alabama, 2000 – 01

component, which was most pronounced during low flow, 

due to ground-water discharge from the underlying 

carbonate rocks in the stream valleys. The bicarbonate 

component was most pronounced at VIL-1. The water 

chemistry at VIL-1 and FMC exhibited the lowest median 

concentrations of sodium, potassium, chloride, and 

sulfate. The similarity of the basic water chemistry at 

VIL-1 and FMC indicates that VIL-1 is the least impacted 

(of the Village and Valley Creek sites) from urbanization. 

The highest level of chloride was detected at VIL-2 

during low flow. Median levels of chloride were highest 

at VIL-3, VAL-1, and VAL-2. Median levels of sodium 

were highest at VAL-1 and VAL-2, indicating that water 

chemistry at these sites may be more strongly influenced 

by anthropogenic factors. All sites exhibited the effects of 

dilution during storm events. 

The Kruskal-Wallis test and the Tukey multiplecomparison test were applied to the major ion data at 

seven sites to determine if the variations in water 

chemistry among sites were statistically significant 

(table 6). Although statistically significant differences 

were found for several of the major ions, the significance 

of the results and the power of the tests used are limited 

because of the small sample sizes. Potassium and sulfate 

concentrations at VIL-2, VIL-3, VAL-1, VAL-2, and 

VAL-3 were significantly greater than concentrations at 

FMC. Chloride concentrations at VIL-2, VIL-3, VAL-1, 

and VAL-2 were significantly greater than concentrations 

at FMC. Sodium concentrations at VAL-1 and VAL-2 

were significantly greater than concentrations at FMC. 

Concentrations of sodium, potassium, chloride, and 

sulfate at VIL-2 and VIL-3 were significantly greater than 

concentrations at VIL-1; concentrations of potassium at 

VAL-3 were significantly greater than at VAL-2. 

Field and Continuous Measurements of Water Properties 

Field measurements of physical properties of 

water, such as pH, temperature, specific conductance, and 

dissolved oxygen, can be used to compare chemical 

conditions in the streams at the time of sampling. Water 

quality, however, continually changes over time, and 

repeated measurements are necessary to characterize 

variations in quality. Continuous water-quality monitors 

have sensors and recording systems that measure waterquality properties at discrete time intervals and provide a 

continuous record of these properties over time. 

The ADEM established criteria for pH, water 

temperature, dissolved oxygen, and turbidity based on 

water-use classification. Water-quality properties, 

including field measurements and continuous waterquality monitoring data, are summarized with applicable 

criteria in table 7. More detailed information obtained 

from continuous water-quality monitors in Village and 

Valley Creeks is summarized in the most recent USGS 

Annual Data Reports for Alabama (Pearman and others, 

2001, 2002). 

Long-term continuous water-quality data are 

available for two sites on Village Creek—VIL-3 since 

1991 and VIL-4 since 1996 (table 1). In conjunction with 

this study, additional monitors were installed upstream 

from VIL-1 and at VAL-3 and turbidity probes were 

added to the monitors at VIL-1, VIL-3, and VAL-3. 

Continuous measurements of all four water-quality 

properties at VIL-1 and VIL-3 were recorded between 

April 2000 and February 2001; continuous measurements 

of all four properties at VAL-3 were recorded between 

August 2000 and February 2001 (table 7; Pearman and 

others, 2001, 2002). 

The pH of surface water generally ranges from 6 to 

9. When the pH falls below 4 or 5, possibly as a result of 

commercial or industrial discharges, urban runoff, acid 

mine drainage, or acid rain, the structure of the aquatic 

community may be affected. The ADEM established a pH 

range of 6 to 8.5 to reduce the effects of highly acidic or 

highly basic water on fish and wildlife (Alabama 

Department of Environmental Management, 2000d). 

Field measurements of pH were made at all sites at the 

time of sampling (appendix table 2-2). Continuous 

monitors, however, were not equipped to measure pH. In 

Valley Creek, pH ranged from 7.3 at VAL-1 to 8.5 at 

VAL-2; in Village Creek pH ranged from 6.9 at VIL-1 to 

8.5 at VIL-3 (table 7). The pH values at all sites sampled 

were within the criteria established for agricultural and 

industrial water supply as well as fish and wildlife 

(Alabama Department of Environmental Management, 

2000d). The higher pH measurements found at VIL-3, 

VAL-2, and VAL-3 are indicative of the carbonate-based 

geology in the area. The lowest pH measurements in both 

streams were recorded during storm events. 

Specific conductance (SC) is an indicator of the 

ability of water to conduct an electric current and is 

proportional to the dissolved-solids concentration in 

water. Many factors affect the SC of streams, including 

flow conditions, bedrock geology, and contributions of 

dissolved solids from point and nonpoint sources. 

Standards or criteria for SC have not been established by 

the ADEM or the USEPA. SC was measured at the time 

of sample collection and by continuous water-quality 

monitors at four sites (table 7). In Valley Creek, 

field measurements of SC ranged from 57.5 to 

599 microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius 

(μS/cm) at VAL-1. Continuous SC measurements ranged 

from 68 to 621 μS/cm at VAL-3. In Village Creek, field 

measurements of SC ranged from 76.3 μS/cm at VIL-1 to
Water Quality 29

Table 6. Results of the Kruskal-Wallis test and the Tukey multiple-comparison test illustrating statistically significant (p < 0.05) differences for 

selected water-quality constituents at sites in the Birmingham area, Alabama

[BOD, biochemical oxygen demand; °C, degree Celsius; E. coli, Escherichia coli]

Site label 

(fig. 1)

Water 

temperature Discharge pH

Specific 

conductance

Dissolved 

oxygen Alkalinity

Total

organic

carbon

BOD Hardness Calcium

VIL1 to VIL2 X X X

VIL2 to VIL3 X

VIL1 to VIL3 X X

VAL1 to VAL2

VAL2 to VAL3

VAL1 to VAL3 X X

VIL1 to FMC

VIL2 to FMC

VIL3 to FMC

VAL1 to FMC

VAL2 to FMC X

VAL3 to FMC

Site label 

(fig. 1) Magnesium Sodium Potassium Chloride Sulfate Fluoride Silica

Solids, 

residue at 

180 °C

Solids, sum 

of constituents, 

dissolved

Total 

nitrogen

VIL1 to VIL2 X X X X X

VIL2 to VIL3

VIL1 to VIL3 X X X X X X

VAL1 to VAL2

VAL2 to VAL3 X

VAL1 to VAL3 X X

VIL1 to FMC X

VIL2 to FMC X X X X

VIL3 to FMC X X X X X

VAL1 to FMC X X X X X X

VAL2 to FMC X X X X X X X X

VAL3 to FMC X X X

Site label 

(fig. 1)

Dissolved 

nitrogen 

organic

Total 

nitrogen

organic + 

ammonia

Dissolved 

nitrogen 

organic + 

ammonita

Dissolved 

nitrogen 

ammonia

Dissolved 

nitrite

Dissolved 

nitrate

Dissolved 

nitrite + 

nitrate

Total 

phosphorus

Dissolved 

phosphorus

Dissolved 

ortho phosphate

VIL1 to VIL2 X X X X X

VIL2 to VIL3 X

VIL1 to VIL3 X X X X

VAL1 to VAL2 X X X X X X X

VAL2 to VAL3

VAL1 to VAL3 X X X X X X X X

VIL1 to FMC X X

VIL2 to FMC X X X X X X

VIL3 to FMC X X X

VAL1 to FMC X X X X X X X X X X

VAL2 to FMC X X X X X

VAL3 to FMC X X

p > 0.05 No statistically significant 

differences between sites as 

determined by the Kruskal-Wallis 

test.

X p < 0.05 Statistically significant 

differences between sites as determined 

by the Tukey multiple-comparison test 

(nonparametric).

p > 0.05 No statistically significant 

differences between sites as determined 

by the Tukey multiple-comparison test 

(nonparametric).
30 Investigation of Water Quality and Aquatic-Community Structure in Village and Valley Creeks, Alabama, 2000 – 01

Table 6. Results of the Kruskal-Wallis test and the Tukey multiple-comparison test illustrating statistically significant (p < 0.05) differences for 

selected water-quality constituents at sites in the Birmingham area, Alabama—Continued

[BOD, biochemical oxygen demand; °C, degree Celsius; E. coli, Escherichia coli]

Site label 

(fig. 1)

Suspended

phosphorus

Dissolved 

nonorthophosphorus

Nitrogen 

load

Nitrogen

yield

Phosphorus 

load

Phosphorus

yield

Fecal 

coliform E. coli Enterococci Aluminum

VIL1 to VIL2 X X X

VIL2 to VIL3

VIL1 to VIL3 X X

VAL1 to VAL2 X X X X

VAL2 to VAL3

VAL1 to VAL3 X X X X

VIL1 to FMC

VIL2 to FMC

VIL3 to FMC

VAL1 to FMC X X X X

VAL2 to FMC X

VAL3 to FMC

Site label 

(fig. 1) Barium Cadmium Copper Iron Lead Manganese Molybdenum Zinc Simazine Prometon

VIL1 to VIL2 X X X

VIL2 to VIL3

VIL1 to VIL3 X X

VAL1 to VAL2 X

VAL2 to VAL3

VAL1 to VAL3

VIL1 to FMC

VIL2 to FMC X X X

VIL3 to FMC X X X

VAL1 to FMC X

VAL2 to FMC X X

VAL3 to FMC

Site label 

(fig. 1) Diazinon Atrazine

Number of 

pesticide 

detections

Wastewater indicators

Food 

by-products

Pharmaceuticals Phosphates Detergents Fragrance

Total

concentration

Number of 

detections

VIL1 to VIL2 X X

VIL2 to VIL3

VIL1 to VIL3 X X X

VAL1 to VAL2 X X

VAL2 to VAL3

VAL1 to VAL3 X X X X X

VIL1 to FMC

VIL2 to FMC X X X X

VIL3 to FMC X X X X

VAL1 to FMC X X X X X X

VAL2 to FMC X X X X

VAL3 to FMC

p > 0.05 No statistically significant 

differences between sites as 

determined by the Kruskal-Wallis 

test.

X p < 0.05 Statistically significant 

differences between sites as determined 

by the Tukey multiple-comparison test 

(nonparametric).

p > 0.05 No statistically significant 

differences between sites as determined 

by the Tukey multiple-comparison test 

(nonparametric).
Water Quality 31

760 μS/cm at VIL-2. Continuous SC measurements 

ranged from 54 μS/cm at VIL-1 to 614 μS/cm at VIL-3. 

The lowest specific conductance measurements in both 

streams were made during storm events and are a result of 

dilution by rainwater. 

Dissolved-oxygen (DO) concentration is widely 

used for evaluating the biochemistry of streams and lakes. 

DO concentrations may be depleted by processes that 

consume organic matter. Actively photosynthesizing 

algae and aquatic plants can increase concentrations of 

DO (Hem, 1985). The ADEM established criteria for DO 

concentrations in streams based on water-use 

classification (Alabama Department of Environmental 

Management, 2000d). For diversified warm-water biota, 

daily DO should not fall below 5 mg/L. Under extreme 

conditions resulting from natural causes, DO may range 

from 4.0 to 5.0 mg/L provided that the water quality is 

favorable in all other properties (Alabama Department of 

Environmental Management, 2000d). In streams 

classified for agricultural and industrial use, daily DO 

should not fall below 3.0 mg/L (Alabama Department of 

Environmental Management, 2000d). Low concentrations are commonly found in waters that are warm and not 

well mixed. DO concentrations typically vary in a diurnal 

fashion, and differences between high and low values can 

exceed 10 mg/L within a 24-hour period (Pearman and 

others, 2001). An example of the diurnal fluctuation of 

DO at VIL-3 is illustrated in figure 9. During low-flow 

conditions (August 27–31, 2000) peak DO concentrations (11.9–13.3 mg/L) were recorded between 4 and 

6 p.m. (1600 and 1800 hours, fig. 9) each day, and 

minimum DO concentrations (3.6–5.4 mg/L) were 

recorded between 5 and 6 a.m. (0500 and 0600 hours, 

fig. 9) each day. 

During this study, DO did not always remain within 

levels established by the ADEM. In Valley Creek, DO 

remained above the criterion established for agricultural 

and industrial water supply, but was less than the criterion 

established for fish and wildlife (table 7). In Valley Creek, 

field measurements of DO ranged from 3.3 mg/L at 

VAL-1 to 13.9 mg/L at VAL-3. Continuous measurements 

of DO ranged from 3.8 to 19.6 mg/L at VAL-3. 

Concentrations between 4.0 and 5.0 mg/L were measured 

in the field twice at VAL-1 and twice at VAL-2. Daily 

minimum concentrations between 4.0 and 5.0 mg/L were 

recorded by the continuous water-quality monitor at

Table 7. Water-quality properties of streams in the Birmingham area, Alabama, 2000–01

[Values shown in bold exceeded the criteria. μS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius; °C, degree Celsius; mg/L, milligrams 

per liter; NTU, nephelometric turbidity unit; —, no criteria established; ≤, equal to or less than; ≥, equal to or greater than; ND, no data were 

collected]

Site 

label 

(fig. 1)

pH

Specific 

conductivity 

(μS/cm)

Water 

temperature

(°C)

Dissolved 

oxygen

(mg/L)

Specific 

conductivity 

(μS/cm)

Water 

temperature

(°C)

Dissolved 

oxygen

(mg/L)

Turbidity

(NTU)

Water-quality criteria for agricultural and industrial water supplya

a

 Criteria established by the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (2000d).

6.0–8.5 — < 32.2 > 3.0 — < 32.2 >3.0 < 50b

b Turbidity will not exceed 50 NTU above background (Alabama Department of Environmental Management, 2000d).

Water-quality criteria for fish and wildlifea

6.0–8.5 — < 32.2 > 5.0c

c

 Criteria for dissolved oxygen under extreme conditions is 4.0–5.0 mg/L (Alabama Department of Environmental Management, 2000d).

— < 32.2 > 5.0c < 50b

Field measurements Continuous water-quality data

VIL-1 6.9–8.1 76.3–393 11.3–24.0 7.0–9.2 54–403d

d

 Continuous water-quality monitor located upstream from site VIL-1 at station 02458148.

7.4–29.7d 2.8–15.8d 0.5–870d

VIL-2 7.0–8.1 114–760 10.3–26.2 5.4–10.5 ND ND ND ND

VIL-3 7.2–8.5 184–467 9.9–29.2 5.9–11.8 77–614 1.7–33.5 1.7–17.7 1.0–1,900e

e

 Instrument range from 0 to 1,000 NTU.

VIL-4 7.2–7.4 144–510 15–25.8 0.0–8.6 81–587 8.1–30.7 2.7–12.7 ND

VAL-1 7.3–8.0 57.5–599 10.9–25.1 3.3–10.4 ND ND ND ND

VAL-2 7.5–8.5 126–539 5.5–30.0 4.3–13.1 ND ND ND ND

VAL-3 7.6–8.4 103–489 7.0–27.9 6.5–13.9 68–621 1.9–31.3 3.8–19.6 0.1–100

LCR 7.5–8.0 296–403 14.6–23.3 6.6–9.9 ND ND ND ND

FMC 7.4–8.2 128–364 8.5–24.4 6.6–12.2 ND ND ND ND
32 Investigation of Water Quality and Aquatic-Community Structure in Village and Valley Creeks, Alabama, 2000 – 01

Figure 9. Dissolved oxygen, water temperature, turbidity, discharge, and specific conductivity at U.S. Geological Survey streamgaging station 

02458450 (VIL-3) during low-flow conditions, August 27 – 31, 2000.

VAL-3 on 39 separate days between June 15, 2000, and 

February 22, 2001; concentrations less than 4.0 mg/L 

were recorded on 1 day during this time period.

In Village Creek, DO levels were recorded that 

were less than the minimum criteria established for both 

agricultural and industrial water supply and for fish and 

wildlife (table 7). Field measurements of DO ranged from 

0.0 mg/L at VIL-4 to 11.8 mg/L at VIL-3. Continuous DO 

measurements ranged from 1.7 to 17.7 mg/L at VIL-3. At 

VIL-1, daily minimum DO concentrations ranged 

between 4.0 and 5.0 mg/L on 2 separate days between 

April 26, 2000, and February 21, 2001; concentrations 

were less than 4.0 mg/L on 8 days and less than 3.0 mg/L 

on 4 days. At VIL-3, daily minimum DO concentrations 

ranged between 4.0 and 5.0 mg/L on 53 separate days 

between April 1, 2000, and March 31, 2001; 

concentrations were less than 4.0 mg/L on 35 days and 

less than 3.0 mg/L on 7 days. At VIL-4, daily minimum 

DO concentrations ranged between 4.0 and 5.0 mg/L on 

53 separate days between April 1, 2000, and March 31, 

2001; concentrations were less than 4.0 mg/L on 17 days 

and less than 3.0 mg/L on 2 days. On occasion, 

continuous DO data collection was interrupted because of 

technical difficulties in the field.

Turbidity, a measure of water clarity, is determined 

by measuring the degree that particles suspended in water 

decrease the passage of light through the water. Particles 

may come from soil, sediment, algae, plankton, natural 

organic matter, or manmade compounds. High turbidities 

are commonly measured during storms when overland 

runoff erodes soil and carries it to the stream, and 

increased flow resuspends sediment in the streambed. 

However, high turbidities can also be measured during 

low flow when certain materials or compounds are 

discharged from industrial and commercial facilities. The 

ADEM criterion requires that turbidity not exceed 

50 nephelometric turbidity units (NTU) above 

background except due to natural origin (Alabama 

Department of Environmental Management, 2000d). 

Background levels have not been defined by the ADEM 

for Village and Valley Creeks; consequently, turbidity 

values were not compared to this criterion. 

Continuous measurements of turbidity in Village 

and Valley Creeks varied with streamflow (Pearman and 
Water Quality 33

Figure 10. Dissolved oxygen, water temperature, gage height, discharge, turbidity, and specific conductivity at U.S. Geological Survey 

streamgaging station 02458450 (VIL-3) during two storms, August 1 – 4, 2000.

others, 2001, 2002). At VAL-3, turbidity ranged from 

0.1 to 100 NTU. At VIL-1, turbidity ranged from 0.5 to 

870 NTU. At VIL-3, turbidity ranged from 1.0 to 

1,900 NTU (table 7). High turbidities were observed at 

both streams and in many cases, likely were the result of 

natural runoff, but in some instances, particularly at 

Village Creek, these high turbidities may be attributed to 

anthropogenic causes. At Valley Creek, high turbidity 

was consistently measured during high flow. At Village 

Creek, high turbidity was measured during low flow as 

well as high flow, which may indicate the presence of 

point or other anthropogenic sources. 

Turbidity also can be used to examine whether 

high-flow samples were collected during the first flush, 

when many contaminants may be at a maximum level. 

Continuous water-quality data were recorded over a 4-day 

period at VIL-3 (August 1–4, 2000) during which two 

storms occurred (fig. 10). During the first storm 

(August 2, 2000), turbidity peaked (915.2 NTU) at 3 p.m. 

(1500 hours, fig. 10)—while discharge peaked 

(1,829 ft3/s) at 4:30 p.m. (1630 hours, fig. 10). The first 

flush most likely occurred around 3 p.m. (1500 hours, 

fig. 10), when turbidity values were highest. During the 

second storm (August 4, 2000), turbidity peaked 

(681.2 NTU) at 5 p.m. (1700 hours, fig. 10), and 

discharge peaked (1,003 ft3

/s) at 4:45 p.m. (1645 hours, 

fig. 10), illustrating the likelihood that there was no first 

flush associated with this storm, perhaps due to the 

preceding storm 2 days earlier. Turbidity values were 

recorded on an hourly basis at VIL-1, VIL-3, and VAL-3. 

Discharge was recorded every 15 minutes at VIL-1 and 

VIL-3.

Nutrients 

In natural waters, nitrogen is a combination of 

different chemical forms, depending on the source and 

environmental conditions. Common forms include 

organic nitrogen, which can be in dissolved or particulate 

form, and the inorganic ions, ammonium (NH4

+), nitrite 

(NO2

–), and nitrate (NO3–), which are typically in 

dissolved form. The nitrogen cycle is a series of
34 Investigation of Water Quality and Aquatic-Community Structure in Village and Valley Creeks, Alabama, 2000 – 01

biologically catalyzed, geochemical reactions in which 

one form of nitrogen is transformed into another (Belval 

and others, 1995). Bacteria and blue-green algae can 

transform atmospheric nitrogen into ammonium through 

nitrogen fixation. Other bacteria catalyze the oxidation of 

ammonia to nitrite, then to nitrate by nitrification, which 

can occur rapidly in the oxygen-rich environment of 

many streams. Nitrogen species can be taken up by organisms and incorporated into organic materials, which in 

turn decay and release nitrogen in the form of ammonia. 

Identifying sources of nitrogen from chemical 

analyses is difficult because nitrogen is readily converted 

from one form to another. However, large quantities of 

nitrogen compounds in surface waters usually indicate 

point and nonpoint source contamination. Excessive 

amounts of ammonia and organic nitrogen may result 

from treated water discharges or surface runoff. If streams 

are well oxygenated and uncontaminated, then ammonia 

concentrations generally are negligible. Nitrite usually is 

unstable in aerated water, but is considered to be a good 

indicator of poor water quality when detected. When most 

of the nitrogen is in the nitrate form, the water is 

considered to have stabilized; high levels generally 

indicate prior contamination rather than recent 

contamination (Krenkel and Novotny, 1980). 

Several species of nitrogen were measured for this 

study, including dissolved nitrite, dissolved nitrite plus 

nitrate, dissolved ammonia, and total and dissolved 

ammonia plus organic nitrogen (table 8). Total 

concentrations of nutrients represent both dissolved and 

particulate forms and are measured from unfiltered 

samples. For the purpose of this study, total nitrogen was 

computed as the sum of the total organic and ammonia 

nitrogen and the dissolved nitrite plus nitrate nitrogen. 

Total organic nitrogen was computed by subtracting 

dissolved ammonia nitrogen from the total ammonia plus 

organic nitrogen. Because inorganic species of nitrogen 

(nitrite, nitrate, and ammonia) mainly occur in the 

dissolved form, these computed total values are 

considered relatively accurate estimates. Dissolved 

organic nitrogen concentrations were computed by 

subtracting dissolved ammonia nitrogen from the 

dissolved ammonia and organic nitrogen. If the 

concentration of one of the nitrogen forms used in the 

computation was a censored value (below the reporting

Table 8. Summary of selected nutrients at sampling sites in the Birmingham area, Alabama, 2000–01

[mg/L, milligrams per liter; N, nitrogen; <, less than; P, phosphorus; —, value not calculated. Site locations are shown in figure 1]

Nutrients Sample 

size

Minimum 

(mg/L)

25%

(mg/L)

Median

50%

(mg/L)

75%

(mg/L)

Maximum

(mg/L)

VIL-1

Nitrogen, ammonia, dissolved (mg/L as N) 12 < 0.020 < 0.020 < 0.020 < 0.041 0.305

Nitrogen, nitrite, dissolved (mg/L as N) 12 < .010 < .010 < .010 .004 .013

Nitrogen, ammonia plus organic, dissolved (mg/L as N) 12 < .100 < .100 .072 .084 1.107

Nitrogen, ammonia plus organic, total (mg/L as N) 12 .053 .079 .095 .613 1.128

Nitrite plus nitrate, dissolved (mg/L as N) 12 .202 .898 .992 1.247 1.48

Phosphorus, total (mg/L as P) 12 .008 .01 .013 .083 .199

Phosphorus, dissolved (mg/L as P) 12 < .006 .007 .008 .011 .092

Phosphorus, orthophosphate, dissolved (mg/L as P) 12 < .010 < .010 .01 .012 .077

VIL-2

Nitrogen, ammonia, dissolved (mg/L as N) 7 < 0.020 < 0.041 0.089 0.129 0.167

Nitrogen, nitrite, dissolved (mg/L as N) 7 < .010 .013 .017 .019 .025

Nitrogen, ammonia plus organic, dissolved (mg/L as N) 7 .183 .305 .375 .53 .555

Nitrogen, ammonia plus organic, total (mg/L as N) 7 .276 .451 .541 .905 1.346

Nitrite plus nitrate, dissolved (mg/L as N) 7 .331 .333 .604 .906 1.305

Phosphorus, total (mg/L as P) 7 .039 .046 .076 .121 .286

Phosphorus, dissolved (mg/L as P) 7 .015 .021 .036 .063 .089

Phosphorus, orthophosphate, dissolved (mg/L as P) 7 < .010 .011 .013 .058 .062

VIL-3

Nitrogen, ammonia, dissolved (mg/L as N) 10 0.02 0.075 0.111 0.213 0.239

Nitrogen, nitrite, dissolved (mg/L as N) 10 .013 .017 .025 .043 .077

Nitrogen, ammonia plus organic, dissolved (mg/L as N) 10 .256 .291 .393 .549 .634

Nitrogen, ammonia plus organic, total (mg/L as N) 10 .312 .389 .493 .755 1.192

Nitrite plus nitrate, dissolved (mg/L as N) 10 .431 .489 .875 1.12 1.535

Phosphorus, total (mg/L as P) 10 .012 .02 .027 .069 .269

Phosphorus, dissolved (mg/L as P) 10 .005 .007 .012 .031 .075

Phosphorus, orthophosphate, dissolved (mg/L as P) 10 < .010 < .010 < .018 .016 .055
Water Quality 35

VIL-4

Nitrogen, ammonia, dissolved (mg/L as N) 3 0.04 — — — 0.219

Nitrogen, nitrite, dissolved (mg/L as N) 3 .014 — — — .032

Nitrogen, ammonia plus organic, dissolved (mg/L as N) 3 .568 — — — .683

Nitrogen, ammonia plus organic, total (mg/L as N) 3 .573 — — — 1.268

Nitrite plus nitrate, dissolved (mg/L as N) 3 .551 — — — 6.914

Phosphorus, total (mg/L as P) 3 .307 — — — .912

Phosphorus, dissolved (mg/L as P) 3 .095 — — — .721

Phosphorus, orthophosphate, dissolved (mg/L as P) 3 .074 — — — .712

VAL-1

Nitrogen, ammonia, dissolved (mg/L as N) 10 0.044 0.125 0.181 0.294 0.515

Nitrogen, nitrite, dissolved (mg/L as N) 10 .012 .038 .077 .149 .181

Nitrogen, ammonia plus organic, dissolved (mg/L as N) 10 .232 .358 .694 .891 1.204

Nitrogen, ammonia plus organic, total (mg/L as N) 10 .422 .567 .818 1.003 1.467

Nitrite plus nitrate, dissolved (mg/L as N) 10 .187 .962 1.387 1.838 1.946

Phosphorus, total (mg/L as P) 10 .096 .133 .164 .246 .289

Phosphorus, dissolved (mg/L as P) 10 .056 .072 .119 .208 .223

Phosphorus, orthophosphate, dissolved (mg/L as P) 10 .044 .056 .08 .155 .185

VAL-2

Nitrogen, ammonia, dissolved (mg/L as N) 11 < 0.020 0.027 0.038 0.141 0.234

Nitrogen, nitrite, dissolved (mg/L as N) 11 < .010 .01 .014 .037 .07

Nitrogen, ammonia plus organic, dissolved (mg/L as N) 11 .19 .21 .25 .48 .8

Nitrogen, ammonia plus organic, total (mg/L as N) 11 .25 .27 .33 .53 2.2

Nitrite plus nitrate, dissolved (mg/L as N) 11 .057 .309 1.08 1.3 2.44

Phosphorus, total (mg/L as P) 11 .033 .034 .057 .085 .421

Phosphorus, dissolved (mg/L as P) 11 .005 .029 .044 .07 .085

Phosphorus, orthophosphate, dissolved (mg/L as P) 11 < .010 .014 .032 .051 .053

VAL-3

Nitrogen, ammonia, dissolved (mg/L as N) 10 < 0.020 < 0.041 0.02 0.033 0.074

Nitrogen, nitrite, dissolved (mg/L as N) 10 < .010 .003 .01 .013 .03

Nitrogen, ammonia plus organic, dissolved (mg/L as N) 10 .109 .152 .204 .245 .306

Nitrogen, ammonia plus organic, total (mg/L as N) 10 .156 .194 .264 .37 .819

Nitrite plus nitrate, dissolved (mg/L as N) 10 .207 .37 .85 1.063 2.027

Phosphorus, total (mg/L as P) 10 .018 .021 .027 .094 .203

Phosphorus, dissolved (mg/L as P) 10 .011 .016 .019 .064 .074

Phosphorus, orthophosphate, dissolved (mg/L as P) 10 < .010 .01 .016 .061 .058

LCR

Nitrogen, ammonia, dissolved (mg/L as N) 3 < 0.020 — — — 0.052

Nitrogen, nitrite, dissolved (mg/L as N) 3 <.010 — — — < .010

Nitrogen, ammonia plus organic, dissolved (mg/L as N) 3 .15 — — — .399

Nitrogen, ammonia plus organic, total (mg/L as N) 3 .2 — — — .727

Nitrite plus nitrate, dissolved (mg/L as N) 3 .951 — — — 2.235

Phosphorus, total (mg/L as P) 3 .03 — — — .058

Phosphorus, dissolved (mg/L as P) 3 .019 — — — .041

Phosphorus, orthophosphate, dissolved (mg/L as P) 3 .02 — — — .029

FMC

Nitrogen, ammonia, dissolved (mg/L as N) 8 < 0.020 < 0.020 < 0.041 < 0.041 < 0.041

Nitrogen, nitrite, dissolved (mg/L as N) 8 < .006 < .006 < .010 .003 .003

Nitrogen, ammonia plus organic, dissolved (mg/L as N) 8 .068 .105 .134 .231 .322

Nitrogen, ammonia plus organic, total (mg/L as N) 8 .109 .139 .215 .357 .675

Nitrite plus nitrate, dissolved (mg/L as N) 8 .18 .231 .296 .402 .656

Phosphorus, total (mg/L as P) 8 < .004 .005 .009 .03 .089

Phosphorus, dissolved (mg/L as P) 8 < .006 .003 .005 .008 .023

Phosphorus, orthophosphate, dissolved (mg/L as P) 8 < .010 < .010 < .18 < .018 .012

Table 8. Summary of selected nutrients at sampling sites in the Birmingham area, Alabama, 2000– 01 — Continued

[mg/L, milligrams per liter; N, nitrogen; <, less than; P, phosphorus; —, value not calculated. Site locations are shown in figure 1]

Nutrients Sample 

size

Minimum 

(mg/L)

25%

(mg/L)

Median

50%

(mg/L)

75%

(mg/L)

Maximum

(mg/L)
36 Investigation of Water Quality and Aquatic-Community Structure in Village and Valley Creeks, Alabama, 2000 – 01

USGS personnel collecting a water-quality sample (photograph 

taken by J.B. Atkins, USGS).

USGS personnel processing a water-quality 

sample using a Teflon cone splitter (photograph 

taken by J.B. Atkins, USGS).

limit), the censored concentration was assumed to be negligible and substituted with zero. 

Phosphorus is present in natural waters in several 

forms—orthophosphate, which includes species of 

PO4

–3

 ion; polyphosphates and metaphosphates; and 

organic phosphorus. Orthophosphate is the most stable 

and biochemically available form of phosphorus and is 

readily available for uptake by aquatic plants. In many 

natural waters, much of the phosphorus present is 

organically bound. Phosphorus tends to adsorb strongly 

onto particles in soils, suspended solids, and streambed 

sediment. The most common point source of phosphorus 

is municipal wastewater discharge, which contains 

phosphorus as orthophosphate and organic phosphorus. 

Common nonpoint sources of phosphorus include 

weathering of natural soils and rocks, and runoff from 

agricultural land. Phosphate from fertilizers binds to soils 

and may add considerable amounts of suspended 

phosphate to streams by erosion during storm events 

(Hem, 1985). 

Three different forms of phosphorus were 

measured during this study—dissolved phosphorus, 

orthophosphate, and total phosphorus (table 8). Dissolved 

phosphorus includes the orthophosphate form and other 

forms. Dissolved non-orthophosphorus was computed by 

subtracting the orthophosphate from the dissolved 

phosphorus. Suspended phosphorus (particulate form, 

computed as total minus dissolved) includes phosphorus 

that is attached to or part of suspended sediment and 

phosphorus that is incorporated into algal cells (Tornes 

and others, 1997). 

Nutrient enrichment in a stream can produce 

excessive growth of algae. In flowing waters, however, 

the occurrence of increased algal growth is not limited by 

only nutrient concentrations. Channel geomorphology, 

habitat, and flow characteristics of the stream also are 

considered to be important variables. Algae in streams 

can occur as periphyton (attached to substrate at the 

bottom of the stream) or phytoplankton (suspended in the 

water column). Phytoplankton tend to be less useful for 

indicating and integrating water-quality changes relative 

to a fixed sampling location, particularly in wadeable 

streams and rivers, because the plankton suspended in the 

water column of many streams consists of benthic algal 

species that have been dislodged from periphyton 

microhabitats as a result of physical disturbance, such as 

scouring. During low- or base-flow conditions, however, 

phytoplankton growth can be predominant in a nutrientenriched stream. In this study, the algal response to 

nutrient loading was estimated by measuring the 

photosynthetic pigments, chlorophyll a and chlorophyll b

in the water column of the streams. Chlorophyll a is 

present in most algal families, but chlorophyll b is present 

only in green algae.

The following sections present an overview of 

selected constituent concentrations at sampling sites on 

Valley Creek (VAL-1, VAL-2, VAL-3) and Village Creek 

(VIL-1, VIL-2, VIL-3, VIL-4), and at reference sites 

FMC and LCR. Statistical summaries of selected 

nutrients are reported in table 8. Bar charts are used to 

show the speciation of nitrogen and phosphorus based on 

median concentrations. Box plots or scatter plots, which 

differentiate between high-flow and low-flow samples,
Water Quality 37

are used to display the variability in nutrient concentrations. Median nutrient concentrations were not computed 

for LCR or VIL-4 because of the limited number of samples (3) at each site. 

Nitrogen Concentrations and Distribution

Median concentrations of nitrate, nitrite, ammonia, 

and organic nitrogen at seven of the nine sites are shown 

in figure 11. The sum of each of the components of the bar 

chart approximates the median total nitrogen 

concentration. The highest median concentrations of 

dissolved nitrogen were detected at VAL-1 and the lowest 

median concentrations were detected at FMC. In Village 

Creek, median concentrations of nitrite and ammonia 

increased in a downstream direction. Median 

concentrations of organic nitrogen in Village Creek were 

highest at VIL-2; median concentrations of nitrate were 

highest at VIL-1. In Valley Creek, median concentrations 

of nitrate, nitrite, ammonia, and organic nitrogen 

decreased in a downstream direction. The highest 

concentration of nitrite plus nitrate (6.914 mg/L) was 

measured at VIL-4 (table 8). The range and distribution of 

nitrate, nitrite, ammonia, and organic nitrogen 

concentrations at each of the sampling sites are shown in 

figure 12. 

Maximum concentrations of nitrate and nitrite 

were detected during low flow at all sites; maximum 

concentrations of ammonia were detected during low 

flow at all sites except VIL-4, VAL-3, and FMC; 

maximum concentrations of organic nitrogen were 

detected during low flow at all sites except VAL-2 

(fig. 13). The high concentrations of nitrate, nitrite, 

ammonia, and organic nitrogen during low flow at the 

majority of the sites indicate that the nutrient 

concentrations may be point-source related (or present in 

the ground water). However, high levels of many 

nutrients were seen during both high and low flow, 

indicating both point and nonpoint sources (fig. 13). The 

relation between nutrient concentrations and point and 

nonpoint sources is complex, and the power of the tests 

used to analyze these data is limited due to the sample size 

as well as the range of hydrologic factors affecting the 

samples.

Statistically significant differences (p <0.05) in 

nitrogen concentrations were found (table 6). Total 

nitrogen concentrations at VIL-3, VAL-1, and VAL-2 

were significantly greater than concentrations at the 

reference site (FMC). Ammonia and nitrite 

concentrations at VIL-2, VIL-3, VAL-1, and VAL-2 were 

significantly greater than concentrations at FMC. In 

Village Creek, concentrations of nitrite were significantly

Figure 11. Median concentrations of measured forms of dissolved nitrogen in water samples 

from streams in the Birmingham area, Alabama, 2000 – 01.
38 Investigation of Water Quality and Aquatic-Community Structure in Village and Valley Creeks, Alabama, 2000 – 01

Figure 12. Box plots of dissolved (A) nitrate, (B) nitrite, (C) ammonia, and (D) organic nitrogen concentrations in water samples from streams in the 

Birmingham area, Alabama, 2000 – 01.

elevated at VIL-2 compared to VIL-1, and at VIL-3 compared to VIL-1 or VIL-2; concentrations of ammonia 

were significantly elevated at VIL-3 compared to ammonia concentrations at VIL-1 (table 6). In Valley Creek, 

concentrations of nitrite and ammonia were significantly 

elevated at VAL-1 compared to concentrations at VAL-2 

or VAL-3; concentrations of total nitrogen were significantly elevated at VAL-1 compared to those concentrations at VAL-3 (table 6). 

In December 2000, the USEPA published 

recommendations for ambient water-quality criteria for 

surface water in Nutrient Ecoregion XI (U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 2000a). Nutrient 

Ecoregion XI is composed mostly of the unglaciated, 

forested low mountains and upland plateaus in more than 

14 states of the central and eastern United States and is 

subdivided into 8 Level III Ecoregions. Birmingham is 

located in the Ridge and Valley Level III Ecoregion. For
Water Quality 39

 each Nutrient Ecoregion, the USEPA developed a set of 

recommendations for two causal variables (total nitrogen 

and total phosphorus) and two early indicator response 

variables (chlorophyll a and some measure of turbidity). 

For the Ridge and Valley Level III Ecoregion, the USEPA 

recommended that total nitrogen not exceed 0.214 mg/L 

for rivers and streams. During this study, concentrations 

of total nitrogen exceeded this recommendation in all 

samples, including reference sites. 

Phosphorus Concentrations and Distribution

Median concentrations of dissolved phosphorus 

varied considerably among all sites during this study 

(fig. 14). The highest median concentrations of 

phosphorus were detected at VAL-1 and the lowest 

median concentrations were detected at FMC. At Village 

Creek, median concentrations of suspended phosphorus 

and non-orthophosphorus were highest at VIL-2 followed 

by those at VIL-3 and VIL-1. Of the Village Creek sites, 

median concentrations of orthophosphate were highest at 

VIL-2. In Valley Creek, median concentrations of 

suspended phosphorus, orthophosphate, and nonorthophosphorus were highest at VAL-1 and decreased in 

a downstream direction. The range and distribution of 

suspended phosphorus, orthophosphate, and nonorthophosphorus at each of the sampling sites are shown 

in figure 15. Maximum concentrations of suspended 

phosphorus were detected during high flow at all sites on 

Village and Valley Creeks. Concentrations of 

orthophosphate at VIL-4 and VAL-1 were an order of 

magnitude greater during low flow than during high flow, 

indicating that the high concentrations may be due to the 

presence of point sources. 

Significant differences (p <0.05) in phosphorus 

concentrations were identified among sites (table 6). Total 

phosphorus concentrations at VIL-2, VAL-1, and VAL-2 

were significantly higher than at FMC. Dissolved 

orthophosphate concentrations were significantly higher 

at VIL-2, VAL-1, VAL-2, and VAL-3 than at FMC.

Figure 13. Dissolved (A) nitrate, (B) nitrite, (C) ammonia, and (D) organic nitrogen concentrations in water samples collected during high and low flow 

from streams in the Birmingham area, Alabama, 2000 – 01.
40 Investigation of Water Quality and Aquatic-Community Structure in Village and Valley Creeks, Alabama, 2000 – 01

Programming data-collection platform for satellite telemetry of hydrologic data (photograph 

taken by J.B. Atkins, USGS).

Figure 14. Median concentrations of measured forms of dissolved phosphorus in water 

samples from streams in the Birmingham area, Alabama, 2000 – 01.

Suspended phosphorus concentrations were significantly 

higher at VAL-1 than at FMC. At Village Creek, total 

phosphorus, suspended phosphorus, and dissolved nonorthophosphorus concentrations were significantly higher 

at VIL-2 than at VIL-1 (table 6). At Valley Creek, total 

phosphorus, suspended phosphorus, dissolved non-orthophosphorus, and dissolved orthophosphate concentrations 

were significantly higher at VAL-1 than at VAL-2 or 

VAL-3 (table 6). 

For the Ridge and Valley Level III Ecoregion, the 

USEPA recommended that total phosphorus not exceed 

10 μg/L for rivers and streams (U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 2000a). During this study, 

concentrations of total phosphorus exceeded this 

recommendation at sites on Village and Valley Creeks in 

60 of 63 samples (95.2 percent). At the reference sites, 

concentrations of total phosphorus exceeded this 

recommendation in 7 of 11 samples (63.6 percent).
Water Quality 41

Figure 15. Box plots of (A) suspended phosphorus, (B) dissolved orthophosphate, and (C) dissolved non-orthophosphorus 

concentrations in water samples from streams in the Birmingham area, Alabama, 2000 – 01.
42 Investigation of Water Quality and Aquatic-Community Structure in Village and Valley Creeks, Alabama, 2000 – 01

Figure 16. Comparison of nutrients in water samples from urban sites in the Birmingham area, Alabama, to urban sites 

nationwide.

