Flyer and Attachments 6100038000.Pdf

STATEMENT OF WORK TO PROCESS, SORT, AND IDENTIFY BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATES SAMPLES AND TO CONTINUE STREAM HEALTH SURVEYS AT FT. INDIANTOWN GAP NATIONAL GUARD TRAINING CENTER, ANNVILLE PA.

The following Statement of Work covers the processing and identification of all macro-invertebrate samples collected from surveys in 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013. These data will then be incorporated into a larger data set (2002-2013) and analyzed. The vendor will also conduct a fish survey at multiple sites located on and off post. Data will be analyzed and compared to a previous survey conducted at the same sites in 2004. When analyzing all the collected data, the vendor will use a multivariate statistical approach to examine all trends in these data to produces two final reports; one for macro-invertebrate surveys for the years 2002-2013 and one for fish surveys for 2004 and 2016. The vendor will re-sample all FIG-NGTC long-term research sites for macro-invertebrate diversity in streams for 2016.

A series of tasks to complete this ecological investigation are defined below in detail:

Task 1: Macro-invertebrate Sorting and Identification of previous samples – This task includes the identification of previously sorted macro-invertebrate samples from kick and multi-habitat surveys at FIG-NGTC from 2010-2013 as well as sorting and identifying multi-habitat samples from 2013 (table 1). A comprehensive report covering all data collected over the entire lifetime (2002-2013) of this stream monitoring project (table 1) will be produced.

Table 1. List of objectives to complete Task 1. Items Type Year Service 33 Multi-habitat 2010 ID 33 Multi-habitat 2011 ID 33 Kicks 2013 ID 33 Multi-habitat 2012 ID 33 Multi-habitat 2013 Sort 33 Multi-habitat 2013 ID 1 Database 2010-2013 Database of Surveyed Taxa 1 Report 2002-2013 Report and Analysis

The sorting of 2013 multi-habitat samples will be processed according to the PA DEP (2012, Attachment 2) wadeable, freestone, riffle-run streams protocols with a 200 count (+/- 20%) (PA DEP 2012). Organisms will be placed into separate vials as follows: mayflies, stoneflies, caddisflies, midges and oligochaetes, and other. The respective sample vials will be labeled internally with complete site information- date, station number, water body name. If an alternative method to maintaining the sorted samples is available and does not compromise the integrity, it may be used. From here, sample identification will commence. All identifications will be to the lowest taxonomic level possible and will use reliable keys and the vendor’s experience. All information will be entered into a database for distribution to the POC. All specimens will be curated for museum deposit. A report will be generated that covers all survey years (2002-2013) and will use a multivariate statistical approach for analysis. Curated specimens will be picked up by the POC for deposit at the Pennsylvania State Museum in Harrisburg, PA.

Task 2: Conduct a survey of fish biodiversity at FIG-NGTC – This task includes the re-sampling of 27 sites and at FIG-NGTC from 2004 using the same or similar methods as described in USGS (2005, Attachment

REVISED 18 APRIL 2016 3). Six extra sites have also been added for a total of 33. All survey locations in task 2 coincide with the 33 sites sampled for macro-invertebrate sampling (see tasks 1 and 3). Additional sites may be included if the vendor and the POC agree on the time and location of the sampling. The vendor will also tutor a small team of FIG-NGTC Wildlife staff that possesses the proper electrofishing training and safety certification. All data from this survey will be entered into a database detailing the date, location, and data collected. A report will be generated on newly collected data as well as a comparison to previous data from 2004. This analysis will use the appropriate statistical approach to compare 2004 and 2016 data sets.

Table 2. List of objectives to complete Task 2. Items Type Year Service 33 Fish Survey 2016 Data Collection and ID 1 Database 2016 Database of Surveyed Taxa 1 Report 2016 Report and Analysis

Task 3: Re-survey of stream quality sites on and adjacent to FIG-NGTC property – This task includes the re-sampling of macro-invertebrate taxa at 33 stream monitoring sites at FIG-NGTC or nearby (table 3). These are the same sites sampled in Task 1. It will use the same methodology used in previous surveys (EcoAnalyst 2009, PA DEP 2012 Attachment 1) and will include 33 kick and 33 multi-habitat samples for a total of 66 samples (table 3). The samples will not be sorted, identified, or reported as part of this scope of work. Samples will be stored in a way that preserves specimen’s integrity and delivered to the FIG-NGTC point of contact.

Table 3. List of objectives to complete Task 3. Items Type Year Service 33 Kick Samples 2016 Data Collection 33 Multi-habitat Samples 2016 Data Collection

Conditions:

The vendor will have personal experience sampling streams in the Manada/Swatara watershed for macro-invertebrate health and diversity (i.e. the 33 sites in tasks 1-3).

The vendor will have personal experience sampling streams in the Manada/Swatara watershed for fish diversity.

The vendor will be familiar with the location of each sampling location as well as appropriate access points and work with FIG-NGTC Range Control for proper/safe entry to the work sites on post.

The vendor will have personal access to previous data sets and reports after notice to proceed is awarded.

The taxonomist overseeing the work shall be certified under the Society for Freshwater Science to conduct the required identifications.

The vendor will have at least 10 year of experience electrofishing in Pennsylvania streams and waterways.

REVISED 18 APRIL 2016

The vendor will have all the proper training, permits, and licensing to operate electrofishing equipment.

The vendor will be North American Benthological Society (NABS) certified.

The vendor will have personal experience compiling and reporting aquatic life data for submission to peer-reviewed journals.

The vendor will coordinate site access with the POC.

At no time will the vendor interfere with military training operations.

The vendor will sign a hold-harmless and release statement before each survey.

The vendor will consult with the POC on any efforts to publish or otherwise publicize these data.

All information derived from this survey is property of the US government.

Deliverables:

All deliverables for Tasks 1-3 are due by 90 days from Notice to Proceed.

These include:  All macro-invertebrate specimens curated and ready for museum deposit (2010-2013 samples)  Computer databases for: o All information related to macro-invertebrate samples (kicks and multi-habitat) collected from 2010-2013 as specified in Task 1 o All information related to fish sampling in 2016 as specified in Task 2  Two final reports: o Macro-invertebrate data collected in Task 1 (years 2002-2013) o Fish data collected in Task 2 (years 2004 and 2016)  2016 sampling of the 33 macro-invertebrate monitoring sites on post and nearby to FIG-NGTC delivered in properly stored specimen jars to the FIG-NGTC POC.

Point of Contact Information:

Electronic deliverables can be sent to the project POC, Mark Swartz at [email protected]. In the event electronic transmission is not possible, the information can copied to a recordable disk and sent to Ft Indiantown Gap, Building 11-19, Annville PA 17003 care of the POC. Curated specimens will be picked up personally by the POC. For any questions related to this project, please contact the POC via email address or by phone at: 717-861-2542 or 717-861-2949.

