20080868 Ver 2_Section III G Benthos 2020 PCS Creeks Report_20210701

G. BENTHOS
Section II-C Question 3 contains additional benthos information with comparisons
and conclusions drawn from multivariate techniques applied on the years of creeks study data
(cluster analysis on community similarity based on species richness and total abundance
among all sample locations of each creek for both benthic sweeps and ponars). 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 data are collected before each sample occasion
in 2020 and included at the end of Appendix I (on CD/DVD only); ECU water quality data are
presented in Appendix E (on CD/DVD only). Note that the ECU water quality sample sites are
various distances upstream from where any creek is sampled for benthos; water quality is
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 2020 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 each particular creek results to control creeks were included. The different colored lines on
the cluster dendrograms represent non -significant structure among factors (e.g., years, creeks)
at the 5 percent level (P = 0.05).
Tables III-G1 through III-G5 display other summary information for all
monitored creeks for comparison. Table III-G1 contains the cumulative list of the 394 benthic
taxa collected in ponars or sweeps across the 22 years of the study and the NCDWR-assigned
sensitivity values for 190 of them (48 percent of total taxa). Tables III-G2 and III-G4 show the
four most dominant upstream and downstream taxa per year in each creek.
The structure of benthic assemblages in estuarine environments
responds to many stressors that freshwater 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 natural community than what might be found further upstream in fresher perennial
waters. However, the upstream communities in many of the study creeks (e.g., SCUT1, Little
Creek, Jacobs Creek, Huddles Cut, DCUT11, and Duck Creek) also must adapt to the stress of
frequent periods of lower water levels and lower flow regimes during portions of their life cycle.
The sensitivity values scale from 1 to 5, with 1 being most tolerant/insensitive and 5 being most
intolerant/sensitive. Over the 22 years, the average sensitivity value of all taxa is 1.9 with the
most intolerant taxa at 5.0 (e.g., a Mysidae, Metamysidopsis swifti) at 0.25 percent and species
with a value of 1.0 (e.g., a Naididae, Dero digitata) at 8 percent of the total taxa recorded. Five
orders of the phylum Arthropoda and one order of the phylum Annelida represent the bulk of the
data distribution (Diptera, Hemiptera, Coleoptera, Amphipoda, Odonata, and Haplotaxida).
The structure of the benthic community within all creeks in all years is
shown in Table III-G3 (sweeps) and Table III-G5 (ponar grabs) with averages also shown for
each creek across the years. The bottom of each of these two tables shows summary
information on the ranges and averages for all creeks on an upstream/downstream basis s. For
III-G-1

the sweeps summary, there are 12 total categories overall (12 rows; ranges and averages for
three parameters upstream and downstream) and when upstream and downstream are
analyzed separately there are six categories (three upstream and three downstream). For the
ponar grabs summary, there are 16 total categories overall (ranges and averages for four
parameters upstream and downstream) and when upstream and downstream are analyzed
separately there are eight categories (four upstream and four downstream).
The sweeps summary information at the bottom of Table III-G3 shows
that 1998 had seven of the highest scores across all 12 categories and four (two upstream and
two downstream) of the six potential highest scores when upstream and downstream were
separated. The year 2008 followed 1998 with three of the 12 (two upstream and one
downstream); 1998 had seven highest scores (three upstream and four downstream); no year
since 2011 has had the highest score for any category. For the ponar grabs summary, the
highest scores were not concentrated in any given year, but instead appeared in two groups:
1998 — 2004, which contained seven of the highest 16 scores, and 2012 — 2020, which
contained 11 of the highest 16 scores. Within these two groups, only 2004 contained three of
the 16 overall highest scores; 2005 — 2011 contained none of the highest scores (Table III-G5).
Table III-G6 is a redisplay of the community structure information found in
Tables III-G3 and III-G5 in an effort to show potential relationships that may not be significantly
different statistically, but nonetheless might be of ecological interest. This table has an
upstream/downstream focus on the highest Shannon -Wiener diversity scores and the highest
EBI scores within each creek across all years, the highest overall score within all creeks each
year, and the ranges and averages of those scores for each creek. As has been the consistent
case, the downstream samples had the highest percentage of years with the highest Shannon -
Wiener Diversity score (76 percent), highest EBI ponar score (71 percent), and highest EBI
sweep score (81 percent). When the highest average scores for the three measures are
compared, out of the 15 creeks, the downstream samples had 11 of 15 for Shannon -Wiener, 10
of 15 for EBI ponar grabs, and 10 of 15 for EBI sweeps. Most of the highest scores across all
three measures occur in the downstream samples (48 compared to 19 upstream), which has
been the trend since 2016.
Also of potential ecological interest is that the arrangement of Table III-G6
shows four dominant creeks with the most years of highest scores across all three parameters;
Huddles Cut with 23 years (33.3 percent), Jacks Creek with 14 years (26.0 percent), Muddy
Creek with 12 years (16.7 percent), and Tooley Creek with five years (11.1 %). The other creeks
ranged from 0 to 3 years (0 = Broomfield Swamp Creek, Drinkwater Creek, and Porter Creek;
one = SCUT1, Little Creek, Long Creek, DCUT11, and Duck; two = Jacobs Creek and PA2; and
three = DCUT19). Among all the creeks, Huddles Cut had the highest percent of monitored
years with the highest EBI scores for both ponar grabs (seven years; 41.2 percent) and sweeps
(11 years; 64.7 percent) and the highest percent of years with the highest Shannon -Weiner
Diversity score (five years; 29.4 percent). For the ponar grabs, Huddles Cut had the highest EBI
score in seven of the 17 years, five of which were after- all drainage basin reduction.
The results section on each creek below was 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.
III-G-2

a. Pre -Mod Alt L Creeks Sweep and Ponar Grab Data
Broomfield Swamp Creek (2019-2020)
The 2020 macroinvertebrate collection for Broomfield Swamp Creek was
the second pre -Mod Alt L sample. For the sweeps, the number of dominants identified to
species was three each for upstream and downstream, two of which were the same (Table III-
G2). Total abundance and EBI were highest in the downstream sample (Table III-G3). For the
ponars, the number of dominants identified to species to date was four upstream and five
downstream (Table III-G4) and the total abundance, total taxa, and EBI were highest in the
downstream sample (Table III-G5).
Upstream sweeps were dominated by four different species (Gammarus
tigrinus, Mytilopsis leucophaeta, Cyprideis littoralis, and species of Naididae without hair in
2020) (Table III-G2). Community structure comparisons for the upstream sweeps show that
species richness was 16 (30 in 2019), total abundance was 809 individuals (293 in 2019), and
the EBI score was 1.54 in 2020 (1.46 in 2019) (Table III-G3). Downstream sweeps dominants
were Cyprideis littoralis and species of Naididae without hair both years, with three dominants
present for only one year (Table III-G2). The community structure comparisons for the
downstream sweeps show that species richness was 17 (41 in 2019), total abundance was 821
individuals (745 in 2019), and the EBI score was 1.64 in 2020 (1.34 in 2019) (Table III-G3).
Upstream ponar grabs contained species of Naididae without hair,
Gammarus tigrinus, Streblospio benedicti, and Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri (Table III-G4). In 2020
the total abundance was 87 individuals (347 in 2019), species richness was 5 (11 in 2019, the
Shannon -Weiner Index was 1.21 (1.75 in 2019), and the EBI score was 1.22 (1.04 in 2019)
(Table III-G5). Ponar grab dominants from downstream Broomfield Swamp Creek were
Gammarus tigrinus, Streblospio benedicti, Mytilopsis leucophaeata, and Limnodrilus
hoffmeisteri (a dominant both years) (Table III-G4). In 2020, total abundance was 144, species
richness was 10, the Shannon -Weiner Index was 1.16, and the EBI was 1.91 (Table III-G5).
b. Post -Mod Alt L Creeks Sweep and Ponar Grab Data
Jacks Creek (1998-2005; 2011-2020)
The 2020 macroinvertebrate collection for Jacks Creek was the 18th
sample year and sixth 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 upstream was 12
and 13 for downstream; of which three were only upstream and four were only downstream
(Table III-G2). Sweep community structure metrics for upstream and downstream years are in
Table III-G3. For the ponars, the number of dominants identified to species upstream was 12
and 15 for downstream to date; of those, five were only upstream and eight were only
downstream (Table III-G4). Ponar community structure metrics for upstream and downstream
by year are in Table III-G5.
i. Jacks Creek Upstream Sweeps
Multivariate cluster analysis by a similarity profile test (SIMPROF)
of benthic taxa richness and abundance from upstream Jacks Creek sweeps revealed
significant variation between all years among five distinct clusters; a repeat of the 2019
dendrogram with 2020 grouped in the largest cluster (Figure III-G1a). Clusters A (1999) and B
(1998) each consisted of a single year. Cluster C consisted of years 2011 and 2013, D
consisted of years 2000 — 2001, 2004 — 2005, and 2014 — 2020, and E consisted of the
III-G-3

remaining years 2012, 2002, and 2003. The six post -Mod Alt L years are clustered together in
D with a mix of recent and earlier pre -Mod Alt L years. Comparison of interannual variability
between clusters by similarity percentages (SIMPER) revealed similarity ranged from 31.2 to
53.6 percent. Clusters C and D were the most similar (53.6 percent similarity), while clusters A
and C were the least similar (31.2 percent similarity) with differences driven by the absence of
Goeldichiromus devineyae, and species of Chironomous and Nematoda in A.
Sweeps from upstream Jacks Creek consistently were dominated
by species of Apocorophium and Littoridinops, along with Gammarus tigrinus, and Cyprideis
littoralis; 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
(1999) to 42 (1998) and total abundance ranged from 783 individuals (1999) to 3,529 individuals
(2011) (Table III-G3). The 2020 samples contained 27 taxa and 1,647 individuals. The EBI
scores ranged from 1.59 (2014) to 2.07 (2013); the 2020 score was 1.83 (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 51.2 percent similarity with differences driven predominantly by
higher abundances of Corixidae sp. and species of Apocorophium and Tanytarsus in the post -
Mod Alt L years (2015 — 2020). 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
four distinct clusters (Figure III-G1 b). Comparison of interannual variability between groups by
means of similarity percentages (SIMPER) revealed similarity ranged from 26.8 to 47.9 percent.
Clusters A (1998) and B (2002) each consisted of one year and differed from each other by the
absence of Cricotopus species, Enallagma sp., and Procladius sp. in B. Cluster C consisted of
years 2011-2014 and 2020, and D consisted of 1999-2005 and 2015-2019. Five of the post -
Mod Alt L years were clustered in D, while the other clustered in C. Earlier pre -Mod Alt L years
are mixed among clusters A-D.
Sweeps collected from downstream Jacks Creek consistently
contained Gammarus tigrinus and species of Littoridinops, Apocorophium, and Hargeria rapax
(H. rapax only since 2011); 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) to 45 (1998) and total abundance ranged from 589 individuals
(2000) to 2,477 individuals (1998) (Table III-G3). The 2020 samples had a total abundance of
1,334 individuals and the second lowest number of taxa (23). The 2020 EBI score matched the
2002 and 2012 EBI scores (1.93) (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 49.5 percent similarity with differences driven
predominantly by higher abundances of Dicrotendipes nervosus in the post -Mod Alt L years
(2015 — 2020). 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-G-4

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 four distinct clusters (Figure III-G1c). Cluster A consisted of one year
(2002), B consisted of three years (2012, 2013, and 2020), C consisted of two post -Mod Alt L
year (2016 and 2019), and D consisted of all other years (1998-2001, 2003-2005, 2011, 2014,
2015, and 2017-2018). Comparison of interannual variability between the clusters by means of
similarity percentages (SIMPER) indicated similarity between clusters B and C was the highest
(34.9), while clusters A and C had the lowest similarity percentage (16.8). Differences 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 18 years of data revealed that upstream ponar grabs of Jacks
Creek consistently contained Gammarus tigrinus, Chironomus decorus, and Littoridinops
tenuipes as dominant species, and since 2011 species of Apocorophium and Candonidae were
also often a dominant. There were no new dominant species since 2016 (Table III-G4).
Community structure comparisons for the upstream ponar grabs indicate that species richness
ranged from five (2012) to 30 (2004) and total abundance ranged from 90 individuals (2016) to
1,356 individuals (2001); 2020 was the third lowest total taxa (12) in the 18 years (Table III-G5).
The Shannon -Wiener diversity scores ranged from 0.72 (1999) to 2.33 (2011) with the 2020
score at 1.99. The EBI scores ranged from 1.07 (2012) to 2.00 (1999), with the 2020 score at
1.44.
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 39.1 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 (2015-2020).
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 (Figure III-G1d). Comparison of interannual
variability between the clusters by means of similarity percentages (SIMPER) indicated that
clusters B and C had the highest percent similarity (33.5), with A and C had the lowest percent
similarity (16.7). Differences between clusters A and C were predominantly due to higher
abundances of Streblospio benedicti and species of Mediomastus, Macoma, and Tubificoides in
C.
Ponar grabs from downstream Jacks Creek often contained high
abundances of Chironomus decorus although it was not one of the four most abundant genera
in 2016-2018; no new dominant species appeared in eight of the 18 years, the last was in 2018.
Other dominant species included Gammarus tigrinus, Streblospio benedicti, and species of
Apocorophium (Table III-G4). Community structure comparisons for the downstream ponar
grabs indicate that species richness ranged from 11 (2000) to 25 (2015) and total abundance
III-G-5

ranged from 183 (2014) to 1,639 individuals (2003). The 2020 samples contained 473
individuals among 19 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 2020 Shannon -
Wiener diversity score was 1.80 and the EBI score was 1.93 (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 33.2 percent similarity with differences driven
predominantly by higher abundances in species of Chironomus, Tubificoides, and Mediomastus,
and lower abundances in Gammarus tigrinus, and species of Apocorophium in the post -Mod Alt
L years (2015-2020). 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 (2011-2020)
The 2020 benthic macroinvertebrate collections for Jacobs Creek
represented the 10th consecutive year and the seventh 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 seven and nine, respectively; of those
species two 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 date the number of dominants identified to species upstream was eight with
11 for downstream; of those species three 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 the similarity profile test (SIMPROF), there were no
clusters among the 10 years of upstream sweeps collected in Jacobs Creek.
Sweep dominants from upstream Jacobs Creek typically were
species of Littoridinops, Apocorophium, and Chironomus while Gammarus tigrinus was one of
the four dominants for the first time in 2020 (Table III-G2). Community structure comparisons
for the upstream sweeps indicate that species richness ranged from 19 (2012) to 34 (2016) and
total abundance ranged from 718 individuals (2020) to 1,678 individuals (2011). The 2020
samples contained the third lowest taxa count (24; tied with 2013) and the lowest total
abundance (718 individuals). The EBI scores range from 1.63 (2017) to 2.40 (2012) with an EBI
score of 1.85 in 2020 (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 49.4 percent similarity. Comparison of interannual variability
between Jacobs Creek upstream sweeps by ANOSIM detected statistical significance between
pre- and post -Mod Alt L macroinvertebrate communities (R = 0.405, 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). Comparison of interannual
variability between the clusters by means of similarity percentages (SIMPER) indicated that
III-G-6

cluster A contained four years (2015-2017 and 2019), cluster B four years (2011, 2013, 2014,
and 2018), and cluster C contained 2012 and 2020. Clusters A and B had the highest percent
similarity (56.2), while A and C had the lowest (48.0). Differences were driven predominantly by
a higher abundance of Apedilum species and Littoridinops tenuipes in A and higher abundances
of Gammarus tigrinus and species of Chironomus in C.
Sweeps from downstream Jacobs Creek consistently contained
species of Apocorophium, Littoridinops, and Gammarus along with Hargeria rapax. Gammarus
mucronatus was a dominant for the first time in 2020 while Gammarus tigrinus was among the
four most abundant species for the past six years (Table III-G2). Community structure
comparisons for the downstream sweeps indicate that species richness ranged from 29 (2013
and 2016) to 35 (2014 and 2015), total abundance ranged from 905 individuals (2020) to 2,198
individuals (2018) and EBI scores ranged from 1.80 (2017) to 2.10 (2011) (Table III-G3). The
2020 samples contained 30 taxa, the lowest total abundance to date (904 individuals) and had
an EBI score of 1.98.
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 53.7 percent similarity with differences driven
predominantly by the absence of Tanytarsus sp. and higher abundance of Gammarus tigrinus
and species of Chironomus for the post -Mod Alt L years (2014 — 2020). Comparison of
interannual variability between Jacobs Creek downstream sweeps by ANOSIM detected
statistical significance between pre- and post -Mod Alt L macroinvertebrate communities (R =
0.421, P = 0.04).
iii. Jacobs Creek Upstream Ponar Grabs
According to the similarity profile test (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 from 2012 — 2014 and 2018-2020 with Apocorophium sp. as an
occasional dominant (2011, 2015-2018, 2020); no new dominant species were identified in five
of the nine years (2013, 2014, 2017, 2018, 2020) (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
individuals (2016) to 1,277 individuals (2013) (Table III-G5). The 2020 upstream samples
contained the second lowest total abundance (170 individuals) in the 10 years and 21 total taxa.
Shannon -Wiener diversity scores ranged from 1.89 (2014) to 2.48 (2020) and EBI scores range
from 1.35 (2014) to 2.27 (2013). The 2020 upstream ponar grabs had the highest Shannon -
Wiener diversity score of 2.48 and an EBI score of 1.78.
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 39.3 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 the similarity profile test (SIMPROF), there were no
clusters among the 10 years of ponar grabs collected from downstream Jacobs Creek.
III-G-7

Ponar grabs dominants were typically Chironomus decorus and
species of Apocorophium and Gammarus; 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 (2011)
and total abundance ranged from 213 individuals (2016) to 877 individuals (2017). The 2020
samples had 18 taxa and 370 individuals, the Shannon -Wiener diversity score was 1.88, and
the EBI score tied with the 2017 EBI score of 2.02 (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 39.2 percent similarity with differences driven
predominantly by the absence of Apedilum sp. and lower abundances of Chironomus species,
Parachironomus sp., and Apocorophium species for the post -Mod Alt L years (2014 — 2020).
Rangia cuneata was present only in post -Mod Alt L years although the species was also
collected with ponars in the study 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 (2011-2020)
The 2020 benthos samples for Drinkwater Creek represented the 10th
consecutive year of benthic macroinvertebrate collections and the eighth 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, two were found only upstream and four only downstream
(Table III-G2). Sweep community structure metrics for upstream and downstream by year are in
Table III-G3. For the ponars to date the number of dominants identified to species was seven
upstream and 12 downstream; among those species, one was 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 four distinct clusters (Figure
III-G3a). Comparison of interannual variability between the clusters by means of similarity
percentages (SIMPER) indicated that cluster A contained one year (2011), B contained six
years (2013, 2015-2019), C one year (2020), and D contained two years (2012 and 2014).
Clusters A and B had the highest similarity percentage (58.4), while clusters A and C had the
lowest (48.8). Differences were predominantly due to higher abundance of Littoridinops tenuipes
and Trichocorixa sexcinta in cluster C.
Sweeps from upstream Drinkwater Creek consistently contained
species of Littoridinops and Apocorophium as dominants; no new dominant species appeared in
2013, or 2016-2018, or 2020. Gammarus tigrinus was among the most dominant species in
2011 and since 2015 (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 2020 EBI score was 1.82, while the
total abundance was 881 individuals (Table III-G3).
III-G-8

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 57.0 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 (2013-2020). 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-G3b). Comparison of interannual variability between the clusters by means of
similarity percentages (SIMPER) indicated that cluster A contained 2020 only, while cluster B
contained nine years (2011-2019). Differences between the two clusters were due to higher
abundance of Littoridinops tenuipes, Gammarus tigrinus, and species of Corixidae in B.
Sweeps from downstream Drinkwater Creek consistently
contained species of Littoridinops and Apocorophium along with Gammarus tigrinus as
dominants; no new dominant species appeared in 2020 (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), and the 2020
abundance was 1,001 individuals (Table III-G3).
Comparison of interannual variability between pre- and post -Mod Alt L downstream benthic
sweep taxa composition and abundance from Drinkwater Creek by similarity percentages
(SIMPER) revealed 56.6 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 (2013-2020). 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 the similarity profile test (SIMPROF), there were no
clusters among the 10 years of ponar grabs collected from upstream Drinkwater Creek.
Ponar grabs within upstream Drinkwater Creek usually contained
species of Chironomus and Littoridinops, and Amphicteis floridus as dominants with other
species less often (Table III-G4). Species richness ranged from 11 (2019) to 23 (2013), total
abundance ranged from 242 individuals (2020) to 1,267 individuals (2012) (Table III-G5). The
2020 total taxa count was 15, Shannon -Wiener diversity score was 2.14 (range: 1.58 — 2.32),
and the EBI score was 1.80 (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 53.8 percent similarity with differences driven predominantly by the absence of
Aulodrilus sp. and the lower abundances of Tanytarsus and Littoridinops in the post -Mod Alt L
years (2013 — 2020). Comparison of interannual variability by ANOSIM detected no spatial
III-G-9

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 a similarity profile test (SIMPROF)
of benthic taxa richness and abundance from downstream Drinkwater Creek ponar grabs
revealed significant variation between all years among three different clusters (Figure III-G3c).
Cluster A consisted of one post -Mod Alt L year (2015), B contained two post -Mod Alt L years
(2016 and 2017), and C contained the other years (2011-2014, 2018- 2020). Comparison of
interannual variability between clusters by similarity percentages (SIMPER) ranged between
29.4 and 66.80 percent, with clusters A and B more similar than clusters B and C.
Ponar grabs within downstream Drinkwater Creek usually
contained species of Chironomus, along with Mediomastus ambiseta and Streblospio benedicti
as dominants; three years (2016-2017, and 2020) did not contain new dominant species (Table
III-G4). Species richness ranged from 13 (2015) to 23 (2018 and 2020) and total abundance
ranged from 161 individuals (2015) to 1,140 individuals (2013); the 2020 samples had 390
individuals among 23 taxa, Shannon -Wiener diversity score of 2.38 (range: 1.34 — 2.46), and
EBI score of 1.84 (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 34.3 percent similarity with differences driven predominantly by the absence
of Apedilum sp. and lower abundances of Parachironomus sp., Macoma balthica, and
Chironomus species in the post -Mod Alt L years (2013 — 2020). 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 - 2020)
The 2020 benthos samples for Tooley Creek represented the 15th
year of benthic macroinvertebrate collections and was the ninth year considered post -Mod Alt L
(2012 -2020); 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 three 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 a similarity profile test (SIMPROF) revealed slight
variation of statistical significance between years among six distinct clusters (Figure III-G4a).
Cluster A contained two years (1998 and 1999), B contained one year (2019), C contained one
year (2000), D contained one year (2001), E contained three years (2015-2017), and F
contained seven years (2010-2014, 2018, and 2020). Post -Mod Alt L years were contained in
clusters which also contained pre -Mod Alt L years, except for 2016-2017, which clustered
together. Comparison of interannual variability between the clusters by similarity percentages
III-G-10

(SIMPER) indicated that cluster A and B were the least similar (36.1 percent); differences were
due to higher abundances in Mediomastus ambiseta and species of Chironomus in cluster A.
The 15 years of data revealed that sweeps within upstream
Tooley Creek contained Littoridinops species as dominants every year and species of
Apocorophium became a dominant after 2010 every year except 2015. Gammarus tigrinus and
G. mucronatus were dominants in 2020, although G. mucronatus has not been one of the top
four since 2014; 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 (1998), total abundance ranged from 918 individuals (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). The sweeps in 2020 had 1,061 individuals among 28 taxa and an EBI score of 2.01 (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 49.7 percent similarity with differences driven predominantly by
lower abundances of Gammarus tigrinus and Cassidinidea lunifrons, and higher abundances of
both Nematoda sp. and Hargeria rapax in the post -Mod Alt L years (2012 — 2020). 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 =
0.253, P = 0.03).
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 six distinct clusters (Figure III-
G4b). Cluster A consisted of one year (1998), cluster B of one year (2020), cluster C of three
years (1999-2001), cluster D one year (2019), cluster E of four pre -Mod Alt L years (2016-
2018), and cluster F of five years (2010-2014). As determined by a SIMPER analysis, clusters
A and F were the least similar at 33.6 percent and differed based on lower abundances of the
Bezzia/Palpomyia complex, Cricotopus species, and Enallagma sp. in A.
Sweeps within downstream Tooley Creek consistently contained
species of Littoridinops and Apocorophium, Gammarus tigrinus, and Hargeria rapax; no new
dominants have appeared since 2014 (Table III-G2). Gammarus tigrinus, abundant in the first
four years (1998 — 2001) was again abundant in 2015-2020. Species richness ranged from 18
(2020) to 47 (1998), total abundance ranged from 321 individuals (2020) to 3,360 individuals
(1998), and EBI scores ranged from 1.80 (2019) to 2.07 (2014) (Table III-G3). In 2020 total
abundance was the lowest since sampling began (321 individuals) and the EBI score was 1.98
(Table III-G3).
Comparison of interannual variability between pre- and post -Mod
Alt L downstream sweeps taxa composition and abundance within Tooley Creek by similarity
percentages (SIMPER) revealed 51.0 percent similarity with differences driven predominantly by
higher abundances of Gammarus mucronatus and lower abundances of Amphicteis floridus and
Cyprideis littoralis in the post -Mod Alt L years (2012 — 2020). 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 =
0.195, P = 0.04).
III-G-11

Tooley Creek Upstream Ponar Grabs
Multivariate cluster analysis of benthic ponar taxa richness and
abundance within upstream Tooley Creek by a similarity profile test (SIMPROF) revealed slight
variation of statistical significance between years among six distinct clusters (Figure III-G4c).
Cluster A consisted of two years (2016 and 2020), B of three pre -Mod Alt L years (1998, 1999,
and 2001), C of one year (2010), D of two years (2000 and 2012), E of one year (2013), and F
of one pre -Mod Alt L year and five post -Mod Alt L years (2011, 2013-2015, and 2017-2019).
Clusters B and C had the lowest similarity percentage with differences predominantly due to the
absence of Gammarus tigrinus and Amphicteis floridus in C.
Ponar grabs within upstream Tooley Creek often contained
Chironomus decorus, species of Gammarus, and species of Apocorophium since 2011;
Mediomastus ambiseta was a dominant in 2020 for the first time (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); 2020 Shannon -Wiener
diversity score was 2.31(range: 0.49— 2.43), and the EBI score was 1.86 (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 33.8 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 — 2020). 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.
v. 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
variation of statistical significance between years among two clusters (Figure III-G4d). Cluster A
contained three years (1998-2000) while cluster B contained the remainder.
Ponar grabs within downstream Tooley Creek frequently
contained Mediomastus ambiseta (every year since 2011) and Chironomus decorus, although
C. decorus was not among the four most dominant species in 2015-2018; with Streblospio
benedicti was a dominant for the past two years (Table III-G4). Species richness ranged
between 11 (2000) and 25 (2001) and total abundance ranged between 270 individuals (1999)
and 1,415 individuals (2012); 2010, 2011, 2013, 2014, 2018, 2019, and 2020 did not contain
any new dominant species (Table III-G4, Table III-G5). The 2020 samples contained 272
individuals among 16 taxa, the Shannon -Wiener diversity score was 1.28 (range: 1.00 — 2.31)
and the EBI score was 1.85 (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 37.8 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 — 2020).
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 = 0.330, P = 0.01).
III-G-12

Huddles Cut (1999-2001; 2007-2020)
The 2020 benthos samples for Huddles Cut represented the 17th year
of benthic macroinvertebrate collections and the 11th year considered post -Mod Alt L (2010 —
2020); 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 15 for downstream; among those species, four were only upstream and nine 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 a similarity profile test (SIMPROF) revealed
statistically significant variation between years among seven distinct clusters (Figure III-G5a).
Cluster A contained one year (1999), B contained two years (2000 and 2001), C contained two
years (2012 and 2020), D contained six years (2008-2011, 2013, and 2014), E contained two
years (2017 and 2018), F contained one year (2007), and G contained the remainder (2015,
2016, and 2019). Post -Mod Alt L years were clustered with at least one pre -Mod Alt L year,
except for clusters C, E and F. Comparison of interannual variability between clusters by
similarity percentages (SIMPER) revealed similarity ranged from 19.1 percent to 34.0 percent.
Sweeps within upstream Huddles Cut consistently contained
Cyprideis littoralis and Palaeomonetes pugio. However, the other 2020 dominant species were
dominants only once before, Tubificoides heterochaetus in 2016, and Streblospio benedicti and
Mediomastus ambiseta in 2012 (Table III-G2). Community structure comparisons for the
upstream sweeps within Huddles Cut indicate that species richness ranged from 13 (2009) to 29
(2018), total abundance ranged from 273 individuals (2012) to 1,647 individuals (2016), and EBI
scores ranged from 1.81 (2010) to 2.22 (2009); 2020 had 380 individuals among 18 taxa, and
an EBI score of 2.09 (Table III-G3).
Comparison of interannual variability between pre- and post -Mod
Alt L Huddles Cut upstream sweep taxa composition and abundance by means of similarity
percentages (SIMPER) revealed 47.6 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
— 2020). 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 = 0.360; P = 0.005).
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-
G5b). Cluster A contained three sample years (1999, 2001, and 2017) and B consisted of the
other 13 years (2000, 2007 — 2016, 2018-2020). Comparison of interannual variability between
the clusters by similarity percentages (SIMPER) indicated 38.9 percent similarity. Cluster A
contained a higher abundance of Littoridinops species and a lower abundance of Gammarus
tigrinus and Palaeomonetes pugio than B.
III-G-13

