19920039 Ver 1_Monitoring Report_20090330

I c1 c1 ,-? cc 5,1
C PotashCorp
Helping Nature Provide
March 27, 2009
Ms. Cyndi Karoly
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of ENR
Wetlands / 401 Unit
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Suite 250
Raleigh, NC 27604-2260
Certified Mail
Re: PCS Phosphate West Prong Whitehurst Creek 2008 Annual Report
Dear Ms. Karoly:
Enclosed are three copies of the CZR Incorporated report "Whitehurst Creek West Prong
Aquatic Macroinvertebrate and Fish Survey and Water Quality Analyses: 2008 Annual
Mitigation Channel Report". The mitigation plan associated with Water Quality
Certification No. 2748 for impacts to upper Whitehurst Creek required fish, invertebrate,
vegetation, hydrology and chemical monitoring of the mitigation channel. Success of the
vegetation and hydrology parameters have previously been acknowledged by DWQ,
therefore are no longer monitored.
PCS requests that no more monitoring be required for this mitigation project. Six years
of benthic invertebrate and fish monitoring have documented 140 benthic invertebrate
taxa in the mitigation channel vs. 60 in the baseline sampling (report Appendix A), and
18 fish species in the mitigation channel vs. 9 in the baseline sampling (report Appendix
B).
If you have any questions regarding this material, please call me at [phone], or e-
mail me at [e-mail].
Sincerely,
r a?
Je re Furness
Senior Scientist
Enclosures
PC:
R.M. Smith
23-01-004-26
M. Brom
w/encl.
w/encl.
w/encl.
G °???a V
?D
MAR 3 0 2009
DENR - WATER Q>JALIIY
ELANDS AND STORM:ATER BRANCH
1530 NC Hwy 306 South, Aurora, NC USA 27806 T [phone]
PCS Phosphate www.potashcorp.com
WHITEHURST CREEK WEST PRONG
AQUATIC MACROINVERTEBRATE AND FISH SURVEY
AND WATER QUALITY ANALYSES:
2008 ANNUAL
MITIGATION CHANNEL REPORT
Prepared for:
PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC.
Environmental Affairs Department
Aurora, North Carolina
Prepared by:
CZR INCORPORATED
4709 College Acres Drive, Suite 2
Wilmington, North Carolina
February 2009 EP=@1g0wP= I
MAR 3 0 2009
DENR - WATER QUALITY
WETLANDS AND STORMWATER BRANCH
WHITEHURST CREEK WEST PRONG
AQUATIC MACROINVERTEBRATE AND FISH SURVEY
AND WATER QUALITY ANALYSES:
2008 ANNUAL
MITIGATION CHANNEL REPORT
Prepared for:
PCS PHOSPHATE COMPANY, INC.
Environmental Affairs Department
Aurora, North Carolina
Prepared by:
CZR INCORPORATED
4709 College Acres Drive, Suite 2
Wilmington, North Carolina
February 2009
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Paqe
1 Monthly water quality analyses conducted in the Whitehurst Creek West
Prong mitigation channel by the PCS Phosphate Environmental Affairs
laboratory during 2008 ..........................................................................................7
2 Description of conditions at sampling stations in the Whitehurst Creek
West Prong mitigation channel sixth-year (2008) fish and aquatic
macroinvertebrate survey, Beaufort County, North Carolina .................................8
3 Taxa richness of aquatic macroinvertebrates (by group) for the Whitehurst
Creek West Prong mitigation channel sixth-year (2008) survey, Beaufort
County, North Carolina .........................................................................................10
4 Sixth-year (2008) aquatic macroinvertebrate survey of the Whitehurst
Creek West Prong mitigation channel Beaufort County, North Carolina .............11
5 Comparison of 1992 upper Whitehurst Creek baseline and 2008 aquatic
macroinvertebrate communities for the Whitehurst Creek West Prong
mitigation channel sixth-year (2008) survey, Beaufort County, North
Carolina ...............................................................................................................15
6 Sixth-year (2008) fish survey of the Whitehurst Creek West Prong
mitigation channel, Beaufort County, North Carolina ..........................................18
7 Comparison of 1992 upper Whitehurst Creek baseline and 2008 fish
communities for the Whitehurst Creek West Prong mitigation channel ...............20
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
Paqe
1 WEST PRONG MITIGATION CHANNEL VICINITY MAP .....................................3
2 FISH AND BENTHIC SAMPLING STATIONS AND PHOTO STATION
LOCATIONS ..........................................................................................................4
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix
A AQUATIC MACROINVERTEBRATE TAXA DOCUMENTED IN UPPER
WHITEHURST CREEK DURING THE 1992 BASELINE AND IN THE
WHITEHURST CREEK WEST PRONG MITIGATION CHANNEL DURING
2003 THROUGH 2008 SURVEYS
B FISH SPECIES
DURING THE
WEST PRONG
SURVEYS
DOCUMENTED IN UPPER WHITEHURST CREEK
1992 BASELINE AND IN THE WHITEHURST CREEK
MITIGATION CHANNEL DURING 2003 THROUGH 2008
C SELECTED PHOTOGRAPHS FROM 2008 SURVEYS
IV
WHITEHURST CREEK WEST PRONG
AQUATIC MACROINVERTEBRATE AND FISH SURVEY
AND WATER QUALITY ANALYSES:
2008 ANNUAL
MITIGATION CHANNEL REPORT
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 History. On 24 April 1992 PCS Phosphate Company Inc. (PCS
Phosphate) (then Texasgulf) submitted an application for a 401 Water Quality
Certification to the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ, formerly Division of
Environmental Management) of the North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources (NCDENR) to impact a portion of the channelized drainage of upper
Whitehurst Creek, Beaufort County, North Carolina. Approval of the 401 (Certification
No. 2748) was issued on 30 June 1992, and a temporary mitigation channel was
constructed. A modification to the 401 Certification, to relocate a portion of this
temporary mitigation channel, was requested on 15 December 1994 and approved on
30 May 1995. A second modification was requested on 28 May 1996, which involved
leaving the 1992/1995 Whitehurst Creek mitigation channel in place, construction of the
required permanent mitigation channel (West Prong) through reclaimed land, and a
change in the date for the channel system to be merged and completed. This request
was approved by DWQ and resulted in the issuance of a modified 401 Certification on
12 December 1996.
Baseline conditions in historical upper Whitehurst Creek gathered during 1992
surveys by DWQ and CZR Incorporated (CZR) are described in the baseline report
(CZR Incorporated 1993a). A detailed description of the temporary mitigation channel
constructed in 1992 is found in Appendix B of the 1992 baseline aquatic survey report
(CZR Incorporated 1993b). Results of monitoring in the temporary upper Whitehurst
Creek mitigation channel are contained in a series of reports (CZR Incorporated 1994-
2000 a,b).
The West Prong, a 10-foot wide channel and 100-foot wide floodplain through
reclaimed land was constructed in 1998, and the floodplain was planted with mixed
hardwood seedlings and saplings. The channel and floodplain are in the approximate
location of the historical upper Whitehurst Creek western prong. The new West Prong
was connected to the undisturbed portion of Whitehurst Creek in September 2002.
1.2 Purpose. This is the sixth report in a series of mitigation monitoring
reports for the West Prong of Whitehurst Creek, and presents the results of the 2008
aquatic macroinvertebrate and fish surveys conducted by CZR for PCS Phosphate.
Results from the first through fifth-year aquatic macroinvertebrate and fish surveys are
found in CZR Incorporated 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007. This sampling is
required as a condition of the revised 401 Water Quality Certification No. 2748 issued
by DWQ.
1
1.3 Project Site. The vicinity of the 1992 upper Whitehurst Creek mitigation
channel, the undisturbed portion of Whitehurst Creek and the West Prong are shown in
Figure 1. The West Prong is in the PCS Phosphate mine site west of NC Highway 306
and Old Brantley Swamp Road (S.R. 1941). The mitigation channel and floodplain have
been designed to restore and enhance the ecological functions associated with the
wetlands and surface waters of the historical upper Whitehurst Creek drainage.
2.0 METHODS
2.1 Physical Characteristics and Water Quality. The PCS Phosphate
Environmental Affairs laboratory collected water quality samples monthly from a location
near the lower end of Station 1 of the mitigation channel (Figure 2). Water samples
were analyzed for temperature, conductivity, dissolved oxygen, pH, and turbidity while
in the field, and for fluoride and total phosphorus in the PCS Environmental Affairs
laboratory.
In addition, temperature, conductivity, salinity, dissolved oxygen, and pH were
measured twice annually by CZR at each fish and benthos sampling station (described
below) at the time of the biological surveys. Other parameters assessed by CZR at the
time of biological sampling included substrate composition, water depth, canopy cover,
aufwuchs (algal, bacterial, fungal, and meiofaunal growth upon solid surfaces), flow
estimates, and bank erosion.
2.2 Aquatic Macroinvertebrates. Two 600-foot monitoring stations for
surveying fish and aquatic macroinvertebrates were established in the mitigation
channel in 2003 (Figure 2). Station 1 was located near the downstream end of the West
