Skip to main content

Full text of "Louisiana Wild Life and Fisheries Commission: Fisheries Bulletin"

See other formats


,1 /NA- 



SH 



{ 

FISH POPULATIONS AND AQUATIC 

CONDITIONS IN POLLUTED WATERS 

IN LOUISIANA 



By James T. Davis 
Fisheries Biologist 



Published by 

LOUISIANA WILD LIFE AND FISHERIES 

COMMISSION 

(Fisheries Section) 

A DINGELL-JOHNSON PROJECT 
(Bulletin Number 1—1960) 



FISH POPULATIONS AND AQUATIC 

CONDITIONS IN POLLUTED WATERS 

IN LOUISIANA 



By James T. Davis 
Fisheries Biologist 



Published by 

LOUISIANA WILD LIFE AND FISHERIES 

COMMISSION 

(Fisheries Section) 



A DINGELL- JOHNSON PROJECT 



(Bulletin Number 1—1960) 



STATE OF LOUISIANA 

LOUISIANA WILD LIFE AND FISHERIES 
COMMISSION 

E. R. McDONALD, Chairman... Newellton 

GEORGE A. FOSTER, Vice-Chairman ...Pollock 

JOHN CUTRONE Morgan City 

JAMES J. FREY... Lafayette 

T. MAX McFATTER Lake Charles 

RALIEGH J. PITRE Cut Off 

RAY WHATLEY .Alexandria 



RUDOLPH P. EASTERLY 

Director 



m 

w 



TED FORD 

Acting Chief, Fish and Game 



HARRY SCHAFER 

Dingell-Johnson Coordinator 



Digitized by the Internet Archive 

in 2011 with funding from 

LYRASIS members and Sloan Foundation 



http://www.archive.org/details/louisianawildlif01depa 



FISH POPULATIONS AND AQUATIC CONDI- 
TIONS IN POLLUTED WATERS IN 
LOUISIANA 1 

James T. Davis 2 

The pollution problem in Louisiana, while under excel- 
lent control and subject to stringent laws, is still far from 
solved. There is still much to be done toward determining 
the exact relationship between polluted waters and fish 
production, fish utilization and fishing success. The object 
of this study has been to devise a system of surveying 
polluted areas so that data needed to establish a workable 
effluent discharge compatable with acceptable fish manage- 
ment may be maintained. 

Upon evaluation of the many problems which are con- 
tained in this objective, it was deemed advisable early in 
the project to restrict studies to one large extended body 
of water. The Ouachita River and its tributaries were se- 
lected as the most feasible and advantageous. The river is 
of general importance to both commercial and sport fish- 
ing interests. In addition it is subjected to various types 
of waste discharges which are in themselves of general 
importance. 

Probably the most obvious pollutant of the Ouachita 
River system is paper mill wastes closely followed by 
domestic sewage discharge. Others are oil and gas field 
wastes and chemicals from commercial solvent manu- 
facturers. 

The project was designed by Dr. Edward J. Fairchild 
II who remained as project leader for 18 months. A study 
of each pollutant was envisioned during low water flows 
as then occurred. The present project leader assumed 
leadership in 1956. Due to increased water flows the 



Contribution from Dingell-Johnson Project F-4-R, State of Louisiana. 
2 Fisheries Biologist — Louisiana Wild Life and Fisheries Commission. 



emphasis shifted to study the effects of the pollutants 
under laboratory and limited field conditions. The report 
which follows covers both phases of the project. 

Many people contributed to the success of this study. 
Special thanks are due to Dr. William R. Taylor, U. S. 
National Museum, for the identification of fishes present 
and Dr. James R. Sublette, Northwestern State College, for 
the identification of the Tendipedidae and certain trouble- 
some insect larvae. Mr. Harry E. Schafer, Jr. assisted 
materially in planning and furnishing guidance to the 
project as did Mr. Frank Coogan, Mr. Kenneth Biglane 
and Mr. Robert LaFleur. Mr. Tom Gilbert, Water Pollu- 
tion Control biologist assisted during the final year in col- 
lection of field samples. Miss Gerry Kenny deserves many 
thanks for her work in identifying benthos and compiling 
data during the past three years. Mrs. Janice Hughes has 
been very diligent in bioassay, taste tests, and water chem- 
istry studies and her efforts have been very much appreci- 
ated. We are indebted to Mrs. Theresa Ames for typing 
the reports and manuscript throughout the project. 

Due to the extensive field covered by this project each 
type of study will be treated separately. 



STUDY AREAS 

The Ouachita River, which has its headwater in west- 
central Arkansas and its mouth near Jonesville, Louisiana, 
was the object of major effort under this project. The 
actual area studied covered 105.3 miles from Lock and Dam 
6 at Felsenthal, Arkansas to Lock and Dam 3 at Riverton, 
Louisiana. Sampling was conducted from July 1954 through 
September 1959. During this period the river went from a 
near lake stage to record flood stage. Sampling was ad- 
justed accordingly. 

A closer look at this study area on the Ouachita River 
shows several of the special problems. In addition it 
furnishes a better understanding of the dynamic character 
of this body of water. Large scale commercial shipping plys 
this section of the river, possibly only through the mainte- 
nance of a six-foot channel using a series of locks and 
dams. During high water periods these are inoperative. In 
times of low water flows the river resembles a series of 
large lakes. 

For comparison five streams, Bayou Macon, Bayou 
Bartholomew, Boeuf River, Bayou D'Arbonne and Tensas 
River were added to the sampling schedule during 1958. 
These were intended to furnish a check on data taken in 
the Ouachita River. These streams are all located in North- 
east Louisiana and are much smaller than the Ouachita. 
Table I furnishes a comparison of the physical characteris- 
tics of the study streams while Figure 1 indicates their 
general location. Table II shows the variation in water 
flows for the Ouachita River. Data from other streams are 
not accurate for times of high water and without excep- 
tion dry up to pools during low water periods in the up- 
stream portions. 

Pollution of these study areas is rather erratic. When 
the Ouachita River crosses the state line into Louisiana it 
has received outfall from a very large oil field, untreated 
sewage from several towns and small cities and the lagoon 



a a 









60 J3 -u S3 

0) ft o >> 
02 43 



Q.S 






CO 


O O) 


- 


5 














p 


CD 


5 c 


2 


— 














a 1 >> 


z 


If 

5LL. 


X 

>> 

a; 


tv 




> 






'5 




c 
c 
c 


■a s^ 

OB* 
o o .S 




O 


> 


> 




< 




fa 




x 


o a fe 


E 






















D 






















Q 




>. 




>. 




>. 




NO 


>. 


>. 










!h 




~ 




G 


u 


u 


D 


<U 


s 




c 




1 






33 


03 


C 






j3 


be 


sz 




5 


X. 


43 


LU 


O a, 


r. 




•/. 




■/. 




7. 


i. 


73 +J 


Q_ 


fa 3 

0) <o 


s 




£ 


^ 


'— 




s 


s 








01 








a 




— 


2 t « 

C c o 

a< a x 


2> 
< 


b> 


£ o 

as a 


6£ 


c 


u 

03 





+j 





'3 a 


CO 


DC 


fa 72 


I-] 72 


> 


X 


2 oi 


fa 72 


fa 72 K 


CO 






















< 




_^ 




_ 










r- 1 




LU 




b3 














c 
- 




DC 
< 

> 


c 
re 

3 


eg 




3 




fa 




c$ 


3 

T 


= 

3 

a 




Q 

D 
1- 
CO 


"o 




"3 


Go 






e 


- 


5 


- 


0. 

_o 


< 


£< 







72 O 


< 


> 


Li. 


re 

0) 


© 


o 




c 




S5 




o 


o 


o 

CO 

o 


t- 


Oi 




t- 




O 




-r 


r 


1M 


71 




-r 




•M 




:t 


X 

to 

173 


h 






















CO 


-K-c 


4-J 


-1-1 




+j 




+J 




+■> 


+J 


DC 


= t 


0) 


0) 




I 









03 


03 


0) 


a) 




I 




03 




0) 


03 


LU 


=? 4> 


>H 


SH 




v. 




1-i 




— 


'— 


H 


< D 


-r 


-t 




S3 




00 




-f- 


OS 


O 






















< 

DC 
< 

I 
O 


re 
o 

s- 
< 
a) 


03 

c 
S 


s 




CO 

03 




(1) 




C 




-I 


re 





3" 
E» 




o 1 




Z 




4) 


(M 


< 


re 


1 


US 




e 




£ 




03 


M 
CO 


o 

CO 


Q 


1— 1 






t- 

— . 




c 




c 


U3 


> 






















I 






















0. 























U 




V 




C 


>> 






W 













c 




0Q 


cm 


a c 








c 


O 


a 






ca 


U 






& 


BH 



tag 



a ii 



treated effluents from two large paper mills rated in ex- 
cess of 950 tons of pulp per day. 

It is doubtful if the latter two adversely affect the 
productivity of the Ouachita River within Louisiana. How- 
ever, fish kills may result from this high B. O. D. material 
being discharged in large amounts. These fish kills do ex- 
tend into Louisiana at times. 

Within the study area pollutants are of several types. 
Industrial wastes are found in two forms, paper mill ef- 
fluent and effluent from commercial solvents production. 




STREAMS STUDIED 



Figure I 



Table II 

MEAN FLOW BY MONTHS OF OUACHITA RIVER AT MONROE 

1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 

January 11,000 6,279 1,660 5,516 38,010 Not Available 

February 14,640 13,330 28,210 29,250 34,350 

March 5,855 16,510 35,830 28,140 23,540 

April 8,802 36,890 25,440 40,500 26,74(1 

May 29,890 21,109 :2,840 56,180 82,450 

June 5,719 11,181 1,920 47,780 60,410 

July 1,305 5,005 1,680 29,340 42,540 

August 777 2,584 1,310 4,903 11,410 

September 756 2,184 1,540 5,247 14.250 

October 2,493 2,879 2,010 8,997 17,220 

November 3,127 2,057 2,400 31,100 10,050 

December 3,491 2,829 1,840 44,560 9,845 

Minimum For Year 500 1,000 800 3,000 3.700 

The latter which enters the river at Sterlington, Lou- 
isiana, and below was the cause of a major fish kill soon 
after the inception of the project. This was not due to the 
usual discharge of cooling water. A line break allowed pure 
ammonia to flow into the river. Fish were killed for 32 
miles. Under normal conditions the cooling water used by 
this plant has little detectable effect on the river when 
discharged. 

Paper mill effluent enters the study area below Mon- 
roe, Louisiana, through Black Bayou. The mill is of the 
unbleached sulfate fiber class and is rated in excess of 550 
tons of pulp per day. 

Domestic wastes entering the Ouachita River within 
the study area as sewage are as follows : Bastrop, Louisi- 
ana, population 12,000, primary treatment; Sterlington, 
Louisiana, open ditch ; Monroe, Louisiana, 39,000, no treat- 
ment; West Monroe, Louisiana, 18,700, no treatment. 

Agricultural wastes are of two types, silt and chemi- 
cals. Both are present at times in all of the streams 
sampled. Agricultural chemicals have little effect on the 
Ouachita River. The smaller streams suffer minor fish kills 
annually from misapplication of insecticides. Bayou Bar- 
tholomew was the recipient of a sprayplane load of dieldrin 
just prior to the start of this project. Silt is not present 
in the study streams in extremely large quantities. How- 
ever, the silt load could be reduced by improved farming 
practices. 

One other pollutant present in the Ouachita River and 
to a lesser extent in Bayou Macon and Bayou D'Arbonne 



is salt water from oil fields. These wastes enter from 
across the state line into Bayou D'Arbonne. In addition 
to that present in the Ouachita River when it crosses the 
state line, Bayou DeLoutre carries some salt water, also re- 
ceived from out of state, into the Ouachita. Bayou Macon 
receives only periodic "slugs" from a small field located 
near Delhi, Louisiana. 

Effects of these pollutants will be discussed under the 
jobs concerned. 



FISH POPULATIONS 

As fish are the normal end products of aquatic areas 
this phase of the project received considerable study. The 
objectives of this project envisioned both a quantitative 
and qualitative analysis of the fish population structure 
and standing crop. In addition it was assumed that a de- 
termination would be made as to the relative tolerance of 
different species for each pollutant present. These objec- 
tives met with varying degrees of success. 

Several methods of collecting fish were employed dur- 
ing this study. All were intended to indicate at least a por- 
tion of the standing crop. All were successful to a limited 
degree. Data as to catches per unit effort for the various 
methods may be found in the appendix. 

Drag seines were thought to be the best available 
method for sampling fish in the river proper. As this is 
an encirclement device it is relatively non-selective. Actually 
some fish escape by jumping over the float line and others 
escape under the lead line. More recently various fishery 
scientists have calculated the percentage of escapement 
around the end of short seines. 

With these standard errors in mind certain non- 
standard or variable errors should be mentioned. Stumps 
and snags may hold the seine and make effective sampling 
impossible as fish swim around, under or over the motion- 
less seine. Fish may also pass through the hole resulting 
from pulling the webbing loose from the snag. Excessive 
current in the river may lift the seine off the bottom or 
render seining impossible or at best hazardous. 

The aforementioned variables are but a few of those 
affecting any seining operation. Another variable which 
affects not only seining but any standing crop evaluation 
is that fish are not uniformly distributed throughout any 
body of water. This is especially true in any stream. Sein- 
ing with its requirements for a clear bottom area, level 
and free from snags, and a gradual slope for a haul-out 
area, is particularly plagued by this variable. It is ex- 






tremely hard to determine the standing crop accurately 
unless enough seine hauls may be made to average out the 
high and low population areas. In the Ouachita River there 
are a limited number of feasible seining areas within the 
limits of this project study. During 1955, 86 seine hauls 
were made, of which 21 were considered usable for com- 
parative purposes. The remainder were deleted for a va- 
riety of reasons, with snagging the seine on a stump as the 
primary offender. In an effort to improve the comparison 
of areas, 146 seine hauls were made during 1956 with 48 
of them deemed usable. 

After the summer of 1956, water flows did not return 
to low enough levels to permit effective seining in the river 
proper for extended periods of time. Seining was attempted 
at different times throughout the remaining life of the 
project without success. 

Tagging studies indicated that a large portion of the 
fish in the river spent at least some time in the basins 
and lakes connected to the river. Therefore, seining in the 
lakes was initiated to determine the population composition 
of these areas. These areas were seinable during a portion 
of each year. High water levels affected even this sampling. 
As the level increased, the normal haul-out areas were 
inundated and the water's edge moved back into the trees 
which made haul-outs impossible. 

During these periods roundup seining was initiated 
within the lake. This consisted of laying the seine out in a 
circle and drawing the two ends up into the boat until a 
small pocket was obtained. The fish were then removed 
from the seine. The use of this method is limited due to 
the requirement for a perfectly smooth bottom. 

Seines used for this job were of varying construction. 
Mesh sizes varied from one-inch to three-inches square 
measure. Depths varied from six feet to 18 feet. All were 
hung on a two-thirds basis (i.e. three meshes on two inches 
for a one-inch mesh seine) and on 12-inch ties. Float lines 
were all hung with corkwood floats at 12-inch intervals. 
Bottom or lead lines varied according to its proposed use. 
If the seine was to be used in a current such as the river, 
1.5 ounce leads were placed each 12 inches. For seining in 
lakes, heavy jute twine, usually 24 strands, was fastened to 



10 



the bottom line to help sink the net. (Figure III). In addi- 
tion this material acts as a slide to keep the bottom line 
from cutting into the mud on the bottom of the lake. Both 
nylon and cotton twine was used in the construction of 
these seines. 

Early in the project rotenone samples were attempted 
in the river and connected lakes. All samples taken in the 
river were shore samples, that is, one side of the sample 
area was the shore. Those taken in connected lakes were 
both shore sets and open water sets. High water flows pro- 
hibit the use of this very effective method of analysis of 
standing crop. 




Figure III 
Bottom line of lake seine showing attachment of jute twine. 

When taking a rotenone sample the following pro- 
cedure was used. An area of one acre was surrounded with 
a one-inch mesh seine. The same seine as that used for 
seining the river was used. One modification was made to 
the seine. The webbing was rolled over the corks and tied 
back to the meshes (Figure IV). This prevented fish from 
swimming over the top line either into or out of the 
sampling area. 

Both of the above methods attempted to determine the 
standing crop. Therefore the fish taken were counted, 
weighed and measured. Those not required for other 
studies were returned to the water, if alive, except for gar 
and shad which were disposed of along with any dead fish. 

Each of the foregoing methods has certain limitations 
as were pointed out. Rotenone sampling was limited to 
quiescent waters while seining could be conducted only in 

11 



a slow current. The former could be used in an area when 
snags were present but the latter could not. As both were 
hampered by excessive current sampling in the river proper 
was curtailed early in the project. 

The number of pounds of fish per area as determined 
by seining in various portions of the river is found in 
Table 1 of the appendix. It can readily be seen that while 
the areas above Monroe average higher than those below, 
the difference between individual samples is greater than 
the difference between the areas above and below. This 
would tend to cause any conclusion as to the detrimental 
effects of pollution entering at Monroe to be viewed with 
caution. 

Table 2 in the appendix shows the results of some 
rotenone samples taken on the Ouachita River and adjoin- 
ing areas. There is no justifiable conclusion as to the affect 
of pollution on fish populations from this data. This does 
not mean that pollution did not adversely affect the river 
but rather that fish population sampling failed to detect the 
effect. This failure may have been due to a variety of 
causes that will be discussed later. 

The standing crop of fish fluctuated widely in the 
lakes and basins of the Ouachita River also. At this point 
it should be pointed out that all lakes mentioned in this 
report are connected to the Ouachita River at all times. 
Most are of the horseshoe or old cut-off type. During times 
of high water the low banks are overflowed and the river 
makes the lake bed part of its passage way. The basins 
under discussion are those slack water areas formed where 
some tributary streams meet the Ouachita River. These 
areas are not subject to significant current except during 
times of high water. As these areas vary in depth with 
the river, it is not possible to call these lakes. Nonetheless, 
they do support an extremely high fish population through- 
out the year. 

Data as to the standing crops of lakes and basins as 
determined by seining throughout the year are found in 
Table 3 in the appendix. It should be emphasized that it is 
not possible to present all of the data collected during the 
five years of field work. Therefore, the data is presented 
for only one comparable period during the study. It is con- 

12 




Figure IV 
Top line of seine used to surround area for rotenoning. 

servatively estimated that each of the lakes connected to 
the Ouachita River in the study area was seined at least 
ten times each year of the study. 

As it became apparent that seining would not be pos- 
sible due to high water flows, the method of capture shifted. 
It was decided to use hoop nets and wire traps. This deci- 
sion made in 1956 governed sampling until 1958. 

Hoop nets and traps have been shown to be very 
selective as to species. Therefore, if pollutional effects are 
to be shown by these methods, the fish captured must be of 
a species normally affected by pollution. Another variable 
affects this type of sampling. Most fish are captured during 
times of high water flows. At this time dilution of pol- 
lutants must not be great enough to remove all effects if 
sampling is to show significant differences in fish popu- 
lations. With these two variables in mind we will turn to a 
discussion of the gear used. 

Hoop nets were of the standard seven hoop, two throat 
type. (Figure V). They varied from one to four-inch mesh 
square measure. The mesh size used most extensively was 
2.5-inch. 

Wire traps used were six feet long, 26 inches in diame- 
ter, had a single throat, and had a trap door in the rear 
to facilitate removal of fish. They were covered with one- 
inch poultry wire which had been dipped in tar after con- 
struction of the net. (Figure VI). This type of net is very 
selective and catches a preponderance of game fish, few 
shad and many gar. 

As both types of nets were fished in constant num- 

13 



bers throughout the study, two years data are presented to- 
gether in the appendix, Table 4. From these data two con- 
clusions may be drawn. During the time of sampling these 
methods failed to indicate significant effects of pollutants 
on fish. High water flows so diluted the pollutants that 
when these nets caught fish pollutional zones were practi- 
cally non-existant. Secondly, this type of gear is not ef- 
fective in securing the data desired. 

During 1958 it was deemed advisable to try still an- 
other method of sampling. This was the use of entangle- 







Figure V 

Typical hoop net used in project netting. Notice method of attachment 

of throats. 

ment devices such as trammel nets and gill nets. Both 
proved to be very effective in lakes but were of limited 
value in the river. It was not possible to fish stationery 
nets across the river due to the current. Two alternatives 
were tried. Nets were set parallel with the shore and nets 
were floated downstream. Gill nets set parallel to the bank 
made very poor catches, as did trammel nets. The current 
of the river caused the nets to roll up. 

Trammel nets were floated down the river in much 
the same manner as used in shallow areas of the Missis- 
sippi River. To fish nets in this manner, an area free from 
snags is a must. The current must be relatively sluggish. 
The net is stretched out across the fishing area and the 
current allowed to carry it downstream. One or two men 



14 




Figure VI 
One throat trap as used in fish sampling on the Ouachita River. 

in boats follow behind to warn off boats and remove snags. 
After the float is completed, fish are removed in the normal 
manner as the net is picked up. 

Trammel and gill nets used in this study varied from 
one to four-inch mesh square measure. Nets were hung on 
a 1/2 basis and were eight feet in depth. Nets were con- 
structed of cotton, linen, or nylon material. (Figures VII). 

Set trammel and gill nets in the river failed to reveal 
significant data as to fish populations. Floated trammel 
nets failed to catch more than three fish per V2 mile float 
in a 100 yard net. For this reason this method of sampling 
was abandoned. 

Early in 1959 an additional sampling method was 
tried, electrofishing. Due to extreme depths it was not 
possible to wade behind the seine, therefore, the drops were 
placed in front of the boat on long booms. Alternating cur- 
rent, 115 volts and 2500 watts, were furnished by an Onan 
generator mounted in the middle of the boat. (Figures IX 



15 



and X). A man standing in the front of the boat dipped 
up stunned fish, while a man in the rear propelled the boat 
slowly over shallow bars. This method has two serious limi- 
tations, deep water and turbid water render it rather in- 
effective. 

As this method received only limited testing, it is not 
possible to present conclusive data as to its effectiveness. 
Fish catches were generally good. Further study is needed 
on this method of sampling before it can be adopted as a 
standard for sampling polluted areas. In areas where salt 
water effluent is present, the conductivity would be very 
high. Where paper mill effluent is present, the conductivity 
would be very low and visibility rather poor. This would 




Figure VII 
Trammel net as used for float netting on the Ouachita River. 

require either a very large capacity variable output gen- 
erator or major modifications to the seine as each polluted 
area was visited. 

One further method to determine the fish population 
from a qualitative viewpoint was used. This was to collect 
fish killed by a toxic material in the water. This occurred 
four times on the Ouachita River during the project. (Fig- 
ures XI and XII). Twice paper mill effluent was deemed 
the causative material. Once ammonia was the causative 
agent and one other occasion the kill was attributed to 
natural causes, (high B. O. D. material from flooded 



16 




Figure IX 
Electric seine as constructed for use in deep water 



*.•:!.' 




Figure X 
Electric seine as it appears in use. 

sloughs). This is not a recommended collecting procedure. 
Pollution on the Ouachita River within the study area 
was seldom severe enough to show any selective effect for 
or against any species. During the rare periods when a 
species was overly abundant or absent, lack of oxygen 
seemed to be the primary cause. In these cases, gar, bowfin, 
and catfish seemed to be the least affected by low dis- 
solved oxygen levels in the water. Tables III and IV show 
the species occurring in the Ouachita River and its tribu- 
taries within the study area. All attempts to compare fish 
found immediately below effluent outfalls with those above 
showed no significant specific differences. 



17 








Figure XI 

Fish kili on the Ouachita River caused by accidental release 

of ammonia. 




Figure XII 

Fish kill on the Ouachita River attributed to low dissolved oxygen 

and paper mill effluent. 



