19920039 Ver 1_Monitoring Report_20140225

li PotashCorp'
Helping Nature Provide
Federal Express
February 24, 2014
Ms. Cyndi Karoly
Manager, Wetlands Branch
Division of Water Resources
North Carolina Dept. of ENR
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1650
Re: Whitehurst Creek 2013 Sampling Report
Dear Ms. Karoly:
PotashCorp - Aurora
1C'�- )o:5a1
Enclosed are two copies of the "Whitehurst Creek West Prong Aquatic Macroinvertebrate Survey
and Water Quality Analysis: 2013 Mitigation Channel Report". This report utilizes the monitoring
protocol involving two downstream reference stations, as described in our December 14, 2011
submittal to you and incorporated into a January 2012 OAH Settlement Agreement.
With the submittal of this report, we are requesting approval to cease the monitoring of the
Whitehurst Creek Mitigation Channel. Please call me at (252) 322 -8249 or e -mail me at
[e-mail] if you have any questions.
Si cerely,
Je ' ey C. Furness
Senior Scientist
Enclosure
PC:
Anthony Scarbraugh — DWR, Washington
Sam Cooper — CZR, Wilmington
23 -01- 004 -26
R. M. Smith
M. Brom
S.Jordan
w /encl
w/o encl.
w /encl.
w /summary
w /summary
w /encl.
1530 NC Hwy 306 South, Aurora, NC USA 27806 T(252)322-4111
FotashCorp. I www.potashcorp.com

A
WHITEHURST CREEK WEST PRONG
AQUATIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SURVEY
AND WATER QUALITY ANALYSES:
2013 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 2014
q VZU3 q
r -Cis .:, j /.]

WHITEHURST CREEK WEST PRONG
AQUATIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SURVEY
AND WATER QUALITY ANALYSES:
2013 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 2014

WHITEHURST CREEK WEST PRONG
AQUATIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SURVEY
AND WATER QUALITY ANALYSES:
2013 ANNUAL
MITIGATION CHANNEL REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Paqe
COVER SHEET
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF APPENDICES
1 0 INTRODUCTION
11 History
12 Purpose
1 3 Project Site
2 0 METHODS
21 Physical Characteristics and Water Quality
22 Aquatic Macro i rive rte brates
30 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
31 Physical Habitat and Water Quality
32 Aquatic Macroinvertebrates
3 2 1 2013 Aquatic Macroinvertebrate Survey
322 Comparison of 2013 Results and New Reference Stations.
40 SUMMARY
Y
1
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
8
8
.8
REFERENCES 17

LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
Description of conditions during aquatic macroinvertebrate surveys in the
Whitehurst Creek West Prong mitigation channel eleventh -year (2013) and
second year in two downstream reference stations, Beaufort County,
North Carolina 6
2 Taxa richness of aquatic macroinvertebrates (by group) for the Whitehurst
Creek West Prong mitigation channel eleventh -year (2013) survey and
second year for two downstream reference stations, Beaufort County,
North Carolina 9
3 Eleventh -year (2013) aquatic macroinvertebrate survey of the Whitehurst
Creek West Prong mitigation channel and second year for two
downstream reference stations, Beaufort County, North Carolina 10
4 Comparison of 2013 aquatic macroinvertebrate communities for the
Whitehurst Creek West Prong mitigation channel eleventh -year (2013)
survey and second year for two downstream reference stations, Beaufort
County, North Carolina 14
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
WHITEHURST CREEK BENTHIC SAMPLING STATIONS 2
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix
A AQUATIC MACROINVERTEBRATE TAXA DOCUMENTED IN UPPER
WHITEHURST CREEK IN THE WHITEHURST CREEK WEST PRONG
MITIGATION CHANNEL DURING 2003 THROUGH 2013 SURVEYS AND
IN 2012 AND 2013 SURVEYS OF TWO DOWNSTREAM REFERENCE
STATIONS
B SELECTED PHOTOGRAPHS FROM 2013 SURVEYS IN WEST PRONG
MITIGATION CHANNEL AND DOWNSTREAM REFERENCE SITES

WHITEHURST CREEK WEST PRONG
AQUATIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SURVEY
AND WATER QUALITY ANALYSES:
2013 ANNUAL
MITIGATION CHANNEL REPORT
1 0 INTRODUCTION
Since 2003, two stations have been sampled in February and July for aquatic
macroinvertebrates in the West Prong mitigation channel of Whitehurst Creek
and compared to the 1992 baseline results (CZR Incorporated 1993a) Station 1
is located near the downstream end of the West Prong mitigation channel and
Station 2 is located upstream of Station 1 in the upper end of the mitigation
channel At the suggestion of the then North Carolina Division of Water Quality
( NCDWQ), now the Division of Water Resources (DWR), two new reference
stations were proposed and accepted for additional aquatic macroinvertebrate
surveys in 2012 and 2013 The two new reference stations, Stations A and B,
are located downstream of the West Prong mitigation channel in the historical
portion of Whitehurst Creek, but upstream of estuarine marsh Station A is
located downstream of the new railroad bridge across Whitehurst Creek and
Station B is located upstream of the same bridge All four station locations are
depicted on Figure 1
Per NCDWQ /DWR, the new monitoring protocol for the four stations in
Whitehurst Creek eliminated collection of fish data and monthly channel water
quality measurement by PCS Phosphate Company, Inc as has occurred in the
West Prong mitigation channel since 2003 The new aquatic macroinvertebrate
monitoring at the four stations follows the same methodology and protocol
performed in the West Prong mitigation channel since 2003, however, for the two
year period (2012 and 2013) annual data from Stations 1 and 2 is compared to
annual data from Stations A and B instead of the 1992 baseline
Selection of the two new reference stations was based on a similar degree of
canopy cover and similar shrubby creek edge as found at the current Stations 1
and 2 The most downstream reference station (Station A) is located in the
transition zone between bottomland /swamp forest and the zone of active tree
death concomitant with sea level rise The most upstream reference station
(Station B) is located at the edge of the maintained power line and the
bottomland /swamp forest community
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

