NC0067342_Biological Study Report_20181126

Flat Creek Study
Buncombe County, North Carolina
September 15t", 2015-September 5t", 2018
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Water Resources
Water Sciences Section
Biological Assessment Branch

This report was prepared by:
�I-
Eric D. Fleek, Supervisor, Biological Assessment Branch Date November 260, 2018

SUMMARY
On September 151", 2015, the upstream and downstream reaches of Flat Creek both received Good -Fair
bioclassifications. However, analysis of the community metric data downstream of the WWTP discharge suggested
that the biological community was being adversely affected by plant operations. Specifically, the downstream
reach had a more pollution tolerant invertebrate community relative to the upstream reach with a biotic index (BI)
downstream of 5.64 (4.87 upstream), an EPTBI downstream of 3.94 (3.51 upstream) and reduced EPT taxa richness
below the discharge (25) while the upstream segment had 29 EPT present. In addition, the downstream segment
had a much higher diversity of the pollution -tolerant chironomidae (26) while the upstream location had 19
chironomid taxa present. There were no significant differences in habitat, stream size, or general landuse practices
between sites. Therefore, in summary, the 2015 biological data suggest that the downstream invertebrate
community was being adversely affected by the WWTP.
The 2018 benthological data suggest that the supplemental treatment practices implemented at the WWTP
subsequent to the 2015 sample may have resulted in improved conditions in the invertebrate community below
the discharge. Specifically, the downstream reach improved to Good in 2018 from Good -Fair in 2015, and all 2018
community metrics downstream (compared to the same metrics in 2015) demonstrated improvement: the BI in
2018 lowered to 4.38 (5.64 in 2015), the EPTBI was reduced to 3.13 (3.94 in 2015), and the EPT richness increased
from 25 in 2015 to 32 in 2018. In addition, the pollution tolerant chironomid taxa richness was reduced in 2018 by
almost half to 14 (down from 26) in 2015. These data suggest that the invertebrate community below the
discharge has improved in 2018 relative to conditions measured in 2015.
In summary, while it is possible that some portion of the improvement seen downstream in 2018 can be attributed
to dilution effects due to increased flows in 2018 relative to 2015, the amount of improvement is likely not due to
these effects alone. The supplemental and improved operational methods employed in the plant cannot be
excluded as an additional source of improvement observed in the 2018 invertebrate community. Additional
monitoring, particularly in conjunction with lowered stream discharge, would help better define how much
improvement in the downstream reach is related to dilution and how much is related to improved plant
operational practices.

INTRODUCTION
Purpose of Study
Personnel at the North Carolina Division of Water Resources Asheville Regional Office (ARO) contacted the Water
Sciences Section Biological Assessment Branch originally in 2015 to request biological study on two segments of
Flat Creek in Buncombe County as part of an assessment of the North View Mobile Home Park WWTP discharge
(NC0067342). These samples were obtained on September 15th, 2015. Subsequent to this initial request, the ARO
requested a follow-up study in 2018 (at the same sample locations) to further assess the biological condition of
Flat Creek. These samples were garnered on September 5th, 2018. In both 2015 and 2018, the two segments of Flat
Creek sampled for this study included a station located upstream of the Mobile Home's WWTP discharge and a
segment located approximately 50 meters below the discharge (Figure 1).
Physiography and Land use
The Flat Creek watershed is located in north -central Buncombe County. The watershed lies in the Level III
Mountain ecoregion and contains the Broad Basins (66j) Level IV Ecoregion (Griffith et al, 2002). Land use in the
catchment is mostly forest (60.6%) followed by agricultural uses (20.9%) and developed or urban uses (15.1%).
V.,
Rt 0 A
K Flat Creek.
tte� OFF SR 1717
C,Ea
r- {UPSTREArvq
Outfall
110
x
L`
Flat Creek,
r} OFF M 9717 ~
[UdWN STREAM}
x
z
Figure 1— Map of the benthic sampling sites on Flat Creek (Buncombe County, North Carolina).