Chlorophyll a and Chlorophyll b Concentrations and Distribution

Chlorophyll a was detected in 5 of 46 samples at 

four sites (VIL-2, VIL-3, VAL-2, and VAL-3). 

Concentrations of chlorophyll a ranged from 6 to 31 μg/L 

(appendix table 2-2). Chlorophyll a was detected at 

VAL-2 and VIL-3 during low flow and ranged from 

6 to 9.1 μg/L; it was detected at VIL-2, VAL-2, and 

VAL-3 during high flow and ranged from 10 to 31 μg/L. 

For the Ridge and Valley Level III Ecoregion, the USEPA 

recommended that chlorophyll a not exceed 1.063 μg/L 

for rivers and streams. During this study, chlorophyll a

exceeded this recommendation at sites on Village and 

Valley Creeks in 5 of 46 samples (11 percent). 

Chlorophyll b was not detected in any sample.

Comparison of Nutrient Data from Urban Sites in 

Birmingham to Urban Sites Nationwide 

Nutrient data from Village and Valley Creeks were 

compared to nutrient data collected from urban sites 

throughout the Nation in the NAWQA Program (U.S. 

Geological Survey, 2001). More than 2,800 nutrient 

samples were collected from urban NAWQA sites 

between 1991 and 2001. Nutrient concentrations from 

Village and Valley Creeks were plotted over a bar graph 

illustrating ranges, which included the lowest 25 percent, 

the middle 50 percent, and the highest 25 percent of the 

Birmingham data (fig. 16). To the right of each bar graph 

in figure 16 is another bar graph illustrating the same 

ranges for data collected at urban NAWQA sites 

nationwide. The statistical quartiles of both data sets were 

computed by using detected values in order to better 

illustrate the spread of the data. The nutrient 

concentrations detected in this study fell within a 

narrower range than the concentrations reported 

nationally. 

Instantaneous Nutrient Loads and Yields 

This section presents instantaneous nutrient loads 

and yields calculated at all the sampling sites (table 9). 

Median instantaneous loads of total nitrogen and total 

phosphorus were calculated in units of kilograms per day 

(kg/d) at sites on Village, Valley, and Fivemile 

Creeks—excluding LCR and VIL-4 (table 9). In Village 

Creek, median nitrogen loads ranged from 11.2 to 

77.7 kg/d and median phosphorus loads ranged from 

0.093 to 3.83 kg/d. In Valley Creek, median nitrogen 

loads ranged from 12.2 to 90 kg/d, and median 

phosphorus loads ranged from 1.06 to 2.09 kg/d. The 
Water Quality 43

highest loads of nitrogen and phosphorus were found at 

VIL-4, but median values were not calculated because of 

the limited sample size (3). The highest loads of both 

nitrogen and phosphorus were calculated during periods 

of high flow. Statistically significant differences 

(p <0.05) in nutrient loads were identified among sites 

(table 6). Nitrogen loads at VIL-3 were significantly 

greater than nitrogen loads at VIL-1; phosphorus loads 

at VIL-2 and VIL-3 were significantly greater than phosphorus loads at VIL-1 (table 6). 

Although loads are useful in understanding the 

total contribution of nutrients, loads are heavily weighted 

by streamflow, which is dependent on the size of the 

watershed and runoff. Yields, however, indicate how 

much material is contributed per unit area of the 

watershed and can be used to determine relative sources 

of nutrients. Instantaneous yields were calculated, in units 

of kilograms per hectare per year ([kg/ha]/yr) for all the 

sampling sites (table 10). In Village Creek, median 

nitrogen yields were highest at VIL-3 followed by those 

at VIL-2 and VIL-1; median phosphorus yields were 

highest at VIL-2 followed by those at VIL-3 and VIL-1. 

In Valley Creek, median nitrogen yields were highest at 

VAL-3 followed by those at VAL-1 and VAL-2; median

Table 9. Instantaneous loads of total nitrogen and total phosphorus at sites in the Birmingham area, 

Alabama, 2000–01

[kg/d, kilograms per day; —, median values were not calculated because of limited sample size]

Site 

label 

(fig. 1)

Instantaneous loads of total nitrogen (kg/d) Instantaneous loads of total phosphorus (kg/d)

Minimum Median Maximum Minimum Median Maximum

VIL-1 2.90 11.2 338 0.035 0.093 61.3

VIL-2 11.1 56.6 3,743 .713 3.83 638

VIL-3 28.7 77.7 1,627 .407 1.39 272

VIL-4 1,520 — 10,847 115 — 1,831

VAL-1 6.11 12.2 227 .430 1.06 39.9

VAL-2 7.29 43.1 2,626 .502 1.82 385

VAL-3 12.4 90.0 2,835 .602 2.09 477

LCR 49.6 — 109 .955 — 3.99

FMC .493 17.1 335 .012 .129 29.1

Table 10. Nutrient yields at sites in the Birmingham area, Alabama, and at sites nationwide

[(kg/ha)/yr, kilograms per hectare per year; —, median values were not calculated because of limited sample size]

Site 

label 

(fig. 1)

Total nitrogen yield ([kg/ha]/yr) Total phosphorus yield ([kg/ha]/yr)

Minimum Median Maximum Minimum Median Maximum

VIL-1 0.76 2.93 88.2 0.01 0.02 16.0

VIL-2 .67 3.40 225 .04 .23 38.3

VIL-3 1.30 3.51 73.5 .02 .06 12.3

VIL-4 52.7 — 376 3.98 — 63.4

VAL-1 1.46 2.93 54.3 .10 .25 9.55

VAL-2 .49 2.91 177 .03 .12 26.0

VAL-3 .57 4.12 130 .03 .10 21.8

LCR 2.92 — 6.39 .06 — .23

FMC .05 1.85 36.3 .00 .01 3.15

Urbana

a

 National data summarized from Reckhow and others (1980).

1.48 5.5 38.5 0.19 1.10 6.23

Foresta 1.38 2.46 6.26 .02 .21 .83
44 Investigation of Water Quality and Aquatic-Community Structure in Village and Valley Creeks, Alabama, 2000 – 01

phosphorus yields were highest at VAL-1 followed by 

those at VAL-2 and VAL-3. No statistically significant 

differences (p<0.05) were identified between nitrogen or 

phosphorus yields among sites (table 6). 

Different land-use practices affect the amount of 

nutrients that are contributed to surface water by nonpoint 

sources. Values of nutrient export from a variety of 

nonpoint sources were summarized in a study by 

Reckhow and others (1980). The ranges in nutrient yields 

are a result of differences in climate, soils, and landmanagement practices for each category. Instantaneous 

yields for total nitrogen and total phosphorus for sites in 

Birmingham were compared to the yields from urban sites 

in 20 watersheds from across the country (table 10). For a 

watershed draining urban land use, the median nitrogen 

yield from nonpoint sources was 5.5 (kg/ha)/yr. Median 

yields for urban sites in Birmingham were less than those 

at the national sites. Maximum nitrogen yields at urban 

sites in Birmingham exceeded the maximum nitrogen 

yields measured in other urban environments across the 

country (table 10). The median phosphorus yield from 

nonpoint sources at urban sites across the country was 

1.1 (kg/ha)/yr. The median phosphorus yields for urban 

sites in the Birmingham area were approximately an order 

of magnitude less than those at urban sites across the 

country (table 10). Maximum phosphorus yields in 

Birmingham exceeded maximum phosphorus yields in 

other urban environments across the country (table 10). 

Biochemical Oxygen Demand and Total Organic Carbon

Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) is the 

amount of dissolved oxygen used by microorganisms to 

break down organic matter in water at 20 degrees Celsius 

(°C) during a 5-day period. The standard BOD5 value is 

commonly used to define the strength of municipal 

wastewaters, to evaluate the efficiency of treatment by 

measuring oxygen demand remaining in the effluent, and 

to determine the amount of organic pollution in surface 

waters (Viessman and Hammer, 1993). Most moderately 

contaminated streams have BOD5 values ranging 

between 1 and 8 mg/L (Nemerow, 1974). Typical 

domestic wastewater can have BOD5 values ranging 

between 50 and 200 mg/L (Camp and Meserve, 1974; 

McGhee, 1991). In Village Creek, BOD5 ranged from 

0.3 (VIL-1) to 8.7 mg/L (VIL-2); in Valley Creek, BOD5

ranged from 0.3 (VAL-3) to 8.6 mg/L (VAL-3); at FMC, 

BOD5 ranged from 0.3 to 8.6 mg/L (appendix table 2-2). 

The total organic carbon (TOC) represents the 

amount of carbon present in organic molecules. The 

average TOC concentration in rivers is about 7 mg/L 

(Thurman, 1985). TOC concentrations can be elevated 

due to natural conditions, such as in marshland or boggy 

areas, where average concentrations may range from 

17 to 33 mg/L (Thurman, 1985). In contaminated rivers, 

TOC concentrations can be even higher (30–58 mg/L; 

Dojlido and Best, 1993). In Village Creek, TOC ranged 

from 0.534 (VIL-1) to 23.4 mg/L (VIL-2); in Valley 

Creek, TOC ranged from 1.93 (VAL-3) to 29.2 mg/L 

(VAL-2); at FMC, TOC ranged from 1.57 to 8.14 mg/L 

(appendix table 2-2). Higher TOC concentrations were 

detected during high flow. TOC concentrations at VIL-2 

were significantly higher than TOC concentrations at 

VIL-1 (table 6).

Fecal Indicator Bacteria

Fecal indicator bacteria are useful in assessing 

water quality because they are commonly associated with 

the presence of other waterborne pathogens (Myers and 

Wilde, 1999). The presence or absence of indicator 

organisms is used to evaluate the microbiological quality 

of water because current techniques to analyze for 

pathogens are either quantitatively unreliable or difficult 

to perform. The most common fecal indicator bacteria 

include fecal coliform, E. coli, and enterococci. Although 

most species of fecal coliform bacteria can be detected in 

the feces of humans and other warm-blooded animals, 

some species can occur naturally in soils. The USEPA has 

recommended that E. coli or enterococci be used instead 

of fecal coliform bacteria as an indicator of fecal 

contamination in waters used for recreation (U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1986). This 

recommendation was based on studies that showed a 

strong correlation between the number of gastrointestinal 

illnesses associated with water-contact recreational 

activities and the concentrations of E. coli or enterococci 

bacteria. 

Concentrations of fecal indicator bacteria often 

depend on hydrologic conditions prior to and during 

sampling. For example, higher concentrations occur 

during high flow as a result of nonpoint sources, such as 

overland runoff that carries high concentrations of 

bacteria from many different sources, including domestic 

pets and wildlife. Combined sewer overflows or sanitary 

sewer overflows also can contribute high levels of 

bacteria during storm events. Leaking sanitary sewer lines 

or connections to sewer lines are likely the source of high 

levels of bacteria during low flow. When point-source 

discharges contribute fecal indicator bacteria, high 

concentrations may be present during low flow (leaking 

sanitary sewer lines or failing septic systems) as well as 
Water Quality 45

high flow (combined sewer overflows; Gregory and 

Frick, 2000). 

Concentrations of E. coli, enterococci, and fecal 

coliform bacteria in water samples collected from the 

Birmingham study sites are summarized in table 11—and 

are described in detail in appendix table 2-2. Scatter plots, 

which differentiate between high-flow and low-flow 

samples, were used to display the variability in 

concentrations of E. coli, enterococci, and fecal coliform 

bacteria (fig. 17). The USEPA has defined criteria for 

single sample densities for E. coli and enterococci based 

on body contact and frequency of use (U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 2001). For infrequent, 

full-body recreational contact, E. coli and enterococci 

samples should not exceed 576 and 151 col/100 mL, 

respectively (table 12). The ADEM has defined criteria 

for fecal coliform bacteria based on water-use 

classification (Alabama Department of Environmental 

Management, 2000d). For agricultural and industrial

 use, the geometric mean of at least five samples 

taken over a 30-day period shall not exceed 

2,000 col/100 mL; nor shall any one sample exceed 

a maximum of 4,000 col/100 mL (table 12). 

E. coli concentrations ranged from 3 to 

78,000 col/100 mL (table 11). Median concentrations of 

E. coli were highest at VAL-1 and lowest at FMC 

(table 11). In Village Creek, the highest concentration 

(44,000 col/100 mL) was detected at VIL-4 during low 

flow in July 2000 (fig. 17A; appendix table 2-2). Median 

concentrations of E. coli in Village Creek were highest at 

VIL-2, followed by VIL-1 and VIL-3, respectively 

(table 11). In Valley Creek, the highest concentration 

(78,000 col/100 mL) was detected at VAL-1 during low 

flow in August 2000 (fig. 17A; appendix table 2-2). 

Median concentrations of E. coli in Valley Creek were 

highest at VAL-1 and decreased in a downstream 

direction (table 11). 

Similar patterns were observed for concentrations 

of enterococci and fecal coliform bacteria (table 11; 

fig. 17). Enterococci concentrations ranged from 

12 to 70,000 col/100 mL; fecal coliform concentrations 

ranged from 9 to 85,000 col/100 mL. Median concentrations of enterococci were highest at VIL-2 and lowest 

at VAL-3; median concentrations of fecal coliform 

were highest at VAL-1 and lowest at FMC (table 11). 

Along Village Creek, the highest concentrations of 

enterococci (69,000 col/100 mL) and fecal coliform 

(28,000 col/100 mL) were detected at VIL-1 during high 

flow in November 2000 (fig. 17B,C; appendix table 2-2). 

In Village Creek, median concentrations were highest at 

VIL-2, followed by VIL-1 and VIL-3, respectively 

(table 11). In Valley Creek, the highest concentrations of 

enterococci (70,000 col/100 mL) and fecal coliform 

(85,000 col/100 mL) were detected at VAL-1 during high 

flow after a storm in November 2000 (fig. 17B,C; 

appendix table 2-2). Median concentrations for 

enterococci and fecal coliform were highest at VAL-1 and 

decreased in a downstream direction (table 11). 

Enterococci and E. coli concentrations in the study 

area were compared to USEPA criteria (single sample 

maximum for infrequent full-body contact), and 

exceedance frequencies were calculated (table 13). Fecal 

coliform concentrations were compared to ADEM singlesample criterion for streams classified for industrial and 

agricultural use. Concentrations of enterococcal bacteria 

at sites in the Birmingham area exceeded the USEPA 

criterion (151 col/100 mL) in 80 percent of the samples; 

E. coli concentrations exceeded the USEPA criterion

Table 11. Statistical summary of Escherichia coli, enterococci, and fecal coliform concentrations at sites in the 

Birmingham area, Alabama, 2000–01

[col/100 mL, colonies per 100 milliliters; —, median values were not calculated because of limited sample size; >, greater than]

Site 

label 

(fig. 1)

Escherichia coli

(col/100 mL)

Enterococci

(col/100 mL)

Fecal coliform

(col/100 mL)

Minimum Median Maximum Minimum Median Maximum Minimum Median Maximum

VIL-1 250 780 31,000 330 1,500 69,000 270 1,300 28,000

VIL-2 440 3,000 9,200 900 5,700 18,000 350 2,300 13,000

VIL-3 34 280 17,000 17 315 25,000 23 400 19,000

VIL-4 200 — 44,000 3,000 — >4,000 180 — >3,000

VAL-1 770 13,600 78,000 600 4,300 70,000 2,100 13,950 85,000

VAL-2 51 800 25,000 59 360 22,000 41 680 16,000

VAL-3 5 225 11,000 12 110 52,000 10 98 16,000

LCR 270 — 1,800 72 — 290 62 — 490

FMC 3 175 3,000 62 810 14,000 9 70 3,000
46 Investigation of Water Quality and Aquatic-Community Structure in Village and Valley Creeks, Alabama, 2000 – 01

Figure 17. (A) Escherichia coli, (B) enterococci, and (C) fecal coliform concentrations in water samples collected during high and low 

flow from streams in the Birmingham area, Alabama, 2000 – 01.

(576 col/100 mL) in 56 percent of the samples; fecal 

coliform concentrations exceeded the ADEM criterion 

(4,000 col/100 mL) in 26 percent of the samples 

(table 13). Statistically significant differences (p <0.05) 

in bacteria concentrations were identified among sites 

(table 6). E. coli and fecal coliform concentrations at 

VAL-1 were significantly higher than concentrations 

at FMC. Along Valley Creek, E. coli concentrations at 

VAL-1 were significantly higher than concentrations 

at VAL-2 or VAL-3. 

Concentrations of bacteria at VIL-3, VAL-2, and 

VAL-3 were elevated during high flow rather than low 

flow, indicating the presence of nonpoint sources (fig. 17). 

Concentrations of bacteria at VIL-1, VIL-2, VIL-4, and 

VAL-1 were elevated during low and high flow, indicating 

both point and nonpoint sources (fig. 17). Three high-flow
Water Quality 47

Table 12. State and Federal standards and criteria for bacteria in surface water

[USEPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; col/100 mL, colonies per 100 milliliters; ADEM, Alabama Department of 

Environmental Management]

Fecal 

indicator 

bacteria

USEPA 

Primary 

Drinking 

Water 

Standarda

(col/100 mL)

a

 Actual standard of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2001) is that no more than one sample per month (sampled daily) may be positive for total coliforms, of which fecal coliform and E. coli are a subgroup.

ADEM 

swimming and 

other whole-body 

water contact 

sportsb

criterion

(col/100 mL)

b

 Bacterial concentration is the geometric mean of not less than five samples taken over a 30-day period (Alabama 

Department of Environmental Management, 2000d).

USEPA 

single sample 

infrequent 

full-body 

contactc

criterion

(col/100 mL)

c

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1986.

ADEM 

agricultural 

and 

industrial 

water supplyd

criterion

(col/100 mL)

d

 Alabama Water Quality Criteria (Alabama Department of Environmental Management, 2000d).

Fecal coliform 0a 200b none 2,000b

 4,000e

e

 Maximum bacterial concentration not to be exceeded in any sample.

Escherichia coli (E. coli) 0a none 576e none

Enterococci 0a none 151e none

Table 13. Exceedance frequencies for fecal indicator bacteria detected at sites in the Birmingham area, Alabama, 2000–01

[USEPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; col/100 mL, colonies per 100 milliliters; ADEM, Alabama Department of Environmental Management]

Site label 

(fig. 1)

Enterococci Escherichia coli Fecal coliform

Total 

number

 of 

samples

Samples 

exceeding 

 USEPA 

criteriona

(151 col/100 mL)

a

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1986).

Exceedance 

frequency 

(percent)

Total 

number 

of 

samples

Samples 

exceeding 

 USEPA 

criteriona

(576 col/100 mL)

Exceedance 

frequency 

(percent)

Total 

number 

of 

samples

Samples 

exceeding 

ADEM criterionb

(4,000 col/100 mL)

b Alabama Department of Environmental Management (2000d).

Exceedance 

frequency 

(percent)

VIL-1 9 9 100 12 7 58 11 3 27

VIL-2 7 7 100 7 6 86 7 2 29

VIL-3 8 5 63 9 3 33 9 2 22

VIL-4 2 2 100 3 2 67 3 0 0

VAL-1 8 8 100 10 10 100 10 6 60

VAL-2 9 7 78 11 6 55 10 3 30

VAL-3 9 4 44 10 4 40 10 2 20

LCR 2 1 50 3 1 33 3 0 0

FMC 6 5 83 8 2 25 7 0 0

TOTALS 60 48 80 73 41 56 70 18 26
48 Investigation of Water Quality and Aquatic-Community Structure in Village and Valley Creeks, Alabama, 2000 – 01

Figure 18. Frequencies of detection for selected wastewater indicators in water samples from streams 

in the Birmingham area, Alabama, 2000 – 01.

samples were collected at VAL-1. The high-flow sample 

collected when the discharge was greatest (120 ft3/s) contained levels of bacteria that were approximately an order 

of magnitude less than the high-flow samples collected 

when the discharge was lower (33–37 ft3

/s), illustrating 

the diminishing influence of point source(s) 

as streamflow increased (appendix table 2-2). 

Wastewater Indicators

Wastewater indicators are chemical compounds 

commonly found in wastewater and urban runoff that can 

be indicative of contamination associated with a human 

source. Sixteen constituents that are good indicators of the 

presence of human wastewater were selected for analysis 

in the stream samples collected at the Birmingham study 

sites (appendix table 2-3). These constituents were 

classified into five different categories: (1) food byproducts, (2) pharmaceutical by-products, (3) phosphatebased chemical surfactants and additives, (4) detergent 

agents, and (5) fragrances. Standards or criteria have not 

been established by the ADEM or the USEPA for these 

constituents.

Of the 16 constituents analyzed in stream samples 

from the study sites, 7 wastewater indicators were 

detected in more than 50 percent of the samples (fig. 18). 

The median number of wastewater indicators detected in 

individual samples ranged from 1 (FMC) to 10 (VAL-1). 

In Village Creek, the median number of detections was 

highest at VIL-3 (9), followed by VIL-2 and VIL-1 (8 and 

3.5, respectively), and in Valley Creek, the median 

number of detections was highest at VAL-1 (10), followed 

by VAL-2 and VAL-3 (8.5 and 6.5, respectively). 

Statistically significant differences in concentrations and 

number of detections of wastewater indicators among 

sites were identified (table 6). The number of detections, 

the total concentration of wastewater indicators, the total 

concentration of the phosphate-based chemical 

surfactants, and the total concentration of the detergent 

agents at VIL-2, VIL-3, VAL-1, and VAL-2 were 

significantly greater than at FMC (table 6). The total 

concentrations of the food by-products and 

pharmaceutical by-products at VAL-1 were significantly
Water Quality 49

greater than at FMC (table 6). At Village Creek, the number of detections and the total concentration of phosphatebased chemical surfactants at VIL-1 were significantly 

lower than at VIL-2 or VIL-3; the total concentration of 

fragrances was significantly lower at VIL-1 than at VIL3 (table 6). At Valley Creek, the number of detections and 

the total concentration of food by-products were significantly greater at VAL-1 than at VAL-2 or VAL-3; the total 

concentrations of the pharmaceutical by-products, phosphate-based surfactants, and fragrances were significantly 

greater at VAL-1 than at VAL-3 (table 6).

Trace and Major Elements

Trace and major elements commonly are found in 

surface water and may occur naturally due to geochemical 

weathering of rocks and soil. Trace elements, such as 

arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, 

nickel, selenium, silver, and zinc generally are present in 

water in concentrations less than 25 μg/L (Hem, 1985). 

Abundant metals such as iron, manganese, and aluminum 

commonly are found in greater concentrations and are 

frequently detected in the water column. High frequencies 

of detection do not necessarily imply anthropogenic 

sources. However, industrial and municipal discharges, as 

well as urban land-use activities, often account for 

elevated concentrations above natural background levels. 

Standards and criteria applicable to the trace and 

major elements are sometimes computed by equations 

based on the hardness of the water (table 14). Trace 

elements are more lethal to fish and invertebrates in soft 

water than in hard water (Alabama Department of 

Environmental Management, 2000d). Concentrations of 

cadmium, copper, lead, and zinc detected in stream 

samples from the study sites were plotted to illustrate their 

relation to hardness and toxicity (fig. 19). Values above 

acute and chronic toxicity lines indicate that the traceelement concentration can be acutely and(or) chronically 

toxic to fish and other aquatic organisms. 

Concentrations of the trace and major elements 

detected during this study are labeled as total or total 

recoverable concentrations rather than dissolved 

concentrations (table 15). Samples at the Birmingham 

study sites were analyzed for 18 elements—17 were 

detected in at least one stream sample (fig. 20). Iron,

Table 14. State and Federal standards and criteria for trace and major elements in surface water

[μg/L, micrograms per liter; e, 2.718; LN, natural log]

 Trace element

Primary 

Drinking Water

 Standard 

Secondary 

Drinking Water 

Standard

ADEM acute 

aquatic life 

criteriona

a

 Alabama Water Quality Criteria (Alabama Department of Environmental Management, 2000d). Toxicity lines for cadmium, copper, lead, and zinc are 

shown in figure 19.

ADEM chronic 

aquatic life 

criteriona

Arsenic 50 μg/Lb,c

b

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2000b, 2001).

c

 Alabama Primary Drinking Water Standards (Alabama Department of Environmental Management, 2000b).

Aluminum 200 μg/Ld

50–200 μg/Lb

d

 Alabama Secondary Drinking Water Standards (Alabama Department of Environmental Management, 2000c).

Barium 2,000 μg/Lb,c

Beryllium 4 μg/Lb,c

Cadmium 5 μg/Lb,c =e((1.128*LN(Hardness))-3.828) =e((0.7852*LN(Hardness))-3.49)

Chromium (total) 100 μg/Lb,c

Chromium (trivalent) =e((0.819*LN(Hardness))+3.688) =e((0.819*LN(Hardness))+1.561)

Copper 1,300 μg/Lb 1,000 μg/Lb,d =e((0.9422*LN(Hardness))-1.464) =e((0.8545*LN(Hardness))-1.465)

Iron 300 μg/Lb,d

Lead 15 μg/Lb,c - Action Level =e((1.273*LN(Hardness))-1.46) =e((1.273*LN(Hardness))-4.705)

Manganese 50 μg/Lb,d

Mercury 2 μg/Lb,c

Nickel 100 μg/Lc =e((0.846*LN(Hardness))+3.3612) =e((0.846*LN(Hardness))+1.1645)

Selenium 50 μg/Lb,c

Silver 100 μg/Lb,d =e((1.72*LN(Hardness))-6.52) None

Zinc 5,000 μg/Lb,d =e((0.8473*LN(Hardness))+0.8604) =e((0.8473*LN(Hardness))+0.7614)
50 Investigation of Water Quality and Aquatic-Community Structure in Village and Valley Creeks, Alabama, 2000 – 01

Figure 19. Relations of (A) total cadmium, (B) total recoverable copper, (C) total recoverable lead, and (D) total recoverable zinc in water-quality samples to 

hardness and acute and chronic toxicity at streams in the Birmingham area, Alabama, 2000 – 01.

manganese, barium, and aluminum were detected in 

every sample (fig. 20); beryllium was not detected in any 

sample; mercury and selenium each were detected once. 

Scatter plots, which differentiate between highflow and low-flow samples, were used to display the 

variability in concentrations of the different trace and 

major elements (fig. 21). High-flow samples were not 

collected at VIL-3, VIL-4, and LCR—generalized 

statements concerning source (point or nonpoint) cannot 

be made for these sites. Generally, higher concentrations 

of most of the trace and major elements were observed 

during periods of high flow, which may be the result of 

resuspension of silt, clay, and organic particles that are 

associated with adsorbed trace elements. Higher 

concentrations detected consistently during high flow 

may indicate the presence of nonpoint sources. 

Arsenic is a trace element that is toxic in relatively 

small amounts (Childress and Treece, 1996). Although 

naturally occurring, it can be produced as a by-product 

when coal is burned or iron is smelted, and it is commonly 

used in pesticides. Arsenic was detected in 61 percent of 

the Birmingham study samples (fig. 20). The primary 

drinking-water standard for arsenic is 50 μg/L (table 14). 

The maximum concentration of arsenic detected during 

this study was 8.4 μg/L at VIL-2 during low flow 

(table 15). 

Cadmium occurs in some ores and is used 

extensively in industry. It can become an environmental 

contaminant through waste-disposal practices or from 

atmospheric deposition (Childress and Treece, 1996). 

Cadmium was detected in 53 percent of the samples 

(fig. 20). The USEPA primary drinking-water standard 

for cadmium is 5 μg/L (table 14). The maximum 

concentration of cadmium, 5.02 μg/L, occurred at VIL-2 

during high flow (table 15; fig 21A). Concentrations of 

cadmium exceeded the acute aquatic life criterion in 1 of 

41 samples (2.4 percent) and the chronic aquatic life 

criterion in 2 of 41 samples (4.9 percent) at VIL-2 

(fig. 19A; table 15). Concentrations of cadmium at VIL-2 

were significantly greater than concentrations at FMC or
Water Quality 51

Table 15. Summary of trace and major elements detected in water samples and applicable aquatic life criteria at sites in the Birmingham area, Alabama, 

2000– 01

Samples shaded gray were collected during high flow; , exceeded secondary drinking water standards; , exceeded chronic aquatic life criteria; , exceeded 

acute aquatic life criteria; μg/L, micrograms per liter; E, estimated; <, less than; —, criteria not calculated; ND, no data were collected]

Site 

label 

(fig. 1)

Date Time Hardness

Aluminum, 

total 

recoverable 

(μg/L)

Arsenic, 

total 

(μg/L)

Barium, 

total 

recoverable 

(μg/L)

Beryllium, 

total 

recoverable 

(μg/L)

Cadmium, 

total 

(μg/L)

Cadmium (μg/L) Chromium, 

total 

recoverable 

(μg/L)

Cobalt, 

total 

recoverable 

(μg/L)

Acute 

aquatic 

life 

criteriona

Chronic 

aquatic 

life 

criteriona

VIL-1 3/1/2000 1625 200 E 20.2 < 2.6 27.1 < 5 < 0.11 — — < 1.00 < 1.8

VIL-1 6/30/2000 1020 200 35.1 < 2.6 27.3 < 5 < .11 — — < 1.00 < 1.8

VIL-1 8/30/2000 1345 190 E 18.8 E 1.5 27.5 < 5 < .11 — — E .749 < 1.8

VIL-1 11/8/2000 2000 37 1,000 2.8 29.9 < 2.5 .142 1.28 0.52 2.03 E 1.2

VIL-1 1/24/2001 905 200 46.0 < 1.9 30.0 < 2.5 < .11 — — < 1.00 < 2.4

VIL-1 1/29/2001 1900 41 1,240 E 1.2 32.2 < 2.5 .198 1.43 .56 3.71 E 1.7

VIL-2 8/30/2000 830 220 49.0 8.4 124 < 5 2.83 9.54 2.11 1.80 < 1.8

VIL-2 11/14/2000 820 290 32.7 E 1.6 426 < 2.5 2.10 13.0 2.62 2.39 < 2.4

VIL-2 1/24/2001 1500 220 59.4 < 1.9 42.4 < 2.5 .172 9.54 2.11 E .59 < 2.4

VIL-2 1/29/2001 2100 49 1,510 2.1 50.5 < 2.5 5.02 1.75 .65 7.52 E 2.3

VIL-3 3/2/2000 1010 210 E 25.1 < 2.6 57.8 < 5 .904 9.06 2.03 < 1.00 < 1.8

VIL-3 6/30/2000 1630 150 65.9 E 2.1 56.3 < 5 .341 6.20 1.56 < 1.00 < 1.8

VIL-3 8/29/2000 830 180 68.9 E 1.7 66.3 < 5 .165 7.61 1.80 E .612 < 1.8

VIL-3 11/14/2000 1430 190 1,170 E 1.9 50.4 < 2.5 E .102 8.09 1.88 1.36 E 1.3

VIL-3 1/23/2001 1445 220 93.4 < 1.9 47.6 < 2.5 E .095 9.54 2.11 < 1.00 < 2.4

VIL-4 3/2/2000 1600 170 41.6 E 2.0 27.7 < 5 .180 7.14 1.72 < 1.00 < 1.8

VIL-4 7/1/2000 1415 150 416 2.7 49.9 < 5 .374 6.20 1.56 1.20 < 1.8

VAL-1 3/1/2000 945 200 68.1 < 2.6 32.6 < 5 < .11 — — < 1.00 < 1.8

VAL-1 6/29/2000 1020 72 367 E 2.1 25.6 < 5 .134 2.71 .88 2.45 < 1.8

VAL-1 8/31/2000 850 190 134 < 2.6 30.6 < 5 < .11 — — 1.55 < 1.8

VAL-1 11/9/2000 840 55 235 3.4 25.8 < 2.5 E .096 2.00 .71 1.53 < 2.4

VAL-1 1/23/2001 920 220 78.8 < 1.9 34.7 < 2.5 E .07 9.54 2.11 < 1.00 < 2.4

VAL-1 2/12/2001 1435 25 636 E 1.9 32.8 < 2.5 .259 .82 .38 4.93 E 1.3

VAL-2 2/29/2000 1600 220 31.4 E 1.3 39.2 < 5 < .11 — — <1.00 < 1.8

VAL-2 6/29/2000 1805 110 199 3.8 30.8 < 5 < .11 — — E .659 < 1.8

VAL-2 8/29/2000 1345 190 66.4 E 1.5 40.0 < 5 < .11 — — E .563 < 1.8

VAL-2 11/15/2000 950 230 E 20.0 E 1.3 42.6 < 2.5 < .11 — — E .911 < 2.4

VAL-2 1/25/2001 920 230 33.1 < 1.9 42.1 < 2.5 < .11 — — E .706 < 2.4

VAL-2 2/9/2001 2150 55 1,660 3.2 63.4 < 2.5 .524 2.00 .71 6.85 E 2.4

VAL-3 2/29/2000 935 210 E 25.3 < 2.6 39.3 < 5 < .11 — — < 1.00 < 1.8

VAL-3 6/28/2000 1035 160 56.4 2.6 39.8 < 5 < .11 — — < 1.00 < 1.8

VAL-3 8/31/2000 1425 170 77.5 E 1.6 37.4 < 5 < .11 — — 1.12 < 1.8

VAL-3 11/9/2000 1135 68 332 3.1 25.3 < 2.5 E .061 2.54 .84 1.15 < 2.4

VAL-3 1/25/2001 1530 240 35.2 < 1.9 42.3 < 2.5 < .11 — — < 1.00 < 2.4

VAL-3 2/13/2001 1005 43 985 2.5 32.1 < 2.5 .233 1.51 .58 3.78 E 1.4

LCR 2/28/2000 1115 130 418 < 2.6 39.1 < 5 < .11 — — < 1.00 < 1.8

LCR 6/27/2000 1115 150 231 < 2.6 58.8 < 5 E .07 6.20 1.56 < 1.00 E 1.0

FMC 8/28/2000 1100 170 53.4 < 2.6 43.0 < 5 < .11 — — E .591 E .9

FMC 11/13/2000 1330 160 185 E 1.0 40.7 < 2.5 < .11 — — E .854 < 2.4

FMC 1/22/2001 1310 140 288 < 1.9 32.7 < 2.5 < .11 — — < 1.00 < 2.4

FMC 3/20/2001 1615 59 415 E 1.4 20.7 < 2.5 E .051 2.16 .75 E .899 < 2.4
52 Investigation of Water Quality and Aquatic-Community Structure in Village and Valley Creeks, Alabama, 2000 – 01

Site 

label 

(fig. 1)

Date Time

Copper, 

total 

recoverable

 (μg/L)

Copper (μg/L) Iron, 

total 

recoverable 

(μg/L)

 Iron, 

dissolved 

(μg/L)

 Lead, 

total

(μg/L)

Lead (μg/L) Lithium, 

total 

recoverable 

(μg/L)

Manganese, 

total 

recoverable 

(μg/L)

Manganese, 

dissolved 

(μg/L)

Acute 

aquatic 

life 

criteriona

Chronic 

aquatic 

life 

criteriona

Acute 

aquatic 

life 

criteriona

Chronic 

aquatic 

life 

criteriona

VIL-1 3/1/2000 1625 < 1.2 — — 43.3 10.5 < 1.00 197 7.69 E 4.0 12.7 11.1

VIL-1 6/30/2000 1020 < 1.2 — — 36.5 < 10.0 < 1.00 197 7.69 < 7.0 18.4 15.5

VIL-1 8/30/2000 1345 < 1.2 — — 30.0 < 10.0 < 1.00 185 7.20 < 7.0 15.7 12.0

VIL-1 11/8/2000 2000 5.34 6.95 5.10 950 24.6 13.5 23.0 .90 < 7.0 211 6.0

VIL-1 1/24/2001 905 < 1.8 — — 63.9 21.2 < 1.00 197 7.69 < 7.0 46.1 47.0

VIL-1 1/29/2001 1900 6.70 7.65 5.57 1,300 30.6 16.5 26.2 1.02 < 7.0 236 8.6

VIL-2 8/30/2000 830 3.36 37.3 23.4 230 48.0 1.65 223 8.68 20.3 52.9 47.5

VIL-2 11/14/2000 820 5.19 48.3 29.6 236 28.7 3.78 317 12.3 44.9 57.3 55.7

VIL-2 1/24/2001 1500 1.83 37.3 23.4 233 51.9 E .5 223 8.68 < 7.0 49.0 50.4

VIL-2 1/29/2001 2100 30.0 9.05 6.48 1,940 34.9 58.4 32.9 1.28 E 4.0 332 15.1

VIL-3 3/2/2000 1010 10.7 35.7 22.5 142 33.7 3.62 210 8.18 8.4 47.0 43.9

VIL-3 6/30/2000 1630 9.88 26.0 16.9 125 29.2 4.09 137 5.33 10.5 36.2 30.8

VIL-3 8/29/2000 830 6.52 30.8 19.7 98.7 28.3 E .54 172 6.72 7.1 47.6 33.8

VIL-3 11/14/2000 1430 6.65 32.5 20.6 275 E 8.0 1.45 185 7.20 10.5 205 39.4

VIL-3 1/23/2001 1445 6.31 37.3 23.4 183 E 9.4 E .67 223 8.68 E 4.0 53.2 48.5

VIL-4 3/2/2000 1600 4.06 29.2 18.8 99.4 22.2 1.46 160 6.25 8.2 37.1 34.5

VIL-4 7/1/2000 1415 9.16 26.0 16.9 638 28.7 8.31 137 5.33 11.2 121 37.8

VAL-1 3/1/2000 945 3.89 34.1 21.6 113 49.7 E .53 197 7.69 E 4.9 39.7 36.2

VAL-1 6/29/2000 1020 12.5 13.0 9.01 331 22.7 8.01 53.7 2.09 E 5.0 38.2 20.1

VAL-1 8/31/2000 850 5.32 32.5 20.6 115 31.9 1.19 184 7.20 E 6.2 28.2 13.5

VAL-1 11/9/2000 840 5.89 10.1 7.15 241 27.6 4.78 38.1 1.49 < 7.0 23.3 11.8

VAL-1 1/23/2001 920 2.96 37.3 23.4 85.5 17.7 E .70 223 8.68 E 3.3 36.2 32.5

VAL-1 2/12/2001 1435 15.1 4.80 3.65 867 17.4 22.0 14.0 0.54 < 7.0 80.8 8.3

VAL-2 2/29/2000 1600 2.31 37.3 23.4 47.1 14.8 < 1.00 223 8.68 < 7.0 22.2 19.7

VAL-2 6/29/2000 1805 4.61 19.4 12.9 128 E 7.9 1.98 92.2 3.59 < 7.0 29.1 22.1

VAL-2 8/29/2000 1345 2.90 32.5 20.6 53.7 12.8 E 0.52 184 7.20 E 3.8 29.0 20.3

VAL-2 11/15/2000 950 2.34 38.9 24.3 45.2 14.9 <1.00 236 9.19 E 4.4 28.8 27.8

VAL-2 1/25/2001 920 2.44 38.9 24.3 44.7 14.8 <1.00 236 9.19 < 7.0 24.8 24.3

VAL-2 2/9/2001 2150 30.3 10.1 7.15 2,190 115.7 47.5 38.1 1.49 < 7.0 272 26.2

VAL-3 2/29/2000 935 1.94 35.7 22.5 75.9 20.6 E .50 210 8.18 E 4.9 22.7 20.1

VAL-3 6/28/2000 1035 2.51 27.6 17.8 40.2 E 7.1 E .84 149 5.79 < 7.0 18.3 14.7

VAL-3 8/31/2000 1425 3.58 29.2 18.8 73.5 E 6.9 1.00 160 6.25 < 7.0 20.7 11.5

VAL-3 11/9/2000 1135 5.16 12.3 8.58 342 12.0 6.95 50.0 1.95 < 7.0 44.5 6.4

VAL-3 1/25/2001 1530 E 1.64 40.4 25.2 46.9 10.3 < 1.00 249 9.70 < 7.0 18.3 17.2

VAL-3 2/13/2001 1005 13.2 8.00 5.80 1,110 44.6 25.9 27.9 1.09 < 7.0 162 6.9

LCR 2/28/2000 1115 1.98 22.7 14.9 360 17.2 2.93 114 4.44 E 6.1 19.3 9.3

LCR 6/27/2000 1115 2.86 26.0 16.9 246 < 10.0 4.03 137 5.33 < 7.0 44.2 11.7

FMC 8/28/2000 1100 1.27 29.2 18.8 47.7 < 10.0 < 1.00 160 6.25 < 7.0 8.89 6.0

FMC 11/13/2000 1330 < 1.8 — — 205 E 5.7 < 1.00 149 5.79 < 7.0 24.8 5.9

FMC 1/22/2001 1310 < 1.8 — — 185 14.5 < 1.00 125 4.88 < 7.0 8.14 5.4

FMC 3/20/2001 1615 E 1.20 10.8 7.60 333 54.8 1.45 41.7 1.63 < 7.0 35.3 12.9

Table 15. Summary of trace and major elements detected in water samples and applicable aquatic life criteria at sites in the Birmingham area, Alabama, 

2000– 01 — Continued

Samples shaded gray were collected during high flow; , exceeded secondary drinking water standards; , exceeded chronic aquatic life criteria; , exceeded 

acute aquatic life criteria; μg/L, micrograms per liter; E, estimated; <, less than; —, criteria not calculated; ND, no data were collected]
Water Quality 53

Site 

label 

(fig. 1)

Date Time

Mercury, 

total 

recoverable 

(μg/L)

Molybdenum, total 

recoverable 

(μg/L)

Nickel, 

total 

recoverable 

(μg/L)

Nickel (μg/L) Selenium, 

total 

(μg/L)

Silver, 

total 

recoverable 

(μg/L)

Silver 

(μg/L) Zinc, total 

recoverable 

(μg/L)

Zinc (μg/L)

Acute 

aquatic 

life 

criteriona

Chronic 

aquatic 

life 

criteriona

Acute 

aquatic 

life 

criteriona

Acute 

aquatic 

life 

criteriona

Chronic 

aquatic 

life 

criteriona

VIL-1 3/1/2000 1625 < 0.3 < 1.0 < 1.8 — — < 2.6 < 1 — < 31 — —

VIL-1 6/30/2000 1020 < .3 < 1.0 < 1.8 — — < 2.6 < 1 — < 31 — —

VIL-1 8/30/2000 1345 < .3 < 1.0 < 1.8 — — < 2.6 < 1 — < 31 — —

VIL-1 11/8/2000 2000 < .14 < 1.5 E 1.2 612 68.0 < 2.6 < .43 — 45.4 50.4 45.6

VIL-1 1/24/2001 905 < .14 < 1.5 < 1.8 — — < 2.6 < .43 — < 31 — —

VIL-1 1/29/2001 1900 < .14 E 1.1 E 1.2 667 74.2 < 2.6 < .43 — 74.9 55.0 49.8

VIL-2 8/30/2000 830 .3 55.7 E .9 2,760 307 2.85 < 1 — 244 228 207

VIL-2 11/14/2000 820 < .14 31.1 E 1.3 3,490 388 < 2.6 < .43 — 155 288 261

VIL-2 1/24/2001 1500 < .14 17.5 E 1.1 2,760 307 < 2.6 .58 15.8 E 18.4 228 207

VIL-2 1/29/2001 2100 < .14 2.4 3.7 776 86.2 < 2.6 0.50 1.19 670 63.9 57.9

VIL-3 3/2/2000 1010 < .3 16.3 E 1.7 2,660 295 < 2.6 < 1 — 316 219 199

VIL-3 6/30/2000 1630 < .3 14.4 < 1.8 — — < 2.6 < 1 — 89.1 165 149

VIL-3 8/29/2000 830 < .3 45.7 E .9 2,330 259 < 2.6 < 1 — E 16.1 193 174

VIL-3 11/14/2000 1430 < .14 19.3 3.0 2,440 271 < 2.6 < .43 — E 27.8 202 183

VIL-3 1/23/2001 1445 < .14 12.3 1.9 2,760 307 < 2.6 < .43 — E 30.8 228 207

VIL-4 3/2/2000 1600 < .3 14.5 2.2 2,220 247 < 2.6 < 1 — 161 183 166

VIL-4 7/1/2000 1415 < .3 20.7 2.2 2,000 222 < 2.6 < 1 — 149 165 149

VAL-1 3/1/2000 945 < .3 11.1 3.5 2,550 283 < 2.6 1.97 13.4 < 31 — —

VAL-1 6/29/2000 1020 < .3 7.3 < 1.8 — — < 2.6 1.14 2.31 69.1 88.6 80.2

VAL-1 8/31/2000 850 < .3 54.9 < 1.8 — — < 2.6 < 1 — E 25.4 202 183

VAL-1 11/9/2000 840 < .14 2.2 < 1.8 — — < 2.6 E .32 1.45 47.3 70.5 63.9

VAL-1 1/23/2001 920 < .14 14.1 E 1.1 2,760 307 < 2.6 < .43 — < 31 — —

VAL-1 2/12/2001 1435 < .14 < 1.5 E 1.5 439 48.8 < 2.6 < .43 — 113 36.2 32.7

VAL-2 2/29/2000 1600 < .3 13.2 < 1.8 — — < 2.6 < 1 — < 31 — —

VAL-2 6/29/2000 1805 < .3 9.0 < 1.8 — — < 2.6 < 1 — E 18.2 127 115

VAL-2 8/29/2000 1345 < .3 24.5 < 1.8 — — < 2.6 < 1 — < 31 — —

VAL-2 11/15/2000 950 < .14 20.7 < 1.8 — — < 2.6 < .43 — < 31 — —

VAL-2 1/25/2001 920 < .14 7.8 < 1.8 — — < 2.6 < .43 — < 31 — —

VAL-2 2/9/2001 2150 .144 E 1.1 2.8 855 95.1 < 2.6 .54 1.45 206 70.5 63.9

VAL-3 2/29/2000 935 < .3 4.8 < 1.8 — — < 2.6 < 1 — < 31 — —

VAL-3 6/28/2000 1035 < .3 7.7 < 1.8 — — < 2.6 < 1 — E 16.4 174 158

VAL-3 8/31/2000 1425 < .3 15.4 < 1.8 — — < 2.6 < 1 — < 31 — —

VAL-3 11/9/2000 1135 < .14 1.9 < 1.8 — — < 2.6 < .43 — E 23.3 84.4 76.4

VAL-3 1/25/2001 1530 < .14 4.4 < 1.8 — — < 2.6 < .43 — < 31 — —

VAL-3 2/13/2001 1005 < .14 < 1.5 E 1.7 694 77.2 < 2.6 E .21 .95 79.1 57.2 51.8

LCR 2/28/2000 1115 < .3 6.1 < 1.8 — — < 2.6 < 1 — < 31 — —

LCR 6/27/2000 1115 < .3 3.5 < 1.8 — — < 2.6 < 1 — < 31 — —

FMC 8/28/2000 1100 < .3 < 1.0 < 1.8 — — < 2.6 < 1 — < 31 — —

FMC 11/13/2000 1330 < .14 < 1.5 < 1.8 — — < 2.6 < .43 — < 31 — —

FMC 1/22/2001 1310 < .14 < 1.5 < 1.8 — — < 2.6 < .43 — < 31 — —

FMC 3/20/2001 1615 ND < 1.5 < 1.8 — — < 2.6 < .43 — E 21.7 74.8 67.8

a

 Alabama Water Quality Criteria (Alabama Department of Environmental Management, 2000d).