� - .. � • �` it � ���_ /
STATION 1
STATION 2
I
. 7
- i -, IF-
�'t j'r
,I '
STATION A -''-
BRNNrte , 'STATION B
SWq
WEST PRONG MP
MITIGATION CHANNE `t RR BRIDGE

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 Finally, a change in macroinvertebrate
survey protocol was approved in a January 2012 Office of Administrative
Hearings (OAH) Settlement Agreement between NCDENR and PCS Phosphate
Baseline conditions in historical upper Whitehurst Creek gathered during
1992 fish and macroinvertebrate surveys by DWQ and CZR Incorporated (CZR)
are described in the baseline report (CZR Incorporated 1993a) A description of
the baseline water quality and sediment conditions in 1992 upper Whitehurst
Creek is found in a second report (CZR Incorporated 1993b) Results of annual
monitoring in the temporary upper Whitehurst Creek mitigation channel are
contained in a series of reports (CZR Incorporated 1994 -1999, 2000a, and
2000b)
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 eleventh report in a series of mitigation
monitoring reports for the West Prong of Whitehurst Creek, and presents the
results of the 2013 aquatic macroinvertebrate surveys conducted by CZR for
PCS Phosphate Results from the 10 previous years of aquatic
macroinvertebrate and fish surveys are found in annual monitoring reports (CZR
Incorporated 2004 -2013) This sampling is required as a condition of the revised
401 Water Quality Certification No 2748 issued by DWQ and the January 2012
OAH Settlement Agreement between NCDENR and PCS Phosphate
1 3 Proiect 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
3

2 0 METHODS
21 Physical Characteristics and Water Quality Temperature,
conductivity, salinity, dissolved oxygen and pH were measured twice annually by
CZR at each 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
22 Aquatic Macroinvertebrates Two 600 -foot monitoring stations for
fish and aquatic macroinvertebrate surveys were established in the mitigation
channel in 2003 (Figure 1) 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 The macroinvertebrate 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 1993a, NCDENR 2001) in an effort to maintain consistency in
collection and analysis of data The 2006 Standard Operating Procedures for
Benthic Macroinvertebrates 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 reference site
taxa, any taxa encountered during monitoring that is identified to species level is
considered a match with reference taxa that was identified only to genus level for
those taxa Similarly, any taxa encountered during monitoring that is within a
family identified in reference stations and that has no other members identified is
also considered a match
Biotic Index (BI) values are calculated for winter samples only as
recommended by DWQ (NCDENR 2001 and 2006) The BI values allow
assessment of temporal changes in biological integrity as well as comparison of
biological integrity in Whitehurst Creek among sampling efforts This
bioclassification is based on the tolerance of the macrobenthic community as
summarized by the North Carolina Biotic Index (NCBI) The NCBI is calculated
by summing the tolerance values of individual taxa (family or genera in some
cases), multiplied by their abundance value, to give an average tolerance value
4

Tolerance values for either individual species, or the final biotic value of a
particular site, range from 0 to 10 with higher numbers indicating more tolerant
species (or communities) and more polluted conditions If a taxon is found which
does not have a tolerance value, Larry Eaton, the senior macroinvertebrate
specialist with NCDWQ, will assign a value CZR then calculates the BI
However, not all taxa identified are assigned tolerance values because there may
not be enough ecological information to determine a value
In addition, Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Tnchoptera taxa richness
(EPT richness) is 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
2013 reference and 2013 macroinvertebrate communities, the Jaccard coefficient
of community similarity was used (Brower and Zar 1984)
The Jaccard index (C) is defined as
C,= c /(s1+s2 -c), where
c= number of genera in common and s,, s2 are the total number of genera in
community 1 and 2, respectively The Jaccard index of community similarity
ranges from 0 0 (completely dissimilar populations) to 1 0 (identical populations)
3 0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
31 Physical Habitat and Water Quality Water quality information and
site descriptions collected by CZR during 2013 biological sampling (27 February
and 30 July) are presented in Table 1 Habitat characterization for depth and
water quality parameters was performed on the inundated West Prong floodplain
at the benthic stations along the edge of the floodplain For the downstream
reference sites, habitat characterization for depth and water quality parameters
was performed at the edge of the stream channel
The West Prong floodplain had very little to no canopy cover, however, the
bank vegetation was dominated by black willow (Salix n►gra) and wax myrtle
(Morelia cenfera) with young bald cypress (Taxodium distichum) within the
floodplain at both Stations 1 and 2 The canopy of the two reference stations
was semi -open to semi- closed, and the water body was much narrower Station
A, the most downstream and the most natural of all the stations, has mature
swamp forest trees in the floodplain and scattered black willow, wax myrtle and
swamp palmetto (Sabal minor) on the floodplain and along the stream edge In
2011, Hurricane Irene toppled many of the trees in the swamp forest, especially