18 



Table III 

ACCEPTED COMMON, SCIENTIFIC, AND LOCAL NAMES OF 

FISHES NORMALLY TAKEN IN NETS AND SEINES IN THE 

OUACHITA RIVER BETWEEN LOCK 3 (Riverton, Louisiana) 

AND LOCK 6 (Felsenthal, Arkansas) 



Kind of Fish Scientific Name 

SPORT SPECIES 



Local Name 



White bass 
Yellow bass 

Spotted bass 

Largemouth bass 

Warmouth 
Redear sunfish 
Longear sunfish 
Spotted sunfish 
Bluegill sunfish 
Flier 

Black crappie 

White crappie 

Sauger 

Yellow pikeperch 



Roccus chrysops (Rafinesque) Striped bass 

Roccus mississippiensis Bar fish 

(Jordan and Eigenmann) 

Micropterus punctulatus Smallmouth bass 

(Rafinesque) 

Micropterus salmoides Green trout 

(Lacepede) 

Chaenobryttus gulosus (Cuvier) Goggle-eye 

Lepomis microlophus (Gunther) Redear bream 

Lepomis megalotis (Rafinesque) Longear bream 

Lepomis punctatus (Jordan) Bream 
Lepomis macrochirus Rafinesque Bream 

Centrarchus macropterus Spotted sunfish 

(Lacepede) 

Pomoxis nigromaculatus Speck 

(LeSueur) 

Pomoxis annularis Rafinesque White perch 
Stizostedion canadense (Smith) 

Stizostedion vitreum (Mitehill) Walleye 



COMMERCIAL SPECIES 



Paddlefish 
Blue sucker 
Bigmouth buffalo 

Black buffalo 

Smallmouth buffalo 

River carpsucker 

Carp 

Black bullhead 

Yellow bullhead 

Channel catfish 

Blue catfish 
Flathead catfish 

Freshwater drum 
TRASH SPECIES 



Polyodon spathula (Walbaum) Spoonbill cat 

Cycleptus elongatus (LeSueur) 

Ictiobus cyprinellus Butthead 

(Yalenciennes) 
Ictiobus niger (Rafinesque) Rooter, blue rooter 

Ictiobus bubalus (Rafinesque) Razorback buffalo 
Carpiodes carpio (Rafinesque) Silver carp 
Cyprinius carpio Linnaeus German carp 

Ictalarus melas (Rafinesque) Mudcat 
Ictalarus natalis (LeSueur) 
Ictalarus punctatus 

(Rafinesque) 
Ictalurus furcatus (LeSueur) 
Pylodictis olivaris 

(Rafinesque) 
Aplodinotus grunniens 

Rafinesque 



Yellow belly 
Speckled cat 

River catfish 
Opelousas cat 

Gaspergou, gou 



Alligator gar 
Shortnose gar 

Spotted gar 
Longnose gar 
Bowfin 
Shipjack herring 

Threadfin shad 
Gizzard shad 
Blacktail redhorse 
Spotted sucker 

Golden shiner 

Striped mullet 



Lepisosteus spatula Lacepede Soft gar 

Lepisosteus platostomus Shortnose 

Rafinesque 

Lepisosteus productus (Cope) Spotted nose gar 

Lepisosteus osseus (Linnaeus) Spikebill 

Amia calva Linnaeus Grinnel 
Alosa chrysochloris 

(Rafinesque) 

Dorosoma petenense (Gunther) Threadfin 
Dorosoma cepedianum (LeSueur) Shad 

Moxostoma poecilurum Jordan Redhorse 

Minytrema melanops Striped sucker 

(Rafinesque) 

Notemigonus crysoleucas Leaping lena 

(Mitehill) 

Mugil cephalus Linnaeus Skipjack 



19 



Table IV 



SMALL FISHES FOUND IN THE OUACHITA RIVER 



Kind of Fish 

Chestnut lamprey 

Goldeye 

Western lake chubsucker 

Speckled chub 

Bullhead minnow 

Channel mimic shiner 

Common emerald shiner 

Weed shiner 

Pallid shiner 

Southern ribbon shiner 

Ghost shiner 

Western silvery minnow 

Tadpole madtom 

Chain pickerel 

American eel 

Southern blackstripe 

topminnow 
Blackstripe topminnow 
Western mosquitofish 
Western pirateperch 
Southwestern logperch 

River darter 
Dusky darter 
Western sanddarter 
Mud darter 
Longfin darter 
Bluntnose darter 
Orange spotted sunfish 
Green sunfish 
N. brook silverside 
S. brook silverside 



Scientific Name 

Ichthyomyzon castaneus (Girard) 
Hiodon alosoides (LeSueur) 
Erimyzon sucetta (Girard) 
Hybopsis aestivalis (Girard) 
Pimephales vigilax (Girard) 
Notropis volucellus (Evermann) 
Notropis atherinoides (Girard) 
Notropis roseus (Jordan) 
Notropis amnis (Hubbs & Green) 
Notropis fumeus (Evermann) 
Notropis buchanani (Meek) 
Hybognathus n. nuchalis (Agassiz) 
Noturus gyrinus (Mitchill) 
Esox niger (LeSueur) 
Anguilla rostrata (LeSueur) 

Fundulus olivaceus (Storer) 
Fundulus notatus (Rafinesque) 
Gambusia a. affinis (Baird & Girard) 
Aphredoderus soyanus gibbosus (LeSueur) 
Percina carprodes carbonaria 

(Baird & Girard) 
Percina shumardi (Girard) 
Percina sciera (Swain) 
Ammocrypta asprella (Jordan & Meek) 
Etheostoma asprigene (Forbes) 
Etheostoma histrio (Jordan & Gilbert) 
Ethiostoma chlorosomum (Hay) 
Lepomis humilis (Girard) 
Lcpomis cyanellus (Rafinesque) 
Labidesthes sicculus sicculus (Cope) 
Labidesthes sicculus vanhyningi (Cope) 



20 



FISH FOOD STUDIES 

This study was confined to benthos early in the project. 
Therefore, no plankton determinations will appear in this 
report. This eliminates a study of foods for shad, paddle- 
fish and most of the minnows. Actually these fish do not 
enter into the sport fishery of the area but do affect the 
commercial fishery. Sale of trapped minnows contributes 
a generous portion of most commercial fishermen's income 
on the Ouachita River. 

Initially an Ekman dredge was used for benthos col- 
lections. This proved very inefficient due to the sticks and 
rocks comprising much of the bottom area of the Ouachita 
River. Subsequently it was discarded and a Peterson 
dredge was used. At this time only qualitative work was 
being done. 

Samples were taken on the basis of enough material 
to fill the dredge one or two times. The dredge was hoisted 
with a winch and dumped into a 24x24 inch 30 mesh 
screen. (Figure XIII). Here it was washed with a spray 
from a 3/4 inch hose. An impellor type rotary pump was 
used in the boat to furnish water drawn from the river. 
This method had several drawbacks. Small organisms were 
forced through the screen by the force of the water stream. 
After the sample was washed the remaining organisms 
were picked out with forceps and returned to the laboratory 
for identification. This procedure also left much to be de- 
sired as many organisms are not readily visible to the naked 
eye, particularly in a rocking boat in the middle of the 
river. 

With the change in river flows the new project leader 
deemed it advisable to shift to a quantitative sampling 
method. Subsequently a fixed number of samples were 
taken at each station with a Peterson dredge. Each sample 
was placed in a round number three tub. Water was added 
and all materials in the sample taken into suspension. The 
resulting mixture was poured into a standard 8 inch diame- 
ter, 30 mesh seive. The sample was swirled in the seive 

21 



while on the surface of the river as necessary to wash out 
all mud. Leaves and large twigs were thoroughly rinsed 
off and organisms and detritus in the seive were placed in 
a bottle, preserved with a 10 percent formalin solution, and 
returned to the laboratory for final separation and identifi- 
cation. 

During 1958 sampling was initiated on five check 
streams. This offered a special problem as it was not possi- 
ble to launch a boat at most of the new sampling stations. 
This made field washing of the samples very time consum- 
ing. Consequently as each sample was taken it was placed 
in a five gallon polyethylene bag of 4 mil thickness. (Figure 
XIV). These bags were then carried back to the laboratory 
where a plentiful water supply enabled personnel to wash 
10 to 20 samples in one hour. The remaining material was 
placed in bottles and separated and identified in the usual 
manner. 

Samples were initially separated with the aid of a 
Dazar floating magnifier illuminator. This combines a 4 
power magnifier with a flourescent lamp for illumination. 
(Figure XV). Some generic identifications were possible 




Figure XIII 
Peterson dredge with screen used in early stages of the project. 



22 




Figure XIV 
Polyethylene bags containing bottom samples ready for transportation 

to the laboratory. 




#1.^5- 



Figure XV 
Initial separation of benthos using the Dazar floating magnifier. 

with this equipment as separation was being accomplished. 
Specific identifications were made with the aid of a 
binocular dissecting microscope. Type specimens were sent 
to experts for verification or initial identification as 
necessary. 

Sampling schedules and stations varied somewhat 
throughout the project. After quantitative sampling was 
initiated all samples were taken quarterly. On one occasion 
sampling was suspended when flood water rendered effec- 
tive sampling extremely hazardous, if not impossible. 



23 



All sampling stations may be identified as to location 
in Figures XVI and XVII. The description of bottom types 
at each station and the exact ground locations will be 
found in the appendix. 

On the Ouachita, stations were established to sample 
above and below all probable effluent outfalls and all tribu- 
tary streams within the study area. Then stations were 
added as necessary to establish the probable recovery zones. 





SAMPLING STATIONS 



c»r»„b, 

Figure XVII 

On the basis of benthos collections in 1954-1955 Stations 
VII, VIII, IX, XVII, XVIII, and XIX were designated as 
being in polluted zones. Other stations on the Ouachita 
were thought to be in the recovery zone. Station XX was 
apparently on the edge of the polluted zone in 1955. Sta- 
tions VI and X were designated as clean water stations. 
This classification was based on the presence or absence 
of clean water organisms and the preponderance of pollu- 
tion tolerant organisms such as Tubifex. 



25 



Station VII was unique in its almost total absence of 
organisms. During 1955 only three midge larvae were 
found in all samples combined. This tied in well with 
chemical data which will be discussed later. It was also 
noted that the fish population during this period was deci- 
mated to such an extent that three sampling efforts yielded 
no fish. 

Stations VIII and IX were designated as polluted sta- 
tions due to the preponderance of sludge worms and the 
very limited numbers of falcultative organisms. These sta- 
tions both supported a higher and more varied population 
than Station XII, however. 

Sludge worms dominated samples from Stations XVII, 
XVIII, and XIX. The latter two exhibited a more diversi- 
fied bottom fauna. Still it is apparent that the effects of 
papermill and sewage had reduced the population to only 
tolerant organisms. 

With the increased water flows after 1956, the benthic 
populations took a decided turn for the better. Stations 
VII, VIII, and IX showed a well diversified fauna. At the 
close of regular sampling no clean water organisms were 
present but later "grab" samples have shown the presence 
of caddis fly larvae at all three stations. As these are clear 
water organisms with a very definite tolerance limit they 
indicate an extremely light or well diluted pollutional load. 

Stations XVII, XVIII, and XIX also show marked im- 
provement with the increased water flows. At the time of 
cessation of sampling these stations still showed the effects 
of pollutants. These pollutants were so well diluted that all 
three stations contained many organisms of only medial 
tolerance. Therefore, these stations were designated at the 
close of sampling as being in the recovery zone. This still 
leaves room for improvement but certainly shows what ef- 
fect more water will have on any pollutant. 

It is seriously doubtful if the latter three stations will 
make much further continued progress. If the cities and 
plants involved install adequate waste treatment systems 
and their outfalls are removed from close proximity to one 
another, then this area of the Ouachita River can become 
as productive as any other portion of the study area. 

The five check streams offer some interesting compari- 

26 



sons with the Ouachita River. These check streams con- 
tained a greater variety of organisms per square foot than 
did most stations on the Ouachita River. From this it is 
apparent that the river is not really unpolluted ; rather it 
is carrying well diluted pollutants. 

Caddis flies are generally considered clean water or- 
ganisms as are the burrowing mayflies. These were found 
at all but four of the check stream stations. On the Ouach- 
ita River these types are conspicuously absent from Sta- 
tion V to Station XXVI. Nonetheless it is an improvement 
to find snails and dragon flies, facultative organisms, re- 
turning to a place in the benthic communities. Due to the 
nature of the bottom, mostly silt with little sand, caddis 
flies will probably never inhabit portions of the bottom 
but mayflies should be fairly plentiful. 

It should be emphasized that no conclusions as to the 
effects of a pollutant may be drawn unless the quality and 
amount of dilution water is known. The fact that the Ouach- 
ita River has shown improvement over the past three 
years must be credited largely to the increased water 
flows. Some action is being taken to improve the quality of 
waste dumped into the Ouachita River. More of this must 
be done by all waste disposal units if the Ouachita River 
is to have water of good quality during time of low flows. 
This must be the final criterion as to how polluted a stream 
really is. 



27 



FOOD HABIT STUDY 

Stomach contents of fish can be used to supply infor- 
mation on many facets of fish behavior. If used in con- 
junction with benthos studies they can show the preferred 
food or foods of a particular species. In addition we are 
able to determine from analyses of stomach contents 
the normal food requirements of any species. 

For this study all fish for stomach analyses were col- 
lected by seining. Other methods of collection were dis- 
carded for a variety of reasons. Rotenoned fish tend to be 
either empty or gorged. Fish collected in hoop nets usually 
were empty. If baited nets were used, fish taken from the 
net were full of the bait. Stomachs of fish caught in tram- 
mel and gill nets were also empty. The reason for these 
empty stomachs is readily apparent. Nets were generally 
run only at 24 hour intervals which allowed digestion of 
food organisms to take place. 

Fish taken with an electric shocker were adequate for 
stomach content analyses. A small sample of fish was col- 
lected and the stomach contents were compared to those 
taken in drag seines in the same area. Results for the two 
samples were found to be in agreement with 95 percent 
accuracy statistically. Those from the electric shocker were 
not used for other analyses due to the small size of the 
sample. 

During seining operations a portion of the fish of each 
species were removed from the seine for stomach analysis. 
The fish were weighed, to the closest 0.1 pound, and 
measured to the closest 0.1 inch. For fish four inches and 
under, the entire fish was preserved. Stomachs were re- 
moved intact from larger fish. Specimens were wrapped in 
cheese cloth, with a numbered tag, and preserved in 10 
percent formaldehyde. They were then taken to the labora- 
tory for identification and analyses. The numbered tag was 
compared to the number on the field sheet which indicated 
the pertinent data, i.e. species, sex, date, etc. 

At the laboratory specimens were cut open and the 

29 



contents removed and identified, usually to family. An at- 
tempt was made to identify midge larvae to species. This 
proved unreliable due to the condition of the individuals. 
Organisms were then placed in water in a graduated cylin- 
der to determine their volume. 

As was expected midge larvae and pupae occurred 
most frequently in the stomachs of all species except white 
bass, largemouth bass, and white crappie. In stomachs of 
these three species, fish occurred with the greatest fre- 
quency. (Table VI). 

Buffalo stomachs failed to yield identifiable organisms 
in most instances. In later portions of the study, the first 
loop of the intestine was used to obtain identifiable or- 
ganisms. This proved very workable but still many empty 
specimens were received in the laboratory. Results show 
that buffalo are not entirely mud feeders. Many Cyclops 
and Gammerus were found in addition to the midge and 
biting midge larvae found in the stomachs. 

Channel catfish showed a slightly higher utilization of 
midges than of fish as shown by the frequency of occur- 
rence. Snails and fresh water mussels were also taken in 
appreciable quantities. Drum showed a surprisingly high 
utilization of midges. Fish, mosquito larvae, and dragonfly 
nymphs were also utilized to a lesser extent. 

Bluegill showed a very high utilization of midges with 
all other organisms occurring in very small numbers. Over 
90 percent of the bluegill stomachs which contained animal 
organisms contained one or more midges. 

Black crappie and white crappie did not show the same 
food habits. The former showed an increased utilization of 
midges while the white crappie depended more on fish for 
food. The black crappie also showed more diversified food 
habits than did the white crappie. 

Largemouth bass and white bass showed a decided 
preference for fish. This was as expected as all bass were 
of large enough size to be captured in a one inch mesh 
drag seine. 

The length of predatory species is usually thought to 
determine their preferred food. For the purposes of this 
report, no attempt was made to correlate size of indi- 
viduals with food preference. It was not the purpose of this 

30 





. 


-C 


o 






-* 


rH CO 


■ CM 


CO 






' rH • • • 


t-H • ■ CO 




- 


C] 


O] 












-M 


re 




































re 


3 








t- 




■ rr 


CO 








I— 1 • • UO 




CO CO 












E 


o 


M- 








CM 




-. 








• CI 






I- 










E 


3 
























la 












CO 


CO 






































X 


o 






CO 




• CM 


00 






■ . . . rH 


• ■ co 




O0 0] 


-1" 






UJ 


01 


3 


re 

4- 






c- 




: ^ 


t- 






: : : : ^ 


■ • '. o? 




to o 


01 




oi or. 


z 


CO 


o 
£ 


4- 

3 










■ CM 


X 








: : : 3 




t— CO 


M 




7-1 ,H 


UJ 




CO 




















• • • r-< 




r ~ 








CO 






































I 










CM 






H 


o 




oo 


. . . --r 








o 






00 






E 




cm 


c- 


co Ol 


00 CO 


oo 


I- 


CO r- 




• Ol CO 








^h o 






LjJ 






3 




CO 


i z 


Ol ■* 


CO rH 


c- 


— . 


■* CO 


rH • ■ • C- 


• • Ol -f 


-T 




*# 


CTi CO 


ir 


LI0 CO 


s 










CM 




CI 


Tf H 


CT> 


-T 


CO 




CM 


















Q 










lO 


CO 






























































I 






































O 






































z 




a> 


X 




-f 


C5 


_ 


. 


CO 














^_ 










c 


in 










• C) 


LO 




• CO 


— ■ <0 H N 


• CO C) -f 






CI 








LU 




c 


4- 
































t~- OO 




05 


-M 




-r 




"* CO 


• t- 


OO 


t~- 


• TP 


I-l • I— i-H CM 


■ ■* :i f 






c~ 


t- 




OJ CI 


Z 




_c 


re 






** 


rr 


• CO 


CO 


-r 












O] 


O] 






o 




O 


O 






CO 




[ * -1 


CM 
















1-1 






I 






































1- » 











































lil m 



I 
CO O 
UJ < 

D 

o 



— re 



0) 3 



— ^- ^-< t- CM ,-H (M i— 

7] t^ LO O 00 CO 

C\I OO 



CT5 <Ji ZO 00 UO C5 OO 

H -f CO H M LC CO 

t— I C\l CO 00 



i—i n oi co lo co oe t- 



2 -c, 





r^- 


rH 


-r 


7 1 


>-l 


lO 


CO 


OO 




r~ 


L~ 




■-; 


OS 



rH i-H CM CM 

* io in m 



CO CO Ol -* 

OC CO ■* t 



■ Ol 






rH CM 01 


CO 


LO C5 



CQ r- 







o 


















- 


OO 




0-1 



A a -a 



r o o « 
>>, S a " 



a > 



jB > 



^ C« " 



™ 2 



73 oj 

ci £ 



E— CO n^Jj'O'a a 

L S itfiS ■« ~ -- £ 



3 3 Sh 

O X 



m E £ x ffi 5 § § u 2 S fS <j 



r/) 




c 


G 


"cu 


> 


C 
















oj 




Drag 
Drag 
Dam 
Mayf 
Unid 



OCh 



- £ 




V — 


Sc c 


O P 


P. c 2 

x <2; 



- ^ r- 



31 



study to do a complete investigation of the food habits of 
fishes in the Ouachita River. Rather it was intended to 
determine the effects of a reduced clean water benthic 
population on the fish population. 

This effect can be determined from these stomach con- 
tent data. In areas of severe pollution, as shown in the 
foregoing job, benthic populations were reduced to Tubifex 
and other aquatic annelids. These were far down the utili- 
zation and preference list of every species studied. If the 
annelid portion of the stomach contents were broken down 
further it would be shown that Tubifex, the pollution 
tolerant sludge worm, was found in less than 10 percent of 
those stomachs containing annelids. 

Certain species of midge larvae are tolerant to varying 
degrees of different pollutants. As it was not possible to 
accurately determine the species of midges found in fish 
stomachs, it was not possible to determine the utilization 
as fish food of these tolerant species. 



32 



REPRODUCTION STUDY 

Reproductive success is often used as a measure of how 
nearly a fish population has reached the carrying capacity 
of a given area. This is especially valuable in a pollution 
study. Fish tend to be specific as to the areas used for 
spawning. As pollution may make spawning sites unavail- 
able, it is entirely possible that an otherwise adequate fish 
habitat may support a limited standing crop of fish due 
to the absence of satisfactory reproduction. 

Care must be exercised in determining the limiting 
factor in an inadequate fish population. The lack of spawn- 
ing areas is only one of the possible factors. This can be 
overcome in large bodies of water through the migration 
of fingerlings and fry into areas where reproductive suc- 
cess was under par. It is usually not practical to attempt 
to trace the movements of fingerling fish into an area. 

This problem tended to becloud the success of the 
Ouachita River reproduction study. Several methods of 
capturing fingerling fish were attempted. All were suc- 
cessful. None showed the effects of migrating fingerlings, 
but rather the number of fishes in a particular area for a 
given period of time. 

Prior to spring of 1957, this job was occupied with the 
determination of spawning areas and the presence of ade- 
quate brood fish. The spawning periods were determined 
by two methods. Direct observation and observation of 
gonadal condition of sacrificed fish captured in netting 
studies. The time of spawning was determined phenologi- 
cally and not assigned as certain dates, air or water 
temperatures. Certain species spawned throughout the year. 
These were discarded as indicator species, because their 
spread of spawning times made it impossible to determine 
the effects of different pollutants. Included in this group 
were all of the sunfish, shad, and cyprinids. The spawning 
periods of these fishes covered the period from February 
1 until October 17. 

Fishes with a single spawning period still offered 

33 



something of a problem. It was found that weather con- 
ditions caused the length of time of spawning to vary from 
three weeks to four months in succeeding years for large- 
mouth bass. Nonetheless, a spawning schedule was set up 
for species normally captured in nets in the Ouachita River. 
Gar usually spawned first, then largemouth bass, buffalo, 
crappie and channel catfish in that order. While the 
spawning periods usually overlapped, the general order was 
still followed. 

Spawning sites were usually occupied by only one 
species, probably due to habitat requirements. One excep- 
tion was noted when largemouth bass and black crappie 
were observed spawning in the same area at the same time. 
This was the only indication that spawning site require- 
ments were ever overlapping during the study. During each 
spawning period after the spring of 1956, it was observed 
that adequate spawning sites were available to all species. 
High water levels during this time of year, which remained 
up for sufficient hatching time, allowed a wide choice of 
spawning areas. 

Early in 1957, it was deemed advisable to check on the 
actual hatching success of fishes. Minnow traps (Figure 
XVIII) were constructed and fished in different areas 
simultaneously. These traps were 4 feet x 4 feet x 4 feet. 
The top was open and the single flue had a \/-> inch wide 
opening running vertically of the trap when set. The 
catches in these traps were very large. This was expected 




Figure XVIII 
Minnow trap used in reproduction study on the Ouachita Fiiver. 



34 



as trapping in the spring catches both runs and schools of 
moving fish. Fall trapping proved unsuccessful. A careful 
analysis of these data failed to reveal any significant effect 
directly attributable to pollutants on fish reproduction in 
the Ouachita River proper. (Table VII) . 

Area III and Area IV were in adjacent areas con- 
sidered as clean water. Area III yielded the highest num- 
ber of fish per net day while Area IV was next to the 
lowest number. A closer look indicates that there was 
probably a habitat difference. Area III yielded 42.35 large- 
mouth bass per day while Area IV had an extremely low 
yield of 1.39 per net day. Yet Area IV yielded 20.93 spotted 
bass fingerlings per day while only one other area, Area V, 
yielded any spotted bass. This would tend to indicate a 
definite habitat difference. This is further indicated by the 
large number of crappie and sunfish taken in Area III and 
their almost total absence from Area IV. 

During 1958, it was felt that a better check on repro- 
ductive success could be made if 30 foot minnow seines 
were used. Specific seining areas were set up to be visited 
weekly after the river returned to its normal level or at 
least within the normal banks. This method offers several 
advantages over the trapping method. Runs of moving fish 
as occur during the spring months do not bias the fish per 
effort as in trapping. Seining can be done year around 
while the river is within its normal banks. Seining during 
times of overflow, however, produced very erratic results 
and are limited as to available areas. 

Seining as a sample method has certain inherent er- 
rors as were discussed under fish population sampling. 
Snags are not so bothersome as only a short seine is used. 
Still the numbers of fish that go out, over, under, or around 
the seine may be quite large, especially as fall approaches 
and the fish grow larger. As this is probably a standard 
error, it was discarded in analysis of minnow seine data. 

Fourteen areas were selected for weekly sampling. 
Sampling was initiated on April 1 and continued until April 
29, when high water forced abandonment. Seining was re- 
sumed on July 28 when the river returned to its banks 
and continued until September 1, when poor catches 
forced its curtailment. Total seine hauls numbered 257 

35 



c b 
■-Q 
a 

> M 



t- O 

■** o 



,-h ,h r-i 00 



CT) 


2 b 




, Q 


7" 


" ^ 
£« 




oiZ 


IT 








_) 


>* 


n 






b a 


cc 


CJ co 


UJ 


<c" 


> 




rr 






0) 






< 


ufi 


I 


CD 
> *> 


< 


*z 


D 


>2 


O 


LU 


id - 

o 01 


I 


< 



1 lO 


UO 1 


1 ujo 1 


1 1 LO 1 1 


1-1 


00 


OM 


CO 


"^ 


** 


OS O 


© 


1 [-. 