References (see attached):

REVISED 18 APRIL 2016 Site Map (Attachment 4):

EcoAnalysts. 2009 (Attachment 1). BIOASSESSMENT OF THE AQUATIC MACROINVERTEBRATE COMMUNITIES COLLECTED FROM 33 SITES WITHIN THE VICINITY OF THE NATIONAL GUARD TRAINING CENTER AT FORTINDIANTOWN GAP, PENNSYLVANIA, AUGUST 2009. Reported submitted to the Fort Indiantown Gap National Guard Training Center, Annville PA. 56 pages.

Sampling Protocol for Macro-Invertebrates:

PA DEP. 2012 (Attachment 2). A Benthic Macroinvertebrate Index of Biotic Integrity for Wadeable Frestone Riffle--Run Streams in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Water Quality Standards. 154 pages.

Sampling Protocol for Fish:

USGS. 2005 (Attachment 3). Surface-Water Quantity and Quality, Aquatic Biology, Stream Geomorphology, and Groundwater-Flow Simulation for National Guard Training Center at Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania, 2002–05. Scientific Investigations Series 2010–5155. U.S. Department of the Interior/U.S. Geological Survey. 197 pages.

REVISED 18 APRIL 2016 Attachment 1

BIOASSESSMENT OF THE AQUATIC MACROINVERTEBRATE COMMUNITIES COLLECTED FROM 33 SITES WITHIN THE VICINITY OF THE NATIONAL GUARD TRAINING CENTER AT FORT INDIANTOWN GAP, PENNSYLVANIA, AUGUST 2009 DRAFT

Prepared for:

Joseph C. Hovis Wildlife Biologist Department of Military and Veteran Affairs Fort Indiantown Gap, PA

Prepared by:

Michael D. Bilger EcoAnalysts, Inc. 15 N. Market St. Selinsgrove, PA 17870 (570) 374‐2100 Ph (570) 374‐8580 Fax TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 3 INTRODUCTION...... 4 Description of Study Area ...... 4 METHODS ...... 5 Study Sites ...... 5 Physiography and Geology ...... 9 Physical Habitat and Water Chemistry...... 9 Macroinvertebrate Collection ...... 9 Laboratory Procedures...... 10 Sorting Quality Assurance...... 10 Sample Identification...... 11 QC of Taxonomic Identifications ...... 11 Biological Assessment ...... 12 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION...... 12 Historical Data Review ...... 12 Study Site Descriptions ...... 12 Physical Habitat ...... 13 Macroinvertebrate Community Analysis...... 14 Inventory of Aquatic Macroinvertebrates...... 14 Metric Analyses...... 15 CONCLUSIONS...... 23 LITERATURE CITED...... 24 APPENDIX 1 Taxa List for 2009 ...... 25 APPENDIX 2 Metrics for 2009 ...... 30

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Sampling Site Locations at Fort Indiantown Gap (Map A) ...... 6 Figure 2. Sampling Site Locations at Fort Indiantown Gap (Map B) ...... 7 Figure 3. Habitat Scores 2009 ...... 14 Figure 4. Species (Taxa) Richness 2009...... 15 Figure 5. EPT Richness 2009 ...... 16 Figure 6. Hilsenhoff Biotic Index (HBI) Scores 2009...... 17 Figure 7. Shannon-Weaver Index (log e) 2009...... 18 Figure 8. Percent EPT 2009...... 19 Figure 9. Percent Dominant (single) Taxon 2009 ...... 20 Figure 10. Percent Chironomidae (midges) 2009 ...... 21 Figure 11. Percent Tolerant Taxa 2009 ...... 22

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Biological Sampling Sites at Fort Indiantown Gap 2009 ...... 8 Table 2. Water Chemistry Data 2009...... 13

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

• Water quality, habitat, and aquatic macroinvertebrate samples were collected at 33 sites both within and outside the Fort Indiantown Gap (FIG) boundaries in July and August 2009. The sites were chosen prior to 2002 as part of a previous project by FIG biologists and EcoAnalysts continued the study at the same 27 locations. In addition, three sites on Fishing Creek and three sites on Stony Creek were added to the study in 2007. • Habitat assessment showed that the sites were mostly supportive of “healthy” benthic macroinvertebrate communities in 2009. • About 206 distinct taxa were collected over the 2009 study period in the two kick samples; most within the Phylum Arthropoda. Taxa within the Class Insecta were dominated by the Order Diptera, Family Chironomidae (midges). • The metric analyses used species (taxa) richness, Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera (EPT) richness, Hilsenhoff Biotic Index (HBI), Shannon-Weaver Index (log e), percent dominant (single) taxon, percent EPT, percent Chironomidae, and percent tolerant taxa. These measures showed that values were influenced by land use, i.e., the “better” macroinvertebrate communities occupied the less disturbed forested sites versus the cantonment area or off-base sites in developed areas. Many of the stream sites were impacted by previous climatic events: the negative effects of the drought years in 2002 and 2007, and Hurricane Ivan in September 2004. • Overall, the sites within the FIG boundary showed no direct adverse effects from operations conducted within the study period of July and August 2009. Site impacts appear to be caused primarily by natural rather than anthropogenic conditions.

INTRODUCTION

The National Guard Training Center at Fort Indiantown Gap (FIG) is located within Dauphin and Lebanon Counties, Pennsylvania, and covers approximately 27 square miles. This facility has been used as a training and mobilization facility by the United States Army National Guard since 1931. The facility remains active, incorporating a bombing range, artillery ranges, and areas for tank and tracked vehicle use. Additional uses include the storage of petroleum and other associated military wastes, and vehicle maintenance.

The Pennsylvania Department of Military and Veterans Affairs (PADMVA) is responsible for managing the lands at FIG. PADMVA completed an Integrated Training Area Management Program and Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan to protect the environment within the facility while ensuring that military training objectives are met. In order to meet the current assessment goals, both baseline and long term biological, water quality, and habitat data have been collected from 2002-2009.

This report summarizes the methods, results, and conclusions drawn from the study of the water quality, habitat, and aquatic macroinvertebrate communities at 33 sites, including sites located within and outside the FIG boundaries, during the months of July and August 2009. A separate report discusses the studies conducted from 2002-2007 (EcoAnalysts 2009).

Description of Study Area

A majority of the FIG area is located within Lebanon County, with the remainder in Dauphin County (Figures 1 and 2). The study area is divided into the training and cantonment areas. The major training areas are mainly confined between Blue and Second Mountain and activities include both ground (field and live fire) and air (fixed and rotary wing, airborne and assault, and air to ground fire) operations. A majority of the training corridor is drained by two heavily forested watersheds: Manada Creek and Upper Indiantown Run. The USGS Pennsylvania Water Science Center has conducted continuous measures of stream flow and turbidity along with periodic measures of water quality at two sites near the FIG boundary (Langland 2006 & 2008).