Table 1 Description of conditions at sampling stations in the Whitehurst Creek West Prong mitigation channel eleventh -year (2013)
aquatic macroinvertebrate survey and second -year survey at two downstream reference sites, Beaufort County, North Carolina
Winter survey was conducted 27 February 2013, summer survey was conducted 30 July 2013 All measurements at all stations
were taken in vicinity of bank
Mitigation channel stations
Reference stations
Parameter
Station 1
Station 2
Station A
Station B
Winter
Fsurnmer
Winter
Summer
Winter
Summer
Winter
Summer
Depth (in)
1800
11 25
1700
1000
1600
1550
1600
11 50
Canopy cover
Open
Open
Open
Open
Semi -open
Semi -open
Semi -open
Semi- closed
Aufwuchs
Moderate
Moderate
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Low
Moderate
Low
Bank erosion
None
Low
None
Low
Slight
Low
None
Low
Substrate ( %)
Gravel
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Sand
5 -85
0 -5
5 -10
80
0
0
0
0
Silt
5 -90
10 -90
75 -85
5 -19
75 -80
20 -70
85
5 -40
Detritus
5 -10
10 -85
10 -15
1 -5
20 -25
30 -80
15
60 -95
Water quality
Temperature ( °C)
138
31 1
101
322
106
263
11 1
250
Conductivity (pS)
1,772
2,847
1,427
3,083
1,203
11,172
1,239
2,334
Salinity (ppt)
090
130
0 91
1 39
084
813
086
1 20
D O (mg /L)
935
620
1010
575
941
1 87
1055
2 64
pH
761
799
775
837
690
687
711
746
Water flow
Low
Low
Low
Low
Moderate
Low
Moderate
Low

in the floodplain to the north and east of Station A Station A is upstream of the
estuarine shrub /scrub community, but likely occupies the transition zone between
that community and swamp forest Station B, located just upstream of a
maintained power line, is more deeply channelized than the other reference
station
Moderate aufwuchs were observed in Station 1 for the winter and summer
sampling events The aufwuchs in Station 2 was low in February and moderate
in July Stations A and B had moderate aufwuchs in the winter and low aufwuchs
in the summer There was no observed bank erosion for Stations 1 and 2 in the
winter, and low bank erosion observed in the summer This may be due to
shallower water depths in the summer (11 25 in for Station 1 and 10 in for
Station 2) than in the winter (18 in for Station 1 and 17 in for Station 2)
Similarly, Stations A and B had slight to no bank erosion in the winter with higher
water depths and low bank erosion and shallower water depths in the summer
There was no sand present in the substrates for Stations A and B during either
sampling events Both stations show an increase in detritus and a decrease in
silt percentages from the winter to summer Station 1 had a decrease in sand
and an increase in detritus from winter to summer Conversely, Station 2 had an
increase in sand and a decrease in detritus from winter to summer
The water temperatures for all stations were similar in the winter, ranging
from 10 1 to 13 8 °C During the summer sampling event, temperatures at
Stations 1 and 2 were slightly higher (31 1 °C and 32 2 °C respectively) than
Stations A and B (26 3°C and 25 0 °C respectively) The cooler temperatures in
the reference stations are most likely due to higher canopy cover than at the
mitigation channel stations The conductivity levels for all stations during the
winter were similar, ranging from 1,203 to 1,772 pS There was an increase in
conductivity in the summer for all stations, ranging from 2,334 to 11,172 pS
Station A had a significantly higher conductivity (11,172 NS) and salinity (8 13
ppt) in the summer than the other stations. Other stations had salinity values
ranging from 1 2 to 1 39 ppt in the summer As Station A is located downstream
closer to the estuarine interface than the other stations, the higher salinity and
conductivity for Station A is likely due to estuarine water being driven into the
creek by wind during the sampling period The salinity at Station A during the
summer 2012 sampling period was 0 14 ppt The winter salinity values among all
stations were similar, ranging from 0 86 to 0 91 ppt Dissolved oxygen (DO)
levels were similar in all stations during the winter, ranging from 9 35 to 10 55
mg /L Stations 1 and 2 DO levels were higher (6 2 and 5 75 mg /L respectively)
than the levels recorded at the reference Stations A and B (1 87 and 2 64 mg /L
respectively) The pH values typically had a small increase from winter to
summer at each station and Stations 1 and 2 had slightly higher pH values than
Stations A and B All pH readings were between 6 8 and 8 4

32 Aquatic Macroinvertebrates A summary of aquatic
macroinvertebrate taxa richness for 2013 is provided in Table 2 The summary is
presented by mayor taxonomic groups, with insects divided into orders and other
invertebrates divided into classes along with winter biotic indices for each station
and EPT taxa richness 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 3 Appendix A contains macroinvertebrate species
documented in the mitigation channel from 2003 through 2013 and in the new
reference stations in 2012 and 2013
3 2 1 2013 Aquatic Macroinvertebrate Survey During 2013, 71
aquatic macroinvertebrate taxa were identified from the Whitehurst Creek West
Prong mitigation channel and the two downstream reference stations (Tables 2
and 3) The predominant groups of the identified taxa were Coleopterans,
Dipterans, Hemipterans and Odonates Sixteen new taxa, including 13 new
genera, were collected in 2013 in the four stations Of the 16 new taxa, three
were new to the mitigation channel and included one new genus As in previous
years since 2003, both the winter and summer 2013 collections were taken from
the floodplain edge Station 1 and Station 2 had the greatest overall species
richness during winter sampling (18 taxa at Stations 1 and 2, compared to 16 at
Station B and 11 at Station A) Station 1 also had the greatest species richness
during summer sampling (30 taxa compared to 20 at Station 2, 21 at Station B,
and 19 at Station A) The EPT taxa richness was two in the West Prong and in
the reference area The 2013 Biotic Index values were 8 14 and 8 61 at Stations
1 and 2, respectively, and 8 91 and 8 21 at the reference Stations A and B,
respectively These indices suggest that the macroinvertebrate community
composition of both the mitigation channel and the downstream reference area
were dominated by tolerant species (Table 2 and 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 in the past These low- gradient, coastal plain streams also
commonly have lower flow regimes Since 2007, two genera of Ephemeroptera
have been identified in both winter and summer surveys in the West Prong and
one of the two Ephemeroptera species was found in each reference station
Although found in the West Prong in 2008 -2010, no Trichoptera species were
identified in 2013 sampling in either the West Prong or reference stations
3 2 2 Comparison of 2013 Results and New Reference Stations.
The 2013 survey in the West Prong mitigation channel yielded 47
total taxa while the new downstream reference stations yielded 42 total taxa
(Table 4) The total taxa numbers were similar in the two mitigation channel
stations (38 and 36) The two reference stations had slightly lower numbers of
total taxa, but were also similar to each other (27 and 31) Of the 47 taxa found
at the mitigation stations, 38 percent were also found in the reference stations
(18 taxa) Some of the species more tolerant of estuarine conditions found in
2013 in reference Station A (e g Gammarus tignnus, L►ttondrnops sp ) are
8