Prong mitigation channel and Station 2 was located upstream of Station 1 near the
terminus of the mitigation channel. Winter sampling occurred on 20 February 2008 and
summer sampling took place on 23 July 2008. The macroi nverteb rate sampling
methodology and reporting standards were based on the Swamp Method protocol used
by DWQ during sampling of Whitehurst Creek in February 1992 (CZR Incorporated
1993b; NCDENR 2001a) in an effort to maintain consistency in collection and analysis
of data. The 2006 Standard Operating Procedures for Benthic Macroi nve rteb rates
publication by NCDENR was consulted for updates on the Swamp Method and was
found to require the same sampling techniques as currently practiced by CZR
(NCDENR 2006.) In accordance with the protocol, nine standing sweep net samples for
macroinvertebrates were collected in the floodplain at the downstream end of each
station and hand-sorted in the field. Collected individuals were preserved in 10 percent
formalin. Additional specimens were collected from log washes and rubs as well as
incidental captures. In the lab, all specimens were identified to the lowest reasonable
taxa as described in Brigham et al. (1982). Regardless of the number of individuals in a
genus, most unidentified taxa encountered were identified to the genus "sp." level.
Taxa unidentified to species level are not counted in taxa richness totals when the same
genus is already represented either during a season or at a sampling station. When the
taxa are tallied for commonality with baseline, any taxa encountered during monitoring
that is identified to species level is considered a match with a baseline taxa that was
identified only to genus level for that taxa.
2
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
'?cF
/ s
/ WHITEHURST S Rpgo
CREEK WEST
PRONG MITIGATION
CHANNEL i
94,0 SR,
=~
Jg4j NR?V? C'P
TEMPORARY 5
UPPER WHITEHURST
CREEK MITIGATION a?R G
CHANNEL
z
S?7 n
/ u
rn
P
BAILEY CREEK
MITIGATION CHANNEL
AURORA
HAGHNAY 33 ,
?L
LEGEND WEST PRONG MITIGATION CHANNEL
VICINITY MAP
-- MINE BOUNDARY WHITEHURST CREEK WEST PRONG
STREAMS
SCALE: AS SHOWN APPROVED BY: DRAWN BY: BFG
0 5.800 11,600 DATE: .3/25/04 [lLIE.-WI4TCRK-MIT-CNAN-VI'C
Z4709 COLLEGE ACRES DRIVE CP#1 745.63
SCALE IN FEET f".C.-PORATE0 WILMINGTON, WWM CAROL9U 2'6, , FIGURE 1
TEL 9,10/392-9253
o x CBNSWANrs FAX [phone] F -1
3
? O M
t f LL. t? N
J m X 10
w
w Z W ^ Ix
OLD SR z O N z 2
wQ QZ p 3 12 a LL.
L) L
Z Z 0 v~i
O Z J W >yNy'rvnin
0 ai Q a 3 OVAT
0
j/ 0=C9 ap W m ?&
?? tt = arnQ uj o W
_ =F-,!
CL w
Li V) >0
\ \ F- 3 C9 = a a Z
\ Z F- O M a c
?Jl \\ \ \ w tY w 0 p
ti \\ \ a
(L IL IM s mm = Z
ybyJ ?? \} I D Z o O N
0 ?? tl w a z = N °
Q 3 rn
11 j? m zn ?? c_ a M N$
~ II O? W
y o
a ?0 LL,
O Z ! t i< _
I- dtt \t a Q ZZ
Q 0• ? \ ? \ L p C)
w
t- ??\\ ?\ \ U Q
V) LLI
oo 0z
Q Q c=i
11 t? ? !
w
N II
J
Z it
N
?? II
O F-
0
H a
{ Lh
1 \ Q U=?
IAJ
-H J N 1O _
Ow \\\ \\\ 0 00^
x g
?\ 1
wQ i1 j 1? W^
samba
?? 1? I ff $ aao u
<Z D'
Li
-I 1? W Z <Q
i mmocn
Wir :
w
UZxa
C oW?m
tnaUo
4
Biotic Index (BI) values were calculated for winter samples only as
recommended by DWQ (NCDENR 2001a). The BI values allow assessment of
temporal changes in biological integrity as well as comparison of biological
integrity in Whitehurst Creek among sampling efforts, including the baseline
(1992). In addition, Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera taxa richness
(EPT richness) was tabulated. Like the BI, the EPT richness metric is often used
as an indicator of habitat quality, as high EPT richness is considered an indicator
of good ecosystem health. Commonly, coastal plain streams have a lower EPT
richness than piedmont or mountain streams because of slow or low flows and
other unique characteristics of these streams. To compare the similarity of the
baseline and 2008 macroinvertebrate communities, the Jaccard coefficient of
community similarity was used (Brower and Zar 1984). For the 1992 baseline,
individuals were often only identified to genus; therefore the number of taxa in
common was used to calculate the Jaccard value.
The Jaccard index (C) is defined as:
Ci=c/(s,+s2-c), where
c=number of genera common to both communities and s1, s2 are the total number
of genera in community 1 and 2, respectively. The Jaccard index of community
similarity ranges from 0.0 to 1.0, with 0.0 representing completely dissimilar
populations and 1.0 representing identical populations.
2.3 Fish. Fish sampling occurred over the entire length of the two fish
and macroinvertebrate monitoring stations in accordance with NCDENR
protocols (NCDENR 2001b). Each station consisted of a 600-foot reach marked
by stakes at the starting-point, mid-point, and ending-point. Fish sampling was
conducted at these stations in winter (February) and summer (July) in
conjunction with macroinvertebrate sampling. At each station, fish were sampled
using a backpack electrofisher. As with invertebrates, all electrofisher sampling
was conducted in the floodplain in 2008 due to the prohibitive water depth in the
channel. Electrofisher sampling occurred on 20 February 2008 and 23 July
2008.
In an effort to more thoroughly sample fish populations in the flooded
conditions found in Whitehurst Creek, paired fyke nets (one facing upstream and
one facing downstream) were set in the channel at the downstream end of both
sampling stations. The fyke nets had 0.25-inch mesh net with four 21-inch
hoops, a 6-inch throat, and 22-foot wingspan. Fyke nets were set during the
evening on 19 February and 22 July 2008 and were retrieved the following
morning. When possible, all collected specimens were identified, measured, and
counted in the field. For each species, the total length of the first 30 individuals
was also recorded. All unidentified specimens were preserved in 10 percent
formalin and identified to species in the lab using Menhinick (1991).
5
Several metrics for fish communities can be used to assess the biological
integrity of streams, but many are not applicable to coastal plain streams due to
the unique biological, physical, and chemical characteristics of these systems.
However, three metrics, total fish abundance, species richness, and percent
tolerant individuals have been found useful in assessing the biotic integrity in the
coastal plain (Palter et. al 1996; Scott and Hall 1997). The percent of piscivorous
individuals was also used in order to get an indication of trophic complexity within
the creek and because it has low redundancy with the other metrics, e.g., all
tolerant fish are not also piscivores. Trophic classification and tolerance rankings
(tolerant, intermediately tolerant, and intolerant) were based on the classifications
developed by NCDENR (NCDENR 2001b).
3.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
3.1 Water Quality and Physical Habitat. A summary of the monthly
PCS Phosphate water quality data is presented in Table 1. This summary
includes data collected from January through December 2008. Temperatures
reflected the seasons, with a low in January of 8.60 C to a high of 28.6° C in
August. Specific conductivity varied from 1,743 pS in March to 3,974 pS in
September. Dissolved oxygen ranged from 11.75 mg/L in January to a low in
September of 2.12 mg/L. Measurements of pH were stable and near neutral
throughout the year ranging from 6.9 to 8.0. Total phosphorus in the
downstream end was lowest in June (0.090 ppm) and highest in May (5.675
ppm). With the exception of May and December, all values for total phosphorus
were less than 1.0 ppm. Fluoride values ranged from 0.45 ppm in July to 0.83
ppm in February. Turbidity varied from 5.7 NTU in November to 88.5 NTU in
May.
Water quality information and site descriptions collected by CZR during
biological sampling (20 February 2008 and 23 July 2008) are presented in Table
2. Due to high water, habitat characterization of both sampling stations was
performed on the floodplain. While water levels have consistently been above the
channel in recent years at Whitehurst Creek, 2008 showed higher levels than
usual due to beaver activity. The beaver dam situation was assessed and
attempts were made to return water levels to their previous state. In summer
2008, the West Prong floodplain had a low canopy cover dominated by black
willow (Salix nigra) and bald cypress (Taxodium distichum). Aufwuchs in the
floodplain were present only in the summer and substrates consisted of mostly
detritus and silts. The main channel also had a soft muck bottom, suggesting
that mucky silts are currently the dominant substrate type in Whitehurst Creek.
In comparison with the 1992 baseline, the channel substrate contained a much
lower percentage of sand, and higher proportions of silt and detritus. Salinity
levels were also greater in 2008 when compared to baseline (CZR Incorporated
1993; Table 2). Differences in substrate composition and salinity between
baseline and 2008 may be related to the channelized nature of the historical
upper Whitehurst Creek channel, compared to the consistently flooded state of
6
i
Table 1. Monthly water quality analyses conducted in the Whitehurst Creek West Prong mitigation
channel by the PCS Phosphate Environmental Affairs laboratory during 2008.