The developed area of FIG (known as the cantonment area), is drained by the lower reaches of Indiantown Run, the upper reaches of Qureg Run, Aires Run, a tributary to Qureg Run, and the headwaters of Forge Creek. This area contains recreational areas, maintenance buildings, and storage yards. Some of the cantonment area has been impacted by past practices, such as building demolition and construction, vehicle storage and associated fuel spills, maintenance areas, and landfill hazards. The headwaters of Qureg Run are impacted by the use of tracked vehicles for training maneuvers. There are no continuous stream flow locations in this area and water samples have been collected infrequently at several stream sites.

METHODS

Study Sites

A total of 33 sites were selected for this study, 20 sites within the FIG boundaries and 13 outside. Twenty-seven site locations were chosen prior to the start of this project in 2002 and it was decided, after consultation with the FIG biologists, to retain these sites for continuity. In 2007, three sites were added on Fishing Creek and three sites on Stony Creek. Many of the streams sampled were first order in nature and only two sites had drainage areas greater than 10 square miles. This sometimes made defining the true “wetted channel” difficult during summer sampling.

Figure 1. Sampling Site Locations at Fort Indiantown Gap (Map A) 6

Figure 2. Sampling Site Locations at Fort Indiantown Gap (Map B) 7

Table 1. Biological Sampling Sites at Fort Indiantown Gap 2009* Site Code Station Description** Latitude Longitude Drainage ID Used Area in (sq.mi.) Analysis ar-1 ARFIG Aires Run at Fort Indiantown Gap, PA 40.43374N -076.55733W 2.25 ar-2 ARQR Aires Run above Qureg Run at Fort Indiantown Gap, PA 40.42635N -076.55297W 2.25 bcRef-1 BOW Bow Creek at Grantville, PA 40.38399N -076.66566W 2.90 BHRef-1 BHR Bear Hole Run at Suedberg, PA 40.51252N -076.47226W 1.35 ebMRef-1 EVBR Evening Branch above Gold Mine Run near Tower City, PA 40.52490N -076.54176W 2.45 fc-1 FORG Forge Creek near Lickdale, PA 40.45620N -076.54093W 0.26 FSH-1 FSH-1 Fishing Creek at Route443/Fisher Lane 40.38378N -076.80987W 6.37 FSH-2 FSH-2 Fishing Creek above SR0443/90 Bridge 40.37532N -076.84081W 9.80 FSH-3 FSH-3 Fishing Creek above SR0443/40 Bridge 40.35862N -076.88956W 16.20 GoldMineRunRef-1 GOLD Gold Mine Run near Tower City, PA 40.52620N -076.54491W 1.16 HatImpact IRBH Indiantown Run below Hatchery at Fort Indiantown Gap, PA 40.44537N -076.61457W 4.68 ir-0.5 IRUT0a Indiantown Run above unnamed tributary at Fort Indiantown Gap, PA 40.44724N -076.62320W 1.47 ir-1 IRUT0b Indiantown Run in Gap at Fort Indiantown Gap, PA 40.44561N -076.60285W 5.38 ir-2 IRML Indiantown Run above Memorial Lake near Indiantown, PA 40.42462N -076.60033W 6.27 ir-3 IRVR Indiantown Run above Vesle Run at Indiantown, PA 40.41602N -076.58565W 8.38 mc-1 MCMR Manada Creek along McLean Road near Manada Gap, PA 40.41795N -076.9230W 6.19 mc-1.5 MCMG Manada Creek near Manada gap, PA 40.40307N -076.71223W 8.59 mc-2 MCBMG Manada Creek below Manada Gap at Manada Gap, PA 40.39314N -076.71052W 14.3 qr-1 QRFI Qureg Run at Fort Indiantown Run, PA 40.43420N -076.54275W 2.51 qr-2 ARBQR Aires Run below Qureg Run at Fort Indiantown Gap, PA 40.42537N -076.55173W 5.58 ScMRef-1 STONY Stony Creek near Fort Indiantown Gap, PA 40.47655N -076.62235W 7.51 sjs-01 STJOE St. Josephs Spring outflow at Fort Indiantown Gap, PA 40.44397N -076.61469W 0.86 STONY-2 STONY-2 Stony Creek below confluence Roush Run 40.49147N -076.59473W 5.49 STONY-3 STONY-3 Stony Creek below Yellow Springs Trail 40.44184N -076.69992W 14.25 STONY-4 STONY-4 Stony Creek at Fisherman’s Access 40.40322N -076.83270W 26.66 tr-1 TRFIG Trout Run at Fort Indiantown Gap, PA 40.46487N -076.59707W 0.39 tr-2 TRI Trout Run near Inwwod, PA 40.48127N -076.55336W 6.30 utir-01 UTIR Unnamed tributary to Indiantown Run at Fort Indiantown Gap, PA 40.44804N -076.62035W 1.12 utmcm-1 UTMCMG Unnamed tributary to Manada Creek near Manada Gap, PA 40.41407N -076.70480W 1.08 utmcm-2 THTRL Tributary along Horseshoe Trail to Manada Creek at Manada Gap, PA 40.40278N -076.71423W 1.64 utmcm-3 UTMC443 Unnamed tributary to Manada Creek at Rt 443 near Manada Gap, PA 40.40077N -076.71481W 2.55 utmcvRef-1 UTMCSB Unnamed Tributary to Manada Creek near Sand Beach, PA 40.34276N -076.68306W 2.57 vr-1 VRI Vesle Run at Indiantown, PA 40.41572N -076.58707W 10.60

*Sites in bold are outside the FIG boundaries ** Descriptions taken from Langland 2006 and 2008

Physiography and Geology

The FIG is located within the Valley and Ridge Physiographic Province (REF) which consists mainly of complex folded and faulted sedimentary rocks, most of which date from the Paleozoic Age (Berg and Dodge 1981). The training area lies predominantly in the Appalachian Mountain Section of the Valley and Ridge Province and mainly consists of sandstones on the higher ridge tops and valley shale’s. The cantonment area lies mostly within the Great Valley Section of the Valley and Ridge Province and primarily consists of limestone, shale’s, and dolomitic limestone. The facility is underlain by 10 geologic units, seven of which are formations, two groups, and one a sequence.

