20080868 Ver 2_Section III G Benthos 2021 PCS Creeks Report_20220605

G. BENTHOS
This section contains more detailed information in support of the response to
Question 3 in Section II. Section II-C Question 3 contains benthos information on total abundance
and species richness comparisons and conclusions drawn from multivariate evaluations of all
creek study data. Section II-C Question 3 also includes discussion of benthic guilds and trophic
levels. Appendix A, Section H contains a history of benthic macroinvertebrate collections and a
description of methods (field, laboratory, and statistics). In -situ hydrographic and water quality
data collected prior to each collection of 2021 are included at the end of Appendix I (on flash drive
only); ECU water quality data are presented in Appendix E (on flash drive only). Note that ECU
water quality collection sites are various distances upstream from benthos collections sites.
Water quality data are discussed in Section II-C Question 6 and Section III-C. Appendix I also
contains raw benthic data collected for each sweep and ponar grab in 2021 for all sampled creeks.
1.0 Results and Discussion of Sweep and Ponar Data
Figures III-G1 through III-G12 show dendrograms of species community
composition for each creek sample location and type (e.g., upstream or downstream and sweep
or ponar) that exhibited statistically significant groupings. Thus, in this comparison, each stream
had four different analyses: upstream -sweeps, downstream -sweeps, upstream-ponars, and
downstream-ponars. When appropriate, additional cluster analysis of all taxa and comparisons
of results from each particular creek to control creeks were included. It should be noted that
clusters with different colored lines on the cluster dendrograms represent non -significant group
structure among factors (e.g., years, creeks) at the five percent level (P = 0.05).
Tables III-G1 through III-G5 display summary information for all monitored
creeks for comparison. Table III-G1 contains the cumulative list of the 405 benthic taxa collected
in ponars or sweeps across the 23 years of the study and the NCDWR-assigned sensitivity values
for 190 of them (46.9 percent of total taxa). Tables III-G2 and III-G4 show the four most abundant
upstream and downstream taxa per year in each creek. Table III-G3 and Table III-G5 show the
benthic community structure within all creeks, including averages for each creek and the range of
averages for upstream and downstream sites for each creek across all years.
The structure of benthic assemblages in estuarine environments responds
to many stressors that freshwater and marine assemblages seldom encounter. Common
estuarine stressors include frequent and often extreme fluctuations in environmental conditions,
particularly salinity, dissolved oxygen, and temperature. Typically, these stressors result in a
more tolerant taxa compared to more stable freshwater or marine waters. However, the upstream
communities in many of the study creeks (e.g., SCUT1, Little Creek, Jacobs Creek, Huddles Cut,
DCUT11, and Duck Creek) are subject to frequent periods of lower water levels and lower flow
regimes during portions of their life cycle. The sensitivity values range from 1 to 5, with 1 being
most tolerant/insensitive and 5 being most intolerant/sensitive (relative to environmental
stressors). For the sensitivity value cumulative list shown in Table III-G1, over the 23 years the
average value of all taxa (with assigned sensitivity values) shown is 1.9. The most intolerant taxa
at 5.0 (e.g., Mysidae, Metamysidopsis swifti) represented at 0.25 percent of the total taxa and
species with a value of 1.0 (e.g., Naididae, Dero digitata) represented 8 percent of the total taxa
recorded. The overall sensitivity value of 1.9 for all taxa was influenced largely by the assemblage
of taxa found in six orders which comprised 22 percent of all taxa encountered. Five of these
orders (Diptera, Hemiptera, Coleoptera, Amphipoda, Odonata) were in the phylum Arthropoda
and one order (Haplotaxida) was in the phylum Annelida.
III-G-1

Summary data for sweep data by each upstream and downstream site
during the course of the study are presented by year in Table III-G3. Annual average and range
of averages are presented in these tables for four parameters: 1) total abundance, 2) total taxa,
3) total taxa with sensitivity values, and 4) EBI (estuarine biotic index). Highest values for these
parameters were recorded in 1998, 2008, or 2011.
Summary data for all ponar data by each upstream and downstream site
during the course of the study are presented by year in Table III-G5. Annual average and range
of averages are presented in these tables for five parameters: 1) total abundance, 2) total taxa.
3) total taxa with sensitivity values, 4) Shannon -Wiener index, and 5) EBI (estuarine biotic index).
Highest values for these parameters were scattered within two periods: 1998-2004 and 2012-
2018.
To further evaluate an aspect of the community structure, the highest
values and range of highest values for the Shannon -Wiener Index and EBI are presented for each
upstream and downstream creek site in Table III-G6. As has been the consistent case, the
downstream samples had the highest percentage of years with the highest Shannon -Wiener
Diversity score (69.6 percent), highest EBI ponar score (69.6 percent), and highest EBI sweep
score (78.3 percent). When the highest average scores for the three measures are compared,
out of the 15 creeks, the downstream samples had 10 of 15 for Shannon -Wiener, 10 of 15 for EBI
ponar grabs, and 11 of 15 for EBI sweeps. A majority of the highest scores across all three
measures occur in the downstream samples (50 compared to 20 upstream), which has been the
trend since 2016. The four creeks with the most years of data and their respective percentage of
high scores were: Huddles Cut with 23 years (42.6 percent), Jacks Creek with 14 years (24.6
percent), Muddy Creek with 12 years (17.4 percent), and Tooley Creek with five years (10.4
percent). The other creeks ranged from 0 to 3 years. Among all the creeks, Huddles Cut had the
highest percent of monitored years with the highest EBI scores for both ponar grabs (seven years;
38.9 percent) and sweeps (11 years; 61.1 percent) and the highest percent of years with the
highest Shannon -Weiner Diversity score (five years; 27.8 percent). For the ponar grabs, Huddles
Cut had the highest EBI score in seven of the 18 years, five of which were after- all drainage basin
reduction.
The following report sections present results on each creek divided into
three parts: a) creeks with pre -Mod Alt L data, b) creeks with pre- and post -Mod Alt L data, and
c) control creeks. Within each part, for each creek and sample location, the sweep data
discussion precedes the ponar data discussion.
a. Pre -Mod Alt L Creeks Sweep and Ponar Grab Data
Broomfield Swamp Creek (2019-2021)
According to the similarity profile test (SIMPROF), there were no clusters
among the three years of upstream or downstream sweeps and ponars collected in Broomfield
Swamp Creek.
The 2021 macroinvertebrate collection for Broomfield Swamp Creek was
the third pre -Mod Alt L sample. For the sweeps, the number of dominants identified to species
was four for both upstream and downstream, two of which were the same (Table III-G2). Total
abundance, total taxa, and EBI were highest in the downstream sample (Table III-G3). For the
ponars, the number of dominants identified to species to date was six upstream and seven
downstream (Table III-G4) and the total abundance, total taxa, Shannon -Wiener Index, and EBI
were highest in the downstream sample (Table III-G5).
III-G-2

Upstream sweeps were dominated by four different species (Mytilopsis
leucophaeta and species of Corixidae, Tanytarsus, and Naididae without hair) in 2021 (Table III-
G2). Community structure comparisons for the upstream sweeps show that species richness was
26 (16 in 2020), total abundance was 264 individuals (809 in 2020), and the EBI score was 1.31
(1.54 in 2020) in 2021 (Table III-G3). Downstream sweeps dominants were Gammarus tigrinus
Dicrotendipes nervosus, and species of Naididae without hair and Tanytarsus in 2021 (Table III-
G2). The community structure comparisons for the downstream sweeps show that species
richness was 29 (17 in 2020), total abundance was 380 individuals (821 in 2020), and the EBI
score was 1.48 in 2021 (1.64 in 2020) (Table III-G3).
Upstream ponar grabs contained Chironomus decorus, Tanypus
neopunctipennis and species of Naididae without hair and Procladius (Table III-G4). In 2021 the
total abundance was 297 individuals (87 in 2020), species richness was 12 (5 in 2020), the
Shannon -Weiner Index was 1.76 (1.21 in 2020), and the EBI score was 1.03 (1.22 in 2020) (Table
III-G5). Ponar grab dominants from downstream were Dicrotendipes nervosus, Amphicteis
floridus, Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri, and species of Naididae without hair in 2021 (Table III-G4). In
2021, total abundance was 37 (144 in 2020), species richness was 11 (10 in 2020), the Shannon -
Weiner Index was 2.02 (1.16 in 2020), and the EBI was 1.20 (1.91 in 2020) (Table III-G5).
b. Post -Mod Alt L Creeks Sweep and Ponar Grab Data
Jacks Creek (1998-2005; 2011-2021)
The 2021 macroinvertebrate collection for Jacks Creek was the 19th
sample year and seventh post -Mod Alt L year. Drainage basin reduction in Jacks Creek ceased
in 2015. For the sweeps to date, the number of dominants identified to species for upstream was
12 and 13 for downstream; in which three were only upstream and four downstream (Table III-
G2). Sweep community structure metrics for both upstream and downstream years are in Table
III-G3. For the ponars to date, the number of dominants identified to species upstream was 12
and 15 for downstream; in which five were only upstream and eight downstream (Table III-G4).
Ponar community structure metrics for both upstream and downstream by year are in Table III-
G5.
i. Jacks Creek Upstream Sweeps
Multivariate cluster analysis by SIMPROF of benthic taxa richness
and abundance from upstream Jacks Creek sweeps revealed significant variation between all
years among six distinct clusters; with 2021 grouped in the largest cluster (Figure III-G1a).
Clusters A (1999) and B (1998) each consisted of a single year. Cluster C consisted of two pre
years (2011 and 2013), D consisted of four pre years (2000, 2001, 2004, and 2005), E consisted
of 2014-2021, and F consisted of three pre years (2012, 2002, and 2003). Seven post -Mod Alt L
years are clustered together in E with a one earlier pre -Mod Alt L year (2014). The other clusters
consisted of all pre -Mod Alt L years. Comparison of interannual variability between clusters by
similarity percentages (SIMPER) revealed similarity ranged from 31.2 to 55.5 percent. Clusters
B and F were the least similar (31.2 percent similarity) with differences predominantly from the
absence of Ablabesmyia peleensis, and species of Cricotopus and Cladotanytarsus in cluster F.
Sweeps from upstream Jacks Creek were consistently dominated
by species of Apocorophium (seven out of 19 years) and Littoridinops (18 out of 19 years), along
with Gammarus tigrinus (11 out of 19 years), and Chironomus decorus (eight out of 19 years); no
new dominant species have appeared since 2012 (Table III-G2). Community structure
comparisons for the upstream sweeps indicate that species richness ranged from 18 taxa (1999)
to 42 taxa (1998) and total abundance ranged from 783 (1999) to 3,529 individuals (2011) (Table
III-G-3

III-G3). The 2021 samples contained 901 individuals among 31 taxa. The EBI scores ranged
from 1.59 (2014) to 2.07 (2013); the 2021 score was 1.92 (Table III-G3).
Comparison of interannual variability between pre- and post -Mod
Alt L benthic taxa composition and abundance from upstream Jacks Creek sweeps by similarity
percentages (SIMPER) revealed 51.0 percent similarity with differences driven predominantly by
higher abundances of Corixidae species and species of Apocorophium and Tanytarsus in the
post -Mod Alt L years (2015-2021). Comparison of interannual variability among upstream
sweeps by ANOSIM detected no spatial differences of statistical significance between pre- and
post -Mod Alt L upstream communities.
ii. Jacks Creek Downstream Sweeps
The SIMPROF test of benthic taxa richness and abundance of the
downstream sweeps from Jacks Creek revealed significant variation between all years among
five distinct clusters (Figure III-G1 b). Comparison of interannual variability between groups by
means of similarity percentages (SIMPER) revealed similarity ranged from 17.6 to 47.9 percent.
Clusters A (1998), B (2021), and C (2002) each consisted of one year. Cluster D consisted of
years 2011-2014 and 2020, and E consisted of the remaining years (1999-2001, 2003-2005 and
2015-2019). Earlier pre -Mod Alt L years are mixed among clusters A-D.
Sweeps collected from downstream Jacks Creek consistently
contained Gammarus tigrinus (14 out of 19 years) and species of Littoridinops (18 out of 19 years),
Apocorophium (13 out of 19 years), and Hargeria rapax (5 out of 19 years); 2018 was the last
year a new dominant appeared (Table III-G2). Community structure comparisons for the
downstream sweeps collected indicate that species richness ranged from 19 (1999 and 2021) to
45 taxa (1998) and total abundance ranged from 304 (2021) to 2,477 individuals (1998) (Table
III-G3). The 2021 samples had the lowest total abundance to date (304 individuals) among the
lowest number of taxa (19) since 1999. The 2021 EBI score was 1.98 (Table III-G3).
Comparison of interannual variability between pre- and post -Mod Alt L benthic taxa composition
and abundance within the downstream Jacks Creek sweeps by similarity percentages (SIMPER)
revealed 47.6 percent similarity with differences driven predominantly by higher abundances of
Dicrotendipes nervosus in the post -Mod Alt L years. Comparison of interannual variability
between the downstream Jack Creek sweeps by ANOSIM detected no spatial differences of
statistical significance between pre- and post -Mod Alt L macroinvertebrate communities.
iii. Jacks Creek Upstream Ponar Grabs
The SIMPROF test of benthic taxa richness and abundance within
the upstream Jacks Creek ponar grabs revealed slight variation of statistical significance between
all years among three distinct clusters (Figure III-G1c). Cluster A consisted of one year (2002),
but the other clusters consisted of a mixture of pre and post years. Comparison of interannual
variability between the clusters by means of similarity percentages (SIMPER) indicated that
clusters A and C had the lowest similarity percentage (17.5 percent similarity); which were driven
predominantly by the absence in species of Macoma, greater abundance in species of
Chironomus, and lower abundance in species of Littordinops in C.
The 19 years of data revealed that upstream ponar grabs of Jacks
Creek consistently contained Gammarus tigrinus (15 out of 19 years), Chironomus decorus (12
out of 19 years), and Amphicteis floridus (11 out of 19 years) as dominant species. In 2021,
Laeonereis culveri is a dominant for the first time in Jacks upstream (Table III-G4). Community
III-G-4

structure comparisons for the upstream ponar grabs indicate that species richness ranged from
five (2012) to 30 taxa (2004) and total abundance ranged from 90 (2016) to 1,356 individuals
(2001). In 2021, total abundance was 188 individuals among 15 taxa (Table III-G5). The Shannon -
Wiener diversity scores ranged from 0.72 (1999) to 2.33 (2011) with the 2021 score at 1.67. The
EBI scores ranged from 1.07 (2012) to 2.00 (1999), with the 2021 score at 1.18.
Comparison of interannual variability between pre- and post -Mod Alt L benthic taxa composition
and abundance from upstream Jacks Creek ponar grabs by similarity percentages (SIMPER)
revealed 38.4 percent similarity with differences driven predominantly by higher abundances of
Gammarus tigrinus and lower abundances of Chironomus species and Amphicteis floridus in the
post -Mod Alt L years. Comparison of interannual variability between the upstream Jacks Creek
ponar grabs by ANOSIM detected no spatial differences of statistical significance between pre -
and post -Mod Alt L macroinvertebrate communities.
iv. Jacks Creek Downstream Ponars
The SIMPROF test of benthic taxa richness and abundance within
the downstream Jacks Creek ponar grabs revealed slight variation of statistical significance
between years among three distinct clusters; which each cluster has a mixture of pre and post
years (Figure III-G1d). Comparison of interannual variability between the clusters by means of
similarity percentages (SIMPER) indicated that clusters A and B had the lowest percent similarity
(25.2); differences were predominantly due to higher abundances of Gammarus tigrinus,
Mediomastus ambiseta, and Eteone heteropoda in B.
Ponar grabs from downstream Jacks Creek often contained
Chironomus decorus as a dominant; although it was not one of the four most abundant genera in
2016-2018 and 2020; no new dominant species appeared in eight of the 19 years, the last was in
2018. Other dominant species included Gammarus tigrinus (10 out of 19 years), Streblospio
benedicti (nine out of 19 years), and species of Chironomus (six out of 19 years) (Table III-G4).
Community structure comparisons for the downstream ponar grabs indicate that species richness
ranged from 11 (2000) to 25 taxa (2015) and total abundance ranged from 183 (2014) to 1,639
individuals (2003). The 2021 samples contained 564 individuals among 10 taxa. The Shannon -
Wiener diversity scores ranged from 0.96 (2019) to 2.51 (2014) and the EBI scores ranged from
1.11 (2012) to 2.33 (2016); the 2021 Shannon -Wiener diversity score was the lowest of 0.80 and
the EBI score was 1.20 (Table III-G5).
Comparison of interannual variability between pre- and post -Mod
Alt L benthic taxa composition and abundance from downstream Jacks Creek ponar grabs by
similarity percentages (SIMPER) revealed 34.1 percent similarity with differences driven
predominantly by lower abundances in species of Chironomus, Tubificoides, and Mediomastus,
and higher abundances in Gammarus tigrinus, and species of Apocorophium in the post -Mod Alt
L years. Comparison of interannual variability between the downstream Jacks Creek ponar grabs
by ANOSIM detected no spatial differences of statistical significance between pre- and post -Mod
Alt L macroinvertebrate communities.
Jacobs Creek (2011-2021)
The 2021 benthic macroinvertebrate collections for Jacobs Creek
represented the 11th consecutive year and the eighth post -Mod Alt L. Drainage basin reductions
in Jacobs Creek ceased in 2015. For the sweeps to date, the number of dominants identified to
species upstream and downstream was eight and nine, respectively; of those species three were
found only upstream and four were found only downstream (Table III-G2). Sweep community
structure metrics for upstream and downstream by year are in Table III-G3. For the ponars to
III-G-5

date, the number of dominants identified to species upstream was nine with 12 for downstream;
of those species four were found only upstream and seven only downstream (Table III-G4). Ponar
community structure metrics for upstream and downstream by year are in Table III-G5.
i. Jacobs Creek Upstream Sweeps
According to SIMPROF, there were no clusters among the 11 years
of upstream sweeps collected in Jacobs Creek.
Sweep dominants from upstream Jacobs Creek typically were
species of Littoridinops (11 out of 11 years), Apocorophium (eight out of 11 years), and
Chironomus (five out of 11 years). Palemonetes pugio is considered a new dominant for 2021
(Table III-G2). Community structure comparisons for the upstream sweeps indicate that species
richness ranged from 19 (2012) to 34 taxa (2016) and total abundance ranged from 718 (2020)
to 1,678 individuals (2011). The 2021 samples contained the second lowest total abundance
(792 individuals) among 27 taxa. The EBI scores range from 1.63 (2017) to 2.40 (2012) with an
EBI score of 1.92 in 2021 (Table III-G3).
Comparison of interannual variability between pre- and post -Mod
Alt L benthic taxa composition and abundance in upstream Jacobs Creek sweeps by similarity
percentages (SIMPER) revealed 49.1 percent similarity which was predominately driven by more
species of Tanytarsus and Chironomus in post -Mod Alt L years. Comparison of interannual
variability between Jacobs Creek upstream sweeps by ANOSIM detected statistical significance
between pre- and post -Mod Alt L macroinvertebrate communities (R = 0.449, P = 0.02).
ii. Jacobs Creek Downstream Sweeps
The SIMPROF test of benthic taxa richness and abundance within
the downstream Jacobs Creek sweeps revealed slight variation of statistical significance between
all years among three distinct clusters (Figure III-G2). Cluster A contained post -Mod Alt L years
(2015-2017, 2019, 2021), while the other two clusters contained a mixture of pre and post years.
Comparison of interannual variability between the clusters by means of similarity percentages
(SIMPER) indicated clusters A and C had the lowest percent similarity of 48.2. Differences were
driven predominantly by a higher abundance of Littoridinops tenuipes in C and higher abundances
of Gammarus tigrinus in A.
Sweeps from downstream Jacobs Creek consistently contained
species of Apocorophium (nine out of 11 years), Littoridinops (10 out of 11 years), and Gammarus
(seven out of 11 years) and Hargeria rapax (six out of 11 years). There were no new species in
2021 (Table III-G2). Community structure comparisons for the downstream sweeps indicate that
species richness ranged from 29 (2013 and 2016) to 35 taxa (2014 and 2015), total abundance
ranged from 890 (2021) to 2,198 individuals (2018) and EBI scores ranged from 1.80 (2017) to
2.10 (2011) (Table III-G3). The 2021 samples contained 32 taxa and had an EBI score of 1.85.
Comparison of interannual variability between pre- and post -Mod
Alt L benthic taxa composition and abundance of Jacobs Creek downstream sweeps by similarity
percentages (SIMPER) revealed 54.4 percent similarity with differences driven predominantly by
higher abundance of Gammarus tigrinus and lower abundances for species of Apedilum for the
post -Mod Alt L years (2014 — 2021). Comparison of interannual variability between Jacobs Creek
downstream sweeps by ANOSIM detected no statistical significance between pre- and post -Mod
Alt L macroinvertebrate communities.
III-G-6

N. Jacobs Creek Upstream Ponar Grabs
According SIMPROF, there were no clusters among the 10 years
of upstream ponar grabs from Jacobs Creek.
Ponar grabs from upstream Jacobs Creek contained Chironomus
decorus as a dominant (seven out of 11 years) with Apocorophium species as an occasional
dominant (six out of 11 years); Laeonereis culveri was a new dominant species in 2021 (Table III-
G4). Community structure comparisons for the ponar grabs from upstream indicate that species
richness was highest in 2015 (23) after the 2014 and 2019 lows of 15 taxa, and total abundance
ranged from 59 (2016) to 1,277 individuals (2013) (Table III-G5). The 2021 upstream samples
contained the third lowest total abundance (170 individuals) among the lowest species richness
(12 taxa). Shannon -Wiener diversity scores ranged from 1.45 (2021) to 2.48 (2020) and EBI
scores range from 1.13 (2021) to 2.27 (2013). The 2021 upstream ponar grabs had the lowest
Shannon -Wiener diversity score and EBI.
Comparison of interannual variability between pre- and post -Mod
Alt L benthic taxa composition and abundance within the upstream Jacobs Creek ponar grabs by
similarity percentages (SIMPER) revealed 38.1 percent similarity. Comparison of interannual
variability between Jacobs Creek upstream ponar grabs by ANOSIM detected no spatial
differences of statistical significance between pre- and post -Mod Alt L macroinvertebrate
communities.
iv. Jacobs Creek Downstream Ponar Grabs
According to SIMPROF, there were no clusters among the 10 years
of ponar grabs collected from downstream Jacobs Creek.
Ponar grabs dominants were typically Chironomus decorus (eight
out of 11 years) and species of Apocorophium (four out of 11 years) and Gammarus (five out of
11 years); three of the 10 years had no new dominant species (2012, 2018, and 2020) (Table III-
G4). Species richness ranged from 12 (2012) to 24 taxa (2011) and total abundance ranged from
213 (2016) to 877 individuals (2017). The 2021 samples had 480 individuals among 15 taxa, the
Shannon -Wiener diversity score was the lowest (0.47), and the EBI score was the lowest (1.11)
in the 11 years of Jacobs Creek monitoring (Table III-G5).
Comparison of interannual variability between pre- and post -Mod Alt L benthic taxa composition
and abundance of Jacobs Creek downstream ponar grabs by similarity percentages (SIMPER)
revealed 39.1 percent similarity with differences driven predominantly by the absence of Apedilum
species and lower abundances of Chironomus species, Parachironomus species, and
Apocorophium species for the post -Mod Alt L years (2014-2021). Rangia cuneata was present
only in post -Mod Alt L years although the species was also collected pre -mod Alt L by ponar within
another nearby creek (2000 in Tooley Creek). Comparison of interannual variability between
Jacobs Creek downstream ponar grabs by ANOSIM detected no statistical significance between
pre- and post -Mod Alt L macroinvertebrate communities.
Drinkwater Creek (2011-2021)
The 2021 benthos samples for Drinkwater Creek represented the 11th
consecutive year of benthic macroinvertebrate collections and the ninth post -Mod Alt L year;
drainage basin reduction in the Drinkwater Creek watershed ceased in 2014. For the sweeps to
date, the number of dominants identified to species was seven for upstream and eight for
downstream; among those species, three were found only upstream and four only downstream
(Table III-G2). Sweep community structure metrics for upstream and downstream by year are in
III-G-7

Table III-G3. For the ponars to date, the number of dominants identified to species was eight
upstream and 12 downstream; among those species, two were found only upstream and six only
downstream (Table III-G4). Ponar community structure metrics for upstream and downstream
Drinkwater Creek by year are in Table III-G5.
i. Drinkwater Creek Upstream Sweeps
Multivariate cluster analysis by a similarity profile test (SIMPROF)
of benthic taxa richness and abundance within the upstream Drinkwater Creek sweeps revealed
slight variation of statistical significance between all years among three distinct clusters (Figure
III-G3a). Comparison of interannual variability between the clusters by means of similarity
percentages (SIMPER) indicated that cluster A contained one pre year and seven post years
(2011, 2013, 2015-2019), B contained one year (2020), and C contained one pre and post year
(2012 and 2014). Clusters A and B had the lowest SIMPER (51.6), with differences predominantly
due to higher abundance of Littoridinops tenuipes and Trichocorixa sexcinta in cluster B.
Sweeps from upstream Drinkwater Creek consistently were
dominated by species of Littoridinops (10 out of 11 years) and Apocorophium (10 out of 11 years);
no new dominant species have appeared since 2019. (Table III-G2). Community structure
comparisons for the upstream sweeps collected indicate that species richness ranged from 22
(2015 and 2020) to 34 (2011), total abundance ranged from 596 individuals (2019) to 2,032
individuals (2011), and EBI scores ranged from 1.75 (2014) to 2.25 (2011) (Table III-G3). The
2021 EBI score was tied with 2020 EBI (1.82), while the total abundance was 1,250 individuals
among 28 taxa (Table III-G3).
Comparison of interannual variability between pre- and post -Mod
Alt L upstream benthic sweep taxa composition and abundance from Drinkwater Creek by
similarity percentages (SIMPER) revealed 56.3 percent similarity with differences driven
predominantly by higher abundance of Gammarus tigrinus and lower abundances in species of
Dasyhelea and Apedilum for the post -Mod Alt L years (2013-2021). Comparison of interannual
variability between Drinkwater Creek upstream sweeps by ANOSIM detected no spatial
differences of statistical significance between pre- and post -Mod Alt L macroinvertebrate
communities.
ii. Drinkwater Creek Downstream Sweeps
Multivariate cluster analysis by a similarity profile test (SIMPROF)
test of benthic taxa richness and abundance within the downstream Drinkwater Creek sweeps
revealed slight variation of statistical significance between all years among two distinct clusters
(Figure III-G3 b). Comparison of interannual variability between the clusters by means of similarity
percentages (SIMPER) indicated that cluster A contained 2020 only, while cluster B contained
the remaining years (2011-2019 and 2021). Differences between the two clusters were due to
higher abundance of Littoridinops tenuipes, Trichocorixa sexcinta, and species of Corixidae in A.
Sweeps from downstream Drinkwater Creek consistently were
dominanted by species of Littoridinops (11 out of 11 years) and Apocorophium (eight out of 11
years) along with Gammarus tigrinus (seven out of 11 years); no new dominant species appeared
since 2019 (Table III-G2). Species richness ranged from 24 (2020) to 40 (2016), total abundance
ranged from 884 individuals (2019) to 1,785 individuals (2015), EBI scores ranged from 1.73
(2020) to 2.04 (2011 and 2019). In 2021 the total abundance was 970 individuals among 25 taxa
and the EBI score was 1.76 (Table III-G3).
Comparison of interannual variability between pre- and post -Mod
III-G-8

Alt L downstream benthic sweep taxa composition and abundance from Drinkwater Creek by
similarity percentages (SIMPER) revealed 56.2 percent similarity with differences driven
predominantly by lower abundances of Americamysis almyra and Palaeomonetes pugio and
higher abundances of Gammarus tigrinus for the post -Mod Alt L years (2013-2021). Comparison
of interannual variability between Drinkwater Creek downstream benthic sweeps by ANOSIM
detected no spatial differences of statistical significance between pre- and post -Mod Alt L
macroinvertebrate communities.
Drinkwater Creek Upstream Ponar Grabs
According to SIMPROF, there were no clusters among the 11 years
of ponar grabs collected from upstream Drinkwater Creek.
Ponar grabs within upstream Drinkwater Creek consistently were
dominanted by species of Chironomus (eight out of 11 years) and Amphicteis floridus (nine out of
11 years) (Table III-G4). Species richness ranged from 11 (2019) to 23 taxa (2013), total
abundance ranged from 242 (2020) to 1,267 individuals (2012) (Table III-G5). The 2021 total
abundance was 343 individuals among 20 taxa, Shannon -Wiener diversity score was 1.78 (range:
1.58 — 2.32), and the EBI score was 1.74 (range: 1.59 — 2.10) (Table III-G5).
Comparison of interannual variability between pre- and post -Mod
Alt L upstream benthic ponar taxa composition and abundance within Drinkwater Creek by
similarity percentages (SIMPER) revealed 52.9 percent similarity with differences driven
predominantly by the absence of Aulodrilus sp. and the lower abundances of Macoma balthica
and Littordinops species in the post -Mod Alt L years (2013 — 2021). Comparison of interannual
variability by ANOSIM detected no spatial differences of statistical significance between
Drinkwater Creek upstream ponar pre- and post -Mod Alt L macroinvertebrate communities.
iv. Drinkwater Creek Downstream Ponar Grabs
Multivariate cluster analysis by SIMPROF of benthic taxa richness
and abundance from downstream Drinkwater Creek ponar grabs revealed significant variation
between all years among five different clusters (Figure III-G3 c). Cluster A consisted of one pre -
Mod Alt L year (2012), B contained two post -Mod Alt L years (2019 and 2021), C contained one
year (2015), D contained two post -Mod Alt L years (2016 and 2017), and E contained the
remaining years (2011, 2013, 2014, 2018, and 2020). Comparison of interannual variability
between clusters by similarity percentages (SIMPER) ranged between 13.2 and 52.8 percent,
with clusters A and D being less similar predominately due to greater abundance of species of
Chironomus and Apedilum.
Ponar grabs within downstream Drinkwater Creek usually were
dominated by species of Chironomus (eight out of 11 years), Mediomastus ambiseta (seven out
of 11 years) and Streblospio benedicti (seven out of 11 years) as dominants; there have been no
new dominant species since 2019 (Table III-G4). Species richness ranged from 12 (2021) to 23
taxa (2018 and 2020) and total abundance ranged from 161 (2015) to 1,140 individuals (2013).
The 2021 samples had 508 individuals, the lowest Shannon -Wiener diversity score of 0.59
(previous range: 1.34 — 2.46), and the lowest EBI score of 1.09 (previous range: 1.57 — 2.23)
(Table III-G5).
Comparison of interannual variability between pre- and post -Mod
Alt L downstream benthic ponar taxa composition and abundance within Drinkwater Creek by
similarity percentages (SIMPER) revealed 34.2 percent similarity with differences driven
predominantly by the absence of Apedilum sp. and lower abundances of Parachironomus sp.,
III-G-9

and Macoma balthica in the post -Mod Alt L years (2013 — 2021). Comparison of Drinkwater Creek
downstream interannual variability by ANOSIM detected no spatial differences of statistical
significance between pre- and post -Mod Alt L downstream ponar macroinvertebrate communities.
Tooley Creek (1998 — 2001; 2010 - 2021)
The 2021 benthos samples for Tooley Creek represented the 16th year
of benthic macroinvertebrate collections and was the 10th year considered post -Mod Alt L (2012
-2021); drainage basin reduction in the Tooley Creek watershed ceased in 2013. For the sweeps
to date the number of dominants identified to species was 11 for upstream and nine for
downstream; among those species four were only upstream and three were only downstream
(Table III-G2). Sweep community structure metrics for upstream and downstream are in Table
III-G3. For the ponars to date, 15 dominants were identified to species in the upstream and 14
downstream; among those species four were found only upstream and four were found only
downstream (Table III-G4). Ponar community structure metrics for upstream and downstream
are in Table III-G5.
i. Tooley Creek Upstream Sweeps
Multivariate cluster analysis of benthic sweep taxa richness and
abundance within upstream Tooley Creek by SIMPROF revealed slight variation of statistical
significance between years among five distinct clusters (Figure III-G4a). Cluster A and E
contained all pre -Mod Alt L years (A: 1998 and 1999; E: 2000 and 2001), B contained a mixture
of pre- and post -Mod Alt L years, C contained only one year (2019), and D contained all post -Mod
Alt L years (2015-2017 and 2021). Comparison of interannual variability between the clusters by
similarity percentages (SIMPER) indicated that cluster A and B were the least similar (36.1
percent); differences were due to higher abundances in Gammarus tigrinus and Amphicteis
floridus in cluster A.
Sweeps within upstream Tooley Creek were dominated by
Littoridinops species every year and species of Apocorophium every year since 2010 except for
2015; no new dominants have appeared since 2015 (Table III-G2). Community structure
comparisons for the upstream sweeps indicate that species richness ranged from 17 (1999) to 42
taxa (1998), total abundance ranged from 918 (2010) to 2,572 individuals (2017), and EBI scores
range from 1.80 (2015 and 2018) to 2.08 (2001 and 2012) (Table III-G3). In 2021, total abundance
was 1,962 individuals among 24 taxa with an EBI score of 1.95 (Table III-G3).
Comparison of interannual variability between pre- and post -Mod
Alt L upstream sweep taxa composition and abundance within Tooley Creek by similarity
percentages (SIMPER) revealed 49.9 percent similarity with differences driven predominantly by
lower abundances of Gammarus tigrinus and Cassidinidea lunifrons, and higher abundances of
both Nematoda species and Hargeria rapax in the post -Mod Alt L years (2012 — 2021).
Comparison of interannual variability between upstream sweeps by ANOSIM detected spatial
differences of statistical significance between pre- and post -Mod Alt L macroinvertebrate
communities (R = 0.272, P = 0.02).
ii. Tooley Creek Downstream Sweeps
Multivariate cluster analysis of benthic sweep taxa richness and
abundance within downstream Tooley Creek by a similarity profile test (SIMPROF) revealed slight
variation of statistical significance between years among five distinct clusters (Figure III-G4 b).
Cluster A and B both consisted of one year (1998 and 2020, respectively), cluster C of three pre -
Mod Alt L years (1999-2001), cluster D contained all post -Mod Alt L years (2015-2019 and 2021),
and E a mixture of pre- and post -Mod Alt L years (2010-2014). As determined by a SIMPER
III-G-10

analysis, clusters A and B were the least similar at 22.2 percent and differed based on the
absence of Chironomus species and Enallagma species in B.
Sweeps within downstream Tooley Creek consistently were
dominated by species of Littoridinops (15 out of 16 years) and Apocorophium (13 out of 16 years),
and Hargeria rapax (10 out of 16 years); no new dominants have appeared since 2014 (Table III-
G2). Gammarus tigrinus, abundant in the first four years (1998 — 2001), was again abundant in
2015-2021. Species richness ranged from 18 (2020) to 47 taxa (1998), total abundance ranged
from 321 (2020) to 3,360 individuals (1998), and EBI scores ranged from 1.80 (2019) to 2.07
(2014) (Table III-G3). In 2021, total abundance was 899 individuals among 22 taxa and the EBI
score was 1.92 (Table III-G3).
Comparison of interannual variability between pre- and post -Mod Alt L downstream sweeps taxa
composition and abundance within Tooley Creek by SIMPER revealed 50.8 percent similarity with
differences driven predominantly by higher abundances of Gammarus mucronatus and lower
abundances of Cyprideis littoralis in the post -Mod Alt L years (2012-2021). Comparison of
interannual variability in Tooley Creek downstream sweeps by ANOSIM detected spatial
differences of statistical significance between pre- and post -Mod Alt L macroinvertebrate
communities (R = 0.234, P = 0.04).
iii. Tooley Creek Upstream Ponar Grabs
Multivariate cluster analysis of benthic ponar taxa richness and
abundance within upstream Tooley Creek by SIMPROF revealed slight variation of statistical
significance between years among six distinct clusters (Figure III-G4 c). Cluster A consisted of
two post -Mod Alt L years (2016 and 2020), B of three pre -Mod Alt L years (1998, 1999, and 2001),
C of one year (2010), D of three years (2000, 2012, and 2021), E of one year (2013), and F of
one pre -Mod Alt L year and five post -Mod Alt L years (2011, 2014-2015, and 2017-2019).
Comparison of interannual variability between clusters by similarity percentages (SIMPER)
revealed similarity ranged from 17.5 to 42.6 percent.
Ponar grabs within upstream Tooley Creek often were dominated
by Chironomus decorus (11 out of 16 years), species of Gammarus (eight out of 16 years), and
species of Apocorophium (six out of 16 years). Americamysis almyra was a dominant for the first
time in 2021 (Table III-G4). Community structure comparisons indicate that species richness
ranged from 11 (2000 and 2012) to 24 (2001) and total abundance ranged from 50 (2020) to 942
(2013). In 2021, the total abundance was 316 individuals among 14 taxa, the Shannon -Wiener
diversity score was 1.22 (range: 0.49 — 2.43), and the EBI score was 1.25 (range: 1.15 — 2.09)
(Table III-G5).
Comparison of interannual variability between pre- and post -Mod
Alt L benthic ponar taxa composition and abundance within upstream Tooley Creek by similarity
percentages (SIMPER) revealed 34.5 percent similarity with differences driven predominantly by
lower abundances of Gammarus tigrinus, Amphicteis floridus, and Macoma balthica in the post -
Mod Alt L years (2012 — 2021). Comparison of interannual variability in Tooley Creek upstream
ponar grabs by ANOSIM detected no spatial differences of statistical significance between pre -
and post -Mod Alt L macroinvertebrate communities.
iv. Tooley Creek Downstream Ponar Grabs
Multivariate cluster analysis of benthic ponar taxa richness and
abundance within downstream Tooley Creek by a similarity profile test (SIMPROF) revealed
III-G-11

variation of statistical significance between years among two clusters (Figure III-G4 d). Cluster A
contained three pre -Mod Alt L years (1998-2000), while cluster B contained the remainder.
Ponar grabs within downstream Tooley Creek frequently were
dominanted by Mediomastus ambiseta (every year since 2011) and Chironomus decorus,
although Chironomus decorus was not among the four most dominant species in 2015-2018.
Streblospio benedicti was a dominant for the past three years; 2021 did not contain any new
dominant species (Table III-G4). Species richness ranged between 11 (2000 and 2021) and 25
(2001) and total abundance ranged between 270 individuals (1999) and 1,415 individuals (2012
(Table III-G5). The 2021 samples contained 511 individuals, the Shannon -Wiener diversity score
was the lowest 0.68 (previous range: 1.00 — 2.31) and the EBI score was 1.16 (range: 1.16 —
2.07) (Table III-G5).
Comparison of interannual variability between pre- and post -Mod Alt L ponar benthic taxa
composition and abundance within downstream Tooley Creek by similarity percentages
(SIMPER) revealed 36.8 percent similarity with differences driven predominantly by higher
abundances of Streblospio benedicti, Mediomastus ambiseta, Eteone heteropoda, and species
of Chironomus in the post -Mod Alt L years (2012 — 2021). Comparison of interannual variability
of Tooley Creek downstream ponar grabs by ANOSIM detected spatial differences of statistical
significance between pre- and post -Mod Alt L macroinvertebrate communities (R = 0.335, P =
0.006).
Huddles Cut (1999-2001; 2007-2021)
The 2021 benthos samples for Huddles Cut represented the 18th year
of benthic macroinvertebrate collections and the 12th year considered post -Mod Alt L (2010 —
2021); drainage basin reduction from mine activities in the Huddles Cut watershed ceased in
2011. For the sweeps to date the number of dominants identified to species was nine for
upstream and 16 for downstream; among those species, four were only upstream and 11 were
only downstream (Table III-G2). Community structure metrics for upstream and downstream
sweeps are in Table III-G3. For the ponars to date the number of dominants identified to species
was 16 for upstream and 18 for downstream; of those species five were only upstream and six
were only downstream (Table III-G4). Community structure metrics for upstream and downstream
ponars are in (Table III-G5).
i. Huddles Cut Upstream Sweeps
Multivariate cluster analysis of benthic sweep taxa richness and
abundance within upstream Huddles Cut by SIMPROF revealed statistically significant variation
between years among five distinct clusters (Figure III-G5 a). Cluster A contained one year (1999),
B contained two pre -Mod Alt L years (2000 and 2001), C contained two post -Mod Alt L years
(2012 and 2020), while D and E contained a mixture of pre- and post -Mod Alt L years.
Comparison of interannual variability between clusters by similarity percentages (SIMPER)
revealed clusters A and C were least similar (28.3 percent) predominately driven by greater
abundance in Gammarus tigrinus, and species of Littordinops in A.
Sweeps within upstream Huddles Cut often were dominated by
Cyprideis littoralis (14 out of 18 years) and Palaeomonetes pugio every year except 2015 and
2021 (Table III-G2). Community structure comparisons for the upstream sweeps within Huddles
Cut indicate that species richness ranged from 13 (2009) to 29 taxa (2018), total abundance
ranged from 219 (2021) to 1,647 individuals (2016), and EBI scores ranged from 1.72 (2021) to
2.22 (2009); 2021 had 17 taxa and the lowest total abundance (219 individuals) and lowest EBI
score (1.72) to date (Table III-G3).
III-G-12

Comparison of interannual variability between pre- and post -Mod
Alt L Huddles Cut upstream sweep taxa composition and abundance by SIMPER revealed 47.7
percent similarity. Differences were due predominantly to higher abundances of Gammarus
tigrinus and species of Chironomus and Apocorophium, and lower abundances of species of
Littoridinops and Tanytarsus in the post -Mod Alt L years (2010 — 2021). Comparison of
interannual variability among upstream sweeps by ANOSIM revealed spatial differences of
statistical significance between pre- and post -Mod Alt L macroinvertebrate communities within
Huddles Cut (R = 0.365; P = 0.006).
ii. Huddles Cut Downstream Sweeps
Multivariate cluster analysis of benthic sweep taxa richness and
abundance within downstream Huddles Cut by a similarity profile test (SIMPROF) revealed slight
variation of statistical significance between years between two distinct clusters (Figure III-G5 b).
Cluster A contained four sample years (1999, 2000, 2001, and 2017) and B consisted of the other
13 years (2007-2016, 2018-2021). Comparison of interannual variability between the clusters by
similarity percentages (SIMPER) indicated 39.2 percent similarity.
Sweeps in downstream Huddles Cut consistently contained
Gammarus tigrinus (a dominant every year but 2001) and Palaeomonetes pugio (a dominant 14
out of 18 years), with species of Apocorophium as an occasional dominant (10 out of 18 years);
Dicrotendipes nervosus was a new dominant in 2021 (Table III-G2). Species richness ranged
from 12 (2011) to 33 taxa (2017), total abundance ranged from 75 (2011) to 1,057 individuals
(2017), EBI scores ranged from 1.74 (2008) to 2.36 (2020); 2021 sweeps had 141 individuals
among 15 taxa and an EBI score of 1.93 (Table III-G3).
Comparison of interannual variability between pre- and post -Mod
Alt L benthic taxa composition and abundance within downstream Huddles Cut sweeps by
SIMPER revealed 43.4 percent similarity with differences driven predominantly by higher
abundances of Gammarus tigrinus, Gammarus mucronatus, and species of Apocorophium in the
post -Mod Alt L years (2010 — 2021). Comparison of interannual variability among the Huddles
Cut downstream sweeps by ANOSIM detected no spatial differences of statistical significance
between pre- and post -Mod Alt L macroinvertebrate communities.
iii. Huddles Cut Upstream Ponar Grabs
Multivariate cluster analysis of taxa richness and abundance in
Huddles Cut upstream ponar grabs by SIMPROF revealed slight variation of statistical
significance between years among four distinct clusters (Figure III-G5 c). Comparison of
interannual variability between the clusters by SIMPER indicated similarity ranged from 16.9 to
34.7 percent. Cluster A contained four years (2009, 2010, 2019, and 2021), B contained five
post -Mod Alt L years (2012-2014, 2018, and 2020), C contained three years (1999, 2001, and
2016), and D contained a mixture of pre- and post -Mod Alt L years (2000, 2007, 2008, 2011,
2015, and 2017).
Ponar grabs within upstream Huddles Cut contained various
dominant species over the years, but Chironomus decorus and Cyprideis littoralis (both eight out
of 18 years), were often one of the top four with other species as dominant for several years
(Table III-G4). Species richness ranged from three (2010) to 25 taxa (2018) and total abundance
ranged from 46 (2000) to 596 individuals (2016); 2021 ponars contained 178 individuals among
nine taxa, the Shannon -Wiener diversity score was 0.43 (range: 0.32 — 2.52), and the EBI score
was 1.09, the lowest to date (previous range: 1.11 — 1.98) (Table III-G5).
III-G-13

Comparison of interannual variability between pre- and post -Mod
Alt L upstream ponar grabs taxa composition and abundance within Huddles Cut by SIMPER
revealed 31.2 percent similarity with differences driven predominantly by higher abundances of
Heteromastus filiformis, species of Chironomus, and Macoma tenta, and lower abundances of
Cyprideis littoralis and Amphicteis floridus in the post -Mod Alt L years (2010- 2021). Comparison
of interannual variability among Huddles Cut upstream ponar grabs by ANOSIM detected no
spatial differences of statistical significance between pre- and post -Mod Alt L macroinvertebrate
communities.
iv. Huddles Cut Downstream Ponar Grabs
Multivariate cluster analysis of ponar grabs taxa richness and
abundance within downstream Huddles Cut by a similarity profile test (SIMPROF) revealed slight
variation of statistical significance between years among four distinct clusters (Figure III-G5 d).
Comparison of interannual variability between the clusters by similarity percentages (SIMPER)
indicated similarity ranged from 6.2 to 24.7 percent. Cluster A and B each contained only one
year (2021 and 2015, respectively), cluster B contained seven years (1999-2001, 2007, 2010,
2016, and 2017), and C contained nine years (2008, 2009, 2011-2014 and 2018-2020).
Ponar grabs within downstream Huddles Cut contained various
dominants over the years, but Chironomus decorus (eight out of 18 years) was usually one of
them with Lepidactylus dytiscus (four out of 18 years), Heteromastus filiformis (three out of 18
years), and Neanthes succinea (three out of 18 years) as occasional dominants; no new dominant
species since 2017 (Table III-G4). Species richness ranged from seven (2015) to 24 taxa (2001
and 2017) and total abundance ranged from 108 (2019) to 1,980 individuals (2013). The 2021
ponars contained 121 individuals among eight taxa, the Shannon -Wiener diversity score was 1.26
(range: 1.24 — 2.56), and the EBI score was 1.55 (range: 1.13 — 3.08) (Table III-G5).
Comparison of interannual variability between pre- and post -Mod
Alt L downstream benthic taxa composition and abundance within Huddles Cut ponar grabs by
SIMPER revealed 25.4 percent similarity with differences driven predominantly by higher
abundances of Nematoda species and Mediomastus ambiseta and lower abundances of
Chironomus species and Amphicteis floridus in the post -Mod Alt L years (2010-2021).
Comparison of interannual variability among the Huddles Cut downstream ponar grabs by
ANOSIM detected no spatial differences of statistical significance between pre- and post -Mod Alt
L macroinvertebrate communities.
Porter Creek (2011-2021)
The 2021 benthic macroinvertebrate collection in Porter Creek was the
11th consecutive year of Mod Alt L samples and the sixth year considered post -Mod Alt L. For
the sweeps to date the number of dominants identified to species was 10 upstream and 10 for
downstream; among those species, five were only upstream and another five were only
downstream (Table III-G2). Community structure metrics for upstream and downstream sweeps
are in Table III-G3. For the ponars to date, the number of dominants identified to species was
nine for upstream and 10 for downstream; among those species, five were only upstream and six
were only downstream (Table III-G4). Community structure metrics for upstream and downstream
ponars are in Table III-G5.
i. Porter Creek Upstream Sweeps
Multivariate cluster analysis of benthic sweep taxa richness and
abundance within upstream Porter Creek by SIMPROF revealed statistically significant variation
III-G-14

between years among three distinct clusters (Figure III-G6 a). Cluster A contained one year
(2019), B contained three years (2015-2017), C contained the remaining years. Comparison of
interannual variability by SIMPER revealed that clusters A and B were the least similar (45.1
percent) with differences driven predominantly by the absence of Dero species and less
abundance in species of Tanytarsus in B.
Sweeps from upstream Porter Creek contained Gammarus tigrinus,
a dominant every year, while other frequent dominants were species of Littoridinops (nine out of
11 years) and Cyprideis littoralis (six out of 11 years). Goeldichironomus devineyae was a
dominant for the first time in 2021 (Table III-G2). Species richness for the upstream sweeps
ranged from 21 (2015 and 2020) to 34 taxa (2012), total abundance ranged from 765 (2016) to
2,804 individuals (2012), and EBI scores ranged from 1.85 (2011) to 2.05 (2013). The 2021
sweeps had 832 individuals among 33 taxa, and an EBI score of 1.86 (Table III-G3).
Comparison of interannual variability between pre- and post -Mod Alt L benthic taxa composition
and abundance within upstream Porter Creek sweeps by SIMPER revealed 53.5 percent similarity
with differences driven predominantly by lower abundances of species of Apocorophium and
Tanytarsus, Dicrotendipes nervosus and Cyathura polita in the four post -Mod Alt L years (2016-
2020). Comparison of interannual variability among the Porter Creek upstream sweeps by
ANOSIM detected no spatial differences of statistical significance between pre- and post -Mod Alt
L macroinvertebrate.
ii. Porter Creek Downstream Sweeps
The SIMPROF test of benthic sweeps taxa richness and abundance
from downstream Porter Creek revealed slight variation of statistical significance between years
among four distinct clusters (Figure III-G6 b). Cluster A and B both contained one year (2021 and
2012, respectively), cluster C contained three years (2016, 2017, and 2019), and D contained the
other six years (2011, 2013 — 2015, 2018, and 2020). Clusters A and D had the lowest similarity
(30.5 percent) predominately due to the absence of Littoridinops tenuipes, Gammarus
mucronatus, and species of Chironomus in A.
Sweeps from downstream Porter Creek always were dominated by
species of Apocorophium (9 out of 11 years) and consistently contained species of Littoridinops
(10 out of 11 years) and Gammarus (10 out of 11 years), and these genera were the three most
abundant in 2016-2020 (Table III-G2). Species richness ranged from 16 (2021) to 33 taxa (2013),
total abundance ranged from 180 (2021) to 1,791 individuals (2011), and EBI scores ranged from
1.82 (2020) to 2.18 (2012). In 2021, total abundance and total taxa was the lowest (180 individuals
among 16 taxa) and an EBI of 2.06 (Table III-G3).
Comparison of interannual variability between pre- and post -Mod
Alt L benthic taxa composition and abundance within downstream Porter Creek sweeps by
SIMPER revealed 49.7 percent similarity with differences driven predominantly by lower
abundances of Hargeria rapax, Gammarus mucronatus, Palaeomonetes pugio, Polydora cornuta,
and species of Chironomus in the post -Mod Alt L years (2016-2021). Five years post -Mod Alt L,
comparison of interannual variability among the Porter Creek downstream sweeps by ANOSIM
detected spatial differences of statistical significance between pre- and post -Mod Alt L
macroinvertebrate communities (R = 0.301; P = 0.01).
III-G-15