Sweeps in downstream Huddles Cut consistently contained
Gammarus tigrinus (a dominant every year but 2001) and Palaeomonetes pugio, with species of
Apocorophium as occasional dominant; Lepidactylus dytiscus, was a new dominant in 2020, the
first new dominant since 2014 (Table III-G2). Species richness ranged from 12 (2011) to 33
(2017), total abundance ranged from 75 (2011) to 1,057 (2017), EBI scores ranged from 1.74
(2008) to 2.36 (2020); 2020 sweeps had 506 individuals among 22 taxa (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
similarity percentages (SIMPER) revealed 43.8 percent similarity with differences driven
predominantly by higher abundances of Gammarus tigrinus, Gammarus mucronatus,
Palaeomonetes pugio, and species of Apocorophium in the post -Mod Alt L years (2010 — 2020).
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 a similarity profile test (SIMPROF) revealed slight
variation of statistical significance between years among four distinct clusters (Figure III-G5c).
Comparison of interannual variability between the clusters by similarity percentages (SIMPER)
indicated similarity ranged from 37.5 to 73.5 percent. Cluster A contained three years (2009,
2010, and 2019), B contained five post -Mod Alt L years (2012-2014, 2018, and 2020), C
contained three years (1999, 2001, and 2016), and D contained the remainder (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, 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 (2018) and total abundance ranged from 46 individuals
(2000) to 596 individuals (2016); 2020 ponars contained 235 individuals among 17 taxa, the
Shannon -Wiener diversity score was 1.79 (range: 0.32 — 2.52), and the EBI score was 1.76
(range: 1.11 — 1.98) (Table III-G5).
Comparison of interannual variability between pre- and post -Mod
Alt L upstream ponar grabs taxa composition and abundance within Huddles Cut by similarity
percentages (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- 2020). 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 three distinct clusters (Figure III-
G5d). Comparison of interannual variability between the clusters by similarity percentages
(SIMPER) indicated similarity ranged from 6.2 to 24.7 percent. Cluster A contained only one
year (2015), cluster B contained seven years (1999-2001, 2007, 2010, 2016, and 2017), and C
III-G-14

contained nine years (2008, 2009, 2011-2014 and 2018-2020).
Ponar grabs within downstream Huddles Cut also contained
various dominants over the years but Chironomus decorus was usually one of them with
Lepidactylus dytiscus, Heteromastus filiformis, Neanthes succinea, and Eteone heteropoda as
occasional dominants; only 2010, 2013, 2019 and 2020 contained no new dominant species
(Table III-G4). Species richness ranged from seven (2015) to 24 (2001 and 2017) and total
abundance ranged from 108 individuals (2019) to 1,980 individuals (2013); 2020 ponars
contained 114 individuals among 11 taxa, the Shannon -Wiener diversity score was 2.01 (range:
1.24 — 2.56), and the EBI score was 2.44 (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
similarity percentages (SIMPER) revealed 27.2 percent similarity with differences driven
predominantly by higher abundances of Nematoda sp. and Mediomastus ambiseta and lower
abundances of Chironomus species and Amphicteis floridus in the post -Mod Alt L years (2010-
2020). 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 (2011-2020)
The 2020 benthic macroinvertebrate collection in Porter Creek was
the 10th consecutive year of Mod Alt L samples and the fifth year considered post -Mod Alt L.
For the sweeps to date the number of dominants identified to species was nine upstream and
nine for downstream; among those species, four were only upstream and another four 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 11 for downstream; among those species, four 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 a similarity profile test (SIMPROF) revealed
statistically significant variation between years among four distinct clusters (Figure III-G6a).
Cluster A contained one year (2019), B contained three years (2015-2017), C contained one
year (2012), and D contained five years (2011, 2013, 2014, 2018, and 2020). Comparison of
interannual variability between clusters B and C by similarity percentages (SIMPER) revealed
that these two clusters had 41.9 percent similarity with differences driven predominantly by
higher abundances of Candonidae species, Corixidae species, and Trichocorixa sexcinta in C.
Cluster A lacked Apocorophium species and contained Dero sp. which drove the difference
between A and the other two clusters.
Sweeps from upstream Porter Creek contained Gammarus
tigrinus, a dominant every year, while other frequent dominants were species of Littoridinops
and Cyprideis littoralis; Apocorophium louisianum was a dominant for the first time in 2020
(Table III-G2). Species richness for the upstream sweeps ranged from 21 (2015 and 2020) to
34 (2012), total abundance ranged from 765 individuals (2016) to 2,804 individuals (2012), and
EBI scores ranged from 1.85 (2011) to 2.05 (2013); 2020 sweeps had 1,578 individuals among
21 taxa, and an EBI score of 2.01 (Table III-G3).
III-G-15

Comparison of interannual variability between pre- and post -Mod
Alt L benthic taxa composition and abundance within upstream Porter Creek sweeps by
similarity percentages (SIMPER) revealed 53.7 percent similarity with differences driven
predominantly by lower abundances of species of Apocorophium and Tanytarsus, Dicrotendipes
nervosusand 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 three distinct clusters (Figure III-G6b). Cluster A contained one year
(2012), cluster B contained three years (2016, 2017, and 2019), and C contained the other six
years (2011, 2013 — 2015, 2018, and 2020). Clusters A and B had the lowest similarity (42.5
percent) with the absence of Littoridinops tenuipes, Gammarus mucronatus, and species of
Apedilum in cluster B as predominant differences.
Sweeps from downstream Porter Creek always contained species
of Apocorophium and consistently contained species of Littoridinops and Gammarus as
dominants, and these genera were the three most abundant in 2016-2020, while Hargeria rapax
was a dominant species for only 2012-2014, and 2020 (Table III-G2). Species richness ranged
from 18 (2018) to 33 (2013), total abundance ranged from 667 individuals (2012) to 1,791
individuals (2011), and EBI scores ranged from 1.82 (2020) to 2.18 (2012); 2020 sweeps had
1,095 individuals among 21 taxa (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
similarity percentages (SIMPER) revealed 53.9 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 (2016-2020).
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 = 0.440; P = 0.008).
iii. Porter Creek Upstream Ponar Grabs
Multivariate cluster analysis of benthic ponar grabs taxa richness
and abundance within upstream Porter Creek by a similarity profile test (SIMPROF) revealed
statistically significant variation between years between two distinct clusters (Figure III-G6c).
Cluster A contained two years (2013 and 2020) and B contained all other years (2011-2012 and
2014-2019). Comparison of interannual variability between clusters by similarity percentages
(SIMPER) revealed that these two clusters were 39.1 percent similar with differences driven
predominantly by higher abundances of Amphicteis floridus, and Macoma balthica in A.
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 14 (2020)
to 22 (2011) and total abundance ranged from 317 individuals (2013) to 2,136 individuals
(2012); 2020 ponars had 472 individuals, the Shannon -Wiener diversity score was 1.76 (range:
1.53 — 2.30), while the EBI range changed: 1.80 — 2.06 (Table III-G5).
III-G-16

Comparison of interannual variability between pre- and post -Mod
Alt L benthic taxa composition and abundance within upstream Porter Creek ponar grabs by
similarity percentages (SIMPER) revealed 47.4 percent similarity with differences driven
predominantly by lower abundances of species of Tanytarsus and Apocorophium in the four
post -Mod Alt L years (2016-2020). 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 the similarity profile test (SIMPROF), there were no
clusters among the seven years of ponar grabs collected from downstream Porter Creek.
Ponar grabs from downstream Porter Creek usually contained
species of Chironomus and Macoma, with Mediomastus ambiseta, Streblospio benedicti, and
Gammarus tigrinus less frequent dominants (Table III-G4). Species richness ranged from 10
(2012) to 19 (2013) and total abundance ranged from 123 individuals (2012) to 743 individuals
(2017); 2020 grabs had 532 individuals among 17 taxa, a Shannon -Wiener diversity score of
1.10 (range: 0.79 — 2.03) and an EBI score of 1.79 (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
similarity percentages (SIMPER) revealed 39.7 percent similarity. 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 (2013-2020)
The 2020 benthic macroinvertebrate collection in DCUT11 was the
eighth consecutive year of Mod Alt L samples with 2020 being the third 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 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
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 among two distinct clusters (Figure III-G7a). Cluster A
contained six years (2013-2015, 2017, 2018, and 2020) and B contained two years (2016 and
2019). Comparison of interannual variability between clusters by similarity percentages
(SIMPER) revealed that these two clusters were 54.1 percent similar with differences driven
predominantly by the absence of Amphicteis floridus and species of Apocorophium, as well as
lower abundances in species of Berosus and Cyprideis littoralis in B.
Sweeps from upstream DCUT11 consistently contained
III-G-17

Gammarus tigrinus (a dominant species each year), Cyprideis littoralis, species of Littoridinops.
There has been no new dominant species since 2017 for DCUT11 upstream sweeps samples
(Table III-G2). Species richness has ranged from 22 (2016) to 30 (2019) while abundance
ranged from 613 (2019) to 1,750 (2015). The 2020 total abundance was the third highest to date
(1,677), the taxa count was 25, and the EBI score was the highest to date at 2.07 (previous
range: 1.46-1.97) (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 60.7 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 (2018-2020). 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-G7b).
Cluster A contained one year (2019) and B contained seven years (2013-2018 and 2020).
Comparison of interannual variability between clusters by similarity percentages (SIMPER)
revealed that these two clusters were 52.9 percent similar with differences driven predominantly
by higher abundances of Amphicteis floridus, Cyprideis littoralis, and species of Apocorophium
in B.
Like the upstream, downstream sweeps were consistently
dominated by Gammarus tigrinus each year, along with species of Littoridinops, and usually
Cyprideis littoralis. Other dominant species included Tanytarsus sp. (a dominant species since
2016). There were no new dominant species since 2015 (Table III-G2). Community structure
comparisons for the sweeps collected from downstream DCUT11 show that species richness
was lowest in 2018 (19 taxa) and highest in 2019 (32 taxa). Total abundance was lowest in
2019 (867 individuals) and highest in 2015 (2,205). In 2020, the taxa count was 28, while total
abundance was 1,896; the 2020 EBI score was 2.00 (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 62.8 percent similarity. Differences between pre- and post -
Mod Alt L years include the absence of Nematoda sp. and higher abundances of Littoridinops
tenuipes and Goeldichironomus devineyae in post Mod -Alt L years (2018-2020). Comparison of
interannual variability among the DCUT11 downstream sweeps by ANOSIM detected no spatial
differences of statistical significance between pre- and post -Mod Alt L macroinvertebrate
communities.
DCUT11 Upstream Ponar Grabs
According to the similarity profile test (SIMPROF), there were no
clusters among the eight years of ponar grabs collected from upstream DCUT11.
Ponar grabs from upstream DCUT11 consistently contained
Gammarus tigrinus (a dominant every year except 2015), species of Littoridinops, and Cyprideis
littoralis. The last new dominant species appeared in 2019 (Table III-G4). The total abundance
was lowest in 2017 (446 individuals) and highest in 2014 (2,192), while the lowest taxa count
III-G-18

was in 2017 (12) and highest in 2019 (22). In 2020, the total abundance was 1,535 individuals
among 18 taxa. The Shannon -Weiner Index in 2020 was 2.01 (range: 1.17-2.42) and 2020 EBI
score was 1.99 (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
similarity percentages (SIMPER) revealed 53.8 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 the similarity profile test (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 and Amphicteis floridus. 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 2020, species richness increased slightly from 2019 to 16 species. Shannon -
Weiner Index (1.96) was the second highest, and the EBI score for 2020 (1.87) was the third
lowest for all eight years (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
similarity percentages (SIMPER) revealed 49.0 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 (2019-2020)
The 2020 macroinvertebrate collection for SCUT1 was the second
sample year. For the sweep collection, the number of dominants identified to species was four
for upstream and five for downstream; among those species two species were found only
upstream and three 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 four for upstream and five for downstream; among those species two
were found only upstream and three only downstream (Table III-G4). Community structure
metrics for ponars are in Table III-G5.
Upstream sweeps were dominated both years by species of Naididae
without hair with four other species as dominants only one year to date (Table III-G2).
Community structure comparisons for the 2020 sweeps collected from upstream SCUT1
showed that species richness was 20 (28 in 2019), total abundance was 944 individuals (401 in
2019), and the EBI score was 1.53 (1.18 in 2019) (Table III-G3). Downstream sweeps were
dominated by Gammarus tigrinus both years with four other species present only one year
(Cyprideis littoralis, Americamysis almyra, and Amphicteis floridus) (Table III-G2). Community
III-G-19

structure comparisons for the sweeps collected from downstream SCUT1 showed species
richness at 18 (35 in 2019), total abundance at 997 individuals (738 in 2019), and EBI score of
1.98 (1.72 in 2019) (Table III-G3).
Ponar grabs from upstream SCUT1 contained species of Naididae
without hair and Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri both years with three other taxa present only one year
(Tanypus neopunctipennis, Coelotanypus sp., and Cyprideis littoralis (Table III-G4). In 2020 the
total abundance was 334 individuals (509 in 2019), species richness was 7 taxa (18 in 2019),
the Shannon -Weiner Index was 0.99 (1.72 in 2019), and the EBI score was 1.74 (1.23 in 2019)
(Table III-G5). Cyprideis littoralis was a dominant both years in ponar grabs from downstream
SCUT1 while six other taxa were present only one year (Chironomus decorus Gammarus
tigrinus, Amphicteis floridus, Streblospio benedicti, and species of Candonidae and Procladius)
(Table III-G4). In 2020, the total abundance was 92 (219 in 2019), species richness was 8 taxa
(16 in 2019), the Shannon -Weiner Index was 1.74 (2.13 in 2019), and the EBI was 1.77 (1.25 in
2019) (Table III-G5).
Little Creek (2011-2020)
The 2020 benthos samples for Little Creek represented the 10th
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
11 for downstream; among those species three were found only upstream and eight 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 a similarity profile test (SIMPROF) revealed slight
variation of statistical significance between years among four distinct clusters (Figure III-G8a).
Comparison of interannual variability between the clusters by means of similarity percentages
(SIMPER) indicated similarity ranged from 20.4 to 53.8 percent. Cluster A consisted of only one
year (2012), B consisted on one year (2019), C consisted of two years (2011 and 2013), and D
consisted of six years (2014-2018 and 2020). The two least similar clusters were A and B (20.4
similarity percentage), with differences being driven by the absence of Corixidae sp., and higher
abundances in Enchytraeidae sp. and Tanytarsus sp. in A.
Dominants in sweeps within upstream Little Creek contained Gammarus tigrinus every year but
2012 and Cyprideis littoralis for the past six years, while species of Littoridinops were dominant
less frequently. There was one new dominant species in 2020, Americamysis almyra (Table III-
G2). Abundance (881 individuals) and taxa richness (15) for Little Creek upstream sweeps
were the lowest to date in 2020; previous taxa range was 22 - 29, previous range of abundance
was 961 -2,002 individuals, and EBI scores ranged from 1.50 (2019) to 1.81 (2012) with the
2020 EBI at 1.68 (Table III-G3).
ii. Little Creek Downstream Sweeps
Multivariate cluster analysis of sweep taxa richness and
abundance within downstream Little Creek by a similarity profile test (SIMPROF) revealed slight
variation of statistical significance between years among three distinct clusters (Figure III-G8b).
III-G-20

Cluster A consisted of one year (2018), B consisted of two years (2011 and 2013), and C
consisted of seven years (2012, 2014-2017, 2019, and 2020). Comparison of interannual
variability between the clusters by means of similarity percentages (SIMPER) indicated A and B
were least similar (46.2 similarity percentage), with differences being driven by higher
abundances in species of Chironomus in B and the absence of Hargeria rapax and species of
Nematoda in A.
Sweeps within downstream Little Creek contained species of
Littoridinops every year except 2013 and species of Apocorophium every year except 2019 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 21 (2018) to 36 (2012 and 2019), total abundance
ranged from 564 individuals (2018) to 1,502 individuals (2017), and EBI scores ranged from
1.79 (2017) to 2.25 (2013) (Table III-G3). The 2020 EBI score was 1.83, taxa count was 32,
and total abundance was 1,430.
N. Little Creek Upstream Ponar Grabs
Multivariate cluster analysis of taxa richness and abundance
within downstream Little Creek ponar grabs by a similarity profile test (SIMPROF) revealed
slight variation of statistical significance between years among two distinct clusters (Figure III-
G8c). Cluster A contained one year (2020) and B contained the other eight (2011-2019). The
SIMPER test revealed that the two clusters were 25.1 percent similar with differences
predominantly driven by absences in species of Chironomus, Tanytarsus, and Nais in A.
Ponar grabs within upstream Little Creek usually contained
Gammarus tigrinus (every year except 2012), Amphicteis floridus, and Chironomus decorus as
dominants, with Bezzia/Palpomyia complex present as a dominant for the first time in 2020; only
three other years contained new dominant species (2011, 2012, and 2016) (Table III-G4).
Species richness ranged from 6 (2020) to 23 (2013) and total abundance ranged from 69
individuals (2020) to 1,865 individuals (2013) (Table III-G5). The Shannon -Wiener diversity
score in 2020 was the lowest to date at 1.08 (previous range: 1.23 — 2.27) and the EBI score
was the highest to date at 2.00 (previous range: 1.38 — 1.95).
iv. Little Creek Downstream Ponar Grabs
Multivariate cluster analysis of taxa richness and abundance
within downstream Little Creek ponar grabs by a similarity profile test (SIMPROF) revealed
slight variation of statistical significance between years among two distinct clusters (Figure III-
G8d). Cluster A contained one year (2012) and B contained the other nine (2011 and 2013-
2020). The SIMPER test revealed that the two clusters were 32.4 percent similar with
differences predominantly driven by higher abundance in species of Mediomastus, Mactridae,
and Macoma in B.
Ponar grabs within downstream Little Creek often included
Mediomastus ambiseta, Streblospio benedicti, and species of Apocorophium as dominants;
2014-2016 and 2019-2020 contained no new dominant species (Table III-G4). Species
richness ranged from 16 (2012) to 28 (2013) and total abundance ranged from 354 individuals
(2020) to 2,023 individuals (2013); 2020 species richness was 17 taxa, Shannon -Wiener
diversity score was 2.27 (range: 0.75 — 2.40), and EBI score was 1.90 (range: 1.24 — 1.98)
(Table III-G5).
III-G-21

PA2 (2011-2020)
The 2020 benthos samples for PA2 represented the 10th 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 eight for upstream and nine for downstream; among those species none 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. PA2 Upstream Sweeps
Multivariate cluster analysis of sweeps taxa richness and
abundance within upstream PA2 by a similarity profile test (SIMPROF) revealed slight variation
of statistical significance between years between two distinct clusters (Figure III-G9a). Cluster
A contained five years (2011-2014 and 2018) and B contained five years (2015-2017, 2019, and
2020). The SIMPER test showed that both clusters were 52.8 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
species and Apocorophium species as dominants, with Goeldichironomus devineyae and
Gammarus tigrinus less frequently; no new dominant species have appeared since 2014 (Table
III-G2). Species richness ranged from 19 (2020) to 31 (2019), total abundance ranged from 977
individuals (2014) to 2,040 individuals (2016), EBI scores ranged from 1.70 (2019) to 2.23
(2012); 2020 abundance was 1,270 individuals and an EBI score of 1.86 (Table III-G3).
ii. PA2 Downstream Sweeps
According to the similarity profile test (SIMPROF), there were four
distinct clusters among the 10 years of sweeps (Figure III-G9b). Cluster A consisted of one
year (2020), B consisted of two years (2016 and 2017), C consisted of one year (2012), and D
consisted of six years (2011, 2013-2015 and 2018-2019). The SIMPER test showed that
clusters ranged from 51.0 to 69.2 percent similarity.
Sweeps within downstream PA2 contained Apocorophium species
each year, Littoridinops species each year but 2018, and often also had Goeldichironomus
devineyae as dominants; no new dominants since 2018 (Table III-G2). Species richness
ranged from 21 (2013) to 31 (2019), total abundance ranged from 1,123 individuals (2014) to
2,183 individuals (2018), and EBI scores ranged from 1.76 (2016) to 2.33 (2012); 2020 total
abundance was 1,320, total taxa was 26, and EBI score was 1.84 (Table III-G3).
PA2 Upstream Ponar Grabs
According to the similarity profile test (SIMPROF), there were no
clusters among the 10 years of ponar grabs collected from upstream PA2.
Ponar grabs within upstream PA2 usually contained Littoridinops
species as dominants with Chironomus decorus less often; 2016 was the last year a new
dominant was present (Table III-G4). Species richness ranged from seven (2012) to 19 (2017)
and total abundance ranged from 305 individuals (2014) to 784 individuals (2011); 2020 species
richness was 18, total abundance was 363 individuals, Shannon -Wiener diversity score was
III-G-22

2.17 (range: 1.07 — 2.28), and the EBI score was 2.19 (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 a similarity profile test (SIMPROF) revealed slight
variation of statistical significance between years among three distinct clusters (Figure III-G9c).
Cluster A contained (2020, B contained five years (2015 — 2019), and C contained the
remainder (2011-2014). The SIMPER test showed that the two clusters with the least similarity
percentage was A and B with (26 percent similarity) with differences driven predominantly by
higher abundances of Amphicteis floridus, Streblospio benedicti, and species of Littordinops in
B.
Ponar grabs within downstream PA2 usually had species of
Littoridinops as a dominant, while other dominants frequently included Chironomus decorus and
Gammarus tigrinus, Amphicteis floridus, and species of Apocorophium. There were no new
dominant species in 2014 and 2018-2020 (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 2020 ponars contained 18 taxa and total abundance of 137. The
Shannon -Wiener diversity score in 2020 was 1.95 (range: 1.15 — 2.46) and the EBI score was
2.04 (range: 1.38 — 2.82) (Table III-G5).
Long Creek (2011-2020)
The 2020 benthos samples for Long Creek represented the 10th
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 10 for upstream and 11 for
downstream; among those species two were 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 a similarity profile test (SIMPROF) revealed slight
variation of statistical significance between years among four distinct clusters (Figure III-G10a).
Cluster A had 2020, B had 2012, C had 2019, and D consisted of the other seven years (2011
and 2013-2018). Comparison of interannual variability by means of similarity percentages
(SIMPER) indicated that clusters A and C were least similar with a percent similarity of 18.2.
Differences between the two groups were due primarily to higher abundances of Palaemonetes
pugio, Littoridinops tenuipes, and species of Apocorophium in B.
Sweeps within upstream Long Creek usually contained species of
Apocorophium and Littoridinops, and often Chironomus decorus or species of Gammarus as
dominants; one new dominant species, Uhlorchestia uhleri, was present in 2020 (Table III-G2).
Species richness ranged from 21 (2020) to 40 (2019), total abundance ranged from 250
individuals (2020) to 2,930 individuals (2019), and EBI scores ranged from 1.64 (2019) to 2.05
(2011); 2020 EBI was 2.03 (Table III-G3).
III-G-23

ii. Long Creek Downstream Sweeps
Multivariate cluster analysis of benthic sweep taxa richness and
abundance within downstream Long Creek by a similarity profile test (SIMPROF) revealed slight
variation of statistical significance between years among four distinct clusters (Figure III-G10b).
Cluster A had 2012, B consisted of three years (2016, 2017, and 2019), C 2020, and D
contained five years (2011, 2013-2015, and 2018). Comparison of interannual variability by
means of similarity percentages (SIMPER) indicated that the clusters A and C were least similar
with a 37 percent similarity. This difference was predominantly driven by higher abundances of
Americamysis almyra in A and an absence of Nematoda sp. in C.
Sweeps within downstream Long Creek have not contained any
new dominants since 2014, but usually contained species of Gammarus (five of the 10 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 (2015), total
abundance ranged from 530 individuals (2020) to 1,566 individuals (2017), and EBI scores
ranged from 1.91 (2019) to 2.12 (2016); 2020 EBI score was 2.09 (Table III-G3).
N. Long Creek Upstream Ponar Grabs
According to the similarity profile test (SIMPROF), there were no
clusters among the 10 years of ponar grabs for upstream Long Creek.
Ponar grabs within upstream Long Creek usually contained
Chironomus decorus and species of Gammarus as dominants (two of the eight years had both
G. tigrinus and G. mucronatus as dominants), with Streblospio benedicti a less frequent
dominant; no new dominant species have appeared since 2016 (first and only year for
Marenzelleria viridis) (Table III-G4). Species richness ranged from 10 (2019) to 32 (2018) and
total abundance ranged from 86 individuals (2016) to 941 individuals (2013); 2020 had 401
individuals, 19 taxa, a Shannon -Wiener diversity score of 1.84. (range: 1.11 — 2.56) and an EBI
score of 2.04 (range 1.22 — 2.31) (Table III-G5).
iv. Long Creek Downstream Ponar Grabs
According to the similarity profile test (SIMPROF), there were no
clusters among the 10 years of ponar grabs for downstream Long Creek.
Ponar grabs within downstream Long Creek usually contained
species of Macoma, Streblospio benedicti, and Mediomastus ambiseta as dominants; 2019 was
the last year a new dominant was present (Table III-G4). Species richness ranged from 9
(2020) to 22 (2018) and total abundance ranged from 70 individuals (2020) to 941 individuals
(2015); 2020 Shannon -Wiener diversity score was 1.67 (range: 0.94 — 2.66) and the 2020 EBI
score was 1.74 (range: 1.27 — 2.03) (Table III-G5).
Muddy Creek (1998-2005; 2007-2020)
The 2020 benthos samples for Muddy Creek represented the 22nd 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 four 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 16 for downstream; among those species five were found only
III-G-24

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 a similarity profile test (SIMPROF) revealed
statistically significant variation between years among six distinct clusters (Figure III-G11a).
Comparison of interannual variability between clusters by similarity percentages (SIMPER)
indicated similarity ranged from 37.3 to 57.7 percent. Cluster A had 1998, B contained four
years (1999-2001, and 2004), C had 2002, D had 2019, E contained six years (2005, 2007, and
2015-2018), and F contained nine years (2003, 2008-2014, and 2020). Clusters that had the
lowest percent similarity were C and D (37.3) predominantly due to higher abundances of
species of Apedilum and Enchytraeidae and Polydora cornuta in C.
Sweep data revealed that upstream Muddy Creek dominants have
been unvaried with no new taxa identified to species since 2012 and samples usually contained
species of Littoridinops, Gammarus, and Apocorophium as dominants; Goeldichironomus
devineyae was a common dominant in earlier years but has not been so since 2013 (Table III-
G2). Species richness ranged between 23 (2010) and 40 (2019), total abundance ranged from
602 individuals (2012) to 2,521 individuals (1998), and EBI scores ranged from 1.67 (1998) to
2.42 (2008); 2020 abundance was 1,517 individuals among 34 taxa, and 2020 EBI was 2.02
(Table III-G3).
ii. Muddy Creek Downstream Sweeps
Multivariate cluster analysis of benthic sweep taxa richness and
abundance from downstream Muddy Creek by a similarity profile test (SIMPROF) revealed
statistically significant variation between years among six distinct clusters (Figure III-G11b).
Comparison of interannual variability between clusters by means of similarity percentages
(SIMPER) indicated similarity ranged from 32.6 to 54.8 percent. Cluster A contained three years
(2002, 2008, and 2009), B had 1998, C contained two years (2012 and 2020), D had year 1999,
E contained eight years (2011, 2013-2019), and F contained seven years (2000, 2001, 2003-
2005, 2007, and 2010).
Sweeps within downstream Muddy Creek usually contained
Littoridinops species (18 years), Apocorophium species (16 years), and Gammarus species
(most often G. tigrinus, 15 of 19 years) as dominants; no new dominant species have appeared
since 2010 (Table III-G2). Species richness ranged from 25 (2013) to 50 (1998), total
abundance ranged from 532 individuals (2012) to 3,062 individuals (1998), and EBI scores
ranged from 1.77 (2001) to 2.47 (2008); 2020 had 29 taxa (same as 2019), 784 individuals, and
an EBI score of 1.93 (Table III-G3).
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-G11c).
Cluster A contained two years (2012 and 2014), B contained 16 years, C contained two years
(2017 and 2020), and D contained two years (1998 and 1999). Comparison of interannual
variability between clusters by means of similarity percentages (SIMPER) indicated clusters A
and D were the least similar with 9.2 percent similarity.
III-G-25

Ponar grab data revealed that upstream Muddy Creek most often
contained Chironomus decorus as a dominant, with Streblospio benedicti and species of
Gammarus less frequently; 2017 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); 2020 had 12 taxa, total abundance was 199
individuals, Shannon -Weiner score was 1.51 (range: 0.82 — 2.37), and EBI score was 1.94
(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 a similarity profile test (SIMPROF) revealed
variation of statistical significance between years among four distinct clusters (Figure III-G11d).
Cluster A had 1998, B contained two years (2017 and 2020), C had 2008, and D contained the
remainder (1999 — 2005, 2007, 2009 — 2012, and 2014 — 2016, 2019). Comparison of
interannual variability between the clusters by similarity percentages (SIMPER) indicated
similarity ranged from 2.9 to 26.2 percent, with clusters A and C being least similar (2.9 percent
similarity).
Ponar grabs in downstream Muddy Creek usually contained
Chironomus decorus with Mediomastus ambiseta and Streblospio benedicti appearing less
frequently; two new dominant species were present in 2020, Eteone heteropoda and Edotia
montosa (Table III-G4). Species richness ranged from 12 (2003 and 2008) to 26 (2009) and
total abundance ranged from 61 individuals (2020) to 1,329 individuals (2011); 2020 had 15
taxa (same as 2019), a Shannon -Wiener diversity score of 2.25 (range: 1.02 — 2.54), and an
EBI score of 1.94 (range: 1.24 — 2.02) (Table III-G5).
DCUT19 (2013-2020)
The 2020 benthos samples for DCUT19 represented the seventh
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 six for downstream;
among those species three were 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 eight for downstream; among those species two were 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 a similarity profile test (SIMPROF) showed no
statistical significance between study years.
Sweep data revealed that upstream DCUT19 always contained
species of Littoridinops as a dominant with Gammarus tigrinus and Cyprideis littoralis less often;
Apocorophium louisianum appeared for the first time as a dominant in 2020 (Table III-G2).
Species richness ranged from 23 (2013) to 33 (2016), total abundance ranged from 823
individuals (2015) to 2,011 individuals (2014), and EBI scores ranged from 1.54 (2019) to 2.00
(2018); 2020 had 1,152 individuals among 26 taxa with an EBI of 1.88 (Table III-G3).
ii. DCUT19 Downstream Sweeps
III-G-26