Date
Temperature
o Specific

conductivity
D.O.

pH Total

phosphorus
Fluoride
Turbidity
C)
(
S)
(
(mg/L)
( (PPm) (NTU)
N ppm)

1/7/08 8.6 2,064 11.75 7.0 0.127 0.61 20.0
2/5/08 17.3 2,440 7.45 7.3 0.150 0.83 5.9
3/12/08 16.1 1,743 8.98 7.5 0.147 0.51 15.5
4/2/08 17.1 2,219 6.42 7.5 0.111 0.59 15.4
5/13/08 22.7 1,813 9.8 7.4 5.675 0.77 88.5
6/12/08 28.1 2,341 6.42 6.9 0.090 0.70 5.4
7/9/08 24.4 2,457 3.65 7.1 0.274 0.45 10.2
8/14/08 28.6 3,784 7.12 8.0 0.365 0.50 9.2
9/10/08 26.2 3,974 2.12 7.5 0.312 0.53 8.0
10/3/08 22.6 3,312 5.16 7.7 0.343 0.54 14.1
11/3/08 15.3 3,176 2.65 7.4 0.800 0.62 5.7
12/1/08 12.7 2,964 9.32 7.3 5.200 0.59 25.9
7

Table 2. Description of conditions at sampling stations in the Whitehurst Creek West Prong mitigation
channel sixth-year (2008) fish and aquatic macroinvertebrate survey, Beaufort County, North Carolina.
Winter survey was conducted 20 February 2008; summer survey was conducted 23 July 2008.
Station 1 Station 2
Parameter Winter Summer Winter Summer
Dept h in a 42 34 35.25 24
Canopy cover None Low None Low
Aufwuchs None Low None None
Bank erosion N/A N/A N/A N/A
Substrate (%):
Gravel 0 0 0 0
Sand 1 8 17 10
Silt 27 8 25 37
Detritus 72 84 58 53
Water quality:
Temperature (°C) 12.1 26.7 11.8 28.1
Conductivity (µS) 1,095 3,183 1,071 3,610
Salinity (ppt) 0.7 1.6 0.7 1.8
D.O. (mg/L) 6.67 0.42 6.53 3.13
H 7.7 7.0 7.7 7.5
Water flow Minimal Minimal Minimal Minimal
Water depth did not permit measurement of depth, substrate, aufwuchs, or canopy cover in the
channel. Values in the table for these parameters refer to measurements taken on the floodplain.
8
the West Prong mitigation channel that was constructed through reclaimed
materials.
3.2 Aquatic Macroinverteb rates. A summary of aquatic
macroinvertebrate taxa richness for 2008 is provided in Table 3. The summary is
presented by major taxonomic groups, with insects divided into orders and other
invertebrates divided into classes. A breakdown of macroinvertebrate taxa
included within each of those groups along with relative abundances of the taxa
within each season is provided in Table 4. Appendix A contains
macroinvertebrate species documented in the 1992 baseline sampling effort as
well as those species documented in 2003 through 2008. This appendix will be
expanded in each subsequent year-end report as a cumulative record of
documented taxa found in Whitehurst Creek West Prong mitigation channel.
3.2.1 2008 Aquatic Macroinverteb rate Survey. During 2008, Fifty-nine
aquatic macroinvertebrate taxa, predominantly Coleopterans, Dipterans,
Odonates, and Hemipterans, were identified from the Whitehurst Creek West
Prong mitigation channel (Table 4). Twelve new genera and eleven new species
were identified from the 2008 survey. When all potential taxa from 2008 are
counted (including those genera not identified to species) a total of twenty-four
species new to the mitigation channel were found in 2008. As in previous years
since 2003, the channel could not be sampled in 2008 due to high water;
therefore, both the winter and summer 2008 collections were from the floodplain.
Species richness was greater at Station 2 in winter, and was equal at Station 1
and Station 2 in the summer. Both stations exhibited greater diversity in
summer. The EPT taxa richness was the same at both stations, with three taxa
represented. The 2008 Biotic Index values were 8.85 and 8.78 at Stations 1 and
2, respectively, suggesting that the macroi nverteb rate community composition
was dominated by tolerant species (Table 3; Appendix A). The high proportion of
tolerant species is typical of many coastal plain streams, which have been
heavily impaired by channelization, sedimentation, agricultural run-off, and
deforestation. These low-gradient, coastal plain streams commonly also have
lower flow regimes.
3.2.2 Comparison of 2008 Results and 1992 Baseline. The 2008 survey
resulted in macroi nve rteb rate diversity almost equal to that observed in the 1992
baseline survey (59 total species). It should be noted that one less sampling
station is used in mitigation channel surveys than during the baseline survey
(Table 5). The EPT richness was lower in 2008 (three species) in comparison to
the baseline year (four species). However, the Trichopteran species Oecetis
cinerascens was new to the mitigation site in the 2008 sample. This species was
not present in the baseline survey. Caenis, a mayfly (Ephemeroptera) genera,
was found in 2007 and again in 2008 after being absent since the 1992 baseline
survey.
9
Table 3. Taxa richness of aquatic macroinvertebrates (by group) for the Whitehurst Creek West Prong
mitigation channel sixth-year (2008) survey, Beaufort County, North Carolina. Winter survey was
conducted 20 February 2008; summer survey was conducted 23 July 2008.
Station 1 Station 2 Total
Group/Order/Class Winter Summer Total Winter Summer Total Taxa
Taxa Taxa
Arachnida 1 0 1 0 1 1 1
Coleoptera 2 7 8 5 5 10 15
Crustacea 1 1 2 1 0 1 2
Diptera 9 4 13 6 6 11 15
Ephemeroptera 2 1 2 2 2 2 2
Hemiptera 0 3 3 3 3 6 7
Mollusca 1 1 1 1 0 1 1
Odonata 5 6 7 4 4 6 8
Oligochaeta 1 2 2 1 3 3 3
Platyhelminthes 0 0 0 0 1 1 1
Plecoptera 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Tricho tera 0 1 1 0 1 1 1
Total taxa richness 22 26 40 23 26 43 60
EPT taxa richnessa 2 2 3 2 3 3 3
Biotic index b 8.85 N/A N/A 8.78 N/A N/A N/A
EPT taxa richness is a measure of the number of identified taxa within the insect orders
Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera.
b Biotic index only calculated for winter data as per NCDWQ recommendation.
10
Table 4. Sixth-year (2008) aquatic macroinvertebrate survey of the Whitehurst Creek West Prong mitigation
channel Beaufort County, North Carolina. Winter survey was conducted 20 February 2008; summer survey
was conducted 23 July 2008. A dash (-) indicates that no individuals of the taxon were documented. An
asterisk (*) indicates taxon in common with 1992 upper Whitehurst Creek baseline. Taxa may include pupae,
larvae, or juveniles. Taxa shown in bold are new to the mitigation channel. A double asterisk (**) indicates
genera new to the mitigation channel.
Station 1 Station 2
Taxa Winter T Summer Winter Summer
-
Arachnida
Arachnida sp. ((R)) ((R)) - -
Hydracarina sp. R - _ R
Coleoptera
Berosus sp. - R _ _
Copelatus sp. - R _ _
Cybister sp. - R _ _
**Dytiscus fasciventris - - - R
Enochrus (interruptus) - - - R
Haliplus fasciatus - - _ R
Haliplus sp. - (R)' (A)z (R)
i"Hoperius planatus - - C -
Hydroporus (clypealis) - R - -
Hydroporus oblitus - R
llybius biguttalus - - R -
Peltodytes lengi R - R -
Peltodytes oppositus R R C -
Peltodytes sexmaculatus - R
Peltodytes shermani - - - R
*Peltodytes sp. - - - (C)3
Tropisternus collaris striolatus - - C -
11