N. Porter Creek Upstream Ponar Grabs
According to SIMPROF, there were no clusters among the 11 years
of upstream ponar grabs from Porter Creek.
Ponar grabs from upstream Porter Creek contained Gammarus
tigrinus as a dominant species for all sampled years except 2012 with species of Apocorophium
and Amphicteis floridus as frequent co -dominants (Table III-G4). Community structure
comparisons for the upstream ponar grabs indicate that species richness ranged from 11 (2021)
to 22 taxa (2011) and total abundance ranged from 232 (2021) to 2,136 individuals (2012). In
2021, ponars had the lowest total abundance (232 individuals) and the lowest species richness
(11 taxa). The Shannon -Wiener diversity score was 1.68 (range: 1.53 — 2.30), while the EBI was
1.73 (previous range: 1.68 — 2.06 (Table III-G5).
Comparison of interannual variability between pre- and post -Mod
Alt L benthic taxa composition and abundance within upstream Porter Creek ponar grabs by
SIMPER revealed 48.3 percent similarity with differences driven predominantly by lower
abundances of species of Tanytarsus and Apocorophium in the five post -Mod Alt L years (2016-
2021). Comparison of interannual variability among the upstream ponars by ANOSIM detected
no spatial difference of statistical significance between pre- and post -Mod Alt L macroinvertebrate
communities.
iv. Porter Creek Downstream Ponar Grabs
According to SIMPROF, there were two clusters among the eight
years of ponar grabs collected from downstream Porter Creek. Cluster A contained two post -Mod
Alt L years (2019 and 2021), while cluster B contained the remaining years. Comparison of
interannual variability by SIMPER revealed that 32.6 percent similarity between the two clusters
with differences driven predominantly by higher abundances of Chironomus sp. And lower
abundances of Streblospio benedicti in B.
Ponar grabs from downstream Porter Creek usually were
dominated by species of Chironomus (eight out of 11 years) and Macoma (seven out of 11 years),
with Mediomastus ambiseta (five out of 11 years), Streblospio benedicti (six out of 11 years), and
Gammarus tigrinus (four out of 11 years) being less frequent dominants (Table III-G4). Species
richness ranged from nine (2021) to 19 taxa (2013) and total abundance ranged from 123 (2012)
to 743 individuals (2017). In 2021, ponar grabs had 356 individuals among the lowest species
richness (9 taxa), the lowest Shannon -Wiener diversity score of 0.49 (previous range: 0.79 — 2.03)
and the lowest EBI score of 1.14 (previous range: 1.20 — 1.94) (Table III-G5).
Comparison of interannual variability between pre- and post -Mod
Alt L benthic taxa composition and abundance within downstream Porter Creek ponar grabs by
SIMPER revealed 38.8 percent similarity with greater abundance of Chironomus species and
Macoma species predominately driving differences in post years (2016-2021). Comparison of
interannual variability among the Porter Creek downstream ponars by ANOSIM detected no
spatial differences of statistical significance between pre- and post -Mod Alt L macroinvertebrate
communities.
DCUT11 (2013-2021)
The 2021 benthic macroinvertebrate collection in DCUT11 was the
ninth consecutive year of Mod Alt L samples with 2021 being the fourth post -Mod Alt L year. For
the sweeps to date the number of dominants identified to species was six for upstream and five
for downstream; among those species two were found only upstream and one was found only
III-G-16

downstream (Table III-G2). Community structure metrics for upstream and downstream sweeps
are in Table III-G3. For the ponar grabs to date the number of dominants identified to species
was five upstream and nine downstream; among those species one was found only upstream and
four were found only downstream; no species were only upstream while five were only
downstream (Table III-G4). Community structure metrics for upstream and downstream ponars
are in Table III-G5.
i. DCUT11 Upstream Sweeps
According to SIMPROF, there were no clusters among the nine
years of upstream sweeps from DCUT11.
Sweeps from upstream DCUT11 consistently contained Gammarus
tigrinus (a dominant species each year except 2021), Cyprideis littoralis (every year except 2013,
2019, and 2021), and species of Littoridinops (every year except 2019). There has been no new
dominant species since 2017 (Table III-G2). Species richness has ranged from 22 (2016) to 30
taxa (2019) while abundance ranged from 421 (2021) to 1,750 individuals (2015). The 2021 taxa
count was 29 and the EBI score was 1.52 (range: 1.46-2.07) (Table III-G3).
Comparison of interannual variability between pre- and post -Mod
Alt L benthic taxa composition and abundance within upstream DCUT11 sweeps by similarity
percentages (SIMPER) revealed 59.3 percent similarity. Differences between pre- and post- Mod
Alt L included higher abundances of Littoridinops tenuipes and species of Apocorophium in post -
Mod Alt L years (2018-2021). Comparison of interannual variability among the DCUT11 upstream
sweeps by ANOSIM detected no spatial differences of statistical significance between pre- and
post -Mod Alt L macroinvertebrate communities.
ii. DCUT11 Downstream Sweeps
Multivariate cluster analysis of benthic sweeps taxa richness and
abundance within downstream DCUT11 by a similarity profile test (SIMPROF) revealed
statistically significant variation between years between two distinct clusters (Figure III-G7 a).
Cluster A contained a mixture of pre- and post -Mod Alt L years (2013-2018, and 2020) and B
contained two post -Mod Alt L years (2019 and 2021). Comparison of interannual variability
between clusters by similarity percentages (SIMPER) revealed that these two clusters were 48.1
percent similar with differences driven predominantly by higher abundances of Amphicteis
floridus, Cyprideis littoralis, and species of Apocorophium in A.
Like the upstream, downstream sweeps were consistently
dominated by Gammarus tigrinus (every year except 2021), along with species of Littoridinops
(every year), and usually Cyprideis littoralis (2014-2018). Other dominant species included
Tanytarsus species (a dominant species since 2016). There were no new dominant species since
2015 (Table III-G2). Community structure comparisons show that species richness was lowest in
2018 (19 taxa) and highest in 2019 (32 taxa). Total abundance was lowest in 2021 (374
individuals) and highest in 2015 (2,205). In 2021, the taxa count was 24 and EBI score was the
lowest 1.50 (previous range 1.65 — 2.03) (Table III-G3).
Comparison of interannual variability between pre- and post -Mod
Alt L benthic taxa composition and abundance within downstream DCUT11 sweeps by similarity
percentages (SIMPER) revealed 58.1 percent similarity. Differences between pre- and post- Mod
Alt L years include the absence of Nematoda species and higher abundances of Littoridinops
tenuipes in post Mod -Alt L years (2018-2021). Comparison of interannual variability among the
DCUT11 downstream sweeps by ANOSIM detected no spatial differences of statistical
III-G-17

significance between pre- and post -Mod Alt L macroinvertebrate communities.
DCUT11 Upstream Ponar Grabs
Multivariate cluster analysis of benthic sweeps taxa richness and
abundance within upstream DCUT11 by a similarity profile test (SIMPROF) revealed statistically
significant variation between years between two distinct clusters (Figure III-G7 b). Cluster A
contained one year (2021), while B contained the remaining years (2013-2020). Comparison of
interannual variability between clusters by similarity percentages (SIMPER) revealed that these
two clusters were 23.2 percent similar.
Ponar grabs from upstream DCUT11 consistently contained
Gammarus tigrinus (a dominant every year except 2015), species of Littoridinops (a dominant
each year except 2019), and Cyprideis littoralis (a domiannt every year except 2013, 2019, and
2021). The last new dominant species appeared in 2019 (Table III-G4). The total abundance was
lowest in 2021 (104 individuals) and highest in 2014 (2,192 individuals), while the lowest species
richness was in 2021 (10 taxa) and highest in 2019 (22 taxa). In 2021, the Shannon -Weiner Index
was 2.04 (range: 1.17-2.42) and EBI score was 1.82 (range: 1.80-2.01) (Table III-G5).
Comparison of interannual variability between pre- and post -Mod
Alt L benthic taxa composition and abundance within upstream DCUT11 ponar grabs by SIMPER
revealed 46.6 percent similarity. Comparison of interannual variability among the DCUT11
upstream ponar grabs by ANOSIM detected no spatial differences of statistical significance
between pre- and post -Mod Alt L macroinvertebrate communities.
iv. DCUT11 Downstream Ponar Grabs
According to SIMPROF, there were no clusters among the eight
years of ponar grabs collected from downstream DCUT11.
Ponar grabs from downstream DCUT11 were consistently
dominated by Gammarus tigrinus (dominant each year). Other dominants were species of
Apocorophium (a dominant five out of nine years) and Amphicteis floridus (a dominant every year
except 2018 and 2020). No new dominant species have appeared since 2019 (Table III-G4).
Total abundance was lowest in 2016 (248 individuals) and highest in 2020 (2,105 individuals)
while species richness was lowest in 2013 (14 species) and highest in 2014 (28 species). In
2021, total abundance was 624 individuals among 22 taxa. Shannon -Weiner Index was 1.91
(range: 1.31-2.19), and the EBI score was 1.73 (range: 1.67-2.07) (Table III-G5).
Comparison of interannual variability between pre- and post -Mod
Alt L benthic taxa composition and abundance within downstream DCUT11 ponar grabs by
SIMPER revealed 48.7 percent similarity. Comparison of interannual variability among the
DCUT11 downstream ponar grabs by ANOSIM detected no spatial differences of statistical
significance between pre- and post -Mod Alt L macroinvertebrate communities.
c. Control Creeks Sweep and Ponar Grab Data
SCUT1 (2019-2021)
According to SIMPROF, there were no clusters among the three years of
upstream or downstream sweeps and ponars collected in SCUT1.
The 2021 macroinvertebrate collection for SCUT1 was the third sample
year. For the sweep collection, the number of dominants identified to species was five for
III-G-18

upstream and six for downstream; among those species three species were found only upstream
and four only downstream (Table III-G2). Community structure metrics for upstream and
downstream sweeps are in Table III-G3. For the ponars to date, the number of dominants
identified to species was five for upstream and six for downstream; among those species two
were found only upstream and four only downstream (Table III-G4). Community structure metrics
for ponars are in Table III-G5.
Upstream sweeps were dominated each year by species of Naididae
without hair, but Corixidae was only present in 2019 and 2021 (Table III-G2). Community
structure comparisons for the 2021 sweeps collected from upstream SCUT1 showed that species
richness was lowest in 2020 (20 taxa) and highest in both 2019 and 2021 (28 taxa), while total
abundance was lowest in 2019 (401 individuals) and highest in 2020 (944 individuals), In 2021,
there was 579 individuals among 28 taxa. The EBI score was 1.25 (range: 1.18-1.53) (Table III-
G3). Downstream sweeps were dominated by Gammarus tigrinus all three years, Amphicteis
floridus being a dominant for the second year, and two other species present only one year
(Dicrotendipes nervosus and species of Littoridinops) (Table III-G2). Community structure
comparisons showed the lowest species richness in 2020 (18 taxa) and highest in 2019 (35 taxa),
while total abundance was lowest in 2021 (446 individuals) and highest in 2020 (997 individuals).
In 2021, species richness was 28 taxa. The EBI score was 1.83 (range: 1.72-1.98) (Table III-G3).
Ponar grabs from upstream SCUT1 contained species of Naididae without
hair all three years, while the three other taxa were only present one year (Procladius sp.,
Tubificoides heterochaetus, and Chironomus decorus) (Table III-G4). The total abundance was
the lowest in 2020 (334 individuals) and highest in 2019 (509 individuals) while species richness
was lowest in 2020 (7 taxa) and highest in 2019 (18 taxa). The Shannon -Weiner Index was 2.02
(previous range: 0.99-1.72) and the EBI score was 1.05 (previous range: 1.23-1.74) (Table III-
G5). Cyprideis littoralis was a dominant for first two years in ponar grabs from downstream
SCUT1 while Amphicteis floridus and Gammarus tigrinus were dominants for both 2020 and 2021
((Table III-G4). The total abundance was lowest in 2020 (92 individuals) and the highest was in
2021 (277), while species richness was lowest in 2020 and 2021 (8 taxa) and highest in 2019 (16
taxa). The Shannon -Weiner Index was 1.00 (previous range: 1.74-2.13), and the EBI was 1.96
(previous range: 1.25-1.77) (Table III-G5).
Little Creek (2011-2021)
The 2021 benthos samples for Little Creek represented the 11th
consecutive year of Mod Alt L benthic macroinvertebrate collections. For the sweeps to date, the
number of dominants identified to species was eight for upstream and nine for downstream;
among those species three were found only upstream and four only downstream (Table III-G2).
Community structure metrics for upstream and downstream sweeps by year are in Table III-G3.
For the ponars to date the number of dominants identified to species was six for upstream and 12
for downstream; among those species three were found only upstream and nine were found only
downstream (Table III-G4). Community structure metrics for upstream and downstream ponars
are in Table III-G5.
i. Little Creek Upstream Sweeps
Multivariate cluster analysis of sweep taxa richness and abundance
within upstream Little Creek by SIMPROF revealed slight variation of statistical significance
between years among four distinct clusters (Figure III-G8 a). Comparison of interannual variability
between the clusters by SIMPER indicated similarity ranged from 20.4 to 53.7 percent. Cluster A
and B consisted of only one year (2012 and 2019, respectively), C consisted of two years (2011
and 2013), and D consisted of seven years (2014-2018, 2020, and 2021). The two least similar
III-G-19

clusters were A and B (20.4 similarity percentage), with differences being driven by the absence
of Corixidae species, and higher abundances in Enchytraeidae species and Tanytarsus species
in A.
Dominants in sweeps within upstream Little Creek contained
Gammarus tigrinus every year except 2012 and Cyprideis littoralis from 2015-2020, while species
of Littoridinops were dominant six out of 11 years. There were no new dominant species in 2021
(Table III-G2). Total abundance ranged from 404 (2021) to 2,002 individuals (2013), while species
richness ranged from 15 (2020) to 29 taxa (2017 and 2021). The EBI score was 1.42 (previous
range: 1.50 to 1.92) (Table III-G3).
ii. Little Creek Downstream Sweeps
Multivariate cluster analysis of sweep taxa richness and abundance
within downstream Little Creek by SIMPROF revealed slight variation of statistical significance
between years among four distinct clusters (Figure III-G8 b). Cluster A and B consisted of one
year (2021 and 2018, respectively), C consisted of two years (2011 and 2013), and D consisted
of the remainder of years. Comparison of interannual variability between the clusters by SIMPER
ranged from 25.5 to 48.8.
Sweeps within downstream Little Creek contained species of
Littoridinops every year except 2013 and species of Apocorophium every year except 2019 and
2021 as dominants, while Gammarus tigrinus was among the four most abundant species every
year since its first appearance as a dominant in 2015; no new dominant species since 2019 (Table
III-G2). Species richness ranged from 16 (2021) to 36 taxa (2012 and 2019), total abundance
ranged from 59 (2021) to 1,502 individuals (2017), and EBI scores ranged from 1.79 (2017) to
2.25 (2013) (Table III-G3). The 2021 EBI score was 2.04.
iii. Little Creek Upstream Ponar Grabs
Multivariate cluster analysis of taxa richness and abundance within
downstream Little Creek ponar grabs by SIMPROF revealed slight variation of statistical
significance between years among two distinct clusters (Figure III-G8 c). Cluster A contained one
year (2020) and B contained the other eight (2011-2019, and 2021). The SIMPER test revealed
that the two clusters were 26.9 percent similar.
Ponar grabs within upstream Little Creek usually contained
Gammarus tigrinus (every year except 2012 and 2021), Amphicteis floridus, and Chironomus
decorus as dominants, with Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri present as a dominant for the first time in
2021 (Table III-G4). Species richness ranged from 6 (2020) to 23 taxa (2013) and total
abundance ranged from 69 (2020) to 1,865 individuals (2013) (Table III-G5). In 2021, the total
abundance was 534 individuals among 15 taxa. The Shannon -Wiener diversity score in 2021 was
1.32 (range: 1.08 — 2.27) and the EBI score was 1.49 (range: 1.38 — 2.00).
iv. Little Creek Downstream Ponar Grabs
Multivariate cluster analysis of taxa richness and abundance within
downstream Little Creek ponar grabs by SIMPROF revealed slight variation of statistical
significance between years among three distinct clusters (Figure III-G8 d). Cluster A contained
two years (2019 and 2021), B contained 2012, and C contained the remainder years (2011, 2013-
2018, and 2020). The SIMPER test revealed that the three clusters ranged from 27.6 to 33.3
percent similarity.
III-G-20

Ponar grabs within downstream Little Creek often included
Mediomastus ambiseta (five out of 11 years), Streblospio benedicti (seven out of 11 years), and
species of Apocorophium (five out of 11 years) as dominants; Tanypus neopunctipennis was a
new dominant species in 2021 (Table III-G4). Species richness ranged from 11 (2019 and 2021)
to 28 taxa (2013) and total abundance ranged from 354 (2020) to 2,023 individuals (2013). In
2021, total abundance was 539 individuals, Shannon -Wiener diversity score was the lowest at
0.38 (previous range: 0.75 — 2.40), and EBI score was the lowest at 1.06 (previous range: 1.24 —
1.98) (Table III-G5).
PA2 (2011-2021)
The 2021 benthos samples for PA2 represented the 11th consecutive year
of Mod Alt L benthic macroinvertebrate collections. For the sweeps to date, the number of
dominants identified to species was six for both upstream and downstream; among those species
one was found only upstream and another was found only downstream (Table III-G2). The
upstream and downstream sweeps had matched dominants in four years (2014, 2015, 2017 and
2020) (Table III-G2). Community structure metrics for upstream and downstream sweeps by year
are in Table III-G3. For the ponars to date the number of dominants identified to species was
nine for both upstream and downstream; among those species one was found only upstream and
downstream (Table III-G4). Community structure metrics for upstream and downstream ponars
by year are in Table III-G5.
i. PA2 Upstream Sweeps
Multivariate cluster analysis of sweeps taxa richness and
abundance within upstream PA2 by SIMPROF revealed slight variation of statistical significance
between years between two distinct clusters (Figure III-G9 a). Cluster A contained four years
(2011-2014) and B contained seven years (2015-2021). The SIMPER test showed that both
clusters were 52.5 percent similar, with differences predominantly driven by higher abundances
of Gammarus tigrinus, species of Corixidae, and Trichocorixa sexcinta in B.
Sweeps within upstream PA2 always contained Littoridinops and
Apocorophium species (except 2013) as dominants, with Goeldichironomus devineyae (every
year except 2011, 2016, 2017, and 2020) and Gammarus tigrinus (only five out of 11 years) less
frequently; no new dominant species have appeared since 2014 (Table III-G2). Species richness
ranged from 19 (2020) to 31 taxa (2019), total abundance ranged from 977 (2014) to 2,040
individuals (2016), EBI scores ranged from 1.70 (2019) to 2.23 (2012). In 2021 total abundance
was 1,121 individuals among 27 taxa and an EBI score of 1.74 (Table III-G3).
ii. PA2 Downstream Sweeps
According to SIMPROF, there were five distinct clusters (Figure III-
G9 b). Cluster A consisted of one year (2020), B consisted of two years (2016 and 2017), C
consisted of three years (2015, 2019, and 2021), D consisted of one year (2012), and D consisted
of four years (2011, 2013-2014 and 2018). The SIMPER test showed that clusters ranged from
50.2 to 69.1 percent similarity; clusters C and D were the least similar with the absence of
Littordinops species and Apedilum species predominately driving differences in C.
Sweeps within downstream PA2 contained Apocorophium species
each year, Littoridinops species each year except 2018, and often also had Goeldichironomus
devineyae (every year except 2017, 2018, and 2020) as dominants; no new dominants since 2018
(Table III-G2). Species richness ranged from 21 (2013) to 31 taxa (2019), total abundance ranged
from 1,123 (2014) to 2,183 individuals (2018), and EBI scores ranged from 1.75 (2021) to 2.33
(2012). In 2021, total abundance was 1,132 individuals among 30 taxa and EBI score was the
III-G-21

lowest (1.75) (Table III-G3).
PA2 Upstream Ponar Grabs
According to SIMPROF, there were no clusters among the 11 years
of ponar grabs collected from upstream PA2.
Ponar grabs within upstream PA2 usually contained Littoridinops
species (every year except 2013, 2016, and 2018) and Chironomus decorus (every year except
2015, 2017, and 2020) as dominants; Laeonereis culveri was a new dominant in 2021 (Table III-
G4). Species richness ranged from seven (2012) to 19 taxa (2017) and total abundance ranged
from 305 (2014) to 784 individuals (2011). In 2021, total abundance was 374 individuals among
14 taxa, Shannon -Wiener diversity score was 1.35 (range: 1.07-2.28), and the EBI score was the
lowest at 1.18 (previous range: 1.42-2.87) (Table III-G5).
iv. PA2 Downstream Ponar Grabs
Multivariate cluster analysis of ponar grabs taxa richness and
abundance within downstream PA2 by SIMPROF revealed slight variation of statistical
significance between years among four distinct clusters (Figure III-G9 c). Cluster A contained
(2020), B contained two years (2016 and 2017), and C contained four years (2015, 2018, 2019,
and 2021), and D contained the remainder years (2011-2014). The SIMPER test showed that
similarity ranged from 25.5 to 44 percent.
Ponar grabs within downstream PA2 usually had species of
Littoridinops (each year except 2011, 2016, and 2019) as a dominant, while other dominants
frequently included Chironomus decorus (seven out of 11 years) and Laeonereis culveri (two out
of 11 years), and Amphicteis floridus (four out of 11 years. There were no new dominant species
in 2014 and 2018-2021 (Table III-G4). Community structure comparisons for the ponar grabs
within downstream PA2 indicate that species richness ranged from 11 (2014) to 27 (2015 and
2017) and total abundance ranged from 137 individuals (2020) to 1,392 individuals (2018). The
2021 ponars contained 21 taxa and total abundance of 762. The Shannon -Wiener diversity score
was 2.11 (range: 1.15 — 2.46) and the EBI score was 1.47 (range: 1.38 — 2.82) (Table III-G5).
Long Creek (2011-2021)
The 2021 benthos samples for Long Creek represented the 11 th
consecutive year of benthic macroinvertebrate collections. For the sweeps to date the number of
dominants identified to species was eight for both upstream and downstream; among those
species five were found only upstream and five were found only downstream (Table III-G2).
Community structure metrics for upstream and downstream sweeps are in Table III-G3. For the
ponars to date the number of dominants identified to species was 11 for upstream and 12 for
downstream; among those species one was found only upstream and two were only downstream
(Table III-G4). Community structure metrics for upstream and downstream ponars by year are in
Table III-G5.
i. Long Creek Upstream Sweeps
Multivariate cluster analysis of benthic sweep taxa richness and
abundance within upstream Long Creek by SIMPROF revealed slight variation of statistical
significance between years among five distinct clusters (Figure III-G10 a). Cluster A, B, and C all
had one year each (2020, 2012, and 2019, respectively), D consisted of five years (2015-2018,
and 2021), and E consisted of three years (2011, 2013, and 2014). Comparison of interannual
variability by means of similarity percentages (SIMPER) ranged from 18.2 to 58.0 percent.
Clusters A and C were least similar with a percent similarity of 18.2, which was predominately
III-G-22

from the absence of species of Chironomus and Tanytarsus in A.
Sweeps within upstream Long Creek usually contained species of
Apocorophium (every year except 2013 and 2019) and Littoridinops (every year except 2014),
and often Chironomus decorus (every year except 2017, 2018, and 2020) or species of
Gammarus (five out of 11 years) as dominants; no new dominant species in 2021 (Table III-G2).
Species richness ranged from 21 (2020) to 40 taxa (2019), total abundance ranged from 250
(2020) to 2,930 individuals (2019), and EBI scores ranged from 1.64 (2019) to 2.05 (2011). In
2021 the total abundance was 1,292 individuals among 24 taxa and the EBI was 1.84 (Table III-
G3).
ii. Long Creek Downstream Sweeps
Multivariate cluster analysis of benthic sweep taxa richness and
abundance within downstream Long Creek by SIMPROF revealed slight variation of statistical
significance between years among four distinct clusters (Figure III-G10 b). Cluster A consisted
of only one year (2012), B consisted of three years (2016, 2019, and 2021), C consisted of five
years (2011, 2013-2015, and 2018) and D consisted of 2017 and 2020. Comparison of interannual
variability by SIMPER indicated that the clusters A and D were least similar with a 34 percent
similarity. This difference was predominantly driven by higher abundances of Americamysis
almyra in A and an absence of Nematoda species in D.
Sweeps within downstream Long Creek have not contained any
new dominants since 2014, but usually contained species of Gammarus (nine of the 11 years had
both G. tigrinus and G. mucronatus as dominants) and species of Apocorophium (almost every
year) (Table III-G2). Species richness ranged from 17 (2020) to 37 taxa (2015), total abundance
ranged from 530 (2020) to 1,566 individuals (2017), and EBI scores ranged from 1.86 (2021) to
2.12 (2016). In 2021, total abundance was 672 individuals among 26 taxa and the EBI score was
the lowest to date (1.86) (Table III-G3).
Long Creek Upstream Ponar Grabs
According to SIMPROF, there were no clusters among the 11 years
of ponar grabs for upstream Long Creek.
Ponar grabs within upstream Long Creek usually contained
Chironomus decorus (eight out of 11 years) and species of Gammarus (nine out of 11 years) as
dominants (two of the eight years had both G. tigrinus and G. mucronatus as dominants), with
Ampphicteis floridus (two out of 11 years) a less frequent dominant. Tanypus neopunctipennis
was a new dominant species in 2021 (Table III-G4). Species richness ranged from 8 (2021) to
32 taxa (2018) and total abundance ranged from 86 (2016) to 941 individuals (2013). In 2021,
there were 510 individuals among the lowest species richness to date (8 taxa), a Shannon -Wiener
diversity score of 0.52 (previous range: 1.11 — 2.56) and an EBI score of 1.18 (previous range
1.22 — 2.31) (Table III-G5).
iv. Long Creek Downstream Ponar Grabs
According to SIMPROF, there were no clusters among the 10 years
of ponar grabs for downstream Long Creek.
Ponar grabs within downstream Long Creek usually contained
Chironomus decorus (six out of 11 years) and Streblospio benedicti (eight out of 11 years as
dominants. Like Long upstream, Tanypus neopunctipennis was a new dominant in 2021 (Table
III-G4). Species richness ranged from 9 (2020) to 22 taxa (2018) and total abundance ranged
III-G-23

from 70 (2020) to 941 individuals (2015). In 2021, total abundance was 511 individuals among 10
taxa. Shannon -Wiener diversity score was the lowest to date with 0.54 (previous range: 0.94-
2.66) and the EBI score was 1.06 (range: 1.27-2.03) (Table III-G5).
Muddy Creek (1998-2005; 2007-2021)
The 2021 benthos samples for Muddy Creek represented the 23rd year of
benthic macroinvertebrate collections and as the only early control creek, it has the longest data
set among all creeks in the study for benthos, fish, and sediment metals. For sweeps to date the
number of dominants identified to species was eight for upstream and 11 for downstream; among
those species none was found only upstream and three were only downstream (Table III-G2).
Community structure metrics for upstream and downstream sweeps by year are in Table III-G3.
For ponars to date the number of dominants identified to species was 18 for upstream and 17 for
downstream; among those species four were found only upstream and three only downstream
(Table III-G4). Community structure metrics for upstream and downstream ponars by year in
Muddy Creek are in Table III-G5.
i. Muddy Creek Upstream Sweeps
Multivariate cluster analysis of benthic sweep taxa richness and
abundance from upstream Muddy Creek by SIMPROF revealed statistically significant variation
between years among six distinct clusters (Figure III-G11 a). Cluster A contained 1998, B
contained four years (1999-2001, and 2004), C contained 2002, D contained 2019, E contained
seven years (2005, 2007, 2015-2018, and 2021), and F contained nine years (2003, 2008-2014,
and 2020). Clusters that had the lowest percent similarity were A and C (37.3) predominantly due
to higher abundances of species of Apedilum and Polydora cornuta in C.
Sweep data revealed no new taxa for upstream Muddy Creek
dominants since 2012. Dominants over the years usually contained species of Littoridinops (22
out of 23 years), Gammarus, and Apocorophium (both 15 out of 23 years) (Table III-G2). Species
richness ranged between 23 (2010) and 40 taxa (2019), total abundance ranged from 602 (2012)
to 2,521 individuals (1998), and EBI scores ranged from 1.67 (1998) to 2.42 (2008). In 2021
abundance was 1,314 individuals among 24 taxa and EBI was 2.00 (Table III-G3).
ii. Muddy Creek Downstream Sweeps
Multivariate cluster analysis of benthic sweep taxa richness and
abundance from downstream Muddy Creek by SIMPROF revealed statistically significant
variation between years among eight distinct clusters (Figure III-G11 b). Cluster A contained
three years (2002, 2008, and 2009), B contained 1998, C contained two years (2012 and 2020),
D contained year 1999, E contained eight years (2011 and 2013), F contained four years (2000,
2003, 2007, and 2010), G contained three years (2001, 2004, and 2005), and H contained the
remainder of the years (2014-2019, and 2021).
Sweeps within downstream Muddy Creek usually contained
Littoridinops species (19 out of 23 years), Apocorophium species (17 out of 23 years), and
Gammarus species (20 out of 23 years) as dominants; no new dominant species have appeared
since 2012 (Table III-G2). Species richness ranged from 23 (2021) to 50 taxa (1998), total
abundance ranged from 532 (2012) to 3,062 individuals (1998), and EBI scores ranged from 1.77
(2001) to 2.47 (2008). In 2021, there were 900 individuals among the lowest species richness to
date (23 taxa), and an EBI score of 2.01 (Table III-G3).
III-G-24

iii. Muddy Creek Upstream Ponar Grabs
Multivariate cluster analysis of benthic ponar grabs taxa richness
and abundance from upstream Muddy Creek by a similarity profile test (SIMPROF) revealed
statistically significant variation between years among four distinct clusters (Figure III-G11 c).
Cluster A contained two years (2012 and 2014), B contained two years (2017 and 2020), C
contained two years (1998 and 1999), and D contained 17 years (2000-2005, 20072011, 2013,
2015, 2016, 2018, 2019, and 2021).
Ponar grab data revealed that upstream Muddy Creek most often
contained Chironomus decorus (17 out of 23 years) as a dominant, with Streblospio benedicti
(eight out of 23 years), and species of Gammarus (seven out of 23 years) less frequently; 2020
was the last year a new dominant species appeared (Table III-G4). Species richness ranged from
six (2001) to 21 (1998) and total abundance ranged from 35 individuals (2008) to 1,191 individuals
(1998). In 2021, there were 256 individuals among 10 taxa, Shannon -Weiner score was 0.71
(previous range: 0.82 — 2.37), and EBI score was 1.20 (range: 1.05 — 2.05) (Table III-G5).
iv. Muddy Creek Downstream Ponar Grabs
Multivariate cluster analysis of benthic ponar grabs taxa richness
and abundance from downstream Muddy Creek by SIMPROF revealed variation of statistical
significance between years among five distinct clusters (Figure III-G11 d). Cluster A contained
1998, B contained two years (2017 and 2020), C contained 2008, D contained 2013, and E
contained the remainder years (1999 — 2005, 2007, 2009 — 2012, and 2014 — 2016, 2018-2019,
and 2021).
Ponar grabs in downstream Muddy Creek usually contained
Chironomus decorus (18 out of the 23 years) with Gammarus tigrinus (six out of 23 years) and
Streblospio benedicti (nine out of 23 years) appearing less frequently; one new dominant species
was present in 2021, Tanypus neopunctipennis (Table III-G4). Species richness ranged from 12
(2003 and 2008) to 26 taxa (2009) and total abundance ranged from 61 (2020) to 1,329 individuals
(2011). In 2021, the total abundance was 498 individuals among 14 taxa, a Shannon -Wiener
diversity score of 0.63 (previous range: 1.02 — 2.54), and an EBI score of 1.12 (previous range:
1.24 — 2.02) (Table III-G5).
DCUT19 (2013-2021)
The 2021 benthos samples for DCUT19 represented the eighth
consecutive year of Mod Alt L benthic macroinvertebrate collections. For the sweeps to date the
number of dominants identified to species was eight for upstream and nine for downstream;
among those species one was found only upstream and one only downstream (Table III-G2).
Community structure metrics for upstream and downstream sweeps by year are in Table III-G3.
For the ponars to date the number of dominants identified to species was seven for upstream and
nine for downstream; among those species one was found only upstream and three only
downstream (Table III-G4). Community structure metrics for upstream and downstream ponars
by year are in Table III-G5.
i. DCUT19 Upstream Sweeps
Multivariate cluster analysis of benthic sweeps taxa richness and
abundance within upstream DCUT19 by SIMPROF showed no statistical significance between
study years.
Sweep data revealed that upstream DCUT19 contained species of
Littoridinops each year as a dominant with Goeldichironomus devineyae (two out of eight years)
III-G-25

and species of Tanytarsus (four out of eight years) less often; no new species appeared for the
first time as a dominant in 2021 (Table III-G2). Species richness ranged from 23 (2013) to 33
(2016), total abundance ranged from 674 individuals (2021) to 2,011 individuals (2014), and EBI
scores ranged from 1.54 (2019) to 2.00 (2018). In 2021, the total abundance was the lowest to
date (674 individuals) among 24 taxa with an EBI of 1.84 (Table III-G3).
ii. DCUT19 Downstream Sweeps
Multivariate cluster analysis of benthic sweep taxa richness and
abundance from downstream DCUT19 by SIMPROF revealed statistically significant variation
between years among two distinct clusters (Figure III-G12). Cluster A only had 2021, while cluster
B had the remaining years (2013-2020).
Sweeps collected in downstream DCUT19 contained Littoridinops species every year as a
dominant and often had Gammarus tigrinus (seven out of eight years), and Hargeria rapax (four
out of eight years) as other dominants. There were three new dominant species present in 2021
(Table III-G2). Species richness ranged from 23 (2021) to 35 (2014), total abundance ranged
from 456 individuals (2021) to 2,471 individuals (2013), and EBI scores ranged from 1.74 (2016)
to 1.99 (2018). In 2021, total abundance was the lowest to date (456 individuals) among the
lowest species richness (23 taxa), and an EBI score of 1.88 (Table III-G3).
DCUT19 Upstream Ponar Grabs
According to SIMPROF, there were no clusters among the eight
years of ponar grabs from upstream DCUT19.
Ponar grabs revealed that upstream DCUT19 contained species of
Littoridinops each year and often contained Chironomus decorus (four out of eight years) as
dominants; Dicrotendipes nervosus was a new dominant species in 2021 (Table III-G4). Species
richness ranged from 13 (2015 and 2018) to 21 (2013) and total abundance ranged from 170
individuals (2015) to 1,169 individuals (2016). In 2021, total abundance was 730 individuals
among 15 taxa, Shannon -Wiener diversity score was 1.99 (range: 1.67 - 2.49), and EBI score
was 1.63 (previous range 1.71 - 2.12) (Table III-G5).
iv. DCUT19 Downstream Ponar Grabs
According to SIMPROF, there were no clusters among the seven
years of ponar grabs from downstream DCUT19.
Ponar grabs within downstream DCUT19 contained Gammarus
tigrinus every year and often contained Amphicteis floridus (five out of eight years) or Hargeria
rapax (five out of eight years) as dominants. Dicrotendipes nervosus was a new dominant species
in 2021 (Table III-G4). Species richness ranged from 13 (2019) to 27 (2015) and total abundance
ranged from 636 individuals (2018) to 2,641 individuals (2017). In 2021, total abundance was
2,040 individuals among 19 taxa, Shannon -Wiener diversity score was 2.13 (range: 1.25 - 2.74),
and EBI score was 1.71 (range 1.71 - 2.03) (Table III-G5).
Duck Creek (2011-2021)
The 2021 benthos samples for Duck Creek represented the 11th
consecutive year of benthic macroinvertebrate collections. For the sweeps to date the number of
dominants identified to species was seven for upstream and 10 for downstream; among those
species two were found only upstream and five were found only downstream (Table III-G2).
Community structure metrics for upstream and downstream sweeps by year are in Table III-G3.
For the downstream ponars to date the number of dominants identified to species was six
III-G-26

upstream and 15 downstream; among those species one was found only upstream and 10 only
downstream (Table III-G4). Community structure metrics for upstream and downstream ponars
by year are in Table III-G5.
i. Duck Creek Upstream Sweeps
Multivariate cluster analysis of benthic sweep taxa richness and
abundance within upstream Duck Creek by SIMPROF revealed slight statistically significant
variation between years among three distinct clusters (Figure III-G13 a). Cluster A contained
2019 and 2021, B contained four years (2015-2018), and C contained five years (2011-2014 and
2020). Comparison of interannual variability between the clusters by SIMPER indicated similarity
ranged from 50.4 to 54.4 percent. Clusters A and C were the least similar (50.4 percent similarity)
with differences predominantly driven by the absence of Dero species, Pristina species, and
Kiefferulus species in C.
Sweeps in upstream Duck Creek almost always contained
Gammarus tigrinus (10 out of 11 years) and sometimes contained Dicrotendipes nervosus (three
out of 11 years) and Lirttordinops tenuipes (three out of 11 years) as dominants; no new dominant
species occurred in 2021 (Table III-G2). Species richness ranged from 19 (2021) to 34 taxa
(2017), total abundance ranged from 627 (2013) to 1,956 individuals (2015), and EBI scores
ranged from 1.50 (2019) to 1.92 (2013 and 2020). In 2021, total abundance was 1,357 individuals
among the lowest species richness to date of 19 taxa and EBI score was 1.64 (Table III-G3).
ii. Duck Creek Downstream Sweeps
Multivariate cluster analysis of benthic sweep taxa richness and
abundance within downstream Duck Creek by SIMPROF revealed slight statistically significant
variation between years among four distinct clusters (Figure III-G13 b). Cluster A and B contained
one year each (2021 and 2020, respectively), C contained three years (2015-2017 and 2019), D
contained five years (2011-2014 and 2018). Comparison of interannual variability between the
clusters by SIMPER indicated percent similarity ranged from 45.1 to 61.3. Clusters A and D were
less similar due largely to higher abundance of Hargeria rapax, Amphicteis floridus, and species
of Chironomus in D.
Sweeps in downstream Duck Creek usually contained Gammarus
tigrinus (10 out of 11 years) and Littoridinops species (nine out of 11 years) as dominants, while
Paleomonetes pugio was a dominant for the third year in a row in 2021 (first appearance in 2019)
(Table III-G2). Species richness ranged from 20 (2016) to 32 taxa (2013 and 2018), total
abundance ranged from 574 (2021) to 2,172 individuals (2014), and EBI scores ranged from 1.89
(2018) to 2.13 (2016). In 2021, total abundance was the lowest to date (574 individuals) among
24 taxa and an EBI score of 2.03 (Table III-G3).
iii. Duck Creek Upstream Ponar Grabs
Multivariate cluster analysis of benthic ponar grabs taxa richness
and abundance within upstream Duck Creek by a similarity profile test (SIMPROF) revealed slight
statistically significant variation between years between three distinct clusters (Figure III-G13 c).
Cluster A and B had one year each (2019 and 2021, respectively) and C contained the remainder
(2011-2018 and 2020). Comparison of interannual variability between the clusters by SIMPER
indicated clusters A and B were 30.2 percent similar with differences predominately due to the
absence of Amphicteis floridus and greater abundance of species of Candonidae in A.
Ponar grabs in upstream Duck Creek consistently contained
Gammarus tigrinus (nine out of 11 years), while Amphicteis floridus (eight out of 11 years) was
III-G-27

frequently its co -dominant species; 2016 was the last year a new dominant appeared (Table III-
G4). Species richness ranged from eight (2018) to 19 taxa (2013 and 2016) and total abundance
ranged from 122 (2021) to 1,944 individuals (2014). In 2021, total abundance was the lowest to
date (122 individuals) among 13 taxa, the Shannon -Wiener diversity score was 2.27 (previous
range: 1.34 — 2.20), and the EBI score was 1.64 (range: 1.54 — 2.01) (Table III-G5).
iv. Duck Creek Downstream Ponar Grabs
According to SIMPROF, there were no clusters among the nine
years of ponar grabs for downstream Duck Creek.
Ponar grabs in downstream Duck Creek frequently contained
Chironomus decorus (eight out of 11 years) as dominant species often with Mediomastus
ambiseta (four out of 11 years), Gammarus tigrinus (three out of 11 years), and Amphicteis
floridus (two out of 11 years) less frequently; no new dominant species appeared in 2021 (Table
III-G4). Species richness ranged from 11 (2019) to 25 (2017) and total abundance ranged from
147 individuals (2016) to 1,206 individuals (2011). In 2021, total abundance was 285 individuals
among 14 taxa, Shannon -Wiener diversity score was 1.54 (range: 0.83 — 2.20), and the EBI score
was 1.35 (range: 1.27 — 2.25) (Table III-G5).
2.0 Ponar Grabs Benthic Feeding Guild and Trophic Level Results
Each species ever collected in a ponar grab was assigned a number between 0
and 3 for each of the four trophic level categories (herbivore, detritivore, carnivore, and parasite)
and each of the six functional feeding guild categories (gatherer/collector, filterer/collector,
scraper, predator, grazer, and shredder). A '0' indicated that the species had no affinity to that
particular category whereas a '3' indicated that the species had high affinity to that particular
category. An advantage to this approach is that a species could be assigned nonzero values in
multiple categories, which addresses species that are omnivorous (e.g., herbivore and carnivore),
or species that display multiple or facultative feeding modes (e.g., predator and
gatherer/collector). Omnivory and multiple feeding modes are extremely common among benthic
macroinvertebrates.
The technique of fuzzy correspondence analysis (FCA) allowed examination of the
list of species designations for differentiation. An FCA is similar to an ordinary correspondence
analysis except that species can have membership in multiple categories. The outputs of an FCA
are standardized, normally distributed scores for a certain number of axes for each species. Each
axis represents some type of differentiation of the categories. From year to year, an axis number
and the categories along that axis number may change as far as the loadings are determined. Six
axes were produced which differentiated the trophic level categories and functional feeding guild
categories. Thus, each species was described by a separate score for six different axes, each
describing a different combination of trophic level and/or functional feeding guild (refer to Section
II-C for a description of the guild and trophic level distribution across the six axes and a depiction
of the loadings).
To characterize the trophic level and functional feeding guild of the benthic
macroinvertebrate community of each creek, each species' FCA score on each of the six axes
was multiplied by its relative abundance for each ponar grab conducted in the creek. Relative
abundance was computed as the abundance of a particular species divided by the total
abundance of the sample. Species with an abundance of 0 were given a relative abundance of
0. A sum of the FCA scores weighted by the relative abundance of each species was obtained.
This process was repeated for each of the six axes from the FCA. Thus, the benthic
III-G-28

macroinvertebrate community of every ponar grab across all creeks, years, locations (upstream
vs. downstream), and sample (1 - 5) is described by this summed value for each of the six FCA
axes. These summed weighted FCA scores were used in subsequent statistical analyses.
Temporal depictions within the six axes and cluster dendrograms based on the FCA scores are
in Figures III-G14 — G31 and described in detail below. The arrows above or below zero on the
right edge of the temporal depictions of the six axes are the same on each figure and indicate the
relationships among the major trophic levels and/or feeding guilds for that axis. Values relative
to zero (positive or negative designations as shown on Figure II-C21 a - f) are important to note
for interpretation of the benthic community relationships in the Section III-G upstream/downstream
axis figures; e.g., an "increase" in a particular year fora specific guild could appear as a rise above
zero on one axis and a dip below zero on another, depending on the negative or positive
designation for that specific trophic level or guild across all years (as shown in Figure II-C21 a -
f). Gatherer/collector and predator were consistently close to the axes' origins and therefore less
distinctly differentiated.
a. Post -Mod Alt L Creeks Guild Data from Ponar Grabs
i. Jacks Creek Upstream Guilds/Trophic Levels
Multivariate cluster analysis of the FCA scores for upstream ponar
grabs of Jacks Creek by SIMPROF revealed slight variation of statistical significance between
years among seven distinct clusters (Figure III-G14 a). Cluster A contained 2012, B contained
five years (2002-2004, 2013, and 2020), C contained two years (2000 and 2021), D contained
four years (2001, 2005, 2011, and 2015), E contained 1998, F contained two years (2014 and
2016), and G contained five years (1999, 2017-2019). The six post -Mod Alt L years split among
four of the groups with pre -Mod Alt L years.
The upstream ponar grab macroinvertebrate community data were
mainly composed of the carnivore trophic level in the three earliest years (1998 — 2000) and in
2021, but mostly composed of the herbivore and detritivore trophic levels (Figure III-G14 b).
Feeding guilds have been variable over the years, but in 2021, there was an increase in shredder.
Comparison of interannual variability between pre- and post -Mod
Alt L ponar grab taxa FCA scores in upstream Jacks Creek by SIMPER revealed that differences
were predominantly due to slightly less herbivore and detritivore in the post -Mod Alt L years.
However, comparison of interannual variability between pre- and post -Mod Alt L guild and trophic
level composition of benthic macroinvertebrate communities of upstream Jacks Creek by
ANOSIM detected no spatial differences of statistical significance.
Differences in guild composition between pre- and post -Mod Alt L
years for Jacks Creek upstream stations were compared to the corresponding years and stations
for Muddy Creek (control creek containing long-term data from 1998 only and Little Creek (closest
control creek with data from 2011)). Separate mixed -model analysis of variances (ANOVAs) for
each FCA axis, with Creek and Mod Alt L Status as fixed effects and ponar subsample as a
random effect, revealed no significant Creek: Mod Alt L Status interaction for the comparison of
upstream Jacks Creek to Muddy Creek (Figure III-G14 c). The lack of a significant interaction
indicates that changes in guild structure between pre- and post -Mod Alt L years did not differ
between impact and control creeks.
III-G-29

ii. Jacks Creek Downstream Guilds/Trophic Levels
According to SIMPROF, there were no clusters among FCA scores
for ponar grabs.
Herbivore and detritivore trophic levels consistently dominated the
downstream benthic macroinvertebrate community of Jacks Creek. However, herbivore and
detritivore trophic guilds trended closer to zero in 1999, 2000, and 2020 (Figure III-G14 b).
Predominance of different functional feeding guilds did slightly vary, mostly between scraper,
grazer, and parasite; although shredder trended closer to zero from 2015-2017, and 2020 on Axis
4 (Figure III-G14 b). Filter -collector was predominant from 2011-2019; although there was a trend
towards zero in 2013, 2015, and 2019.
Comparison of interannual variability between pre- and post -Mod
Alt L downstream ponar grab taxa FCA scores within Jacks Creek by SIMPER revealed that
differences were driven predominantly by more scraper in the post -Mod Alt L years. However,
comparison of interannual variability between pre- and post -Mod Alt L guild and trophic level
composition of benthic macroinvertebrate communities of downstream Jacks Creek by ANOSIM
detected no spatial differences of statistical significance.
Differences in guild composition between pre- and post -Mod Alt L
years for Jacks Creek downstream ponar samples were compared to the corresponding years
and samples for the control creeks Muddy and Little. Separate mixed -model ANOVAs for each
FCA axis, with Creek and Mod Alt L Status as fixed effects and ponar subsample as a random
effect, revealed no significant Creek: Mod Alt L Status interaction for the comparison between
Jacks Creek and Little or Muddy creeks (Figure III-G14 c). The lack of a significant interaction
indicates that changes in guild structure between pre- and post -Mod Alt L years did not differ
between impact and control creeks.
N. Jacobs Creek Upstream Guilds/Trophic Levels
According to SIMPROF, there were no clusters among FCA scores
for ponar grabs.
Ponar grab data revealed that the benthic macroinvertebrate
community in 2021 upstream Jacobs Creek was mostly composed of carnivore and parasite
trophic levels, which has not occurred yet in Jacobs Creek (Figure III-G15 b). Guilds and trophic
levels have not varied substantially over the ten years; however, there was some variability among
each ponar grab sample in 2013, 2016, 2017, and 2020.
Comparison of interannual variability between pre- and post -Mod
Alt L ponar taxa FCA scores within upstream Jacobs Creek by SIMPER revealed that differences
were predominantly due to slightly more shredder and scraper for the post -Mod Alt L years.
Comparison of interannual variability between pre- and post -Mod Alt L guild and trophic level
composition of benthic macroinvertebrate communities of upstream Jacobs Creek by ANOSIM
detected no spatial differences of statistical significance.
Differences in guild composition between pre- and post -Mod Alt L
years for Jacobs Creek upstream stations were compared to the corresponding years for PA2
(closest control creek) and Long Creek (control creek across South Creek from Jacobs Creek).
Separate ANOVAs for each FCA axis, with Creek Status (Impact/Control) as fixed effects and
ponar subsample as a random effect, revealed no significant Creek: Mod Alt L Status interaction
for the comparisons. The lack of a significant interaction indicates that changes in guild structure
III-G-30

between pre- and post -Mod Alt L years did not differ between impact and control creeks (Figure
III-G15).
iv. Jacobs Creek Downstream Guilds/Trophic Levels
Multivariate cluster analysis of the FCA scores for downstream
ponar grabs of Jacobs Creek by SIMPROF revealed slight variation of statistical significance
between years among two distinct clusters (Figure III-G15 a). Cluster A consisted of 2014 (the
first year post -Mod Alt L) and 2020 and B contained a mixture of pre- and post -Mod Alt L years.
Trophic and functional feeding guilds drove differences between clusters A and B predominately
by more scraper and grazer in A.
Downstream Jacobs Creek in 2021 was mostly composed of filter -
collector functional feeding guild (Axis 3) (Figure III-G15 b). This composition has varied over the
10 years, becoming more abundant in 2015-2019, followed by a composition closer to zero until
2021 (Axis 3). Scraper, grazer, and parasite increased from 2016-2018 before shredder started
to increase.
Comparison of interannual variability between pre- and post -Mod
Alt L ponar taxa FCA scores within downstream Jacobs Creek by SIMPER revealed that
differences were predominantly due to slightly more shredder, grazer, and parasite for the post -
Mod Alt L years. Comparison of interannual variability between pre- and post -Mod Alt L guild and
trophic level composition of benthic macroinvertebrate communities of downstream Jacobs Creek
by ANOSIM detected no spatial differences of statistical significance.
Differences in guild composition between pre- and post -Mod Alt L
years for Jacobs Creek downstream were compared to the corresponding years for PA2 and Long
Creek. Separate mixed -model ANOVAs for each FCA axis with Creek and Mod Alt L Status as
fixed effects and ponar subsample as a random effect revealed no significant interactions. The
lack of a significant interaction indicates that changes in guild structure between pre- and post -
Mod Alt L years did not differ between impact and control creeks (Figure III-G15 c).
v. Drinkwater Creek Upstream Guilds/Trophic Levels
Multivariate cluster analysis of the FCA scores for ponar grabs
within upstream Drinkwater Creek by SIMPROF revealed slight variation of statistical significance
between years among three distinct clusters (Figure III-G16 a). Cluster A consisted of two post -
Mod Alt L years (2013 and 2015), B contained two years (2011 and 2017), and C contained the
rest of the years (2012, 2014, 2016, 2018-2021).
Ponar grab data revealed that the benthic macroinvertebrate
community in upstream Drinkwater Creek was mostly composed of herbivore and detritivore
trophic levels; however, herbivore and detritivore trended toward zero in 2020 and 2021. Except
for slight changes in shredder, scraper, or grazer, the feeding guild relationships in the upstream
community did not vary much over the years (Figure III-G16 b).
Comparison of interannual variability between pre- and post -Mod
Alt L ponar taxa FCA scores within upstream Drinkwater Creek by SIMPER revealed that
differences were predominantly due to slightly more shredder and scraper post -Mod Alt L.
Comparison of interannual variability between pre- and post -Mod Alt L guild and trophic level
composition of benthic macroinvertebrate communities in upstream Drinkwater Creek by means
of ANOSIM detected no spatial differences of statistical significance.
III-G-31