Multivariate cluster analysis of benthic sweeps taxa richness and
abundance within downstream DCUT19 by a similarity profile test (SIMPROF) showed no
statistical significance between study years.
Sweeps collected in downstream DCUT19 contained Littoridinops
species every year as a dominant and often had Gammarus tigrinusHargeria rapax as other
dominants; 2019 was the last year a new dominant was present (Table III-G2). Species
richness ranged from 25 (2020) to 35 (2014), total abundance ranged from 1,184 individuals
(2018) to 2,471 individuals (2013), and EBI scores ranged from 1.74 (2016) to 1.99 (2018);
2020 1,660 individuals and an EBI score of 1.93 (Table III-G3).
DCUT19 Upstream Ponar Grabs
According to the similarity profile test (SIMPROF), there were no
clusters among the eight years of ponar grabs from upstream DCUT19.
Ponar grabs revealed that upstream DCUT19 always contained
species of Littoridinops and often contained Amphicteis floridus as dominants; Candonidae sp.
was a dominant since 2017- but no new dominant species occurred since 2018 (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); 2020 taxa richness was 20, total
abundance was 402, Shannon -Wiener diversity score was 2.23 (range: 1.67 — 2.49), and EBI
score was 2.00 (range 1.71 — 2.12) (Table III-G5).
iv. DCUT19 Downstream Ponar Grabs
According to the similarity profile test (SIMPROF), there were no
clusters among the seven years of ponar grabs from downstream DCUT19.
Ponar grabs within downstream DCUT19 always contained
Gammarus tigrinus and often contained Amphicteis floridus or Hargeria rapax as dominants,
although the latter two were never dominant in the same year until 2020; 2019 was the last year
a new dominant species occurred (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);
2020 taxa richness was 25, total abundance was 1,672 individuals, Shannon -Wiener diversity
score was 1.98 (range: 1.69 — 2.74), and EBI score was 1.88 (range 1.71 — 2.03) (Table III-
G5).
Duck Creek (2011-2020)
The 2020 benthos samples for Duck Creek represented the 10th
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
upstream and 14 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
III-G-27

abundance within upstream Duck Creek by a similarity profile test (SIMPROF) revealed slight
statistically significant variation between years among three distinct clusters (Figure III-G12a).
Cluster A 2019, B contained four years (2015-2018), and C contained five years (2011-2014
and 2020. Comparison of interannual variability between the clusters by similarity percentages
(SIMPER) indicated similarity ranged from 43.7 to 54.4 percent. Clusters A and C were the least
similar (43.7 percent similarity) with differences predominantly driven by the absence of Dero
sp., Pristina sp., and Kiefferulus sp. in A. Clusters A and B were the most similar (54.4 percent
similarity).
Sweeps in upstream Duck Creek always contained Gammarus
tigrinus and usually contained Littoridinops species and Cyprideis littoralis as dominants; while
Tanytarsus sp. was a dominant for the first five years but not since 2015, while Amphicteis
floridus was a new dominant species for 2020 (Table III-G2). Species richness ranged from 21
(2012 and 2014) to 34 (2017), total abundance ranged from 627 individuals (2013) to 1,956
individuals (2015), and EBI scores ranged from 1.50 (2019) to 1.92 (2013 and 2020); 2020 had
22 taxa and total abundance was 966 individuals (Table III-G3).
ii. Duck Creek Downstream Sweeps
Multivariate cluster analysis of benthic sweep taxa richness and
abundance within downstream Duck Creek by a similarity profile test (SIMPROF) revealed slight
statistically significant variation between years among five distinct clusters (Figure III-G12b).
Cluster A had 2020, B had 2015, C had 2019, D contained two years (2016 and 2017), and E
contained five years (2011-2014 and 2018). Comparison of interannual variability between the
clusters by similarity percentages (SIMPER) indicated clusters A and B percent similarity ranged
from 50.8-61.3. Clusters A and C were less similar due largely to higher abundance of Hargeria
rapax, Amphicteis floridus, and species of Chironomus in C.
Sweeps in downstream Duck Creek usually contained Gammarus
tigrinus and Littoridinops species as dominants with species of Apocorophium less often, while
Paleomonetes pugio was a dominant for the second year in a row in 2020 (first appearance in
2019) (Table III-G2). Species richness ranged from 20 (2016) to 32 (2013 and 2018), total
abundance ranged from 809 individuals (2020) to 2,172 individuals (2014), and EBI scores
ranged from 1.89 (2018) to 2.13 (2016); 2020 had 22 taxa and an EBI score of 2.07 (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 two distinct clusters (Figure III-
G12c). Cluster A had 2019 and B contained the remainder (2011-2018 and 2020). Comparison
of interannual variability between the clusters by similarity percentages (SIMPER) indicated
clusters A and B were 34.6 percent similar.
Ponar grabs in upstream Duck Creek consistently contained
Gammarus tigrinus while Amphicteis floridus, was 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 (2013 and 2016) and total abundance ranged from 211 individuals (2019) to 1,944
individuals (2014); 2020 had nine taxa, 212 individuals, the lowest Shannon -Wiener diversity
score to date of 1.34 (previous range: 1.63 — 2.20), and the highest EBI score to date of 2.01
(previous range: 1.54 — 1.95) (Table III-G5).
III-G-28

iv. Duck Creek Downstream Ponar Grabs
According to the similarity profile test (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 as dominant species often with Mediomastus ambiseta, Gammarus
tigrinus, and Streblospio benedicti less frequently; new dominant species appeared every year
but 2012 and 2020 (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); 2020 total
abundance was 445 individuals, taxa was 15, a Shannon -Wiener diversity score was 1.04
(range: 0.83 — 2.20), and the EBI score was 1.77 (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
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-G13 — 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
III-G-29

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-C17 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 for a 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-C17 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 a similarity profile test (SIMPROF) revealed slight variation of statistical significance
between years among seven distinct clusters (Figure III-G13a). Cluster A had 2012, B
contained two years (2013 and 2020), C contained three years (2002-2004), 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, 2000, 2017-2019). The six post -Mod Alt L years split among
four of the groups with pre -Mod Alt L years.
The 2020 upstream ponar grab macroinvertebrate community
data from Jacks Creek were consistently dominated by herbivore and detritivore trophic feeding,
while the suite of earlier years appeared to vary more compared to the later suite (Figure III-
G13b). The community was mainly composed of the carnivore trophic level in the three earliest
years (1998 — 2000), but mostly composed of the herbivore and detritivore trophic levels in later
years (Figure III-G13b). This trend was true to a lesser degree in Muddy Creek, the only control
creek for the early benthic collections for comparison (Figure III-G29b). The functional feeding
guilds in upstream Jacks Creek have also varied among filterer/collector, scraper, and grazer
over the 18 years.
Comparison of interannual variability between pre- and post -Mod
Alt L ponar grab taxa FCA scores in upstream Jacks Creek by similarity percentages (SIMPER)
revealed that differences were predominantly due to slightly more scraper, grazer, and shredder
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) 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 one significant Creek: Mod Alt L Status interaction for the comparison of upstream
Jacks Creek to Muddy Creek (Axis 1: F = 4.97, P = 0.03), where there were slightly more
herbivore and detritivore within Muddy Creek when compared to Jacks Creek pre- and post -
Mod Alt L years (Figure III-G13c).
ii. Jacks Creek Downstream Guilds/Trophic Levels
III-G-30

According to the similarity profile test (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-G13b).
Predominance of different functional feeding guilds did slightly vary, mostly between
scraper/shredder/grazer; although filterer/collector trended closer to zero from 2015-2017 on
Axes 2 and 3 and again in 2020 on Axis 2; in 2018 and 2019 this guild varied on either side of
zero (Figure III-G13b).
Comparison of interannual variability between pre- and post -Mod
Alt L downstream ponar grab taxa FCA scores within Jacks Creek by similarity percentages
(SIMPER) revealed that differences were driven predominantly by slightly less shredder and
filter/collector 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 Muddy and Little creeks, two control 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 interaction for the comparison
between Jacks Creek and Little or Muddy creeks (Figure III-G13c). 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. Jacobs Creek Upstream Guilds/Trophic Levels
Multivariate cluster analysis of the FCA scores for upstream ponar grabs of Jacobs
Creek by a similarity profile test (SIMPROF) revealed slight variation of statistical significance
between years among four distinct clusters (Figure III-G14a). Cluster A consisted of four years
(2015-2018), B contained three years (2014, 2019, and 2020), C contained 2012, and D
contained two years (2011 and 2013); with the seven post -Mod Alt L years clustered without
any pre -Mod Alt L years (Figure III-G14a).
Ponar grab data revealed that the benthic macroinvertebrate
community in upstream Jacobs Creek was mostly composed of herbivore and detritivore trophic
levels with a slight decline in both groups for 2014, 2017, 2019, and 2020 (Figure III-G14b).
The functional feeding guilds trended closer to zero in 2020. 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 similarity percentages (SIMPER)
revealed that differences were predominantly due to slightly less herbivore and detritivore 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.
III-G-31

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 mixed -model analysis of variances (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 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 a similarity profile test (SIMPROF) revealed slight variation of
statistical significance between years among three distinct clusters (Figure III-G14c). Cluster A
consisted of 2014 (the first year post -Mod Alt L) and 2020, B contained pre- Mod Alt L 2012,
and C 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 was mostly composed of herbivore
and detritivore trophic levels and grazer functional feeding guild (Figure III-G14b). This
composition has not changed substantially over the 10 years, although filterer/collector was
more abundant in 2011 and 2018 (Axis 2).
Comparison of interannual variability between pre- and post -Mod
Alt L ponar taxa FCA scores within downstream Jacobs Creek by similarity percentages
(SIMPER) revealed that differences were predominantly due to slightly more grazer 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).
v. Drinkwater Creek Upstream Guilds/Trophic Levels
Multivariate cluster analysis of the FCA scores for ponar grabs
within upstream Drinkwater Creek by a similarity profile test (SIMPROF) revealed slight variation
of statistical significance between years among three distinct clusters (Figure III-G16a). Cluster
A consisted of two post -Mod Alt L years (2013 and 2015), B contained 2011 and 2017, and C
contained the rest of the years (2012, 2014, 2016, 2018, and 2019). Differences between the
three clusters were predominantly due to variations in abundance of scraper and grazers.
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. Except for slight
III-G-32

changes in shredder, scraper, or grazer, the feeding guild relationships in the upstream
community did not vary much over the years (Figure III-G16b).
Comparison of interannual variability between pre- and post -Mod
Alt L ponar taxa FCA scores within upstream Drinkwater Creek by similarity percentages
(SIMPER) revealed that differences were predominantly due to 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 Drinkwater 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 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 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 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 a similarity profile test (SIMPROF) revealed slight variation
of statistical significance between years among three distinct clusters (Figure III-G16c). Cluster
A consisted of one post -Mod Alt L year (2014) and B contained 2012, and cluster C contained
the rest of the years (2011, 2013, 2015-2020). Cluster A and B were the only clusters that
contained only pre- or post -Mod Alt L years, a difference predominantly driven by more scraper
and grazer.
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
filterer/collector more closely resembled the other guilds after 2012 (Figure III-G16b).
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 similarity percentages
(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 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 one
significant Creek:Mod Alt L Status interaction for the comparison between Drinkwater Creek and
PA2 (Axis 1: F = 7.01, P = 0.02); herbivore and detritivore trophic levels were greater in post -
Mod Alt L years of Drinkwater Creek than in PA2 (Figure III-G17).
III-G-33

vii. Tooley Creek Upstream Guilds/Trophic Levels
Multivariate cluster analysis of the FCA scores for ponar grabs
within upstream Tooley Creek by a similarity profile test (SIMPROF) revealed slight variation of
statistical significance between years among seven distinct clusters (Figure III-G18a). Cluster A
contained 2020, B contained two early years (1999 and 2000), C and D both contained a post -
Mod Alt L year each (2013 and 2016, respectively), E contained a mixture of pre and post -Mod
Alt L years (2001, 2011, 2012, 2014, 2010, and 2018), F contained one post -Mod Alt L year
(2015), and G contained three years (1998, 2017, and 2019). Differences in cluster A (2020) to
the earlier years (cluster B; 1999 and 2000) were due to fewer members of shredder and
filter/collector functional feeding guilds in A.
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, with a slight decrease in 2013 (Axis 2). Scraper
increased in relative abundance from 2015-2020 (Axis 6) (Figure III-G18b).
Comparison of interannual variability between pre- and post -Mod
Alt L ponar grab taxa FCA scores within upstream Tooley Creek by similarity percentages
(SIMPER) revealed that differences were driven predominantly by slightly more herbivore and
detritivore 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 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 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 a similarity profile test (SIMPROF) revealed slight variation
of statistical significance between years among six distinct clusters (Figure III-G18c). 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, and 2019) (Figure III-G18c). 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-G18c). Differences between these clusters were predominantly driven by more
herbivore and detritivore at the trophic level and more shredder and filter/collector for feeding
guilds post -Mod Alt L.
III-G-34

Similar to upstream, the downstream ponar grabs benthic
macroinvertebrate community of Tooley Creek was composed mostly of herbivore and
detritivore, with a slight decrease only in 1999 (Figure III-G18b). 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 2017-2020.
There was variability in guild composition among ponar samples in 2016 (Figure III-G18b).
Comparison of interannual variability between pre- and post -Mod
Alt L ponar taxa FCA scores from downstream Tooley Creek by similarity percentages
(SIMPER) revealed that differences were driven predominantly by slightly more grazer 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 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 =
5.44, P = 0.03) and Tooley/Long (Axis 1: F = 7.16, P = 0.02), but none for Tooley/PA2
comparison (Figure III-G19). Comparisons revealed greater abundances of herbivore and
detritivore trophic level for Muddy Creek than Tooley Creek post -Mod Alt L, but less herbivore
and detritivore for Long Creek than Tooley Creek post -Mod Alt L.
ix. Huddles Cut Upstream Guilds/Trophic Levels
Multivariate cluster analysis of the FCA scores for ponar grabs
within upstream Huddles Cut by a similarity profile test (SIMPROF) revealed slight variation of
statistical significance between years among four distinct clusters (Figure III-G20a). Cluster A
contained three post -Mod Alt L years (2010, 2014, and 2018), B contained two pre -Mod Alt L
years (1999 and 2009), C contained a mix of pre- and post -Mod Alt L years (2001,2007,2008,
2011-2013, 2015, 2017, and 2020), and D contained three years (2000, 2016, and 2019)
(Figure III-G20a). Differences between the post -Mod Alt L years in A and the pre -Mod Alt L
years in B were predominantly driven by more filter -collector in A.
Ponar grab data revealed that the benthic macroinvertebrate
community in upstream Huddles Cut was mostly composed of herbivore and detritivore, while
the other functional feeding guilds fluctuated around zero/the axis across the years with the
greatest variation in 2010 (Figure III-G20b).
Comparison of interannual variability between pre- and post -Mod
Alt L ponar taxa FCA scores from upstream Huddles Cut by similarity percentages (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 analysis of
III-G-35

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
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 impact and control creek.
x. Huddles Cut Downstream Guilds/Trophic Levels
Multivariate cluster analysis of the FCA scores for ponar grabs
within downstream Huddles Cut by a similarity profile test (SIMPROF) revealed slight variation
of significance between years among three distinct clusters (Figure III-G20c). Cluster A
contained four years (2008, 2011, 2014, and 2015), B contained five years (2000, 2009, 2010,
2018, and 2019), and C contained eight years (1999, 2001, 2007, 2012, 2013, 2016, 2017, and
2020). 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-G20b). 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 similarity percentages
(SIMPER) revealed that differences were driven predominantly by less herbivore and detritivore
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.
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 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 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 a similarity profile test (SIMPROF) revealed slight variation of
significance between years among five distinct clusters (Figure III-G22a). Cluster A contained
one pre -Mod Alt L year (2013), B contained three post -Mod Alt L years (2018-2020), C
contained one pre -Mod Alt L year (2011), D contained two pre -Mod Alt L years (2012 and
2014), and E contained both pre and post Mod Alt L years (2015-2017). Differences between
clusters B (only post -Mod Alt L years) and D (only pre -Mod Alt L years) were predominantly
driven by more shredder and filter/collector in B.
Ponar grab data revealed that the upstream Porter Creek benthic
macroinvertebrate community was mostly composed of herbivore and detritivore trophic levels
III-G-36

and filter -collector functional feeding guild (Figure III-G22b). Functional feeding guilds varied
over the years; however, filter -collector has decreased over the past two years after being a
dominant guild from 2011-2018 (Axis 2). In addition, there was a decrease in shredder and
filterer/collector and an increase in parasite from 2014 to 2016 (Axis 3 and Axis 5) (Figure III-
G22b).
Comparison of interannual variability between pre- and post -Mod
Alt L ponar taxa FCA scores within upstream Porter Creek by similarity percentages (SIMPER)
revealed that differences were driven predominantly by slightly more scraper and grazer 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 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 significant Creek:Mod Alt L Status interactions for the comparison between Porter
Creek and Duck Creek (Axis 2: F = 6.46, P = 0.02) and Porter and Little Creek (Axis 2: F =
7.96, P = 0.01) (Figure III-G23). There were slightly more filter/collector in Porter pre -Mod Alt L
compared to Duck Creek or Little Creek, while Duck Creek had slightly more shredder, scraper,
and grazer post -Mod Alt L years than Porter Creek.
xii. Porter Creek Downstream Guilds/Trophic Levels
Multivariate cluster analysis of the FCA scores for ponar grabs
within downstream Porter Creek by a similarity profile test (SIMPROF) revealed slight variation
of significance between years among five distinct clusters (Figure III-G22c). Cluster A contained
2019, B contained 2020, C contained two years (2011 and 2017), D contained four years (2013,
2015, 2016, and 2018), and E contained two pre -Mod Alt L years (2012 and 2014).
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-G22b). Scraper was 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 similarity percentages
(SIMPER) revealed that 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 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 interactions for the comparison between either
Porter Creek and Duck Creek or between Porter Creek and Little Creek (Figure III-G23).
III-G-37

xiii. DCUT11 Upstream Guilds/Trophic Levels
Multivariate cluster analysis of the FCA scores for upstream ponar
grabs of DCUT11 by a similarity profile test (SIMPROF) revealed slight variation of statistical
significance between years among five distinct clusters (Figure III-G24a). Clusters A consisted
of two years (2015 and 2020), B, C, and D each consisted of one year (2014, 2016, and 2013,
respectively), and E contained the remainder of years (2017-2019) (Figure III-G24a).
The benthic macroinvertebrate community in upstream ponar
grabs of DCUT11 was mostly composed of herbivore and detritivore trophic level (Figure III-
G24b). Grazer, scraper and shredder (Axis 2), scraper, grazer, and parasite (Axis 4), and
scraper (Axis 6) were predominant guilds in 2015 and 2020, but trended near zero in the other
years (Figure III-G24b).
Comparison of interannual variability between pre- and post -Mod
Alt L ponar taxa FCA scores within upstream DCUT11 by similarity percentages (SIMPER)
revealed no differences. 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 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 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 a similarity profile test (SIMPROF) revealed slight variation of
statistical significance between years among five distinct clusters (Figure III-G24c). Cluster A
consisted of two years (2013 and 2018), B contained 2017, C contained 2020, D contained
2019, and E contained the other three years (2014-2016) (Figure III-G24c).
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-G24b). Filterer/collector was the predominant functional feeding guild,
particularly in 2013, 2018, and 2020 (Figure III-G24b).
Comparison of interannual variability between pre- and post -Mod
Alt L ponar taxa FCA scores within downstream DCUT11 by similarity percentages (SIMPER)
revealed no differences. 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 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 interactions for the comparison between
DCUT11 and Duck Creek (Figure III-G25).
III-G-38

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 a similarity profile test (SIMPROF) revealed slight variation of
statistical significance between years among three distinct clusters (Figure III-G26a). Cluster A
contained 2011, B contained 2013, and C contained the other seven years (2012 and 2014-
2020) (Figure III-G26a).
Ponar grab data revealed that the benthic macroinvertebrate
community within upstream Little Creek was composed mostly of herbivore and detritivore
trophic levels (Figure III-G26b). The dominant functional feeding guilds varied little over 10
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-G26b).
ii. Little Creek Downstream Guilds/Trophic Levels
Multivariate cluster analysis of the FCA scores for the ponar grabs
within downstream Little Creek by a similarity profile test (SIMPROF) revealed slight variation of
statistical significance between years among five distinct clusters (Figure III-G26c). Clusters A,
B, and C each contained one year (2013, 2019, and 2012, respectively), D contained four years
(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 (Figure III-G26b). Filter -collector was the dominant functional feeding
guild for previous years, but trended closer to zero in 2020. Scraper increased slightly in 2020,
while other functional feeding guilds tended to stay near zero.
PA2 Upstream Guilds/Trophic Levels
Multivariate cluster analysis of the FCA scores for ponar grabs
within upstream PA2 by a similarity profile test (SIMPROF) revealed slight variation of statistical
significance between years among four distinct clusters (Figure III-G27a). Cluster A contained
two years (2015 and 2019), B contained two years (2017 and 2020), C contained two years
(2012 and 2013), and D 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 with an increase in scraper in 2015, 2017, 2019, and 2020 (Axis 6) (Figure III-G27b). In
2020, shredder and filterer/collector guilds decreased from the 2019 while scraper and grazer
guilds increased in relative abundance from 2017-2020, with a slight decrease in 2018.
iv. PA2 Downstream Guilds/Trophic Levels
Multivariate cluster analysis of the FCA scores for ponar grabs
within upstream PA2 by a similarity profile test (SIMPROF) revealed slight variation of statistical
significance between years between two distinct clusters (Figure III-G27c). 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-G-39

III-G27b). 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 and 2020 (Axis 2).
v. Long Creek Upstream Guilds/Trophic Levels
According to the similarity profile test (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. The functional feeding guilds varied over the 10 years, with
slightly less variation since 2016, and trended close to zero in 2020 (Figure III-G28a).
vi. Long Creek Downstream Guilds/Trophic Levels
Multivariate cluster analysis of the FCA scores for ponar grabs
within downstream Long Creek by a similarity profile test (SIMPROF) revealed slight variation of
statistical significance between years among five distinct clusters (Figure III-G28b). Cluster A
contained 2014, B contained three years (2016, 2017, and 2019), C contained 2018, D
contained two years (2012 and 2015), and D contained three years (2011, 2013, 2020).
Similar to upstream, the benthic macroinvertebrate community of
downstream Long Creek ponar grabs mostly consisted of herbivore and detritivore trophic level
(Figure III-G28a). The dominant functional feeding guild was filter/collector although scraper
increased in 2016, 2017 and 2019. Scraper, and grazer increased from 2016-2018, but
decreased in 2020.
vii. Muddy Creek Upstream Guilds/Trophic Levels
Multivariate cluster analysis of the FCA scores for ponar grabs
within upstream Muddy Creek by a similarity profile test (SIMPROF) revealed slight variation of
statistical significance between years among five distinct clusters (Figure III-G29a). Clusters A
and B contained one year each (2010 and 2004, respectively), C contained 10 years (1998,
2003, 2005, 2011- 2013, 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2019), D contained two years (2019 and 2020),
and E contained eight years (1999-2002, 2007-2009, and 2014).
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-G29b). Filterer/collector was dominant functional feeding guild, although grazer and scraper
increased in some years (2000, 2010, 2014, and 2018-2020).
viii. Muddy Creek Downstream Guilds/Trophic Levels
Multivariate cluster analysis of the FCA scores for ponar grabs
within downstream Muddy Creek by a similarity profile test (SIMPROF) revealed slight variation
of statistical significance between years among seven distinct clusters (Figure III-G29c). Cluster
A contained three years (2000, 2008, and 2017), B contained 2010, C contained three years
(1999, 2019, and 2020), D contained two years (2014 and 2018), E contained four years (2003,
2007, 2011, and 2012), F contained seven years (2001, 2002, 2004, 2005, 2009, 2015, and
2016), and G contained two years (1998 and 2013).
The benthic macroinvertebrate community within downstream
Muddy Creek was composed mostly of herbivore and detritivore trophic levels, but trended
III-G-40

toward zero in 2019 and 2020 (Figure III-G29b). 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 a similarity profile test (SIMPROF) revealed slight variation of
statistical significance between years among five distinct clusters (Figure III-G30a). Cluster A
contained 2020, B contained two years (2014 and 2018), C contained two years (2017 and
2019), D contained 2013, and E contained two years (2015 and 2016).
Ponar grab data revealed that the benthic macroinvertebrate
community within upstream DCUT19 was composed mostly of herbivore and detritivore trophic
levels with slight trend towards zero since 2018 (Figure III-G30b). The dominant functional
feeding guild was scraper, except in 2014 when filter/collector was dominant. Scraper, grazer,
and parasite (Axis 4) and scraper (Axis 6) increased in relative abundance in 2013, 2015, 2016,
2018, and 2020 but trended towards zero other years.
x. DCUT19 Downstream Guilds/Trophic Levels
Multivariate cluster analysis of the FCA scores for ponar grabs
within upstream DCUT19 by a similarity profile test (SIMPROF) revealed slight variation of
statistical significance between years among three distinct clusters (Figure III-G30c). Cluster A
contained two years (2013 and 2020), B contained four years (2014, 2016, 2018, and 2019),
and C contained two years (2015 and 2017).
Similar to upstream DCUT19, the benthic macroinvertebrate
community within downstream DCUT19 ponar grabs consisted mostly of herbivore and
detritivore trophic levels (Figure III-G30b). Filterer/collector was the most dominant functional
feeding guild, especially in 2013. Shredder and filter -collector 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 a similarity profile test (SIMPROF) revealed slight variation of
statistical significance between years between two distinct clusters (Figure III-G31a). Cluster A
contained eight clusters (2012, 2014-2020) 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 guild was scraper, although filter -collector increased in 2012 and 2014 when scraper
trended to zero (Figure III-G31b).
xii. Duck Creek Downstream Guilds/Trophic Levels
According to the similarity profile test (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-G31b).
III-G-41

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 seven
significant spatial differences among benthic macroinvertebrates for four creeks with post -Mod
Alt L data (Sweeps- upstream and downstream Jacobs and Tooley creeks, upstream Huddles
Cut, and downstream Porter Creek; Ponar- downstream Tooley Creek). This result suggests
that close to 75 percent of the comparisons (21 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 2020, benthic abundance and/or taxa count for 17 out of 40 creek sites were record
lows for both ponars and/or sweeps. 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). 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
III-G-42

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 three creeks (DCUT11, Long Creek, and Little Creek). The
environmental parameters strongly correlated to the macroinvertebrate guilds/trophic levels
were conductivity, nitrate (NO3), total dissolved nitrogen (TDN), dissolved organic carbon
(DOC), and salinity. For the first time since 2016 (when environmental correlations were first
conducted), the macroinvertebrates guilds/trophic levels in Tooley Creek were not strongly
correlated to the environmental parameters. 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., Tooley upstream, DCUT 11 upstream, PA2 downstream, and DCUT19 upstream),
while shredder and 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, four creeks showed differences in pre- and post -Mod Alt L guild
structure composition when compared to concomitant composition of years in control creeks.
Jacks Creek upstream had a significant interaction when compared to Muddy Creek. There
were less herbivores and detritivores in upstream Jacks Creek whereas this trophic feeding
guild was greater in Muddy Creek during Jacks Creek post -Mod Alt L years (Axis 1, Figure III-
G13). There were less grazer, scraper, and shredder in upstream Porter Creek when compared
to Duck Creek during Porter post -Mod Alt L years, and less filterer/collector in Porter Creek
compared to Little Creek during Porter post -Mod Alt L years (Axis 2; Figure 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 Jacks Creek, 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. 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
III-G-43

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-44

0
m -
0 -
o -
Jacks Creek, Upstream (Sweeps)
..era lea
ABC 0 E
1
a
EEEEEEEEEEEEEE
m 2 m 2 E 2`0' E 22 2 E v E m; m E a
is is is n n a a o
7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
$ u]' O �' A' O tO' m' ti' 4' V'E [Y N M
m m R n o n Ri gi Ri Ri gi Ri gv
a
0
0
ro
0 -
o-
Jacks Creek, Upstream (Ponar)
Group Averages
AB C D
1
c
EEE E E E E E E gg E E E E E
m? m >u v E d 2® m Eo
ry ary ry ro 4,21 m rn e m 812� e w :;1 a m r-
Ri a R N R R m R 8 N a N g N g 8 oN
a
0
d Q
0
o -
Jacks Creek, Downstream (Sweeps)
Group Averages
▪ C f]
b
E E E E E 6 E E E E E E E E 6,6
m E T E-0 2 2 �' 22 m E E°
N �N N o0 N N N z e. e, �i N
2IS In9' o' 8' 2 ^' g s moo 2
N N N N N RJR.' N N N N N N N N N
d
0
0
ro
0
o-
A
Jacks Creek. Downstream (Ponar)
6 c
d
kg E E E E g E E E E g E E E E E E
22E2E2E2 E2E2E2Emgg
1111,1ji it u y AMALA
W O' o d m' t' O o O o I
N N N,-,-N N N N N N N N N N N N N
Figure III-G1 a — d. Dendrogram of clusters based on benthic taxa richness and abundance for
all years in Jacks Creek: a) five clusters in upstream sweeps; b) four clusters in downstream
sweeps; c) four clusters in upstream ponar grabs; and d) two clusters in downstream ponar
grabs. Bold years are post -Mod Alt L and black lines represent significant cluster structure.
III-G-45

o —
co
co
Q
0
N
A
Jacobs Creek, Downstream (Sweeps)
Group Averages
B C
I
m (Ea (5 (5 m m m
2 2 2 2 2 m 2
E
m
m
EE
m
U1 71 UJ U1 co to U1 71 Ul Ul
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
0 0 0 0 0° 0 0 0 0 0
uI �I coI (I coI �I �I NI 01
E E E 5 5 E E E EN O
N N N N N N
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-46