Table 15. Summary of trace and major elements detected in water samples and applicable aquatic life criteria at sites in the Birmingham area, Alabama, 

2000– 01 — Continued

Samples shaded gray were collected during high flow; , exceeded secondary drinking water standards; , exceeded chronic aquatic life criteria; , exceeded 

acute aquatic life criteria; μg/L, micrograms per liter; E, estimated; <, less than; —, criteria not calculated; ND, no data were collected]
54 Investigation of Water Quality and Aquatic-Community Structure in Village and Valley Creeks, Alabama, 2000 – 01

Figure 20. Frequencies of detection for trace and major elements in water samples from streams in the Birmingham area, 

Alabama, 2000 – 01.

VIL-1 (table 6). Cadmium concentrations were greatest 

during high flow rather than low flow, indicating the presence of nonpoint sources (fig. 21A). Two of the cadmium 

concentrations detected at VIL-2 during low flow were 

higher than concentrations detected at other sites (during 

low or high flow), indicating that point sources may exist 

upstream from this site. 

Chromium concentrations in natural waters 

generally are less than 10 μg/L; however, chromium may 

be introduced to surface waters by industrial wastes. The 

USEPA drinking-water standard for chromium is 

100 μg/L. The highest concentration of chromium was 

7.52 μg/L at VIL-2 during high flow (table 15). Higher 

chromium concentrations were detected during high flow 

than low flow, which may indicate nonpoint sources.

Copper commonly is detected in the environment 

and may originate from natural sources or from industry 

and agriculture. The USEPA action level is 1,300 μg/L 

(table 14). Copper was found in 85 percent of the 

Birmingham study samples (fig. 20). The highest 

concentration detected was 30.3 μg/L at VAL-2 during 

high flow (table 15). Concentrations of copper exceeded 

the acute aquatic life criterion in 4 of 41 samples 

(10 percent) and the chronic aquatic life criterion in 7 of 

41 samples (17 percent; fig. 19B). Concentrations of 

copper at VIL-3 and VAL-1 were significantly greater 

than copper concentrations at FMC (table 6). High copper 

concentrations were detected during high flow, indicating 

the presence of nonpoint sources (fig. 21B).

Lead concentrations tend to be low in surface water 

because lead adsorbs readily to inorganic and organic 

surfaces. Environmental contamination from lead occurs 

from its use as an additive in gasoline and from industrial 

sources such as coal burning. The USEPA action level for 

lead is 15 μg/L (table 14). Lead was detected in 90 

percent of the study samples (fig. 20). The maximum 

concentration of 58.4 μg/L was detected at VIL-2 during 

high flow (table 15). The action level was exceeded in 5 

of 41 samples (12 percent; fig. 21C); the acute aquatic life 

criterion was exceeded in 3 of 41 samples (7 percent); and 

the chronic aquatic life criterion was exceeded in 10 of 41 

samples (24 percent; fig. 19C). Higher lead 

concentrations were detected more frequently during high 

flow than low flow, indicating the presence of nonpoint 

sources (fig. 21C). 

Molybdenum occurs naturally in streams in trace 

amounts. Fossil-fuel combustion is a probable source 

where higher molybdenum concentrations are detected. 

No water-quality standards or criteria have been set for 

molybdenum, which was detected in 73 percent of the 

samples (fig. 20). The maximum molybdenum 

concentration was 55.7 μg/L at VIL-2 during low flow 

(table 15). The highest concentrations occurred during 

low flow at VIL-2, VAL-1, VAL-2, and VAL-3, indicating 

possible point sources (table 15). Statistically significant 

differences among sites were identified. Molybdenum 

concentrations at VIL-2, VIL-3, and VAL-2 were 

significantly greater than the concentrations at FMC; 

molybdenum concentrations at VIL-2 and VIL-3 were 
Water Quality 55

Figure 21. (A) Total cadmium, (B) total recoverable copper, (C) total recoverable lead, (D) total recoverable zinc, and (E) total recoverable aluminum 

concentrations detected in water samples collected during high and low flow from streams in the Birmingham area, Alabama, 

2000 – 01.

significantly greater than concentrations at VIL-1 

(table 6). 

Nickel is widely used in industry and is a common 

environmental contaminant. It is a constituent of stainless 

steel and other alloys. Nickel was detected in 41 percent 

of the samples (fig. 20). Acute and chronic criteria were 

not exceeded at any time during this investigation. The 

drinking-water standard for nickel is 100 μg/L (Alabama 

Department of Environmental Management, 2000b). The 

maximum concentration of nickel detected in this study 

was 3.7 μg/L at VIL-2. 

Silver has numerous anthropogenic sources and 

was detected in 17 percent of the samples (fig. 20). The 

greatest concentration of silver detected in this study was 

1.97 μg/L at VAL-1 during low flow (table 15). The acute 

aquatic life criterion for silver was not exceeded 

(table 15).

Zinc is widely used in combination with other 

metals, such as galvanizing steel, and is commonly used 

in paints. The secondary drinking-water standard for zinc 

is 5,000 μg/L (table 14; Alabama Department of 

Environmental Management, 2000c). Zinc was detected 

in 56 percent of the study samples (fig. 20). The 
56 Investigation of Water Quality and Aquatic-Community Structure in Village and Valley Creeks, Alabama, 2000 – 01

USGS personnel examining the contents of the seine while 

collecting fish samples (photograph taken by A.K. McPherson).

maximum concentration of zinc was 670 μg/L at VIL-2 

during high flow (fig. 21D; table 15). Concentrations of 

zinc exceeded the acute and chronic aquatic life criteria in 

7 of 41 samples (17 percent; fig. 19D). High 

concentrations were detected during high flow, indicating 

nonpoint sources (fig. 21D). Concentrations were 

elevated during low flow at VIL-2, VIL-3, and 

VIL-4—indicating possible point sources along Village 

Creek (table 15).

Although iron is the second most abundant metal in 

the Earth’s outer crust, concentrations present in surface 

water generally are small (Hem, 1985). If present in 

drinking water in excessive amounts, iron tends to form 

red oxyhydroxide precipitates that may stain laundry and 

plumbing fixtures. Concentrations of iron at the 

Birmingham sites ranged from 30.0 to 2,190 μg/L 

(table 15). Iron concentrations in the study area exceeded 

the secondary drinking-water standard of 300 μg/L 

(table 14) in 11 of 41 samples (27 percent)—9 of these 

exceedances occurred during high flow (table 15). No 

statistically significant differences among sites were 

identified (table 6). 

Manganese is undesirable in water supplies 

because it tends to deposit black oxide stains (Hem, 

1985). Concentrations in untreated surface water 

commonly exceed the secondary drinking-water 

standards because iron and manganese commonly coat 

clay particles. The secondary drinking-water standard set 

by ADEM for manganese in public water supplies is 

50 μg/L (table 14). Concentrations of manganese ranged 

from 8.14 to 332 μg/L in the study area and exceeded the 

secondary drinking-water standard in 10 of 41 samples 

(24 percent)—6 of these exceedances occurred during 

high flow (table 15). No statistically significant 

differences among sites were identified (table 6). 

Aluminum is the third most abundant element in 

the Earth’s outer crust, but it is rarely found in solution in 

surface water in high concentrations (Hem, 1985). The 

secondary drinking-water standard set by ADEM for 

aluminum in public water supplies is 200 μg/L (table 14). 

Concentrations of aluminum ranged from 18.8 to 

1,660 μg/L (table 15). Aluminum concentrations 

exceeded the secondary drinking-water standard in 15 of 

41 samples (37 percent)—10 of these exceedances 

occurred during high flow, indicating possible nonpoint 

sources (fig. 21E). No statistically significant differences 

among sites were identified (table 6).

Comparison of Trace and Major Element Data from Urban Sites 

in Birmingham to Urban Sites Nationwide

Trace and major element data from Village and 

Valley Creeks were compared to trace and major element 

data collected from selected urban sites across the Nation 

in the NAWQA Program (U.S. Geological Survey, 2001). 

Trace and major elements were not frequently sampled in 

the NAWQA Program, but data were available from 

urban sampling sites in Pennsylvania, Connecticut, 

Colorado, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and Washington 

for 1991 and 1997. Concentrations of trace and major 

elements from Village and Valley Creeks were plotted 

over a bar graph illustrating ranges, which included the 

lowest 25 percent, the middle 50 percent, and the highest 

25 percent of the Birmingham data (fig. 22). To the right 

of each bar graph in figure 22 is another bar graph 

illustrating the same ranges for data collected from the 

urban sites sampled in the NAWQA Program. The 

statistical quartiles of both data sets were computed by 

using detected values in order to better illustrate the 

spread of the data. Aluminum, barium, cadmium, copper, 

lead, lithium, molybdenum, and zinc concentrations in 

Village and Valley Creeks exceeded the maximum 

concentrations detected at urban sites sampled in the 

NAWQA Program.
Water Quality 57

Figure 22. Comparison of trace and major elements in water samples from urban sites in the Birmingham area, Alabama, to 

urban sites nationwide.

Pesticides 

Of the 84 pesticides and degradation products 

analyzed in samples from the Birmingham study sites, 

24 were detected in one or more stream samples (table 16; 

appendix table 2-4). Of the 24 detected pesticides, 17 were 

herbicides and 7 were insecticides (fig. 23). Water-quality 

standards and guidelines have been developed for many 

pesticides in order to protect human health and aquatic 

life. Fourteen of the pesticides detected in this study have 

maximum recommended concentration limits established 

by the USEPA (2000b), the ADEM (2000b), the 

International Joint Commission United States and Canada 

(1978) or the Canadian Council of Ministers of the 

Environment (2001; table 17). Aquatic life criteria have 

been established for 13 of the 24 pesticides detected in this 

study (table 17). These criteria were exceeded by 

concentrations of the herbicide atrazine and four 

insecticides—carbaryl, chlorpyrifos, diazinon, and 

malathion (table 17; appendix table 2-4). Four of the 

pesticides detected in this study have maximum 

concentration limits for drinking water. These limits were 

exceeded by concentrations of the herbicides, atrazine and 

simazine (table 17). 

Comparison of detection frequencies of pesticides 

can be misleading because of the different laboratory 

reporting levels associated with each of the pesticides. To 

reduce this type of bias when comparing detection 

frequencies of pesticides, concentrations were adjusted by 

censoring to a common threshold of 0.01 μg/L. These 

adjusted data were used when comparing detection 

frequencies between NAWQA samples and Birmingham 

samples. Figure 23 illustrates the effect of censoring the 

data on the frequency of detection for samples from the 

Birmingham study sites. 

Atrazine is the most heavily applied organic 

pesticide in the United States (Majewski and Capel, 

1995). Atrazine was detected in 31 of 33 samples 

(94 percent; fig. 23). The maximum atrazine 

concentration of 8.88 μg/L was measured at VAL-3 during 

low flow in February 2000 and exceeded the USEPA 

drinking-water standard of 3 μg/L (fig. 24A; table 17; 

appendix table 2-4). Concentrations of 2.58 μg/L and 

1.94 μg/L were recorded at VAL-2 and VAL-3, 

respectively, in February 2001 during high flow and 

exceeded the Canadian aquatic life guideline of 1.8 μg/L 

(fig. 24A; table 17; appendix table 2-4).

Simazine is an herbicide commonly used in 

orchards, vineyards, and along rights-of-way. It is 

frequently used in urban areas for weed control along 

roadways and railways, along fences, and in other public 

areas (Hoffman and others, 2000). Concentrations of 

simazine were detected in 30 of 33 samples (91 percent; 

fig. 23). The maximum concentration of 8.6 μg/L occurred 

at FMC in February 2001 during low flow (fig. 24B; table 

17; appendix table 2-4). The USEPA primary drinkingwater standard of 4 μg/L was exceeded once during the 

study (table 17). 
58 Investigation of Water Quality and Aquatic-Community Structure in Village and Valley Creeks, Alabama, 2000 – 01

Pesticide name Pesticide 

type

Laboratory 

reporting 

levela

(μg/L)

Dissolved pesticides analyzed by gas chromatography/mass 

spectrometry (GC/MS)

Acetochlor H 0.0041

Alachlor H .0024

Atrazine H .007

Azinphos-methyl I .05

Benfluralin H .010

Butylate H .002b

Carbaryl I .041

Carbofuran I .020

Chlorpyrifos I .005

Cyanazine H .018

DCPA (Dacthal) H .0030

p,p'-DDE I .0025

Deethylatrazine DP .006

Diazinon I .005

Dieldrin I .0048

2,6-Diethylaniline H .0017

Disulfoton I .021

EPTC H .0020

Ethalfluralin H .009

Ethoprophos I .005

Fonofos I .0027

Lindane I .0040

Linuron H .035

Malathion I .027

Metolachlor H .013

Metribuzin H .006

Molinate H .0016

Napropamide H .007

Parathion I .007

Parathion-methyl I .006

Pebulate H .0016

Pendimethalin H .010

cis-Permethrin I .006

Phorate I .011

Prometon H .015

Propachlor H .010

Propanil H .011

Propargite I .023

Pronamide H .0041

Simazine H .011

Tebuthiuron H .016

Terbacil H .034

Terbufos I .017

Terbuthylazine H .1b

Thiobencarb H .0048

Triallate H .0023

Trifluralin H .009

Dissolved pesticides analyzed by high-performance liquid 

chromatography (HPLC)

2,4,5-T H 0.040

2,4-D H .11

2,4-DB H .10

2-(2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxy) 

propionic acid

H .025

3-Hydroxycarbofuran DP .11

4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol 

(DNOC)

H .25

Acifluorfen H .05

Aldicarb I .21

Aldicarb sulfone DP .20

Aldicarb sulfoxide DP .021b

Bentazon H .035

Bromacil H .09

Bromoxynil H .07

Carbaryl I .024

Carbofuran I .29

Chloramben, methyl ester H .14

Chlorothalonil I .13

Clopyralid H .42

Dacthal monoacid H .07

Dicamba H .043

Dichlobenil H .049

Dichlorprop H .050

Dinoseb H .09

Diuron H .056

Fenuron H .07

Fluometuron H .06

Linuron H .021

MCPA H .08

MCPB H .13

Methiocarb I .07

Methomyl I .017b

Neburon H .017

Norflurazon H .042

Oryzalin H .28

Oxamyl I .018b

Picloram H .09

Propham H .09

Propoxur I .12

Triclopyr H .07

a

 Laboratory reporting levels and minimum reporting levels 

effective October 1, 2000. b

 Minimum reporting levels.

Pesticide name Pesticide 

type

Laboratory 

reporting 

levela

(μg/L)

Table 16. Pesticides and pesticide degradation products, laboratory reporting levels, and minimum reporting levels

[Pesticides that were detected are shown in bold; μg/L, micrograms per liter; H, herbicide; I, insecticide; DP, degradation product]
Water Quality 59

Figure 23. Frequencies of detection for pesticides in water samples from streams in the Birmingham area, Alabama, 2000 – 01.

Chloyrifos is an organophosphate insecticide used 

in gardens, in residential areas, and on a wide variety of 

crops to control insects, including the pine beetle. It is also 

used for termite control in residential and industrial 

settings and in pet shampoo. Chlorpyrifos is of particular 

interest because of the Dursban spill in 1997, which 

occurred approximately 0.8 mile upstream from VIL-2. 

When the Industrial Distribution Services Warehouse 

burned on October 2, 1997, approximately 4,000 gallons 

(gal) of Dursban TC (44 percent pure chlorpyrifos) were 

released into the environment (The Huntsville Times, 

1997). The water used to fight the fire mixed with the 

insecticide and entered the sewer system. Chlorpyrifos was 

detected in 17 of 33 samples (52 percent) and was found at 

all sites except FMC (fig. 24C). Concentrations of 

chlorpyrifos were detected at VIL-2 and VIL-3 during high 

flow but not during low flow, indicating nonpoint sources. 

The maximum concentration of 0.0208 μg/L occurred at 

VAL-1 and did not exceed the USEPA recommended 

water-quality criteria for priority toxic pollutants (table 17; 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1999). The 

Canadian aquatic life guideline of 0.0035 μg/L for the 

protection of aquatic life was exceeded in 15 of 33 samples 

(45 percent; appendix table 2-4). It was not possible to 

statistically evaluate the differences among sites due to the 

low detection frequency and multiple reporting levels for 

this compound. Chlorpyrifos is widespread in the 

watershed, and it was detected in stream samples from 

Valley Creek as often as those from Village Creek. 

Diazinon and carbaryl commonly are used to control 

insects on lawns and gardens in urban areas. Diazinon was 

detected in 26 of 33 samples (79 percent) with a maximum 

concentration of 0.154 μg/L at VIL-4 (table 17; appendix 

table 2-4). The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 

1977 established an aquatic life criterion of 0.08 μg/L for 

diazinon (table 17). This was exceeded four times at VIL1, VIL-3, VIL-4, and VAL-2. Carbaryl was detected in 11 

of 33 samples (33 percent) with a maximum concentration 

of 0.426 μg/L at VIL-3. The Canadian Water Quality 

Guideline of 0.2 μg/L was exceeded twice—at VIL-2 and 

VIL-3 (appendix 

table 2-4).

Malathion is an insecticide used in broad-scale 

aerial applications to control fruit flies and mosquitoes in 

urban areas. It was detected in 4 of 33 samples 

(12 percent) in the Birmingham study area. The maximum 

concentration was 0.156 μg/L at VAL-1, which exceeded
60 Investigation of Water Quality and Aquatic-Community Structure in Village and Valley Creeks, Alabama, 2000 – 01

Table 17. Standards, guidelines, and maximum concentrations of pesticides detected in water samples from streams in the Birmingham area, Alabama, 

2000–01

[μg/L, micrograms per liter; E, estimated; —, no criteria; DNOC, 4,6-dinitro-2-methylphenol]

Organic 

chemical Trade name

Maximum 

concentration 

(μg/L)

Drinkingwater 

standard or 

guideline 

(μg/L)

Guideline for 

aquatic life 

(μg/L)

Herbicides

Atrazine Aatrex, Atred, Criazina, Gesaprim 8.88 3a,b

a

 Maximum contaminant level (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2000b).

b

 Alabama Primary Drinking Water Standards (Alabama Department of Environmental Management, 2000b).

1.8c

c

 Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, 2001.

Benfluralin Balan E .00619 — —

Bentazon Basagran .196 — —

Bromacil Bromax, Hyvar, Urox B, Uragan 1.03 — 5.0c

Bromoxynil Bison, Buctril, Moxy, Brominal .07 — 5.0c

Deethylatrazine E .522 — —

Diuron Direx, Karmex 2.264 — —

DNOC Sinox, Trifocide E .30 — —

Metolachlor Dual, Pennant .00543 — 7.8c

Pendimethalin Prowl, Pre-M, Squaron, Stomp .0654 — —

Prometon Pramitol, Princep .926 — —

Pronamide Kerb .0127 — —

Simazine Princep 8.6 4a,b 10c

Tebuthiuron Perflan, Spike, Tebusan .136 — 1.6c

Terbuthylazine E .401 — —

Triclopyr Garlon, Grazon .384 — —

Trifluralin Treflan, Tri-4, Trific, Gowan E .0065 — 0.20c

Insecticides

Aldicarb Temik E 0.064 7a 1c

Aldicarb sulfone E .0833 7a —

Carbaryl Adios, Carbamine, Denapor, Drexel, Sevin E .426 — 0.2c

Chlorpyrifos Dursban, Brodan, Eradex, Genpest, Lorsban, 

Profos, Scout

.0208 — 0.0035c, 0.083d, 0.041e

d

 Criteria maximum concentration for aquatic life (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1999). e

 Criterion continuous concentration for aquatic life (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1999).

Diazinon D.Z.O., Basadin, Diazatol, Knox Out, Sarolex .154 — 0.08f

f

 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (International Joint Commission United States and Canada, 1978).

Dieldrin Panoram D-31 .00498 — 2.5g or 0.0019h

g

 Acute aquatic life criteria (Alabama Department of Environmental Management, 2000d). h

 Chronic aquatic life criteria (Alabama Department of Environmental Management, 2000d).

Malathion Cythion, Maltox .156 — 0.1e
Water Quality 61

Figure 24. (A) Dissolved atrazine, (B) dissolved simazine, and (C) dissolved chlorpyrifos concentrations detected in water samples 

during high and low flow at streams in the Birmingham area, Alabama, 2000 – 01.
62 Investigation of Water Quality and Aquatic-Community Structure in Village and Valley Creeks, Alabama, 2000 – 01

 the USEPA recommended water-quality criterion for 

aquatic life of 0.1 μg/L (table 17). 

Ninety-four percent of the pesticide samples in this 

study contained more than one pesticide (appendix 

table 2-4). Atrazine, chlorpyrifos, diazinon, simazine, and 

tebuthiuron were detected at every urban site in the 

Birmingham study area (table 18). Carbaryl and prometon 

were detected at six of seven urban sites in the 

Birmingham study area (table 18). The site with the 

greatest number of pesticides (13) detected was VAL-3; 

the site with the fewest number of pesticides (8) detected 

was FMC (table 18). Prometon concentrations at VAL-2 

were significantly greater than concentrations at FMC 

(table 6). 

The number of pesticides present in the stream may 

be important from a toxicological standpoint. Generally, 

the effects of pesticide mixtures on biota or humans are 

not included in water-quality criteria, which are most 

commonly based on single-species, single-chemical 

toxicity tests conducted under laboratory conditions 

(Hampson and others, 2000). Some pesticides could be 

more toxic when combined with other toxic compounds 

than when present individually. The synergistic effects 

created from the low concentrations of multiple pesticides 

have yet to be quantified (Hoffman and others, 2000). The 

combined ecological effects of the pesticides in the 

streams are unknown.

Table 18. Pesticide detection frequencies in water samples from streams in the Birmingham area, Alabama, 2000–01

[Numbers shown are number of detections and the number of samples collected at each site. —, compound was not detected at this site; DNOC, 

4,6-dinitro-2-methylphenol. Site locations are shown in figure 1]

VIL-1 VIL-2 VIL-3 VIL-4 VAL-1 VAL-2 VAL-3 LCR FMC

HERBICIDES

Atrazine 6 of 6 2 of 3 2 of 3 1 of 1 5 of 5 4 of 4 4 of 4 2 of 2 5 of 5

Benfluralin 1 of 6 — — — — — — — —

Bentazon — — — — 1 of 5 — — — —

Bromacil — 1 of 3 1 of 3 1 of 1 — — 1 of 4 — —

Bromoxynil — 1 of 3 — — — — — — —

Deethylatrazine 5 of 6 — — — 2 of 5 4 of 4 4 of 4 2 of 2 5 of 5

Diuron — 1 of 3 2 of 4 1 of 1 — — — — —

DNOC — — — — — 1 of 4 — —

Metolachlor — — — 1 of 1 — — 1 of 2 —

Pendimethalin — — 1 of 3 1 of 1 1 of 5 2 of 4 1 of 4 — —

Prometon 4 of 6 — 2 of 3 1 of 1 4 of 5 4 of 4 4 of 4 2 of 2 4 of 5

Pronamide — — — — — — — — 1 of 5

Simazine 6 of 6 1 of 3 2 of 3 1 of 1 5 of 5 4 of 4 4 of 4 2 of 2 5 of 5

Tebuthiuron 3 of 6 1 of 3 1 of 3 1 of 1 2 of 5 1 of 4 3 of 4 2 of 2 1 of 5

Trichlopyr — 2 of 3 — — — — 3 of 4 — —

Trifluralin 1 of 6 — 2 of 3 — — 1 of 4 — — —

INSECTICIDES

Aldicarb — — — — — — — 1 of 2 —

Aldicarb sulfone — — — — — — — 1 of 2 —

Carbaryl 1 of 6 2 of 3 2 of 3 1 of 1 1 of 5 — 2 of 4 2 of 2 —

Chlorpyrifos 3 of 6 2 of 3 2 of 3 1 of 1 3 of 5 2 of 4 4 of 4 1 of 2 —

Diazinon 4 of 6 2 of 3 2 of 3 1 of 1 5 of 5 4 of 4 4 of 4 2 of 2 2 of 5

Dieldrin 2 of 6 — — — — — — — 1 of 5

Malathion — — — — 1 of 5 1 of 4 1 of 4 1 of 2 —
Water Quality 63

Figure 25. Comparison of pesticides in water samples from urban sites in the Birmingham area, Alabama, to 

urban sites nationwide.

Comparison of Pesticide Data from Urban Sites 

in Birmingham to Urban Sites Nationwide 

Pesticide data from Village and Valley Creeks were 

compared to pesticide data collected from urban sites 

across the Nation in the NAWQA Program. More than 

1,940 pesticide samples were collected from urban sites 

between 1991 and 2001 (U.S. Geological Survey, 2001). 

Pesticide concentrations from Village and Valley Creeks 

were plotted over a bar graph illustrating ranges, which 

included the lowest 25 percent, the middle 50 percent, and 

the highest 25 percent of the Birmingham data (fig. 25). To 

the right of each bar graph in figure 25 is another bar graph 

illustrating the same ranges for data collected at urban 

NAWQA sites nationwide. The statistical quartiles of both 

data sets were computed by using detected values in order 

to better illustrate the spread of the data. Concentrations of 

pesticides were adjusted by censoring to a common 

detection threshold of 0.01 μg/L. The pesticide 

concentrations detected in this study fell within a narrower 

range than the concentrations reported nationally. 

The most frequently detected herbicide in urban 

areas in the NAWQA Program was prometon (fig. 26). In 

the Birmingham study area, prometon was the third most 

commonly detected herbicide, after atrazine and simazine. 

All three of these compounds belong to the same category 

of triazine herbicides. Metolachlor and diuron, also 

herbicides, were detected more frequently on a national 

basis than in the Birmingham study area. The most 

frequently detected insecticide, both locally and 

nationally, was diazinon (fig. 26). The second and third 

most frequently detected insecticides were carbaryl and 

chlorpyrifos, respectively (fig. 26). 
64 Investigation of Water Quality and Aquatic-Community Structure in Village and Valley Creeks, Alabama, 2000 – 01

Figure 26. Comparison of frequencies of detection for pesticides in water samples from streams in the Birmingham area, Alabama, to 

urban sites nationwide.

Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are 

formed during combustion processes and may enter 

surface-water systems in a variety of ways, including 

atmospheric deposition, surface runoff, and soil leaching 

(Smith and others, 1988). Several PAHs have been 

identified as carcinogens or mutagens. Sources of PAHs 

include domestic sewage, asphalt surfaces, car tires, 

vehicular exhaust, crude oil, and petroleum (Dojlido and 

Best, 1993). 

Sixteen PAHs were detected in water samples from 

the Birmingham study sites (appendix table 2-5). PAHs 

were detected at all sites except LCR (table 19). 

Fluoranthene and pyrene were the most frequently 

detected PAHs (fig. 27). Ninety-nine percent of the 

detections were estimated values qualified with an “E” 

and were not compared to criteria because of uncertainty 

associated with the estimated value (appendix table 2-5). 

The maximum concentration of fluoranthene was 

2.82 μg/L (VAL-2), which exceeded the Canadian 

guideline of 0.04 μg/L for the protection of aquatic life 

(Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, 

2001). The maximum concentration of phenanthrene was 

2.27 μg/L (VAL-3), which exceeded the Canadian 

guideline of 0.4 μg/L for the protection of aquatic life 

(Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, 

2001).
Water Quality 65

Figure 27. Frequencies of detection for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in water samples from streams in the Birmingham 

area, Alabama, 2000 – 01.

Table 19. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon detection frequencies in water samples from streams in the Birmingham area, Alabama, 2000–01

[PAH, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon. Numbers shown are number of detections and the number of samples collected at each site. —, compound 

was not detected at this site. Site locations are shown in figure 1]

PAH VIL-1 VIL-2 VIL-3 VIL-4 VAL-1 VAL-2 VAL-3 LCR FMC

Acenaphthene 4 of 4 2 of 3 1 of 3 1 of 1 2 of 6 4 of 5 2 of 4 — 1 of 2

Acenapthylene 2 of 4 3 of 3 1 of 3 — 2 of 6 2 of 5 1 of 4 — 1 of 2

Anthracene 3 of 4 1 of 3 1 of 3 — 4 of 6 3 of 5 2 of 4 — 1 of 2

Benz-a-anthracene 3 of 4 1 of 3 — — 2 of 6 1 of 5 2 of 4 — 1 of 2

Benzo(a)pyrene 3 of 4 1 of 3 — — 3 of 6 1 of 5 2 of 4 — 1 of 2

Benzo[b]fluoranthene 3 of 4 1 of 3 — 1 of 1 3 of 6 1 of 5 2 of 4 — 1 of 2

Benzo[ghi]perylene 3 of 4 1 of 3 — — 3 of 6 1 of 5 2 of 4 — —

Benzo[k]fluoranthene 3 of 4 1 of 3 — — 3 of 6 1 of 5 2 of 4 — 1 of 2

Chrysene 3 of 4 1 of 3 — 1 of 1 4 of 6 2 of 5 3 of 4 — 1 of 2

1,2-5,6-dibenzanthracene 3 of 4 1 of 3 — — 1 of 6 1 of 5 1 of 4 — —

Fluoranthene 4 of 4 3 of 3 2 of 3 1 of 1 5 of 6 5 of 5 3 of 4 — 2 of 2

Fluorene 4 of 4 2 of 3 2 of 3 1 of 1 3 of 6 4 of 5 2 of 4 — —

Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene 3 of 4 2 of 3 1 of 3 — 3 of 6 1 of 5 2 of 4 — —

Naphthalene 3 of 4 3 of 3 2 of 3 — 3 of 6 3 of 5 2 of 4 — —

Phenanthrene 3 of 4 2 of 3 1 of 3 — 4 of 6 3 of 5 3 of 4 — 1 of 2

Pyrene 4 of 4 3 of 3 2 of 3 1 of 1 5 of 6 5 of 5 3 of 4 — 2 of 2
66 Investigation of Water Quality and Aquatic-Community Structure in Village and Valley Creeks, Alabama, 2000 – 01

Figure 28. Concentrations of lead detected in (A) bed 

sediment and (B) fish-liver tissue (Lepomis species) from 

streams in the Birmingham area, Alabama, 2000.

 Bed Sediment and Fish Tissue 

Bed-sediment and fish-tissue samples were 

collected at VIL-1, VIL-2, VIL-3, VAL-1, VAL-2, and 

FMC and analyzed for trace and major elements and 

organic compounds. 

Trace and Major Elements in Bed Sediment

Bed-sediment samples from Village and Valley 

Creeks and FMC were analyzed for 46 trace and major 

elements, 10 of which are classified by the USEPA (Code 

of Federal Regulations, 1996) as trace-element priority 

pollutants (TEPPs) (table 20; appendix table 3-1). 

Probable-effect levels (PELs) have been established for 

8 of the 10 TEPPs, excluding nickel and silver (table 20). 

A general pattern of increasing concentrations of TEPPs in 

a downstream direction in Village Creek, especially 

between VIL-1 and VIL-2, and decreasing concentrations 

in a downstream direction in Valley Creek was identified. 

These patterns indicated potential points of origin for the 

introduction of these contaminants to Village and Valley 

Creek—upstream from VIL-2 and VAL-1, respectively. 

Samples from VAL-1 contained the highest 

concentrations of chromium, copper, lead (fig. 28A), 

mercury, and silver among all sites (table 20). Samples 

from VIL-2 contained the highest concentrations of 

cadmium (fig. 29), nickel, selenium, and zinc among all 

sites (table 20). At both sites, the concentrations of 

arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, and zinc (also

Table 20. Concentrations of trace-element priority pollutants detected in bed-sediment samples from streams in the Birmingham area, Alabama, 

2000

[Values are in micrograms per gram; PEL, probable effect level; LRL, laboratory reporting level; <, less than; na, not available. Shaded values are 

concentrations that exceeded the PEL. Site locations are shown in figure 1]

Analyte VIL-1 VIL-2 VIL-3 VAL-1 VAL-2 FMC PEL

National 

median 

valuea

a

 Rice, 1999.

LRL

Arsenic 22 20 21 21 14 11 17 6.3 0.01

Cadmium .60 19 10 4 .82 < .1 3.53 .4 .1

Chromium 83 170 110 180 88 47 90 64 1

Copper 45 210 120 320 54 16 197 27 1

Lead 130 430 240 800 160 23 91.3 27 4

Mercury .27 .45 .23 1.60 .19 < .02 .49 .06 .02

Nickel 38 57 41 47 21 18 na 27 2

Selenium .80 1.90 1.20 1.50 .70 .51 4.00 .70 .10

Silver .20 4.00 1.40 20.00 .90 .44 na na .10

Zinc 270 4,000 2,400 1,200 330 120 315 110 4
Bed Sediment and Fish Tissue 67

was five times greater than that detected at VIL-3 (4 μg/g), 

and 45 times greater than that detected at FMC 

(0.44 μg/g). Zinc concentrations in the bed-sediment 

samples from VIL-2, VIL-3, and VAL-1 were 4 to 

12 times greater than those in the samples from VIL-1 and 

VAL-2. Concen-trations of TEPPs in bed sediment, except 

for silver, were consistently highest in Village and Valley 

Creeks and lowest in FMC, indicating possible 

anthropogenic sources of these TEPPs from the urban 

land-use activities in the watersheds of Village and Valley 

Creeks. Potential sources include point sources, such as 

municipal wastewater, industrial, and commercial 

discharges, and nonpoint sources, such as runoff from 

residential, commercial, and industrial areas. 

The concentrations of nine TEPPs (arsenic, 

cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, 

selenium, and zinc) in the bed-sediment samples from 

VIL-1, VIL-2, VIL-3, and VAL-1 exceeded the national 

median values reported by Rice (1999; table 20). At 

VAL-2, the concentrations of seven TEPPs (arsenic, 

cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, and zinc) 

exceeded the national median values (table 20). In 

contrast, only arsenic and zinc concentrations in the bedsediment sample from FMC exceeded the national median 

values (table 20). 

On a regional level, bed-sediment concentrations of 

antimony, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, 

magnesium, mercury, molybdenum, nickel, selenium, 

silver, and tin at the Village and Valley Creek sites 

exceeded concentrations at 21 sites in Alabama, 

Mississippi, and Georgia sampled in 1998 by the USGS 

as part of the NAWQA Program (Zappia, in press). 

Concentrations of silver at VAL-1 exceeded concentrations from 770 sites sampled nationwide from the 1991 

and 1994 USGS NAWQA studies (Zappia, in press). 

Concentrations of the TEPPs in each sample were 

summed to compare bed sediment among the six sites 

(fig. 30A). The highest summed concentration of the 

TEPPs (4,912 μg/g) occurred in the bed-sediment sample 

from VIL-2; the lowest summed concentration of the 

TEPPs (236 μg/g) occurred at FMC. In Village Creek, 

concentrations of 8 of the TEPPs (cadmium, chromium, 

copper, lead, nickel, selenium, silver, and zinc) in bed 

sediment were highest at VIL-2, followed by VIL-3 and 

VIL-1—whereas in Valley Creek, however, 

concentrations of all 10 priority pollutants were highest at 

VAL-1 and decreased in a downstream direction. Zinc, 

lead, and copper were the three most abundant TEPPs 

detected in the bed-sediment samples from Village and 

Valley Creeks (fig. 30). Zinc accounted for 81 percent of 

the summed concentrations of the 10 TEPPs detected in 

the bed-sediment samples from VIL-2 and VIL-3 and

mercury at VAL-1) exceeded PELs that have been found 

to result in deleterious effects on aquatic biota (Canadian 

Council of Ministers of the Environment, 1995). 