Differences in guild composition between pre- and post -Mod Alt L
years for Drinkwater Creek upstream were compared to the corresponding years for PA2 (closest
control creek) and Long Creek (control creek across South Creek from Drinkwater Creek).
Separate ANOVAs for each FCA axis, with Creek and Mod Alt L Status as fixed effects and ponar
subsample as a random effect, revealed significant Creek: Mod Alt L Status interactions for the
comparison between Drinkwater Creek and PA2 or between Drinkwater Creek and Long Creek
(Figure III-G17). The lack of a significant interaction indicates that changes in guild structure
between pre- and post -Mod Alt L years did not differ between creeks.
vi. Drinkwater Creek Downstream Guilds/Trophic Levels
Multivariate cluster analysis of the FCA scores for ponar grabs
within upstream Drinkwater Creek by SIMPROF revealed slight variation of statistical significance
between years among two distinct clusters (Figure III-G16 c). Cluster A consisted of one post -
Mod Alt L year (2014) and B contained the remaining years (2011-2013, 2015-2021). Differences
between cluster A and B was predominantly driven by slightly more scraper in A.
Similar to upstream, the downstream benthic macroinvertebrate
community was mostly composed of herbivore and detritivore trophic levels; Axis 3 differentiation
from zero decreased since 2012, an indication that composition of shredder and grazer more
closely resembled the other guilds after 2012 (Figure III-G16 b). Filterer/collector was the
predominant functional feeding guild, except in 2014, 2016, and 2017.
Comparison of interannual variability between pre- and post -Mod
Alt L ponar taxa FCA scores within downstream Drinkwater Creek by SIMPER revealed
differences driven predominantly by more scrapers for the post -Mod Alt L years. Comparison of
interannual variability between pre- and post -Mod Alt L guild and trophic level composition of
benthic macroinvertebrate communities in downstream Drinkwater Creek by ANOSIM detected
no spatial differences of statistical significance.
Differences in guild composition between pre- and post -Mod Alt L
years for Drinkwater Creek downstream were compared to the corresponding years for PA2
(closest control creek) and Long Creek (control creek across South Creek from Drinkwater
Creek). Separate ANOVAs for each FCA axis, with Creek and Mod Alt L Status as fixed effects
and ponar subsample as a random effect, revealed one significant Creek: Mod Alt L Status
interaction for the comparison between Drinkwater Creek and PA2 (Axis 1: F = 7.54, P = 0.01);
herbivore and detritivore trophic levels were greater in post -Mod Alt L years of Drinkwater Creek
than in PA2 (Figure III-G17).
vii. Tooley Creek Upstream Guilds/Trophic Levels
Multivariate cluster analysis of the FCA scores for ponar grabs
within upstream Tooley Creek by SIMPROF revealed slight variation of statistical significance
between years among two distinct clusters (Figure III-G18 a). Cluster A contained 2020, while
cluster B contained the remaining years.
Ponar grab data revealed that the benthic macroinvertebrate
community in upstream Tooley Creek was mostly composed of herbivore and detritivore trophic
levels, with a temporary increase in carnivore and parasite in 1999 and 2000. Filter -collector was
a predominant guild from 2010-2016, 2018, and 2021, with a slight decrease in 2013-2015 (Axis
2). Scraper increased in relative abundance from 2015-2020 (Axis 6) (Figure III-G18 b).
III-G-32

Comparison of interannual variability between pre- and post -Mod
Alt L ponar grab taxa FCA scores within upstream Tooley Creek by SIMPER revealed that
differences were driven predominantly by slightly more scraper and shredder for the post -Mod Alt
L years. Comparison of interannual variability between pre- and post -Mod Alt L guild and trophic
level composition of benthic macroinvertebrate communities in upstream Tooley Creek by
ANOSIM detected no spatial differences of statistical significance.
Differences in guild composition between pre- and post -Mod Alt L
years for Tooley Creek upstream stations were compared to the corresponding years and stations
for Muddy Creek (control creek with long-term data from 1998), PA2 (control creek just south of
Tooley Creek with data since 2011), and Long Creek (control creek across South Creek from
Tooley Creek with data since 2011). Separate ANOVAs for each FCA axis, with Creek and Mod
Alt L Status as fixed effects and ponar subsample as a random effect, revealed no significant
Creek: Mod Alt L Status interactions for the comparison between Tooley Creek and Muddy Creek,
Tooley Creek and PA2, or Tooley Creek and Long Creek (Figure III-G19). The lack of a significant
interaction indicates that changes in guild structure between pre- and post -Mod Alt L years did
not differ between impact and control creeks.
viii. Tooley Creek Downstream Guilds/Trophic Levels
Multivariate cluster analysis of the FCA scores for ponar grabs
within downstream Tooley Creek by SIMPROF revealed slight variation of statistical significance
between years among six distinct clusters (Figure III-G18 c). Cluster A contained one post -Mod
Alt L year (2016), B contained two early years (1998 and 2000), C contained two post -Mod Alt L
years (2014 and 2018), D contained 2020, E contained 1999, and F contained eight years (2001,
2010-2013, 2015, 2017, 2019, and 2021) (Figure III-G18 c). Clusters B and E contained all pre -
Mod Alt L years, while clusters A, C, and D contained all post -Mod Alt L years (Figure III-G18 c).
Similar to upstream ponar grabs, the downstream benthic
macroinvertebrate community of Tooley Creek was composed mostly of herbivore and detritivore,
with a slight decrease only in 1999 (Figure III-G18 b). Filter/collector varied in earlier years but
was the predominant functional feeding guild from 2010-2018 (Axis 2). Scraper, grazer, and
parasite increased sharply in 2016 (Axis 4), but slowly declined from 2017-2021. There was
variability in guild composition among ponar samples in 2016 (Figure III-G18 b).
Comparison of interannual variability between pre- and post -Mod
Alt L ponar taxa FCA scores from downstream Tooley Creek by SIMPER revealed that differences
were driven predominantly by slightly more grazer, scraper, and parasite for the post -Mod Alt L
years. Comparison of interannual variability between pre- and post -Mod Alt L guild and trophic
level composition of benthic macroinvertebrate communities in downstream Tooley Creek by
means of ANOSIM detected no spatial differences of statistical significance.
Differences in guild composition between pre- and post -Mod Alt L
years for Tooley Creek downstream were compared to the corresponding years and stations for
Muddy and Long creeks and PA2. Separate mixed -model ANOVAs for each FCA axis, with Creek
and Mod Alt L Status as fixed effects and ponar subsample as a random effect, revealed a
significant Creek: Mod Alt L Status interaction for the Tooley/Muddy comparison (Axis 1: F = 6.31,
P = 0.02) and Tooley/Long (Axis 1: F = 7.04, P = 0.02), but none for Tooley/PA2 comparison
(Figure III-G19). Comparisons revealed greater abundances of herbivore and detritivore trophic
level for Tooley Creek than both Muddy Creek and Long Creek post -Mod Alt L.
III-G-33

ix. Huddles Cut Upstream Guilds/Trophic Levels
Multivariate cluster analysis of the FCA scores for ponar grabs
within upstream Huddles Cut by SIMPROF revealed slight variation of statistical significance
between years among six distinct clusters (Figure III-G20 a). Cluster A contained three post -Mod
Alt L years (2010, 2014, and 2018), B and C both contained one year (2016 and 2021,
respectively), D contained two pre -Mod Alt L years (2000 and 2019), E contained two years (1999
and 2009), and F contained nine years (2001, 2007, 2008, 2011-2013, 2015, 2017, and 2020)
(Figure III-G20 a).
Ponar grab data revealed that the benthic macroinvertebrate
community in upstream Huddles Cut was mostly composed of herbivore and detritivore, until 2021
where carnivore and parasite increased. The other functional feeding guilds fluctuated around
zero/the axis across the years with the greatest variation in 2010 (Figure III-G20 b).
Comparison of interannual variability between pre- and post -Mod
Alt L ponar taxa FCA scores from upstream Huddles Cut by SIMPER revealed that differences
were driven predominantly by slightly more filter/collector for the post -Mod Alt L years.
Comparison of interannual variability between pre- and post -Mod Alt L guild and trophic level
composition of benthic macroinvertebrate communities in upstream Huddles Cut by ANOSIM
detected no spatial differences of statistical significance.
Differences in guild composition between pre- and post -Mod Alt L
years for Huddles Cut upstream stations were compared to the corresponding years for Muddy
Creek (control creek with long-term data from 1998). Separate mixed -model ANOVAs for each
FCA axis, with Creek and Mod Alt L Status as fixed effects and ponar subsample as a random
effect, revealed one significant Creek: Mod Alt L Status interaction for the comparison between
Huddles Cut and Muddy Creek (Axis 1: F = 4.68, P = 0.04) (Figure III-G21). There were slightly
less herbivore and detritivore in Huddles pre -Mod Alt L compared to Muddy Creek.
x. Huddles Cut Downstream Guilds/Trophic Levels
Multivariate cluster analysis of the FCA scores for ponar grabs
within downstream Huddles Cut by SIMPROF revealed slight variation of significance between
years among three distinct clusters (Figure III-G20 c). Cluster A contained four years (2008, 2011,
2014, and 2015), B contained five years (2000, 2009, 2010, 2018, and 2019), and C contained
nine years (1999, 2001, 2007, 2012, 2013, 2016, 2017, 2020, and 2021). Each cluster contained
a mix of pre- and post -Mod Alt L years.
Unlike upstream, the benthic macroinvertebrate community of
downstream ponar grabs of Huddles Cut was not dominated by herbivore and detritivore every
year but was also dominated by parasite and/or carnivore for several years (2008, 2011, 2014,
and 2015) (Figure III-G20 b). The dominant functional feeding guilds varied little in previous years,
except for an increase in scraper, grazer, and parasite in 2001 and 2012 (Axis 4) and an increase
in 2020 of filter -collector (Axis 2).
Comparison of interannual variability between pre- and post -Mod
Alt L ponar taxa FCA scores within downstream Huddles Cut by SIMPER revealed that
differences were driven predominantly by slightly less shredder and scraper for the post -Mod Alt
L years. Comparison of interannual variability between pre- and post -Mod Alt L guild and trophic
level composition of benthic macroinvertebrate communities in downstream Huddles Cut ponar
grabs by ANOSIM detected no spatial differences of statistical significance.
III-G-34

Differences in guild composition between pre- and post -Mod Alt L
years for Huddles Cut downstream were compared to the corresponding years for Muddy Creek.
Separate mixed -model ANOVAs for each FCA axis, with Creek and Mod Alt L Status as fixed
effects and ponar subsample as a random effect, revealed no significant Creek: Mod Alt L Status
interactions for the comparison between Huddles Cut and Muddy Creek (Figure III-G21). The lack
of a significant interaction indicates that changes in guild structure between pre- and post -Mod
Alt L years did not differ between creeks.
xi. Porter Creek Upstream Guilds/Trophic Levels
Multivariate cluster analysis of the FCA scores for ponar grabs
within upstream Porter Creek by SIMPROF revealed slight variation of significance between years
among four distinct clusters (Figure III-G22 a). Cluster A contained one pre -Mod Alt L year (2013),
B contained three post -Mod Alt L years (2018-2020), C contained four years (2011, 2012, 2014,
and 2021), and D contained three years (2015-2017).
Ponar grab data revealed that the upstream Porter Creek benthic
macroinvertebrate community was mostly composed of herbivore and detritivore trophic levels
and filter -collector functional feeding guild (Figure III-G22 b). Functional feeding guilds varied
over the years. However, there was a decrease in shredder and scraper from 2014 to 2016 (Axis
3) (Figure III-G22 b).
Comparison of interannual variability between pre- and post -Mod
Alt L ponar taxa FCA scores within upstream Porter Creek by SIMPER revealed that differences
were driven predominantly by slightly more scraper and shredder post -Mod Alt L (2016-2020).
Comparison of interannual variability between pre- and post -Mod Alt L guild and trophic level
composition of benthic macroinvertebrate communities in upstream Porter Creek ponar grabs by
ANOSIM detected no spatial differences of statistical significance.
Differences in guild composition between pre- and post -Mod Alt L
years for Porter Creek upstream were compared to the corresponding years for Duck Creek
(closest control creek; across the Pamlico River) and Little Creek (control creek in South Creek
with similar basin size). Separate mixed -model ANOVAs for each FCA axis, with Creek and Mod
Alt L Status as fixed effects and ponar subsample as a random effect, revealed significant Creek:
Mod Alt L Status interactions for the comparison between Porter and Little Creek (Axis 2: F =
7.73, P = 0.04), but not for Porter Creek and Duck Creek (Figure III-G23). There were slightly less
filter/collector in Porter Creek pre -Mod Alt L compared to Little Creek.
xii. Porter Creek Downstream Guilds/Trophic Levels
Multivariate cluster analysis of the FCA scores for ponar grabs
within downstream Porter Creek by SIMPROF revealed slight variation of significance between
years among four distinct clusters (Figure III-G22 c). Cluster A contained 2020, B contained six
years (2011, 2013, 2015-2018), C contained two years (2012 and 2014), and D contained two
years (2019 and 2021).
Similar to upstream, the benthic community of the downstream
Porter Creek ponar grabs was mostly composed of the herbivore and detritivore trophic level
(Figure III-G22 b). Grazer, scraper, and shredder were the predominant functional feeding guild
in 2019 and 2020, while filter/collector was predominant from 2011-2018.
Comparison of interannual variability between pre- and post -Mod
Alt L ponar taxa FCA scores within downstream Porter Creek by SIMPER revealed that
III-G-35

differences were driven predominantly by slightly more scraper post -Mod Alt L. Comparison of
interannual variability between pre- and post -Mod Alt L guild and trophic level composition of
benthic macroinvertebrate communities in upstream Porter Creek ponar grabs by ANOSIM
detected no spatial differences of statistical significance.
Differences in guild composition between pre- and post -Mod Alt L
years for Porter Creek downstream were compared to the corresponding years and stations for
Duck and Little creeks. Separate mixed -model ANOVAs for each FCA axis, with Creek and Mod
Alt L Status as fixed effects and ponar subsample as a random effect, revealed no significant
Creek:Mod Alt L Status interactions for the comparison between either Porter Creek and Duck
Creek or between Porter Creek and Little Creek (Figure III-G23).
xiii. DCUT11 Upstream Guilds/Trophic Levels
Multivariate cluster analysis of the FCA scores for upstream ponar
grabs of DCUT11 by SIMPROF revealed slight variation of statistical significance between years
among five distinct clusters (Figure III-G24 a). Clusters A, B, and C each contained one pre -Mod
Alt L year (2014, 2016, and 2013, respectively), D contained three years (2017-2019), and E
contained three years (2015, 2020, and 2021) (Figure III-G24 a).
The benthic macroinvertebrate community in upstream ponar grabs
of DCUT11 was mostly composed of herbivore and detritivore trophic level (Figure III-G24 b).
Grazer, scraper and shredder (Axis 2), scraper, grazer, and parasite (Axis 4), and scraper (Axis
6) were predominant guilds in 2015 and 2020-2021 but trended near zero in other years (Figure
III-G24 b).
Comparison of interannual variability between pre- and post -Mod
Alt L ponar taxa FCA scores within upstream DCUT11 by SIMPER revealed differences were
driven predominantly by more shredder and scraper post -Mod Alt L. Comparison of interannual
variability between pre- and post -Mod Alt L guild and trophic level composition of benthic
macroinvertebrate communities in upstream DCUT11 ponar grabs by ANOSIM detected no
spatial differences of statistical significance.
Differences in guild composition between pre- and post -Mod Alt L
years for DCUT11 downstream were compared to the corresponding years and stations for Duck
and DCUT19. Separate mixed -model ANOVAs for each FCA axis, with Creek and Mod Alt L
Status as fixed effects and ponar subsample as a random effect, revealed no significant Creek:
Mod Alt L Status interactions for the comparison between DCUT11 and Duck Creek (Figure III-
G25).
xiv. DCUT11 Downstream Guilds/Trophic Levels
Multivariate cluster analysis of the FCA scores for downstream
ponar grabs of DCUT11 by SIMPROF revealed slight variation of statistical significance between
years among three distinct clusters (Figure III-G24 c). Cluster A consisted of two years (2013
and 2018), B contained three years (2017, 2019, and 2021), and C contained four years (2014-
2016 and 2020) (Figure III-G24 c).
Similar to upstream, the benthic macroinvertebrate community of
downstream ponar grabs of DCUT11 was mostly composed of the herbivore and detritivore
trophic level (Figure III-G24 b). Filterer/collector was the predominant functional feeding guild,
particularly in 2013, 2018, and 2020 (Figure III-G24 b).
III-G-36

Comparison of interannual variability between pre- and post -Mod
Alt L ponar taxa FCA scores within downstream DCUT11 by similarity percentages (SIMPER)
revealed differences were driven predominantly by more herbivore and detritivore post -Mod Alt
L. Comparison of interannual variability between pre- and post -Mod Alt L guild and trophic level
composition of benthic macroinvertebrate communities in downstream DCUT11 ponar grabs by
ANOSIM detected no spatial differences of statistical significance.
Differences in guild composition between pre- and post -Mod Alt L
years for DCUT11 downstream were compared to the corresponding years and stations for Duck
and DCUT19. Separate mixed -model ANOVAs for each FCA axis, with Creek and Mod Alt L
Status as fixed effects and ponar subsample as a random effect, revealed no significant Creek:
Mod Alt L Status interactions for the comparison between DCUT11 and Duck Creek (Figure III-
G25).
b. Control Creeks Guild/Trophic Level Data from Ponar Grabs
i. Little Creek Upstream Guilds/Trophic Levels
Multivariate cluster analysis of the FCA scores for the ponar grabs
within upstream Little Creek by SIMPROF revealed slight variation of statistical significance
between years among three distinct clusters (Figure III-G26 a). Cluster A contained 2011, B
contained 2021, and C contained the other eight years (2012-2020) (Figure III-G26 a).
Ponar grab data revealed that the benthic macroinvertebrate
community within upstream Little Creek was composed mostly of herbivore and detritivore trophic
levels (Figure III-G26 b). The dominant functional feeding guilds varied little over 11 years, except
for the increase in grazer, scraper and shredder (Axis 2), scraper, grazer, and parasite (Axis 4),
and scraper (Axis 6) in 2011 (Figure III-G26 b).
ii. Little Creek Downstream Guilds/Trophic Levels
Multivariate cluster analysis of the FCA scores for the ponar grabs
within downstream Little Creek by SIMPROF revealed slight variation of statistical significance
between years among five distinct clusters (Figure III-G26 c). Clusters A, B, and C each contained
one year (2013, 2019, and 2021, respectively), D contained five years (2012, 2014, 2015, 2017,
and 2018), and E contained three years (2011, 2016, and 2020).
Similar to upstream Little Creek, the benthic macroinvertebrate
community of downstream Little Creek ponar grabs was composed mostly of herbivore and
detritivore trophic levels, which trended to zero in 2021 (Figure III-G26 b). Filter -collector was the
dominant functional feeding guild for previous years, but trended closer to zero in 2020, then
increased again in 2021. Scraper increased slightly in 2019 but trended towards zero in 2021.
PA2 Upstream Guilds/Trophic Levels
Multivariate cluster analysis of the FCA scores for ponar grabs
within upstream PA2 by SIMPROF revealed slight variation of statistical significance between
years among five distinct clusters (Figure III-G27 a). Cluster A contained two years (2017 and
2020), B contained 2021, C contained two years (2015 and 2019), D contained two years (2012
and 2013), and E contained four years (2011, 2014, 2016, and 2018).
Ponar grab data revealed that the benthic macroinvertebrate
community within upstream PA2 was composed mostly of herbivore and detritivore trophic levels,
III-G-37

except in 2021 when there were more parasite and carnivore (Axis 1). There was an increase in
scraper in 2015, 2017, 2019-2021 (Axis 5 and 6) (Figure III-G27 b). In 2021 shredder, grazer,
and parasite decreased.
iv. PA2 Downstream Guilds/Trophic Levels
Multivariate cluster analysis of the FCA scores for ponar grabs within
upstream PA2 by SIMPROF revealed slight variation of statistical significance between years
between two distinct clusters (Figure III-G27 c). Cluster A contained 2020, while B contained the
remaining years.
Similar to upstream, the benthic macroinvertebrate community
within downstream PA2 was mostly composed of herbivore and detritivore trophic levels (Figure
III-G27 b). The dominant functional feeding guild was scraper although the guild decreased in
2013 and 2014 (Axis 6). Filter -collector increased in 2016 and 2018, but trended towards more
grazer, scraper and shredder in 2019-2021 (Axis 2).
v. Long Creek Upstream Guilds/Trophic Levels
According to SIMPROF, there were no clusters among FCA scores
for upstream ponar grabs of Long Creek.
Ponar grab data revealed that the benthic macroinvertebrate
community within upstream Long Creek was composed mostly of herbivore and detritivore, but
trended closer to zero in 2020 and 2021. The functional feeding guilds varied over the 10 years,
with slightly less variation since 2016 (Figure III-G28 a).
vi. Long Creek Downstream Guilds/Trophic Levels
Multivariate cluster analysis of the FCA scores for ponar grabs
within downstream Long Creek by SIMPROF revealed slight variation of statistical significance
between years among four distinct clusters (Figure III-G28 b). Cluster A contained two years
(2016 and 2019), B contained two years (2017 and 2021), C contained five years (2011-2013,
2015, and 2020), and D contained two years (2014 and 2018).
Similar to upstream, the benthic macroinvertebrate community of
downstream Long Creek ponar grabs mostly consisted of herbivore and detritivore trophic level
(Figure III-G28 a). The dominant functional feeding guild was filter/collector although scraper
increased in 2016, 2017, and 2019.
vii. Muddy Creek Upstream Guilds/Trophic Levels
Multivariate cluster analysis of the FCA scores for ponar grabs
within upstream Muddy Creek by SIMPROF revealed slight variation of statistical significance
between years among four distinct clusters (Figure III-G29 a). Clusters A and B contained one
year each (2010 and 2004, respectively), C contained 11 years (1998, 2003, 2005, 2011-2013,
2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2021), and D contained 10 years (1999-2002, 2007-2009, 2014,
2019, 2020).
Ponar grab data revealed that the benthic macroinvertebrate
community within upstream Muddy Creek was composed mostly of herbivore and detritivore
trophic levels, although parasite and carnivore were abundant in 2000, 2004, and 2010 (Figure
III-G29 b). Filterer/collector was dominant functional feeding guild, although grazer, scraper, and
shredder increased in some years (2000, 2010, 2014, and 2018-2020).
III-G-38

viii. Muddy Creek Downstream Guilds/Trophic Levels
Multivariate cluster analysis of the FCA scores for ponar grabs
within downstream Muddy Creek by SIMPROF revealed slight variation of statistical significance
between years among eight distinct clusters (Figure III-G29 c). Cluster A contained two years
(1998 and 2013), B contained 2021, C contained two years (2000 and 2008), D contained 2010,
E contained three years (1999, 2019, and 2020), F contained six years (2003, 2007, 2011, 2012,
2014, and 2018), G contained 2004, and H contained seven years (2001, 2002, 2005, 2009, 2015,
2016, and 2017).
The benthic macroinvertebrate community within downstream
Muddy Creek was composed mostly of herbivore and detritivore trophic levels, but trended toward
zero in 2019-2021 (Figure III-G29 b). Similar to upstream, filterer/collector was the predominant
functional feeding guild, although some years contained higher abundance of scraper, shredder,
and grazer (e.g., 1998 and 2013).
ix. DCUT19 Upstream Guilds/Trophic Levels
Multivariate cluster analysis of the FCA scores for ponar grabs
within upstream DCUT19 by SIMPROF revealed slight variation of statistical significance between
years among three distinct clusters (Figure III-G30 a). Cluster A contained 2020, B contained four
years (2013, 2015, 2016, and 2021), and C contained four years (2014, 2017, 2018, and 2019).
Ponar grab data revealed that the benthic macroinvertebrate
community within upstream DCUT19 was composed mostly of herbivore and detritivore trophic
levels (Figure III-G30 b). The dominant functional feeding guilds were grazer, scraper, and
shredder except in 2014 when filter/collector was dominant. Scraper, grazer, and parasite (Axis
4) and scraper (Axis 6) trended towards zero in 2014, 2017, and 2019, but increased in other
years.
x. DCUT19 Downstream Guilds/Trophic Levels
Multivariate cluster analysis of the FCA scores for ponar grabs
within upstream DCUT19 by SIMPROF revealed slight variation of statistical significance between
years among three distinct clusters (Figure III-G30 c). Cluster A contained two years (2013 and
2020), B contained two years (2015 and 2017), and C contained five years (2014, 2016, 2018,
2019, and 2021).
Similar to upstream DCUT19, the benthic macroinvertebrate
community within downstream DCUT19 ponar grabs consisted mostly of herbivore and detritivore
trophic levels (Figure III-G30 b). Filterer/collector was the most dominant functional feeding guild,
especially in 2013. Shredder and scraper increased and decreased over the eight years, but
steadily increased from 2018-2020 (Axis 3).
xi. Duck Creek Upstream Guilds/Trophic Levels
Multivariate cluster analysis of the FCA scores for ponar grabs
within upstream Duck Creek by SIMPROF revealed slight variation of statistical significance
between years between two distinct clusters (Figure III-G31 a). Cluster A contained nine years
(2012, 2014-2021) and B contained two years (2011 and 2013).
Ponar grab data revealed that the benthic macroinvertebrate
community within upstream Duck Creek was composed mostly of herbivore and detritivore trophic
levels, although parasite and carnivore increased in 2013. The dominant functional feeding guilds
were grazer, scraper, and shredder, although filter -collector increased in 2012 and 2014 (Figure
III-G-39

III-G31 b).
xii. Duck Creek Downstream Guilds/Trophic Levels
According to SIMPROF, there were no clusters among FCA scores
for upstream ponar grabs of Duck Creek.
The benthic macroinvertebrate community within downstream Duck
Creek ponar grabs trophic levels consistently had high abundance of herbivore and detritivore
and had an increase of parasite and carnivore in 2015 and 2016; grazer feeding guild increased
in 2013, while scrapers increased slightly in 2017 and 2018 (Figure III-G31 b).
3.0 Summary and Conclusions
The most common species encountered for most creeks/years for sweeps were
(in order): species of Littoridinops (most often not identified to species, but L. tenuipes when it
was identified), species of Apocorophium (most often not identified to species, but either A.
lacustre, or A. louisianum when identified), and Gammarus tigrinus. The most common species
encountered in most creeks/years for ponars were (in order): Chironomus decorus (when present,
almost always one of the two most dominant taxa), Gammarus tigrinus, Amphicteis floridus,
species of Littoridinops, species of Apocorophium, Mediomastus ambiseta, Streblospio benedicti,
and Macoma balthica. Dissimilarities in abundance between these dominant taxa mostly
accounted for differences among creeks/years/stations, along with the occasional presence or
absence of less dominant taxa in some creeks/years.
Interannual comparisons between pre- and post -Mod Alt L years indicated five
significant spatial differences among benthic macroinvertebrates for four creeks with post -Mod
Alt L data (Sweeps -upstream Jacobs Creek, downstream Tooley Creek, upstream Huddles Cut,
and downstream Porter Creek; Ponar-downstream Tooley Creek). This result suggests that close
to 82 percent of the comparisons (23 out of 28) in the impacted creeks showed the benthic
macroinvertebrate community of post -Mod Alt L years as similar to that of the pre -Mod Alt L years;
thus, it is difficult to discern any mine -related patterns in benthic macroinvertebrate communities.
Huddles Cut upstream benthic samples were compared to those of Muddy Creek (the only control
creek with data corresponding to Huddles Cut pre -Mod Alt L years) to determine possible reasons
for significant differences between pre- and post -Mod Alt L community structure. Muddy Creek
benthic communities did not experience a significant difference between corresponding pre- and
post -Mod Alt L years, as seen in Huddles Cut upstream. Variability displayed at the Huddles Cut
upstream benthic station could be attributed to mine activities, but it could also be related to the
sand bar which formed at the mouth of Huddles Cut in 2009 (completely blocked flow in some
conditions in portions of that year). The sand bar has remained a persistent feature since then
and continues to periodically narrow the channel near the mouth, which restricts exchange of
water between Huddles Cut and the Pamlico River. Complete blockage has not been noted since
2009; however, sand continues to be redistributed at the mouth of Huddles Cut, forming a dynamic
narrow channel that has inlet -like characteristics in response to the movement of the sand from
the bar. Some of the sand from the bar appears to have moved to the beach at the mouth which
also periodically enters into the channel and contributes to a narrower inlet/outlet. A confident
separation of such non -mine related changes in creek condition from potential mine -related
changes is difficult.
The benthic data continue to show considerable variation between years. For
instance, in 2021, benthic abundance and/or taxa count for 27 out of 40 creek sites were record
lows for both ponars and/or sweeps. That is ten more sites than in 2020. These record lows have
III-G-40

occurred in downstream sites more than upstream (7 upstream sites vs 12 downstream sites for
ponars and 5 upstream sites vs 10 downstream sweeps) with an increase in specific tolerant
freshwater species occurring in the downstream sites, such as Chironomus decorus,
Goeldichironomus devineyae and Dicrotendipes nervosus. Since these record lows were in both
impact and control creeks, it's unlikely these changes in benthic abundance and taxa count were
due to mine -related activities. This variation in community structure may be explained by temporal
changes in water chemistry, recruitment, predation, and the naturally heterogeneous distribution
characteristics of estuarine invertebrates (West 1985). Specifically, since record low abundance
and taxa numbers were in downstream sites more than upstream, lower salinity levels and greater
volume of Tar River discharge over the past few years could be factors in changes within the
benthic community. For example, variation in salinity concentration seems to have driven
population changes in several commonly collected stenohaline taxa. Amphicteis floridus and
Streblospio benedicti, two species that have a preference for freshwater, have increased in
abundance in years where salinity is lower in contrast to Mediomastus ambiseta and Macoma
balthica, two species that prefer mesohaline conditions and have increased during years of high
salinity. Salinity in the Pamlico River and its tributaries is mostly driven by discharge from the Tar
River and changes in sea level (Kimmel 2016); thus, it seems likely that the changes seen in the
benthic macroinvertebrate communities of the PCS study creeks are mostly in response to
external abiotic conditions. This conclusion corresponds to other studies which demonstrated the
importance of abiotic conditions like river discharge on salt marsh communities in Georgia, USA
(Wieski and Pennings 2014, Li and Pennings 2016).
Temporal variability analysis showed that the macroinvertebrate ponar
(upstream/downstream) guilds/trophic levels displayed a strong positive correlation with
environmental variables within two creeks (DCUT19 and Jacobs Creek). The environmental
parameters strongly correlated to the macroinvertebrate guilds/trophic levels were temperature,
conductivity, nitrate, dissolved oxygen, and salinity. These results suggest that changes in
benthic macroinvertebrate community structure are driven by environmental variables. Note that
for Muddy Creek, water quality is only collected by CZR during benthos collections.
For the guilds, scraper was a dominant trophic guild among most of the creek sites
(e.g., Drinkwater upstream, Tooley upstream, DCUT 11 upstream, PA2 downstream, and
DCUT19 upstream), while filter feeder trophic guild was predominant in Porter Creek downstream.
Common scraper or filter -feeder trophic guilds were Littordinops tenuipes (scraper) and
Mediomastus sp. (collector filter -feeder, as well as collector -gatherer).
Interannual comparisons between pre- and post -Mod Alt L years for guilds
indicated no significant spatiotemporal differences among benthic macroinvertebrates for all
seven creeks with post -Mod Alt L data. However, Porter Creek, Drinkwater Creek, and Tooley
Creek showed differences in pre- and post -Mod Alt L guild structure composition when compared
to concomitant composition of years in control creeks. There were less filterer/collector in
upstream Porter Creek compared to Little Creek during Porter post -Mod Alt L years (Axis 2. Fiqure
III-G21). In downstream Drinkwater Creek, there were more herbivore and detritivore than in PA2
during Drinkwater Creek post -Mod Alt L years (Axis 1; Figure III-G15). There were more herbivore
and detritivore in downstream Tooley Creek compared to both Muddy Creek and Long Creek
during Tooley post -Mod Alt L years (Axis 1; Figure III-G18). However, these effects were not
observed in downstream Porter Creek, upstream Drinkwater Creek, or upstream Tooley Creek,
thus it is unclear if changes in trophic level or feeding guild were due to mine -related activities.
The nature of a benthic community is variable. Aquatic insect populations may
produce single or multiple generations in a year, or the generation time can be longer than a year.
III-G-41

In addition, ecosystem function provided by particular taxa may change depending on
environmental condition and/or life stage. The life cycle completion time can vary greatly across
a species' range and between populations of the same species in upper and lower areas of the
same stream. These and other factors may have contributed to the year-to-year variability that
has been documented in this study. Such variability cannot easily be attributed to simple changes
in hydrographic parameters or habitat structure, and the range of variability documented during
the baseline period of this study reinforces the need for careful interpretation of any post -Mod Alt
L variation that may occur.
III-G-42

Jacks Creek, Upstream (Sweeps)
a
Jacks Creek, Downstream (Sweeps)
b
0
o -
o _
onm
Group Averages
0
o -
o _
Gruup Averages
m -
I
m -
I
m
I _L_
m
(
ABC
D I E F
E
ABCD
E
d 0-
0
N
O -
❑
paj
m
E£
ro m?
3
o
❑
_I
0p N
E
z
b
❑ ❑
I
0 0
N ON
E
ro%
❑
I
0
N
E
3
0
❑
0
a
E
ro
3
0
❑
00
N
L
E
rt
c
3
0
❑
N
e
0="
❑
I
0
N'
E
m
❑
I
0
E
m'
3
0
❑
0p
N
E
a'
❑
0
N
E E
ro ry
3
3 b
0
CI ❑
0 m
N N
E
0
❑
!
NN
E
0
❑
I
0 0p
E
m
0 `a
❑
0
N
E
m
i
0
❑
0
N
E
w
0
❑
I
m
N
E
ro
0
I
o
-
0-
1
0
N
O -
=
m
m
E E E
ro rt
E a
D>>
1 1
a
rn o
N
E
ro
a a
D=
I 1
co- o
0 0
N N
E
ro
a
1
0
0
N
E
ro
a
D
1
0
0
N
E
ro
a
D>>>=>>>>
1
0
N
E
T
a
I
W
pp
N
E
a
1
co
pp
[V
E
ro
a
1
po
N
E E
ro m
a a
1
Q rn
o a
N N
E
a
1
N
o
N
E
a
1
-CO
0
N
E
a
1
r
0
N
E
ro
a
D
1
N
0
N
E
m 4°
a
D>
1
o
0
N
E
a
I L.11
o
h
E
ro
a
I
Jacks Creek, Upstream (Ponar)
C
Jacks Creek, Downstream (Ponar)
d
a
a —
o_
40
Group Averages
o
o —
Q _
0
Group Averages
A B I C
-
m-
A
B
C
1
I
E
d 0
N
O -
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
m
E
❑O
I
N C)
N
1
rt
m
m
i i
❑O ❑
I cr,1
'p
N N
m u,
❑ ❑O
1
pp' Si
N 2
m m
m m
y
0
1 1
2
m
rt
m
,n m
i
0 ❑
I I
O'
N N
°
m ,n
❑ 0
1
O O.p
N N
m m
�
w
I
❑
I I
fV
cc ro
s m
or m
i g
❑ ❑
1 I
pM1p N
N N
ro
£'
y
b
0 ❑
I
C] Q
N N
ro
2'
n v,
0
I
O
N
2'
r"n
0
1
O'-p—
N
1
m
E
❑
1
N
w t5X
m
m
g
❑
1
m
E
1
E
Fu
v -
N
0 -
mnmnommnmonnomponom
NI
a RI'
N
E
m
E
a
WI
E E
ro ro
m g,
��ffii
a
Q1
o
N'
E
ro
2'
2 a
ml ml
rn o
N
E
m
°'
a
NI
0
N
E
m
�
a
�I
0
N
E
ro rt
m p,
a
QI
0
N
E
�
yy
2 p_
ml
pp 0
2 N
E
ro
a
of
0
N
E
m
m �
a
�I
pp
N
E
w
yy rr��
a
04
4
N
E E
yy
a Q
of NI
a o
N N
E
m
�
a
MI
0
N
E
m
m
.I
4
N
E E
m ro
� m
4 a
of
0
N
E
ro
a
o
N
Figure III-G1 a — d. Dendrogram of clusters based on benthic taxa richness and abundance for
all years in Jacks Creek: a) six clusters in upstream sweeps; b) five clusters in downstream
sweeps; c) three clusters in upstream ponar grabs; and d) three clusters in downstream ponar
grabs. Bold years are post -Mod Alt L and black lines represent significant cluster structure.
III-G-43

a
2
E
.(7)
0
0
0 -
r
0
co
0
CO
0
7r
0
N
0 -
A
Jacobs Creek, Downstream (Sweeps)
Group Averages
B C
2021 Downstream
2015 Downstream
2019 Downstream
2016 Downstream
2017 Downstream
2011 Downstream
2013 Downstream
2014 Downstream
2018 Downstream
2012 Downstream
2020 Downstream
Figure III-G2. Dendrogram of clusters based on benthic taxa richness and abundance for
all years in Jacobs Creek: Three clusters for downstream sweeps. Bold years are post -
Mod Alt L and black lines represent significant cluster structure.
III-G-44

Drinkwater Creek, Upstream (Sweeps)
Group Averages
A B C
E E E E E E E E E E E
a a a _ 2_ a a a a a
=I =] =I =I =I =I =I =I =I =I
T r 17 0 0 0, O N C
N o N
O O O o O O O O O pp
N N N N N N N N N
a
0
0 -
6
0
-
Drinkwater Creek, Downstream (Sweeps}
Group Averages
A
E E E E E E E E E E E
w 5 5 ; 2`0' 5 d d 5
2 Wz2O2
W2 N
O w b b 0 a
❑ ❑ ❑❑I❑ ❑ 0 0 ❑I ❑l 8
I
o1 0,vI .1 1
N0,mr
N �
0 0 0 0 El OO N O O 0
N N N N N N N N N
b
Drinkwater Creek, Downstream (Ponar)
Group Averages
- A IB
m
E
N
❑ V
0
E E E E E E E E E £ E
m d v d m d
0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0
O. ❑I 0 ❑I ❑I ❑I 01 01 ❑I ❑I ❑1
N COIfJ fO r O C'1 V .I,N N
a 0 o a o {o 0 0 0 0 O
N N N N N N N N N N N
Figure III-G3 a - c. Dendrogram of clusters based on benthic taxa richness and abundance for
all years in Drinkwater Creek: a) three clusters for upstream sweeps, b) two clusters for
downstream sweeps, and c) five clusters for downstream ponar grabs. Bold years are post -Mod
Alt L and black lines represent significant cluster structure.
III-G-45

Tooley Creek, Upstream {Sweeps)
a
Tooley Creek, Downstream (Sweeps}
b
0
o -
v _
w
Group Averages
A B CD E
0
o -
v _
w
Group Averages
ABC D E
E
E
❑ v —
O 0 -
NI-
N -
0-
❑OOO❑O❑❑O❑❑❑❑❑❑
cn
EEEEEEEESEEEEEE
m
3 3
N 4
NI
N
3
rn
.,-
m
o
N
m
3
n r'n
O
N
m
3 3
Yl
oI
N
r/1
w
s
rI
oo
N N
W
3
N
N
N
g
2
I
N
rt
3
ro
E
m
N
m
2
oa
N
N
I
m
m
2
Ir
N N
rt cu
m
Ol
❑
a
N
3
1
N
0 -
m0NoT0m�<0F000
O6pp
EE
m ro
3 m
a
E EE
w W
3 3
a d E.
I I f
N
m
3
a
I
EE
ro ra
m
a
NppppppppN
m
a
l
EE
m
3
a
I
m
2
2
I
E
w
d
a
I
E
m
a
I
11
EEEEE
m
2
a
m
E
2.
I
m
2
m
3
1
m
a
Tooley Creek, Upstream {Ponar)
c
Tooley Creek, Downstream (Ponar)
d
0
o -
O-
Group Averages
0
o -
O -
Group Averages
1
A
8
m_
A
e
CD I F
m-
1
1
2
—
II
N
o q-
N
0 -
m1
N
CCEE
m?
m�
7>
pN
O
EE
m m
m �'
7 7 j
o m1 .1 1
rn o
3 3 N
E
ro ee
�g�
7>
o NI
p
N N
E
of
O
N
EEEEEEEEE
m
7?
pN
N
1 col
N
ro
m
7
41
p
N
II
m
m
7>>>
�I
N
m
m
[czY
m n1
N
m
m
7
n_
p
N
m
�
7ft
.1
O
p
o 7_
N
0
O
rn
m
E
m
N co
$$
Q
I
rn
3
E
ro
m
g;
o
I
O
N
EEEEEEECEEEEEE
m
m
3
❑o
o
?,,
m
�
3
CO
2
I Ps.O
N N
o
I
N
w m
m �'
3 xx
O
pW
O
m
�
zz;;;;$
�b Q
F
N N
N N
O
I
CO
N
m
m2
O
I
Q
p
m
�
zz
O
I
N
N
ar
CI Q
4'J
N N
rt
m
3$$
O
t7
.
m
�
Figure III-G4 a — d. Dendrograms of clusters based on benthic taxa richness and abundance for
all years in Tooley Creek: a) five clusters for upstream sweeps; b) five clusters for downstream
sweeps; c) six clusters for upstream ponar grabs; and d) two clusters for downstream ponar grabs.
Bold years are post -Mod Alt L and black lines represent significant cluster structure.
III-G-46

Huddles Cut, Upstream (Sweeps)
a
Huddles Cut, Downstream (Sweeps)
b
a o
m _
Group Averages
A B
o
o -
_ Ea
m
Group Averages
A B C D E
5
___L
m
r
V
N
0 -
v'
❑
O
N
E
W t0
l
"�
is
❑
''''
rp
N
E
na
13
O
[D
E
ttl
m
0
O
N
E
y
3
❑
pWp
E
N
w
!
30
❑
0,1
N
E
N el
2!
m
30
❑
N
2
E
v,
3o
❑
,I
N
E
W t6
m 1120,
w
is
0
Lol
E
na
w
i 0
O
N N
E
m i!
v,
3
0
.
E
W of
E 0
O
O
E
Sv
H
3
0
O
O
E
N
w
3
0
N
N
E£
b
❑
O
O
g to
(0
w2
b
❑
.-
O
E
t6
v)
N
3a
❑
E
c0
N ✓+
E i
❑
N
9 9
E
2
m
Q
N
0 -
E E
? N
p m
n a
7 7
0 O
rn o
N
E
to
m Sv
a
7 7
N
o
N
E
N
a
D
o
M
E E
N
2 2
a °,
7
e,
C
N
ro
,
7
RI
o
N
E
t4
a
E
'
a
7 7
O WI
0 0
N N
E
1 to
a
7
m
o
N
E
ltl
E
a
7
,-
R
E
a
7
r,
o
N
E
2
8
a
7
m
0
N
E
g >u
a
7
0
N
E
N
a
r
o
N
E
@"
m
a
7 7
011
E
fu
7
P1I
O 4
N N
E
W
n
7
fOJ
E
N
m
n
Huddles Cut, Upstream (Ponar)
c
Huddles Cut, Downstream (Ponar)
d
O -
o_
m
Group Averages
OO -
Group Averages
A
BC
D
o_
m
.?, m
'-^ m-
A
B
C
D
E
N
v
o
.
❑
N
p
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
3a
❑
m
N
l
O
...mi.,'
O
ry
m
N
3
❑
r
ON
m
C
l O
0...
O
m
0
3
❑
6i
63
m
h
g
❑
0
O
ro
N
30
❑
0
b
N
i
❑
CD
C''
N
l
O
6
rt ra
N
3
O
COO
N
E 3Q
❑
CO.
m
W
❑
OD
tV
—
m m
W C
30 g
❑
[QV
rt
G
30
❑
a CO
N N
m
N
,
❑
N
1
❑
N
Cp
N
m
N
1
I
E1
N
I
a
o _
v.:N
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
ns
a
7
o.
N
m
a
7 7
., m,
N O
N N
m
a
7
w�
ppppppN°ppN
m
a
7
03
ro rt
a a
7
V,
ro'.'!
a
7 7
4I N'
a
7
N
a
7
o �,
O
m
a
7
OI
rn
n
7
0
a
a
7
o,
O
a
7
�,
p
a
7
r,
O
N
m
a
7
CO
O
N
m
n
7
p
m
a
7
0,r-,
p
m
a
Figure III-G5 a - d. Dendrograms of clusters based on benthic taxa richness and abundance for
all years in Huddles Cut: a) five clusters for upstream sweeps; b) two clusters for downstream
sweeps; c) four clusters for upstream ponar grabs; and d) four clusters for downstream ponars.
Bold years are post -Mod Alt L and black lines represent significant cluster structure.
III-G-47