0
a
0
Drinkwater Creek, Upstream (Sweeps)
GrotJp Averages
A rs C D
E
2
E E E E
E E
ro m
a
E
ro
>� 7� 7 g7� 7� 7� 7 7�
rn_ n 0 [d N [O N N aER RR c9R
Drinkwater Creek, Downstream (Sweeps)
Group n,eragas
Drinkwater Creek, Downstream (Ponar)
Group Averages
Figure III-G3 a - c. Dendrogram of clusters based on benthic taxa richness and abundance for
all years in Drinkwater Creek: a) four clusters for upstream sweeps, b) two clusters for
downstream sweeps, and c) three clusters for downstream ponar grabs. Bold years are post -
Mod Alt L and black lines represent significant cluster structure.
III-G-47

0
v
o -
Tooley Creek, Upstream (Sweeps)
Group Averages
A BC ❑ E
E
6
a
m
0
E
m
a
0I
W
a
a
F
E E E
2 m
EEEEE E
€<' E8
• a a a a a n
71 71 71 71 71 71 71
uY M N N o_ M
.i 2 8 Pv .poi 8 R
a
10
8
P.
0
Tooley Creek, Upstream (Ponar)
Group Averages
A 6 C ❑
E E E E E E
2 2 5 8 8 E
a a E. it
[Or 01 m1 .01 =I o1
N
aQi gi °' °' n �
2000 Upstream
E F
1
c
E E E E E E
8 2 5 8 8 5 E
7 7 7 7 E. 7 7 7 7
.1 1.1 N1 .1
• 0•
E
5
O v -
Tooley Creek, downstream (Sweeps)
Group Averages
A 6 C ❑ E
b
E 1 E E E .Ev 1 E E 1 E Ew E mEE
8 8 S S S 8
�i N �i g o �� r• Po el �I NI �� of %I
N N N N N N N N N N N N
Po
m -
8
0
A
Tooley Creek, Downstream (Ponar)
Grp, .i1' A- era jea
E E E E E E
2 5 2 2 E
d
E E E E E E E E E
a m m 2 2 2 w 8
• » w a
!,!,!!!,,!,;AIA.1,11,11 Qi �I �INI 00I ql
N N N N N • N N N CV N N N
Figure III-G4 a — d. Dendrograms of clusters based on benthic taxa richness and abundance for
all years in Tooley Creek: a) six clusters for upstream sweeps; b) six 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-48

0
q
0 —
0
O —
A B
Huddles Cut, Upstream (Sweeps)
Group Averages
G 0 E F G
1
E E E
m m n
W v
a a a
WI 01 71
W R O
a
EEEEEEEE E 5 m E
E' ; d v 2 m m L E' 2 °' v L E'
n n a E n n a g. aE. a
7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
N_ 1 � t�] VI O_F_ CD � _ :21 _ i WW_ up] �pO
1
8 8 R 8 2 N 8 2 8 8 o G N
t
0
0
0
ro
0 —
0
A
Huddles Cut, Upstream (Ponar)
Group Averages
B
C D
E g E E€ E E E E
1 a 1 a a a a 2 a a
o01 �I p�I p�I pI pI NN1 pOI �I
N N G O N O O N N w
c
1
E E E E E E
1 1 1 I 1
O O 00 u] fps
N cOi N N pN O
m -
E
0 —
O —
A
Huddles Cut, Downstream {Sweeps)
Group Averages
b
g ro F k E E w E E m w 1 ro
8 S$ S$$ S$ 8 8 S
r1 O �1 Qu W1 m n1 N v1 h1 p m1 8 N1
NN N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
0
0
0
0 —
w
0 Q
0 —
A B
Huddles Cut, Downstream (Ponar)
Group Averages
C
€ E
pa
H1 0
N N
n
E
g E E E€ E E E E€
11
H pp
6�1 O 01 m1 W1 N � ' a p N M1
N N N N N N N N N N N N
Figure III-G5 a - d. Dendrograms of clusters based on benthic taxa richness and abundance for
all years in Huddles Cut: a) seven clusters for upstream sweeps; b) two clusters for downstream
sweeps, and; c) four clusters for upstream ponar grabs; and d) three clusters for downstream
ponars. Bold years are post -Mod Alt L and black lines represent significant cluster structure.
III-G-49

t5
a
0
Porter Creek, Upstream (Sweeps)
A 6.f, P;
A 8 C n
a
E E E E E E E E E
a a ii a is °b n ▪ n
01 •1 0)I I ryl (01 0)1
R R R R R R R R • R • R
Porter Creek, Downstream (Sweeps)
0
0
A 8 C
a
1
N
b
co' 0' (0'
N N C• V N
0
0
Porter Creek. Upstream (Ponar)
A ki
E
0
E
m
a
R
C
Figure III-G6 a — c. Dendrogram of clusters of benthic taxa richness and abundance for all
years in Porter Creek: a) four clusters for upstream sweeps; b) three clusters in downstream
sweeps; and c) two clusters in upstream ponar grabs. Bold years are post -Mod Alt L and black
lines represent significant cluster structure.
III-G-50

0
0
ro
0
A
DC UPI, Upstream (Sweeps}
Group Averages
B
2013_Upstream
E E E E E E
2 2 2 2 2 2 3
'I LOI .I I 01 r(p
p 81 (I
n N n c�u N
a
Figure III-G7 a - b. Dendrogram of clusters of benthic taxa richness and abundance for all years
in DCUT11: a) two clusters for upstream sweeps and b) two clusters in downstream sweeps.
Bold years are post -Mod Alt L and black lines represent significant cluster structure.
III-G-51

0
o
-
o-
Little Creek, Upstream (Sweeps)
e1a. e,
6
E
ro
E
E
a
E
a
1
rn _
N N N
pDI ti.11
ppI
N N N
0
0
m
a
o -
Little Creek, Upstream (Ponar)
Group Averepes
6
c
E E E EEEE E E
m @ ;
> > > >
pl vI
ry p p p p p
Di
�I
pW
Little Creek, Downstream (Sweeps)
H ,.,.era Je,
Little Creek,Downstream (Ponar)
Group averages
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) three clusters in
downstream sweeps; and c) two clusters in downstream ponar grabs. Black lines represent
significant cluster structure.
III-G-52

0
0
ro
a
PA2 Creek, Upstream (Sweeps)
Group Averages
A
6 E
E
E
E
a
E E E E
ro m I
> > > > > >
m_I npi pa_I .p0I p.I I ^I
a N N ER MR N 2 N
0
ro
0 -
PA2 Creek, Downstream (Sweeps.)
E E
� m
E E E E E E
m n N v1I w V•1I aI
N N N [V N 0 N r- N
a
a
0
ro
0
PA2 Creek, Downstream (Ponar)
Averages
A p
N 0 N
C
C
AAsg
1 ql I
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) four clusters in downstream
sweeps; and c) three clusters in downstream ponar grabs. Black lines represent significant
cluster structure.
III-G-53

0
0
ro
0 -
Long Creek, Upstream tSweeps)
Group Averages
A 6 C D
1
a
E E E E E E E E
m m ro m gi d
= > > > > > >
I I
M�
R 2 2$ 2 F3 R 2
Figure III-G10 a — b. Dendrogram of clusters based on benthic taxa richness and abundance
for all years in Long Creek (control): a) three clusters in upstream sweeps and b) three clusters
in downstream sweeps. Black lines represent significant cluster structure.
III-G-54

0
o
w
0 —
Muddy Creek. Upstream {Sweeps]
Grco'-eraje,
A B C DE
a
E E g E E E E E g E E E E E E E E E E E E E
2 2 2 2 2 m 2 m 2 2 e 2 m e T. m e m m
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 I I i I 1 1 1 1
w o g� o � �� o � o m e cr o co � on o m rn
°°RR.TRRRRRRRRRRRMRRRRRR
0
0
o —
n
Muddy Creek, Upstream (Panar)
Group Averages
A B
C
E E E E E E E E EEEEEE E E E E E E
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 22 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
7 7 7 7 74 7 7>> 747 7 7 7 7 7 74 74
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1
RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRFF
E
L
0
0_
0
0 —
Muddy Creek, Downstream (Sweeps)
Group Averages
A BC DE
F
b
gggggggggggggggggggggg
222222 m 2222222m2 22 2'm
I I NI I ^ 'I 'I' ' '1 "1 .1 I ggeI r1 01 I I
g2E82
N N N W N N.- N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
0
0 —
m
Muddy Creek, Downstream (Ponar)
Group Averages
AB C ❑
E g E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E g E E
22 m 2 m 2 2 2 2 22 m 2 2 2 2 m
if/nil lijii
epI p pm� 1 I 1 I 1 I yy I mm I I ��yy I I 1 vv�� I pp�� 1 I 1
6i ` [V d E S E a E O W O. N r O 9 d 0 0 E E
WNNNNNNNNN�NNNNNNNNNNN
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) six clusters for
downstream sweeps; c) two clusters for upstream ponar grabs, and; d) three clusters for
downstream ponar grabs. Black lines represent significant cluster structure.
III-G-55

Duck Creek, Upstream (Sweeps)
,,rr,.,i: average
Duck Creek, Upstream (Ponar)
Group Averages
8
1
c
Figure III-G12 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) five clusters for
downstream sweeps; and c) two clusters for upstream ponars. Black lines represent significant
cluster structure.
III-G-56

0
Jacks Creek (Upstream)
Group Averages
2012_Upstream
I
=I =I
pN
N O
2002Upstream
> j
O o
CFI
2011_Upstream
1998_Upstream
1
A
B
C
0
E
F G
a
a0
N
-0.5
N
1.0
0.5
0.0
-1.0
C7 0.2
Ts m
as
4.
-0s
-0d
-0.6
N
0.0
-0.5
0.5
U) 0.0
al
-0.9
10
-1.0
b
Jacks Creek (Ponar Data)
•
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
II •
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1
•
:
•ice
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 l I I 1 1 1 1 I I I 1 1 I 1
•
-__•____i - - i-- IlIIII
I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
T
J
I I 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1
— Downstream
• Upslream 0P-' "a
1998 20D0 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020
1 0.0-
-0.5 -
MA* Val
x
Jade
1.0
0.6 -
4
Pre
Pre
Peet Pre
Peret Pen
P.
G
- 00.-
Ltile
4 e5
Jade
d.6 • • •
F,e Re Peet Pre Pre Pos.1
1
Jacks Comparisons (Upstream)
Lae
G5 -
Pre ere Peel Pre Port R. Pore
Pae
146
R. Pre Pore Pre
Pen me Pou
Jacks Comparisons (Downstream)
2 0•0-
u H
Be
Rs Pre Parl Pr. Pest Pr. Pere
a
1 Pre Peel
Pre
Peet Pre
P.
a.5
-011
as
-0.5
Fra
9..
Ade
Prelr
USW
Re Pre Poe Re Pon H. Pon
LJ�
Nude
og
G
M Pr. Pon Pre Pore Pee Pon
Rs Pr. Pera Prs Pes1 F. Pest
•
6
� 4
0 0
LAM
Pre Pre Po. Pre P061 Re Peel
Figure III-G13 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-57

1-
0
Q
Jacobs Creek (Upstream)
Group Averages
E
(0
E
d
N N 10 y
a a a
COI �I 3I CI
O O O 0
N EN N
- a a
.r 0o ) f
5 5
IN N 04
A
B
0.5
r 0-0
-1.0
-1 5
1.0
0.5
CV
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
0.6
0.4
N 0.2
0-0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.5
-1.0
0.5
-1.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
cD
•y5 OA
Q -0s
-1.0
-1.5
Jacobs Creek (Ponar Data)
•
I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
•
•
• •
1
•
1 1 1 1 I I I I 1
• !
• •
• •
I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
•
•
r I 1
— Downstream t
Upstream '
r
•
•
1 1 1 1 1 1
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
HE. DE
PH
G&X
cp
0
N
O
0 _
Jacobs Creek (Downstream)
Group Averages
E
(u
E E E E E E E
NI
0) 0) V! ° 7! N VN V1
ao o
0 ❑n 0 ❑° ❑° 0
�I WI (I (ol rl VI CI
N
0 o a a O ca o
N N N N N N N
A
Figure III-G14 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) four 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-58

r
1k -
-
GA -
h3 -
1
6
•
T
_L 111
Pre Pau pre Pau Pas Paei
-
p}-
.0. -
lamb
1
PAZ
L ar4
* 1
Pre Pdu pro Pau Pre Mal
PF:
4S -
44.
-4 -
I I 1 1 1
PAe P 4 Pro 1,M1 PM PriI
}A -
43 -
-
Manta
T
T
I
•▪ I
•
Larq
Pee Pau Pre Pep Pre Peel
u,
Jacobs Comparisons (Upstream)
Pre Poi[ Pre Pena Par pan
Pro Pei[ are Pap PIe Pete
5 -
i
T
i
P2
T
A
Lome
Pre Pau Pre Pan Pre Peel
N Q
+u -
UA =
-
J.
Pre Pau Pre Feet Pro Peel
Jacobs Comparisons (Downstream)
Pre P411 Pro Ped Pie PM
Pre Pau Pre Peel Pie Peet
PT$ P41t Pee Pep Pre Peel
0 -
9A -
A
4 a.a -
kaalga
a
1
it IR
a
HQ
J.
a
Pre Pep Pre Pam Pre Peel
Figure III-G15. Pre- and post -Mod Alt L boxplots of six axes of FCA scores for Jacobs Creek years
compared to same years in PA2 and Long Creek (controls).
III-G-59

m
0
Drinkwater Creek (Upstream)
Group Averogaa
2013_Upstream
II
0
E
E E
d 2
(0 N 1A N r/f N
- D D D
CD
1 0)l N a1 rot 0
0 o a o b ▪ b
CI CV N CV CA CI
A
0.5
0.0
rn
0
-1 5
1.0
0.5
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.5
0.5
U 0.0
-1.0
1.5
1.0
co
0.5
-1.0
-1.5
Drinkwater Creek (Ponar Data)
r •
•
• • . •
r • • 14T
- •
I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I
• •
•
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I
•
• = i
•
•
•
l 1 I I 1
•
•
•
•
• ! •
I I I I 1 I I
v •
•,
1 I I I I 1
— Downstream
Upstream •
vr
' -- 1.R
■
•
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
HE. OE
PR. CA
GR. 9GSR
ro
SH. FC
SC.GR,PR
PA
GR
SC
8
co
0
N
C7
C7
b
Drinkwater Creek (Downstream)
Group Averages
E
m W W 50 50 m
iv 2 2 2 2
al
N
NI
N
cn
11 o 0 o • 0 0
01 «I 61 <I 0I <I -I opt
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N CV N N CV C•1 C•1 N
A
B
C
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) three clusters in downstream ponar
grabs
III-G-60

Y
1.0 —
PA2
Lamp
T
A5 — y 0,5
1 r'
Drinkwater Comparisons (Upstream)
0 _ ,,.. . 10
AO —
8
-0.5 — -0.5 —
-1.0
11 1
Pre PUS Pry Pep
1 I
Pee PO;k
Pre PO11 Pry POU Pre PO01
PA=
Pre Poet Pre Poe/ Pre Post
rh
0.0 —
0,6 —
-0.5 —
-t
Drinkwater Comparisons (Downstream}
O.5 —
e LTI
1
5
El
Pre Pelt Pre POP Pre Pelt
t.0 —
0.5 —
T =T
OA —
OrinN..�W
PAp
El i
0
i 1 1
a
e
Pre Poet Pre Post Pre Post
Pre Poll Pry Ppe1 Pre Poll
Pre Poet Pre Poe/ Pre Post
co
0.0
D��nkwln
PA1
II❑1
Lmp
Pre Peel Pr; REM Pee Peel
Pro Pest Pre Peel Pre Post
Pre Pe/1 Pre peel Pp Peet
1.0 —
0.5 —
PAp
Lem,
Pre Past P. Peel Pre Past
Fiqure 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-61

Tooley Creek (Upstream)
Group Averages
2020_Upstream
1999_Upstream
2000_Upstream —
2013_Upstream
201 5_Upstream
2018_Upstream
2010_Upstream
2001_Upstream
2014_Upstream
2011_Upstream
2012_Upstream
2015_Upstream
1998_Upstream
2017_Upstream
2019_Upstrearn
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
a
0.5
-1.0
-1 5
1.0
0.5
N
-0.5
-1.0
0.6
0.4
N 0.2
0-0
-0.2
- 0.4
- 0.6
0.0
1.6
0
0.5
CO
rn
Maley Creek (Ponar Data)
•'
1 I 1 1 I 1 I I I I I I I I
■
• •
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
•
•
• • •
1 I— I. I 1 1 1 I I I I I ti 1 I I 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 1
- Downstream
••Upstream
•
1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I
1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020
HE. OE
P0. CA
GR. SC.SH
SH. FC
SC.GERA
PA
GR
U
co
b
cp
b
_
Tooley Creek (Downstream)
E
5
m1
b
N
Group Averages
E E
N
E
TI I
CO
N N
E
N
1999 Downstream
EEESEESE
11 m a`11 `0i m 2 2
u2
'A N 'A V! N N N N
o555555I
of 01 OI 01 01 I I 1
OOrn
b
C CV CVCVN 0 0 0
A
c
D
E
F
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) seven 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-62

1.0 _
0.5 —
to 0.0 _
05
Tooley
Muddy
T Z
0
Long
9
PAY
ITS
P re Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post
1.0 —
0.5 —
▪ 0.o —
Tooley
T
.L
i
Muddy
1
T
i
Lang
T
a II
mm
PA2
-1 0 —
1 Y 1 1 1 1 1
P re Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post
Tooley Comparisons (Upstream)
1 ❑ —
0,5 —
UI 0 a
-0.5 —
Toole:
T
1
1
Muddy
T
T I
1
Long
PA2
-1 0 —
Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post
1.0 —
05 —
u7
6fl —
Q
Tooley
T
a
T
1
Muddy
Long
T
Il
PA2
T
1
-1 0 —
Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post
Tooley Comparisons (Downstream)
1.0 -
1.0 —
6.5 —
0.0 —
Q
-Feeley
T T
_
00ng
as
PA2
T
iII
-0.5 —
Pre Post Pre Past Pre Past Pre Post
1.0 —
0.5 —
0.0 —
Malay
T
1
Muddy
T
1 �
Long
1
PA2
T
ry
0.0 —
0,5 —
11]
-0.5 —
T
T
1
I
i
Muddy
.1
Long
PA2
T
Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post
1.0 —
0.5 —
.x 0,0 —
Q
-5.5 — L -0,5 —
Pre Post Pre Post Pre Past Pre Post
Tooley
T
hi
T
i
Muddy
T
i
11
Long
4 T
PA2
i
6
1
Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post
1 0 —
0,5 —
01
A Q D
a7
0,0-
-0. 5 —
Toolay
11
Muddy
T
Lang
PA2
- 1 0 —
Pre Post Pre Post Pre Past Pre Post
1.0 —
05 —
cc,
y a0
-0,5 —
Toole:
I; _ _
8
Muddy
T
Long
a
T
PA2
EIT
- 1D —
Pre Post Pre Post Pre Past Pre Past
1.0 —
0.5 —
▪ a o —
-0. 5 —
Tertiary
j
Muddy
T
T
T
I
1
s
Lang
PA2
Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Past
1.0 —
0.5 —
- 0,5 —
Tooley
T
11111
1 I
Muddy
Long
I
11
T
1
PA2
1
a
Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Past
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-63

8
0
Huddles Cut (Upstream)
Group Averages
E E E
a
0vl t
ro 1
O O O
N N N
EmEm(0mmmm
2 • m 2
y N y u11l] N N N N
Q- _a aa a _a a a a
NDDDDD
I �I �I 6-IIImI 01
• O 4 6 O O O O ON
▪ N N N NNIN N N
a a a
CI 01 05
0
N • o O
N N N
A
c
0.5
-1 5
1.0
-0.5
-1.0
0.6
0.a
N 0.2
0.0
▪ -0.5
0.5
N 0.0
▪ 0.5
1.5
1.0
0.5
CO
Huddles Cut (Ponar Data)
•
I .4111111,P.-il e • 1 •. • ■ i.
I •
•
• ■
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 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 I 1 1 1 1 1
• i . i i • . E
• Nwpo .11011111Nr .
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I I I I I I I 1
SI
IL
•
•
1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I 1
Downstream
-
Upstream I
•
•
1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 Ii 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
10 0 2000 2001 2002 2003 200d 2005 2006 2007 2006 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2016 2016 2020
RE. OE
PA. CA
GR. 5C.$R
PG
8H. FC
SC.GR,PA
PA
GR
6C
8
0
m
4
co
0
ID
13
Huddles Cut (Downstream)
Group Averages
EEES
m g m g
EGEGE
o3 OS OS CO 00
r
EEEEEEEE
❑I ❑I col ❑I
3 O O O
N N N N
W N V1
3 3 15
0 0 0001
b 6 00 G ao
N N N N N
N N N N N C N C
O 0 0 o° 0 0 a
�I rl of NI �I aI rl
O O O 9 CDO
N N N N N N r N
A
c
c
Figure III-G20 a — c. Dendrograms of clusters of FCA scores (bold years are post -Mod Alt L)1 and temporal depiction of those scores weighted by relative abundance of each species in Huddles Cut: a) four 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-64

Huddles Cut Comparisons (Upstream)
1.0 — rn uaay 1.0 —
0.5 —
-10 —
Huddles
H
Pre
Post
Pre
Past
0.5 —
cro
0.0
-0.5 —
Huddles
Muddy
- 1 0 —
Pre
Past
Pre
Post
1.5 —
1.0 —
U.5 —
0.0 —
—
Huddles
1- 1
B
Muddy
- 1 0 —
Pre
Huddles Cut Comparisons (Downstream)
P ast
Pre
Post
1.0 —
0.5 —
w 0.0
Huddles
Il T�
IJ
Muddy
T
I
H
T
I I
-0.5 —
Pre
P ast
Fre
Post
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).
III-G-65

8
c
0
00 _
v _
0
Porter Creek (Upstream)
Group Averages
2013_Upstream
2020_Upstream
2018_Upstream
2019_Upstream
2017_Upstream
2015_Upstream
E
7
7
0
A
B
E
a
0.5
-1.0
-1 5
1.0
0.5
cV
N
-0.5
-1.0
-0.5
0.5
�[] o.o
rn
1.5
1.0
co 0.5
•}0 0.0
-0.5
-1.0
-1.5
Porter Creek (Ponar Data)
•
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I
J I I I 1 I I
' ' • 1�
I I I. l l I I I
• V
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I
1 1 1 1 1
— Downstream
Upstream A
1 r 1 1 1 1
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
one
Pk LA.
dl Set.
011
8
0
co
0
4
0 _
Porter Creek (Downstream)
Group Averages
0I
0
0
2011 Downstream
201 7Downstream
2013 Downstream
2015 Downstream
2016 Downstream
2018_Downstream
2012_Downstream
2014_Downstream
A
D E
c
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) five 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) five clusters in
downstream ponar grabs (bold years are post -Mod Alt L).
III-G-66

Porter Comparisons (Upstream)
1.0 - L+I1e 1.0 -
0.5 -
r 0.0 -
-0.6 -
Pans•
Mae
T T
T 6.5 -
Pry PORt Pit PC41 Pre Pa$t
1.0 -
0.0 -
Parer
T
J.
Pack
T
J.
1 1
•
•
Lill
Pre Poet Pre Past Pre Poet
1.0 -
0.6 -
r o_0 -
Pore*
Mock
-0.6 -
Pry P{0t P10 P.M Pn Past
• T
6
a
Lame
Cv
0.0
-0,5
Pro PO$1 Pt PC41 Prt POTS
1.0 -
0.5 -
M 0.0 -
Porter Comparisons (Downstream)
1.0 -
0.0
0
Paler
Muck
Pre P01S Pa P041 Pry POI{
-0.5 -
P teW
to^T�
T
1
o
T
J.
D
T
1
Pry PHI Pry P¢41 Pr• P54t
P ater
1.0 -
0,5 -
0,0 -
- 0.0 -
1
PTO Paw Pre Past Pre Post
1.0 -
0.5 -
0.0 -
-0.0 -
15
T
4
EP
a
J.
Uth.
•
Pro Pool Pre Pp 1 Pry P941
1.0 -
0.5 -
0,0 -
- 0.5 -
Fader
09ck
•
•
1▪ 1
0
LIMN
- 1.0 •
Pre Paw Pre Past 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-67

8
c
V
DCUT11 (Upstream)
Croup Averages
a
og
0.5
-1 5
1.0
0.5
-0.5
-1.0
0.6
0.4
CO 0.2
0.0
-0.5
0.5
1.0 0.0
1.5
1.0
co 0.5
N
-0.5
DCUT11 (Ponar Data)
1
}i----
•• . ••T
1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I
1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1
•
1 1 1 1 I 1 J I
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
•
1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1
— Downstream
Upstream
1 1 1 1 1 1
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
FIE. OE
PA. CA
GR. $.$H
rc
OH. PC
PC.OKRA
PA
GR
sc
up
0
DCUT11 (Downstream)
Group Averages
2013 Downstream
2018 Downstream
2017 Downstream
01
N
a,I
0
N
E
N
2014 Downstream
20 1 6_Downstrea m
A
B ! C
D
E
c
Figure III-G24 a — c. Dendrograms of clusters of FCA 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) five clusters in downstream ponar grabs.
III-G-68

DCUT11 Comparisons (Upstream)
rt
1.0
o
4 —
-1 O
Pry Rest PIS Pop Pry PWt
1.0 —
0.5 —
.0.5
T
T
60117111
1
d
Durk
Pre Past Pre Post Pre Net
1.0 —
4r-
41,411119
T T
111
Pry PGft Pry Pop PIP P01t
Pre Poet Pre Post Pre Past
1.0 —
0,5 —
Q!Q —
.05 —
OCUr11
T
0.911949.
e
1
d
i
P71 P01t Pet P01t Prf Pigs
Pre Poet ND Peat Pre Post
0.5 —
1e
00
rD
IIuuT��
1 a
T
05 —
.1 a PHI Pry Pp 1 Ply 0441
0 •
0.5 —
I 0.0-
-0.5 —
DCUT11 Comparisons (Downstream)
P14 P09t P.* P041 Pry P014
Pre Poet Pre Poet Pre Post
aC(R11
Meal
Pre Poet Pre Post Pre Pest
0 -
0.5 —
°° 00—
05 —
0CI1111
17-1
1
0CUT1P
i
J.
T
Pr* P*41 Pr! Ppp Pry PPP
10 1
0.5
d' 0.0 -
-0.5 —
-1.0
rYXR11
d
Dunk
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-69

u7
O r
0
0
Little Creek (Upstream)
E
E E E E E E E E
a
0
0
a a a a a a a a
71 71 71 71 71 71 77 1 1
N 0 q .17 to O I O
0 0 0 0 0 0 ❑ ▪ 0
N N N N (V N N
A
t3
a
0.5
0.0
-05
-1.0
-1 5
1.0
-1.0
0.5
0.4
N 0.2
00
-1 0
0.5
10 0.0
Cn
'x
< 0.5
-1.0
1.5
1.0
co 0.5
y5 0.0
-0.5
-1.0
-1.5
Little Creek (Ponar Data)
_
!
!
��
• i=i
V
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I
•
•
1 1 1 I 1 I I I I I
• r •
•
1 I I 1 I 1 I I I I
L
•
- - -r- __
■ •
•
•
J I 1 I 1 I I I I I
•
I I
— Downstream
Upstream
•
•
1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 I
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
HE.DE
DR IC.
0
Little Creek (Downstream)
E
Group Averages
E
ESSE
E E
0
N
0
N
N
N
N N
�I 0 �I I 0I
• 10 .17 N
CVN N N
m N
A
D
E
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-70

0 _
0
PA2 (Upstream)
Group Averages
2O15_Upstream
2019_Upstream
2017_Upstream
as
a
0
2012_Upstream
2013_Upstream
2016_Upstream
2011 _Upstream
2018_Upstream
A
B
c
D
a
0.5
0.0
N
-0.5
-1.0
-1 5
1.0
0.5
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
0.6
0.a
0.2
0.0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
0.0
N
0.5
sr] 0.0
N
.0.5
-1.0
5
co 0.5
N
PA2 Creek (Ponar Data)
Y V
I I I I I I I
•
I I I I I I
• s
•
1 I I I I l 1 1 I I
•
It
•
•
I I I I I I I I
•
•
I I I I I I I
— Downstream
•
Upstream A
• •
•
I I 1
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
one
PA CA.
Gil SCAN
8
C
0
_
0
_
0
0
PA2 (Downstream)
E
1u
Group Averages
E E E E E E E E
0
0
3 3 5 3 5 5 5
0 o a a ❑° ❑° ❑° c)0
�I NI En.I Ni LI')I raZrI rl (0I =pI
N N N N N N N 0 0
A
6
c
Figure III-G27 a - c. Six axes of FCA scores and dendrogram of clusters of FCA scores in PA2: a) four 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-71

0.5
0.0
rn
-0.5
-1.0
-1 5
1.0
0.5
CV
-0.5
-1.0
0.6
0.a
N 0.2
0.0
-0.2
- 0.4
- 0.6
▪ -0.5
-1.0
0.5
0.0
▪ .0.5
-1.0
1.5
1.0
as
CO
Long Creek (Ponar Data)
1
-.-
1 1 1 I I 1 1 I I I
•
-3 • >
J 1 I I I 1 1 I 1
•.
• I I II I 1 1 I I
1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1
x •
•
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I
— Downstream
Upstream
• • V
1 1 1 1 1
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
DE
PH LA.
4C.0 PA
rp
0
Long Creek (Downstream)
Group Averages
of
E E E
E E
co co
E E E
2 2 2
0
A
B
C D E
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-72

c �
v
O
N _
9 _
c
E
Muddy Creek (Upstream)
Group Averages
EEEEEEEEEE
EE
co d
1
1
EEEEEEEE
d 2 2 2 2 CD 2
2_
01
a
II
0_ 01 Q d Q Q d Q d 0_
71 71 71 =1 71 7! 71 71 71 71
O CO co (0) r 07 N N- O CD
ID O 61 O b O O O O b
N N N N N N N N N
01 n
1 71
m N
O b
N N
01 Q Q d Q d d a
7 71 71 71 7 71 71 71
O b O O O O 61 O
N N NNNN
A
8
C
D
E
a
0.5
0.0
rn
-0.5
-1 5
1.0
0.5
N
.7( 0.0
-0.5
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
-0.2
-0.6
0.0
-0.5
0.5
u, 0.0
1.5
1.0
co 0.5
-0.5
Muddy Creek (Ponar Data)
el •t
o
t • • r • ,JmI,
•
•
1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I• 1 1 1 10 1 1 1 1 I 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 I 1 I I l I 1 I 1 I I I 1 I P 1 I 1 I 1 I I
•
•
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11111
•
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
•
— Downstream
Upstream
• a
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1
1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020
EA. SC.514
MORN;
9
N
0
9
O
Muddy Creek (Downstream)
Group Averages
E
m
C
O
Oi
N
E
m
7.5
C
3
0
0I
N
E E
m m
to- to
00
a) 0
61 N
03 a-N
0 0 ❑ ❑
�I C9),I rl NI
O O
9 9 9 9
N N N N
EEEEEEE
2 2 2 2 2 2 2
000
•I 0I 4I NI 0-3 (I
O O O 9 0
9 O O 9 9 9 9
N N N N N N N
A
B
C D
E
F
c
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) five clusters in upstream ponar grabs; b) temporal
depiction within the six axes of the FCA scores for upstream and downstream ponar grabs; and c) seven clusters in downstream ponar grabs.
III-G-73