Historical Benthic Sampling
Flat Creek, at the locations detailed in Figure 1, were first assessed on September 151", 2015. The results of these
samples resulted in a Good -Fair bioclassification at both the upstream and downstream station. On September 5th
2018, the same stations were again sampled on Flat Creek. The 2018 samples resulted in Good bioclassifications at
both locations. There are no other biological data on Flat Creek.
Sampling Site Descriptions:
Site 1: Flat Creek (Upstream of Discharge) Off SR 1717. This segment of Flat Creek was sampled approximately 10
meters upstream of the discharge point. At this location, the drainage area is approximately 18.7 square miles with
land use largely comprised of forest, cultivation, and developed lands. Average (2015 and 2018) habitat scores for
this segment is 77.5 (out of a possible 100) with the primary habitat deficiency being an incomplete riparian zone.
Substrate was a mix of boulder, cobble, gravel, sand, and silt.
Table 1. Stream stations sampled for benthic macroinvertebrates.
Site Waterbody Location County Latitiude Longitude
UPSTREAM Flat Creek Off SR 1717 Buncombe 35.72112-82.605330
DOWNSTREAM Flat Creek Off SR 1717 Buncombe 35.720480-82.606990
Site 2: Flat Creek (Downstream of Discharge) Off SR 1717. This reach of Flat Creek was sampled approximately 50
meters downstream of the discharge point and (to avoid confounding influences) upstream of Whittington Branch.
At this location, the drainage area is 18.9 square miles with land use (as was the case upstream) being mostly
comprised of forest, cultivation, and developed lands. Average (2015 and 2018) habitat scores for this segment is
77 and was nearly identical to the upstream reach. As was the case upstream, the downstream segment's primary
deficiency was also an incomplete riparian zone. Similarly, substrate here was also a mix of boulder, cobble, gravel,
sand, and silt.

METHODS
Sampling and Data Collection
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community Assessment
Benthic macroinvertebrate data were collected per the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Standard Operating Procedures for the Collection and Analysis of Benthic Macroinvertebrates (2015). All sampling
procedures involve various techniques (riffle kicks, leaf packs, sweeps, rock/log washes, visual inspections) to
collect benthic macroinvertebrates from different stream habitats. After collection, organisms are sorted in the
field and preserved in 95% ethanol. In the laboratory, specimens are identified to the lowest possible taxonomic
level and assigned values based on their relative abundances (rare, 1-2 specimens; common, 3-9 specimens; or
abundant, >_10 specimens). The Standard Qualitative (Full Scale) Method, which was used in this study, is
described below:
Standard Qualitative Method (Full Scale)
Full scale methods are used for wadable streams that have a drainage area over 3 square miles. This
method provides the most robust macroinvertebrate data due to the amount of habitat available for
collection. A full scale sample is a composite of ten benthic collections: two riffle kicks, three sweeps, one
leaf pack, two rock/log washes, one sand sample and "visual" collections.
Habitat Analysis
Because streams interact with their surrounding landscape, nearby geologic conditions and riparian vegetation can affect
water conditions and flows as well as habitat quality and quantity. Local conditions can sometimes negatively impact
aquatic fauna either by causing the absence of one or more habitat types (e.g. root mats or coarse woody debris) or by
altering the natural morphology of the channel (e.g. erosion or sedimentation). This can lead to less overall habitat for
aquatic species and may ultimately lead to loss of species richness and abundances. For example, destabilized banks or
lack of riparian vegetation may contribute fine sediments to the stream channel during high flow periods resulting in
embedded substrates subsequently affecting the biological communities that rely on that substrate.
In addition to benthic sampling, the stream environment is analyzed for both quality and quantity of in -stream habitat
suitable for invertebrate colonization as well as riparian integrity and bank stability. These evaluations include, but are not
limited to, parameters such as depth and width, types of substrate, embeddedness, pool variety, quality of riffles, bank
stability, and riparian width. Habitat assessments result in a composite score between 1 and 100 with a higher score
indicating a more favorable environment for stream biota.
Physical -Chemical Analysis
Common physical -chemical water quality measurements, pH, dissolved oxygen (DO), specific conductance, and
temperature, are taken at each site to facilitate evaluation of current water conditions. These measurements often affect
biological processes of many stream biota. Changes in these parameters can signify changes to water quality and may
provide additional evidence of impact to the stream. For example, higher water temperature may indicate canopy
removal or increased impervious surface within the watershed. Also, increased specific conductance (water electrical
conductivity, or dissolved ionic concentration, corrected for water temperature at 25' C) can signal that a discharger exists
upstream or that stream flows are lower than normal. It should be noted that waters with exceedingly low ionic strength
(i.e. low specific conductance) can affect pH readings and therefore pH measurements may be tenuous and unreliable.
Field measurements of temperature, dissolved oxygen (DO), specific conductance, and pH were taken at the time of
sampling using a YSI Pro Plus multimeter. Meter calibrations are performed in accordance with DWR Intensive Survey
Branch Standard Operating Procedures (NCDEQ 2013). Physical -chemical measurements for the streams sampled are
summarized in Table 3 in the Appendix.