1 i-H 


II 1 1 



•°NI l B l°± S s 



INt-Wr-Hfl COt^'O'-'t-CslliO'-itM C^ l ^ CO lO lO 
I B 1° J, J° 7i> CO ^ rH t- CO CO O CO CO o] O I OOO c^CTi^GOC^ 

oooohh oo^ojoo oho cJ C'J co co ■** 



00 ""* ^ CO c> OXOt"MN I CDOO o^^oo 

XCQ *3M/*O^J Cl^rHOm OOW«COO OC^H HWHNt^ 

O 30 o "* CO HO^^OO Or- ! © <z: CO -3- CO LC 



CC "**" L- t- CO © , * l fl in ^'-l I COQH lOMCOW C5 



1*1°! JO % o 



Xbq 13N/"°N ""• 



"°N I B +°X 



CM CO 00 CO t- os N -* 
t—-^ OJ "tf CO © CS CO 

coo wi , od H ' -1 



lOO rH © o o <-< ,_l 



WO I lO [- rf H "-• X 



<- 
III 


« ID 


c: 


0) 


< 


> - 


> 


«z 


m 


J) • 






(7) 


1-1 „ 


a. 


B 00 

o en 


< 




DC 


< 


h 




£ 





o 


3 >• 

m B 


^ 


_,a 



[b^ox jo % oajt-rno 



t— CO CM O O *~~ I 

o a (M h o o 

O CM CM O - 



rH o 



^«a ^n/*°m 



uO X -* CM CT; NOOlO I --< rH rH cm ^* 00iOW«C^ 

00 O O rH CO CDlOOCO OOXHTriC oo to Tf N o o 

OOOQt-M lO rH CO CM O O O Q in OM«0Nt*O 

■H* CO '— , CO r- 1 -^ I WH MN t- 



"o\j ieio I WlOMOM o re CO O 



HNMH 
CM OQ 



CO rH 



Hi- iQlflrj CO lO t- CO CM ' 

eg w o: O ^ Nt-XlflO 

QlOH 00 CO CO 



CT> CI COH 

CM lO | CO "^ 

00 lO I © O 



«z 



z - 



N Xeq 13NI/'°N 



5 N 



CM CM I oo t- 

00 -* i-l CM 

CM rH I 



I 


a> o 


a> 


< N 


LL 




Ll 




o 


77- w 


a) 


2 B 


UJ 


t D 


T 


<u *j 


O 

H 


> CD 

5z 


<r 


00 


o 









00 CO I I — J. 

© 00 CM 

LOW 



00 CM CM 00 

--? co 00 oo 
(NH(MH 



co c- co © ^* t-©©t-lcMCM'"ct<©co cjiW^OW 
P21°X J° £> O 00 O 00 TP COh^^ I NHHtOo OS OS Ci fr- © 

o o o o co ©' © © co oonno © © co cm © 



HHH^M HClCOW I OOH'fl'H £- © t- 00 CO 

ACQ 1 3 N/"°N O^OCOCO ^o^CO rH © © CM © t^OOONO 

© © © CO r- I © O ^ r- ' O O rH rH r-( Q W H H ° 



•°N I E »°X 



i t-i-H CO ^D -"^ CM 
00 lH CM CO rH 

CM rH rH 



CMXt-t-C 
CM rH 



CD- 

c-c; 



CD 



ri.2r° 
0) rH _ 



o ■- 



?« :n mcCS ^StjO^rt— M <D^ 
g J, en -a -a "a •= -a g 06+2 £ 2 c i o7 £ g 3 

■HahgOB X >,Bi Uk" 0) o- hi ^^3^0- 

OkiOmOU o Cm j W > Si J PQ O O EnpsPJQ 



& u o 

CD 

rg5 a : 

SJ3 



with five discarded for want of a complete sample from 
all areas. Catches varied from 1248 to 11 fish per successful 
haul. It is not possible to determine definitely from the data 
collected the effect of pollutants on reproduction in the 
area. This may well be due to the flushing and diluting ac- 
tion of the high water flows during 1958. This study was 
not continued in 1959, as the Ouachita River did not return 
to its banks until late June — five days before the planned 
cessation of field sampling. 



37 



FISH MIGRATION AND MOVEMENT STUDY 

Pollutants, if present in sufficient quantities, have been 
credited with inhibiting the migration or movement of fish. 
This may take any of several forms. Toxic substances in 
the water, extremely low dissolved oxygen, or large scale 
temperature changes often have been found to be causitive 
agents. 

Pollution barriers were definitely present on the Ouach- 
ita River prior to 1957. These barriers may or may not 
have affected fish movements during low water periods. It 
is apparent that the locks and dams which were also in 
place during low water definitely prohibited any large scale 
fish movement. Therefore, the effect of pollution barriers 
can be accurately studied only during times when water is 
high enough to render the locks and dams inoperative. As 
this is usually during the spring of the year when fish 
movement is greatest, the barriers should be easily studied. 

Fish tagging commenced during 1955 and continued 
through 1958. During this period 7098 fish were tagged of 
which 208 tags were recovered. (Table VIII). Two types of 
tags were used. Initially, the Atkins dangler tag was used. 
These tags were of red plastic and were attached with 
mona-filament nylon to lie immediately behind the dorsal 
fin. A surgical needle was used to draw the nylon through 
the fleshy part of the back immediately anterior to the 
last dorsal spine. Returns from this tag averaged only 2.9 
percent even though a reward was offered for returning 
the tag with information as to its capture. 

As the Atkins tags are difficult to apply, it was decided 
to try the strap type tag during the spring of 1958. No 
rewards were offered for their return. The percentage of 
returns dropped only slightly with an overall average of 
2.8 percent of all tags returned by the end of the project 
period. 

Several things were determined from the data. Over 
1/2 of the tags returned from fish tagged in the river were 
from fish caught in connected lakes. All of the tags re- 

39 



turned from fish tagged within the lakes were caught in 
the same lake where tagged. This shows that these lakes 
definitely form a nucleus from which fish are recruited for 
the river population. 

Approximately V2 of the fish which showed movement 
went upstream and the remainder downstream. Of these 94 
fish, 45 crossed what had been designated as possible pol- 
lution barriers before capture. This indicated that a barrier 
of pollutants does not exist on the Ouachita River at least 
during part of the year. 

Such a conclusion leaves something to be desired. A 
barrier may still exist to normal movement but high water 
flows remove it each year for a period of time. On this 
basis study of the barriers would have to be made within a 
localized area if necessity arose to ascertain their effect on 
local movements. 

Table VIII 

DIRECTION OF MOVEMENT OF TAGGED FISH IN THE OUACHITA RIVER 

AS SHOWN BY THE TAG RECOVERIES 

July 1, 1954— June 30, 1959 

Number Number Up- Down- In No 

Kind of fish Tagged Recovered Stream Stream Lake Movement 

White bass 428 24 13 12 

Yellow bass 1 

Kentucky bass 25 2 1 2 

Largemouth bass 32 2 

Warmouth 136 9 2 6 2 

Redear 458 16 2 6 11 1 

Longear 123 

Bluegill 1544 47 9 6 33 2 

Flier 21 

Orange spot 5 

Spotted sunfish 10 1 1 

Green sunfish 3 

Black crappie 1827 32 5 2 24 4 

White crappie 288 10 3 1 6 2 

Sauger 1 

Bigmouth buffalo 94 4 4 

Smallmouth buffalo 526 17 3 7 5 

Black buffalo 32 1 1 1 

River carpsucker 26 

Carp 1 

Black bullhead 35 1 1 

Yellow bullhead 14 

Channel catfish 321 13 4 4 3 

Blue catfish 100 8 5 1 2 

Flathead catfish 163 3 1 2 

Drum 883 18 10 3 2 1 

Bowfin 1 

Total 7098 208 46 48 110 12 

40 



AN INDEX OF UTILIZATION OF POLLUTED 
WATERS AS COMPARED TO NON-POLLUTED 

WATERS 

Fish are the normal end products of most aquatic en- 
vironments. If these fish are not harvested for any of sev- 
eral reasons, the waters are not being put to their maxi- 
mum usage. This harvest may be either by sport fishermen 
or commercial fishermen. Both must be considered if full 
utilization is to be analyzed. 

Prior to 1957, the utilization of the study area was on a 
rather random or haphazard basis. An index was estab- 
lished by counting the fishermen observed, while doing 
other field work, totaling the number of commercial fisher- 
men known to be working a particular area, and by com- 
paring the number of tag returns for different areas. These 
methods have several shortcomings which are readily ap- 
parent. On the basis of these admittedly nebulous data, it 
was determined that the area above Sterlington was utilized 
more than three times as heavily as that below Monroe. 
The area between was thought to be nearly as high as that 
above Sterlington. On this basis the pollutants at Monroe 
were affecting adversely the utilization of the river below 
their outfall. 

As this method of indexing left something to be 
desired, it was decided to contact all commercial fisher- 
men plying the Ouachita River and determine their catch 
by area. Accordingly this was initiated in the spring of 
1957. 

This inventory was set up to be taken twice during 
the spring "run" by the project biological aide. On his 
first visit he checked the catch for that date and attempted 
to determine the extent of nets being fished. His second 
visit was made after catches had dropped in late spring. 
At this time he determined each fisherman's total catch 
for the preceding year. This study was conducted for three 
years. (Table IX). The study area was broken down into 
divisions with the locks and dams acting as dividers. This 
divided the area into the area above Sterlington, affected 

41 



Table IX 
CATCH OF COMMERCIAL FISHERMEN ON OUACHITA RIVER 

Area in 
River 

Miles Year Amount of Gear Catfish Buffalo Drum Total 

207-239 1957 1 105 hoop nets 10,000 42,000 10,000 62,000 

1958 1SS hoop nets 

500 yards trammel nets 5,800 41,400 11,000 58,200 

1500 yards gill nets 

1959 3S7 hoop nets 

600 yards trammel nets 2,900 26,600 7,600 37,100 

1800 yards gill nets 
177-207 1957 87 hoop nets 800 5,400 700 6,900 

1958 153 hoop nets 

600 yards trammel nets 3,000 12,000 4,200 19,200 

400 yards gill nets 

1959 152 hoop nets 

800 yards trammel nets 3,000 20,800 4,300 28,100 

1400 yards gill nets 

200 yards drag seine 

133-177 1957 40 hoop nets 800 2,400 200 3,400 

1958 77 hoop nets 1,350 3,600 1,200 6,150 

1959 122 hoop nets 

200 yards trammel nets 2,900 14,200 4,000 21,100 



1 Only known number of nets. Estimated nets as follows : 

245 Hoop nets 

700 yards Trammel nets 
1,000 yards Gill nets 

by salt water and occasional paper mill effluent ; Sterling- 
ton to Monroe, apparently affected by salt water and com- 
mercial solvents production primarily; Monroe to Riverton, 
affected by both paper mill and municipal sewage dis- 
charged continuously. 

The upper area had the highest yield during all three 
years. The catch per unit gear shows a drastic drop. 
Actually the catch per unit effort dropped only slightly in 
this area. Several new and inexperienced fishermen met 
with disappointing catches and fished the area only sporad- 
ically. Nonetheless, their gear is included in the study. The 
reason behind the drop in total catch can not be explained 
at this time. 

The area between Sterlington and Monroe showed a 
steady increase both in gear used and fish caught. In 1955, 
only one fisherman fished this entire area due to a severe 
fish kill which virtually exterminated the fish population 
in this area. By 1957, some fishermen had moved their nets 
back into the area. More continued to move into the area 
until the close of the project. 

42 



In the area below Monroe the gear and catch was ex- 
tremely low. Only two fishermen were fishing nets in this 
44 mile stretch in 1957. Due to the fish kill mentioned 
above in 1954 and another kill in 1956, all commercial fish- 
ing activities moved out to more productive grounds. 
Gradually more fishermen returned to the area but at the 
close of the study, the gear units and catch were still 
below the levels of the other areas. 

A close appraisal of the above methods and data shows 
that while a bit crude, the results should be reasonably 
accurate. It may be charged that the use of voluntary 
catch records is subject to bias. This is probably true. The 
records tend to be low as most commercial fishermen are 
afraid of Internal Revenue agents. As all fishermen were 
interviewed individually there is little opportunity for in- 
tentional mass bias of the data. One other check on the 
accuracy of catch records was afforded by the fact that 
the interviewer was formerly a commercial fisherman, 
knew all the fishing areas and fishermen, and was able 
to spot most instances of intentional bias immediately and 
recheck the data. 

For these reasons it is felt that this study is an ex- 
tremely accurate indication of the comparative fishing ef- 
fort and catches in the Ouachita River during the study 
period. 

In 1958, the utilization study was expanded to include 
a creel census. This was deemed necessary, as the random 
counts of fishermen failed to reveal the extent of sport 
fishing on the river. In addition this would allow an ob- 
jective evaluation of the utilization of the river. 

The census was designed to cover 60 miles of the study 
area for two 12 week periods. The periods were to be 
separated by at least 90 days as the catch for the whole 
year was desired. This plan proved overly optomistic. 

It was found to be impractical to attempt a creel 
census at any time when the river was over its banks. 
Dense trees and brush in the lowlands made accurate 
counting of fishermen from a boat impossible. An airplane 
for counting was not immediately available and visibility 
would have rendered such counting highly erratic if not 
impossible. Therefore, the creel census was confined to 

43 



times when the river was near or below bankfull stage. 
Accordingly, the first creel census was initiated on July 6, 
1958. 

The study area was divided into six 10-mile areas. 
Each area was to include the river and all connected lakes 
and basins within the 10-mile stretch. The areas were 
paired and designated A and B, one pair was above 
Sterlington, one pair between Sterlington and Monroe, and 
one pair below Monroe. The sampling schedule was ar- 
ranged to allow the paired areas to be visited in a single 
day. All weekends and holidays were included in the 
schedule. Three week days were included each week. 

The schedule for trips to each paired census area was 
set up at random in two groups, weekends and week days. 
An equal number of visits were scheduled to each area on 
each day of the week during the census period. Due to 
various factors such as sickness, motor troubles, etc. the 
actual number of visits to each area was not equal when 
the census was completed. 

The first census was completed on September 30, 1958. 
Ninety days later, on December 29, the second creel census 
was initiated but dropped 20 days later when the river was 
forced over its banks by heavy rainfall. When the river 
returned to its banks on May 22, the census was initiated 
again and completed on August 10, 1959. This leaves a 
large portion of the year unsampled but still indicates the 
comparative utilization of the different areas of the river. 
(Table X). 

During the first census (1958), 17 counts were made 
in paired Area 1, 19 counts in paired Area 2, and 18 counts 
in paired Area 3. These counts were divided between week 
ends and week days. A total of 192, 190, 236, 107, 150, 
and 92 fishermen were interviewed in Area 1-A through 
3-B respectively. This compares to 15, 15, and 14 counts 
for the paired areas in 1959 and 217, 113, 177, 160, 114, 
and 80 fishermen interviewed for the individual Areas 1-A 
through 3-B respectively. From this it can be seen that 
generally fewer fishermen were interviewed during 1959. 
One further item was checked and should be emphasized 
here. In Areas 2-B, 3-A, and 3-B the majority of fishermen 
fished from the bank in 1958. This was especially notice- 

44 



.inoH/sm 



■-< o o o o o 



J jnoj-i/-ofj «» '- °? " >> °» 

•^ IM CM --< CM CM CM 

H 

O 
H 



JnoH/sqq 

Jno H/"°.M 



DC 



I (/] Jno H /sqT 



o 
< 

3 a> id JnoH/ofyj 



H 
X 
£ sano H ubiai I 1°"^^ 



< °S -moH/sqT 



CO 

O <u 



In j noH/'°N 
2 

D 



55 E sjnoH ubjat 

J a) 

CO ■+ J 
Z v 

uj c/3 

O CO , , -«n°H/-sqT 



-I >, 
LU-5 



CC 05 

O o 

Ll sunoj-j ubj/^ 

O 

lO 
h 
- 1 (A JnoH/-sqq 

D trt 

co <: 

LU OQ 

CC x Jno H/°N 

O 

< 

J 

BO sanoj-j ue)\| 



CM CM CO IM rH r-( 

■<f co uj © in t» 



tc co co co c: io Q o x o t- t- 

tO fli H lO rH t- ^Ot-COtD iO 

»£> ■'CF to CO CO CM TjtWcoOlHH 



O o 

UJ . 

x° 

u. S 

w 3 " U H/ S HT m io co '-; r- to oo cc oo « t- co 

(/) <f _ Hodood dcioocdcd 

< . X 

III JH J2 ..m../„., CO CO OJ w CO LO c« lO CD >H CO fe- 

rn eg « -*"°H/ °NI ONMNlOO CMOCMC^St- 

< TO < 

ijj^U COOCClCCCvqt-- ftCO« N ^ 

X . sjnoj-j ubj^i cocDoJoicdira ciooc-^i^cdoo 

— ' ~o en co ^ ^ "^ ■* ■>* "3 co cm 

LU - c 



IO CM 'tf ^ IO CM i-i GO CD 0C OO 

L- CD lO CD t- CC ■** C- lO CO "tf 

|— w> G) M o o o © o o oo'oooo 



CO CO CM CM CM CO CO t-H CO CM .— i CM 

COGOQltiCOH i— I f- CD C". oo -3* 



CO i— i CD 00 CO t- 

CD "tf CO CD CO i-H 


00 O 00 


ot-oo 
io cm i-i 


t-NOMHO 
CD io CM CM CO CM 


CM -*tf O 
00 CD CM 


III 


o o o o © o 


• H '- , ' H 




CO CD CM LO T-t O 

r- o io to a> io 


ooaici 

CD CM CM 


1 1 1 


i-H i-H O O O O 


CM CM CM 




O M CO CO io O 


CX> GO IO 


1 ° 


H «l t-- t- io CM 

ai ■** i-t 


HC3JO 


' ' LO 


CD OO CM IC CD CM 
O CM 00 i-H iC CD 


CD CO CM 

^f 00 CO 


co oa ■<* 
cm ^ ^ 



- 


° 


H 


CM CD 


<= 




cj 


CO 
GO 


CO t- o 

O IO CD 


- 1 


rt 


o 


i-H OO 


« 


CM Ol t~. o 


o 



i~< HHOJINCOCO lH HhOJCMCCcC 



able in Area 3-A where 150 fishermen were interviewed 
and only 22 were fishing from boats. As will be discussed 
later, this accounts for much of the difference in types of 
fish that were taken. 

The length of a fishing trip varied considerably from 
area to area. For the two census periods in 1958 the 
longest fishing trips were in Area 3-A, while in 1959 this 
area had the shortest time spent per fishing trip. The time 
spent per trip was directly proportional for the other areas 
for the two years. In 1959, the trips averaged approxi- 
mately one hour longer for the other five areas though 
total fish caught was nearly the same. 

Field operations of the creel census involved a count 
of fishermen on one trip of the 10-mile stretch. This took 
about 45-50 minutes. On the return trip all fishermen were 
interviewed, number of fish, their weights, and the time 
fished recorded. At the end of the sample area the creel 
clerk moved to the other area of the pair and at a desig- 
nated time started his count and interviews. Only daylight 
creel checking was done for this study. In 1958 the average 
day length for fishermen was 15 hours and 14 hours in 
1959. Accordingly, the times of counts and creel checks were 
set up to cover all hours of the day in a fairly random 
pattern. Though often uncomfortable it should establish 
the average utilization of the various census areas. 

Before discussing the results of the creel census, it 
should be pointed out that all data as to catch per unit 
effort for a particular kind of fish was figured on the 
basis of catch while fishing for that species. Therefore, if 
a man was fishing for black bass and caught only sunfish, 
his catch per hour for bass would be nil. The total is 
simply the total number of fish caught, regardless of what 
was fished for, per hour. 

Fewer man hours were spent on Area 3 for all kinds 
of fish for both years. The lower or B portion of this area 
received the least total fishing pressure of any area. Yet 
this area, 3-B, did receive more black bass pressure than 
either 2-B or 3-A. The catch per unit effort offers a per- 
plexing picture. Area 1-A yielded the highest catch per 
unit effort by species but Area 2-A yielded the highest 
total number of fish per unit effort in 1959, along with the 

46 



fact that Area 1-A had the greatest fishing pressure. In 
1958, the data offers a more complex view of the fishing 
effort. During the year the greatest total effort was in 
Area 2-A where the total catch was lowest. The greatest 
effort for black bass in 1958, was in Area 1-A as it was 
for crappie and catfish. These areas also produced the 
highest catch per unit effort for the latter two species. 
More people fished for sunfish in Area 2-A with less suc- 
cess than any other area in 1958. 

White bass and drum are little sought after in the 
Ouachita River study area as shown by creel census. The 
best catches of the former are made in the spring as the 
river first reaches lock stage. This census period did not 
embrace this river stage either year. 

From these data it is evident that utilization of the 
Ouachita River is on the increase in those areas formerly 
subjected to heaviest pollutional loads. There must be con- 
tinued improvement in the water quality if fishing success 
and its counterpart fishing utilization is to increase to its 
optimum level. 



47 



CHEMICAL ANALYSES OF WATERS 
SELECTED FOR STUDY 

Analysis of the chemical constituents of waters have 
been used for many purposes. The chemical content often 
is a reliable index as to the health of a stream at a par- 
ticular station at a precise time. It is not and should not 
be used as an indicator of the extent of pollution of a 
stream, except on the day of sampling, and then only at 
the spot of sampling. Water chemistry usually fails to tell 
us if pollutants have been present in the past. For such 
determinations other data must be collected. 

Prior to 1957, it was felt that only routine field 
analyses were absolutely necessary. No facilities were avail- 
able for laboratory work. Therefore, chemical determina- 
tions were limited to pH, turbidity, dissolved oxygen and 
temperature. These four determinations give a good indi- 
cation of the presence of most of the pollutants present. 
In 1957, salinity determinations were added as the first 
laboratory analysis. The determinations were made during 
all regularly scheduled trips through the sampling area and 
when excessive amounts of pollutants were suspected. 

Such determinations are useful and tell something of 
the status of a stream. They fail to show the complex 
interactions of many chemicals which are a part of the 
normal stream water and also make up the pollutants that 
enter the river on occasion. 

To accurately determine the effect of a pollutant upon 
the chemical content of the stream, it is imperative to 
know the components before the effluent is discharged 
into the stream. This entails considerable sampling over 
an extended period. For this reason intensive sampling was 
initiated late in 1957, on the Ouachita River and later on 
the six check streams. 

Sampling was done weekly at some stations, biweekly 
at specific stations on all streams, and quarterly at all sta- 
tions. The samples were returned to the laboratory and 
analysis completed usually within 24 hours. 

49 



Nine tests were performed on all samples brought to the 
laboratory- Additional tests were conducted when war- 
ranted. Analysis was conducted primarily with a Hach 
Direct Reading Colorimeter. (Figure XIX). Copper, 
chromate, iron, nitrate, nitrite sulfate, orthosphosphate, 
and aluminum content were analyzed with the colorimeter. 
The results may be found in the appendix. 




Figure XIX 
Chemical analysis of water using the Hach Direct Reading Colorimeter. 

Other analyses such as chloride, dissolved oxygen, 
alkalinity, total phosphate, pH, turbidity, color phenol, and 
carbon dioxide were run in the field or laboratory by other 
standard methods. 

At present it is not possible to accurately correlate 
the presence of fish or fish food organisms with any par- 
ticular chemical, except as noted under their respective 
headings. This does not mean that there is no correlation 
but rather that the sampling methods and analysis pro- 
cedures used were too gross to make an accurate and posi- 
tive determination possible. 



50 



BIOASSAYS OF SELECTED POLLUTANTS 

The amount and toxicity of a pollutant, coupled with 
the quality and amount of receiving water, determine the 
effects of a pollutant on any aquatic community. Often it 
is not possible to keep the receiving water constant as to 
either quality or amount. Therefore, the burden of holding 
effluent discharges to non-toxic levels is assigned directly 
to the operation of the discharge system. 

It must be emphasized that it is the feeling of this 
author that, insofar as practical, effluents should be dis- 
charged only when the receiving water will not be seri- 
ously affected. Effluent should either be treated or pooled 
until not toxic where possible and practical. Further, this 
apparently non-toxic or treated water should then be re- 
leased when the receiving water will suffer the least ad- 
verse effect. 

Within the study area, paper mill effluent probably 
receives the greatest amount of condemnation from the 
public. This is due to its visible effect on the water as 
well as the fact that it has been the causative agent of 
several fish clie-offs. For this reason paper mill effluent re- 
ceived the initial bioassay study followed by commercial sol- 
vents waste and sewage. 

Two bioassay methods were used. For convenience 
these were designated as laboratory method and field 
method. Laboratory methods were those in general use with 
certain modifications as will be outlined below. Bluegill sun- 
fish, largemouth bass, black crappie, golden shiner, and 
black bullhead were used as bioassay animals. These species 
were used due to their immediate availability and they 
represented the major types of fish fished for in the area. 

At the beginning of the study, standard glass aquaria 
(20 x 12 x 10 inches) were used as test vessels. These 
were found to be objectionable because of the extreme diffi- 
culty encountered in decontamination after their use. They 
were also subject to breakage and their shape made them 
very space consuming in storage. After consideration of 

51 



' 



several substitutes, these aquaria were replaced with 
plastic-lined corrugated cardboard cartons which are manu- 
factured commercially for milk transport. 

The carton measures 9 x 9 x 20 inches, holds 25 liters, 
and can be used repeatedly. (Figure XX). These cartons 
were later replaced with boxes of the same measurements 
having two plywood sides and two screen wire sides. 
(Figure XXI). These have the added advantages of more 
visibility of test specimens and do not come apart when 
inadvertently drenched with water. The liner for both was 




Figure XX 

Bioassay cartons showing from left to right, standard aquarium, 

shipping carton, cut-away aquarium. 