W
Table 2 Taxa richness of aquatic macroinvertebrates (by group) for the Whitehurst Creek West Prong mitigation channel eleventh -
year (2013) survey and second -year survey for two downstream reference stations, Beaufort County, North Carolina Winter survey
(W) was conducted 27 February 2013, summer survey (S) was conducted 30 July 2013
a EPT taxa richness is a measure of the number of identified taxa within the insect orders Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Tnchoptera
b Biotic index calculated only for winter data as per NCDWQ /DWR recommendation
Mitigation channel stations
Reference stations
Station
1
Station
2
Total
Station
A
Station
B
Total
Group
mitigation
Total
Whitehurst
Total
Total
channel
Total
Total
reference
Creek taxa
W
S
station
W
S
station
taxa
W
S
station
W
S
station
taxa
taxa
taxa
taxa
taxa
Arachnida
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
Coleoptera
3
4
6
2
2
3
6
2
4
5
2
4
4
6
10
Crustacea
0
2
2
0
2
2
2
3
4
5
3
2
4
7
8
Diptera
7
7
10
8
7
11
14
4
3
7
8
4
10
12
20
Ephemeroptera
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
Hemiptera
1
7
7
1
4
4
8
0
1
1
0
3
3
4
10
Clitellata
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
Hirudmea
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
Megaloptera
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
2
Mollusca
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
2
2
0
1
1
2
2
Odonata
1
6
6
1
8
8
8
0
3
3
0
3
3
4
9
Oligochaeta
1
1
2
1
0
1
2
2
1
3
2
0
2
3
4
Plat helminthes
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
Total taxa richness
18
30
38
18
28
36
47
11
19
27
16
21
31
42
71
EPT taxa nchnessa
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
Biotic index b
814
NA
NA
1861
NA
NA
I NA
891
NA
NA
821
NA
NA
NA
NA
a EPT taxa richness is a measure of the number of identified taxa within the insect orders Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Tnchoptera
b Biotic index calculated only for winter data as per NCDWQ /DWR recommendation

Table 3. Eleventh-year (2013) aquatic macroinvertebrate survey of the Whitehurst Creek West Prong mitigation channel and
first -year survey for two downstream reference stations, Beaufort County, North Carolina. Winter (W) survey was conducted
27 February 2013; summer (S) survey was conducted 30 July 2013. A dash ( -) indicates that no individuals of the taxon were
documented. Highlighted rows indicate species in common with the reference stations. Taxa may include pupae, larvae, or
juveniles. Taxa shown in bold have not been encountered before. A double asterisk (") indicates genera new to the mitigation
channel. Single brackets {R, C, or A} indicates the entry was counted for the season but not for the station or year; double
brackets indicate the entry was not counted at all.
Downstream Reference
Taxa I Winter I Summer I Winter I Summer I Winter Summer
n
Summer
Berosus sp.
R
R
R
R
Cyphon sp.
C
C
Enochrus (sublongus)
R
R
C
R C
Hydrochus sp.
R
R
R
R
Hydrovatus sp.
R
{R}
A C
Neoporus sp.
R
R
C
C A
Peltodytes spp.
C C
A A
R C
C C
Prodaticus bimarginatus
R
R
Tropistemus collaris
C
R
Tropistemus (laterahs nimbatus)
C
Tropistemus sp.
- { {C }}
Amiaditlidium quadnfrons
R
R
R
R
Cambarididae juv. sp.
C
R
Cassidinidea lunifrons
R
R
C R
R C
Crangonyx sp.
R
R
C
R
Gammarus tigrinus
{C}
{R}
A C
Orchesda uhlen
R
R R
Osiracoda sp.
C
C
Palaemonetes pugio
R
Diptera
10
Anopheles sp.
C
R
Bezzi lPalpomyia group
R
R
R C
Chironomus (decorus group)
R
R
C
C
Chironomous sp.
{C}
{R}
10

Table 3
Downstream
Taxa Winter I Summer Wnter I Summer I Winter Summer I Winter Summer
11
Cladopelma sp.
C
A C
-
R C
Cladotanytarsus sp.
R
C C
- R
- R
Cli- tnypus sp--
C C
R C
- R
C
Cncotopus syh —tns group
C
A
R
Culex sp.
-
C
-
- R
Dicrotendipes nervosus .
R
C
R
R
Endochirononrous sp.
R
R
Glyptoter d pes sp.
C A
R A
Goekichironomus holoprasinus
C
Hydrobaenus sp.—
R
Wefferulus sp.
A
Parachironomus sp.
C
Polyperilum sp.
R
R
Stratiomyidae sp.
R
Tanypus neopuncfipenrns
R R
R A
R
Tanypus sp.
{{R}}
{{R }}
{R}
Tanytarsus sp.
R
-
R R
Tipula sp.
R
11
Caenis sp.
C C
A C
-
R C
CaflibaeSs sp.
R C
C C
- R
- R
11
Abedus/6elostorna juv. sp.
A
R
Belastoma flumineum
R
Belastoma lutanum
R
- R
Paravelia brachialis
R
Ranatra rngra
-
R
-
- R
Trepobates (pictus)"
R
C
Conxidae sp.
{R} { {C }}
{C} { {C }}
Pelocoris sp. juv.
C
C
11