Data Analyses and Stream Ratings
Criteria
Streams in different ecoregions vary in gradient, geology, and flow regimes. Assessment criteria specific to each
ecoregion have been developed by DWR biologists (NCDEQ 2015). These criteria control for natural variations in
organism distributions, stream flows, and the local geography inherent in some systems. Separate criteria exist for
both habitat evaluations in different ecoregions (Mountain, Piedmont and Coastal Plain) as well as for the metrics
used to assign water quality ratings (Mountain, Piedmont, and Coastal Plain). Sites that occur in multiple
ecoregions are typically assessed with criteria in which the majority of the watershed resides. Additionally, the
presence of taxa specific to a certain ecoregion (i.e., mountain specific taxa) and the general characteristics of the
stream (i.e. gradient and substrate type) are considered when deciding the appropriate criteria. For example, if a
stream physically lies in the Piedmont but the presence of mountain taxa are noted and the majority of stream
catchment resides within the Mountains, it would be appropriate to use Mountain criteria to rate the sampling
site. All samples collected as part of this study were assigned bioclassifications based on Mountain criteria.
Metrics
Benthic community metrics measure the relative tolerance of a system to stress. Pollutants such as urban runoff, WWTP
discharge, sediments, or large temperature variations, can adversely affect aquatic biological communities. Streams that
are biologically degraded will typically have lower invertebrate diversity and a lower proportion of pollution sensitive
species relative to streams that are pristine. The most common richness metrics used by the Biological Assessment
Branch (BAB) to measure community tolerance are taxa richness (S) and the biotic index (BI).
Species Richness and abundance
A useful metric used in assessing stream water quality is the total number of species or "richness" of
benthic organisms present in the stream. A subset of benthic organisms, Ephemeroptera (mayflies),
Plecoptera (stoneflies), and Trichoptera (caddisflies) are "EPT" taxa. These three orders of aquatic
insects, as a group, are more sensitive to pollution than other macroinvertebrates, although taxa
within EPT do have differing tolerance values. A high EPT richness (EPT S) and abundance (EPT N)
generally indicates higher water quality.
Rintir Inrlax
The biotic index is the summation of the tolerance values of all benthic species present relative to their
abundance in the community as a whole. This index ranges from 0-10, with higher numbers suggestive of
more polluted conditions within the stream. The North Carolina Biotic Index (NCBI) was developed over
many years by NC biologists to reflect the tolerances of the entire invertebrate assemblage found in North
Carolina streams (Lenat 1993), although it has been adapted for use by other states. Conversely, the EPT
biotic index (EPT BI) reflects only the tolerance of the EPT community and not the entire benthic
macroinvertebrate community.
Metrics are used to assign bioclassifications to the stream under investigation and are generated based on the
NCBI, and EPT S thresholds for the appropriate physiographic region in which the stream lies. There are five
possible water quality ratings used to classify streams: Excellent Good, Good -Fair, Fair, and Poor (Lenat 1993a,
NCDEQ 2015). These ratings can only be applied to non -swamp streams (which have their own rating schedule).
However, at this time, criteria have not been developed for all stream types in all ecoregions for every season.
Small streams under three square miles drainage area currently must be sampled in April, May, or, June to receive
a rating (NCDEQ 2015). Small streams sampled outside this seasonal window are rated as Not Impaired if they
would have received a bioclassification of Good -Fair or higher using EPT methods for larger streams. Additionally,
they are designated as Not Rated if criteria for larger streams would have resulted in a bioclassification of Poor or
Fair.
See the NCDEQ Standard Operating Procedures for the Collection and Analysis of Benthic Macroinvertebrates (2015) for a
comprehensive review of all benthic macroinvertebrate sampling and analysis methods.