Station 1 Station 2
Taxa Winter Summer Winter Summer

Tropisternus quadristriatus - C
quadristriatus
Crustacea
*Ostracoda sp. - R
Simocephalus exspinosus R _ C _
Diptera
Anopheles (quadrimaculatus) - - - C
**Asheum sp. R - C -
C/O (sp. 41) R _
Bezzia/Palpomyia group - _ R _
*Chironomus sp. C - A R
*Clinotanypus sp. _ R
**Culex restuans - A
Dicrotendipes nervosus - R
*Diptera adult sp. _ ((R))
Goeldichironomus holoprasinus - R - R
"Glyptotendipes testaceus R _ C
Larsia sp. - R - R
**Parachironomus hirtalatus R - C -
*Paratanytarsus sp. R - C -
Tanypus carinatus R
Tanypus neopunctipennis - R
Tanypus punctipennis c
Tanytarsus sp. R
12
Table 4. (continued)
Station 1 Station 2
Taxa Winter Summer Winter Summer

Ephemeroptera
*Caenis sp. A A A A
Callibaetis sp. C - A R
Hemiptera
Abedus/Belostoma sp. - C - R
*Corixidae sp. _ _ C _
"Merragata sp. - - - R
**Mesovelia sp. - - - R
**Paravelia brachialis - R
Pelocoris femoratus - _ A _
Pelocoris sp. - C4 _ (R)'
Ranatra australis - _ R _
Mollusca
Gastropoda sp. ((R))
Physella sp. C A A -
Odonata
*Anomalagrionllschnura sp. C R A _
*Enallagma sp. A A A A
Erythemis simplicicollis C A C C
*Pachydiplax longipennis A A _ C
**Progomphus sp. - R
Sympetrum (ambiguum) R
Sympetrum obtrusum C _
**Tramea (carolina) - R - R
Oligochaeta
Dero sp. R R R R
13
Table 4. (concluded)
Station 1 Station 2
Taxa Winter Summer Winter Summer
Tubificidae w/ hair - R - R
Tubificidae w/o hair - - - R
Platyhelminthes
Platyhelminthes sp. - - - R
Trichoptera
"Oecetis cinerascens - R - R
Total taxa per station per season 22 26 24 26

Total taxa per station 41 43
Total taxa for 2008 59
Notes: Relative abundance tabulated as Rare (1-2 specimens), Common (3-9) specimens, or Abundant (>10
specimens). R= rare, C=common, A=abundant.
Taxa identified only to genus are not counted in station totals and station season totals when the same
genus is represented at the sampling station or within the same season (per NCDWQ enumeration
standards, indicated by parentheses). Double parentheses indicate taxa only identified to family and
are also not counted in station or season totals when individuals within this group are present.
Counted for station total but not for summer season total.
z Counted for winter season total but not for station total.
3 Not counted for station total or summer season total.
4 Counted for station total and summer season total but not in total for 2008.
14

Table 5. Comparison of 1992 upper Whitehurst Creek baseline and 2008 aquatic
macroinvertebrate communities for the Whitehurst Creek West Prong mitigation channel sixth-year
(2008) surveys, Beaufort County, North Carolina.
Number of taxa by group
Group 1992 Baseline 2008 West Prong
Upper Whitehurst Creek n=6 mitigation channel n=4

Arachnida 1 1
Coleoptera 15 16
Crustacea 5 2
Diptera 16 17
Ephemeroptera 1 2
Hemiptera 5 7
Hirudinea 0 0
Megaloptera 1 0
Mollusca 0 1
Odonata 9 8
Oligochaeta 3 3
Orthoptera 1 0
Platyhelminthes 0 1
Plecoptera 0 0
Trichoptera 3 1
Total richness 60 59
EPT 4 3
Jaccard index of similarity 0.090
Taxa in common with 1992
baseline 10 (16.7°/x)
Note: Six samples were collected (three sites) in 1992 (February and July) and four samples
were collected (two sites) in 2008 (February and July).
15
Community composition at the lowest levels of taxonomic resolution (i.e.
genus and species) was generally different in 2008 compared to the 1992
baseline (Appendix A). Although the proportional distribution of individuals in the
dominant orders (Coleopterans, Dipterans and Odonates) was similar for the two
years, the Jaccard index of similarity for 1992 and 2008 samples suggested that
the two years had few species in common (Table 5). The genus level Jaccard
index of similarity for baseline and 2008 was 0.090, and 10 (16.7 percent) of the
genera collected at baseline were found in 2008. Similarity with the baseline
remains low, due to the presence of many species new to the channel (Table 4).
There has been no trend towards increasing or decreasing similarity with
baseline since West Prong mitigation channel surveys began in 2003.
Colonization dynamics of benthic macroinvertebrates are very complex,
varying with habitat, life-histories, source populations, and season, among other
factors. Invertebrates - re-colonize streams by four primary mechanisms:
downstream drift, upstream migration, vertical migration from the hyporheic zone,
and aerial deposition (Williams and Hynes 1976; Smock 1996). Vertical
migration is unlikely to be important due to the age and history of the mitigation
channel. Downstream drift is also unlikely to be an important source of new
species because the West Prong mitigation channel is located in what is both
currently and historically the approximate upstream end of Whitehurst Creek.
Therefore, upstream migration and aerial deposition are the most probable
sources of colonizers. This may occur in part due to the shift in surrounding
landscape vegetation from agricultural fields and hedgerows present during the
baseline survey to current planted reclamation areas. Differences in species
composition may also be related to differences in sampling location and in-
stream habitat, the patchy distribution of macroi nverteb rates, variations in
adjacent habitats that may attract a different suite of adult insects, and/or
temporal patterns of community succession. Also, changes in upland habitat
near the streams might influence the addition or loss of some species.
Researchers have found that species composition is influenced by
location within the stream-floodplain complex, such that the presence or absence
of certain species will reflect sampling location (Benke 2001; Smock 1988). Thus
invertebrate species, particularly those with highly specific habitat preferences,
may not be documented if their favored habitat is excluded from sampling.
Therefore, the fact that samples were taken from the floodplain in 2008, while
baseline samples were taken in the channel in 1992, may partly account for the
dissimilarity of species found in the two surveys. Also, differences in the
substrate of the baseline and 2008 mitigation site may have contributed to
differences in community similarity, as there was a much higher percentage of
sand during 1992 baseline sampling compared to 2008. The size of particles
that make up the substratum is one of the most important determinants of
macroinvertebrate community characteristics (Townsend et al. 1997; Zweig and
Rabeni 2001) in large part determining food resources, reproductive habitat, and
dissolved oxygen levels. Finally, hydrology could explain some species
16
differences, because, unlike the 1992 channel, the current channel is a deep,
perennial stream with a large floodplain.
Even when samples are taken from similar habitats, sample variability is
often high due to the naturally patchy distribution of aquatic invertebrates (Brooks
et al. 2002). Small scale patchiness is a normal feature of invertebrate
communities and results from abiotic factors and biotic interactions such as
competition and predation.
Succession patterns may also have accounted for differences in baseline
and 2008 species composition. At the time of baseline sampling, a relatively
stable macrobenthic assemblage was presumably present in Whitehurst Creek,
while the current mitigation channel is still undergoing colonization and
community succession. It is therefore likely that macroinvertebrate composition
will continue to change.
One similarity between the baseline and 2008 surveys was the
proportional distribution of individuals in the dominant orders (Coleopterans,
Dipterans and Odonates); however, the winter 2008 Biotic Index values were
8.85 and 8.78 at Stations 1 and 2, respectively, while BI values ranged from 4.01
to 4.28 for the winter 1992 samples, possibly reflecting different current
conditions compared to baseline conditions (CZR Incorporated 1993b). Biotic
Index values have remained similar throughout all of the West Prong mitigation
channel surveys. Since 2003, 30 percent of the baseline taxa have been
collected and the data suggest that macroinvertebrate communities were
functionally similar, as predators and collector-gatherers dominated the
assemblage in both 1992 and 2008.
3.3 Fish. A breakdown of fish taxa within each season is provided in
Table 6. A summary of fish taxa richness for 1992 baseline and 2008 is provided
in Table 7. Appendix B contains fish species documented in the baseline
sampling effort as well as those species documented in 2003 through 2008. This
appendix will be expanded in each subsequent year-end report as a cumulative
record of documented taxa found in Whitehurst Creek West Prong mitigation
channel.
3.3.1 2008 Fish Survey. A total of 11 species were collected. The most
abundant species in 2008 were pumpkinseeds (Lepomis gibbosus), bluegill
(Lepomis macrochirus) and bluespotted sunfish (Enneacanthus gloriosus). All
fish collected were tolerant or intermediately tolerant of adverse environmental
conditions.
The efficiency of electrofishing was limited in several ways. Sampling was
restricted to a large floodplain, in which fish could more easily avoid capture
compared to the narrower channel. Conductivity levels ranging from 1,071 -
3,183 µS exceeded the optimal conditions that the backpack electrofisher
17
a) ao
c°o(13
N Q
7
cc - ,) a
O N O
Uf-D cc
a)
L E
tfo c m
Z Ua
Y 3 -6
C C
7
U a) c°v)
y, Y
L 3 (n
L
O
a)
M a)
a) c
m a) L
_Y O
?a N
??a)
L
U c C
C C a)
O t
Y cn Q
cu =
9) 0
Y Y
E a)
0) O N
O a) •E
E •E
a) CO
> L_
6
Y °o m
O N
a) cu
U L o
m"-
0 o
? ? N c
LL 0) a)
` N C"u U
a) 0
a) ?a
O c
0-0
N U X
V-
Z N 0 M
n 3 O L
Y
c a) M)
3aa)N
to L M
C) a) t]. -0
C) cu >
N O U
L Y N C
N ? ? O
L c •? Y
C L
X 0)
cn _C
L O
N
(O . L
0 N _U
m??a
nUE.?
ca?:3
F- 5 Z
E C)