Table 3.
Station B
Taxa F Winter I Summer I Winter I Summer I Winter Summer
Trichonxa kanza
- C
R
- C
'
Trichoconxa (buisianae)
-
- { {Cl)
R -
C
Trichocorixa sexcinta
R
A A
A
- R
Clitellata
Glossiphoniidae sp. R R -
-- --
Hebbdella (papillsta)
- -
R
- C
'
"rudinee sp.
-
- { {Cl)
R -
R
- - - - - Chau /iodes ras&komus
- -
R
- C
- R
Sialis sp.
-
- -
R -
R
Littondinops sp.
A A
A A
A
- R
PhymAwPhysa sp.
A C
C A
- R
- A
rwn ti
AnomellViaMachinum sp.
- -
- C
- C
- R
Brachymesia sp.
-
R
R -
C -
Enaftrw sp.
A A
A A
- C
- R
Erytherrrs simpicicol is
C
C
R
Libelkrla sp.
(M
- -
- -
-
LibelbWae sp.
- C
- A
- -
- C
Nasiaeschna pentacaniha
- R
-
Pachyd+plex kmgipennfs
C
R
-
Perithemis sp.
R
C
-
PlaHtemis lyda
C
R
-
Limnodrflus hofhneisted
C
C
Tubificidas w/o hair
C -
- -
R -
C -
Dero sp.
R
C
Lumbriculidae sp.
R
12

Table 3 (concluded)
NOTE Relative abundance tabulated as rare (1 - 2 specimens) common (3 - 9 specimens), or abundant ( ? 10 specimens)
R = rare, C = common, A = abundant
13
Mitigation Channel
Downstream Reference
Station 1
Station 2
Station A
Station B
Winter I Summer
Winter I Summer
Winter Summer
Winter Summer
Total taxa per station per season
18 30
18 20
11 19
16 21
Total taxa per station
37
35
23
31
Total taxa in mitigation channel or reference stations
47
42
Total taxa for 2013 all stations
71
NOTE Relative abundance tabulated as rare (1 - 2 specimens) common (3 - 9 specimens), or abundant ( ? 10 specimens)
R = rare, C = common, A = abundant
13

Table 4 Comparison of 2013 aquatic macroinvertebrate communities for the
Whitehurst Creek West Prong mitigation channel eleventh -year (2013) surveys and
second year (2013) for two downstream reference stations, Beaufort County, North
Carolina
2013 survey results by number of taxa within major
taxonomic groups
Taxa in
common with 18 NA NA
reference
14
2013 West
2013 Whitehurst
Group
Prong
2013 reference
Creek all stations
mitigation
stations (n =2)
(n =4)
channel (n =2)
Arachnida
0
1
1
Coleoptera
6
6
10
Crustacea
2
7
8
Diptera
14
12
20
Ephemeroptera
2
2
2
Hemiptera
8
4
10
Clitellata
1
0
1
Hirudinea
1
0
1
Megaloptera
1
1
2
Mollusca
1
2
2
Odonata
8
4
9
Oligochaeta
2
3
4
Plat helminthes
1
0
1
Total richness
47
42
71
EPT
2
2
2
Jaccard index
029
NA
NA
of similarity
Taxa in
common with 18 NA NA
reference
14

evidence of the reference stations' downstream location being subject to periodic
estuarine influence
When comparing proportional distribution of taxa within the 13
groups encountered in 2013, the reference channel stations were more diverse
for the Arachnida, Mollusca, and Oligochaeta groups (Table 4) Coleoptera,
Ephemeroptera, and Megaloptera had the same number of taxa in the reference
and mitigation channels Until 2011, the Jaccard index of similarity was
calculated in previous reports based on species similarity with the 1992 baseline,
however, the methodology for calculation of this index in Section 2 2 indicates
this index should have been calculated using genera similarity For this report,
genera have been used and the Jaccard indices in Appendix A have also been
re- calculated for all years compared to the 2013 reference stations The Jaccard
index of similarity for 2013 samples was 0 29
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 rive rte brates, 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-flood plain 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
Particle size of substrate 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
differences between the mitigation channel and the downstream references
stations, because the mitigation channel is almost never confined to its true
channel and its floodplain is most commonly submerged
15

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
4 0 SUMMARY
Forty -seven (47) taxa from 12 groups of aquatic macroinvertebrates were
recorded in the 2013 survey of the Whitehurst Creek West Prong mitigation
channel and 42 taxa from 10 groups were recorded from the reference stations in
downstream Whitehurst Creek In the 2013 survey, there were 16 new taxa,
including 13 new genera, with five identified to species This brings the total taxa
collected from 2003 to 2013 to 172 Biotic Index values reflect similar conditions
across the four stations and the macroinvertebrate orders collected in 2013
represent environmentally tolerant predators and collector - gatherers
Successional status, complex life histories, and inherent patchiness of
invertebrate communities may also account for some differences Appendix B
contains selected photographs taken during the 2013 surveys
16

REFERENCES
Benke, A C 2001 Importance of flood regime to invertebrate habitat in an
unregulated river-flood plain 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 Upper Whitehurst Creek aquatic macroinvertebrate
and fish survey 1992 baseline report Wilmington, North Carolina
CZR Incorporated 1993b Whitehurst Creek water quality and sediment
sampling 1992 baseline 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 macroinvertebrate
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 macroinvertebrate
and fish survey and water quality analyses 1997 Mitigation Channel Report.
Wilmington, North Carolina
17