8
4
o _
0
DCUT19 (Upstream)
Group Averages
2020_Upstream
2014_Upstream
2018_Upstream
2017_Upstream
2015_Upstream
(I
a
A
B
❑ ❑
E
a
[V
N
0.5
0.0
-0.5
-1 5
1.0
0.5
-0.5
-1.0
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
-0.2
- 0.4
- 0.5
0.0
-0.5
0.5
U) 0.0
di
-1 0
1.5
1.0
co 0.5
N
DCUT19 (Ponar Data)
t: r
f 1 --4 I- n
• V
I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I
.
• V
1 1 1 1 1 1 I
�• ••
• •
1 I I I 1
.
1 I I I I I
1 1 I I I I
— Downstream
Upstream A
``
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
FE. OE
PR. CA
FL
8H. FG
SC.GR.PR
PA
GR
DCUT19 (Downstream)
Group Averages
coI
v
N
2020_Downstream
2018_Downstream
2014 Downstream
2016_Downstream
A
B
c
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) 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) three clusters in downstream ponar grabs.
III-G-74

CU
0
m
G
G
0
Duck Creek (Upstream)
Group Averages
a_Q Q Q Q Q Q 2_
I 1 1 =I =I =1 =I
c M1 COCJ CD co a )f7
0 o d o 0 o d o
CV 01 :.L SV CV CV :.L SV
A
8
0.6 -
0.4 -
CO D.2 -
N
4-0 -
-0.2 -
-6.4 -
-0.5 -
-1-0 -
Duck Creek (Panar Data)
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 20"8 2019 2020
PA CAL
ca
SE
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-75

C -
ti N
-0 (QO-0
a) O C
co
O co co a)
to a) c,0
CV
.0 r O
Q0
_ CI)C
as ^^``
\F O J
(3 as O a)
X c
CD C c)U
N a)
ll O c6 +_
CDJ
a) (NI r -
L O Y a)
> O a) 2
C N a) C.)o U Zr)
( O )
O
U N O
1E 1 L
) OL O N
_ _c N Q
O ON d
_ ti
to'c)
a.) N O a)
> -0 N L
C - C.) (Q C to
C (Q _Q
lo E O r O
C O O 0
0 N O -,
N C
(7 D COO
0) O
O O) (N
= -C r CD
4 N
a)
O r
as cs)L
I—r U ON
0
a)
(Q
>
0
a)
to
Vi
0
O
C
U
O
O
X
(Q
H
a)
a)
^C
a)
)
a)
1,. O O O LL0 CO CO O O NNN O 00O ,0,0 O CO O O I- O N LL0 CO V LL0 O V (O M (O
fn N M V M M (Ni N N N N N M M N N N N N N N N N N N N N
O O N N O O CO O V O O
N N N V 6 N.- N N
h co .N QE "y hh m
0
h E
o m m a 0 ', r. am
ii3 Nc m.°" , Ga
y >U G'=O o h a t m �tIifl;
ti
2m° N cu mamw2mNll0tJli
N . a os� N :12m o _m,E--E0 m 0 U % m m 'o000m2 2 « j ^• m m m m a s
ii m 2t .2 m 3. -O a mmm
m :0o :0o :0o :0o 0o m U�� 0 mQam o UU U@ a Y E 0 o,fl- o 0 o E E E E o m 0 m 7m Ei t° 4 .Em E E o 72 s 22
U n U o t .�m s m mmm L'4'4 h m .° 72 aaa
'm J J J J J z cc, cc, cc, a: co oQO W On Q U U U oQ_Qa J 0 0 0 0 E UUU= J W - 2 !, as° O coco n y E U W W ce r U" W W -0 U U o Q U n W °2 W W W
m s 0 mo. m 0 am o � o o
cE0 m¢ m U O ¢ m-0
m o 0 -
t a E- To Q m
co r
h
o
t
u-
W:
0
t
co m .-:�. aEo
'o
om
co co co co
o-oao g m �5�uuu :>j m2o m c c c c
m A m m 72 E E E 0 m o am mm .o °i °' 2" m-o m m m m
� J nU -0 2 0 0 0 -om Jn= n o C m= m ro ro ro ro
cn > .x o) a m Q m m
F Q 0 S CO
m
1,. O co . co V N O CO CO O N V ,0 O CO V O r CO CO CO CO CO CO CO ,00
0 N M ,... N N N N NNNNN
COh w
`
o ° .a c m cG p m a
U N O U Qm a m i m m c U N y a m G N i 0 >
G 0h y
NE.Qo :N 2am yV! 412 w > a .2.X0 tE oay
x x Q N N°yw N N uy N m°`jhN V! 0 0° 0 `h NN jN oT N m Nim ,m N 0 Em
y m0,h G a 0: o o0 jNN 2 o N .m.y 0 0._ 0 0-0 m m m m m NXm X • °m •m •m •m • O O 8 m % T T m (E m �°i � ot Q co EG m yy
^hQQ0 a m 0 o NO Oy '
`.OG Oa ')..„-Ea a>> om '2 0 2 0 co ymo00o °°°°°ywmm s a m 4N Y m h NN 2: y y 0 a y y> o, 0°° 0 E
E
o Eo o.G. um °i a a co0 m m o0 ,c -a0 a % 0 G won w0 0h E 0- 0- 0- m 0 o 0 0 0 0 o s 0 u,aoE E >> o 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 m m> m m :2_m0 = 0 % m m N 2)m-m m m,, E
V,c ,c ,cOcy mNm° m° m a o U 2. -mG E -0 m m o m h0:o m c m o N 0 0 0m oUUUUUUoy==02 aaNO'00 0 o mcccccEN 0cm0 • G QD0m mfm00hm0-EE =,c=h
0 0 N ° N OOIN IN .2 0 0 u 0 Q cE E .2 00 N= 0 70 N E .m. o 0 ) 0 ,c ,c N N 0 Z Z o 0 0 0 0 0 1 m m m m m 0- 0 "0 U N « fl- f 0 -0 m L G m= G 3 0 oa o
G 3
'm W W W U J Jm Z W W W - O WJ 5 O U - E co c0 U 0 U o- QcOcOcOcOxcn ti ti ti ti ti ti U- - Q -0 =_ mW Q. Q. n Zm Wm Q. cn o co @ Z 0 aQ Q Q Z 0 W -0cn co E Q 0 co WU o coimQ - L m m 0 0 =o 0 0 U iF F Q m 0 m 0 0 x z z a o_ CO > O a 0 0 -O a 0 0 0
m t w x 0
x
1 a`
1,. V oO O 10 10 M (O (O O O O
N N N
O) . co co co. co. V O O O 0) O (O O O M M c'M .. .. co. r coCOO O . V V N O r O O
m m N N N m N ,- N ,-,-,-,- M N N M N M M N
(o
h
a`
..2
� '0 c c
y mm8g2_�
�co o�ms
0 Q0 0shao
-„• h -Q 0 h
c E Q m i 2 2 m o o o 2 E E E E E
0 0 m-o'.2 -o u i i is mmmmmm
`.o9o°Is_ o 0 aa a a a a_2
m ,O �O Q 'a) 0 -o0 0 0 0 0 2 o0 0 0 0 0 .-
Q 6- U i -0 = -0 co co W W W= = = = = =
re- x = = z
m
1- a
G
°
a
=o
>avvh''a GE 0
yyyy r.
E hi 0 cs m u h S u a m _•a ENu VoE a h E E
.,0N 0: .a) 'E s N
0h N 0 0N 'NO -
aE NQQa>>a °ah aU yo 0 0 o N0N2:
N
0_ m y m s 'NN'o o N,n h Q N mQ Q.QN o:0c
,° 0._AG o 0 0 Q N ma,vYQ a a h Q i o 2 0 �o- h o o o o w E E E 2 2 2 o 0 0 o N c QVE w h ` ooi N N N 'OwN Ou c 8 2 c y 2. p m
0h02 -O O g (0 0 .c2 2 2 2 m m G a m m m m m m m m O O O a a a G G G G= am O O O O O O i i O • O 2-22 N,\ 0 U 0 0 ,
=2 E c c
72 i m c m oo a a 2 m i i. • E -Q E E E E§. c c = a a a a a a a 2022 cct t t ti o 2 2 2 2 0 0 ° 2 c h h h h =o c a a a a a a a. oa° m 2 Qh
m-0mG 72 a 00N 0oE:o00o mU o00000o2,E,E,Ea UUUUUU. Gca asoo v. h o0000000Go
m D m c N f N .° hf.o O 0 0 O 6 t 2 2 2 2 aaa ° ° ° a a 2 2 2 2 2 m m a a a ==0 cccm c o ° m 2 2 n m
-aG 0o-0 Qao L m 2- m O° -0 'c t O o a 2 z z ,G ,G N N U U U U U U U C aaaz z z O O O O N •E • E m m m m m m m m O O O 2 2 am m m ,2 m O UUUUUUUE m m o m L., .2,O
Q W r U g *-a' co U O W W UU U U U U 6- 6- U U O O O O O O O W W W W UUUUUUUY Z Z Q. Q. Q. Q. Q. Q. Q. Q. Q. Q. Q. Q. W ce h - f. f. U J a_ 0. 0. z.0 .-U
I-
a a 0OIL' 0 0 0
ot
10) V V O O O co. O O O O O co. O co. O co. O O I� CO O O (O N M N N c' c' V oO oO N V V V V
0 MN N N N .-.- N N N N
O h
Q m
co
h ' s
co
m2 m E ' .s
t
.° N «' > ° c m =m «,c a E N .h. = m m cCD mw m h c °' osoN
4.2 0 N N a ° :N o c o N i i h m e t m
c hu Q>m m c m c ..��- N w my y allo c mEoN w o •0 ah'. N
� L tm 0 2: • o a m o s �N.ew tiE ms =
m m '�'E E
o m. 0 2 _ m 3. ',I t .2 c N o z 0 h m ° = 2 2 mo o a ° • m.cNo>°°o ,'QOj0u0(0mNy 0 m NEm.a. 0 0 0 co o, . N h(0-o mmmom m N h .«m yy y''a s E m a s m �' CO Nm m U 0 N m m �N' U h hQ Q 02•EGym m m ym m 2 NyE h aE. N.2 G hm m m m
°m O co E u
N -0 Ot-2 Na Na Na m a a a oO� m y- y 2: �2' >a a N °>hhm cO Oxim 0 . E0 0 aO ma B0 a a �' g mN E m E 0 O 0 o E m =- m -m 0 "-4 0 P. U E L wo 0 wmyom Efl- -o .o .o .o m m m mam 0 ° a a c c ., g -0 o m wc O0 o n �a m m a a m .o m �' oo o o° ,per c s 2 --0 m oo o c° m° o E m c o 0 0 0
L E ur 0 .No 0 0 0 0N T c -0 o-2 o 0 o o0 E E O O N N N N N h.h '2'2'2 0- °° - N N N 0 2 N a L E= O O m O O ON B T., N N N N :.N .N Om m 0.' 2= o S= C -` O fy0 O h yNooN N U -= •E Q 0 0 0 0
m m 0 n 0 § o=_= N 0 OU 0 0 o O O O f J J z z z W W W W h h h m O 1, J z z >. W W m o- Q o cp cp W W c) c) m .o0= Q JJ c) -O 70 Q@ 0 -0 = Q E mQ-0 WE e o L§) J 'aU U i i Jz c) - .O a_ a_ a_ a_2 >`.o .wa 9 a mQ w m m
fs °x Z Z Zm ya za a 2 m¢ 0) oU O o. s .- a = E z a co ;0 U U o o _
CO °a F= 0 0 Um.,.2 a m 0U
N E S U W CO 't < 0
I- a a
III-G-76

Table III-G1 (concluded).
h
c�i c�i
N —
v
.
..
c.j
c.j . .
co
•9
ro
c
'C
ro
ro
a
2w
(19
a
a
�'
'�
a
ro c°
°ro'
O
Un
C
d
N
C
io
C L^
ri N
m
L° a •� d ro
O N N N
h u
a s
rti
a
fo
Q
O
N �°
to
roo
o
N
ro
ri i`n
N
N [�o ro
[�o
•v' Na �0
ri
G
o
L a N
N
0
•
N
fi
N
[o
[o
.o_
o_
n3
0
tu
y [o b
h
fp
N
7]
[m
[ro-
°
Q E ,f0
N s0 0
r, .13
8
9
f0
V
U
y
7
N
D_
0
n3 Ql
b
C CL
C
N
fp
Ql U
0
C
a R .ro .ro
f6
N
C
C
C
N-n 0
E O f6
2 0 b 9 0 7] :.
b_ b_ f6
.�_
C L
0
Ql n3 •
Y
[5
-44
16
'a
G
N
m
0
c1
!
72
.- C .c
8-- r
c
O j,.
C
[,
ry
g O
n3 N
0
O—
L6
2r]
C
N
f6 pN
[p Fn. N
O C N
N N
.p�
[o
O
f6 'Y f6
a- 72.8 2 72
O - co c
[o .— T N
`�
'a
-5 2 C �,
Q L 2 U
Q
N
N_
C
�, 3
V cc
[6
�
N
8
f6
72
-
(O�
8
(O�
8
(O�
8tl
mU
f6 0_ L
o N= t
§p O❑
L
f0 • C
-13 0 2
L
,C
8
U
N Vi Sif6 O
T 2 8 Si 72 fi• fi E o
Q Q Q 2
O T
'8
Z Z 0
'�
Z
L6 c1
o 8
y
0
e
O
f6
7 K.
Vi w N
T '^a
a
..
2
W
'E
C
0
0
x
f6
L
0_
F6
C
[6
=-
0
0
( CJ
O
N
2
'C 0 i a N
P 5 j 2 C
U] 6'
❑
2
U]
F
` W
` 7
N a JT a O=
J
N
c1
W F
t
d
[o
0
2
t
o
o
c�
v¢¢ cn
o m¢
CD
¢
m z
z
n
E
E
Z
ro
z
a Sensitivity values assigned by NCDWR in effort to standardize and evaluate benthic data from past study years.
III-G-77

Table III-G2. Abundant benthic macroinvertebrate species for sweep samples collected in monitored creeks during May of Mod Alt L sample years 1998-2005 and 2007-2020. Pre -Mod Alt L: Broomfield Swamp
Creek (2019-2020), 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 (2015-2020), Jacobs Creek (2014-2020), Drinkwater Creek (2013-2020), Tooley Creek (2012-2020), Huddles Cut (2010-2020), Porter Creek
(2016-2020), DCUT11 (2018-2020). Control Creeks: SCUT1 (2019-2020), PA2, Long, Little, and Duck creeks (2011-2020), Muddy Creek (1998-2005 and 2007-2020), and DCUT19 (2013-2020). A - indicates the
creek was not monitored that year. Benthic collection occurred in June for 2010. In each sweep sample, individuals per species were stopped at 100 and maximum number of individuals per species stopped at 300.
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
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 littoralis
300
169
130
122
37.1
20.9
16.1
15.1
BROOMFIELD CREEK
DOWNSTREAM
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Dominant Species
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
not monitored
(Total
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
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
-
-
Corixidae sp.
Cyprideis littoral's
Naididae sp. w/o hair
Dero sp.
109
83
73
63
14.6
11.1
9.8
8.5
Gammarus tigrinus
Cyprideis littoral's
Naididae w/o hair sp.
Americamysis almyra
300
204
100
82
36.5
24.8
12.2
10.0
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
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 woo hair sp.
Physidae sp.
300
300
207
52
31.8
31.8
21.9
5.5
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
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
III-G-78

Table III-G2 (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
Gammanis tigrinus
300
11.3
Gammanis 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 Iittoralis
300
13.5
Amphicteis floridus
290
15.1
Littoridinops sp.
300
11.3
Littoridinops sp.
163
20.9
Cyprideis Iittoralis
300
12.3
Cyprideis Iittoralis
300
10.6
Goeldichironomus devineyae
115
11.7
Goeldichironomus devineyae
300
25.2
Littoridinops sp.
300
13.5
Gammanis tigrinus
288
15.0
Enallagma sp.
261
9.8
Cassidinidea Iunifrons
123
15.7
Gammanis tigrinus
300
12.3
Gammanis tigrinus
300
10.6
Enchytraeidae sp.
111
11.3
Littoridinops sp.
257
21.6
Tanytarsus Iimnecticus
288
13.0
Tanytarsus sp. 1
276
14.4
Amphicteis floridus
201
7.6
Cyprideis Iittoralis
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
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
300
8.5
Littoridinops tenuipes
300
34.7
Nematoda sp.
300
16.9
Littoridinops tenuipes
300
27.5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Apocorophium sp.
300
8.5
Goeldichironomus devineyae
237
27.4
Littoridinops sp.
284
16.0
Chironomus decorus
141
12.9
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Littoridinops sp.
300
8.5
Apocorophium sp.
126
14.6
Chironomus decorus
247
13.9
Corixidae sp.
131
12.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Apocorophium Iouisianum
266
7.5
Chironomus decorus
65
7.5
Goeldichironomus devineyae
216
12.2
Gammanis tigrinus
96
8.8
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
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
Apocorophium sp.
293
18.6
Littoridinops sp.
300
18.7
Corixidae sp.
188
14.3
Gammanis tigrinus
300
14.0
Corixidae sp.
220
8.9
Gammanis tigrinus
300
18.2
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
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
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
Gammanis tigrinus
295
11.9
Gammanis tigrinus
300
30.2
Littoridinops sp.
128
21.7
Gammanis 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 Iittoralis
132
13.0
Littoridinops sp.
300
21.8
Cassidinidea Iunifrons
235
9.5
Cassidinidea Iunifrons
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
Gammanis tigrinus
264
19.2
Littoridinops sp.
224
9.0
Littoridinops sp.
153
15.4
Gammanis 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
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.
256
12.7
Hargeria rapax
159
19.7
Nematoda sp.
230
26.1
Littoridinops tenuipes
300
18.8
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Palaemonetes pugio
248
12.4
Apocorophium sp.
146
18.1
Apocorophium sp.
115
13.1
Hargeria rapax
283
17.7
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Hargeria rapax
204
10.2
Littoridinops tenuipes
115
14.2
Hargeria rapax
113
12.8
Apocorophium sp.
187
11.7
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Gammanis tigrinus
172
8.6
Americamysis almyra
97
12.0
Littoridinops sp.
99
11.3
Gammanis tigrinus
178
11.1
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
Gammanis tigrinus
300
19.2
Apocorophium sp.
300
19.3
Littoridinops sp.
300
39.2
Gammanis tigrinus
300
26.4
Littoridinops sp.
300
13.7
Apocorophium sp.
300
22.5
Littoridinops sp.
300
19.2
Gammanis tigrinus
300
19.3
Gammanis tigrinus
224
29.2
Littoridinops sp.
208
18.3
Apocorophium sp.
295
13.5
Littoridinops tenuipes
300
22.5
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
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
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 2
lY Q
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
V W
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Apedilum sp.
222
13.3
Goeldichironomus devineyae
228
24.2
Littoridinops sp.
280
17.3
Chironomus decorus
212
17.0
(/) H
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Apocorophium sp.
218
13.1
Apedilum sp.
190
20.2
Chironomus decorus
234
14.4
Goeldichironomus devineyae
156
12.5
OV)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Goeldichironomus devineyae
142
8.5
Chironomus decorus
91
9.7
Apedilum sp.
192
11.9
Apocorophium sp.
122
9.8
U ?
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Q
n
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
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
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.
222
13.6
Apocorophium lacustre
136
8.6
Trichocorixa sexcinta
136
9.8
Apocorophium Iouisianum
142
11.2
Tanytarsus sp.
130
10.9
Gammanis tigrinus
88
12.3
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
CeW
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
U i_W-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Littoridinops sp.
201
13.3
Hargeria rapax
174
17.0
Apocorophium sp.
176
14.2
Chironomus decorus
272
12.7
CO y
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Hargeria rapax
198
13.1
Americamysis almyra
138
13.5
Chironomus decorus
174
14.1
Littoridinops tenuipes
232
10.8
CO Z
-
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
-
-
Chironomus decorus
184
12.2
Apocorophium Iouisianum
134
13.1
Hargeria rapax
151
12.2
Hargeria rapax
224
10.4
U p
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
p
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
Gammanis tigrinus
300
21.3
Apocorophium sp.
300
13.6
Littoridinops sp.
300
21.1
Hargeria rapax
193
21.3
Littoridinops sp.
300
20.0
Littoridinops sp.
284
17.8
Apocorophium sp.
274
19.4
Gammanis tigrinus
300
13.6
Apocorophium sp.
233
16.4
Gammarus mucronatus
150
16.6
Gammanis tigrinus
243
16.2
Gammanis tigrinus
168
10.5
Littoridinops sp.
241
17.1
Littoridinops sp.
284
12.9
Goeldichironomus devineyae
204
14.4
Littoridinops tenuipes
150
16.6
Rhithropanopeus harrisii
108
7.2
Corixidae sp.
125
7.8
Corixidae sp.
126
8.9
Chironomus decorus
252
11.5
Gammanis tigrinus
139
9.8
Gammanis tigrinus
139
15.4
III-G-79

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
%
Cta
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
Apedilum sp.
300
15.6
Apedilum sp.
300
20.0
Littoridinops sp.
300
22.9
Littoridinops tenuipes
300
30.7
lL
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Littoridinops sp.
300
15.6
Littoridinops tenuipes
300
20.0
Goeldichironomus devineyae
240
18.3
Goeldichironomus devineyae
204
20.9
z ct
0
Apocorophium sp.
262
13.6
Goeldichironomus devineyae
239
15.9
Paranais litoralis
106
8.1
Chironomus decorus
153
15.7
0 f/)
fV m
Gammarus tigrinus
170
8.8
Apocorophium louisianum
205
13.7
Apedilum sp.
102
7.8
Apocorophium sp.
88
9.0
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
d
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Littoridinops sp.
300
16.9
Corixidae sp.
300
14.7
Littoridinops sp.
300
17.8
Littoridinops sp.
300
23.2
Littoridinops sp.
300
15.0
Littoridinops tenuipes
300
23.6
Apocorophium sp.
267
15.1
Littoridinops sp.
274
13.4
Corixidae sp.
300
17.8
Apocorophium sp.
216
16.7
Apocorophium sp.
224
11.2
Apocorophium sp.
259
20.4
Gammarus tigrinus
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
Goeldichironomus devineyae
215
12.1
Gammarus tigrinus
236
11.6
Gammarus tigrinus
226
13.4
Goeldichironomus devineyae
172
13.3
Chironomus decorus
184
9.2
Gammarus tigrinus
142
11.2
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
%
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
-
-
Littoridinops sp.
300
19.8
Littoridinops tenuipes
300
22.5
Littoridinops sp.
300
23.8
Littoridinops 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
Goeldichironomus devineyae
206
13.6
Apedilum sp.
202
15.1
Apocorophium sp.
185
14.7
Apocorophium sp.
226
20.1
0 Z
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
dfV
p
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Apocorophium sp.
300
20.7
Littoridinops sp.
300
17.0
Littoridinops sp.
300
22.6
Apocorophium sp.
300
13.7
Apocorophium sp.
300
15.0
Littoridinops tenuipes
300
22.7
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
Littoridinops sp.
300
20.7
Corixidae sp.
234
13.2
Apocorophium sp.
217
16.4
Gammarus tigrinus
296
13.6
Littoridinops sp.
300
15.0
Gammarus tigrinus
201
15.2
Gammarus tigrinus
132
9.1
Goeldichironomus devineyae
228
12.9
Gammarus tigrinus
155
11.7
Apocorophium louisianum
282
12.9
Apocorophium louisianum
284
14.2
Apocorophium sp.
200
15.2
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
%
Y
uJ
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
W
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Ct
0
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
Apedilum sp.
300
14.8
Goeldichironomus devineyae
300
29.2
Apocorophium sp.
282
16.9
Littoridinops tenuipes
300
24.8
W<
ctiLl
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Littoridinops sp.
Apocorophium sp.
300
278
14.8
13.7
Littoridinops tenuipes
Apocorophium sp.
300
142
29.2
13.8
Goeldichironomus devineyae
Littoridinops sp.
269
258
16.1
15.4
Chironomus decorus
Goeldichironomus devineyae
244
223
20.1
18.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Gammarus tigrinus
199
9.8
Apocorophium louisianum
56
5.5
Apocorophium louisianum
230
13.8
Apocorophium sp.
131
10.8
d
Y 0-
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Z_
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
cT
Gammarus tigrinus
300
22.8
Apocorophium sp.
300
18.1
Gammarus tigrinus
300
20.2
Apocorophium sp.
300
16.9
Gammarus tigrinus
207
34.7
Apocorophium sp.
255
29.0
Cl
Littoridinops sp.
300
22.8
Gammarus tigrinus
300
18.1
Apocorophium sp.
295
19.9
Apocorophium louisianum
284
16.0
Littoridinops sp.
62
10.4
Littoridinops tenuipes
225
25.5
Apocorophium sp.
262
19.9
Littoridinops sp.
266
16.0
Littoridinops sp.
226
15.2
Gammarus tigrinus
254
14.3
Cassidinidea lunifrons
54
9.1
Corixidae sp.
110
12.5
Amphicteis floridus
96
7.3
Amphicteis floridus
136
8.2
Apocorophium louisianum
183
12.3
Chironomus decorus
228
12.8
Goeldichironomus devineyae
41
6.9
Gammarus tigrinus
76
8.6
I.
I
I
1
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
Littoridinops tenuipes
245
19.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Apocorophium sp.
150
11.3
Americamysis almyra
172
17.5
Apocorophium sp.
190
15.2
Apocorophium sp.
193
15.0
Littoridinops sp.
146
11.0
Littoridinops tenuipes
132
13.5
Littoridinops sp.
149
12.0
Gammarus mucronatus
164
12.8
Gammarus tigrinus
137
10.3
Chironomus decorus
111
11.3
Nematoda sp.
120
9.6
Hargeria rapax
150
11.7
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Littoridinops sp.
300
18.1
Littoridinops sp.
300
21.3
Littoridinops sp.
300
22.4
Gammarus tigrinus
249
16.5
Littoridinops sp.
300
33.9
Littoridinops tenuipes
230
23.0
Apocorophium sp.
244
14.8
Gammarus tigrinus
295
21.0
Gammarus tigrinus
276
20.6
Hargeria rapax
206
13.6
Apocorophium sp.
216
24.4
Hargeria rapax
205
20.5
Gammarus tigrinus
218
13.2
Apocorophium sp.
228
16.2
Apocorophium sp.
215
16.1
Littoridinops sp.
204
13.5
Gammarus tigrinus
147
16.6
Corixidae sp.
147
14.7
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
III-G-80

Table III-G2 (continued).
LITTLE 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
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
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 Iittoralis
300
300
216
201
15.0
15.0
10.8
10.0
Gammarus tigrinus
Littoridinops tenuipes
Chironomus deconis
Physidae sp. (physa/physella)
300
285
170
124
25.1
23.8
14.2
10.4
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Gammarus tigrinus
Cyprideis Iittoralis
Naididae sp. w/o hair
Littoridinops sp.
300
250
160
59
31.2
26.0
16.6
6.1
Gammarus tigrinus
Cyprideis Iittoralis
Tanytarsus sp.
Amphicteis f/oridus
300
274
62
59
29.5
26.9
6.1
5.8
Gammarus tigrinus
Cyprideis Iittoralis
Chironomus decorus
Littoridinops sp.
300
291
163
120
23.5
22.8
12.7
9.4
Gammarus tigrinus
Cyprideis Iittoralis
Mytilopsis Ieucophaeata
Naididae sp. w/o hair
300
241
100
56
29.1
23.4
9.7
5.4
Gammarus tigrinus
Corixidae sp.
Cyprideis Iittoralis
Mytilopsis /eucophaeata
300
234
154
104
24.9
19.4
12.8
8.6
Cyptideis Iittoralis
Gammarus tigrinus
Americamysis almyra
Littoridinops tenuipes
300
300
73
62
34.1
34.1
8.3
7.0
-IDominant
0
Ce
I-
Z Q
0 w
`-'
WH
j-
Ce
U 0
w p
J
I-
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
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Apocorophium sp.
Littoridinops sp.
Palaemonetes 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
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Apocorophium sp.
Littoridinops sp.300
psp.
Gammarus tigrinus
Rhithropanopeus harrisii
300
223
141
24.1
24.1
17.9
11.3
Littoridinops sp.
Apocorophium
Corixidae sp.
Gammarus tigrinus
300
261
187
162
22.7
19.7g
14.1
12.2
Littoridinops sp.
Cyptideis 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
g
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
JIMIL
ilk
-IDominant
0
Ce
Z
0 Q
U W
Y Ce
wCr)
cc 11
U
0Dominant
Z
0
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 deconis
Gammarus mucronatus
Apocorophium sp.
Amphicteis floridus
300
232
213
153
18.6
14.4
13.2
9.5
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
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 f/oridus
300
268
210
128
19.5
17.4
13.6
8.3
Littoridinops sp.
Gammarus tigrinus
Apocorophium sp.
Amphicteis f/oridus
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 deconis
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
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 Iacustre
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 harrisii
Hargeria rapax
241
215
186
162
17.8
15.9
13.7
12.0
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
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
III-G-81