N `
C
m

LL m
w
c
i
,
N 3 -- v
c

U) d
E

w Co
O

d

W w
s
3 •
m
E
M c?
(.O ,n

CV
LO
., E N ?,?
m r!
co N
C) r- to ?- , (O
Y. Y) '
Y
.
U Z-
F

0

N ?
m

co

E M

to v
0

d w

3 v

0
0
. Z Z Z Z Z Z Z
E
M

w

m c Y
t!
t!

m

(?O
a
O
a
a)

12

a) c
N
L
E E a? a) m
C
F c F- F- F- m LO
r

Z
_ m
(D
co L tq
(D O

W a)
p co O co
M i O
C .;co
$ -R - Z p
!E ca
N
_
V v _r_ m co
N O O
c '?
O c
O Q
00
(
y0
Q .?

a O

G
c.o
: w 3 C:
3m?
E a)
Q
5 v
?
occu ?
0
L C?
m a)
ago
oov?
N) mzE m tmn o
?
co c ,
ca
U ?? u ?
w E-4- a) a)
u- V.E t7? v
18
a)
7
U
c
O
P.
C0
Q)
I-

d
E
? j3 00 U-)
LO O N 00 (0

- N c v)
(0

U) ? O
0000

Y
U. r
C ' ' r ) O O
c 3 V
v
0
co

N d
°

c O O
w CO

0

d
ru-
c
O
O
3
d
E co
d
C
U) v v
Y
LL ?
., O

r

3 N
O i O O M
c co
0 ?-
w
?
y C E
E C)
O M co
f=A V)

O0
V ?
d
ru" .?
c
O
O
.-
3
H
3
0
0 r z z

?

d c
0
•
v
0 a)
N (D
N
CA

La a
a)
2
a
aa))
U) L
a
m E a E E m >
O (D F- p 0 o o
F. C C C >
a •C m
a m

cn c
n co

c0

L

'
•-
C O

O
L
Q (D
L
(D
Q

y
0)= O
0
a) p
a) >
U
cn
()
W

U) - co 0
(D (D
0) U)
0 z

Q
V a) D O c U) 0
Q 0 co O E C
a
) c co
W

a rn?

? a ai (CAD E Q
0

Q) 40

u
a? -
2
2

m

m
H ?
co -1 -0 a? o, ? -? d a ? H

A
a)
`m
a)
a
X
O
a)
•U
0-
c
(0
0
H
ui
U
3
O
N
a)
N
N
z
c
ca
c
m
E
c
O
L
c
w
0
•E
a
a)
co
C
O
L
N
U
s
O
z
a)
E
o L
a O
c ?
Y
ca
a) a.
O U
aj O
ca
E 3
c ?
- c
C t
? N
4--
O
-02 U
a)
rn a)
c cm
Y •L
C 3
N .O
U +0
c
N ?
O LL
m N s
19

Table 7. Comparison of 1992 upper Whitehurst Creek baseline and 2008 fish communities for the Whitehurst
Creek West Prong mitigation channel. Sampling in 1992 was conducted with a backpack electrofishing unit.
Sampling in 2008 was conducted with two paired fyke nets in addition to a backpack electrofishing unit.
1992 Baseline 2008 West Prong 2008 West Prong
upper
Whitehurst summertwinter summertwinter
Species Creek electrofshing fyke nets
American eel (Anguilla x
-
"
rostrata)
Bluegill x X X
(Lepomis macrochirus)
Bluespotted sunfish x

(Enneacanthus gloriosus) _ X
Brown bullhead

(Ameiurus nebulosus) x X
Carp
(Cyperinus carpio) - - X
Eastern mosquitofish x X X
(Gambusia holbrooki)
Flier
(Centrarchus macropterus) X
Golden shiner
X
(Notemigonus rysoleucas) - X
Green sunfish x
(Lepomis cyanellus)
Largemouth bass

(Micropterus salmoides) X
Longnose gar

(Lepisosteus osseus) _ X X
Pirate perch x
-
(Aphredoderus sayanus) "
Pumpkinseed X