CZR Incorporated 1999 Upper Whitehurst Creek aquatic macroinvertebrate
and fish survey and water quality analyses 1998 Mitigation Channel Report
Wilmington, North Carolina
CZR Incorporated 2000a Upper Whitehurst Creek aquatic macroinvertebrate
and fish survey and water quality analyses 1999 Mitigation Channel Report
Wilmington, North Carolina
CZR Incorporated 2000b Upper Whitehurst Creek aquatic macroinvertebrate
and fish survey and water quality analyses 2000 Mitigation Channel Report
Wilmington, North Carolina
CZR Incorporated 2004 Whitehurst Creek West Prong aquatic macroinvertebrate
and fish survey and water quality analyses 2003 Mitigation Channel Report
Wilmington, North Carolina
CZR Incorporated 2005 Whitehurst Creek West Prong aquatic macroinvertebrate
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 macroinvertebrate
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
CZR Incorporated 2009 Whitehurst Creek West Prong aquatic macroinvertebrate
and fish survey and water quality analyses 2008 Mitigation Channel Report
Wilmington, North Carolina
CZR Incorporated 2010 Whitehurst Creek West Prong aquatic macroinvertebrate
and fish survey and water quality analyses 2009 Mitigation Channel Report
Wilmington, North Carolina
CZR Incorporated 2011 Whitehurst Creek West Prong aquatic macroinvertebrate
and fish survey and water quality analyses 2010 Mitigation Channel Report
Wilmington, North Carolina
18

CZR Incorporated 2012 Whitehurst Creek West Prong aquatic macroinvertebrate
and fish survey and water quality analyses 2011 Mitigation Channel Report
Wilmington, North Carolina
CZR Incorporated 2013 Whitehurst Creek West Prong aquatic macroinvertebrate
and fish survey and water quality analyses 2012 Mitigation Channel Report
Wilmington, North Carolina
NCDENR 2001 Standard operating procedures for benthic macroinvertebrates,
Biological Assessment Unit Division of Water Quality, Water Quality
Section Environmental Sciences Branch
NCDENR 2006 Standard operating procedures for benthic macroinvertebrates
Biological Assessment Unit Division of Water Quality, Environmental
Sciences Section
Smock, L A 1988 Life histories, abundance and distribution of some
macroinvertebrates 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
19

APPENDIX A
AQUATIC MACROINVERTEBRATE TAXA
DOCUMENTED IN UPPER WHITEHURST CREEK IN THE
WHITEHURST CREEK WEST PRONG MITIGATION CHANNEL
DURING 2003 THROUGH 2013 SURVEYS AND IN 2012 AND 2013 SURVEYS
OF TWO DOWNSTREAM REFERENCE STATIONS

Appendix A. Aquatic macroinvertebrate species documented from the Whitehurst Creek West Prong mitigation channel winter and summer 2003 through 2013, and two new downstream reference stations for winter
and summer of 2012 and 2013. The list has been rearranged taxonomically using using ITIS, Discover Life, and Wikipedia. Purple = reference taxa. *taxa = 2013 reference channel taxa; taxa ** = new to mitigation
channel; bold = new taxa; { ) = count for season not for year; {{ }} = not count for season or year
Group
Taxa
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
1st year
2nd year
3rd year
4th year
5th year
6th year
7th year
8th year
9th year
10th year
Reference
11th year
Reference
W S
W S
W S
W S
W S
W S
W S
W S
W S
W S
W S
W S
W
S
Crustacea
Apocorophium louisanum
X
Winadillidium quadrifrons
X
X
X
X
X
Armadillidium vulgare
X
X
*Cambaridae sp.
X
{X}
X
X
*Cassidinidea /unifrons
X
X
* Crangonyx sp.
X
Procambarus sp.
X
*Gammarus tigrinus
X
X
X
Harpacticoida sp.
X
X
*Orchestra ulheri
X
X
X
Ostracoda sp.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
*Palsemonetes pugio
X
Simocephalus exspinosus
X
X
X
Mollusca
Fossaria cubensis
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Fossaria sp.
X
Gastropoda sp.
{ {X}}
{ {X }}
Gyraulus sp.
{X}
X
X
X
Gyraulus parvus
X
X
*Littoridinops sp.
j
X
X
*PhysellalPhysa sp.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Pseudoscuccinea col/umella
X
X
Oligochaeta
*Umnodrflus hoffineisteri
X
*Lumbricuiidae sp.
X
Naididae sp.
{ {X }}
{ {X }}
Chaetogaster sp.
X
Dero sp.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Nais sp.
X
Pristina sp.
X
X
Tubificidae w/ hair
X
X
*Tubificidae w/o hair
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Ephemeroptera
*Caenis sp.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
*Callibaetis sp.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Odonata
Anomalagrion hastatum
X
X
X
Anax junius
X
X
X
X
*Enallagma sp.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Ischnura posita
{X}
*lschnuralAnoma/agrion sp.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Ischnura sp.
{X}
*Libellulidae sp.
{ {X }}
{ {X }}
{X}
{X}}
X
X
Brachymesia gravida
X
X
X
Brachymesia sp.
X
Erythemis simplicicollis
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Erythrodiplax berenice
X
X
Appendix A -1