RESULTS
Table 2. Benthic Community table with associated metrics and ratings (2015, 2018).
Stream
FLAT CR
FLAT CR
FLAT CR
FLAT CR
Site Location
OFF SR 1717
UPS
OFF SR 1717
UPS
OFF SR 1717
DNS
OFF SR 1717
DNS
County
Buncombe
Buncombe
Buncombe
Buncombe
Site ID
EB474
EB474
EB475
EB475
Collection date
9/15/2015
9/5/2018
9/15/2015
9/5/2018
BAU sample number
12030
12402
12028
12401
Sample method
Full Scale
Full Scale
Full Scale
Full Scale
Criteria
Summer/
Mountain
Summer/
Mountain
Summer/
Mountain
Summer/
Mountain
Richness
Ephemeroptera
16
16
16
19
Plecoptera
2
3
2
3
Trichoptera
11
13
7
10
Odonata
12
10
14
10
Megaloptera
2
3
2
2
Coleoptera
11
7
13
9
Chironomidae
19
18
26
14
non-Chironomidae Diptera
6
4
6
4
Oligochaeta
2
4
4
2
Mollusca
6
5
7
6
Othertaxa
1
2
4
3
Total taxa richness
88
85
101
82
Other biological metrics
Total EPT
29
32
25
32
Seasonal EPT
Corrected EPT
EPT abundance
137
124
106
158
EPT Biotic Index
3.51
3.45
3.94
3.13
NCBI
4.87
4.68
5.64
4.38
Seasonal Correction
Corrected NCBI
Bioclassification
Good -Fair
Good
Good -Fair
Good

Site 1: Flat Creek (Upstream of Discharge), Off SR 1717
Benthic Sampling Results
The 2018 sample resulted in a bioclassifi cation of Good with a total of 85 taxa. Of the 85 total taxa, 32 of these taxa were
represented by EPT and 18 taxa were from the midge family Chironomidae. The EPT community was moderately
intolerant with an EPT biotic index of 3.45 and the overall biotic index was 4.68. A complete list of community metrics for
this location (2015 and 2018) can be found in Table 2 and all taxa collected for this location (2015 and 2018) is presented
in Appendix 1.
Rare Species
There are no documented Significantly Rare, Special Concern, State or Federal Threatened and Endangered aquatic
species (including fish and mussels) at this site.
Other Data
Physical -chemical parameters measured in 2018 included an elevated specific conductance of 135.1 µS/cm, a pH of 7.2,
and a dissolved oxygen of 7.6 mg/I. A complete list of habitat and physical -chemical data for this location (2015 and 2018)
can be found in Table 3.
Site 2: Flat Creek (Downstream of Discharge), Off SR 1717
Benthic Sampling Results
The 2018 collection in this downstream segment resulted in a Good bioclassification with a total of 82 taxa. Of this total,
32 taxa were represented by EPT while 14 taxa were comprised of the midge family (Chironomidae). The EPT community
was moderately intolerant (3.13) and the overall biotic index was 4.38. A complete list of community metrics for this
location (2015 and 2018) can be found in Table 2 and all collected taxa for this location (2015 and 2018) is presented in
Appendix 1.
Rare Species
There are no documented Significantly Rare, Special Concern, State or Federal Threatened and Endangered aquatic
species (including fish and mussels) at this site.
Other Data
Physical -chemical parameters measured in 2018 included an elevated specific conductance (135.1 µS/cm), a pH of 7.2,
and a dissolved oxygen of 7.6 mg/I. A complete list of habitat and physical -chemical data for this location (2015 and 2018)
can be found in Table 3.

Table 3. Habitat and physicochemical parameters (2015 and 2018)
Stream
FLAT CR
FLAT CR
FLAT CR
FLAT CR
Site Location
OFF SR 1717 DNS
OFF SR 1717 UPS
OFF SR 1717 DNS
OFF SR 1717 UPS
County
Buncombe
Buncombe
Buncombe
Buncombe
Site ID
EB475
EB474
EB475
EB474
Collection date
9/15/2015
9/15/2015
9/5/2018
9/5/2018
BAU sample number
12028
12030
12401
12402
Hahitat Sceras
Channel modification 5
4
4
4
4
In -stream habitat 20
18
18
16
17
Bottom substrate 15
13
13
12
13
Pool variety 10
7
7
5
6
Riffle habitats 16
14
14
14
15
Bank erosion 7
6
6
5
5
Bank ve etation 7
5
6
5
5
Light penetration 10
7
7
7
8
Left riparian 5
3
2
4
2
Right riparian 5
3
2
2
1
Total Habitat 100
80
79
74
76
Other Habitat
Average stream width m
5
5
5
5
Average stream depth m
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
Cano %
60
80
60
80
Substrate
Boulder
10
20
10
20
Cobble
30
30
30
20
Gravel
20
20
20
20
Sand
20
10
30
30
Silt
20
10
10
10
Other
10
description
Bedrock
Physicochemical
Temperature oC
13
16.3
23.2
23.2
Dissolved oxygen (mg/L)
9.6
9.3
7.6
7.6
Specific conductance mhos/cm
149.4
143.6
135.1
135.1
nH
6.9
7.5
7.2
7.2
8