Lead concentrations in bed sediment were elevated 

above the PEL at all sites in Village and Valley Creeks 

(table 20). Zinc concentrations were elevated above the 

PEL at both sites on Valley Creek and at VIL-2 and 

VIL-3; cadmium and chromium concentrations were 

elevated above the PELs at VAL-1 and at VIL-2 and 

VIL-3—the two downstream sites on Village Creek 

(table 20). 

Arsenic concentrations were elevated above the 

PELs at all sites on Village Creek and the most upstream 

site on Valley Creek (table 20); however, these values 

have not been adjusted for natural background levels. A 

recent survey of stream sediment in northern Alabama, 

including streams in Jefferson County, reported naturally 

elevated arsenic concentrations (Goldhaber and others, 

2001). In that survey, the sources of arsenic-enriched bed 

sediments in the carbonate valleys were related to the 

arsenic-enriched coals from nearby coal fields in Jefferson 

County. These naturally enriched levels ranged from 7 to 

14 μg/g in Jefferson County. Concentrations of arsenic in 

bed sediment at FMC and VAL-2 were within this 

naturally enriched range—all other concentrations at sites 

on Village and Valley Creeks exceeded the naturally 

enriched range (table 20). Goldhaber and others (2001) 

did consider the urban area of Birmingham to be a possible 

source of arsenic from industrial pollution. 

 With the exception of silver, the concentrations of 

the TEPPs in the bed-sediment sample from FMC were 

the lowest in the study, and none exceeded the PELs 

(table 20). The concentration of silver at VAL-1 (20 μg/g) 

Figure 29. Concentrations of cadmium detected in bed 

sediment and fish-liver tissue (Lepomis species) from streams 

in the Birmingham area, Alabama, 2000.
68 Investigation of Water Quality and Aquatic-Community Structure in Village and Valley Creeks, Alabama, 2000 – 01

Valley Creek, there was a general decrease in 

concentration of the non-TEPPs in a downstream 

direction (appendix table 3-1). In Village Creek, the 

summed concentrations of the non-TEPPs were similar 

among the three sites. With the exception of organic 

carbon, there was no general pattern of increasing 

concentration in a downstream direction. Organic carbon 

concentrations in samples from VIL-2 and VIL-3 were 

higher than those detected in the sample from VIL-1. The 

organic carbon in the VIL-2 sample also was higher than 

that in VIL-3, indicating a source upstream from VIL-2. 

The bed-sediment sample from FMC generally had the 

lowest detected concentrations of the 36 non-TEPP 

elements (appendix table 3-1). Only gold and thallium 

were not detected at any site.

Trace and Major Elements in Fish-Liver Tissue

Fish-liver tissue samples were analyzed for 

22 elements (table 21). Concentrations could not be 

compared to standards because NAS/NAE and Canadian 

standards for trace-element concentrations in fish-liver 

tissue do not exist. No discernible pattern of 

concentration increase or decrease in a downstream 

direction among the sites was identified for most of the 

analytes. The lack of such a pattern may be due to the 

complexity of fish tissues, the behavior of the fishes, the 

differences in bioavailability of the elements, and other 

environmental factors. Four trace elements (antimony, 

beryllium, silver, and uranium) were not detected in 

quantifiable amounts in samples from any of the sites. 

Cadmium and lead were the most variable of the 

TEPPs detected in fish-liver samples. The samples from 

VIL-2 and VIL-3 contained more than twice the 

concentration of cadmium than samples from any other 

site (fig. 29) and the sample from VAL-2 contained more 

than four times the concentration of lead than any other 

site (fig. 28B). Concentrations of cadmium, selenium, and 

zinc were highest in fish-liver samples from VIL-2; 

concentrations of lead and chromium were highest in fishliver samples from VAL-2; concentrations of copper and 

mercury were highest at VIL-3; concentrations of arsenic 

were highest at FMC (table 21). Arsenic is typically not 

used in metabolic processes of aquatic organisms. The 

bioavailability of arsenic depends on several 

factors—including concentration in the bed sediment or 

water column, the speciation of arsenic present, and other 

environmental factors such as pH, sulfide, and iron 

concentrations (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease

about 50 percent of the summed TEPP concentrations in 

bed-sediment samples from each of the other four sites. 

Lead accounted for the second largest component of the 

TEPPs from all sites except FMC, where chromium was 

the second largest component. 

Samples from VIL-2 and VAL-1 contained the 

highest concentrations of the non-TEPP elements. In 

Figure 30. The sum of the concentrations of trace-element priority pollutants 

detected in (A) bed sediment and (B) fish-liver tissue (Lepomis species) from 

streams in the Birmingham area, Alabama, 2000.
Bed Sediment and Fish Tissue 69

Table 21. Concentrations of trace and major elements detected in fish-liver tissue (Lepomis species) from streams in the 

Birmingham area, Alabama, 2000

[Values are in micrograms per gram, dry weight recoverable; LRL, laboratory reporting level; <, less than; na, not available; 

E, estimated value. Site locations are shown in figure 1]

Analyte VIL-1 VIL-2 VIL-3 VAL-1 VAL-2 FMC LRL

Aluminum 5.0 7.5 4.0 14.6 66.4 10.6 1.000

Antimony < .2 < .24 < .22 < .36 < .25 < .52 .100

Arsenic .41 .99 .66 1.03 .87 1.46 .100

Barium < .1 .22 .12 .24 .79 .21 .100

Beryllium < .2 < .24 < .22 < .36 < .25 < .52 .100

Boron 1.2 1.50 1.13 1.49 1.29 2.58 .200

Cadmium 1.4 5.34 4.40 .88 1.54 1.02 .100

Chromium < .5 < .5 < .5 .61 .75 < .5 .500

Cobalt 1.1 .34 .28 .75 .94 1.68 .100

Copper 5.2 12.1 16.3 9.9 10.6 10.5 .500

Iron 410 283 323 498 568 738 1.000

Lead < .2 .29 < .22 .46 2.09 < .52 .100

Manganese 3.2 5.6 4.5 6.4 10.4 6.9 .100

Mercury E .04 .25 .26 .17 .19 .13 na

Molybdenum .7 1.80 1.55 1.94 1.11 1.01 .100

Nickel < .2 < .24 .23 < .36 .32 < .52 .100

Selenium 5.2 20.6 12.2 20.1 17.8 9.3 .100

Silver < .2 < .24 < .22 < .36 < .25 < .52 .100

Strontium .2 .30 .41 .86 1.46 .42 .100

Uranium < 2 < .24 < .22 < .36 < .25 < .52 .100

Vanadium .4 .72 .86 .91 1.35 1.17 .100

Water in tissue (percent) 70 76.7 77.4 77.7 80.1 79.7 na

Zinc 68 105 96 75 82 100 .500

Registry, 2000a). Fish-liver samples from VIL-1 had the 

lowest concentrations of 12 of the 22 elements (table 21). 

The concentrations of the 10 TEPPs detected in 

fish-liver samples from six sites were summed for 

comparison among sites (fig. 30B). Those sites with the 

greatest summed concentrations of TEPPs in fish-liver 

tissue were VIL-2 and VIL-3. The site with the lowest 

summed concentrations was VIL-1. Zinc, selenium, and 

copper were the most abundant TEPPs detected in fishliver tissue (fig. 30B). On a regional level, concentrations 

of lead and molybdenum in fish-liver tissue samples at 

sites in the Birmingham area exceeded concentrations 

detected at 21 other sites in Alabama, Mississippi, and 

Georgia sampled in 1998 (Zappia, in press).

Comparison of Trace-Element Priority Pollutants 

in Bed-Sediment and Fish-Liver Samples

The concentrations of TEPPs in samples of bed 

sediment and fishes were compared to determine the 

likelihood of uptake and sequestration of trace elements 

from the bed sediment to tissue. The mechanism for 

uptake may be highly variable among aquatic organisms 

and the sample size was small; therefore, this result 

should be viewed with caution. Cadmium (rho = 0.976) in 

fish tissue was the only trace element that showed 

significant positive correlation to the concentration of 

TEPP in bed sediment. 

Organic Compounds in Bed Sediment

Bed-sediment samples from the Birmingham study 

sites were analyzed for 89 organic compounds, including 

organophosphate and organochlorine pesticides, PAHs, 

and PCBs. Forty-six of those compounds were detected in 

quantifiable concentrations (table 22). 

Chlorpyrifos was the only organophosphate 

pesticide detected in bed-sediment samples from the 

Birmingham study sites, and the concentrations were
70 Investigation of Water Quality and Aquatic-Community Structure in Village and Valley Creeks, Alabama, 2000 – 01

Table 22. Concentrations of pesticides and other organic compounds detected in bed-sediment samples from streams in the Birmingham area, Alabama, 

2000

[Values are in micrograms per kilogram unless otherwise noted; PEL, probable effect level; E, estimated value; <, less than; na, not available; g/kg, grams per 

kilogram. Shaded values are concentrations that exceeded the PEL. Site locations are shown in figure 1]

Analyte VIL-1 VIL-2 VIL-3 VAL-1 VAL-2 FMC PELa

(dry weight)

1,6-dimethylnaphthalene E 2.7 57.7 81.8 E 27.1 E 27.7 < 50 na

1,2-dimethylnaphthalene < 50 < 50 E 20.7 < 50 E 2.9 < 50 na

1-methylpyrene E 14 77.6 109 92.2 68.1 E 4.8 na

1-methylphenanthrene E 20.6 120 158 96.3 93.1 E 12.5 na

2,3,6-trimethylnaphthalene < 50 E 47.2 E 41.2 E 22.8 E 19.9 < 50 na

2,6-dimethylnaphthalene E 3.5 76.2 147 E 30.4 E 33.4 E 3.6 na

2-ethylnaphthalene < 50 E 11.9 E 12.4 E 17.3 E 3.4 < 50 na

2-methylanthracene E 9.5 58 83.2 E 47.4 52.6 E 2.7 na

4H-cyclopenta-phenanthrene E 36.7 134 209 203 148 E 7.7 na

9,10-anthraquinone 110 278 286 416 253 E 47.5 na

9h-fluorene E 12.8 106 170 85.9 67.6 E 9.6 na

Acenaphthene E 8.6 83.5 168 62.5 50.5 E 2.1 88.9

Acenaphthylene E 7.4 82.2 112 56.7 52.6 E 2.2 128

Acridine E 29.6 E 42.5 < 50 128 50.4 < 50 na

Anthracene E 49.7 305 441 302 247 E 19.8 na

Benz(a)anthracene 268 1,020 1,150 1,110 1,170 69 385

Benzo[a]pyrene 274 929 1,120 1,180 1,050 80.1 782

Benzo[b]fluoranthene 354 1,140 1,550 1,220 1,120 113 na

Benzo[ghi]perylene 214 E 305 859 848 E 292 59.3 na

Benzo[k]fluoranthene 302 1,000 1,230 732 909 109 na

bis(2-Ethylhexyl) phthalate 114 985 1,150 940 1,070 E 38.5 na

Butylbenzylphthalate E 10.4 295 134 92 68 < 50 na

Carbazole 51 174 258 273 154 E 14.2 na

Carbon, total (g/kg as carbon) 12 55.45 69.32 33.96 30.03 17.76 na

Chlordane 34 54 53 46 66 < 3 8.87

Chlorpyrifos 4.15 23.1 9.28 15.7 10.3 .25 na

Chrysene 380 1,220 1,410 986 1,400 104 862

DDE, p,p' .4 3.72 7.1 .78 .87 < .2 6.75

DDT, p,p' .6 2.7 < 5.2 1.5 1.2 < .5 4.77

Dibenz[a,h]anthracene 60 E 103 273 208 E 112 E 19.5 135

Dibenzothiophene E 10.1 72.9 86.6 75.2 60.8 E 1.4 na

Diethyl phthalate < 50 < 50 < 50 E 14.5 < 50 < 50 na

Di-n-butyl phthalate E 11 E 41.7 E 44.8 E 21.7 E 31.1 E 21.7 na

Di-n-octylphthalate < 50 94.2 < 50 1,390 57.3 < 50 na

Fluoranthene 655 1,970 1,710 2,830 1,990 202 2,355

Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene 258 E 425 1,000 1,040 E 445 88.7 na

Isoquinoline < 50 < 50 < 50 E 21 < 50 < 50 na

Naphthalene E 3.1 < 50 258 < 50 < 50 < 50 391

PCB, total 5.7 95 85 28 39 < 5 277

p-CRESOL E 7.9 262 182 E 47.1 79.9 < 50 na

p-dichlorobenzene < 50 E 12 < 50 < 50 E 13.6 < 50 na

Phenanthrene 286 1,210 1,490 1,320 1,000 104 515

Phenanthridine E 9.8 E 29.8 < 50 E 39 E 27.6 < 50 na

Phenol E 6.5 56 63.9 E 38.6 E 14.2 E 7.4 na

Pyrene 504 1,400 1,390 2,160 1,420 161 875

Quinoline < 50 E 1.6 E 12.7 < 50 < 50 < 50 na
Bed Sediment and Fish Tissue 71

Nondetections

1,2,4-trichlorobenzene < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 na

1-methyl-9h-fluorene < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 na

2,2'-biquinoline < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 na

2,4-dinitrotoluene < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 na

2,6-dinitrotoluene < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 na

2-chloronaphthalene < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 na

2-chlorophenol < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 na

3,5-xylenol (dimethylphenol) < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 na

4-bromophenyl phenyl ether < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 na

4-Chloro-m-cresol (4-chloro-3-

methylphenol)

< 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 na

4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 na

Aldrin < .2 < .2 < .2 < .2 < .4 < .2 na

Azobenzene < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 na

Benzo[c]cinnoline < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 na

bis-2-Chloroethyl ether < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 na

bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 na

C8-alkylphenol < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 na

Diazinon < .2 < .2 < .2 < .2 < .2 < .2 na

m-Dichlorobenzene < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 na

o-Dichlorobenzene < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 na

Dieldrin < .2 < .2 < .2 < .2 < .2 < .2 na

Dimethyl phthalate < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 na

Endosulfan < .2 < .2 < .2 < .2 < .2 < .2 na

Endrin < .2 < .2 < .2 < .2 < .2 < .2 na

Ethion < .2 < .2 < .2 < .2 < .2 < .2 na

Heptachlor epoxide < .2 < .2 < .2 < .2 < .2 < .2 na

Heptachlor < .2 < .2 < .2 < .2 < .2 < .2 na

Hexachlorobenzene < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 na

Isophorone < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 na

Lindane < .2 < .2 < .2 < .2 < .2 < .2 na

Malathion < .2 < .2 < .2 < .2 < .2 < .2 na

Methoxychlor < 2 < 2.5 < 2.5 < 2.5 < 2.5 < 2.5 na

Methylparathion < .2 < .2 < .2 < .2 < .2 < .2 na

Mirex < .2 < .2 < .2 < .2 < .2 < .2 na

Nitrobenzene < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 na

N-nitrosodi-N-propylamine < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 na

n-Nitrosodiphenylamine < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 na

p,p'-DDD < 1.9 < 1.1 < 3 < 2.1 < 2.4 < .5 na

Parathion < .2 < .2 < .2 < .2 < .2 < .2 na

Pentachloroanisole < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 na

Pentachloronitrobenzene < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 na

Toxaphene < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 < 50 na

Trithion < .2 < .2 < .2 < .2 < .2 < .2 na

a

 Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, 1995.

Table 22. Concentrations of pesticides and other organic compounds detected in bed-sediment samples from streams in the Birmingham area, Alabama, 

2000 — Continued

[Values are in micrograms per kilogram unless otherwise noted; PEL, probable effect level; E, estimated value; <, less than; na, not available; g/kg, grams per 

kilogram. Shaded values are concentrations that exceeded the PEL. Site locations are shown in figure 1]

Analyte VIL-1 VIL-2 VIL-3 VAL-1 VAL-2 FMC PELa

(dry weight)
72 Investigation of Water Quality and Aquatic-Community Structure in Village and Valley Creeks, Alabama, 2000 – 01

Figure 31. Concentrations of chlorpyrifos detected in bed 

sediment and fish tissue (Lepomis species) from streams in the 

Birmingham area, Alabama, 2000.

quantifiable in samples from all sites (fig. 31). 

Concentrations of chlorpyrifos were highest in bed-sediment samples from VIL-2 and lowest in samples from 

FMC (table 22). The concentrations in bed-sediment samples from VAL-1 and VAL-2 were higher than 

concentrations from VIL-1 or VIL-3 (table 22). The 

presence of chlorpyrifos in bed sediment was of particular 

interest to the city of Birmingham because of the fish kill 

that resulted from the 1997 spill of Dursban into Village 

Creek. In addition to a lethal effect on fishes, chlorpyrifos 

is acutely toxic to some species of aquatic invertebrates at 

water-column concentrations as low as 0.0035 μg/L, and 

has been shown to decrease densities of aquatic 

invertebrates (Odenkirchen and Eisler, 1988). However, 

since chlorpyrifos has a half-life of about 24 days in a 

water-column-sediment mixture and about 9 hours in 

fishes (Odenkirchen and Eisler, 1988), it is unlikely that 

there was any residual chlorpyrifos in the bed sediment of 

Village Creek that can be directly attributed to the 

Dursban spill in 1997. The presence of persistent 

Known degradation products, or metabolites, include 

DDE and DDD, which are also highly persistent. DDE is 

commonly produced in oxygen-rich environments, such 

as streams and some soils; DDD is produced only in oxygen-depleted environments, such as ground water 

(Chapelle, 1993). 

The bed-sediment concentrations of DDD, DDE, 

DDT, and the ratio of DDT/total DDT at the six sites in the 

Birmingham area are provided in table 23. The p,p'-DDT 

isomer was detected in the bed-sediment samples at 

VIL-1, VIL-2, VAL-1, and VAL-2; the p,p'-DDE isomer 

was detected at every site on Village and Valley Creeks; 

the p,p'-DDD isomer was not detected at any site 

(table 23; fig. 32A). The highest concentration of 

p,p'-DDT (2.7 μg/kg) occurred at VIL-2; the highest 

concentration of p,p'-DDE (7.10 μg/kg) occurred at 

VIL-3 and exceeded the PEL of 6.75 μg/kg at that site 

(fig. 32A; table 22). The highest total DDT concentration, 

based on only the p,p'-DDE and the p,p'-DDT isomers, 

occurred at VIL-3 (fig. 32A). 

organochlorine compounds, such as DDT, in the aquatic 

environment may be related to both past and present land 

use in the watershed. DDT is relatively immobile and 

highly persistent in the soil environment, with a reported 

half-life of between 2 and 15 years (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 2000b). The reported halflife for DDT in the water environment is approximately 56 

days in lakes and 28 days in river water (Agency for Toxic 

Substances and Disease Registry, 2000b). DDT can be 

degraded in both the soil and aquatic environments; however, degradation occurs much more slowly in soils. 

Figure 32. Concentrations of DDT and its degradation 

products detected in (A) bed sediment and (B) fish tissue 

(Lepomis species) from streams in the Birmingham area, 

Alabama, 2000.
Bed Sediment and Fish Tissue 73

Table 23. Concentrations of DDT and its degradation products detected in bed-sediment and fish-tissue samples at selected stream sites in the 

Birmingham area, Alabama, 2000

[Values are in micrograms per kilogram; NA, no analysis for this isomer; <, less than; ND, not able to be determined because of censored or 

missing values. Ratios in bold indicate recent mobilization and introduction of residual DDT into the hydrologic system at the site]

Site 

label 

(fig. 1)

o,p'-

DDD

p,p'-

DDD o,p'-DDE p,p'-DDE o,p'-DDT p,p'-DDT Total DDTa

a

 Total DDT values for bed sediment are estimated from p,p'-isomer data only. Total DDT values for fish tissue are estimated from 

the p,p'- and o,p'-isomer data.

DDTb/

total 

DDT

b

 DDT values for fish tissue are estimated from the p,p'-DDT and o,p'-DDT isomers only.

DDE, 

percent of 

total DDT

DDD, 

percent of 

total DDT

Bed sediment

VIL-1 NA < 1.9 NA 0.40 NA 0.6 1.0 ND 40 ND

VIL-2 NA < 1.1 NA 3.72 NA 2.7 6.4 ND 58 ND

VIL-3 NA < 3.0 NA 7.10 NA < 5.2 7.1 ND 100 ND

VAL-1 NA < 2.1 NA .78 NA 1.5 2.3 ND 34 ND

VAL-2 NA < 2.4 NA .87 NA 1.2 2.1 ND 42 ND

FMC NA < .5 NA < .2 NA < .5 ND ND ND ND

Fish tissue

VIL-1 < 5 7 < 5 20 < 5 4 31 0.13 65 23

VIL-2 < 5 < 5 < 5 51 9.7 < 5 61 .16 84 ND

VIL-3 < 5 5.1 < 5 16 < 5 < 5 21 ND 76 24

VAL-1 < 5 17 < 5 16 < 5 7.6 41 .19 39 42

VAL-2 < 5 20 < 5 25 < 5 7.9 53 .15 47 38

FMC < 5 3.9 < 5 7 < 5 < 5 11 ND 64 36

Studies have indicated that the ratio of DDT2 / total 

DDT3 can be used to determine how long DDT has been 

in the environment (Nowell and others, 1999). Nowell 

and others (1999) reported that a ratio exceeding 

10 percent (in bed sediment or fish samples) was 

considered to be indicative of recent movement of DDT 

(as compared to historical use) into the hydrologic 

system, for example, by erosion of DDT-contaminated 

soil. In this study, an accurate estimate of DDT and total 

DDT for bed-sediment samples could not be made for two 

reasons: (1) bed-sediment samples were analyzed for the 

p,p'-isomer of DDT and its metabolites only—o,p'-

isomers were not quantified and, (2) p,p'-DDD and p,p'-

DDT values were censored at relatively high 

concentrations. 

Chlordane is another persistent organo-chlorine 

pesticide. Chlordane actually is a mixture of many 

compounds, the most abundant being cis- and transchlordane (24 and 19 percent, respectively), heptachlor 

(10 percent), and nonachlor isomers (7 percent). 

Chlordane was detected in bed-sediment samples from all 

sites except FMC (fig. 33A). Detections ranged from 

34 μg/kg at VIL-1 to 66 μg/kg at VAL-2 (table 22). 

Chlordane concentra-tions at all sites, except FMC, were 

over 3 times the PEL of 8.87 μg/kg; such levels have been 

linked to physiological changes in aquatic biota (Nowell 

and others, 1999).

Several PAHs also were detected in measurable 

quantities at all sites. Among the nonpesticide organic 

compounds for which bed-sediment samples were 

analyzed, those accounting for the largest percentage of 

the summed concentrations (from 10 to 16 percent) at 

each site were fluoranthene and pyrene (table 22). 

Concentrations of organic compounds that exceeded 

PELs are highlighted in table 22—concentrations of eight 

PAHs (in decreasing order of concentration, 

fluoroanthene, pyrene, phenanthrene, chrysene, 

benzo[a]pyrene, benz[a]anthracene, 

dibenz[ah]anthracene, and acenaphthene) exceeded PELs 

at sites on Village and Valley Creek (table 22). 

Concentrations of pyrene, phenanthrene, chrysene, 

benzo[a]pyrene, and benz(a)anthracene exceeded PELs 

at all sites except 

VIL-1 and FMC. PAH concentrations in bed-sediment 

samples from FMC and VIL-1 did not exceed PELs.

Bed-sediment samples from VAL-1 had the highest 

summed concentrations and FMC had the lowest summed 

concentrations of all organic compounds analyzed 

(table 22). In Village Creek, concentrations of 75 percent 

of the detected organic compounds were lowest at VIL-1 

and increased in a downstream direction from VIL-2 to 

VIL-3. Concentrations of 25 percent of the detected

2

DDT refers to the sum of o,p'-DDT and p,p'-DDT. 3

Total DDT refers to the sum of o,p'-DDD, p,p'-DDD, o,p'-DDE, 

p,p'-DDE, o,p'-DDT, and p,p'-DDT.
74 Investigation of Water Quality and Aquatic-Community Structure in Village and Valley Creeks, Alabama, 2000 – 01

organic compounds, including chlorpyrifos, were highest 

at VIL-2, followed by VIL-3 and VIL-1 (table 22). In contrast, concentrations of about 70 percent of the detected 

organic compounds in Valley Creek were highest at VAL1 and decreased in a downstream direction from VAL-1 to 

VAL-2 (table 22). 

Organic Compounds in Fish Tissue

Fish-tissue samples were analyzed for PCBs, 

26 organochlorine pesticides, and 19 organophosphate 

pesticides. Tissue analysis data are presented as reported 

by the NWQL in table 24. Fourteen organic compounds 

were quantifiable in the fish-tissue samples. Eight were 

detected in the samples from all six sites (chlorpyrifos, 

total DDT, cis- and trans-nonachlor, cis- and transchlordane, oxychlordane, and total PCBs). Total 

chlordane refers to the total of the cis- and transchlordane, cis-and trans-nonachlor, and oxychlordane 

concen-trations (Nowell and other, 1999). Although the 

chlordane isomers (cis- and trans-) are the most abundant 

components of chlordane, trans-nonachlor is the most 

persistent component. The predominance of transnonachlor as compared to the other components in fish 

tissue can be used to indicate a reduction in chlordane 

input to the hydrologic system (Nowell and others, 

1999). 

Total chlordane was detected in the highest 

concentrations in fish tissue collected at VIL-1, 

VAL-2, and VAL-1 (table 24). Among the 

components of total chlordane, trans-nonachlor 

accounted for the largest percentage (38 to 49 

percent of the total) among the three streams 

(fig. 3B). The greatest percentage of the more 

persistent component of chlordane, trans-nonachlor, 

at all sites indicated long-term residual chlordane in 

the hydrologic system, not recent input. Total 

chlordane concentrations in fish-tissue samples from 

VIL-1, VAL-1, and VAL-2 exceeded guidelines for 

the protection of fish-eating wildlife (table 24; 

National Academy of Science/National Academy of 

Engineering, 1973) and the USEPA screening 

criterion for edible fish (U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1995). A comparison of 

pesticide concentrations in whole fish samples, as 

were collected in this study, with standards or 

guidelines for edible fish is appropriate only as a 

screening procedure to determine whether 

additional sampling is warranted (Nowell and 

Resek, 1994). 

Chlorpyrifos was detected in fish-tissue 

samples from every site. The highest concentrations 

were found in samples from VAL-1 and VAL-2, 

respectively, and the lowest concentration from VIL-1 

(fig. 31; table 24). Chlorpyrifos also was detected in bedsediment samples from every site (fig. 31; table 22). The 

highest concentrations in bed sediment, however, were 

found in samples from VIL-2 and VAL-1, and the lowest 

concentration from FMC. In contrast, all fish-tissue 

samples from Village Creek had lower concentrations of 

chlorpyrifos than were detected in bed-sediment samples 

from the same sites—and all fish-tissue samples from 

Valley Creek had higher concentrations of chlorpyrifos than 

were detected in bed-sediment samples. 

Dieldrin was detected in all of the fish-tissue 

samples in the Birmingham study (table 24). Dieldrin is both 

a degradation product of aldrin and a directly applied 

insecticide. The use of dieldrin began in the 1950’s 

to control pests on cotton and corn, and to kill termites 

around buildings; however, its use was discontinued by 

the USEPA in 1987. Dieldrin binds tightly to soil, breaks 

down very slowly, and is readily washed into streams and 

waterways by rainfall. Because dieldrin is soluble in 

lipids, it has a tendency to be stored in fat tissue and leaves 

the body very slowly. Concentrations of dieldrin were 

highest in fish-tissue samples from VIL-1, VAL-1, and 

VAL-2 (table 24). Dieldrin concentrations at these sites

Figure 33. Concentrations of (A) total chlordane detected in bed sediment and (B) 

components of total chlordane detected in fish tissue (Lepomis species) from streams 

in the Birmingham area, Alabama, 2000.
Bed Sediment and Fish Tissue 75

Table 24. Concentrations of pesticides and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) detected in fish tissue (Lepomis species) from streams in the Birmingham 

area, Alabama, 2000

[Values are in micrograms per kilogram; NAS/NAE, National Academy of Sciences/National Academy of Engineering; FDA, Food and Drug Administration; 

USEPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; <, less than; —, no value; E, estimated; PCB, polychlorinated biphenyl. Shaded values are concentrations that 

exceeded environmental or human health criteria]

Analyte

Site label (fig. 1) Environmental 

criteria Human health criteria

VIL-1 VIL-2 VIL-3 VAL-1 VAL-2 FMC

NAS/NAE

recommended 

guideline for 

freshwater 

whole fisha

FDA action 

level for 

edible fishb

USEPA 

screening 

criteria for 

edible fishc

International 

legal limit for 

edible fishd

Organochlorine pesticides and PCBs

Dieldrin 140 34 23 170 120 35 100 300 — 300

Aldrin < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 100 300 — —

alpha-BHC < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 — — — —

beta-BHC < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 — — — —

Chlordane, trans 12 E 4.7 E 3.1 20 16 5.3 — — — —

Chlordane, cis 40 15 8.6 43 37 11 — — — —

Nonachlor, cis 30 9.7 6.3 19 26 4.6 — — — —

Nonachlor, trans 100 23 16 60 70 19 — — — —

Oxychlordane 23 E 4.9 E 3.9 18 20 5.1 — — — 66,100

Total chlordanee 205 57.3 37.9 160 169 45 100 300 80 300

Heptachlor epoxide 39 E 3.2 < 5 17 20 E 3.9 100 300 10 300

Heptachlor < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 100 300 — —

DCPA < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 — — — —

DDD, o,p' < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 — — — —

DDD, p,p' 7 < 5 5.1 17 20 3.9 — — — 5,000

DDE, o,p' < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 — — — —

DDE, p,p' 20 51 16 16 25 7 — — — 5,000

DDT, o,p' < 5 9.7 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 — — — —

DDT, p,p' 4 < 5 < 5 7.6 7.9 < 5 — — — 5,000

Total DDTf 31 61 21 41 53 11 1,000 5,000 300 5,000

delta-BHC < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 100 — 60,000 —

Endrin < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 100 300 3,000 300

Hexachlorobenzene < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 — — 70 —

Lindane < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 — — 80 —

Methoxychlor, o,p' < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 — — — —

Methoxychlor, p,p' < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 — — — —

Mirex < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 — — 2,000 100

PCB total 170 660 700 320 470 120 500 2,000 10 2,000

Pentachloroanisol < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 — — — —

Toxaphene < 200 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 100 5,000 100 100

Organophosphate pesticides

Diazinon < 5 < 5 < 5 E 1.52 < 5 < 5 — — — —

Disulfoton < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 — — — —

Ethion < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 — — — —

Ethoprop metabolite < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 — — — —

Fenthion < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 — — — —

DEF < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 — — — —

Chlorpyrifos E 1.76 6.52 6.12 44.97 27.19 14 — — — —

Fonofos < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 — — — —

Malathion < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 — — — —

Methidathion < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 — — — —

Methyl parathion < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 — — — —

Parathion < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 — — — —
76 Investigation of Water Quality and Aquatic-Community Structure in Village and Valley Creeks, Alabama, 2000 – 01

exceeded or equaled the criterion for the protection of 

aquatic life (100 μg/kg; table 24). 

The concentrations of total PCBs in fish wholebody tissue were highest at VIL-2 and VIL-3, and 

exceeded guidelines for the protection of fish and wildlife 

(500 μg/kg; table 24). The lowest PCB concentration was 

detected in fish-tissue samples collected at FMC 

(fig. 34B). The concentrations of PCBs in fishes from all 

sites greatly exceeded the USEPA screening criterion for 

the protection of human health (table 24). A similar 

pattern was seen in the concentrations of total PCBs in bed 

sediment and fish tissue (fig. 34); however, concentrations 

in fish tissue were an order of magnitude greater than seen 

in the bed sediment (table 22). 

The relative concentrations of DDT and its 

degradation products detected in fish tissue are shown in 

figure 32B. The maximum concentration of total DDT in 

fish tissue collected from Birmingham area streams was 

61 μg/kg at VIL-2 (table 23). Concentrations of total DDT 

in fish-tissue samples from all sites were lower than any 

criterion for the protection of aquatic life or human health. 

Although p,p'-DDE was the only degradation product of 

DDT found in bed sediment (fig. 32A), fish tissue 

contained p,p'-DDD and p,p'-DDE (fig. 32B). In Village 

Creek, p,p'-DDE was detected in all fish-tissue samples 

(fig. 32B) accounting for 65, 84, and 76 percent of the total 

DDT in fish tissue at VIL-1, VIL-2, and VIL-3, 

respectively (table 23). In Valley Creek, p,p'-DDE and

Organophosphate pesticides (Continued)

Phorate < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 — — — —

Profenofos < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 — — — —

Propetamphos < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 — — — —

Sulfotepp < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 — — — —

Sulprofos < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 — — — —

Terbufos < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 — — — —

Trithion < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 < 5 — — — —

a

 National Academy of Sciences/National Academy of Engineering, 1973. b Nowell and Resek, 1994.

c

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1995.

d

 Nauen, 1983.

e

 Sum of cis-chlordane, trans-chlordane, cis-nonachlor, trans-nonachlor, and oxychlordane, excluding “<” values. f

 Sum of o,p'-DDD, p,p'-DDD, o,p'-DDE, p,p'-DDE, o,p'-DDT, p,p'-DDT, excluding “<” values.

Table 24. Concentrations of pesticides and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) detected in fish tissue (Lepomis species) from streams in the Birmingham 

area, Alabama, 2000 — Continued

[Values are in micrograms per kilogram; NAS/NAE, National Academy of Sciences/National Academy of Engineering; FDA, Food and Drug Administration; 

USEPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; <, less than; —, no value; E, estimated; PCB, polychlorinated biphenyl. Shaded values are concentrations that 

exceeded environmental or human health criteria]

Analyte

Site label (fig. 1) Environmental 

criteria Human health criteria

VIL-1 VIL-2 VIL-3 VAL-1 VAL-2 FMC

NAS/NAE

recommended 

guideline for 

freshwater 

whole fisha

FDA action 

level for 

edible fishb

USEPA 

screening 

criteria for 

edible fishc

International 

legal limit for 

edible fishd

Figure 34. Concentrations of total polychlorinated 

biphenyls (PCBs) detected in (A) bed sediment and 

(B) fish tissue (Lepomis species) from streams in the 

Birmingham area, Alabama, 2000.
Habitat 77

p,p'-DDD concentrations were relatively equivalent 

(fig. 32B), accounting for 39 and 42 percent of total DDT, 

respectively, at VAL-1, and 47 and 38 percent, 

respectively, at VAL-2 . No o,p'-isomers of DDD or DDE 

were detected at any of the Birmingham sampling sites. 

The ratios of DDT to total DDT at VIL-1, VIL-2, VAL-1, 

and VAL-2 were greater than 0.10, indicating recent 

mobilization of DDT. Although the ratio of DDT to total 

DDT could not be computed at VIL-3 or FMC because of 

censored values, the presence of detectable concentrations 

of the degradation products, DDE and DDD, and the 

absence of DDT indicated longer-term degradation of 

residual DDT (table 23). 

Habitat

Habitat was evaluated by collecting data on specific 

physical and geomorphological characteristics of the 

stream reaches at six of the Birmingham sites, including 

VIL-1, VIL-3, VAL-1, VAL-2, LCR, and FMC (table 25). 

No significant correlations were detected between any 

habitat characteristic and the aquatic communities in the 

study sites. The stream reaches, however, differed in 

several ways (table 25). For example, the length of 

VIL-3 (349 m) exceeded that of the other stream reaches 

in order to include two riffle areas for the collection of 

benthic-invertebrates, whereas two or more riffles were 

present within a 200-m stream reach at all other sites. The

riffles in VIL-3 were located at each end of the reach and 

were separated by a series of runs and shallow pools. 

VIL-1 and LCR had no discernable pools, however, pools 

in the other sites ranged from 6.7 to 18.3 percent of the 

reach (VAL-1 and VIL-3, respectively). FMC and VIL-1 

were totally enclosed by riparian vegetation (zero canopy 

angle; table 25), whereas the other sites ranged from 

37.1 to 99.7 degrees of open canopy angle (VAL-1 and 

LCR, respectively). Stream gradient differed little from 

reach to reach. Stream widths in VIL-1, VAL-1, and FMC 

were similar—with an average wetted channel width of 

6.7 m; stream widths at VIL-3, VAL-2, and LCR were 

twice as large, with an average wetted channel width 

of 14.7 m. 

Table 25. Habitat characteristics in selected streams in the Birmingham area, Alabama, 2000

[m, meter; m2, square meter; m3, cubic meter; rth, richest targeted habitat; m/s, meters per second; RW, right-of-way; OT, other—exposed rock; UI, urban industrial; UR, urban residential; SW, shrubs or woodland]

Characteristics VIL-1 VIL-3 VAL-1 VAL-2 LCR FMC

Reach length (m) 150 349 150 200 200 180

Reach stream surface area (m2) 805.2 6,361 1,196 3,022 2,215 1,087

Reach volume (m3) 147 1,802 844 899 538 119

Reach surface-water gradient .00220 .00203 .00240 .00253 .00238 .00240

Mean bank height (m) 1.46 3.20 3.27 2.40 1.41 3.55

Mean channel bankfull width (m) 7.45 30.3 22.9 25.8 14.1 10.7

Mean wetted channel width (m) 5.75 18.2 7.97 15.1 11.4 6.04

Mean direction of flow (degrees magnetic) 145 237 235 181 196 38.6

Mean water depth (m) in reach .182 .3 .1 .3 .246 .08

Mean water depth (m) at rth invertebrate sampling 

locations

.14 .10 .09 .22 .15 .10

Mean current velocity (m/s) at rth invertebrate 

sampling locations

.36 .43 .35 .32 .41 .27

Mean percent embeddedness in rth sampling sites 84 83 86 99 65 100

Riffle area in reach (percent) 42.9 13.2 35.3 22.3 16.0 29.0

Frequency of silt in riffle habitats (percent) 73 97 18 100 100 100

Pool area in reach (percent) 0 18.3 6.7 10.6 0 8.06

Run area in reach (percent) 57 68 58 67 84 63

Mean open canopy angle in the reach (degrees) 0 85 37.1 77.4 99.7 0

Mean open canopy angle in riffle habitat (degrees) 90 120 118 139 110 0

Mean bank vegetation cover (percent) 82 40 49 93 94 90

Mean riparian canopy closure in the reach (percent) 100 79.9 48.9 94.9 95.4 95.2

Mean riparian canopy closure in riffle habitat 

(percent)

100 75 51 97 88 99

Dominant riparian land use RW/OT UI UR SW SW SW
78 Investigation of Water Quality and Aquatic-Community Structure in Village and Valley Creeks, Alabama, 2000 – 01

Silt was present in only 18 percent of the riffle 

habitats at VAL-1 whereas the minimum frequency of 

occurrence of silt at the other sites was 73 percent 

(VIL-1; table 25). Silt occurred in 97 percent of the 

riffle habitats at VIL-3 and was present in 100 percent 

of the riffle habitats at VAL-2, LCR, and FMC. 

Channeling by the concrete structures that deliver 

water to VAL-1 from under the city may facilitate 

the downstream transport of lighter sediments, 

resulting in less silt at VAL-1. In addition, less silt 

may be transported into the system at VAL-1 

because of the increased amount of impervious 

surface in the basin, which has been shown to result 

in a decrease of silt available in urbanized areas 

(Doyle and others, 2000). 

VAL-1 and VIL-3 had the smallest percentages of 

riparian canopy closure in riffle habitats and the smallest 

percentage of bank vegetative cover at all transects 

(table 25). VAL-1 and VIL-3 also had the highest 

concentrations of summed organic compounds detected in 

bed-sediment samples (tables 20, 22). Although, no 

significant correlation was found between these habitat 

properties and the concentrations of bed-sediment 

constituents, these data may indicate the importance of 

protecting riparian buffer zones that have been found to 

act as natural filters and reduce the direct runoff of 

contaminants from modified landscapes to the stream. 

Aquatic Community

Benthic-invertebrate and fish communities were 

evaluated at six of the Birmingham area sites (VIL-1, 

VIL-3, VAL-1, VAL-2, LCR, and FMC). The primary 

community metrics investigated were richness and 

density.

Benthic-Invertebrate Communities

Analysis of qualitative and quantitative 

samples collected in the Birmingham area streams 

identified 105 taxa of benthic invertebrates. After 

censoring, 24 ambiguous taxa were eliminated from 

the analysis and comparisons were made using the 

remaining 81 taxa, which represented 5 phyla, 

8 classes, and 22 orders of invertebrates (appendix 

table 3-2).

All sites in Village and Valley Creeks had 

lower benthic-invertebrate community richness 

than FMC and LCR (fig. 35). The site with the 

highest richness was FMC with 29 taxa in the June 

collection; the site with the lowest richness was 

VAL-1 with 6 taxa identified in the June collection 

(appendix table 3-2). Benthic-invertebrate richness 

was the same at VIL-1 and VIL-3 in June, but 

richness in Village Creek decreased in a downstream 

direction from VIL-1 to VIL-3 in October. In contrast, 

richness increased in a downstream direction from VAL-1 

to VAL-2 in both June and October (fig. 35). These downstream patterns were the inverse of those noted previously 

for the concentrations of organic compounds and trace elements in bed-sediment and water-column samples from 

these sites. 