Appendix A. (continued)
Group
Taxa
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
1st year
2nd year
3rd year
4th year
5th year
6th year
7th year
8th year
9th year
10th year
Reference
11th year
Reference
W
s
W
s
W
s
W s
W s
W
s
W s
W s
W s
W s
W
s
W s
W
s
Odonata continued
Erythrodiplax connata subsp. miniscula
X
X
X
Libellula luctuosa
X
Libellula sp.
{ {X }}
{X}
I
X
X
{ {X }}
Nannothemis bells
X
X
X
Orthemis ferruginea
X
Pachydiplax longipennis
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Perithemis sp.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Plathemis lydia
X
X
X
X
X
Sympetrum (ambiguum)
X
Sympetrum obtrusum
X
Sympetrum rubicundulum
X
Tramea (carolina)
X
Wasiseschna pentacantha
X
Progomphus sp.
X
Hemiptera
Abedus7Belostoma sp.
{ {X }}
X
{ {X }}
X
X
X
{ {X }}
X
X
X
Belostoma flumineum
X
X
X
*Belostoma lutarium
X
X
X
X
Belostoma sp.
X
X
Belostoma testaceum
X
Corixidae sp.
X
{ {X }}
{ {X}}
{X}
X
{X}
X
{X}
{ {X}}
Trichocorixa kanza
X
X
X
` Trichocorixa louisianae
X
X
Trichocorixa sexcinta
X
X
X
X
X
Merragata sp.
X
Mesovelia mulsanti
X
X
Mesovelia sp.
X
Microvelia americana
X
Notonecta raleighi
X
Pelocris carolinensis
X
Pelocoris femoratus
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Pelocoris sp.
X
{ {X }}
{ {X }}
{ {X}}
{ {X }}
{X}
{ {X }}
{ {X }}
X
X
Ranatra australis
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Ranatra bueoni
X
'Ranatra nigra
X
X
X
Ranatra sp.
{ {X }}
Taravelis brachialis
X
X
Rhagovelia obesa
X
Trepobates (pictus)""
X
Trepobates subnitidus
X
Coleoptera
Agabetes acuductus
X
Agabetes sp.
X
Celina sp.
X
X
Copelatus princeps
X
Copelatus sp.
X
Cybister (flmbriolatus crotchi) sp.
X
Appendix A -2

Appendix A. (continued)
Group
Taxa
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
1st year
2nd year
3rd year
4th year
5th year
6th year
7th year
8th year
9th year
10th year
Reference
11th year
Reference
W s
W s
W s
W
s
W
S
W
s
W s
W s
W s
W
s
W s
W
s
W S
Coleoptera continued
Cybister sp.
X
X
X
X
*Cyphon sp.
X
Deronectes grisseostriatus
X
X
X
X
Dineutus assimilis
X
Dytiscidae sp.
{X}
Agabus sp.
X
X
X
X
X
X
Dytiscus fasciventris
X
Hydaticus sp.
X
Hydroporus (clypealis)
X
Hydroporus oblitus
X
Hydroporus sp.
X
X
Hydrovatus pustulatus subsp. compressus
X
X
X
X
Hydrovatus sp.
X
llybius biguttalus
X
llybius sp.
X
X
X
*Prodadcus bimarginatus
X
Haliplus fasciatus
X
Haliplus Mopsis
X
X
Haliplus sp.
X
{X}
{ {X}}
X
Hoperius planatus
X
X
Hydrobius sp.
X
* Hydrochus sp.
X
Hydrocanthus sp.
X
Hydrophilidae sp.
X
X
Berosus sp.
X
X
X
X
Berosus exiguus
X
X
Berosus infuscatus
X
Enochrus hamiltoni
X
Enochrus (interruptus)
X
*Enochrus (sublongus)
X
Laccophilus fasciatus rufus
X
j
Macronychus glabratus
X
Melanotus sp.
X
*Neoporus sp.
X
X
X
X
X
Notomicrus nanulus
X
X
Peltodytes dietrichi
X
X
Peltodytes lengi
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Peltodytes oppositus
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Peltodytes sexmaculatus
X
X
Peltodytes shermani
X
X
* Peltodytes sp.
{ {X}}
{ {X}}
{ {X }}
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Rhantus calidus
X
Scirtes sp.
X
Suphicellus bicolor punctipennis
X
X
X
Thermonectes basillaris basillaris
X
Appendix A -3

Appendix A. (continued)
Group
Taxa
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
1st year
2nd year
3rd year
4th year
5th year
6th year
7th year
8th year
9th year
10th year
Reference
11th year
Reference
w S
w S
w s
w S
w S
w S
w S
w S
w S
W
S
w S
w S
w s
Coleoptera continued
Tropistemus collads
X
X
X
X
X
i X
X
Tropistemus lateralis nimbatus
X
X
X
Tropistemus quadristriatus quadristriatus
X
X
X
Tropistemus sp.
X
{ {X }}
{ {X }}
Uvarus lacustris
X
X
Diptera
C/O (sp. 1)
X
C/O (sp. 5)
X
C/O (sp. 9)
X
C/O (sp. 41)
X
X
X
X
Ablabesm is sp.
X
Anopheles walked
X
Anopheles (quadrimaculatus)
X
*Anopheles sp.
X
Asheum sp.
X
Chaoborus punctipennis
X
Chironomidae sp.
{ {X }}
{ {X }}
*Bezzia/Palpomyia group
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
i X
X
X
X
X
_
*Chironomus decorus group
X
i
X
X
X
X
Chironomus stigmaterus
X
X
Chironomus sp.
X
X
{X}
{ {X}}
{X}
{ {X}}
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
{X}
C/adopelma sp.
X
X
X
X
Cladotanytarsus sp.
X
X
*Clinotanypus sp.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Cryptochironomus sp.
X
Dicrotendipes modestus
X
*Dicrotendipes nervosus.
X
X
X
X
Dicrotendipes simpsoni
X
Dicrotendipes sp:
{ {X }}
X
Endochironomous sp.
X
X
X
X
G/yptotendipes sp.
X
{ {X}}
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Glyptotendipes testaceus
X
X
Goeldichironomus carus
X
Goeldichironomus devineyae
X
X
X
X
* Goeldichironomus ho/oprasinus
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
* Goeldichironomus sp.
{ {X}}
{ {X }}
{X}
Hydrobaenus sp. **
X
*Klefferulus sp.
X
Larsia sp.
X
X
X
Microspectra sp.
X
Parachironomus hirtalatus
X
Parachironomus sp.:
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Paratanytarsus sp.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
*Polypedilum sp.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Procladius sp.
X
X
X
X
Rheotanytarsus sp. 1
X
X
j
X
Appendix A -4