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 floridus
214
11.8
Littoridinops sp.
195
17.0
Amphicteis floridus
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
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
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.
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
Chironomus sp.
220
9.2
Apocorophium louisianum
220
11.4
Cyprideis littoralis
220
8.6
Hargena rapax
145
12.7
Gammarus tigrinus
93
7.8
Gammarus mucronatus
98
9.2
i
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
Hargena rapax
208
13.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Y 2
Dicrotendipes sp.
300
8.9
Amphicteis floridus
232
14.4
Amphicteis floridus
145
11.2
Amphicteis floridus
141
8.8
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
III 4
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
W ceLij
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
0 F
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
W Z
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
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
0 0
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Apocorophium louisianum
Palaemonetes pugio
119
75
11.8
7.5
Apocorophium louisianum
Littoridinops sp.
129
114
11.9
10.5
Littoridinops tenuipes
Hargena rapax
158
155
14.2
14.0
Littoridinops sp.
Nematoda sp.
77
71
8.3
7.7
Hargena rapax
Gammarus mucronatus
228
224
16.2
15.9
I-0
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
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
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
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
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
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
0
0
Amphicteis floridus
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
W
Apocorophium lacustre
288
11.4
Amphicteis floridus
191
14.3
Amphicteis floridus
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
Z
Littoridinops sp.
256
10.2
Corixidae sp.
106
7.9
Gammarus tigrinus
201
10.2
Amphicteis floridus
218
13.4
Enchytraeidae sp.
119
7.9
Gammarus tigrinus
45
5.4
Amphicteis floridus
51
5.7
Amphicteis floridus
185
12.4
0 2
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
U
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
W4
Y ce
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
W 1-
W N
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
W d
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
0 7
r
Cl
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
Cl
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
7
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
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
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
Chironomus sp.
240
12.6
Apocorophium lacustre
114
9.3
Amphicteis floridus
134
7.7
Chironomus decorus
233
11.9
Apocorophium sp.
98
7.9
Littoridinops tenuipes
182
12.0
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
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 floridus
300
9.8
Littoridinops sp.
300
26.5
Gammarus tigrinus
206
17.4
Cncotopus/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
0
0
d'
Apocorophium lacustre
265
8.7
Apocorophium lacustre
225
19.9
Amphicteis floridus
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
Z 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
0 4
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
U W
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
Y F
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
W
W Z
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
d' ?
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
0 0
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
Cl
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
ClCl
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
2
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.
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
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
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
III-G-82

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

Table III-G2 (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
Littoridinops sp.
Amphicteis floridus
Berosus sp.
300
300
238
181
21.2
21.2
16.8
12.8
Gammarus tigrinus
Littoridinops tenuipes
Cyprideis Iittoralis
Dicrotendipes nervosus
300
300
223
156
17.2
17.2
12.8
9.0
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Cyprideis Iittoralis
Gammarus tigrinus
Littoridinops sp.
Dicrotendipes nervosus
300
300
300
166
17.1
17.1
17.1
9.5
Gammarus tigrinus
Littoridinops sp.
Tanytarsus sp.
Cyprideis Iittoralis
292
208
108
88
29.0
20.6
10.7
8.7
Cyprideis Iittoralis
Gammarus tigrinus
Littoridinops sp.
Cassidinidea Iunifrons
300
300
300
82
26.7
26.7
26.7
7.3
Cyprideis Iittoralis
Gammarus tigrinus
Littoridinops sp.
Amphicteis fioridus
300
300
300
218
19.3
19.3
19.3
14.0
Dicrotendipes nervosus
Dero sp.
Gammarus tigrinus
Tanytarsus sp.
132
67
67
63
21.5
10.9
10.9
10.3
Apocorophium sp.
Gammarus tigrinus
Littoridinops tenuipes
Cyprideis Iittoralis
300
300
300
244
17.9
17.9
17.9
14.5
QDominant
W
H-
M Cl)
U j
CI
O
0
CeDominant
z Q
0 W
U Ce
a) V)
H 0-
M
U
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
-
-
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
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
not monitored
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
not monitored
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Apocorophium Iacustre
Gammarus tigrinus
Littoridinops sp.
Apocorophium sp.
300
300
300
292
15.2
15.2
15.2
14.8
Gammarus tigrinus
Littoridinops tenuipes
Tanytarsus sp.
Cyprideis Iittoralis
300
300
268
217
15.9
15.9
14.2
11.5
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2004
2005
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Cyprideis Iittoralis
Dicrotendipes nervosus
Gammarus tigrinus
Littoridinops sp.
1998
300
300
300
300
13.6
13.6
13.6
13.6
Gammarus tigrinus
Littoridinops sp.
Cyprideis Iittoralis
Tanytarsus sp.
1999
272
181
176
134
20.9
13.9
13.5
10.3
Cyprideis Iittoralis
Littoridinops sp.
Gammarus tigrinus
Tanytarsus sp.
2000
300
300
278
106
24.1
24.1
22.3
8.5
Cyprideis Iittoralis
Gammarus tigrinus
Littoridinops sp.
Tanytarsus sp.
2001
300
300
300
164
22.2
22.2
22.2
12.2
Dicrotendipes nervosus
Littoridinops sp.
Gammarus tigrinus
Tanytarsus sp.
2002
194
147
145
91
22.4
17.0
16.7
10.5
Littoridinops tenuipes
Tanytarsus sp.
Gammarus tigrinus
Apocorophium sp.
2003
300
300
284
230
15.8
15.8
15.0
12.1
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
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 sp.
Gammarus tigrinus
Amphicteis floridus
Chironomus decorus
300
142
139
132
23.7
11.2
11.0
10.4
Littoridinops tenuipes
Apocorophium sp.
Nematoda sp.
Amphicteis floridus
300
250
197
187
15.0
12.4
9.8
9.3
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Littoridinops sp.
Tanytarsus sp.
Gammarus tigrinus
Cyprideis Iittoralis
266
107
92
86
32.3
13.0
11.2
10.4
Cyprideis Iittoralis
Littoridinops sp.
Tanytarsus sp.
Goeldichironomus devineyae
300
280
276
95
21.1
19.7
19.5
6.7
Cyprideis Iittoralis
Littoridinops sp.
Gammarus tigrinus
Amphicteis fioridus
300
300
250
122
18.3
18.3
15.3
7.5
Apocorophium sp.
Littoridinops sp.
Gammarus tigrinus
Candonidae sp.
300
300
227
180
21.6
21.6
16.3
12.9
Tanytarsus sp.
Littoridinops sp.
Dero sp.
Dicrotendipes nervosus
274
258
190
108
24.7
23.3
17.1
9.7
Apocorophium sp.
Littoridinops tenuipes
Berosus sp.
Apocorophium Iouisianum
300
300
165
105
26.0
26.0
14.3
9.1
a
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
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Littoridinops sp.
Gammarus tigrinus
Hargeria rapax
Nematoda sp.
251
232
222
208
10.2
9.4
9.0
8.4
Littoridinops tenuipes
Hargeria rapax
Apocorophium sp.
Goeldichironomus devineyae
300
287
215
215
12.3
11.8
8.8
8.8
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Littoridinops sp.
Tanytarsus sp.
Cyprideis Iittoralis
Gammarus tigrinus
300
300
236
221
13.1
13.1
10.3
9.6
Littoridinops sp.
Gammarus tigrinus
Cyprideis Iittoralis
Tanytarsus sp.
300
199
156
141
18.1
12.0
9.4
8.5
Gammarus tigrinus
Littoridinops sp.
Cyprideis Iittoralis
Tanytarsus sp.
300
300
293
205
17.0
17.0
16.6
11.6
Gammarus tigrinus
Littoridinops sp.
Apocorophium sp.
Hargeria rapax
300
252
223
66
25.3
21.3
18.8
5.6
Littoridinops sp.
Gammarus tigrinus
Tanytarsus sp.
Dicrotendipes nervosus
300
214
127
117
25.7
18.4
10.9
10.0
Apocorophium sp.
Littoridinops tenuipes
Gammarus tigrinus
Hargeria rapax
300
300
286
218
18.1
18.1
17.2
13.1
III-G-84

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 tigrinus
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 Iittoralis
79
12.6
Gammanis tigrinus
300
19.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Dicrotendipes nervosus
119
12.6
Cyprideis Iittoralis
179
15.6
Tanytarsus sp.
77
12.2
Chironomus decorus
300
19.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Tanytarsus sp.
96
10.2
Gammarus tigrinus
153
13.4
Gammarus tigrinus
67
10.7
Tanytarsus sp.
203
13.2
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dicrotendipes nervosus
300
15.3
Gammarus tigrinus
300
17.6
Gammarus tigrinus
300
20.3
Gammanis tigrinus
300
20.7
Dero sp.
269
15.8
Cyprideis Iittoralis
300
31.1
Gammarus tigrinus
300
15.3
Littoridinops sp.
300
17.6
Cyprideis Iittoralis
255
17.3
Paranais litoralis
272
18.8
Pristina sp.
233
13.7
Littoridinops tenuipes
300
31.1
Tanytarsus sp.
300
15.3
Naididae sp. w/o hair
300
17.6
Littoridinops sp.
195
13.2
Cyprideis Iittoralis
251
17.3
Gammarus tigrinus
186
10.9
Gammanis tigrinus
211
21.8
Cyprideis Iittoralis
240
12.3
Cyprideis Iittoralis
234
13.7
Naididae sp. w/o hair
168
11.4
Littoridinops sp.
194
13.4
Kiefferulus sp.
162
9.5
Amphicteis f/oridus
31
3.2
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
Gammanis tigrinus
300
21.5
Gammanis tigrinus
300
13.8
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Apocorophium Iacustre
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 tigrinus
236
11.4
Apedilum sp.
91
8.4
Gammanis mucronatus
139
9.9
Littoridinops tenuipes
227
10.5
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Gammarus tigrinus
290
24.3
Gammarus tigrinus
300
25.5
Apocorophium sp.
300
22.8
Gammarus tigrinus
300
24.3
Gammarus tigrinus
300
33.7
Apocorophium sp.
290
35.8
Littoridinops sp.
263
22.1
Apocorophium Iacustre
217
18.5
Gammarus tigrinus
300
22.8
Littoridinops sp.
300
24.3
Littoridinops sp.
189
21.2
Gammarus tigrinus
177
21.9
Cyprideis Iittoralis
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
75
6.3
Littoridinops sp.
159
13.5
Apocorophium Iacustre
237
18.0
Goeldichironomus devineyae
107
8.6
Amphicteis fioridus
64
7.2
Paleomonetes pugio
93
11.5
III-G-85

Table III-G3. Benthic macroinvertebrate community structure data for sweep samples collected at upstream and downstream stations in May of Mod Alt L years 1998-2005 and 2007-2020. 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
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
PA2 (CONTROL) JACOBS CREEK JACKS CREEK SCUT1 (CONTROL) BROOMFIELD SWAMP
CREEK
0_
D
Total abundance
Total taxa
Total taxa with sensitivity values
EBIa
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- - -
- - -
- - -
- - -
- - -
- - -
- - -
- - -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
293
30
21
1.46
809
16
11
1.54
Total abundance
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- - -
- - -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
745
821
F)
0
Total taxa
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- - -
- - -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
41
17
o
Total taxa with sensitivity values
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- - -
- - -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
28
14
EBIa
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- - -
- - -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.34
1.64
Total abundance
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- - -
- - -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
401
944
0_
Total taxa
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- - -
- - -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
28
20
D
Total taxa with sensitivity values
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- - -
- - -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
21
12
EBIa
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- - -
- - -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.18
1.53
Total abundance
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- - -
- - -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
738
997
F)
0
Total taxa
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- - -
- - -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
35
18
o
Total taxa with sensitivity values
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- - -
- - -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
25
15
EBIa
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- - -
- - -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.72
1.98
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
0_
Total taxa
42
18
34
24
30
24
39
29 - -
- - 35
19
29
33
30
35
33
30
37
27
D
Total taxa with sensitivity values
34
13
27
19
25
19
34
25 - -
- - 26
15
21
24
25
24
24
25
24
21
E Bla
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
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
F)
0
Total taxa
45
19
25
25
32
28
30
29 - -
- - 33
26
27
33
31
31
24
32
33
23
o
Total taxa with sensitivity values
35
16
22
23
28
24
27
25 - -
- - 27
24
24
27
28
27
20
28
27
19
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
Total abundance
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- - -
- - 1,678
937
1,560
1,248
1,644
1,582
1,388
1,267
1,190
718
0_
Total taxa
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- - -
- - 32
19
24
28
26
34
25
21
32
24
D
Total taxa with sensitivity values
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- - -
- - 25
16
18
19
20
23
22
17
25
20
EBIa
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- - -
- - 2.05
2.40
2.11
1.79
1.85
1.92
1.63
1.79
1.83
1.85
Total abundance
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- - -
- - 1,523
1,024
1,237
2,145
1,565
1,596
1,409
2,198
1,420
905
o
0
Total taxa
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- - -
- - 33
32
29
35
35
29
32
30
34
30
o
Total taxa with sensitivity values
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- - -
- - 26
27
22
30
29
23
27
28
32
27
EBIa
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- - -
- - 2.10
2.06
2.05
1.86
2.01
1.98
1.80
1.91
1.91
1.98
Total abundance
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- - -
- - 1,916
1,504
1,312
977
1,789
2,040
1,684
1,292
2,004
1,270
0_
Total taxa
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- - -
- - 26
27
23
28
30
27
26
24
31
19
D
Total taxa with sensitivity values
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- - -
- - 21
19
14
22
22
20
22
21
22
17
E Bla
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- - -
- - 2.09
2.23
2.02
1.71
1.81
1.72
1.81
1.85
1.70
1.86
Total abundance
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- - -
- - 1,502
1,330
1,263
1,123
1,628
1,768
1,325
2,183
1,996
1,320
F)
0
Total taxa
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- - -
- - 28
22
21
30
29
27
29
30
31
26
o
Total taxa with sensitivity values
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- - -
- - 20
16
17
22
24
22
24
26
23
23
EBIa
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- - -
- - 2.22
2.33
1.82
1.77
1.84
1.76
1.79
1.84
1.83
1.84
III-G-86

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
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
EBIa
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
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
Total abundance
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1,330
981
1,248
1,285
1,785
1,408
1,337
1,513
884
1,001
3
0
Total taxa
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
38
33
32
27
32
40
30
30
26
24
o
Total taxa with sensitivity values
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
32
29
26
20
27
31
25
26
22
21
E Bla
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2.04
1.78
1.90
1.88
1.87
1.88
1.89
1.86
2.04
1.73
Total abundance
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1,148
1,238
2,002
1,197
961
1,017
1,279
1,032
1,204
881
0_
Total taxa
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
22
27
22
26
25
27
29
27
24
15
D
Total taxa with sensitivity values
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
20
19
16
21
17
21
22
23
19
14
EBIa
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.77
1.92
1.77
1.58
1.56
1.68
1.57
1.62
1.50
1.79
Total abundance
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1,363
843
1,152
1,005
1,292
1,324
1,502
564
611
1,430
0
Total taxa
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
33
36
28
31
33
26
32
21
36
32
o
Total taxa with sensitivity values
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
22
30
24
26
28
21
27
17
26
28
E Bla
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.99
2.02
2.25
1.84
2.05
1.80
1.79
2.08
1.94
1.83
Total abundance
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1,588
740
974
1,612
2,358
1,542
1,445
1,424
2,930
250
0_
Total taxa
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
33
29
23
34
31
26
31
32
40
21
D
Total taxa with sensitivity values
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
27
25
20
29
23
23
24
28
28
13
E Bla
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2.05
1.93
1.70
1.86
1.86
1.99
1.88
1.79
1.64
2.03
Total abundance
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
892
1,109
777
1,354
1,406
1,169
1,566
959
1,023
530
Total taxa
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
24
30
29
33
37
28
28
27
23
17
0
o
Total taxa with sensitivity values
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
23
23
24
26
29
23
26
23
22
16
E Bla
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2.04
1.98
1.97
2.03
1.97
2.12
1.99
2.01
1.91
2.09
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
0_
Total taxa
42
17
33
33
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
18
31
27
27
28
31
30
36
30
32
28
D
Total taxa with sensitivity values
34
14
23
29
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
14
22
21
23
25
26
25
31
28
28
26
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
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
Total taxa
47
33
31
34
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
33
36
32
32
34
31
31
31
24
32
18
0
o
Total taxa with sensitivity values
39
28
27
31
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
28
32
26
28
27
26
27
30
22
28
17
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
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
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
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
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
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
Total taxa
50
33
32
37
35
26
27
34
27
31
33
30
32
27
25
34
32
30
32
31
29
29
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
EBIa
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
Total abundance
-
1,040
366
995
-
-
-
-
661
468
277
677
635
273
360
490
1,109
1,647
862
670
896
380
0_
Total taxa
-
25
17
22
-
-
-
-
20
19
13
15
22
23
18
18
25
25
25
29
26
18
D
Total taxa with sensitivity values
-
18
12
17
-
-
-
-
15
15
10
13
19
20
15
15
19
19
22
26
21
16
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
Total abundance
-
254
527
206
-
-
-
-
422
398
288
189
75
403
502
375
449
679
1,057
603
304
506
Total taxa
-
24
18
19
-
-
-
-
22
23
26
13
12
20
14
24
22
24
33
26
16
22
0
o
Total taxa with sensitivity values
-
19
14
18
-
-
-
-
19
20
23
13
10
18
12
18
18
22
28
22
11
20
EBIa
-
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
III-G-87

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
PORTER CREEK
c
0
0
Total abundance
Total taxa
Total taxa with sensitivity values
EBIa
Total abundance
Total taxa
Total taxa with sensitivity values
EBIa
- - 2,320 2,804 1,375 1,862 1,208
- - 23 34 22 31 21
- - 21 27 19 25 17
- - 1.85 1.88 2.05 1.87 1.87
- - 1,791
- - 32
- - 26
- - 2.07
667 1,284 1,583 1,068
28 33 31 32
24 28 25 26
2.18 2.04 2.01 2.03
765 1,040 996 1,193 1,578
26 33 29 33 21
21 23 21 28 18
2.00 1.86 2.03 1.59 2.01
846 1,194 1,068 749 1,095
26 25 18 25 21
19 21 18 22 18
2.06 2.07 2.08 2.00 1.82
1-
0
0
c
0
0
Total abundance
Total taxa
Total taxa with sensitivity values
EBIa
Total abundance
Total taxa
Total taxa with sensitivity values
EBIa
1,413 1,748 1,750 1,008 1,123
24 28 29 22 23
19 22 21 17 15
1.90 1.79 1.75 1.85 1.89
1,970 1,890 2,205 1,229 1,246
29 27 31 31 24
23 23 26 21 17
2.03 1.86 1.80 1.87 1.98
1,553 613 1,677
28 30 25
23 24 21
1.97 1.46 2.07
1,349 867 1,896
19 32 28
16 24 22
2.03 1.65 2.00
DCUT19 (CONTROL)
c
0
0
c
0
0
Total abundance
Total taxa
Total taxa with sensitivity values
EBIa
Total abundance
Total taxa
Total taxa with sensitivity values
EBIa
Total abundance
Total taxa
Total taxa with sensitivity values
EBIa
Total abundance
Total taxa
Total taxa with sensitivity values
EBIa
- - 1,266 2,011 823 1,419 1,636 1,390 1,108 1,152
- - 23 28 30 33 30 25 25 26
- 19 24 22 24 21 22 17 22
- 1.81 1.84 1.87 1.78 1.83 2.00 1.54 1.88
- - 2,471 2,431 2,298 1,653 1,760 1,184 1,166 1,660
- - 32 35 34 34 29 26 32 25
- - 26 27 28 27 25 24 25 21
- - 1.90 1.97 1.79 1.74 1.87 1.99 1.81 1.93
941 1,144 627 1,543 1,956 1,702 1,475 1,450 1,700 966
30 21 25 21 26 27 34 27 29 22
24 17 21 18 18 21 23 21 21 18
1.73 1.85 1.92 1.69 1.64 1.74 1.53 1.52 1.50 1.92
2,066 1,082 1,397 2,172 1,191 1,175 1,315 1,237 890 809
26 26 32 28 27 20 23 32 24 22
22 22 28 22 22 17 19 28 20 15
1.90 2.02 1.91 1.97 1.96 2.13 2.08 1.89 2.01 2.07
III-G-88

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).
In the sweep summary table below, bdd xelues denote the highest value in a gren row (12 total) and bdd italics denote the highest value on an upstream or downstream basis (three ranges and three averages).
Annual Ranges All Creeks (upstream):
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
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
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
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
Annual Ranges All Creeks (downstream):
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
189-1,669
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
Total taxa
45 -550
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
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
Annual Averages All Creeks (upstream)
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
Total taxa
39
22
29
29
32
25
38
34
26
23
22
19
29
26
24
28
27
29
30
28
31
23
EBI
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
Annual Averages All Creeks (downstream)
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
Total taxa
47
27
27
29
32
27
29
32
25
27
30
25
30
28
28
31
31
29
29
27
30
23
EBI
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
1.98
1.94
1.98
1.86
1.94
III-G-89

Table III-G4. Abundant benthic macroinvertebrate species for ponar grab samples collected in monitored creeks during May of Mod Alt L sample years 1998-2005 and 2007-2020. Pre -Mod Alt L: Broomfield
Swamp Creek (2019-2020), 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 (2015-2020), Jacobs Creek (2014-2020), Drinkwater Creek (2013-2020), Tooley Creek (2012-2020), Huddles Cut (2010-
2020), Porter Creek (2016-2020), and DCUT11 (2018-2020). Control Creeks: SCUT1 (2019-2020), PA2, Long, Little, and Duck creeks (2011-2020), Muddy Creek (1998-2005 and 2007-2020), and DCUT19
(2013-2020). 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 and maximum
number of individuals per species stopped at 500.
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
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
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
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 Ieucophaeata
105
8
7
6
72.9
5.6
4.9
4.2
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
1 -
-
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
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
J
O 2
C' Q
~ W
Z !Y
0 I-
0 Cn
Z
>
D0
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
-
-
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
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
III-G-90

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 fioridus
58
27.0
Nematoda sp.
50
9.7
Amphicteis fioridus
324
28.9
Dicrotendipes nervosus
418
30.7
Littoridinops tenuipes
90
30.0
Amphicteis fioridus
41
6.7
Cyprideis Iittoralis
117
21.3
Tanytarsus sp. 1
84
18.1
Littoridinops tenuipes
17
7.9
Amphicteis fioridus
31
6.0
Gammanis tigrinus
101
9.0
Amphicteis fioridus
213
15.6
Bezzia/Palpomyia complex
12
4.0
Gammanis 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
Gammanis tigrinus
27
4.9
Gammanis 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 fioridus
174
18.5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Apocorophium sp.
80
14.6
Naididae sp. w/o hair
4
1.6
Littoridinops tenuipes
29
7.6
Gammanis tigrinus
122
13.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Gammanis 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
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
Gammanis tigrinus
97
27.5
Marenzelleria viridis
27
30.0
Gammanis tigrinus
162
29.5
Gammanis tigrinus
330
51.9
Chironomus decorus
44
35.8
Chironomus decorus
35
24.6
Amphicteis fioridus
84
23.8
Gammanis tigrinus
26
28.9
Littoridinops sp.
71
12.9
Chironomus decorus
71
11.2
Amphicteis fioridus
15
12.2
Candonidae sp.
34
23.9
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
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
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 fioridus
103
37.6
Chironomus decorus
192
61.1
Gammanis 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 fioridus
26
11.8
Gammanis tigrinus
23
8.4
Amphicteis fioridus
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
Gammanis mucronatus
40
9.4
Streblospio benedicti
21
11.5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Streblospio benedicti
102
9.4
Candonidae sp.
18
8.2
Gammams tigrinus
25
5.9
Amphicteis fioridus
20
10.9
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Gammams 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
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
Gammams tigrinus
142
32.6
Chironomus decorus
148
77.1
Gammams tigrinus
223
47.1
Streblospio benedicti
162
19.5
Apocorophium sp.
47
14.9
Rangia cuneata
79
21.2
Apocorophium sp.
138
31.7
Amphicteis fioridus
17
8.9
Apocorophium sp.
96
20.3
Gammarus tigrinus
68
8.2
Apocorophium /acustre
29
9.2
Gammarus tigrinus
43
11.6
Mediomastus ambiseta
32
7.3
Cyprideis littoralis
6
3.1
Littoridinops tenuipes
29
6.1
Naididae sp. w/o hair
59
7.1
Gammarus tigrinus
13
4.1
Cyprideis littoralis
43
11.6
Apocorophium louisianum
24
5.5
Gammarus tigrinus
5
2.6
Streblospio benedicti
26
5.5
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
-
-
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 <
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
0
V W
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Macoma balthica
109
27.6
Littoridinops tenuipes
143
21.1
Chironomus decorus
298
23.3
Candonidae sp.
126
22.5
(/) H
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Amphicteis fioridus
37
9.4
Apedilum sp.
119
17.6
Candonidae sp.
208
16.3
Parachironomus sp.
55
10.0
Oco
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Apocorophium sp.
31
7.8
Candonidae sp.
52
7.7
Littoridinops tenuipes
67
5.2
Littoridinops tenuipes
49
9.8
d
U =
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Q
n
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
Apocorophium sp.
255
22.0
Apocorophium sp.
9
15.3
Amphicteis fioridus
194
19.6
Chironomus decorus
117
23.7
Amphicteis fioridus
41
12.0
Chironomus decorus
31
18.2
Amphicteis fioridus
204
17.6
Marenzelleria viridis
9
15.3
Apocorophium sp.
140
14.1
Macoma balthica
69
14.0
Tanypus neopunctipennis
36
10.6
Gammams tigrinus
24
14.1
Littoridinops sp.
116
10.0
Cyprideis Iittoralis
5
8.5
Gammams tigrinus
78
7.9
Gammams tigrinus
57
11.6
Tanytarsus sp.
35
10.3
Conxidae sp.
14
8.2
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
-
-
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
CeW
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
V i_W-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Macoma balthica
137
21.8
Mediomastus ambiseta
144
23.7
Apocorophium sp.
85
14.4
Gammams mucronatus
71
23.0
CO y
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
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
U p
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
p
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
Gammams tigrinus
58
8.5
Mediomastus ambiseta
37
17.4
Mediomastus ambiseta
238
27.1
Macoma tenta
130
18.4
Streblospio benedicti
37
6.0
Gammams tigrinus
51
13.8
Streblospio benedicti
33
4.9
Apocorophium sp.
15
7.0
Gammams tigrinus
74
8.4
Chironomus decorus
122
17.2
Littoridinops sp.
35
5.7
Gammams mucronatus
33
8.9
Eteone heteropoda
20
2.9
Eteone heteropoda
13
6.1
Rangia cuneata
61
7.0
Gammams tigrinus
48
6.8
Americamysis almyra
14
2.3
Eteone heteropoda
32
8.6
III-G-91

Table III-G4 (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
not monitored
not monitored
not monitored
not monitored
Apocorophium sp.
Chironomus deconis
Littoridinops tenuipes
Apedilum sp.
205
194
69
62
26.1
24.7
8.8
7.9
Candonidae sp.
Littoridinops tenuipes
Apedilum sp.
Chironomus deconis
385
68
63
63
65.7
11.6
10.8
10.8
Apedilum sp.
Chironomus decorus
Candonidae sp.
Goeldichironomus devineyae
253
38
26
19
61.6
9.2
6.3
4.6
Littoridinops tenuipes
Chironomus deconis
Goeldichironomus devineyae
Apocorophium sp.
141
71
23
19
46.2
23.3
7.5
6.2
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
Dominant Species
Total
%
Chironomus sp.
Amphicteis floridus
Tanypus neopunctipennis
Littoridinops sp.
1998
384 68.2
30 5.3
29 5.2
27 4.8
Chironomus deconis
Streblospio benedicti
Gammarus tigrinus
Marenzelleria viridis
1999
376 67.9
59 10.7
38 6.9
32 5.8
Littoridinops sp.
Amphicteis floridus
Corixidae sp.
Apedilum sp.
2000
167 42.3
141 35.7
29 7.3
14 3.5
Chironomus deconis
Gammarus tigrinus
Apocorophium sp.
Candonidae sp.
2001
138 27.2
80 15.8
62 12.2
54 10.7
Chironomus deconis
Tanytarsus sp.
Littoridinops sp.
Tanypus neopunctipennis
2002
363 61.6
58 9.8
57 9.7
30 5.1
Apocorophium sp.
Littoridinops tenuipes
Amphicteis floridus
Apedilum sp.
2003
76
64
63
43
20.9
17.6
17.4
11.8
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 deconis
Apocorophium sp.
Aulodrilus sp.
Apedilum sp.
101
79
61
52
23.0
18.0
13.9
11.8
Chironomus deconis
Apedilum sp.
Candonidae sp.
Littoridinops tenuipes
488
123
111
31
62.9
15.9
14.3
4.0
Apedilum sp.
Chironomus deconis
Gammarus mucronatus
Littoridinops tenuipes
204
81
54
20
45.4
18.0
12.0
4.5
Naididae sp. w/o hair
Gammarus mucronatus
Chironomus deconis
Littoridinops tenuipes
64
36
30
22
%
36.8
20.7
17.2
12.6
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Gammarus tigrinus
Tanytarsus sp.
Littoridinops sp.
Tanypus neopunctipennis
1998
159 20.3
152 19.4
106 13.5
83 10.6
Marenzelleria viridis
Apocorophium sp.
Streblospio benedicti
Corixidae sp.
1999
361 37.2
164 16.9
99 10.2
54 5.6
Marenzelleria viridis
Amphicteis floridus
Littoridinops sp.
Laeonereis culveri
2000
470 38.6
325 26.7
173 14.2
39 3.2
Gammarus tigrinus
Chironomus deconis
Streblospio benedicti
Apocorophium sp.
2001
287 20.6
265 19.0
174 12.5
144 10.3
Chironomus deconis
Littoridinops sp.
Amphicteis floridus
Tanypus neopunctipennis
2002
402 60.4
87 13.1
44 6.6
43 6.5
Littoridinops tenuipes
Apocorophium sp.
Gammarus tigrinus
Amphicteis floridus
2003
40
39
21
10
29.2
28.5
15.3
7.3
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
Tanytarsus sp.
Aulodrilus sp.
Littoridinops tenuipes
Apocorophium sp.
269
154
148
146
21.8
12.5
12.0
11.8
Chironomus deconis
Littoridinops tenuipes
Candonidae sp.
Amphicteis floridus
478
244
126
92
37.7
19.3
9.9
7.3
Chironomus decorus
Littoridinops tenuipes
Amphicteis floridus
Goeldichironomus devineyae
452
169
63
32
54.7
20.4
7.6
3.9
Chironomus deconis
Amphicteis floridus
Naididae sp. w/o hair
Gammarus tigrinus
358
96
69
63
36.8
9.8
7.1
6.5
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
Littoridinops sp.
Chironomus sp.
Tanytarsus sp.
Amphicteis floridus
67
63
30
27
25.3
23.8
11.3
10.2
Amphicteis floridus
Gammarus tigrinus
Marenzelleria viridis
Apocorophium sp.
118
86
64
40
32.5
23.7
17.6
11.0
Amphicteis floridus
Gammarus tigrinus
Littoridinops sp.
Apocorophium sp.
309
278
174
35
33.2
29.9
18.7
3.8
Chironomus deconis
Gammarus tigrinus
Apocorophium sp.
Candonidae sp.
359
145
83
52
46.8
18.9
10.8
6.8
Chironomus stigmaterus
Candonidae sp.
Amphicteis floridus
Tanytarsus sp.
149
92
87
81
28.1
17.4
16.4
15.3
Gammarus tigrinus
Apocorophium sp.
Chironomus deconis
Amphicteis floridus
64
46
36
22
26.4
19
14.9
9.1
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
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 deconis
Macoma balthica
Mediomastus ambiseta
Parachironomus sp.
245
194
179
88
22.5
17.8
16.4
8.1
Chironomus deconis
Apedilum sp.
Parachironomus sp.
Littoridinops tenuipes
415
256
52
28
51.3
31.6
6.4
3.5
Chironomus deconis
Gammarus mucronatus
Apocorophium Iouisianum
Apocorophium sp.
231
140
136
134
22.4
13.6
13.2
13.0
Chironomus deconis
Gammarus mucronatus
Mediomastus ambiseta
Streblospio benedicti
415
270
113
98
%
37.3
24.3
10.2
8.8
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
Dominant Species
Total
%
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 deconis
Streblospio benedicti
Amphicteis floridus
Chironomus stigmatenis
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
18.2
12.3
9.2
III-G-92