E
d0
0
o—
Porter Creek, Upstream (Sweeps}
Group Averages
A B C
2D15_Upstream
2021Upstream
2013_Upstr,eam
a
E
N
a
2 —
0
A
Porter Creek, Downstream (Sweeps)
Group Averages
B
c
E E e N E
E N N N N
220 0 0 0 • 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
NI Ni rnl �I N▪ ' I rnl CI 0I I
N N N N N N N N N N
b
cv
PA
A
Porter Creek, Downstream (Ponar)
Group Averages
W • �G E E E E N EEEEE
g g W g N
c
33 N y
0 0 0 0 O
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 0 ❑ ❑ 0
rnl ] MI �I rl COI NI I
pN N
N N N oon
N N N N N N N • N
Figure III-G6 a — c. Dendrogram of clusters of benthic taxa richness and abundance for all years
in Porter Creek: a) three clusters for upstream sweeps; b) four clusters in downstream sweeps;
and c) two clusters in downstream ponar grabs. Bold years are post -Mod Alt L and black lines
represent significant cluster structure.
III-G-48

DCUT11, Downstream (Sweeps)
Group Averages
A 6
E
E E E
D
3 C
b D
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
1
[a in v o
0 o 0 0
N N N N
a
E E
Sv �
0
0
DCUT11, Upstream (Panay)
Group Averages
B
E E E E E N N E
2 a_d d 2 Q d
770 777
I 1 I 11 1 1 1
N Q' to N a col rr
o 0 p o 0 0 0 0
N N N N N N N N
b
Figure III-G7 a - b. Dendrogram of clusters of benthic taxa richness and abundance for all years
in DCUT11: a) two clusters for downstream sweeps and b) two clusters in upstream ponar. Bold
years are post -Mod Alt L and black lines represent significant cluster structure.
III-G-49

Little Creek, Upstream (Sweeps)
a
Little Creek, Downstream (Sweeps)
b
0
o -
o _
m
Group Averages
A BC ❑
0
o -
o _
w
Group Averages
a 2-
A
B C
0
a m-
E73
r
I
N
d -
Q O -
v
I
v
o _
N
o_
E
N
t
O
❑ ❑
I
N N
E
mr6
2
b
I�NeoI
N
E
N
O
0
O
N
E
;
S
b
0
O
N
E
b 2
0
O
N
E
N
C
❑
GE
C
2 b
❑
wIu�ImIr
N
O
N N
2 b
E
;
N
g
❑ CI
O
N
E E
;m
N
g
❑
_ _
N N
1
o _
N
o_
rtl
I I
E E E E
N
am 2 g'
a a a
7 7 7 7
I I 1 I
N CI 0
N N
E
a
7
I
N
N
E
a
7
I
Q 4]
N
E
b
y
7
I
r.-
nn
E
b
y
7
I
E
a
7
1
N
E
m
a
7
1
m
E
mr6
a
7
I
m
ry
Little Creek, Upstream (Ponar)
c
Little Creek,Downstream (Ponar)
d
a
a -
m -
Group Averages
A BC
a
a -
m -
Group Averages
A B
N
E
N
V n O _
N _
O
EEEE
g
m
t
❑
.I
N
N
g
m
2
0 0
1 NI
N
O O
N N
m
g
2
❑
o
N
�
g
2
0
1 01
N
01
N
E
m
�
2
0
m1
o
N
E
m
2
❑
..1
E
g
�
2
❑
�I
0
N
E
g
�
2
❑
ml
0 0
N N
SE
d
g
2
❑
o
N
E
g m
d E
2 2
0
d �I
O
N
d O _
V
o _
N
o -
7
NI
O
EEEE
m
m
a
7
NI
a
lV
ro ra
m
a
7
rl
pp
N
m
a
7
NI
o
N
E
m
�
a
7
.0
0
N
EEEEEEE
m
�
a
7
NI.
o
N
m
�
a
7
VI
O
N
g
2'
a
7
ml
p
N
2' m
g g
a
7
VI
O
N
g
m
a
D
rl
O
N
a
7
WI
pp
N
m
m
O
Figure III-G8 a — d. Dendrogram of clusters based on benthic taxa richness and abundance for
all years in Little Creek (control): a) four clusters in upstream sweeps; b) four clusters in
downstream sweeps; c) two clusters in upstream ponar grabs; and d) three clusters in
downstream ponar grabs. Black lines represent significant cluster structure.
III-G-50

0
E
do
0
PA2 Creek, Upstream (Sweeps)
Group Averages
A B
ro m m ro m E E 6 5 5
r� m m W' �q �Wp' a ava
a a a _a a Q a a a
=I =1 =I =I =I =I =I ❑I =I =I
▪ N m Q O 0 t17 !� W
N 0 0 0 pN
N N N N N N N N N N
a
0
N
6
0
O—
PA2 Creek, Downstream (Sweeps)
Group Averages
A 8 C D E
EEE
0
of 101 FI
N N
O O O O
N N N N
2015 Downstream
E 4 E £ £ E 13 E
2 2$ b N} N
b 0
0 0
1 ❑1 ❑I 0I ❑I
60I N r> •r co
0 0 O O 0 O
N N N N N N
b
PA2 Creek, Downstream (Ponar)
Group Averages
A B C o
E
ro
E E E E
rt �?, N m �
c
5 0 0 0 0 �S �S5 g o
❑1 ❑I 0
1 ❑I ❑I ❑I ❑I ❑I ❑1 ❑1 ❑1
o m r co ,n w v N co
N N
0 0 0 00 00 0 0 0 2
0 O
N N N N N N N N N N
Figure III-G9 a — c. Dendrogram of clusters based on benthic taxa richness and abundance for
all years in PA2 (control): a) two clusters in upstream sweeps; b) five clusters in downstream
sweeps; and c) four clusters in downstream ponar grabs. Black lines represent significant cluster
structure.
III-G-51

A
Long Creek, Upstream (Sweeps)
Group Averages
0 E
E E E E E N E E
N N N Qi �i Q1 N N
Q 0. 0. 0. 0. 0 2 2 0.
71 =I =I =I =I =I 0
N N T 0) N r CO
4 O O o a o 0 o p
N N N N N N N N N
2411 Upstream
0.
a
A B
Long Creek, Downstream {Sweeps)
Group Averages
c o
E E E E E N E E E E E
N 8 Q1 N N N
cif be.
3�3
E gg b O i i i b g i E gg b
N fD Qe C] KS V IrJ n o
N
N N N N N N N N N N N
b
Figure III-G10 a — b. Dendrogram of clusters based on benthic taxa richness and abundance for
all years in Long Creek (control): a) five clusters in upstream sweeps and b) four clusters in
downstream sweeps. Black lines represent significant cluster structure.
III-G-52

Muddy Creek, Upstream (Sweeps)
a
Muddy Creek, Downstream (Sweeps)
b
0
O _
COm
Group Averages
AB CDE F
4
v _
Group Averages
A BC DE F G H
'�
1
o _
N
0—
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE£
m 12,
a��a>v��P��v�
r 2
g
0000000000000000CIO
1 1
N m
0 0
00003000,0000000000000000
N N
I
w of
r ,n
g
1 1
co CO
0 m
N,-
N 2
g g
1 1
N 0
N
N N
w m
r y
g$
g b
1 1
0
O
N
ry
N
g
1
0 1,-
O
N N
g
m N
g g
1 1
O O
0
N N
m g
m12,��v�
m 2
$$
t
1 1
M V
0 0
N N
ra
2 ,e
g
bO
1 1
10
0 0
N N
m 2
gg
1 1
i.- V
N N
ro m n:
a�m�mp
y
33
g
00000
1 1
10 m
N N
m ra
g g
1 1
CO 0.
N N
2 N
gg
33 b O
1 1
N
N
o _
N
o—
7
mo
o
01
9-
£ E E E£
m m w
'�r2�'vmy��uS,��2'm2'��2'2'yy��m2�
Q 2_2 Q 2_
7 7 7 7 7
1 1 1 1 1
vrn NQir
o 0 rn 0 a
0 00,0000
N N r N N
E E
m w
2 Q
7 7
1 1
N N
E E
m
r�
7 7
1 1
W�
N
00
N N
E£
w ns
Q�
7 7
1 1
tiro
O
00
N N
i
E E
m ra ro
M r�,
Q d
7 7
1 1
�n my
O
000
N N
E E
Q d
7 7
1 1
,i1
0
N N
E£
W
Q
7 7
1
or��
N O
000
N N
E E
W ry
p_ 2_
7 7
1 1
roa
00
N N
E E
m m
d
7 7
1 1
mw
0
00
N N
E E
W
mu2y�'
Q 2
7
1 1
0
N
Muddy Creek, Upstream (Ponar)
c
Muddy
Creek, Downstream (Ponar)
d
o
o -
Group Averages
o
o -
,-
0
Group Averages
0-
1
1_ I
1
A
B
C
D
p-
I
`. .-
AB
CDE
E
d o-
vd
o_
N
0 -
N
n
7 7
1
N v
4 4
N N
5 i
D7
1 1
r
N
N
E
77
1
o
N
4 Or
N
E 5 N
nu�2."d
77 D 7 7
1 1 1
m w a
rn m o
T O
N
—
E N
7 7
1 1
o
O N
o
N N
E
7
1
m
0
4
N
E i
Q"'a
7 7 7
1 1
rn w o
4 O
4 4 4
N N N
—
6 E
2.a
7 7
1 1
A
N
4 4
N N
L
2.;
7 7
1 1 1
W N
4
4 4
N N
m E
��an"d a
7 7
1 1
t7 n
4 0
4 4
N N
E
7 7
1
n m
4 4
N N
1
E 5 5
77
1 1
m m
0
4 4
N N
I
21
v o _
o
N
0 -
N E
6
O O 0
10
W N
rn 0
m N 4
N
E E
b
0
1 1
W c'l
O
4
N
E 5 N
b t
0 0 0
1 1 1
O rn
O
4 4 4
N N N
E
0 00
1
V
N
4 4
N N
N E
g
1 1
al
D rn
Oi
E m
b
O O O
1 l
N W
0 4
4 4 4
N N N
m E
b
O 0
1 1
ti o
4
4 4
N N
N E
0
1 1
m Ln
4
4
N
E 1 E
b b
O 0 0
1 1 1
N v
4
4 4 4
N N N
—
g
0 0
1
,p w
O
4 4
N N
NE E
0
1 1
r
4
N
—
0
W 1
4
N
Figure III-G11 a — d. Dendrograms of clusters of benthic taxa richness and abundance for all
years in Muddy Creek (control): a) six clusters for upstream sweeps; b) eight clusters for
downstream sweeps; c) four clusters for upstream ponar grabs; and d) five clusters for
downstream ponar grabs. Black lines represent significant cluster structure.
III-G-53

a
�L
E
.N
co
ifi
0
0 —
0
a)
0
co
0
N
Q —
DCUT19, Downstream (Sweeps)
Group Averages
A B
2021 Downstream
2015 Downstream
2017 Downstream
2016 Downstream
2019 Downstream
2013 Downstream
2014 Downstream
1
2018 Downstream
2020_Downstream
Figure III-G12. Dendrogram of clusters based on benthic taxa richness and abundance
for all years in DCUT19 (control): Two clusters for downstream sweeps. Black lines
indicate significant cluster structure.
III-G-54

Duck Creek, Upstream (Sweeps)
Group Averages
A B C
E
m m E m
2 2 2 E
a a a a a a n n a a Q
mI 1 (el pI �I ml I 0I 0I NI ,-I
N N N N N N N N N N N
a,
0
m
T �
E
o �
0
N
O
Duck Creek, Downstream (Sweeps)
Group Averages
A B C D
E E E E E E E E E E E
w w m gg b gg
g O o g g g g g b o
OI O OI 0I 0I 0 DI 0 01 OI ❑I
O rf1 o m tr m N C'1
N
0 0 0 0 0 0 o q p o 0
N N N N N N N N N N
b
0
ro
0
Duck Creek, Upstream (Ponar)
Group Averages
B C
1
E E
N m
W N
c
n a n a a a 0_n n n n
71 DI =I =I =I =I DI =I 71 71 =I
a, o r- m CO N Ci O I[1
N
0 0 0 0 0 0 o p 0 0 0
N N N N N N N N N N N
Figure III-G13 a - c. Dendrogram of clusters based on benthic taxa richness and abundance for
all years in Duck Creek (control): a) three clusters for upstream sweeps; b) four clusters for
downstream sweeps; and c) three clusters for upstream ponars. Black lines represent significant
cluster structure.
III-G-55

m
O
A
W d
Jacks Creek (Upstream)
Group Averages
6
c
D
E F
EEEEEEEEEEE
2itl " ` 21 '0 0 m
a a a a a a a a a
o I �I �I of TI I �I
N�I Lt,I 05
peV 0 0 0 0 o O o o pN o o o p to
N N N N N N N N N
n
EE
g
a c
a az
N N
a
0.5
— ao
-0.5
-1 5
1.5
1.0
y 0.5
• 0.0
-0.5
-1.0
05
N 0.0
• -0.5
0.5
0.0
-0.5
0.5
N 0.0
-1.0
Jacks Creek (Ponar Data)
1
1
1
1
1
I
I I I I 1
I
I
I
I
I
I
•
I
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I I I I
I
I
•
I
I
�
I
•
I
.
I
g
I
I
I
I
I
•
I
1
I
1
•
1
1
1
1 1 1 1 1
1
I
•
1
1
1
1
1
I
I
r
1
•
1
.
1
I
I
1
tite
I
1
I
1
1 1 1 1 1
1
1
1
1
•
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
.
•
I
•
1
1
1
1
•
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 1 1 1 1
1
1
•
1
1
Downstream
1
1
1
1
•
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Upstream
1 1 1 1 1
1
1
1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020
ME PE
MCA
•1teCerl
t
Poe Post Pre Pat Pre Post
1
P re
Post
Pre
Pat
Pre
Jacks Comparisons (Upstream)
Pre POET PIe Poet Pre Pal
8 4
11
-1.5 —
Pre Pule Pre Post Pre Pale
Jacks Comparisons (Downstream)
o 0.0 -
6
att.
5
!
Medley
T
•
4
-05 -
1 1 1 1 1 1
Pro Poet Pre P50 Pro Poet
0.5 -
aa to -
.0.5 -
1
T
T 11
Q
•
•
A 4
.
P re Post Pre Peet Pre Pus,
Pro Pal Are Poet Pro Pal
15
os -
00
w
-a-
Pre Pole Pie Post Pre Past
c
Pre Pat Pre POP Pre Peet
1.5 -
-05—
•
•
T
• 10
•
Pre Post Pre Pat Are Post
Pro Post Pre Pat Pre Pat
Jack.
to-
0 5 -
4
-
010..00
a ,
1±▪ 1
0S
Pre Post Pre Posl Pre
Figure III-G14 a - c. Dendrograms of clusters of FCA scores (bold year are post -Mod Alt L) and temporal depiction of those scores weighted by relative abundance of each species in Jacks Creek: a)
seven clusters in upstream ponar grabs; b) temporal depiction within the six axes of FCA scores of Jacks Creek upstream and downstream ponar grabs; and c) pre- and post -Mod Alt L boxplots of six
axes of FCA scores for Jacks Creek years compared to same years in Muddy and Little creeks (controls).
III-G-56

8
Jacobs Creek (Downstream)
Group Averages
E
v
2
2012_Downstream
m m E E E E
09
1:1�I ❑I ❑I �I CD
CI
• N
O O O O Fr Er
(V ON ON N N N
a
0.5
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
-1.5
1.5
1.0
y 0.5
▪ 0.0
-0.5
-1.0
0.5
u) 0.0
-0.5
-1.0
0.5
0.0
N • -0.5
-1.5
0.5
-0.5
-1.0
co
< -1
-2
Jacobs Creek (Ponar Data)
1
1
1
1
!
I
1
a
I 1 1
1
•
! I
•
a
I
1
.
I
e
I
P
•
1
I
I
i
I I I
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
I
I
I
1
•
.i
1
I
1
1
1
•
1
•
1 1
1
!
1
1
1
1
I
_— Downstream
Upstream'
•
1 I I
H
1
I
1
1
1
I
I
•
1
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
PE. DE
i
PAu
OFL POEM
I
K
MORPA
PAW
i
lJH
Lag
•
PM PMt Pr* Pal PM Pset
PA.1
Lens,
1
•
•
Poe Pat Po Pal Pre Post
1
1
•
PAR
r;r
Lane
4.
Pre Pore Pre Port Pre Pope
Pie Port Pre P09t Pre P.
Jacobs Comparisons (Upstream)
05 -
0.0 -
Pre Pal PM Pat Pre P051
Pre Pore Pre Post Pre Post
o.D -
g
.0.6 -
Jacobs Comparisons (Downstream)
Pre POre Pre POW Pre Poet
D0 -
-05
PAR
T
I
#
•
L e•e
PM P0e1 PM POSE PM Pon
Pre Pat Pre Poet PM Pat
Pre Pat PM Prat Poe Post
0.0 -
-0.5
J.orbs
'-r
PAZ
L an
Pre Pore Pre Pore Pie Port
L a••
0.0-
I I t I t
Pro Post PM Pore PR POSt
Figure III-G15 a — c. Dendrograms of clusters of FCA scores (bold years are post -Mod Alt L and temporal depiction of those scores weighted by relative abundance of each species in Jacobs Creek:
a) two clusters in downstream ponar grabs; b) temporal depiction within the six axes of FCA scores upstream and downstream ponar grabs; and c pre- and post -Mod Alt L boxplots of six axes of FCA
scores for Jacks Creek years compared to same years in Muddy and Little creeks (controls).
III-G-57

co
0
Drinkwater Creek (Upstream)
Group Averages
0 C
E E E E E E E E E E E
o_ a a a a a u `8_ o_ o_ n
=❑ I 1 1 1 1 1 [ ▪ 1 1 1
Cl u1 fp+ 0N N OD N
0
N • N • N CV N N N N 0
N N
a
0.5
-1.0
-1 5
1.5
1.0
co 0.5
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
0.5
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
0.5
0.0
N -0.5
-1,5
0.5
-1.0
Drinkwater Creek (Ponar Data)
• 1•
=
I
I
1
1
•
•
1 I
I
I
•
•
I
I
I
i e
I
1
•
•
1
•
1
1
1
1
8
1
•
1
:
1
•
I I
1
1
I
•
I
1
I
•
I
•
I
1
•
I I
■
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
•
I
I I
1
1
I
• •
I
I
I
I
o
I
I
— DOWnstream
Upstream
•
•
I I
1
I
•
1
•
1
1
1
1
1
•
I
N 0-
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
HE, OE
PA CA
Go.SC.SH
c
SH.SC
sH
E.C,GR.PA
PA SH
x
GR
A
CO
O
0
Drinkwater Creek (Downstream)
Group Averages
201 2Downstream
B
E
w
2011 _Downstream
C
E E E E ozi
E E ▪ E
eA N (ll [A !11 00 Vi
..I .1 ..I of I f
• N • N • N N N
Figure III-G16 a — c. Dendrogram of Drinkwater Creek clusters of FCA scores (bold years are post -Mod Alt L), temporal depiction of those scores weighted by relative abundance of each species, and pre- and
post -Mod Alt L comparisons to control creeks: a) three clusters in upstream ponar grabs; b) temporal depiction within the six axes of FCA scores upstream and downstream ponar grabs; and c) two clusters in
downstream ponar grabs.
III-G-58

1_0 —
0.5 —
H 0.0 —
7
0.0
O nn Kwater
PAZ
T
T
1
-0.5 —
- 10 —
Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post
1.0 —
05 —
1
0.0
- 0.5 —
O rinkwater
I I
I 1
I I
i c
L
PA2
Long
- 1 0 —
Pre
Post
Pre
Post
Pre
Post
Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post
1.0 —
05 —
-0.5 —
Drinkwater
Z I
� 1
i
PA2
Long
_L
-1 0 —
Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post
Drinkwater Comparisons (Upstream)
1.0 —
0.5 —
[V
y 0.0 —
Q
Drinkwater
PAZ
T
- 1-0 —
Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post
Pre Post Pre Post Pre Past
1 0 —
0,5 —
t7
00 0.0-
Q
19
0,0 -
Orinkwater
1
PAZ
a
8
- 1 0 —
Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post
1,0 —
05 —
- 0,5 —
Drinkwater
_L
PA2
Long
- 1 0 —
Drinkwater Comparisons (Downstream)
rJ
Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post
1-0 Long 1.0 —
0.5 —
0 0.0 —
▪ 0.0
- 1-0 —
Orinkwater
T
T
1
_L
PA2 e
I
Pre Post Pre Post Pre Past
1.0 —
0.5 —
- 0.5 —
1-0
Drinkwater
PA2
Long
Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post
0,5 —
0.0 -
Q
IA
Id.
0,0 -
Lrinkwater
� T
i
PA2
Long
T
_L
- 1 0 —
Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post
1.0 —
05 —
- 0.5 —
- 1 0 —
Orinkwatr
1
PA2
Long
Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post
Figure III-G17. Pre- and post -Mod Alt L boxplots of six axes of FCA scores for
Drinkwater Creek years compared to same years in Long creek and PA2 (controls).
III-G-59

0
A
N
0
0
0
Tooley Creek (Upstream)
Group Averages
EEEEEEEEEEEEEcts
a en
0 N IA N .
Cl Q- 0_ n q n n n n N
1 1 1 1 N I 1I0 1 1 I I
0 O C7 1I1 W N f� D O V rp
b 0 0 Q b b 0 m q p b O - b b
N N N N N N N N N N N N
2011 _Upstream
a
E
05
00
-0s
-1,0
-1 5
15
1A
0,5
0,0
-05
-t0
0.5
N 00
▪ -0,5
-1,0
05
0,0
-05
•1.0
-1,5
0,5
I 0.0
▪ A.5
-1.0
CO
< -1
Tooley Creek (Ponar Data)
- 1 1
1
1
1
1 1 1 1
1
1
1
1
'
•
s
1 1
I
1 1 1 1 1 1
1
1
1
-r
1 1
1
1
1 1 1 -
1
1
1
1
•
1 1
1
1
1 1 1 1
1
1
1
1
i.
1 1
•
1
1 1 1 1 1 1
1
1
1
----- -♦
1
.-
1
1
1 1 1 1
1
1
1
1
}ri
f_`
1
1
1
i---
I
1 1
m--"���-1
1 1 II 1 1
:_ i
1 [
1
1
1 1 [ 1
1
1
1
1
I
•
1
1
1
1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1
S•
1 _L
��
1
Downstream
Downstream
1
1
1
1 1
• •
1 1 1 1 1 1
•
1
•=
1
1
1
1
—
Upstream
1
1998 2000 2002 2004 2000 206E 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020
HE, DE
P!1 C0.
FG
sx
s0pa,PA
Pk9H
SC
cF1
ax
8
d
w
N
O
_
Tooley Creek (Downstream)
Group Averages
D
E F
EEEEEEEEEEEE
N C 2 C C N N C N N C 1
y N N N W
III 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1
CO 0O .1.W O W LL'1 1- Q! O C7 N
m O N O N O
o CD a o O o L2 a p 4 a O 4 a
N N N N N N N N N N N N
c
Figure III-G18 a — c. Dendrogram of Tooley Creek clusters of FCA scores (bold years are post -Mod Alt L) and temporal depiction of those scores weighted by relative abundance of each species: a) two
clusters in upstream ponar grabs; b) temporal depiction within the six axes of FCA scores upstream and downstream ponar grabs weighted by relative abundance of each species; and c) six clusters in
downstream ponar grabs.
III-G-60

1,0 —
0.5 —
.X 00-
-0,5 —
Tooley
Mundy
T I
"
L.
Long
T
PA2
III
-1,0 —
Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post
Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post
Tooley Comparisons (Upstream)
1.0 —
0.5 —
N
00-
-0.5 —
Tooley
I
1
Muddy
Long
PA2
1
-1.0 —
Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post
Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post
Tooley Comparisons (Downstream)
1.o -
1.0 —
05 —
.% 00-
Tooley
T
Muddy
Long
PA2
-0.5 —
Pre Post Pre Post Pre Past Pre Post
1,0 —
0.5 —
-0 0,0 —
-0,5 —
Tooley
I
I1
1 O
Muddy
Long
1
PA2
Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post
Pre Past Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post
1.0 —
0.5 —
w 0.0 —
-0.5 —
Tooley
Muddy
▪ T
11
g
Long
PA2
I I
8
Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post
1.0 —
0.5
o)
X 00 —
(0
05
Tooley
O T
Muddy
Long
•
I
1
PA2
-1.0 —
Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post
1.0 —
05 —
N 00 —
Q
O)
-0 5 —
Tooley
Muddy
Longo
PA2
- 1.0 —
Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post
1.0 —
05 —
.% 00 —
a
r0
00 —
x
- 0.5 —
Tooley
11
T
Muddy
Long
l:
PA2
Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post
1.0 —
0.5 —
a
-0 5 —
Tooley
1
T
Muddy
Long
PA2
Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post
Figure III-G19. Pre- and post -Mod Alt L boxplots of six axes of FCA scores for Tooley
Creek years compared to same years in Muddy and Long creeks and PA2 (controls).
III-G-61

1n
a
Huddles Cut (Upstream)
Group Averages
B C D
E F
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
N r6 N ro N tri 8 W W to @ 0 rt 8 10 r6
m � a� m � � m m � E 0� �' m m �
a a a a 4 a aa s a a a.a a Q a a a
o pQ_I OV CD �1 0 aal �1 w1 NI �1 r0nl m1 N- p�nnommnmnnommmDmonn
I r1 c;1 0
N N N N N N0 0. N o N N N N N N N N N N
a
05
0.0
-1.0
-1 5
1.0
0.5
0.0
-0.5
0.5
0.0
-1.0
-1.5
0.5
-1.0
-2
Huddles Cut (Ponar Data)
a
minim I I
s
.
•
I I I
1
I 1
I
I
I
1
•
•
1
mini
•
I I
I
I
I
I
I
1
in I" I.
I I I
I
1
1
1
• 1� i
•
Y 1 1 in I 1 1 1
3 i �
1
1
1
1
r
Y
1
1
•
1 1 1
1 1
--"1".--,F
1
1
1
�
----
I 1 1
ter--
1 1
---
1
°
• -'
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1
1
1
1
•
1
1
••
f
1
, �
1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1
•f
•
I 1 1
1•
1 1
1
'
1
o
8
1
ie
•,
1
1
r
I
:
1
1
�
1
- Downstream
1 1
1
1
1
•
1
�
1
-___
I
Upstream
i���;-
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
�
�-�'
1 1 1
1555 2000 2001 2002 2003 2006 2005 2006 2007 2005 2009 2010 2011 2012 2012 2016 2015 2016 2017 2015 2015 2020 2021
HE. OE
P0. CA
GRSCSH
vC
9n.SC
5C.4 ,PA
PASH
SC
Tlcrs
i
sc
co
0
N
A
Huddles Cut (Downstream)
Group Averages
B
c
1
E E E E E E E E E E E E E
0 0 2 0 m f ? P 0 7 7 '' ''
. C11 y N N N '4 Pl cc. Vf In 0 EA e) 0 LA CO 0)
00 1tgg i;i1gg
❑ O ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ O ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
I I I I I 1 Ni I I I I
4! a0 .- CD W 0 0 eD �D O f� C7 W 0
O O O (V N 0 0) O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N !V N (V N N N N N N N N N N N N.- N
c
ri
EEEE
ro
d
Figure III-G20 a — c. Dendrograms of clusters of FCA scores (bold years are post -Mod Alt L) and temporal depiction of those scores weighted by relative abundance of each species in Huddles Cut: a) six
clusters in upstream ponar grabs; b) temporal depiction within the six axes of FCA scores upstream and downstream ponar grabs; and c) three clusters in downstream ponar grabs.
III -G-62

1,0 -
0.5 -
00-
Q
-0 5 -
Huddles
IJ
Muddy
I
-1,0 -
Pre
Post
Pre Post
1,5 -
1,0 -
• 0.5 -
9.0 -
Huddles
I--
H
Muddy
Pre
Post
Pre
Post
Huddles Comparisons (Upstream)
1.0 - Muddy 1.0 -
0.5 -
X 0.0
-0.5 -
-1.0 -
Huddles
H
h
I
Pre
Post Pre
Post
1.5 -
1.0 -
0.5 -
0.0 -
N
.55 0.0
Huddles
T I
1 1
Muddy
-1.0 -
Pre
I I
Post Pre
Post
0.5
M
.k 00
tD•
- 0 5 -
Huddles
T T
I I
I I
i
Muddy
-1.0 -
Pre
Post
Pre
Post
Huddles
1.5 -
1,0 -
0,5 -
0.0 -
a
Muddy
- 1. 0 -
Pre
Huddles Comparisons (Downstream)
1.0 -
0.5 -
-0.5 -
Huddles
H
I
Muddy
Pre
Post
Pre
Post
Huddles
1.5 -
1.0 -
0.5 -
0.0 -
Muddy
Post
Pre
Post
1.0 -
05 -
co
00 -
CD
to
- 0.5 -
Huddles
Muddy
Pre
Post
Pre
Post
Huddles
1.5 -
1.0 -
0.5 -
0,0 -
Muddy
a
+
8
Post Pre Past Pre
Figure III-G21. Pre- and post -Mod Alt L boxplots of the six axes of FCA scores for
Huddles Cut years compared to same years in Muddy Creek (control).
Pre
Post
Pre
Post
III-G-63

6
A
0
6
6
Porter Creek (Upstream)
Group Averages
B
C
mE m E E Ea
E E
n a a a a a a a a a
71 =1 =1 77 1 1
ro N co COcv CV a r- u7 CD
o a o 05
0 0 b b b
CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV
a
0.5
r 50
YI
•1.0
-1 5
1.5
1.0
H 0.5
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
0.5
0 0.0
-0.5
-1.0
0.5
-1.5
o-s
-1.0
CO 0
N
.x
< -1
2
Porter Creek (Ponar Data)
al
• Y
I I I I I I I I I I I
•
t rc
1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 r 1 1
•
•
s
• •
•
Er
I I I 1 r 1 I I 1 1 I
la --r -
ors s . •
•
•
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I
n
•
St
I I I I 1 1 I I 1 1 I
_— Downstream
Upstream
;-
of
w
ec
8
10
00
10
O
0
0
6
A
Porter Creek (Downstream)
Group Averages
B
C ❑
EEEE mE
co
N 10 2 2 2 2 W N N N N
C C C C C !z$✓ C C Czz C
O • O O 0 0 b b O
a ❑I ❑I ❑I ci ❑I ❑I ❑ ❑I ❑1 ❑1 ❑I
a N V9 Ci7 CO *DI CV a a (V
b b a 6 a Q 0 0 b b O
CV CV CV CV CV N N CV CV CV CV
C
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Figure III-G22 a — c. Six axes of FCA scores, pre- and post -Mod Alt L comparisons to control creeks, and dendrogram of clusters of FCA scores in Porter Creek: a) four clusters in upstream ponar grabs
(bold years are post -Mod Alt L); b) temporal depiction within the six axes of FCA scores upstream and downstream ponar grabs weighted by relative abundance of each species; c) four clusters in downstream
ponar grabs (bold years are post -Mod Alt L).
III -G-64

Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post
1.5 -
1,0 -
05 -
- 0.5 -
- 1,0 -
Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post
1,0 -
0.5 -
0,0 -
Porter
T
li
1
a 1
Duck
1
i
Little
- 05 -
Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post
1,5 -
1,0 -
05 -
V
0.0 -
- 05 -
Porter
I. ▪ T
Duck
8 T
� I
8
Little
a
T
-1 0 -
Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post
Porter Comparisons (Upstream)
o-
Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post
1.5 -
1.0 -
0.5 -
0.0 -
Porter
Duck
Li tte
1.0 -
0.5 -
0.Q -
-0.5 -
Porter
1-
•
Duck
Little
-1_0 -
Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post
1.5 -
1.0 -
0_5 -
rD
uer
-0.5 -
,.0 -
Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post
0.0 -
- 0.5 -
- 1.0 -
Porter
Duck
Little
Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post
Porter Comparisons (Downstream)
1.0 -
0.5 -
0.0 -
-05 -
Porter
•
Duck
T
I I
Little
-1.0 -
Pre Post Pre Post Pre Past
1.5 -
1.0 -
0.5 -
0.0 -
-0.5 -
Porter Duck
Little
991
-1.0 -
Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post
1.0 -
0.5 -
• 0.0 -
05
Porter
T II11
� L
i
1
Duck
Little
• T 8
8
-1_0 -
Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post
1.5 -
1.0 -
0_5 -
0.0 -
- 0_5 -
Porter
Duck
T
Little
- 1.0 -
7 I 1 I
Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post
Figure III-G23. Pre- and post -Mod Alt L boxplots of the six axes of FCA scores for
Porter Creek years compared to same years in Duck Creek (control) and Little Creek
(control).
III-G-65

0
A
v
0
DCUT11 (Upstream)
Group Averages
C D E
E m m E m
2 m 2 2 2 2
a o_ - - - a a a a
0 01 =1 =1 ❑1 =1 01 =1 =I
CD CO M1 COLALo
0 N
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CH N N N N N N N N
a
co
0.5
0.0
-1.0
-1 5
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
0.5
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
0.5
0.0
-6.5
-1.0
-1.5
0
-1
-2
DCUT11 (Ponar Data)
r
—���
I
I
I
I I
1
1
1
I
I
■
I
I
I
I
•
I I
1
I
I I
I
•
I
•
I
I
I
I
I.
•
I I
I
I
I
I.
1
I
I
--�
— 1 I
1
1
1
1
I
I
I.
Downstream
t.
Upstream
*.1{
1 I
1
1
1
1
I
i
I
I•
HE, OE
PA CA
CR,SC.SH
FC
sH
ii
$C,CR,PA
PASH
sc
aR
aic
0
0
A
N
0
DCUT11 (Downstream)
Group Ave ages
B
C
2 y '2 2 . . N Vi eA
o g o g g o f
III❑I ❑I ❑II(Vrz.Lo
vr O O b N • N • N N CV N N
c
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Figure III-G24 a — c. Dendrograms of clusters of FOA scores (bold year is post -Mod Alt L) and temporal depiction of those scores weighted by relative abundance of each species in DCUT11: a) five
clusters in upstream ponar grabs; b) temporal depiction within the six axes of FCA scores upstream and downstream ponar grabs; and c) three clusters in downstream ponar grabs.
III-G-66

1.0 -
0.5 _
s 0.0 -
DCUT11
T
1
1
DCUT19
T
1
Duck
Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post
1.0 -
0.5 -
0.0 -
DCUT11
V
1
T
DCUT19
Duck
B
1
1.0 -
I I I I I I
Pre Post Pre Post Pre Past
1.0 -
0.5 -
52 0.0 -
▪ 0.0
DCUT11
T
4 8
1
B
DCUT19
11
11
Duck
T
-0.5 -
t0 -
Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post
1.0 -
0.5 -
0.5 -
DCUT11
I i
DCUT19
Duck
T
B
0
1 1 1 1 I
Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post
DCUT11 Comparisons (Upstream)
1.0 -
DCUT19
T
0.5 - I 11 os-
i
P o_o -
u7
.52 0.0 -
DCUT11
1
1
Duck
1.0 -
0)
o_o -
-0.5 - 8 -0.5 -
Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post
1.0 -
0.5 -
OCUT11
DCUT19
Duck
1.0 -
1 1 1 I
Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post
DCUT11 Comparisons (Downstream)
1.0 -
0.5 -
N
0.0 -
• 0.0
-0_s -
Dcur11
11
1
8
8
DCUT19
T
1
Duck
0
1.0 -
Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post
1.0 -
0.5 -
DCUT11
T T
e
1
DCUT19
Duck
DCUT11
DCUT19
1
1
Duck
Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post
t 1 1
Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post
Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post
1.0 -
0.5 -
0.0
0.5 - 0.5 -
1 1 1
Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post
DCUT11
DCUT19
Duck
0
1 1
Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post
Figure III-G25. Pre- and post -Mod Alt L boxplots of the six axes of FCA scores for DCUT11
years compared to same years in DCUT19 (control) and Duck Creek (control).
III-G-67

B
Little Creek (Upstream)
Group Averages
£ E E EEEEEEEE
a a a a a a a a a a a
❑I =I =I ❑I ❑I =I =I 71 7= 1 I
C7 N a1 a 117 m O 1- a"
a 0 N 0 o a N o a o 0 0 0
N N N N N N N N N N N
a
to
0.5
-1.0
-1 5
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
0.5
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
0.5
0.0
N -0.5
[ri
-1.0
-1.5
0.5
0.0
-0 5
-1.0
0
-1
-2
n
Little Creek (Ponar Data)
[ I
•
I
I
!
1
I
I
I
I
! I
I
I
I
I
I
•
I
I
I
I
1
1
1
•
1
1
•
•
•
I
I I
I
!
1
I
I
I I
I
•
I
I
I
•
I
•
I
I
- ----
1 1
1
1
1
�-•�
1
- .
1
1
•
1
-
1
1
---
!
— Downstream
v Upstream
1 1
•
•
1
-
1
I
•
1
1
1
•
I
•
1
I
PC
SCARP.,
O
b
Little Creek (Downstream)
Group Averages
B C
D
E
E m E E EEEEEEE 0 m m
c
N N Vi N N N N N N N N
C C C C C C C C C C C
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
�! �I NI al noI �I I I �I of
N
b b NI b b O O b b
N N N N N N N N N N N
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Figure III-G26 a - c. Dendrogram of clusters of FCA scores and temporal depiction of those scores weighted by relative abundance of each species in Little Creek: a) three clusters in upstream ponar
grab; b) temporal depiction within the six axes of the FCA scores for upstream and downstream ponar grabs; and c) five clusters in downstream ponar grab.
III-G-68

10
0
N
a
A
PA2 (Upstream)
Group Averages
c o
E
EEE E EEEEEEE
N 10 N N N N N N N N N
o_ a a a a a a a n n a
7 > > > 7 7 =
�I 01 �I �I NI �I al �I rl �I
b O O b b b b b b b
N N N C11 C1 N N N N N N
a
0.5
A— 0.0
-0.5
-1.0
-1 5
1.5
1.0
N 0.5
▪ 0.0
-05
-1.0
0.5
N 0.0
• -0.5
-1.0
0.5
0.0
N -0.5
-1.0
-1.5
0.5
100
▪ -0.5
co
fp
-1.0
0
-1
PA2 Creek (Ponar Data)
X!
1 t = n
• .
I 1 1 I I I I I 1 I I
•
•
. E
.
ec
I 1 1 I I I I 1 1 I I
•
E • f , • 1V
1 1 1 1 I 1 r 1 1 I 1
e •
•
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
it
1 I 1 I I I [ 1 1 I 1
— Downstream •
Upstream
• sc
1 1 1 1 ] I I 1 1 1 .
e s
0'
.scs+
•c
utM
0
c
1
3D
0
V
0
A
PA2 (Downstream)
Group Averages
B
r
E E E E E E E E E E E
c
to N N [A N N N N N N N
i
C C C C C i C C C
0 0 0 0 0 g g O
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
of al Nl ,,,,IM1I �I WI rl �I �I
N • N
b b b O b b b b b b b
N N N N N N N N N N N
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Figure III-G27 a - c. Six axes of FCA scores and dendrogram of clusters of FCA scores in PA2: a) five clusters in upstream ponar grabs; b) temporal depiction of FCA scores weighted by relative abundance
of each species; and c) two clusters in downstream ponar grabs.
III-G-69

0.5
0.0
-6.5
-1.0
• 1 5
1.5
1.0
N
1n 0.5
•
▪ 0.0
.0.5
-1.0
0.5
0.0
N -as
•1.5
0.5
0.0
▪ -0.5
-1.0
N
-2
Long Creek (Ponar Data)
1
1
I
wit
t
1 I
- 1 1
1
I
1
1
1
1 1
•
I
I
•
1
1
•
1
I
1
I
I I
I
•
1
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
- ;y
I
I
I
•
I
- •
I
•._
1
•
1
I
I
I
1
1
1 1
1
It
1
1
1
1
1
l
_— Downstream
Upstream
•
1
I
J
1
1
1
1
1
1
aL
8
0
A
Long Creek (Downstream)
Group Averages
6
b
m m m m m
N N N
!q 0 0 N VI N
C C C C C C
O O O O
01 ❑1 ❑1 ❑1 01 01
fl m r a In
09
0 0 o a o 0
CV CV CV CV CV CV
0
N
n
0
E m
N
01 01 0
0 o a
N IN CV
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Figure III-G28 a - b. Dendrograms of clusters of FCA scores and temporal depiction of those scores weighted by relative abundance
of each species in Long Creek: a) temporal depiction within the six axes of FCA scores upstream and downstream ponar grabs and
b) four clusters in downstream ponar grabs.
III-G-70

8
o
O
O
ABC
Muddy Creek (Upstream)
Group Averages
E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E
ra m ra m m m m rt m m m m m
m a� '�' � m '�' m m �' m m� � m� m m� m a� � dJ
a
N N 0 (0 N «I N N [A N N N (l] N N N N N N N N tl] N
an_n 000_0_00_ ana anaa1?so_ a a an
7 777=777D=7=====7==7==7
1i11111i111 111 111 111 11
O Cr C] CO r tq I) r C) N 1 - 41 CD CO O O Cr N 9- CA co Q! 1 -
O O O O NO 6] O O O O O Q 4 O O O O O O O 0 Q�1 O
CV CV N CV N r (V N N CV N CV CV CV CV CV N CV CV CV N r- CV
0.5
0.0
-0.s
-1.0
-15
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
0.5
M
Vj 0.0
▪ -0.5
-10
0.5
0.0
-0.5
-10
-1.5
0.5
11, 0o
▪ -0.5
-1.0
No
Muddy Creek (Ponar Data)
• . . • M
•
•
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 N 1 1 1 1.1 1 1 1 1 1 1
•
.•
•
■ •
•
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1•1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
•
. •
�� 4 • J
:ice__. -•
. •
• •
1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I
• 1• • an
. :
•
1•
•
ac .
1 1 1 1 1 I 1_1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I
M
n
f
f,✓i'y •� am- �!— .
,
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 [ 1 1 1 [ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
•
Downstream
w
Upstream
1 1 III III II 1 1 1 1 r 1 1 1 1 1 I 1
De
OkM
V
0
N
O
B
Muddy Creek (Downstream)
Group Averages
E F
G H
C
E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E
ra m m ra m m ra m m ra m m � m m ra m m ra m m ra
mme a�emmermm2r 2m20m22m20m
rD (0 «1 N N «) [0 V) ffl N N N to (J] EA rA (1) EA rA N N N] (1)
CCE C CC C CC CCE C CC CC C CCE C C
o g g o g g o g g o g o o g o o g a o g o o g
❑ ❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑
11 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 IJI I I I III I I I
co W O ro O 0) C7 O Co r- C7 9- N V ti CO 0 CO N 47
CV O O Q1 N 0 0 O 0 0 0 O
rn O o 0 o O o rn o o O o o g o o O o 0 0 0 4 0
• N N N N N N N N N CV N N CV CV N C1 CV CV N CV CV
1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020
Figure III-G29 a - c. Dendrogram of clusters of FCA scores and temporal depiction of those scores weighted by relative abundance of each species in Muddy Creek: a) four clusters in upstream ponar
grabs; b) temporal depiction within the six axes of the FCA scores for upstream and downstream ponar grabs; and c) eight clusters in downstream ponar grabs.
III-G-71

ro
0
DCUT19 (Upstream)
Group Averages
A B
C
a
o- o_ - n n o- o_ n
71 71 71 71 71 71 71 77 1 ▪ 1
N in C7 (V r• 0)07
Ca 4 4 o d o o d
CV CV N N N N N CV N
0.5
-1.0
-1 5
1.5
1.0
H 0.5
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
0.5
N 0.0
" -0.5
-1.0
0.5
0.0
N -0.5
0.5
-1.0
CD 0
DCUT19 (Ponar Data)
1
•
1
1
1
• '�
1 1
1
1
1
1
•
I 1 1
1
1 I
1
1
1
I 1 1
1
1
I 1 1
1
1
1
•
1
i•
1 I
1 1 1
1
1
ifs.
1 I
1
1
Downstream
Upstream
_3._________i�____�
t-
F
1
1 1
1
HE, DE
P.. c
FC
SH
$C A,PA
ac
00
00
0
0
0
A
0
0
DCUT19 (Downstream)
Group Averages
B
c
y N N N N N N N N
C C C C C C C f
C
o0 0 I❑I ❑IIf ❑1 CO rC1co CDO O▪ O O • CV CV N • N N CV N
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Figure III-G30 a - c. Dendrogram of clusters of FCA scores and temporal depiction of those scores weighted by relative abundance of each species in DCUT19: a) three clusters in upstream ponar grabs;
b) temporal depiction within the six axes of the FCA scores for upstream and downstream ponar grabs; and c) three clusters in downstream ponar grabs.
III-G-72

