WATER QUALITY MONITORING REPORT FOR THE THAMES …€¦ · rivers (Table 1.1). For rivers (bankfull width 16-64 m), such as all the stations on the Thames River, a WQI(d) >9 would

WATER QUALITY MONITORING REPORT FOR THE

THAMES RIVER 2011.

Final Report prepared for:

THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF LONDON. London, Ontario

Prepared by:

ZEAS INCORPORATED 36 McCutcheon Ave.

Nobleton, Ontario L0G 1N0

November 2012

WATER QUALITY MONITORING REPORT FOR THE THAMES RIVER, 2011.

Final Report prepared for:

THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF LONDON. London, Ontario

Prepared by: ZEAS INCORPORATED 36 McCutcheon Ave. Nobleton, Ontario L0G 1N0

_______________________ Danuta T. Zaranko, M.Sc. Aquatic Ecologist, Principal

November 2012

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................................... i 1.0 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 METHODS................................................................................................................................. 5 2.1 Sample Collection ................................................................................................................5 2.2 Sample Processing ...............................................................................................................7 2.2.1 Subsampling .................................................................................................................8 2.2.2 Detailed Identification..................................................................................................8 2.2.3 QA/QC Measures .........................................................................................................8 2.3 Data Reporting and Interpretation .......................................................................................9 2.3.1 BioMAP Water Quality index (WQI(d)) ......................................................................9 2.3.2 Simpson’s Diversity Index.........................................................................................10 2.3.3 Hilsenhoff’s Modified Family-level Biotic Index (FBI) ..........................................11 2.4 Water Chemistry ................................................................................................................12 3.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ...............................................................................................14 3.1 Physical Conditions............................................................................................................14 3.2 Water Chemistry ................................................................................................................14 3.2.1 Water Chemistry 2011 ...............................................................................................14 3.2.2 Water Chemistry 2008 - 2011....................................................................................16 3.3 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community............................................................................19 3.3.1 Community 2011........................................................................................................19 3.3.2 Temporal Changes in the BioMAP WQI(d) and FBI Values....................................19 4.0 SUMMARY ...............................................................................................................................21 5.0 REFERENCES...........................................................................................................................22 APPENDIX A: Taxonomic References..........................................................................................25 APPENDIX B: Benthic Macroinvertebrate Data ...........................................................................30

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE A1: CLASSIFICATION OF WATER QUALITY AT SITES IN THE THAMES RIVER BASED ON VALUES FROM THE BIOMAP(d) WATER QUALITY INDEX AND HILSENFOFF’S MODIFIED FAMILY BIOTIC INDEX 2011.

TABLE 1.1: CLASSIFICATION OF WATER QUALITY AT SITES IN CREEKS,

STREAMS AND RIVERS BASED ON VALUES FROM THE BIOMAP(d) WATER QUALITY INDEX.

TABLE 2.1: LOCATION OF BENTHIC AND WATER QUALITY MONITORING STATIONS 2011.

TABLE 2.2: TAXONOMIC LEVEL AND PRIMARY TAXONOMIC REFERENCES USED BY ZEAS INCORPORATED IN THE IDENTIFICATION OF BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATES.

TABLE 2.3.1: TOLERANCE VALUES FOR MACROINVERTEBRATES FOR CALCULATING HILSENHOFF’S MODIFIED FAMILY BIOTIC INDEX.

TABLE 2.3.2: EVALUATION OF WATER QUALITY USING HILSENHOFF’S FAMILY-LEVEL BIOTIC INDEX

TABLE 2.4: MEAN TEMPERATURE AND 24-HOUR PRECIPITATION FOR WATER CHEMISTRY SAMPLING DATES, THAMES RIVER, 2011.

TABLE 3.1: SUMMARY OF PHYSICAL DATA FROM THE THAMES RIVER - 2011.

TABLE 3.2.1: WATER CHEMISTRY RESULTS FOR THE THAMES RIVER, MARCH 2011.

TABLE 3.2.2: WATER CHEMISTRY RESULTS FOR THE THAMES RIVER, MAY 2011.

TABLE 3.2.3: WATER CHEMISTRY RESULTS FOR THE THAMES RIVER, AUGUST 2011.

TABLE 3.2.4: WATER CHEMISTRY RESULTS FOR THE THAMES RIVER, NOVEMBER 2011.

TABLE 3.3: SUMMARY OF BIOLOGICAL METRICS FOR THE THAMES RIVER -

2011.

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 2.1: THAMES RIVER BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE MONITORING LOCATIONS.

FIGURE 3.1.1: SEASONAL PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATIONS THAMES RIVER 2011. FIGURE 3.1.2: SEASONAL E. COLI CONCENTRATIONS THAMES RIVER 2011. FIGURE 3.1.3: PHOPHORUS CONCENTRATIONS FOR THAMES RIVER, 2011 AND

AVERAGE OF 2008-2010. FIGURE 3.1.4: E. coli CONCENTRATIONS FOR THAMES RIVER, 2011 AND AVERAGE

OF 2008-2010. FIGURE 3.2: BIOMAP WQI(d) VALUES FOR THE THAMES RIVER, 2011, AVERAGE

2007-2010 AND 2006 BASELINE. FIGURE 3.3: FBI VALUES FOR THE THAMES RIVER, 2011, AVERAGE 2007-2010

AND 2006 BASELINE. FIGURE 4.1: EVALUATION OF WATER QUALITY IN THE THAMES RIVER USING

THE BioMAP AND FBI INDEX (2011).

2011 Water Quality Monitoring Report, Thames River November 2012

ZEAS INCORPORATED i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In the fall of 2011, ZEAS Incorporated conducted a follow up water quality monitoring study for the Thames River. The study was originally set up to only include benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring. Benthic macroinvertebrate samples were collected at sixteen stations, set up in 2006 (ZEAS 2008a), in order to assess current water quality conditions as well as investigate temporal trends. The monitoring of a select group of water chemistry variables was initiated in the spring 2008. These variables included total phosphorus, suspended solids, dissolved metals, nutrients and bacteria.

The City of London requested that ZEAS follow the BioMAP protocols in order to assess the water quality in the Thames River. The BioMAP protocol utilizes a biotic “Water Quality Index” (WQI(d)) and a set of summary metrics to determine the status of a watercourse. Other metrics used included Simpson’s Indices (family level) and Hillsenhoff’s modified Family Biotic Index (FBI).

In 2011, Stations T3 and T6 remained in the transitional category (BioMAP scores were between 7 and 9). Except for these two stations, water quality was unimpaired (BioMAP WQI(d) scores >9) in the Thames River from the most eastern stations until Station T11 in Kilworth. From Kilworth on, BioMAP scores fell in the transitional category until Station T15 where the score was below 9 suggesting impaired water quality (see Figure 4.1).

Since 2006, water quality appeared to have improved at many stations in the Thames River with BioMAP WQI(d) scores increasing (see Figure 3.2). Higher scores were noted at four of the five stations (T2, T9, T6 and T14) downstream of pollution control plants (PCPs). For these stations, BioMAP scores were above the baseline scores of 2006 and above average. The Pottersburg, Adelaide and Oxford PCPs did not appear to be affecting water quality. The Vauxhall and Greenway PCPs may be affecting water quality. FBI scores largely backed up these findings (see Figure 3.3).

In 2011, total phosphorus and E.coli concentrations in water were higher downstream of the Vauxhall PCP (T3) compared to upstream (T4) in two seasons (winter and summer). Some of the highest total phosphorus (0.179 mg/L) concentrations and E.coli (33,000 CFU/100 ml) counts were noted at this site (T3). The average concentration from prior years has been greater downstream of the Vauxhall PCP compared to upstream in all seasons. Combined storm water and sewer outfalls may also be influencing Station T3.


ZEAS INCORPORATED ii

In 2011, total phosphorus concentrations were higher downstream of the Greenway PCP (T6) in all seasons compared to upstream (Station T5). One of the highest concentrations was seen in the summer 0.194 mg/L. One of the highest E.coli counts in 2011 was at this site (22,000 CFU/100 ml) in November, albeit this count was noted to be during the non-disinfection period for the Greenway plant (October to March) and may have reflected a bypass event. Average counts have been higher at the downstream station since 2006. In addition to the Greenway PCP, this site may be influenced by other factors such as combined storm/sewer outfalls and tributary outlets.

For the lower portions of the Thames River, BioMAP scores in 2011 were lower than the baseline and average for Stations T11 and T15. The BioMAP WQI(d) score fell in the transitional zone for Station T11 in Kilworth and was impaired at Station T15 (<9). Causes for the drop in the scores could not be tied to any one water chemistry variable. Deep water continued to hamper sampling. Monitoring in 2012 should confirm whether water quality remains compromised in these areas or whether the poorer scores were tied to sampling difficulties.

TABLE A.1: CLASSIFICATION OF WATER QUALITY AT SITES IN THE THAMES RIVER BASED ON VALUES FROM THE BioMAP WQI, SIMPSON’S RECIPROCAL AND HILSENHOFF’S FAMILY-LEVEL BIOTIC INDEX, FALL 2011.

BENTHIC STATION DESIGNATION BioMAP WQI(d) STATUS

AVERAGE SIMPSON’S

RECIPROCAL INDEX AVERAGE HILSENHOFF FBI

Thames River

T8 River 11.4 U 6.09 4.48

T10 River 11.1 U 7.07 4.74

T2 River 11.0 U 6.62 4.75

T9 River 11.0 U 5.93 5.53

T7 River 10.7 U 6.48 4.61

T1 River 10.3 U 5.88 4.70

T4 River 10.1 U 3.84 4.55

T5 River 10.1 U 4.98 3.20

T14 River 9.6 U 4.65 4.47

T6 River 8.5 ? 4.29 4.65

T13A River 8.5 ? 8.32 4.99

T11 River 7.9 ? 8.61 6.13

T12 River 7.9 ? 10.54 4.44

T13 River 7.6 ? 8.80 4.89

T3 River 7.2 ? 5.45 4.51

T15 River 6.8 I 8.56 4.94

? transitional zone.

Family Biotic Index

Water Quality Degree of Organic Pollution

0.00-3.75 Excellent Organic pollution unlikely 3.76-4.25 Very Good Possible slight organic pollution 4.26-5.00 Good Some organic pollution probable 5.01-5.75 Fair Fairly substantial pollution likely 5.76-6.50 Fairly poor Substantial pollution likely 6.51-7.25 Poor Very substantial pollution likely

7.26-10.00 Very poor Severe organic pollution likely

BioMap WQI(d)

Unimpaired (U) Impaired (I)

Creeks >16 <14

Streams >12 <10

Rivers >9 <7


ZEAS INCORPORATED 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

In the fall of 2011, ZEAS Incorporated conducted a follow up water quality monitoring study for the Thames River. Benthic macroinvertebrate samples were collected at sixteen stations, set up in 2006 (ZEAS 2008a), in order to assess current water quality conditions as well as investigate temporal trends. The monitoring of a select group of water chemistry variables was initiated in the spring of 2008. These variables included total phosphorus, suspended solids, dissolved metals, nutrients and bacteria.

A standardized system of sampling and analyzing water quality on a biological basis has been developed by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Planning and Policy Branch (Griffiths 1999a). This water quality measurement system is an extension of the Biological Monitoring and Assessment Program (BioMAP) used by the Ministry of Environment, Southwestern Ontario (Griffiths, 1996, 1993).

The City of London requested that ZEAS follow the BioMAP protocols in order to assess the water quality in the Thames River. The BioMAP protocol utilizes a biotic “Water Quality Index” (WQI(d)) and a set of summary metrics to determine the status of a watercourse. Stream health potential is set in relation to this index and differs for creeks, streams and rivers (Table 1.1). For rivers (bankfull width 16-64 m), such as all the stations on the Thames River, a WQI(d) >9 would be indicative of unimpaired water quality (Griffiths 1999).

TABLE 1.1: CLASSIFICATION OF WATER QUALITY AT SITES IN CREEKS, STREAMS AND RIVERS BASED ON VALUES FROM THE BioMAP(d) WATER QUALITY INDEX.

(Griffiths, 1999).

Unimpaired Impaired

Creeks >16 <14

Streams >12 <10

Rivers >9 <7

A WQI(d) < 7 indicates that the water quality at a river site is impaired. Water quality cannot be classified solely using this index if a value falls in between 7 and 9 for rivers. These ranges in the index reflect the uncertainty in the classification of water quality. A weight of evidence approach using other summary metrics must be undertaken to determine the status of these


ZEAS INCORPORATED 2

water courses. Other metrics used included Simpson’s Indices (family level) and Hillsenhoff’s modified Family Biotic Index (FBI).

The initial study conducted in 2006 (ZEAS 2008a) indicated that water quality was unimpaired according to the BioMAP WQI(d) Index, along the eastern portions of the City of London, on the south branch of the Thames River (T1, T2 and T4) (see figure 2.1). Water quality was unimpaired along the north branch of the Thames River (T8 and T9), except at the outflow of Fanshawe Lake (T10), where the dam was thought to be compromising water quality. The FBI Index suggested the same, i.e., that some of the best water quality in the Thames River was at these stations. FBI values were in the “good to fair” range (4.26 - 5.75) except at Station T10 which ranked “fair to fairly poor” (5.01 - 6.50).

Some of the poorest water quality was noted in the areas above (T5 and T6) Springbank dam and directly below (T7). Water quality was impaired (<7) according to the BioMAP Index and “poor to very poor” according to the FBI (6.51 to 10.00). Station T6 was located approximately 800 m downstream of the Greenway PCP and 400 m downstream of the mouth of Mud Creek, two possible sources of impairment. All three areas may also have been affected by combined storm/sewer overflows. Sulphur springs were also suspected in the area of T7.

Water quality at Station T3, downstream of the Vauxhall Pollution Control Plant (PCP) scored “fairly poor” and fell in the transitional category (7). The area downstream of the Oxford PCP (T14) appeared stressed as the BioMAP score fell in the transitional category (7.4) while the FBI score suggested “fairly poor” (6.39) conditions.

Water quality on the west side of the City of London at Kilworth fell in the transitional category (between 7 and 9) according to the BioMAP Index and was ranked “fair” according to the FBI (5.01 – 5.75). Water quality on the lower portions of the Thames River was very variable and fluctuated between transitional and impaired according to the BioMAP Index and “fair to very poor” according to the FBI.

In 2010, the areas of the Thames River that continued to have the best water quality included the most upstream stations on the south branch (T1, T2 and T4) and the north branch (T8 and T9). The classification of water quality was based on both the BioMAP Index, (e.g., unimpaired) and the FBI Index, which was mostly “good to fair”.

Further downstream on the south branch of the Thames River at Station T3, downstream of the Vauxhall PCP, there was a drop in the BioMAP Index into the impaired zone and the FBI Index


ZEAS INCORPORATED 3

dropped to “poor”. Combined storm/sewer water overflows may also occur in this area. Total phosphorus and E.coli concentrations in water were higher downstream of the Vauxhall PCP (T3) compared to upstream (T4) in most seasons. Some of the highest total phosphorus (0.167 mg/L) and E.coli (2160 CFU/100 ml) readings were noted at this site. Water quality has fluctuated at this station over the last five years but has generally been on the lower end of the scale never attaining more than a “fair” rating according to the FBI Index and falling into the transitional category at best according to BioMAP Index.

At the forks of the Thames River (T5), water quality appeared to have rebounded and was classified as unimpaired according to the BioMAP Index and “good” according to the FBI Index. Water quality at this station has been unimpaired since 2007.

The area of the Thames River that appeared to be the most degraded was downstream of the Greenway PCP (Station T6). This station has been consistently impaired since 2006 according to the BioMAP Index and in 2010 was the same and rated “poor” according to the FBI Index. Many factors such as combined storm/sewer outfalls, tributary outlets and upstream PCPs may be affecting this station. Total phosphorus concentrations were higher downstream of the Greenway PCP (T6) in all seasons compared to upstream (Station T5). Two of the highest E.coli concentrations were at this site (3300 and 4200 CFU/100 ml), albeit these concentrations were noted to be during the non-disinfection period for the Greenway plant (October to March). In addition, the sampling area is prone to low water levels during the summer months and migratory waterfowl frequent the area.

In 2010, water quality was unimpaired upstream and downstream of the Oxford PCP (>9). The FBI score was “good” (4.26 – 5.0) both upstream and downstream. The Oxford Pollution Control Plant is a tertiary treatment plant with membrane filtration. There is also a brush receiving facility to the east of the plant with a storm pond that outlets near the plant and a salt dome.

On the outskirts of the City of London at Kilworth (T11) water quality was unimpaired and rated “excellent” according to the FBI. Water quality has been unimpaired at this station since 2007.


ZEAS INCORPORATED 4

Water quality on the lower portions of the Thames River (Stations T12, T13 and T16) could not be solely classified using the BioMAP Index but the FBI suggested “good” water quality. The FBI Index suggested “fair” water quality at Station T15.

The following sections provide the methods and results of the 2011 fall survey.


ZEAS INCORPORATED 5

2.0 METHODS

2.1 Sample Collection

Benthic macroinvertebrate samples were collected at 16 stations on the Thames River (Figure 2.1) as previously established by the City of London (Table 2.1). Samples from Stations T1, T2, T3, T4, T5, T6, T8 and T9 were collected on September 26th. Stations T10 and T11 were collected on the following day September 27th. Water levels were very high (0.5 m) at Station T11, making sampling difficult. The bottom could not visually be seen. Due to high water levels, Stations T12, T13, T13A and T15 were sampled on October 11th, and the remaining Stations T7 and T14 were sampled on October 12th. Station T16 was not sample in 2011 as it was difficult to access and too far downstream from the Giles Bridge (4km). A new Station T13A was established approximately 400m downstream of the Giles Bridge. Station T15 was also relocated in 2011 to a more suitable riffle and was now approximately 1km downstream of the Giles Bridge. Station T7 was resampled in the location established in 2010. The riffle was larger and was located 100 m downstream of the original location. The original location was possibly affected by the up-welling of sulphur springs and the riffle had undergone noticeable erosion.

Two discrete quantitative samples were collected at each station using a T-Sampler that enclosed an area of 0.05 m2. In addition, one qualitative sample was collected at each site. For each qualitative sample, approximately 15 minutes was spent sampling the different habitat and substrate types at each station location, (i.e., riffle zones, stream banks, submerged wood, and macrophyte beds).

All quantitative samples were sieved through 500 µm screen. The remaining sediment, debris and organisms were placed into one-litre jars and preserved to a level of 10% buffered formalin.


TABLE 2.1: LOCATION OF BENTHIC AND WATER QUALITY MONITORING STATIONS 2011.

STATION LATITUDE LONGITUDE DESCRIPTION

THAMES RIVER

T1 42°58'45.84"N 81° 7'40.73"W - ~400m upstream from bridge (Airport Rd.).