Figure XXI 

Bioassay cartons showing boxes with screen wire sides and 

polyethylene liners. 



52 



of 4 mil pinhole free polyethylene and was discarded after 
being used for two determinations (turned inside-out after 
first use.). 

Water in the aquaria was created by pressure fed 
stone air breakers and, insofar as possible, oxygen was kept 
at constant levels throughout each assay. Temperature of 
the water was held at 25°C±1° by the use of a refrigera- 
tion unit and standard aquarium immersion heaters. 

Test fish were of fingerling size (2-5 inches) from 
stocks available at the fish hatchery which was project 
headquarters. Every effort was made to keep the size 
range to a minimum for final Tim determinations. For 
later determination, dilution water was secured from di- 
rectly above the effluent discharge point. Ten specimens 
of a species were placed in each aquarium and were al- 
lowed 24 hours for acclimatization. Species were never 
mixed in individual aquariums. After this 24 hours period, 
appropriate amounts of effluent were added to the aquarium 
to give the desired application rate. 

Dilution waters varied according to the purpose of the 
test. To determine the initial Tim, water from Bayou De- 
Siard, a relatively stable unpolluted lake near Monroe, 
Louisiana, was used. 

Fish were kept under constant observation for one 
hour after to introduction of the effluent. Subsequent ob- 
servations were made at six hour intervals for 48 hours. 

For each effluent trial concentration series were es- 
tablished using one aquarium and ten fish per concentra- 
tion. Verifying series were of four replicate aquaria each 
with ten fish. These were used to validate the Tim value. 
Final Tim values were then secured by graphic interpola- 
tion. 

As it was found that the character of effluents often 
changed after being held for a period of time, each effluent 
test was conducted as an entity in itself. This made for 
a large volume of information that of necessity was then 
averaged as shown above. 

Paper mill effluent showed the greatest variation when 
tested upon arrival at the laboratory. Effluent from three 
mills was collected at the discharge pipe immediately out- 
side the mill. Greater variations in toxicity were found to 

53 



exist at one mill than between the three mills. On suc- 
cessive days the toxicity of fresh effluent from a single- 
mill varied in a magnitude of four times. For this reason 
it was deemed impossible to set a dilution factor that would 
be practical and yet always non-toxic. To be assured of not 
killing fish (there still might be other undesirable effects) 
receiving water should contain at least five ppm of oxygen 
and dilute the effluent by 99.8 per cent. That is, only 0.2 
per cent of the water below the outfall could be effluent 
if no kill was to result. This amount of dilution water 
would be available only during times of high water flows 
in the Ouachita River. Even then it is probable that some 
adverse conditions would be present. 

After holding the paper mill effluents, more compar- 
able results were obtained. If effluents from any of the 
three mills were held in open tanks for two weeks, fish 
survived in aquariums containing 50 per cent of the super- 
natant liquid and 50 per cent dilution water. If the ma- 
terial that had settled to the bottom was taken back into 
solution, fish could survive only 20 percent effluent and 80 
percent dilution water. 

Effluent was then held for 30 days and retested. At 
this time fish could survive in the pure supernatant ef- 
fluent. Preliminary tests indicated that many of the com- 
moner benthic organisms could not survive this concentra- 
tion, however. Further, it should be mentioned for later 
discussion that the water still had an undesirable brown 
color and foamed in a manner locally associated with paper 
mill effluent. 

Next laboratory tests were run on the effluent from 
commercial solvents production. This effluent was relatively 
constant in both amount and chemical content. It should 
be indicated that this effluent was almost entirely cooling 
water as more toxic effluent was not discharged until after 
treatment. A 24 hour Tim was found to be 45 percent of 
the fresh effluent. After the effulent was held for 48 hours, 
all fish lived in the effluent. No odor or undesirable color 
was associated with the effluent after the 48 hour holding 
period. 

Municipal sewage formed an extremely complex situa- 
tion. Samples taken at ten minute intervals for three hours 

54 



were mixed and Tim's determined. Results from 18 such 
mixtures varied from no effect to 99.93 per cent dilution 
necessary. Holding of the effluent for 30 days removed 
most of the toxic materials. Due to the extreme variation 
in results this phase of the investigation was discontinued. 

The field method of bioassay is also a well documented 
procedure. For the tests on the Ouachita River the pro- 
cedures were modified only as necessary to meet unusual 
water conditions. 

Test cages were constructed of 1/4 inch hardware cloth 
on a wooden frame. Their outside measurements were 2x2x2 
feet. A door was constructed in the top for easy removal of 
test specimens. Five fish of one species were placed in a 
cage and the cage moved progressively nearer the point of 
effluent discharge until the fish died. At this time an ap- 
proximation of the percentage effluent present at the toxic 
point was calculated. 

The same five species were used as in the laboratory 
studies. The cages were all anchored so that the top of the 
cage was at the top of the water. No tests were of greater 
than 20 days duration as fish began to die of starvation 
and disease after this time. 

Results of this method were good during times of 
normal water flows. During times of high water it was 
not possible to keep the cages in place due to floating 
debris. In addition, the calculation of per cent dilution be- 
came extremely difficult. For this reason it was decided 
to use this test only to determine the area affected by a 
particular effluent. This was still affected to a large extent 
by the flow of the river. In early August, when the river 
was at lock stage and flow was low, the toxic area ex- 
tended for almost four acres and the sub toxic or affected 
area extend 3.2 miles downstream. Earlier in the spring, 
no effect was noted within 120 yards of the outfall. 

Field, bioassays are still the best method of determin- 
ing the existing toxic zone. This is due to the constant 
replinishment of the effluent, which is not practical in the 
laboratory. However, the data obtained is generally nega- 
tive in nature. It is not possible to tell accurately how much 
killed the specimens, only whether they are alive or dead. 

Laboratory bioassays furnish us a guide as to what can 

55 



be done to reduce or eliminate the toxic portion of an ef- 
fluent. After this has been determined pilot projects in the 
field would then determine the effectiveness of the control 
procedures. Finally the control methods can be applied to 
the entire effluent. On the Ouachita River the control 
methods are pretty well known and some pilot project work 
has been done. Much of the final building of control sta- 
tions is still necessary, however. 



56 



RATE OF ASSIMILATION OF 

OBJECTIONABLE FLAVORS FROM 

POLLUTANTS BY FISH 

Off-flavor or odor fish, though not often encountered 
in this area, are an ever present threat. Complaints were 
received in the project office during all of the first three 
years of the project. During the final 2.5 years no new 
complaints were received. Old objections were still voiced 
occasionally. 

The author had occasion to check out five complaints 
personally. Two were buffalo, and one each were bluegill 
sunfish, channel catfish, and largemouth bass. In these 
cases the location of the catches was determined and the 
fish sampled. An objectionable odor was quite noticeable 
in the room while the fish were being cooked. After cooking 
only two of the five complaints had a positive off -flavor. In 
both cases it was a definite taste of kerosene. The other 
three specimens may have had an objectionable flavor but 
it was not detectable by the author. 

This study was conducted in conjunction with the 
foregoing job. After a concentration was established in 
which all fish would live, five fish of comparable size 
(5-8 inches) were placed in each aquarium. Varying 
sublethal concentrations of the effluent were then added 
to the aquarium. Initially the effluent was not renewed 
but subsequently the fish were subjected to renewed wastes 
daily. This caused some deaths apparently due to the 
shock of transfer. 

After the fish had remained in the test vessels for 
two weeks, one fish was removed from each test aquarium 
and two from a control. Fish were cleaned and skinned. 
Due care was taken to keep separation and identification 
positive. Separate frying pans were set up with fresh 
vegetable oil. Fish were then deep fried to a consistent 
brown. No dip or seasoning of any kind was used to pre- 
vent confusing the test. 

57 



When cooking was completed, the fish were placed 
on numbered plates. One control was identified to the 
test panel to be used as a basis for comparison. The test 
was conducted by each taster taking a portion of the fish 
and placing it in his mouth. The piece is thoroughly 
masticated but need not be swallowed. The idea is to 
evolve the volatile compounds in the oral cavity so that 
the vapors reach the olfactory nerves. After each test the 
mouth should be rinsed out before tasting fish on the 
next plate. Each fish was tasted in order and then in re- 
verse order and results noted on a 3 x 5 inch card. The 
rating scale used was: (O)-no odor, ( + ) -barely per- 
ceptible, ( + + ) -definite odor, and ( + + + ) -objectionably 
strong. 

It should be emphasized that the foregoing test is 
actually an odor test. The words taste and taster are ac- 
tually used to refer to the process of obtaining an odor. 
Establishment of true tastes : sweet, sour, bitter, and salt, 
proved very complicated and required cumbersome pro- 
cedures. 

Several things became clear as tasting progressed. 
The room for the test should be well lighted, comfortable 
and free from odors. No tastes can be allowed in the 
preparation room. No distractions can be tolerated. Clothes 
of the tasters should be odor free. In some cases it was 
necessary to allow only one taster in the test room at a 
time. At least five, but no more than seven, tasters should 
be used. Taste or odor perception apparently can be in- 
creased in the test panel as more work is done. 

If the majority of the panel does not indicate a defi- 
nite odor is present, the series should be continued at 
seven day intervals until a definite odor is observed, (i.e., 
14, 21, 28, 35, 42, etc.). This may become very involved 
prior to completion of a series. 

This job also made use of the cages suspended in the 
river for the foregoing job. Fish were removed at weekly 
intervals and prepared as above. Two controls were used, 
fish from the river above the effluent discharge and fish 
from hatchery ponds. 

On the basis of the foregoing tests it was established 
that bluegill, and black crappie picked up odors in that or- 

58 



der. No odors were ever attributed to largemouth bass or 
black bullheads. 

Due to the high death rate caused by constantly shift- 
ing laboratory fish, it was not possible to accurately deter- 
mine the exact concentration of paper mill effluent neces- 
sary to cause objectionable odors. It remained between the 
2 and 5 percent level and required 28 or more days to 
become established in bluegill and slightly longer in black 
crappie. 

In field testing, it was not possible to determine the 
concentration or length of time necessary for an odor to 
become prevalent in the fish of a particular species. High 
waters made accurate determinations of concentrations 
concerned subject to doubt as to their accuracy. Further, 
it was not possible to keep fish alive in the suspended 
cages long enough for the panel to reach a conclusion as 
to an objectionable odor. If water conditions on the Ouach- 
ita River return to lock stage for a long period of time 
the study should be repeated. It is the author's belief that 
the method described is adequate and workable under those 
conditions. 



59 



SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 

This study was conducted on the Ouachita River from 
July 1, 1954 through September 30, 1959, between Felsen- 
thal, Arkansas, and Riverton, Louisiana. This river is of 
major importance to commercial fisheries, sport fishing, 
navigation, and for water supply in Northeast Louisiana. 
During the final year of the project, sampling for com- 
parative purposes was conducted on the following streams : 
Bayou Bartholomew, Bayou D'Arbonne, Bayou Macon, 
Boeuf River and Tensas River. 

Pollutants present in the Ouachita River enter both 
above and within the study area. Paper mill effluent, do- 
mestic sewage, solvent production effluent,, and oil and gas 
wastes received most consideration under this study. 

Several methods of sampling fish populations were 
investigated. Some limitations were found for each. Where 
possible, seining with a drag seine is effective as a sam- 
pling method. Uneven bottom and excessive current both 
hamper its usefulness. The use of rotenone or other fish 
toxicants on a large river such as the Ouachita is not 
practical or feasible. The use of nets proved unworkable 
due to both net selectivity and high current. Some further 
work should be done on the use of electrical collection 
methods as these will apparently be the most useful for 
stream collections. 

Sampling of benthic organisms was conducted on a 
quarterly schedule throughout the project. These samples 
were brought to the laboratory and identified. As identi- 
fication was completed, the pollutional tolerance of each 
organism was noted and the improvement or impairment 
of the condition of the river catalogued. During the final 
year of the project, the check streams were sampled and 
data compared to the Ouachita River. 

Stomach samples of fish were collected from seined 
fish by generally accepted methods. The contents were 
identified and catalogued. These data were then compared 
to the benthos data collections. In this way, it was cle- 

61 



termined the preferred food of major species and the 
probable effects of pollution on the presence of food organ- 
isms and the subsequent presence, or absence, of fish in a 
particular area. 

Reproduction studies on the Ouachita River showed 
that there was an adequate number of desirable spawning 
sites. Further, it was found that the fish reproduction on 
the river was adequate in most instances. It was noted that 
high waters must be present for continued good repro- 
duction. This high water apparently removes any real or 
imagined movement barriers which allows adequate brood 
fish to be present on the spawning grounds. 

Utilization of the Ouachita was studied both as to com- 
mercial fishing and sport fishing. Commercial fish land- 
ings increased for the lower portion of the study area in 
the later phases of the project. A creel census of the study 
area showed that both sport fishing effort and catches 
had been adversely affected by the pollution load of the 
river. Near the end of the project, more effort was being 
evidenced, however. 

Chemical determinations on the water found in the 
Ouachita were made quarterly and when deemed necessary. 
The chemical constituency showed marked improvement 
near the completion of the project. It was not possible to 
determine any direct correlation between chemical content 
and presence or absence of fish or benthic organisms on a 
particular day. Rather, the absence of any organism was 
usually correlated with the passage of a toxic material at 
a past date. 

Bioassays of selected effluents were conducted under 
both laboratory and field conditions. From the former it 
was determined that most toxic effluents presently enter- 
ing the river could be rendered non-toxic by pooling for 
varying periods of time. These pools could then be emptied 
during times of high water flows, thereby having a mini- 
mum detrimental effect on the river. 

Taste tests revealed that paper mill effluent can cause 
objectionable flavors in fish if subjected to even low con- 
centrations over a period of time. It is still not clear whether 
other pollutants can have the same effect. 

All results from this study point to two conclusions. 
First, the pollutional load of the Ouachita River is ap- 

62 



parently dropping. Actually, this may not be true. Instead, 
the increased flows of the last four years may have diluted 
the effluents to non-toxic level and thereby concealed their 
presence. If improvement of the river is to continue, wastes 
from two sources must receive treatment; Olin Paper 
Mill in West Monroe and sewage from Monroe and West 
Monroe are these offenders. In addition, wastes crossing 
the Arkansas-Louisiana line must be eliminated. 

Second, better sampling methods applicable to south- 
eastern streams must be devised and standardized. The 
present methods which were developed for the clear and/or 
shallow streams of northern United States either need re- 
vision or complete overhaul for use in our streams. This 
holds particularly true for the standards of clean water 
species thus far developed. 

This study at its completion failed to devise methods 
for general use in examination of polluted streams in Lou- 
isiana. Some of the methods need further study as indi- 
cated in the text. Others are ready for use under certain 
conditions as indicated. It is hoped that the opportunity 
for this needed research will be offered to qualified per- 
sonnel in the southeast in the near future. In this way 
much can be accomplished. 



63 



APPENDIX 



Table 1 

CATCH IN POUNDS PER ACRE BY ONE INCH MESH 

DRAG SEINE FROM THE OUACHITA RIVER 



July 1, 1955 - June 30, 1956 



River Mile 

224 

223 



221 

218.5 

218 

212 

209.5 

209 

208 



207.5 

205.5 

204.5 

203 

202.5 

202 

198 

197.5 

197 
195 

193 

192.5 

191.5 

188.5 
186 

184.5 

182 

181 

177.5 

172 

169.5 

156 

155 

152.5 

137 

133 



Date 

25 May 

25 May 

15 September 

28 May 

9 September 
10 September 

28 May 

10 September 

29 May 

29 May 

30 May 
1 June 

29 May 

30 May 

31 May 
29 July 

1 June 

11 June 
7 June 

7 June 

8 June 

11 June 

12 June 

13 June 

3 August 

14 June 

15 June 

3 August 
15 June 

14 June 

15 June 

3 August 
28 June 

28 June 

29 August 
29 August 
22 August 
22 August 
29 August 
22 August 
21 August 
31 August 

1 September 
1 September 

12 September 

13 July 

13 September 



Game 


Commercial 


Trash 


Total 


0.6 


4.(1 


33.7 


38.3 


1.4 


7.2 


19.0 


27.6 


1.4 


10.5 


133.0 


153.9 


3.8 


121.3 




125.1 


0.1 


19.1 


30.4 


49.6 


2.8 


20.5 


93.0 


116.3 


1.4 


4.4 


26.0 


31.8 


0.7 


13.3 


159.6 


173.6 


1.5 


19.8 


108.5 


129.8 


0.1 


1.5 


69.9 


86.5 


3.4 


42.0 


112.0 


157.4 


0.3 


29.6 


259.0 


288.9 


1.4 


14.7 


79.0 


95.1 


1.9 


43.6 


165.0 


211.1 


3.7 


33.8 


67.9 


105.4 


0.9 


3.4 


155.8 


160.1 


0.5 


24.2 


82.2 


106.9 


1.4 


1.3 


87.0 


89.7 


1.4 


16.4 


236.0 


253.8 


4.5 


17.9 


126.0 


148.4 


2.7 


19.0 




21.7 


5.8 


6.7 


144.0 


156.5 


7.9 


107.2 


238.4 


353.5 


34.0 


38.2 


40.4 


112.6 


0.5 


3.5 


35.1 


39.1 


9.8 


65.4 


125.9 


201.1 


2.1 


19.1 


107.5 


128.7 






70.3 


70.3 


0.7 


4.3 


40.0 


45.0 


2.5 


12.0 


254.3 


268.8 


3.4 


3.6 


195.0 


202.0 


0.6 




2(1.0 


20.6 


6.5 


0.9 


32.3 


39.7 


6.7 


25.4 


461.0 


493.1 


3.0 


36.6 


172.0 


181.6 


0.8 


43.0 


3.0 


46.8 


1.1 




26.0 


27.1 


0.2 


1.0 


15.6 


16.8 


1.3 


9.8 


14.3 


25.4 


0.1 


1.0 


13.1 


14.2 


0.3 


6.3 


150.0 


156.6 


0.4 


28.1 


45.6 


74.1 




7.5 


94.7 


102.2 


0.7 


8.9 


42.2 


51.8 




11.5 


14.4 


25.9 




2.0 


8.1 


10.1 






8.0 


8.0 



65 






Table 2 

ROTENONE SAMPLES IN POUNDS PER ACRE FROM THE OUACHITA R 

SYSTEM DURING 1955 



River 
Location Miles 

Alabama Landing 

Basin 223 

DeLoutre Basin 202.5 

White Lake 194 

Old River 192 

D'Arbonne 188 

Bank Slide 186 

Howard Griffin 181 

1 mile above Lock 

& Dam 4 178 

Lake Lafitta 151 

Below Cutoff 143 









Com- 






Date 


Game 


mercial 


Trash 


28 


September 


83.0 


268.0 


201.2 


27 


September 


12.6 


76.6 


124.4 


26 


September 


20.8 


16.0 


30.2 


10 


October 


54.4 


71.4 


816.4 


29 


September 


8.2 


36.6 


41.2 


6 


October 


67.2 


180.4 


483.2 


5 


October 


41.6 


11.6 


131.5 


4 


October 


4.5 


12.9 


115.9 


21 


September 


13.4 


87.6 


99.6 


22 


September 


20.5 


17.6 


55.1 



66 



Table 3 

TANDING CROP OF FISH POPULATIONS IN POUNDS PER ACRE IN LAKES AND 
ASINS OF THE OUACHITA RIVER AS DETERMINED BY A ONE INCH MESH 

DRAG SEINE— 1955-1959 



Location 
ank Pierre 
Creek 
mith Eddy 



neh Bayou 
ony Lake 



oungs Lake 



(eLoutre Basin 



falls Lake Basin 



[orseshoe Lake 
r hite Lake 



Toon Lake 



,ake Lafitta 



River 






Com- 






Miles 


Date 


Game 


mercial 


Trash 


Total 


225 


15 August 


1.9 


1.6 


33.0 


36.5 


224 


23 May 


16.5 


4.8 


1210.0 


1231.3 




9 August 


3.7 


110.4 


180.0 


294.1 




21 August 


183.5 


228.3 


1479.3 


1891.1 




30 October 


22.0 


65.3 


840.0 


927.3 


222 


24 May 


11.6 


0.5 


45.0 


57.1 


209 


11 May 


0.4 


- 


93.0 


93.4 




11 May 


2.9 


0.7 


0.7 


4.3 




28 July 


0.7 


31.4 


91.0 


123.1 




28 July 


4.6 


12.0 


45.0 


61.6 




20 August 


12.4 


29.6 


87.9 


129.9 


203 


10 May 


0.2 


- 


271.0 


271.2 




6 June 


31.0 


11 2 


123.7 


156.9 




8 July 


7.7 


0.8 


302.1 


310.6 




12 July 


5.6 


2.3 


422.2 


430.1 




5 August 


3.0 


3.2 


37.2 


43.5 




7 August 


5.9 


9.3 


97.5 


112.7 




18 August 


10.S 


85.2 


486.5 


582.5 




16 September 


20.9 


327.3 


334.2 


682.4 




29 October 


17.7 


4.8 


62.2 


84.7 




3 December 


1.8 


23.4 


21.5 


46.7 


202.5 


5 June 


5.7 


- 


1712.2 


1717.9 




27 July 


2.2 


- 


359.0 


361.2 




27 July 


1.1 


- 


189.2 


190.3 




15 August 


29.3 


33.0 


1230.3 


1292.6 




28 October 


22.0 


179.5 


391.3 


592.8 


200 


8 May 


15.0 


54.5 


519.0 


754.5 




9 May 


7.8 


1.7 


330.0 


339.5 




7 July 


7.6 


3.8 


195.2 


206.6 




3 August 


O.S 


0.5 


166.0 


167.3 




12 September 


211.1 


3690.1 


3207.8 


7109.0 




2 December 


3.1 


15.6 


34.3 


53.0 


195 


13 July 


3.2 


- 


854.7 


857.9 


194 


1 July 


8.8 


3.0 


454.4 


466.2 




5 July 


11.3 


1.1 


271.8 


284.2 




14 August 


9.7 


51.2 


346.9 


407.8 




11 September 


7.7 


121.0 


367.7 


496.4 




23 October 


13.6 


64.9 


238.2 


316.7 


193.5 


30 June 


8.1 


2.2 


440.0 


450.3 




30 June 


10.2 


6.7 


344.3 


361.2 




12 August 


34.7 


18.4 


306.5 


359.6 




10 September 


22.7 


116.8 


100.0 


239.5 




23 October 


13.9 


7.3 


46.8 


68.0 


151 


19 August 


18.2 


21.8 


510.1 


550.1 




3 October 


23.8 


39.2 


345.0 


408.0 



67 



Table 4 

FISH PER NET DAY CAUGHT IN ONE INCH MESH WIRE TRAPS 

AND TWO AND ONE-HALF INCH MESH HOOP NETS IN 

THE OUACHITA RIVER 



Gear 
Wire traps 
Hoop nets 
Wire traps 
Hoop nets 
Traps & nets 
Wire traps 
Hoop nets 
Traps & nets 
Wire traps 
Hoop nets 
Traps & nets 
Traps & nets 
Wire traps 
Hoop nets 
Traps & nets 
Traps & nets 
Traps & nets 
Traps & nets 
Traps & nets 
Traps & nets 
Traps & nets 
Traps & nets 
Wire traps 
Hoop nets 



River 
Miles 

150 

150 

170 

170 

180 

185 

185 

188 

190 

190 

195 

196.5 

200 

200 

200 

203 

204 

205 

206 

207 

211 

213 

220 

220 



Years 

1957 
1957 
1957 
1957 
1956 
1957 
1957 
1956 
1957 
1957 
1956 
1956 
1957 
1957 
1956 
1956 
1956 
1956 
1956 
1956 
1956 
1956 
1957 
1957 





Com - 






Game 


mercial 


Trash 


Tota 


5.31 


0.12 


0.19 


5.62 


t 


0.43 


0.12 


0.55 


0.34 


0.07 


0.17 


0.58 


- 


0.17 


- 


0.17 


0.71 


0.38 


0.24 


1.33 


0.69 


0.40 


0.08 


1.17 


t 


0.34 


0.13 


0.47 


0.61 


0.43 


0.10 


1.14 


0.43 


0.23 


0.29 


0.95 


- 


0.19 


0.02 


0.21 


0.42 


0.19 


0.04 


0.65 


0.14 


0.10 


0.19 


0.43 


5.70 


0.25 


0.12 


6.07 


- 


0.20 


0.01 


0.21 


0.17 


0.05 


0.16 


0.38 


- 


0.10 


0.08 


0.18 


0.22 


0.10 


0.09 


0.41 


0.18 


0.08 


0.02 


0.28 


0.29 


0.08 


0.08 


0.45 


0.08 


0.16 


0.16 


0.40 


0.12 


0.07 


0.07 


0.26 


0.15 


0.18 


0.03 


0.36 


0.27 


0.12 


0.27 


0.66 


- 


0.16 


0.01 


0.17 



68 



Table 5 

DESCRIPTION OF BENTHOS SAMPLING 
STATIONS ON OUACHITA RIVER 





River 


Station 


Mile 


I (A) 