1�
0
8 6
o m
O —
0
0
A
Duck Creek (Upstream)
Group Averages
E
E E
E E E E
8
a
a a - a a `a a a n n a
7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
I h] co of NI to co pl )I I 1
0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 o 0 o
N N N N N N N N N N N
0.5
6.0
-0.5
-1.0
-1 5
1.5
1.0
6.5
6.0
-0.5
-1.0
0.5
-10
-1.5
-1.0
2
Duck Creek (Ponar Data)
•
- I I I
I
•
I
1
I
I
I
1
I
I I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I 1 I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
_ •
1 I I
1 1 I
I
I
1
I
I
I
1
I
— .Downstream •
Upstream
1 1 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
N C GC
Pk CA
ac
Figure III-G31 a —b. Dendrogram of clusters of FCA scores and temporal depiction of those scores weighted by relative abundance
of each species in Duck Creek: a) two clusters in upstream ponar grabs and b) temporal depiction within the six axes of the FCA
scores for upstream and downstream ponar grabs. There were no defined clusters for downstream.
III-G-73

a)
a) a)> vi
o I— (n
d (6 O ru
ai x LC) >
92 —) a) O .5
U c c1 •
c
c-0 a) C a)
p a)L O cn
_1L a) 4 c
1 U C w •0
L) O O a
U
U C)cQ " 0
O O E N
N U a) ca
J c
Y E-' > p
A) c o
U U 5 a;as
a) o L L
L = _a U
a) OU ca Etca c0�
(-) .2 o 0
'- U
C E o Z
o m 8 6 >
Q'� C o :
a)
0_ CS)o O L
— 4 .- D
U
a) D a) Ct • •
Uo NQO
(/)� caUN
C Z .0
o0 > >, >
CIS 0 -
- 6O)- -
c H a) cn
D ,� c
— 0 -
NO a 1N O
N c
O N E D C
a) 6
N c) a)
cN x
D M (>
C.) c)C . > a)
us N O N co
0
-0 -0 (6 C
-0 cac E N c
1 o a) 4'
U
U C L
a) Q
U C a) _
o cc a) 6L
� cs p p
ifs' B
2001 and 2007-2021 in
a) 0)
a)
c .c co
j O O CO CO 010101 O M O O N
n N CO V N N N N N 01 CO CO , N N
COCOCO010100
N N N N N 01 N
N N V LL'
0
h E n '2 h
m 0 h 2.
42 cc c h E hc _ u m >
-E. (N
h m m y .2- GIm 2 N�° °E ° h a'y o 0._ a« h ,c c
h N i..N `.'mc, a
hEL3 h 4,cNmmh, '4" -a -2 a
° x «,c, m E ... maa° 0m m N 0 m o
N N N -o osN �° >>>0• m 22 m
••
.:---- .; Nm m nNa n 5 m y y h m m a,Nc° 2 c c c o h h h mN h w o o, ch
t caca" m hm .m moa m°
o m ,m m m m m,c a m m E a-m m h h h m o m m a a am2 2 2 m `o t ,,m 0mmm0o° m 0 y y m ai ai NBU.mNc t0 m
UU,m mm ° ,LE w a @N a N `� � � A-0 L Qm 2 0 EE:E 173 a L% 2 % t t 2 a B L o o m .° B N "• B E
m a m m ... 0 0 m m m m Q odg o ° ° ° : a .E-8 L- o 0 aE m E y m am 19 m 0 E E E .c - .Em-- o- -2 m° 8_ 0 o t D Gm
o Q 0 CO CO W Z Q. Q. Q. Q. CO 0 Q. 0 E 0 0 0 o .Q Q .o,, 2 0 0 0 E UUU_ ,, W= Q, 0 0 0Q 0 CO CO 0 o E 0 W2 mW O; r 0 a,c0
a a u o E a a U � O m @ 0m a U m 0a a CO
m o a H.' To a m 0
I— a`
-.2
m
c
0
o
'
O N
a,� a ° -
412 c>
-o c aa
o .m-mo 0.c
a Nm m
m .o m u m
m
o `c c
o o 2 2 o c c o m c
N ««aamm(0(0 N0a
-mNNB (o ` "m. N ,
s am m m L'4'4 72 0 m ,` °` aaau�a, 2 m
" -a Q. W o a 0 0 m 0 oo W oW W W W:a,
g O 0 a m -o COc
_
N
c
a
m
0
_.
°m
N E a, h
m.o
.-2.=E
h h h .2.-
m o- a 0
N°
N m m m" -o m m
U U U a,= N??N0B
m 0 72°°m
m 72 E E E m o m o = i ' om-
-0 0) am QJ= 0- 0 E m fly
a= a, a m m 2
F m a 0 S CO
j
0N
O co. N m V N O m m O N V N N O m V O r N co co co co co (O
m N N N N N N N N N
. LL. O .
h
Qcm
o mQ
"-E
u Lg so0000'o
... m
Q
mQ
m o
I- a
a
h>
0
h
N o
o m E' 2 m hcw h h N
m>o0^� mN mm m «° h N a
i0 c h°
NNoN ca h a c vo E
cOcOE G
Ea sx " c m Nmco N wNN N 0. ° N h 0 so n > h m8 s N h Q o m tm:s me
•QN x> o• cs mm'N"a 0 o0 «�
m x x x x x x co h E ym E cay ,o m m m E 0$2 0>, hc o h
h a a c N h h c o, N h h -0 c m am ENh 0 m a LO N h Nm m m m mN N •o00mm m m h m o z c m m -m m 0) N m
N-m mmmQ°a o mon Nuhhhh o EE o'am m m m m 0 No2o m. oo
t..0m o (0 E G,G,mS.c0.c0UCBcN o ")m 2.Nm:2s-m02 'o 0 0 0 0 m000000h0 0 oom 2� o o o o`0 0 O m GG - mGm.E w'0'-0h
O .Q 0 wE0 0 76 L 0 -p 'o 0- `"E 76 0,2 6 0 yom xO0 0 0 0 0 0(` 8 2 "0 O m0 0 T ,DU .I.Q cn DoQ mZUU
W00ZWWWtiQQu ',W omOQ010fl-OI-Emro m .-Qc0a0a0a0.C01=1=1=1=1=1= UD;D;I-1-Qm -o ZZ oWW W mn D; D; D; °EZ m W a, W ° @
o n im
0 0 w CO F F L Q O E m 0 0 x = z z o_ o_ 0) > n0 m 0a 0, 0
w 1 _I
U
m
m
tN ot
mmh
mo aNN .
s'mN mm
o N o
0 -o m
2, ..208; mm
Ao = E E
m . -(0) (0)
aQ Q Q m 0 0aF
, 0 0 0
-o <
00
j V M. LL� LL� (O ( O O O O) . CO CO CO m V O O O O) O (O O O m m COLL�
0N N M M i N N N V N N
LL� CO C-- CO CO O O LL� V V N O r O O
.-.- CO N N CO N N m m N
h
o
2
to
2 u c , Q `,'2' m h • > u Not
h .�o h '- O 2 2 2 Q mo co co >> Nya sNo m o� E Q y Na
0 m c m m h
= 0/c E wac o 2
m.S N " d ro o 2N N y
2: o a-o m oo Q z ah ioao00oaEEEEEE>>Qth.00
2 2
h cNN2 o E ,.1) 2- ° ws0L a m a ow0° o •a, c o o" o N ,0a,0 hhhhhhhwEEE a,, a,, a,, ym ,,,
my -2 a ux'>>>>E°aaaaaaa a a a o 0 0 o m m>>>>
am m 2 m h m 2 c c c c c 2 Zh m 2 0 m o m.N mmm! m •_ ° ' a 2 kJkJ2 2 2 2 2 o GG
p N N« "O 2 -p U= 2 2 2 2 2 U .p «««««T a m m- N 70 •Nc 72 0a 0 a 4, °'1 "m°°72 E a w U «2 N N N N N N .6 t t-2'«U U U U -2-2 Z Z Z Z Z Z a
`.1NNLof°E20 a0 4.4.4.4.4.a,°m0 0Umm0.OU`N0 Q °N2 2 2 2 -8 -8 Q Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 O'O'OQ Q Q N NNN iiiiii2. N Q
D -° 00o -"6'8 "Q. ' p Q N N O 0 m m m 2 8 RRRRRR
0 0 0'' -8 -8 ro ro W W W=3 1= 1= 1= 1= 1= -`=om W'2 U 2 2 2 -.<- m 0 0 IL Et. E) E) 2. Q -E) -E) -E) 0 U U -a. -a. -a. -a. -a. -a. O W W W W UUUUUUUY Z Z
L LU
0- x S S z z a a 0) (n n U 0 0
m t o
x Z
1a`
a
Q
0 v
o aaaahwa o c.'c=
EN
° . E 0- " 0:o
mE E - m 2 c o_ o_ c h 2000
=oQ
..°Euu0c uu,
i s0000 c.
GG>G > > >>o
•;ct..>>>>m= > °o,.,aE
LLLL= >>>> O
a a o o N • 2 N c0000000mamc o 0
Q Q NNN 'O O 0 0 0 0 0 O%O2 2 o
2 2 G R RRO
a. a. ce 10 ti ti 'F.-E. 1-- U U U U U U U U a. Z=0
D
j V V O O O. 0 0 0 O O . O m O oO O O I� O O O
N M N N
CO N m. N O O V oO oO N V V V V
N N N 01 N N
w 0 m
m h m t•
m h
m � s oro2: c us E � h m • �' a:Q c O -c-c,
4.2 °°Nn °' ° m n L°o22 vt
w jmN0Na ao •
m m m2E ,n0mnm - a>a a - nos N0h m N0hh'mmu u m 2 2
"a m -o m m m mm4m4m4s sobN ->> >m m m ooN2 ' u �«aaam
-- m a, a, , , , -@N NN�aN22 Ey .h 0 0 cm �o tcco m t m
-0m s Q.. s 7 o 0 0=-8 a, aa, aa, aac c 0 o N" 'mm 2 E--. E-, ' of-,Eo00a Q m .2 u u
WLD m 2 ._o 0 0 .o p m , m -m o -m De >o E E 2 2 ym m� ,o h.2'8 '8 s a-8 o m� m0 m Q=OEo 0
m ` Ea O E 0=_= 2 Ym -E' ° (o Q B Q Q J J Z Z Z Q. Q. Q. W I- - f. m 0 1' J Z Z . W W m .2_ E' Q On m m
:2 w a a zt z z z a z a m m a co
xc`Q ° ma U
0 W CO
Q
Ti
12 0
w
h m c y h
ym
.-
him au
E m o , a, h
a E hw m 'o c h a, m w w
m ,.2.. c m
> ,0aO m h c0_ «h m•
,o3 3,n,n .2 n w Nm ocaE h -0 aQv
2- N c E°o, h o u °
E m -h
0�' o w
ha
m o oao m' .. .. a sQ m m m • Nc0 m h 0 " os .'N u m •
0c. m
QmN2 to ° mm..00-Ev=ti c ,n 2 ,,, -ai -1
24
mma °m m m m o 00 0 om mmm .o :0E Emmao_
u N aa-a, .-m 7 2 oo o -m 0 0 o Ns 2 o c= 2 m 0 2. -2 m� _0 2 0 -o a a a a
0 ,o 0 0° 2-o m m m aam m 0. :am22a m s' 2 a y 2ap a a J2m Ec m
m W W co co 2 .Q 0 Z Q J J co V B Q E a, Q "O ZQ E m.< "O W•Eo m m §, J •„U U i i Z co f. ', O a, a, a, a,
oU 0 o.=E Q = Eoz a co oUU o x
CO 2 == a F0 m 0
s 0
a
III-G-74

a)
U
0
a)
H
A
u)
O V O O
N N— N N
i
i
i
i
(0
ri
i
In V O
i i M M
lf')
N
M O O
N N— V
lf')
N—
lf')
N—
O
N
i
0
i i i i N
LO M
N— N—
O O
N N
0
i
i
i
i
M
N
Taxa
Balanidae sp.
Balanus sp.
Balanus amphitrite amphitrite
Balanus improvisus
Balanus subalbidus
O
f6
O
a
-t
4
Q
Q
N o
o
Q
O
U E
N 2
O
(
0
n
O
U
o
o
a
6
C
o
'O
C
N
O
o
o
N
.�..
A
U
ti
'm
0
m
a
L
�.
U
m
E
N O
N
O
(p o.
O C t
o>
0
m
m
ii
e a
N
n`
N
N
2
(6
c
0
N
O
N
<
Q
w
(6
(6
'E
U
O
NO
2
Q
U
U)
o
o
o
o
N
(6
E
N
o
o
'rn
(6
O
N
d
(6 N
c
ti m
.ti o m
a E m a
.c N ii
c n aO
w m o m o
N .N N N N -0 N
ti c
o - m a 'o
m o 0 0
0 co Y o 7 'c O O N
Q m o a c a U o w
'O _ O N O C s.
U m N O 'T z o N-2 Q. L 2 U=
o Q A
W 5 >. 2 c 0 CO O a
_ 2 >
o m
m
m
•a
O
o
'�
ti
y
a
o_
m
.E
ti 0(0
v!
Q o
U N U ti
o ,m m
m
-0 .G 01 N
•E
c c
(6 Q
N Z cr CO
2
m
'O
O
E
N
co
U
°
°�
a�
E
N
o
co
-o
=
H
Q
w
N
E
O
U
N
Z
m
w
'm
N
E
O
U
(6
Z
c)
c
m°
N
E
O
U
(6
Z
N
m
O
w D
O Q
o 0
o N
Q o
O L
rn i
coa
(7
o
m
Q
o
W
m
a
N
N
O
O
w w
�° o
aci o
-aa
Nm
ti wE
O ° n O
o o w m ti
�' m m o 0 0 'c o
o o a
E a m( y c
� 'O (6
o E m o N
N D N (6 ' ., C
Z .5 U 0 U E lL Q.
L C
2> Q J
a m
o
CO
-o
N
a
o
m
7
N
A
L
s
U N
m a�
(q N
a a
a
Q c
U C C
o °�
m
Ty) -a a a
O c c
'n O O
N O �.. �..
o -O J J
>'
0 2
z
N
coti
n
U y
o m m cti
U v
m .c c t o
-o c m w •� w
U (6 �- O.
.'- o c N 7 ti c
,.. 0 O �. N N
0 J L Q 0 T W -O f6 E
.. N
J .N 7 N LLJ 0 s
Ozu) w
aa) aa)
z z d
N N
m -a
com :=
o L C
Q o
Ocp_ N a
oz
HH
FL'
L
a)
(11
E
O
L
U_
+J
C
a)
a)
(Q
a)
a)
N_
(73
(11
()
0
L
O
aH
aH
a)
LA_
0
U
z
a)
0)
N
N
a)
(Q
N
a)
(/)
III-G-75

Table III-G2. Dominant benthic macroinvertebrate species for sweep samples collected in monitored creeks during May of Mod Alt L sample years 1998-2005 and 2007-2021. Pre -Mod Alt L: Broomfield Swamp Creek
(2019-2021), Jacks Creek (1998-2005; 2011-2014), Jacobs Creek (2011-2013), Drinkwater Creek (2011-2012), Tooley Creek (1998-2001; 2010-2011), Huddles Cut (1998-2001; 2007-2009), Porter Creek (2011-2015),
and DCUT11 (2013-2017). Post -Mod Alt L: Jacks Creek (2015-2021), Jacobs Creek (2014-2021), Drinkwater Creek (2013-2021), Tooley Creek (2012-2021), Huddles Cut (2010-2021), Porter Creek (2016-2021),
DCUT11 (2018-2021). Control Creeks: SCUT1 (2019-2021), PA2, Long, Little, and Duck creeks (2011-2021), Muddy Creek (1998-2005 and 2007-2021), and DCUT19 (2013-2021). A - indicates the creek was not
monitored that year. Benthic collection occurred in June for 2010. The count for each species was stopped at 100 individuals per sweep.
WDominant
W
W
0 a
Lu
-I Et
W H
L. N
2 d
0
0
m
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
Littoridinops sp.
Polypedilum sp.
Corixidae sp.
Candonidae sp.
40
31
29
23
13.7
10.6
9.9
7.8
Gammarus tigrinus
Mytilopsis leucophaeta
Naididae w/o hair sp.
Cyprideis Iittoralis
300
169
130
122
37.1
20.9
16.1
15.1
Corixidae sp.
Naididae sp. w/o hair
Tanytarsus sp.
Mytilopsis leucophaeta
108
82
12
11
41.0
31.1
4.5
4.2
Ma
WDominant
W 2
U cc
W13 IX
J I-
W Z
2
0 0
0 Cl
m
0
Ce 2
ZIQ
0
0 I-
dDominant
I- M
0
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
l -
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2005
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
not monitored
1998
-
-
not monitored
1999
-
-
not monitored
2000
-
-
not monitored
2001
-
-
Corixidae sp.
Cyprideis littoral's
Naididae sp. w/o hair
Dero sp.
2002
109
83
73
63
14.6
11.1
9.8
8.5
Gammarus tigrinus
Cyprideis littoral's
Naididae w/o hair sp.
Americamysis almyra
2003
300
204
100
82
36.5
24-8
12.2
10.0
Gammarus tigrinus
Tanytarsus sp.
Dicrotendipes nervosus
Naididae w/o hair sp.
2004
89
70
40
33
23.4
18.4
10.5
8.7
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
not monitored
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
not monitored
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
-
Naididae sp. w/o hair
Corixidae sp.
Goeldichironomus holoprasinus
Tanypus neopunctipennis
127
45
40
30
31.7
11.2
10.0
7.5
Cyprideis littoral's
Gammarus tigrinus
Naididae w/o hair sp.
Physidae sp.
300
300
207
52
31-8
31.8
21.9
5.5
Naididae w/o hair sp.
Corixidae sp.
Chironomus decorus
Tanytarsus sp.
207
164
61
43
35.8
28.3
10.5
7.4
SCUT1 (CONTROL)
DOWNSTREAM
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
Gammarus tigrinus
Cassidinidea lunifrons
Kiefferulus sp.
Candonidae sp.
133
116
99
59
18.0
15.7
13.4
8.0
Gammarus tigrinus
Americamysis almyra
Cyprideis littoral's
Amphicteis floridus
300
227
203
108
30.1
22-8
20.4
10.8
Gammarus tigrinus
Amphicteis floridus
Dicrotendipes nervosus
Littoridinops sp.
300
41
28
23
67.3
9-2
6.3
5.2
III-G-76

Table III-G2 (continued).
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
Gammarus tigrinus
300
11.3
Gammarus tigrinus
300
38.4
Amphicteis floridus
300
12.3
Amphicteis floridus
300
10.6
Littoridinops sp.
300
30.6
Chironomus decorus
300
25.2
Cyprideis littoralis
300
13.5
Amphicteis floridus
290
15.1
Littoridinops sp.
300
11.3
Littoridinops sp.
163
20.9
Cyprideis littoralis
300
12.3
Cyprideis littoralis
300
10.6
Goeldichironomus devineyae
115
11.7
Goeldichironomus devineyae
300
25.2
Littoridinops sp.
300
13.5
Gammarus tigrinus
288
15.0
Enallagma sp.
261
9.8
Cassidinidea lunifrons
123
15.7
Gammarus tigrinus
300
12.3
Gammarus tigrinus
300
10.6
Enchytraeidae sp.
111
11.3
Littoridinops sp.
257
21.6
Tanytarsus limnecticus
288
13.0
Tanytarsus sp. 1
276
14.4
Amphicteis floridus
201
7.6
Cyprideis littoralis
97
12.4
Dicrotendipes nervosus
300
12.3
Littoridinops sp.
300
10.6
Palaemonetes pugio
88
9.0
Cyrenoida floridana
81
6.8
Amphicteis floridus
253
11.4
Littoridinops sp.
253
13.2
W 2
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
WDominant
Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
U IX
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
Chironomus decorus
300
8.5
Littoridinops tenuipes
300
34.7
Nematoda sp.
300
16.9
Littoridinops tenuipes
300
27.5
Cr) I-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Apocorophium sp.
300
8.5
Goeldichironomus devineyae
237
27.4
Littoridinops sp.
284
16.0
Chironomus decorus
141
12.9
V..
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Littoridinops sp.
300
8.5
Apocorophium sp.
126
14.6
Chironomus decorus
247
13.9
Corixidae sp.
131
12.0
Q
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Apocorophium louisianum
266
7.5
Chironomus decorus
65
7.5
Goeldichironomus devineyae
216
12.2
Gammarus tigrinus
96
8.8
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
Littoridinops sp.
300
19.1
Corixidae sp.
300
18.7
Littoridinops sp.
300
22.9
Littoridinops sp.
300
14.0
Chironomus decorus
300
12.1
Apocorophium sp.
300
18.2
Littoridinops sp.
257
28.5
Apocorophium sp.
293
18.6
Littoridinops sp.
300
18.7
Corixidae sp.
188
14.3
Gammarus tigrinus
300
14.0
Corixidae sp.
220
8.9
Gammarus tigrinus
300
18.2
Apocorophium sp.
251
27.9
Gammarus tigrinus
286
18.2
Tanytarsus sp.
206
12.9
Gammarus tigrinus
185
14.1
Tanytarsus sp.
272
12.7
Littoridinops sp.
216
8.7
Littoridinops tenuipes
268
16.3
Gammarus tigrinus
123
13.7
Amphicteis floridus
107
6.8
Apocorophium sp.
162
10.1
Apocorophium sp.
149
11.4
Chironomus decorus
266
12.4
Amphicteis floridus
208
8.4
Cyprideis littoralis
214
13.0
Chironomus decorus
47
5.2
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
Gammarus tigrinus
295
11.9
Gammarus tigrinus
300
30.2
Littoridinops sp.
128
21.7
Gammarus tigrinus
300
14.6
Littoridinops sp.
246
29.7
Americamysis almyra
148
19.0
Littoridinops sp.
239
23.6
Apocorophium sp.
300
21.8
Cricotopus sp.
252
10.2
Apocorophium lacustre
245
24.6
Cricotopus sp.
102
17.3
Littoridinops sp.
300
14.6
Americamysis almyra
100
12.1
Littoridinops sp.
124
15.9
Cyprideis littoralis
132
13.0
Littoridinops sp.
300
21.8
Cassidinidea lunifrons
235
9.5
Cassidinidea lunifrons
170
17.1
Apocorophium lacustre
77
13.1
Dicrotendipes nervosus
230
11.2
Palaemonetes pugio
62
7.5
Apocorophium lacustre
109
14.0
Americamysis almyra
129
12.7
Gammarus tigrinus
264
19.2
Y 2
Littoridinops sp.
224
9.0
Littoridinops sp.
153
15.4
Gammarus tigrinus
73
12.4
Goeldichironomus devineyae
200
9.7
Laeoneries culveri
56
6.8
Amphicteis floridus
89
11.4
Tanytarsus sp. 1
103
10.2
Americamysis almyra
248
18.0
W Q
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Ce Ce
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
U H
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
Apocorophium sp.
256
12.7
Hargeria rapax
159
19.7
Nematoda sp.
230
26.1
Littoridinops tenuipes
300
18.8
YCI)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Palaemonetes pugio
248
12.4
Apocorophium sp.
146
18.1
Apocorophium sp.
115
13.1
Hargeria rapax
283
17.7
V
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Hargeria rapax
204
10.2
Littoridinops tenuipes
115
14.2
Hargeria rapax
113
12.8
Apocorophium sp.
187
11.7
Q 0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Gammarus tigrinus
172
8.6
Americamysis almyra
97
12.0
Littoridinops sp.
99
11.3
Gammarus tigrinus
178
11.1
0
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
Gammarus tigrinus
300
19.2
Apocorophium sp.
300
19.3
Littoridinops sp.
300
39.2
Gammarus tigrinus
300
26.4
Littoridinops sp.
300
13.7
Apocorophium sp.
300
22.5
Littoridinops sp.
204
67.1
Littoridinops sp.
300
19.2
Gammarus tigrinus
300
19.3
Gammarus tigrinus
224
29.2
Littoridinops sp.
208
18.3
Apocorophium sp.
295
13.5
Littoridinops tenuipes
300
22.5
Gammarus tigrinus
36
11.8
Apocorophium sp.
272
17.4
Littoridinops sp.
300
19.3
Apocorophium sp.
124
16.2
Americamysis almyra
180
15.8
Corixidae sp.
247
11.3
Gammarus tigrinus
255
19.1
Palaemonetes pugio
16
5.3
Americamysis almyra
135
8.6
Apocorophium lacustre
269
17.3
Apocorophium lacustre
38
5.0
Gammarus mucronatus
127
11.2
Gammarus tigrinus
183
8.4
Hargeria rapax
211
15.8
Goeldichironomus devineyae
14
4.6
JACOBS CREEK
UPSTREAM
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
Littoridinops sp.
300
18.0
Littoridinops tenuipes
300
31.9
Goeldichironomus devineyae
300
18.5
Littoridinops tenuipes
300
24.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Apedilum sp.
222
13.3
Goeldichironomus devineyae
228
24.2
Littoridinops sp.
280
17.3
Chironomus decorus
212
17.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Apocorophium sp.
218
13.1
Apedilum sp.
190
20.2
Chironomus decorus
234
14.4
Goeldichironomus devineyae
156
12.5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Goeldichironomus devineyae
142
8.5
Chironomus decorus
91
9.7
Apedilum sp.
192
11.9
Apocorophium sp.
122
9.8
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
Chironomus sp.
300
18.4
Apocorophium sp.
300
19.0
Littoridinops sp.
300
21.6
Apocorophium sp.
300
23.7
Littoridinops sp.
300
25.2
Littoridinops tenuipes
193
26.9
Littoridinops sp.
300
37.9
Littoridinops sp.
300
18.4
Littoridinops sp.
300
19.0
Apocorophium sp.
256
18.4
Littoridinops sp.
300
23.7
Goeldichironomus devineyae
134
11.3
Apocorophium sp.
132
18.4
Goeldichironomus devineyae
165
20.8
Tanytarsus sp.
236
14.5
Goeldichironomus devineyae
138
8.7
Corixidae sp.
252
18.2
Goeldichironomus devineyae
146
11.5
Chironomus decorus
132
11.1
Corixidae sp.
100
13.9
Apocorophium sp.
79
10.0
Apocorophium sp.
222
13.6
Apocorophium lacustre
136
8.6
Trichocorixa sexcinta
136
9.8
Apocorophium louisianum
142
11.2
Tanytarsus sp.
130
10.9
Gammarus tigrinus
88
12.3
Palaemonetes pugio
59
7.4
JACOBS CREEK
DOWNSTREAM
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
Apocorophium sp.
285
18.9
Apocorophium sp.
220
21.5
Littoridinops sp.
203
16.4
Apocorophium sp.
274
12.8
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Littoridinops sp.
201
13.3
Hargeria rapax
174
17.0
Apocorophium sp.
176
14.2
Chironomus decorus
272
12.7
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Hargeria rapax
198
13.1
Americamysis almyra
138
13.5
Chironomus decorus
174
14.1
Littoridinops tenuipes
232
10.8
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Chironomus decorus
184
12.2
Apocorophium louisianum
134
13.1
Hargeria rapax
151
12.2
Hargeria rapax
224
10.4
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
Apocorophium sp.
300
20.0
Apocorophium sp.
300
18.8
Gammarus tigrinus
300
21.3
Apocorophium sp.
300
13.6
Littoridinops sp.
300
21.1
Hargeria rapax
193
21.3
Littoridinops sp.
175
19.7
Littoridinops sp.
300
20.0
Littoridinops sp.
284
17.8
Apocorophium sp.
274
19.4
Gammarus tigrinus
300
13.6
Apocorophium sp.
233
16.4
Gammarus mucronatus
150
16.6
Hargeria rapax
135
15.2
Gammarus tigrinus
243
16.2
Gammarus tigrinus
168
10.5
Littoridinops sp.
241
17.1
Littoridinops sp.
284
12.9
Goeldichironomus devineyae
204
14.4
Littoridinops tenuipes
150
16.6
Gammarus tigrinus
121
13.6
Rhithropanopeus harrisii
108
7.2
Corixidae sp.
125
7.8
Corixidae sp.
126
8.9
Chironomus decorus
252
11.5
Gammarus tigrinus
139
9.8
Gammarus tigrinus
139
15.4
Goeldichironomus devineyae
94
10.6
III-G-77

Table III-G2 (continued).
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
CtQ
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
Apedilum sp.
300
15.6
Apedilum sp.
300
20.0
Littondinops sp.
300
22.9
Littondinops tenuipes
300
30.7
zW
ct
0 1-Apocorophium
Littondinops sp.
sp.
300
262
15.6
13.6
Littondinops tenuipes
Goeldichironomus devineyae
300
239
20.0
15.9
Goeldichironomus devineyae
Paranais litoralis
240
106
18.3
8.1
Goeldichironomus devineyae
Chironomus decorus
204
153
20.9
15.7
0 (1)
Gammarus tigrinus
170
8.8
Apocorophium louisianum
205
13.7
Apedilum sp.
102
7.8
Apocorophium sp.
88
9.0
Cs/D
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
dDominant
Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
Littondinops sp.
300
16.9
Corixidae sp.
300
14.7
Littondinops sp.
300
17.8
Littondinops sp.
300
23.2
Littondinops sp.
300
15.0
Littondinops tenuipes
300
23.6
Littondinops sp.
294
26.2
Apocorophium sp.
267
15.1
Littondinops sp.
274
13.4
Corixidae sp.
300
17.8
Apocorophium sp.
216
16.7
Apocorophium sp.
224
11.2
Apocorophium sp.
259
20.4
Goeldichironomus devineyae
252
22.5
Gammarus tignnus
258
14.6
Apocorophium sp.
252
12.4
Apocorophium sp.
230
13.7
Apocorophium louisianum
172
13.3
Goeldichironomus devineyae
204
10.2
Corixidae sp.
234
18.4
Apocorophium sp.
140
12.5
Goeldichironomus devineyae
215
12.1
Gammarus tignnus
236
11.6
Gammarus tignnus
226
13.4
Goeldichironomus devineyae
172
13.3
Chironomus decorus
184
9.2
Gammarus tignnus
142
11.2
Chironomus decorus
140
12.5
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
J 2
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
Ctw
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
Littondinops sp.
300
19.8
Littondinops tenuipes
300
22.5
Littondinops sp.
300
23.8
Littondinops tenuipes
300
26.7
I- Ct
Apocorophium sp.
242
16.0
Apocorophium sp.
292
21.9
Goeldichironomus devineyae
295
23.4
Goeldichironomus devineyae
236
21.0
Z I-
0 (1)
Goeldichironomus devineyae
206
13.6
Apedilum sp.
202
15.1
Apocorophium sp.
185
14.7
Apocorophium sp.
226
20.1
O Z
ci 0
Apedilum sp.
132
8.7
Goeldichironomus devineyae
196
14.7
Amphicteis floridus
132
10.5
Chironomus decorus
119
10.6
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
d0
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
Apocorophium sp.
300
20.7
Littondinops sp.
300
17.0
Littondinops sp.
300
22.6
Apocorophium sp.
300
13.7
Apocorophium sp.
300
15.0
Littondinops tenuipes
300
22.7
Littondinops sp.
300
26.5
Goeldichironomus devineyae
300
20.7
Apocorophium sp.
266
15.0
Corixidae sp.
251
18.9
Chironomus decorus
300
13.7
Goeldichironomus devineyae
300
15.0
Corixidae sp.
241
18.3
Goeldichironomus devineyae
266
23.5
Littondinops sp.
300
20.7
Corixidae sp.
234
13.2
Apocorophium sp.
217
16.4
Gammarus tignnus
296
13.6
Littondinops sp.
300
15.0
Gammarus tignnus
201
15.2
Gammarus tignnus
86
7.6
Gammarus tignnus
132
9.1
Goeldichironomus devineyae
228
12.9
Gammarus tignnus
155
11.7
Apocorophium louisianum
282
12.9
Apocorophium louisianum
284
14.2
Apocorophium sp.
200
15.2
Apocorophium sp.
83
7.3
I
DRINKWATER CREEK
UPSTREAM
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
Apedilum sp.
300
14.8
Goeldichironomus devineyae
300
29.2
Apocorophium sp.
282
16.9
Littondinops tenuipes
300
24.8
Littondinops sp.
300
14.8
Littondinops tenuipes
300
29.2
Goeldichironomus devineyae
269
16.1
Chironomus decorus
244
20.1
Apocorophium sp.
278
13.7
Apocorophium sp.
142
13.8
Littondinops sp.
258
15.4
Goeldichironomus devineyae
223
18.4
Gammarus tignnus
199
9.8
Apocorophium louisianum
56
5.5
Apocorophium louisianum
230
13.8
Apocorophium sp.
131
10.8
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
Gammarus tignnus
300
22.8
Apocorophium sp.
300
18.1
Gammarus tignnus
300
20.2
Apocorophium sp.
300
16.9
Gammarus tignnus
207
34.7
Apocorophium sp.
255
29.0
Gammarus tignnus
260
20.8
Littondinops sp.
300
22.8
Gammarus tignnus
300
18.1
Apocorophium sp.
295
19.9
Apocorophium louisianum
284
16.0
Littondinops sp.
62
10.4
Littondinops tenuipes
225
25.5
Apocorophium sp.
258
20.6
Apocorophium sp.
262
19.9
Littondinops sp.
266
16.0
Littondinops sp.
226
15.2
Gammarus tignnus
254
14.3
Cassidinidea lunifrons
54
9.1
Corixidae sp.
110
12.5
Littondinops sp.
220
17.6
Amphicteis flondus
96
7.3
Amphicteis flondus
136
8.2
Apocorophium louisianum
183
12.3
Chironomus decorus
228
12.8
Goeldichironomus devineyae
41
6.9
Gammarus tignnus
76
8.6
Chironomus decorus
142
11.4
DRINKWATER CREEK
DOWNSTREAM
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
Hargeria rapax
300
22.5
Hargeria rapax
180
18.3
Hargeria rapax
216
17.3
Littondinops tenuipes
245
19.1
Apocorophium sp.
150
11.3
Amencamysis almyra
172
17.5
Apocorophium sp.
190
15.2
Apocorophium sp.
193
15.0
Littondinops sp.
146
11.0
Littondinops tenuipes
132
13.5
Littondinops sp.
149
12.0
Gammarus mucronatus
164
12.8
Gammarus tignnus
137
10.3
Chironomus decorus
111
11.3
Nematoda sp.
120
9.6
Hargeria rapax
150
11.7
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
Littondinops sp.
300
18.1
Littondinops sp.
300
21.3
Littondinops sp.
300
22.4
Gammarus tignnus
249
16.5
Littondinops sp.
300
33.9
Littondinops tenuipes
230
23.0
Hargeria rapax
180
18.6
Apocorophium sp.
244
14.8
Gammarus tignnus
295
21.0
Gammarus tignnus
276
20.6
Hargeria rapax
206
13.6
Apocorophium sp.
216
24.4
Hargeria rapax
205
20.5
Littondinops sp.
167
17.2
Gammarus tignnus
218
13.2
Apocorophium sp.
228
16.2
Apocorophium sp.
215
16.1
Littondinops sp.
204
13.5
Gammarus tignnus
147
16.6
Corixidae sp.
147
14.7
Goeldichironomus devineyae
155
16.0
Hargeria rapax
207
12.5
Hargeria rapax
142
10.1
Apocorophium lacustre
174
13.0
Apocorophium sp.
193
12.8
Goeldichironomus devineyae
63
7.1
Goeldichironomus devineyae
103
10.3
Gammarus tignnus
127
13.1
III-G-78

Table III-G2 (continued).
J
O
C'
I-
Z
0 Q
`-' W
Yce
W I-
LLI f/)
C' 11
U D
W
J
~
�
J
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
Littoridinops sp.
Tanytarsus sp.
Gammarus tigrinus
Amphicteis floridus
300
166
127
122
26.1
14.5
11.1
10.6
Enchytraeidae sp.
Tanytarsus sp.
Dasyhelea sp.
Goeldichironomus devineyae
248
185
160
121
20.3
15.2
13.1
9.9
Gammarus tigrinus
Littoridinops sp.
Tanytarsus sp.
Cyprideis littoralis
300
300
216
201
15.0
15.0
10.8
10.0
Gammarus tigrinus
Littoridinops tenuipes
Chironomus decorus
Physidae sp. (physa/physella)
300
285
170
124
25.1
23.8
14.2
10.4
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
Gammarus tigrinus
Gyprideis littoralis
Gyp
Naididae sp. w/o hair
Littoridinops sp.
300
250
160
59
31.2
26.0
16.6
6.1
Gammarus tigrinus
Cyprideis littoralis
Tanytarsus sp.
Amphicteis floridus
300
274
62
59
29.5
26.9
6.1
5.8
Gammarus tigrinus
Cyprideis littoralis
Chironomus decorus
Littoridinops sp.
300
291
163
120
23.5
22.8
12.7
9.4
Gammarus tigrinus
Cyprideis littoralis
Mytilopsis leucophaeata
Naididae sp. w/o hair
300
241
100
56
29.1
23.4
9.7
5.4
Gammarus tigrinus
Corixidae sp.
Gyprideis littoralis
Mytilopsis leucophaeata
300
234
154
104
24.9
19.4
12.8
8.6
Cyprideis littoralis
Gammarus tigrinus
Americamysis almyra
Littondinops tenuipes
300
300
73
62
34.1
34.1
8.3
7.0
Chironomus decorus
Tanytarsus sp.
Gammarus tigrinus
Amphicteis floridus
131
58
46
43
32.4
14.4
11 A
10.6
Illkom
J
O
C'
H
Z Q
0 W
Y I-
WCnPalaemonetes
�
U O
W p
J
~
H
J
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
Apocorophium sp.
Littoridinops sp.
pugio
Apocorophium louisianum
220
152
116
115
16.1
11.2
8.5
8.5
Palaemonetes pugio
Apocorophium sp.
Littoridinops tenuipes
Hargeria rapax
184
168
122
70
21.8
19.9
14.5
8.3
Nematoda sp.
Apedilum sp.
Apocorophium sp.
Hargeria rapax
209
208
130
113
18.1
18.1
11.3
9.8
Littoridinops tenuipes
Apocorophium sp.
Chironomus decorus
Hargeria rapax
300
179
118
67
30.0
17.8
11.7
6.7
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
Apocorophium sp.
Littoridinops sp.
Gammarus tigrinus
Rhithropanopeus hamsii
300
300
223
141
24.1
24.1
17.9
11.3
Littoridinops sp.
Apocorophium sp.
Corixidae sp.
Gammarus tigrinus
300
261
187
162
22.7
19.7
14.1
12.2
Littoridinops sp.
Cyprideis littoralis
Gammarus tigrinus
Apocorophium sp.
300
232
196
189
20.0
15.4
13.0
12.6
Littoridinops sp.
Gammarus tigrinus
Apocorophium sp.
Palaemonetes pugio
192
155
77
47
34.0
27.5
13.7
8.3
Littoridinops sp.
Gammarus tigrinus
Goeldichironomus devineyae
Palaemonetes pugio
251
90
52
50
41.1
14.7
8.5
8.2
Littoridinops tenuipes
Apocorophium sp.
Gammarus tigrinus
Tanytarsus sp.
300
288
244
131
21.0
20.1
17.1
9.2
Palaemonetes pugio
Littoridinops sp.
Gammarus tigrinus
Naididae sp. w/o hair
15
13
6
5
25.4
22.0
10.2
8.5
-IDominant
O
C'
I-
Z
O Q
U W
Y Ce
w f/)
Ce Cl- U
O
Z
O
J
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
Littoridinops sp.
Chironomus decorus
Apocorophium sp.
Apedilum sp.
300
242
178
156
18.9
15.2
11.2
9.8
Littoridinops tenuipes
Apocorophium louisianum
Apocorophium sp.
Chironomus decorus
220
202
74
54
29.7
27.3
1.0
7.3
Goeldichironomus devineyae
Littoridinops sp.
Chironomus decorus
Amphicteis floridus
252
212
204
68
25.9
21.8
20.9
7.0
Chironomus decorus
Gammarus mucronatus
Apocorophium sp.
Amphicteis floridus
300
232
213
153
18.6
14.4
13.2
9.5
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Dominant Species
Total
/
Dominant Species
Total
/
Dominant Species
Total
/
Dominant Species
Total
/
Dominant Species
Total
/
Dominant Species
Total
/
Dominant Species
Total
Apocorophium sp.
Chironomus sp.
Littoridinops sp.
Tanytarsus sp.
300
300
300
300
12.9
12.9
12.9
12.9
Littoridinops sp.
Gammarus tigrinus
Apocorophium sp.
Amphicteis floridus
300
268
210
128
19.5
17.4
13.6
8.3
Littoridinops sp.
Gammarus tigrinus
Apocorophium sp.
Amphicteis floridus
300
300
202
132
20.8
20.8
14.0
9.1
Littoridinops sp.
Gammarus tigrinus
Apocorophium sp.
Chironomus decorus
300
234
206
200
21.1
16.4
14.5
14.0
Corixidae sp.
Littoridinops sp.
Chironomus decorus
Enallagma sp.
300
242
234
226
10.2
8.3
8.0
7.7
Gammarus tigrinus
Littoridinops tenuipes
Apocorophium sp.
Uhlorchestia uhleri
76
53
32
32
30.4
21.2
12.8
12.8
Chironomus decorus
Littoridinops sp.
Apocorophium sp.
Amphicteis floridus
300
300
158
108
23.2
23.2
12.2
8.4
LONG CREEK (CONTROL)
DOWNSTREAM
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
/
Dominant Species
Total
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
Apocorophium sp.
Gammarus mucronatus
Gammarus tigrinus
Apocorophium lacustre
226
190
117
45
25.3
21.3
13.1
5.0
Americamysis almyra
Apocorophium sp.
Apocorophium louisianum
Nematoda sp.
214
195
120
120
19.2
17.5
10.8
10.8
Nematoda sp.
Hargeria rapax
Balanus improvisus
Gammarus mucronatus
173
163
138
109
22.3
21.0
17.8
14.0
Gammarus mucronatus
Apocorophium sp.
Rhithropanopeus hamsii
Hargeria rapax
241
215
186
162
17.8
15.9
13.7
12.0
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
Gammarus mucronatus
Apocorophium sp.
Gammarus tigrinus
Littoridinops sp.
236
212
172
148
17.8
16.0
13.0
11.1
Littoridinops sp.
Americamysis almyra
Apocorophium sp.
Gammarus tigrinus
298
202
166
120
25.5
17.3
14.2
10.3
Apocorophium sp.
Gammarus tigrinus
Littoridinops sp.
Gammarus mucronatus
300
300
300
276
19.2
19.2
19.2
17.6
Gammarus mucronatus
Gammarus tigrinus
Hargeria rapax
Littoridinops sp.
257
245
126
124
26.8
25.5
13.1
12.9
Americamysis almyra
Littoridinops sp.
Apocorophium sp.
Corixidae sp.
300
221
112
77
29.3
21.6
10.9
7.5
Gammarus tigrinus
Gammarus mucronatus
Balanus improvisus
Apocorophium sp.
181
126
61
45
34.2
23.8
11.5
8.5
Hargeria rapax
Gammarus tigrinus
Littoridinops sp.
Americamysis almyra
116
105
98
92
17.3
15.6
14.6
13.7
III-G-79

Table III-G2 (continued).
TOOLEY CREEK
UPSTREAM
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
Littoridinops sp.
300
16.6
Gammarus tigrinus
300
26.1
Littoridinops sp.
298
13.8
Littoridinops sp.
300
13.2
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
Gammarus tigrinus
226
12.5
Cassidinidea lunifrons
253
22.0
Chironomus decorus
282
13.1
Goeldichironomus devineyae
300
13.2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Amphicteis fioridus
214
11.8
Littoridinops sp.
195
17.0
Amphicteis fioridus
267
12.4
Tanytarsus sp. 1
300
13.2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Dicrotendipes sp.
181
10.0
Cyprideis littoralis
104
9.1
Gammarus tigrinus
224
10.4
Cyprideis littoralis
224
9.9
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
Littoridinops sp.
240
26.1
Littoridinops sp.
300
18.9
Littoridinops tenuipes
300
26.3
Littoridinops sp.
268
16.4
Chironomus decorus
300
15.6
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Apocorophium sp.
189
20.6
Apocorophium sp.
202
12.7
Apocorophium sp.
197
17.3
Apocorophium louisianum
224
13.7
Littoridinops tenuipes
297
15.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Goeldichironomus devineyae
142
15.5
Chironomus decorus
183
11.5
Nematoda sp.
138
12.1
Apocorophium sp.
220
13.5
Apocorophium sp.
262
13.6
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Chironomus decorus
85
9.3
Apedilum sp.
164
10.3
Apocorophium louisianum
131
11.5
Goeldichironomus devineyae
204
12.5
Gammarus mucronatus
257
13.3
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
Tanytarsus sp.
300
12.6
Apocorophium sp.
300
15.5
Apocorophium sp.
300
11.7
Littoridinops sp.
300
26.2
Littoridinops sp.
300
25.1
Littoridinops tenuipes
300
28.3
Tanytarsus sp.
300
15.3
Hargena rapax
282
11.8
Littoridinops sp.
300
15.5
Gammarus tigrinus
300
11.7
Chironomus decorus
197
17.2
Apocorophium sp.
140
11.7
Apocorophium sp.
267
25.2
Littoridinops sp.
300
15.3
Littoridinops sp.
236
9.9
Gammarus tigrinus
233
12.0
Littoridinops sp.
300
11.7
Apocorophium sp.
191
16.7
Apocorophium louisianum
113
9.4
Gammarus tigrinus
100
9.4
Hargena rapax
288
14.7
Chironomus sp.
220
9.2
Apocorophium louisianum
220
11.4
Cyprideis littoralis
220
8.6
Hargeria rapax
145
12.7
Gammarus tigrinus
93
7.8
Gammarus mucronatus
98
9.2
Apocorophium sp.
260
13.3
TOOLEY CREEK
DOWNSTREAM
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
Apocorophium lacustre
300
8.9
Gammarus tigrinus
300
18.6
Apocorophium lacustre
201
15.5
Gammarus tigrinus
216
13.5
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
Littoridinops sp.
300
8.9
Littoridinops sp.
296
18.4
Gammarus tigrinus
201
15.5
Littoridinops sp.
216
13.5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Gammarus tigrinus
300
8.9
Apocorophium lacustre
250
15.5
Littoridinops sp.
189
14.5
Hargeria rapax
208
13.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Dicrotendipes sp.
300
8.9
Amphicteis fioridus
232
14.4
Amphicteis fioridus
145
11.2
Amphicteis fioridus
141
8.8
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
Apocorophium sp.
300
29.9
Apocorophium sp.
239
22.0
Apocorophium sp.
203
18.3
Hargena rapax
224
24.1
Littoridinops tenuipes
250
17.7
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Hargena rapax
133
13.2
Hargena rapax
148
13.6
Americamysis almyra
173
15.5
Apocorophium sp.
105
11.3
Apocorophium sp.
241
17.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Apocorophium louisianum
119
11.8
Apocorophium louisianum
129
11.9
Littoridinops tenuipes
158
14.2
Littoridinops sp.
77
8.3
Hargena rapax
228
16.2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Palaemonetes pugio
75
7.5
Littoridinops sp.
114
10.5
Hargena rapax
155
14.0
Nematoda sp.
71
7.7
Gammarus mucronatus
224
15.9
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
Apocorophium sp.
300
13.4
Littoridinops sp.
300
25.0
Littoridinops sp.
300
22.9
Gammarus tigrinus
213
19.9
Littoridinops sp.
300
21.2
Hargena rapax
90
28.0
Littoridinops sp.
200
22.2
Gammarus tigrinus
300
13.4
Gammarus tigrinus
256
21.3
Gammarus tigrinus
267
20.4
Littoridinops sp.
195
18.2
Apocorophium sp.
247
17.4
Littoridinops tenuipes
73
22.7
Hargena rapax
120
13.3
Littoridinops sp.
300
13.4
Apocorophium sp.
208
17.3
Apocorophium sp.
229
17.5
Hargena rapax
164
15.3
Gammarus tigrinus
164
11.6
Gammarus tigrinus
69
21.5
Tanytarsus sp.
102
11.3
Hargena rapax
275
12.3
Tanytarsus sp.
77
6.4
Apocorophium lacustre
115
8.8
Gammarus mucronatus
105
9.8
Apocorophium louisianum
124
8.8
Apocorophium sp.
49
15.3
Gammarus tigrinus
101
11.2
MI
MUDDY CREEK (CONTROL)
UPSTREAM
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
Gammarus tigrinus
300
11.9
Gammarus tigrinus
300
22.5
Chironomus decorus
260
13.2
Littoridinops sp.
264
16.2
Littoridinops sp.
300
20.0
Goeldichironomus devineyae
239
28.8
Littoridinops sp.
275
30.8
Gammarus tigrinus
268
17.9
Amphicteis fioridus
292
11.6
Littoridinops sp.
300
22.5
Littoridinops sp.
246
12.5
Gammarus tigrinus
247
15.1
Apedilum sp.
258
17.2
Littoridinops sp.
229
27.6
Gammarus tigrinus
114
12.8
Apocorophium sp.
259
17.3
Apocorophium lacustre
288
11.4
Amphicteis fioridus
191
14.3
Amphicteis fioridus
208
10.6
Corixidae sp.
225
13.8
Goeldichironomus devineyae
230
15.3
Chironomus decorus
176
21.1
Apocorophium sp.
98
11.0
Littoridinops sp.
256
17.1
Littoridinops sp.
256
10.2
Corixidae sp.
106
7.9
Gammarus tigrinus
201
10.2
Amphicteis fioridus
218
13.4
Enchytraeidae sp.
119
7.9
Gammarus tigrinus
45
5.4
Amphicteis fioridus
51
5.7
Amphicteis fioridus
185
12.4
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
Chironomus decorus
300
14.1
Apedilum sp.
141
16.0
Goeldichironomus devineyae
248
25.6
Goeldichironomus devineyae
240
19.6
Goeldichironomus devineyae
300
12.7
Littoridinops tenuipes
184
30.6
Goeldichironomus devineyae
300
20.5
Littoridinops tenuipes
272
20.6
Littoridinops sp.
300
14.1
Littoridinops sp.
120
13.6
Littoridinops sp.
190
19.6
Apocorophium sp.
233
19.0
Apocorophium sp.
300
12.7
Apocorophium louisianum
102
16.9
Littoridinops sp.
300
20.5
Chironomus decorus
224
17.0
Apocorophium lacustre
300
14.1
Goeldichironomus devineyae
119
13.5
Naididae sp.
118
12.2
Palaemonetes pugio
131
10.7
Chironomus decorus
300
12.7
Palaemonetes pugio
76
12.6
Chironomus decorus
150
10.2
Apocorophium sp.
168
12.7
Gammarus tigrinus
283
13.3
Glyptotendipes sp.
80
9.1
Apocorophium sp.
111
11.4
Chironomus decorus
119
9.7
Littoridinops sp.
230
9.7
Goeldichironomus devineyae
64
10.6
Gammarus tigrinus
107
7.3
Parachironomus sp.
132
10.0
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
Littoridinops sp.
300
15.8
Apocorophium sp.
290
23.7
Apocorophium sp.
300
17.2
Apocorophium sp.
300
15.3
Littoridinops sp.
144
11.6
Gammarus tigrinus
300
19.8
Littoridinops sp.
275
20.9
Apocorophium sp.
256
13.5
Littoridinops sp.
254
20.8
Gammarus tigrinus
300
17.2
Gammarus tigrinus
300
15.3
Candonidae sp.
140
11.3
Apocorophium sp.
258
17.0
Gammarus tigrinus
251
19.1
Tanytarsus sp.
252
13.3
Gammarus tigrinus
216
17.7
Littoridinops sp.
236
13.5
Littoridinops sp.
300
15.3
Gammarus tigrinus
132
10.6
Apocorophium louisianum
199
13.1
Apocorophium sp.
243
18.5
Chironomus sp.
240
12.6
Apocorophium lacustre
114
9.3
Amphicteis fioridus
134
7.7
Chironomus decorus
233
11.9
Apocorophium sp.
98
7.9
Littoridinops tenuipes
182
12.0
Amphicteis fioridus
135
10.3
MUDDY CREEK (CONTROL)
DOWNSTREAM
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
Gammarus tigrinus
300
9.8
Gammarus tigrinus
300
26.5
Apocorophium lacustre
231
19.5
Littoridinops sp.
232
10.0
Apedilum sp.
228
27.5
Chironomus decorus
209
26.8
Littoridinops sp.
300
17.4
Apocorophium sp.
300
16.0
Amphicteis fioridus
300
9.8
Littoridinops sp.
300
26.5
Gammarus tigrinus
206
17.4
Cricotopus/Orthocladius sp. 41
218
9.4
Littoridinops sp.
223
26.9
Gammarus tigrinus
148
19.0
Tanytarsus sp.
236
13.7
Gammarus tigrinus
300
16.0
Apocorophium lacustre
265
8.7
Apocorophium lacustre
225
19.9
Amphicteis fioridus
155
13.1
Hargena rapax
210
9.1
Hargena rapax
69
8.3
Littoridinops sp.
110
14.1
Gammarus tigrinus
204
11.8
Littoridinops sp.
265
14.2
Littoridinops sp.
239
7.8
Cyrenoida floridana
100
8.8
Littoridinops sp.
135
11.4
Gammarus tigrinus
205
8.9
Goeldichironomus devineyae
53
6.4
Apocorophium sp.
100
12.8
Apocorophium sp.
197
11.4
Cricotopus sp.
184
9.8
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
Apocorophium lacustre
300
28.1
Apedilum sp.
152
21.3
Gammarus mucronatus
174
23.1
Apocorophium sp.
281
16.8
Apocorophium sp.
300
15.0
Palaemonetes pugio
142
26.7
Goeldichironomus devineyae
266
18.5
Gammarus mucronatus
300
15.5
Hargena rapax
214
20.0
Naididae sp. w/o hair
77
10.8
Nematoda sp.
128
17.0
Apocorophium louisianum
176
10.5
Gammarus mucronatus
262
13.1
Littoridinops tenuipes
140
26.3
Littoridinops sp.
198
13.8
Littoridinops tenuipes
300
15.5
Gammarus tigrinus
158
14.8
Goeldichironomus devineyae
75
10.5
Hargena rapax
111
14.8
Gammarus tigrinus
174
10.4
Hargena rapax
208
1.4
Apocorophium sp.
104
19.5
Chironomus decorus
190
13.2
Chironomus decorus
300
15.5
Littoridinops sp.
110
10.3
Palaeomonetes pugio
72
10.1
Palaemonetes pugio
62
8.2
Hargena rapax
165
9.9
Goeldichironomus devineyae
182
9.1
Apocorophium louisianum
28
5.3
Gammarus mucronatus
140
9.7
Goeldichironomus devineyae
237
12.2
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
Apocorophium sp.
300
16.4
Apocorophium sp.
300
16.0
Gammarus tigrinus
300
16.9
Gammarus tigrinus
300
21.0
Apocorophium sp.
300
20.4
Gammarus tigrinus
276
35.2
Littoridinops sp.
259
28.8
Littoridinops sp.
300
16.4
Gammarus tigrinus
300
16.0
Littoridinops sp.
300
16.9
Littoridinops sp.
300
21.0
Littoridinops sp.
300
20.4
Littoridinops tenuipes
242
30.9
Gammarus tigrinus
191
21.2
Gammarus tigrinus
240
7.9
Littoridinops sp.
298
15.9
Apocorophium sp.
194
10.9
Apocorophium sp.
295
20.6
Apocorophium louisianum
205
14.0
Apocorophium sp.
66
8.4
Apocorophium sp.
160
17.8
Gammarus mucronatus
145
7.5
Apocorophium louisianum
254
13.6
Tanytarsus sp.
132
7.4
Apocorophium louisianum
150
10.5
Gammarus tigrinus
190
12.9
Corixidae sp.
42
5.4
Palaemonetes pugio
88
9.8
III-G-80