T2 42°58'22.15"N 81°11'21.30"W - ~150m downstream from footbridge (Meadowlily Rd. N), downstream Pottersburg PCP.

T4

42°58'23.27"N 81°11'54.53"W

- park at end of St. Julien St.

- ~220m upstream of St. Julien St. 100 m upstream of the edge of the soil storage area.

- upstream of Vauxhall PCP.

T3 42°58'23.12"N 81°12'31.21"W - ~100m upstream from bridge (Egerton St).

- downstream of Vauxhall PCP.

T10 43° 2'25.04"N 81°12'35.50"W ~1.2 km downstream of (Clarke Rd).

T8

43° 1'26.69"N 81°14'31.49"W

- ~120m downstream from the end of E Windermere Rd.

- first dirt path from S end of parking lot leading down to the river.

- upstream Adelaide PCP.

T9 43° 0'48.38"N 81°15'37.12"W

- from (Raymond Ave.), walked down a dirt path, crossed over a channel .

- downstream Adelaide PCP.

T5 42°58'45.77"N 81°15'52.20"W

- ~200m downstream from bridge (Wharncliffe Rd. N).

- upstream Greenway PCP.

T6 42°58'19.96"N 81°17'21.59"W

- ~200m upstream from bridge (Wonderland Rd.).

- downstream Greenway PCP.

T7 42°57'50.47"N 81°20'3.48"W - ~220m downstream from bridge (Sanatorium Rd/Boler Rd.).

T14 42°58'9.59"N 81°20'46.14"W

- ~100m downstream from bridge (Oxford St. W) beside the golf course.

- downstream Oxford PCP.

T11

42°57'52.26"N 81°23'21.61"W

- ~100m upstream from bridge (Commissioners Road West). Upstream of Kilworth.

- ~25m upstream from creek feeding into the Thames R (north side).

T12 42°52'21.15"N 81°23'19.89"W - ~100m upstream from Giles bridge (Westminister Dr.).

T13 42°52'15.78"N 81°23'16.12"W - ~100m downstream from Giles Bridge (Westminister Dr.).

T13A 42°52'5.63"N 81°23'15.94"W - ~400m downstream from Giles Bridge (Westminster Dr.)

T15 42°51'48.89"N 81°23'29.80"W - 1000 m downstream from Giles Bridge (Westminster Dr.)

ZEAS INCORPORATED 6

Danuta

Text Box

2011

Danuta

Typewritten Text

ZEAS Staff

Typewritten Text

ZEAS Staff

Oval

ZEAS Staff

Oval

ZEAS Staff

Text Box

T13A

ZEAS Staff

Pencil


ZEAS INCORPORATED 7

In conjunction with the benthic macroinvertebrate sampling, the following supporting measurements were recorded at each station:

• substrate characteristics, • water depth, • velocity, • presence of macrophytes, • temperature, • dissolved oxygen, • pH, and • conductivity.

2.2 Sample Processing

Benthic macroinvertebrate samples were processed by ZEAS Incorporated, Nobleton, Ontario. Upon arrival, samples were immediately logged and inspected to ensure adequate preservation to a minimum level of 10% buffered formalin and checked for correct labeling.

Benthic macroinvertebrate samples were sorted at a magnification of between 7 and 10 times with the use of a stereomicroscope. To expedite sorting, prior to processing, all samples were stained with a protein dye that is absorbed by aquatic organisms but not by organic material, such as detritus and algae. The stain has proven to be effective in increasing sorting recovery.

Prior to sorting, samples were washed free of formalin in a 500 µm sieve. In samples containing sand, gravel, or rocks, elutriation techniques were used to separate the lighter benthic macroinvertebrates and associated debris from the heavier sand, gravel and rocks. Elutriation techniques effectively removed almost all organisms except some heavy-bodied organisms such as molluscs and caddisflies with rock cases. As such, the remaining sand and gravel fraction was closely inspected. After elutriation, the remaining debris and benthic macroinvertebrates were washed through a series of two sieves, (i.e., 3.36 mm and 500 µm respectively). The screening of material through a series of sieves is used to facilitate sorting. This procedure separates macroinvertebrates and detritus into a set of size-based fractions that can be sorted under a more constant magnification.

Benthic macroinvertebrates were enumerated and sorted into major taxonomic groups, (i.e., order and family), placed in glass bottles and represerved in 80% ethanol for more detailed taxonomic analysis by senior staff. Each bottle was labeled internally (on 100% cotton paper) with the survey name, date, station and replicate number.


ZEAS INCORPORATED 8

2.2.1 Subsampling

For each sample, material retained on the 3.36 mm sieve, was sorted entirely. Some sample material retained on the 500 µm sieve required subsampling due to the large amounts of organic matter or high densities of particular groups.

Subsampling was accomplished by evenly distributing the sample material on the 500 µm sieve. One half of the material was removed and set aside while the remaining half was distributed evenly on the sieve and again divided in half. Samples were split down to fractions requiring a minimum sorting time of approximately 4 hours.

2.2.2 Detailed Identification

All macroinvertebrates were identified to the lowest practical level (Table 2.2). Taxonomy was based on the most recent publications. Taxonomic resolution was dependent on available keys, ease of identification, the condition, (i.e., damage), and maturity of the organism, (i.e., only mature larvae can be identified to species). A list of all taxonomic keys is presented in Appendix A.

Chironomids and oligochaetes were mounted on glass slides in a clearing media prior to identification using a compound microscope and magnifications up to 1,000 times. In samples with a large number of chironomids, individuals that could be identified using a dissecting microscope, (e.g., Cryptochironomus, Chironomus and Procladius) were enumerated and removed from the sample. The remaining individuals were sorted into subfamilies and tribes. Individuals were further grouped according to characteristic traits, (i.e., similar colour, eye structure, head shape, etc.). Representatives from each grouping, (a minimum of 20%) were mounted for identification to genus. Oligochaetes were mounted following a similar procedure.

2.2.3 Quality Assurance and Quality Control Measures

ZEAS incorporates the following set of QA/QC procedures in all benthic projects undertaken by the company to ensure the generation of high quality and reliable data:

• samples were logged upon arrival, inspected, and enumerated; • samples were checked for proper preservation; • samples were stained to facilitate sorting; • taxonomic identifications were based on the most updated and widely used

keys;

TABLE 2.2: TAXONOMIC LEVEL AND PRIMARY TAXONOMIC REFERENCES USED BY ZEAS INCORPORATED IN THE IDENTIFICATION OF BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATES.

TAXON LEVEL REFERENCE

FLATWORMS

NEMATODES/

NEMERTEANS

Hydra

class/family/species

phylum

phylum

genus

Pennak 1989

Pennak 1989

Pennak 1989

Pennak 1989

ANNELIDS

Oligochaeta species Wetzel et al. 2000; Kathman and Brinkhurst 1999; Brinkhurst 1986

Leeches species Klemm 1991

ARTHROPODS

Mites order Pennak 1989; Thorp and Covich 1991

Crustaceans Isopods Harpacticoids Ostracods

genus order class

Pennak 1989; Thorp and Covich 1991

Crayfish species Crocker & Barr 1968; Thorp and Covich 1991

Amphipods Gammarus Hyalella

Genus/species species genus

Bousfield 1967; Thorp and Covich 1991 Holsinger 1976; Bousfield 1967 Bousfield 1967

INSECTS genus Merritt et al. 2008; Hilsenhoff 1995

Beetles Elmidae Dytiscidae

genus species genus/species

Merritt et al. 2008; Archangelsky 1997 Hilsenhoff & Schmude 1992; Brown 1972 Larson et al. 2000

Caddisflies Hydropsyche

genus species

Wiggins 1996; Merritt et al. 2008 Schefter & Wiggins 1986; Schuster & Etnier 1978

Dragonflies/damselflies genus/species Walker & Corbet 1978; Westfall & May 1996; Walker 1953, 1958; Hilsenhoff 1995

Mayflies Baetidae Ephemerella Ephemeridae Eurylophella Stenonema

genus genus/species species species species species

Edmunds et al. 1976; Merrit et al. 2008 McCafferty 2000; McCafferty & Waltz 1990; Waltz 1994; Ide 1937 McCafferty & Waltz 1990; Morihara & McCafferty 1979 Allen & Edwards 1965 McCafferty 1976 Allen & Edwards 1963 Bednarik & McCafferty 1979

Stoneflies Isoperla Leuctridae Nemouridae Perlidae Taeniopterygidae

genus species species species species species

Merrit et al. 2008; Stewart & Stark 1988 Hitchcock 1974 Harper & Hynes 1971a Harper & Hynes 1971b Hitchcock 1974 Fullington & Stewart 1980; Harper & Hynes 1971c

True Flies Chironomidae

Simuliidae

genus genus/species

family

Merritt et al. 2008; Hilsenhoff 1995 Epler 2001, Maschwitz and Cook. 2000; Oliver and Dillon 1990; Oliver and Roussel 1983; Simpson et al. 1983; Wiederholm 1983; Simpson and Bode 1980;Jackson 1976 Merritt et al. 2008

MOLLUSCS

Snails genus/species Frest and Johannes 1999; Jokinen 1992; Clarke 1981; Burch 1989

Clams Cyclocalyx Sphaerium

genus species

Clarke 1981 Clarke 1981; Mackie and Huggins 1983;Lee and Foighil 2003.


• sorted sediments and debris are represerved in 10 % formalin and are retained for up to three months. For samples subject to subsampling, sorted and unsorted fractions were represerved separately;

• sorted organisms from each sample are archived at the ZEAS laboratory indefinitely;

• to ensure against data entry errors or incorrect spelling of macroinvertebrate names, the data spreadsheets were inspected by a second person and data were cross-checked with bench sheets.

2.3 Data Reporting and Interpretation

Following identification and enumeration, a detailed taxa list was prepared summarizing total organism density and total number of taxa for each sample using a common spreadsheet package, (i.e., Excel) and densities were reported per 0.05m2 for each station (Appendix B).

Benthic macroinvertebrate data were evaluated and used to assess water quality in the Thames River through the use of the BioMAP biotic water quality metrics (Griffiths 1993, 1996, 1999). In addition, Simpson’s Diversity Indices and Hilsenhoff’s Modified Family-level Biotic Index (FBI) (Hilsenhoff 1988), were calculated for each station.

2.3.1 BioMAP Water Quality index (WQI(d))

One of the metrics used to assess water quality was the BioMAP Water Quality index (WQI(d)) which is an abundance-weighted mean sensitivity value of the benthic macroinvertebrates occurring at a site. The sensitivity values assigned to macroinvertebrates range from 0 to 4 with 0 being assigned to the most tolerant taxa and 4 assigned to the taxa most sensitive to environmental stresses.

The WQI(d) was calculated as follows:

n

∑ esvi * ln(xi +1)

n ∑ ln(xi+1)

where, svi is the sensitivity value of the i th taxon xi is the density of the i th taxon n is the total number of taxa in the sample

ZEAS INCORPORATED 9


ZEAS INCORPORATED 10

Griffiths (1999a, b) suggests that if fewer than 25 organisms or eight taxa are collected in a sample, then the BioMAP WQI(d) should not be calculated or should be interpreted with caution.

When a quantitative sample cannot be obtained, a second BioMAP index, referred to as the WQI(q) or qualitative water quality index, can be used to provide a measure of water quality. This Index is based solely on the presence of taxa at a site. All taxa from both quantitative and qualitative samples for a site were pooled and ranked from highest to lowest sensitivity value. Taxa without sensitivity values were included at the bottom of this list. The BioMAP WQI(q) was calculated as the average sensitivity value of the top 25% (quartile) of taxa (minimum 4). For rivers, BioMAP WQI(q) values greater than 2.4 denote unimpaired water quality, while those below 2.2 indicate an impaired status (Griffiths, 1999).

Taxa that were generally less than 500 µm in body diameter were excluded from the analysis. Excluded organisms included nematodes, Prostoma, Enchytraeidae, Naididae and ostracods. Large oligochaetes that are not truly aquatic were also excluded, (e.g., Lumbricidae and Sparganophilidae). Other groups that were excluded because they were not truly aquatic included Collembola, Scirtidae, Staphylinidae and some unknown diptera pupae.

2.3.2 Simpson’s Diversity Index

The Simpson’s Diversity Index was first proposed by British statistician Edward H. Simpson in a paper in Nature in 1949 (Simpson E.H 1949). Now it is often used to measure biodiversity, as well as the abundance of each species and/or family. The term Simpson’s Index can be confusing because it can refer to any of the three closely related indices: Simpson’s Index (D), Simpson’s Index of Diversity (1-D) and Simpson’s Reciprocal Index (1/D).

Simpson’s Index (D) measures the probability that two organisms randomly selected from a sample will belong to the same family.

D = ∑ (n / N) 2

Where n = the total number of organisms of a particular family, and N = the total number of organisms of all families.

The value of D ranges between 0 and 1, and the lower the value of D, the higher the diversity. This runs contrary to convention, so D is often subtracted from 1 to reach Simpson’s Index of Diversity (1-D). This index represents the probability of two randomly selected organisms in


the sample belong to different families. The value of this index also ranges from 0-1, but the closer to 1 the value is, the higher the sample diversity. Simpson’s Reciprocal Index (1/D) is another way of interpreting Simpson’s Index. The value of this index starts with 1 as the lowest possible figure because when D=1 it represent a community containing only one family, the higher the value, the greater the diversity. The maximum value is the number of different families in the sample.

Taxa Evenness (E) is a measure of biodiversity which represents the relative abundance with which each family is presented in the area. It can be calculated as follows (Bontje, B 2006):

E = (1/D) / S

Where (1/D) = Simpson’s reciprocal, and S = the total number of families presented in the sample.

2.3.3 Hilsenhoff’s Modified Family-level Biotic Index (FBI)

This index was developed by Hilsenhoff (1998) based on his original species-level Biotic Index (BI) (Hilsenhoff 1982) with taxa tolerance values ranging from 0 (very intolerant) to 10 (highly tolerant) depending on their tolerance to organic pollution. Tolerance values for each family were developed by weighting species according to their relative abundance in the State of Wisconsin (Hilsenhoff 1988). The FBI has been modified to include other macroinvertebrates using the genus and species-level tolerance values adopted by the State of New York (Bode et al., 1991, 1996; Mandaville 2002; Table 2.3.1).

The Family Biotic Index (FBI) was calculated as follows:

∑ xiti n where, xi is the number of individuals within a taxon ti is the tolerance value of a taxon n is the total number of organisms in the sample


TABLE 2.3.1: TOLERANCE VALUES FOR MACROINVERTEBRATES FOR CALCULATING HILSENHOFF’S MODIFIED FAMILY BIOTIC INDEX.

Platyhelminthes Coleoptera Odonata Psychomyiidae 2 Gastropoda

Turbellaria 4 Curculionidae 5 Aeshnidae 3 Rhyacophilidae 0 Ancylidae 6 Dryopidae 5 Calopterygidae 5 Uenoidae 3 Hydrobiidae 7 Annelida Dytiscidae 5 Coenagrionidae 9 Leptoceridae 4 Lymnaeidae 6

Naididae 8 Elmidae 4 Corduliidae 5 Limnephilidae 4 Physidae 8 Lumbriculidae 5 Gyrinidae 4 Gomphidae 1 Planorbidae 7 Tubificidae 10 Haliplidae 5 Libellulidae 9 Diptera Pleuroceridae 6 Hydrophilidae 5 Ceratopogonidae 6 Valvatidae 8

Hirudinea Psephenidae 4 Plecoptera Chaoboridae 8 Viviparidae 6 Erpobdellidae 10 Scirtidae 5 Capniidae 1 Chironomidae 6 Glossiphonidae 8 Chloroperlidae 1 Chironomus 8 Bivalvia Helobdella 8 Ephemeroptera Perlidae 1 Chironominae 6 Dreissenidae 8

Ameletidae 0 Perlodidae 2 Diamesinae 2 Sphaeriidae Cyclocalyx

6 8

Acarina 6 Baetidae 4 Taeniopterygidae 2 Orthocladiinae 5 Unionidae 8 Caenidae 7 Tanypodinae 7 Amphipoda Ephemerellidae 1 Hemiptera Culicidae 8

Crangonyctidae 6 Ephemeridae 4 Corixidae 5 Dixidae 1 Gammaridae 4 Heptageniidae 4 Dolichopodidae 4 Hyalellidae 8 Isonychiidae 2 Trichoptera Empididae 6

Leptohyphidae 4 Brachycentridae 1 Ephydridae 6 Isopoda Leptophlebiidae 2 Glossosomatidae 0 Muscidae 6

Asellidae 8 Potamanthidae 4 Helicopsychidae 3 Psychodidae 10 Helicopsychidae 3 Simuliidae 6 Decapoda Megaloptera Hydropsychidae 4 Tabanidae 6

Cambaridae 6 Sialidae 4 Hydroptilidae 4 Tipulidae 3 Philopotamidae 3 Lepidoptera Polycentropodidae 6 Pyralidae 5

(Bode et al., 1996; Hilsenhoff, 1988; Mandaville, 2002) (Soil & Water Conservation Society of Metro Halifax 2006)



The higher the FBI value, the lower the water quality and the higher likelihood of organic

pollution; conversely, a lower FBI value indicates higher water quality and less likelihood of

organic pollution (Hilsenhoff 1988; Table 2.3.2). The FBI has only been evaluated for organic

pollutants, and it has yet to be determined if it will be applicable for other pollutants

(Mandaville 2002).

TABLE 2.3.2: EVALUATION OF WATER QUALITY USING HILSENHOFF’S FAMILY-LEVEL BIOTIC INDEX.

Family Biotic Index Water Quality Degree of Organic Pollution 0.00-3.75 Excellent Organic pollution unlikely 3.76-4.25 Very good Possible slight organic pollution 4.26-5.00 Good Some organic pollution probable 5.01-5.75 Fair Fairly substantial pollution likely 5.76-6.50 Fairly poor Substantial pollution likely 6.51-7.25 Poor Very substantial pollution likely 7.26-10.00 Very poor Severe organic pollution likely

(Hilsenhoff, 1988)

The FBI was intended only for rapid field assessment and should not be used as a substitute for

the BI or other species level indices. In unpolluted streams, the FBI was higher than the BI,

suggesting lower water quality, and in polluted streams the FBI was lower than the BI

suggesting higher water quality. These results happened because in unpolluted streams the

more pollution intolerant taxa will predominate in each family, while in polluted streams the

more tolerant taxa will predominate. Consequently the FBI value usually indicates greater

pollution of clean streams by overestimating the BI value and usually indicates less pollution in

polluted streams by underestimating the BI value. Since FBI is less accurate than other indices,

it can lead to erroneous conclusions about water quality (Hilsenhoff 1988). But it can be

suitable for the initial assessment of sites with intermediate impairment which can then be used

to prioritize sites for more intensive evaluation.