Benthic-invertebrate community metrics were 

characterized by using quantitative taxonomic data from 

samples collected at each site (appendix table 3-3). The 

highest diversity was seen at FMC (1.12) and LCR (1.06) 

and the lowest diversity occurred at VAL-1 (0.339). Data 

from all samples were compared to that collected from the 

FMC sample using the Pinkham-Pearson similarity index. 

FMC was selected as the index site because it had the

Figure 35. Benthic-invertebrate community richness in streams in the 

Birmingham area, Alabama, 2000.

Figure 36. Similarity of the benthic-invertebrate community at five sites in the 

Birmingham area, Alabama, to that of a reference site — FMC — (June 2000), 

compared with the percentage of urban land use in the drainage basin.
Aquatic Community 79

smallest amount of urban land use upstream from 

the sampling reach. The site most similar to FMC 

was LCR (fig. 36), another site with little urban 

land use. The site most dissimilar to FMC was 

VAL-1, which had the highest percentage of urban 

land use of all sites (table 2). This may be related 

to the presence of highly tolerant organisms such 

as tubificid worms and chironomids (appendix 

table 3-2) commonly found at degraded sites with 

a high percentage of industrial land use. 

The greatest density of benthic invertebrates 

occurred in samples collected during June at 

VAL-1 (fig. 37). The greatest proportion of that 

density (65 percent) was contributed by the midges 

(Chironomidae; figs. 38 and 39; appendix 

table 3-3), a family of insects whose members 

commonly are associated with environmental 

perturbation. The density and the relative abundance of 

midges decreased in a downstream direction from VAL-1 

to VAL-2 and increased in a downstream direction from 

VIL-1 to VIL-3 (figs. 38 and 39); this pattern was similar 

for both sampling months. The relative abundance of 

midges ranged from 17 to 77 percent in Village and Valley 

Creeks but was less than 2 percent in LCR and less than 

7 percent at FMC (appendix table 3-3). 

Benthic-invertebrate density decreased in a 

downstream direction in both Village and Valley Creeks in 

June 2000 (appendix table 3-2). In October, benthic-invertebrate density decreased in a downstream direction in 

Valley Creek, but increased in a downstream direction in 

Village Creek. The increase at VIL-3 appeared to be due 

primarily to a greater density of midges (2,415 per m2) in 

October compared to June (1,334 per m2

), and to a 

decrease in the numbers of water mites (Acari) and midges 

in VIL-1 between June and October (appendix table 3-2). 

In general, however, these patterns are similar to those 

observed for the concentrations of bed-sediment organic 

compounds and trace elements, and are the 

inverse of the observed patterns of benthicinvertebrate community richness. The patterns 

seen among multiple environmental indicators 

in Village and Valley Creeks further strengthen 

the observation that these aquatic communities 

reflect anthropogenic effects associated with 

urbanization.

The number of EPT taxa was higher and 

the relative abundance of EPT species was 

greater in samples from the least urbanized sites 

(FMC and LCR; appendix table 3-3). The 

difference in EPT richness and abundance likely 

reflects a difference in water quality between 

the most and least urbanized sites. The 

EPT/Chironomid ratios also were highest at 

LCR and FMC, indicating a richer aquatic 

community (appendix table 3-3) in comparison 

to the EPT/Chironomid ratios for samples 

collected from Village and Valley Creeks. This 

finding also may indicate that water quality 

deteriorated downstream in Village Creek. 

Conversely, water quality appeared to improve 

in a downstream direction in Valley Creek. In 

the October sample from VAL-2, the caddisflies 

(Trichoptera) accounted for a higher proportion

Figure 37. Density of benthic-invertebrate taxa in selected streams in the Birmingham 

area, Alabama, June and October 2000.

Figure 38. The relative abundance of midges (Chironomidae) in selected streams 

in the Birmingham area, Alabama, June and October 2000.
80 Investigation of Water Quality and Aquatic-Community Structure in Village and Valley Creeks, Alabama, 2000 – 01

Figure 39. Comparison of the relative abundances of the dominant benthic-invertebrate taxa collected from streams in the Birmingham area,

Alabama, 2000. (Numbers beside each pie section are percentages of the total sample.)
Aquatic Community 81

of the density than the midges 

(appendix 

table 3-3; fig. 39).

The benthic-invertebrate 

communities at LCR (for both sampling 

months) and FMC had the highest 

community richness. Figure 39 shows 

the relative contributions (as percent 

relative abundance) of those taxa that 

contributed to 5 percent or more of the 

total community abundance. The great 

abundance and high density of midges 

at VAL-1 and VIL-3 during both 

sampling months (appendix table 3-3; 

fig. 39) may represent changes in 

community structure at these sites 

resulting from increasing 

anthropogenic disturbances in the 

watersheds. 

Fish Communities

Twenty-five fish species and one hybrid, 

representing 15 genera and 8 families, were collected at 

VIL-1, VIL-3, VAL-1, VAL-2, LCR, and FMC (appendix 

table 3-4). Shannon’s index of diversity indicated that 

LCR was the most diverse and VAL-1 was the least 

diverse of the sites sampled (appendix table 3-4). 

Diversity at FMC and VIL-3 were highly similar. This 

finding is not consistent with that found for the 

invertebrate community, which indicated that FMC was as 

diverse as LCR. The fish communities’ response to 

environmental perturbations may be related 

to long-term environmental changes in the 

watershed. 

The fish community at each site was 

compared to that at FMC by calculating an 

index of similarity (appendix table 3-4). 

The fish community at VAL-1 was least 

similar to that at FMC, which is consistent 

with results found for the benthicinvertebrate community. However, 

similarity assessment also indicated that 

VAL-2 was highly similar to FMC. 

Although somewhat contradictory, this 

result may indicate that the fish community 

is not as sensitive an indicator of 

anthropogenic perturbation as the benthicinvertebrate community.

The fish communities in Village and 

Valley Creeks had fewer species than those 

in LCR and FMC, the two less-urbanized 

streams. LCR and FMC had 16 and 12 

species of fishes, respectively, but only 8 or

fewer species were collected at VAL-2, VIL-1, and VIL-3 

(fig. 40; appendix table 3-4).

VAL-1 had fewest species (4) and the fish 

community was dominated by one taxon, the western 

mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis), which accounted for 

91 percent of the individuals collected (appendix 

table 3-4; fig. 41). The dominance of a single species in 

urbanized streams may be indicative of ecological stress. 

The mosquitofish is commonly found in degraded waters 

(Rohde and others, 1994). It has a broad range of 

temperature tolerance (6 to 35 °C) and can tolerate very 

low dissolved-oxygen concentrations (Robison and 

Buchanan, 1984). In addition, this fish is omnivorous,

Figure 40. Fish-community richness and catch per unit effort in streams in the Birmingham area, 

Alabama, 2001.

Figure 41. Relative abundance of fish families in streams in the Birmingham area, 

Alabama, 2001.
82 Investigation of Water Quality and Aquatic-Community Structure in Village and Valley Creeks, Alabama, 2000 – 01

consuming mosquito larvae, zooplankton, other fishes, 

and algae (Lee and others, 1980) and, therefore, is not as 

resource limited as other species, such as those specializing in one type of food. Because of its dominance

and high tolerance to degraded conditions, the 

mosquitofish is likely a good indicator of the severe 

environmental stress seen at VAL-1. 

The next most abundant species collected at 

VAL-1 was the longear sunfish (Lepomis megalotis), 

which accounted for only 5 percent of the community 

abundance (appendix table 3-4; fig. 41). It is considered to 

be intolerant of contaminants. This fish generally prefers 

small streams and the upland parts of rivers (Lee and 

others, 1980) with rocky bottoms, and preys primarily on 

aquatic insects and small fishes. Its presence at VAL-1 

may be related to the presence of an abundant food 

resource, that is, many small mosquitofishes, and a high 

density of midges (appendix table 3-3). The presence of 

the longear sunfish at VAL-1 is somewhat confounding 

due to its intolerance of environmental degradation; 

however, it does support the finding that the fish 

community may not be as sensitive an indicator of recent 

environmental perturbation as the benthic-invertebrate 

community.

The most ubiquitously distributed fish was the 

largescale stoneroller (Campostoma oligolepis), a type of 

minnow, which accounted for more than 60 percent of the 

abundance at VIL-1 and VAL-2, and for 41 percent of the 

abundance at VIL-3, and was present in lesser percentages 

at all other sites (appendix table 3-4; fig. 41). The 

largescale stoneroller prefers deep, fast riffles, and 

commonly is found in large to medium streams with clear, 

cool water, a moderate to swift current, and a gravel 

bottom (Lee and others, 1980). Its primary food sources 

are algae and detritus (Robison and Buchanan, 1984). As 

an algae eater, the stoneroller requires silt-free substrates 

on which its food resources will grow. The stoneroller is 

intolerant of siltation (Lee and others, 1980) and its 

presence at all sites is notable because silt was common 

(from 73.3 to 100 percent) in the riffle habitats of all sites 

except VAL-1 (table 25). The presence of the stoneroller 

may indicate that degradation associated with siltation 

may not be the primary anthropogenic factor affecting the 

fish communities at Village and Valley Creeks; however, 

the amount of siltation in these streams may not be severe 

enough or persistent enough to directly affect the 

distribution and abundance of the stoneroller.

The next most common species captured in the 

study were the green sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus) and the 

bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), which were each 

collected at all sites except VAL-1 (appendix table 3-4). 

These two species accounted for 54 percent of the fish 

community at LCR, 54 percent at FMC, and 44 percent at 

VIL-3. The bluegill and green sunfishes accounted for 

23 percent of the fishes at VIL-1 and only 0.4 percent at 

VAL-2 (appendix table 3-4). At VIL-3, VAL-2, and FMC, 

the percentages of each of these two species were about 

equal (appendix table 3-4); however, at FMC and VIL-1, 

the bluegill was considerably more abundant than the 

green sunfish. 

The proportion of individuals as green sunfish may 

be indicative of degraded surface-water quality (Plafkin 

and others, 1989). For example, this species is known to 

tolerate greater turbidity than other sunfishes (Rohde and 

others, 1994). Green sunfishes were captured at all sites 

except VAL-1 and were most abundant at LCR and 

VIL-3. Green sunfishes accounted for 29.7 and 

22.9 percent of the total fishes captured at LCR and 

VIL-3, respectively (appendix table 3-4). The dominance 

of green sunfish at LCR might be related to an unmeasured 

perturbation; however, the LCR sampling site is located 

downstream of a sanitary wastewater-treatment plant and 

a superfund site. Alternatively, their presence at LCR 

could be a result of recent migration into the system. At 

FMC, where a highly diverse invertebrate community is 

present, the green sunfishes accounted for only 

1.78 percent of the total fish abundance. This low 

abundance may be related to an inadequate food supply, 

competition for resources, or the green sunfish’s affinity 

for degraded waters. 

The number and identification of darter 

(Percinidae) and sculpin (Cottidae) species are known to 

be important indicators of water quality. Members of these 

groups are intolerant of contaminated waters (Klemm and 

others, 1993) and are commonly associated with good 

water quality. Darters were collected only at FMC, LCR, 

and VAL-2 (appendix table 3-4). Two species of darters 

accounted for 12 percent of the fishes captured at LCR and 

two additional species accounted for 3.6 percent of the 

fishes captured at FMC. In contrast, a single darter 

species, the blackbanded darter (Percina nigrofasciata), 

accounted for about 0.3 percent of those fishes collected at 

VAL-2 (appendix table 3-4). The blackbanded darter feeds 

primarily on immature Diptera (such as midge larvae), 

mayflies, and caddisflies (Lee and others, 1980). Its 

presence at VAL-2 may be related to the high densities of 

its primary sources of food (appendix table 3-3). 

The banded sculpin (Cottus carolinae) was the only 

sculpin collected in the study and was found only in the 

predominantly forested sites, LCR and FMC. It accounted 

for 3.89 percent of the community abundance at LCR and 

0.592 percent of the community abundance at FMC. This 

fish prefers cool, clear streams (Lee and others, 1980) and 

feeds primarily on crayfish, mayflies, and snails. The 
Correlations with Land Use 83

absence of sculpins in Village and Valley Creeks is likely 

due to poor water quality and hydrologic disturbance (for 

example, frequent flushing due to runoff from impervious 

areas) caused by human activities in the basins. 

Many minnow species are sensitive to physical and 

chemical habitat degradation in streams. These fishes 

make up the largest single family of fishes (Cyprinidae; 

Moyle, 1993), and the family is well represented in many 

streams throughout the United States. The shiners are 

members of this family and many are considered to be 

intolerant of contamination and habitat perturbation 

(Klemm and others, 1993); however, few were collected 

in this study. The blacktail shiner (Cyprinella venusta) 

was collected only at VAL-2 and LCR, but its relative 

abundance at both sites was low (0.552 and 0.707 percent, 

respectively). The tricolor shiner (C. trichroistia) was 

collected only at LCR, and represented only 0.4 percent of 

the fish community. The silverstripe shiner (Notropis 

stilbius) was collected only at FMC and accounted for 

about 2 percent of the fish community abundance. The 

absence of the silverstripe shiner from all but the forested 

site, FMC, may be related to water-quality degradation. Its 

absence from LCR is likely due to point sources upstream. 

The spotted sucker (Minytrema melanops) was 

collected only at LCR. This sucker prefers deep, clear 

pools with firm bottoms and is intolerant of silty or turbid 

waters (Rohde and others, 1994). It is moderately common 

in its range but has disappeared from areas where 

extensive siltation has occurred (Lee and others, 1980). 

The spotted sucker’s absence from sites in this study that 

contain silt and its low abundance (0.4 percent) at LCR 

may be a reflection of that sensitivity. The absence of the 

spotted sucker from VAL-1, where silt was detected in less 

that 20 percent of the riffle habitats, however, may be 

related to the presence of trace elements and organic 

contaminants, or other anthropogenic influences in the 

basin.

No anomalies were recorded for fishes collected 

from VIL-1 or VIL-3. The relatively high percentage of 

anomalies found at VAL-1 (appendix table 3-4) is 

consistent with earlier findings that this site has been 

affected by anthropogenic influences in its watershed.

CORRELATIONS WITH LAND USE

The relations between land use and water quality, 

bed sediment, fish tissue, and aquatic-community 

structure in the Birmingham study area were examined by 

using the Spearman-rho correlation test (SAS Institute, 

1989). Table 26 presents the most significant (p <0.05) 

correlations of these factors with residential, commercial, 

industrial, and forested land use. Statistically significant 

correlations between these land uses and water quality and 

aquatic indicator organisms were determined. However, 

because of the inherent limitations of statistical tests 

performed on small data sets, these results should be 

viewed as preliminary or exploratory rather than 

conclusive. 

 As the amount of urbanized area upstream from a 

site increases, there is an increased probability of elevated 

concentrations of contaminants in the water column as a 

result of human activity. Benthic-invertebrate 

communities are known to be affected by the combined 

effects of water-column and bed-sediment contaminants 

(Porcella and Sorensen, 1980; Clements and others, 

1988). In a study of streams in New Jersey, Kennen (1999) 

found that the total area of urban land use in close 

proximity to a sample site was a good indicator of severely 

impaired benthic communities. Such communities would 

be expected to have few species that are intolerant of 

contamination. Jones and Clark (1987) determined that an 

increase in tolerant benthic taxa and a decrease in diversity 

were associated with increasing urbanization, and Garie 

and McIntosh (1986) found that increasing urbanization 

had a direct effect on invertebrate richness and density, 

and was a driving factor in shifting community 

composition. 

Difficulty in measuring specific contamination 

sources has led investigators to use biological monitoring 

procedures that rely on the abundance of benthic 

invertebrates to assess stream degradation (Waters, 1995). 

Streamwaters of good quality are commonly identified by 

the greater abundance of pollution-intolerant taxa, such as 

those in the EPT group. Conversely, streamwaters of poor 

quality might be identified by the absence of such 

organisms (especially in areas where they are known to be 

common) and by the presence of taxa that are more 

tolerant of contamination and physical perturbation, such 

as the midges.

Correlation analysis of benthic-invertebrate data 

with ancillary environmental factors was confined to data 

collected in June 2000. These data included collections at 

two reference sites, two sites on Village Creek, and two 

sites on Valley Creek. Benthic-invertebrate data collected 

in October 2000 were not used in the correlation analysis 

due to data limitations; for example, Fivemile Creek was 

dry and was not sampled during this time period. 

The number of EPT taxa is a widely used indicator 

of stream water quality (for example, Rosenberg and 

Resh, 1993). Increased numbers of the EPT taxa in 

streams generally are indicative of favorable water-quality 

conditions as compared to streams where they are reduced 

in number or absent. Some Trichopterans, however, are
84 Investigation of Water Quality and Aquatic-Community Structure in Village and Valley Creeks, Alabama, 2000 – 01

Table 26. Significant correlations (p <0.05) between land use and water quality, bed sediment, fish tissue, and aquatic-community structure at the 

Birmingham study sites, Alabama, 2000–01

[rho, correlation coefficient; n, sample size]

Residential rho n Commercial rho n Industrial rho n Forested rho n

Water quality

Magnesium 0.821 7 Water temperature 0.964 7 Total organic carbon 0.821 7 Water temperature -0.857 7

Nitrogen 

ammonia 

dissolved

-.900 5 Nitrate dissolved .964 7 Nitrogen total .919 7 Fecal coliform -.786 7

Nitrite dissolved -.943 6 Nitrite plus nitrate 

dissolved

.893 7 Nitrogen organic 

dissolved

.893 7 Nitrate dissolved -.857 7

Nitrogen ammonia 

plus organic total

.893 7 Nitrite plus nitrate 

dissolved

-.929 7

Nitrogen ammonia 

plus organic 

dissolved

.964 7

Nitrogen ammonia 

dissolved

.900 5

Chloride .857 7

Sulfate .929 7

Fluoride 1.000 5

Copper .900 5

Molybdenum .811 7

Wastewater indicator 

detections

.893 7

Fish community

Percent minnows 1.000 6 Percent sunfishes -1.000 6 None Fish species 0.943 6

Percent herbivores 1.000 6 Percent 

mosquitofish

.900 6 Fish families .912 6

Percent 

insectivores

-1.000 6 Fish diversity -.886 6 Percent sunfishes .886 6

Benthic-invertebrate community

None Midge density 0.886 6 Mayfly abundance -0.880 6 None

Beetle abundance -.886 6 Midge abundance .829 6

Number of EPT taxa -.812 6

EPT abundance -.928 6

Sediment trace elements

None Strontium 0.829 6 None None

Sediment organics

None Fluoranthene 0.829 6 1,6-Dimethylnaphthalene0.829 6 None

Pyrene .829 6 1-

Methylphenanthrene

.886 6

Acridine .928 6 1-Methylpyrene .943 6

2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene.829 6

4H-Cyclopentaphenanthrene.886 6

9,10-Anthraquinone .886 6

9H-Fluorene .886 6

Acenaphthene .886 6

Acenaphthylene .886 6

Anthracene .886 6

Benzo[b]fluoranthene .943 6
Correlations with Land Use 85

Benzo[ghi]perylene .943 6

Carbazole .886 6

Dibenz[ah]anthracene .886 6

Dibenzothiophene .943 6

Indeno[1,2,3-cd]

pyrene

.829 6

Phenanthrene .943 6

Phenol .943 6

Fish-liver tissue trace elements

Arsenic -0.829 6 None Cobalt -0.886 6 None

Mercury .829 6

Molybdenum .829 6

Fish-tissue organic compounds

None None None None

Habitat

None None None None 

Table 26. Significant correlations (p < 0.05) between land use and water quality, bed sediment, fish tissue, and aquatic-community structure at the 

Birmingham study sites, Alabama, 2000– 01 — Continued

[rho, correlation coefficient; n, sample size]

Residential rho n Commercial rho n Industrial rho n Forested rho n

known to be tolerant of contamination, for example, 

certain members of the Hydropsychidae family. 

Therefore, to prevent biasing the assessment of EPT taxa 

in this study, the hydropsychid caddisflies were removed 

from the analysis. In addition, the number of EPT taxa was 

evaluated at the family level of taxonomy—this was the 

lowest level common to all taxa (appendix table 3-2). The 

number of EPT taxa was found to be negatively correlated 

with industrial land use (rho = - 0.812, p = 0.049) in the 

Birmingham study area (table 26). This inverse relation 

indicates that sites downstream from industrial land use 

are more likely to have fewer EPT taxa and degraded water 

quality than sites downstream from forested land use. 

 Mayflies (Ephemeroptera) as a group are intolerant 

of contaminants. As one of the EPT triad of indicator 

organisms, their presence and abundance can be used as a 

measure of the health of a stream (Plafkin and others, 

1989). The abundance of mayflies within the study sites 

varied and was found to be negatively correlated with 

industrial land use (rho = –0.880, p = 0.021). As the 

percentage of industrial land use increased, the abundance 

of mayflies appeared to decrease, indicating that stream 

health had been negatively affected by industrial 

urbanization. Stoneflies (Plecoptera), the second leg of the 

EPT triad, were collected only at LCR and no correlation 

of their abundance with land use was possible, except that 

their absence at all other sites may reflect changes in water 

quality due to anthropogenic activities in the basins. 

Caddisflies (Trichoptera), the third leg of the EPT triad, 

also are intolerant of contaminants (except as noted 

above). However, the abundance and density of both the 

non-Hydropsychid and Hydropsychid caddisflies were not 

found to be significantly correlated with land use. 

Midges (Chironomidae) are a family of insects 

known to be tolerant of contaminants, and they tend to 

increase in abundance as water quality decreases. The 

abundance and density of midges was positively 

correlated with industrial (rho = 0.829, p = 0.042) and 

commercial (rho = 0.886, p = 0.019) land use, respectively, 

providing additional evidence that these streams have 

been negatively affected by urbanization. 

Significant correlations were observed between the 

concentrations of several water-quality constituents and 

land use (table 26). For example, several nitrogen species, 

chloride, sulfate, copper, and molybdenum were positively 

correlated with industrial land use (table 26). As the 

percentage of industrial land upstream from a sample site 

increased, the concentrations of these constituents also 

increased, indicating contamination may be strongly 

linked to industrial land use. Several of these constituents 

also were correlated with biological indicators. For 

example, the number of detections of wastewater 

indicators and the concentration of total nitrogen in the 
86 Investigation of Water Quality and Aquatic-Community Structure in Village and Valley Creeks, Alabama, 2000 – 01

water column were negatively correlated with the number 

of EPT taxa. 

Significant correlations also were observed 

between organic compounds detected in bed sediment and 

industrial and commercial land use (table 26). Eighteen 

organic compounds, predominantly PAHs, were 

positively correlated with industrial land use, and 

concentrations of acridine, fluoranthene, and pyrene were 

positively correlated with the percentage of commercial 

land use in the basins (table 26). Increased concentrations 

of PAHs are associated with a wide variety of point and 

nonpoint sources, including domestic sewage, chemical 

waste, the burning of fossil fuels, automobile exhaust, 

asphalt, and runoff from roads. 

Bed-sediment constituents that had a significant 

correlation with land use also were found to be correlated 

with many biological indicators. In general, the number of 

EPT taxa, mayfly abundance, and mayfly density were 

negatively correlated with concentrations of PAHs in bed 

sediment, while the abundance and density of the midges 

were positively correlated with PAHs. These correlations 

further support the link between increasing urbanization 

and changes in aquatic-community structure.

The amount of forested land upstream from a 

sample site has been found to be a good predictor of 

unimpaired benthic communities (Kennen, 1999). 

Although no benthic-invertebrate community metrics 

were significantly correlated with forested land use 

during this study, the numbers of fish species, fish 

families, and the percentage of sunfishes were found to be 

positively correlated with forested land use (table 26). 

This relation may indicate that the presence of forested 

lands in urbanized basins acts as a buffer and may help to 

maintain fish species diversity. Conversely, the 

percentage of mosquitofishes, a highly tolerant species, 

was positively correlated with commercial land use; 

mosquitofishes were present in greatest numbers (fig. 41) 

at VAL-1, the site with the highest percentage of 

commercial land use (table 2). In addition, the percentage 

of forested land in a basin was inversely related to factors 

known to be indicative of poor water quality, for example, 

water temperature, fecal coliform, and dissolved nitrite 

and nitrate (table 26). 

The limited amount of data and the use of a single 

fish genus make correlations between fish-tissue analytes 

and land use difficult to discern. Arsenic concentrations 

detected in fish-liver tissue were negatively correlated 

with residential land use (table 26). Mercury and 

molybdenum concentrations detected in fish-liver tissue 

were positively correlated, and cobalt concentrations 

detected in fish-liver tissue were negatively correlated 

with industrial land use (table 26). No correlations were 

observed between organic compounds detected in fish 

tissue and land use. 

Changes in stream habitat structure can affect the 

diversity of aquatic communities and these changes are 

known to be directly and indirectly related to the 

hydrology of stream systems (Lenat and Crawford, 1994; 

Richards and others, 1996; Richter and others, 1996). 

Where frequent and intense flushing occurs (for example, 

because of increased flow and stronger currents due to 

impervious area in the drainage basin), habitat complexity 

decreases as branches and other plant debris are flushed 

downstream. Instream structures, such as large woody 

snags or debris dams, increase habitat complexity and 

living space, reduce the loss of organic material, and 

provide food resources for aquatic organisms (Ward, 

1992; Maser and Sedell, 1994). Evaluating the relations 

between fish and benthic-invertebrate abundance and 

habitat structure is important because biota are commonly 

associated with habitats to which they are best adapted. 

However, aquatic organisms also are affected by many 

other environmental conditions that can mask habitat 

effects. For example, a heated discharge into a shaded 

stream could increase water temperature in spite of the 

shade provided by the riparian zone. Increased frequency 

of flooding, increased water velocities and volume, and 

increased sedimentation have all been found to be highly 

related to increased urbanization (Kennen and Ayers, 

2002), and all can directly or indirectly affect habitat 

complexity. Although many habitat characteristics were 

assessed at the study sites, few correlations between 

habitat and aquatic-community structure were observed 

and there were no significant correlations between habitat 

and land use. This may be due to the limited number of 

sampling sites evaluated in this study; moreover, it is 

likely that the high level of variability implicit in habitat 

assessments prevented appropriate statistical 

discrimination. 

SUMMARY 

The U.S. Geological Survey conducted a 16-month 

investigation of water quality, aquatic-community 

structure, bed sediment, and fish tissue in Village and 

Valley Creeks, two urban streams that drain areas of 

highly intensive residential, commercial, and industrial 

land use in Birmingham, Alabama. Water-quality data 

were collected between February 2000 and March 2001 at 
Summary 87

(4,000 col/100 mL) in 26 percent of the samples. Median 

concentrations of E. coli and fecal coliform bacteria were 

highest at VAL-1 and lowest at FMC; median 

concentrations of enterococci bacteria were highest at 

VIL-2 and lowest at VAL-3. Concentrations of bacteria at 

VIL-3, VAL-2, and VAL-3 were elevated during high flow 

rather than low flow, indicating the presence of nonpoint 

sources. Concentrations of bacteria at VIL-1, VIL-2, 

VIL-4, and VAL-1 were elevated during low and high 

flow, indicating the presence of both point and nonpoint 

sources.

 Water-column samples were analyzed for 

16 chemical compounds that are commonly found in 

wastewater and urban runoff, which can be indicative of 

contamination attributed to a human source. The median 

number of wastewater indicators detected in individual 

samples ranged from 1 (FMC) to 10 (VAL-1). In Village 

Creek, the median number of detections was lowest in the 

headwaters and increased in a downstream direction. In 

Valley Creek, the median number of detections was 

highest in the headwaters and decreased in a downstream 

direction. 

Concentrations of cadmium, copper, lead, and zinc 

in the water column exceeded acute and chronic aquatic 

life criteria in up to 24 percent of the samples that were 

analyzed for trace and major elements. At Village Creek, 

median concentrations of cadmium, lead, and zinc were 

highest at VIL-2, followed by VIL-3 and VIL-1. At Valley 

Creek, median concentrations of these constituents were 

highest at VAL-1 and decreased downstream. 

Concentrations of iron, manganese, and aluminum 

exceeded secondary drinking-water standards set by 

ADEM in up to 37 percent of the samples. High 

concentrations of trace and major elements in the water 

column were detected most frequently during high flow, 

indicating the presence of nonpoint sources. 

Of the 24 pesticides detected in the water column, 

17 were herbicides and 7 were insecticides. Atrazine, 

simazine, and prometon were the most commonly 

detected herbicides; diazinon, chlorpyrifos, and carbaryl 

were the most commonly detected insecticides. 

Concentrations of atrazine, carbaryl, chlorpyrifos, 

diazinon, and malathion exceeded criteria for the 

protection of aquatic life. The highest number of 

pesticides (13) was detected in samples from VAL-3; the 

lowest number of pesticides (8) was detected in samples 

from FMC. 

The concentrations of organic compounds and 

trace-element priority pollutants detected in bed-sediment 

samples were elevated at all sites in Village and Valley 

Creeks in comparison to the concentrations detected in 

samples from FMC. Among all sites, concentrations of 

four sites on Village Creek, three sites on Valley Creek, 

and at two reference sites near Birmingham—Fivemile 

Creek and Little Cahaba River, both of which drain lessurbanized areas. Water-column samples were analyzed for 

major ions, nutrients, fecal bacteria, trace and major 

elements, pesticides, and selected organic constituents. 

Bed-sediment and fish-tissue samples were analyzed for 

trace and major elements, pesticides, polychlorinated 

biphenyls, and additional organic compounds. Aquaticcommunity structure was evaluated by conducting one 

survey of the fish community and in-stream habitat, and 

two surveys of the benthic-invertebrate community. Bedsediment and fish-tissue samples, benthic-invertebrates, 

and habitat data were collected between June and October 

2000 at six of the nine water-quality sites; fish 

communities were evaluated in April and May 2001 at the 

six sites where habitat and benthic-invertebrate data were 

collected. The occurrence and distribution of chemical 

constituents in the water column and bed sediment 

provided an initial assessment of water quality in the 

streams. The structure of the aquatic communities, the 

physical condition of the fish, and the chemical analyses 

of fish tissue provided an indication of the cumulative 

effects of water quality on the aquatic biota.

All sites had similar water chemistry characterized 

by strong calcium-bicarbonate and magnesium 

components. Concentrations of total nitrogen exceeded 

the USEPA recommendation (0.214 mg/L) for streams 

and rivers in the Ridge and Valley Level III Ecoregion in 

all samples, including reference sites; concentrations of 

total phosphorus exceeded the USEPA recommendation 

(10 μg/L) at sites on Village and Valley Creeks in 60 of 

63 samples (95.2 percent), and at references sites in 7 of 

11 samples (63.6 percent). Median concentrations of total 

nitrogen and total phosphorus were highest at the most 

upstream site on Valley Creek (VAL-1) and lowest at the 

reference site (FMC). In Village Creek, median 

concentrations of nitrite and ammonia increased in a 

downstream direction. In Valley Creek, median 

concentrations of nitrate, nitrite, ammonia, organic 

nitrogen, suspended phosphorus, and orthophosphate 

decreased in a downstream direction. Maximum 

concentrations of nitrate, nitrite, ammonia, and organic 

nitrogen were detected during low flow at the majority of 

the sites, indicating that high levels may be point-source 

related (or present in the ground water). 

Concentrations of enterococci at sites in the 

Birmingham area exceeded the USEPA criterion 

(151 col/100 mL) in 80 percent of the samples; E. coli

concentrations exceeded the USEPA criterion 

(576 col/100 mL) in 56 percent of the samples; fecal 

coliform concentrations exceeded the ADEM criterion 
88 Investigation of Water Quality and Aquatic-Community Structure in Village and Valley Creeks, Alabama, 2000 – 01

chromium, copper, lead, mercury, and silver were highest 

at VAL-1—concentrations of cadmium, nickel, selenium, 

and zinc were highest at VIL-2. The highest total 

concentration of trace-element priority pollutants detected 

in bed-sediment samples occurred at VIL-2 and the lowest 

at FMC. In Village Creek, concentrations of 

8 of the TEPPs (cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, 

selenium, silver, and zinc) in bed sediment 

were highest at VIL-2, followed by VIL-3 and 

VIL-1—whereas in Valley Creek, concentrations of all 10 

priority pollutants were highest at VAL-1 and decreased in 

a downstream direction. 

Bed-sediment concentrations of arsenic, cadmium, 

chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, selenium, and 

zinc from the Birmingham area exceeded median 

concentrations observed nationwide. Concentrations of 

silver at VAL-1 exceeded concentrations from 770 sites 

sampled nationwide. On a regional scale, bed-sediment 

concentrations of antimony, beryllium, cadmium, 

chromium, copper, lead, magnesium, mercury, 

molybdenum, nickel, selenium, silver, and tin exceeded 

concentrations at 21 sites in Alabama, Mississippi, and 

Georgia sampled in 1998 by the USGS as part of the 

NAWQA Program. 

Fish-liver tissue concentrations of trace elements 

varied among the streams. Concentrations of cadmium, 

selenium, and zinc were highest in the sample from 

VIL-2; copper and mercury were highest in the sample 

from VIL-3; and lead was highest in the fish-liver tissue 

sample from VAL-2. On a regional basis, concentrations 

of lead and molybdenum in fish-liver tissue samples at 

sites in the Birmingham area exceeded those detected at 

21 other sites in Alabama, Mississippi, and Georgia 

sampled in 1998. 

The highest total concentration of organic 

compounds detected in bed-sediment samples occurred at 

VAL-1 and the lowest occurred at FMC. At Village Creek, 

concentrations of the organic compounds increased in a 

downstream direction from VIL-1 to VIL-3; 

concentrations of about 25 percent of the detected organic 

compounds, including chlorpyrifos, were highest at VIL2, followed by VIL-3 and VIL-1—a pattern similar to that 

of the trace-element priority pollutants detected in bed 

sediment in Village Creek. In Valley Creek, 

concentrations of about 70 percent of the detected organic 

compounds were highest at VAL-1 and decreased in a 

downstream direction. Concentrations of PAHs, 

p,p'-DDE, and chlordane exceeded PELs at sites on 

Village and Valley Creeks. 

Dieldrin was detected in fish-tissue samples from 

every site and exceeded NAS/NAE guidelines for the 

protection of fish-eating wildlife at VIL-1, VAL-1, and 

VAL-2. Chlorpyrifos was detected in fish-tissue samples 

from every site, with the highest concentrations at 

VAL-1, VAL-2, and FMC, respectively. Total PCBs in 

fish-tissue samples were highest at VIL-3 and VIL-2, and 

exceeded NAS/NAE guidelines for the protection of fisheating wildlife at those sites. Total chlordane in fish-tissue 

samples exceeded NAS/NAE guidelines for the protection 

of fish-eating wildlife at VIL-1, VAL-1, and VAL-2.

Chlorpyrifos was detected in bed-sediment and 

fish-tissue samples at every site in the study. 

Concentrations of chlorpyrifos were highest in bedsediment samples from VIL-2 and lowest in samples from 

FMC. Concentrations of chlorpyrifos detected in fishtissue samples from Valley Creek sites were greater than 

samples from Village Creek sites or from FMC. The 

concentration of chlorpyrifos detected in fish-tissue 

samples from FMC was twice as great as the highest 

concentration detected in samples from the Village Creek 

sites. Chlorpyrifos was detected in 51 percent of the water 

samples at every site in the study, except for FMC. Higher 

concentrations of chlorpyrifos in the water column were 

usually detected during high flow, suggesting nonpoint 

sources. The widespread presence of chlorpyrifos in bedsediment, fish-tissue, and water samples is indicative of 

continuing influx of chlorpyrifos at all of the study sites. 

The structure of the aquatic communities in Village 

and Valley Creeks indicated that the water quality was 

degraded in comparison to the more forested sites, LCR 

and FMC. The diversity of the benthic-invertebrate and 

fish communities was greater in LCR and FMC than at any 

of the sites in Village and Valley Creeks. Benthicinvertebrate diversity in Village Creek decreased in a 

downstream direction, in a pattern that was generally the 

inverse of the concentrations of trace elements and organic 

compounds in the water column, bed sediments, and fish 

tissues. In Valley Creek, however, benthic-invertebrate 

diversity increased in a downstream direction, again, in a 

pattern that generally was the inverse of that seen for the 

concentrations of trace elements and organic compounds 

in the water column, bed sediments, and fish tissues. The 

presence of a few EPT taxa and the high density of midges 

at VAL-1 and VIL-3 may represent changes in community 

structure at these sites resulting from increasing 

anthropogenic disturbances in the watersheds.

The results of the fish community survey indicated 

that the water quality in Village and Valley Creeks was 

degraded in comparison to LCR and FMC. Diversity in 

LCR and FMC was higher than at any site in Village or 

Valley Creek. Fish-community diversity increased in a 

downstream direction in both Village and Valley Creeks. 

For Village Creek, this is contrary to the pattern seen for 

the benthic-invertebrate community, and may indicate that 
Selected References 89

the fish community was not as sensitive an indicator of 

environmental stress within selected stream reaches as the 

benthic-invertebrate community.

The abundance of mayflies and the number of EPT 

taxa (well-known indicators of good water quality) were 

negatively correlated with industrial land use, indicating 

that the aquatic communities had been negatively affected 

by industrial activities. The abundance of midges (an 

indicator of poor water quality) was positively correlated 

with industrial land use—and midge density was 

positively correlated with commercial land use, providing 

additional evidence that these streams have been 

negatively affected by urbanization in the basins. The 

percentage of mosquitofishes (a tolerant species) was 

positively correlated with commercial land use. In 

contrast, the numbers of fish species, fish families, and 

the percentage of sunfishes (intolerant species) were 

positively correlated with forested land use, indicating 

that the more diverse fish communities were found in 

basins with a higher percentage of forested land. The 

concentrations of 12 water-quality constituents (including 

several nitrogen species, chloride, copper, molybdenum, 

and the detection frequency of wastewater indicators) and 

18 organic compounds detected in bed sediment were 

positively correlated with industrial land use. Mercury 

and molybdenum concentrations detected in fish-liver 

tissue also were positively correlated with industrial land 

use. Bed-sediment and water-quality constituents that 

were found to have significant correlations with land use 

often were found to be correlated with many biological 

indicators, further supporting the link between increased 

urbanization and changes in aquatic-community 

structure.

The water quality and aquatic-community structure 

in Village and Valley Creeks are degraded in comparison 

to streams flowing through less-urbanized areas. Low 

community richness and increased density of certain 

species within the fish and benthic-invertebrate 

communities indicate that the degradation has occurred 

over an extended period of time. Decreased diversity in 

the aquatic communities and elevated concentrations of 

trace elements and organic contaminants in the water 

column, bed sediment, and fish tissues at Village and 

Valley Creeks, when compared with these same factors at 

LCR and FMC, are indicative of the effects of 

urbanization. Of the sites examined, VAL-1 and VIL-3 

appear to have been the most stressed, perhaps due to the 

type and extent of urban land use. The degree of 

degradation may be related to point and nonpoint sources 

of contamination originating within the basins. Industrial 

land use, in particular, was significantly correlated to 

elevated contaminant levels in the water column, bed 

sediment, fish tissue, and to the declining health of the 

benthic-invertebrate communities. 

This investigation has provided a detailed survey 

of water-quality conditions in Village and Valley Creeks 

for the 16-month period between February 2000 and May 

2001. The period of drought that coincided with this study 

probably affected the results of the aquatic-community 

investigations and may have influenced constituent 

concentrations in the water column. A more 

comprehensive evaluation of the temporal variability of 

water quality and ecology in Village and Valley Creeks 

would require more extensive monitoring over a longer 

period of time, including a greater range of flow and 

seasonal conditions. The results of this 16-month study 

have long-range watershed management implications, 

demonstrating the association between urban 

development and stream degradation. These data can 

serve as a baseline from which to determine the 

effectiveness of stream-restoration programs. 

SELECTED REFERENCES

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 2000a 

Toxicological profile for arsenic: U.S. Department of 

Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, 

Atlanta, GA, accessed on June 13, 2002, at 

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp2.html.

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 

2000b, Toxicological profile for DDT, DDE, DDD: 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 

Public Health Service, Atlanta, GA, accessed on 

June 13, 2002, at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/

toxprofiles/tp35.html.

Alabama Department of Environmental Management, 

1998, Water-quality report to Congress for calendar 

year 1997: Montgomery, Alabama Department 

of Environmental Management 305(b) Report.

———2000a, 305(b) Water-quality report to Congress for 

calendar year 1999: Montgomery, Ala., Department of 

Environmental Management 305(b)Report.

———2000b, Primary Drinking-Water Standards: Alabama 

Department of Environmental Management 

Administrative Code, Chapter 335-7-2, accessed on 

March 20, 2002, at URL http://www.adem.state.al.us/

RegsPermit/ADEMRegs/Div7/rdiv7c2.doc.

———2000c, Secondary Drinking-Water Standards: 

Alabama Department of Environmental Management 

Administrative Code, Chapter 335-7-3, accessed on 
90 Investigation of Water Quality and Aquatic-Community Structure in Village and Valley Creeks, Alabama, 2000 – 01

March 20, 2002, at URL http://www.adem.state.al.us/

RegsPermit/ADEMRegs/Div7/rdiv7c3.doc.