Table III-G2 (continued).
M 2
0 W
w Ce
H
O Cr)
0 �.
> >
=
I- 2-
M Q
0 W
Cr) I-
J Cr)
0
= 0
0
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
not monitored
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Gammarus tigrinus
Littoridinops sp.
Palaeomonetes pugio
Amphicteis fioridus
292
241
211
108
28.1
23.2
20.3
10.4
Littoridinops sp.
Palaeomonetes pugio
Naididae sp.
Cyprideis littoralis
147
68
47
30
40.2
18.6
12.8
8.2
Cyprideis littoralis
Littoridinops sp.
Naididae sp.
Palaeomonetes pugio
247
208
144
130
24.8
20.9
14.5
13.1
not monitored
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
not monitored
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
not monitored
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
not monitored
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
Cyprideis littoralis
Littoridinops sp.
Palaeomonetes pugio
Naididae sp. w/o hair
267
162
102
31
40.5
24.5
15.5
4.7
Palaeomonetes pugio
Cyprideis littoralis
Gammarus tigrinus
Amphicteis fioridus
227
117
24
24
48.7
25.1
5.2
5.2
Palaemonetes pugio
Cyprideis littoralis
Naididae sp.
Apocorophium sp.
133
43
18
11
50.0
16.2
6.8
4.1
Apocorophium sp.
Chironomus decorus
Amphicteis floridus
Palaemonetes pugio
176
147
136
79
26.0
21.7
20.1
11.7
Cyprideis littoralis
Palaemonetes pugio
Amphicteis floridus
Apocorophium sp.
292
149
40
32
46.0
23.5
6.3
5.0
Palaemonetes pugio
Cyprideis littoralis
Mediomastus amhiseta
Strehlospio benedicti
111
43
23
14
40.8
15.8
8.5
5.1
Cyprideis littoralis
Amphicteis fioridus
Palaemonetes pugio
Goeldichironomus devineyae
114
43
30
25
31.7
11.9
8.3
6.9
Palaemonetes pugio
Cyprideis littoralis
Chironomus decorus
Goeldichironomus devineyae
191
59
49
31
39.0
12.0
10.0
6.3
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2005
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
Littoridinops sp.
Tanytarsus sp.
Cyprideis littoralis
Amphicteis fioridus
1998
247
216
200
109
22.3
19.5
18.0
9.8
Cyprideis littoralis
Tubificoides heterochaetus
Palaemonetes pugio
Tanytarsus sp.
1999
300
237
186
179
18.2
14.4
11.3
10.9
Cyprideis littoralis
Littoridinops sp.
Apocorophium sp.
Palaemonetes pugio
2000
300
183
110
67
34.8
21.2
12.8
7.8
Cyprideis littoralis
Palaemonetes pugio
Apocorophium sp.
Littoridinops sp.
2001
116
79
78
63
17.3
11.8
11.6
9.4
Littoridinops sp.
Palaemonetes pugio
Cyprideis littoralis
Chironomus decorus
2002
221
144
121
94
24.7
16.1
13.5
10.5
Paleomonetes pugio
Mediomastus ambiseta
Tubificoides heterochaetus
Strehlospio benedicti
2003
228
31
27
23
60.0
8.2
7.1
6.1
Chironomus decorus
Tanytarsus sp.
Amphicteis fioridus
Apocorophium sp.
2004
75
28
27
24
34.2
12.8
12.3
11.0
lli
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
not monitored
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Littoridinops sp.
Gammarus tigrinus
Amphicteis fioridus
Edotia montosa
68
59
20
17
26.6
23.0
7.8
6.6
Palaeomonetes pugio
Apocorophium Iacustre
Shrimp zoea
Gammarus tigrinus
128
123
70
59
24.3
23.3
13.3
11.2
Littoridinops sp.
Amphicteis fioridus
Apocorophium Iacustre
Naididae sp.
80
29
26
10
40.2
14.6
13.1
5.0
not monitored
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
not monitored
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
not monitored
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
not monitored
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
Gammarus tigrinus
Palaeomonetes pugio
Apocorophium Iacustre
Rhithropanopeus harrisii
173
89
62
14
41.0
21.1
14.7
3.3
Polydora cornuta
Gammarus tigrinus
Palaeomonetes pugio
Neanthes succinea
117
75
62
35
29.4
18.8
15.6
8.8
Gammarus tigrinus
Palaemonetes pugio
Gammarus mucronatus
Mulinia lateralis
105
51
38
19
36.1
17.5
13.1
6.5
Apocorophium sp.
Gammarus tigrinus
Palaemonetes pugio
Apocorophium Iacustre
114
25
19
16
60.3
13.2
10.1
8.4
Palaemonetes pugio
Gammarus tigrinus
Apocorophium sp.
Nematoda sp.
33
16
7
6
44.0
21.3
9.3
8.0
Palaemonetes pugio
Gammarus mucronatus
Neanthes succinea
Gammarus tigrinus
166
77
59
27
41.2
19.1
14.6
6.7
Gammarus tigrinus
Gammarus mucronatus
Palaemonetes pugio
Balanus improvisus
262
138
64
10
52.2
27.5
12.7
2.0
Gammarus tigrinus
Palaemonetes pugio
Goeldichironomus devineyae
Apocorophium sp.
251
28
22
12
67.0
7.5
5.9
3.2
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
Gammarus tigrinus
Apocorophium sp.
Littoridinops sp.
Palaeomonetes pugio
206
83
63
48
45.9
18.5
14.0
10.7
Gammarus tigrinus
Apocorophium sp.
Palaeomonetes pugio
Apocorophium Iacustre
300
107
104
38
44.2
15.8
15.3
5.6
Gammarus tigrinus
Apocorophium sp.
Apocorophium Iacustre
Littoridinops sp.
214
213
146
131
20.2
20.2
13.8
12.4
Gammarus tigrinus
Balanus improvisus
Gammarus mucronatus
Palaeomonetes pugio
300
91
83
41
49.8
15.1
13.8
6.8
Palaeomonetes pugio
Gammarus tigrinus
Littoridinops sp.
Chironomus decorus
150
109
18
4
49.3
35.9
5.9
1.3
Gammarus tigrinus
Paleomonetes pugio
Lepidactylus dytiscus
Gammarus mucronatus
270
135
30
23
53.4
26.7
5.9
4.5
Gammarus tigrinus
Apocorophium sp.
Cricotopus sp.
Dicrotendipes nervosus
90
8
7
7
63.8
5.7
5.0
5.0
PORTER CREEK
UPSTREAM
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
not monitored
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
not monitored
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
not monitored
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
not monitored
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Apocorophium sp.
Gammarus tigrinus
Littoridinops sp.
Dicrotendipes nervosus
300
300
252
204
12.9
12.9
10.9
8.8
Gammarus tigrinus
Candonidae sp.
Littoridinops tenuipes
Corixidae sp.
300
300
294
290
10.7
10.7
10.5
10.3
Gammarus tigrinus
Littoridinops sp.
Apocorophium sp.
Amphicteis fioridus
300
300
250
139
21.8
21.8
18.2
10.1
Gammarus tigrinus
Littoridinops tenuipes
Amphicteis fioridus
Cyprideis littoralis
300
261
242
215
16.1
14.0
13.0
12.0
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
Gammarus tigrinus
Cyprideis littoralis
Amphicteis fioridus
Cyathura polka
300
292
236
132
24.8
24.2
19.5
10.9
Gammarus tigrinus
Cyprideis littoralis
Americamysis almyra
Amphicteis fioridus
300
130
105
59
39.2
17.0
13.7
7.7
Gammarus tigrinus
Littoridinops sp.
Cyprideis littoralis
Amphicteis fioridus
300
258
162
91
28.8
24.8
15.6
8.8
Gammarus tigrinus
Littoridinops sp.
Apocorophium Iacustre
Cyprideis littoralis
300
183
129
112
30.1
18.4
13.0
11.2
Littoridinops sp.
Gammarus tigrinus
Naididae sp. w/o hair
Cyprideis littoralis
249
184
152
109
20.9
15.4
12.7
9.1
Apocorophium sp.
Gammarus tigrinus
Littoridinops tenuipes
Apocorophium Iouisianum
300
300
300
202
19.0
19.0
19.0
12.8
Gammarus tigrinus
Littoridinops sp.
Amphicteis fioridus
Goeldichironomus devineyae
263
244
115
40
31.6
29.3
13.8
4.8
PORTER CREEK
DOWNSTREAM
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
not monitored
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
not monitored
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
not monitored
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
not monitored
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Apocorophium Iacustre
Gammarus tigrinus
Apocorophium Iouisianum
Littoridinops sp.
300
300
202
178
16.8
16.8
11.3
10.0
Littoridinops tenuipes
Apedilum sp.
Hargeria rapax
Apocorophium Iouisianum
238
88
73
51
35.8
13.2
11.0
7.7
Hargeria rapax
Gammarus tigrinus
Apocorophium sp.
Gammarus mucronatus
300
298
153
152
23.4
23.2
11.9
11.8
Apocorophium sp.
Hargeria rapax
Gammarus mucronatus
Littoridinops tenuipes
300
254
228
220
19.0
16.1
14.4
13.9
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
Gammarus tigrinus
Americamysis almyra
Littoridinops sp.
Palaeomonetes pugio
300
171
153
78
28.1
16.0
14.3
7.3
Gammarus tigrinus
Apocorophium sp.
Littoridinops sp.
Apocorophium Iacustre
300
212
174
76
35.5
25.1
20.6
9.0
Apocorophium sp.
Gammarus tigrinus
Apocorophium Iacustre
Littoridinops sp.
300
300
242
224
25.1
25.1
20.3
18.8
Gammarus tigrinus
Littoridinops sp.
Gammarus mucronatus
Apocorophium sp.
300
242
120
100
28.1
22.7
11.2
9.4
Littoridinops sp.
Gammarus tigrinus
Apocorophium sp.
Cassidinidea lunifrons
250
122
107
93
33.4
16.3
14.3
12.4
Gammarus tigrinus
Apocorophium sp.
Hargeria rapax
Littoridinops tenuipes
252
232
197
160
23.0
21.2
18.0
14.6
Littoridinops sp.
Balanus subalbidus
Paleomonetes pugio
Gammarus tigrinus
89
25
24
22
49.4
13.9
13.3
12.2
III-G-81

Table III-G2 (continued).
2
.- W
ct
M H
0 d
2
Wnot
.- Ct
M
0 Z
pDominant
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
Gammarus tignnus
Littondinops sp.
Amphicteis flondus
Berosus sp.
300
300
238
181
21.2
21.2
16.8
12.8
Gammarus tignnus
Littondinops tenuipes
Gyprideis littoralis
Dicrotendipes nervosus
300
300
223
156
17.2
17.2
12.8
9.0
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2005
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
Gyprideis littoralis
Gammarus tignnus
Littondinops sp.
Dicrotendipes nervosus
1998
300
300
300
166
17.1
17.1
17.1
9.5
Gammarus tignnus
Littondinops sp.
Tanytarsus sp.
Gyprideis littoralis
292
208
108
88
29.0
20.6
10.7
8.7
Gyprideis littoralis
Gammarus tignnus
Littondinops sp.
Cassidinidea lunifrons
300
300
300
82
26.7
26.7
26.7
7.3
Gyprideis littoralis
Gammarus tignnus
Littondinops sp.
Amphicteis flondus
2001
300
300
300
218
19.3
19.3
19.3
14.0
Dicrotendipes nervosus
Dero sp.
Gammarus tigrinus
Tanytarsus sp.
2002
132
67
67
63
21.5
10.9
10.9
10.3
Apocorophium sp.
Gammarus tignnus
Littondinops tenuipes
Gyprideis littoralis
2003
300
300
300
244
17.9
17.9
17.9
14.5
Dicrotendipes nervosus
Littondinops sp.
Tanytarsus sp.
Amphicteis flondus
2004
102
95
66
47
24.2
22.6
15.7
11.2
1999
2000
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
Apocorophium lacustre
Gammarus tignnus
Littondinops sp.
Apocorophium sp.
300
300
300
292
15.2
15.2
15.2
14.8
Gammarus tignnus
Littondinops tenuipes
Tanytarsus sp.
Cyprideis littoralis
300
300
268
217
15.9
15.9
14.2
11.5
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
Cyprideis littoralis
Dicrotendipes nervosus
Gammarus tignnus
Littondinops sp.
300
300
300
300
13.6
13.6
13.6
13.6
Gammarus tignnus
Littondinops sp.
Cyprideis littoralis
Tanytarsus sp.
272
181
176
134
20.9
13.9
13.5
10.3
Cyprideis littoralis
Littondinops sp.
Gammarus tignnus
Tanytarsus sp.
300
300
278
106
24.1
24.1
22.3
8.5
Cyprideis littoralis
Gammarus tignnus
Littondinops sp.
Tanytarsus sp.
300
300
300
164
22.2
22.2
22.2
12.2
Dicrotendipes nervosus
Littondinops sp.
Gammarus tignnus
Tanytarsus sp.
194
147
145
91
22.4
17.0
16.7
10.5
Littondinops tenuipes
Tanytarsus sp.
Gammarus tignnus
Apocorophium sp.
300
300
284
230
15.8
15.8
15.0
12.1
Dicrotendipes nervosus
Cricotopus sp.
Littondinops sp.
Tanytarsus sp.
141
60
59
39
37.7
16.0
15.8
10.4
DCUT19 (CONTROL)
UPSTREAM
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
Littondinops sp.
Gammarus tignnus
Amphicteis flondus
Chironomus decorus
300
142
139
132
23.7
11.2
11.0
10.4
Littondinops tenuipes
Apocorophium sp.
Nematoda sp.
Amphicteis flondus
300
250
197
187
15.0
12.4
9.8
9.3
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
Littondinops sp.
Tanytarsus sp.
Gammarus tignnus
Cypndeis &torahs
266
107
92
86
32.3
13.0
11.2
10.4
Cypndeis littoralis
Littondinops sp.
Tanytarsus sp.
Goeldichironomus devineyae
300
280
276
95
21.1
19.7
19.5
6.7
Cypndeis littoralis
Littondinops sp.
Gammarus tignnus
Amphicteis flondus
300
300
250
122
18.3
18.3
15.3
7.5
Apocorophium sp.
Littondinops sp.
Gammarus tignnus
Candonidae sp.
300
300
227
180
21.6
21.6
16.3
12.9
Tanytarsus sp.
Littondinops sp.
Dero sp.
Dicrotendipes nervosus
274
258
190
108
24.7
23.3
17.1
9.7
Apocorophium sp.
Littondinops tenuipes
Berosus sp.
Apocorophium louisianum
300
300
165
105
26.0
26.0
14.3
9.1
Littondinops sp.
Goeldichironomus devineyae
Tanytarsus sp.
Dicrotendipes nervosus
300
81
78
52
44.5
12.0
11.6
7.7
DCUT19 (CONTROL)
DOWNSTREAM
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
Littondinops sp.
Gammarus tignnus
Hargena rapax
Nematoda sp.
251
232
222
208
10.2
9.4
9.0
8.4
Littondinops tenuipes
Hargena rapax
Apocorophium sp.
Goeldichironomus devineyae
300
287
215
215
12.3
11.8
8.8
8.8
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
Littondinops sp.
Tanytarsus sp.
Cypndeis littoralis
Gammarus tignnus
300
300
236
221
13.1
13.1
10.3
9.6
Littondinops sp.
Gammarus tignnus
Cypndeis littoralis
Tanytarsus sp.
300
199
156
141
18.1
12.0
9.4
8.5
Gammarus tignnus
Littondinops sp.
Cypndeis littoralis
Tanytarsus sp.
300
300
293
205
17.0
17.0
16.6
11.6
Gammarus tignnus
Littondinops sp.
Apocorophium sp.
Hargena rapax
300
252
223
66
25.3
21.3
18.8
5.6
Littondinops sp.
Gammarus tignnus
Tanytarsus sp.
Dicrotendipes nervosus
300
214
127
117
25.7
18.4
10.9
10.0
Apocorophium sp.
Littondinops tenuipes
Gammarus tignnus
Hargena rapax
300
300
286
218
18.1
18.1
17.2
13.1
Littondinops sp.
Palaemonetes pugio
Amphicteis floridus
Chironomus decorus
156
81
64
51
34.2
17.8
14.0
11.2
III-G-82

Table III-G2 (concluded).
DUCK CREEK (CONTROL)
UPSTREAM
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
Gammarus tignnus
164
17.4
Littoridinops tenuipes
252
22.0
Littoridinops sp.
225
35.9
Littoridinops tenuipes
300
19.4
Littoridinops sp.
123
13.1
Tanytarsus sp.
217
19.0
Cyprideis littoralis
79
12.6
Gammarus tignnus
300
19.4
Dicrotendipes nervosus
119
12.6
Cyprideis littoralis
179
15.6
Tanytarsus sp.
77
12.2
Chironomus decorus
300
19.4
Tanytarsus sp.
96
10.2
Gammarus tignnus
153
13.4
Gammarus tignnus
67
10.7
Tanytarsus sp.
203
13.2
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
Dicrotendipes nervosus
300
15.3
Gammarus tignnus
300
17.6
Gammarus tignnus
300
20.3
Gammarus tignnus
300
20.7
Dero sp.
269
15.8
Cyprideis littoralis
300
31.1
Gammarus tignnus
300
22.1
Gammarus tignnus
300
15.3
Littoridinops sp.
300
17.6
Cyprideis littoralis
255
17.3
Paranais litoralis
272
18.8
Pristina sp.
233
13.7
Littoridinops tenuipes
300
31.1
Dicrotendipes nervosus
282
20.8
Tanytarsus sp.
300
15.3
Naididae sp. w/o hair
300
17.6
Littoridinops sp.
195
13.2
Cyprideis littoralis
251
17.3
Gammarus tignnus
186
10.9
Gammarus tignnus
211
21.8
Littoridinops sp.
227
16.7
Cyprideis littoralis
240
12.3
Cyprideis littoralis
234
13.7
Naididae sp. w/o hair
168
11.4
Littoridinops sp.
194
13.4
Kiefferulus sp.
162
9.5
Amphicteis flondus
31
3.2
Tanytarsus sp.
173
12.7
J
DUCK CREEK (CONTROL)
DOWNSTREAM
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
Apocorophium sp.
300
14.5
Littoridinops tenuipes
300
27.7
Gammarus tignnus
300
21.5
Gammarus tignnus
300
13.8
Apocorophium lacustre
290
14.0
Hargeria rapax
209
19.3
Hargeria rapax
285
20.4
Hargeria rapax
300
13.8
Hargeria rapax
274
13.3
Apocorophium sp.
107
9.9
Littoridinops sp.
240
17.2
Apocorophium sp.
290
13.4
Gammarus tignnus
236
11.4
Apedilum sp.
91
8.4
Gammarus mucronatus
139
9.9
Littoridinops tenuipes
227
10.5
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
Gammarus tignnus
290
24.3
Gammarus tignnus
300
25.5
Apocorophium sp.
300
22.8
Gammarus tignnus
300
24.3
Gammarus tignnus
300
33.7
Apocorophium sp.
290
35.8
Palaemonetes pugio
156
27.2
Littoridinops sp.
263
22.1
Apocorophium lacustre
217
18.5
Gammarus tignnus
300
22.8
Littoridinops sp.
300
24.3
Littoridinops sp.
189
21.2
Gammarus tignnus
177
21.9
Gammarus tignnus
151
26.3
Cyprideis littoralis
247
20.7
Apocorophium sp.
206
17.5
Littoridinops sp.
261
19.8
Hargeria rapax
122
9.9
Palaemonetes pugio
115
12.9
Littoridinops tenuipes
141
17.4
Dicrotendipes nervosus
71
12.4
Dicrotendipes nervosus
75
6.3
Littoridinops sp.
159
13.5
Apocorophium lacustre
237
18.0
Goeldichironomus devineyae
107
8.6
Amphicteis flondus
64
7.2
Paleomonetes pugio
93
11.5
Tanytarsus sp.
44
7.7
III-G-83

Table III-G3. Benthic macroinvertebrate community structure data for sweep samples collected at upstream and downstream stations in May during years 1998-2005 and 2007-2021. A "-" indicates the creek was not monitored
that year. Pre- and post -Mod Alt L collection years for impact creeks are separated by bold vertical lines. Benthic collection occurred in June for 2010. Summary pre- and post -Mod Alt L averages are shown in Table II-05.
An "a" refers to only those taxa for which sensitivity values are available were used in EBI calculations. Note: sensitivity values provided by NCDWR.
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005 2007
Station community structure data by year
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
PA2 (CONTROL) JACOBS CREEK JACKS CREEK SCUT1 (CONTROL) BROOMFIELD SWAMP
CREEK
Total abundance
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
- - - -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
293
809
264
Q
Total taxa
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
- - - -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
30
16
26
D
Total taxa with sensitivity values
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
- - - -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
21
11
18
EBIa
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
- - - -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.46
1.54
1.31
Total abundance
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
- - - -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
745
821
380
I
Total taxa
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
- - - -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
41
17
29
o
Total taxa with sensitivity values
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
- - - -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
28
14
22
EBIa
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
- - - -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.34
1.64
1.48
Total abundance
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
- - - -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
401
944
579
Q
Total taxa
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
- - - -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
28
20
28
D
Total taxa with sensitivity values
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
- - - -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
21
12
17
EBIa
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
- - - -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.18
1.53
1.25
Total abundance
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
- - - -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
738
997
446
I
Total taxa
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
- - - -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
35
18
28
o
Total taxa with sensitivity values
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
- - - -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
25
15
20
EBIa
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
- - - -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.72
1.98
1.83
Total abundance
2,654
783
2,430
2,823
987
1,190
2,223
1,925 -
- - - 3,529
865
1,771
1,090
1,587
1,603
1,311
2,144
2,480
1,647
901
Q
Totaltaxa
42
18
34
24
30
24
39
29 -
- - - 35
19
29
33
30
35
33
30
37
27
31
D
Total taxa with sensitivity values
34
13
27
19
25
19
34
25 -
- - - 26
15
21
24
25
24
24
25
24
21
26
EBIa
1.78
1.97
1.74
1.86
1.75
1.72
1.90
1.99 -
- - - 2.00
1.99
2.07
1.59
1.90
1.83
1.77
1.74
1.69
1.83
1.92
Total abundance
2,477
995
589
2,053
829
781
1,014
1,379 -
- - - 2,016
808
880
1,599
1,565
1,551
766
1,136
2,189
1,334
304
I
Totaltaxa
45
19
25
25
32
28
30
29 -
- - - 33
26
27
33
31
31
24
32
33
23
19
o
Total taxa with sensitivity values
35
16
22
23
28
24
27
25 -
- - - 27
24
24
27
28
27
20
28
27
19
15
EBIa
1.77
2.05
1.77
1.85
1.93
2.04
2.19
2.05 -
- - - 2.03
1.93
2.02
1.86
2.01
2.00
2.04
2.02
1.74
1.93
1.98
Total abundance
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
- - - 1,678
937
1,560
1,248
1,644
1,582
1,388
1,267
1,190
718
792
Q
Total taxa
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
- - - 32
19
24
28
26
34
25
21
32
24
27
D
Total taxa with sensitivity values
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
- - - 25
16
18
19
20
23
22
17
25
20
22
EBIa
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
- - - 2.05
2.40
2.11
1.79
1.85
1.92
1.63
1.79
1.83
1.85
1.92
Total abundance
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
- - - 1,523
1,024
1,237
2,145
1,565
1,596
1,409
2,198
1,420
905
890
1
0
Total taxa
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
- - - 33
32
29
35
35
29
32
30
34
30
32
o
Total taxa with sensitivity values
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
- - - 26
27
22
30
29
23
27
28
32
27
26
EBIa
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
- - - 2.10
2.06
2.05
1.86
2.01
1.98
1.80
1.91
1.91
1.98
1.85
Total abundance
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
- - - 1,916
1,504
1,312
977
1,789
2,040
1,684
1,292
2,004
1,270
1,121
Q
Total taxa
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
- - - 26
27
23
28
30
27
26
24
31
19
27
D
Total taxa with sensitivity values
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
- - - 21
19
14
22
22
20
22
21
22
17
23
EBIa
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
- - - 2.09
2.23
2.02
1.71
1.81
1.72
1.81
1.85
1.70
1.86
1.74
Total abundance
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
- - - 1,502
1,330
1,263
1,123
1,628
1,768
1,325
2,183
1,996
1,320
1,132
I
Total taxa
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
- - - 28
22
21
30
29
27
29
30
31
26
30
o
Total taxa with sensitivity values
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
- - - 20
16
17
22
24
22
24
26
23
23
26
EBIa
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
- - - 2.22
2.33
1.82
1.77
1.84
1.76
1.79
1.84
1.83
1.84
1.75
III-G-84

Table III-G3 (continued).
Station data by year
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
HUDDLES CUT MUDDY CREEK TOOLEY CREEK LONG CREEK LITTLE CREEK DRINKWATER CREEK
(CONTROL) (CONTROL) (CONTROL)
0_
D
Total abundance
Total taxa
Total taxa with sensitivity values
E Bla
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2,032
34
28
2.25
1,026
28
22
1.96
1,670
26
21
1.93
1,212
28
22
1.75
1,457
22
20
1.98
1,661
31
24
1.86
1,484
26
23
1.94
1,777
26
25
1.87
596
30
25
1.87
881
22
18
1.82
1,250
28
23
1.82
Total abundance
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1,330
981
1,248
1,285
1,785
1,408
1,337
1,513
884
1,001
970
Total taxa
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
38
33
32
27
32
40
30
30
26
24
25
0
o
Total taxa with sensitivity values
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
32
29
26
20
27
31
25
26
22
21
19
E Bla
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2.04
1.78
1.90
1.88
1.87
1.88
1.89
1.86
2.04
1.73
1.76
Total abundance
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1,148
1,238
2,002
1,197
961
1,017
1,279
1,032
1,204
881
404
0_
Total taxa
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
22
27
22
26
25
27
29
27
24
15
29
D
Total taxa with sensitivity values
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
20
19
16
21
17
21
22
23
19
14
20
E Bla
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.77
1.92
1.77
1.58
1.56
1.68
1.57
1.62
1.50
1.79
1.42
Total abundance
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1,363
843
1,152
1,005
1,292
1,324
1,502
564
611
1,430
59
Total taxa
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
33
36
28
31
33
26
32
21
36
32
16
0
o
Total taxa with sensitivity values
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
22
30
24
26
28
21
27
17
26
28
14
E Bla
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.99
2.02
2.25
1.84
2.05
1.80
1.79
2.08
1.94
1.83
2.04
Total abundance
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1,588
740
974
1,612
2,358
1,542
1,445
1,424
2,930
250
1,292
0_
Total taxa
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
33
29
23
34
31
26
31
32
40
21
24
D
Total taxa with sensitivity values
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
27
25
20
29
23
23
24
28
28
13
20
E Bla
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2.05
1.93
1.70
1.86
1.86
1.99
1.88
1.79
1.64
2.03
1.84
Total abundance
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
892
1,109
777
1,354
1,406
1,169
1,566
959
1,023
530
672
0
Total taxa
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
24
30
29
33
37
28
28
27
23
17
26
o
Total taxa with sensitivity values
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
23
23
24
26
29
23
26
23
22
16
23
E Bla
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2.04
1.98
1.97
2.03
1.97
2.12
1.99
2.01
1.91
2.09
1.86
Total abundance
1,809
1,148
2,148
2,276
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
918
1,587
1,138
1,630
1,928
2,448
1,936
2,572
1,143
1,196
1,061
1,962
0_
Total taxa
42
17
33
33
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
18
31
27
27
28
31
30
36
30
32
28
24
D
Total taxa with sensitivity values
34
14
23
29
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
14
22
21
23
25
26
25
31
28
28
26
20
E Bla
1.92
2.02
1.82
2.08
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.92
1.99
2.08
1.82
1.81
1.80
2.01
1.85
1.80
1.91
2.01
1.95
Total abundance
3,360
1,616
1,302
1,595
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1,005
1,085
1,110
928
1,410
2,425
1,202
1,309
1,072
1,417
321
899
Totaltaxa
47
33
31
34
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
33
36
32
32
34
31
31
31
24
32
18
22
0
o
Total taxa with sensitivity values
39
28
27
31
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
28
32
26
28
27
26
27
30
22
28
17
21
E Bla
1.81
1.93
1.90
1.90
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.96
1.92
2.04
1.90
2.07
1.94
2.03
1.98
2.01
1.80
1.98
1.92
Total abundance
2,521
1,346
1,971
1,633
1,499
831
899
1,494
2,134
882
970
1,224
2,370
602
1,468
1,419
1,964
1,222
1,744
1,961
1,242
1,517
1,314
0_
Total taxa
32
29
30
38
33
26
36
39
31
27
31
23
28
27
30
29
31
33
34
39
40
34
24
D
Total taxa with sensitivity values
25
24
18
30
28
22
27
30
23
22
25
17
20
23
23
22
23
23
30
31
28
29
18
E Bla
1.67
1.85
1.70
1.86
2.01
1.78
2.02
2.01
1.89
2.42
1.72
1.89
1.86
2.05
1.86
1.72
1.91
2.03
1.79
1.84
1.75
2.02
2.00
Total abundance
3,062
1,131
1,183
2,318
833
779
1,722
1,871
1,069
712
751
1,669
1,997
532
1,438
1,939
1,960
1,872
1,780
1,430
1,469
784
900
Total taxa
50
33
32
37
35
26
27
34
27
31
33
30
32
27
25
34
32
30
32
31
29
29
23
0
o
Total taxa with sensitivity values
41
27
23
32
28
22
23
29
22
26
29
25
25
20
19
27
29
24
26
28
25
24
19
E Bla
1.78
2.00
1.94
1.77
2.42
1.88
2.05
1.80
1.95
2.47
2.00
1.99
1.98
2.15
1.88
1.87
1.93
2.09
1.87
1.95
1.95
1.93
2.01
Total abundance
-
1,040
366
995
-
-
-
-
661
468
277
677
635
273
360
490
1,109
1,647
862
670
896
380
219
0_
Total taxa
-
25
17
22
-
-
-
-
20
19
13
15
22
23
18
18
25
25
25
29
26
18
17
D
Total taxa with sensitivity values
-
18
12
17
-
-
-
-
15
15
10
13
19
20
15
15
19
19
22
26
21
16
14
E Bla
-
1.96
1.93
1.91
-
-
-
-
2.07
2.11
2.22
1.81
2.13
2.09
1.86
2.01
1.98
1.96
2.02
2.00
2.03
2.09
1.72
Total abundance
-
254
527
206
-
-
-
-
422
398
288
189
75
403
502
375
449
679
1,057
603
304
506
141
Totaltaxa
-
24
18
19
-
-
-
-
22
23
26
13
12
20
14
24
22
24
33
26
16
22
15
0
o
Total taxa with sensitivity values
-
19
14
18
-
-
-
-
19
20
23
13
10
18
12
18
18
22
28
22
11
20
15
E Bla
-
2.15
2.20
1.94
-
-
-
-
2.03
1.74
2.08
2.19
2.26
2.26
2.19
1.99
2.11
2.17
2.07
2.11
2.18
2.36
1.93
III-G-85

Table III-G3 (continued).
Station data by year
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
DUCK CREEK DCUT19 (CONTROL) DCUT11 PORTER CREEK
(CONTROL)
0_
D
Total abundance
Total taxa
Total taxa with sensitivity values
E Bla
- - - - - - - - - - - - 2,320
- - - - - - - - - - - - 23
- - - - - - - - - - - - 21
- - - - - - - - - - - - 1.85
2,804
34
27
1.88
1,375
22
19
2.05
1,862
31
25
1.87
1,208
21
17
1.87
765
26
21
2.00
1,040
33
23
1.86
996
29
21
2.03
1,193
33
28
1.59
1,578
21
18
2.01
832
33
29
1.86
Total abundance
- - - - - - - - - - - - 1,791
667
1,284
1,583
1,068
846
1,194
1,068
749
1,095
180
Total taxa
- - - - - - - - - - - - 32
28
33
31
32
26
25
18
25
21
16
0
o
Total taxa with sensitivity values
- - - - - - - - - - - - 26
24
28
25
26
19
21
18
22
18
11
E Bla
- - - - - - - - - - - - 2.07
2.18
2.04
2.01
2.03
2.06
2.07
2.08
2.00
1.82
2.06
Total abundance
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
1,413
1,748
1,750
1,008
1,123
1,553
613
1,677
421
0_
Total taxa
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
24
28
29
22
23
28
30
25
29
D
Total taxa with sensitivity values
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
19
22
21
17
15
23
24
21
22
E Bla
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
1.90
1.79
1.75
1.85
1.89
1.97
1.46
2.07
1.52
Total abundance
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
1,970
1,890
2,205
1,229
1,246
1,349
867
1,896
374
Total taxa
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
29
27
31
31
24
19
32
28
24
0
o
Total taxa with sensitivity values
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
23
23
26
21
17
16
24
22
19
EBIa
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
2.03
1.86
1.80
1.87
1.98
2.03
1.65
2.00
1.50
Total abundance
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
1,266
2,011
823
1,419
1,636
1,390
1,108
1,152
674
0_
Total taxa
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
23
28
30
33
30
25
25
26
24
D
Total taxa with sensitivity values
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
19
24
22
24
21
22
17
22
19
E Bla
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
1.81
1.84
1.87
1.78
1.83
2.00
1.54
1.88
1.84
Total abundance
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
2,471
2,431
2,298
1,653
1,760
1,184
1,166
1,660
456
3
Total taxa
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
32
35
34
34
29
26
32
25
23
0
o
Total taxa with sensitivity values
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
26
27
28
27
25
24
25
21
19
E Bla
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
1.90
1.97
1.79
1.74
1.87
1.99
1.81
1.93
1.88
Total abundance
- - - - - - - - - - - - 941
1,144
627
1,543
1,956
1,702
1,475
1,450
1,700
966
1,357
0_
Total taxa
- - - - - - - - - - - - 30
21
25
21
26
27
34
27
29
22
19
D
Total taxa with sensitivity values
- - - - - - - - - - - - 24
17
21
18
18
21
23
21
21
18
16
E Bla
- - - - - - - - - - - - 1.73
1.85
1.92
1.69
1.64
1.74
1.53
1.52
1.50
1.92
1.64
Total abundance
- - - - - - - - - - - - 2,066
1,082
1,397
2,172
1,191
1,175
1,315
1,237
890
809
574
3
Total taxa
- - - - - - - - - - - - 26
26
32
28
27
20
23
32
24
22
24
0
o
Total taxa with sensitivity values
- - - - - - - - - - - - 22
22
28
22
22
17
19
28
20
15
19
E Bla
- - - - - - - - - - - - 1.90
2.02
1.91
1.97
1.96
2.13
2.08
1.89
2.01
2.07
2.03
III-G-86

Table III-G3 (concluded). In the sweep summary table below, bold values denote the highest value in a given row (12 bold values total) and bold italics denote the highest value on an upstream or downstream basis (six bold
italic values total- three upstream and three downstream).
Summary sweep community structure data by year, location (upstream or downstream), and parameter
Ranges
All creeks (up)
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Total abundance
1,809 - 2,654
783 - 1,346
366 - 2,430
995 - 2,823
987 - 1,499
831 - 1,190
899 - 2,223
1,494 - 1,925
661 - 2,134
468 - 882
277 - 970
677 - 1,224
635 -3,529
273 - 2,804
360 - 2,002
490 - 2,011
823 - 2,448
765 - 2,040
862 - 2,572
670 - 2,144
293 - 2,930
250-1,677
219-1,962
Total taxa
32 - 42
17 - 29
17 - 34
22 - 38
30 - 33
24 - 26
36 -39
29 - 39
20 - 31
19 - 27
13 - 31
15 -23
22 -35
19 -34
18 -30
18 - 34
21 - 31
22 - 35
23 - 36
21 - 39
24 - 40
15-34
17-33
EBI
1.67- 1.92
1.85-2.02
1.70- 1.93
1.86-2.08
1.75-2.01
1.72- 1.78
1.90-2.02
1.99-2.01
1.89-2.07
2.11 -2.42
1.72-2.22
1.81 - 1.92
1.73-2.25
1.85-2.40
1.70-2.11
1.58-2.01
1.56- 1.98
1.68-2.03
1.53-2.02
1.52-2.03
1.18-2.03
1.53-2.09
1.25-2.00
All creeks (down)
Total abundance
2,477-3,360
254 - 1,616
527 - 1,302
206 - 2,318
829 - 833
779 - 781
1,014 - 1,722
1,379 - 1,871
422 - 1,069
398 - 712
288-751
1.89-1,669
75-2,006
403-1,330
502-2,471
375-2,431
449-2,425
679-1,872
766-1,780
564-2,198
304-2,189
321-1,896
59-1,132
Total taxa
45 -50
19 - 33
18 - 32
19 - 37
32 - 35
26 - 28
27 - 30
29 - 34
22 - 27
23 - 31
26-33
13-33
' 12-38
20-36
14-33
24-35
22-37
20-40
23-33
18-32
16-41
17-32
15-32
EBI
1.77 - 1.81
1.93 - 2.15
1.77 - 2.20
1.77 - 1.94
1.93 - 2.42
1.88 - 2.04
2.05 - 2.19
1.80 - 2.05
1.95 - 2.03
1.75 - 2.47
2.00-2.08
1.96-2.19
1.90-2.26
1.78-2.33
1.82-2.25
1.77-2.07
1.79-2.11
1.74-2.17
1.79-2.08
1.84-2.11
1.34-2.18
1.64-2.36
1.48-1.98
Averages
All creeks (up)
Total abundance
2,328
1,079
1,729
1,932
1,243
1,011
1,561
1,710
1,398
675
624
940
1,795
1,116
1,341
1,411
1,620
1,473
1,465
1,392
1,270
1,049
892
Total taxa
39
22
29
29
32
25
38
34
26
23
22
19
29
26
24
28
27
29
30
28
31
23
26
EBIa
1.79
1.95
1.80
1.93
1.88
1.75
1.96
2.00
1.98
2.27
1.97
1.87
1.98
2.03
1.91
1.77
1.83
1.87
1.80
1.83
1.64
1.88
1.72
All creeks (down)
Total abundance
2,966
999
900
1,543
831
780
1,368
1,625
746
555
520
954
1,422
899
1,273
1,562
1,603
1,344
1,351
1,269
1,098
1,027
558
Total taxa
47
27
27
29
34
27
29
32
25
27
30
25
30
28
28
31
31
29
29
27
30
23
23
EBIa
1.79
2.03
1.95
1.87
2.18
1.96
2.12
1.93
1.99
2.11
2.04
2.05
2.05
2.07
1.99
1.92
1.97
1.97
1.94
1.98
1.86
1.94
1.86
III-G-87

Table III-G4. Dominant benthic macroinvertebrate species for ponar grab samples collected in monitored creeks during May of Mod Alt L sample years 1998-2005 and 2007-2021. Pre -Mod Alt L: Broomfield
Swamp Creek (2019-2021), Jacks Creek (1998-2005; 2011-2014), Jacobs Creek (2011-2013), Drinkwater Creek (2011-2012), Tooley Creek (1998-2001; 2010-2011), Huddles Cut (1998-2001; 2007-2009),
Porter Creek (2011-2015), and DCUT11 (2013-2017). Post -Mod Alt L: Jacks Creek (2015-2021), Jacobs Creek (2014-2021), Drinkwater Creek (2013-2021), Tooley Creek (2012-2021), Huddles Cut (2010-
2021), Porter Creek (2016-2021), and DCUT11 (2018-2021). Control Creeks: SCUT1 (2019-2021), PA2, Long, Little, and Duck creeks (2011-2021), Muddy Creek (1998-2005 and 2007-2021), and DCUT19
(2013-2021). A - indicates the creek was not monitored that year. Benthic collection occurred in June for 2010. In each ponar grab sample, count of individuals per species stopped at 100.
BROOMFIELD CREEK
UPSTREAM
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
Naididae sp. w/o hair
Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri
Chaoborus albatus
Glossiphoniidae sp.
163
56
33
33
47.0
16.1
9-5
9.5
Naididae sp. w/o hair
Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri
Gammarus tigrinus
Streblospio benedicti
44
24
14
3
50.6
27.6
16.1
3.4
Naididae sp. w/o hair
Chironomus decorus
Procladius sp.
Tanypus neopunctipennis
140
29
29
29
47.1
9.8
9.8
9.8
BROOMFIELD CREEK
DOWNSTREAM
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
Naididae sp. w/o hair
Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri
Chironomus decorus
Naididae sp. w/ hair
217
78
21
10
61.0
21.9
5.9
2.8
Gammarus tigrinus
Streblospio benedicti
Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri
Mytilopsis leucophaeata
105
8
7
6
72.9
5.6
4.9
4.2
Naididae sp. w/o hair
Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri
Dicrotendipes nervosus
Amphicteis floridus
13
8
3
2
35.1
21.6
8.1
5.4
SCUT1 (CONTROL)
UPSTREAM
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
Naididae sp. w/o hair
Tanypus neopunctipennis
Coelotanypus sp.
Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri
283
48
37
34
55.6
9.4
7.3
6.7
Gammarus tigrinus
Naididae sp. w/o hair
Cyprideis littoralis
Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri
222
69
31
5
66.5
20.7
9.3
1.5
Naididae sp. w/o hair
Chironomus decorus
Tanypus neopunctipennis
Procladius sp.
113
95
57
27
29.0
24.4
14.7
6.9
r
- J
SCUT1 (CONTROL)
DOWNSTREAM
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
Procladius sp.
Candonidae sp.
Chironomus decorus
Cyprideis littoralis
62
44
38
22
28.3
20.1
17.4
10.0
Gammarus tigrinus
Amphicteis floridus
Cyprideis littoralis
Streblospio benedicti
34
18
11
11
40.0
19.6
12.0
12.0
Gammarus tigrinus
Amphicteis floridus
Tubificoides heterochaetus
Cryptochironomus sp.
156
102
4
4
56.3
36.8
1.4
1.4
III-G-88

Table III-G4 (continued).
JACKS CREEK
UPSTREAM
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Gammarus tigrinus
61
28.4
Gammarus tigrinus
418
81.2
Tanypus neopunctipennis
406
36.1
Gammarus tigrinus
424
31.1
Macoma balthica
163
54.2
Chironomus decorus
474
77.1
Tanytarsus Iimneticus
167
30.4
Chironomus decorus
183
39.5
Amphicteis floridus
58
27.0
Nematoda sp.
50
9.7
Amphicteis floridus
324
28.9
Dicrotendipes nervosus
418
30.7
Littoridinops tenuipes
90
30.0
Amphicteis floridus
41
6.7
Cyprideis Iittoralis
117
21.3
Tanytarsus sp. 1
84
18.1
Littoridinops tenuipes
17
7.9
Amphicteis floridus
31
6.0
Gammarus tigrinus
101
9.0
Amphicteis floridus
213
15.6
Bezzia/Palpomyia complex
12
4.0
Gammarus tigrinus
38
6.2
Littoridinops tenuipes
89
16.2
Tanypus neopunctipennis
38
8.2
Procladius sp.
16
7.4
Littoridinops tenuipes
5
1.0
Chironomus decorus
100
8.9
Chironomus decorus
109
8.0
Cyprideis Iittoralis
8
2.7
Littoridinops tenuipes
34
5.5
Gammarus tigrinus
27
4.9
Gammarus tigrinus
37
8.0
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
Chironomus decorus
133
24.2
Candonidae sp.
167
65.5
Chironomus decorus
150
39.2
Chironomus decorus
286
30.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Macoma balthica
88
16.0
Chironomus decorus
80
31.4
Candonidae sp.
136
35.5
Amphicteis floridus
174
18.5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Apocorophium sp.
80
14.6
Naididae sp. w/o hair
4
1.6
Littoridinops tenuipes
29
7.6
Gammarus tigrinus
122
13.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Gammarus tigrinus
72
13.1
Tanytarsus sp.
2
0.8
Apedilum sp.
26
6.8
Candonidae sp.
104
11.1
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Gammarus tigrinus
97
27.5
Marenzelleria viridis
27
30.0
Gammarus tigrinus
162
29.5
Gammarus tigrinus
330
51.9
Chironomus decorus
44
35.8
Chironomus decorus
35
24.6
Chironomus decorus
77
41.0
Amphicteis floridus
84
23.8
Gammarus tigrinus
26
28.9
Littoridinops sp.
71
12.9
Chironomus decorus
71
11.2
Amphicteis floridus
15
12.2
Candonidae sp.
34
23.9
Tanypus neopunctipennis
50
26.6
Littoridinops sp.
50
14.2
Apocorophium sp.
8
8.9
Tanytarsus sp.
66
12.0
Apocorophium sp.
44
6.9
Tanypus neopunctipennis
14
11.4
Gammarus tigrinus
18
12.7
Laeonereis culveri
29
15.4
Apocorophium sp.
21
5.9
Amphicteis floridus
7
7.8
Amphicteis floridus
54
9.8
Parachironomus sp.
44
6.9
Gammarus tigrinus
10
8.1
Littoridinops tenuipes
18
12.7
Amphicteis floridus
9
4.8
X M. X
JACKS CREEK
DOWNSTREAM
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Chironomus decorus
49
22.2
Amphicteis floridus
103
37.6
Chironomus decorus
192
61.1
Gammarus tigrinus
106
26.6
Macoma balthica
443
35.6
Tubificoides sp.
500
30.5
Purbifidoides sp.
239
33.2
Cyprideis Iittoralis
398
39.1
Tubificoides sp.
42
19.0
Leptocheirus plumulosus
37
13.5
Procladius sp.
60
19.1
Macoma balthica
81
20.4
Mediomastus ambiseta
399
32.0
Mediomastus ambiseta
480
29.3
Marenzelleria viridis
118
16.4
Chironomus decorus
349
34.3
Cyprideis Iittoralis
36
16.3
Marenzelleria viridis
25
9.1
Tubificoides sp.
30
9.6
Mediomastus ambiseta
76
19.1
Tubificoides sp.
214
17.2
Streblospio benedicti
355
21.7
Streblospio benedicti
99
13.8
Streblospio benedicti
108
10.6
Amphicteis floridus
26
11.8
Gammarus tigrinus
23
8.4
Amphicteis floridus
11
3.5
Marenzelleria viridis
51
12.8
Littoridinops tenuipes
43
3.5
Mediomastus sp.
231
14.1
Littoridinops tenuipes
57
7.9
Macoma balthica
51
5.0
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
Macoma balthica
280
25.7
Chironomus decorus
145
66.2
Chironomus decorus
268
62.8
Chironomus decorus
45
24.6
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Chironomus decorus
234
21.5
Streblospio benedicti
24
11.0
Gammarus mucronatus
40
9.4
Streblospio benedicti
21
11.5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Streblospio benedicti
102
9.4
Candonidae sp.
18
8.2
Gammarus tigrinus
25
5.9
Amphicteis floridus
20
10.9
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Gammarus tigrinus
94
8.6
Macoma tenta
8
3.7
Macoma tenta
24
5.6
Macoma tenta
20
10.9
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Chironomus sp.
335
40.3
Marenzelleria viridis
181
57.5
Marenzelleria viridis
135
36.3
Gammarus tigrinus
142
32.6
Chironomus decorus
148
77.1
Gammarus tigrinus
223
47.1
Chironomus decorus
467
82.8
Streblospio benedicti
162
19.5
Apocorophium sp.
47
14.9
Rangia cuneata
79
21.2
Apocorophium sp.
138
31.7
Amphicteis floridus
17
8.9
Apocorophium sp.
96
20.3
Littoridinops sp.
21
3.7
Gammarus tigrinus
68
8.2
Apocorophium Iacustre
29
9.2
Gammarus tigrinus
43
11.6
Mediomastus ambiseta
32
7.3
Cyprideis Iittoralis
6
3.1
Littoridinops tenuipes
29
6.1
Streblospio benedicti
19
3.4
Naididae sp. w/o hair
59
7.1
Gammarus tigrinus
13
4.1
Cyprideis Iittoralis
43
11.6
Apocorophium Iouisianum
24
5.5
Gammarus tigrinus
5
2.6
Streblospio benedicti
26
5.5
Amphicteis floridus
16
2.8
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
Y
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
W
W ct
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
Aulodrilus sp.
110
27.8
Chironomus decorus
244
36.0
Apedilum sp.
436
34.1
Chironomus decorus
222
39.7
Q
(,) W
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Macoma balthica
109
27.6
Littoridinops tenuipes
143
21.1
Chironomus decorus
298
23.3
Candonidae sp.
126
22.5
Cr) H
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Amphicteis floridus
37
9.4
Apedilum sp.
119
17.6
Candonidae sp.
208
16.3
Parachironomus sp.
55
10.0
Of/)
fi
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Apocorophium sp.
31
7.8
Candonidae sp.
52
7.7
Littoridinops tenuipes
67
5.2
Littoridinops tenuipes
49
9.8
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
U m
Q
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Gammarus tigrinus
269
23.2
Littoridinops sp.
13
22.0
Littoridinops sp.
322
32.5
Apocorophium sp.
121
24.5
Chironomus decorus
147
43.1
Apocorophium sp.
33
19.4
Chironomus decorus
104
59.8
Apocorophium sp.
255
22.0
Apocorophium sp.
9
15.3
Amphicteis floridus
194
19.6
Chironomus decorus
117
23.7
Amphicteis floridus
41
12.0
Chironomus decorus
31
18.2
Tanypus neopunctipennis
22
12.6
Amphicteis floridus
204
17.6
Marenzelleria viridis
9
15.3
Apocorophium sp.
140
14.1
Macoma balthica
69
14.0
Tanypus neopunctipennis
36
10.6
Gammarus tigrinus
24
14.1
Laeonereis culveri
19
10.9
Littoridinops sp.
116
10.0
Cyprideis Iittoralis
5
8.5
Gammarus tigrinus
78
7.9
Gammarus tigrinus
57
11.6
Tanytarsus sp.
35
10.3
Corixidae sp.
14
8.2
Gammarus tigrinus
6
3.4
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
Y
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
w
11 W
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
Chironomus decorus
184
29.3
Apedilum sp.
240
39.5
Chironomus decorus
319
54.2
Chironomus decorus
129
41.7
()
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Macoma balthica
137
21.8
Mediomastus ambiseta
144
23.7
Apocorophium sp.
85
14.4
Gammarus mucronatus
71
23.0
Cr) Cr)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Mediomastus ambiseta
113
18.0
Chironomus decorus
124
20.9
Streblospio benedicti
32
5.4
Mediomastus ambiseta
36
11.7
CO Z
-
-
-
-
-
-
Apocorophium sp.
60
9.6
Parachironomus sp.
54
8.9
Apedilum sp.
27
4.6
Macoma tenta
26
8.4
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
ct p
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Chironomus sp.
443
65.2
Marenzelleria viridis
104
48.8
Marenzelleria viridis
293
33.4
Mediomastus ambiseta
226
31.9
Chironomus decorus
491
79.7
Apocorophium sp.
162
43.8
Chironomus decorus
430
89.6
Gammarus tigrinus
58
8.5
Mediomastus ambiseta
37
17.4
Mediomastus ambiseta
238
27.1
Macoma tenta
130
18.4
Streblospio benedicti
37
6.0
Gammarus tigrinus
51
13.8
Streblospio benedicti
17
3.5
Streblospio benedicti
33
4.9
Apocorophium sp.
15
7.0
Gammarus tigrinus
74
8.4
Chironomus decorus
122
17.2
Littoridinops sp.
35
5.7
Gammarus mucronatus
33
8.9
Tanypus neopunctipennis
8
1.7
Eteone heteropoda
20
2.9
Eteone heteropoda
13
6.1
Rangia cuneata
61
7.0
Gammarus tigrinus
48
6.8
Americamysis almyra
14
2.3
Eteone heteropoda
32
8.6
Americamysis almyra
8
1.7
III-G-89