2.4 Water Chemistry

Water samples were collected four times a year from 16 stations on the Thames River (Table 2.1). Samples were collected under wet (May and November) and dry (March and August) conditions (no rainfall within 24 hours) as detailed in Table 2.4. Some collections spanned



several days due to weather conditions (see Tables 3.2.1 to 3.2.4). In addition to pH, dissolved oxygen and conductivity, the following water chemistry variables were analyzed:

• Nitrate, nitrite, ammonia, total Kjeldahl nitrogen; • Phosphorus and total suspended solids; • Dissolved metals ; • Bacteria (E.coli, total coliforms), and;

TABLE 2.4: MEAN TEMPERATURE AND 24-HOUR PRECIPITATION FOR WATER CHEMISTRY SAMPLING DATES, THAMES RIVER 2011.

Temperature (oC) Precipitation (mm) Weather Stations Lambeth London

Airport Woodfield Lambeth London

Airporta Woodfield

February 28 0.6 -2 0.7 15 0.5 11.9 March 1 -3.8 -4 -6.5 0 0.00 0 March 2 -4.7 -4 -4.1 0 Trace 0 May 14 - 17.0 19.2 - 13.6 91.4 May 15 - 9.7 10.3 - 14.8 30.1 May 16 - 7.2 7.3 - 6.8 7.9 May 17 - 10.5 10.6 - 2.3 3.3 August 17 20.5 19.2 22.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 August 18 21.1 21.1 22.6 3.6 11.9 3.3 November 27 9.8 - 10.1 19.0 19.8 23.1 November 28 4.5 - 4.6 7.1 21.8 6.3 November 29 4.9 - 4.9 50.8 39.3 62.5

(Source: Weather Underground (http://www.wunderground.com)) Note: Field collecting dates are highlighted. aEnvironment Canada (http://www.climate.weatheroffice.gc.ca) Latitude: 43° 1.800' N Longitude: 81° 9.000' W

http://www.wunderground.com)/

http://www.climate.weatheroffice.gc.ca/

http://www.climate.weatheroffice.gc.ca/climateData/ ../Glossary-popup_e.html#latlong

http://www.climate.weatheroffice.gc.ca/climateData/ ../Glossary-popup_e.html#latlong



3.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3.1 Physical Conditions

Habitat characteristics for the fall 2011 were summarized in Table 3.1. Water velocities tended to be higher on the north branch and lower Thames stations, with averages measured at 0.71m/s and 0.7m/s respectively. The average conductivity reading for the north branch of the Thames River was lower than the averages for the middle and lower stations (519 uS/cm compared to 651 uS/cm to 722 uS/cm). The average conductivity reading for the south branch was the highest (800 uS/cm).

Station T15 was relocated approximately 500 m upstream from the original. The new location was now approximately 1 km downstream from the Giles Bridge. Substrate type and characteristics were similar to the original site but the water velocity (0.76 m/s) was higher compared to the previous year (0.19 m/s). The higher velocity at the new site was much closer to the velocities measured at the other lower Thames sites (T12, T13, T13A), which ranged from 0.56m/s to 0.79m/s.

3.2 Water Chemistry 2011

3.2.1 Water Chemistry 2011

Water samples were collected on March 1 and March 2, 2011 under dry conditions (Table 2.4). However, moderate amounts of precipitation were noted the day before (up to 15 mm). Total phosphorus concentrations exceeded the Provincial Water Quality Objective (PWQO) of 0.03 mg/L at all 16 stations (Table 3.2.1, Figure 3.1.1). Values ranged from 0.049 mg/L to a high of 0.119 mg/L at Station T2. Total phosphorus concentrations were slightly higher downstream of all the PCPs [i.e. Pottersburg (T2), Vauxhall (T3), Greenway (T6), Adelaide (T9) and Oxford (T14)] compared to upstream (Stations T1, T4, T5, T8 and T7, respectively).

E. coli counts exceeded the Provincial Water Quality Objective (PWQO) of 100 CFU/100 ml at 14 stations. Values ranged from 460 to 1420 CFU/100 ml (Table 3.2.1, Figure 3.1.2) with the highest count being observed downstream of the Adelaide PCP (T9). Counts were low for both upstream stations on the north branch of the Thames River (Stations T10 and T8 had < 2 CFU/100 ml). E. coli counts were slightly higher downstream of four out of five

TABLE 3.1: SUMMARY OF PHYSICAL DATA FROM THAMES RIVER, FALL - 2011.

bouldercobble gravel sand silt clay (m) (cm) (m/s) (mg/L) ° C u S/cm Algae

Thames RiverT1 10 40 20 30 50 35.0 7.9 0.57 7.6 16.7 795 commonT2 10 40 25 20 5 35 27.0 8.1 0.59 8.1 17.6 794 sparseT4 5 40 30 20 5 45 31.5 8.1 0.72 8.6 17.9 800 moderateT3 30 30 40 40 45.0 8.1 0.37 8.4 18.2 812 sparseAverage South Branch 42.5 34.6 8.0 0.56 8.2 17.6 800

T10 10 35 35 20 40 30.0 8.1 0.56 8.9 19.0 515 moderateT8 40 30 30 40 31.5 8.2 0.85 8.6 19.0 510 abundantT9 10 40 25 25 30 30.5 8.1 0.72 8.9 18.9 532 sparseAverage North Branch 36.7 30.7 8.1 0.71 8.8 19.0 519

T5 25 35 35 5 75 27.5 8.2 0.69 9.4 18.5 627 moderateT6 20 40 40 60 24.0 8.0 0.45 8.9 19.5 708 moderateAverage 67.5 25.8 8.1 0.57 9.2 19.0 668

T7* 10 45 25 20 55 37.5 8.1 0.59 9.0 15.6 730 commonT14 50 30 20 35 50.0 7.9 0.53 8.7 16.0 747 sparseT11 15 50 20 15 35 45.0 7.9 0.57 8.4 19.6 477 sparseAverage 41.7 44.2 8.0 0.6 8.7 17.1 651

T12 50 30 15 5 50 36.5 8.3 0.56 10.1 16.0 722 commonT13 65 25 10 50 42.5 8.3 0.68 10.1 16.3 725 commonT13A* 70 20 10 45 35.0 8.3 0.79 10.8 16.6 725 commonT15* 10 25 40 20 5 45 46.5 8.3 0.76 9.8 15.4 715 sparseAverage 47.5 40.1 8.3 0.7 10.2 16.1 722

* Station T7 was relocated in 2010 to a larger riffle on the south side of the Thames River, approximately 100m downstream of the original location.*Station T13A was added in 2011 located approximately 400m dowstream form the Giles Bridge*Station T15 was relocated in 2011 to a more suitable riffle approximately 1km downstream from the Giles Bridge

Station Temperature Conductivity AttachedDepth pH VelocitySubstrate type and characteristics (%) Width D.O.

Station

TABLE 3.2.1: WATER CHEMISTRY RESULTS FOR THE THAMES RIVER, MARCH 2011.

Parameter Units D.LT1 T2 T4 T3 T10 T8 T9 T5 T6 T7 T14 T11 T12 T13 T15 T16

PWQO

Date sampled 1-Mar 1-Mar 1-Mar 1-Mar 1-Mar 1-Mar 1-Mar 1-Mar 1-Mar 1-Mar 1-Mar 1-Mar 2-Mar 2-Mar 2-Mar 2-Mar

Temperature ° C 0.6 0.5 0.6 1.1 0.5 0.6 1.1 1.1 2.2 1.4 1.6 1.4 1.3 0.9 0.9 1.0

pH 7.85 7.86 7.84 7.85 8.04 8.05 8.13 8.14 7.89 8.02 8.01 8.03 8.03 8.13 8.10 8.06

D.O mg/L 15.07 14.98 15.06 13.87 17.17 17.12 17.18 15.58 14.72 15.84 13.86 15.56 15.02 14.96 15.01 14.69

Conductivity µS/cm 554 560 572 585 536 532 508 557 619 581 605 582 665 655 664 666

Nitrate-N mg/L 0.1 8.11 8.03 8.16 7.72 9.10 9.11 9.16 8.51 8.33 8.45 8.57 8.51 7.87 8.14 8.10 7.90

Nitrite-N mg/L 0.3 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30

Ammonia as N mg/L 0.05 0.220 0.229 0.184 0.137 0.095 0.088 0.132 0.147 0.192 0.140 0.157 0.133 0.163 0.163 0.222 0.166

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen mg/L 0.15 1.05 1.06 1.09 0.72 0.63 0.58 0.76 0.75 0.83 0.76 0.76 0.89 0.85 0.86 0.83 0.84

Phosphorus, Total mg/L 0.03 0.084 0.119 0.096 0.102 0.049 0.054 0.060 0.074 0.084 0.088 0.089 0.087 0.060 0.061 0.067 0.052 0.03

Phosphorus, Dissoloved mg/L 0.05 0.072 0.1 0.1 0.1 <0.050 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 <0.050 <0.050

Total Suspended Solids mg/L 3 35.6 57.6 51.2 43.2 4 5.6 6 28 25.6 40.8 36.4 36.4 29.2 34.8 33.2 29.6

Dissolved Metals

Aluminium (Al) mg/L 0.01 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 0.075a

Antimony (Ab) mg/L 0.005 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 0.02

Arsenic (As) mg/L 0.001 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 0.1

Barium (Ba) mg/L 0.01 0.031 0.031 0.029 0.030 0.026 0.026 0.024 0.027 0.028 0.031 0.029 0.028 0.028 0.028 0.029 0.027

Beryllium (Be) mg/L 0.001 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 0.011-1.1

Bismuth (Bi) mg/L 0.001 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010

Boron (B) mg/L 0.05 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 0.2

Cadmium (Cd) mg/L 0.0001 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 0.0002

Calcium (Ca) mg/L 0.5 72.3 73.5 71.8 74.8 76.6 82.4 80.3 76.4 76.5 85.7 76.0 74.6 80.6 77.8 75.3 69.9

Chromium (Cr) mg/L 0.001 0.0029 0.0026 0.0029 0.0034 0.0026 0.003 0.0031 0.0031 0.0037 0.0040 0.0038 0.0029 0.0040 0.0037 0.0033 0.0027

Cobalt (Co) mg/L 0.0005 <0.00050 <0.00050 <0.00050 <0.00050 <0.00050 <0.00050 <0.00050 <0.00050 <0.00050 <0.00050 <0.00050 <0.00050 <0.00050 <0.00050 <0.00050 <0.00050 0.0009

Copper (Cu) mg/L 0.001 0.0013 0.0013 0.0012 0.0016 0.0011 0.0014 0.0016 0.0012 0.0016 0.0018 0.0017 0.0014 0.0016 0.0016 0.0018 0.0012 0.005

Iron (Fe) mg/L 0.05 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 0.3

Lead (Pb) mg/L 0.001 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 0.0013 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 0.005

Magnesium (Mg) mg/L 0.5 15.1 14.8 14.3 15.9 14.5 18.1 18.3 14.3 18.4 19.9 18.1 15.0 16.2 16.0 14.0 12.2

Manganese (Mn) mg/L 0.001 0.0083 0.0070 0.0072 0.0082 0.0044 0.0047 0.0051 0.0071 0.0111 0.0090 0.0088 0.0064 0.0091 0.0082 0.0087 0.0064

Molybdenum (Mo) mg/L 0.001 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010

Nickel (Ni) mg/L 0.002 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 0.025

Potassium (K) mg/L 1 3.2 3.2 3.1 3.7 2.4 2.7 2.6 2.7 3.700 3.7 3.2 2.8 3.2 3 2.9 2.5

Selenium (Se) mg/L 0.005 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 0.1

Silicon (Si) mg/L 0.1 3.7 3.7 3.7 4.2 3.5 4.2 4.3 3.7 4.6 5.2 4.7 3.8 4.2 4.2 3.7 3.0

Silver (Ag) mg/L 0.0001 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010

Sodium (Na) mg/L 0.5 30.3 32.2 29.2 37.4 16.4 19.7 22.5 26.9 36.5 31.8 36.7 29.7 33.5 31.2 31.0 26.9

Strontium (Sr) mg/L 0.001 0.288 0.276 0.275 0.273 0.452 0.46 0.435 0.316 0.316 0.334 0.319 0.323 0.339 0.343 0.339 0.326

Thallium (Tl) mg/L 0.0003 <0.00030 <0.00030 <0.00030 <0.00030 <0.00030 <0.00030 <0.00030 <0.00030 <0.00030 <0.00030 <0.00030 <0.00030 <0.00030 <0.00030 <0.00030 <0.00030

Tin (Sn) mg/L 0.001 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010

Titanium (Ti) mg/L 0.002 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020

Tungsten (W) mg/L 0.01 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

Uranium (U) mg/L 0.005 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050

Vanadium (V) mg/L 0.001 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010

Zinc (Zn) mg/L 0.003 <0.0030 <0.0030 <0.0030 0.0034 <0.0030 <0.0030 <0.0030 <0.0030 0.0034 <0.0030 <0.0030 <0.0030 <0.0030 <0.0030 <0.0030 <0.0030 0.03

Zirconium (Zr) mg/L 0.004 <0.0040 <0.0040 <0.0040 <0.0040 <0.0040 <0.0040 <0.0040 <0.0040 <0.0040 <0.0040 <0.0040 <0.0040 <0.0040 <0.0040 <0.0040 <0.0040

E.coli CFU/100mL 1 750 890 630 840 1 2 1420 460 1230 830 600 620 1270 1360 1020 1140 100

Total coliforms CFU/100mL 10 10800 9600 15600 12100 210 230 5800 4600 12000 11600 12400 10600 8700 8800 9100 10200

Fecal coliform (FC) CFU/100mL 1 750 890 760 1130 1 4 1440 630 1550 880 810 920 1830 1500 1410 1290

Fecal streptococci (FS) CFU/100mL 2 2890 3100 2730 2880 54 70 420 2420 2690 2130 1680 1710 1690 1220 1160 1210FC/FS Ratio 0.26 0.29 0.28 0.39 0.02 0.06 3.43 0.26 0.58 0.41 0.48 0.54 1.08 1.23 1.22 1.07

Exceeds Provincial Water Quality Objectivea measured in clay free samples.



PCPs [i.e. Pottersburg (T2), Vauxhall (T3), Greenway (T6) and Adelaide (T9) compared to upstream (Stations T1, T4, T5 and T8, respectively).

Water samples were collected on May 16, 2011 under wet conditions; the city of London had received an immense amount of precipitation two days prior to the sampling event (Table 2.4). Up to 91.4 cm of rain were recorded in parts of London. Total phosphorus concentrations exceeded the PWQO of 0.03 mg/L at all 16 stations (Table 3.2.2, Figure 3.1.1). Values ranged from 0.095 mg/L to a high of 0.219 mg/L at Station T9. Total phosphorus concentrations were higher downstream of four of the five PCPs [i.e. Pottersburg (T2), Greenway (T6), Adelaide (T9) and Oxford (T14)] compared to upstream (Stations T1, T5, T8 and T7, respectively).

E. coli counts exceeded the PWQO of 100 CFU/100 ml at all stations. Values ranged from 900 to 6300 CFU/100 ml (Table 3.2.2, Figure 3.1.2), with the highest counts being observed at Stations T12 (6300 CFU/100ml) and T14 (downstream of the Oxford PCP) (6000 CFU/100ml). Lower counts were noted on the north branch of the Thames River (Stations T8 and T10 ranged from 900-1100 CFU/100 ml). E. coli counts were higher downstream of four out of five PCPs [i.e. Vauxhall (T3), Greenway (T6), Adelaide (T9) and Oxford (T14) compared to upstream (Stations T4, T5, T8, and T13 respectively).

Water samples were collected on August 18, 2011 under dry conditions. Precipitation was recorded on that day, but sampling was completed before the rain (Table 2.4). Total phosphorus concentrations exceeded the PWQO of 0.03 mg/L at all 16 stations (Table 3.2.3, Figure 3.1.1). Values ranged from 0.042 mg/L to a high of 0.194 mg/L at Station T6. Total phosphorus concentrations were higher downstream of four of the five PCPs [i.e. Pottersburg (T2), Vauxhall (T3), Greenway (T6) and Adelaide (T9)] compared to upstream (Stations T1, T4, T5, and T8, respectively).

E. coli counts exceeded the PWQO of 100 CFU/100 ml at Stations T3, T6, T7 and T14. Values ranged from 120 to 1460 CFU/100 ml (Table 3.2.3, Figure 3.1.2) with the highest count being observed at Stations T6 (downstream of the Greenway PCP). E. coli counts were higher downstream of four out of five PCPs [i.e. Pottersburg (T2),Vauxhall (T3), Greenway (T6) and Oxford (T14) compared to upstream (Stations T1,T4, T5, and T7 respectively).

Water samples were collected on November 28 and 29, 2011 under wet conditions (Table 2.4). Heavy rains were noted on the day of sampling (up to 62.5 mm). Total phosphorus

Station

TABLE 3.2.2: WATER CHEMISTRY RESULTS FOR THE THAMES RIVER, MAY 2011.