DISCUSSION
On September 151h, 2015, the upstream and downstream reaches of Flat Creek both received Good -Fair
bioclassifications. However, analysis of the community metric data downstream of the WWTP discharge suggested
that the biological community was being adversely affected by plant operations. Specifically, the downstream
reach had a more pollution tolerant invertebrate community relative to the upstream reach with a biotic index (BI)
downstream of 5.64 (4.87 upstream), an EPTBI downstream of 3.94 (3.51 upstream) and reduced EPT taxa richness
below the discharge (25) while the upstream segment had 29 EPT present. In addition, the downstream segment
had a much higher diversity of the pollution -tolerant chironomidae (26) while the upstream location had 19
chironomid taxa present. Moreover, the upstream habitat score was 79, while the downstream score was 80, and
given the close proximity between the upstream and downstream segments, the respective drainage areas and
landuses are also nearly identical. Therefore, the differences seen in the respective invertebrate communities were
not attributable to differences in habitat, stream size, or general landuse practices. As a result, the 2015 biological
data suggest that the downstream invertebrate community was being adversely affected by the WWTP.
The 2018 benthological data suggest that the supplemental treatment practices implemented at the WWTP
subsequent to the 2015 sample may have resulted in improved conditions within the invertebrate community
below the discharge. Specifically, the downstream reach improved to Good in 2018 (Good -Fair in 2015), and all
2018 community metrics downstream (compared to the same metrics in 2015) demonstrated improvement: the BI
in 2018 lowered to 4.38 (5.64 in 2015), the EPTBI was reduced to 3.13 (3.94 in 2015), and the EPT richness
increased from 25 in 2015 to 32 in 2018. In addition, the pollution tolerant chironomid taxa richness was reduced
in 2018 by almost half to 14 (down from 26) in 2015. These data suggest that the invertebrate community below
the discharge has improved in 2018 relative to conditions measured in 2015. Furthermore, when the downstream
and upstream reaches are compared in 2018, it becomes evident that the compositional structure of the
invertebrate communities are now much closer in similarity than was measured in 2015. For example, EPT richness
upstream and downstream was identical (32) in 2018, and the 2018 upstream BI was 4.68 (4.38 downstream),
EPTBI 3.44 upstream (3.13 downstream), and the chironomid taxa richness was also similar (18 upstream, 14
downstream). Conversely, in 2015 EPT richness upstream was 29 (25 downstream), biotic index measured 4.87
upstream (5.64 downstream), and the EPTBI was 3.51 upstream and 3.94 downstream.
While it is possible that some portion of the improvement seen downstream in 2018 can be attributed to dilution
effects due to increased flows in 2018 relative to 2015, the amount of improvement is likely not due to these
effects alone. The supplemental and improved operational methods employed in the plant cannot be excluded as
an additional source of improvement observed in the 2018 downstream invertebrate community. Additional
monitoring, particularly in conjunction with lowered stream discharge, would help better define how much
improvement in the downstream reach is related to dilution and how much is related to improved plant
operational practices.

REFERENCES
Griffith, G. E., J. M. Omernik, J. A. Comstock, M. P. Schafale, W. H. McNab, D. R. Lenat, T. F. MacPherson, J. B.
Glover and V. B Shelburne. 2002. Ecoregions of North Carolina and South Carolina. Reston, VA, U.S.
Geological Survey (map scale 1:1,500,000).
Lenat, D. R. 1993a. A biotic index for the southeastern United States: derivation and list of tolerance values, with
criteria for assigning water quality ratings. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 12: 279-
290.
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ). 2013.Standard Operating Procedures Manual:
Physical and Chemical Monitoring Version 2.1. Division of Water Resources. Intensive Survey Branch.
Raleigh, North Carolina. December 2013.
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ). 2015. Standard Operating Procedures for the
Collection and Analysis of Benthic Macroinvertebrates. Division of Water Resources. Raleigh, North
Carolina. November 2015.