Table III-G4 (continued).
-IDominant
O
a'
I-
Z
0 a
�-' lL
Y
W I-
W co
a' 11
lL
~
�
O
a'
I-
Z a
0 ,,,
`--
W-
�Z
C.) O
IL p
I-
-IDominant
0
C'
I-
Z
O a
C.)lL
Y Ct
W CO
Ct fl
U
zChironomus
O
J
-IDominant
0
C'
I-
Z
0 W
U-
ct-
WCO
lL Z
0 Op
Z
0
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 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
2004
2005
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.
1998
284
78
60
30
54.4
14.9
11.5
5.7
Gammarus tigrinus
Amphicteis floridus
p
Cyprideis littoralis
Chironomus decorus
1999
230
191
90
26
36.8
30.6
14.4
4.2
Chironomus decorus
Naididae sp.w/o hair
Gammarus tigrinus
Candonidae sp.
2000
399
179
153
99
34.5
15.5
13.2
8.5
Amphicteis floridus
Gammarus tigrinus
g
Chironomus decorus
Naididae sp. w/o hair
2001
464
306
242
62
35.8
23.6
18.7
4.8
Gammarus tigrinus
Naididae sp.w/o hair
Kiefferulus sp.
Chironomus decorus
2002
255
147
96
90
34.8
20.1
13.1
12.3
Gammarus tigrinus
Cyprideis littoralis
Amphicteis floridus
Bezzia/Palpomyia complex
2003
45
10
9
3
65.2
14.5
13
4.3
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 tenta
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
2004
2005
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
1998
396
396
302
230
20.2
20.2
15.4
11.8
Marenzelleria viridis
Chironomus decorus
Apocorophium sp.
Mediomastus ambiseta
1999
158
109
52
38
33.1
22.8
10.9
8.0
Marenzelleria viridis
Apocorophium lacustre
Apocorophium sp.
Amphicteis floridus
2000
328
166
162
154
26.9
13.6
13.3
12.6
Streblospio benedicti
Mediomastus ambiseta
Gammarus tigrinus
Macoma balthica
2001
361
188
150
55
36.5
19.0
15.2
5.6
Chironomus decorus
Streblospio benedicti
Littoridinops sp.
Gammarus tigrinus
2002
485
62
34
5
80.7
10.3
5.7
0.8
Apocorophium sp.
Streblospio benedicti
Mediomastus ambiseta
Parachironomus sp.
2003
112
41
39
28
31.6
11.6
11
7.9
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.
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
2004
2005
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
sp.
Apocorophium sp.
Gammarus tigrinus
Streblospio benedicti
1998
320
66
49
48
50.6
10.4
7.7
7.6
Marenzelleria viridis
Chironomus decorus
Gammarus tigrinus
Streblospio benedicti
1999
31
22
12
4
36.0
25.6
14.0
4.7
Gammarus tigrinus
Marenzelleria viridis
Littoridinops sp.
Chironomus decorus
2000
209
134
115
109
25.4
16.3
14.0
13.3
Gammarus tigrinus
Streblospio benedicti
Macoma balthica
Gammarus mucronatus
2001
130
74
67
66
23.2
13.2
11.9
11.8
Chironomus decorus
Littoridinops sp.
Gammarus tigrinus
Streblospio benedicti
2002
179
16
15
12
73.1
6.5
6.1
4.9
Apocorophium sp.
Gammarus tigrinus
Gammarus mucronatus
Eteone heteropoda
2003
144
123
32
27
35.9
30.7
8
6.7
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
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
III-G-93

Table III-G4 (continued).
TOOLEY CREEK
TOOLEY CREEK
UPSTREAM
DOWNSTREAM
1998
Dominant Species
Gammarus tigrinus
Amphicteis flondus
Littoridinops tenuipes
Cyprideis littoralis
2007
Dominant Species
not monitored
Total
1999
Dominant Species
Total
2000
Dominant Species
Total
2001
Dominant Species
Total
2002
Dominant Species
Total
2003
Dominant Species
Total
2004
Dominant Species
Total
2005
Dominant Species
Total
118
90
80
78
24.8
18.9
16.8
16.4
Gammarus tigrinus
Nematoda sp.
Amphicteis flondus
Leptocheims plumulosus
206
33
32
13
64.4
10.3
10.0
4.1
Chironomus decorus
Littoridinops tenuipes
Ostracoda sp.
Tanypus neopunctipennis
418
11
7
6
91.1
2.4
1.5
1.3
Gammarus tigrinus
Macoma balthica
Chironomus decorus
Amphicteis flondus
382
226
104
87
40.8
24.1
11.1
9.3
not monitored
not monitored
not monitored
not monitored
Total
2008
Dominant Species
Total
2009
Dominant Species
Total
2010
Dominant Species
Total
2011
Dominant Species
Total
2012
Dominant Species
Total
2013
Dominant Species
Total
2014
Dominant Species
Total
not monitored
not monitored
Chironomus decorus
Macoma tenta
Naididae sp. w/o hair
Tubificoides sp.
48
24
22
11
34.8
17.4
15.9
8.0
Macoma balthica
Chironomus decorus
Apocorophium sp.
Gammarus tigrinus
116
61
41
38
30.3
15.9
10.7
9.9
Chironomus decorus
Naididae sp. w/o hair
Streblospio benedicti
Candonidae sp.
96
15
14
10
61.9
9.7
9.0
6.5
Chironomus decorus
Apocorophium sp.
Amphicteis flondus
Gammarus mucronatus
439
107
105
102
46.7
11.4
11.2
10.8
Naididae sp. w/o hair
Macoma balthica
Chironomus decorus
Gammarus mucronatus
56
41
38
13
24.1
17.7
16.4
5.6
2015
Dominant Species
Chironomus sp.
Apocorophium sp.
Tanytarsus sp.
Littoridinops sp.
1998
Total
2016
Dominant Species
Total
2017
Dominant Species
Total
2018
Dominant Species
Total
2019
Dominant Species
Total
2020
Dominant Species
Total
77 33.2 Marenzelleria viridis
54 23.3 Bezzia/Palpomyia complex
22 9.5 Streblospio benedicti
3 5.6 Eteone heteropoda
1999
26 40.0
6 9.2
6 9.2
5 7.7
Littoridinops sp.
Marenzelleria viridis
Gammarus tigrinus
Chironomus decorus
2000
55 21.8
48 19.0
41 16.3
27 10.7
Macoma balthica
Chironomus decorus
Gammarus tigrinus
Apocorophium sp.
2001
51 25.8
49 24.7
19 9.6
8 9
Chironomus decorus
Amphicteis flondus
Cyprideis littoralis
Apocorophium sp.
2002
136 37.8
42 11.7
34 9.4
33 9.2
Littoridinops tenuipes
Apocorophium sp.
Mediomastus ambiseta
Streblospio benedicti
2003
9 18.0
6 12.0
6 12.0
6 12
2004
2005
Dominant Species
Chironomus decorus
Tubificoides sp.
Gammarus tigrinus
Apocorophium lacustre
2007
Dominant Species
not monitored
Total
366
289
81
57
Dominant Species Total %
Dominant Species Total %
Dominant Species Total %
Dominant Species Total %
Dominant Species Total %
Dominant Species
Total
Dominant Species
Total
39.8
31.4
8.8
6.2
Gammarus tigrinus
Apocorophium lacustre
Amphicteis flondus
Leptocheims plumulosus
70
42
36
28
25.9
15.6
13.3
10.4
Chironomus decorus
Tubificoides sp.
Amphicteis flondus
Rangia cuneata
423
158
68
23
56.9
21.3
9.2
3.1
Macoma balthica
Mediomastus ambiseta
Cyprideis littoralis
Macoma tenta
444
368
47
34
40.8
33.8
4.3
3.1
not monitored
not monitored
not monitored
not monitored
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
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
Macoma tenta
Chironomus decorus
Mediomastus sp.
Cyprideis littoralis
151
103
80
33
29.5
20.1
15.6
6.4
Mediomastus ambiseta
Chironomus decorus
Parachironomus sp.
Apedilum sp.
159
90
40
39
37.9
21.5
9.5
9.3
Mediomastus ambiseta
Chironomus decorus
Streblospio benedicti
Tubificoides sp.
500
353
350
92
35.3
24.9
24.7
6.5
Chironomus decorus
Mediomastus ambiseta
Streblospio benedicti
Apocorophium sp.
457
190
119
20
52.1
21.7
13.6
2.3
Chironomus decorus
Macoma tenta
Mediomastus ambiseta
Macoma balthica
391
268
62
48
48.2
33.0
7.6
5.9
2015
Dominant Species
Total
2016
Dominant Species
Total
2017
Dominant Species
Total
2018
Dominant Species
Total
2019
Dominant Species
Total
2020
Dominant Species
Total
Chironomus sp.
Mediomastus ambiseta
Tubificoides heterochaetus
Streblospio benedicti
1998
Dominant Species
Gammarus tigrinus
Amphicteis flondus
Apocorophium lacustre
Edotia triloba
500
139
114
13
Total
410
301
265
55
50.3
14.0
11.5
1.4
Littoridinops sp.
Macoma tenta
Marenzelleria viridis
Mediomastus ambiseta
1999
89 31.2
78 27.4
27 9.5
22
Rangia cuneata
Marenzelleria viridis
Mediomastus ambiseta
7.7 Tubificoides heterochaetus
Dominant Species Total %
2000
133 19.9
130 19.4
126 18.8
78
Dominant Species Total %
Mediomastus ambiseta
Balanus improvisus
Macoma tenta
Macoma balthica
2001
250 23.7
214 20.3
154 14.6
41
Chironomus decorus
Streblospio benedicti
Mediomastus ambiseta
13.4 Tubificoides heterochaetus
Dominant Species Total %
2002
264 74.4
48 13.5
11 3.1
3.1
Dominant Species Total %
Mediomastus ambiseta
Streblospio benedicti
Macoma tenta
Chironomus decorus
2003
187 68.8
21 7.7
18 6.6
17 6.3
Dominant Species Total %
2004
Dominant Species
Total
2005
Dominant Species
Total
34.4
25.3
22.3
4.6
Amphicteis flondus
Gammarus tigrinus
Nematoda sp.
Littoridinops tenuipes
59
41
13
9
39.6
27.5
8.7
6.0
Chironomus decorus
Procladius sp.
Amphicteis flondus
Ostracoda sp.
446
52
24
6
82.3
9.6
4.4
1.1
Ostracoda sp.
Macoma balthica
Cyprideis littoralis
Chironomus decorus
17
14
7
5
37.0
30.4
15.2
10.9
Chironomus decorus
Apedilum sp.
Littoridinops tenuipes
Streblospio benedicti
41
11
7
6
54.7
14.7
9.3
8.0
Chironomus decorus
Macoma balthica
Goeldichironomus devineyae
Littoridinops tenuipes
41
31
7
6
44.1
33.3
7.5
6.5
Ostracoda sp.
Rangia cuneata
Littoridinops tenuipes
Chironomus decorus
13
13
7
4
28.3
28.3
15.2
8.7
Apocorophium lacustre
Gammarus tigrinus
Chironomus decorus
Macoma balthica
174
164
131
49
26.8
25.2
20.2
7.5
2007
Dominant Species
Chironomus decorus
Streblospio benedicti
Cyprideis littoralis
Tanypus neopunctipennis
2015
Dominant Species
Chironomus sp.
Streblospio benedicti
Amphicteis flondus
Tanypus neopunctipennis
1998
Dominant Species
Tubificoides sp.
Cyprideis littoralis
Mediomastus ambiseta
Apocorophium lacustre
2007
Dominant Species
Chironomus decorus
Macoma balthica
Macoma tenta
Mediomastus ambiseta
2015
Dominant Species
Chironomus sp.
Streblospio benedicti
Naididae sp. w/o hair
Macoma tenta
Total
175
28
26
18
2008
Dominant Species Total %
2009
Dominant Species Total %
2010
Dominant Species Total %
2011
Dominant Species Total %
2012
Dominant Species Total %
2013
Dominant Species
Total
2014
Dominant Species
Total
60.1
9.6
8.9
6.2
Streblospio benedicti
Ostracoda sp.
Chironomus decorus
Macoma balthica
12
6
5
5
32.4
16.2
13.5
13.5
Chironomus decorus
Parachironomus directus
Ostracoda sp.
Macoma balthica
59
22
20
19
30.9
11.5
10.4
9.9
Ostracoda sp.
Chironomus decorus
Littoridinops tenuipes
Apocorophium sp.
48
10
3
2
71.6
14.9
4.5
3.0
Chironomus decorus
Aulodrilus sp.
Streblospio benedicti
Amphicteis flondus
145
54
14
5
62.0
23.1
6.0
2.1
Macoma balthica
Mediomastus ambiseta
Candonidae sp.
Macoma tenta
116
40
23
14
57.1
19.7
11.3
6.9
Chironomus decorus
Candonidae sp.
Streblospio benedicti
Amphicteis flondus
113
17
9
7
70.6
10.6
5.6
4.4
Candonidae sp.
Chironomus decorus
Gammarus mucronatus
Parachironomus sp.
31
9
2
2
63.3
18.4
4.1
4.1
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Total
Dominant Species
Total
Dominant Species
Total
Dominant Species
Total
Dominant Species
Total
Dominant Species
Total
149
35
11
9
Total
229
42
40
Total
65
55
29
13
Total
367
49
40
31
63.4
14.9
4.7
3.8
65.6
12.0
11.5
3.2
33.2
28.1
14.8
6.6
62.0
8.3
6.8
5.2
Chironomus decorus
Streblospio benedicti
Gammarus tigrinus
Marenzelleria
1999
Dominant Species
Gammarus tigrinus
Mediomastus ambiseta
Chironomus decorus
Amphicteis flondus
2008
Dominant Species
Apedilum sp.
Chironomus decorus
Polydora comuta
Littoridinops sp.
2016
Dominant Species
Chironomus decorus
Marenzelleria viridis
Macoma tenta
Macoma balthica
100 33.2
72 23.9
50 16.6
Total
67
37
23
19
Total
29
28
16
6
Total
162
46
30
25
0
25.5
14.1
8.7
7.2
31.9
30.8
17.6
6.6
53.3
15.1
9.9
8.2
Apocorophium sp.
Gammarus tigrinus
Eteone heteropoda
Candonidae sp
2000
Dominant Species
Chironomus decorus
Amphicteis flondus
Procladius sp.
Chironomus plumulosus
2009
Dominant Species
Chironomus decorus
Polydora comuta
Macoma balthica
Streblospio benedicti
2017
Dominant Species
Marenzelleria viridis
Gammarus tigrinus
Streblospio benedicti
Apocorophium sp.
100 35.2
42 14.8
28 9.9
22
Total
469
60
36
32
Total
92
76
58
33
Total
83
33
16
15
73.6
9.4
5.7
5.0
22.0
18.2
13.9
7.9
40.1
15.9
7.7
7.2
Chironomus decorus
Candonidae sp.
Gammarus tigrinus
Littoridinops sp.
2001
Dominant Species
Macoma balthica
Mediomastus ambiseta
Chironomus decorus
Cyprideis littoralis
2010
Dominant Species
Chironomus decorus
Macoma tenta
Macoma balthica
Cyprideis littoralis
2018
Dominant Species
Gammarus tigrinus
Macoma balthica
Apocorophium sp.
Gammarus mucronatus
85 28.1
80 26.5
51 16.9
28 9.3
Total
160
135
44
42
Total
61
34
11
9
Total
118
77
66
59
29.1
24.6
8.0
7.7
43.9
24.4
7.9
6.5
23.6
15.4
13.2
11.8
Candonidae sp.
Chironomus decorus
Tanypus neopunctipennis
Littoridinops sp
2002
Dominant Species
Macoma balthica
Mediomastus ambiseta
Chironomus decorus
Apedilum sp.
2011
Dominant Species
Macoma balthica
Chironomus decorus
Mediomastus ambiseta
Streblospio benedicti
2019
Dominant Species
Chironomus decorus
Streblospio benedicti
Littoridinops sp.
Conxidae sp.
125 56.8
86 39.1
4 1.8
Total
153
73
38
34
Total
415
292
18
83
Total
356
22
18
17
0.9
38.3
18.3
9.5
8.5
31.0
21.8
13.7
6.2
77.9
4.8
3.9
3.7
Candonidae sp.
Apocorophium sp.
Streblospio benedicti
Eteone heteropoda
2003
Dominant Species
Macoma balthica
Chironomus decorus
Streblospio benedicti
Macoma tenta
2012
Dominant Species
Chironomus decorus
Macoma balthica
Mediomastus ambiseta
Macoma tenta
2020
Dominant Species
Gammarus tigrinus
Eteone heteropoda
Littoridinops tenuipes
Edotia montosa
97 48.7
58 29.1
10 5.0
8 4.0
Total
309
55
55
6
Total
116
83
78
38
Total
21
6
6
4
70.1
12.5
12.5
1.4
28.2
20.1
18.9
9.2
34.4
9.8
9.8
6.6
2004
Dominant Species
Amphicteis flondus
Chironomus decorus
Littoridinops tenuipes
Macoma balthica
2013
Dominant Species
Gammarus mucronatus
Chironomus decorus
Parachironomus sp.
Gammarus tigrinus
Total
60
54
33
32
Total
53
31
11
10
18.4
16.6
10.1
9.8
40.8
23.8
8.5
7.7
2005
Dominant Species
Chironomus decorus
Streblospio benedicti
Cyprideis littoralis
Mediomastus ambiseta
2014
Dominant Species
Chironomus decorus
Macoma tenta
Streblospio benedicti
Polydora comuta
Total
153
89
34
25
Total
419
18
14
11
41.2
24.0
9.2
6.7
76.3
3.3
2.6
2.0

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.
120
62
46.9
24.2
Cyprideis littoralis
Laeonereis culveri
9
6
19.6
13.0
Amphicteis floridus
Laeonereis culveri
68
41
22.7
13.7
not monitored
-
-
-
-
-
not monitored
-
-
-
-
-
not monitored
-
-
-
-
-
not monitored
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Gammarus tigrinus
20
7.8
Naididae sp.
5
10.9
Tanytarsus sp. 1
40
13.3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Bezzia/Palpomyia complex
18
7.0
Chironomus decorus
5
10.9
Naididae sp.
33
11.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
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
Cyprideis littoralis
77
64.7
Chironomus decorus
104
52.0
Chironomus decorus
77
52.4
Chironomus decorus
137
91.3
Cyprideis littoralis
54
32.5
Heteromastus filiformis
182
49.2
Heteromastus filiformis
144
45.0
Macoma tenta
120
23.6
Laeonereis culveri
7
5.9
Cyprideis littoralis
38
19.0
Cyprideis littoralis
28
19.0
Apocorophium sp.
12
8.0
Heteromastus filiformis
50
30.1
Cyprideis littoralis
52
14.1
Chironomus decorus
47
14.7
Chironomus decorus
91
17.9
Amphicteis floridus
6
5.0
Laeonereis culveri
10
5.0
Goeldichironomus devineyae
14
9.5
Glyptotendipes sp.
1
0.7
Macoma tenta
23
13.9
Neanthes succinea
36
9.7
Naididae sp. w/o hair
28
8.8
Naididae sp. w/o hair
50
9.8
Apocorophium Iacustre
5
4.2
Amphicteis floridus
8
4.0
Heteromastus filiformis
7
4.8
-
-
-
Bezzia/Palpomyia complex
15
9.0
Mediomastus amhiseta
20
5.4
Neanthes succinea
26
8.1
Gammarus tigrinus
50
9.8
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
Tanytarsus sp.
19
19.6
Tubificoides heterochaetus
251
42.1
Cyprideis littoralis
146
49.0
Balanus improvisus
150
39.7
Chironomus decorus
379
70.6
Mediomastus amhiseta
105
44.7
Amphicteis floridus
12
12.4
Tanytarsus sp.
81
13.6
Chironomus decorus
39
13.1
Neanthes succinea
50
13.2
Tanypus neopunctipennis
57
10.6
Heteromastus filiformis
55
23.4
Macoma tenta
11
11.3
Amphicteis floridus
54
9.1
Laeonereis culveri
24
8.1
Heteromastus filiformis
35
9.3
Littoridinops sp.
39
7.3
Neanthes succinea
22
9.4
Bezzia/Palpomyia complex
9
9.3
Calanoida sp.
43
7.2
Macoma tenta
19
6.4
Macoma tenta
19
5.0
Cyprideis littoralis
38
7.1
Macoma tenta
11
4.7
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
91
33.5
Chironomus decorus
463
35.9
Mediomastus amhiseta
144
28.7
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
not monitored
-
-
-
-
-
Amphicteis floridus
24
8.8
Amphicteis floridus
440
34.1
Macoma halthica
106
21.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Macoma tenta
22
8.1
Marenzelleria viridis
111
8.6
Amphicteis floridus
34
6.8
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Gammanis tigrinus
20
7.4
Polydora cornuta
71
5.5
Macoma tenta
28
5.6
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
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
356
55.1
Nematoda sp.
220
44.3
Naididae sp.
116
52.7
Marenzelleria viridis
208
66.7
Nematoda sp.
416
32.8
Chironomus decorus
89
17.7
Streblospio benedicti
412
20.9
Nematoda sp.
500
45.0
Gammanis tigrinus
134
20.7
Laeonereis culveri
72
14.5
Nematoda sp.
64
29.1
Chironomus decorus
28
9.0
Turhellaria sp.
288
22.7
Streblospio benedicti
80
15.9
Mediomastus amhiseta
328
16.6
Grania sp.
252
22.7
Streblospio benedicti
36
5.6
Polydora cornuta
60
12.1
Neanthes succinea
8
3.6
Laeonereis culveri
17
5.4
Marenzelleria viridis
147
11.6
Heteromastus filifomiis
74
14.7
Naididae sp. w/o hair
226
11.5
Lepidactylus dytiscus
96
8.6
Littoridinops tenuipes
30
4.6
Naididae sp.
27
5.4
Macoma tenta
6
2.7
Nemertea sp.
10
3.2
Heteromastus filiformis
78
6.2
Eteone heteropoda
63
12.5
Gammanis tigrinus
196
10.0
Marenzelleria viridis
92
8.3
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
Nematoda sp.
500
50.2
Nematoda sp.
124
18.3
Chironomus decorus
462
49.8
Marenzelleria viridis
475
59.8
Naididae sp. w/o hair
60
55.6
Lepidactylus dytiscus
34
29.8
Aulodrilus limnobius
276
27.7
Chironomus decorus
97
14.3
Cyprideis littoralis
131
14.1
Haustorius sp.
62
7.8
Marenzelleria viridis
12
11.1
Heteromastus filifomiis
18
15.8
Ostracoda sp.
124
12.4
Marenzelleria viridis
97
14.3
Amphicteis floridus
120
12.9
Lepidactylus dytiscus
42
5.3
Chironomus decorus
9
8.3
Neanthes succinea
18
15.8
Lepidactylus dytiscus
84
8.4
Cyprideis littoralis
66
9.8
Rangia cuneata
55
5.9
Naididae sp. w/o hair
40
5.0
Neanthes succinea
9
8.3
Eteone heteropoda
14
12.3
PORTER CREEK PORTER CREEK
DOWNSTREAM 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
-
-
Amphicteis floridus
379
29.4
Tanytarsus sp.
448
20.8
Apocorophium sp.
109
34.4
Amphicteis floridus
333
29.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Apocorophium sp.
283
22.0
Littoridinops tenuipes
416
19.3
Gammanis tigrinus
81
25.6
Streblospio benedicti
256
22.3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Gammanis tigrinus
205
15.9
Cyprideis littoralis
300
13.9
Apocorophium Iouisianum
44
13.9
Tanytarsus sp.
205
17.8
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Streblospio benedicti
180
14.0
Amphicteis floridus
260
12.1
Streblospio benedicti
32
10.1
Gammanis tigrinus
122
10.6
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
Amphicteis floridus
484
56.7
Amphicteis floridus
500
40.3
Amphicteis floridus
500
37.5
Gammanis tigrinus
400
57.6
Gammanis tigrinus
176
39.7
Gammanis tigrinus
172
36.4
Gammanis tigrinus
183
21.5
Cyprideies littoralis
281
22.7
Gammanis tigrinus
317
23.7
Streblospio benedicti
78
11.2
Chironomus decorus
78
17.6
Apocorophium sp.
130
27.5
Apocorophium sp.
54
6.3
Gammanis tigrinus
249
20.1
Cyprideis littoralis
236
17.7
Littoridinops sp.
64
9.2
Littoridinops sp.
42
9.5
Apocorophium Iouisianum
78
16.5
Mytilopsis Ieucophaeata
29
3.4
Littoridinops sp.
45
3.6
Littoridinops sp.
149
11.2
Apocorophium Iacustre
32
4.6
Dero sp.
26
5.9
Candonidae sp.
22
4.7
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 halthica
308
52.3
Mediomastus amhiseta
42
34.1
Streblospio benedicti
109
38.1
Chironomus decorus
197
46.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Marenzelleria viridis
207
35.1
Macoma tenta
28
22.8
Chironomus decorus
85
29.7
Tanypus neopunctipennis
63
14.8
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Mediomastus amhiseta
16
2.7
Macoma halthica
20
16.3
Mediomastus amhiseta
23
8.0
Macoma tenta
58
13.6
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Eteone heteropoda
14
2.3
Streblospio benedicti
18
14.6
Macoma halthica
14
4.9
Macoma halthica
34
8.0
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
Chironomus sp.
500
79.6
Chironomus decorus
102
26.7
Chironomus decorus
184
24.8
Mediomastus amhiseta
212
32.2
Chironomus decorus
406
83.0
Mediomastus amhiseta
399
75.0
Streblospio benedicti
79
12.6
Marenzelleria viridis
96
25.1
Amphicteis floridus
170
22.9
Macoma tenta
111
16.9
Gammanis tigrinus
36
7.4
Streblospio benedicti
41
7.7
Amphicteis floridus
12
1.9
Macoma tenta
65
17.0
Streblospio benedicti
150
20.2
Marenzelleria viridis
84
12.8
Littoridinops sp.
23
4.7
Gammanis tigrinus
26
4.9
Gammanis tigrinus
12
1.9
Gammanis tigrinus
31
8.1
Marenzelleria viridis
75
10.1
Macoma halthica
83
12.6
Procladius sp.
8
1.6
Chironomus decorus
11
2.1
III-G-95

Table III-G4 (continued).
anot
.-lL
ct
M H
0 d
aDominant
W
•- Ct
M
0 Z
In
O
Cl
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
%
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
2004
2005
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.
1998
464
111
63
42
65.1
15.6
8.8
5.9
Cyprideis littoralis
Gammarus tigrinus
Amphicteis floridus
Littoridinops sp.
1999
407
263
224
190
28.6
18.5
15.8
13.4
Gammarus tigrinus
Cyprideis littoralis
Littoridinops sp.
Amphicteis floridus
2000
298
68
28
26
66.8
15.2
6.3
5.8
Gammarus tigrinus
Amphicteis floridus
Cyprideis littoralis
Littoridinops sp.
2001
356
148
107
81
45.4
18.9
13.6
10.3
Gammarus tigrinus
Amphicteis floridus
Candonidae sp.
Dicrotendipes nervosus
2002
134
95
88
73
21.9
15.5
14.4
11.9
Gammarus tigrinus
Littoridinops tenuipes
Apocorophium sp.
Cyprideis littoralis
2003
396
389
236
118
25.8
25.3
15.4
7.7
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
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
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
Marenzelleria 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
CtDominant
Z Q
0 lL
() Ct
(/)
x- 11
I- M
M
UCl
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
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
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
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
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
III-G-96