(Lepomis gibbosus) X
Swamp darter x
(Etheostoma fusiforme) -
Warmouth (Lepomis

gulosus)
" X
Total species 9 4 11
Species in common with 1992 (%) 5(56%)
20
requires during sampling; greatly limiting the ability to effectively stun fish. Since
water levels and conductivity in Whitehurst Creek West Prong mitigation channel
prohibit effective electrofishing in the channel, fyke net sampling serves as a
better method to sample fish at the site. Fyke net sampling yielded a greater
number of species than electrofishing (Table 7).
3.3.2 Comparison of 2008 and 1992 Baseline. When fyke net and
electrofishing data were combined, species richness in 2008 was greater than
that of 1992. Five of the 1992 baseline species were among the 11 fish species
documented during the 2008 surveys (Table 7). American eel (Anguilla rostrata),
green sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus), pirate perch (Aphredoderus sayanus), and
swamp darters (Etheostoma fusiforme) were not collected in 2008. Carp
(Cyperinus carpio) and longnose gar (Lepisosteus osseus), two species not
previously collected in the Whitehurst Creek West Prong, were observed in 2008.
The dominant species for the 2008 surveys included pumpkinseed, bluegill, and
bluespotted sunfish whereas the dominant species observed during 1992
surveys included eastern mosquitofish, pirate perch, pumpkinseed and
bluespotted sunfish. Tolerance values and trophic classification of collected
species were similar in 1992 and 2008, as most individuals were tolerant or
intermediately tolerant generalist feeders adapted to the turbid, slow-moving
waters typical of coastal plain streams (Table 6).
Appendix B compares 1992 baseline fish survey data with the results of
surveys of the Whitehurst Creek West Prong mitigation channel since 2003. This
appendix will be expanded with each year of data collection. As of 2008, seven
of the nine species (78 percent) of fish documented in the 1992 baseline survey
of historical upper Whitehurst Creek have been documented within the
Whitehurst Creek West Prong mitigation channel. Pirate perch and swamp
darter are the only two baseline species that have not been collected during the
monitoring surveys. In addition, eleven species, bowfin (Amia calva), brown
bullhead (Ameiurus nebulosus), mummichog (Fundulus heteroclitus), white perch
(Morone americans), flier (Centrarchus micropterus), largemouth bass
(Micropterus salmoides), warmouth (Lepomis gulosus), gizzard shad (Dorosoma
cepedianum) white crappie (Pomoxis annularis), carp (Cyperinus carpio), and
longnose gar (Lepisosteus osseus) were not documented in the 1992 baseline
collection but have been documented within the Whitehurst Creek West Prong
mitigation channel since 2003. The presence of additional fish species could
possibly reflect better aquatic habitat for fish compared to baseline conditions.
4.0 SUMMARY
Fifty-nine taxa from 11 groups of aquatic macroinvertebrates were
recorded in both the 1992 baseline survey of historical upper Whitehurst Creek
and the 2008 survey of the Whitehurst Creek West Prong mitigation channel.
One additional baseline taxa was recorded in 2008 for the first time at the
mitigation site. Eighteen (30 percent) of the 1992 baseline genera have been
21
collected since 2003. Biotic index values possibly reflect different current
conditions compared to baseline conditions. At the species level, the 1992 and
2008 communities were very different, but collections from both years were
dominated by functionally similar m acroi nverteb rate orders and by
environmentally tolerant predators and collector-gatherers. Successional status,
complex life histories, and inherent patchiness of invertebrate communities may
also account for some differences with the 1992 baseline.
Seven of the nine species (78 percent) of fish documented in the 1992
baseline survey of historical upper Whitehurst Creek have been documented
within the Whitehurst Creek West Prong mitigation channel, and an additional
eleven species not documented in the 1992 collection have been observed within
the Whitehurst Creek West Prong mitigation channel since 2003. The presence
of additional fish species could reflect more aquatic habitat present in current
conditions compared to baseline conditions. The 2008 collections differed from
1992 in that fyke nets were used to sample the channel in 2008 because it was
inaccessible with the electrofishing unit. Future sampling efforts will continue to
incorporate supplemental sampling gear. Appendix C contains selected
photographs taken during the 2008 surveys. Future reports will present
additional photos showing yearly changes in riparian habitat.
22
REFERENCES
Benke, A.C. 2001. Importance of flood regime to invertebrate habitat in an
unregulated river-floodplain ecosystem. Journal of the North American
Benthological Society. 20 (2): 225-240.
Brigham, A.R., W.U. Brigham, and A. Gnilka, eds. 1982. Aquatic insects and
oligochaetes of North and South Carolina. Midwest Aquatic Enterprises,
Mahomet, Illinois. 837 pp.
Brooks, S.A., M.A. Palmer, B.J. Cardinale, C.M. Swan, and S. Ribblet. 2002.
Assessing stream ecosystem rehabilitation: limitations of community structure
data. Restoration Ecolocgy 10: 156-168.
Brower, J.E. and J.H. Zar. 1984. Field and Laboratory Methods for General
Ecology. Macgraw-Hill 288 pgs.
CZR Incorporated. 1993a. Whitehurst Creek water quality and sediment
sampling: 1992 baseline. Wilmington, North Carolina.
CZR Incorporated. 1993b. Upper Whitehurst Creek aquatic macroinvertebrate
and fish survey 1992 baseline report. Wilmington, North Carolina.
CZR Incorporated. 1994. Upper Whitehurst Creek aquatic macroinvertebrate
and fish survey and water quality analyses: 1993 Mitigation Channel Report.
Wilmington, North Carolina.
CZR Incorporated. 1995. Upper Whitehurst Creek aquatic macro i nverteb rate
and fish survey and water quality analyses: 1994 Mitigation Channel Report.
Wilmington, North Carolina.
CZR Incorporated. 1996. Upper Whitehurst Creek aquatic macroinvertebrate
and fish survey and water quality analyses: 1995 Mitigation Channel Report.
Wilmington, North Carolina.
CZR Incorporated. 1997. Upper Whitehurst Creek aquatic macroinvertebrate
and fish survey and water quality analyses: 1996 Mitigation Channel Report.
Wilmington, North Carolina.
CZR Incorporated. 1998. Upper Whitehurst Creek aquatic m acroi nverteb rate
and fish survey and water quality analyses: 1997 Mitigation Channel Report.
Wilmington, North Carolina.
CZR Incorporated. 1999. Upper Whitehurst Creek aquatic macroinvertebrate
and fish survey and water quality analyses: 1998 Mitigation Channel Report.
Wilmington, North Carolina.
23
CZR Incorporated. 2000a. Upper Whitehurst Creek aquatic macroi nverte b rate
and fish survey and water quality analyses: 1999 Mitigation Channel Report.
Wilmington, North Carolina.
CZR Incorporated. 2000b. Upper Whitehurst Creek aquatic macroi nverteb rate
and fish survey and water quality analyses: 2000 Mitigation Channel Report.
Wilmington, North Carolina.
CZR Incorporated. 2004. Whitehurst Creek West Prong aquatic
macroinverteb rate and fish survey and water quality analyses: 2003 Mitigation
Channel Report. Wilmington, North Carolina.
CZR Incorporated. 2005. Whitehurst Creek West Prong aquatic
macroinverteb rate and fish survey and water quality analyses: 2004 Mitigation
Channel Report. Wilmington, North Carolina.
CZR Incorporated. 2006. Whitehurst Creek West Prong aquatic
macroinvertebrate and fish survey and water quality analyses: 2005 Mitigation
Channel Report. Wilmington, North Carolina.
CZR Incorporated. 2007. Whitehurst Creek West Prong aquatic
macroi nverteb rate and fish survey and water quality analyses: 2006 Mitigation
Channel Report. Wilmington, North Carolina.
CZR Incorporated. 2008. Whitehurst Creek West Prong aquatic
macroinvertebrate and fish survey and water quality analyses: 2007 Mitigation
Channel Report. Wilmington, North Carolina.
Menhinick, E.F. 1991. The freshwater fishes of North Carolina. North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission, Raleigh, North Carolina. 227 pp.
NCDENR 2001 a. Standard operating procedures for benthic
macroinvertebrates, Biological Assessment Unit. Division of Water Quality,
Water Quality Section Environmental Sciences Branch.
NCDENR 2001b. Standard operating procedure biological monitoring stream
fish community assessment and fish tissue. Biological Assessment Unit.
Division of Water Quality, Water Quality Section Environmental Sciences
Branch.
NCDENR, 2006. Standard operating procedures for benthic m acroi nve rteb rates.
Biological Assessment Unit. Division of Water Quality, Environmental
Sciences Section.
24
Paller, M.H., M.J.M. Reichert, and J.M. Dean. 1996. Use of fish communities to
assess environmental impacts South Carolina coastal plain streams.
Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 125, 633-644.
Scott, M.C. and Lenwood W. Hall, Jr. 1997. Fish assemblages as indicators of
environmental degradation in Maryland coastal plain streams. Transactions
of the American Fisheries Society 126, 349-360.
Smock, L.A. 1988. Life histories, abundance and distribution of some
macro i nve rteb rates from a South Carolina, USA coastal plain stream.
Hydrobiologia 157: 193-208.
Smock, L.A. 1996. Macroinvertebrate movements: drift, colonization, and
emergence. Pages 371-390 in Methods In Stream Ecology. F.R. Hauer and
G.A. Lamberti, eds. Academic Press.
Townsend, C.R., M.R. Scarsbrook, and S. Doledec. 1997. The intermediate
disturbance hypothesis, refugia, and biodiversity in streams. Limnology and
Oceanography 42(5): 938-949.
Williams, D.D. and H.B.N. Hynes. 1976. The recolonization mechanisms of
stream benthos. Oikos 27: 265-272.
Zweig, L.D. and C.F. Rabeni. 2001. Biomonitoring for deposited sediment using
benthic invertebrates: a test on 4 Missouri streams. Journal of the North
American Benthological Society 20(4): 643-657.
25

APPENDIX A
AQUATIC MACROINVERTEBRATE TAXA
DOCUMENTED IN UPPER WHITEHURST CREEK
DURING THE 1992 BASELINE AND IN THE WHITEHURST
CREEK WEST PRONG MITIGATION CHANNEL
DURING 2003 THROUGH 2008 SURVEYS
(1)
U
c
m
E
W
X
m
F-
O
O
O
N
L
rn
0
L
M
O
O
N
(D
E
E
7
c
m
a?
c
.3
a?
c
c
m
L
U
c
O
m
O
rn
c
0
a-
>w
Y
a?
U
N
L
a?
a)
L_
c
m
a?
c
a?
m
N
O
O
^L
,
W
E
a
c
m
c
3
L
U
co
.r-
a)
a)
Q
CL
2
c
a)
E
U
O
N
a)
'U
m
Q
(n
a)
aa) c
a)
a) =3
c 0"
°v
U ?
m m
U N
_ m
m Z
? m
Q aS
m
Q Q-
x a
'v
c
a)
n
a
Q

p X X X X x x X X X X X
?c 3
ti

E

y c
00 2 m
I E X X X X X X x X X X
N ? - ,

C d
d0 x x X X x X x x X X X x >C x xxx
t O U)
$ E
U. C
ti O
`
N cm c X X X X X x x X X X X X X X X X X
E ?
E

o
E

X
X X
c N
o
?
E
?
?
o
N m c X X X X X X X
• 3
E
C
C
d

a
?` •O E
x
X X
X
X
x

.0 O
N

=
C
F
? w ?