Table III-G4 (continued).
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Dominant Species
Total
Dominant Species
Total
0/0
Dominant Species
Total
0/0
Dominant Species
Total
Dominant Species
Total
Dominant Species
Total
0/0
Dominant Species
Total
Dominant Species
Total
not monitored
not monitored
not monitored
not monitored
not monitored
not monitored
not monitored
not monitored
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Dominant Species
Total
0/0
Dominant Species
Total
Dominant Species
Total
0/0
Dominant Species
Total
Dominant Species
Total
Dominant Species
Total
Dominant Species
Total
Dominant Species
Total
not monitored
not monitored
not monitored
not monitored
Apocorophium sp.
Chironomus decorus
Littondinops tenuipes
Apedilum sp.
205
194
69
62
26.1
24.7
8.8
7.9
Candonidae sp.
Littondinops tenuipes
Apedilum sp.
Chironomus decorus
385
68
63
63
65.7
11.6
10.8
Apedilum sp.
Chironomus decorus
Candonidae sp.
10.8 Goeldichironomus devineyae
253
38
26
19
61.6
9.2
6.3
4.6
Littondinops tenuipes
Chironomus decorus
Goeldichironomus devineyae
Apocorophium sp.
141
71
23
19
ok
46.2
23.3
7.5
6.2
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Dominant Species
Total
Dominant Species
Total
Dominant Species
Total
Dominant Species
Total
Dominant Species
Total
Dominant Species
Total
Dominant Species (Total
Ok
Chironomus sp.
Amphicteis flondus
Tanypus neopunctipennis
Littondinops sp.
384 68.2
30 5.3
29 5.2
27 4.8
Chironomus decorus
Streblospio benedicti
Gammarus tignnus
Marenzellena viridis
376
59
38
32
67.9
10.7
6.9
5.8
Littondinops sp.
Amphicteis flondus
Corixidae sp.
Apedilum sp.
167
141
29
14
42.3
35.7
7.3
3.5
Chironomus decorus
Gammarus tignnus
Apocorophium sp.
Candonidae sp.
138
80
62
54
27.2
15.8
12.2
10.7
Chironomus decorus
Tanytarsus sp.
Littondinops sp.
Tanypus neopunctipennis
363
58
57
30
61.6
9.8
9.7
5.1
Apocorophium sp.
Littondinops tenuipes
Amphicteis flondus
Apedilum sp.
76
64
63
43
20.9 Chironomus decorus
17.6 Tanypus neopunctipennis
17.4 Laeonereis culvert
11.8 Littondinops sp.
244
36
28
18
65.2
9.6
7.5
4.8
1998
1999
2000
2001
1
2002
2003
2004
2005
Dominant Species
Total
Dominant Species
Total
Dominant Species
Total
Dominant Species
Total
Dominant Species
Total
Dominant Species
Total
Dominant Species
Total
Dominant Species
Total
not monitored
not monitored
not monitored
not monitored
not monitored
not monitored
not monitored
not monitored
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Dominant Species
Total
Dominant Species
Total
Dominant Species
Total
Dominant Species
Total
Dominant Species
Total
Dominant Species
Total
Dominant Species
Total
Dominant Species
Total
not monitored
not monitored
not monitored
not monitored
Chironomus decorus
Apocorophium sp.
Aulodnlus sp.
Apedilum sp.
101
79
61
52
23.0
18.0
13.9
11.8
Chironomus decorus
Apedilum sp.
Candonidae sp.
Littondinops tenuipes
488
123
111
31
62.9 Apedilum sp.
15.9 Chironomus decorus
14.3 Gammarus mucronatus
4.0 Littondinops tenuipes
204
81
54
20
45.4
18.0
12.0
4.5
Naididae sp. w/o hair
Gammarus mucronatus
Chironomus decorus
Littondinops tenuipes
64
36
30
22
36.8
20.7
17.2
12.6
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Dominant Species
Total
Dominant Species
Total
Ok
Dominant Species
Total
Dominant Species ITotall
Dominant Species
Total
Dominant Species
Total
Dominant Species
Total
Gammarus tignnus
Tanytarsus sp.
Littondinops sp.
Tanypus neopunctipennis
1998
159
152
106
83
•
20.3
19.4
13.5
10.6
Marenzellena viridis
Apocorophium sp.
Streblospio benedicti
Corixidae sp.
1999
361
164
99
54
37.2
16.9
10.2
5.6
Marenzellena viridis
Amphicteis flondus
Littondinops sp.
Laeonereis culvert
2000
470
325
173
39
38.6
26.7
14.2
3.2
Gammarus tignnus
Chironomus decorus
Streblospio benedicti
Apocorophium sp.
2001
20.6
19.0
12.5
10.3
Chironomus decorus
Littondinops sp.
Amphicteis flondus
Tanypus neopunctipennis
2002
402
87
44
43
60.4
13.1
6.6
6.5
Littondinops tenuipes
Apocorophium sp.
Gammarus tignnus
Amphicteis flondus
2003
40
39
21
10
29.2
28.5
15.3
7.3
Laeonereis culvert
Amphicteis flondus
Chironomus decorus
Littondinops sp.
2004
187 24.5
180 23.6
138 18.1
62 8.1
2005
Dominant Species
Total
Dominant Species
Total
Dominant Species
Total
Dominant Species
Total
0/0
Dominant Species
Total
Dominant Species
Total
Dominant Species Total
Dominant Species
Total
not monitored
not monitored
not monitored
not monitored
not monitored
not monitored
not monitored
not monitored
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Dominant Species
Total
Dominant Species
Total
Dominant Species
Total
Dominant Species
Total
Dominant Species
Total
Ok
Dominant Species
Total
Dominant Species Total
Dominant Species
Total
not monitored
not monitored
not monitored
not monitored
Tanytarsus sp.
Aulodnlus sp.
Littondinops tenuipes
Apocorophium sp.
269
154
148
146
21.8
12.5
12.0
11.8
Chironomus decorus
Littondinops tenuipes
Candonidae sp.
Amphicteis flondus
478
244
126
92
37.7 Chironomus decorus
19.3 Littondinops tenuipes
9.9 Amphicteis flondus
7.3 Goeldichironomus devineyae
452
169
63
32
54.7
20.4
7.6
3.9
Chironomus decorus
Amphicteis flondus
Naididae sp. w/o hair
Gammarus tignnus
358
96
69
63
36.8
9.8
7.1
6.5
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Dominant Species
Total
Dominant Species
Total
Dominant Species
Total
Dominant Species
Total
Dominant Species
Total
Dominant Species
Total
Dominant Species
Total
Littondinops sp.
Chironomus sp.
Tanytarsus sp.
Amphicteis flondus
67 25.3
63 23.8
30 11.3
27 10.2
Amphicteis flondus
Gammarus tignnus
Marenzellena viridis
Apocorophium sp.
118 32.5
86 23.7
64 17.6
40 11.0
Amphicteis flondus
Gammarus tignnus
Littondinops sp.
Apocorophium sp.
309
278
174
35
33.2
29.9
18.7
3.8
Chironomus decorus
Gammarus tignnus
Apocorophium sp.
Candonidae sp.
359 46.8
145 18.9
83 10.8
52 6.8
Chironomus stigmaterus
Candonidae sp.
Amphicteis flondus
Tanytarsus sp.
149
92
87
81
28.1
17.4
16.4
15.3
Gammarus tignnus
Apocorophium sp.
Chironomus decorus
Amphicteis flondus
64.0
46.0
36.0
22.0
26.4 Gammarus tignnus
19 Chironomus decorus
14.9 Dicrotendipes nervosus
9.1 Amphicteis flondus
164 47.8
75 21.9
24 7.0
21 6.1
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Dominant Species
Total
Dominant Species
Total
Dominant Species
Total
Dominant Species
Total
Dominant Species
Total
Dominant Species
Total
Dominant Species
Total
Dominant Species
Total
not monitored
not monitored
not monitored
not monitored
not monitored
not monitored
not monitored
not monitored
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Dominant Species
Total
Dominant Species
Total
0/0
Dominant Species
Total
Dominant Species
Total
0/0
Dominant Species
Total
Dominant Species
Total
Dominant Species
Total
Ok
Dominant Species
Total
not monitored
not monitored
not monitored
not monitored
Chironomus decorus
Macoma balthica
Mediomastus ambiseta
Parachironomus sp.
245
194
179
88
22.5
17.8
16.4
8.1
Chironomus decorus
Apedilum sp.
Parachironomus sp.
Littondinops tenuipes
415
256
52
28
51.3 Chironomus decorus
31.6 Gammarus mucronatus
6.4 Apocorophium louisianum
3.5 Apocorophium sp.
231
140
136
134
22.4
13.6
13.2
13.0
Chironomus decorus
Gammarus mucronatus
Mediomastus ambiseta
Streblospio benedicti
415
270
113
98
37.3
24.3
10.2
8.8
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Dominant Species Total %
Dominant Species Total
Dominant Species Total %
Dominant Species
Total
Ok
Dominant Species Total %
Dominant Species
Total %
Dominant Species
Total
0/0
Chironomus sp.
Macoma tenta
Marenzelleria viridis
Streblospio benedicti
38
29
25
18
23.6
18.0
15.5
11.2
Marenzelleria viridis
Littoridinops sp.
Streblospio benedicti
Mediomastus ambiseta
223
31
28
21
63.0
8.8
7.9
5.9
Marenzelleria viridis
Littoridinops sp.
Mediomastus ambiseta
Corixidae sp.
180
108
52
42
37.3
22.4
10.8
8.7
Mediomastus ambiseta
Chironomus decorus
Gammarus tigrinus
Streblospio benedicti
266
142
127
123
23.4
12.5
11.2
10.8
Chironomus decorus
Streblospio benedicti
Amphicteis floridus
Chironomus stigmaterus
486
110
21
15
72.2
16.3
3.1
2.2
Apocorophium sp.
Streblospio benedicti
Gammarus tigrinus
Mediomastus ambiseta
88
71
48
36
22.6 Chironomus decorus
18.2 Streblospio benedicti
9.2 Mediomastus ambiseta
445
30
10
6
87.6
5.9
2.0
1.2

Table III-G4 (continued).
J
O
C'
I-
Z
0 Q
`-' W
Y
W I-
W f/)
C' 0-
U D
W
J
~
�
J
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
-
-
-
not monitored
-
-
-
-
-
Littoridinops tenuipes
Amphicteis floridus
Gammarus tigrinus
Tanytarsus sp.
410
88
36
26
67.2
14.4
5.9
4.3
Tanytarsus sp.
Candonidae sp.
Littoridinops tenuipes
Chironomus decorus
416
408
254
212
29.8
29.3
18.2
15.2
Gammarus tigrinus
Tanytarsus sp.
Littoridinops tenuipes
Amphicteis floridus
429
366
199
188
23.0
19.6
10.7
10.1
Chironomus decorus
Gammarus tigrinus
Amphicteis floridus
Littoridinops tenuipes
100
96
58
36
27.3
26.2
15.8
9.8
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
Gammarus tigrinus
Naididae sp. w/o hair
Amphicteis floridus
Littoridinops sp.
284
78
60
30
54.4
14.9
11.5
5.7
Gammarus tigrinus
Amphicteis floridus
Cyprideis littoral's
Chironomus decorus
230
191
90
26
36.8
30.6
14.4
4.2
Chironomus decorus
Naididae sp. w/o hair
Gammarus tigrinus
Candonidae sp.
399
179
153
99
34.5
15.5
13.2
8.5
Amphicteis floridus
Gammarus tigrinus
Chironomus decorus
Naididae sp. w/o hair
464
306
242
62
35.8
23.6
18.7
4.8
Gammarus tigrinus
Naididae sp. w/o hair
Kiefferulus sp.
Chironomus decorus
255
147
96
90
34.8
20.1
13.1
12.3
Gammarus tigrinus
Cyprideis littoral's
Amphicteis floridus
Bezzia/Palpomyia complex
45
10
9
3
65.2
14.5
13.0
4.3
Chironomus decorus
Amphicteis floridus
Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri
Procladius sp.
252
202
28
12
47.2
37.8
5.2
2.2
J
O
C'
I-
Z Q
0 W
Y F-
LU
�
U O
W CI
J
I-
I-
J
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
not monitored
-
-
-
-
-
not monitored
-
-
-
-
-
not monitored
-
-
-
-
-
not monitored
-
-
-
-
-
Marenzelleria viridis
Macoma balthica
Streblospio benedicti
Aulodrilus sp.
267
95
58
53
42.4
15.1
9.2
8.4
Mediomastus ambiseta
Chironomus decorus
Macoma tents
Macoma balthica
306
94
56
42
57.4
17.6
10.5
7.9
Chironomus decorus
Apocorophium louisianum
Gammarus mucronatus
Amphicteis floridus
500
262
255
214
24.8
13.0
12.6
10.6
Chironomus decorus
Streblospio benedicti
Amphicteis floridus
Mediomastus ambiseta
428
116
98
84
48.1
13.0
11.0
9.4
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2005
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
Apocorophium sp.
Streblospio benedicti
Chironomus sp.
Amphicteis floridus
396
396
302
230
20.2
20.2
15.4
11.8
Marenzelleria viridis
Chironomus decorus
Apocorophium sp.
Mediomastus ambiseta
158
109
52
38
33.1
22.8
10.9
8.0
Marenzelleria viridis
Apocorophium lacustre
Apocorophium sp.
Amphicteis floridus
328
166
162
154
26.9
13.6
13.3
12.6
Streblospio benedicti
Mediomastus ambiseta
Gammarus tigrinus
Macoma balthica
361
188
150
55
36.5
19.0
15.2
5.6
Chironomus decorus
Streblospio benedicti
Littoridinops sp.
Gammarus tigrinus
485
62
34
5
80.7
10.3
5.7
0.8
Apocorophium sp.
Streblospio benedicti
Mediomastus ambiseta
Parachironomus sp.
112
41
39
28
31.6
11.6
11.0
7.9
Chironomus decorus
Tanypus neopunctipennis
Streblospio benedicti
Procladius sp.
2004
500
14
13
3
92.8
2.6
2.4
0.6
L
-IDominant
O
C'
ZDominant
O Q
U LLI
Y W
w f/)
0 CL
0Dominant
Z
O
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
not monitored
-
-
-
-
-
not monitored
-
-
-
-
-
not monitored
-
-
-
-
-
not monitored
-
-
-
-
-
Apedilum sp.
Macoma balthica
Chironomus decorus
Aulodrilus sp.
170
101
73
35
32.9
19.5
14.1
6.8
Chironomus decorus
Macoma balthica
Macoma tenta
Naididae sp. w/o hair
224
37
31
24
59.6
9.8
8.2
6.4
Chironomus decorus
Gammarus mucronatus
Mediomastus ambiseta
Amphicteis floridus
500
130
110
60
53.1
13.8
11.7
6.4
Chironomus decorus
Gammarus mucronatus
Eteone heteropoda
Apocorophium sp.
450
54
48
42
62.6
7.5
6.7
5.8
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Species
Total
/
Dominant Species
Total
/
Dominant Species
Total
/
Dominant Species
Total
/
Dominant Species
Total
/
Dominant Species
Total
/
Dominant Species
Total
Chironomus sp.
Apocorophium sp.
Gammarus tigrinus
Streblospio benedicti
320
66
49
48
50.6
10.4
7.7
7.6
Marenzelleria viridis
Chironomus decorus
Gammarus tigrinus
Streblospio benedicti
31
22
12
4
36.0
25.6
14.0
4.7
Gammarus tigrinus
Marenzelleria viridis
Littoridinops sp.
Chironomus decorus
209
134
115
109
25.4
16.3
14.0
13.3
Gammarus tigrinus
Streblospio benedicti
Macoma balthica
Gammarus mucronatus
130
74
67
66
23.2
13.2
11.9
11.8
Chironomus decorus
Littoridinops sp.
Gammarus tigrinus
Streblospio benedicti
179
16
15
12
73.1
6.5
6.1
4.9
Apocorophium sp.
Gammarus tigrinus
Gammarus mucronatus
Eteone heteropoda
144
123
32
27
35.9
30.7
8.0
6.7
Chironomus decorus
Tanypus neopunctipennis
Amphicteis floridus
Gammarus tigrinus
457
15
12
10
89.6
2.9
2.3
2.0
LONG CREEK (CONTROL)
DOWNSTREAM
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
Macoma balthica
Marenzelleria viridis
Mediomastus ambiseta
Eteone heteropoda
124
58
10
8
57.4
26.9
4.6
3.7
Mediomastus ambiseta
Macoma tenta
Streblospio benedicti
Macoma balthica
500
77
76
52
65.0
10.0
9.9
6.8
Mediomastus ambiseta
Chironomus decorus
Scoloplos robustus
Streblospio benedicti
125
105
52
45
34.4
29.0
14.3
12.4
Chironomus decorus
Macoma tenta
Macoma balthica
Mediomastus ambiseta
148
78
24
5
54.2
28.6
8.8
1.8
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
Chironomus sp.
Streblospio benedicti
Mediomastus ambiseta
Macoma tenta
406
295
80
65
43.1
31.3
8.5
6.9
Littoridinops sp.
Chironomus decorus
Macoma tenta
Streblospio benedicti
43
42
24
15
24.4
23.9
13.6
8.5
Marenzelleria viridis
Chironomus decorus
Littoridinops sp.
Macoma tenta
101
62
32
25
34.1
20.9
10.8
8.4
Streblospio benedicti
Balanus improvisus
Macoma tenta
Gammarus mucronatus
49
46
39
31
14.0
13.1
11.1
8.8
Chironomus decorus
Littoridinops sp.
Streblospio benedicti
Gammarus tigrinus
421
31
31
11
79.1
5.8
5.8
2.1
Streblospio benedicti
Mediomastus ambiseta
Macoma tenta
Gammarus tigrinus
22
21
13
5
31.4
30.0
18.6
7.1
Chironomus decorus
Streblospio benedicti
Tanypus neopunctipennis
Littoridinops sp.
442
47
14
2
86.5
9.2
2.7
0.4
III-G-91

Table III-G4 (continued).
TOOLEY CREEK
UPSTREAM
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Gammarus tigrinus
118
24.8
Gammarus tigrinus
206
64.4
Chironomus decorus
418
91.1
Gammarus tigrinus
382
40.8
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
Amphicteis floridus
90
18.9
Nematoda sp.
33
10.3
Littoridinops tenuipes
11
2.4
Macoma balthica
226
24.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Littoridinops tenuipes
80
16.8
Amphicteis floridus
32
10.0
Ostracoda sp.
7
1.5
Chironomus decorus
104
11.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Cyprideis littoralis
78
16.4
Leptocheirus plumulosus
13
4.1
Tanypus neopunctipennis
6
1.3
Amphicteis floridus
87
9.3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
Chironomus decorus
48
34.8
Macoma balthica
116
30.3
Chironomus decorus
96
61.9
Chironomus decorus
439
46.7
Naididae sp. w/o hair
56
24.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Macoma tenta
24
17.4
Chironomus decorus
61
15.9
Naididae sp. w/o hair
15
9.7
Apocorophium sp.
107
11.4
Macoma balthica
41
17.7
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Naididae sp. w/o hair
22
15.9
Apocorophium sp.
41
10.7
Streblospio benedicti
14
9.0
Amphicteis floridus
105
11.2
Chironomus decorus
38
16.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Tubificoides sp.
11
8.0
Gammarus tigrinus
38
9.9
Candonidae sp.
10
6.5
Gammarus mucronatus
102
10.8
Gammarus mucronatus
13
5.6
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Chironomus sp.
77
33.2
Marenzelleria viridis
26
40.0
Littoridinops sp.
55
21.8
Macoma balthica
51
25.8
Chironomus decorus
136
37.8
Littoridinops tenuipes
9
18.0
Chironomus decorus
228
72.2
Apocorophium sp.
54
23.3
Bezzia/Palpomyia complex
6
9.2
Marenzelleria viridis
48
19.0
Chironomus decorus
49
24.7
Amphicteis floridus
42
11.7
Apocorophium sp.
6
12.0
Americamysis almyra
22
7.0
Tanytarsus sp.
22
9.5
Streblospio benedicti
6
9.2
Gammarus tigrinus
41
16.3
Gammarus tigrinus
19
9.6
Cyprideis littoralis
34
9.4
Mediomastus ambiseta
6
12.0
Streblospio benedicti
14
4.4
Littoridinops sp.
13
5.6
Eteone heteropoda
5
7.7
Chironomus decorus
27
10.7
Apocorophium sp.
18
9.1
Apocorophium sp.
33
9.2
Streblospio benedicti
6
12
Tanypus neopunctipennis
11
3.5
TOOLEY CREEK
DOWNSTREAM
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Chironomus decorus
366
39.8
Gammarus tigrinus
70
25.9
Chironomus decorus
423
56.9
Macoma balthica
444
40.8
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
Tubificoides sp.
289
31.4
Apocorophium lacustre
42
15.6
Tubificoides sp.
158
21.3
Mediomastus ambiseta
368
33.8
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Gammarus tigrinus
81
8.8
Amphicteis floridus
36
13.3
Amphicteis floridus
68
9.2
Cyprideis littoralis
47
4.3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Apocorophium lacustre
57
6.2
Leptocheirus plumulosus
28
10.4
Rangia cuneata
23
3.1
Macoma tenta
34
3.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
Macoma tenta
151
29.5
Mediomastus ambiseta
159
37.9
Mediomastus ambiseta
500
35.3
Chironomus decorus
457
52.1
Chironomus decorus
391
48.2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Chironomus decorus
103
20.1
Chironomus decorus
90
21.5
Chironomus decorus
353
24.9
Mediomastus ambiseta
190
21.7
Macoma tenta
268
33.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Mediomastus sp.
80
15.6
Parachironomus sp.
40
9.5
Streblospio benedicti
350
24.7
Streblospio benedicti
119
13.6
Mediomastus ambiseta
62
7.6
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Cyprideis littoralis
33
6.4
Apedilum sp.
39
9.3
Tubificoides sp.
92
6.5
Apocorophium sp.
20
2.3
Macoma balthica
48
5.9
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Chironomus sp.
500
50.3
Littoridinops sp.
89
31.2
Rangia cuneata
133
19.9
Mediomastus ambiseta
250
23.7
Chironomus decorus
264
74.4
Mediomastus ambiseta
187
68.8
Chironomus decorus
432
84.5
Mediomastus ambiseta
139
14.0
Macoma tenta
78
27.4
Marenzelleria viridis
130
19.4
Balanus improvisus
214
20.3
Streblospio benedicti
48
13.5
Streblospio benedicti
21
7.7
Streblospio benedicti
40
7.8
Tubificoides heterochaetus
114
11.5
Marenzelleria viridis
27
9.5
Mediomastus ambiseta
126
18.8
Macoma tenta
154
14.6
Mediomastus ambiseta
11
3.1
Macoma tenta
18
6.6
Macoma tenta
15
2.9
Streblospio benedicti
113
11.4
Mediomastus ambiseta
22
7.7
Tubificoides heterochaetus
78
11.7
Macoma balthica
141
13.4
Tubificoides heterochaetus
11
3.1
Chironomus decorus
17
6.3
Mediomastus ambiseta
7
1.4
MUDDY CREEK (CONTROL)
UPSTREAM
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Gammarus tigrinus
410
34.4
Amphicteis floridus
59
39.6
Chironomus decorus
446
82.3
Ostracoda sp.
17
37.0
Chironomus decorus
41
54.7
Chironomus decorus
41
44.1
Ostracoda sp.
13
28.3
Apocorophium lacustre
174
26.8
Amphicteis floridus
301
25.3
Gammarus tigrinus
41
27.5
Procladius sp.
52
9.6
Macoma balthica
14
30.4
Apedilum sp.
11
14.7
Macoma balthica
31
33.3
Rangia cuneata
13
28.3
Gammarus tigrinus
164
25.2
Apocorophium lacustre
265
22.3
Nematoda sp.
13
8.7
Amphicteis floridus
24
4.4
Cyprideis littoralis
7
15.2
Littoridinops tenuipes
7
9.3
Goeldichironomus devineyae
7
7.5
Littoridinops tenuipes
7
15.2
Chironomus decorus
131
20.2
Edotia triloba
55
4.6
Littoridinops tenuipes
9
6.0
Ostracoda sp.
6
1.1
Chironomus decorus
5
10.9
Streblospio benedicti
6
8.0
Littoridinops tenuipes
6
6.5
Chironomus decorus
4
8.7
Macoma balthica
49
7.5
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Chironomus decorus
175
60.1
Streblospio benedicti
12
32.4
Chironomus decorus
59
30.9
Ostracoda sp.
48
71.6
Chironomus decorus
145
62.0
Macoma balthica
116
57.1
Chironomus decorus
113
70.6
Candonidae sp.
31
63.3
Streblospio benedicti
28
9.6
Ostracoda sp.
6
16.2
Parachironomus directus
22
11.5
Chironomus decorus
10
14.9
Aulodrilus sp.
54
23.1
Mediomastus ambiseta
40
19.7
Candonidae sp.
17
10.6
Chironomus decorus
9
18.4
Cyprideis littoralis
26
8.9
Chironomus decorus
5
13.5
Ostracoda sp.
20
10.4
Littoridinops tenuipes
3
4.5
Streblospio benedicti
14
6.0
Candonidae sp.
23
11.3
Streblospio benedicti
9
5.6
Gammarus mucronatus
2
4.1
Tanypus neopunctipennis
18
6.2
Macoma balthica
5
13.5
Macoma balthica
19
9.9
Apocorophium sp.
2
3.0
Amphicteis floridus
5
2.1
Macoma tenta
14
6.9
Amphicteis floridus
7
4.4
Parachironomus sp.
2
4.1
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Chironomus sp.
149
63.4
Chironomus decorus
100
33.2
Apocorophium sp.
100
35.2
Chironomus decorus
85
28.1
Candonidae sp.
125
56.8
Candonidae sp.
97
48.7
Chironomus decorus
219
85.5
Streblospio benedicti
35
14.9
Streblospio benedicti
72
23.9
Gammarus tigrinus
42
14.8
Candonidae sp.
80
26.5
Chironomus decorus
86
39.1
Apocorophium sp.
58
29.1
Amphicteis floridus
11
4.3
Amphicteis floridus
11
4.7
Gammarus tigrinus
50
16.6
Eteone heteropoda
28
9.9
Gammarus tigrinus
51
16.9
Tanypus neopunctipennis
4
1.8
Streblospio benedicti
10
5.0
Tanypus neopunctipennis
5
2.0
Tanypus neopunctipennis
9
3.8
Marenzelleria viridis
30
10.0
Candonidae sp.
22
7.7
Littoridinops sp.
28
9.3
Littoridinops sp.
2
0.9
Eteone heteropoda
8
4.0
Tanytarsus sp.
5
2.0
MUDDY CREEK (CONTROL)
DOWNSTREAM
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Tubificoides sp.
229
65.6
Gammarus tigrinus
67
25.5
Chironomus decorus
469
73.6
Macoma balthica
160
29.1
Macoma balthica
153
38.3
Macoma balthica
309
70.1
Amphicteis floridus
60
18.4
Chironomus decorus
153
41.2
Cyprideis littoralis
42
12.0
Mediomastus ambiseta
37
14.1
Amphicteis floridus
60
9.4
Mediomastus ambiseta
135
24.6
Mediomastus ambiseta
73
18.3
Chironomus decorus
55
12.5
Chironomus decorus
54
16.6
Streblospio benedicti
89
24.0
Mediomastus ambiseta
40
11.5
Chironomus decorus
23
8.7
Procladius sp.
36
5.7
Chironomus decorus
44
8.0
Chironomus decorus
38
9.5
Streblospio benedicti
55
12.5
Littoridinops tenuipes
33
10.1
Cyprideis littoralis
34
9.2
Apocorophium lacustre
11
3.2
Amphicteis floridus
19
7.2
Chironomus plumulosus
32
5.0
Cyprideis littoralis
42
7.7
Apedilum sp.
34
8.5
Macoma tenta
6
1.4
Macoma balthica
32
9.8
Mediomastus ambiseta
25
6.7
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Chironomus decorus
65
33.2
Apedilum sp.
29
31.9
Chironomus decorus
92
22.0
Chironomus decorus
61
43.9
Macoma balthica
415
31.0
Chironomus decorus
116
28.2
Gammarus mucronatus
53
40.8
Chironomus decorus
419
76.3
Macoma balthica
55
28.1
Chironomus decorus
28
30.8
Polydora comuta
76
18.2
Macoma tenta
34
24.4
Chironomus decorus
292
21.8
Macoma balthica
83
20.1
Chironomus decorus
31
23.8
Macoma tenta
18
3.3
Macoma tenta
29
14.8
Polydora comuta
16
17.6
Macoma balthica
58
13.9
Macoma balthica
11
7.9
Mediomastus ambiseta
18
13.7
Mediomastus ambiseta
78
18.9
Parachironomus sp.
11
8.5
Streblospio benedicti
14
2.6
Mediomastus ambiseta
13
6.6
Littoridinops sp.
6
6.6
Streblospio benedicti
33
7.9
Cyprideis littoralis
9
6.5
Streblospio benedicti
83
6.2
Macoma tenta
38
9.2
Gammarus tigrinus
10
7.7
Polydora comuta
11
2.0
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Chironomus sp.
367
62.0
Chironomus decorus
162
53.3
Marenzelleria viridis
83
40.1
Gammarus tigrinus
118
23.6
Chironomus decorus
356
77.9
Gammarus tigrinus
21
34.4
Chironomus decorus
431
86.5
Streblospio benedicti
49
8.3
Marenzelleria viridis
46
15.1
Gammarus tigrinus
33
15.9
Macoma balthica
77
15.4
Streblospio benedicti
22
4.8
Eteone heteropoda
6
9.8
Tanypus neopunctipennis
31
6.2
Naididae sp. w/o hair
40
6.8
Macoma tenta
30
9.9
Streblospio benedicti
16
7.7
Apocorophium sp.
66
13.2
Littoridinops sp.
18
3.9
Littoridinops tenuipes
6
9.8
Streblospio benedicti
14
2.8
Macoma tenta
31
5.2
Macoma balthica
25
8.2
Apocorophium sp.
15
7.2
Gammarus mucronatus
59
11.8
Corixidae sp.
17
3.7
Edotia montosa
4
6.6
Gammarus tigrinus
4
0.8
III-G-92

Table III-G4 (continued).
HUDDLES CUT
UPSTREAM
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
not monitored
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Amphicteis floridus
Monopylephorus sp.
Gammanis tigrinus
Bezzia/Palpomyia complex
120
62
20
18
46.9
24.2
7.8
7.0
Cyprideis littoralis
Laeonereis culven
Naididae sp.
Chironomus decorus
9
6
5
5
19.6
13.0
10.9
10.9
Amphicteis floridus
Laeonereis culven
Tanytarsus sp. 1
Naididae sp.
68
41
40
33
22.7
13.7
13.3
11.0
not monitored
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
not monitored
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
not monitored
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
not monitored
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Cyprideis littoralis
Laeonereis culven
Amphicteis floridus
Apocorophium lacustre
77
7
6
5
64.7
5.9
5.0
4.2
Chironomus decorus
Cyprideis littoralis
Laeonereis culven
Amphicteis floridus
104
38
10
8
52.0
19.0
5.0
4.0
Chironomus decorus
Cyprideis littoralis
Goeldichironomus devineyae
Heteromastus filiformis
77
28
14
7
52.4
19.0
9.5
4.8
Chironomus decorus
Apocorophium sp.
Glyptotendipes sp.
-
137
12
1
-
91.3
8.0
0.7
-
Cyprideis littoralis
Heteromastus filifonnis
Macoma tenta
Bezzia/Palpomyia complex
54
50
23
15
32.5
30.1
13.9
9.0
Heteromastus filiformis
Cyprideis littoralis
Neanthes succinea
Mediomastus ambiseta
182
52
36
20
49.2
14.1
9.7
5.4
Heteromastus filiformis
Chironomus decorus
Naididae sp. w/o hair
Neanthes succinea
144
47
28
26
45.0
14.7
8.8
8.1
Macoma tenta
Chironomus decorus
Naididae sp. w/o hair
Gammarus tigrinus
120
91
50
50
23.6
17.9
9.8
9.8
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Tanytarsus sp.
Amphicteis floridus
Macoma tenta
Bezzia/Palpomyia complex
19
12
11
9
19.6
12.4
11.3
9.3
Tubificoides heterochaetus
Tanytarsus sp.
Amphicteis floridus
Calanoida sp.
251
81
54
43
42.1
13.6
9.1
7.2
Cyprideis littoralis
Chironomus decorus
Laeonereis culven
Macoma tenta
146
39
24
19
49.0
13.1
8.1
6.4
Balanus improvisus
Neanthes succinea
Heteromastus filiformis
Macoma tenta
150
50
35
19
39.7
13.2
9.3
5.0
Chironomus decorus
Tanypus neopunctipennis
Littoridinops sp.
Cyprideis littoralis
379
57
39
38
70.6
10.6
7.3
7.1
Mediomastus ambiseta
Heteromastus filiformis
Neanthes succinea
Macoma tenta
105
55
22
11
44.7
23.4
9.4
4.7
Chironomus decorus
Bezzia/Palpomyia complex
Tanypus neopunctipennis
Polypedilum sp.
164
4
3
2
92.1
2.2
1.7
1.1
1 M. t
HUDDLES CUT
DOWNSTREAM
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
not monitored
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Chironomus decorus
Amphicteis floridus
Macoma tenta
Gammarus tigrinus
91
24
22
20
33.5
8.8
8.1
7.4
Chironomus decorus
Amphicteis floridus
Marenzelleria viridis
Polydora comuta
463
440
111
71
35.9
34.1
8.6
5.5
Mediomastus ambiseta
Macoma balthica
Amphicteis floridus
Macoma tenta
144
106
34
28
28.7
21.1
6.8
5.6
not monitored
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
not monitored
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
not monitored
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
not monitored
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Chironomus decorus
Gammanis tigrinus
Streblospio benedicti
Littoridinops tenuipes
356
134
36
30
55.1
20.7
5.6
4.6
Nematoda sp.
Laeonereis culveri
Polydora comuta
Naididae sp.
220
72
60
27
44.3
14.5
12.1
5.4
Naididae sp.
Nematoda sp.
Neanthes succinea
Macoma tenta
116
64
8
6
52.7
29.1
3.6
2.7
Marenzelleria viridis
Chironomus decorus
Laeonereis culven
Nemertea sp.
208
28
17
10
66.7
9.0
5.4
3.2
Nematoda sp.
Turbellaria sp.
Marenzelleria viridis
Heteromastus filiformis
416
288
147
78
32.8
22.7
11.6
6.2
Chironomus decorus
Streblospio benedicti
Heteromastus filiformis
Eteone heteropoda
89
80
74
63
17.7
15.9
14.7
12.5
Streblospio benedicti
Mediomastus ambiseta
Naididae sp. w/o hair
Gammarus tigrinus
412
328
226
196
20.9
16.6
11.5
10.0
Nematoda sp.
Grania sp.
Lepidactylus dytiscus
Marenzelleria viridis
500
252
96
92
45.0
22.7
8.6
8.3
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Nematoda sp.
Aulodrilus limnobius
Ostracoda sp.
Lepidactylus dytiscus
500
276
124
84
50.2
27.7
12.4
8.4
Nematoda sp.
Chironomus decorus
Marenzelleria viridis
Cyprideis littoralis
124
97
97
66
18.3
14.3
14.3
9.8
Chironomus decorus
Cyprideis littoralis
Amphicteis floridus
Rangia cuneata
462
131
120
55
49.8
14.1
12.9
5.9
Marenzelleria viridis
Haustorius sp.
Lepidactylus dytiscus
Naididae sp. w/o hair
475
62
42
40
59.8
7.8
5.3
5.0
Naididae sp. w/o hair
Marenzelleria viridis
Chironomus decorus
Neanthes succinea
60
12
9
9
55.6
11.1
8.3
8.3
Lepidactylus dytiscus
Heteromastus filifonnis
Neanthes succinea
Eteone heteropoda
34
18
18
14
29.8
15.8
15.8
12.3
Naididae sp. w/o hair
Marenzelleria viridis
Tanytarsus sp.
Gammarus tigrinus
73
26
5
4
60.3
21.5
4.1
3.3
Y
W
W ct
0' Q
0 W
Ce i_
LLJ (/)
11 S
d
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
not monitored
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
not monitored
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
not monitored
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
not monitored
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Amphicteis floridus
Apocorophium sp.
Gammarus tigrinus
Streblospio benedicti
379
283
205
180
29.4
22.0
15.9
14.0
Tanytarsus sp.
Littoridinops tenuipes
Cyprideis littoralis
Amphicteis floridus
448
416
300
260
20.8
19.3
13.9
12.1
Apocorophium sp.
Gammarus tigrinus
Apocorophium louisianum
Streblospio benedicti
109
81
44
32
34.4
25.6
13.9
10.1
Amphicteis floridus
Streblospio benedicti
Tanytarsus sp.
Gammarus tigrinus
333
256
205
122
29.0
22.3
17.8
10.6
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Amphicteis floridus
Gammanis tigrinus
Apocorophium sp.
Mytilopsis leucophaeata
484
183
54
29
56.7
21.5
6.3
3.4
Amphicteis floridus
Cyprideies littoralis
Gammarus tigrinus
Littoridinops sp.
500
281
249
45
40.3
22.7
20.1
3.6
Amphicteis floridus
Gammarus tigrinus
Cyprideis littoralis
Littoridinops sp.
500
317
236
149
37.5
23.7
17.7
11.2
Gammarus tigrinus
Streblospio benedicti
Littoridinops sp.
Apocorophium lacustre
400
78
64
32
57.6
11.2
9.2
4.6
Gammarus tigrinus
Chironomus decorus
Littoridinops sp.
Dero sp.
176
78
42
26
39.7
17.6
9.5
5.9
Gammarus tigrinus
Apocorophium sp.
Apocorophium louisianum
Candonidae sp.
172
130
78
22
36.4
27.5
16.5
4.7
Amphicteis floridus
Chironomus decorus
Gammanis tigrinus
Tanytarsus sp.
98
45
42
5
42.2
19.4
18.1
2.2
Y
w
11 w
0
II cn
W Z
0
dp
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
not monitored
-
-
-
-
-
not monitored
-
-
-
-
-
not monitored
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
not monitored
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Macoma balthica
Marenzelleria viridis
Mediomastus ambiseta
Eteone heteropoda
308
207
16
14
52.3
35.1
2.7
2.3
Mediomastus ambiseta
Macoma tenta
Macoma balthica
Streblospio benedicti
42
28
20
18
34.1
22.8
16.3
14.6
Streblospio benedicti
Chironomus decorus
Mediomastus ambiseta
Macoma balthica
109
85
23
14
38.1
29.7
8.0
4.9
Chironomus decorus
Tanypus neopunctipennis
Macoma tenta
Macoma balthica
197
63
58
34
46.4
14.8
13.6
8.0
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Chironomus sp.
Streblospio benedicti
Amphicteis floridus
Gammanis tigrinus
500
79
12
12
79.6
12.6
1.9
1.9
Chironomus decorus
Marenzelleria viridis
Macoma tenta
Gammarus tigrinus
102
96
65
31
26.7
25.1
17.0
8.1
Chironomus decorus
Amphicteis floridus
Streblospio benedicti
Marenzelleria viridis
184
170
150
75
24.8
22.9
20.2
10.1
Mediomastus ambiseta
Macoma tenta
Marenzelleria viridis
Macoma balthica
212
111
84
83
32.2
16.9
12.8
12.6
Chironomus decorus
Gammanis tigrinus
Littoridinops sp.
Procladius sp.
406
36
23
8
83.0
7.4
4.7
1.6
Mediomastus ambiseta
Streblospio benedicti
Gammarus tigrinus
Chironomus decorus
399
41
26
11
75.0
7.7
4.9
2.1
Chironomus decorus
Macoma tenta
Streblospio benedicti
Procladius sp.
321
13
8
5
90.2
3.7
2.2
1.4
III-G-93

Table III-G4 (continued).
DCUT11
UPSTREAM
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
Gammarus tigrinus
Amphicteis floridus
Apocorophium sp.
Littoridinops tenuipes
500
414
155
150
35.1
29.1
10.9
10.5
Littoridinops tenuipes
Gammarus tigrinus
Amphicteis floridus
Cyprideis littoralis
500
458
368
312
22.8
20.9
16.8
14.2
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
Littoridinops sp.
Cyprideis littoralis
Amphicteis floridus
Berosus sp.
464
111
63
42
65.1
15.6
8.8
5.9
Cyprideis littoralis
Gammarus tigrinus
Amphicteis floridus
Littoridinops sp.
407
263
224
190
28.6
18.5
15.8
13.4
Gammarus tigrinus
Cyprideis littoralis
Littoridinops sp.
Amphicteis floridus
298
68
28
26
66.8
15.2
6.3
5.8
Gammarus tigrinus
Amphicteis floridus
Cyprideis littoralis
Littoridinops sp.
356
148
107
81
45.4
18.9
13.6
10.3
Gammarus tigrinus
Amphicteis floridus
Candonidae sp.
Dicrotendipes nervosus
134
95
88
73
21.9
15.5
14.4
11.9
Gammarus tigrinus
Littoridinops tenuipes
Apocorophium sp.
Cyprideis littoralis
396
389
236
118
25.8
25.3
15.4
7.7
Dicrotendipes nervosus
Littoridinops sp.
Gammarus tigrinus
Tanytarsus sp.
26
23
13
10
25.0
22.1
12.5
9.6
DCUT11
DOWNSTREAM
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
Gammarus tigrinus
Apocorophium sp.
Apocorophium louisianum
Amphicteis floridus
429
317
57
15
48.9
36.1
6.5
1.7
Amphicteis floridus
Gammarus tigrinus
Chironomus decorus
Dicrotendipes nervosus
447
400
165
114
28.4
25.4
10.5
7.2
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
Amphicteis floridus
Gammarus tigrinus
Dicrotendipes nervosus
Apocorophium sp.
358
332
196
64
32.6
30.2
17.8
5.8
Gammarus tigrinus
Amphicteis floridus
Marenzellena viridis
Apocorophium lacustre
108
90
11
8
43.5
36.3
4.4
3.2
Gammarus tigrinus
Amphicteis floridus
Littoridinops sp.
Mytilopsis leucophaeta
440
422
186
50
37.0
35.5
15.7
4.2
Gammarus tigrinus
Apocorophium sp.
Apocorophium lacustre
Tanytarsus sp.
462
456
318
102
29.8
29.5
20.5
6.6
Amphicteis floridus
Gammarus tigrinus
Littoridinops sp.
Cyprideis littoralis
224
203
20
18
41.3
37.5
3.7
3.3
Gammarus tigrinus
Apocorophium sp.
Apocorophium lacustre
Dicrotendipes nervosus
500
438
387
320
23.8
20.8
18.4
15.2
Amphicteis floridus
Gammarus tigrinus
Dicrotendipes nervosus
Tanytarsus sp.
218
124
100
66
34.9
19.9
16.0
10.6
DCUT19 (CONTROL)
UPSTREAM
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
Littoridinops tenuipes
Chironomus decorus
Amphicteis floridus
Gammarus tigrinus
182
146
116
70
21.4
17.2
13.6
8.2
Littoridinops tenuipes
Tanytarsus sp.
Chironomus decorus
Bezzia/Palpomyia complex
497
185
157
55
43.1
16.0
13.6
4.8
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
Amphicteis floridus
Littoridinops sp.
Tanytarsus sp.
Cyprideis littoralis
44
36
18
12
25.9
21.2
10.6
7.1
Amphicteis floridus
Littoridinops sp.
Cyprideis littoralis
Nematoda sp.
297
295
160
128
25.4
25.2
13.7
11.0
Candonidae sp.
Tanytarsus sp.
Amphicteis floridus
Littoridinops sp.
256
160
136
116
22.8
14.2
12.1
10.3
Candonidae sp.
Apocorophium sp.
Littoridinops sp.
Apocorophium louisianum
290
136
67
37
46.0
21.6
10.6
5.9
Tanytarsus sp.
Candonidae sp.
Amphicteis floridus
Littoridinops sp.
290
177
155
61
36.4
22.2
19.5
7.7
Apocorophium sp.
Littoridinops tenuipes
Candonidae sp.
Chironomus decorus
128
83
35
28
31.8
20.6
8.7
7.0
Chironomus decorus
Littoridinops sp.
Tanytarsus sp.
Dicrotendipes nervosus
234
118
85
57
32.1
16.2
11.6
7.8
•
DCUT19 (CONTROL)
DOWNSTREAM
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
Hargeria rapax
Gammarus tigrinus
Nematoda sp.
Cyathura polita
500
424
140
68
36.0
30.5
10.1
4.9
Gammarus tigrinus
Naididae sp. w/o hair
Hargeria rapax
Littoridinops tenuipes
500
428
128
95
34.6
29.6
8.9
6.6
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
Amphicteis floridus
Gammarus tigrinus
Candonidae sp.
Chironomus sp.
395
296
171
165
19.7
14.7
8.5
8.2
Gammarus tigrinus
Amphicteis floridus
Apocorophium lacustre
Cyprideis littoralis
475
147
63
45
50.8
15.7
6.7
4.8
Gammarus tigrinus
Amphicteis floridus
Littoridinops sp.
Cyprideis littoralis
500
500
282
234
18.9
18.9
10.7
8.9
Gammarus tigrinus
Naididae sp. w/o hair
Apocorophium sp.
Hargeria rapax
433
95
31
15
68.1
14.9
4.9
2.4
Gammarus tigrinus
Candonidae sp.
Littoridinops sp.
Chironomus decorus
476
158
84
79
49.9
16.6
8.8
8.3
Hargeria rapax
Gammarus tigrinus
Apocorophium sp.
Amphicteis floridus
500
435
344
78
29.9
26.0
20.6
4.7
Gammarus tigrinus
Amphicteis floridus
Hargeria rapax
Dicrotendipes nervosus
500
423
404
228
24.5
20.7
19.8
11.2
III-G-94