Parameter Units D.LT1 T2 T4 T3 T10 T8 T9 T5 T6 T7 T14 T11 T12 T13 T15 T16

PWQO

Date sampled 16-MAY-11 16-MAY-11 16-MAY-11 16-MAY-11 16-MAY-11 16-MAY-11 16-MAY-11 16-MAY-11 16-MAY-11 16-MAY-11 16-MAY-11 16-MAY-11 16-MAY-11 16-MAY-11 16-MAY-11 16-MAY-11

Temperature ° C 10.9 10.8 10.8 11.0 13.7 13.9 13.2 12.5 12.7 12.7 12.7 12.9 13.1 13.4 13.4 13.4

pH 7.87 7.88 7.86 7.88 7.73 7.74 7.72 7.73 7.72 7.77 7.76 7.72 7.74 7.66 7.76 7.62

D.O mg/L 10.25 10.22 10.24 10.05 11.03 10.61 9.85 9.81 8.98 9.73 9.33 9.61 8.85 8.66 8.75 8.75


Nitrate-N mg/L 0.1 6.52 7.08 7.03 6.62 6.71 6.25 6.20 6.41 6.05 6.24 6.38 6.01 5.38 5.14 5.07 4.81

Nitrite-N mg/L 0.3 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30 <0.30

Ammonia as N mg/L 0.05 0.107 0.135 0.160 0.133 0.277 0.267 0.260 0.212 0.290 0.235 0.222 0.244 0.158 0.171 0.181 0.182



Phosphorus, Dissoloved mg/L 0.05 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050

Total Suspended Solids mg/L 3 27.6 40.4 35.6 36.8 33.2 40.4 74.8 41.6 37.6 44.8 48.4 90.8 89.6 75.6 100.0 105.0

Dissolved Metals

Aluminium (Al) mg/L 0.01 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 0.075a

Antimony (Ab) mg/L 0.005 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 0.02

Arsenic (As) mg/L 0.001 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 0.1

Barium (Ba) mg/L 0.01 0.039 0.035 0.034 0.035 0.024 0.024 0.025 0.027 0.025 0.026 0.025 0.026 0.025 0.026 0.025 0.025

Beryllium (Be) mg/L 0.001 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 0.011-1.1

Bismuth (Bi) mg/L 0.001 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010

Boron (B) mg/L 0.05 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 0.2

Cadmium (Cd) mg/L 0.0001 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 0.0002

Calcium (Ca) mg/L 0.5 92.6 88.3 86.1 87.3 69.3 69.2 71.0 75.2 73.9 72.9 72.8 73.6 69.5 70.3 69.2 69.3

Chromium (Cr) mg/L 0.001 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010

Cobalt (Co) mg/L 0.0005 <0.00050 <0.00050 <0.00050 <0.00050 <0.00050 <0.00050 <0.00050 <0.00050 <0.00050 <0.00050 <0.00050 <0.00050 <0.00050 <0.00050 <0.00050 <0.00050 0.0009

Copper (Cu) mg/L 0.001 0.0017 0.0019 0.0019 0.0020 0.0018 0.0017 0.0019 0.0021 0.0021 0.0019 0.0021 0.0033 0.0021 0.0018 0.0018 0.0018 0.005

Iron (Fe) mg/L 0.05 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 0.3

Lead (Pb) mg/L 0.001 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 0.005

Magnesium (Mg) mg/L 0.5 19.5 16.9 16.8 16.6 13.6 14.0 14.1 14.0 13.9 13.8 13.2 14.1 12.6 13.6 13.0 13.5

Manganese (Mn) mg/L 0.001 0.0014 <0.0010 <0.0010 0.0012 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010

Molybdenum (Mo) mg/L 0.001 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010

Nickel (Ni) mg/L 0.002 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 0.025

Potassium (K) mg/L 1 3.6 3.3 3.2 3.4 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.200 3.1 3.2 3.1 3 3 2.8 2.9

Selenium (Se) mg/L 0.005 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 0.1

Silicon (Si) mg/L 0.1 2.3 2.3 2.2 2.2 1.2 1.1 1.3 1.8 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.2

Silver (Ag) mg/L 0.0001 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010

Sodium (Na) mg/L 0.5 24.4 24.2 23.4 30.8 13.7 14.3 15.6 18.9 22.1 20.1 21.4 20.1 19.1 20.8 20.3 20.0

Strontium (Sr) mg/L 0.001 0.405 0.330 0.331 0.331 0.377 0.39 0.404 0.333 0.326 0.329 0.331 0.353 0.366 0.371 0.372 0.374

Thallium (Tl) mg/L 0.0003 <0.00030 <0.00030 <0.00030 <0.00030 <0.00030 <0.00030 <0.00030 <0.00030 <0.00030 <0.00030 <0.00030 <0.00030 <0.00030 <0.00030 <0.00030 <0.00030

Tin (Sn) mg/L 0.001 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010

Titanium (Ti) mg/L 0.002 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020

Tungsten (W) mg/L 0.01 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

Uranium (U) mg/L 0.005 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050

Vanadium (V) mg/L 0.001 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010

Zinc (Zn) mg/L 0.003 <0.0030 <0.0030 <0.0030 <0.0030 <0.0030 <0.0030 <0.0030 <0.0030 <0.0030 <0.0030 <0.0030 <0.0030 <0.0030 <0.0030 <0.0030 <0.0030 0.03

Zirconium (Zr) mg/L 0.004 <0.0040 <0.0040 <0.0040 <0.0040 <0.0040 <0.0040 <0.0040 <0.0040 <0.0040 <0.0040 <0.0040 <0.0040 <0.0040 <0.0040 <0.0040 <0.0040

E.coli CFU/100mL 100 3300 2700 2800 3700 1100 900 1500 2900 4200 4100 6000 2600 6300 5200 3200 2800 100

Total coliforms CFU/100mL 1000 26000 28000 21000 36000 5000 11000 12000 15000 22000 25000 35000 28000 31000 30000 24000 33000

Fecal coliform (FC) CFU/100mL 100 3300 3700 3200 3800 1500 3500 4400 3100 7000 5900 8400 2600 7800 6600 4000 4200

Fecal streptococci (FS) CFU/100mL 100 3000 1800 2300 2400 1900 1300 2800 3500 3800 3200 6600 3900 4200 5000 2900 4600FC/FS Ratio 1.10 2.06 1.39 1.58 0.79 2.69 1.57 0.89 1.84 1.84 1.27 0.67 1.86 1.32 1.38 0.91

Exceeds Provincial Water Quality Objectivea measured in clay free samples.

Station

TABLE 3.2.3: WATER CHEMISTRY RESULTS FOR THE THAMES RIVER, AUGUST 2011.

Variable Units D.LT1 T2 T4 T3 T10 T8 T9 T5 T6 T7 T14 T11 T12 T13 T15 T16

PWQO

Date sampled 18-AUG-11 18-AUG-11 18-AUG-11 18-AUG-11 18-AUG-11 18-AUG-11 18-AUG-11 18-AUG-11 18-AUG-11 18-AUG-11 18-AUG-11 18-AUG-11 18-AUG-11 18-AUG-11 18-AUG-11 18-AUG-11

Temperature ° C 25.2 24.8 25.5 25.0 26.2 23.9 23.7 23.7 24.6 22.9 22.9 23.6 23.2 23.3 22.6 22.7

pH 8.48 8.36 8.31 8.34 7.98 7.80 8.03 8.10 7.95 8.11 8.02 8.09 8.30 8.29 8.20 8.21

D.O mg/L 16.54 13.47 12.93 12.69 7.57 7.93 7.74 9.56 8.18 9.16 8.32 8.91 8.50 8.63 4.73 8.96


Nitrate-N mg/L 0.1 3.54 3.81 3.77 3.52 1.56 1.61 2.59 3.55 5.21 3.72 6.13 3.74 3.28 3.38 3.34 3.39

Nitrite-N mg/L 0.3 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 0.17 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10

Ammonia as N mg/L 0.05 0.053 <0.050 0.059 0.065 0.126 0.056 <0.050 <0.050 0.062 <0.050 0.072 <0.050 <0.050 0.065 <0.050 <0.050



Phosphorus, Dissoloved mg/L 0.05 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050

Total Suspended Solids mg/L 3 14.8 9.2 11.6 9.6 4.8 3.2 6.4 16.4 35.2 17.6 7.6 13.2 16.0 65.6 16.0 17.2

Dissolved Metals

Aluminium (Al) mg/L 0.01 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.075a

Antimony (Ab) mg/L 0.005 0.0050 0.0050 0.0050 0.0050 0.0050 0.0050 0.0050 0.0050 0.0050 0.0050 0.0050 0.0050 0.0050 0.0050 0.0050 0.0050 0.02

Arsenic (As) mg/L 0.001 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.1

Barium (Ba) mg/L 0.01 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010

Beryllium (Be) mg/L 0.001 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.011-1.1

Bismuth (Bi) mg/L 0.001 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010

Boron (B) mg/L 0.05 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.2

Cadmium (Cd) mg/L 0.0001 0.00010 0.00010 0.00010 0.00010 0.00010 0.00010 0.00010 0.00010 0.00010 0.00010 0.00010 0.00010 0.00010 0.00010 0.00010 0.00010 0.0002

Calcium (Ca) mg/L 0.5 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50

Chromium (Cr) mg/L 0.001 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010

Cobalt (Co) mg/L 0.0005 0.00050 0.00050 0.00050 0.00050 0.00050 0.00050 0.00050 0.00050 0.00050 0.00050 0.00050 0.00050 0.00050 0.00050 0.00050 0.00050 0.0009

Copper (Cu) mg/L 0.001 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.005

Iron (Fe) mg/L 0.05 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.3

Lead (Pb) mg/L 0.001 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.005

Magnesium (Mg) mg/L 0.5 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50

Manganese (Mn) mg/L 0.001 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010

Molybdenum (Mo) mg/L 0.001 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010

Nickel (Ni) mg/L 0.002 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.025

Potassium (K) mg/L 1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Selenium (Se) mg/L 0.005 0.0050 0.0050 0.0050 0.0050 0.0050 0.0050 0.0050 0.0050 0.0050 0.0050 0.0050 0.0050 0.0050 0.0050 0.0050 0.0050 0.1

Silicon (Si) mg/L 1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Silver (Ag) mg/L 0.0001 0.00010 0.00010 0.00010 0.00010 0.00010 0.00010 0.00010 0.00010 0.00010 0.00010 0.00010 0.00010 0.00010 0.00010 0.00010 0.00010

Sodium (Na) mg/L 5 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 0.50 0.50 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Strontium (Sr) mg/L 0.001 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010

Thallium (Tl) mg/L 0.0003 0.00030 0.00030 0.00030 0.00030 0.00030 0.00030 0.00030 0.00030 0.00030 0.00030 0.00030 0.00030 0.00030 0.00030 0.00030 0.00030

Tin (Sn) mg/L 0.001 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010

Titanium (Ti) mg/L 0.002 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020

Tungsten (W) mg/L 0.01 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010

Uranium (U) mg/L 0.005 0.0050 0.0050 0.0050 0.0050 0.0050 0.0050 0.0050 0.0050 0.0050 0.0050 0.0050 0.0050 0.0050 0.0050 0.0050 0.0050

Vanadium (V) mg/L 0.001 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010

Zinc (Zn) mg/L 0.003 0.0030 0.0030 0.0030 0.0030 0.0030 0.0030 0.0030 0.0030 0.0030 0.0030 0.0030 0.0030 0.0030 0.0030 0.0030 0.0030 0.03

Zirconium (Zr) mg/L 0.004 0.0040 0.0040 0.0040 0.0040 0.0040 0.0040 0.0040 0.0040 0.0040 0.0040 0.0040 0.0040 0.0040 0.0040 0.0040 0.0040

E.coli CFU/100mL 10 30 80 100 150 30 90 60 90 1460 120 270 50 <10 90 10 10 100Total coliforms CFU/100mL 100 400 800 600 1300 200 700 600 1000 10800 900 12500 800 1300 4200 1800 1500

Exceeds Provincial Water Quality Objectivea measured in clay free samples.b Detection Limit Adjusted

FIGURE 3.1.1: SEASONAL PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATIONS, THAMES RIVER, 2011.

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

T1 T2 T4 T3 T10 T8 T9 T5 T6 T7 T14 T11 T12 T13 T13A T15

Station

Tota

l Pho

spho

rus

(mg/

L)

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Mar-11 May-11 Aug-11 Nov-11 PWQO

South Thames North Thames Middle Thames Lower Thames

FIGURE 3.1.2: SEASONAL E.coli CONCENTRATIONS, THAMES RIVER, 2011.

1

10

100

1000

10000

100000

T1 T2 T4 T3 T10 T8 T9 T5 T6 T7 T14 T11 T12 T13 T13A T15

Station

E.co

li (C

FU/1

00m

L)

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Mar-11 May-11 Aug-11 Nov-11 PWQO

South Thames North Thames Middle Thames Lower Thames



concentrations exceeded the PWQO of 0.03 mg/L at all 16 stations (Table 3.2.4, Figure 3.1.1). Values ranged from 0.031 mg/L to a high of 0.198 mg/L at Station T1. Total phosphorus concentrations were higher downstream of two of the five PCPs, (i.e. Greenway Station T6 and Adelaide Station T9) compared to upstream Stations T5 and T8, respectively (Figure 3.1.1). There was a large difference in the phosphorus concentration in water from the north and south branches of the Thames River. High concentrations, as a result of very heavy rainfall, were seen entering the City of London at Station T1 (0.198 mg/L). Contributions from upstream non-point sources were higher than contributions from any of the PCPs.

E. coli counts exceeded the PWQO of 100 CFU/100 ml at all 16 stations. Values ranged from 108 to 33,000 CFU/100 ml (Table 3.2.4, Figure 3.1.2) with the highest counts being observed downstream of the Vauxhall PCP (33,000 CFU/100 ml) and downstream of the Greenway PCP (22,000 CFU/100 ml). E. coli counts were higher downstream of four out of five PCPs [i.e. Pottersburg (T2), Vauxhall (T3), Greenway (T6) and Adelaide (T9)] compared to upstream (Stations T1, T4, T5, and T8 respectively).

3.2.2 Water Chemistry 2008-2011

The highest average total phosphorus concentrations from 2008 to 2010 were in August, under dry conditions (no rainfall in 24 hours). Fourteen of the sixteen stations had concentrations that surpassed 0.100 mg/L (Figure 3.1.3).

Average concentrations were higher downstream of all pollution control plants (Stations T2, T3, T9, T6 and T14) compared to upstream (Stations T1, T4, T8, T5 and T7). Some of the greatest differences between upstream and downstream were seen at the Vauxhall PCP (difference of 0.075 mg/L) and Greenway PCP (difference of 0.091 mg/L) in the summer months (Figure 3.1.3). A large difference between upstream and downstream was also seen in the fall at the Greenway PCP (0.096 mg/L). The average phosphorus concentration was greater than 0.100 mg/L in all four seasons downstream of the Greenway PCP. Moreover, the average concentration surpassed 0.200 mg/L in the summer downstream of the Greenway and Vauxhall PCPs. Although average total phosphorus concentrations were higher downstream of most PCPs, algal abundance did not appear to be greater at the downstream stations.

The PWQO for phosphorus (0.03 mg/L) was exceeded at most stations in all seasons. In the spring, summer and fall, the average lowest concentrations were generally noted at the

Station

TABLE 3.2.4: WATER CHEMISTRY RESULTS FOR THE THAMES RIVER, NOVEMBER 2011.

Variable Units D.LT1 T2 T4 T3 T10 T8 T9 T5 T6 T7 T14 T11 T12 T13 T13A

Date sampled 29-Nov-11 29-Nov-11 29-Nov-11 29-Nov-11 29-Nov-11 29-Nov-11 29-Nov-11 29-Nov-11 29-Nov-11 28-Nov-11 28-Nov-11 28-Nov-11 28-Nov-11 28-Nov-11 28-Nov-11 28-

Temperature ° C 7.0 6.6 6.7 7.2 7.5 5.9 6.0 6.6 7.1 8.2 8.2 8.1 8.3 8.3 8.2pH 7.70 7.80 7.85 7.82 7.49 8.15 7.78 7.90 7.82 7.94 7.91 7.93 7.95 7.89 8.00D.O mg/L n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/aConductivity µS/cm 613 415 476 499 649 612 560 513 566 631 638 640 585 602 598Nitrate-N mg/L 0.1 6.45 4.52 4.77 4.78 3.12 4.61 3.47 4.69 4.98 5.76 6.21 5.62 4.01 4.04 4.07Nitrite-N mg/L 0.1 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <Ammonia as N mg/L 0.05 0.083 0.085 0.081 0.110 0.068 0.056 <0.050 0.073 0.108 0.065 0.075 0.063 0.079 0.061 0.061 0Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen mg/L 0.15 1.10 0.88 0.96 1.07 0.71 0.68 0.98 1.06 1.04 0.95 0.99 0.81 0.86 0.86 0.93Phosphorus, Total mg/L 0.03 0.198 0.180 0.178 0.179 0.041 0.031 0.048 0.105 0.118 0.117 0.099 0.085 0.114 0.109 0.100 0Phosphorus, Dissoloved mg/L 0.05 0.096 0.083 0.072 0.092 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 0.066 0.057 0.054 0.051 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <Total Suspended Solids mg/L 3 65.6 108 152 110 98.8 24.0 12.8 43.2 88.0 68.8 49.6 43.2 68.4 61.6 41.2Dissolved Metals

Aluminium (Al) mg/L 0.01 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <Antimony (Ab) mg/L 0.005 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0Arsenic (As) mg/L 0.001 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0Barium (Ba) mg/L 0.01 0.036 0.026 0.027 0.027 0.033 0.032 0.024 0.029 0.028 0.038 0.036 0.037 0.032 0.033 0.033 0Beryllium (Be) mg/L 0.001 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0Bismuth (Bi) mg/L 0.001 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0Boron (B) mg/L 0.05 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <Cadmium (Cd) mg/L 0.0001 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0Calcium (Ca) mg/L 0.5 89.3 68.4 69.2 67.9 106 95.1 77.1 73.1 78.7 90.5 88.7 88.2 78.1 80.0 80.3Chromium (Cr) mg/L 0.001 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0Cobalt (Co) mg/L 0.0005 <0.00050 <0.00050 <0.00050 <0.00050 <0.00050 <0.00050 <0.00050 <0.00050 <0.00050 <0.00050 <0.00050 <0.00050 <0.00050 <0.00050 <0.00050 <0Copper (Cu) mg/L 0.001 0.0015 0.0017 0.0016 0.0018 0.0013 <0.0010 0.0010 0.0031 0.0016 0.0017 0.0018 0.0016 0.0018 0.0017 0.0017 0Iron (Fe) mg/L 0.05 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <0.050 <Lead (Pb) mg/L 0.001 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0Magnesium (Mg) mg/L 0.5 17.5 12.7 12.9 12.9 18.5 20.1 15.7 13.9 15.9 17.2 17.0 17.1 14.9 15.2 15.2Manganese (Mn) mg/L 0.001 0.0034 0.0023 0.0028 0.0032 0.0016 <0.0010 0.0299 0.0023 0.0013 0.0013 0.0013 0.0011 <0.0010 0.0011 <0.0010 <0Molybdenum (Mo) mg/L 0.001 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0Nickel (Ni) mg/L 0.002 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0Potassium (K) mg/L 1 4.6 3.8 3.7 3.7 3.2 3.4 3.8 4.0 3.7 3.9 3.9 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6Selenium (Se) mg/L 0.005 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0Silicon (Si) mg/L 1 3.2 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.9 1.2 1.7 2.4 2.1 2.7 2.6 2.5 2.2 2.3 2.2Silver (Ag) mg/L 0.0001 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0.00010 <0Sodium (Na) mg/L 0.5 16.8 13.8 14.0 16.8 14.0 19.9 18.5 14.8 21.1 20.1 20.3 20.4 24.3 24.5 24.7Strontium (Sr) mg/L 0.001 0.349 0.229 0.236 0.242 0.590 0.736 0.574 0.345 0.423 0.362 0.372 0.400 0.359 0.379 0.371 0Thallium (Tl) mg/L 0.0003 <0.00030 <0.00030 <0.00030 <0.00030 <0.00030 <0.00030 <0.00030 <0.00030 <0.00030 <0.00030 <0.00030 <0.00030 <0.00030 <0.00030 <0.00030 <0Tin (Sn) mg/L 0.001 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0Titanium (Ti) mg/L 0.002 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0.0020 <0Tungsten (W) mg/L 0.01 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <Uranium (U) mg/L 0.005 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0Vanadium (V) mg/L 0.001 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0.0010 <0Zinc (Zn) mg/L 0.003 <0.0030 <0.0030 <0.0030 <0.0030 <0.0030 <0.0030 <0.0030 0.0036 <0.0030 <0.0030 <0.0030 <0.0030 <0.0030 <0.0030 <0.0030 <0Zirconium (Zr) mg/L 0.004 <0.0040 <0.0040 <0.0040 <0.0040 <0.0040 <0.0040 <0.0040 <0.0040 <0.0040 <0.0040 <0.0040 <0.0040 <0.0040 <0.0040 <0.0040 <0E.coli CFU/100mL 100 900 11700 8000 33000b 108b 500 1200 8400 22000b 1800 700 1200 1900 2500 2100Total coliforms CFU/100mL 1000 40000b 90000 90000 120000 1600b 1500b 9300b 44000 121000 30000b <10000b 20000b 10000b 20000b 10000b 1F.streptococci CFU/100mL 100 9300 10900 13000 9000 1100 900 2200 8600 7900 10000 5900 5700 2700 1400 2100 2Fecal coliforms CFU/100mL 100 2000 ~11700 8800 ~33000b ~108b 600 2200 12000 ~22000b 3000 2400 1400 4800 4200 2700 5Fecal Col./Fecal strep. 0.2 1.1 0.7 3.7 0.1 0.7 1.0 1.4 2.8 0.3 0.4 0.2 1.8 3.0 1.3