———2000d, Water Quality Criteria—Alabama Department of Environmental Management Administrative 

Code, Chapters 335-6-10 and 335-6-11, accessed on 

March 20, 2002, at URL http://www.adem.state.al.us/

RegsPermit/ADEMRegs/Div6Vol1/rd6v1c10.doc, and 

at URL http://www.adem.state.al.us/RegsPermit/

ADEMRegs/Div6Vol1/rd6v1c11.doc. 

Allen, J.D., 1995, Stream ecology—Structure and function 

of running waters: New York, Chapman and Hall, 

388 p.

Belval, D.L., Campbell, J.P., Phillips, S.W., and Bell, C.F., 

1995, Water-quality characteristics of five tributaries to 

the Chesapeake Bay at the Fall Line, Virginia, July 

1988 through June 1993: U.S. Geological Survey 

Water-Resources Investigations Report 95-4258, 

71 p.

Booth, D.B, 1990, Stream-channel incision following 

drainage-basin urbanization: American Waterworks 

Research Association Water Resources Bulletin, v. 26, 

p. 407–417.

Briggs, P.H., and Meier, A.L., 1999, The determination of 

forty-two elements in geological materials by 

inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry: 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 99-166, 

15 p.

Brigham, M.E., Goldstein, R.M., and Tornes, L.H., 1998, 

Trace elements and organic chemicals in stream-bottom 

sediments and fish tissues, Red River of the North 

Basin, Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota, 

1992–95: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 97-4043, 32 p.

Camp, T.R., and Meserve, R.L., 1974, Water and its 

impurities: Stroudsburg, Pa., Dowden, Hutchinson & 

Ross, Inc., p. 261.

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, 1995, 

Protocol for the derivation of Canadian sediment 

quality guidelines for the protection of aquatic life: 

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, 

Report CCME EPC-98E, 38 p. 

———2001, Canadian water quality guidelines for the 

protection of aquatic life—Summary table updated in 

Canadian environmental quality guidelines, accessed 

on March 20, 2002, at URL http://www2.ec.gc.ca/

ceqg-rcqe/water.pdf.

Chapelle, F.H., 1993, Ground-water microbiology and 

geochemistry: New York, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 

424 p.

Childress, C.J.O., Foreman, W.T., Connor, B.F., and 

Maloney, T.J., 1999, New reporting procedures based 

on long-term method detection levels and some 

considerations for interpretations of water-quality data 

provided by the U.S. Geological Survey National Water 

Quality Laboratory: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 99-193, 19 p.

Childress, C.J.O., and Treece, M.W., Jr., 1996, Water and 

bed-material quality of selected streams and reservoirs 

in the Research Triangle area of North Carolina, 

1988–94: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 95-4282, 79 p.

Clark, G.M., Mueller, D.K., and Mast, M.A., 2000, Nutrient 

concentrations and yields in undeveloped basins 

of the United States: Journal of the American 

Water Resources Association, v. 36, no. 4, 

p. 849–860. 

Clements, W.H., Cherry, D.S., and Cairns, J., Jr., 1988, 

Impact of heavy metals on insect communities in 

streams—A comparison of observational and 

experimental results: Canadian Journal of 

Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, v. 45, no. 11, 

p. 2017–2025.

Code of Federal Regulations, 1996, Title 40 Protection 

of the environment, chap. 1, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Part 401, Section 401.15 Toxic 

Pollutants: Washington, D.C., U.S. Government 

Printing Office.

Crawford, J.K., and Luoma, S.N., 1993, Guidelines for 

studies of contaminants in biological tissues for 

the National Water-Quality Assessment Program: 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 92-494, 

69 p. 

Cuffney, T.F., Gurtz, M.E., and Meador, M.R., 1993, 

Methods for collecting benthic-invertebrate samples 

as part of the National Water-Quality Assessment 

Program: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 

93-406, 66 p. 

Dojlido, Jan, and Best, G.A., 1993, Chemistry of water and 

water pollution: Chichester, England, Ellis Horwood 

Ltd., p. 222–293.

Doyle, M., Harbor, J., Rich, C., and Spacie, A., 2000, 

Examining the effects of urbanization on streams using 

indicators of geomorphic stability: Physical Geography, 

v. 21, p. 155–181.

Dunne, Thomas, and Leopold, L.B., 1978, Water in 

environmental planning: New York, W.H. Freeman and 

Co., 818 p.

Edwards, T.K., and Glysson, D.G., 1999, Field methods for 

measurement of fluvial sediment: U.S. Geological 

Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, 

book 3, chap. C2, 89 p. 

Eisler, R., 1988, Arsenic hazards to fish, wildlife, and 

invertebrates—A synoptic review: Washington, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Report 85 

(1.12), 92 p.

Finkenbine, J.K., Atwater, J.W., and Mavinic, D.S., 2000, 

Stream health after urbanization: Journal of the 
Selected References 91

American Waterworks Research Association, v. 36, 

no. 5, p. 1149–1160.

Fitzpatrick, F.A., Waite, I.R., D’Arconte, P.J., Meador, M.R., 

Maupin, M.A., and Gurtz, M.E., 1998, Revised 

methods for characterizing stream habitat in the 

National Water-Quality Assessment Program: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations 

Report 98-4052, 67 p.

Foreman, W.T., Connor, B.F., Furlong, E.T., Vaught, D.G., 

and Marten, L.M., 1995, Methods of analysis by the 

U.S. Geological Survey National Water Quality 

Laboratory—Determination of organochlorine 

pesticides and polychlorinated biphenyls in bottom 

sediment by dual capillary-column gas chromatography with electron-capture detection: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 95-140, 78 p.

Forstner, Ulrich, and Wittmann, G.T.W., 1979, Metal 

pollution in the aquatic environment: New York, 

Springer-Verlag, 486 p.

Fuhrer, G.J., Gilliom, R.J., Hamilton, P.A., Morace, J.L., 

Nowell, L.H., Rinella, J.F., Stoner, J.D., and Wentz, 

D.A., 1999, The quality of our Nation's water—

Nutrients and pesticides: U.S. Geological Survey 

Circular 1225, 82 p.

Garie, H.L., and McIntosh, Alan, 1986, Distribution of 

benthic macroinvertebrates in a stream exposed to 

urban runoff: Water Resources Bulletin, v. 22, 

p. 447–455.

Geological Survey of Alabama, 1981, Geology and naturalresource factors related to planning and government in 

the Jefferson County-Birmingham area: Geological 

Survey of Alabama, Atlas 17, p. 33.

Gilliom, R.J., Barbash, J.E., Kolpin, D.W., and Larson, S.J., 

1999, Testing water quality for pesticide pollution: 

Environmental Science and Technology, v. 33, no. 7, 

p. 164A–169A.

Goldhaber, M.B., Irwin, E., Atkins, J.B., Lopaka, L., Black, 

D., Zappia, H., Hatch, J., Pashin, J., Barwick, L.H., 

Cartwright, W.E., Sanzolone, R., Rupert, L., Kolker, 

A., and Finkelman, R., 2001, Arsenic in stream 

sediment of northern Alabama: U.S. Geological 

Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies Map 2357, 

1 sheet.

Gregory, B.M., and Frick, E.A., 2000, Fecal-coliform 

bacteria concentrations in streams of the Chattahoochee 

River National Recreation area, metropolitan Atlanta, 

Georgia, May–October 1994 and 1995: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations 

Report 00-4139, 8 p.

Guy, H.P., 1969, Laboratory theory and methods for 

sediment analysis: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques 

of Water-Resources Investigations, book 5, chap. C1, 

58 p.

Hampson, P.S., Treece, M.W., Jr., Johnson, G.C., Ahlstedt, 

S.A., and Connell, J.F., 2000, Water quality in the 

Upper Tennessee River Basin, Tennessee, North 

Carolina, Virginia, and Georgia 1994–1998: U.S. 

Geological Survey Circular 1205, 32 p.

Helsel, D.R., and Hirsch, R.M., 1995, Statistical methods in 

water resources: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 

Elsevier Science B.V., 529 p.

Hem, J.D., 1985, Study and interpretation of the chemical 

characteristics of natural water: U.S. Geological Survey 

Water-Supply Paper 2254, p. 263.

Hoffman, G.L., 1996, Methods of analysis by the U.S. 

Geological Survey National Water Quality 

Laboratory—Preparation procedure for aquatic 

biological material determined for trace metals: 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 96-362, 42 p.

Hoffman, R.S., Capel, P.D., and Larson, S.J., 2000, 

Comparison of pesticides in eight U.S. urban streams: 

Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, v. 19, 

p. 2249–2258.

Hopkins, E.H., Hippe, D.J., Frick, E.A., and Buell, G.R., 

2000, Organophosphorus pesticide occurrence and 

distribution in surface and ground water of the United 

States, 1992–97: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 00-187, CD-ROM.

Horowitz, A.J., 1991, A primer on sediment trace-element 

chemistry (2d ed.): Chelsea, Mich., Lewis Publishers, 

136 p.

Hunter, J.A., and Moser, P.A., 1990, Ground-water 

availability in Jefferson County, Alabama: Tuscaloosa, 

Geological Survey of Alabama Special Map 224, 68 p. 

+ 1 pl.

The Huntsville Times, 1997, Spill one of the largest in 

history of pesticide: The Associated Press, Sunday 

October 19, 1997, issue.

International Joint Commission United States and Canada, 

1978, New and revised Great Lakes water quality 

objectives, v. II: Windsor, Ontario, Canada, An IJC 

report to the governments of the United States and 

Canada, accessed on March 20, 2002, at URL 

http://www.ijc.org/agree/quality.html#art5.

Jones, R.C., and Clark, C.C., 1987, Impact of watershed 

urbanization on stream insect communities: Water 

Resources Bulletin, v. 23, p. 1047–1055.

Kennen, J.G., 1999, Relation of macroinvertebrate 

community impairment to catchment characteristics in 

New Jersey streams: Journal of the American Water 

Resources Association, v. 35, no. 4, p. 939–955.

Kennen, J.G., and Ayers, M.A., 2002, Relation of 

environmental characteristics to the composition of 

aquatic assemblages along a gradient of urban land use 

in New Jersey, 1996–98: U.S. Geological Survey 
92 Investigation of Water Quality and Aquatic-Community Structure in Village and Valley Creeks, Alabama, 2000 – 01

Water-Resources Investigations Report 02-4069, 

77 p.

Kidd, J.T., 1979, Areal geology of Jefferson County, 

Alabama: Geological Survey of Alabama Atlas 15, 

89 p.

Kidd, J.T., and Shannon, S.W., 1977, Preliminary areal 

geologic maps of the Valley and Ridge Province, 

Jefferson County, Alabama: Geological Survey of 

Alabama Atlas Series 10, 41 p.

———1978, Stratigraphy and structure of the Birmingham 

area, Jefferson County, Alabama: Alabama Geological 

Society Guidebook for the Sixteenth Annual Field Trip, 

55 p.

Klemm, D.J., Stober, Q.J., and Lazorchak, J.M., 1993, Fish 

field and laboratory methods for evaluating the 

biological integrity of surface waters: U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, EPA/600/R-92/111, 

372 p.

Knight, A.L., 1976, Water availability of Jefferson County, 

Alabama: Geological Survey of Alabama University 

Map 167, 31 p. + 2 pl.

Knight, A.L., and Newton, J.G., 1977, Water and related 

problems in coal-mine areas of Alabama: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations 

Report 76-130, 51 p.

Krebbs, C.J., 1972, Ecology, The Institute of Animal 

Resource Ecology, University of British Columbia: 

New York, Harper and Row, 694 p.

Krenkel, Peter, and Novotny, Vladimir, 1980, Water quality 

management: Orlando, Fla., Academic Press, p. 53.

Larson, S.J., Gilliom, R.J., and Capel, P.D., 1998, Pesticides 

in streams of the United States—Initial results from the 

National Water-Quality Assessment Program: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations 

Report 98-4222, 92 p.

Laws, E.A., 1993, Aquatic pollution: New York, John Wiley 

& Sons, Inc., 611 p.

Lee, D.S., Gilbert, C.R., Hocutt, C.H., Jenkins, R.E., 

McAllister, D.E., and Stauffer, J.R., Jr., 1980, Atlas of 

North American freshwater fishes: Raleigh, North 

Carolina Biological Survey, v. 12, 854 p.

Leiker, T.J., Madsen, J.E., Deacon, J.R., and Foreman, W.T., 

1995, Methods of analysis by the U.S. Geological 

Survey National Water Quality Laboratory—

Determination of chlorinated pesticides in aquatic 

tissue by capillary-column gas chromatography with 

electron-capture detection: U.S. Geological Survey 

Open-File 94-0710-W, 41 p.

Lenat, D.R., and Crawford, J.K., 1994, Effects of land use 

on water quality and aquatic biota of three North 

Carolina piedmont streams: Hydrobiologia, v. 294, 

p. 185–199.

Lindsay, B.D., Breen, K.J., Bilger, M.D., and Brightbill, 

R.A., 1998, Water quality in the lower Susquehana 

River Basin, Pennsylvania and Maryland, 1992–1995: 

U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1168 on line at URL 

http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/circ1168.

 Magurran, A.E., 1988, Ecological diversity and its 

measurement: Princeton, N.J., Princeton University 

Press, 179 p.

Majewski, M.S., and Capel, P.D., 1995, Pesticides in the 

atmosphere—Distribution, trends, and governing 

factors: Chelsea, Mich., Ann Arbor Press, Inc., 

214 p.

Martin, J.D., Gilliom, R.J., and Shertz, T.J., 1999, Summary 

and evaluation of pesticides in field blanks collected for 

the National Water-Quality Assessment Program, 

1992–95: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 

98-412, 102 p. 

Maser, Chris, and Sedell, J.R., 1994, From the forest to the 

sea—The ecology of wood in streams, rivers, estuaries, 

and oceans: Delray Beach, Fla., St. Lucie Press, 

200 p.

Mason, C.F., 1991, Biology of freshwater pollution: 

Singapore, Longman Singapore Publishers Pte., Ltd., 

351 p.

May, R.M., 1976, Patterns in multi-species communities, 

Chapter 8, in May, R.M., ed., Theoretical ecology 

principles and applications: Oxford, Blackwell 

Scientific Publications, 317 p.

McGhee, T.J., 1991, Water supply and sewerage 

engineering: McGraw-Hill, Inc., p. 376–380.

McMahon, Gerard, and Cuffney, T.F., 2000, Quantifying 

urban intensity in drainage basins for assessing 

stream ecological conditions: Journal of the 

American Water Resources Association, v. 36, 

p. 1247–1261.

Meador, M.R., Cuffney, T.F., and Gurtz, M.E., 1993, 

Methods for sampling fish communities as a part 

of the National Water-Quality Assessment Program: 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 93-104, 

40 p.

Merritt, R.W., and Cummins, K.W., eds., 1996, An 

introduction to the aquatic insects of North America: 

Kendall/Hunt, 862 p.

Minshall, G.W., 1984, Aquatic insect-substratum 

relationships, in Resh, V.H., and Rosenberg, D.M., eds., 

The ecology of aquatic insects: New York, Praeger, 

p. 358–400.

Moffet, T.B., and Moser, P.H., 1978, Ground-water 

resources of the Birmingham and Cahaba Valleys, 

Jefferson County, Alabama: Geological Survey of 

Alabama Circular 103, 78 p.

Moulton, S.R., II, Carter, J.L., Grotheer, S.A., Cuffney, T.F., 

and Short, T.M., 2000, Methods of analysis by the U.S. 

Geological Survey National Water Quality 

Laboratory—Processing, taxonomy, and quality 
Selected References 93

control of benthic macroinvertebrate samples: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 00-212, 49 p.

Moyle, P.B., 1993, Fish, an enthusiast’s guide: University of 

California Press, 272 p.

Mueller, D.K., Hamilton, P.A., Helsel, D.R., Hitt, K.J., and 

Ruddy, B.C., 1995, Nutrients in ground water and 

surface water of the United States—Analysis of data 

through 1992: U.S. Geological Survey WaterResources Investigations Report 95-4031, 74 p.

Mueller, D.K., and Helsel, D.R., 1996, Nutrients in the 

Nation's waters—Too much of a good thing?: U.S. 

Geological Survey Circular 1136, 24 p.

Mueller, D.K, Martin, J.D., and Lopes, T.J., 1997, Qualitycontrol design for surface-water sampling in the 

National Water-Quality Assessment Program: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 97-223, 17 p.

Myers, D.N., and Wilde, F.D., eds., 1999, National field 

manual for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. 

Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources 

Investigations, book 9, chap. A7, 37 p.

National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of 

Engineering, 1973 [1974], Water quality criteria, 1972: 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA R3-73-

033, 594 p.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1999, 

Climatological data, Alabama, July 1999, v. 105, 

no. 07. 

———2000, Climatological data, Alabama, January 2000, 

v. 106, no. 01. 

———2001a, Normal monthly precipitation in inches, 

accessed on November 10, 2001, at URL 

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/online/ccd/nrmlpr

cp.html.

———2001b, North and central Alabama weather for 2001, 

accessed on January 14, 2002, at URL 

http://www.srh.noaa.gov/bmx/review/2001.html.

Nauen, C.E., 1983, Compilation of legal limits for hazardous 

substances in fish and fishery products: Rome, Food 

and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, 

Circular No. 764, 102 p.

Nemerow, N.L., 1974, Scientific stream pollution analysis: 

Washington, D.C., Scripta Book Co., p. 69–70.

Newton, J.G., and Hyde, L.W., 1971, Sinkhole problems in 

and near Roberts Industrial Subdivision, Birmingham, 

Alabama: Alabama Geological Survey Circular 68, 

42 p.

Nowell, L.H., Capel, P.D., and Dileanis, P.D., 1999, 

Pesticides in stream sediment and aquatic biota: 

Washington, D.C., Lewis Publishers, 1,001 p.

Nowell, L.H., and Resek, E.A., 1994, National standards and 

guidelines for pesticides in water, sediment, and aquatic 

organisms—Application to water-quality assessments: 

Reviews of Environmental Contamination and 

Toxicology, v. 40, 221 p.

Odenkirchen, E.W., and Eisler, Ronald, 1988, Chlorpyrifos 

hazards to fish, wildlife, and invertebrates—A synoptic 

review: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological 

Report 85 (1.13), 34 p.

Olson, M.L., and DeWild, J.F., 1999, Techniques for 

the collection and species-specific analysis of low 

levels of mercury in water, sediment, and biota, in

Morganwalp, D.W., and Buxton, H.T., eds., U.S. 

Geological Survey Toxic Substances Hydrology 

Program, proceedings of the technical meeting, 

Charleston, S.C., March 8–12, 1999: U.S. Geological 

Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 

99-4018-B, p. 191–199.

Omernik, J.M., 1987, Ecoregions of the conterminous 

United States: Annals of the Association of American 

Geographers, v. 77, no. 1, p. 118–125. 

Pearman, J.L., Stricklin V.E., and Psinakis W.L., 2001, Water 

resources data, Alabama, water year 2000: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Data Report AL-00-1, 

712 p.

———2002, Water resources data, Alabama, water year 

2001: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Data Report 

AL-01-1, 669 p.

Plafkin, J.L., Barbour, M.T., Porter, K.D., Gross, S.K., and 

Hughes, R.M., 1989, Rapid bioassessment protocols for 

use in streams and rivers: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA/444/4-89-001, D-12.

Planert, Michael, and Pritchett, J.L., Jr., 1989, Geohydrology 

and susceptibility of major aquifers to surface 

contamination in Alabama; Area 4: U.S. Geological 

Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 

88-4133, 31 p.

Porcella, D.B., and Sorensen, D.L., 1980, Characteristics of 

non-point source urban runoff and its effects on stream 

ecosystems: Corvallis, Oreg., U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA-600/3-80-032, 99 p.

Puckett, L.J., 1994, Nonpoint and point sources of nitrogen 

in major watersheds of the United States: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations 

Report 94-4001, 6 p.

Reckhow, K.H., Beaulac, M.N., and Simpson, J.T., 1980, 

Modeling phosphorus loading and lake response under 

uncertainty—A manual and compilation of export 

coefficients: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Office of Water Regulations and Standards, EPA440/5-80-011, 214 p.

Rice, K.C., 1999, Trace-element concentrations across the 

conterminous United States: Environmental Science 

and Technology, v. 33, p. 2499–2504.

Richards, Carl, and Host, George, 1994, Examining 

land-use influences on stream habitats and macroinvertebrates—A GIS approach: Journal of the 

American Waterworks Research Association, v. 30, 

no. 5, p. 729–738.
94 Investigation of Water Quality and Aquatic-Community Structure in Village and Valley Creeks, Alabama, 2000 – 01

Richards, Carl, Johnson, J.D., and Erickson, D.L., 1996, 

Landscape-scale influences on stream habitats and 

biota: Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic 

Sciences, v. 53, p. 295–311.

Richter, B.D., Baumgartner, J.V., and Powell, J., 1996, A 

method for assessing hydrologic alteration within 

ecosystems: Conservation Biology, v. 10, 

p. 1163–1174.

Robison, H.W., and Buchanan, T.M., 1984, Fishes of 

Arkansas: University of Arkansas Press, 536 p.

Rohde, F.C., Arndt, R.G., Lindquist, D.G., and Parnell, J.F., 

1994, Freshwater fishes of the Carolinas, Virginia, 

Maryland, and Delaware: Chapel Hill, The University 

of North Carolina Press, 222 p.

Rosenberg, D.M., and Resh, V.H., 1993, Freshwater 

biomonitoring and benthic macroinvertebrates: New 

York, Chapman and Hall, 488 p.

Ross, S.T., 2001, Inland fishes of Mississippi: Mississippi 

Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks, 

624 p. 

Sapp, C.D., and Emplaincourt, J., 1975, Physiographic 

regions of Alabama: Geological Survey of Alabama 

Special Map 168.

SAS Institute, Inc., 1989, SAS/STAT® user’s guide, 

version 6 (4th ed.), vol. 2: Cary, N.C., SAS Institute 

Inc., 943 p.

Shelton, L.R., 1994, Field guide for collecting and 

processing stream-water samples for the National 

Water-Quality Assessment Program: U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 94-455, 42 p.

Shelton, L.R., and Capel, P.D., 1994, Guidelines for 

collecting and processing samples of streambed 

sediments for analysis of trace elements and organic 

contaminants for the National Water-Quality 

Assessment Program: U.S. Geological Survey OpenFile Report 94-458, 20 p.

Smith, J.A., Witkowski, P.J., and Fusillo, T.V., 1988, 

Manmade organic compounds in the surface 

waters of the United States—A review of current 

understanding: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1007, 

p. 64–74. 

Spivey, L.D., Jr., 1982, Soil survey of Jefferson County: 

Washington, D.C., U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Soil Conservation Service, 140 p.

Thomas, W.A., 1972, Mississippian stratigraphy of 

Alabama: Geological Survey of Alabama Monograph 

12, 121 p.

Thurman, E.M., 1985, Organic geochemistry of natural 

waters: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, Martinus 

Nijhoff/Dr. W. Junk Publishers, p. 8.

Tornes, L.H., Grigham, M.E., and Lorenz, D.L., 1997, 

Nutrients, suspended sediment, and pesticides in 

streams in the Red River of the North Basin, 

Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations 

Report 97-4053, 70 p.

Tucker, J.T., 1979, Travel time of solutes in Village Creek 

in Birmingham, Alabama: Geological Survey of 

Alabama, Special Map 190.

U.S. Census Bureau, 2001, Ranking tables for incorporated 

places of 100,000 or more, Population in 2000 and 

population change from 1990–2000 (PHC-T-5), 

accessed on July 23, 2001, at URL 

http://www.census.gov/population/www/cen2000/

phc-t5.html.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1986, Ambient 

water quality criteria for bacteria—1986: Washington, 

D.C., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA600-4-85-076, 24 p.

———1992a, Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics 

Consortium, National Land Cover Data, accessed on 

July 31, 2001, at URL http://www.epa.gov/

mrlc/nlcd.html.

———1992b, NPDES Storm Water Sampling Guidance 

Document: Washington, D.C., U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA-833-B-92-001, 

123 p.

———1995, Guidance for assessing chemical contaminant 

data for use in fish advisories, v. 1, Fish sampling and 

analysis (2d ed.): U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, EPA 823-R-95-007.

———1997, Method 1600—Membrane filter test method 

for enterococci in water: Washington, D.C., U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, 

EPA-821-R-97-004, May 1997.

———1999, National recommended water quality 

criteria—Correction: Washington, D.C., U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, 

EPA-822-Z-99-01, April 1999.

———2000a, Ambient water quality criteria 

recommendations—Rivers and streams in nutrient 

ecoregion XI: Washington, D.C., U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Office of Water, EPA-822-B-00-

020, December 2000.

———2000b, Drinking-water standards and health 

advisories: Washington, D.C., U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Office of Water, EPA-822-B-00-

001, Summer 2000.

———2001, National primary drinking-water standards: 

Washington, D.C., U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Office of Water, EPA-816-F-01-007, March 

2001, 4 p.

U.S. Geological Survey, 1993, Digital elevation 

models—Data users guide 5: Reston, Va., U.S. 

Geological Survey, 48 p.

———2001, NAWQA Data Warehouse, accessed on July 

27, 2001, and July 30, 2001, at URL 

http://orxddwimdn.er.usgs.gov/servlet/page?_pageid=

543&_dad=portal30&_schema=PORTAL30.
Selected References 95

Viessman, Warren, and Hammer, M.J., 1993, Water 

supplyand pollution control (5th ed.): New 

York, Harper Collins College Publishers, 

p. 283.

Wallace, J.B., Grubaugh, J.W., and Whiles, M.R., 1996, 

Biotic indices and stream ecosystem processes—

Results from an experimental study: Ecological 

Applications, v. 6, p. 140–151.

Walsh, C.J., Sharpe, A.K., Breen, P.F., and Sonneman, J.A., 

2001, Effects of urbanization on streams of the 

Melbourne region, Victoria, Australia—I. Benthic 

macroinvertebrate communities: Freshwater Biology, 

v. 46, p. 535–551. 

Wang, L., Lyons, J., Kanehl, P., Bunnerman, R., and 

Emmons, E., 2000, Watershed urbanization and 

changes in fish communities in Southeastern Wisconsin 

streams: Journal of the American Waterworks Research 

Association, v. 36, no. 5, p. 1173–1189.

Ward, J.V., 1992, Aquatic insect ecology—1. Biology and 

habitat: New York, J. Wiley and Sons, 438 p. 

Waters, T.F., 1995, Sediment in streams—Sources, 

biological effects, and control: American Fisheries 

Society Monograph 7, 251 p.

Werner, S.L., Burkhardt, M.R., and DeRusseau, S.N., 1996, 

Methods of analysis by the U.S. Geological Survey 

National Water Quality Laboratory—Determination of 

pesticides in water by Carbopak-B solid-phase 

extraction and high-performance liquid 

chromatography: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 96-216, 42 p. 

Wilde, F.D., Radtke, D.B., Gibs, Jacob, and Iwatsubo, R.T., 

1999, Collection of water samples—National field 

manual for the collection of water-quality data: U.S. 

Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources 

Investigations, book 9, chap. A4, [variously paged].

Wong, C.S., Capel, P.D., and Nowell, L.H., 2000, 

Organochlorine pesticides and PCBs in stream 

sediment and aquatic biota—Initial results from the 

National Water-Quality Assessment Program, 

1992–1995: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 00-4053, 88 p. 

Wynn, K.H., Bauch, N.J., and Driver, N.E., 2001, Gore 

Creek watershed, Colorado—Assessment of 

historical and current water quantity, water quality, 

and aquatic ecology, 1968–98: U.S. Geological 

Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 

99-4270, 72 p.

Zappia, Humbert, [in press], Organochlorine compounds 

and trace elements in fish tissue and streambed 

sediment in the Mobile River Basin, Alabama, 

Mississippi, and Georgia, 1998: U.S. Geological 

Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 

02-4160.

Zaugg, S.D., Sandstrom, M.W., Smith S.G., and Fehlberg, 

K.M., 1995, Methods of analysis by the U.S. 

Geological Survey National Water Quality 

Laboratory—Determination of pesticides in water by 

C-18 solid-phase extraction and capillary-column gas 

chromatography/mass spectrometry with selected-ion 

monitoring: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 

95-181, 49 p.
96 Investigation of Water Quality and Aquatic-Community Structure in Village and Valley Creeks, Alabama, 2000 – 01

APPENDIXES
Appendix Tables 97

Appendix table 1-1. Concentrations of nutrients, major ions, trace elements, and wastewater indicators detected in blank samples in the Birmingham 

area, Alabama, 2000–01

[E, estimated; mg/L, milligrams per liter; <, less than; LRL, laboratory reporting level; μg/L, micrograms per liter; MRL, minimum reporting level]

Constituent Concentration Reporting level Reporting level 

type Type of blank

Nitrogen, ammonia plus organic, dissolved E 0.071 mg/L < 0.1 mg/L LRL Field

Total organic carbon E .344 mg/L < .6 mg/L LRL Field

Phosphorus, dissolved E .003 mg/L < .006 mg/L LRL Field

Silica E .0422 mg/L < .09 mg/L LRL Field

Copper E .976 μg/L < 1.8 μg/L LRL Field

Chloride E .06 mg/L < .08 mg/L LRL Field

Calcium .0092 mg/L < .02 mg/L LRL Equipment

Magnesium .0019 mg/L < .014 mg/L LRL Equipment

Silica .0826 mg/L < .09 mg/L LRL Equipment

Zinc 3.137 μg/L < 1.0 μg/L MRL Equipment

Acetephenone E .095 μg/L < .10 μg/L MRL Lab

Caffeine .063 μg/L < .08 μg/L MRL Lab

3-B Coprostanol E .310 μg/L < .60 μg/L MRL Lab

Ethanol, 2-butoxy-phosphate E .122 μg/L < .070 μg/L MRL Lab

NPEO2-Total E .102 μg/L < 1.1 μg/L MRL Lab

OPEO1-Total E .073 μg/L < .10 μg/L MRL Lab

OPEO1-Total E .063 μg/L < .12 μg/L MRL Lab

OPEO1-Total E .200 μg/L < 1.0 μg/L MRL Lab

OPEO1-Total E .200 μg/L < 1.0 μg/L MRL Lab

Triclosan .069 μg/L < .04 μg/L MRL Lab

Triclosan E .044 μg/L < .05 μg/L MRL Lab

Triclosan E .034 μg/L < .05 μg/L MRL Field

Tri(dichlorisopropyl)phosphate .127 μg/L < .10 μg/L MRL Lab
98 Investigation of Watr Quality and Aquatic-Community Structure in Village and Valley Creeks, 2000-01

Nutrients and major ions (mg/L)

Concentration

in

replicates

Relative

percent

difference

Total nitrogen 1.564

1.598

.289

.275

3.010

2.988

2.2

5.0

0.7

Dissolved nitrogen 1.214

1.241

2.989

2.994

2.2

0.2

Total organic nitrogen .776

.812

.336

.305

4.5

9.7

Dissolved organic nitrogen .426

.455

.315

.311

6.6

1.3

Total ammonia-plus-organic nitrogen .905

.94

.109

.099

.568

.538

3.8

9.6

5.4

Dissolved ammonia-plus-organic 

nitrogen

.5549

.5832

E .068

E .088

.547

.544

5.0

7.8

0.6

Dissolved ammonia nitrogen .129

.128

.232

.233

0.8

0.4

Dissolved nitrite nitrogen .017

.017

.07

.071

0.0

1.4

Dissolved nitrate nitrogen .642

.641

2.372

2.379

0.2

0.3

Dissolved nitrite-plus-nitrate nitrogen .659

.658

.18

.176

2.442

2.45

0.2

2.2

0.3

Total phosphorus .121

.122

.007

.004

.057

.057

0.8

54.6

0.0

Nutrients and major ions (mg/L)

Concentration

in

replicates

Relative

percent

difference

Dissolved phosphorus 0.036

.036

.052

.052

0.0

0.0

Orthophosphorus E .013

E .015

.038

.039

14.3

2.6

Calcium 89.236

90.218

51.571

50.527

67.269

66.879

1.1

2.0

0.6

Magnesium 16.783

17.352

17.021

16.231

16.265

16.128

3.3

4.8

0.8

Sodium 15.503

15.724

3.388

3.1856

10.113

10.001

1.4

6.2

1.1

Potassium 26.05

26.35

1.11

1.11

3.28

3.2

1.2

0.0

2.5

Chloride 91.94

92.97

4.91

4.77

10.56

10.73

1.1

2.9

1.6

Sulfate 65.57

65.7

10.02

10.05

56.19

55.98

0.2

0.3

0.4

Fluoride .537

.552

E .114

E .094

.236

.226

2.8

19.2

4.3

Silica 13.84

13.883

5.0611

4.9124

7.7197

7.6538

0.3

3.0

0.9

Appendix table 1-2. Concentrations and relative percentage differences for nutrients, major ions, trace elements, pesticides, and wastewater 

indicators detected in replicate samples in the Birmingham area, Alabama, 2000– 01

[mg/L, milligrams per liter; E, estimated; μg/L, micrograms per liter]
Appendix Tables 99

Trace elements (mg/L)

Concentration

in

replicates

Relative

percent

difference

Aluminum 32.68

34.07

45.998

47.54

4.2

3.3

Arsenic E 1.561

E 1.712

9.2

Barium 426.43

433.27

29.974

29.813

1.6

0.5

Cadmium 2.1

2.141

1.9

Chromium 2.386

2.459

3.0

Copper 5.19

5.225

0.7

Iron 235.55

247.76

63.928

67.685

5.0

5.7

Lead 3.776

3.702

2.0

Lithium 44.935

45.263

0.7

Manganese 57.326

58.263

46.121

45.979

1.6

0.3

Molybdenum 31.082

30.408

2.2

Nickel E 1.304

E 1.763

29.9

Zinc 155.32

152.79

1.6

Pesticides (μg/L)

Concentration 

in 

replicates

Relative 

percent 

difference

Atrazine 2.58

2.48

.0321

.0328

4.0

2.2

Deethylatrazine E .0357

E .0371

3.8

Diazinon .0832

.0734

.0596

.0666

12.5

11.1

Pendimethalin .0654

.0607

7.4

Pesticides (μg/L)

(Continued)

Concentration 

in 

replicates

Relative 

percent 

difference

Prometon 0.926

.894

.151

.154

3.5

2.0

Simazine .184

.202

.0261

.0299

9.3

13.6

Trifluralin E .00635

E .00671

5.5

Wastewater indicators (μg/L)

Concentration 

in 

replicates

Relative 

percent 

difference

Acetephenone 0.348

.265

27.1

Caffeine .464

.469

.799

.958

1.1

18.1

Cholesterol 1.67

1.48

12.1

Cotinine .063

.085

.066

.078

29.7

16.7

3B-Coprostanol .941

.797

16.6

Diethoxynonylphenol (NPEO2-total) 3.0

2.75

8.7

Ethanol, 2-butoxy-phosphate 1.44

1.35

6.4

Monoethoxyoctylphenol (OPEO1) .693

.74

.434

.39

6.6

10.7

Para-nonylphenol-total .794

1.13

2.54

2.37

34.9

6.9

Tri (2-chloro ethyl) phosphate .128

.134

.316

.339

4.6

7.0

Triclosan .181

.124

.078

.072

37.4

8.0

Triphenyl phosphate .136

.133

2.2

Appendix table 1-2. Concentrations and relative percentage differences for nutrients, major ions, trace elements, pesticides, and wastewater 

indicators detected in replicate samples in the Birmingham area, Alabama, 2000– 01 — Continued

[mg/L, milligrams per liter; E, estimated; μg/L, micrograms per liter]
100 Investigation of Water Quality and Aquatic-Community Structure in Village and Valley Creeks, Alabama, 2000 – 01

Appendix table 2-1. Summary of major ion concentrations during different flow conditions at sites in the Birmingham area, Alabama, 2000–01

[Meq/L, milliequivalents per liter]

Site 

label 

(fig. 1)

Hydrologic 

condition Date Calcium(Meq/L)

Magnesium

(Meq/L)

Sodium

(Meq/L)

Potassium

(Meq/L)

Chloride

(Meq/L)

Sulfate

(Meq/L)

Bicarbonate

(Meq/L)

VIL-1 Low flow 8/30/2000 2.19 1.62 0.12 0.02 0.13 0.17 3.87

VIL-1 High flow 1/29/2001 .57 .26 .04 .03 .04 .09 .72

VIL-1 Median 2.30 1.55 .14 .02 .13 .19 3.67

VIL-2 Low flow 8/30/2000 2.88 1.50 .34 .27 1.00 1.09 2.92

VIL-2 High flow 1/29/2001 .72 .25 .06 .06 .10 .18 .82

VIL-2 Median 2.50 1.40 .28 .12 .26 .80 2.88

VIL-3 Low flow 8/29/2000 2.30 1.25 .30 .16 .34 .83 2.75

VIL-3 High flow 3/30/2000 .93 .36 .08 .06 .07 .25 1.10

VIL-3 Median 2.45 1.16 .29 .16 .34 .93 2.58

VAL-1 Low flow 8/31/2000 2.63 1.10 .48 .10 .33 1.01 2.80

VAL-1 High flow 2/12/2001 .41 .08 .04 .02 .03 .11 .43

VAL-1 Median 2.55 1.03 .47 .09 .31 1.01 2.63

VAL-2 Low flow 8/29/2000 2.50 1.26 .46 .08 .35 .86 3.16

VAL-2 High flow 2/9/2001 .86 .24 .10 .03 .09 .30 .75

VAL-2 Median 2.88 1.26 .46 .08 .33 .86 3.38

VAL-3 Low flow 8/31/2000 2.12 1.26 .45 .10 .36 .70 2.74

VAL-3 High flow 2/13/2001 .69 .18 .05 .04 .03 .17 .69

VAL-3 Median 2.25 1.15 .32 .11 .23 .66 2.67

FMC Low flow 8/28/2000 2.04 1.32 .11 .03 .11 .08 3.36

FMC High flow 3/20/2001 .80 .37 .06 .02 .07 .13 .95

FMC Median 1.91 1.03 .11 .03 .11 .19 2.75
 Appendix Tables 101

Appendix table 2-2. Field water-quality properties, bacteria, and chemical constituents at sites in the Birmingham area, Alabama, 2000–01[Shaded samples were collected during high flow. ft3/s, cubic feet per second; mg/L, milligrams per liter; μg/L, micrograms per liter; μS/cm, microsiemens per 

centimeter; col/100 mL, colonies per 100 milliliters; —, no data; >, actual value greater than plate value; <, less than; K, counts greater than or less than ideal; 

V, estimated due to equipment problems]

Site 

label 

(fig. 1)

Date Discharge (ft3/s) BOD5 (mg/L) Chlorophyll a (μg/L) pH

Specific

conductance 

(μS/cm)

Dissolved 

oxygen 

(mg/L)

Total 

organic 

carbon 

(mg/L)

Fecal 

coliform 

(col/100 mL)

E. coli 

(col/100 mL)

Enterococci 

(col/100 mL)

VIL-1 3/1/2000 3.7 — — 7.9 393 8.8 1.32 330 260 —VIL-1 4/1/2000 10.7 — — 7.7 381 8.8 3.44 270 > 800 330VIL-1 5/17/2000 3.86 — — 7.9 389 8.2 — 680 560 —VIL-1 6/30/2000 2.7 — — 7.7 390 7.4 1.62 4,900 K 530 1,000VIL-1 8/1/2000 2.46 1.5 < 0.1 8.1 379 7.1 1.09 1,300 1,200 1,200VIL-1 8/302000 1.3 1.7 < .1 8.1 389 7.0 .809 510 490 690VIL-1 10/4/2000 1.2 .3 < .1 8.0 374 8.0 .534 700 760 1,500VIL-1 11/8/2000 126 — — 7.4 76 7.9 12.4 K 28,000 K 31,000 K 69,000VIL-1 12/14/2000 2.17 .6 < .1 8.0 375 8.4 1.32 1,700 1,400 1,700VIL-1 1/24/2001 6.47 1.6 < .1 8.1 389 8.7 1.96 K 8,500 K 13,000 K 15,000VIL-1 1/29/2001 101 — < .1 6.9 86 9.1 18.1 K 1,500 K 800 8,800VIL-1 3/19/2001 7.02 — — 7.8 371 9.2 — — 250 —VIL-2 8/1/2000 27.9 2.5 < .1 7.8 366 5.4 6.02 2,400 3,000 5,700VIL-2 8/30/2000 10.5 3.6 < .1 8.0 503 6.2 4.35 K 1,900 K 4,100 K 7,400VIL-2 10/4/2000 7.47 1.4 < .1 8.0 333 5.5 2.78 K 350 440 1,600VIL-2 11/14/2000 12.8 8.7 < .1 7.7 760 6.5 23.4 520 850 900VIL-2 12/14/2000 20.7 7.8 < .1 7.4 227 7.9 7.88 K 13,000 9,200 K 18,000VIL-2 1/24/2001 29.5 2.5 < .1 8.1 450 10.5 3.34 4,700 2,500 3,500VIL-2 1/29/2001 911 — 10 7.0 114. 8.6 17.5 K 2,300 3,300 18,000VIL-3 3/2/2000 23 — — 8.1 467 11.8 4.05 180 K 280 —VIL-3 3/30/2000 410 — — 7.2 184 8.2 9.14 K 7,800 > 8,000 > 6,000VIL-3 6/30/2000 16.2 — — 8.5 386 11.1 5.94 K 1,400 K 380 K 260VIL-3 8/2/2000 413 8.5 < .1 8.1 212 5.9 4.78 19,000 17,000 25,000VIL-3 8/29/2000 14.6 6.8 9.1 8.1 393 9.9 3.98 400 220 370VIL-3 10/3/2000 15.6 1.1 < .1 8.3 355 10.6 3.09 190 K 110 73VIL-3 11/14/2000 18.3 .9 < .1 7.8 420 8.9 4.12 — — —VIL-3 12/12/2000 13.8 1.3 < .1 8.1 445 9.6 3.95 V 49 V 20 V 21VIL-3 1/23/2001 47.3 1 < .1 8.1 459 9.0 3.72 K 23 K 34 K 17VIL-3 2/14/2001 108 3 < .1 7.9 409 8.6 5.17 1,200 K 2,200 1,300VIL-4 3/2/2000 87 — — 7.2 510 8.6 4.12 K 180 200 —VIL-4 4/2/2000 2440 — — 7.2 144 0.0 12.7 > 3,000 > 4,000 > 3,000VIL-4 7/1/2000 77.5 — — 7.4 477 0.0 5.65 K 2,000 44,000 K 4,000VAL-1 3/1/2000 1.83 — — 7.9 473 8.2 4.12 3,700 4,500 —VAL-1 3/31/2000 1.77 — — 7.6 599 7.1 5.35 22,000 60,000 4,300VAL-1 6/29/2000 33.4 — — 7.5 205 5.1 16.6 > 33,000 > 44,000 —VAL-1 8/2/2000 2.25 4.9 < 0.1 8.0 408 5.3 27.1 K 64,000 K 78,000 K 15,000VAL-1 8/31/2000 1.12 4.8 < .1 7.9 416 5.0 3.45 4,000 1,900 K 600VAL-1 10/3/2000 1.12 1.7 < .1 7.9 386 3.3 3.64 2,100 3,200 830
102 Investigation of Water Quality and Aquatic-Community Structure in Village and Valley Creeks, Alabama, 2000-01 VAL-1 11/9/2000 37