236.4 


I (B) 


229.0 


I 


227.0 



VIII 


203.0 


IX 


206.0 


X 

XI 


188.5 


XII 


188.0 


XIII 


185.0 


XIV 


184.0 


XV 


183.0 


XVI 


181.0 


XVII 


178.5 


XVIII 


177.0 


XIX 


175.0 


XX 


170.0 


XXI 


169.5 


XXII 


156.0 


XXIII 





XXIV 


147.0 


XXV 


141.0 


XXVI 


138.0 


XXVII 


134.0 



Description 
] 4 mile below Coffee Creek 
Mouth of Shiloh Creek 
Pipe line crossing 
100 yards up Frank Pierre Creek 
300 yards up Finch Bayou 
Third gas well below Hooker Hole 
100 yards above Bayou Bartholomew 
i i> mile up Bayou Bartholomew 
% mile above La. No. 2 bridge, Bayou 

DeL'O utre 
Bayou DeL'Outre Basin 
1000 yards below railroad bridge, 

Sterlington, La. 
300 yards up Bayou D'Arbonne 
100 yards above mouth of D'Arbonne 
1 2 mile below mouth of D'Arbonne 
100 yards above Monroe boat dock 
1 2 mile above Lazarr's Point 
y 2 mile below Lazaar's Point 
500 yards below West Monroe Sewage 
300 yards below Black Bayou 
300 yards below Lock & Dam No. 4 
Upper end of Buck Horn Bend 
500 yards above Cheniere Creek 
: 4 mile below Cheniere Creek 
1 mile above Bosco Landing 
Inside Lake Lafitta 
Waco Landing 
Waverly Landing 
Above mouth of Lone Grave Bayou 
1 mile above Lock and Dam No. 3 







N umber 


ottom Type 


Samples 


Sandy 




2 


Sandy 




2 


Sandy 


:lay 


2 


Mucky 




2 


Mucky 




2 


Sandy 


oam 


2 


Gummy 


loam 


2 


Sandy 




2 


Mucky 




2 


Mucky 




3 


Mucky 




2 


Sandy 


loam 


2 


Loam 




2 


Sandy 




2 


Mucky 




2 


Mucky 




2 


Mucky 




2 


Mucky 




2 


Mucky 




2 


Mucky 




3 


Sandy 


loam 


2 


Sandy 


loam 


g 


Sandy 




2 


Sandy 


loam 


2 


Mucky 




3 


Clay loam 


2 


Loam 




•) 


Sandy 


loam 


2 



Table 6 

DESCRIPTION OF BENTHOS SAMPLING 
STATIONS ON BAYOU D'ARBONNE 



ation 


Parish 


I 


Union 


II 


Union 


III 


Union 


IV 


Union 


V 


LTnion 


VI 


Union 



Description Bottom Type 

l 2 mile below proposed dam site Sandy loam 

V2 mile above proposed dam site Mucky 

Vi mile below La. No. 15 bridge Mucky 

100 yards below mouth of Corney Creek Mucky 

2 miles up Corney Creek Sandy 

2 miles above mouth of Corney Creek Mucky 



69 



Table 7 

DESCRIPTION OF BENTHOS SAMPLING 
STATIONS ON BAYOU BARTHOLOMEW 



Station 


Parish 




Description 


B 


Dttom Type 


I 


Morehouse 




Bridge La. #592 




Sandy 


II 


Morehouse 




Bridge La. #139 




Sandy 


III 


Morehouse 




Bridge La. #140 




Sandy 


IV 


Morehouse 




Bridge La. #834 




Sandy 






Table 8 







DESCRIPTION OF BENTHOS SAMPLING 
STATIONS ON BOEUF RIVER 



Station 


Parish 




Description 


Bottom Type 


I 


Caldwell 




Bridge La. #4 


Clay 


II 


Richland 




Bridge IT. S. #80 


Sandy 


III 


Morehouse 




Bridge La. #2 


Sandy 


IV 


Chicot County 




Bridge Ark. #8 


Mucky 






Table 9 





DESCRIPTION OF BENTHOS SAMPLING 
STATIONS ON BAYOU MACON 



Station 
I 
II 
III 
IV 



Parish 

Franklin 
Richland 
West Carroll 
East Carroll 



Description 

Bridge La. #4 
Bridge U. S. #80 
Bridge La. #134 
Bridge La. #585 



Bottom Type 
Mucky 
Mucky 
Mucky 
Sandy 



Table 10 



DESCRIPTION OF BENTHOS SAMPLING 
STATIONS ON TENSAS RIVER 



tation 


Parish 


I 


Tensas 


II 


Franklin 


III 


Madison 


IV 


East Carroll 



Description Bottom Type 

Bridge La. #15 Mucky 

Bridge La. #4 Sandy 

Bridge U. S. #80 Sandy 

Bridge La. #134 Sandy 



70 



Table 11 

BOTTOM ORGANISMS PRESENT 
IN PROJECT SAMPLES 



Order 


Family 


Genus 


Species 


Oligochaeta 


Tubificidae 
Unidentified 


Tubifex 


tubifex 


Rhynchobdellia 


Unidentified 






Podocopa 








Eucopepoda 


Cyclopidae 


Cyclops 




Isopoda 


Asellidae 


Asellus 




Amphipoda 


Gammaridae 


Gammarus 




Decapoda 








Hydracarina 








Plecoptera 








Ephemeroptera 


Ephemeridae 


Hexagenia 






Batidae 


Caenis 






Heptageniidae 


Stenonema 




Odonata 


Libellulidae 


Macromia 

Epicordulia 

Pythemis 






Gomphidae 


Gomphus 
Dromogomphus 






Coenagrionidae 


Argia 
Ischnura 




Hemiptera 


Corixidae 






Trichoptera 


Hydropsychidae 
Unidentified 


Hydropsyche 




Lepidoptera 


Pyralididae 






Coleoptera 


Haliplidae 
Dytiscidae 


Brychius 






Hydrophilidae 


Berosus 






Elmidae 


Dubiraphia 
Rhizelmis 




Diptera 


Culicidae 


Chaoborus 






Tendipedidae 


Pentaneura 


carnea 






Pentaneura 


monilis gr 






Pentaneura 


basilis 






Pentaneura 


sp. 






Clinotanypus 


sp. 






Coelotanypus 


concinnus 






Pelopia 


stellata 






Procladius 


bellus 






Cryptoehironomus 


fulvus gr. 






Tendipes (Limnochironomus) 


modestus 






Tendipes (Limnochironomus) 


nervosus 






Tendipes (Tendipes) 


decorus 






Tendipes (Tendipes) 


sp. 






Polypedilum 


scalaenum 






Polypedilum 


ophioides 






Polypedilum 


tritum 






Polypedilum (Pentapedilum) 


sp. 






Polypedilum 


sp. 






Tanytarsus 








(Endochironomus) 


nigricans 






Tanytarsus 


sp. 






Glyptotendipes 








(Phytotendipes) 


sp. 






Xenochironomus 


festivus 






Calopsectra 


sp. 




Heleidae 








Stratiomyiidae 


Oxycera 




Ctenobranchiata 


Viviparidae 
Pleuroceridae 






Eulamellibranchia 


Unionidae 
Sphaeridae 







Table 12 

BOTTOM ORGANISMS PRESENT PER SQUARE FOOT AT 
STATION I (A), OUACHITA RIVER ON DATES INDICATED 



Tubifex 45.7 19.6 

Hexagenia - 0.7 

Plecoptera 

Chaoborus 

Pentaneura basilis 

Procladius bellus 

Coelotanypus concinnus - 

Cryptochironomus 

fulvus gr. - 0.7 

Polypedilum 

(Pentapedilum) sp. 
Tendipes decorus 0.7 

Tendipes (Limnochiron- 

omus) nervosus - 0.7 

Unionidae 0.7 

Sphaeridae 0.7 10.1 



63.6 



73.6 



13.6 



0.7 



1.4 



3.6 



1.4 



11 2 
0.7 
0.7 
0.7 
0.7 
2.1 
0.7 



0.7 



1.4 
1.4 



Table 13 

BOTTOM ORGANISMS PRESENT PER SQUARE FOOT AT 
STATION I (B), OUACHITA RIVER ON DATES INDICATED 



Tubifex 40.6 


5.1 


10.1 


93.7 


Gammarus 5.1 


- 


- 


- 


Asellus 0.7 


1.4 


- 


- 


Hexagenia 


0.7 


- 


- 


Trichoptera 


2.9 


- 


- 


Chaoborus 


- 


- 


201.6 


Pentaneura basilis 0.7 


- 


- 


- 


Procladius bellus 8.0 


- 


- 


1.4 


Cryptochironomus 








fulvus gr. 5.8 


- 


- 


- 


Polypedilum sp. 


- 


- 


- 


Tendipes (Linmochiron- 








omus) nervosus 


0.7 


- 


- 


Viviparidae 


2.9 


1.4 


13.6 


Unionidae 


- 


0.7 


- 


Sphaeridae 7.2 


- 


2.9 


- 



i). 7 



81.5 



1.4 



2.1 



9.3 



0.7 

1.4 

2.1 



72 



6S-IS-S «? 



G9-L-1 



8S-9-0T 



S9-08-9 



ss-s-f> 



19-08-oT S 



AS-f-T-OT « 



L9-6-L £ 



(N ^f t- 

ZS-9S-8 2 rH © 



© (N 



9S-9o-6l £ 

ea 

9S-2.S-6 ej 

SS-9T-2T t- 

SS-ZI-OT «= 

99-TS-9 g 

99-6-6 S 

99-^-X t- 



a tot-l- 



co in 



i— I CO I H W 



«0 t- rH t- 



© C\] 



T-H <M 



GO © 
LO CO 



CD 


© t- CO © 


50 LO 


Tf 


s 


© 




00 


1/5 © -* 00 


CO to 




IT 


t- 


© © 

t— L.-5 



Ca] LO <M C— 



M CO I lO t- 



l— I ^ CI N 



2 « m 

,, nj O Sh 

(D 3 O ri 

S o c a 

5 bo >. S 

3 a * 



— i x 
O K 9 C 



EC 



r. 

~ 'J. 

g 2 £ 



o s 






2 .2* 



ft 2 

S CD . 

O U 

O Ph < ffi Q C3 <! 



cS O <6 * ^ 



0) ^ 

■So 

o S ctf 
T. — ■" 'S 5 5 

C 



:.S<2 

c 2 



x 2 c 



£ .c 



p,j;c 



= i; J 






0- 3 






O 73 

£ ci C X 

O £ OJ O 0) t. ^1 

ffl O h P. Hh ft O 



X IB 

. O £ 



Oi c a a 



25aS^" 



o c 



ci O 

O Ph 



O <U 

p, :- 



I 


c 

o 


- 


o 


0) 

ci 


73 


o 


- 


Cj 


o 


= 


dj 


[2, 


d 


'^' 




o 




>> 


a; 


> 


- 


c 


— 


C 


U 


> 


Ph P 33 



69-1 -I 



83-9 "OX 



SS-0E-9 oo 



8S-8 -f S 



00 © t- t- 



1S-08-ST 

zs-n-oi 

1S-6 -L 

1S-9S-8 
92-Zo-ST 

9S-9S-6 
SS-9T-oT 

se-zi-oi 

SS-TZ-2 

SS-fr -i 

^S-6 "IT 



t- •*< t- en 



o >-( o oo 



00 O t— t» IN 

ui © © o c-i 



ee c-i 
co c-i 



N W t- 
t-^ Tl< IT3 



<M •* t- t- 

(N l> » 6 



fneio®»t- 
?j co 't oi co d 



2 I 



c- c-i 
© t^ 



© d 



-r •* -* t~ 



i— I OS CO 

c-i c-i -<t 



© d 



<* in 

r-H ■* 



t- t- 

d d 



Tt> CO CO 
ri CO CO 



O i-H C-l CO 
O N t' CO 



t-NOClt- 

d d d c-i d 



t- C5 CO C-J 00 t- CO 

d ci -^ oi oi d c-i 



X 



cS O 



? rt 



OJ u o 

a o c 

.Q ojo >> 



as "5 

'S 5 -3 s 



5 > 



o> 



•J2 [C 



« ^5 JZi W 



Cm 



^ Jf o J ftriJaS 
"3 x -2 -u S 'Si .2 s 



M 3 o £ 

o « S a 



O n 

o -a 



2 w 

I a * & 

W 3 3 >> 



o .a 

U £n Ah On On 3 



£ v oi e 



c 


,L| 


n 


S 






u 




c 


«1 


o 


3 


o 


H 




- 


to 

- 


o 


- 


t* 


>> 


■" 


o 




c 
ft 


i 


>. 


o 


^- 


(JO 



3 3 



S c 

P o 



2 o 
S c 



CJCCr-C 



Jj C 



<V ft ft a 



CD T3 

m CD 

2 £ £ £ :. 

cS O O 0) 0) cy 



U> 



•2j 

c ft 



63-18-8 £ 

oo 
69-i-I g 

82-9-OT " 

H 

83-08-9 h 
83-8-t- 



Q 
LU 
h 
< 
o 

Q 

Z 

CO 

LU 

h 
< 
Q 

Z 

o 

DC 
LU 
> "? 

- ZS-6-Z 22 



t* H CO »t W 

Ifl lO ^ H CO 



zs-os-si 



?o o 

00 CO 



ZS-H-OT S "* 



H C> ■* l^ t- 
CD ci I-i © O 



n Z 

h o 

h 

< 

C0 

I- 
< 

z 

LU 
<0 
LU 
DC 
0. 

CO 



Z.S-9S-8 
9S-9S-oT 

9S-9o-6 

SS-9I-SI 

ss-oi-s 

^S-8-II 



•* © c- 

«d oi © 



C- CO 

© OS 



CN1 O] ! LO O t 



t~ © © I © t~ © t~ -^ © © co 



ci I h © 



t t- I Tf 



lO H H (M 

te d oo ci 



© © in -# 
00 O0 rt< rH 



CO -* i— I Oi t— 
•^ H U3 CM © 



© co © 

N CO ^ 



- © i-l CM o 



- 


© 




— 


1 CO 


0] 




cc 


1 "= 


C-l 


c- 


co 


1 to 


CM 


r 


- 
to 


c, | 


© 


t- 


s 


N 1 


s 


© 


s 



t- OS Tf t h 

O CQ CO c ^ 



©CO ' © ©' I CM 



$*a to 

k . aj O t, 

•Q OJD >» g 



cfl 






d 



c 3 .2 w -2 






eg 


CO 


= 


/. 


o 


«) 

05 


crt 


- 


Ifl 


CO 












eu 


1 


- 


>*i 




efi 


a> 




C 
- 


_ 




- 
















_: 
"3 


a> 


o 


g 


i; 

o 


PhPh mjo 



5 a » w a 



£ £ 



3 p d £ £^riw^ 



CO h-J 



O Ph 

S « <5 



° IS 



S K !0 3! 



c 5p 



n^ o J 



.S 1 .9 2 ° 



-r r o >> >, 



S* d O O 0) QJ 

UUPhPhHch 






™ 0) cd 

5 * "0 

g c 2 

> D co 



3 Z 
« o 

< 

h 
co 

h 
< 

H 
Z 
UJ 
CO 

UJ 
DC 
0- 



69-18-8 



6S-1-T S 



89-9-Ot 



S9-0S-9 5 



89-8-f- tf 'odd 



Q 

U 

H 
< 
O 

Q 

Z 

CO N N t> I | 

Ui 1S-08-ST iri * © I ! 

1- <-< 

< 



Z iS-f-I-OT g 
O n 



Ol I (5 CO 

ie-6-i s c * "* 



iS-9o-S 



< 

h 

I 

O "] l ~ I "* °. 

<f 9S-9o-SI t-^ lo ! d ui 

O 9S-9S-6 ™*-^*-< 



O © <M O 



SS-TS-9 g' 

9S-6-C ■* 

99-9-1 t " 

T-9-6-11 I 



<M -M C^] r] 



1 (O O-ftD 

i 00 10 h 00 



-r 


tc 


1-1 


CO 


«5 





M 


10 



H l> CC 

© © 10 



o: c: I -r 



<# I M IO 



H I IO f] 



Oj o « - 



6 C 



oj 



°"t§|tfl 

o s 



S^oigdS 



030 



£ CD 






B -c K a ft SS i 



- CO >J 



o oc 



2 'C 






O CD 



TO « C C O Ui Oi 
_ r^ Crt Crt +-> (I <*"> 



r^ to 

-o Co 



' C ^ iS 

i-2 at 

IOCS 



P t, cj c o £ 5; 



3 £ -- rt O K' 0/ >■. U O 5h .3 CO i CD 5-1 



S C 

o u 



£ X- S c c £ c 

[j O O S) « 



c c 

CO CO „ 



a as .: 

>> Sh > 



53 JS 



3 ° rt 
£ S p, 



63-15 



uo © 



© IN SO t— © 

6 9 " 9 " I to <N ps © us 



SS-9-0I 



CO l> (M 

© © c-^ 



ss-os-9 «e 



t- © © -f if © 



IS-OS-ZT 



iS-f-I-OT 



r— c— © 

06 © pi 



is-oi-i <* 



iS-92-8 



9S-9Z-ST 



9S-iC-6 



t- © 

© LO 



- ss-gx-cx 

h 

< 

h 

(0 



SS-5 



SS-OI"o oo eo os 



3S-S-1 "* 



f-S-6-IT n <* 



© © 



i-i I © i-l to 



■*J< 


t- 


i - 


fc- 


H 


m 


© 


° 


-r 


/ 


© 


Tf 


— 


CO 


<M 


© 



PI CO 



© t- 

Pl © 



rj< CO PS "^ t- 
tA PS ■* to © 



Tf LO P] t~ 



t- oo 
o us 



to t- c— eo 

00 UO © OS 



x S -d 

£§ d 

3 3 -d, 

HOW 



i o 



9 d 



3 5 



■5oo 



E-u^5 



cS o ^ " 



o .a 

O U S-. 

3Qh 



S o 



•S 3 

to 3 



to 




c 




d 




. o 












: be 








: c 














to ' 


• to 




: ^ 












• o 




' a 


3 [ 


. 




. (h 


o . 






* O 


c? 


: o 

c _ 


C to 

<u 3 



5 &W 



- PU bt 



3 3 



3 3 O 



£ -e -S S a « a ~ 

■— — , O fl T" -*J -1_) i-i 



G {5 

BU Eh ft CM 



c o 



c c 



o° » £ >> £ £ « -o 

3 O S-" G3 <tf O 



2 "O C C O 


cd ' 




re 




o bo 


,5 "S * 


rrt 


S to to S- o 


V, £ * 




lyped 
ndipe 
ndipe 
nochi 
ratop 


■" ^ .2 


a) 

d 


O o 0/ a; oj 






Ihh^U 


> Ph D 


■l. 



2 u 'w * 



6S-T8-C 



6S-9-T 





89 


-9- 


)! 


D 

LU 


8S 


-08 


-9 


h 








< 








o 








Q 


8S-8 


-fr 


Z 








UJ 


is- 


38" 


ST 


h 








< 








Q 


is- 


K- 


il 


Z 








o 








cc 


19 


-(i[ 


-i 


LU 








> 








cc 










19 


-17. 


-8 


< 








H 








I 


99" 


\z- 


ST 


o 








< 








D 








O 


99 


-17- 


-G 



S9-9I-SI rt 

99-2-9 * 

99-0T-S °° 

99-9-X H 

t9-6-TI M H H 



Z 

o 

h 

< 

h 

h 
< 

H 

h 

z 

LU 

05 
LU 
DC 
0. 

CO £9-9-01 

<o 

z 
< 
o 
cc 
o 

o 

h 

h 
o 

CO 



t- t- t- 

© © © 



© © 



■* 




t- 


i- 


I— 


- 




© 


Q 


C^J 


!C 


t- 


■ 


I- 


eo 


CO 


i 




© 


~<- 



© © 



© © 



Tf N H ■* 
-* t-^ <N i-H 



O Tf T(< 

OHH 



,J o 

o> o u 

LH OCC 



C 



IS B 



^ CO 

■°,S a « 



a ^ 

"3 CO 

C 3 



9 o 



O .5 H 



: : ": <D S i § 1BB ,§B^85 
* ■ & * g g. S * 2 -S J 

9 S fi « * s +j -w +j £ _ .ff .5 



C b3 



- £ 3 2 



w Qj ri ^ 
w n. s. r ~ C ,-< " m p."-!/-\l. ^ f-i 



P.2SaOdSrifin 



co OJ 



OStli£ft>i^!HSi)lD<l'!H"0^dO(DH (1J (l).S 

Affio§HQ<![HHOEHftAOOOUftLHHRU> 



M 5 ^ 

2 s § 
3.2 3 

S c ft 

Ph P 02 



6S-6 -f 



6S-9 -I 



89-2, -01 
Q 
111 
I- 
< 
O 

Q 

Z 

CO 

UJ 

I- 
< 

Q 

z 
o 

DC 
LU 

- iS-OT-I 



W > 

xi Z 
re O 

< 

h 
co 

h 
< 

H 
Z 
UJ 

CO 

LU 
DC 
Q. 



CO 

z 
< 
o 
cc 
o 

o 

I- 
h- 
o 

CO 



8S-I -I xA 



8S-6 -\ 06 



L9-02-ZI 



2,5-91-01 od 



< 

- 2,9-82-8 -* 

I n 

o S 
< 

O 99-90-ST o" 



99-2S-6 * 00 



99-9T-SX 
99-6 -Z 



o o 



IM ' C<t 



t-Ht- 
r c i — " 



05 C-3 



aS 



H! 



H S « 
1 » b Q. 

.9. o £ g 



0) p 



- S ° 



73 3 
3 > 



03 C 

3 o 



? a »-*, ^ C_, "! 



a« c is 



xj bp c ^3 a; « re 
3 ;_ re o w u .c 






C 5 

Ph U 



S" 3 

re o 
° a 

5u 



O Ph 



13 

J c 

w 

fcJO 

03 O 

0) OJ 



3 « 

£ a 
> t» 



79 



z 
o 

h 
< 

h 

h 

< 

h 

z 

LU 
CO 

UJ 
CE 
0- 

co 

CO 

z 
< 
o 
cc 
o 

o 

h 

H 
o 

CO 



6S-I8-8 



63-9 
8S-A 



T 
-01 



ss-x -I id 



89-6 -*• 



L9-U-ZI 



1S-ST- 
JLS-OT- 



2,9-80-8 uo 



93-2,6-21 m 



9S-Z.S 


■6 


00 CJ 

CO t- 

CO 


SS-9I 


■SI 


H 1 


S9-SS 


■9 


** 1 


93-01 


-s 


CI | 


f-9-8 


■IT 


1 1 


fS-L 


-0T 


| | 



GO LO 



to co 

© CD 



L— t- t- 

o o o 



rf C- t- ■<*< 

r-H © © r-i 



co © 



o cm 
id t- 



t- t~ co 

LO O 00 



in cr. m 



C] ' 1— 



-* co 

CO CO 



* -° 3 d 

d ° s- o 

.3 -C d o 

o " a o 

tut) >> H n3 



C 3 



sISSo 



'£ n? G 



E "3 

diS 



3 3 
as d 



■c = * 5 

• ^£ S 5 s 



+3 ? B 






CO 1/2 o ^ 



&P S "S 5 d 



>a o o R 



d r-J 



G o >> C "C n3 j G m 



.5 d 



3 15 ,£ 03 O >> O 



C -5 
a, a> 
Eh Cm 






in d d O a> <u 
U O Eh PL, E- Eh 



13 > 



* C o 



I- .- 



6S-X8-S 



6S-9 -T 



?9-Z -oi 



Q 


ss-x -i 


LU 




H 




< 




O 


89-6 -f 


b 




z 




V) 


L9-12-ZI 


LU 




h 




< 




Q 


iS-ST-OT 


Z 




o 




cc 


IS-OI-i 


LU 




> 




DC 


iS-SS-E 


< 




h 




x 


93-ZS-oI 


o 

< 

D 




99-iS-6 


O 





Z 

o 


S9-8T-0 


h 


99-So-9 


< 




h 




c/> 


99-OI-S 


H 




< 




_ 




h 




z 




LU 




</) 




LU 




DC 




0. 





oimooL-HTft-as 

O O lO 00 lA r-i O CM 



CM t— t— t— 



im I I Lra 



99-91-61 rH 

C5 [~ 



H « I- f I- 
(M M" O r-i © 



CO t— 
CO t~ 

i-H CO 



^ I 



O O © Ol 



1.0 -* LO I © 
Crid ' T-i 



., ^ 2 

<a o ° 

M o c 

■2 .y & 

h o S 



'- a c 



s s 



'(J O Q« 



° « 5 O 
02 .^ CD g 



5 5 c 



Ph « 



§ § o 

© •?, 2 .c 

r. ft o - ^ 



o r c s o 
o ^ 'Vl P. 