N am d
c
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
x

m
L C
d
p E X X X X X X
C N
0
6
E
?
d
U O
:+
o cm d
c
X
x
x
x
X
X
X
N 3

0
C
d
E x x x x x x x X x x x X
O y

LE
{L c

O A .-
C:, O m
J;
N L c X x x X X X X x x x X X
'E 3
w
-
a E
X
X
x x
x
x
X
x
x
X
dV N
C

r
m
d m
C C X x x XXX xxx x X
3 3

CL
? N
•U ? (0
Q O N ,?
Q Q

O
O
O
O
Z O
Q) c y
a o ? a ? '??, •? ? ??ns rn a?

Q O
"
N v,
aXi .y o
v0i
4E h m
L cn
c a) c
U N O Q c_u
m m
a) .o
c'

t?r

N
Q
N

Q?
Q)
(D Q

N

U N

L-
4 0
c a)

O

Q

C

Q
Q Q
U)

Q Q U to ca

O

j
-Q m

O
O m
L w :Z
°

O

Q

M Q co Q

0

°'

N c?
-

3 3

O

O .

N N cp

v? cXO cXO m p

ci

W
a c
O
v N m co

p Q

?` c?
c U U) a U) Q N

O? V M !5

co 0 O

0) 75 () a)

m m

Q
•- O

o'- X cu c Q

4.4.4 Q v, m
1

-
°

m
c

m
0 o

a o

c co
o Q

a? m

'c
ca ,as

c
as Q a3

o
a)
c c

o
a o?

o a L U

.c a L °
u, v -0 (n

.cn co m c

m .? E a a a as

0 0 0
o c a3

c c2
-
a
co co
c c
c
"-
o
° E E
ii a) a)
io Co -
N U
m co
Z3) U
v O O 0)
0 co L
'- m m 0
O
L
? N O O
a c
. v_ c Q
O X CO
N s z z z c
-C c
c C D zz o -
c Q) a) a) c
c c w 0
0 O c
O
+
+ N Q ?
?, . j 3 O N
c z z m c 4 U
?? ?` ? U U Q Q cis c? O O
H <C U UUOW? l2 C?C?Wa Up??Z ?F- 00 QQ UWW WWWW„ ???? Z Waa

m m
a?
o
N N L O
o o rn o
C9 U O W O
Q

N
C
C
O
U
Q
X
C
N
Q
Q
Q
c m
dw E x x x x x x X x x X X X X
>'-a
0 Co

C
CO)
Co '" s-
o X x x x X

?

o E
X X
X
x X x x
X
X
X

O M

lL c
1. O

N S X x x X

do
x xx x
t
0
o CO
?
o c
LL o
c a +°3
N c x x x X
w
• 3
E
C d

d° E X xx x
N
o
t
C

?°
° m
?
.? c X X X X X

?C d
?o •r-
>% ° E
o
x
x x
X
x x

o E

C

° :3
o
o c X X
N

•?
d$
E
xX
x
xX
X X
>11,E
N
?E
U. C
".0
`
N _C
X
X x
x
3
E

Qm E

?V E X X X X X X X X
c N
?
•
m ?
? d
00 . d
Nt
? = x x
0 3

Q
N

U
V
ZI Cl
m
co
Q v E ? C CO CO
CO O C 4
L U
Q
C c
O .
L to

m
N U
N m to
O C X
'
m
o
U
h
Q m
N N
C O
0 0

u,
O i
-
O
w
p
m
D Q
m
Q Q m
N
?
m
m +r O Y h cu
v)
p .C -QQ i
C Q a
E?
U
Q B
C
C m U)
CO m ?p (n Q
m m Cl) v, 0) i m
m m m "O v_ O co? ,co m m
N k k CL mU v°i Q 'X'
fl ?
m Q US Q m co co 10
•`
O
o a? E E E E ° ° -
Liz
C
13 0
.m .m .? m .Q z: ° m m m
co Q co co cn U) a)

0) cu
co coo
co
O Q 4 O.Q. N O V)
0 cu
to n
'
0
) ) , C
°
c
O O O m
N N
0

N N
i G
co

C

i co
°i E E E E
CU m o 0
Q) 0 0`
`
-
N N O N o o
co
Q) N 0 0 m o o m m a? C a_
L
C
C
C 'i 'i
N Q o Q o 0
O 0 c °
a)
0 0 , -C
0

H
cq
?-z
<
m
0000C)U
??Z
Z c
O c
N (
0
0 •
N
?kz1z> 0) 0)
QQ > (1) N
QmoO N
op N 0
UUUUUUppp C
pLLI N
WT
N ro

Q Q
r O
U
N
Q

(D
O
C
C
O
U
Q
X
.0
c
a)
Q
Q
Q
C d

ow o E >< xx xx xX X X
>+ c 3

E
y c
i L
M
O
N
MM xx x xx x x
?
F

c L
m
E X X X x x
E N
0
E
ii c
r,2
L
c to
.+
C4.LM c x x x

?L L
E
0.0. E x x x x x x x x x x
t c y
O
?
7 E
O c
Y. o `

c c X
N

C L
d
` •` E

Ow
E
x
x x
N
•a o
:E
c
F-
N = L
I :
D.tm
N ' x
?

L c
•` L
d
E
?° E x x x x x x x
c
0
0E
c
m
m o L

N X
3

c L

d$ E
E
x
x
x X
x x
x
x
•
0
E
LL c
M O
" L
Ca
N t
C
X

X

X

X

X x x x

d Y ?
E
?` x x x x x x x x x x
d U)
c?
•
d ?

t
C4
?3 c
3 x x x x x x

ZC
?CO yco
w?
:z :a m
N U

-? Co c co

c i
O
+?_
.m
(U
3

(p o
Q°
N a w
co N h
Z3
w
co
co
_ Z co

O
U O° Q
O i U
ca
E

?°i Q
Q?? Qom O
Q
U °
CU
Q ° m
a cB
c-a ?
z
a
m L

a) O

"0
Q co
E Q a z o v°, 0 0 o `- CO Q
c °'
fl
Q
Q N Z Q c r co co Q U' m
o _
: Q v) c
U)
Q
a .
o°
c° lz
° .
co (n
0) u
i
Q
)
a o
co o° o
N :n Z2 co
ti 03
co
o°
O ... ° 3
. O 0) 8
u
i
co CO C: O° O

LZ
°
°
°

-Z
O
Q z ti O CO O

:z
a? m a? CO CO
a? a? U
CO Q
a? U= c U
c Z3 O
E E O +? o
E .L- E .? o ?-
ui rn •- v a?'i
m
- Q o°
`• •- o 0
a? co co %
(D Q a o?
Q
Q
0 0 o O a O Q N
° o o °c E E a a a a a a

E

E y ` y o

Q °

Q D-
uai v°i co i a0i
S
cn

i .
Q.aaaa

c
? L
aaaa °a
QQ §
Mo 0 0 0
o ;;
1010 o c c Z
o m Q m
a?
o.Q

aa
Q.

?, •, '
?-
Q Q
co
0
0 O
. N, N, N,
_____
===2== cn O N O
JJ?Z O N O N
Z?a? N N N 'L t O Z
aaOC lol? C
l? LO O O ca oo >,
Z, !
Z 0 0 00 O Q
U C
-
)
UUUU
QQ
Q
7 ?
Q
?
Q
M
Q
000000000000000•00000** ****000000•*•*w••••
a?
c
c
0
U
Q
x
c
a)
Q
Q
Q
c d
d0 E X X x x X X X x
:014.E =
BEN
?n =
ao
CD
442 s X X X X x x
X X X
E
c E
d0 E x x X x Xx x x x X X X
?O N
?E
ii C
ti O `
S w
C-4.2
3 x x
E
?c E
?0 E x x x x X X
if O CO
= E
O c
N. O `
tD ++ 4)
00 ooV. c X x x X X x X x x X
•? 3
C m
E
wec *00 E x X x x
E
't c
H
L
N 3 x x x x x x x
E
?O E xxxX
X X x x
E
UE
0 C
y o
-W m
N 3 X X X X X X X X x x
E
16 c ..
c E
X X X
>% c c X X
O N
E
U. C
M O `
o R rd•,
N = X x x X x x
E 3
c..x E
m
E X X X X X
c
•d ?
z
NZ c x x X x x xx XXX x x
CD 3
Z3
CO
O U
CL % '0 m o N
0 Q)
O C co co Co Q O Q) Q N j
co 42
6 a '0 (0 0 co Q) S- CL CO
ci 0) a Q T uQi CO
E c h o v, E E (0 co
•? o w o .n °' o
o co N to co Q m a c 0) co E mo 0 o QZ3 ? Ec ?Q_Z a c °' Q CL CL
QQ o m o 0 m a) Q) o m o a> Qc c c a o c v, v,
PL c Q
U'a E E c
U) c ?a a as v0, •o a cz t t m? Qo° `m cn co U) S :S (0 m v c Q Z co
E? o o m n m c e c c = c U U o= a? c a a c m o 0 o h o
!0 aoi '?mv o o y o o 'U o x o 0 0 o a`mi o o O aU - a° a m ° v E a? a? m° coo .? o m o o o -m
- A m u `m
C N' c ,c C ,U i i L L a a) a) as o c c o 0 0 o c c
H lz:cMZ UUUU U00 OO?W? C?C? C?C?=Y?O °.0ncoOTa
O
Q
00000.0000000•••0.0000000••0.0000000000••0•
v
a)
a
U
C
O
Q
X
C
a)
Qa
Q
c m
2 E X X X X j
0 ,
m
E rn o
c lf' r

N as
'
X x
M
.