Exceeds Provincial Water Quality Objectivea measured in clay free samples.b Detection Limit Adjusted

FIGURE 3.1.3: PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATIONS FOR THAMES RIVER, 2011 AND AVERAGE OF 2008-2010

WINTER

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

T1 T2 T4 T3T10 T8 T9 T5 T6 T7T14 T11 T12 T13T13

AT15

Station

Tota

l Pho

spho

rus

(mg/

L)

SPRING

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25


AT15

Station

Tota

l Pho

spho

rus

mg/

L

SUMMER

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25


AT15

Station

Tota

l Pho

spho

rus

(mg/

L)

FALL

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25T1 T2 T4 T3T10 T8 T9 T5 T6 T7T14 T11 T12 T13T13

AT15

Station

Tota

l Pho

spho

rus

(mg/

L)

2011

2011

2011

2011

AVERAGE

PWQO

LEGEND



furthest upstream eastern stations (Station T1, T10 and T8). For example, in the fall, the average concentration coming into the City of London was 0.05 mg/L at T1 and 0.036 mg/L at T10. Average concentrations at the other stations ranged from 0.053 mg/L to 0.149 mg/L. Concentrations were lower entering the City of London than they were leaving the City of London, as measured at Station T11, in Kilworth, in three of the four seasons (Figure 3.13). A difference of between 0.008 mg/L and 0.037 mg/L was seen between station T11 and the higher concentration at Station T1 or T10. In the winter, the concentration of phosphorus in water entering the City of London via the north branch of the Thames River (Station T10) was greater (0.087 g/L) than that leaving the City of London as measured at Kilworth Station T11 (0.071 mg/L).

In 2011, seasonal differences were noted in total phosphorus concentrations. They were below average across all stations in the summer months (Figure 3.1.3). They were below average in the winter and fall months in the north branch of the Thames River (Stations T10, T8 and T9). Total phosphorus concentrations were higher than average in the south branch of the Thames River in the winter, spring and fall. For example, in the fall, the concentration at T1 was 0.198 mg/L, which was higher than the average of 0.055 mg/L (Figure 3.1.3). Heavy rains noted in May and November of 2011 may have contributed to the higher than average concentrations noted in these seasons.

The Ministry of the Environment routinely collects water chemistry data from locations in Ontario for the Provincial Water Quality Network. Total phosphorus concentrations at Clarke Road, located just above Station T10, ranged from 0.046 to 0.073 mg/L in 2008. Samples were collected in May, June, August and October. Total phosphorus concentrations ranged from 0.035 to 0.060 mg/L in 2009 when sampled in March, May and July. For one sampling event in September, total phosphorus concentrations were 0.101 mg/L. In 2010, concentrations ranged from 0.021 to 0.076 mg/L in April, May and September. One higher reading was noted in August (0.103 mg/L). The range in total phosphorus concentrations measured in May, June, July and November of 2011 was larger, ranging from 0.046 mg/L to 0.187 mg/L. This range is similar to the present study (0.041 mg/L to 0.195 mg/L).

The lowest average E.coli counts were seen at Stations T1, T10 and T8 in all four seasons (Figure 3.1.4). Counts were < 200 CFU/100 ml at Station T1 on the south branch of the Thames River. Average counts were less than the PWQO at Station T10 in all four seasons and average counts at Station T8 were below the PWQO in three seasons.

FIGURE 3.1.4: E. coli CONCENTRATIONS FOR THAMES RIVER, 2011 AND AVERAGE OF 2008-2010

LEGEND 2011

2011

2011

2011

AVERAGE

PWQO

WINTER

1

10

100

1000

10000


AT15

Station

E. c

oli

Con

cent

ratio

n (C

FU/1

00m

L)

SPRING

1

10

100

1000

10000


AT15

Station

E. c

oli

Con

cent

ratio

n (C

FU/1

00m

L)

SUMMER

01

10

100

1000

10000


AT15

Station

E. c

oli

Con

cent

ratio

n (C

FU/1

00m

L)

FALL

01

10

100

1000

10000

T1 T2 T4 T3T10 T8 T9 T5 T6 T7T14 T11 T12 T13

T13A T15

Station

E. c

oli

Con

cent

ratio

n (C

FU/1

00m

L) 11700 33000 22000



In all four seasons, average counts were slightly lower in water coming into the City of London via the north branch of the Thames River compared to the south branch. For example, in the spring, average concentrations at Station T10 were 47 CFU/100 ml compared to 176 CFU/100 ml at Station T1. In the summer, counts at Station T10 were 29 CFU/100 ml compared to 193 CFU/100 ml at Station T1. Counts were lower entering the City of London than they were leaving the City of London as measured at Station T11, in Kilworth, in all four seasons (Figure 3.14). A difference of between 88 CFU/100 ml and 973 CFU/100 ml was seen between station T11 and the higher of the counts at Station T1 or T10.

The highest average E. coli counts from 2008 to 2010 were seen downstream of the Vauxhall (Station T3) and Greenway (T6) PCPs in the winter, summer and fall (Figure 3.1.4). Average counts were above 1000 CFU/100 ml. Average counts were higher downstream of 4 out of 5 PCPs, the Oxford PCP being the exception. However, high average counts were also noted at Station T5 (2527 CFU/100 ml) in the summer suggesting that other sources of E.coli were in the area. Combined storm and sewer overflows are one possible source. High average counts in and around 1000 CFU/100 ml were also seen in the fall for most of the middle and lower Thames River. Samples in the fall were collected in the non-disinfection period, (i.e, October to March of the following year) and under rainy conditions.

Moderate to heavy rain can trigger bypasses at PCPs. In 2011 there were 30 bypasses at the Greenway PCP of which 26 were bypasses containing raw sewage. At the Vauxhall PCP, there were 31 bypass events. The Pottersburg Creek PCP had 23 raw sewage by-pass events while the Oxford and Adelaide PCPs had 1 and 5 bypasses, respectively. A complete record of all events can be found on the City of London website:

http://www.london.ca/d.aspx?s=/Sewer_and_Wastewater/Sewagetreatment_index.htm

In 2011, the greatest number of exceedances over 1000 CFU/100 ml occurred during periods of high rainfall in the spring and fall. In spring 2011, all stations except Station T8 had E.coli counts above 1000 CFU/100 ml (Figure 3.1.4). Counts peaked at Stations T14 and T12 at 6000 CFU/100 ml and 6200 CFU/100 ml, respectively. In the fall, three stations, T2, T3 and T6 exceeded 10,000 CFU/ 100 ml. All three stations were downstream of PCPs. The highest count was at Station T3 (33,000 CFU/100 ml). Counts were above average at the three most eastern stations (T1, T10 and T8) but were still lower than any other station within that season. Summer E .coli counts were noted to be below average.




3.3 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community

3.3.1 Community 2011

The BioMAP WQI(d) score was < 7 for one site on the Thames River (Station T15), indicating that water quality was impaired (Table 3.3, Figure 3.2).

At six stations (T6, T13A, T11, T12, T13 and T3), the BioMAP WQI(d) scores suggested that the benthic community was stressed (i.e., scores fell in the transitional category between 7 and 9). The FBI scores for the six transitional stations were all in the “good” range except for Station T11, which scored “fairly poor” with a value of 6.13 (Table 3.3, Figure 3.3). Station T11 had the highest percentage of oligochaetes (15%) compared to <8% at the other sites. Higher oligochaete populations are often associated with organic enrichment. The percentage of caddisflies was low at this site (13 %) compared to the other upstream stations that ranged from 16 % to 60 %. The proportion of caddisflies dropped from the previous year of 56%. As a result, the % EPT and % of insects at this site was also lower than the other stations, (e.g., 57 % insects compared to 68 % to 96 %).

Water quality was unimpaired at the remaining 9 sites according to the BioMAP Index (Table A1) and supported by the FBI scores, which ranked water quality as “good” (4.26-5.00) or better. The exception was Station T9, which ranked “fair”.

Simpson’s Reciprocal Index showed no relationship with either the BioMap WQI(d) Index or the FBI Index (Table A1).

3.3.2 Temporal Changes in the BioMAP WQI(d) and FBI Values 2006 – 2011.

Since 2006, water quality in the south branch of the Thames River upstream of the Vauxhall PCP was unimpaired as classified by the BioMAP WQI(d) (Figure 3.2). The average BioMAP Index was greater than 9. There was a drop in the BioMAP Index downstream of the Vauxhall PCP (Station T3). The average value of the BioMAP Index was 7.5, falling in the transitional category. The average FBI Index (6.14) fell in the “fairly poor” category suggesting that substantial pollution was likely. The Vauxhall PCP and combined storm and sewer overflows are possible sources of impairment. In 2011, much of the same conditions prevailed. Conditions were similar to what was found in the baseline study in the fall of 2006. The BioMAP Index was slightly higher in 2011 at Station T2 relative to the average and baseline conditions (Figure 3.2). The Pottersburg PCP appeared to be having no effect on water quality.

TABLE 3.3 : SUMMARY OF BIOLOGICAL METRICS FOR THE THAMES RIVER FALL 2011.

Station T1 T2 T4 T3 T10 T8 T9 T5 T6 T7 T14 T11 T12 T13 T13A T15

Average BioMAP (WQId) 10.3 11.0 10.1 7.2 11.1 11.4 11.0 10.1 8.5 10.7 9.6 7.9 7.9 7.6 8.5 6.8Average FBI 4.70 4.75 4.55 4.51 4.74 4.48 5.53 3.20 4.65 4.61 4.47 6.13 4.44 4.89 4.99 4.94Average Simpson's Reciprocal 5.88 6.62 3.84 5.45 7.07 6.09 5.93 4.98 4.29 6.48 4.65 8.61 10.54 8.80 8.32 8.56Evenness 0.31 0.30 0.25 0.28 0.30 0.27 0.35 0.31 0.25 0.28 0.22 0.45 0.47 0.42 0.37 0.44

Density (per 0.05m2) 646 538 444 385 1197 1567 646 480 831 332 716 528 556 797 729 610Richness (per sample) 35 46 32 38 43 44 35 38 35 42 43 40 42 36 38 41Richness (per site) 81 78 67 58 71 69 67 74 55 68 73 68 79 70 64 67

% Flatworms 1 < 1 5 1 17 6 6 < 1 < 1 2 < 1 1 1 3 2 3% Tubificids 2 3 0 3 < 1 2 1 < 1 2 3 1 15 3 8 5 6% Other worms 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 < 1 < 1 0 0 0 0 0% Leeches 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 < 1 < 1 0 0 < 1 < 1 0% Acarina < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 8 3 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 0 0 0 < 1 0% Water scuds 0 0 0 0 < 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% Aquatic sow bugs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 < 1 < 1 0 0 0 0 < 1 < 1% Crayfish 0 < 1 0 0 < 1 < 1 < 1 0 0 0 0 < 1 0 0 0 0% Beetles 32 23 29 17 7 14 14 5 7 10 7 12 11 11 22 6% Mayflies 25 14 4 22 8 9 7 18 21 < 1 6 13 35 28 14 33% Aquatic moths 1 3 5 3 1 < 1 0 < 1 < 1 3 1 3 4 < 1 2 4% Damselflies 0 0 0 < 1 < 1 0 < 1 0 0 0 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 0 < 1% Dragonflies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% Stoneflies 0 0 < 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 < 1 0 0 9 3 3 3% True bugs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 < 1 0 0 0% Caddisflies 17 31 39 39 30 31 16 60 39 36 51 13 14 24 22 16% Midges 8 10 5 10 18 31 29 7 28 24 15 14 12 7 8 19% Blackflies < 1 4 2 < 1 4 < 1 < 1 0 0 < 1 < 1 0 < 1 < 1 3 < 1% Other flies < 1 2 < 1 < 1 3 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 6 2 < 1 1 0 1 < 1% Snails 0 < 1 0 4 2 < 1 9 2 < 1 4 2 8 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1% Clams and Mussels 12 9 11 < 1 < 1 2 15 6 < 1 8 14 19 6 15 16 7

% Insects 84 87 84 91 72 87 68 91 96 82 82 57 88 74 74 83% Annelids 2 3 0 3 < 1 2 1 < 1 2 4 2 15 3 8 6 6% Crustaceans 0 < 1 0 0 < 1 < 1 < 1 0 < 1 < 1 0 < 1 0 0 < 1 < 1% Shredders 3 4 6 4 2 < 1 < 1 2 2 5 1 6 14 5 6 10% Filter-feeders 30 44 51 38 41 36 36 33 42 41 63 34 19 41 41 25% EPT 42 45 43 61 38 41 23 78 60 37 57 27 58 55 38 53

# of EPT taxa 21 26 23 18 23 24 20 28 18 26 22 21 27 25 23 23

poorest scoresdominant taxa

* BioMAP (WQId) not calculated: poor riffle. Other metrics may also be affected



Since 2006, water quality in the north branch of the Thames River (Stations T10, T8 and T9) was unimpaired as classified by the BioMAP WQI(d) (Figure 3.2). The average BioMAP Index was greater than 9 and remained so in 2011. The Adelaide PCP appeared to be having no effect on water quality.

Water quality at Station T5 just downstream of the forks of the Thames River was unimpaired as reflected in the average BioMAP WQI(d) score (9.8). Relative to baseline conditions in 2006 when the BioMAP WQI(d) score was 5.9, water quality has improved in this area and remains unimpaired in 2011. Springbank dam was functional in 2006 and has been non functional since.

Water quality downstream of the Greenway PCP (Station T6) was impaired as reflected in the average BioMAP WQI(d) score (6.1). The average FBI Index was 6.5 falling in the “fairly poor” category suggesting substantial pollution likely (Figure 3.3). Relative to baseline conditions in 2006 and the average, water quality in 2011 was better (8.5). The area had a greater proportion of caddisflies (39 % compared to only 3 % in 2010) and there were less oligochaetes (2 % in 2011 compared to 30 % in 2010). In addition to the Greenway PCP, there are several combined storm and sewer overflows in this area.

Water quality at Station T7 was impaired as reflected in the average BioMAP WQI(d) score (6.7). Possible sources of impairment included combined storm sewer outfalls, scour and or the up-welling of sulphur springs. In an effort to find a better upstream station for the Oxford PCP, in 2010 Station T7 was relocated 100 m downstream of the original location to the south bank. In 2010, water quality was unimpaired upstream and downstream of the Oxford PCP (>9). The same was observed in 2011. The Oxford PCP did not appear to be affecting water quality.

Water quality on the west side of the City of London at Kilworth (Station T11) was unimpaired according to the average BioMAP Index (10.4) and “good” (4.47) according to the average FBI Index. Water quality appeared to have improved since baseline conditions in 2006 when the BioMAP Index fell in the transitional range (8.5) and the FBI Index rated water quality as “fair” (5.7). However, in 2011, the BioMAP Index fell below the average and baseline conditions (7.9). A larger proportion of oligochaetes were present (15 %) compared to the previous year (1 %) and the proportion of caddisflies was depressed (13 %) compared to 56 % in the previous year.

On the lower Thames River (Stations T12, T13, T13A and T15) average water quality fell in the transitional category (approximately 8) according to the BioMAP Index and was generally

FIGURE 3.2 : BIOMAP WQI(d) VALUES FOR THAMES RIVER, 2011, AVERAGE 2007-2010 AND 2006 BASELINE

Impaired

Unimpaired

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

T1 Ref

T2 T4 T3 T10Ref

T8 T9 T5 T6 T7 T14 T11 T12 T13 T13A T15

Station

WQ

I (d)

Fall 2011 Fall 2006

Average

Pottersburg PCP

Adelaide PCP

Vauxhall PCP

Greenway PCP

Oxford PCP

Dam

FIGURE 3.3: FBI VALUES FOR THAMES RIVER, 2011, AVERAGE OF 2007-2010 AND 2006 BASELINE

Fairly poor

Good

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

T1 Ref

T2 T4 T3 T10Ref

T8 T9 T5 T6 T7 T14 T11 T12 T13 T13A T15

Station

FBI

2011 Average 2006

Pottersburg PCP

Vauxhall PCP

Adelaide PCP

Greenway PCP

Oxford PCP

Dam



“fair” or better according to the FBI Index. In 2011, water quality remained essentially the same at Stations T12 and T13 but was impaired at Station T15 (6.8).

4.0 SUMMARY

In 2011, the areas of the Thames River that had the best water quality included most upstream stations on the south branch (T1, T2 and T4) and the north branch (T10, T8 and T9). The classification of water quality was based on both the BioMAP Index, (e.g., unimpaired) and the FBI Index was mostly (“good”) (Figure 4.1). The Pottersburg and Adelaide PCPs did not appear to be affecting water quality.

Further downstream on the south branch of the Thames River at Station T3, there was a drop in the BioMAP Index (into the transitional zone). Station T3 was located downstream of the Vauxhall PCP. Storm sewer overflows may also occur in this area. Total phosphorus and E.coli concentrations in water were higher downstream of the Vauxhall PCP (T3) compared to upstream (T4) but only in two seasons (winter and summer). The average concentration from prior years has been greater downstream of the Vauxhall PCP compared to upstream in all seasons. Some of the highest total phosphorus (0.179 mg/L) and E.coli (33,000 CFU/100 ml) readings were noted at this site in 2011.

At the forks of the Thames River (T5), water quality was classified as unimpaired according to the BioMAP Index and “excellent” according to the FBI.