APPENDIX 1: Taxa list for sampling sites on Flat Creek (2015, 2018).
Baetidae Acentrella nadineae
H N 0-H
N
ALL U�
LL C
Om
R
N�
(D
J =fn
ALL UO
LL C
Om
R
U O N
H N Q
a)a)EU
u) U
ALL U� LO
LL C
Om
R
U� () N
H N Q
Efn
LLLL UO
LL C
Om
Acentrella turbida gr
R
Baetis flavistri a
C
C
C
C
Baetis intercalaris
A
A
A
A
Baetis pluto
C
C
R
R
Heterocloeon curiosum
C
R
Labiobaetis propinquus
A
R
R
R
Plauditus cestus
R
C
R
Plauditus dubius gr
R
R
R
Procloeon spp
C
C
R
R
Baetiscidae Baetisca berneri
R
R
Baetisca spp
C
R
Ephemerellidae Telo ano sis deficiens
R
Ephemeridae Ephemera spp
C
Heptageniidae E eorus vitreus
C
R
He to enia mar inalis gr
R
C
A
C
Leucrocuta spp
A
A
A
A
Maccaffertium ithaca
A
A
A
C
Maccaffertium modestum
A
A
Maccaffertium pudicum
A
A
Stenacron pallidum
C
A
A
C
Isonychiidae Ison chia spp
C
A
C
C
Leptohyphidae Tricorythodes spp
R
R
R
Chloroperlidae Chloro erlidae
R
Leuctridae Leuctra spp
R
C
Perlidae Acroneuria abnormis
A
A
A
A
Para netina immar inata
R
R
R
Goeridae Goera spp
R
Hydropsychidae Cheumato s the spp
A
A
A
A

Hydroptilidae
Leptoceridae
Philopotamidae
Phryganeidae
Polycentropodidae
Psychomyiidae
Uenoidae
Aeshnidae
Calopterygidae
Coenagrionidae
Cord ulegastridae
Gomphidae
�00
U�(�N
H a) 0-H
O a)
AU
UAUAULLULL
LLC
Om
o
-�O
U(�N
N�
U
O N
LL O
LLC
O
m
�?Oo
U �0
H a) 0-
M N
U
LL
LLC
Om
Of C)
U�(�N
a)N Q
N
O U
LL O
LLC
Om
H dro s the C. bronta
R
R
H dro s the C. morosa
R
H dro s the C. s arna
C
A
C
A
H dro s the H. betteni/de ravata
C
C
H dro s the H. spp
R
Leucotrichia pictipes
A
C
C
Ceraclea flava
C
Ceraclea spp
A
Necto s the ex uisita
C
C
Necto s the spp
R
Oecetis spp
R
Triaenodes i nitus
C
A
Triaenodes erna/helo
R
Triaenodes spp
C
A
Chimarra spp
C
C
Oli ostomis pardalis
R
N ctio h lax spp
R
A
A
C
Polycentropus sensu lato spp
R
Lype diversa
R
Neophylax spp
A
C
R
Basiaeschnajanata
R
C
C
Bo eria grafiana
R
C
Bo eria vinosa
A
A
C
C
Calopteryx spp
A
A
A
A
Ar is spp
A
A
A
A
Enalla ma spp
R
R
Cordule aster maculata
R
Cordule aster spp
R
Gom hus spp
A
A
A
A
Hagenius brevist lus
R
R
R
C
O hio om hus spp
C
R
A
R
Pro om hus spp
A
C
R
Stylogomphus
albist lus/si mast lus
R
R
R
R
St lurus spp
R
R