Physical Habitat and Water Chemistry

The habitat quality evaluation was conducted during July and August of 2009 at the 33 designated sites. This evaluation included a characterization of selected physicochemical parameters along with a systematic assessment of the physical structure (Barbour et al. 1999) over a measured length (100 meters). With this approach, 10 key factors were rated or scored (200 maximum) to provide a habitat quality assessment. Data collection forms from Barbour et al. (1999) for high-gradient streams were employed in the physical characterization and enabled documentation of general land use (site sketches and digital photos were also completed); a description of stream origin and type; summary of riparian vegetation features; and measures of in-stream parameters such as width, depth, flow and substrate composition by use of macroscopic observation. Water quality measures were mostly limited to in situ parameters taken with a Yellow Springs Instrument (YSI) 556 multi-meter (temperature, dissolved oxygen, % dissolved oxygen, pH, specific conductance, and total dissolved solids). The combination of information on both physical characters and water quality provides insight into the ability of a stream to support a healthy and diverse aquatic community, and to the presence/absence of a variety of potential stressors to the stream ecosystem.

Macroinvertebrate Collection

Benthic macroinvertebrate samples were collected following procedures established by Barbour et al. (1999) where a 12 inch wide x 10 inch high D-frame net with a 500 micron mesh was placed against the stream substrate and two kick samples were collected within a defined 100 meter reach (PA DEP 2003). The composite sample was placed into a 500 micron mesh sieve bucket, rinsed, and transferred to a wide mouth jar, labeled with site information inside and outside the jar, and preserved with 91% isopropyl alcohol. Larger sticks, rocks, and plant materials were examined for organisms and then discarded. The net was thoroughly checked for attached macroinvertebrates which were added to the jar, and the net was vigorously rinsed prior to leaving the site so as to prevent contamination at succeeding sites.

In 2009, the 33 sites were also sampled by employing the 20 jab multi-habitat method (Barbour et al. 1999). This method used the same D-frame net as the kick samples; however, the various habitats (for example, riffles or root wads) were collected in proportion to their occurrence within the 100 meter reach and composited. Samples were processed in the field and laboratory in the

same manner as the kick samples except the target organism count was 200 versus 100. This data and analysis for 2002-2007 appeared in a previous report (EcoAnalysts 2009).

Laboratory Procedures

In the laboratory, sorting and processing procedures followed PA DEP (2003) protocol such that each composited sample was placed into an 18x13x3.5 inch plastic pan marked off into (28) four-square inch grids. With the use of a random number generator, grids were selected and with the use of a “cookie cutter” material sorted for animals until a 100 count were reached. Once a grid was selected, all animals were removed.

Sorting Quality Assurance Every sample was checked to ensure at least 90% efficiency was maintained in the sorting process. After a laboratory technician “sorter” picked the target 100 animals or the sample was completely sorted (whichever occurred first), the processed detritus portion from the sorted portion was redistributed into the 28 grid sorting pan. The sorted material was evenly distributed and a second sorter re-sorted a randomly selected 20% portion of the sample and estimated the total number of organisms missed by the primary sorter. The calculations were conducted as follows:

1. Estimating the number of organisms missed: e = (a/b) c

Where: e = the estimated total number of organisms missed by the primary sorter a = the total number of organisms found in the 20% re-sort b = the number of grids re-sorted (usually 6) c = the number of total grids in the pan (28)

2. Estimating the actual total count: c = a + b

Where: c = the estimated total number of organisms in the sorted portion of the original sample a = the number of organisms picked b = the estimated number of organisms missed (corresponds to the value “e” in equation #1)

3. Estimating the percent sorting efficiency: e = (a/b) 100

Where: e = the estimated percent sorting efficiency a = the number of organisms picked by the primary sorter b = the estimated total number of organisms (corresponds to the value “c” in equation #2)

If the estimated percent sorting efficiency was ≥90%, the sample passed the QC (Quality Control) check. If the estimate was <90%, the sample failed the sorting efficiency check and

was completely re-sorted. If this occurred, the re-sorted sample underwent the QC process again until it exceeded the 90% efficiency level.

During the re-sorting process, the secondary sorter examined the sorted invertebrates to determine if any “reject taxa” were present among the sorted organisms. Reject taxa are organisms that are routinely excluded from specific bioassessment programs. For example, some states exclude groups such as ostracods, water mites or nematodes from analyses and do not count them towards the subsampling target. Similarly, most states omit terrestrial invertebrates from samples. Because the removal of these specimens could affect the amount of sample processing required, this evaluation must be conducted before taxonomic analysis to ensure additional sorting is not required. If “reject taxa” were found, they were removed.

The secondary sorter also inspected labels to ensure all necessary information had been recorded and was accurate.

Sample Identification Taxonomy and systematics are the sciences of identifying organisms. Taxonomy is the science of assigning correct names to organisms. Systematics focuses on the developmental relationships and organization among species and species-groups. Traditional aquatic invertebrate taxonomy uses morphological characters as the primary means of identification. Therefore, an extensive library of taxonomic literature is maintained by EcoAnalysts, as well as a reference collection of specimens verified by nationally known taxonomists. These were used to aid in the identification of invertebrates for this project.

Where possible, identifications were made to the genus/species level. This taxonomic level of effort corresponds to USEPA RBP Level III biological assessment protocols (Barbour et al. 1999). Because the determining characters of invertebrate species are often found only on the adult male, which has distinctive morphological and genitalia characters, reliable species-level identification of immature stages is often impossible. Often, the larvae of different species within the same genus can be physically indistinguishable from each other. Therefore, genus level determinations are common in macroinvertebrate data sets. Some taxonomists use distributional data in order identify specimens further; however, this practice is discouraged because many distribution records are outdated. The practice of identifying only adult male macroinvertebrate specimens past genus level has been accepted by the scientists and regulatory agencies participating in USEPA Region 10’s Aquatic Biological Assessment Workgroup, and more recently by USEPA Region 8. Where possible, identifications were made to the genus/species level. This taxonomic level of effort corresponds to USEPA RBP Level III biological assessment protocols (Barbour et al. 1999).

QC of Taxonomic Identifications Ten percent of the samples were subject to re-identification to ensure ≥ 90% taxonomic similarity.

Biological Assessment

The benthic macroinvertebrate data were entered into a database to perform data summaries, calculate community metrics, and produce selected statistical analyses. A large suite of metric values were calculated (including those employed by PA DEP) to determine which were the most descriptive for this analysis. The interpretation of these metrics was guided by the hypothesized response of each to disturbance. The community metrics, along with water quality and physicochemical parameter values, were used to determine the overall health of the benthic macroinvertebrate community at each of the 33 sites.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Historical Data Review

With the exception of the data contained in Langland (2006 & 2008) covering physical, chemical, and biological sampling from 2002-2005, there was little historical water quality or biological data available from within or near the FIG.