^2 <d ^ g -— 



«5 c SB 






u " a o 
U O An f^ C -_ Qh 



1/1 


en 


w 


v; 


« 




Ci 


, — 


(1) 


CD 


aj 


■ 










r 














— i 


i-i 
















rQ 


~ 


*& 


^ 


p, 


r* 


o 


oi 


c 


- 


p 


C 


>■) 


i; ( 


a 


£ 


O 


<V 


CD 


01 




ci; 




H 


r- 


H 


<— 


■-> 


_ 


\-> 


■/. 



xi Z 
re o 

< 
H 
CO 

H 
< 

H 
Z 
Uj 
CO 
UJ 
DC 

a 

to 



63-6-^ 



69-9-T 



83-i-OT 



Q 




UJ 




< 


83-1-2, 


O 




D 




Z 


83-6-^ 


CO 




UJ 




I- 


1S-T8-ST 


< 




Q 




Z 

o 


iS-ST-OI 


dc 




UJ 




> 


is-sx-i, 


DC 




< 




H 


1S-SS-8 


I 




O 




< 


9S-iS-SI 


O 





OS f © 

c-i o i-H 



t- t_ t-- 

t-^ o o 



9S-8S-6 



SS-OS-ST 



SS-Co-9 



© C- T-H 

o o c^i 



O ,-{ O iH 

oo oi o oj 



O Oi CO 

d cvi -* 



CO ^t H ri 



frS-6-II NrHrH 



t>s-i-oi 



o o 



d cj 



CD t- 

CO O 



<M M< C5 

t-^ CD ci 



o in 



d © 



t— t- CD 

© © OO 



t- n Tt n 



C-] 00 

ci iri 



CO CD t- tH 

cc oo o in 



N C-l Tji 

cq in t-h 



C5 Kl 



t~ OS 

d ci 



t- ■* OS 

d <o ci 



Nt-^ODlOMtji 



N t- CI 1 rH 



t- CC CD t— Tf 

O M 1 ' M Ifl H 



t- t-» t- 

d d o 



C2 O 

oq in 



CD CO 
00 C<i 



OS CD 

ci co 



c-i c-i 



ci © 

C-J 00 



1-H CO 



■^ t— 



X x X d 



o o a o 

n r> « ~ 



3 SO 



§1 

.3 <H 






- 


CD 


^ 




rrl 




cd 


X 


fl 



c S 



x & x 

_ O O <H CL 

"2 o o C 



00 



? s 



?=fi^30 



5 c c 



c 

»|a^66§ 

3 3 3 o 

?3S a i id ^ 






2 o 



X 60 >> 



c^-^o o "S & ;>, 
" +JO o r ^a3 , 2 i 



C'-'^iao^-ir-7i"2 t - ,l - ,l - ) o-'-'Uri-i 



n! O n * 



>> O tn X 0l 



X! 



Ph ft ft U U 



>, X 

s- cd 



c S 

cd O 
r^Pn 



X? c 
O <B 

Ph h 



® a? ■_, 

fl-S o 

C 3 P 

a; a> ^ 

H Eh X 



c 


bo 


- 




0) 

ctf 


<& 










'Z 






c 


cd 


o 


■=. 


c 


p, 


- 


.^ 




Z 


cd 


>■ 


!h 


> 


i 


C 


Xl 
Q 


O > Cu 


D in 



6S-6-fr 



6S-9-I oo 



8S-A-0T "> 



8S-I-1 ^ 



89-6"? 



IS-T8-2I ^ 



AS-ST-Ot 



iy-si-1 



1S-8C-8 



9S-1S-CX 



9S-8S-6 

SS-06-SI » 

SS-ES-9 | 

SS-OT-C | 

fr2-9T-ZT S 

?9-8-XI [ 

?S-A-0X I 



CO t- 

■* ©' 



t— t— t^ 



1-1 t~- 

LO © 



(O M t- 
M l> d 



H CIOI 

cm' t~ oi 



t- O) t- 

© cm o 



■* t- (O t- 

r-i O 00 O 



©' rH 



r-H «5 CM CM 

n od i> tJ 



C- CO t- 

© OS © 



O0 ' rH <X> 



© go' 



© t~- 

co © 



C- OS 

© c-^ 



so c— E— -* c^ 

MIOO H CM 



CO -* •* "* 

cs ed ' riri 



01 



^ 13 

cd O 

o> o o 



d 03 

o .c 
o 5 1 



cd <D 



tj 5 o 



a) i5 

5^ 



-Q B 



5 ft 



2 3 c 

3 5 P 



a^ 



5 S O (J C R £ 



3i3«S»33.g& 



S3 H c c t* 



C T3 
C 



ja bo >> 

3 ^ ,3. Cj o O „ 



o^2 



3 e c e 



3* " 
bo.! 



o o 






<v 4> 

'- - 



C 3 
CD 0> 

0< Cm 



c o 5 

OJ Si 

Ph Ph 



o x &> a; a .3 .« 



o|feS| 



>> ^ S X 1 c 



c 

" O ii' ti O O OJ 



a d « 



- .c 



c 

4l ~-i 4> 
X U > Ph P02 



11 C Q 



6S-6-f n 

6S-9-T £ 

89-i-OT ^ 



8S-9-A 



-r i - i - 



a 




r -- 


° 


o 




UJ 












H 












< 
O 


8S-6-^ 


00 1 

lo ' 


1 




1 


a 












z 














Z,S-IS-2T 


CO ' 






! 


I/) 












LU 












h 












< 


19-ST-OT 


© 1 


LO 


r! 




Q 




oo ' 


CO 


io 




Z 












o 


iS"SI"i 


CO 1 


: i 


1 


- 
























DC 




CI 






,_j 


W 












> 












s 


i,S-So-8 


■* ' 


1 


1 


1 


< 












J2 












I 


92-T-OT 


CO i-j 

■*" ci 


00 


1 




o 




■* 






— 


< 












O 


ss-os-si 


S 1 


CO 


rt 


| 



0C-P7-Q O lO ffl H 

-I J U U iJ OS <M 

SS-OT-2 ^ n I I 

f-e-91-si -* I ^ I 

t-e-i-oi ^ N I I 



CO — 32 '3~. t- 

co t-^ ci ci © 



CO I ^H 

■^ I CO 



O CO © 
io" -* LO 



rf a; c^ t- "tf 



0/ rQ 

aj O 



3 „ Bl U 



? =S 







c 


p. 




Ul 


0! 









g 


— 




- 



« o d * 3 5 



o 

bJD 

O K 



c B 



Dromogiin 

Gomphus 

Macromia 

Epicorduli 

Dythemis 

Trichopter 

Elmidae 

Chaoborus 


Berosus 
Tendipedi* 

Pelopia s 


Pentaneui 
Procladius 
Clinotany] 



— 
o 

= 
o 




ft C H 

» o 2 
5 "C o 


H 


O K S 


3 O 


o 


X 03 £ 


^ it P 

CV ft . c 








ft 
>> 


O >? £ 


s?~ 




03 o3 O 


o <D 


O 


^HPh 


p- i- h 



2 CD » '£ « ci 



o=2an>,C^H 






i C 4) 

3.2£ 

5 c - 
Ph p X 



6S-XC-S 





69-6-T 


00 


■* C-_ i-H 

i-i in c-i 


Q 


89-2,-OT 


OS 

oo 


t> 1 -r 


LU 








< 


8S-T-JL 


CD 
00 





5 g - 6 - f- f? I S 



iS-18-^l 



OO ' O O -f 



ig-si-oi ^ I °°- "■ "■ 

co ' io m Tf 



is-sx-i 



- 19-82-8 ^ 

o 

< 

D 
O 



99-2,2-6 • • • • 

O in rH i— I 



ej — 

if x ss-os-oi 



CO I f H 



cc-ST-Ol 



9S-9-T 



CO 



~ > 



5 = 



d '-o 

+-> d 

d fl 

o> d 



S3fl°? 



CO CI I ■** t— 



OS I ro a; ^< | oo 

C>] I C Cl' ri ' CO 



H I f SO 



«D tH •* 



rH CO i-H ■* Lt 



5 CO O K 



'3 a 



£ d 

o c 

*3 0j 

C Ph 

H - 



3 c x o> 



o •- = ■■=- 



Hi J 



O 1 o 



* 2 



P. c a 



hO 



- 

d 


o 
o 


CO 

3 


D 




co 
3 
to 
o 


o 
o 


3 
o> 

C 


CO 




3 
o> 

C 


3 

■3 

d 
O 


>> 
C 
d 

O 
C 






3 




Z 


Jr. 


Oj 


o 


S 






O Ph 


o 


E-i 


M O h Ph Ph Ph U 



-r"^ o,d— - 07; ft -f "Z^~ r -4-1 a h 



^ >> « c ^? c 



h 3 O u ctf 



- - r J gn (1, Eh 





o 


Q .:r. Oj 


01 c3 


co 






o 


2 


atop 
ipar' 
j roc 


[t3 T" 


^ 


o 




"3 •» 

d 


C 


o 


~ > <b 


"S ft 


h 


X 


o > S 


H> K 



Table 27 

BOTTOM ORGANISMS PRESENTi AT STATION XIV, OUACHITA 
RIVER ON DATES INDICATED 



Tubifex 8 7 37 14 351.8 

Oligochaeta 2 2 — 2 — 

Rhynchobdellia — 3 7 1 0.7 

Gammarus — — 1 — — ■ 

Podocopa — — 2 — 8.6 

Dy them is — — 1 1 — 

Argia — — — 1 — 

Tendipedidae 5 — — 4 — 

Pelopia stellata — — — — 1.4 

Procladius bellus — — — — 4.3 

Pentaneura monilis — — — — 0.7 

Cryptochironomus fulvus gr — — — — 0.7 

Tendipes decorus — — — — 7.9 

Polypedilum sp — — — — 5.0 

Viviparidae 2 3 38 35 21.5 

Unionidae 5 2 7 4 ■ — 

Sphaeridae 2 6 6 6 11.4 

1 Numbers shown 1956-1959 indicate average number per square foot. 

Table 28 

BOTTOM ORGANISMS PRESENTi AT STATION XV, OUACHITA 
RIVER ON DATES INDICATED 



Tubifex 8 12 158.7 

Rhynchobdellia — 3 7.9 

Gammarus — 5 0.7 

Podocopa — — 4.3 

Dythemis — 1 — ■ 

Elmidae — — 2.1 

Chaoborus — — 0.7 

Tendipedidae — 3 — 

Pelopia stellata — 0.7 

Coelotanypus concinnus — — 4.3 

Procladius bellus — — 4.3 

Cryptochironomus fulvus gr — — 4.3 

Calopsectra sp — — 0.7 

Polypedilum sp — 1.4 

Tendipes decorus — — 2.9 

Ceratopogonidae — 1 6.4 

Viviparidae 3 25 62.9 

Unionidae — — 0.7 

Sphaeridae — 16 7.2 

1 Numbers shown 1956-1959 indicate average number per square foot. 



86 



CO 
U 
h- 
< 

Q 

Z 

o 

LU 
> 

DC 

< 
h 

I 
o 
< 

O 

> 

X 

z 
o 

h 
< 

h 
co 

h 
< 

h 

z 
LU 

CO 
LU 
DC 
CL 

CO 
CO 

z 
< 

o 
cc 
o 



69-9-f 

6S-8-T 
8S-8-0T 

ss-i-z 

iS-IS-ZT 
12-SI-OI 

ZS-ST-A 

ZS-SS-g 

9S-16-CT 

9S-I-0T 

SS-cTS-SX 
9S-2.Z-OT 

SS-86-9 
2S-9-T 



© N 



OS t- 

c-i d 



00 N 0-3 
LO O] C*3 



N LO t- 

Cl SO 00 



t- tH 






tH ' O o 



l> I l> i; t- 

O ' O 1-J O 



O t- 

\a © 



(35 O t- 

t^ LO O 



t- t- Tf CO 

© I O rH "tf 



CO OS 



[^ as 



H t- ffi 

ia o c-i 



t- CS -* CO 



eo H so 
oo ci co 



0> 



2 'c 

» * 2 

<U o « 

o c 



? cd 



w to 



03 



,3« ci 



S J! K 3 



Ph a 



o *" w 
C si is 



-° 3 



? cj 



■H 



gOPlj^ 



O - J3 



.O bD 



cd o to !>> o 



2 £ 



3^33 

a i i) d J 3 

3 2 ft .2 c cS 

72 75 £ a ^ T 1 



"^ ,— ■*-' — ■ — ■ 

r- J- o — ■ — < 
■^ o m t— 1 iH 



be ,5 & rt 



ft ft 

0>.Ca>O , <Ut-.OS-idOC>a> 



— •-■ "l u 

T3 M C 



- 


~ 





D 


- 


- 


r£j 




_^ 






'u 






'2 




c 


O 


a 


5 


01 




3 




ed 







GJ 




- 


>. 


h 


> 




* 




a) 




V 




c 




bXO 


O 


>D 


DQ 



Q 
LU 

H 
< 

O 

Q 
Z 

(f) 

hi 
h 
< 
Q 

Z 

o 

Hi 

> 

a: 
< 

I 
o 
< 

O 



to ea ,-h I t- 
63-9-fr cd n n I c 



69-8-1 



SS-8-0T oo' 



82-l-i ^ I rl 



<M t— -rf t- t- 



LS-T8-2T 



iS-SI-OT us m 



9> t- o 

iS-SI-A eo © « 



9S-AS-SX t~: d 

OS 

9S-I-0I ^ I 

CO 

ss-ss-sx " I 

9S-86-9 §£ 
SS-8T-6 ^ . 

SS-9-X ,„ , 



T— t— 



t- OS ■* 

© c<i T-i 



fc- t- It- I CO 

© © I © I ■* 



C-J t- t- 



M I t- I t— 



K 3 £ 

3 > g 

.5 " H o 

o w o 



3 s 



-J d 
d ,a 



Oj d d 



§2 



W 



c d 

» a 



03 O 

3 C IB J) 

5? P 3 KJ 

^ £ C O 



y- a d 



3 £ 

H p5 






3 3 3 ^^ 

a^OodcCii™© 
SO'dr-^-Mo«a>-'> ,c t; d~orf 
oj£ajO0OtiOtHdoai . * « r 1 c fl 



6S-9-* d 



69-6-1 



89-8-01 ^ 



89 ~Z L ^ I ; 



89-0I-fr 



2,9-91-01 d 



C-l I O i-H I ^ 

2,9-91-2, i6 I co oo • t-h 



« OO N I t- 

99-8S-6I tj! ^ 10 ' ■* 



99-o-OX od I t>: 



99-SS-oI co 



99-iS-OI ■* 



00 I n I a I h 



99-6X-1 



f-9-OI-TI 



o h idh 



0) ,Q 



? o3 



7. 



33 

■I. 



53 ss a 



<H rZ ,Q cc c 



M H -t Ol C, 

^ c-i en, c~ c-i 



CO IO I -f 

-ho ' ~i 



as 10 I co I t- 
00 d ' lo ' d 



O ' CD ' O 



C <U 



c 



Oh h 



x i & cs 



T3 CD 



3 3 J? 2 



ci to 

h 3 



ft 5 c 



0j ft 



d aj oj 
^3 c; »c 



-> p, B3 ■£ =3 ft 



O jrl 



ft 2 J +- Q 
, "O M n. S-* 



,Q bfl >> 

ho^OPH<:OPQ 



o h 



^ c o g >. 

0i CU Sh s u 

Ph Ph Ph O U 



UhPnhhO>Hi 



ft .5 6 ci 



O a> . — .;-, 



C ft 
TO 



69-9-^ 



6S-6-T 



o t- s 

nc'o 



SS-8-0T _■ 



8S-S-1 



89-01-^ 



t- t- N tH \ ~ 

o o 03 ' c*i I CO 



89-2-1 



19-91-01 



19-9T-1 



t- OS 

oo c-i 



99-86-oT 



99-6-01 



99-01-11 



o © 



O CO 



© t- 

la ©' 



h O 

I- 
< 

h 
co 

h 
< 



99-io-OI 



^ I lO N 



^9-l6-0X £ 



<ii 



d 



r- u 3 

£ O 3 



CO <u 

B o rt 



,, d o 

<2 ° ° 

s o c 

,Q M >i 

3 ^ ,g oi 6 ai >> "£ .3 isi 

EHOCdOHi^QHHPQ 



d o 



d 



CD 0> 



a d 



On 0, 



to 

P. s 

co <u 

,0 

s » 

3 3 

A 2 
d S 

C § 

o> - 



co o "- C 
3 c 2 



° S a fc o 3 co 

O ^ O L- rf m 

d 3 



o ~ 



S o 



a o "O h o a 
O O EH EH X O 



™ d 
2 d -d 

a an 

« g HI 

So S 

£«£ 



6S-9-? 



69"6 _ T °°. "5 ® °. °5 *"! 

oneoui c-i cm' 



8S-8-0T « 



8S-S-i 



89-ox-f- «? I I ~ M . 

CS ' I Tf !M 



89-o-T c ! 



£9-91-01 



19-91-1 L ^ I I ^ I ^ 



99-8C-oX ^ C1 - "* ^ °. 



99-o-OX « I ,-j 



99"60-oI W I OriH 

99'lo-OX th ,-h ^ to ■* 

99"0o"l CO ,-H o 1 I 

99-9S-X ,<= |n*h 






H O ri f M O Cj 






ci t— co t- 

t-i O M lO 



m 



a & 3 

n £ £ 3 



o o 



S o 3 o> 
3 n 1— ' 11 



.3 O 

-Q bo >> c 

3«fi ii o s >> 



3 

„ o >d 2 

3 0-3 



. s 

ft o 

72 O 



2 2 



. s 

SB 

3 05 
£ 3 



CT5 50 
ci co 



co b» 



co to 
co to 



'/> H M H 



.5 s 



3 



-3 "- 



2 w ,5 

3-3 



3 ^r3 



Q § 






o 5 



c o £ «j >i 



5 3 



-3 -3 
3 3 



S O s- 3 3 O 



3-3 

£'S 2 

1 3 O 3 

.2 "3 a 
& D eg 






6S-9-fr 



69-6-1 





89-8- 


H 


i- 


' 


1 - 


t- 


Q 














UJ 


89-S 


-L 


c*j 


1 


1 


1 


h 














< 














O 






■ 


, 


t- 


-t- 


Q 


89-01 


-f 


1 


1 


d 


- 


Z 














CO 
UJ 






— 


t- 


■ 


, 


89-S 


-I 


LC5 


© 


1 


1 


h 














< 














Q 


Z9-9I- 


01 


~ 


I 


t- 




Z 






X 








O 














cc 


19-91 


-I 


CSJ 


OS 


| 


: i 


LI 






e-i 


c 




2 1 


> 








— 







99-86-oX °° ^ ^ °5 ^ 

^ OOIONH 



© I 00 00 



a 99-o-OT 
< 
D 
O 
„ 99-S6-ZI 

CO X 

«j x 



H O 

P 99-0o-Z M | ^ 

< 

h 

K- S9-9o-I g | | 
< 

h f-S-91-oI £ I N 

Z 

UJ 

w , I 

UJ ^9-9Z-0X d I 

CC 

0. 

CO 

</) 
Z 
< 

o 
tr 
o 

o 

H 
O 

m 



t- -* rt< t- 



■* ■* i t— t— 



H C- ■* 

id d t-i 



m O o: t- t- 
t^ id ci d d 



t— e<] t- t— 

in t^ d d 



d id 



t- T-i to Tt no t- CO 

© c-i cd ' t- x d ci 



riri ' d 



■3 • K . C 
m . .5 G O 



5 k 



2 2 



x £ £ « 



3 r^ 0) r/j 



COD 



C 3 5 

OH >s C n-l ^ 



to S * 2 -S 



* 3 2 G 






c,c2 "ij^ 



OM^K^OS-i^O) 



O H 



r 


rf 


d 






" 


o 


d 


o 


u 

3 

C 
cS 

a 


3 
a) 

- 
- 


■z 

- 

3 
o 


>> 
c 

c 


c 

C 


2 
o 


o 
a) 

m 


0J 


<u 


0) 


u 






S-, 


- 


puCLifcaiOUOu 



a; 'o 

■2*13 „. 

T7- ^ 

£ & * 



i .S .5 o o ^ 

. . ~- cu .-i 
H E-i O O b> ! 



2 d 



£ ee-6-oi | 



M< © 
CO ira 



IN O 

ci co 



C] m 



CO l> -* 
•* © 1-4 



O OS t- t- 

lO t-^ o o 



t- o c- co 

o o in co 



<b ft 
cS O 



£ S^ o 






$1 

Oj m "" ft a: M c 



ft" (V a 



3 5 5 



'— 


u 

c 


s ° 


BllU 

icoi 
the 


r 


p 


3 


a £ 


rf 


m ft >> 


-. 


u 


EhOKCPhOOOQ 



o « 



_ «j w p, ft u £ 

I 5 2 



ft ? 5 5 2 

» o 8 8 % 

g^ § 5 g 

C h 



13 s g 

i - — 



OJ ft 

0. 'g 



•S .£ •? - 






5 •* a t! o 2 3 ~ ~ £ £ ~ ~ 



< rH 






ft - 
U h 



^ c 






>, ft ft' ft' c 






ft •« P 



ft - ._ 



o o 



,2 « » 

- _ x 



6S-9-fr 



6S-8-I 



SS-8-0T 



SS-S-2, 



82-OT-f' 



89-S-T 



-r 


-f 


■^ 


<M 


s. 


X 


rr 


|- 



L2-9X-0T 2 



2,2-91-1 



99-18-oX 
9S-8-0I 
2S-6-SI 

ss-is-ox 

SS-06-2, 
SS-9S-I 

T-9-IS-0X 



~. 


— . 


— 


— 


(Nl 


1-1 


(M 


~ 


Tl 


S- 


— 


X 



05 -t ■* OO H lO 

co rH to ■* oi o 



W LO t» LO 



O O LO o 



inn o 

O "<* C-.J 



CO L.O OS 

-* o c-i 



TfO oo 
OH lOrl 



LO CO 00 O 
O ■* ■*' tA 



m id o ■* 1(5 ID 
LO O CQ T-H O O 



ITS t- C 13f 

dtscidrt 



■* CT5 t- 

i—i cd in 



in LO 
o d 



CO CO 



* ■§ g rt m to * 



X £ j=| rt 



S i S-S. p • 



S CJ3 >, 
3 a .3 



>> o 



to 



j, rf .o to cu 

BO ^ +■> £h t-< °1 

?S " 3 3 g 

i? Qj , « S^ 

■S3" a* §5 

tSC-BCo 

X a> o> a> <d »h 

O Eh Ph Ph Ph Ch 



DO DO £ « 

? 3 o d 



.5 * ^^ 

J O in W 



to e 

3 3 

o § 

0/ .3 

-3 £ 



"to J? 

to w <d 

3 to £ 

5 >3 o 



O p c jjj d a> d 

£ £ 5 -£ » C 'S r 

.& •« u O O ci -p I 

a> . a> £ S .5 fi ft 
EhEhXOU>D«2 



Table 37 

BOTTOM ORGANISMS PRESENTi AT STATION XXIV, OUACHITA 
RIVER ON DATES INDICATED 



4 


— 


95.8 


1 





6.4 


40 


— 


— 


— 


— 


27.2 


— 


— 


1.4 



Tubifex 4 190 4 95.8 10.0 

Oligochaeta 

Rhynchobdellia 

Gammarus 

Podocopa 

Dythemis 

Dromogomphus 1 

Argia — — 1 — — 

Trichoptera — — 1 — 2.9 

Elmidae — ■ — — — 0.7 

Berosus 1 — — — — 

Chaoborus 

Tendipedidae 

Pelopia stellata 

Procladius bellus 

Clinotanypus sp 

Coelotanypus concinnus 

Cryptochironomus fulvus gr 

Calopsectra sp 

Tanytarsus (Endochironomus) nigricans- 

Polypedilum ( Pentapedilum) sp 

Tendipes decorus 

T. (Limnochironomus) nervosus 

T. (Limnochironomus) modestus 

Glyptotendipes (Phytotendipes) sp.... 