Appendix A. (continued)
Group
Taxa
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
1st year
2nd year
3rd year
4th year
5th year
6th year
7th year
8th year
9th year
10th year
Reference
11th year
Reference
W S
W s
W s
W s
W S
W s
W s
W s
W S
w s
W S
W S
W S
Diptera continued
Tanypus carinatus
X
X
X
X
X
X
*Tanypus neopunctipennis
Tanypus punctipennis
*Tanypus sp
Tanytarsus limnecticus
* Tanytarsus sp.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
{ {X }}
{ {X }}
{ {X }}
X
X
X
X
X
{X}
X
{ {X}}
X
X
{X}
X
X
X
Tanytarsus (sp 1)
X
X
X
Tanytarsus (sp 10)
X
Zavreliella sp.
X
Orthocladinae sp.
{ {X }}
Corynoneura sp. C
X
* Cricotopus sylvestris group
X
X
X
X
X
Cricotopus sp.
X
X
X
Psectrocladius vemalis
X
Zalutschia sp.
X
Chrysops sp.
X
X
Culex restuans
X
Culex sp.
X
Dasyhela sp.
X
Diptera sp.
{ {X }}
{ {X}}
Odontomyia sp.
X
X
X
Pilada sp.
X
Stratiomyidae sp.
X
Stratiomys sp.
X
X
Tabanus sp.
X
X
Mpula sp.
X
Trichoptera
Oecetis cinerascens
X
X
X
Oecetis inconspicua
X
X
Oeceds sp.
{ {X }}
Oecetis spp.
{ {X }}
Thysanura sp.
X
Lepidoptera
Lepidoptera sp.
{ {X }}
Pyralidae sp.
X
Megaloptera
Chauliodes pectinicornis
X
Chauliodes rastricornis **
X
*Slalis sp.
X
Nemertea
Prostoma graecense
X
Arachnida
Arachnida sp.
{ {X }}
{ {X }}
{ {X }}
*Acarl sp:,
X
Tetragnatha sp.
X
Hydracarina sp.
X
X
X
X
X
X
Clitella
Glossiphoniidae sp.
X
X
X
Hirudinea
Branchiobdella sp.
X
Helobdella sp.
X
X
X
X
Helobdella (papillata)
X
Appendix A -5

Appendix A. (concluded)
Group
Taxa
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
1st year
2nd year
3rd year
4th year
5th year
6th year
7th year
8th year
9th year
10th year
Reference
11th year
Reference
W S
W S
W S
W S
W
S
W S
W S
W� S
W S
W S
W S
W S
W S
Hirundinea continued
Hirudinea sp.
{ {X }}
Nematoda
Nematoda sp.
IPlatyhelminthes sp.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
Platyhelminthes
X
Total taxa per season
29 31
19 24
23 15
21 22
28 43
31 41
16 29
23 I 37
31 36
23 32
18 17
22 37
20 1 31
Total taxa per year
49
34
31
39
55
59
39
50
53
43
28
47
42
Number of taxa in common with new reference stations
8
9
8
6
11
10
11
10
15
17
NA
18
NA
Jaccard index (genera compared to 2012 reference)
0.11
0.15
0.14
0.09
0.13
0.14
0.16
0.10
0.17
0.19
N/A
N/A
N/A
Jaccard index a (genera compared to 2013 reference)
0.19
0.24
0.22
0.25
0.19
0.21
0.20
0.24
0.29
0.25
N/A
0.29
N/A
Total taxa in mitigation channel 2003 -2013a
172 in 2013
Note: Taxa identified only to genus are not counted in totals when the same genus is represented to species during the season or year (per NCDWQ enumeration standards, indicated by { {X }). Some taxa are counted for the season but not
for the year and are indicated by {X}. When counting genera by year or season or when counting genera in common, brackets do not always apply as when counting taxa.
a Total taxa and the Jaccard index values differ from previous year reports due to re- evaluation of when taxa identified to family are counted (i.e., when no other taxa within the family are found /counted) and not counted (when taxa
within the family are found /counted) as a taxa in common to reference. Taxa in common refers to genera (or family, when appropriate, as described in Note above) found during monitoring years in comparison with those collected in the
reference stations in winter 2012 or 2013.
Appendix A -6

APPENDIX B
SELECTED PHOTOGRAPHS FROM 2013 SURVEYS
IN WEST PRONG MITIGATION CHANNEL AND
TWO NEW REFERENCE SITES DOWNSTREAM

Site1. Upstream view of Whitehurst Creek West Prong Mitigation
Channel, collection of water quality data, 27 February 2013.
Site 1. Upstream view of Whitehurst Creek West Prong Mitigation
Channel, 30 July 2013.
lRE

Site 2. Upstream view of Whitehurst Creek West Prong Mitigation
Channel, collection of water quality data, 27 February 2013.
Site 2. Upstream view of Whitehurst Creek West Prong Mitigation
Channel, 30 July 2013.

Site Ref A. Upstream view of Whitehurst Creek, collection
of water quality data, 27 February 2013.
Site Ref A. Upstream view of Whitehurst Creek, 30 July 2013.
B -3

Site Ref B. Upstream view of Whitehurst Creek, collection of water
quality data, 27 February 2013.
Site Ref B. Upstream view of Whitehurst Creek, sweep sampling,
30 July 2013.