Study Site Descriptions

A set of 33 sites were sampled for water quality, stream descriptors (width, depth, and substrate type), habitat, and benthic macroinvertebrates in July and August 2009. Detailed site descriptions were given previously by the USGS (Langland 2006 & 2008) and do not bear repeating. However, several sites were subject to habitat alterations particularly at Manada Creek along McLean Road (mc-1), an unnamed tributary to Manada Creek near Manada Gap (utmcm-1) where the reaches were included in a forest clear cutting operation, and at Bow Creek (bcMRef-1) where the riparian vegetation was mostly removed prior to the 2007 sampling. Hurricane Ivan in September 2004 caused noticeable changes in the appearance of several sites: St. Josephs Spring (sjs-01) was buried in gravel and sand at the lower end of the reach and the streambed itself shifted about 5 meters to the east, Indiantown Run (ir-1) ended up with an expanded pool in the lower part of the reach and increased sediment deposits, Gold Mine Run (GoldMineRunRef-1) had a substantial increase in fine bottom materials, and the Hatchery Impact area on Indiantown Run (HatImp) also experienced increased scouring and sediment deposition. Most of the 33 sites were subject to some level of increased bank erosion and differing degrees of bottom scour post hurricane. In 2009, digital photographs were taken at all 33 sites upstream and downstream, downloaded to a CD, and delivered to the FIG biologists.

In 2007, six sites located outside the FIG boundaries were added for collection and analysis of macroinvertebrate communities: three on Fishing Creek (FSH-1, FSH-2, and FSH-3) and three on Stony Creek (STONY-2, STONY-3, and STONY-4), one upstream and two downstream, of the existing long term site (ScMRef-1). These same sites were also sampled in 2008 and 2009.

Physical Habitat

At each of the 33 sites sampled for aquatic macroinvertebrates, a suite of field physicochemical parameters was collected (Table 2) and a habitat assessment sheet was completed. Although reach lengths were set at 100 meters some sites were not able to achieve that distance due to wetlands, confluences, islands, and other complicating factors.

Table 2. Water Chemistry Data 2009* Site Reach Width Depth Temp Sp. pH Diss. Total Length (m) (m) (ºC) Cond. (Standard Oxygen Diss. (m) (us/cm) Units) (mg/l) Solids (g/l) ar-1 100 4 0.1 20.50 188 7.49 8.29 0.133

ar-2 100 4 0.1 21.36 293 7.66 8.27 0.207 bcRef-1 100 3 0.1 23.70 441 7.75 8.31 0.294 BHRef-1 60 2 0.1 17.68 18 7.34 9.38 0.014 ebMRef-1 100 6 0.2 19.35 16 6.20 7.75 0.012 fc-1 40 2 0.1 16.32 49 7.60 9.02 0.038 FSH-1 100 4 0.1 18.61 98 7.44 9.47 0.073 FSH-2 100 6 0.2 19.35 91 7.59 9.75 0.066 FSH-3 100 9 0.2 20.86 96 7.35 10.02 0.068 GoldMineRunRef-1 100 2 0.1 17.19 18 6.86 9.48 0.015 HatImpact 100 6 0.2 17.76 30 7.24 8.59 0.023 ir-0.5 100 4 0.1 17.77 26 7.30 9.03 0.026 ir-1 75 5 0.2 17.82 48 7.21 8.83 0.048 ir-2 100 4 0.2 24.64 67 7.91 7.92 0.067 ir-3 100 6 0.1 21.15 297 7.84 6.89 0.029 mc-1 100 4 0.2 18.21 29 7.08 9.18 0.021 mc-1.5 100 8 0.2 21.29 30 7.18 8.43 0.022 mc-2 100 10 0.3 18.64 39 7.37 9.92 0.029 qr-1 100 4 0.1 21.84 218 7.50 7.84 0.150 qr-2 100 5 0.1 19.27 260 7.70 8.41 0.190 ScMRef-1 100 9 0.2 17.13 29 7.34 9.05 0.024 sjs-01 100 2 0.1 17.23 103 7.54 8.49 0.079 STONY-2 100 7 0.2 17.01 27 7.32 9.34 0.020 STONY-3 100 10 0.3 20.87 22 7.31 8.69 0.016 STONY-4 100 10 0.2 20.37 21 7.03 9.24 ------tr-1 100 2 0.1 17.54 41 7.20 8.89 0.031 tr-2 100 4 0.2 21.79 57 8.22 8.53 0.040 utir-01 40 2 0.1 15.40 31 7.45 9.57 0.024 utmcm-1 100 2 0.1 17.92 18 7.07 9.67 0.015 utmcm-2 75 2 0.1 16.49 31 7.54 9.57 0.024 utmcm-3 100 4 0.1 16.52 70 7.35 9.51 0.053 utmcvRef-1 100 4 0.1 22.08 319 7.71 8.00 0.220 vr-1 100 5 0.1 26.11 93 7.85 7.37 0.058 * Bolded data are from sites located outside FIG boundaries

At each of the 33 sites sampled for benthic macroinvertebrates in 2009, the following physicochemical parameters were collected: temperature (°C), specific conductance, pH, dissolved oxygen, percent dissolved oxygen, and total dissolved solids. Additionally, a detailed

USEPA RBP habitat form was completed for high-gradient type streams as well as a macroscopic bottom substrate characterization.

The habitat scores by category and total (200 is maximum) are given in Figure 3. A detailed explanation of each individual parameter is given in Barbour et al. (1999). The scores were subjectively ranked in this study as follows: optimal = 200-166; suboptimal = 165-131; marginal = 130-100; and poor = <99.

200

180

160

140

120

100

80 Habitat Scores Habitat 60

0 TRI VRI BHR UTIR QRFI IRBH IRVR IRML BOW EVBR GOLD FORG ARQR FSH-3 FSH-1 FSH-2 TRFIG ARFIG MCMR MCMG THTRL STJOE STONY IRUT0b IRUT0a ARBQR MCBMG STONY-3 STONY-2 STONY-4 UTMCSB UTMCMG UTMC443 Sites

Figure 3. Habitat Scores 2009

In this analysis two sites were categorized as poor; nine as marginal; 17 as suboptimal; and five as optimal. The “poor” sites were at Forge Creek (FORG) and unnamed tributary to Indiantown Run (UTIR). Most of the marginal sites were located in the cantonment area or within the FIG boundaries. The suboptimal category contained a variety of sites within and outside the FIG boundaries. The Stony Creek sites (STONY-2, STONY-3, and STONY-4) were ranked as optimal along with Gold Mine Run and MCBMG the larger Manada Creek site. These sites were noticeably located within mostly forested undisturbed land use areas.

Macroinvertebrate Community Analysis

Inventory of Aquatic Macroinvertebrates To develop an aquatic macroinvertebrate inventory all samples collected by the 2 kick method at each site were combined. These included 33 sites for the year 2009 (see Appendix 1).