Table III-G4 (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
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Amphicteis fioridus
Littoridinops tenuipes
Gammarus tigrinus
Dicrotendipes nervosus
436
416
308
152
23.4
22.3
16.5
8.2
Candonidae sp.
Chironomus deconis
Tanytarsus sp.
Littoridinops tenuipes
500
484
332
276
26.2
25.4
17.4
14.5
Nematoda sp.
Candonidae sp.
Amphicteis fioridus
Littoridinops tenuipes
293
227
193
147
25.3
19.6
16.6
12.7
Amphicteis fioridus
Chironomus decorus
Gammarus tigrinus
Littoridinops tenuipes
500
500
221
191
25.7
25.7
11.4
9.8
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Amphicteis fioridus
Gammarus tigrinus
Candonidae sp.
Chironomus sp.
199
115
54
44
33.2
19.2
9.0
7.3
Gammarus tigrinus
Amphicteis fioridus
Candonidae sp.
Cyprideis Iittoralis
386
247
221
126
29.5
18.9
16.9
9.6
Amphicteis fioridus
Candonidae sp.
Gammarus tigrinus
Naididae sp. w/o hair
254
74
70
64
43.8
12.8
12.1
11.0
Cyprideis Iittoralis
Candonidae sp.
Gammarus tigrinus
Littoridinops sp.
126
95
55
51
34.5
26.0
15.1
14.0
Candonidae sp.
Gammarus tigrinus
Naididae sp. w/o hair
Tanytarsus sp.
71
58
26
15
33.6
27.5
12.3
7.1
Amphicteis fioridus
Gammarus tigrinus
Cyprideis Iittoralis
Candonidae sp.
126
28
22
20
59.4
13.2
10.4
9.4
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 baithica
Marenzelleria viridis
Mediomastus ambiseta
Chironomus decorus
456
338
166
81
37.8
28.0
13.8
6.7
Mediomastus ambiseta
Chironomus decorus
Macoma baithica
Parachironomus sp.
398
167
49
23
54.5
22.9
6.7
3.2
Gammanis mucronatus
Macoma baithica
Gammanis tigrinus
Chironomus decorus
123
72
70
47
28.1
16.5
16.0
10.8
Chironomus decorus
Streblospio benedicti
Littoridinops tenuipes
Macoma tenta
500
56
15
13
79.0
8.8
2.4
2.1
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Dominant Species
Total
%
Chironomus sp.
Tanytarsus sp.
Tanypus neopunctipennis
Streblospio benedicti
489
30
29
14
82.2
5.0
4.9
2.4
Gammarus tigrinus
Leptocheirus plumulosus
Coeiotanypus sp.
Macoma tenta
35
35
14
12
23.8
23.8
9.5
8.2
Amphicteis fioridus
Procladius sp.
Tubificoides heterochaetus
Apocorophium sp.
244
55
54
42
40.6
9.2
9.0
7.0
Gammarus tigrinus
Chironomus deconis
Mediomastus ambiseta
Balanus improvisus
384
156
104
101
38.5
15.6
10.4
10.1
Procladius sp.
Cyprideis Iittoralis
Chironomus decorus
Tanypus neopunctipennis
293
219
172
44
35.3
26.4
20.7
5.3
Mediomastus ambiseta
Streblospio benedicti
Chironomus deconis
Gammanis tigrinus
331
54
17
11
74.4
12.1
3.8
2.5
III-G-97

Table III-G5. Benthic macroinvertebrate community structure data for ponar grab samples collected at upstream and downstream stations in May of Mod Alt L sample years 1998-2005 and 2007-2020. Pre -
Mod Alt L: Broomfield Swamp Creek (2019-2020), 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 (2015-2020), Jacobs Creek (2014-2020), Drinkwater Creek (2013-2020), Tooley Creek (2012-
2020), Huddles Cut (2010-2020), Porter Creek (2016-2020), and DCUT11 (2018-2020). Control creeks: SCUT1 (2019-2020), PA2, Long, Little, and Duck creeks (2011-2020), Muddy Creek (1998-2005 and
2007-2020), and DCUT19 (2013-2020). 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.
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
JACOBS CREEK JACKS CREEK SCUT 1 (CONTROL) BROOMFIELD SWAMP CREEK
Total abundance
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
- - - -
-
- -
-
-
-
-
347
87
Total taxa
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
- - - -
-
- -
-
-
-
-
11
5
D
Total taxa with sensitivity values
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
- - - -
-
- -
-
-
-
-
9
5
Shannon -Wiener Index
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
- - - -
-
- -
-
-
-
-
1.75
1.21
EBIa
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
- - - -
-
- -
-
-
-
-
1.04
1.22
Total abundance
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
- - - -
-
- -
-
-
-
-
356
144
Total taxa
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
- - - -
-
- -
-
-
-
-
14
10
oTotal
taxa with sensitivity values
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
- - - -
-
- -
-
-
-
-
10
10
Shannon -Wiener Index
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
- - - -
-
- -
-
-
-
-
1.30
1.16
EBIa
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
- - - -
-
- -
-
-
-
-
1.02
1.91
Total abundance
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
- - - -
-
- -
-
-
-
-
509
334
Total taxa
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
- - - -
-
- -
-
-
-
-
18
7
D
Total taxa with sensitivity values
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
- - - -
-
- -
-
-
-
-
14
6
Shannon -Wiener Index
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
- - - -
-
- -
-
-
-
-
1.72
0.99
EBIa
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
- - - -
-
- -
-
-
-
-
1.23
1.74
Total abundance
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
- - - -
-
- -
-
-
-
-
219
92
Total taxa
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
- - - -
-
- -
-
-
-
-
16
8
oTotal
taxa with sensitivity values
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
- - - -
-
- -
-
-
-
-
11
6
Shannon -Wiener Index
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
- - - -
-
- -
-
-
-
-
2.13
1.74
EBIa
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
- - - -
-
- -
-
-
-
-
1.25
1.77
Total abundance
215
515
1,121
1,356
295
615
549
463 -
- - - 549
255
389 940
353
90
549
636
123
142
Totaltaxa
19
8
19
17
13
17
30
18 -
- - - 19
5
13 24
18
14
19
24
15
12
D
Total taxa with sensitivity values
17
5
16
13
12
14
26
15 -
- - - 17
4
11 20
16
12
17
22
12
9
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
EBIa
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
Total abundance
221
274
314
398
1246
1639
719
1013 -
- - - 1090
203
427 183
831
315
372
436
192
473
Totaltaxa
18
17
11
16
18
15
22
18 -
- - - 23
15
19 23
25
15
18
14
10
19
o
Total taxa with sensitivity values
16
15
11
15
17
14
21
17 -
- - - 22
11
17 21
21
14
16
14
8
16
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
EBIa
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
Total abundance
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
- - - 395
678
1,277
559
1,163
59
990
493
341
170
Totaltaxa
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
- - - 18
18
18
15
23
16
22
19
15
21
D
Total taxa with sensitivity values
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
- - - 17
17
13
13
18
14
19
16
11
19
Shannon -Wiener Index
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
- - - 2.10
1.92
1.98
1.89
2.14
2.42
2.15
2.09
1.92
2.48
EBIa
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
- - - 1.66
2.22
2.27
1.35
2.00
2.00
1.91
1.71
1.40
1.78
Total abundance
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
- - - 628
608
592
309
679
213
877
708
616
370
Totaltaxa
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
- - - 24
12
22
18
23
21
21
19
14
18
oTotal
taxa with sensitivity values
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
- - - 21
11
19
16
21
21
19
17
11
18
Shannon -Wiener Index
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
- - - 2.1
1.58
1.78
1.77
1.55
1.87
2.07
2.06
0.90
1.88
EBIa
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
- - - 1.58
2.17
1.57
1.47
1.43
2.27
2.02
1.68
1.30
2.02
III-G-98

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
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
Total abundance
- - - - - - - - - - - - 439
776
450
174
783
970
1217
1392
666
137
Total taxa
- - - - - - - - - - - - 19
12
16
11
27
23
27
25
18
18
oTotal
taxa with sensitivity values
- - - - - - - - - - - - 16
10
14
11
24
22
25
24
15
16
Shannon -Wiener Index
- - - - - - - - - - - - 2.31
1.15
1.84
1.71
2.35
2.16
1.88
2.46
1.46
1.95
E Bla
- - - - - - - - - - - - 1.80
2.39
2.82
1.49
1.89
2.06
1.99
1.65
1.38
2.04
Total abundance
- - - - - - - - - - - - 1,236
1,267
829
973
265
363
930
767
530
242
Total taxa
- - - - - - - - - - - - 21
22
23
22
22
17
19
18
11
15
D
Total taxa with sensitivity values
- - - - - - - - - - - - 19
19
21
20
19
16
16
17
9
15
Shannon -Wiener Index
- - - - - - - - - - - - 2.32
2.08
1.58
2.32
2.27
1.87
1.80
1.75
1.97
2.14
E Bla
- - - - - - - - - - - - 1.88
1.70
1.64
1.59
1.71
2.10
1.95
1.68
1.76
1.80
Total abundance
- - - - - - - - - - - - 1089
810
1140
1113
161
354
483
1138
673
390
Total taxa
- - - - - - - - - - - - 21
16
22
19
13
17
17
23
16
23
oTotal
taxa with sensitivity values
- - - - - - - - - - - - 20
14
20
16
12
15
16
22
12
22
Shannon -Wiener Index
- - - - - - - - - - - - 2.33
1.34
2.46
1.85
2.18
1.45
2.00
2.43
1.03
2.38
E B la
- - - - - - - - - - - - 1.68
2.22
1.86
1.68
1.57
2.23
2.03
1.67
1.16
1.84
Total abundance
- - - - - - - - - - - - 610
1,394
1,865
366
522
625
1,158
1,297
732
69
Total taxa
- - - - - - - - - - - - 15
11
23
11
12
17
18
19
16
6
D
Total taxa with sensitivity values
- - - - - - - - - - - - 14
9
18
9
11
14
15
16
13
4
Shannon -Wiener Index
- - - - - - - - - - - - 1.23
1.65
2.27
1.94
1.51
1.74
2.11
1.85
1.95
1.08
E Bla
- - - - - - - - - - - - 1.95
1.78
1.71
1.45
1.75
1.88
1.38
1.64
1.49
2.00
Total abundance
- - - - - - - - - - - - 619
533
2023
889
2018
478
1219
988
601
354
Total taxa
- - - - - - - - - - - - 22
16
28
19
25
18
20
25
11
17
oTotal
taxa with sensitivity values
- - - - - - - - - - - - 21
15
25
18
22
17
18
23
10
15
Shannon -Wiener Index
- - - - - - - - - - - - 2.01
1.39
2.34
1.81
2.40
2.08
2.24
2.07
0.75
2.27
E Bla
- - - - - - - - - - - - 1.98
1.84
1.71
1.36
1.68
1.84
1.90
1.72
1.24
1.90
Total abundance
- - - - - - - - - - - - 503
376
941
719
633
86
822
561
245
401
Total taxa
- - - - - - - - - - - - 18
14
22
25
19
12
25
32
10
19
D
Total taxa with sensitivity values
- - - - - - - - - - - - 17
12
20
22
16
11
21
28
9
18
Shannon -Wiener Index
- - - - - - - - - - - - 2.04
1.49
1.65
1.57
1.91
1.87
2.27
2.56
1.11
1.84
E Bla
- - - - - - - - - - - - 2.31
1.36
1.89
1.49
1.45
2.05
1.90
1.79
1.22
2.04
Total abundance
- - - - - - - - - - - - 216
769
363
273
941
176
296
351
532
70
Total taxa
- - - - - - - - - - - - 11
15
16
14
14
14
17
22
16
9
o
Total taxa with sensitivity values
- - - - - - - - - - - - 10
12
15
13
12
12
16
21
15
9
Shannon -Wiener Index
- - - - - - - - - - - - 1.25
1.26
1.71
1.29
1.52
2.12
2.03
2.66
0.94
1.67
E B la
- - - - - - - - - - - - 1.76
1.72
1.44
1.29
1.27
1.66
2.03
1.85
1.28
1.74
III-G-99

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
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
Totaltaxa
17
13
11
24
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
13
19
11
21
23
19
13
19
18
16
12
D
Totaltaxa with sensitivity values
16
10
10
23
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
10
18
10
19
21
16
12
16
16
15
11
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
E Bla
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
Total abundance
919
270
743
1,088
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
511
416
1,415
877
812
995
285
669
1,056
355
272
Totaltaxa
20
18
11
25
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
18
18
17
24
16
20
16
23
22
14
16
o
Totaltaxa with sensitivity values
19
15
9
24
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
16
17
16
22
14
19
15
22
20
13
15
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
E Bla
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
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
Totaltaxa
21
12
9
6
11
8
11
20
11
9
19
7
12
7
10
8
13
16
15
12
7
12
D
Totaltaxa 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
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
E Bla
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
Total abundance
349
263
637
556
400
442
326
371
196
91
418
139
1329
412
162
549
592
304
207
500
457
61
Totaltaxa
15
17
16
25
18
12
21
16
15
12
26
17
24
19
16
19
20
15
19
20
15
15
o
Totaltaxa 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
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
E Bla
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
Total abundance
-
256
46
300
-
-
-
-
119
200
147
150
166
370
325
509
97
596
298
378
537
235
Totaltaxa
-
17
10
20
-
-
-
-
18
13
15
3
15
14
15
22
17
23
21
25
11
17
D
Totaltaxa with sensitivity values
-
13
9
18
-
-
-
-
15
12
11
3
14
13
13
20
15
18
19
24
9
16
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
E Bla
-
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
Total abundance
-
272
1291
502
-
-
-
-
646
500
220
312
1268
530
1980
1112
996
676
928
794
108
114
Totaltaxa
-
19
23
24
-
-
-
-
19
13
11
17
21
19
20
19
7
22
24
18
8
11
o
Totaltaxa with sensitivity values
-
17
19
19
-
-
-
-
17
11
10
15
17
18
17
15
4
19
21
15
8
11
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
E Bla
-
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
Total abundance
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1,387
2,136
317
1,150
847
1,240
1,335
695
443
472
Totaltaxa
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
22
20
15
21
18
16
18
15
21
14
D
Totaltaxa with sensitivity values
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
20
17
14
18
13
12
14
13
17
12
Shannon -Wiener Index
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2.14
2.30
1.84
2.01
1.53
1.73
1.74
1.61
2.08
1.76
E Bla
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.86
1.84
1.91
1.80
1.96
1.90
1.91
1.87
1.68
2.06
Total abundance
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
589
123
287
425
628
382
743
658
489
532
Totaltaxa
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
12
10
19
11
11
16
14
16
12
17
oTotaltaxa
with sensitivity values
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
12
9
17
11
10
14
13
15
11
14
Shannon -Wiener Index
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.23
1.72
1.87
1.62
0.79
2.00
2.03
2.00
0.72
1.10
E Bla
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.94
1.76
1.26
1.33
1.2
1.6
1.55
1.89
1.31
1.79
III-G-100

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
Total abundance
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
1,423
2,192
713
1,422
446
784
611
1,535
Total taxa
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
19
21
18
21
12
18
22
18
D
Total taxa with sensitivity values
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
15
16
14
15
9
16
17
15
Shannon -Wiener Index
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
1.83
2.08
1.20
2.12
1.17
1.71
2.42
2.01
EBIa
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
2.01
1.88
1.88
1.84
2.00
1.95
1.80
1.99
D
Total abundance
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
878
1575
1099
248
1188
1548
542
2105
U
0
Total taxa
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
14
28
22
17
18
20
15
16
oTotal
taxa with sensitivity values
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
11
25
17
14
14
18
13
15
Shannon -Wiener Index
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
1.31
2.19
1.88
1.54
1.52
1.78
1.55
1.96
DUCK CREEK (CONTROL) DCUT19 (CONTROL)
EBIa
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
2.07
1.67
1.71
2.02
1.95
2.05
1.95
1.87
Total abundance
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
850
1,153
170
1,169
1,124
630
796
402
Total taxa
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
21
17
13
19
18
13
15
20
D
Total taxa with sensitivity values
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
19
14
10
15
13
11
11
19
Shannon -Wiener Index
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
2.49
1.95
2.19
2.11
2.32
1.67
1.78
2.23
EBIa
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
1.71
1.73
1.88
1.98
1.96
2.12
2.03
2.00
Total abundance
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
1388
1446
2007
935
2641
636
953
1672
Total taxa
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
20
24
27
21
24
17
13
25
oTotal
taxa with sensitivity values
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
18
23
23
18
19
15
11
23
Shannon -Wiener Index
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
1.88
2.01
2.74
1.84
2.52
1.25
1.69
1.98
EBIa
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
1.78
1.71
1.75
2.03
1.71
1.86
1.73
1.88
Total abundance
- - - - - - - - - - - - 1,865
1,908
1,173
1,944
600
1,307
580
365
211
212
Totaltaxa
- - - - - - - - - - - - 17
15
19
15
16
19
11
8
15
9
D
Total taxa with sensitivity values
- - - - - - - - - - - - 15
12
14
12
11
15
8
6
12
7
Shannon -Wiener Index
- - - - - - - - - - - - 2.20
1.93
2.14
2.09
2.17
2.15
1.75
1.63
1.94
1.34
EBIa
- - - - - - - - - - - - 1.76
1.73
1.85
1.54
1.86
1.77
1.83
1.95
1.64
2.01
Total abundance
- - - - - - - - - - - - 1206
730
438
633
595
147
601
998
829
445
Totaltaxa
- - - - - - - - - - - - 19
18
20
16
16
16
25
21
11
15
oTotal
taxa with sensitivity values
- - - - - - - - - - - - 19
17
18
15
13
14
22
20
8
13
Shannon -Wiener Index
- - - - - - - - - - - - 1.77
1.52
2.19
0.94
0.83
2.20
2.19
2.08
1.65
1.04
EBIa
- - - - - - - - - - - - 1.91
1.55
1.87
1.27
1.32
2.25
1.73
1.74
1.31
1.77
III-G-101

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).
Annual Ranges All Creeks(upstream): 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Total abundance 215-1,191 149-515 46-1,121 51-1,356 75-295 114-615 46-549 463-616 119-291 35-200 147-191 67-150 166-1,865 155 -2,136 160-1,865 49-2,192 97-1,163 59-1,422 252-1,335 198-1,297 123-796 50-1,535
Total taxa 17-21 8-17 9-19 6-24 11-13 8-17 11-30 18-20 11-18 9-13 15-19 3-13 12-22 5-22 10-23 8-25 12-23 12-23 11-25 8-32 7-22 5-21
Shannon -Weiner ponar grabs 1.77 - 2.14 0.72 - 1.77 0.49 - 2.27 1.47 - 2.41 1.26 - 1.57 0.97 -1.54 1.93 - 2.22 2.01 1.48 - 1.56 1.59 - 1.86 1.61 - 2.37 0.32 - 2.04 1.21 - 2.33 0.78 - 2.30 1.14 - 2.49 1.23 - 2.47 1.20 - 2.52 1.23 - 2.42 1.17 - 2.39 1.61 - 2.56 0.88 - 2.42 0.99-2.48
EBI ponar grabs 1.85 - 2.09 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
Annual Ranges All Creeks (downstream):
Total abundance 221-919 263 - 274 314 - 1,291 398 - 1,088 400 - 1,246 442 - 1,639 326 - 719 371 - 1,013 196 - 646 91 - 500 220 - 418 139 - 511 216 - 1,329 123 - 1,415 162 - 2,023 174 - 1,575 161 - 2,018 147 - 970 207 - 2,641 351 - 1,548 108 - 953 61-2,105
Total taxa 15-20 17-19 11-23 16-25 18 12-15 21-22 16-18 15-19 12-13 11-26 17-18 11-24 10-19 14-28 11-28 7-27 14-23 14-27 14-25 8-18 8-25
Shannon -Weiner ponar grabs 1.25 - 2.27 2.07 - 2.45 1.08 - 1.80 1.75 - 2.40 1.64 - 2.03 1.03 - 1.55 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 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
EBI ponar grabs 1.40 - 1.45 1.62 - 2.13 1.19 - 1.81 1.71 - 1.95 1.57 - 1.87 1.39 - 1.56 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 1.27 - 2.03 1.20 - 3.08 1.53 - 2.33 1.53 - 2.10 1.65 - 2.15 1.02 - 1.95 1.74-2.44
Annual Averages All Creeks (upstream):
Total abundance 627 310 543 661 185 365 298 540 205 118 169 118 736 848 839 853 492 606 705 586 440 328
Total taxa 19 13 12 17 12 13 21 19 15 11 17 8 18 13 18 18 17 17 18 18 15 13
Shannon -Weiner ponar grabs 1.98 1.38 1.35 1.42 1.42 1.26 2.08 2.01 1.52 1.73 1.99 1.13 1.99 1.61 1.84 1.99 1.89 1.95 1.97 1.95 1.76 1.79
EBI ponar grabs 2.00 2.00 1.37 1.62 1.70 1.41 1.56 1.64 1.39 1.22 1.46 1.25 1.77 1.66 1.80 1.60 1.73 1.86 1.86 1.76 1.47 1.86
Annual Averages All Creeks (downstream):
Total abundance 496 270 746 636 823 1,041 523 692 421 296 319 321 808 618 847 584 948 422 880 862 506 482
Total taxa 18 18 15 23 18 14 22 17 17 13 19 17 19 15 20 17 19 18 21 20 14 16
Shannon -Weiner ponar grabs 1.73 2.31 1.38 2.10 1.84 1.29 2.36 1.70 1.71 1.82 1.96 1.80 1.96 1.58 1.93 1.69 1.75 1.92 2.05 2.07 1.24 1.76
EBI ponar grabs 1.42 1.91 1.38 1.79 1.72 1.48 1.68 1.27 1.52 1.65 1.29 1.82 1.78 1.75 1.73 1.51 1.62 1.96 1.87 1.85 1.33 1.91
III-G-102

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
"2 = 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
"2 = 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
-
-
227 (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)
227 (u)
-
-
2000
-
-
1.77 (d)
-
-
-
-
-
1.90 (d)
1.94 (d)
220 (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)
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
2.03 (d)
-
-
-
-
2002
-
-
1.93 (d)
-
-
-
-
-
-
2.42 (d)
-
-
-
-
-
2003
-
-
1.55 (d)
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
1.54 (u)
-
-
-
-
2003
-
-
2.04 (d)
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.88 (d)
-
-
-
-
-
2004
-
-
2.22 (u)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2.54 (d)
-
-
-
-
2004
-
-
2.19 (d)
-
-
-
-
-
-
2.05 (d)
-
-
-
-
-
2005
-
-
2.01 (u)
-
-
-
-
-
2.01 (u)
-
-
-
-
2005
-
-
2.05 (d)
-
-
-
-
-
-
2.01 (u)
-
-
-
-
-
2007
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.88 (d)
1.86 (u)
2.52 (d)
1.81 (d)
1.56 (u)
-
-
-
-
2007
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.95 (d)
2.07 (u)
-
-
-
-
2008
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.88 (d)
-
-
-
-
2008
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
218 (d)
2.11 (u)
-
-
-
-
2009
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.61 (h_
-
-
-
-
2009
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.99 (d)
222 (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)
226 (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)
225 (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
2020
1.75 (u)
1.21 (u)
2.13 (d)
1.74 (d)
2.17 (u)
1.99 (u)
1.92 (u)
2.48 (u)
1.48 (u)
2.17 (u)
1.97 (u)
2.38 (d)
1.95 (u)
2.27 (d)
1.11 (u)
1.84 (u)
2.11 (u)
2.31 (u)
1.02 (d)
2.25 (d)
1.51 (d)
2.01 (d)
2.08 (u)
1.76 (u)
2.42 (u)
2.07 (u)
1.78 (u)
2.00 (u)
1.94 (u)
1.34 (u)
2019
2020
1.46 (u)
1.64 (d)
1.72 (d)
1.98 (d)
1.74 (d)
1.93 (d)
2.24 (u)
1.98 (d)
1.83 (d)
1.86 (u)
1.98 (u)
1.82 (u)
2.04 (d)
1.83 (d)
1.91 (d)
2.09 (d)
1.91(u)
2.01 (u)
1.95 (d)
2.02 (u)
2.18 (d)
2.36 (d)
2.00 (d)
2.01 (u)
1.65 (d)
2.07 (u)
1.81 (d)
1.93 (d)
2.01 (d)
2.07 (d)
Total range (u)
1.21-1.75
-
1.62-2.22
1.92-2.48
1.48-2.17
1.87-2.32
1.65-1.95
1.11-2.27
1.81-2.43
1.23-2.19
1.56-2.52
1.53-2.30
1.83-2.42
1.67-2.49
1.93-2.20
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
2.07/-
1.77-2.00
1.92
Total avg (u)
1.48
-
2.03
2.11
1.83
2.10
1.85
1.75
2.16
1.82
2.1
1.97
2.11
2.01
1.95
Total avg (u)
1.46
-
1.93
2.24
1.88
1.95
-
2.05
2.00
1.97
2.07
2.03
2.07
1.82
1.92
Avg pre/post (u)
1.48/-
-
L2/2.12
2.00/2.16
-
2
-
-
2.05/2.20
-
1.96/2.31
2.00/1.92
1.98/2.25
-
-
Avg pre/post (u)
1.46/-
-
1.93/-
1224/22j
-
2.07/1.91.11
-
-
-
2.09/2.01
2.05/2.01 j
-/2.07
-
-
Total range (d)
-
1.74-2.13
1.24-2.51
2.10
1.15-2.46
2.00-2.46
2.01-2.40
1.71-2.66
1.37-2.31
1.02-2.54
1.44-2.56
1.87-2.03
1.52-2.19
2.01-2.74
2.08-2.20
Total range (d)
1.64/-
1.72-1.98
1.74-2.05
1.80-2.10
1.76-2.33
1.88/'-
1.79-2.25
1.91-2.12
1.90-2.07
1.78-2.48
2.07-2.36
2.00-2.17
1.65-2.03
1.81-1.97
1.89-2.13
Total avg (d)
-
1.94
1.94
2.10
1.98
2.32
2.2
2.16
1.92
2.0
2.10
1.98
1.84
2.42
2.17
Total avg (d)
1.64
1.85
1.98
1.94
1.96
1.88
1.96
2.01
1.97
2.01
2.19
2.06
1.89
1.91
2.00
Avg pre/post (d)
-
1.94/-
2.10/-
-
2.33/2.32
-
-
.95/1.8.
-
2.14/2.0:
-
-
Avg pre/post (d)
1.64/-
1.85/'-
-
-/1.88
-
-
1.93/1.99I
-
2.18/2.19
2.07/2.05
1.91/1.84 I
-
-
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 Diversity and EBI Scores
Year
Broomfield Huddles
SCUT1 Jacks Jacobs PA2 Drinkwater Little Long Tooley Muddy Porter DCUT11 DCUT19 Duck
Swamp Cut
1998 - 1.85 (u)
1999 - - 2.13 (d)
2000 - - 1.57 (u)
2001 - - 1.95 (d)
2002 - - 1.67 (u)
2003 - - 1.48 (u)
2004 - - 1.80 (u)
2005 - - 1.58 (u)
2007 - -
2008 - - -
2009 - - -
2.09 (u) 2.05 (u) -
2.07 (d) 2.00 (u) 1.98 (u)
1.22 (d) 1.28 (d) 1.81 (d)
1.77 (d) 1.72 (d) 1.72 (u)
- 1.87 (d) -
1.39 (d)
1.64 (d)
1.69 (u)
1.24 (d) 1.63 (u)
2.01 (d) 1.29 (d)
- 2.52(d)
1.34 (u)
2010 - - - - - - 1.59 (d) 1.63 (d) 223 (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)
Total range (u) - - 1.41-2.13 1.66-2.25 1.42-2.87 1.68-1.88 1.45-2.00 1.45-2.31 1.51-2.09 1.41-2.05 1.34-1.98 1.68-2.06 1.87-2.00 1.73-2.12 1.54-2.01
Total avg (u) 1.04
1.62 1.87 2.02 1.76 1.75 1.87 1.86 1.82 1.67 1.88 1.94 1.95 1.79
Avg pre/post (u) 1.04/- - L2/1.64 2.04/1.70 - 8/1.72 - - 2.09/1.82 - 1.67/- L8/1.89 1.92/1.99
Total range (d) 1.77-2.13 1.11-2.33 1.47-2.27 1.65-2.39 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 1.78-2.03 1.87-2.25
Total avg (d) 1.91 1.51 1.88 1.95 2.00 1.98 1.78 1.72 1.66 1.68 1.92 1.92 2.02 1.91 2.01
Avg pre/post (d) 1.91/- 1.51/- -/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
7 of 21 or 33.0%
16 of 21 or 76.0%
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: 4 of 15 creeks had lower downstream averages
EBI Ponar Grabs: 5 of 15 creeks had lower downstream averages
EBI Sweeps: 5 of 15 creeks had lower downstream averages
Creeks with Highest Percent of Monitored Years with Highest Scores:
Shannon -Wiener Diversity Ponar Grabs:
EBI ponar grabs:
EBI sweeps:
Huddles Cut 29.4% (5 of 17 years; 2 of which are post all drainage basin reduction)
Jacks 27.8% (5 of 18 years, which none are post all drainage basin reduction)
Tooley 6.7% (1 of 15; which none are post all drainage basin reduction)
Muddy 27.2% (6 of 22 years)
Huddles Cut 41.2% (7 of 17 years; 5 of which are post all drainage basin reduction)
Jacks 33.3% (6 of 18 years; 2 of which are post all drainage basin reduction)
Tooley 6.7% (1 of 15; which none are post all drainage basin reduction)
Muddy 13.6% (3 of 22 years)
Huddles Cut 64.7% (11 of 17 years; 7 of which are post all drainage basin reduction)
Jacks 16.7% (3 of 18; which none are post all drainage basin reduction)
Tooley 20.0% (3 of 15; 1 of which is post all drainage basin reduction)
Muddy • 16.7% (2 of 22)
7 of 21 or 33.0%
15 of 21 or 71.0%
5 of 21 or 24.0%
17 of 21 or 81.0%
III-G-103