For the first time, water quality downstream of the Greenway PCP fell in the transitional category rather than in the impaired. The BioMAP WQI(d)score was 8.5. The BioMAP score was above average and well above the baseline score in 2006. This site may be influenced by many factors such as combined storm/sewer outfalls, tributary outlets and upstream PCPs. Total phosphorus concentrations were higher downstream of the Greenway PCP (T6) in all seasons compared to upstream (Station T5). One of the highest concentrations was seen in the summer 0.194 mg/L. One of the highest E.coli counts in 2011 was at this site (22,000 CFU/100 ml), albeit this count was noted to be during the non-disinfection period for the Greenway plant (October to March) and after a large storm event. Average counts have been higher at the downstream station since 2006.

In 2011, water quality was unimpaired upstream and downstream of the Oxford PCP (>9) as was the case in 2010. The FBI score was “good” (4.26 – 5.0) both upstream and downstream.

Danuta

Oval

Danuta

Oval

Danuta

Oval

Danuta

Typewritten Text

Unimpaired

Danuta

Typewritten Text

?

Danuta

Typewritten Text

Impaired

Danuta

Typewritten Text

Danuta

Typewritten Text

FIGURE 4.1: EVALUATION OF WATER QUALITY IN THE THAMES RIVER BASED ON THE BioMAP AND FBI INDEX 2011 .

Danuta

Typewritten Text

Excellent

Danuta

Typewritten Text

Danuta

Typewritten Text

Very Good

Danuta

Typewritten Text

Good

Danuta

Typewritten Text

Fairly Poor

Danuta

Typewritten Text

Poor

Danuta

Rectangle

Danuta

Rectangle

Danuta

Rectangle

Danuta

Rectangle

Danuta

Rectangle

Danuta

Rectangle

Danuta

Rectangle

Danuta

Rectangle

Danuta

Rectangle

Danuta

Rectangle

Danuta

Rectangle

Danuta

Rectangle

Danuta

Rectangle

Danuta

Rectangle

Danuta

Rectangle

Danuta

Rectangle

Danuta

Oval

Danuta

Oval

Danuta

Oval

Danuta

Oval

Danuta

Oval

Danuta

Oval

Danuta

Rectangle

Danuta

Oval

Danuta

Typewritten Text

Fair

Danuta

Rectangle

Danuta

Rectangle

Danuta

Oval

Danuta

Oval

Danuta

Rectangle

Danuta

Oval

Danuta

Oval

Danuta

Rectangle

ZEAS Staff

Typewritten Text

ZEAS Staff

Typewritten Text

ZEAS Staff

Text Box

T13A

ZEAS Staff

Typewritten Text

ZEAS Staff

Typewritten Text

ZEAS Staff

Typewritten Text

ZEAS Staff

Typewritten Text

Danuta

Oval

ZEAS Staff

Pencil

Danuta

Rectangle



The Oxford Pollution Control Plant did not appear to be affecting water quality. All pollution control plant annual reports for the City of London can be found at the following link:


On the outskirts of the City of London at Kilworth (T11) water quality fell in the transitional category and ranked “fairly poor” according to the FBI. Both scores were below average and below the baseline conditions in 2006. No measured water chemistry variable was tied to either score. Rather, water levels were unusually high on the lower portions of the Thames River during sampling. It was difficult to sample with the T-sampler and water clarity was reduced further leading to difficulties during sampling. Monitoring in 2012 should confirm whether water quality remains compromised in this area or whether the poorer scores were tied to sampling difficulties.

On the lower Thames River (Stations T12, T13, T13A and T15) average water quality fell in the transitional category (approximately 8) according to the BioMAP Index and was generally “fair” or better according to the FBI Index. In 2011, water quality remained essentially the same at Stations T12 and T13 but was now impaired at Station T15 (6.8). Deep water continued to be a problem during sampling. No measured water chemistry variable could explain the lower than average score.

5.0 REFERENCES

Bode, R.W., Novak, M.A., and Abele, L.E. 1991. Methods for Rapid Biological Assessment of Streams. NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, NY. 57p.

Bode, R.W., Novak, M.A., and Abele, L.E. 1996. Quality Assurance Work Plan for

Biological Stream Monitoring in New York State. NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, NY. 89p.

Bontje, B. and A. Ma. 2006. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Study, Thames River, Pottersburg Creek, Medway and Stoney Creek. City of London, Environmental and Engineering Services Department, Pollution Control Operations, August 2006.

D’Amelio, S. 2007. Preliminary Water Quality at Springbank Dam, Thames River, London, Ontario. Trout unlimited Canada Technical Report No. ON-020, April 2007.

Environment Canada. 2011. Effects on Fish Habitat: Benthic Invertebrate Community Survey: Chapter 4 in Metal Mining Environmental Effects Monitoring (EEM) Technical Guidance Document. National Environmental Effects Monitoring Office, Environment Canada, Gatineau, Quebec.




Environment Canada. 2002. Revised guidance for sample sorting and sub-sampling protocols for EEM benthic invertebrate community surveys. Annex A in Metal Mining Guidance Document for Aquatic Environmental Effects Monitoring. National Environmental Effects Monitoring Office, Environment Canada, Gatineau, Quebec.

Environment Canada. 2005. Effects on Fish Habitat: Invertebrate Community Survey. Chapter 4 in Pulp and Paper EEM Technical Guidance Document. National Environmental Effects Monitoring Office, Environment Canada, Gatineau, Quebec.

Griffiths, R.W. 1999a. BioMAP: A How to Manual. Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Policy Planning Branch, Toronto, ON.

Griffiths, R.W. 1999b. BioMAP: Bioassessment of Water Quality. The Centre for Environmental Training, Niagara College, Glendale Campus, Niagara-on-the-Lake, Ontario. 110 pp.

Griffiths, R.W. 1996. A Biological Measure of Water Quality for Creeks, Streams and Rivers. BioMAP: Report SWR-4. Ministry of Environment and Energy, Southwestern Region. 40 pp.

Griffiths, R.W. 1993. BioMAP: Concepts, Protocols and Sampling Procedures for the Southwestern Region of Ontario, Water Resources Assessment Unit, Southwestern Region, Report SWR-1. 30 pp.

Hilsenhoff, W.L. 1982. Using a biotic index to evaluate water quality in streams. Tech Bull. Wisconsin Dept. Nat. Resour. 132. 22pp.

Hilsenhoff, W.L. 1988. Rapid field assessment of organic pollution with a family-level

biotic index. J.N. Am Benthol Soc., 7(1):65-68. Mandaville, S.M. 2002. Benthic macroinvertebrates in freshwaters – taxa tolerance values,

metrics, and protocols. Soil & Water Conservation Society of Metro Halifax. 128 pp. Simpson, E.H. (1949) Measurement of diversity. Nature 163:688 Simpson’s Diversity Index. 2004. Offwell Woodland and Wildlife Trust.

http://www.countrysideinfo.co.uk/simpsons.htm Stantec 2010. Greenway Pollution Control Centre Upgrades and Expansion Class

Environmental Assessment. A report to the City of London. July 2010. ZEAS 2008a. Water Quality Monitoring Program for the Thames River 2006. A report

prepared for the Corporation of the City of London by ZEAS Incorporated, August 2008.

http://www.countrysideinfo.co.uk/simpsons.htm



ZEAS 2008b. Water Quality Monitoring Program for the Thames River 2007. A report prepared for the Corporation of the City of London by ZEAS Incorporated, November 2008.

ZEAS 2009. Water Quality Monitoring Program for the Thames River 2008. A report

prepared for the Corporation of the City of London by ZEAS Incorporated, November 2009.

ZEAS 2011. Water Quality Monitoring Report for the Thames River 2009. A report

prepared for the Corporation of the City of London by ZEAS Incorporated, July 2011. ZEAS 2011. Water Quality Monitoring Report for the Thames River 2010. A report

prepared for the Corporation of the City of London by ZEAS Incorporated, October 2011.


http://www.ec.gc.ca/esee-eem/default.asp?lang=En&n=D450E00E-1


http://www.ec.gc.ca/esee-eem/default.asp?lang=En&n=D450E00E-1



APPENDIX A TAXONOMIC REFERENCES



TAXONOMIC REFERENCES Allen, R.K., and G.F. Edmunds, Jr. 1963. A revision of the genus Ephemerella (Ephemeroptera: Ephemerellidae). VII. The subgenus Eurylophella. The Canadian Entomologist 95: 597-623. Allen, R.K., and G.F. Edwards, Jr. 1965. A review of the genus Ephemerella (Ephemeroptera: Ephemerellidae) VIII. The subgenus Ephemerella in North America. Misc. Publ. Ent. Soc. Am. 4:243-282. Archangelsky, M. 1997. Studies on the Biology, Ecology, and Systematics of the Immature Stages of New World Hydrophiloidea (Coleoptera: Staphyliniformia). Ohio Biological Survey, Columbus, Ohio. 207pp. Bednarik, A.F., and W.P. McCafferty. 1979. Biosystematic Revision of the Genus Stenonema (Ephemeroptera: Heptageniidae). Canadian Bulletin of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, Bulletin 201, Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Bousfield, E.L., 1967. Freshwater amphipod crustaceans of glaciated North America. The Canadian Field-Naturalist. Vol. 72, No. 2, pp. 55-113. Brinkhurst, R.O. 1986. Guide to the Freshwater Aquatic Microdrile Oligochaetes of North America. Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Ottawa. Brown, H.P. 1972. Aquatic Dryopoid Beetles (Coleoptera) of the United States. Biota of Freshwater Ecosystems Identification Manual No. 6, Water Pollution Control Research Series, Environmental Protection Agency. Burch, J.G. 1989. North American Freshwater Snails. Malacological Publications, Hamburg, Michigan. Clarke, A.H. 1981. The freshwater molluscs of Canada. National Museum of Natural Sciences. Ottawa. Crocker, D.W., and D.W. Barr. 1968. Handbook of the Crayfishes on Ontario. University of Toronto Press. Edmunds, G.F., Jr., Jensen, S.L., and L. Berner. 1976. The Mayflies of North and Central America. University of Minnesota Press., Minneapolis. Epler, J.H. 2001. Identification Manual for the Larval Chironomidae (Diptera) of North and South Carolina North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 526 pp. Frest, T.J. and E.J. Johannes. 1999. Field Guide to Survey and Manage Freshwater Mollusk Species. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.



Fullington, K.E., and K.W. Stewart. 1980. Nymphs of the stonefly genus Taeniopteryx (Plecoptera: Taeniopterygidae) of North America. Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society 53(2): 237-259. Harper, P.P., and H.B.N. Hynes. 1971a. The Leuctridae of Eastern Canada (Insecta: Plecoptera). Can. J. Zool. 49:915-920. Harper, P.P., and H.B.N. Hynes. 1971b. The nymphs of the Nemouridae of Eastern Canada (Insecta: Plecoptera). Can. J. Zool. 49:1129-1142. Harper, P.P., and H.B.N. Hynes. 1971c. The nymphs of the Taeniopterygidae of Eastern Canada (Insecta: Plecoptera). Can J. Zool. 49: 941-947. Hilsenhoff, W.L. 1995. Aquatic Insects of Wisconsin: Keys to Wisconsin genera and notes on biology, distribution and species. Publication Number 3 of the Natural History Museums Council, University of Wisconsin-Madison 79 pp. Hilsenhoff, W.L., and K.L. Schmude. 1992. Riffle beetles of Wisconsin (Coleoptera: Dryopidae, Elmidae, Lutrochidae, Psephenidae) with notes on distribution, habitat, and identification. The Great Lakes Entomologist 25(3): 191-213. Hitchcock, S.W. 1974. Guide to the Insects of Connecticut. Part VII. The Plecoptera or Stoneflies of Connecticut. State Geological and Natural History Survey of Connecticut, Bulletin No. 107, 262pp. Holsinger, J.R. 1976. The Freshwater Amphipod Crustaceans (Gammaridae) of North America. Biota of Freshwater Ecosystems Identification Manual No. 5, Water Pollution Control Research Series, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Ide, F.P. 1937. Descriptions of eastern North American species of Baetine mayflies with particular reference to the nymphal stages. The Canadian Entomologist 11: 217-243. Jackson, G.A. 1977. Nearctic and Palaerarctic Paracladopelma Harnisch and Saetheria n. gen. (Diptera: Chironomidae). J. Fish. Res. Board Canada. 34: 1321-1359. Jokinen, E.H. 1992. The freshwater snails (Mollusca: Gastropoda) of New York State. New York State Museum Bulletin 482, Albany, New York. 112pp. Kathman, R.D. and R.O. Brinkhurst. 1999. Guide to the Freshwater Oligochaetes of North America. Aquatic Resources Center, Tennessee.264pp. Klemm, D.J. 1991. Taxonomy and Pollution Ecology of the Great Lakes Region. Leeches (Annelida:Hirudinea). Michigan Academician 24:37-103. Larson, D.J., Alarie, Y. and R.E. Roughley. 2000. Predaceous Diving Beetles (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae) of the Nearctic Region, with emphasis on the fauna of Canada and Alaska. NRC Research Press. 982 pp.



Lee, T. and Foighil, D. 2003. Phylogenetic Structure of the Sphaeriinae, a Global Clade of Freshwater Bivalve Molluscs, inferred from Nuclear IITS-1) and Mitochondrial (16S) Ribosomal Gene Sequences. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 137: 245-260. Mackie, G.L., and D.G. Huggins. 1983. Sphaeriacean Clams of Kansas. Technical Publications of the State Biological Survey of Kansas, University of Kansas, No. 14. 92pp. Maschwitz, D.E. and E.F. Cook. 2000. Revision of the Nearctic Species of the Genus Polypedilum Kieffer (Diptera: Chironomidae) in the Subgenera P. (Polypedilum) Kieffer and P. (Uresipedilum) Oyewo and Saether. Ohio Biological Survey, Ohio State University. 135pp. McCafferty, W.P. 2000. The Mayflies of North America: Species List. McCafferty, W.P. 1976. The burrowing mayflies of the United States (Ephemeroptera: Ephemeroidea). Trans. Amer. Ent. Soc., 101:447-504. McCafferty, W.P., and R.D. Waltz. 1990. Revisionary synopsis of the Baetidae (Ephemeroptera) of North and middle America. Transactions of the American Entomological Society. 116(4): 769-799. Merritt, R.W., Cummins, K.W. & M.B. Berg (eds.). 2008. An Introduction to the Aquatic Insects of North America. 4th edition. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co. Dubuque, Iowa. 1158 pp. Morihara, D.K., and W.P. McCafferty. 1979. The Baetis larvae of North America (Ephemeroptera: Baetidae). Trans. Amer. Ent. Soc. 105:139-219. Oliver, D.R. and M.E. Dillon. 1990. A Catalog of Nearctic Chironomidae. Research Branch Agriculture Canada. 89pp. Oliver, D.R. and M.E. Roussel. 1983. Redescription of Brillia Dieffer (Diptera: Chironomidae) with descriptions of nearctic species. The Canadian Entomologist 115:257-279. Pennak, R.W. 1989. Freshwater invertebrates of the United States. 3rd edition. Protozoa to Mullusca. John Wiley and Son, Inc. New York, Toronto. Schefter, P.W., and G.B. Wiggins. 1986. A Systematic Study of the Nearctic Larvae of the Hydropsyche morosa Group (Trichoptera: Hydropsychidae). Miscellaneous Publication of the Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto. 94pp. Schuster, G.A. and D.A. Etnier. 1978. A manual for the identification of the larvae of the caddisfly genera Hydropsyche Pictet and Symphitopsyche Ulmer in eastern and central North America (Trichoptera : Hydropsychidae). United States Environmental Protection Agency Report 600/ 4-78-060. 129pp. Simpson, K.W., R.W. Bode and P. Albu. 1983. Keys for the Genus Cricotopus. New York State Museum Bulletin No. 450. 133pp.



Simpson, K.W. and R.W. Bode. 1980. Common Larvae of Chironomidae (Diptera) From New York State Streams and Rivers. New Yourk State Museum, Bulletin No. 439. 105 pp. Stewart, K.W., and B.P. Stark. 1988. Nymphs of North American Stonefly Genera (Plecoptera). Thomas Say Foundation, Entomol. Soc. Amer. 12:1-460. Thorp, J.H., and A.P. Covich (eds.). 1991. Ecology and Classification of North American Freshwater Invertebrates. Academic Press, Inc., San Diego, California 911 pp. Walker, E.M. 1953. The Odonata of Canada and Alaska. Vol. 1: Part I: General. Part II: The Zygoptera - Damselflies. University of Toronto Press. Toronto, Ontario. 292 pp. Walker E.M. 1958. The Odonata of Canada and Alaska. Vol. 2: Part III: The Anisoptera - Four Families. University of Toronto Press. Toronto, Ontario. 318 pp. Walker, E.M. and P.S. Corbet. 1978 The Odonata of Canada and Alaska. Vol. 3: Part III: The Anisoptera - Three Families. University of Toronto Press. Toronto, Ontario. 308 pp. Waltz, R.D. 1994. Key to the larvae of Baetid genera known east of the Mississippi River (Ephemeroptera: Baetidae). Indiana Department of Natural Resources, unpublished. Westfall, M.J.Jr. and M.L. May. 1996. Damselflies of North America. Scientific Publishers. Washington. 649pp. Wetzel, M.J., Kathman, R.D., Fend, S.V. and K.A. Coates. 2000. Taxonomy, Systematics, and Ecology of Freshwater Oligochaeta. Workbook prepared for North American Benthological Society Technical Information Workshop, 48th Annual Meeting, Keystone Resort, CO. 120p. + app. Waltz, R.D. 1994. Key to the larvae of Baetid genera known east of the Mississippi River (Ephemeroptera: Baetidae). Indiana Department of Natural Resources, unpublished. Wiederhom, T. (Ed.). 1983. Chironomidae of the Holarctic Region: Keys and Diagnoses. Part 1. Larvae. Entomologica Scandinavica Supplement No. 19. Wiggins, G.B. 1996. Larvae of North American Caddisfly Genera (Trichoptera). Second Edition. University of Toronto Press, Toronto, Ont. 457p.



APPENDIX B

BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE DATA

APPENDIX B1: BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATES COLLECTED FROM THAMES RIVER, LONDON, SEPTEMBER AND OCTOBER 2011. Densities expressed per 0.05 m2.