Review of this inventory revealed 206 distinct taxa: 172 taxa from the Phylum Arthropoda, 10 taxa from the Phylum Annelida, 5 from the Phylum Mollusca, 9 from Order Acari (water mites), 7 from sub-Phyla Crustacea, and 3 other. Within Class Insecta the Order Ephemeroptera (mayflies) made up 28 distinct taxa, the Odonata (dragonflies and damselflies) 2 taxa, the Plecoptera (stoneflies) 15 taxa, the Coleoptera (beetles) 15 taxa, the Megaloptera (dobsonflies and fishflies) 5 taxa, the Diptera (true flies) 73 taxa --of which 52 taxa belonged to the Family Chironomidae (midges), and the Trichoptera (caddisflies) 34 taxa.

No state or federally threatened or endangered aquatic macroinvertebrate taxa were known to be collected in this study.

Metric Analyses A series of eight metrics were selected to characterize the aquatic macroinvertebrate community—species (taxa) richness, Ephemeroptera (mayfly), Plecoptera (stonefly), and Trichoptera (caddisfly) richness or EPT richness, Hilsenhoff Biotic Index (HBI), percent EPT, percent single dominant taxon, Shannon-Weaver Index (log e), percent Chironomidae, and percent tolerant taxa. These were not the only calculated metrics that could have been selected to show individual site trends (Appendix 2). These metrics were chosen as they are considered explanatory of the status of the benthic macroinvertebrate assemblage in 2008 and 2009.

Species (Taxa) Richness

Figure 4 is a graph of species (taxa) richness or the number of discrete taxa and represents the diversity within the sample. An increasing diversity correlates with increasing health of the assemblage and suggests that niche space, habitat, and food sources are adequate to support the survival and propagation of many species.

An examination of the figure shows an expected wide range in species richness values for sites located within and outside the FIG boundaries. Overall values ranged from a low of 25 at (QRFI) Qureg Run at FIG to 49 at (STONY-4) Stony Creek at Fisherman’s Access. A species richness value of >30 is considered indicative of a balanced aquatic macroinvertebrate community. Twenty-two of the thirty-three sites (67%) had 30 or greater taxa with an additional four sites very near the 30 mark.. Most sites appearing on the far right side of the graph are streams in the more undisturbed areas within FIG with the exception of the two sites previously clear cut (MCMG and UTMCMG).

Taxa Richness 20

0 TRI VRI BHR UTIR IRBH IRVR QRFI BOW IRML EVBR FSH-2 GOLD FORG FSH-1 ARQR FSH-3 TRFIG ARFIG MCMR MCMG STJOE THTRL STONY IRUT0a ARBQR URUT0a UTMCSB STONY-3 STONY-4 STONY-2 UTMC443 UTMCMG Sites

Figure 4. Species (Taxa) Richness 2009

EPT Richness

EPT Richness denotes the total number of species of mayflies (Ephemeroptera), stoneflies (Plecoptera), and caddisflies (Trichoptera) found in the subsample (Figure 5). These animals are considered clean water inhabitants, and their presence is generally correlated with good water quality. Values ranged from a low of 5 at (UTMC443) Unnamed Tributary to Manada Creek at Route 443 near Manada Gap to a high of 24 at (STONY-4) Stony Creek at Fisherman’s Access. Values >20 are considered representative of good water quality. Three sites exhibited values ≥20- (UTMCMG, STONY-4, and BHR). The sites on the right side of the graph with values ≥20 are located in mostly undisturbed forested land uses both on and off the FIG boundaries.

EPT Richness 10

0 TRI VRI BHR UTIR QRFI IRML IRBH IRVR BOW EVBR GOLD TRFIG FSH-1 FSH-3 FORG ARQR FSH-2 THTRL ARFIG MCMR MCMG STJOE IRUT0a IRUT0b STONY ARBQR MCBMG UTMCSB STONY-3 STONY-2 STONY-4 UTMCMG UTMC443 Sites

Figure 5. EPT Richness 2009

Hilsenhoff Biotic Index (HBI)

The Hilsenhoff Biotic Index (HBI) was calculated by multiplying the number of individuals of each taxon by its assigned tolerance value, summing these products, and dividing by the total number of individuals. On a scale of 0-10, tolerance values range from intolerant (0) to tolerant (10) with a value <4.5 being desirable (Bode 2002). High HBI values are representative of the presence of organic pollution, while lower values are indicative of clean water conditions. The HBI values ranged from a low of 2.60 at (TRFIG) to a high of 5.53 at (IRBH) Indiantown Run below the Hatchery. Twenty-one sites had HBI scores < 4.5 indicating a non-impacted condition (Figure 6). Sites on the left side of the graph were mostly first order streams located within forested land use areas while those on the left side of the graph were mostly located in areas within the FIG boundaries (in the cantonment area) and off base..

3 HBI Score 2

0 TRI VRI BHR UTIR IRML IRVR QRFI IRBH BOW GOLD EVBR FSH-2 TRFIG FORG FSH-3 FSH-1 ARQR THTRL ARFIG MCMR STJOE MCMG IRUT0a IRUT0a STONY ARBQR MCBMG UTMCSB STONY-3 STONY-4 STONY-3 UTMCMG UTMC443 Sites

Figure 6. Hilsenhoff Biotic Index (HBI) Scores 2009

Shannon-Weaver Index

The Shannon-Weaver H’ (log e) species diversity values combine species richness and community balance (evenness) and are calculated using the formula given by Weber (1973). High species diversity values usually indicate diverse, well-balanced communities, while lower values indicate the presence of a stressor(s) or impact. A good water quality value is considered to be >2.75. The values ranged from 2.59 at (TRFIG) to 3.47 at (STONY-4). Twenty-nine sites had values greater than this benchmark value. Many of those sites that did not attain a value >2.75 were located within the FIG boundaries (Figure 7).

3.5

2.5

1.5

1 Shannon Diversity (log (log e) Diversity Shannon

0.5

0 TRI VRI BHR UTIR QRFI IRML IRVR IRBH BOW GOLD EVBR FORG FSH-2 FSH-3 FSH-1 ARQR TRFIG THTRL ARFIG MCMR STJOE MCMG IRUT0a IRUT0b STONY ARBQR MCBMG UTMCSB STONY-4 STONY-2 STONY-3 UTMC443 UTMCMG Sites

Figure 7. Shannon-Weaver Index (log e) 2009

Percentage of EPT Taxa Richness

The percent EPT is a metric comparing the total number of mayflies (Ephemeroptera), stoneflies (Plecoptera), and caddisflies (Trichoptera) to the total number of organisms in the sample. Some researchers consider an EPT percentage >50% representative of good water quality. The values ranged from a low of 9% at (UTMC443) to a high of 84% at (TRFIG). Twelve sites had values of >50% with most of the higher percentage sites being high-gradient first order streams in a forested land use. Those with lower percentages were mostly located within FIG boundaries (Figure 8).