Table III-G4 (concluded).
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
-IDominant
Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
0
0'
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
I-
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Z
0 a
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
Amphicteis floridus
436
23.4
Candonidae sp.
500
26.2
Nematoda sp.
293
25.3
Amphicteis floridus
500
25.7
V W
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Littoridinops tenuipes
416
22.3
Chironomus decorus
484
25.4
Candonidae sp.
227
19.6
Chironomus decorus
500
25.7
WCe
Gammarus tigrinus
308
16.5
Tanytarsus sp.
332
17.4
Amphicteis floridus
193
16.6
Gammarus tigrinus
221
11.4
W V)
Dicrotendipes nervosus
152
8.2
Littoridinops tenuipes
276
14.5
Littoridinops tenuipes
147
12.7
Littoridinops tenuipes
191
9.8
Ce d
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
U M
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
0
Amphicteis floridus
199
33.2
Gammarus tigrinus
386
29.5
Amphicteis floridus
254
43.8
Cyprideis littoralis
126
34.5
Candonidae sp.
71
33.6
Amphicteis floridus
126
59.4
Amphicteis floridus
26
21.3
M
Gammarus tigrinus
115
19.2
Amphicteis floridus
247
18.9
Candonidae sp.
74
12.8
Candonidae sp.
95
26.0
Gammarus tigrinus
58
27.5
Gammarus tigrinus
28
13.2
Dicrotendipes nervosus
24
19.7
Candonidae sp.
54
9.0
Candonidae sp.
221
16.9
Gammarus tigrinus
70
12.1
Gammarus tigrinus
55
15.1
Naididae sp. w/o hair
26
12.3
Cyprideis littoralis
22
10.4
Chironomus decorus
12
9.8
Chironomus sp.
44
7.3
Cyprideis littoralis
126
9.6
Naididae sp. w/o hair
64
11.0
Littoridinops sp.
51
14.0
Tanytarsus sp.
15
7.1
Candonidae sp.
20
9.4
Gammarus tigrinus
12
9.8
DUCK CREEK (CONTROL)
DOWNSTREAM
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
Macoma balthica
456
37.8
Mediomastus ambiseta
398
54.5
Gammarus mucronatus
123
28.1
Chironomus decorus
500
79.0
Marenzelleria viridis
338
28.0
Chironomus decorus
167
22.9
Macoma balthica
72
16.5
Streblospio benedicti
56
8.8
Mediomastus ambiseta
166
13.8
Macoma balthica
49
6.7
Gammarus tigrinus
70
16.0
Littoridinops tenuipes
15
2.4
Chironomus decorus
81
6.7
Parachironomus sp.
23
3.2
Chironomus decorus
47
10.8
Macoma tenta
13
2.1
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Chironomus sp.
489
82.2
Gammanis tigrinus
35
23.8
Amphicteis floridus
244
40.6
Gammanis tigrinus
384
38.5
Procladius sp.
293
35.3
Mediomastus ambiseta
331
74.4
Chironomus decorus
132
46.3
Tanytarsus sp.
30
5.0
Leptocheirus plumulosus
35
23.8
Procladius sp.
55
9.2
Chironomus decorus
156
15.6
Cyprideis littoralis
219
26.4
Streblospio benedicti
54
12.1
Tanytarsus sp.
82
28.8
Tanypus neopunctipennis
29
4.9
Coelotanypus sp.
14
9.5
Tubificoides heterochaetus
54
9.0
Mediomastus ambiseta
104
10.4
Chironomus decorus
172
20.7
Chironomus decorus
17
3.8
Procladius sp.
30
10.5
Streblospio benedicti
14
2.4
Macoma tenta
12
8.2
Apocorophium sp.
42
7.0
Balanus improvisus
101
10.1
Tanypus neopunctipennis
44
5.3
Gammarus tigrinus
11
2.5
Amphicteis floridus
11
3.9
III-G-95

Table III-G5. Benthic macroinvertebrate community structure data for ponar grab samples collected at upstream and downstream stations in May during years 1998-2005 and 2007-2021. A "-" indicates the creek
was not monitored that year. Pre- and post -Mod Alt L collection years for impact creeks are separated by bold vertical lines. Benthic collections occurred in June for 2010. Summary pre and post Mod Alt L are
shown in Table II-05. An "a" refers to only those taxa for which sensitivity values are available were used in EBI calculations. Note: sensitivity values provided by NCDWR.
Station community structure data by year
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005 2007
2008 2009 2010 2011
2012
2013 2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
JACOBS CREEK JACKS CREEK SCUT 1 (CONTROL) BROOMFIELD SWAMP CREEK
Total abundance
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
- - - -
-
- -
-
-
-
-
347
87
297
Total taxa
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
- - - -
-
- -
-
-
-
-
11
5
12
D
Total taxa with sensitivity values
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
- - - -
-
- -
-
-
-
-
9
5
9
Shannon -Wiener Index
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
- - - -
-
- -
-
-
-
-
1.75
1.21
1.76
E B la
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
- - - -
-
- -
-
-
-
-
1.04
1.22
1.03
Total abundance
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
- - - -
-
- -
-
-
-
-
356
144
37
Total taxa
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
- - - -
-
- -
-
-
-
-
14
10
11
oTotal
taxa with sensitivity values
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
- - - -
-
- -
-
-
-
-
10
10
10
Shannon -Wiener Index
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
- - - -
-
- -
-
-
-
-
1.30
1.16
2.02
E B la
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
- - - -
-
- -
-
-
-
-
1.02
1.91
1.20
Total abundance
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
- - - -
-
- -
-
-
-
-
509
334
389
Total taxa
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
- - - -
-
- -
-
-
-
-
18
7
16
D
Total taxa with sensitivity values
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
- - - -
-
- -
-
-
-
-
14
6
11
Shannon -Wiener Index
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
- - - -
-
- -
-
-
-
-
1.72
0.99
2.02
E B la
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
- - - -
-
- -
-
-
-
-
1.23
1.74
1.05
Total abundance
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
- - - -
-
- -
-
-
-
-
219
92
277
Total taxa
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
- - - -
-
- -
-
-
-
-
16
8
8
oTotal
taxa with sensitivity values
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
- - - -
-
- -
-
-
-
-
11
6
7
Shannon -Wiener Index
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
- - - -
-
- -
-
-
-
-
2.13
1.74
1.00
E B la
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
- - - -
-
- -
-
-
-
-
1.25
1.77
1.96
Total abundance
215
515
1,121
1,356
295
615
549
463 -
- - - 549
255
389 940
353
90
549
636
123
142
188
Totaltaxa
19
8
19
17
13
17
30
18 -
- - - 19
5
13 24
18
14
19
24
15
12
15
D
Total taxa with sensitivity values
17
5
16
13
12
14
26
15 -
- - - 17
4
11 20
16
12
17
22
12
9
12
Shannon -Wiener Index
2.14
0.72
1.82
1.77
1.26
0.97
2.22
2.01 -
- - - 2.33
0.78
1.62 2.19
2.20
2.00
2.22
1.83
2.17
1.99
1.67
E B la
1.85
2.00
1.57
1.65
1.67
1.48
1.80
1.58 -
- - - 1.57
1.07
1.41 1.63
1.84
1.99
1.79
1.75
1.43
1.44
1.18
Total abundance
221
274
314
398
1246
1639
719
1013 -
- - - 1090
203
427 183
831
315
372
436
192
473
564
Totaltaxa
18
17
11
16
18
15
22
18 -
- - - 23
15
19 23
25
15
18
14
10
19
10
oTotal
taxa with sensitivity values
16
15
11
15
17
14
21
17 -
- - - 22
11
17 21
21
14
16
14
8
16
9
Shannon -Wiener Index
2.27
2.07
1.25
1.94
1.64
1.55
2.18
1.59 -
- - - 2.39
1.24
1.54 2.51
2.08
1.55
1.91
1.89
0.96
1.80
0.80
E B la
1.40
2.13
1.19
1.95
1.57
1.56
1.71
1.29 -
- - - 1.46
1.11
1.41 1.57
1.42
2.33
2.10
2.06
1.17
1.93
1.20
Total abundance
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
- - - 395
678
1,277
559
1,163
59
990
493
341
170
174
Total taxa
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
- - - 18
18
18
15
23
16
22
19
15
21
12
D
Total taxa with sensitivity values
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
- - - 17
17
13
13
18
14
19
16
11
19
12
Shannon -Wiener Index
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
- - - 2.10
1.92
1.98
1.89
2.14
2.42
2.15
2.09
1.92
2.48
1.45
E B la
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
- - - 1.66
2.22
2.27
1.35
2.00
2.00
1.91
1.71
1.40
1.78
1.13
Total abundance
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
- - - 628
608
592
309
679
213
877
708
616
370
480
Total taxa
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
- - - 24
12
22
18
23
21
21
19
14
18
15
oTotal
taxa with sensitivity values
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
- - - 21
11
19
16
21
21
19
17
11
18
15
Shannon -Wiener Index
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
- - - 2.1
1.58
1.78
1.77
1.55
1.87
2.07
2.06
0.90
1.88
0.47
E B la
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
- - - 1.58
2.17
1.57
1.47
1.43
2.27
2.02
1.68
1.30
2.02
1.11
III-G-96

Table III-G5 (concluded).
Station community structure data by year
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005 2007 2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
LONG CREEK (CONTROL) LITTLE CREEK (CONTROL) DRINKWATER CREEK PA2 (CONTROL)
D
Total abundance
Total taxa
Total taxa with sensitivity values
Shannon -Wiener Index
E Bla
- - - - - - - - - - - - 784
- - - - - - - - - - - - 18
- - - - - - - - - - - - 16
- - - - - - - - - - - - 2.26
- - - - - - - - - - - - 1.89
586
7
6
1.07
2.31
414
14
12
1.54
2.87
305
13
12
1.68
1.75
563
18
15
1.35
1.42
554
14
11
1.23
1.49
395
19
17
1.55
2.02
507
16
15
2.28
1.54
589
18
14
1.48
1.42
363
15
14
2.17
2.19
374
14
13
1.35
1.18
Total abundance
- - - - - - - - - - - - 439
776
450
174
783
970
1217
1392
666
137
762
Total taxa
- - - - - - - - - - - - 19
12
16
11
27
23
27
25
18
18
21
oTotal
taxa with sensitivity values
- - - - - - - - - - - - 16
10
14
11
24
22
25
24
15
16
19
Shannon -Wiener Index
- - - - - - - - - - - - 2.31
1.15
1.84
1.71
2.35
2.16
1.88
2.46
1.46
1.95
2.11
EBIa
- - - - - - - - - - - - 1.80
2.39
2.82
1.49
1.89
2.06
1.99
1.65
1.38
2.04
1.47
Total abundance
- - - - - - - - - - - - 1,236
1,267
829
973
265
363
930
767
530
242
343
Total taxa
- - - - - - - - - - - - 21
22
23
22
22
17
19
18
11
15
20
D
Total taxa with sensitivity values
- - - - - - - - - - - - 19
19
21
20
19
16
16
17
9
15
18
Shannon -Wiener Index
- - - - - - - - - - - - 2.32
2.08
1.58
2.32
2.27
1.87
1.80
1.75
1.97
2.14
1.78
EBIa
- - - - - - - - - - - - 1.88
1.70
1.64
1.59
1.71
2.10
1.95
1.68
1.76
1.80
1.74
Total abundance
- - - - - - - - - - - - 1089
810
1140
1113
161
354
483
1138
673
390
508
Total taxa
- - - - - - - - - - - - 21
16
22
19
13
17
17
23
16
23
12
oTotal
taxa with sensitivity values
- - - - - - - - - - - - 20
14
20
16
12
15
16
22
12
22
11
Shannon -Wiener Index
- - - - - - - - - - - - 2.33
1.34
2.46
1.85
2.18
1.45
2.00
2.43
1.03
2.38
0.59
EBIa
- - - - - - - - - - - - 1.68
2.22
1.86
1.68
1.57
2.23
2.03
1.67
1.16
1.84
1.09
Total abundance
- - - - - - - - - - - - 610
1,394
1,865
366
522
625
1,158
1,297
732
69
534
Total taxa
- - - - - - - - - - - - 15
11
23
11
12
17
18
19
16
6
15
D
Total taxa with sensitivity values
- - - - - - - - - - - - 14
9
18
9
11
14
15
16
13
4
14
Shannon -Wiener Index
- - - - - - - - - - - - 1.23
1.65
2.27
1.94
1.51
1.74
2.11
1.85
1.95
1.08
1.32
E Bla
- - - - - - - - - - - - 1.95
1.78
1.71
1.45
1.75
1.88
1.38
1.64
1.49
2.00
1.49
Total abundance
- - - - - - - - - - - - 619
533
2023
889
2018
478
1219
988
601
354
539
Total taxa
- - - - - - - - - - - - 22
16
28
19
25
18
20
25
11
17
11
oTotal
taxa with sensitivity values
- - - - - - - - - - - - 21
15
25
18
22
17
18
23
10
15
11
Shannon -Wiener Index
- - - - - - - - - - - - 2.01
1.39
2.34
1.81
2.40
2.08
2.24
2.07
0.75
2.27
0.38
E Bla
- - - - - - - - - - - - 1.98
1.84
1.71
1.36
1.68
1.84
1.90
1.72
1.24
1.90
1.06
Total abundance
- - - - - - - - - - - - 503
376
941
719
633
86
822
561
245
401
510
Total taxa
- - - - - - - - - - - - 18
14
22
25
19
12
25
32
10
19
8
D
Total taxa with sensitivity values
- - - - - - - - - - - - 17
12
20
22
16
11
21
28
9
18
7
Shannon -Wiener Index
- - - - - - - - - - - - 2.04
1.49
1.65
1.57
1.91
1.87
2.27
2.56
1.11
1.84
0.52
EBIa
- - - - - - - - - - - - 2.31
1.36
1.89
1.49
1.45
2.05
1.90
1.79
1.22
2.04
1.18
Total abundance
- - - - - - - - - - - - 216
769
363
273
941
176
296
351
532
70
511
Total taxa
- - - - - - - - - - - - 11
15
16
14
14
14
17
22
16
9
10
oTotal
taxa with sensitivity values
- - - - - - - - - - - - 10
12
15
13
12
12
16
21
15
9
10
Shannon -Wiener Index
- - - - - - - - - - - - 1.25
1.26
1.71
1.29
1.52
2.12
2.03
2.66
0.94
1.67
0.54
EBIa
- - - - - - - - - - - - 1.76
1.72
1.44
1.29
1.27
1.66
2.03
1.85
1.28
1.74
1.06
III-G-97

Table III-G5 (continued).
Station community structure data by year
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
PORTER CREEK HUDDLES CREEK MUDDY CREEK (CONTROL) TOOLEY CREEK
Total abundance
475
320
459
937
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
138
363
155
942
232
232
65
252
198
360
50
316
Totaltaxa
17
13
11
24
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
13
19
11
21
23
19
13
19
18
16
12
14
D
Total taxa with sensitivity values
16
10
10
23
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
10
18
10
19
21
16
12
16
16
15
11
13
Shannon -Wiener Index
2.04
1.35
0.49
1.81
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2.04
2.30
1.40
1.86
2.43
2.25
2.07
2.39
2.21
2.11
2.31
1.22
EBIa
2.09
2.03
1.16
1.58
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.28
1.76
1.15
1.80
1.51
1.73
2.03
2.00
1.52
1.51
1.86
1.25
Total abundance
919
270
743
1,088
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
511
416
1,415
877
812
995
285
669
1,056
355
272
511
Totaltaxa
20
18
11
25
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
18
18
17
24
16
20
16
23
22
14
16
11
o
Total taxa with sensitivity values
19
15
9
24
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
16
17
16
22
14
19
15
22
20
13
15
11
Shannon -Wiener Index
1.68
2.31
1.37
1.75
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2.16
1.93
1.57
1.54
1.33
1.66
2.01
2.28
2.21
1.00
1.28
0.68
EBIa
1.45
2.07
1.22
1.77
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.59
1.89
1.42
1.46
1.54
1.41
1.86
1.75
1.79
1.16
1.85
1.16
Total abundance
1,191
149
546
51
75
114
46
616
291
35
191
67
234
203
160
49
235
307
284
302
220
199
256
Totaltaxa
21
12
9
6
11
8
11
20
11
9
19
7
12
7
10
8
13
16
15
12
7
12
10
D
Total taxa with sensitivity values
20
10
6
5
10
6
9
17
10
8
17
6
10
6
8
5
11
13
14
10
6
11
8
Shannon -Wiener Index
1.77
1.77
0.82
1.47
1.57
1.54
1.93
2.01
1.48
1.86
2.37
1.02
1.21
1.25
1.14
1.23
1.39
1.89
2.19
1.87
0.88
1.51
0.71
EBIa
2.05
2.00
1.17
1.51
1.73
1.33
1.32
1.69
1.14
1.32
1.57
1.36
1.23
1.65
1.05
1.41
1.19
1.50
2.02
1.55
1.07
1.94
1.20
Total abundance
349
263
637
556
400
442
326
371
196
91
418
139
1,329
412
162
549
592
304
207
500
457
61
498
Totaltaxa
15
17
16
25
18
12
21
16
15
12
26
17
24
19
16
19
20
15
19
20
15
15
14
o
Total taxa with sensitivity values
14
16
14
24
17
11
19
15
14
10
23
16
22
18
14
17
18
13
17
18
13
13
13
Shannon -Wiener Index
1.25
2.45
1.08
2.32
2.03
1.03
2.54
1.81
1.88
1.76
2.52
1.81
2.17
2.08
2.22
1.19
1.58
1.60
2.12
2.31
1.02
2.25
0.63
EBIa
1.42
1.81
1.28
1.72
1.87
1.39
1.64
1.24
1.47
2.01
1.45
1.63
1.63
1.44
1.74
1.28
1.31
1.53
2.02
1.91
1.24
1.94
1.12
Total abundance
-
256
46
300
-
-
-
-
119
200
147
150
166
370
325
509
97
596
298
378
537
235
178
Totaltaxa
-
17
10
20
-
-
-
-
18
13
15
3
15
14
15
22
17
23
21
25
11
17
9
D
Total taxa with sensitivity values
-
13
9
18
-
-
-
-
15
12
11
3
14
13
13
20
15
18
19
24
9
16
9
Shannon -Wiener Index
-
1.69
2.27
2.41
-
-
-
-
1.56
1.59
1.61
0.32
1.81
1.83
1.95
2.47
2.52
2.14
1.93
2.30
1.07
1.79
0.43
EBIa
-
1.98
1.57
1.72
-
-
-
-
1.63
1.12
1.34
1.11
1.57
1.44
1.29
1.65
1.85
1.65
1.49
1.81
1.26
1.76
1.09
Total abundance
-
272
1291
502
-
-
-
-
646
500
220
312
1268
530
1980
1112
996
676
928
794
108
114
121
Totaltaxa
-
19
23
24
-
-
-
-
19
13
11
17
21
19
20
19
7
22
24
18
8
11
8
oTotal
taxa with sensitivity values
-
17
19
19
-
-
-
-
17
11
10
15
17
18
17
15
4
19
21
15
8
11
7
Shannon -Wiener Index
-
2.4
1.8
2.4
-
-
-
-
1.53
1.88
1.39
1.44
2.09
2.56
2.43
1.77
1.24
2.52
1.82
1.70
1.51
2.01
1.26
EBIa
-
1.62
1.81
1.71
-
-
-
-
1.56
1.29
1.13
2.23
1.96
1.66
1.49
2.03
3.08
1.85
1.53
2.15
1.49
2.44
1.55
Total abundance
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1,387
2,136
317
1,150
847
1,240
1,335
695
443
472
232
Total taxa
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
22
20
15
21
18
16
18
15
21
14
11
D
Total taxa with sensitivity values
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
20
17
14
18
13
12
14
13
17
12
10
Shannon -Wiener Index
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2.14
2.30
1.84
2.01
1.53
1.73
1.74
1.61
2.08
1.76
1.68
E Bla
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.86
1.84
1.91
1.80
1.96
1.90
1.91
1.87
1.68
2.06
1.73
Total abundance
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
589
123
287
425
628
382
743
658
489
532
356
Total taxa
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
12
10
19
11
11
16
14
16
12
17
9
oTotal
taxa with sensitivity values
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
12
9
17
11
10
14
13
15
11
14
8
Shannon -Wiener Index
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.23
1.72
1.87
1.62
0.79
2.00
2.03
2.00
0.72
1.10
0.49
EBIa
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.94
1.76
1.26
1.33
1.2
1.6
1.55
1.89
1.31
1.79
1.14
III-G-98

Table III-G5 (continued).
Station community structure data by year
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
DUCK CREEK (CONTROL) DCUT19 (CONTROL) DCUT11
Total abundance
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
1,423
2,192
713
1,422
446
784
611
1,535
104
Total taxa
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
19
21
18
21
12
18
22
18
10
D
Total taxa with sensitivity values
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
15
16
14
15
9
16
17
15
10
Shannon -Wiener Index
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
1.83
2.08
1.20
2.12
1.17
1.71
2.42
2.01
2.04
E Bla
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
2.01
1.88
1.88
1.84
2.00
1.95
1.80
1.99
1.82
Total abundance
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
878
1575
1099
248
1188
1548
542
2105
624
Total taxa
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
14
28
22
17
18
20
15
16
22
oTotal
taxa with sensitivity values
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
11
25
17
14
14
18
13
15
17
Shannon -Wiener Index
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
1.31
2.19
1.88
1.54
1.52
1.78
1.55
1.96
1.91
E Bla
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
2.07
1.67
1.71
2.02
1.95
2.05
1.95
1.87
1.73
Total abundance
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
850
1,153
170
1,169
1,124
630
796
402
730
Total taxa
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
21
17
13
19
18
13
15
20
15
D
Total taxa with sensitivity values
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
19
14
10
15
13
11
11
19
13
Shannon -Wiener Index
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
2.49
1.95
2.19
2.11
2.32
1.67
1.78
2.23
1.99
EBIa
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
1.71
1.73
1.88
1.98
1.96
2.12
2.03
2.00
1.63
Total abundance
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
1,388
1,446
2,007
935
2,641
636
953
1,672
2,040
Total taxa
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
20
24
27
21
24
17
13
25
19
oTotal
taxa with sensitivity values
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
18
23
23
18
19
15
11
23
18
Shannon -Wiener Index
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
1.88
2.01
2.74
1.84
2.52
1.25
1.69
1.98
2.13
E Bla
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
1.78
1.71
1.75
2.03
1.71
1.86
1.73
1.88
1.71
Total abundance
- - - - - - - - - - - - 1,865
1,908
1,173
1,944
600
1,307
580
365
211
212
122
Total taxa
- - - - - - - - - - - - 17
15
19
15
16
19
11
8
15
9
13
D
Total taxa with sensitivity values
- - - - - - - - - - - - 15
12
14
12
11
15
8
6
12
7
11
Shannon -Wiener Index
- - - - - - - - - - - - 2.20
1.93
2.14
2.09
2.17
2.15
1.75
1.63
1.94
1.34
2.27
E Bla
- - - - - - - - - - - - 1.76
1.73
1.85
1.54
1.86
1.77
1.83
1.95
1.64
2.01
1.64
Total abundance
- - - - - - - - - - - - 1,206
730
438
633
595
147
601
998
829
445
285
Total taxa
- - - - - - - - - - - - 19
18
20
16
16
16
25
21
11
15
14
oTotal
taxa with sensitivity values
- - - - - - - - - - - - 19
17
18
15
13
14
22
20
8
13
13
Shannon -Wiener Index
- - - - - - - - - - - - 1.77
1.52
2.19
0.94
0.83
2.20
2.19
2.08
1.65
1.04
1.54
E Bla
- - - - - - - - - - - - 1.91
1.55
1.87
1.27
1.32
2.25
1.73
1.74
1.31
1.77
1.35
III-G-99

Table III-G5 (concluded). In the ponar summary table below, bold values denote the highest value in a given row (16 bold values total) and bold italics denote the highest value on an upstream or downstream basis (eight
bold italic values total- four upstream and four downstream).
Ranges
AllCreeks(up)
1998
1999 2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005 2007
2008
2009 2010 2011 2012
2013 2014
2015
2016
2017 2018
2019
2020
2021
Total abundance
Totaltaxa
Shannon -Weiner ponar grabs
EBI ponar grabs
215 - 1,191
149 - 515 46 - 1,121
51 - 1,356
75 - 295
114 - 615
46 -549
46463 -616 119 - 291
35 - 200
147 - 191
67 -150 166 - 1,865
155 - 2,136
160 - 1,865 I 49 - 2,192
97 - 1,163
59 - 1,422
252 - 1,335
198 - 1,297
123 - 796
50-1,535
104-730
17-21
1.77 - 2.14
1.85 - 2.09
8-17 9-19
0.72 - 1.77 1 0.49 - 2.27
6-24
11-13
8-17
11-30
I 18-20
C 2.01
11-18
9-13
15-19
3-13
12-22
5-22
10-23 8-25
1.14 - 2.49 1.23 - 2.47
12-23
12-23
11-25
8-32
7-22
5-21
8-20
1.47 - 2.41
1.26 - 1.57
0.97 -1.54
1.93 - 2.22
1.48 - 1.56
1.59 - 1.86
1.61 - 2.37
0.32 - 2.04
1.21 - 2.33
1
0.78 - 2.30
1 1.20 - 2.52
1.23 - 2.42
1.17 - 2.39
1.61 - 2.56
0.88 - 2.42
0.99-2.48
0.43-2.27
1.03-1.82
1.98 - 2.03 1.16 - 1.57
1.51 - 1.72
1.67 - 1.73
1.33 - 1.48
1.32 - 1.80
1.58 - 1.69
1.14 - 1.63
1.12 1.32
1.34 - 1.57 1.11 - 1.36 1.23 - 2.31 1.07 - 2.31
1.05 - 2.87 1.35 - 1.88
1.19 - 2.00
1.49 - 2.10 1.38 - 2.02
1.52 - 2.12
1.04 - 2.03
1.22-2.19
All Creeks (down)
I
Total abundance
Totaltaxa
Shannon -Weiner ponar grabs
EBI ponar grabs
221-919
263 - 274
17-19
314 - 1,291
11-23
398 - 1,088
400 - 1,246
18
442 - 1,639
12-15
_ 326 - 719
21-22
371 - 1,013
196 - 646
91 - 500
220 - 418 139 - 511
216 - 1,329
11-24
123 - 1,415
162 - 2,023 174 - 1,575
161 - 2,018
7-27
147 - 970
207 - 2,641
14-27
351 - 1,548
108 - 953
61-2,105
8-25
37-2,040
8-22
0.38-2.13
1.06-1.96
15-20
16-25
16-18
15-19
12-13
11-26
17-18
10-19
14-28 11-28
14-23
14-25
8-18
1.25 - 2.27
2.07 - 2.45
1.08 - 1.80
1.75 - 2.40
1.71 - 1.95
1.64 - 2.03
1.57 - 1.87
1.03 - 1.55
1.39 - 1.56
2.18 - 2.54
1.59 - 1.81
1.53 - 1.88
1.76 - 1.88
1.39 - 2.52
1.44 - 2.16
1.23 - 2.39
I 1.15 - 2.56
1.31 - 2.46 0.94 - 2.51
0.79 - 2.74
1.45 - 2.52
1.52 - 2.52
1.25 - 2.66
0.72 - 2.13
1.04-2.38
1.74-2.44
1.40 - 1.45
1.62 - 2.13
1.19 - 1.81
1.64 - 1.71
1.24 - 1.29
1.47 - 1.56
1.29 - 2.01
1.13 - 1.45
1.59 - 2.23
1.46 - 1.98
1.11 - 2.39
1.26 - 2.82 I 1.27 - 2.03
11.20 - 3.08
I 1.53 - 2.33
1.53 - 2.10
1.65 - 2.15
1.02 - 1.95
Averages
All Creeks (up)
I
Total abundance
Totaltaxa
Shannon -Weiner ponar grabs
EBI ponar grabs
627
19
1.98
2.00
310
543
661
17
1.42
1.62
185
12
1.42
1.70
365
13
1.26
1.41
298
540
205
15
1.52
1.39
118
11
1.73
1.22
169
17
1.99
1.46
118
736
848
13
1.61
1.66
839 853
18 18
1.84 1.99
1.80 1.60
492
17
1.89
1.73
606
17
1.95
1.86
705
586
18
1.95
1.76
440
15
1.76
1.47
328
13.00
1.79
1.86
316
13
1.48
1.36
13
12
21
19
8
18
18
1.38
1.35
2.08
2.01
1.13
1.99
1.97
1.86
2.00
1.37
1.56
1.64
1.25
1.77
All Creeks (down)
Total abundance
Totaltaxa
Shannon -Weiner ponar grabs
EBI ponar grabs
496
18
1.73
1.42
270
746
636
23
2.10
1.79
823
18
1,041
14
1.29
1.48
523
692
421
17
296
13
1.82
1.65
319
19
1.96
1.29
321
808
618
15
1.58
1.75
847 584
20 17
1.93 1.69
1.73 1.51
948
19
1.75
1.62
422 880
18 21
1.92 2.05
1.96 1.87
862
506
14
1.24
1.33
482
16
1.76
1.91
541
13
1.10
1.33
18
15
22
17
17
19
20
2.31
1.38
1.84
2.36
1.70
1.71
1.80
1.96
2.07
1.91
1.38
1.72
1.68
1.27
1.52
1.82
1.78
1.85
III-G-100

Table III-G6. Highest Shannon -Weiner diversity score and highest EBI score by creek per year, highest Shannon -Weiner diversity score and highest EBI score for each year among all creeks, and summary of
ranges and averages by creek. Short bold underline separates pre -/post -Mod Alt L years for each impact creek. Pink highlighted cells indicate average scores which were higher post -Mod Alt L; yellow
highlighted cells indicate averages where post -Mod Alt L score was lower; grey highlighted cells indicate averages that did not change pre- to post -Mod Alt L.
Highest Shannon -Wiener Diversity Score among all Ponars in each Creek by Year
' = not monitored; (u) = upstream (d) = downstream; bold values = highest score all creeks that year
Highest EBI Score among all Sweeps in each Creek by Year
-' = not monitored; (u) = upstream (d) = downstream; bold values = highest score all creeks that year
Year
Broomfield
Swamp
SCUT1
Jacks
Jacobs
PA2
Drinkwater
Little
Long
Tooley
Muddy
Huddles
Cut
Porter
DCUT11
DCUT19
Duck
Year
Broomfield
Swamp
SCUT1
Jacks
Jacobs
PA2
Drinkwater
Little
Long
Tooley
Muddy
Huddles
Cut
Porter
DCUT11
DCUT19
Duck
1998
-
-
2.27 (d)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2.04 (u)
2.05 (u)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1998
-
-
1.78 (u)
-
-
-
-
-
1.92 (u)
1.78 (d)
-
-
-
-
-
1999
-
-
2.07 (d)
-
-
-
2.31 (d)
2.45 (d)
2.40 (d)
-
-
1999
-
-
2.05 (d)
-
-
-
-
-
2.02 (u)
2.00 (d)
2.15 (d)
-
-
-
-
2000
-
-
1.82 (u)
-
-
-
1.37 (d)
1.08 (d)
2.27 (u)
-
-
2000
-
-
1.77 (d)
-
-
-
-
-
1.90 (d)
1.94 (d)
2.20 (d)
-
-
-
-
2001
-
-
1.94 (d)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.81 (u)
2.32 (d)
2.41 (u)
-
-
-
-
2001
-
-
1.86 (u)
-
-
-
-
-
2.08 (u)
1.86 (u)
1.94 (u)
-
-
-
-
2002
-
-
1.64 (d)
1.55 (d)
-
-
-
2.03 (d)
1.54 (u)
2.54 (d)
2.01 (u)
1.88 (d)
1.86 (u)
2.52 (d)
1.81 (d)
-
-
2002
-
-
1.93 (d)
-
-
-
-
-
-
2.42 (d)
-
-
-
-
-
2003
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2003
-
-
2.04 (d)
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.88 (d)
-
-
-
-
-
2004
-
-
2.22 (u)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2004
-
-
2.19 (d)
-
-
-
-
-
-
2.05 (d)
-
-
-
-
-
2005
-
-
2.01 (u)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2005
-
-
2.05 (d)
-
-
-
-
-
-
2.01 (u)
-
-
-
-
-
2007
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.56 (u)
-
-
-
-
2007
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.95 (d)
2.07 (u)
-
-
-
-
2008
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.88 (d)
-
-
-
-
2008
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2.48 (d)
2.11 (u)
-
-
-
-
2009
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.61 (u)
-
-
-
-
2009
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.99 (d)
2.22 (u)
-
-
-
-
2010
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2.16 (d)
1.44 (d)
-
-
-
-
2010
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.96 (d)
1.98 (u)
2.19 (d)
-
-
-
-
2011
-
-
2.39 (d)
2.10 (u/d)
2.31 (d)
2.33 (d)
2.01 (d)
2.04 (u)
2.30 (u)
2.17 (d)
2.09 (d)
2.14 (u)
-
-
2.20 (u)
2011
-
-
2.03 (d)
2.10 (d)
2.22 (d)
2.18 (u)
1.99 (d)
2.05 (u)
1.99 (u)
1.98 (d)
2.26 (d)
2.07 (d)
-
-
1.90 (d)
2012
-
-
1.24 (d)
1.92 (u)
1.15 (d)
2.08 (u)
1.65 (u)
1.49 (u)
1.57 (d)
2.08 (d)
2.56 (d)
2.30 (u)
-
-
1.93 (u)
2012
-
-
1.99 (u)
2.40 (u)
2.33 (d)
1.96 (u)
2.02 (d)
1.98 (d)
2.08 (u)
2.15 (d)
2.26 (d)
2.17 (d)
-
-
2.02 (d)
2013
-
-
1.62 (u)
1.98 (u)
1.84 (d)
2.46 (d)
2.34 (d)
1.71 (d)
1.86 (u)
2.22 (d)
2.43 (d)
1.87 (d)
1.83 (u)
2.49 (u)
2.19 (d)
2013
-
-
2.07 (u)
2.07 (u)
1.98 (u)
1.93 (u)
2.25 (d)
1.97 (d)
1.90 (d)
1.88 (d)
2.19 (d)
2.05 (u)
2.03 (d)
1.90 (d)
1.92 (u)
2014
-
-
2.51 (d)
1.89 (u)
1.71 (d)
2.32 (u)
1.94 (u)
1.57 (u)
2.43 (u)
1.23 (u)
2.47 (u)
2.01 (u)
2.19 (d)
2.01 (d)
2.09 (u)
2014
-
-
1.86 (d)
1.86 (d)
1.77 (d)
1.88 (d)
1.84 (d)
2.03 (d)
2.07 (d)
1.87 (d)
2.01 (u)
2.01 (d)
1.86 (d)
1.97 (d)
1.97 (d)
2015
-
-
2.20 (u)
2.14 (u)
2.35 (d)
2.27 (u)
2.40 (d)
1.91 (u)
2.25 (u)
1.58 (d)
2.52 (u)
1.53 (u)
1.88 (d)
2.74 (d)
2.17 (u)
2015
-
-
2.01 (d)
2.01 (d)
1.84 (d)
1.98 (u)
2.05 (d)
1.97 (d)
1.94 (d)
1.93 (d)
2.11 (d)
2.03 (d)
1.80 (d)
1.87 (u)
1.96 (d)
2016
-
-
2.00 (u)
2.42 (u)
2.16 (d)
1.87 (u)
2.08 (d)
2.12 (d)
2.07 (u)
1.89 (u)
2.52 (d)
2.00 (d)
2.12 (u)
2.11 (u)
2.20 (d)
2016
-
-
2.00 (d)
1.98 (d)
1.76 (d)
1.88 (d)
1.80 (d)
2.12 (d)
2.03 (d)
2.09 (d)
2.17 (d)
2.06 (d)
1.86 (d)
1.77 (u)
2.13 (d)
2017
-
-
2.22 (u)
2.15 (u)
1.88 (d)
2.00 (d)
2.24 (d)
2.27 (u)
2.39 (u)
2.19 (u)
1.93 (u)
2.03 (d)
1.52 (d)
2.52 (d)
2.19 (d)
2017
-
-
2.04 (d)
1.80 (d)
1.81 (u)
1.94 (u)
1.79 (d)
1.99 (d)
1.98 (d)
1.87 (d)
2.07 (d)
2.07 (d)
1.98 (d)
1.87 (d)
2.08 (d)
2018
-
-
1.89 (d)
2.09 (u)
2.46 (d)
2.43 (d)
2.07 (d)
2.66 (d)
2.21 (u/d)
2.31 (d)
2.30 (u)
2.00 (d)
1.78 (d)
1.67 (u)
2.08 (d)
2018
-
-
2.02 (d)
1.91 (d)
1.85 (u)
1.87 (u)
2.07 (d)
2.01 (d)
2.01 (d)
1.95 (d)
2.11 (d)
2.08 (d)
2.03 (d)
2.00 (u)
1.89 (d)
2019
1.75 (u)
2.13 (d)
2.17 (u)
1.92 (u)
1.48 (u)
1.97 (u)
1.95 (u)
1.11 (u)
2.11 (u)
1.02 (d)
1.51 (d)
2.08 (u)
2.42 (u)
1.78 (u)
1.94 (u)
2019
1.46 (u)
1.72 (d)
1.74 (d)
2.24 (u)
1.83 (d)
1.98 (u)
2.04 (d)
1.91 (d)
1.91(u)
1.95 (d)
2.18 (d)
2.00 (d)
1.65 (d)
1.81 (d)
2.01 (d)
2020
1.21 (u)
1.74 (d)
1.99 (u)
2.48 (u)
2.17 (u)
2.38 (d)
2.27 (d)
1.84 (u)
2.31 (u)
2.25 (d)
2.01 (d)
1.76 (u)
2.07 (u)
2.00 (u)
1.34 (u)
2020
1.64 (d)
1.98 (d)
1.93 (d)
1.98 (d)
1.86 (u)
1.82 (u)
1.83 (d)
2.09 (d)
2.01 (u)
2.02 (u)
2.36 (d)
2.01 (u)
2.07 (u)
1.93 (d)
2.07 (d)
2021
2.02 (d)
2.02 (u)
1.67 (u)
1.45 (u)
2.11 (d)
1.78 (u)
1.32 (u)
0.54 (d)
1.22 (u)
0.71 (u)
1.26 (d)
1.68 (u)
2.04 (u)
2.13 (d)
2.27 (u)
2021
1.48 (d)
1.83 (d)
1.98 (d)
1.92 (d)
1.75 (d)
1.82 (u)
2.04 (d)
1.86 (d)
1.95 (u)
2.01 (d)
1.93 (d)
2.06 (d)
1.52 (u)
1.88 (d)
2.03 (d)
Total range (u)
1.21-2.02
1.62-2.22
1.45-2.48
1.48-2.17
1.78-2.32
1.32-1.95
1.11-2.27
1.22-2.43
0.71-2.19
1.56-2.52
1.53-2.30
1.83-2.42
1.67-2.49
1.93-2.27
Total range (u)
1.46/-
-
1.78-2.07
2.07-2.40
1.81-1.98
1.82-2.18
-
2.05
1.91-2.08
1.86-2.02
1.94-2.22
2.01-2.05
1.52/2.07
1.77-2.00
1.92
Total avg (u)
1.48
2.02
1.99
2.05
1.83
2.05
1.72
1.75
2.08
1.69
2.10
1.93
2.10
2.01
1.99
Total avg (u)
1.46
-
1.93
2.24
1.88
1.94
-
2.05
2.01
1.97
2.07
2.03
1.80
1.82
1.92
Avg pre/post (u)
1.48/-
1.92/2.04
2.00/2.07
-
2.08/2.04
-
-
-
MI:31 2.00/1.84
1.98/2.18
-
-
Avg pre/post (u)
1.46/-
-
1.93/-
-
07/1.
-
-
-
`2.09/2.01
-/1.80
-
-
Total range (d)
2.02/-
1.74-2.13
1.24-2.51
2.10
1.15-2.46
2.00-2.46
2.01-2.40
0.54-2.66
1.37-2.31
1.02-2.54
1.26-2.56 1.87-2.03
1.52-2.19
2.01-2.74
2.08-2.20
Total range (d)
1.48/-64
1.72-1.98
1.74-2.05
1.80-2.10
1.75-2.33
1.88/'-
1.79-2.25
1.86-2.12
1.90-2.07
1.78-2.48
1.93-2.36
2.00-2.17
1.65-2.03
1.81-1.97
1.89-2.13
Total avg (d)
2.02
1.94
1.94
2.10
2.00
2.32
2.20
1.76
1.92
2.0
2.01
1.98
1.84
2.35
2.17
Total avg (d)
1.56
1.84
1.98
1.95
1.93
1.88
1.97
1.99
1.97
2.01
2.17
2.06
1.89
1.89
2.01
Avg pre/post (d)
2.02/-
1.94/-
2.101-
-
-
-
I1.95/1U
-
1.87/2.01
1.86/11
-
-
Avg pre/post (d)
1.48/-
-
1.99/1.96
2.10/1.92
-
-/1.88
-
-
1.93/11--
2.18/2.17
2.07/2.05
1.91/1.84
-
-
Highest EBI Score among all Ponars in each Creek by Year
= not monitored; (u) = upstream (d) = downstream; bold values = highest score all creeks that year
Summary of Highest Shannon Weiner Diversityand EBI Scores
Year
Broomfield SCUT1 Jacks Jacobs PA2 Drinkwater Little Long Tooley Muddy Huddles Porter DCUT11 DCUT19 Duck
Swamp Cut
1998 - - 1.85 (u) - - - - - 2.09 (u) 2.05 (u) - - - - -
1999
2.13 (d)
2.07 (d) 2.00 (u) 1.98 (u)
2000 - - 1.57 (u)
1.22 (d) 1.28 (d) 1.81 (d)
2001 - - 1.95 (d)
1.77 (d) 1.72 (d) 1.72 (u)
2002 - - 1.67 (u)
1.87 (d)
2003 - - 1.48 (u)
1.39 (d)
2004 - - 1.80 (u)
1.64 (d)
2005 - - 1.58 (u)
2007
1.69 (u)
1.24 (d)
1.63 (u)
2008
2.01 (d) 1.29 (d)
2009 - - - - - - - - - 2.52 (d) 1.34 (u) - - - -
2010 - - - - - - - - 1.59 (d) 1.63 (d) 2.23 (d) - - - -
2011 - - 1.57 (u) 1.66 (u) 1.89 (u) 1.88 (u) 1.98 (u) 2.31 (u) 1.89 (d) 1.63 (d) 1.96 (d) 1.94 (d) - - 1.91 (d)
2012 - - 1.11 (d) 2.22 (u) 2.39 (d) 2.22 (d) 1.84 (d) 1.72 (d) 1.42 (d) 1.65 (u) 1.66 (d) 1.84 (u) - - 1.73 (u)
2013 - - 1.41 (u/d) 2.25 (u) 2.87 (u) 1.86 (d) 1.71 (u/d) 1.89 (u) 1.80 (u) 1.74 (d) 1.49 (d) 1.91 (u) 2.07 (d) 1.78 (d) 1.87 (d)
2014 - - 1.63 (u) 1.47 (d) 1.75 (u) 1.68 (d) 1.45 (u) 1.49 (u) 1.54 (d) 1.41 (u) 2.03 (d) 1.80 (u) 1.87 (u) 1.73 (u) 1.54 (u)
2015 - - 1.84 (u) 2.00 (u) 1.89 (d) 1.71 (u) 1.75 (d) 1.45 (u) 1.73 (u) 1.31 (d) 3.08 (d) 1.96 (u) 1.88 (u) 1.88 (u) 1.86 (u)
2016 - - 2.33 (d) 2.27 (d) 2.06 (d) 2.23 (d) 1.88 (u) 2.05 (u) 2.03 (u) 1.53 (d) 1.84 (d) 1.90 (u) 2.02 (d) 2.03 (d) 2.25 (d)
2017
2.10 (d) 2.02 (d) 2.02 (u) 2.03 (d) 1.90 (d) 2.03 (d) 2.00 (u) 2.02 (u/d) 1.53 (d) 1.91 (u) 2.00 (u) 1.95 (u) 1.83 (u)
2018 - - 2.06 (d) 1.71 (u) 1.65 (d) 1.68 (u) 1.72 (d) 1.85 (d) 1.79 (d) 1.91 (d) 2.15 (d) 1.89 (d) 2.05 (d) 2.12 (u) 1.95 (u)
2019 1.04 (u) 2.13 (d) 1.43 (u) 1.40 (u) 1.42 (u) 1.76 (u) 1.49 (u) 1.28 (d) 1.51 (u) 1.24 (d) 1.49 (d) 1.68 (u) 1.95 (d) 2.03 (u) 1.64 (u)
2020 1.91 (d) 1.77 (d) 1.93 (d) 2.02 (d) 2.19 (u) 1.84 (d) 2.00 (u) 2.04 (u) 1.86 (u) 1.94 (u/d) 2.44 (d) 2.06 (u) 1.99 (u) 2.00 (u) 2.01 (u)
2021 1.20 (d) 1.96 (d) 1.20 (d) 1.13 (u) 1.47 (d) 1.74 (u) 1.49 (u) 1.18 (u) 1.25 (u) 1.20 (u) 1.55 (d) 1.73 (u) 1.82 (u) 1.71 (d) 1.64 (u)
Total range (u) 1.04/'-
1.41-2.13 1.13-2.25 1.42-2.87 1.68-1.88 1.45-2.00 1.18-2.31 1.25-2.09 1.20-2.05 1.34-1.98 1.68-2.06 1.82-2.00 1.73-2.12 1.54-2.01
Total avg (u) 1.04 - 1.62 1.77 2.02 1.75 1.71 1.77 1.78 1.75 1.67 1.87 1.91 1.95 1.78
Avg pre/post (u) 1.04/- - 1.62/1.64 2.04/1.56 - 1.88/1.ii - 1.67/- 1.88/1. 1.92/1 . -
Total range (d) 1.20-1.91 1.77-2.13 1.11-2.33 1.47-2.27 1.47-2.39 1.68-2.23 1.71-1.90 1.28-2.03 1.22-2.07 1.24-2.52 1.29-3.08 1.89-1.94 1.95-2.07 1.71-2.03 1.87-2.25
Total avg (d) 1.56 1.95 1.80 1.95 1.89 1.98 1.78 1.72 1.66 1.68 1.90 1.92 2.02 1.84 2.01
Avg pre/post (d) 1.56/1.91
1.65/1.92 -/1.95 - r2.22/1.93
1.71/1.58 - r1.55/1.95 1.94/1.89 2.04/2.00
Shannon -Wiener Diversity Ponar Grabs:
years w/ upstream highest score
years w/ downstream highest score
8 of 23 or 34.8%
16 of 23 or 69.6%
Downstream Average Scores Compared to Upstream Average Scores:
EBI Ponar Grabs:
years w/ upstream highest score
years w/ downstream highest score
EBI Sweeps:
years w/ upstream highest score
years w/ downstream highest score
Shannon -Wiener Diversity Ponar Grabs: 10 of 15 creeks had higher downstream averages
EBI Ponar Grabs: 10 of 15 creeks had higher downstream averages
EBI Sweeps: 11 of 15 creeks had higher downstream averages
Creeks with Highest Percent of Monitored Years with Highest Scores:
Shannon -Wiener Diversity Ponar Grabs:
Huddles Cut 27.8% (5 of 18 years; 2 of which are post all drainage basin reduction)
Jacks 26.3% (5 of 19 years, which none are post all drainage basin reduction)
Tooley 6.3% (1 of 16; which none are post all drainage basin reduction)
Muddy 26.1% (6 of 23 years)
EBI ponar grabs: Huddles Cut 38.9% (7 of 18 years; 5 of which are post all drainage basin reduction)
Jacks 31.6% (6 of 19 years; 2 of which are post all drainage basin reduction)
Tooley 6.3% (1 of 16; which none are post all drainage basin reduction)
Muddy 17.4% (4 of 23 years)
EBI sweeps:
Huddles Cut 61.1% (11 of 18 years; 7 of which are post all drainage basin reduction)
Jacks 15.8% (3 of 19; which none are post all drainage basin reduction)
Tooley 18.8% (3 of 16; 1 of which is post all drainage basin reduction)
Muddy' 8.7% (2 of 23)
7 of 23 or 30.4%
16 of 23 or 69.6%
5 of 23 or 21.7%
18 of 23 or 78.3%
III-G-101