Station Sensitivity T1 T2 T4 T3Replicate Value Q 1 2 Q 1 2 Q 1 2 Q 1 2

FLATWORMSP. Platyhelminthes

Cl. Turbellaria O. TricladidaF. Dugesiidae

Cura 3 - - - - - - - -Dugesia 1 3 12 2 6 46 9 3 7

ANNELIDSP. Annelida

WORMSCl. Oligochaeta

F. TubificidaeAulodrilus pigueti 2 - - - - - - - -Bothrioneurum vejdovskyanum 2 5 10 - 30 - - - -Branchiura sowerbyi 0 7 - - 2 - - - -Limn 0 - - - - - - - -Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri 0 - - - - - - - 2Limnodrilus udekemianus 1 - - - 2 - - - -Potamothrix bavaricus 2 - - - - - - - -Potamothrix moldaviensis 2 - - - - - - - -immatures with hair chaetae 0 - - - - - - - -immatures without hair chaetae 0 1 2 3 2 - - 1 18

F. LumbriculidaeStylodrilus heringianus * - - - - - - - -

LEECHESCl. Hirudinea

F. ErpobdellidaeErpobdella dubia 1 - - - - - - - -Erpobdella 1 - - - - - - - -

F. GlossiphoniidaeHelobdella stagnalis 2 - - - - - - - -

ARTHROPODSP. Arthropoda

MITESCl. Arachnida

O. Acarina * 8 5 1 - 2 - 1 -WATER SCUDSO. Amphipoda

F. CrangonyctidaeCrangonyx 2 - - - - - - - -

F. GammaridaeGammarus pseudolimnaeus 3 - - - - - - - -

F. HyalellidaeHyalella 2 - - - - - - - -

AQUATIC SOW BUGSO. Isopoda

F. AsellidaeCaecidotea 1 - - - - - - - -

CRAYFISHO. Decapoda

F. CambaridaeOrconectes propinquus 2 - - - 1 - - - -

INSECTSCl. InsectaBEETLESO. Coleoptera

F. DytiscidaeHeterosternuta 3 - - - - - - - -Laccophilus 0 - - - - - - - -Liodessus 2 - - - - - - - -

F. ElmidaeDubiraphia minima 1 - 3 - - 5 4 5 5Dubiraphia larvae * - 3 1 6 - - 9 10Macronychus glabratus 2 - - - - - - - -Microcylloepus 3 - - - - - - - -Optioservus fastiditus 2 - - - - - - - -Optioservus trivittatus 3 - - - 2 - - - -Optioservus larvae * 15 4 5 26 9 - - 1Stenelmis crenata 2 - 9 - 16 4 2 17 12Stenelmis musgravei 1 4 3 - 2 14 5 9 3Stenelmis larvae * 203 169 30 142 185 52 27 28

F. GyrinidaeDineutus 2 - - - - - - - -

F. HaliplidaePeltodytes 2 - - - - - - - -

F. HydrophilidaeBerosus 0 - - - 2 1 - - -Enochrus 0 - - - - - - - -

F. PsephenidaeEctopria 3 1 - - - - - - -Psephenus 3 - - 6 54 - 1 - 1

MAYFLIESO. Ephemeroptera

F. BaetidaeAcentrella parvula 2 8 - - 2 - - - -Acentrella 3 - - - - - - - -Baetis flavistriga 1 - - - - - - - -Baetis intercalaris 2 6 8 15 - 3 1 5 2Baetis * - - - - - - - -Callibaetis 0 - - - - - - - -



Centroptilum 3 - - - - - - - -Heterocloeon curiosum 2 - - - - - - - -Paracloeodes * - - - - - - - -Plauditus punctiventris 3 5 1 - 4 3 - - -Plauditus dubius 1 2 4 1 2 1 - - 1Plauditus * 3 6 - - 2 1 - -Procloeon 2 - - - - - - - -

F. BaetiscidaeBaetisca 2 - - - - - - - -

F. CaenidaeCaenis 1 1 - 1 - - - - -

F. EphemerellidaeSerratella 3 1 25 6 8 - - - 1

F. EphemeridaeHexagenia 1 - - - - - - - -

F. HeptageniidaeMaccaffertium mediopunctatum 3 - - - - - - - -Maccaffertium terminatum 2 9 11 9 4 - 3 15 3Maccaffertium * 25 11 5 8 - 2 17 5Stenacron 2 4 - 1 - - - 15 2Stenonema femoratum 1 - - - - - - - -immature * - - - - - - - 2

F. IsonychiidaeIsonychia 2 - - - 2 - 2 - -

F. LeptohyphidaeTricorythodes 2 117 72 7 54 8 4 29 60

F. LeptophlebiidaeLeptophlebia 1 - - - - - - - -

F. PotamanthidaeAnthopatomus 2 3 1 - 8 - - 3 11

AQUATIC MOTHSO. Lepidoptera

F. Pyralidae 2 - - - - - - - -Petrophila 2 12 7 13 18 25 15 4 17

O. OdonataDAMSELFLIES

F. CalopterygidaeCalopteryx maculata 3 - - - - - - - -Hetaerina 2 - - - - - - - -

F. CoenagrionidaeArgia moesta 2 - - - - - - - 1Argia tibialis 3 - - - - - - - -Enallagma exsulans 3 - - - - - - - -Enallagma * - - - - - - - -Ischnura 1 - - - - - - - -

DRAGONFLIESF. Aeshnidae

Boyeria 2 - - - - - - - -STONEFLIESO. Plecoptera

F. Capniidaeimmature * - - - - - - - -

F. PerlidaeAcroneuria 2 - - - - - - - -Paragnetina 3 - - - - - - - -

F. Perlodidaeimmature 2 - - - - - - - -

F. TaeniopterygidaeTaeniopteryx immature * - - - - 1 - - -

BUGSO. Hemiptera

F. BelostomatidaeBelostoma 0 - - - - - - - -

F. CorixidaeSigara lineata 2 - - - - - - - -Sigara modesta 0 - - - - - - - -Trichocorixa borealis 1 - - - - - - - -Trichocorixa kanza 1 - - - - - - - -immature * - - - - - - - -

F. GerridaeGerris 1 - - - - - - - -immature * - - - - - - - -

F. VeliidaeRhagovelia 2 - - - - - - - -immature * - - - - - - - -

CADDISFLIESO. Trichoptera

F. BrachycentridaeMicrasema 4 6 12 1 4 4 3 - 2

F. GlossosomatidaeProtoptila 2 - - 1 - 1 - 1 4

F. HelicopsychidaeHelicopsyche 2 4 4 2 36 1 - - 1

F. HydropsychidaeCheumatopsyche * 54 76 41 100 77 74 60 83Hydropsyche alternans 1 - - - - - - - -Hydropsyche betteni 2 - - 6 24 4 12 1 2Hydropsyche bidens 2 - - - - - - - -Hydropsyche bronta 3 10 3 11 20 2 - 5 5Hydropsyche cuanis 2 - - - - - - - -Hydropsyche morosa 2 - - 1 - - - - -Hydropsyche phalerata 1 10 9 8 8 67 31 64 36Hydropsyche placoda 2 - - - - - - - 1



Hydropsyche sparna 3 - - 3 2 2 - - -Hydropsyche walkeri 3 - - - - 3 7 - -Macrostemum 2 1 7 - 2 6 2 - -Potamyia 1 - - - - - - - -pupae * - - - - - - - -immature * - - 29 4 4 8 3 4

F. HydroptilidaeHydroptila 2 - - - - - - - -Leucotrichia 3 - - - - - - - -immature * - - - - - - - -

F. LeptoceridaeNectopsyche 1 - - - - - - 2 1Oecetis 2 2 4 - - - - 9 7

F. LimnephilidaePycnopsyche 3 - - - - - - - -immature * - - - - - - - -

F. PhilopotamidaeChimarra 3 - 9 2 4 4 2 - -

F. PolycentropodidaeCyrnellus fraternus 1 - - - - - - - -Neureclipsis 2 - - - - - - 1 4Polycentropus * - - - - - - - -immature * - - - - - - - -

F. PsychomyiidaePsychomyia 3 - - - - - - - -

TRUE FLIESO. DipteraBITINGMIDGE

F. CeratopogonidaeAtrichopogon 0 - - - - - - - -Dasyhelea 0 - - - - - - - -Mallochohelea 0 - - - - - - - -Probezzia 0 - - - - - - - -Serromyia 0 - - - - - - - -

PHANTOM MIDGEF. Chaoboridae

Chaoborus punctipennis 0 - - - - - - - -MIDGES

F. Chironomidaechironomid pupae * 3 2 3 2 1 - 6 4

S.F. ChironominaeChironomus 0 - - - - - - 5 1Cladotanytarsus 2 2 - 1 4 - - - 1Cryptochironomus 1 - - 1 - - - 1 5Dicrotendipes 0 - - - - - - - -Endochironomus 0 1 - - - - - - -Glyptotendipes 0 - - - - - - 2 1Micropsectra 3 - - - - - - - -Microtendipes 2 45 2 2 16 2 - - 3Nilothauma 1 - - - 2 - - - -Paratanytarsus 1 - - - - - - - -Phaenopsectra 1 - - - - - - - -Polypedilum flavum 2 7 1 1 4 2 - 3 1Polypedilum halterale 0 - - - - - - - -Polypedilum illinoense group 1 - - - - - - - -Polypedilum scalaenum 1 - - - 2 - - - -Pseudochironomus 1 - - - - - - - -Rheotanytarsus 3 - - 5 2 1 2 4 -Stempellinella 3 - - - - - - - -Stenochironomus 2 - - - - - - - -Tanytarsus 2 1 - - - - - 1 1Xenochironomus 2 - - - - - 8 - -

S.F. OrthocladiinaeCardiocladius 2 - - - - 2 1 - -Corynoneura 2 - - - - - - - -Cricotopus 2 2 - 1 6 1 - - -Cricotopus bicinctus 2 - - 7 2 - 1 3 5Cricotopus (Isocladius) 0 - - - - - - 1 -Cricotopus trifascia 3 1 - 3 4 - 6 - -Cricotopus/Orthocladius * 1 - 3 4 1 3 - -Eukiefferiella brevicalcar group 3 - - - - - - - -Eukiefferiella devonica group 3 - - - - - - - -Eukiefferiella * - - - - - - - -Limnophyes 1 - - - - - - - -Nanocladius 3 - - 1 2 - - - 1Orthocladius * - - 1 - - - - -Parakiefferiella 2 5 - - 2 - - - 8Thienemanniella 2 - - - - - - - -Tvetenia 2 - - - - 2 - - -

S.F. TanypodinaeAblabesmyia 2 - - - - - - - -Clinotanypus 1 - - - - - - - -Helopelopia 3 - - 2 2 - - 2 -Pentaneura 2 - - - - - - - -Procladius 0 - - - - - - - -Rheopelopia 3 - - - - - - - -Thienemannimyia complex * 18 16 2 6 2 1 11 7Telopelopia 2 - - - - - - - -

F. EmpididaeHemerodromia 2 - 2 3 16 2 - 1 -

F. Ephydridae 1 - - - - - - - -F. Simuliidae 2 1 9 20 2 6 8 3 4F. Tabanidae



Chrysops 2 - - - - - - - -F. Tipulidae

Antocha 3 - - 2 - - - - -Limonia 2 - - - - - - - -Pilaria 1 - - - - - - - -Tipula * - - - - - - - -

MOLLUSCSP. Mollusca

SNAILSCl. Gastropoda

F. AncylidaeFerrissia rivularis 2 - - 1 4 - - 12 22

F. HydrobiidaeAmnicola 2 - - - - - - - -

F. LymnaeidaeFossaria 1 - - - - - - - -

F. PhysidaePhysella 0 - - - - - - - -

F. PlanorbidaeGyraulus 1 - - - - - - - -

F. PleuroceridaeElimia livescens 2 - - - - - - - -

F. ValvatidaeValvata tricarinata 2 - - - - - - - -

CLAMSCl. Bivalvia

F. DreissenidaeDreissena polymorpha 2 - - - - - - - -

F. SphaeriidaeCyclocalyx * 82 70 16 100 96 14 1 1Sphaerium transversum 2 - - - - - - - -Sphaerium (Amesoda) simile 1 - - - - - - - -Sphaerium (Amesoda) striatinum 2 - - 1 - 1 - - -

F. UnionidaeActinonaias carinata 2 - - - - - - - -Lampsilis radiata 1 - - - - - - - -Lasmigona costata 2 - - - - - - - -

TOTAL NUMBER OF ORGANISMS - 699 592 - 287 789 - 603 284 - 362 407

TOTAL NUMBER OF TAXA a 67 39 30 60 44 48 59 36 27 44 34 42

BioMAP (WQId) 9.6 10.9 11.3 10.7 9.7 10.5 6.9 7.6

Average BioMAP (WQId) 10.3 11.0 10.1 7.2

FAMILY LEVEL METRICS

SIMPSON'S RECIPROCAL INDEX (1/D) 5.74 6.02 6.02 7.22 4.18 3.50 4.84 6.07

AVERAGE 5.88 6.62 3.84 5.45

TAXA RICHNESS 19 19 22 22 17 14 18 21

AVERAGE 19 22 16 20

TAXA EVENNESS 0.30 0.32 0.27 0.33 0.25 0.25 0.27 0.29

AVERAGE 0.31 0.30 0.25 0.28

FBI VALUE 4.85 4.55 4.60 4.90 4.72 4.37 4.40 4.62

AVERAGE 4.70 4.75 4.55 4.51

a Bold entries excluded from taxa count


Station SensitivityReplicate Value



Cura 3Dugesia 1

ANNELIDSP. Annelida


F. TubificidaeAulodrilus pigueti 2Bothrioneurum vejdovskyanum 2Branchiura sowerbyi 0Limn 0Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri 0Limnodrilus udekemianus 1Potamothrix bavaricus 2Potamothrix moldaviensis 2immatures with hair chaetae 0immatures without hair chaetae 0

F. LumbriculidaeStylodrilus heringianus *


F. ErpobdellidaeErpobdella dubia 1Erpobdella 1

F. GlossiphoniidaeHelobdella stagnalis 2


MITESCl. Arachnida

O. Acarina *WATER SCUDSO. Amphipoda

F. CrangonyctidaeCrangonyx 2

F. GammaridaeGammarus pseudolimnaeus 3

F. HyalellidaeHyalella 2


F. AsellidaeCaecidotea 1

CRAYFISHO. Decapoda

F. CambaridaeOrconectes propinquus 2


F. DytiscidaeHeterosternuta 3Laccophilus 0Liodessus 2

F. ElmidaeDubiraphia minima 1Dubiraphia larvae *Macronychus glabratus 2Microcylloepus 3Optioservus fastiditus 2Optioservus trivittatus 3Optioservus larvae *Stenelmis crenata 2Stenelmis musgravei 1Stenelmis larvae *

F. GyrinidaeDineutus 2

F. HaliplidaePeltodytes 2

F. HydrophilidaeBerosus 0Enochrus 0

F. PsephenidaeEctopria 3Psephenus 3


F. BaetidaeAcentrella parvula 2Acentrella 3Baetis flavistriga 1Baetis intercalaris 2Baetis *Callibaetis 0

T10 T8 T9 T5Q 1 2 Q 1 2 Q 1 2 Q 1 2

- 356 36 92 36 12 - -74 28 22 44 12 12 3 -

- - - - - - - -4 - 2 - - 2 - -- - 4 12 4 4 - -- - - - - - - -- 4 - - - - - -- - - - - - - -- - 2 - - - - -- - - - - - - -- - 4 4 - - - 3- - - 24 8 - 1 1

- - - - - - - -

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

- - - - - - - -

76 100 30 40 8 4 3 1

- - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - -

- 4 - - - - - -

- - - - - - - -

- 2 - 1 1 - - -

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

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

2 - - - 4 - 3 2- 4 2 16 28 - 2 2- - - - - - 1 -

18 44 120 228 56 44 28 4

- - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - -

- 4 2 - - - 3 -- - - - - - - -

- 4 - - - - 4 -39 37 17 30 29 13 2 -

2 - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -

16 36 32 68 48 10 20 7- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -



Centroptilum 3Heterocloeon curiosum 2Paracloeodes *Plauditus punctiventris 3Plauditus dubius 1Plauditus *Procloeon 2

F. BaetiscidaeBaetisca 2

F. CaenidaeCaenis 1

F. EphemerellidaeSerratella 3

F. EphemeridaeHexagenia 1

F. HeptageniidaeMaccaffertium mediopunctatum 3Maccaffertium terminatum 2Maccaffertium *Stenacron 2Stenonema femoratum 1immature *

F. IsonychiidaeIsonychia 2

F. LeptohyphidaeTricorythodes 2

F. LeptophlebiidaeLeptophlebia 1

F. PotamanthidaeAnthopatomus 2


F. Pyralidae 2Petrophila 2


F. CalopterygidaeCalopteryx maculata 3Hetaerina 2

F. CoenagrionidaeArgia moesta 2Argia tibialis 3Enallagma exsulans 3Enallagma *Ischnura 1


Boyeria 2STONEFLIESO. Plecoptera

F. Capniidaeimmature *

F. PerlidaeAcroneuria 2Paragnetina 3

F. Perlodidaeimmature 2

F. TaeniopterygidaeTaeniopteryx immature *

BUGSO. Hemiptera

F. BelostomatidaeBelostoma 0

F. CorixidaeSigara lineata 2Sigara modesta 0Trichocorixa borealis 1Trichocorixa kanza 1immature *

F. GerridaeGerris 1immature *

F. VeliidaeRhagovelia 2immature *


F. BrachycentridaeMicrasema 4

F. GlossosomatidaeProtoptila 2

F. HelicopsychidaeHelicopsyche 2

F. HydropsychidaeCheumatopsyche *Hydropsyche alternans 1Hydropsyche betteni 2Hydropsyche bidens 2Hydropsyche bronta 3Hydropsyche cuanis 2Hydropsyche morosa 2Hydropsyche phalerata 1Hydropsyche placoda 2

T10 T8 T9 T5Q 1 2 Q 1 2 Q 1 2 Q 1 2

- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - 1

26 52 6 60 - - 1 1- - - - - - 2 -- - - - - - 2 -- - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - -

- 4 14 32 - - - -

- - - - - - - -

- - - 4 - - 2 -- - 22 20 12 - 25 9

2 - - - - - - -2 4 2 - - 2 - -- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -

- - 2 - - - 2 -

16 20 8 24 12 12 13 55

- - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - 3

2 - - 4 - - - -14 8 8 16 - - 5 -

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

2 8 - - - 4 - -- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - -

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

- - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - -

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

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

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

- - - - - - 6 5

- 4 6 24 - - 248 76

- - 2 - 4 2 - -

66 192 62 184 32 6 88 3310 12 - - 12 - 2 110 52 - - - 2 8 1

- - - - - - 2 -24 8 47 128 44 10 46 92 4 - 4 - - - 18 36 2 - 20 - 2 2- - - 4 - - 28 12- - - - - - - -



Hydropsyche sparna 3Hydropsyche walkeri 3Macrostemum 2Potamyia 1pupae *immature *

F. HydroptilidaeHydroptila 2Leucotrichia 3immature *

F. LeptoceridaeNectopsyche 1Oecetis 2

F. LimnephilidaePycnopsyche 3immature *

F. PhilopotamidaeChimarra 3

F. PolycentropodidaeCyrnellus fraternus 1Neureclipsis 2Polycentropus *immature *

F. PsychomyiidaePsychomyia 3


F. CeratopogonidaeAtrichopogon 0Dasyhelea 0Mallochohelea 0Probezzia 0Serromyia 0


Chaoborus punctipennis 0MIDGES

F. Chironomidaechironomid pupae *

S.F. ChironominaeChironomus 0Cladotanytarsus 2Cryptochironomus 1Dicrotendipes 0Endochironomus 0Glyptotendipes 0Micropsectra 3Microtendipes 2Nilothauma 1Paratanytarsus 1Phaenopsectra 1Polypedilum flavum 2Polypedilum halterale 0Polypedilum illinoense group 1Polypedilum scalaenum 1Pseudochironomus 1Rheotanytarsus 3Stempellinella 3Stenochironomus 2Tanytarsus 2Xenochironomus 2