—

— 7.6 135 8.2 5.88 K 85,000 63,000 70,000

VAL-1 12/12/2000 1.64 4.8 < .1 7.6 407 4.2 7.05 V 44,000 V 19,000 V 4,300VAL-1 1/23/2001 2.49 2.4 < .1 7.9 480 7.8 4.24 3,800 770 4,100VAL-1 2/12/2001 120 4.4 < .1 7.3 58 10.4 8.21 5,900 8,200 9,900VAL-2 2/29/2000 13

—

— 8.5 491 13.1 2.21 K 41 K 150

—

VAL-2 3/31/2000 20.7

—

— 7.5 455 8.0 2.4 1,000 > 1,600 980

VAL-2 5/16/2000 9.7

—

— 7.6 498 6.8

— 400 340

—

VAL-2 6/29/2000 22.6

—

— 7.9 265 5.6 6.98 > 6,000 > 8,000 2,000

VAL-2 8/3/2000 18.2 1.2 < .1 8.2 423 7.8 3.14 1,700 1,200 360VAL-2 8/29/2000 6.03 2.4 6 8.4 432 4.3 4.55 K 640 800 120VAL-2 10/5/2000 5.2 .9 < .1 8.0 393 4.7 2.70 150 140 260VAL-2 11/15/2000 8.73 .9 < .1 8.2 539 9.9 2.89 K 16,000 K 21,000 2,300VAL-2 12/13/2000 7.84 .8 < .1 8.1 468 11.0 3.39 720 200 180VAL-2 1/25/2001 14.0 .5 < .1 8.0 492 9.3 2.82 K 80 K 51 59VAL-2 2/9/2001 374

— 31 7.7 126 6.1 29.2

— 25,000 22,000

VAL-3 2/29/2000 27.3

—

— 7.9 455 10.1 5.18 K 72 K 130

—

VAL-3 3/29/2000 42

—

— 7.7 454 10.4 1.93 120 320 39

VAL-3 6/28/2000 14.7

—

— 7.6 358 7.0 3.31 330 720 250

VAL-3 8/3/2000 32.9 1 < .1 7.9 278 7.2 5.41 1,400 700 4,100VAL-3 8/31/2000 11.7 8.6 < .1 8.2 386 11.1 2.63 K 71 K 86 K 33VAL-3 10/2/2000 12.3 .5 < .1 8.1 347 10.2 2.75 K 40 50 92VAL-3 11/9/2000 240

—

— 7.9 163 6.5 5.45 16,000 11,000 52,000

VAL-3 12/13/2000 13.7 .7 < .1 8.3 452 13.9 2.34 75 K 9 110VAL-3 1/25/2001 33 .3 < .1 8.4 489 11.1 2.80 K 10 K 5 K 12VAL-3 2/13/2001 960 8.4 16 7.6 103 10.1 9.64 4,700 6,600 25,000LCR 2/28/2000 28.1

—

— 8.0 296 9.9 4.45 490 430

—

LCR 3/28/2000 27.3

—

— 7.7 378 9.2 2.15 K 62 1,800 K 72

LCR 6/27/2000 6.85

—

— 7.5 403 6.6 2.50 200 270 290

FMC 5/15/2000 1.84

—

— 8.0 323 7.4

— K 17 K 13

—

FMC 7/31/2000 12.4 2.5 < 0.1 7.8 185 6.6 8.14 3,000 3,000 K 14,000FMC 8/28/2000 .55 1.1 < .1 8.1 335 8.2 1.57 K 70 K 54 220FMC 11/13/2000 1.16 .6 < .1 7.9 298 10.0 2.99 160 250 5,000FMC 12/11/2000 .877 .5 < .1 8.2 364 10.7 1.84 9 K 3 K 62FMC 1/22/2001 21.7 .3 < .1 7.9 276 12.2 4.49 K 70 100 190FMC 2/13/2001 31.6 7.4 < .1 7.9 230 9.4

— 540 520 1,400

FMC 3/20/2001 220 8.6 < .1 7.4 128 9.9

—

— 930

—

Appendix table 2-2. Field water-quality properties, bacteria, and chemical constituents at sites in the Birmingham area, Alabama, 2000– 01 — Continued[Shaded samples were collected during high flow. ft3/s, cubic feet per second; mg/L, milligrams per liter; μg/L, micrograms per liter; μS/cm, microsiemens per 

centimeter; col/100 mL, colonies per 100 milliliters; —, no data; >, actual value greater than plate value; <, less than; K, counts greater than or less than ideal; 

V, estimated due to equipment problems]

Site 

label 

(fig. 1)

Date Discharge (ft3/s) BOD5 (mg/L) Chlorophyll a

(μg/L) pH

Specific

conductance 

(μS/cm)

Dissolved 

oxygen 

(mg/L)

Total 

organic 

carbon 

(mg/L)

Fecal 

coliform 

(col/100 mL)

E. coli 

(col/100 mL)

Enterococci 

(col/100 mL)
Appendix Tables 103

Appendix table 2-3. Wastewater indicators detected in water samples from streams in the Birmingham area, 

Alabama, 2000–01

[Shaded samples were collected during high flow; BHA, 3-tert-butyl-4-hydroxyanisole; μg/L, micrograms per liter; <, not detected; 

E, estimated; —, no data; *, censored; OPEO1, monoethoxyoctylphenol; OPEO2, diethoxyoctylphenol; NPEO2, diethoxynonylphenol]

Site label 

(fig. 1) Date

Food by-products Pharmaceutical by-products

BHA

(μg/L)

Caffeine

(μg/L)

3BCoprostanol

(μg/L)

Cholesterol

(μg/L)

Triclosan

(μg/L)

17Bestradiol

(μg/L)

Cotinine

(μg/L)

VIL-1 3/1/2000 < 0.120 E 0.056 < 0.600 < 1.500 E 0.038 < 0.500 < 0.040 

VIL-1 4/1/2000 < .120 < .080 < .600 E .464 .082 < .500 < .040 

VIL-1 6/30/2000 < .120 < .080 < .600 < 1.500 .074 < .500 < .040 

VIL-1 8/1/2000 < .120 E .047 < .600 < 1.500 .118 < .500 < .040 

VIL-1 8/30/2000 < .120 < .080 < .600 < 1.500 — < .500 < .040 

VIL-1 10/4/2000 < .120 < .080 < .600 < 1.500 < .050 < .500 < .080 

VIL-1 11/8/2000 < .120 .219 E .873 E 1.450 .077 < .500 < .080 

VIL-1 12/14/2000 < .120 E .061 < .600 < 1.500 < .050 < .500 < .080 

VIL-1 1/24/2001 < 5.000 .56 E 4.500 E 5.600 E .130 < 5.000 E .250 

VIL-1 1/29/2001 < 5.000 1.1 E 1.500 E 2.400 < 1.000 < 5.000 E .280 

VIL-2 8/1/2000 < .120 .217 < .600 < 1.500 .132 < .500 .066

VIL-2 8/30/2000 < .120 .428 < .600 < 1.500 — < .500 .16

VIL-2 10/4/2000 < .120 .195 < .600 < 1.500 E .039 < .500 < .080 

VIL-2 11/14/2000 < .120 .464 < .600 < 1.500 .181 < .500 E .063 

VIL-2 12/14/2000 < .120 .799 E .941 E 1.670 .078 < .500 E .066 

VIL-2 1/24/2001 < 5.000 .8 E 4.100 E 5.000 E .380 < 5.000 E .230 

VIL-2 1/29/2001 < 5.000 E .490 E 2.700 E 3.700 < 1.000 < 5.000 < 1.000 

VIL-3 3/2/2000 < .120 1.6 E 1.520 E 1.610 .185 < .500 .126

VIL-3 3/30/2000 E .114 .386 E 1.350 E 1.810 .185 < .500 < .040 

VIL-3 6/30/2000 < .120 .379 < .600 < 1.500 .251 < .500 .112

VIL-3 8/2/2000 < .120 3.38 E 1.420 E 2.820 .962 < .500 .212

VIL-3 8/29/2000 < .120 .163 < .600 < 1.500 E .049 < .500 E .065 

VIL-3 10/3/2000 < .120 .15 < .600 < 1.500 .062 E .128 E .067 

VIL-3 11/14/2000 < .120 .152 < .600 < 1.500 .113 < .500 < .080 

VIL-3 12/12/2000 < .120 .314 E .546 < 1.500 .106 E .309 .089

VIL-3 1/23/2001 < 5.000 E .270 E 1.000 E 1.800 E .092 < 5.000 < 1.000 

VIL-3 2/14/2001 < 5.000 E .240 E .480 E .790 < 1.000 < 5.000 < 1.000 

VIL-4 3/2/2000 < .120 1.5 E 1.170 E 1.410 .252 < .500 .133

VIL-4 4/2/2000 < .120 .466 E 3.100 E 3.870 .338 < .500 .076

VIL-4 7/1/2000 < .120 * < .600 < 1.500 .161 < .500 .053

VAL-1 3/1/2000 < .120 2.47 E 3.100 E 4.290 .434 < .500 .161

VAL-1 3/31/2000 E .056 5.69 E 5.930 E 7.960 .689 < .500 .23

VAL-1 6/29/2000 < .120 1.01 E 1.030 E .981 .071 < .500 < .040 

VAL-1 8/2/2000 < .120 .474 < .600 < 1.500 .126 < .500 .119

VAL-1 8/31/2000 < .120 .442 < .600 E 2.180 — < .500 .115

VAL-1 10/3/2000 < .120 .971 E 1.670 E 2.290 .328 < .500 .092

VAL-1 11/9/2000 < .120 .469 E 2.230 E 2.730 .192 < .500 < .080 

VAL-1 12/12/2000 < .120 2.97 E 2.050 E 2.520 .845 E .188 .222

VAL-1 1/23/2001 < 5.000 4 E 4.500 E 6.500 E .330 < 5.000 < 1.000 

VAL-1 2/12/2001 < 5.000 2.6 E 7.600 E 10.000 E .210 < 5.000 < 1.000 

VAL-2 2/29/2000 < .120 .502 E 1.030 E 2.220 .11 < .500 .067

VAL-2 3/31/2000 < .120 .772 E .849 E 1.460 .188 < .500 .099

VAL-2 6/29/2000 < .120 .542 < .600 < 1.500 .492 < .500 .086

VAL-2 8/3/2000 < .120 .109 < .600 < 1.500 .062 < .500 .045

VAL-2 8/29/2000 < .120 < .080 < .600 < 1.500 E .041 < .500 < .080 

VAL-2 10/5/2000 < .120 < .080 < .600 < 1.500 .065 < .500 < .080 

VAL-2 11/15/2000 < .120 .361 E .772 E 1.340 .234 < .500 < .080 

VAL-2 12/13/2000 < .120 .705 < .600 < 1.500 .228 < .500 .097

VAL-2 1/25/2001 < 5.000 .68 E .880 E 1.800 < 1.000 < 5.000 E .240 

VAL-2 2/9/2001 < 5.000 .82 E 2.700 E 4.100 < 1.000 < 5.000 < 1.000 

VAL-3 2/29/2000 < .120 .106 E .415 E 1.100 .128 < .500 .066

VAL-3 3/29/2000 E .127 E .076 < .600 E .761 .096 < .500 < .040 

VAL-3 6/28/2000 < .120 E .043 < .600 < 1.500 .05 < .500 < .040 

VAL-3 8/3/2000 < .120 .208 E .313 < 1.500 .088 E .357 .058

VAL-3 8/31/2000 < .120 < .080 < .600 < 1.500 — < .500 E .028 

VAL-3 10/2/2000 < .120 < .080 < .600 < 1.500 E .046 E .109 < .080 
104 Investigation of Water Quality and Aquatic-Community Structure in Village and Valley Creeks, Alabama, 2000 – 01

VAL-3 11/9/2000 < .120 .205 E .541 < 1.500 .074 < .500 < .080 

VAL-3 12/13/2000 < .120 .109 < .600 < 1.500 E .033 < .500 < .080 

VAL-3 1/25/2001 < 5.000 E .110 < 2.000 < 2.000 < 1.000 < 5.000 < 1.000 

VAL-3 2/13/2001 < 5.000 E .160 E 1.400 E 2.300 < 1.000 < 5.000 < 1.000 

LCR 2/28/2000 < .120 .188 < .600 < 1.500 .078 < .500 .04

LCR 3/28/2000 < .120 E .044 < .600 < 1.500 < .040 < .500 < .040 

LCR 6/27/2000 < .120 E .032 < .600 < 1.500 E .022 < .500 < .040 

FMC 7/31/2000 < .120 E .065 < .600 < 1.500 .116 E .339 < .040 

FMC 8/28/2000 < .120 < .080 < .600 < 1.500 < .050 < .500 < .080 

FMC 11/13/2000 < .120 E .065 < .600 < 1.500 * < .500 < .080 

FMC 12/11/2000 < .120 < .080 < .600 < 1.500 < .050 < .500 < .080 

FMC 1/22/2001 < 5.000 E .082 < 2.000 < 2.000 < 1.000 < 5.000 < 1.000 

FMC 2/13/2001 < 5.000 E .150 < 2.000 < 2.000 < 1.000 < 5.000 < 1.000 

Site label 

(fig. 1) Date

Phosphate-based chemical surfactants and additives Detergent agents Fragrances

Tri

(2-chloroethyl) phosphate

(μg/L)

Tri

(dichloroisopropyl) 

phosphate

(μg/L)

Ethanol, 

2-butoxy 

phosphate

(μg/L)

Triphenyl 

phosphate

(μg/L)

OPEO1

(μg/L)

OPEO2

(μg/L)

NPEO2-total 

(μg/L)

Paranonylphenol-total

(μg/L)

Acetephenone

(μg/L)

VIL-1 3/1/2000 < 0.040 < 0.100 < 0.070 < 0.100 E 0.092 < 0.200 < 1.100 < 0.500 < 1.0

VIL-1 4/1/2000 < .040 < .100 < .070 E .021 < .100 < .200 < 1.100 E .750 < 1.0

VIL-1 6/30/2000 < .040 < .100 < .070 < .100 < .100 < .200 < 1.100 < .500 < 1.0

VIL-1 8/1/2000 < .040 < .100 < .200 < .100 E .068 < .200 < 1.100 < .500 < .220

VIL-1 8/30/2000 .103 < .100 .249 < .100 * < .200 < 1.100 E 1.360 < .150

VIL-1 10/4/2000 < .040 < .100 < .200 < .100 < .120 < .200 < 1.100 < .700 < .220

VIL-1 11/8/2000 .05 < .100 .657 E .069 E .234 < .200 E 2.100 E .645 < .220

VIL-1 12/14/2000 < .040 < .100 < .200 < .100 E .090 < .200 < 1.100 E .459 < .220

VIL-1 1/24/2001 < .500 < .500 < .500 E .074 < 1.000 < 1.000 < 5.000 < 5.000 < .500

VIL-1 1/29/2001 E .100 E .099 .75 E .130 < 1.000 < 1.000 E 2.700 < 5.000 < .500

VIL-2 8/1/2000 .38 < .100 .804 1.93 E .348 < .200 E 1.390 < .500 <1.0

VIL-2 8/30/2000 .327 .149 .716 < .100 E .260 < .200 < 1.100 E 1.730 < .150

VIL-2 10/4/2000 .564 < .100 < .200 < .100 E .090 < .200 < 1.100 E .438 < .220

VIL-2 11/14/2000 .128 < .100 < .200 < .100 E .693 < .200 < 1.100 E .794 .23

VIL-2 12/14/2000 .316 < .100 1.44 .136 E .434 E .104 E 3.000 E 2.540 .348

VIL-2 1/24/2001 E .340 E .068 E .380 E .091 < 1.000 < 1.000 E 1.800 < 5.000 < .500

VIL-2 1/29/2001 E .250 E .150 .6 E .180 < 1.000 < 1.000 E 2.000 < 5.000 E .28

VIL-3 3/2/2000 .302 < .100 2.13 < .100 E .712 E .159 E 4.640 E 1.720 1.14

VIL-3 3/30/2000 .3 < .100 1.32 E .052 < .100 < .200 E .584 E 1.770 1.51

VIL-3 6/30/2000 .263 < .100 .612 < .100 E .235 E .132 E 2.850 E .666 < .220

VIL-3 8/2/2000 .085 < .100 E 34.200 E .082 E .183 < .200 E 11.400 E 1.590 < .220

VIL-3 8/29/2000 .045 < .100 .301 < .100 E .189 < .200 < 1.100 E .542 < .220

VIL-3 10/3/2000 .086 < .100 E .159 < .100 E .247 < .200 E 1.430 E .560 < .220

VIL-3 11/14/2000 E .031 < .100 1.75 < .100 E .132 < .200 < 1.100 E .375 < .220

VIL-3 12/12/2000 .072 < .100 .907 < .100 E .347 < .200 < 1.100 E 1.040 .856

VIL-3 1/23/2001 E .230 E .160 E .320 E .093 < 1.000 < 1.000 < 5.000 < 5.000 2.8

VIL-3 2/14/2001 E .270 E .180 E .220 E .083 < 1.000 < 1.000 < 5.000 < 5.000 5.6

VIL-4 3/2/2000 .473 < .100 1.14 E .054 E .362 < .200 < 1.100 E 1.080 .43

VIL-4 4/2/2000 .217 < .100 1.45 E .066 < .100 E .039 E 1.900 E 1.610 .528

VIL-4 7/1/2000 .13 < .100 .223 < .100 E .089 < .200 < 1.100 < .500 < .220

VAL-1 3/1/2000 .119 < .100 2.74 E .066 E .159 < .200 E 6.990 E 1.936 .32

VAL-1 3/31/2000 .087 < .100 3.3 E .087 < .100 E .247 E 7.660 E 2.470 .475

VAL-1 6/29/2000 .056 < .100 .59 E .057 E .092 E .016 E .864 E .638 .202

VAL-1 8/2/2000 .139 < .100 .454 .138 E .324 < .200 E 2.520 E .538 .242

VAL-1 8/31/2000 .141 .356 13.9 E .052 E .177 < .200 E 9.360 E 2.950 < .150

VAL-1 10/3/2000 .056 < .100 17.6 < .100 E .185 < .200 E 9.050 E 1.750 < .220

VAL-1 11/9/2000 .068 < .100 .537 E .084 E .176 < .200 E 2.070 E .633 < .220

Appendix table 2-3. Wastewater indicators detected in water samples from streams in the Birmingham area, 

Alabama, 2000 – 01 — Continued

[Shaded samples were collected during high flow; BHA, 3-tert-butyl-4-hydroxyanisole; μg/L, micrograms per liter; <, not detected; 

E, estimated; —, no data; *, censored; OPEO1, monoethoxyoctylphenol; OPEO2, diethoxyoctylphenol; NPEO2, diethoxynonylphenol]

Site label 

(fig. 1) Date

Food by-products Pharmaceutical by-products

BHA

(μg/L)

Caffeine

(μg/L)

3BCoprostanol

(μg/L)

Cholesterol

(μg/L)

Triclosan

(μg/L)

17Bestradiol

(μg/L)

Cotinine

(μg/L)
Appendix Tables 105

VAL-1 12/12/2000 .086 < .100 15.1 E .062 E .542 E .615 E 7.300 E 2.620 < .220

VAL-1 1/23/2001 E .065 < .500 E .440 E .076 < 1.000 < 1.000 E 2.800 E .550 < .500

VAL-1 2/12/2001 E .100 E .110 3.7 E .140 < 1.000 < 1.000 E 3.200 E 1.700 E .35

VAL-2 2/29/2000 .118 < .100 1.72 E .083 E .205 E .083 E 2.270 E .617 < 1.0

VAL-2 3/31/2000 .075 < .100 .998 E .069 E .117 E .150 E 3.040 E 1.020 .13

VAL-2 6/29/2000 .138 < .100 2.83 < .100 E .344 E .135 E 2.540 E .423 < .220

VAL-2 8/3/2000 .061 < .100 1.91 E .056 E .150 < .200 < 1.100 E .490 < .220

VAL-2 8/29/2000 < .040 < .100 E .167 < .100 < .120 < .200 < 1.100 E .206 < .220

VAL-2 10/5/2000 .079 < .100 E .163 < .100 < .120 < .200 < 1.100 E .312 < .220

VAL-2 11/15/2000 < .040 < .100 1.87 < .100 < .120 < .200 E 1.490 E .246 < .220

VAL-2 12/13/2000 .067 < .100 2.56 < .100 E .410 E .208 E 1.580 E .654 < .220

VAL-2 1/25/2001 E .069 < .500 1.5 E .077 < 1.000 < 1.000 E 2.000 < 5.000 < .500

VAL-2 2/9/2001 E .130 E .120 .76 E .200 < 1.000 < 1.000 E 2.500 E .880 E .3

VAL-3 2/29/2000 .222 < .100 .48 E .062 E .233 < .200 < 1.100 E .777 < 1.0

VAL-3 3/29/2000 .12 < .100 .62 E .049 < .100 < .200 < 1.100 E .598 < 1.0

VAL-3 6/28/2000 E .021 < .100 .122 E .009 < .100 < .200 E .145 < .500 < 1.0

VAL-3 8/3/2000 .11 < .100 .77 E .066 E .192 < .200 < 1.100 E .582 < .220

VAL-3 8/31/2000 .124 .149 .234 < .100 E .082 < .200 < 1.100 < .500 < .150

VAL-3 10/2/2000 < .040 < .100 < .200 < .100 E .114 < .200 E .557 E .266 < .220

VAL-3 11/9/2000 .065 < .100 .444 E .062 E .167 < .200 < 1.100 E .406 < .220

VAL-3 12/13/2000 < .040 < .100 .493 < .100 E .086 < .200 < 1.100 E .248 < .220

VAL-3 1/25/2001 E .084 < .500 .53 < .500 < 1.000 < 1.000 < 5.000 < 5.000 < .500

VAL-3 2/13/2001 E .082 E .081 E .440 E .110 < 1.000 < 1.000 < 5.000 < 5.000 < .500

LCR 2/28/2000 .146 < .100 .425 E .054 < .100 < .200 < 1.100 < .500 < 1.0

LCR 3/28/2000 < .040 < .100 < .070 < .100 < .100 < .200 < 1.100 < .500 < 1.0

LCR 6/27/2000 < .040 < .100 < .070 < .100 < .100 < .200 < 1.100 < .500 < 1.0

FMC 7/31/2000 < .040 < .100 E .147 < .100 E .191 < .200 E 1.000 < .500 < .220

FMC 8/28/2000 < .040 < .100 < .200 < .100 < 0.120 < 0.200 < 1.100 < 0.700 < 0.220

FMC 11/13/2000 < .040 < .100 < .200 < .100 < .120 < .200 < 1.100 < .700 < .220

FMC 12/11/2000 < .040 < .100 < .200 < .100 < .120 < .200 < 1.100 < .700 < .220

FMC 1/22/2001 < .500 < .500 < .500 < .500 < 1.000 < 1.000 < 5.000 < 5.000 < .500

FMC 2/13/2001 E .067 E .098 E .290 E .074 < 1.000 < 1.000 < 5.000 < 5.000 < .500

Site label 

(fig. 1) Date

Phosphate-based chemical surfactants and additives Detergent agents Fragrances

Tri

(2-chloroethyl) phosphate

(μg/L)

Tri

(dichloroisopropyl) 

phosphate

(μg/L)

Ethanol, 

2-butoxy 

phosphate

(μg/L)

Triphenyl 

phosphate

(μg/L)

OPEO1

(μg/L)

OPEO2

(μg/L)

NPEO2-total 

(μg/L)

Paranonylphenol-total

(μg/L)

Acetephenone

(μg/L)

Appendix table 2-3. Wastewater indicators detected in water samples from streams in the Birmingham area, 

Alabama, 2000 – 01 — Continued

[Shaded samples were collected during high flow; BHA, 3-tert-butyl-4-hydroxyanisole; μg/L, micrograms per liter; <, not detected; 

E, estimated; —, no data; *, censored; OPEO1, monoethoxyoctylphenol; OPEO2, diethoxyoctylphenol; NPEO2, diethoxynonylphenol]
Appendix table 2-4. Pesticides detected in water samples from streams in the Birmingham area, Alabama, 2000–01

[Shaded samples were collected during high flow; μg/L, micrograms per liter; —, no data; <, less than; E, estimated; DNOC, 4,6-dinitro-2-methylphenol]

Site 

label 

(fig. 1)

Date Aldicarb

(μg/L)

Aldicarb 

sulfone

(μg/L)

Atrazine

(μg/L)

Benfluralin

(μg/L)

Bentazon

(μg/L)

Bromacil

(μg/L)

Bromoxynil

(μg/L)

Carbaryl

(μg/L)

Chlorpyrifos

(μg/L)

Deethyl 

atrazine

(μg/L)

Diazinon

(μg/L)

Dieldrin

(μg/L)

Diuron

(μg/L)

VIL-1 5/17/2000

—

— 0.0189 < 0.002

—

—

— < 0.003 < 0.004 E 0.0146 E 0.00133 < 0.001

—

VIL-1 8/1/2000 < 0.54 < 0.1 .0188 < .002 < 0.035 < 0.12 < 0.04 < .003 E .00399 E .0128 E .00366 .00469 < 0.06VIL-1 8/30/2000 < .57 < .1 .012 < .002 < .035 < .06 < .04 < .003 < .004 E .0109 < .002 < .001 < .06VIL-1 11/8/2000 < 1.48 < .26 .0127 < .01 < .035 < 3.45 < .07 < .041 .00568 < .006 .0884 < .0048 < .056VIL-1 1/29/2001 < .76 < .2 1.580 E .00619 < .035 < .23 < .07 E .00375 .0127 E .0123 .0264 < .0048 < .21VIL-1 3/19/2001

—

— .011 < .01

—

—

— < .041 < .005 E .00837 < .005 .00498

—

VIL-2 8/1/2000 < .21 < .15 .0255 < .002 < .035 .57 < .04 E .419 < .004 < .01 .0298 < .001 .3075VIL-2 8/30/2000 < 1.5 < .1 < .01 < .002 < .035 < .62 .07 < .003 < .004 < .002 < .002 < .001 < .06VIL-2 1/29/2001 < .76 < .2 .135 < .01 < .035 < .29 < .07 E .0131 E .00463 < .006 .0205 < .0048 < .049VIL-3 3/30/2000 < 8.1 < .1 .202 < .002 < .035 .99 < .04 E .426 E .0121 < .02 .081 < .001 2.264VIL-3 8/2/2000 < 10.8 < .1 .0237 < .002 < .035 < .32 < .04 E .0371 E .0195 < .01 .0151 < .001 E .291VIL-3 8/29/2000 < 10.9 < 1.47 < .04 < .002 < .035 < .22 < .04 < .3 < .04 < .2 < .002 < .001 < .12VIL-3 2/14/2001 < 2.9 < .2

—

— < .035

— < .07

—

—

—

—

— < .056

VIL-4 4/2/2000 < 3.49 < .1 .156 < .002 < .035 1.03 < .04 E .0893 E .00714 < .0125 .154 < .005 1.8052VAL-1 6/29/2000 < 3 < .47 .013 < .002 < .035 < 3.1 < .04 < .003 .0105 < .007 .0516 < .001 < .27VAL-1 8/2/2000 < 3.9 < 1.3 .00918 < .002 .196 < .47 < .04 < .003 .00592 E .00436 .00865 < .001 < .06VAL-1 8/31/2000 < .21 < .1 .0129 < .002 < .16 < .48 < .04 < .003 .0208 E .00603 .00671 < .001 < .06VAL-1 11/9/2000 < .49 < .2 .0209 < .01 < .035 < .27 < .07 E .0152 < .005 < .006 .0122 < .0048 < .056VAL-1 2/12/2001 < .21 < .2 .0321 < .01 < .035 < .5 < .07 < .041 < .005 < .006 .0596 < .0048 < .27VAL-2 5/16/2000

—

— .0108 < .002

—

—

— < .003 < .004 E .00668 .0139 < .001

—

VAL-2 6/29/2000 < .21 < .64 .0216 < .002 < .035 < .53 < .04 < .003 .0117 E .00776 .0397 < .001 < .06VAL-2 8/29/2000 < 2.1 < .1 .0171 < .002 < .035 < .23 < .04 < .003 .00756 E .00836 .0202 < .001 < .06VAL-2 2/9/2001 < 6.87 < 3.75 2.58 < .01 < .035 < 1.09 < .07 < .041 < .005 E .0357 .0832 < .0048 < .3VAL-3 2/29/2000 < .53 < .12 8.88 < .002 < .035 < 1.85 < .04 E .00588 E .0033 E .522 .00878 < .001 < .06VAL-3 8/31/2000 < .21 < .1 .0238 < .002 < .035 .12 < .04 < .003 E .0026 E .0123 .00662 < .001 < .06VAL-3 11/9/2000 < .25 < .2 .0107 < .01 < .035 < 3 < .07 E .031 .00678 E .0053 .0489 < .0048 < .1VAL-3 2/13/2001 < .3 < .2 1.94 < .01 < .035 < .09 < .07 < .041 .0073 E .0497 .0214 < .0048 < .11LCR 2/28/2000 < .25 < 1.81 .132 < .002 < .035 < 5.35 < .04 E .00455 .00499 E .0126 .035 < .001 < 1.74LCR 6/27/2000 E .064 E .083 .0145 < .002 < .035 < 3.48 < .04 E .0756 < .004 E .00672 .0132 < .001 < .06FMC 5/15/2000

—

— .0109 < .002

—

—

— < .003 < .004 E .00388 < .002 .00403

—

FMC 7/31/2000 < .77 < .58 .0323 < .002 < .035 < .06 < .04 < .01 < .01 E .0106 .0773 < .001 < .06FMC 8/28/2000 < .42 < .1 .00538 < .002 < .035 < .06 < .04 < .003 < .004 E .00423 < .002 < .001 < .06FMC 2/13/2001 < .21 < .2 .0348 < .01 < .035 < 19.15 < .07 < .041 < .005 E .00619 < .005 < .0048 < .056FMC 3/20/2001

—

— .6 < .01

—

—

— < .041 < .005 E .0242 .00868 < .0048

—

106 Investigation of Water Quality and Aquatic-Community Structure in Village and Valley Creeks, Alabama, 2000 – 01
Appendix table 2-4. Pesticides detected in water samples from streams in the Birmingham area, Alabama, 2000–01—Continued

[Shaded samples were collected during high flow; μg/L, micrograms per liter; —, no data; <, less than; E, estimated; DNOC, 4,6-dinitro-2-methylphenol]

Site 

label 

(fig. 1)

Date DNOC (μg/L) Malathion (μg/L) Metolachlor (μg/L) Pendimethalin (μg/L) Prometon (μg/L) Pronamide (μg/L) Simazine (μg/L) Tebuthiuron (μg/L) Terbuthylazine (μg/L) Triclopyr (μg/L) Trifluralin (μg/L)

VIL-1 5/17/2000 — < 0.005 < 0.002 < 0.004 E 0.0102 < 0.003 0.0208 0.0102 — — < 0.002VIL-1 8/1/2000 < 0.42 < .005 < 0.002 < .004 E .00897 < .003 .016 E .00922 — < 0.25 < .002VIL-1 8/30/2000 < .42 < .005 < 0.002 < .004 E .00523 < .003 .0135 < .01 — < .25 < .002VIL-1 11/8/2000 < .25 < .027 < 0.013 < .01 < .015 < .0041 .684 < .016 — < .24 < .009VIL-1 1/29/2001 < .25 < .027 < 0.013 < .02 < .015 < .0041 .526 < .016 — < .07 E .0065VIL-1 3/19/2001 — < .027 < 0.013 < .01 E .00858 < .0041 .0229 E .00638 — — < .009VIL-2 8/1/2000 < .57 < .005 < 0.002 < .004 < .018 < .003 < .005 .136 E 0.0197 E .099 < .002VIL-2 8/30/2000 < .42 < .005 < 0.002 < .004 < .018 < .003 < .02 < .03 — < .25 < .002VIL-2 1/29/2001 < .25 < .027 < 0.013 < .01 < .015 < .0041 .532 < .08 — < .07 < .009VIL-3 3/30/2000 < .42 < .025 < 0.002 < .04 .146 < .003 .0561 < .075 — < .25 E .00113VIL-3 8/2/2000 < .42 — < 0.002 .0265 E .0169 < .003 .00779 E .07 E .0382 < .25 E .00197VIL-3 8/29/2000 < .42 < .005 < 0.002 < .004 < .04 < .003 < .03 < .01 E .0292 < .25 < .002VIL-3 2/14/2001 < .25 — — — — — — — — < .355 —VIL-4 4/2/2000 < .42 < .015 .00414 .0389 .0583 < .003 .0438 E .0649 — < .25 < .002VAL-1 6/29/2000 < .42 .156 < .002 .0193 < .018 < .003 .248 < .01 E .243 < .25 < .002VAL-1 8/2/2000 < .42 < .005 < .002 < .004 E .0296 < .003 .0187 E .0464 E .145 < .25 < .002VAL-1 8/31/2000 < .42 < .005 < .002 < .004 .0223 < .003 .0172 < .02 E .00585 < .25 < .002VAL-1 11/9/2000 < .25 < .027 < .013 < .01 E .00819 < .0041 .415 .0514 — < .27 < .009VAL-1 2/12/2001 < .25 < .027 < .013 < .01 .151 < .0041 .0261 < .016 — < .71 < .009VAL-2 5/16/2000 — < .005 < .002 < .004 .021 < .003 .018 < .02 .116 — < .002VAL-2 6/29/2000 < .42 .0496 .00543 .0133 .0317 < .003 .0533 < .01 E .401 < .34 < .002VAL-2 8/29/2000 < .42 < .005 < .005 < .004 .0263 < .003 .0158 .0188 — < .25 < .002VAL-2 2/9/2001 < .29 < .027 < .013 .0654 .926 < .0041 .184 < .016 — < .68 E .00635VAL-3 2/29/2000 < .42 < .005 < .002 < .004 .0199 < .003 .428 E .0257 — E .201 < .002VAL-3 8/31/2000 < .42 < .005 < .002 < .004 .0212 < .003 .0119 .0171 — < .25 < .002VAL-3 11/9/2000 < .25 E .00473 < .013 < .01 E .0134 < .0041 .481 E .0136 — .300 < .009VAL-3 2/13/2001 E .30 < .027 < .013 .0447 .0187 < .0041 .215 < .016 — .384 < .009LCR 2/28/2000 < .42 .0079 .00432 < .004 E .00754 < .003 .161 E .0108 — < .25 < .002LCR 6/27/2000 < .42 < .005 < .002 < .004 E .00962 < .003 .00537 E .00762 — < .25 < .002FMC 5/15/2000 — < .005 < .002 < .004 E .00216 < .003 .0104 E .00648 — — < .002FMC 7/31/2000 < .42 < .005 < .002 < .004 .0207 < .003 .00907 < .01 — < .25 < .002FMC 8/28/2000 < .42 < .005 < .002 < .004 < .018 < .003 .00833 < .01 — < .25 < .002FMC 2/13/2001 < .25 < .027 < .013 < .01 E .00855 < .0041 8.6 < .016 — < .07 < .009FMC 3/20/2001 — < .027 < .013 < .01 E .00425 .0127 .428 < .016 — — < .009

Appendix Tables 107
Appendix table 2-5. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons detected in water samples from streams in the Birmingham area, Alabama, 

2000–01

[Shaded samples were collected during high flow; μg/L, micrograms per liter; E, estimated; <, less than]

Site 

label 

(fig. 1)

Date

Acenaphthene

(μg/L)

Acenaphthylene

(μg/L)

Anthracene

(μg/L)

Benz[a]-

anthracene

(μg/L)

Benzo[a]-

pyrene

(μg/L)

Benzo[b]-

fluoranthene

(μg/L)

Benzo[ghi]-

perylene

(μg/L)

Benzo[k]-

fluoranthene

(μg/L)

VIL-1 3/1/2000 E 0.014 < 1.93 E 0.052 E 0.528 E 0.813 E 0.903 E 0.796 E 0.679VIL-1 10/4/2000 E .00946 E .011 < 1.9 < 1.6 < 2.8 < 2.6 < 2.5 < 2.8VIL-1 11/8/2000 E .0297 < 1.1 E .102 E .408 E .528 E .959 E .552 E .322VIL-1 1/29/2001 E .0316 E .0197 E .072 E .491 E .792 E 1.44 E .717 E .475VIL-2 10/4/2000 < 1.1 E .0125 < 1.9 < 1.6 < 2.8 < 2.6 < 2.5 < 2.8VIL-2 11/14/2000 E .14 E .112 < 1.9 < 1.6 < 2.8 < 2.6 < 2.5 < 2.8VIL-2 1/29/2001 E .0543 E .0318 E .0818 E .297 E .421 E .73 E .315 E .234VIL-3 3/2/2000 < 1.85 < 1.93 < 1.97 < 2.4 < 2.8 < 3.02 < 3.08 < 3.24VIL-3 10/3/2000 < 1.1 < 1.1 < 1.9 < 1.6 < 2.8 < 2.6 < 2.5 < 2.8VIL-3 2/14/2001 E .0567 E .0774 E .0261 < 1.6 < 2.8 < 2.6 < 2.5 < 2.8VIL-4 3/2/2000 E .0461 < 1.93 < 1.97 < 2.4 < 2.8 E .0404 < 3.08 < 3.24VAL-1 3/1/2000 < 1.85 < 1.93 < 1.97 < 2.4 < 2.8 < 3.02 < 3.08 < 3.24VAL-1 6/29/2000 < 1.85 E .0414 E .0878 E .189 E .215 E .502 E .279 E .385VAL-1 8/31/2000 < 1.85 < 1.93 < 1.97 < 2.4 < 2.8 < 3.02 < 3.08 < 3.24VAL-1 10/3/2000 < 1.1 < 1.1 E .0127 < 1.6 < 2.8 < 2.6 < 2.5 < 2.8VAL-1 11/9/2000 E .0218 < 1.1 E .0376 < 1.6 E .032 E .0643 E .0452 E .0329VAL-1 2/12/2001 E .0821 E .0528 E .192 E .714 E .885 E 1.56 E 1.11 E .505VAL-2 2/29/2000 E .0226 < 1.93 < 1.97 < 2.4 < 2.8 < 3.02 < 3.08 < 3.24VAL-2 6/29/2000 < 1.85 E .00856 E .0325 < 2.4 < 2.8 < 3.02 < 3.08 < 3.24VAL-2 8/3/2000 E .0237 < 1.93 E .0217 < 2.4 < 2.8 < 3.02 < 3.08 < 3.24VAL-2 10/5/2000 E .0142 < 1.1 < 1.9 < 1.6 < 2.8 < 2.6 < 2.5 < 2.8VAL-2 2/9/2001 E .0722 E .0531 E .168 E .855 E 1.2 E 2.3 E 1.53 E .744VAL-3 2/29/2000 < 1.85 < 1.93 < 1.97 < 2.4 < 2.8 < 3.02 < 3.08 < 3.24VAL-3 10/2/2000 < 1.1 < 1.1 < 1.9 < 1.6 < 2.8 < 2.6 < 2.5 < 2.8VAL-3 11/9/2000 E .026 < 1.1 E .0498 E .0662 E .06 E .105 E .0637 E .0444VAL-3 2/13/2001 E .0405 E .0272 E .0919 E .417 E .55 E 1.04 E .738 E .355LCR 2/28/2000 < 1.85 < 1.93 < 1.97 < 2.4 < 2.8 < 3.02 < 3.08 < 3.24LCR 6/27/2000 < 1.85 < 1.93 < 1.97 < 2.4 < 2.8 < 3.02 < 3.08 < 3.24FMC 12/11/2000 < 1.1 < 1.1 < 1.9 < 1.6 < 2.8 < 2.6 < 2.5 < 2.8FMC 2/13/2001 E .00845 E .00522 E .0106 E .0441 E .013 E .0449 < 2.5 E .0161