Ceratopogonidae 

Viviparidae 

Pleuroceridae 

Unionidae 

Sphaeridae 1 



— 


— 




■ — 


1.4 


40.0 


10 


1 


12 


— 


1.4 


0.7 


. — 


— 


— 


2.9 


2.9 


— 


— 


— 


— 


1.4 


2.9 


— 


— 


— 


— 


2.9 


5.7 


1.4 


— 


— 


— 


— 


30.7 


— 


. — 


— 


— 


1.4 


2.1 


— 


— 


— 


— 


— 


50.0 
0.7 
0.7 


— 


_ 














-- 


— 


— 


1.4 


— 


3.6 


— 


— 


— 


2.9 


3.6 

4.:-! 
5.2 
9.3 


— 


— 


o 


6 


— 


— 






1 








— 


— 


•} 


— 


0.7 


— 


1 


— 


13 


— 


25.7 


— 



1 Numbers shown 1956-1959 indicate a%'erage number per square foot. 



95 



Table 38 

BOTTOM ORGANISMS PRESENTi AT STATION XXV, OUACHITA 
RIVER ON DATES INDICATED 



Tubifex 4 69 — 101.5 — 

Oligochaeta 6 7 — — — — 

Rhynchobdellia 2 4 — 1.4 — — 

Gammarus — 1 — — — 

Podocopa — 1 — 3.6 — — 

Dythemis — 1 — 2.1 4.3 — 

Gomphus — 1 — — — — 

Argia — 1 — — — — 

Trichoptera — — — 8.6 1.4 — 

Elmidae — — — 2.9 0.7 

Berosus — — — 2.1 3.6 

Chaoborus — — — 12.1 — 

Tendipedidae 2 4 13 17.9 — — 

Pelopia stellata — — ■ — 0.7 ■ — — 

Procladius bellus — — — 2.9 7.2 

Pentaneura basilis — — — 0.7 ■ — — 

Clinotanypus sp — — — 5.7 — — 

Coelotanypus concinnus — — — 6.4 49.3 — 

Cryptochironomus fulvus gr — — — 10.7 5.7 

Calopsectra sp — — — 202.3 — — 

Tendipes decorus — — — 7.9 4.3 — 

T. (Limnochironomus) nervosus — — — 1.4 — — 

T. (Limnochironomus) modestus — — — — 20.7 

Polypedilum (Pentapedilum) sp — — — 2.9 0.7 — 

Polypedilum sp — — — 10.0 2.9 0.7 

Xenochironomus festivus — — — ■ — — 0.7 

Ceratopogonidae — 1 — 4.3 4.3 — 

Viviparidae — 18 — 90.1 

Unionidae 1 3 2 — - — — 

Sphaeridae — 10 6 15.0 

1 Numbers shown 1956-1959 indicate average number per square foot. 



96 



69-9-* 



6S-8-I t-: 



8S-S-01 



8S-6-A 



82-01-* 



8S-Z-T 



12-91-01 O CD ^_ O LO t 

OS M 115 CO IS < 



92-8-01 1 i °* ^ 

US ' t* ' o 



22-6-oX 



22-So-OI 
SS-T2-Z 



*2-*T-6l 



« H CO 00 



[— CO O -t OS t- 

o -^ o 7-5 1- o 






? -O 3 



o r S « C 



ft o 

K O 

73 ^ 

3 ^ 

ft ~ 

>■ b 

c 5 



?cjS 



to *3 

- 2 
ft s- 



0) +-> 

ed o « oj >> 



J -a 2 g ■§ S 



c 

,Q 6fl >i 

33fi 



3 o b « a 

« r t r o 



0) 

hP-H 



o .a 



Oh fc 



3 



>"5 

o u 



ao « o c oi 

>> 2 a .2" o £ 

o « ( .„ c a 

k X U > P 02 



97 



GS-9-f- 



6S-S-I 



8S-8-0I 



89-Z-L °i 



ss-oi-t- 






GO GO 



t— co 



89-S-T 



2,2-91-1 rl ^ I w 



9S-I8-6X °. « « 

n t- ci 



O co 



CNJ CO <* 

cc] o>i i-H 



M N t- H 
Tt< C<i rH in 



9S-S-0X ~ ~. n . 

C5 C-] C5 



22-6-SX °° ~ ] | 

92-8S-0X M ^ ^ 

n(i.T7- I m CO CO 

by 1-6 £ co oo co 

03 

99-9S-I ^ I I 

^9-^X-oX * M ^ 



O H 



t-HSt- 

o ©' ci © 



co I o 



ec 


-f 


-r 


H 


ec 


no 


co 


• 



» C5 Tf C5 



t- LO H LO 



I— CO CO 00 



LO «M H 



.j » u =- a H 3 v„ 



ti^ U 3! g 

eS ® „ S 

J) r3 ^ K K g 



W K £ +J 



3 C C w — 



2 2 * §£ S 



■H __ 5_i 5; 



CO 



01 






03 ,2 

5 5 S -e p 



cSS^o . o 3 8 .B 



xs cm 

Eh 



bX) >> C 'C 






0. § 



O 73 
& d C 

CO ,£3 CD 



S3 -c 

bo. 



Q ,£3 

o o 

!=, o 

Oh Ph 



0/ — 



a *>$ 



s ^isis , § 



.5 •= & 



■- h 

UOUIlirHE-lH^OO^ 



3.2 ^ 
2 c a 
ft P K 



Table 41 

BOTTOM ORGANISMS PER SQUARE FOOT AT STATION I, 
BAYOU BARTHOLOMEW ON DATES INDICATED 



Tubifex — 

Gammarus — 

Podocopa — 

Stenonema — 

Gomphus — 

Argia — 

Ti iehoptera — 

Dubiraphia — 

Rhizelmis — 

Crytochironomus fulvus gr — 

Calopsectra sp — 

Polypedilum (Pentapedilum) sp — 

Tendipes decorus — 

T. ( Limnochironomus) nervosus — 

T. (Limnochironomus) modestus — 

Xenochironomus festivus — 

Glyptotendipes (Phytotendipes) sp — 

Ceratopogonidae — 

Viviparidae 0.7 

Pleuroceridae 2.1 



12.9 


— 


— 


0.7 


0.7 


— 


— 


0.7 


— 


0.7 


— 


0.7 


— 


0.7 


— 


ii.T 


— 


3.6 


5.0 


— 


2.1 


— 


— 


4.3 


0.7 


— 


16.4 


— 


1.4 


— 


— 


0.7 


36.5 


— 


1.4 


— 


— 


14.3 


— 


2.1 



Table 42 

BOTTOM ORGANISMS PER SQUARE FOOT AT STATION II, 
BAYOU BARTHOLOMEW ON DATES INDICATED 



Tubifex 5.7 

Rhynchobdellia 0.7 

Gomphus 0.7 

Trichoptera 1.4 

Elmidae 2.9 

Dubiraphia — 

Rhizelmis — 

Pentaneura sp 0.7 

Clinotanypus sp — 

Cryptochironomus fulvus gr — 

Tanytarsus (Endochironomus) nigricans — 

Polypedilum sp — 

Polypedilum (Pentapedilum) sp — 

Tendipes decorus — 

Xenochironomus festivus 0.7 

Ceratopogonidae — 

Viviparidae — 

Pleuroceridae 1-4 

Unionidae — 



1.5 


n.T 


— 


2.1 


— 


— 


— 


2.1 


— 





0.7 


_ 


— 


— 


0.7 


— 


2.1 


— 


0.7 


— 


— 


2.1 


— 


— 


0.7 


— 


— 


— 


0.7 


4.3 


7 2 


0.7 


— 


0.7 


— 


— 








1.4 


— 


10.7 


0.7 


— 


2.9 


2.1 


0.7 


2.1 


— 



99 



Table 43 

BOTTOM ORGANISMS PER SQUARE FOOT AT STATION III, 
BAYOU BARTHOLOMEW ON DATES INDICATED 



Tubifex 5.0 

Rhynchobdellia — 

Dubiraphia — 

Chaoborus — 

Tendipedidae — 

Pentaneura basilis — 

Procladius bellus — 

Clinotanypus sp — 

Coelotanypus concinnus — 

Cryptochironomus fulvus gr 0.7 

Polypedilum (Pentapedilum) sp — 

Tendipes decorus — 

T. (Limnochironomus) nervosus — 

Ceratopogonidae — 

Viviparidae 1.4 

Pleuroceridae 24.3 

Unionidae — 

Sphaeridae 2.1 

Table 44 

BOTTOM ORGANISMS PER SQUARE FOOT AT STATION IV, 
BAYOU BARTHOLOMEW ON DATES INDICATED 



L'.l 


17.2 


6.4 





0.7 


1.4 





2.1 


— 





0.7 


— 


1.4 


— 


— 


(i.T 


— 


— 


0.7 


1.4 


— 


— 


2.1 


— 


— 


7.2 


— 


— 


2.1 


0.7 


0.7 


1.4 


— 


7.9 


— 


— 


5.7 


— 


— 


0.7 


2.9 


■ — 


— 


5.0 


13.6 


— 


5.7 


51.5 


— 


— 


0.7 


— 


— 


(i.7 



Tubifex 12.9 

Oligochaeta 5.7 

Rhynchobdellia 5.7 

Dythemis — 

Gomphus — 

Elmidae 3.6 

Dubiraphia , — 

Dytiscidae — 

Pentaneura basilis — 

Clinotanypus sp 0.7 

Coelotanypus concinnus — 

Cryptochironomus fulvus gr — 

Tanytarsus (Endochironomus) nigricans — 

Polypedilum (Pentapedilum) sp 0.7 

Ceratopogonidae — 

Viviparidae 5.7 

Pleuroceridae 39.3 

Unionidae — 

Sphaeridae 7.2 



100 



17.2 


15.7 


9.3 


— 


— 


2.1 


— 





0.7 


— 


0.7 


0.7 





2.1 





— 


0.7 


■ — 


■ — 


1.4 


— 


— 


3.6 


— 


— 


4.3 


0.7 


0.7 


1.4 


0.7 


2.1 


— 


— 


0.7 


— 


2.1 


0.7 


0.7 


— 


— 


2.1 


5.7 


— 


9.3 


1.0 


— 


0.7 


1.4 


— 


— 


2.1 



Table 45 

BOTTOM ORGANISMS PRESENT PER SQUARE FOOT AT STATION 
BAYOU D'ARBONNE ON DATES INDICATED 



ubifex 15.0 10.7 10.7 19.3 17.2 0.7 19.3 

hynchobdellia — — — — — — 2.9 

[exagenia — — — ■ — — — ■ 0.7 

aenis — 0.7 — — — — — 

lacromia — — — - — — — 0.7 

richoptera — — — 0.7 — — — 

lmidae — 2.9 — • — — — ■ — 

haoborus — — — — 2.9 0.7 0.7 

endipedidae — 0.7 — ■ — — — ■ — 

elopia stellata — 0.7 — — — — — 

entaneura sp — 0.7 — — — — — 

rocladius bellus — 1.4 — — — — — 

linotanypus sp — 0.7 — — — — 5.7 

oelotanypus concinnus — 6.4 — — — — 3.6 

ryptochironomus fulvus gr 5.0 0.7 3.6 ■ — — — 1.4 

?alopsectra sp — 8.6 — — — — — 

^anytarsus (Endochironomus) nigricans.. — — ■ — 1.4 

olypedilum (Pentapedilum) sp — — — — — 0.7 — 

?endipes decorus — — — — 0.7 — 0.7 

P. (Limnochironomus) nervosus 0.7 2.1 — — 0.7 — — 

Cenochironomus festivus 0.7 — — — — — 1-4 

eratopogonidae 0.7 — — — — — 2.9 

/Iviparidae — — 2.1 — — — — 

Jnionidae — — — 0.7 1.4 0.7 — 

Sphaeridae 1.4 — — — — — — 



101 



Table 46 

BOTTOM ORGANISMS PRESENT PER SQUARE FOOT AT STATION II, 
BAYOU D'ARBONNE ON DATES INDICATED 



Tubifex 

Oligochaeta 

Rhynchobdellia 

Hydracarina 

Hexagenia 

Plecoptera 

Trichoptera 

Elmidae 

Chaoborus 

Pelopia stellata 

Pentaneura sp 

Procladius bellus 

Clinotanypus sp 

Coelotanypus concinnus 

Cryptochironomus fulvus gr. . . . 

Calopsectra sp 

Tendipes decorus 

T. (Limnochironomus) nervosus 

Xenochironomus festivus 

Ceratopogonidae 

Viviparidae 

Unionidae 

Sphaeridae 



28.6 



20.7 



4.3 



7.2 



45.8 



11.4 



0.7 



0.7 



1.4 



4.3 

n.7 



1.4 



o.7 



2.1 



2.1 
0.7 
2.9 

1.4 



0.7 



3.6 — — 



1.4 



0.7 



3.6 



— 0.7 



— 0.7 



1.4 



0.7 
0.7 



2.1 


0.7 


— 


0.7 


16.4 


— 


17.2 


0.7 



102 



Table 47 

BOTTOM ORGANISMS PRESENT PER SQUARE FOOT AT STATION III, 
BAYOU D'ARBONNE ON DATES INDICATED 



Tubifex 123.0 84.4 131.6 115.1 51.5 54.3 10.7 

Migochaeta — — 8.6 1.4 — — 0.7 

Ihynchobdellia — — 3.6 — — — 2.9 

odocopa ■ — — — — — — 0.7 

iexagenia — — - — ■ — ■ : — 0.7 2.1 

Dythemis — 0.7 — — — — — 

Trichoptera — — — — — 0.7 

Slmidae — — 0.7 — — — — 

haoborus — — — — — 0.7 0.7 

elopia stellata 0.7 — — — — 2.1 

entaneura basilis — — — — — 2.1 — 

rocladius bellus — 1.4 — — — — 1-4 

linotanypus sp. . . — 1.4 — — — — 1-4 

Uoelotanypus concinnus — — ■ — — — — 1-4 

Dryptochironomus fulvus gr 0.7 0.7 10.0 2.1 — 2.1 3.6 

alopsectra sp — — — — — — 0.7 

Polypedilum sp — — — — — — 1-4 

3 . (Pentapedilum) sp — — — — — °- 7 1A 

Tendipes decorus — — — — 3.6 — 0.7 

T. (Limnoehironomus) nervosus — — — — 1-4 

lyptotendipes (Phytotendipes) sp — — — — 0.7 

eratopogonidae 0.7 2.9 4.3 — — 0.7 2.1 

Sphaeridae 2.1 0.7 0.7 1.4 



103 



Table 48 

BOTTOM ORGANISMS PRESENT PER SQUARE FOOT AT STATION IV, 
BAYOU D'ARBONNE ON DATES INDICATED 



Tubifex 70.8 22.2 4.2 31.5 3.6 22.2 

Oligochaeta 1.4 — — 0.7 — — ■ 

Rhynchobdellia — — — — ■ — ■ 1.4 

Hexagenia — — — 2.1 — 0.7 

Trichoptera 0.7 0.7 — 0.7 — — 

Elmidae — — — 1.4 — 0.7 

Chaoborus — ■ — ■ — ■ 0.7 — — 

Pentaneura basilis — 1.4 — — — — 

Procladius bellus 0.7 — — — — — 

Clinotanypus sp — — — — — ■ 0.7 

Coelotanypus concinnus — ■ — — 0.7 — — 

Cryptochironomus fulvus gr 1.4 — 1.4 2.9 — 0.7 

Calopsectra — — 0.7 — — — 

Tanytarsus (Endochironomus) nigricans ... — — — — — — 

Tendipes (Limnochironomus) nervosus .... — — — 1.4 ■ — 0.7 

Ceratopogonidae — — 2.1 2.9 — 0.7 

Viviparidae — — — — — — 

Unionidae — — — — — 1.4 

Sphaeridae — — — 1.4 0.7 0.7 



104 



Table 49 

BOTTOM ORGANISMS PRESENT PER SQUARE FOOT AT STATION V, 
BAYOU D'ARBONNE ON DATES INDICATED 



^ubifex 9.3 35.8 1.4 5.7 17.2 65.8 — 

Migochaeta 1.4 — — 6.4 0.7 — — 

thynchobdellia — 0.7 — — — 0.7 — 

lammarus — — — 1.4 — — — 

'odocopa — — — — — — 0.7 

sopoda — — — 1.4 — — — 

phemeroptera — — — — — 2.9 ■ — 

lexagenia — — — — — 0.7 ■ — 

lacromia — — — — — 0.7 — 

)ythemis — 0.7 — — — — — 

Vrgia — — — — — 0.7 

schnura — — — 0.7 — — — 

Trichoptera — — — 0.7 — ■ — — 

lmidae 0.7 — — 2.1 

^haoborus — — — — — 3.6 — 

>elopia stellata — 0.7 — — — 0.7 

J antaneura basilis — — — — — 3.6 — 

'rocladius bellus — 2.1 — — — — — 

ryptochironomus fulvus gr — — — 0.7 — 3.6 — 

alopsectra sp — — 1.4 — — 3.6 

Tendipes decorus — — — — 1.4 0.7 — 

(Limnochironomus) nervosus 0.7 — 0.7 — — 1.4 0.7 

I^eratopogonidae — 2.1 — 0.7 — 0.7 

Viviparidae — 0.7 — — — 0.7 — 

Sphaeridae — 2.1 0.7 — — 0.7 — 



105 



Table 50 

BOTTOM ORGANISMS PRESENT PER SQUARE FOOT AT STATION VI, 
BAYOU D'ARBONNE ON DATES INDICATED 



Tubifex 

Oligochaeta 

Hexagenia 

Heptageniidae 

Argia 

Trichoptera 

Elmidae 

Culicidae 

Chaoborus 

Pentaneura basilis 

Pentaneura carnea 

Clinotanypus sp 

Coelotanypus concinnus 

Cryptochironomus fulvus gr 

Calopsectra sp 

Polypedilum (Pentapedilum) sp 

Tendipes (Limnochironomus) nervosus 

Ceratopogonidae 

Viviparidae 

Sphaei-idae 



2.1 3.6 0.7 — — 4.3 

— 1.4 — 12.9 — 1.4 

— 0.7 — — — 0.7 

— 1.4 — 2.1 

— — — — — 0.7 

— — — — — 1.4 

— — — 1.4 — — 

0.7 — — — — — 

0.7 0.7 — — — — 

1.4 — — — — — 

0.7 0.7 0.7 1.4 

— 0.7 — 0.7 



106 



Table 51 

BOTTOM ORGANISMS PER SQUARE FOOT AT STATION I, 
TENSAS RIVER ON DATES INDICATED 



Tubifex 7.2 

Oligochaeta 0.7 

Gammarus 0.7 — 

Podocopa — — 

Ephemeroptera — — 

Chaoborus 160.2 — 

Procladius bellus — 0.7 

Clinotanypus sp — — 

Coelotanypus concinnus — — 

Cryptochironomus fulvus gr 

Tanytarsus (Endochironomus) nigricans — 0.7 

Polypedilum sp — — 

Tendipes decorus 1.4 

T. (Limnochironomus) nervosus — — 

Ceratopogonidae 0.7 — 

Viviparidae — — 

Sphaeridae — — 



32.9 


0.7 


0.7 


— 


6.4 


1.4 


8.6 


— 


— 


0.7 


0.7 


— 


(1.7 


— 


2.1 


— 



2.1 



1.4 
13.6 



1.4 



2.9 
7.9 



Table 52 

BOTTOM ORGANISMS PER SQUARE FOOT AT STATION II. 
TENSAS RIVER ON DATES INDICATED 



Tubifex 

Oligochaeta 

Rhynchobdellia 

Podocopa 

Dythemis 

Pentaneura basilis 

Procladius bellus 

Clinotanypus sp 

Coelotanypus concinnus 

Cryptochironomus fulvus gr 

Tanytarsus (Endochironomus) nigricans 

Polypedilum (Pentapedilum) sp 

Tendipes decorus 

T. (Limnochironomus) nervosus 

T. ("Limnochironomus) modestus 

Ceratopogonidae 

Viviparidae 

Unionidae 

Sphaeridae 



— 


2.1 


67.2 


— 


— . 


4.3 


— 


— 


10.0 


— 


— 


116.5 


n.7 


— 


— 


— 


1.4 


— 


n.7 


0.7 


— 


0.7 


— 


1.4 


— 


0.7 


5.7 


1.1 


— 


— 


— 


2.9 

2.9 


— 


— 


1.4 


— 


— 


1.4 


0.7 


— 


<t. 7 


— 


— 


— 


1.4 


5.0 


— 


40.0 


— 


— 


0.7 


— 


12.1 


1.4 



107 



Table 53 

BOTTOM ORGANISMS PER SQUARE FOOT AT STATION III, 
TENSAS RIVER ON DATES INDICATED 



2.1 



Tubifex 45.8 0.7 

Oligochaeta — — 

Rhynchobdellia 14.3 — 

Gammarus 10.7 — 

Ephemeroptera — — 

Trichoptera — — 

Elmidae 

Dublraphia 

Chaoborus — 

Tendipedidae — 

Calopsectra sp — 

Tanytarsus (Endochironomus) nigricans .... 0.7 

Polypedilum sp — 

Tendipes (Limnoehironomus) nervosus 

T. (Limnoehironomus) modestus — 

Glyptotendipes (Phytotendipes) sp — 

Ceratopogonidae — 

V'iviparidae 188.8 

Pleuroceridae 18.6 

Unionidae 1.4 

Sphaeridae 90.8 



225.9 


2.9 


17.9 


— 


6.4 


2.1 


3.6 


2.9 


1.4 


— 



7.2 



— — 22.9 

— — — 1.4 



1.4 


— 


— 


0.7 


— 


— 


2.!) 


— 


— 


— 


— 


0.7 


7.9 


3.6 


— 


16.4 


— 


— 


— 


— 


0.7 


o.7 


— 


— 


■ — 


144.4 


50.8 


— 


46.5 


62.9 


— 


1.4 


— 


— 


13.6 


15. 9 



108 



Table 54 

BOTTOM ORGANISMS PER SQUARE FOOT AT STATION IV, 
TENSAS RIVER ON DATES INDICATED 



Tubifex 4.3 

Oligochaeta 15.7 

Rhynchobdellia 28.6 

Cyclops 

Gammarus 5.0 

Podocopa 34.3 

Ephemeroptera 0.7 

Homoptera 0.7 

Trichoptera 9.3 

Coleoptera 

Elmidae 0.7 

Dubiraphia — 

Tendipedidae — 

Pentaneura basilis 1.4 

Pentaneura monilis gr 0.7 

Cryptochironomus fulvus gr 0.7 

Calopsectra sp 5.0 

Tanytarsus (Endochironomus) nigricans .... 

Tanytarsus sp 6.4 

Polypedilum sp 

P. (Pentapedilum) sp — 

Tendipes decorus 0.7 

T. (Limnochironomus) nervosus 

Xenochironomus festivus 3.6 

Ceratopogonidae — 

Viviparidae 70.0 

Sphaeridae 147.2 



— 111.5 

- 7.2 
.9 1.4 



2.1 



5.0 



40.0 

2.1 

0.7 

— 1.4 

4.3 — 



1.4 



0.7 



1.4 
1.4 



— 


2.1 


7.2 


2.9 


— 


12.1 


0.7 


— 


— 


— 


0.7 


0.7 








0.7 


1.4 


15.0 


— 


9.3 


2.9 


42.2 



109 



Table 55 

BOTTOM ORGANISMS PER SQUARE FOOT AT STATION I, 
BAYOU MACON ON DATES INDICATED 



0.7 


oo o 


5.7 


0.7 


0.7 


0.7 


— 


— 


2.9 


— 


— 


1.4 


— 


— 


1.4 



Tubifex 2.9 

Rhynchobdellia 16.4 

Gammarus 0.7 

Asellus — 

Macromia 

Gomphus — 0.7 — — 

Trichoptera 0.7 — — — 

Dubiraphia 0.7 — — 14. 

Rhizelmis 0.7 — — — 

Coelotanypus concinnus 0.7 — — — 

Polypedilum sp 0.7 — — - 

Tendipes decorus 

T. (Limnochironomus) nervosus 

Glyptotendipes (Phytotendipes) sp 

Ceratopogonidae 

Viviparidae 

Pleuroceridae 

Sphaeridae 



Table 56 

BOTTOM ORGANISMS PER SQUARE FOOT AT STATION II, 
BAYOU MACON ON DATES INDICATED 



0.7 


— 


— 


1.4 


— 


— 


.1.4 


— 


— 


o.T 


— 


— 


0.7 


2.9 


0.7 


— 


7.2 


0.7 


— 


— 


9.3 



Tubifex 0.7 67.9 0.7 

Oligochaeta 

Rhynchobdellia 

Tendipedidae 

Pentaneura monilis gr 

Pentaneura sp 

Cryptochironomus fulvus gr 

Tanytarsus (Endochironomus) nigricans 

Polypedilum sp 

P. (Pentapedilum) sp 

P. scalaenum 

P. ophiodes 

Tendipes decorus 

T. (Limnochironomus) modestus 

Glyptotendipes (Phytotendipes) sp 0.7 

Viviparidae — — — 1.4 

Pleuroceridae 5.7 — — — 

110 



0.7 


— ■ 


67.9 


0.7 


— 


3.6 


0.7 


— 


2.9 


— 


— 


0.7 


— 


0.7 


— 


— 


0.7 


— 


0.7 


— 


1.4 


— 


4.3 

2.1 


— 


— 


— 


4.3 


— 


— 


4.3 


— 


— 


1.4 


— 


0.7 


1.4 


— 


5.0 


— 



Table 57 

BOTTOM ORGANISMS PER SQUARE FOOT AT STATION III, 
BAYOU MACON ON DATES INDICATED 



Tubifex 16.4 

Oligochaeta 

Rhynchobdellia 

Podocopa 

Hexagenia — ■ 

Gomphus — 

Dubiraphia — 

Oxycera 

Culicidae 82.2 

Pelopia stellata — 

Procladius bellus 1.4 

Clinotanypus sp 

Coelotanypus concinnus 

Cryptochironomus fulvus gr 

Tany tarsus (Endochironomus) nigricans .... — 

Polypedilum sp — 

P. (Pentapedilum) sp — 

Tendipes (Limnochironomus) nervosus .... 