S.F. OrthocladiinaeCardiocladius 2Corynoneura 2Cricotopus 2Cricotopus bicinctus 2Cricotopus (Isocladius) 0Cricotopus trifascia 3Cricotopus/Orthocladius *Eukiefferiella brevicalcar group 3Eukiefferiella devonica group 3Eukiefferiella *Limnophyes 1Nanocladius 3Orthocladius *Parakiefferiella 2Thienemanniella 2Tvetenia 2

S.F. TanypodinaeAblabesmyia 2Clinotanypus 1Helopelopia 3Pentaneura 2Procladius 0Rheopelopia 3Thienemannimyia complex *Telopelopia 2

F. EmpididaeHemerodromia 2

F. Ephydridae 1F. Simuliidae 2F. Tabanidae

T10 T8 T9 T5Q 1 2 Q 1 2 Q 1 2 Q 1 2

- - - - 8 - - -4 4 14 24 32 2 - -- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -- - - 4 - - - -

48 88 22 96 60 - 10 10

- - 4 8 - - - -- - 2 - - - - -

2 - 2 - - - - -

- - - - - - - -- 4 - - - - 16 3

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

18 132 98 268 24 2 - -

- - - - - - - -- 12 4 12 4 - - -- - - - - - - -

2 - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - -

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

2 - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -

- 4 - - - - - -

38 48 6 76 20 10 1 3

- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -- - - - - - 4 5

2 - - - 4 - - 1- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -

6 8 14 60 24 12 1 2- - - 4 - 2 - 1- - - - - - - 1- - - - - - - -

8 64 10 40 56 4 1 4- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - 1

38 96 4 32 20 - 2 1- - - 4 - - - -- - - - - - - -- 8 4 8 - 4 1 -- - - - - - - -

12 - 178 236 16 6 - -- - - - - - - -

6 4 36 48 20 6 - 1- 4 8 - - - - 4- - - - - - - -

6 12 14 108 8 8 - 1- - - - 8 2 - 2- - - - - - - -

4 - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - 1

2 - - - - 2 - -- - - - - - - -- 12 16 4 12 2 - -

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

8 12 6 24 60 34 1 1- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -

4 20 2 8 28 10 3 8- - - - - - - -

18 36 2 16 8 2 2 -- - - - - - - -

26 80 2 20 12 - - -



Chrysops 2F. Tipulidae

Antocha 3Limonia 2Pilaria 1Tipula *

MOLLUSCSP. Mollusca


F. AncylidaeFerrissia rivularis 2

F. HydrobiidaeAmnicola 2

F. LymnaeidaeFossaria 1

F. PhysidaePhysella 0

F. PlanorbidaeGyraulus 1

F. PleuroceridaeElimia livescens 2

F. ValvatidaeValvata tricarinata 2

CLAMSCl. Bivalvia

F. DreissenidaeDreissena polymorpha 2

F. SphaeriidaeCyclocalyx *Sphaerium transversum 2Sphaerium (Amesoda) simile 1Sphaerium (Amesoda) striatinum 2

F. UnionidaeActinonaias carinata 2Lampsilis radiata 1Lasmigona costata 2

TOTAL NUMBER OF ORGANISMS

TOTAL NUMBER OF TAXA a

BioMAP (WQId)

Average BioMAP (WQId)


SIMPSON'S RECIPROCAL INDEX (1/D)

AVERAGE

TAXA RICHNESS

AVERAGE

TAXA EVENNESS

AVERAGE

FBI VALUE

AVERAGE


T10 T8 T9 T5Q 1 2 Q 1 2 Q 1 2 Q 1 2

- - - - - - - -

2 - 2 - - - 1 -- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -

24 - - 4 64 40 4 8

- - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - -

5 12 11 16 - - - -

2 4 16 20 52 92 65 9- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -- - - - - 2 - -

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

- 702 1691 - 931 2203 - 910 381 - 664 296

54 43 43 47 44 43 54 36 33 59 38 38

11.0 11.2 11.4 11.4 11.1 10.8 10.6 9.7

11.1 11.4 11.0 10.1

7.57 6.57 6.08 6.09 5.88 5.99 4.26 5.70

7.07 6.09 5.93 4.98

22 25 24 22 18 16 20 14

24 23 17 17

0.34 0.26 0.25 0.28 0.33 0.37 0.21 0.41

0.30 0.27 0.35 0.31

4.86 4.62 4.48 4.49 5.12 5.94 2.96 3.44

4.74 4.48 5.53 3.20





Cura 3Dugesia 1

ANNELIDSP. Annelida








MITESCl. Arachnida







CRAYFISHO. Decapoda











T6 T6A T7 Old T7 NewQ 1 2 Q 1 2 Q 1 2 Q 1 2

- - - - 2 - - -2 - 16 8 4 4 5 6

- - - - - - - -- - 5 - - 2 3 -- - 13 4 10 12 - -- - - - - - - -

2 - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -- - - - - 2 4 -

12 8 3 1 - - 14 -

- - - - - - 2 -

- - - - - - 2 -- - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - -

- 8 3 7 - 1 - 1

- - 2 - 1 - - -

- - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - -

4 - - - - - 1 -

- - - - - - - -

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

- - 1 - 2 - - -2 - 1 - - 6 - -- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - 1- - - - - - - -- 8 - - - - - -- 28 1 1 1 1 1 4- - - - - - - -

16 36 11 10 1 2 37 14

- - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - -

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

- - 1 - 1 2 - -17 4 6 5 - - 5 8

- - - - - - - -- 4 - - - - - -- - - - - - - -

14 8 3 1 - - - -- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -





F. CaenidaeCaenis 1



















BUGSO. Hemiptera











- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -- - - - 2 - 1 1- - 1 - - - - -- - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - -

6 12 3 - - 1 - -

- - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - -20 84 39 35 11 17 1 1- - 1 2 - - 1 -- 4 20 33 60 45 - -- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -

2 - 1 1 - - - -

52 128 34 28 17 21 1 -

- - - - - - - -

4 - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - -2 - 2 2 2 7 12 11

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

- - - 1 - - - -- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - -

- - - - - - 3 -

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

- - - - - - - -

- - 1 - 10 4 - 2

- - - - - - - -

- - - 1 - - - -- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -- - 1 - - - - -

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

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

- - - - 1 1 1 1

- - - - - 1 29 13

- - 1 - - - - 1

110 456 59 40 23 7 57 58- - - - - - 5 15- - 1 1 - - - -

2 32 3 6 1 - - -4 16 14 9 1 - 6 2- - - - - - 2 -- 4 - - - - 1 -

2 4 - 1 2 - 1 7- - - - - - - -





















- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -- - - - - - 3 2- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -

8 20 8 8 9 2 3 7

- - - - 3 3 1 -- - - - - - - 8- - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - -- 4 - - - - - -

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

8 32 6 1 1 - 1 5

- - - - 4 6 - -- - - - 1 - - -- - 2 - 3 6 - -

2 - - - 2 - - -

- - 1 - - - 4 3

- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - 1- - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - -

18 20 16 23 6 4 2 6

2 - - - - 2 - -- - - - - - 1 -- - - 1 2 2 6 1

16 16 - 1 31 50 - -- - - - - - - -

4 16 9 5 7 10 - -- - - - - - - -

6 12 6 - 4 7 12 6- - - - - - - -

2 12 - - - - - -- - - - - - - -

4 12 5 1 3 1 7 3- - - - - - - -- - 3 - - - - -- - - - - 1 1 -- - - - - - - -

2 20 3 3 15 13 9 8- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -

2 - 5 - - - - -- - - - - - - -

- - - 2 - - 10 12- - - - - - - -

28 104 43 43 7 - 4 516 - 3 3 2 5 2 -6 36 - - - - - -12 4 - - - - - 6- - 3 10 4 11 4 2- - - - - - 6 13- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -

6 12 - 2 25 16 5 26- - 15 - - - - -- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -- 4 2 4 - 1 1 -- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -

10 44 13 13 5 4 1 1- - - - - - - -

2 4 8 4 5 1 1 1- - - - - - - -- - - - - - 1 4





MOLLUSCSP. Mollusca









CLAMSCl. Bivalvia






BioMAP (WQId)




AVERAGE

TAXA RICHNESS

AVERAGE

TAXA EVENNESS

AVERAGE

FBI VALUE

AVERAGE



- - - - - - - -

- 4 3 1 - - 9 25- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -

4 - 3 3 2 1 11 18

- - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - -

2 8 15 8 2 1 25 12- - - - - - 17 -- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -

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

- 433 1228 - 419 333 - 295 283 - 342 321

40 37 33 55 44 36 43 37 36 47 46 37

7.9 9.0 8.7 8.7 7.9 7.2 9.6 11.8

8.5 8.7 7.5 10.7

4.92 3.67 6.01 4.90 4.50 3.80 7.28 5.67

4.29 5.46 4.15 6.48

19 15 24 19 19 19 24 22

17 22 19 23

0.26 0.24 0.25 0.26 0.24 0.20 0.30 0.26

0.25 0.25 0.22 0.28

4.80 4.50 5.00 4.82 4.92 5.26 4.83 4.40

4.65 4.91 5.09 4.61





Cura 3Dugesia 1

ANNELIDSP. Annelida








MITESCl. Arachnida







CRAYFISHO. Decapoda











T7 X T14 T11 T12Q 1 2 Q 1 2 Q 1 2 Q 1 2

74 8 - - - - - -12 18 - 9 - 12 2 18

- - - - - - - -12 43 - - - 16 2 -2 - - - 3 16 4 -- - - - - - - -- - - - 3 5 - -- - - - 3 - 2 -- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -- - - 3 8 - 2 6- 27 4 10 34 70 6 8

- - 2 3 - - - -

- - 2 1 - - - -2 - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - -

6 4 - 2 - - - -

- - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - -

2 - - - - - - -

- - - - - 1 - -

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

- 2 - - - 2 - -4 - - - - 6 - 2- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -- - - 1 - - - -- - - 1 - - - -- - - 2 - - - 2

28 6 4 - 10 18 2 34- - - - - - - -

70 18 22 67 28 20 29 34

- - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - -

4 - - - - 4 - -- - - - - - - -

6 - - - - - 1 -4 5 3 - 23 11 6 8

2 - - - 2 - - -- - - - 4 - - -- - - - - - - -- - 2 2 8 6 - -- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -





F. CaenidaeCaenis 1



















BUGSO. Hemiptera










T7 X T14 T11 T12Q 1 2 Q 1 2 Q 1 2 Q 1 2

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

4 2 6 2 16 4 11 10- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - -

2 - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - -12 2 12 - 10 14 45 56- - - - - - - -

10 8 44 - 8 8 1 18- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -

- - - - 2 - 1 8

18 - 2 3 8 44 61 102

- - - - - - - 6

2 - 8 2 2 6 11 40

- - - - - - - -32 14 8 12 18 18 16 30

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

- - 2 - 5 3 - 2- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - -

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

- - - - - - - -

4 8 - - - - 42 40

- - - - - - - -

- - - - - - 3 -- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -

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

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

- - - - - - - -

2 - 50 77 - - - 6

14 - 6 - - - 7 43

54 26 250 88 18 40 15 66- - 12 14 - - - -- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -

2 - 10 4 18 10 - -- - 4 2 - - 1 -- - 2 - - - - -

4 - 40 59 - 2 - 4- - - - - - 1 -




















T7 X T14 T11 T12Q 1 2 Q 1 2 Q 1 2 Q 1 2

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

10 - 28 35 1 5 - 102 2 - - 2 - 8 10- - - - - - - -- - - - 2 - - -

8 2 - - - - - -- - 2 1 - - - -- - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - 2

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

14 8 8 10 - 2 - 6

2 - - - - - - -- - - - 6 - - -- - - - 6 14 1 -- - - - - - - -

- - 18 7 8 6 - -

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

- - - - - - - -

24 18 - 2 10 16 1 8

- - - - - - - -- - 2 - 2 - - -

2 2 2 4 4 4 - 22 6 - - 4 4 1 -- - - - - - - -

12 12 - - 10 20 2 14- - - - - - - -

12 - 54 72 14 14 7 8- - - 1 - - - -- 2 - - - - - -- - - - - - - -

4 12 2 8 2 4 - 2- - - - - - - 2- - - - - - - -- 2 - - - 2 - -- - - - - - - -

24 32 4 9 - - 1 2- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -- - - - 4 - - -- - - - - - - -

2 - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -

10 24 2 4 8 - - -12 14 - - - - 2 -- - - - - - - -

28 10 2 2 - - 2 128 4 - 4 2 - 2 1814 - 2 1 - - 6 12- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -

28 28 10 4 2 - 8 26- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -- 4 - - - - - -

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

10 6 2 2 - 4 - -- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -- - 2 3 4 10 - -

16 8 4 9 - - 2 4- - 2 - - - 1 -

64 8 4 1 4 - 1 6- - - - - - - -- 2 - 1 - - - 8





MOLLUSCSP. Mollusca









CLAMSCl. Bivalvia






BioMAP (WQId)




AVERAGE

TAXA RICHNESS

AVERAGE

TAXA EVENNESS

AVERAGE

FBI VALUE

AVERAGE


T7 X T14 T11 T12Q 1 2 Q 1 2 Q 1 2 Q 1 2

- - - - - - - -

32 20 16 6 4 2 1 10- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -

12 - 18 8 34 52 - 2

- - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - -

- - - - - - 3 3

- - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - -

90 6 40 77 112 58 9 6474 12 - 78 21 - 3 6- - - - - - - -

12 - - - 3 2 - -

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

- 916 435 - 719 713 - 500 555 - 332 780

52 52 37 58 42 43 56 42 37 68 40 43

9.9 9.3 9.9 9.2 8.1 7.8 7.7 8.1

9.6 9.6 7.9 7.9

7.98 4.49 3.77 5.52 7.78 9.44 9.64 11.44

6.23 4.65 8.61 10.54

26 17 22 21 18 20 20 25

22 22 19 23

0.31 0.26 0.17 0.26 0.43 0.47 0.48 0.46

0.29 0.22 0.45 0.47

5.21 5.76 4.23 4.70 6.09 6.17 4.38 4.51

5.48 4.47 6.13 4.44





Cura 3Dugesia 1

ANNELIDSP. Annelida








MITESCl. Arachnida







CRAYFISHO. Decapoda











T13 T13A T15Q 1 2 Q 1 2 Q 1 2

- - - - - -32 12 20 4 12 22

- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - 4 11 -- - - - - -- - - - - -- 4 - 4 3 -- - - - - -

8 - - - - -25 2 - 12 9 850 22 - 60 28 16

- - - - - -

2 4 - 12 - -- - 2 - - -

- - - - - -

- - 4 4 - -

- - - - - -

- - - - - -

- - - - - -

- - - 12 2 -

- - - - - -

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

- - - 4 2 6- - - - 6 12- - - - - -- 2 - - - -- - - - - -- 2 - - - -- 4 2 - - -

20 36 4 12 6 28- - - - - -

38 72 52 140 10 10

- - - - - -

- - - - - -

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

- - - - - -2 4 4 112 - -

- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- - 6 4 6 4- 2 - - - -- - - - - -





F. CaenidaeCaenis 1



















BUGSO. Hemiptera










T13 T13A T15Q 1 2 Q 1 2 Q 1 2

- - - - - -- - 6 - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- 6 4 - 6 4- - - - - -- - - - - -

- - - - - -

- - - - - -

- 2 - - - -

- - - - - -

- - - - - -40 78 44 12 36 58- - - - - -

54 6 - 12 6 4- - - - - -- - - - - -

12 28 8 4 - 4

80 128 56 32 72 100

- - - - - -

4 8 2 4 86 18

- - - - - -6 6 18 16 34 20

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

4 - - - 2 -- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -

- - - - - -

- - - - - -

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

- 2 - - - -

14 42 20 20 11 30

- - - - - -

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

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

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

- - - - - -

8 10 8 - 2 -

14 2 2 12 14 6

46 118 126 40 32 112- - - - - -- - - - - -- - 2 - - -- - - - - -- - - - - 2- - - - - -- 8 16 - 2 4- - - - - -




















T13 T13A T15Q 1 2 Q 1 2 Q 1 2

- - 2 - - -- - - - - -

38 58 20 16 - 66 14 8 12 4 8- - - - - -- 2 - - - -

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

4 - - - - 2- - - - - 2

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

12 48 26 16 - -

- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - 2 2- - - - - -

- - - - - -

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

- - - - - -

6 - 2 4 10 4

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

8 6 - 4 6 -- - - - 6 6- - - - - -

2 - - - 8 12- - - - - -

18 20 6 8 22 16- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- 2 2 - 12 10- - - - - -- - - - - -- - 2 - - -- - - - - -- - - - 4 4- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -

- - 2 4 - -- - - - - -- 2 2 - - -- - - - 10 4- - - - - -

6 8 16 8 - 4- 2 6 12 12 8- 8 6 12 14 10- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - 20 8 14- - - - - -- - - - 4 -- - - - - -

- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - 2 2

8 8 - - 8 6- - - - - -

- - 2 8 2 -- - - - - -- 2 34 12 - 2





MOLLUSCSP. Mollusca









CLAMSCl. Bivalvia






BioMAP (WQId)




AVERAGE

TAXA RICHNESS

AVERAGE

TAXA EVENNESS

AVERAGE

FBI VALUE

AVERAGE


T13 T13A T15Q 1 2 Q 1 2 Q 1 2

- - - - - -

- - 2 4 - 4- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -

- - - - 4 2

- - - - - -

- - - - - -

- - - - - -

- - - - - -

1 - 4 2 - 6

- - - - - -

- - - - - -

42 92 86 52 38 3452 44 46 47 8 22 - - - - -- 2 - - - -

- - - - - -- 1 - - - -- - - - - -

- 664 929 - 680 777 - 582 638

58 31 40 49 38 37 60 40 41

6.9 8.3 8.8 8.2 6.4 7.3

7.6 8.5 6.8

9.39 8.21 7.52 9.13 8.74 8.38

8.80 8.32 8.56

20 22 22 23 19 20

21 23

0.47 0.37 0.34 0.40 0.46 0.42

0.42 0.37 0.44

5.21 4.57 4.72 5.26 5.22 4.66

4.89 4.99 4.94

Documents

WATER QUALITY MONITORING REPORT FOR THE THAMES …€¦ · rivers (Table 1.1). For rivers (bankfull width 16-64 m), such as all the stations on the Thames River, a WQI(d) >9 would