108 Investigation of Water Quality and Aquatic-Community Structure in Village and Valley Creeks, Alabama, 2000 – 01
Appendix table 2-5. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons detected in water samples from streams in the Birmingham area, Alabama, 2000–01—Continued

[Shaded samples were collected during high flow; μg/L, micrograms per liter; E, estimated; <, less than]

Site 

label 

(fig. 1)

Date Chrysene (μg/L) Dibenz[a,h]- anthracene (μg/L) Fluoranthene (μg/L) Fluorene (μg/L) Indeno[1,2,3-cd] pyrene (μg/L) Naphthalene (μg/L) Phenanthrene (μg/L) Pyrene (μg/L)

VIL-1 3/1/2000 E 0.827 E 0.329 E 1.17 E 0.0269 E 1.42 < 2.07 E 0.319 E 0.911VIL-1 10/4/2000 < 1.9 < 2.7 E .0105 E .0182 < 1.9 E .0971 < 1.5 E .0224VIL-1 11/8/2000 E .765 E .172 E 1.51 E .0621 E .514 E .0502 E .673 E 1.04VIL-1 1/29/2001 E 1.16 E .186 E 2.04 E .0529 E .879 E .262 E 0.894 E 1.47VIL-2 10/4/2000 < 1.9 < 2.7 E .211 < 1.2 E .0355 E .102 < 1.5 E .163VIL-2 11/14/2000 < 1.9 < 2.7 E .0783 E .131 < 1.9 E .241 E 0.164 E .176VIL-2 1/29/2001 E .454 E .123 E .904 E .0853 E .416 E .232 E 0.45 E .698VIL-3 3/2/2000 < 2.65 < 3.35 E .0537 E .0373 E .103 < 2.07 < 2.05 E .0446VIL-3 10/3/2000 < 1.9 < 2.7 < 1.5 < 1.2 < 1.9 E .034 < 1.5 < 1.5VIL-3 2/14/2001 < 1.9 < 2.7 E .0385 E .0957 < 1.9 E .358 E 0.0556 E .0377VIL-4 3/2/2000 E .0284 < 3.35 E .0731 E .0262 < 3 < 2.07 < 2.05 E .0442VAL-1 3/1/2000 < 2.65 < 3.35 < 2.33 < 2.04 < 3 < 2.07 < 2.05 < 2.23VAL-1 6/29/2000 E .416 < 3.35 E .525 E .0578 E .246 < 2.07 E .187 E .456VAL-1 8/31/2000 E .0285 < 3.35 E .0427 < 2.04 < 3 < 2.07 < 2.05 E .0548VAL-1 10/3/2000 < 1.9 < 2.7 E .245 < 1.2 < 1.9 E .0289 E .156 E .186VAL-1 11/9/2000 E .051 < 2.7 E .121 E .03 E .0315 E .0761 E .0973 E .0913VAL-1 2/12/2001 E 1.2 E .417 E 2.1 E .134 E 1.18 E .222 E 1.35 E 1.64VAL-2 2/29/2000 E .0265 < 3.35 E .049 < 2.04 < 3 < 2.07 < 2.05 E .0364VAL-2 6/29/2000 < 2.65 < 3.35 E .0456 E .0306 < 3 < 2.07 E .0243 E .0531VAL-2 8/3/2000 < 2.65 < 3.35 E .0485 E .0126 < 3 E .0662 E .0285 E .0502VAL-2 10/5/2000 < 1.9 < 2.7 E .0161 E .0102 < 1.9 E .0315 < 1.5 E .016VAL-2 2/9/2001 E 1.66 E .616 2.82 E .1 E 1.6 E .185 E 1.25 E 2.17VAL-3 2/29/2000 E .0146 < 3.35 E .0379 < 2.04 < 3 < 2.07 < 2.05 E .0291VAL-3 10/2/2000 < 1.9 < 2.7 < 1.5 < 1.2 < 1.9 < 1 2.27 < 1.5VAL-3 11/9/2000 E .072 < 2.7 E .145 E .0224 E .0512 E .0423 E .097 E .123VAL-3 2/13/2001 E .714 E .255 E 1.16 E .0542 E .806 E .0878 E .492 E .917LCR 2/28/2000 < 2.65 < 3.35 < 2.33 < 2.04 < 3 < 2.07 < 2.05 < 2.23LCR 6/27/2000 < 2.65 < 3.35 < 2.33 < 2.04 < 3 < 2.07 < 2.05 < 2.23FMC 12/11/2000 < 1.9 < 2.7 E .0117 < 1.2 < 1.9 < 1 < 1.5 E .0106FMC 2/13/2001 E .0327 < 2.7 E .0926 < 1.2 < 1.9 < 1 E .0293 E .07

Appendix Tables 109
110 Investigation of Water Quality and Aquatic-Community Structure in Village and Valley Creeks, Alabama, 2000 – 01

Appendix table 3-1. Trace and major elements detected in bed-sediment samples from streams in the Birmingham area, Alabama, 2000

[LRL, laboratory reporting level; μg/g, micrograms per gram; <, less than]

Analyte (unit) VIL-1 VIL-2 VIL-3 VAL-1 VAL-2 FMC LRL

Aluminum (percent) 6.1 4.3 4.9 4.9 2.5 3.7 0.005

Antimony (μg/g) 1.3 5.1 3.8 6.5 1.4 .5 .1

Arsenic (μg/g) 22 20 21 21 14 11 .01

Barium (μg/g) 260 350 300 470 230 200 1

Beryllium (μg/g) 3.1 1.8 2.3 2.2 2 1.2 1

Bismuth (μg/g) < 1 2 < 1 1.5 < 1 < 1 10

Cadmium (μg/g) .6 19 10 3.6 .82 < .1 .1

Calcium (percent) 1.3 3.7 4.2 5 5.3 .3 .005

Carbon, inorganic (μg/g) .41 1.3 1.6 1.74 1.6 .01 .01

Carbon, organic (μg/g) 2.7 5.35 3.63 6.08 4.05 1.7 .01

Carbon, total (μg/g) 3.1 6.7 5.3 7.82 5.7 1.7 .01

Cerium (μg/g) 110 86 84 91 58 85 4

Chromium (μg/g) 83 170 110 180 88 47 1

Cobalt (μg/g) 19 14 14 14 8.2 8 1

Copper (μg/g) 45 210 120 320 54 16 1

Europium (μg/g) 2 < 1 < 1 1.1 < 1 1 2

Gallium (μg/g) 15 11 13 12 5.9 9 4

Gold (μg/g) < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 8

Holmium (μg/g) 1.4 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 4

Iron (percent) 4.5 4.5 4 4.8 3.1 2.1 .005

Lanthanum (μg/g) 48 37 38 39 25 37 2

Lead (μg/g) 130 430 240 800 160 23 4

Lithium (μg/g) 44 35 37 37 23 31 2

Magnesium (percent) .7 1.2 1.3 1.7 1.3 .28 .005

Manganese (μg/g) 1,300 1,300 1,200 1,300 840 430 4

Mercury (μg/g) .27 .45 .23 1.6 .19 < .02 .02

Molybdenum (μg/g) 1.4 7.1 4.6 6.9 2 .7 2

Neodymium (μg/g) 44 31 31 32 22 29 4

Nickel (μg/g) 38 57 41 47 21 18 2

Niobium (μg/g) 19 17 17 17 6.3 19 4

Phosphorus (percent) .085 .12 .092 .15 .088 .036 .005

Potassium (percent) 1.2 .66 .92 .92 .44 .58 .05

Scandium (μg/g) 12 9 10 9.9 6.1 7 2

Selenium (μg/g) .8 1.9 1.2 1.5 .7 .51 .1

Silver (μg/g) .2 4 1.4 20 .9 .44 .1

Sodium (percent) .055 .06 .058 .075 .078 .062 .005

Strontium (μg/g) 44 80 74 100 94 30 2

Sulfur (percent) .08 .28 .24 .51 .16 .05 .06

Tantalum (μg/g) 1 1 1 1.6 < 1 1 40

Thallium (μg/g) < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 40

Thorium (μg/g) 14 11 11 12 7.2 10 4

Tin (μg/g) 6 33 16 32 6.3 2 10

Titanium (percent) .41 .36 .36 .38 .18 .42 .005

Uranium (μg/g) 4.1 3.5 3.4 3.6 2.1 3.3 .05

Vanadium (μg/g) 87 72 76 88 53 56 2

Ytterbium (μg/g) 4 3 2 2.7 1.7 2 1

Yttrium (μg/g) 36 23 23 24 17 21 2

Zinc (μg/g) 270 4,000 2,400 1,200 330 120 4
Appendix table 3-2. Benthic-invertebrate taxa, density, and relative abundance in streams in the Birmingham area, Alabama, 2000

[m2, square meter]

Site label 

(fig. 1)

Collection 

date Phylum Class Order Suborder Family Subfamily Tribe Identification Density (per m2) Percent of total

VIL1 06/09/2000 Arthropoda Insecta Collembola Collembola 11 0.322VIL1 06/09/2000 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Nematocera Tipulidae Limoniinae Antocha sp. 11 .322VIL1 06/09/2000 Arthropoda Insecta Trichoptera Spicipalpia Hydroptilidae Hydroptilinae Hydroptila sp. 11 .322VIL1 06/09/2000 Arthropoda Insecta Trichoptera Annulipalpia Hydropsychidae Hydropsychinae Hydropsyche depravata 

group

11 .322

VIL1 06/09/2000 Nematoda Nematoda 11 .322VIL1 06/09/2000 Arthropoda Insecta Coleoptera Polyphaga Elmidae Stenelmis sp. 12 .345VIL1 06/09/2000 Platyhelminthes Turbellaria Turbellaria 22 .645VIL1 06/09/2000 Arthropoda Malacostraca Isopoda Asellota Asellidae Lirceus sp. 23 .668VIL1 06/09/2000 Mollusca Gastropoda Gastropoda 78 2.256VIL1 06/09/2000 Annelida Oligochaeta Megadrile 101 2.901VIL1 06/09/2000 Arthropoda Insecta Trichoptera Annulipalpia Hydropsychidae Hydropsychinae Cheumatopsyche sp. 158 4.558VIL1 06/09/2000 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Brachycera Empididae Hemerodromiinae Hemerodromiinae 168 4.835VIL1 06/09/2000 Annelida Oligochaeta Tubificida Tubificina Naididae Naididae 314 9.024VIL1 06/09/2000 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Nematocera Simuliidae Simuliidae 325 9.347VIL1 06/09/2000 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Nematocera Chironomidae Chironomidae 594 17.082VIL1 06/09/2000 Arthropoda Insecta Ephemeroptera Pisciforma Baetidae Baetis sp. 739 21.272VIL1 06/09/2000 Arthropoda Arachnida Acari 885 25.462

Total density 3,475

VIL1 10/25/2000 Annelida Oligochaeta Tubificida Tubificina Tubificidae Tubificidae 1 0.34VIL1 10/25/2000 Arthropoda Insecta Collembola Collembola 1 .34VIL1 10/25/2000 Arthropoda Insecta Odonata Zygoptera Calopterygidae Hetaerina sp. 1 .34VIL1 10/25/2000 Arthropoda Insecta Odonata Zygoptera Coenagrionidae Argia sp. 1 .34VIL1 10/25/2000 Arthropoda Insecta Trichoptera Spicipalpia Hydroptilidae Hydroptilinae Hydroptila sp. 1 .34VIL1 10/25/2000 Nematoda Nematoda 2 .68VIL1 10/25/2000 Arthropoda Insecta Coleoptera Polyphaga Elmidae Stenelmis sp. 3 1.01VIL1 10/25/2000 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Nematocera Ceratopogonidae Forcipomyiinae Forcipomyia sp. 4 1.35VIL1 10/25/2000 Platyhelminthes Turbellaria Turbellaria 4 1.35VIL1 10/25/2000 Mollusca Gastropoda Gastropoda 5 1.69VIL1 10/25/2000 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Brachycera Empididae Hemerodromiinae Hemerodromia sp. 6 2.03VIL1 10/25/2000 Annelida Oligochaeta Megadrile 8 2.70

Appendix Tables 111
VIL1 10/25/2000 Annelida Oligochaeta Tubificida Tubificina Naididae Naididae 9 3.04

VIL1 10/25/2000 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Nematocera Simuliidae Simuliidae 12 4.06VIL1 10/25/2000 Arthropoda Arachnida Acari 22 7.44VIL1 10/25/2000 Arthropoda Insecta Ephemeroptera Ephemeroptera 45 15.21VIL1 10/25/2000 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Nematocera Chironomidae Chironomidae 85 28.39VIL1 10/25/2000 Arthropoda Insecta Trichoptera Annulipalpia Hydropsychidae Hydropsychidae 88 29.40

Total density 299

VIL3 06/15/2000 Arthropoda Insecta Megaloptera Corydalidae Corydalinae Corydalus cornutus 

(Linnaeus)

1 0.04

VIL3 06/15/2000 Arthropoda Malacostraca Decapoda Pleocyemata Cambaridae Cambaridae 1 .04VIL3 06/15/2000 Annelida Oligochaeta Tubificida Tubificina Naididae Naididae 7 .34VIL3 06/15/2000 Arthropoda Insecta Coleoptera Polyphaga Hydrophilidae Enochrus sp. 7 .34VIL3 06/15/2000 Arthropoda Insecta Coleoptera Polyphaga Elmidae Stenelmis sp. 7 .34VIL3 06/15/2000 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Nematocera Ceratopogonidae Forcipomyiinae Atrichopogon sp. 7 .34VIL3 06/15/2000 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Nematocera Culicidae Culicidae 7 .34VIL3 06/15/2000 Arthropoda Insecta Hemiptera Heteroptera Gerridae Gerridae 7 .34VIL3 06/15/2000 Annelida Oligochaeta Megadrile 8 .38VIL3 06/15/2000 Arthropoda Insecta Coleoptera Polyphaga Hydrophilidae Berosus sp. 13 .68VIL3 06/15/2000 Arthropoda Insecta Hemiptera Heteroptera Veliidae Microveliinae Microvelia sp. 13 .68VIL3 06/15/2000 Arthropoda Insecta Collembola Collembola 20 1.02VIL3 06/15/2000 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Brachycera Empididae Hemerodromiinae Hemerodromiinae 20 1.02VIL3 06/15/2000 Arthropoda Insecta Trichoptera Annulipalpia Hydropsychidae Hydropsychidae 27 1.36VIL3 06/15/2000 Arthropoda Insecta Odonata Zygoptera Zygoptera 108 5.49VIL3 06/15/2000 Mollusca Gastropoda Gastropoda 376 19.08VIL3 06/15/2000 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Nematocera Chironomidae Chironomidae 1,344 68.15

Total density 1,972

VIL3 10/25/2000 Arthropoda Insecta Megaloptera Corydalidae Corydalinae Corydalus cornutus 

(Linnaeus)

1 0.03

VIL3 10/25/2000 Arthropoda Insecta Odonata Zygoptera Calopterygidae Hetaerina sp. 1 .03VIL3 10/25/2000 Arthropoda Malacostraca Decapoda Pleocyemata Cambaridae Cambaridae 1 .03VIL3 10/25/2000 Annelida Hirudinea Arhynchobdellae Erpobdellidae Erpobdellidae 2 .05VIL3 10/25/2000 Arthropoda Insecta Trichoptera Spicipalpia Hydroptilidae Hydroptilinae Hydroptila sp. 9 .29VIL3 10/25/2000 Arthropoda Insecta Odonata Anisoptera Gomphidae Gomphidae 14 .45

Appendix table 3-2. Benthic-invertebrate taxa, density, and relative abundance in streams in the Birmingham area, Alabama, 2000 — Continued[m2, square meter]

Site label 

(fig. 1)

Collection 

date Phylum Class Order Suborder Family Subfamily Tribe Identification Density (per m2

)

Percent 

of total

112 Investigation of Water Quality and Aquatic-Community Structure in Village and Valley Creeks, Alabama, 2000 – 01
VIL3 10/25/2000 Nematoda Nematoda 18 0.59

VIL3 10/25/2000 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Nematocera Simuliidae Simuliidae 28 .88VIL3 10/25/2000 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Brachycera Empididae Hemerodromiinae Hemerodromia sp. 28 .88VIL3 10/25/2000 Arthropoda Insecta Coleoptera Polyphaga Hydrophilidae Berosus sp. 37 1.18VIL3 10/25/2000 Mollusca Gastropoda Basommatophora Ancylidae Hebetancylus excentricus (Morelet) 55 1.76VIL3 10/25/2000 Mollusca Gastropoda Basommatophora Physidae Physinae Physella sp. 74 2.35VIL3 10/25/2000 Annelida Oligochaeta Megadrile 129 4.12VIL3 10/25/2000 Arthropoda Insecta Trichoptera Annulipalpia Hydropsychidae Hydropsychidae 323 10.30VIL3 10/25/2000 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Nematocera Chironomidae Chironomidae 2,415 77.07

Total density 3,133

VAL1 06/14/2000 Annelida Hirudinea Arhynchobdellae Erpobdellidae Erpobdellidae 1 0.00VAL1 06/14/2000 Annelida Oligochaeta Megadrile 1 .00VAL1 06/14/2000 Mollusca Gastropoda Basommatophora Ancylidae Hebetancylus excentricus (Morelet) 1 .00VAL1 06/14/2000 Mollusca Gastropoda Basommatophora Physidae Physinae Physella sp. 3,102 7.94VAL1 06/14/2000 Annelida Oligochaeta Tubificida Tubificina Naididae Naididae 10,466 26.78VAL1 06/14/2000 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Nematocera Chironomidae Chironomidae 25,519 65.28

Total density 39,090

VAL1 10/24/2000 Annelida Oligochaeta Megadrile 1 0.01VAL1 10/24/2000 Arthropoda Insecta Trichoptera Annulipalpia Hydropsychidae Hydropsychinae Cheumatopsyche sp. 1 .01VAL1 10/24/2000 Arthropoda Insecta Trichoptera Spicipalpia Hydroptilidae Hydroptilinae Hydroptila sp. 27 .29VAL1 10/24/2000 Platyhelminthes Turbellaria Turbellaria 54 .58VAL1 10/24/2000 Annelida Oligochaeta Tubificida Tubificina Tubificidae Tubificidae 108 1.16VAL1 10/24/2000 Annelida Oligochaeta Tubificida Tubificina Naididae Naididae 806 8.69VAL1 10/24/2000 Mollusca Gastropoda Gastropoda 1,183 12.76VAL1 10/24/2000 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Nematocera Chironomidae Chironomidae 7,096 76.50

Total density 9,276

VAL2 06/08/2000 Arthropoda Malacostraca Decapoda Pleocyemata Cambaridae Cambaridae 1 0.01VAL2 06/08/2000 Mollusca Gastropoda Basommatophora Physidae Physinae Physella sp. 1 .01

Appendix table 3-2. Benthic-invertebrate taxa, density, and relative abundance in streams in the Birmingham area, Alabama, 2000 — Continued[m2, square meter]

Site label 

(fig. 1)

Collection 

date Phylum Class Order Suborder Family Subfamily Tribe Identification Density (per m2) Percent of total

Appendix Tables 113
VAL2 06/08/2000 Arthropoda Insecta Odonata Anisoptera Gomphidae Gomphidae 2 0.01

VAL2 06/08/2000 Mollusca Bivalvia Veneroida Corbiculidae Corbicula sp. 8 .07VAL2 06/08/2000 Arthropoda Insecta Coleoptera Polyphaga Hydrophilidae Berosus sp. 35 .32VAL2 06/08/2000 Nematoda Nematoda 35 .32VAL2 06/08/2000 Arthropoda Insecta Odonata Zygoptera Coenagrionidae Coenagrionidae 72 .66VAL2 06/08/2000 Mollusca Gastropoda Basommatophora Ancylidae Ancylidae 72 .66VAL2 06/08/2000 Arthropoda Insecta Coleoptera Polyphaga Elmidae Elmidae 106 .96VAL2 06/08/2000 Annelida Oligochaeta Tubificida Tubificina Naididae Naididae 107 .98VAL2 06/08/2000 Annelida Oligochaeta Megadrile 107 .98VAL2 06/08/2000 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Brachycera Empididae Empididae 286 2.61VAL2 06/08/2000 Platyhelminthes Turbellaria Turbellaria 286 2.61VAL2 06/08/2000 Annelida Oligochaeta Tubificida Tubificina Tubificidae Tubificidae 394 3.59VAL2 06/08/2000 Arthropoda Arachnida Acari 1,147 10.46VAL2 06/08/2000 Arthropoda Insecta Trichoptera Spicipalpia Hydroptilidae Hydroptilidae 1,685 15.36VAL2 06/08/2000 Arthropoda Insecta Trichoptera Annulipalpia Hydropsychidae Hydropsychidae 2,187 19.94VAL2 06/08/2000 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Nematocera Chironomidae Chironomidae 4,440 40.47

Total density 10,971

VAL2 10/24/2000 Arthropoda Insecta Lepidoptera Lepidoptera 1 0.02VAL2 10/24/2000 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Nematocera Ceratopogonidae Ceratopogonidae 15 .30VAL2 10/24/2000 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Nematocera Simuliidae Simuliidae 15 .30VAL2 10/24/2000 Arthropoda Insecta Odonata Zygoptera Coenagrionidae Argia sp. 16 .32VAL2 10/24/2000 Annelida Oligochaeta Megadrile 17 .33VAL2 10/24/2000 Arthropoda Insecta Odonata Anisoptera Gomphidae Gomphidae 18 .35VAL2 10/24/2000 Arthropoda Arachnida Acari 31 .61VAL2 10/24/2000 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Brachycera Empididae Hemerodromiinae Hemerodromia sp. 31 .61VAL2 10/24/2000 Arthropoda Insecta Ephemeroptera Pisciforma Baetidae Baetis sp. 31 .61VAL2 10/24/2000 Mollusca Gastropoda Basommatophora Ancylidae Ancylidae 31 .61VAL2 10/24/2000 Arthropoda Insecta Coleoptera Polyphaga Hydrophilidae Berosus sp. 108 2.13VAL2 10/24/2000 Mollusca Bivalvia Veneroida Corbiculidae Corbicula sp. 140 2.78VAL2 10/24/2000 Arthropoda Insecta Trichoptera Spicipalpia Hydroptilidae Hydroptilidae 276 5.48VAL2 10/24/2000 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Nematocera Chironomidae Chironomidae 2,028 40.19VAL2 10/24/2000 Arthropoda Insecta Trichoptera Annulipalpia Hydropsychidae Hydropsychinae Cheumatopsyche sp. 2,289 45.36

Total density 5,045

Appendix table 3-2. Benthic-invertebrate taxa, density, and relative abundance in streams in the Birmingham area, Alabama, 2000 — Continued[m2, square meter]

Site label 

(fig. 1)

Collection 

date Phylum Class Order Suborder Family Subfamily Tribe Identification Density (per m2

)

Percent 

of total

114 Investigation of Water Quality and Aquatic-Community Structure in Village and Valley Creeks, Alabama, 2000 – 01
LCR 06/12/2000 Arthropoda Malacostraca Decapoda Pleocyemata Cambaridae Cambaridae 2 0.03

LCR 06/12/2000 Annelida Oligochaeta Megadrile 2 .04LCR 06/12/2000 Annelida Oligochaeta Tubificida Tubificina Tubificidae Tubificidae 18 .34LCR 06/12/2000 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Nematocera Chironomidae Orthocladiinae Parametriocnemus sp. 18 .34LCR 06/12/2000 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Brachycera Empididae Hemerodromiinae Hemerodromia sp. 18 .34LCR 06/12/2000 Arthropoda Insecta Trichoptera Integripalpia Helicopsychidae Helicopsyche borealis 

(Hagen)

18 .34

LCR 06/12/2000 Arthropoda Malacostraca Amphipoda Amphipoda 18 .34LCR 06/12/2000 Mollusca Bivalvia Veneroida Sphaeriidae Sphaeriinae Sphaerium sp. 18 .34LCR 06/12/2000 Arthropoda Insecta Megaloptera Corydalidae Corydalinae Corydalus cornutus 

(Linnaeus)

20 .36

LCR 06/12/2000 Mollusca Bivalvia Veneroida Corbiculidae Corbicula sp. 24 .44LCR 06/12/2000 Arthropoda Arachnida Acari 37 .67LCR 06/12/2000 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Nematocera Simuliidae Simuliidae 37 .67LCR 06/12/2000 Arthropoda Insecta Trichoptera Spicipalpia Hydroptilidae Hydroptilinae Hydroptila sp. 37 .67LCR 06/12/2000 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Nematocera Tipulidae Limoniinae Antocha sp. 55 1.01LCR 06/12/2000 Nematoda Nematoda 55 1.01LCR 06/12/2000 Arthropoda Insecta Coleoptera Polyphaga Psephenidae Psephenus herricki (DeKay) 92 1.68LCR 06/12/2000 Arthropoda Insecta Coleoptera Polyphaga Elmidae Microcylloepus sp. 110 2.01LCR 06/12/2000 Arthropoda Malacostraca Isopoda Isopoda 129 2.35LCR 06/12/2000 Arthropoda Insecta Trichoptera Spicipalpia Glossosomatidae Protoptilinae Protoptila sp. 147 2.68LCR 06/12/2000 Arthropoda Insecta Trichoptera Integripalpia Brachycentridae Micrasema sp. 221 4.02LCR 06/12/2000 Arthropoda Insecta Trichoptera Annulipalpia Psychomyiidae Psychomyiinae Psychomyia flavida Hagen 314 5.71LCR 06/12/2000 Arthropoda Insecta Ephemeroptera Ephemeroptera 515 9.38LCR 06/12/2000 Arthropoda Insecta Coleoptera Polyphaga Elmidae Stenelmis sp. 811 14.77LCR 06/12/2000 Mollusca Gastropoda Mesogastropoda Pleuroceridae Elimia sp. 875 15.94LCR 06/12/2000 Arthropoda Insecta Trichoptera Annulipalpia Hydropsychidae Hydropsychidae 921 16.77LCR 06/12/2000 Arthropoda Insecta Coleoptera Polyphaga Elmidae Optioservus sp. 977 17.79

Total density 5,491

LCR 10/26/2000 Arthropoda Insecta Odonata Anisoptera Gomphidae Lanthus sp. 1 0.02LCR 10/26/2000 Mollusca Bivalvia Veneroida Corbiculidae Corbicula sp. 6 .14LCR 10/26/2000 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Nematocera Tipulidae Limoniinae Antocha sp. 12 .29LCR 10/26/2000 Arthropoda Insecta Plecoptera Plecoptera 12 .29

Appendix table 3-2. Benthic-invertebrate taxa, density, and relative abundance in streams in the Birmingham area, Alabama, 2000 — Continued[m2, square meter]

Site label 

(fig. 1)

Collection 

date Phylum Class Order Suborder Family Subfamily Tribe Identification Density (per m2) Percent of total

Appendix Tables 115
LCR 10/26/2000 Arthropoda Insecta Trichoptera Annulipalpia Philopotamidae Chimarrinae Chimarra sp. 12 0.29

LCR 10/26/2000 Arthropoda Insecta Trichoptera Integripalpia Brachycentridae Micrasema sp. 12 .29LCR 10/26/2000 Arthropoda Insecta Trichoptera Glossosomatidae Agapetinae Agapetus sp. 12 .29LCR 10/26/2000 Arthropoda Malacostraca Amphipoda Amphipoda 12 .29LCR 10/26/2000 Arthropoda Malacostraca Isopoda Asellota Asellidae Asellidae 12 .29LCR 10/26/2000 Platyhelminthes Turbellaria Turbellaria 12 .29LCR 10/26/2000 Annelida Oligochaeta Megadrile 12 .30LCR 10/26/2000 Arthropoda Arachnida Acari 23 .57LCR 10/26/2000 Arthropoda Insecta Megaloptera Corydalidae Corydalinae Corydalus cornutus 

(Linnaeus)

24 .60

LCR 10/26/2000 Arthropoda Insecta Trichoptera Annulipalpia Psychomyiidae Psychomyiinae Psychomyia flavida Hagen 35 .86LCR 10/26/2000 Arthropoda Insecta Odonata Zygoptera Zygoptera 47 1.16LCR 10/26/2000 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Nematocera Chironomidae Chironomidae 58 1.43LCR 10/26/2000 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Nematocera Simuliidae Simuliidae 92 2.29LCR 10/26/2000 Arthropoda Insecta Trichoptera Spicipalpia Glossosomatidae Protoptilinae Protoptila sp. 115 2.86LCR 10/26/2000 Arthropoda Insecta Ephemeroptera Pisciforma Baetidae Baetidae 230 5.73LCR 10/26/2000 Mollusca Gastropoda Mesogastropoda Pleuroceridae Pleuroceridae 267 6.64LCR 10/26/2000 Arthropoda Insecta Trichoptera Annulipalpia Hydropsychidae Hydropsychidae 288 7.16LCR 10/26/2000 Arthropoda Insecta Coleoptera Polyphaga Elmidae Stenelmis sp. 427 10.63LCR 10/26/2000 Arthropoda Insecta Coleoptera Polyphaga Psephenidae Psephenus herricki (DeKay) 519 12.91LCR 10/26/2000 Arthropoda Insecta Ephemeroptera Setisura Heptageniidae Heptageniidae 519 12.91LCR 10/26/2000 Arthropoda Insecta Ephemeroptera Setisura Isonychiidae Isonychia sp. 553 13.75LCR 10/26/2000 Arthropoda Insecta Coleoptera Polyphaga Elmidae Optioservus sp. 714 17.76

Total density 4,022

FMC 06/08/2000 Arthropoda Insecta Odonata Zygoptera Coenagrionidae Argia sp. 1 0.02FMC 06/08/2000 Arthropoda Malacostraca Decapoda Pleocyemata Cambaridae Cambarinae Orconectes sp. 1 .02FMC 06/08/2000 Annelida Oligochaeta Megadrile 2 .03FMC 06/08/2000 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Nematocera Tipulidae Tipulinae Tipula sp. 2 .03FMC 06/08/2000 Arthropoda Insecta Megaloptera Corydalidae Corydalinae Corydalus cornutus 

(Linnaeus)

2 .03

FMC 06/08/2000 Arthropoda Insecta Collembola Collembola 14 .30FMC 06/08/2000 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Nematocera Tipulidae Limoniinae Antocha sp. 14 .30FMC 06/08/2000 Arthropoda Insecta Lepidoptera Pyralidae Nymphulinae Argyactini Petrophila sp. 14 .30

Appendix table 3-2. Benthic-invertebrate taxa, density, and relative abundance in streams in the Birmingham area, Alabama, 2000 — Continued[m2, square meter]

Site label 

(fig. 1)

Collection 

date Phylum Class Order Suborder Family Subfamily Tribe Identification Density (per m2

)

Percent 

of total

116 Investigation of Water Quality and Aquatic-Community Structure in Village and Valley Creeks, Alabama, 2000 – 01
FMC 06/08/2000 Arthropoda Insecta Odonata Anisoptera Aeshnidae Boyeria vinosa (Say) 14 0.31

FMC 06/08/2000 Mollusca Bivalvia Veneroida Corbiculidae Corbicula sp. 19 .42FMC 06/08/2000 Arthropoda Insecta Coleoptera Polyphaga Elmidae Optioservus sp. 27 .59FMC 06/08/2000 Arthropoda Insecta Coleoptera Polyphaga Psephenidae Ectopria sp. 27 .59FMC 06/08/2000 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Brachycera Empididae Hemerodromiinae Hemerodromiinae 27 .59FMC 06/08/2000 Arthropoda Insecta Coleoptera Polyphaga Elmidae Dubiraphia sp. 40 .87FMC 06/08/2000 Arthropoda Insecta Megaloptera Corydalidae Chauliodinae Nigronia serricornis (Say) 40 .87FMC 06/08/2000 Arthropoda Insecta Trichoptera Spicipalpia Glossosomatidae Protoptilinae Protoptila sp. 67 1.46FMC 06/08/2000 Arthropoda Insecta Coleoptera Polyphaga Elmidae Microcylloepus sp. 81 1.76FMC 06/08/2000 Arthropoda Insecta Trichoptera Annulipalpia Philopotamidae Chimarrinae Chimarra sp. 107 2.33FMC 06/08/2000 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Nematocera Simuliidae Simuliidae 121 2.63FMC 06/08/2000 Arthropoda Insecta Coleoptera Polyphaga Psephenidae Psephenus herricki (DeKay) 134 2.92FMC 06/08/2000 Mollusca Bivalvia Veneroida Sphaeriidae Sphaeriinae Sphaerium sp. 201 4.37FMC 06/08/2000 Arthropoda Arachnida Acari 242 5.25FMC 06/08/2000 Arthropoda Malacostraca Isopoda Asellota Asellidae Lirceus sp. 242 5.25FMC 06/08/2000 Arthropoda Insecta Trichoptera Integripalpia Brachycentridae Micrasema sp. 296 6.43FMC 06/08/2000 Arthropoda Insecta Diptera Nematocera Chironomidae Chironomidae 297 6.45FMC 06/08/2000 Arthropoda Insecta Ephemeroptera Ephemeroptera 457 9.93FMC 06/08/2000 Arthropoda Insecta Trichoptera Annulipalpia Hydropsychidae Hydropsychidae 551 11.98FMC 06/08/2000 Mollusca Gastropoda Mesogastropoda Pleuroceridae Pleuroceridae 770 16.73FMC 06/08/2000 Arthropoda Insecta Coleoptera Polyphaga Elmidae Stenelmis sp. 793 17.23

Total density 4,600

Appendix table 3-2. Benthic-invertebrate taxa, density, and relative abundance in streams in the Birmingham area, Alabama, 2000 — Continued[m2, square meter]

Site label 

(fig. 1)

Collection 

date Phylum Class Order Suborder Family Subfamily Tribe Identification Density (per m2) Percent of total

Appendix Tables 117
118 Investigation of Water Quality and Aquatic-Community Structure in Village and Valley Creeks, Alabama, 2000 – 01 Appendix table 3-3. Benthic-invertebrate community metrics in streams in the Birmingham area, Alabama, 2000 [EPT, Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera; na, not applicable; nc, not calculated] Site VIL-1 (June) VIL-3 (June) VAL-1 (June) VAL-2 (June) LCR (June) FMC (June) VIL-1 (October) VIL-3 (October) VAL-1 (October) VAL-2 (October) LCR (October) METRIC RICHNESS and DENSITY Community richness (number of distinct taxa) 17 17 6 18 26 29 18 15 8 15 26 EPT Index (number of EPT taxa, without Hydropsychidae)

2 0 0 1 6 4 2 1 1 2 8

Mayfly taxa 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 3Stonefly taxa 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1Caddisfly taxa 3 1 0 2 6 4 2 2 2 2 6Density (organisms per square meter) 3,475 1,972 39,090 10,971 5,491 4,600 299 3,133 9,276 5,045 4,022Mayfly density 739 0 0 0 515 457 45.5 0 0 31 1,303Stonefly density 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11.5Caddisfly density 181 26.9 0 3,872 1,658 1,022 88.9 332 27.7 2,565 472EPT density 750 0 0 1,685 1,252 927 46 9 27 307 1,498Chironomid density 594 1,344 25,519 4,440 18.4 297 84.9 2,415 7,096 2,028 57.6Shannon's Index of Diversity .900 .478 .362 .767 1.04 1.12 .856 .410 .339 .557 1.06Pinkham-Pearson Index of Similaritya

to FMC

a The similarity index was calculated only for the June samples because site FMC was dry during the October collection period.

.081 .052 .005 .035 .194 na nc nc nc nc nc

TAXA RELATIVE ABUNDANCE OF TAXA (as percent of total abundance)

EPT taxa (without Hydropsychidae) 21.6 0.0 0.0 15.4 22.8 20.2 15.4 0.29 0.29 6.09 37.2Mayflies (Ephemeroptera) 21.3 .0 .0 .0 9.4 9.9 15.2 .0 .0 .6 32.4Stoneflies (Plecoptera) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Caddisflies (Trichoptera) 5.20 1.36 .00 35.3 30.2 22.2 29.7 10.6 .30 50.8 11.7Midges (Chironomidae) 17.1 68.1 65.3 40.5 .3 6.5 28.4 77.1 76.5 40.2 1.4
 Appendix Tables 119

Appendix table 3-4. Fish species collected from streams in the Birmingham area, Alabama, 2001[x, not captured at the site; kg, kilogram; na, not applicable; ns, no seine collection. Taxa comprising the largest proportion of the community at each site are shaded]

Family Scientific name Common name

Presence and proportional abundance (percentage) of fishes collected 

by electrofishing

VIL-1 VIL-3 VAL-1 VAL-2 LCR FMC

Suckers 

(Catostomidae)

Hypentelium etowanum Alabama hog sucker x x x 0.138 3.18 6.51Minytrema melanops spotted sucker x x x x .353 x

Sunfishes 

(Centrarchidae)

Lepomis (undetermined 

species)

sunfish x x x x 2.12 x

Lepomis cyanellus green sunfish 4.55 22.9 x .138 29.7 1.78Lepomis gulosus x Lepomis 

microlophus

warmouth x redear sunfish x x x x .353 x

Lepomis macrochirus bluegill 18.2 20.9 x .276 24.4 52.1Lepomis megalotis longear sunfish x x 4.67 9.53 2.12 22.5Lepomis microlophus redear sunfish .758 x x x 4.24 xLepomis miniatus scarlet sunfish x x x x x 1.18Micropterus punctulatus spotted bass x x x x 1.41 xMicropterus salmoides largemouth bass x .290 x x x .592Micropterus species black bass species .758 x x x x xPomoxis nigromaculatus black crappie x .290 x x x x

Sculpins 

(Cottidae)

Cottus carolinae banded sculpin x x x x 3.89 0.592

Minnows

(Cyprinidae)

Campostoma oligolepis largescale stoneroller 74.2 41.4 2.33 62.3 17.0 7.69Cyprinella trichroistia tricolor shiner x x x x .353 xCyprinella venusta blacktail shiner x x x .552 .707 xNotropis stilbius silverstripe shiner x x x x x 1.78Semotilus atromaculatus creek chub x x 1.67 x x x

Top minnows 

(Cyprinodontidae)

Fundulus olivaceus blackspotted topminnow x x x x 0.353 1.78

Catfishes 

(Ictaluridae)

Ameiurus natalis yellow bullhead 1.52 0.290 x x x xIctaluridae bullhead catfishes x .580 x x x x

Darters 

(Percinidae)

Etheostoma ramseyi Alabama darter x x x x x 2.37Etheostoma stigmaeum speckled darter x x x x x 1.18Percina caprodes logperch x x x x 0.353 xPercina kathae Mobile logperch x x x x 9.19 xPercina nigrofasciata blackbanded darter x x x 0.276 x x
Mosquitofishes

(Poecilidae)

Gambusia affinis western mosquitofish x x x 26.8 0.353 xGambusia species x 13.3 91.3 x x x

COLLECTION DATA

Total individuals by electrofishing 132 345 300 724 283 169Total species collected by electrofishing 6 7 3 8 15 12Units of effort expended 4.4 12.9 3.4 10.2 6.7 8.7Fish collected per unit of effort 30 27 88 71 42 33Total biomass (kg) collected by electrofishing 1 4.85 0.705 3.72 3.80 2.64Total species collected by electrofishing and seining 6 8 ns 9 15 13Total individuals collected by seining 2 62 ns 211 5 5Biomass (kg) collected by seining 0.202 0.032 na 0.612 0.019 0.011Additional species collected by seining 0 0 na M. salmoides 0 G. affinisSimilarity of fish community to that of site FMC 0.440 0.400 0.250 0.500 0.400 1.00Shannon’s Index of Diversity 1.26 2.02 0.551 1.56 2.87 2.32

FISH-COMMUNITY METRICS

Total number of minnow taxa 1 1 2 2 3 2Total number of sunfish taxa (excluding black bass, crappie, and hybrids) 3 2 1 3 5 4Relative abundance of darters 0 0 0 0.276 9.541 3.550Relative abundance of sunfish (excluding bass, crappie, green sunfishes, and 

undetermined species)

18.9 20.9 4.7 9.8 30.7 75.7

Relative abundance of suckers 0 0 0 0.138 3.53 6.51Relative abundance of anomalies 0 0 12 6 2.2 1.2

Appendix table 3-4. Fish species collected from streams in the Birmingham area, Alabama, 2001 — Continued[x, not captured at the site; kg, kilogram; na, not applicable; ns, no seine collection. Taxa comprising the largest proportion of the community at each site are shaded]

Family Scientific name Common name

Presence and proportional abundance (percentage) of fishes collected 

by electrofishing

VIL-1 VIL-3 VAL-1 VAL-2 LCR FMC

120 Investigation of Water Quality and Aquatic-Community Structure in Village and Valley Creeks, Alabama, 2000 – 01