T 50

% EP 40

0 TRI VRI BHR UTIR QRFI IRVR IRML IRBH BOW GOLD EVBR TRFIG ARQR FSH-1 FORG FSH-2 THTRL ARFIG MCMR FISH-3 MCMG STJOE IRUT0a IRUT0b STONY ARBQR MCBMG UTMCSB STONY-4 STONY-2 STONY-3 UTMC443 UTMCMG Sites

Figure 8. Percent EPT 2009

Percent Dominant (single) Taxon

Dominance is a simple measure of community balance, or evenness of the distribution of individuals among the species. Simple dominance is the percent contribution of the most numerous species. Often the top three or five taxa are combined in the percent contribution calculation (Shackleford 1988). High dominance values indicate unbalanced communities strongly dominated by one or more very numerous species (Figure 9). The lowest single dominance value was at MCMG at 9.4% (Dolophilodes caddis) and the highest at TRFIG at Trout Run with 32.7% (Leuctra stoneflies)). Generally macroinvertebrate communities have <30% of the total taxa dominated by a single taxon and often have >50% in impacted situations. Only sites STONY and TRFIG exceeded 30% single taxa dominance at 31.8% (Promoresia) and 32.7% (Leuctra) respectively; however, both sites are considered non-impacted.

% Dominant Taxon % Dominant 10

0 TRI VRI BHR UTIR IRML IRBH QRFI BOW GOLD EVBR FSH-2 FSH-1 TRFIG FSH-3 FORG ARQR THTRL ARFIG MCMR MCMG STJOE IRUT0a IRUT0b STONY ARBQR MCBMG UTMCSB STONY-3 STONY-2 STONY-4 UTMC443 UTMCMG Sites

Figure 9. Percent Dominant (single) Taxon 2009

Percent Chironomidae (midges)

Non-biting flies (Diptera) of the family Chironomidae represent a diverse group of insects found in all freshwater ecosystems. The group encompasses a variety of feeding strategies, has a wide range of tolerance values, and many larva have distinct habitat preferences. A balanced macroinvertebrate community will generally have 5-30% Chironomidae. Higher percentages may indicate impairment of habitat or water quality. Percent Chironomidae ranged from 6.1% at FSH-2 to greater than 50% at UTIR, IRBH, and UTMC443 (Figure 10). These results show that the dominant midge at UTIR and IRBH was the tanytarsine Micropsectra sp. which is found in a wide range of lentic and lotic habitats and at UTMCSB the orthoclad Tvetenia bavarica found in running water habitats was the dominant midge.

30 % Chironomidae 20

0 VRI BHR UTIR IRVR IRBH IRML QRFI BOW EVBR GOLD TRFIG ARQR FORG FSH-2 TRFIG FSH-3 FSH-1 THTRL ARFIG MCMR MCMG STJOE IRUT0a IRUT0b STONY ARBQR MCBMG UTMCSB STONY-3 STONY-4 STONY-2 UTMCMG UTMC443 Sites

Figure 10. Percent Chironomidae (midges) 2009

Percent Tolerant Taxa

Percent tolerant taxa is the percentage of the total taxa in a sample that have a pollution tolerance value of 8-10 on a 0-10 scale with 0 being very intolerant and 10 very tolerant. Values of <15% basically define a balanced macroinvertebrate community structure. Nine sites had no tolerant taxa collected which were a reflection on the low number of tolerant midge and worm taxa present. (GOLD) Gold Mine Run had the highest percent tolerant taxa at 12% (Figure 11) but below the 15% benchmark value.

6 % Tolerant Taxa % Tolerant 4

0 TRI VRI BHR UTIR IRVR IRML QRFI IRBH BOW GOLD EVBR FSH-3 ARQR FSH-2 FSH-1 FORG TRFIG ARFIG THTRL MCMR MCMG STJOE IRUT0a IRUT0b STONY ARBQR MCBMG UTMCSB STONY-2 STONY-4 STONY-3 UTMCMG UTMC443 Sites

Figure 11. Percent Tolerant Taxa 2009

CONCLUSIONS

A study of the water quality, habitat, and aquatic macroinvertebrate communities was conducted at 33 sites. Sampling was conducted in July and August 2009. Twenty sites were located within the boundaries of FIG and thirteen were external. The purpose of the study was to document long term changes or similarities among the sites and potential causative agents of those changes over a decadal period. This report covers only kick samples collected in 2009.

Twenty-seven sites were chosen to replicate those locations from a previous study in order to maintain continuity. Six additional sites were added in 2007, three on Fishing Creek and three on Stony Creek (all outside FIG boundaries) for a total of 33. The methods of collection, laboratory processing, data calculation and analysis closely followed the PA DEP protocols in order to reduce or eliminate questions of variability.

The habitat assessment scores over the 2009 study period showed that 31 sites had a score that should support a “good” aquatic macroinvertebrate community while two sites: FORG and UTIR were scored as poor.

In the metric analysis using species (taxa) richness, EPT Richness, Hilsenhoff Biotic Index (HBI), Shannon-Weaver Index (log e), percent EPT, percent dominant (single) taxon, percent Chironomidae, and percent tolerant taxa showed that sites located in mostly undisturbed forested type land use areas had more “healthy” aquatic macroinvertebrate communities than those sites located in more disturbed sites within the cantonment area and those subjected to suburban/urban land use; however, even those sites were not considered greatly impaired in this study.

No definitive impacts of significance were attributed to the operations of FIG. Those impacts that have been defined are due mainly to natural versus anthropogenic causes.

LITERATURE CITED

Barbour, M.T., J. Gerritsen, B.D. Snyder, and J.B. Stribling. 1999. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Wadeable Rivers: Periphyton, Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish, Second Edition. EPA 841-B-99-002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Office of Water; Washington, D.C.

Berg, T.M. and C.M. Dodge (Eds.). 1981. Atlas of preliminary geologic quadrangle maps of Pennsylvania, Map 61: Pennsylvania Topographic and Geological Survey, 4th Edition.

Bode, R.W., M.A. Novak, L.E. Able, D.L. Heitzman and A.J. Smith. 2002. Quality Assurance Work Plan for Biological Stream Monitoring in New York State, Stream Biomonitoring Unit, Bureau of Water Assessment and Management, Division of Water, NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, NY. 122pp.

EcoAnalysts, Inc. 2008. Bioassessment of the Aquatic Macroinvertebrate Community Collected from 33 Sites within the Vicinity of the National Guard Training Center at Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania, August 2008. Draft.

EcoAnalysts, Inc. 2009. Bioassessment of the Aquatic Macroinvertebrate Community Collected from 27 Sites within the Vicinity of the National Guard Training Center at Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania, 2002-2007. Draft.