C a.
d
E x x N
d
O
E N N
4. C (D `-
ti O `
N tm C X X N

m 6. d
00
N
?% C =
O
0) c
co
o
U- O
O ? +' r

O C
N
N 3
E
0
r
C m
'r.
w
O E
E
r
e
-W
C
y o
E M

O M co
v) .
019 ?.
d r
N .M ' x N

M.r d
£

m O
E LO
N
C ?
Co

E
0
C M co
d
O
co `
o _ 's c w
O
N
3 r

C d
'c
d$
E
x
M
w C N
O
y CC
G

co

U. C
cn 00
00
N C
X 0)
N
E 3
d Y
E
?` x x x x M
m v

.E 40 U)

o

Q
? O
N 7 c0 z 0
? d d
042

O E
3 x x x x X
co
r
co
O
O
N

? U
C
ai z z Q a
(D
a)
co 0 U ') U
c fl

(n ?
?

Q

E0)0
Q)
C:

O
Z3 O O
Q Q G .V) 1 a) a5
U
? .C 0 -
0) ""
.
? U
a F3
.co -

- a) La.
co

)

a

m _0
x
ca =° o m n z CO
2
v ? ?
y co N ?c a)

i-
o.
1= co v.?
c m
U O 2
c
o
m ?,
?
_ °
a)
= =

t
°
C E
()
,
M 3
-
Q o L z 0 o o U)
f te E 04

cn o))
N )
a
>,

O
N
N C n a .C O)
N c N a O
N _
E X X X X

7 O
0 C
C c
p O
(B V
O
O CL
O a)
t m m m m a)
O U rn E E s m m co m E
C7 L
F- ¢ _
z z
O
a
F°-
H f
0-
F°-
z
X
A
a
U_
a
c
vi
cv
a
C
(}0
N
C
O
N
a)
E
O
C
a)
d
O
U
z
a)
a
C
O
co
a)
O
a)
t
C
a
a
c
a)
in
a)
CL
a)
.N
N
7
C
a)
O)
a)
E
co
cn
a)
s
C
a)
L
3
cu
O
C
a
m
C
7
O
U
O
C
a)
ca
O
7
C
a)
rn
O
>,
C
O
a
a)
c
a)
co
x
co
F-
N
a)
O
z
LO
Q
*0000*0000000000000006.0.0.00000000000000*0
APPENDIX B
FISH SPECIES DOCUMENTED IN UPPER
WHITEHURST CREEK DURING THE 1992 BASELINE AND
IN THE WHITEHURST CREEK WEST PRONG
MITIGATION CHANNEL DURING 2003 THROUGH 2008 SURVEYS
00
0
O
N
L
m
0
M
O
O
N
O
C
a
a?
c
c
m
L
U
C
O
rn
Y
E
rn
C
O
a
N
a)
a>
U
Y
L
L
a)
L
C
a
c
m
a)
D
c
N
rn
0)
Tl-
a)
L
Y
a
Y
a)
a)
L
U
L
L
.c
a?
CL
Q
3
c
a
2
c
a)
7
U
O
a
w
A)
U
a)
Q
w
L
U)
ii
m
x
a
c
a)
CL
a
Q

c m
c CR x X X X X X X x x X °
?c
t o v
a N

N •? O LO
0o m R
3 m
_?
N c X X X X v
E 3
c E
m p?c
c E X X X x x X X x x x °
r
p
t '
CL c N

M .? .O
na?

d co
C) jM
3
c
x
x
x
x
x
x
(D
N
E 3

a c d
E
? c c E x x x x X U')

` 3
W
a

. (0
U
3
M c
0
L
c ?, X X N
N E 3
°
r
c
C E
0c
I
= x x x x x x x 0)
c
0
.E ` v
N o
H w 0 rn a C
c
x X X x x x N
N •? 3
` W
C W
:0% IM c= E X X X x X X x x X

vw '

C 0) U
)
tp .M `
03a c X X c
o
24
N E
3
d d
c
d
c c E X X X X X X x X X rn
w L.
0
a. c U)
IL y O

CW) `
O t
N & C

3
x
X
X
co
E

=v E x X x x x x x x x 0)
w
(Sc;
rn
Z 0)
and d
Cvt
00 3 E
3 X X X x x LO

0
> z z >- z z z z z z z >- z z z z z > >-
Z
fA
CL
a

d

E

E

E

I-

0

f-

0

E

E

?-

f-

E

Fo

Q

E

E

E

E

E

E M
O
°
_ Z N
O
? N
U
C

Q)
Z3
c
o
E o
E

O
C,

c
co
(D

i

)

)

o U

° t

o

c

3

c

U

a)

co
-C
a)
z
p
E
w
U co
],
Q?
p
N
?-
v?
O
p
m
C
C
C
i
N
L
O
cn

U
W
O
V
E CO °
U

to
O

to a

O °

)

N E

O c

-

p p
c
L Q
N L
U
p
O
C
a
O p
N
.?2 O

E O

z L
a)
CL L
a)
0 U
cn

z

Q
co
w

v
Q
V
Q)

O

O

O

O

Z

N

W

L

t

N

r_
W c-

O

i

o

cn .

V1

n

)
E
Q
N
m a
a?i
0
U t
N
°
(1)
N cu
Q Q
¢
a
` Q. a m N N N N

0
a)
s
N
O
cu
c
L
cy)
m
t
a) a
)
t:
-
O
L
Q
Q
a
a
c
U V
O C 7
Q Q
V? E
Y C
a) N L
w
U) 7
O a)
Vl L
U
a) to
C
a c
j
2 `
a) to
L to
L to
L to
L 0

'c =
a°'i C-
CO o
3 ?i
a c
p
L
° U a
L
co c
aci E
a) O _
E a
m Y
Q Q
E O
E U
o Q
0
"_
'?
?_ aD

D.
E
°
°
OL
N
?
(D
N
° 8)
0
O E
3
N
E
3
N
L
L
cu
cu
m E
f/1 Q m m a, m m U w s C7 C7 C7 (
J J a a cn H Fo- z
s
0
U
a)
a)
a
c
N
w
a) ?
c O
Y U
E
E
E
.0 0 0
a o
? 'u m
c ,U
U+s cQ
C fA
? (B (V
fd L U
"O O N
?h c
11
C O N
cn H O
a) ^; Y
Y
:3.Lu c
c ( N
E N
L
d
cn z
(0 ? U
C6

•
•
•
•
•
•
i
•
•
•
•
•
•
APPENDIX C
SELECTED PHOTOGRAPHS FROM 2008 SURVEYS
C-1
View upstream at the beginning of site 1, Whitehurst Creek West Prong
Mitigation Channel, 20 February 2008 (Figure 2: Photo 1A).
View downstream at the end of site 1, Whitehurst Creek West Prong Mitigation
Channel, 20 February 2008 (Figure 2: Photo 1 B).

C-2
View upstream at the beginning of site 2, Whitehurst Creek West Prong
Mitigation Channel, 20 February 2008 (Figure 2: Photo 2A).
view aownstream at the end of site 2, Whitehurst Creek West Prong Mitigation
Channel, 20 February 2008 (Figure 2: Photo 213).
C-3
View upstream near the beginning of site 1, Whitehurst Creek West Prong
Mitigation Channel, 23 July 2008.
view near ine aownstream ena of site 1, Whitehurst Creek West Prong Mitigation
Channel, 23 July 2008.
•
•
•
•
•
C-4
view near the upstream end of site 2, Whitehurst Creek West Prong Mitigation
Channel, 23 July 2008.
view near ine aownstream end of site 2, Whitehurst Creek West Prong Mitigation
Channel, 23 July 2008.