Ceratopogonidae 

Viviparidae 

Pleuroceridae 

Sphaeridae 5.7 



9.4 


64.4 


57.9 


— 


19.3 


— 


— 


0.7 


0.7 


— 


12.1 


10.0 


0.7 


— 


— 


0.7 


— 


— 


— 


2.1 


— 


— 


2.1 


— 


2.9 


— 


— 


1.4 


— 


ii.T 


— 


2.1 


0.7 


2.1 


0.7 


0.7 


— 


7.9 


3.6 


— 


2.9 


ii.T 


2.1 


— 


— 


— 


5.0 


— 


— 


2.9 


— 


— 


1.4 


— 


— 


2.9 


— 


— 


17.9 


2.9 


— 


7.2 


2.9 


— 


2.1 


2.1 



111 



Table 58 

BOTTOM ORGANISMS PER SQUARE FOOT AT STATION IV, 
BAYOU MACON ON DATES INDICATED 



Tubifex 3.6 

Oligochaeta — 

Rhynchobdellia — 

Ephemeroptera — 

Hexagenia — 

Trichoptera 1.4 

Hydropsyche — 

Coleoptera — 

Dubiraphia — 

Rhizelmis 1.4 

Brychius — 

Chaoborus — 

Pelopia stellata — 

Pentaneura basilis 0.7 

Pentaneura monilis gr — 

Pentaneura sp 0.7 

Procladius bellus — 

Cryptochironomus fulvus sp 2.9 

Calopsectra sp — 

Tanytarsus (Endochironomus) nigricans .... — 

Polypedilum sp — 

Polypedilum (Pentapedilum) sp — 

Tendipes (Limnochironomus) nervosus — 

Xenochironomus 10.7 

Ceratopogonidae — 

Vivipadidae 0.7 

Sphaeridae 1.4 



1.4 


13.6 


9.3 


— 


3.6 


. — 


— 


0.7 


— 


0.7 


— 


— 


0.7 


0.7 


— 


— 


— 


0.7 


— 


2.1 


— 


0.7 


— ■ 


— 


— 


— 


3.6 


— 


— 


1.1 


— 


0.7 


— 


— 


0.7 


— 


0.7 


— 


— 


0.7 


— 


— 


1.4 


0.7 





0.7 


0.7 


4.3 


1.4 


— 


— 


7.2 


— 


— 


— 


■ — 


6.4 


12.1 


— 


5.0 


7.2 


— 


— 





. — . 


0.7 


— 


— 


0.7 


— 


1.4 


0.7 



112 



Table 59 

BOTTOM ORGANISMS PER SQUARE FOOT AT STATION I, 
BOEUF RIVER ON DATES INDICATED 



Tubifex 37.2 — 110.3 

Oligochaeta — 0.7 — — 

Gammarus 0.7 

Podocopa 2.9 

Trichoptera 0.7 

Berosus 0.7 

Culicidae , . 71.5 

Chaoborus — 3.6 

Tendipedidae 0.7 

Pelopia stellata 0.7 

Pentaneura basilis 0.7 — — 

Procladius bellus 5.0 1.4 

Clinotanypus sp — 0.7 

Coelotanypus concinnus — 0.7 

Cryptochironomus fulvus gr 5.0 1.4 

Tanytarsus (Endochironomus) nigricans.... — 1.4 

Polypedilum (Pentapedilum) sp — 2.1 

Tendipes decorus 290.3 — — — 

T. (Limnochironomus) nervosus 7.2 

Xenochironomus festivus — — 0.7 

Ceratopogonidae 1.4 

Viviparidae 2.9 — 2.9 

Sphaeridae 10.0 — — 2.1 



Table 60 

BOTTOM ORGANISMS PER SQUARE FOOT AT STATION II, 
BOEUF RIVER ON DATES INDICATED 



Tubifex 41.5 

Rhynchobdellia — 

Ephemeridae — 

Gomphus 0.7 

Chaoborus 

Procladius bellus 

Cryptochironomus fulvus gr 2.1 

Polypedilum sp — 

Polypedilum (Pentapedilum) sp 

Tendipes (Limnochironomus) nervosus 

T. (Limnochironomus) modestus 

Glyptotendipes (Phytotendipes) sp 

Ceratopogonidae 

Viviparidae 

Pleuroceridae 



113 



— ■ 


26.5 


4.3 


— 


2.9 


2.1 


0.7 


— 


— 


0.7 


— 


— 


1.4 


— 


o.7 


2.1 


— 


— 


1.4 


0.7 


1.4 


— 


— 


7.2 


— 


— 


1.4 


2.9 


— 


— 


0.7 


— 


— 


4.3 


— 


— 


— 


0.7 


— 


1.4 


25.7 


12.9 


2.1 


16.4 


22.2 



Table 61 

BOTTOM ORGANISMS PER SQUARE FOOT AT STATION III, 
BOEUF RIVER ON DATES INDICATED 



Tubifex 

Podocopa 

Trichoptera 

Dubiraphia 

Tendipedidae 

Clinotanypus sp 

Cryptochironomus fulvus gr 

Tanytarsus (Endochironomus) nigricans. 

Polypedilum sp 

P. (Pentapedilum) sp 

Tendipes (Limnochironomus) nervosus . 

Ceratopogonidae 

Viviparidae 

Unionidae 

Sphaeridae 



Table 62 



5.7 


5.0 


5.0 


2.1 


0.7 


— 


0.7 


— 


1.4 


0.7 


0.7 


— 


— 


— 


0.7 


— 


— 


0.7 


— . 


— 


— 


— 


— 


0.7 


— 


1.4 


3.6 


0.7 


— 


0.7 


— 


— 


— 


— 


0.7 


— 


— 


0.7 


— 


0.7 


— 


o.T 


— 


— 


— 


0.7 


n.7 


— 


— 


— 


0.7 


4.3 


1.4 


— 


— 


— 


0.7 


— 


0.7 


2.1 



BOTTOM ORGANISMS PER SQUARE FOOT AT STATION IV, 
BOEUF RIVER ON DATES INDICATED 



Tubifex 55.8 

Oligochaeta — 

Rhynchobdellia 2.1 

Stenonema — 

Argia — 

Trichoptera 2.1 

Dubiraphia 0.7 

Pelopia stellata 2.9 

Pentaneura basilis 1.4 

Pentaneura sp — 

Procladius bellus 0.7 

Clinotanypus 2.9 

Coelochironomus concinnus 3.6 

Cryptochironomus fulvus gr 0.7 

Polypedilum (Pentapedilum) sp — 

Polypedilum sp — 

Tendipes decorus — 

Glyptotendipes (Phytotendipes) sp — 

Ceratopogonidae 0.7 

Viviparidae 1.4 

Unionidae 0.7 

Sphaeridae 5.0 



114 



29.3 


79.4 


67.9 


— 


1.4 


0.7 


0.7 


0.7 


0.7 


— 


4.3 


— 


— 


2.1 


— 


— 


0.7 


— 


— 


4.3 


— 





1.4 





— 


0.7 


— 


— 


41.5 


— 


0.7 


. — . 





1.4 


1.4 


0.7 


1.4 


15.0 


8.6 


— 


18.6 


3.6 


— 


5.0 


— 


— 


0.7 


— 


2.9 


2.9 


0.7 


— 


2.1 


0.7 


0.7 


0.7 


— 


— 


5.7 


0.7 



Table 63 

CHEMICAL CONTENT OF THE OUACHITA RIVER IN PPM 

ON DATES INDICATED 



CO 



U Mile 


Below 




















Coffee Creek 




















12-30-57 




14.4 


0.45 


— 


0.38 


0.062 


0.34 


— 


0.5 


0.12 


10-6-58 




28.8 


0.34 


0.21 


0.28 


0.062 


0.68 


23 


0.20 


0.10 


1-7-59 




29.0 


* 


0.15 


0.11 


0.081 


* 


14 


0.11 


0.03 


Station 


11 




















10-6-58 




30.4 


0.30 


0.19 


0.15 


0.029 


0.60 


23 


0.15 


0.10 


1-7-59 




26.5 


0.33 


0.15 


0.13 


0.150 


— 


14 


0.11 


0.05 


Station 


III 




















6-30-58 




4.0 


0.36 


0.30 


0.44 


0.020 


0.20 


27 


0.30 


0.13 


10-6-58 




15.2 


0.35 


0.23 


0.31 


0.042 


0.40 


23 


0.26 


0.13 


1-7-59 




26.5 


0.21 


0.21 


0.12 


0.175 


0.90 


L6 


0.12 


0.01 


Station 


IV 




















6-30-58 




6.9 


0.31 


0.14 


0.30 


0.014 


0.14 


11 


0.14 


0.05 


10-6-58 




1.9 


0.35 


0.21 


0.29 


0.031 


0.45 


26 


0.26 


0.10 


1-7-59 




29.0 


* 


0.14 


0.08 


0.015 


* 


13 


0.09 


0.00 


Station 


V 




















12-30-57 




9.2 


0.44 


— 


0.34 


0.040 


0.24 


— 


0.33 


0.21 


6-30-58 




4.0 


0.34 


0.15 


0.19 


0.020 


0.24 


10 


0.32 


0.12 


10-6-5S 




17.3 


0.34 


0.25 


0.31 


0.032 


0.31 


28 


0.25 


0.13 


1-8-59 




27.0 


0.30 


0.18 


0.21 


0.039 


1.80 


14 


0.02 


0.01 


Station 


VI 




















12-30-57 




1.15 


0.47 


— 


0.43 


0.038 


0.23 


— 


0.68 


0.20 


6-30-58 




1.15 


0.40 


0.20 


0.26 


0.025 


0.32 


14 


0.60 


0.10 


10-6-58 




1.72 


0.40 


0.25 


0.30 


0.021 


0.13 


17 


0.40 


0.10 


1-6-59 




3.50 


0.35 


0.25 


0.48 


0.022 


0.21 


18 


0.40 


0.11 


Station 


VII 




















12-30-57 




32.8 


0.33 


— 


0.24 


0.020 


0.16 


— 


1.50 


0.10 


7-1-58 




12.0 


0.45 


0.22 


0.70 


0.040 


0.26 


200 


0.30 


0.24 


10-6-58 




42.6 


0.48 


0.18 


0.35 


0.019 


0.15 


17 


0.15 


0.10 


1-6-59 




58.0 


* 


0.14 


0.08 


0.012 


* 


15 


0.09 


0.01 


Station 


VIII 




















7-1-58 




12.1 


0.24 


0.10 


0.22 


0.015 


0.24 


200 


0.20 


0.14 


10-6-58 




31.2 


0.49 


0.23 


0.32 


0.020 


0.16 


2^ 


0.18 


0.11 


1-6-59 




52.0 


0.28 


0.20 


0.11 


0.016 


0.23 


21 


0.09 


0.0 


Station 


IX 




















10-7-58 




18.4 


0.40 


0.22 


0.20 


0.035 


0.36 


2] 


0.24 


0.08 


1-6-59 




20.0 


* 


0.18 


0.08 


0.302 


* 


11 


0.08 


0.00 


Station 


X 




















12-31-57 




5.8 


0.10 


— 


0.06 


0.010 


0.05 


— 


0.05 


0.10 


7-1-58 




3.5 


0.46 


0.09 


0.22 


0.019 


0.15 


100 


0.20 


0.08 


10-6-58 




5.8 


0.45 


0.26 


0.48 


0.030 


0.15 


21 


0.31 


0.12 


1-6-59 




10.5 


* 


0.25 


0.20 


0.023 


* 


15 


0.20 


0.09 



* Not run due to mechanical difficulties. 



115 



Table 63 

CHEMICAL CONTENT OF THE OUACHITA RIVER 

ON DATES INDICATED (Contd.) 



o 



Station 


XI 




















7-1-58 




5.8 


0.29 


0.12 


0.55 


0.016 


0.15 


6 


0.30 


0.12 


10-7-58 




14.4 


0.40 


0.18 


0.30 


0.130 


0.49 


24 


0.30 


0.15 


1-6-59 




24.0 


0.25 


0.24 


0.18 


0.110 


1.20 


17 


0.10 


0.03 


Station 


XII 




















12-31-57 




8.1 


0.25 


0.00 


0.06 


0.014 


0.06 


00 


0.03 


0.12 


7-1-58 




5.8 


0.18 


0.08 


0.27 


0.080 


0.10 


14 


0.22 


0.00 


10-6-58 




9.2 


0.45 


0.20 


0.40 


0.030 


0.18 


19 


0.28 


0.15 


1-6-59 




23.0 


* 


0.17 


0.09 


0.011 


* 


13 


0.09 


0.01 


Station 


XIII 




















7-1-58 




5.2 


0.31 


0.10 


0.23 


0.02 


0.15 


13 


0.30 


0.00 


10-6-58 




13.3 


0.45 


0.20 


0.31 


0.03 


0.20 


23 


0.35 


0.12 


Station 


XVII 




















7-1-58 




5.2 


0.32 


0.14 


0.10 


0.020 


0.16 


21 


0.25 


0.00 


10-8-58 




13.7 


0.40 


0.25 


0.28 


0.075 


0.50 


20 


0.30 


0.06 


1-8-59 




24.0 


0.25 


0.18 


0.12 


0.053 


1.50 


18 


0.08 


0.02 


Station 


XVIII 




















7-2-58 




5.8 


0.15 


0.13 


0.14 


0.033 


0.10 


14 


0.12 


0.01 


10-8-58 




15.0 


0.48 


0.24 


0.22 


0.040 


0.45 


32 


0.25 


0.09 


1-8-59 




21.2 


* 


0.14 


0.08 


0.058 


* 


12 


0.10 


0.02 


Station 


XIX 




















1-2-58 




8.6 


0.05 


— 


0.10 


0.008 


0.27 


— 


0.00 


0.06 


7-1-58 




5.2 


0.19 


0.11 


0.20 


0.155 


0.35 


8 


0.20 


0.10 


Station 


XX 




















10-8-58 




14.3 


0.35 


0.22 


0.22 


0.124 


0.45 


IS 


0.29 


0.10 


1-8-59 




22.5 


0.25 


0.26 


0.19 


0.028 


1.50 


18 


0.15 


0.09 


Station 


XXI 




















7-2-58 




5.8 


0.24 


0.10 


0.25 


0.042 


0.18 


300 


0.20 


0.06 


10-8-58 




13.2 


0.41 


0.26 


0.36 


0.050 


0.31 


22 


0.30 


0.12 


1-9-58 




23.0 


* 


0.16 


0.12 


0.017 


* 


13 


0.11 


0.02 


Station 


XXIII 




















7-2-58 




4.6 


0.18 


0.1.0 


0.08 


0.015 


0.11 


200 


0.12 


0.01 


10-8-58 




15.3 


0.15 


0.19 


0.12 


0.038 


0.70 


15 


0.15 


0.03 


1-8-59 




18.0 


0.12 


0.12 


0.08 


0.036 


0.37 


16 


0.09 


0.03 


Station 


XXVI 




















7-2-58 




5.2 


0.18 


0.03 


0.20 


0.020 


0.17 


300 


0.15 


0.10 


10-8-58 




11.5 


0.45 


0.20 


0.22 


0.066 


0.20 


21 


0.13 


0.13 


1-8-59 




27.0 


0.28 


0.17 


0.17 


0.038 


1.50 


17 


0.12 


0.06 


Station 


XXVII 




















1-2-58 




8.1 


0.06 


— . 


0.12 


0.010 


0.24 


— 


0.05 


0.09 


7-7-58 




5.2 


















10-8-58 




11.5 


0.38 


0.18 


0.24 


0.070 


0.40 


18 


0.24 


0.09 


1-8-59 




25.5 


* 


0.17 


0.11 


0.480 


* 


13 


0.11 


0.00 



* Not run due to mechanical difficulties. 



116 



Table 64 

CHEMICAL CONTENT OF BAYOU D'ARBONNE 
IN PPM ON DATES INDICATED 



o 



Stat 


ion 


I 




















7-3- 


58 




5.2 


0.34 


0.18 


0.28 


0.028 


0.18 


17 


0.25 


0.20 


10-9 


-58 




7.7 


0.43 


0.20 


0.30 


0.015 


0.12 


14 


0.25 


0.13 


1-16 


-59 




14.5 


* 


0.15 


0.13 


0.018 


* 


11 


0.13 


0.06 


Stat 


ion 


11 




















7-3- 


58 




5.1 


0.33 


0.15 


0.30 


0.030 


0.18 


19 


0.20 


0.14 


10-9 


-58 




7.7 


0.32 


0.26 


0.35 


0.023 


0.11 


20 


0.16 


0.06 


1-16 


-59 




10.0 


* 


0.18 


0.15 


0.021 


* 


14 


0.12 


0.05 


Station 


III 




















7-3- 


58 




5.8 


0.38 


0.30 


0.25 


0.052 


0.17 


6 


0.24 


0.18 


10-9 


-58 




9.2 


0.46 


0.28 


0.45 


0.027 


0.12 


23 


0.40 


0.14 


1-16 


-59 




10.0 


* 


0.16 


0.15 


0.014 


* 


13 


0.09 


0.24 


Stat 


ion 


IV 




















7-3- 


58 




5.7 


0.30 


0.30 


0.25 


0.025 


0.20 


7 


0.21 


0.13 


10-9 


-58 




9.8 


0.30 


0.27 


0.30 


0.022 


0.12 


1 I'- 


0.23 


0.08 


1-16 


-59 




9.0 


* 


0.15 


0.15 


0.045 


* 


ll 


0.12 


0.06 


Stat 


ion 


V 




















7-3- 


58 




2.3 


0.69 


0.24 


0.39 


0.038 


0.14 


30 


0.44 


0.24 


10-9 


-58 




13.8 


0.37 


0.26 


0.2S 


0.025 


0.11 


18 


0.20 


0.10 


1-16 


-59 




16.0 


* 


0.15 


0.10 


0.010 


* 


8 


0.11 


0.02 


Stat 


ion 


VI 




















7-3- 


58 




5.8 


0.38 


0.30 


0.36 


0.021 


0.15 


18 


0.20 


0.16 


10-9 


-58 




6.3 


0.35 


0.24 


0.35 


0.025 


0.12 


21 


0.22 


0.09 


1-16 


-59 




7.0 




0.17 


0.18 


0.015 


* 


13 


0.12 


0.04 



Not run due to mechanical difficulties. 



117 



Table 65 

CHEMICAL CONTENT OF BAYOU BARTHOLOMEW IN PPM 
ON DATES INDICATED 







o 


a. 

Q. 


o 


c 


-+J 


re 
-_ 


re 


o 


E 

3 






X 


o 


-E 


o 






■z 


L. 








O 


O 


o 


— 


Z 


Z 


CO 


O 


< 


Station 


I 




















7-7-58 




1.2 


0.90 


0.20 


0.50 


0.025 


0.28 


10 


0.60 


0.22 


10-6-58 




1.2 


0.40 


0.20 


0.22 


0.020 


0.15 


12 


0.41 


0.15 


1-19-59 




3.0 


* 


0.15 


0.21 


0.015 


* 


16 


0.15 


* 


Station 


II 




















7-7-58 




1.2 


0.62 


0.20 


0.50 


0.030 


0.23 


14 


0.57 


0.18 


10-6-58 




1.2 


0.34 


0.20 


0.20 


0.021 


0.12 


12 


0.34 


0.15 


1-19-59 




3.0 


* 


0.20 


0.19 


0.015 


* 


14 


0.25 


* 


Station 


111 




















7-7-58 




1.7 


0.95 


0.17 


0.42 


0.026 


0.22 


11 


0.55 


0.42 


10-6-58 




1.2 


0.38 


0.24 


0.21 


0.048 


0.16 


28 


0.40 


0.10 


1-19-59 




4.5 


* 


0.23 


0.38 


0.030 


* 


18 


0.31 


* 


Station 


IV 




















7-7-58 




1.2 


0.68 


0.17 


0.40 


0.030 


0.32 


22 


0.42 


0.25 


10-0-58 




1.1 


0.38 


0.14 


0.18 


0.018 


0.13 


16 


0.32 


0.10 


1-19-59 




4.0 


* 


0.17 


0.29 


0.020 


* 


15 


0.33 


* 



* Not run due to mechanical difficulties. 



118 



Table 66 

CHEMICAL CONTENT OF BOEUF RIVER IN PPM ON 
DATES INDICATED 



Station 


I 


o 
O 


Q. 
Q. 
O 

O 


o 

s_ 
-£ 

o 


c 
o 


•— 

z 


m 

Z 


<5 
4- 

CO 


o 

o 


E 

< 


7-8-58 




1.7 


1.50 


0.25 


0.60 


0.050 


0.32 


20 


0.71 


0.60 


10-8-58 




2.3 


0.50 


0.24 


0.32 


0.028 


0.13 


17 


0.70 


0.22 


1-20-59 




8.0 


* 


0.11 


0.09 


0.011 


* 


L3 


0.11 


* 


Station 


11 




















7-8-58 




1.7 


1.70 


0.30 


1.00 


0.085 


0.35 


300 


1.00 


0.63 


10-6-58 




2.3 


0.52 


0.29 


0.40 


0.040 


0.13 


27 


0.85 


0.22 


1-20-59 




11.5 


* 


0.15 


0.08 


0.016 


* 


29 


0.01 


* 


Station 


III 




















7-7-58 




1.9 


0.85 


0.66 


1.50 


0.075 


0.60 


125 


1.20 


0.90 


10-6-58 




2.3 


0.51 


0.30 


0.45 


0.039 


0.14 


21 


0.95 


0.30 


1-19-59 




3.5 


* 


0.40 


0.68 


0.064 


* 


34 


0.73 


* 


Station 


IV 




















7-7-58 




2.9 


0.45 


0.25 


1.20 


0.200 


0.34 


35 


1.60 


0.42 


10-6-58 




2.3 


0.57 


0.32 


0.54 


0.042 


0.14 


28 


0.90 


0.22 


1-19-59 




4.5 


* 


0.56 


1.10 


0.079 


* 


44 


1.10 


* 



Not run due to mechanical difficulties. 



119 



Table 67 

CHEMICAL CONTENT OF TENSAS RIVER IN PPM ON 
DATES INDICATED 







S- 

o 

X. 

o 


Q. 

o. 
o 
O 


o 

a 


c 
o 


l. 

z 


re 

s- 
+J 

2 




o 

o 


E 

3 
< 


Station 


I 




















7-8-58 




1.7 


0.40 


0.17 


0.35 


0.025 


0.35 


14 


0.90 


0.14 


10-8-58 




1.6 


0.40 


0.20 


0.31 


0.028 


0.15 


14 


0.83 


0.19 


1-20-59 




15.0 


* 


0.15 


0.11 


0.015 


* 


34 


0.24 


* 


Station 


II 




















7-8-58 




1.7 


0.38 


0.15 


0.32 


0.044 


0.16 


17 


0.85 


0.17 


10-8-58 




1.2 


0.36 


0.21 


0.40 


0.040 


0.15 


17 


1.00 


0.18 


1-20-59 




T.d 


* 


0.09 


0.20 


0.018 


* 


11 


0.31 


* 


Station 


III 




















7-8-58 




1.9 


0.32 


0.10 


0.14 


0.028 


0.28 


125 


0.45 


0.09 


10-8-58 




1.2 


0.41 


0.26 


0.30 


0.033 


0.15 


17 


0.26 


0.15 


1-20-59 




4.5 


* 


0.14 


0.08 


0.018 


* 


16 


0.18 


* 


Station 


IV 




















7-7-58 




2.9 


0.26 


0.10 


0.57 


0.033 


0.50 


12 


0.50 


0.28 


10-8-58 




1.4 


0.18 


0.10 


0.18 


0.020 


0.06 


12 


0.38 


0.03 


1-19-59 




3.5 


* 


0.12 


0.08 


0.012 


* 


5 


0.09 


* 



Not run due to mechanical difficulties. 



120 



Table 68 

CHEMICAL CONTENT OF BAYOU MACON IN PPM ON 
DATES INDICATED 



O O O 



Station 


I 




















7-8-58 




1.7 


0.27 


0.11 


0.25 


0.023 


0.20 


24 


0.60 


0.09 


10-6-58 




3.4 


0.32 


0.24 


0.21 


0.028 


0.11 


1(1 


0.82 


0.12 


1-20-59 




5.0 


* 


0.15 


0.10 


0.013 


* 


111 


0.11 


* 


Station 


II 




















7-8-58 




1.7 


0.40 


0.27 


0.38 


0.034 


0.47 


75 


0.75 


0.10 


10-6-58 




3.4 


0.32 


0.20 


0.16 


0.020 


0.11 


17 


0.74 


0.11 


Station 


III 




















7-7-58 




1.7 


0.68 


0.29 


1.10 


0.024 


0.43 


30 


0.94 


0.40 


10-6-58 




3.4 


0.26 


0.22 


0.17 


0.026 


0.12 


17 


0.69 


0.10 


1-19-59 




5.0 


* 


0.15 


0.12 


0.015 


* 


IN 


1.20 


* 


Station 


IV 




















7-7-58 




1.4 


0.28 


0.16 


0.32 


0.020 


0.30 


30 


0.60 


0.04 


10-6-58 




3.4 


0.34 


0.22 


0.22 


0.020 


0.08 


L6 


0.61 


0.12 


1-19-59 




5.0 


* 


0.12 


0.11 


0.013 


* 


15 


0.15 


* 



* Not run due to mechanical difficulties. 



2200-B, 4-GO 



121