of o
C)
H N Q
AUAUAULLU
LL
LLC
m
-Oo
U�(�N
H N�
N
LL O
LLC
m
�?Oo
U�
H N Q
LL
LL
m
�jOo
C) 0
H N Q
N
LO
LL O
LL
m
Macromiidae Macromia spp
Corydalidae Corydalus cornutus
C
C
R
A
C
A
C
C
Ni ronia fasciatus
R
Ni ronia serricornis
C
R
R
C
Dryopidae Helichus basalis
A
A
A
A
Helichus fasti iatus
R
R
Helichus litho hilus
R
R
Elmidae Anc ron x varie atus
R
R
C
C
Dubira hia spp
C
C
R
C
Macron chus glabratus
A
A
A
A
O tioservus spp
R
R
Promoresia ele ans
R
Stenelmis spp
C
C
R
Gyrinidae Dineutus spp
A
G rinus spp
R
R
R
Hydrophilidae H drobius spp
R
S ercho sis tessellatus
C
R
Psephenidae Psephenus herricki
R
A
A
A
Ptilodact lidae Anch tarsus bicolor
R
R
R
Chironomidae Ablabesm is mallochi
C
C
R
Brillia flavifrons
C
C
C
R
Chironomus spp
A
R
R
Cladotanytarsus cf daviesi
R
Cladotanytarsus viridiventris
R
Clinotanypus spp
C
Corynoneura spp
R
Cricoto us bicinctus
C
Cricoto us vierriensis gr
R
Cryptochironomus spp
R
C
R
R
Cryptotendipes spp
R
Dicrotendi es neomodestus
C
Microtendi es pedellus gr
C
C
R

Ceratopogonidae
Culicidae
Dixidae
Rhagionidae
Simuliidae
-Oo
U�()N
H N
ALL U�
LL C
gym'
w -Oo
Ur()N
H a)H
ALL UO LO
LL C
gym'
?Oo
Ur(�N
ALL U� LO
LL C
gym'
�?Oo
U�()N
H N
LL LL ULO
LL C
gym'
Nanocladius branchicolus
C
Nanocladius downesi
R
Natarsia sp A
R
Nilotanypus fimbriatus
R
Orthocladius carlatus
C
Orthocladius ni ritus
R
Paraclado elma spp
R
Paralauterborniella ni rohalteralis
R
Parametriocnemus spp
R
Paratanytarsus dissimilis
C
Paratendi es albimanus
C
C
C
C
Phaeno sectra obediens gr
C
C
C
Phaeno sectra punctipes gr
C
Polypedilum fallax/sp A
A
R
C
Polypedilum flavum
R
A
Polypedilum halterale gr
R
R
Polypedilum illinoense gr
A
A
A
A
Polypedilum scalaenum gr
A
R
Polypedilum tritum
R
Procladius spp
R
R
Rheocricoto us robacki
C
Rheotanytarsus spp
C
C
C
C
Robackia demei'erei
R
Saetheria t lus
R
Tanytarsus spp
R
Thienemanniella spp
R
C
Thienemannim is gr
C
C
C
C
Tribelos 'ucundum
A
R
Tvetenia bavarica gr
R
X loto us par
R
i
Bezzia/Pal om is spp
R
Anopheles spp
R
Dixella spp
C
R
R
Atherix lantha
R
Simulium spp
R
C
R
R

ZZ
pZ:)L
�r--Oo
U�()N
H
ALO
LL U�
LL C
Om
ZZ
pZ)
�r0o
U jZ()N
H
ALL UO
LL C
Om
dZ
D::)!n
�rOo
U�(�N
H
ALL U�
LL C
Om
dZ
:) ::)ao
�� 0R
U�()N
H
LL LL UO
LL C
Om
Tabanidae Chrysops spp
R
Tipulidae Antocha spp
R
C
C
Hexatoma spp
R
R
Tipula spp
C
R
C
R
Branchiobdellidae Branchiobdellidae
A
Haplotaxidae Ha lotaxis gordioides
A
Lumbriculidae Lumbriculidae
A
R
C
R
Megadrile Me adrile oli ochaete
R
Naididae Naididae
R
Tubificidae II odrilus tem letoni
R
Tubificidae
R
R
R
0
Cambaridae Cambaridae
R
Cambarus spp
R
Gammaridae Cran on x spp
R
Ancylidae Ferrissia spp
C
R
C
Lymnaeidae Fossaria spp
C
Pseudosuccinea columella
R
Physidae Ph sa spp
A
C
C
R
Planorbidae Helisoma ance s
A
C
A
C
Menetus dilatatus
R
R
Pleuroceridae Elimia spp
C
C
A
C
Corbiculidae Corbicula fluminea
A
R
A
A
S haeriidae Pisidium spp
C
Glossiphoniidae Helobdella stagnalis
C
Helobdella triserialis
R
Hydracarina H dracarina
R
R
R
R
Platyhelminthes Tricladida
R