Langland, M.J., P.J. Cinotto, D.C. Chicester, M.D. Bilger, and R.A. Brightbill. 2006. Water Quality, Quantity, Biological, and Geomorhology, and Ground Water Flow Simulation for National Guard Training Center at Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania, 2002-2005. U.S. Geological Survey, New Cumberland, PA. 81pp. Draft.

Langland, M.J., P.J. Cinotto, D.C. Chicester, M.D. Bilger, and R.A. Brightbill. 2008. Surface- Water Quality and Quantity, Aquatic Biology, Stream Geomorphology, and Ground Water Flow Simulation for National Guard Training Center at Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania, 2002- 2005. 89pp. + App. Draft.

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. 2003. Standardized Biological Field Collection and Laboratory Methods. Bureau of Water Supply and Wastewater Management. Draft.

Shackleford, B. 1988. Rapid bioassessments of lotic macroinvertebrate communities: Biocriteria development. Arkansas Dept. Pollut. Control and Ecol., Little Rock, AR.

Weber, C.I. (Ed.). 1973. Biological field and laboratory methods for measuring the quality of surface waters and effluents. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Analytical Quality Control Laboratory, National Environmental Research Center, Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati, OH. EPA-670/4-73-001.

* For a list of taxonomic references, contact EcoAnalysts, Inc.

APPENDIX 1 Taxa List for 2009 Indiantown Indiantown Indiantown Indiantown Indiantown Bow Stream Run Run Run Run Vesle Run Run Creek Trout Run Site utir-01 ir-0.5 HatImp ir-3 vr-1 ir-2 bcRef-1 tr-1 07-31- Date 07-28-2009 07-28-2009 07-28-2009 07-31-2009 2009 07-30-2009 08-11-2009 07-30-2009 Device D-frame D-frame D-frame D-frame D-frame D-frame D-frame D-frame Habitat kicks kicks kicks kicks kicks kicks kicks kicks Percent Subsampled 3.13 8.33 4.70 12.50 3.13 37.45 18.76 18.76 EcoAnalysts Sample ID 5360.1-1 5360.1-2 5360.1-3 5360.1-4 5360.1-5 5360.1-6 5360.1-7 5360.1-8 Ephemeroptera Acentrella turbida 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Acerpenna macdunnoughi 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Acerpenna sp. 3 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Baetidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Baetis flavistriga 1 0 1 3 2 0 2 0 Baetis intercalaris 0 0 0 4 0 4 5 0 Baetis pluto 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Baetis sp. 0 0 0 5 16 5 4 6 Baetis tricaudatus 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Caenis anceps 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Caenis sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 Diphetor hageni 0 1 0 3 0 0 1 5 Epeorus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Ephemerella sp. 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ephemerellidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Eurylophella funeralis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Eurylophella sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Heptageniidae 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 Heterocloeon sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Isonychia sp. 0 0 1 5 1 1 0 0 Leptophlebiidae 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 Leucrocuta sp. 0 0 0 11 0 7 2 0 Maccaffertium modestum 1 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 Maccaffertium sp. 1 18 2 2 1 4 1 14 Plauditus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Procloeon sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Serratella deficiens 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Stenacron sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Odonata Cordulegaster sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Gomphidae 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 Plecoptera Acroneuria abnormis 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 Acroneuria sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Amphinemura sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Capniidae 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Eccoptura xanthenes 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Leuctra sp. 15 3 1 0 0 0 0 33 Paragnetina media 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Perlesta sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Perlidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25

Indiantown Indiantown Indiantown Indiantown Indiantown Bow Stream Run Run Run Run Vesle Run Run Creek Trout Run Site utir-01 ir-0.5 HatImp ir-3 vr-1 ir-2 bcRef-1 tr-1 07-31- Date 07-28-2009 07-28-2009 07-28-2009 07-31-2009 2009 07-30-2009 08-11-2009 07-30-2009 Device D-frame D-frame D-frame D-frame D-frame D-frame D-frame D-frame Habitat kicks kicks kicks kicks kicks kicks kicks kicks Percent Subsampled 3.13 8.33 4.70 12.50 3.13 37.45 18.76 18.76 EcoAnalysts Sample ID 5360.1-1 5360.1-2 5360.1-3 5360.1-4 5360.1-5 5360.1-6 5360.1-7 5360.1-8 Perlodidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Plecoptera 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pteronarcys sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Soyedina sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sweltsa sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tallaperla sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Coleoptera Anchytarsus bicolor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dubiraphia sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 Ectopria sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Elmidae 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Macronychus glabratus 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Microcylloepus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Optioservus ovalis 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Optioservus sp. 1 0 1 0 4 1 16 0 Optioservus trivittatus 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Oulimnius latiusculus 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Oulimnius sp. 3 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 Promoresia sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Promoresia tardella 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 Psephenus herricki 0 0 0 2 2 0 5 0 Stenelmis sp. 5 10 1 3 13 0 14 0 Megaloptera Corydalidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Corydalus cornutus 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 Nigronia serricornis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nigronia sp. 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sialis sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diptera-Chironomidae Cardiocladius sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Chaetocladius sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Chironomini 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Cladotanytarsus sp. 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Corynoneura sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Cricotopus bicinctus gr. 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cricotopus sp. 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 Demicryptochironomus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diamesa sp. 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Dicrotendipes sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diplocladius sp. 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Eukiefferiella brehmi gr. 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Eukiefferiella claripennis gr. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Eukiefferiella devonica gr. 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Eukiefferiella gracei gr. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Eukiefferiella sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26

Indiantown Indiantown Indiantown Indiantown Indiantown Bow Stream Run Run Run Run Vesle Run Run Creek Trout Run Site utir-01 ir-0.5 HatImp ir-3 vr-1 ir-2 bcRef-1 tr-1 07-31- Date 07-28-2009 07-28-2009 07-28-2009 07-31-2009 2009 07-30-2009 08-11-2009 07-30-2009 Device D-frame D-frame D-frame D-frame D-frame D-frame D-frame D-frame Habitat kicks kicks kicks kicks kicks kicks kicks kicks Percent Subsampled 3.13 8.33 4.70 12.50 3.13 37.45 18.76 18.76 EcoAnalysts Sample ID 5360.1-1 5360.1-2 5360.1-3 5360.1-4 5360.1-5 5360.1-6 5360.1-7 5360.1-8 Nilotanypus fimbriatus 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 Nilotanypus sp. 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Orthocladiinae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Orthocladius (Symp.) lignicola 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Orthocladius Complex 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 Pagastia sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Parachaetocladius sp. 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Paracricotopus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Parametriocnemus sp. 4 3 11 0 0 0 0 1 Paraphaenocladius sp. 4 0 1 2 0 0 1 0 Pentaneurini 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Polypedilum aviceps 0 1 1 1 0 5 0 0 Polypedilum flavum 0 0 0 9 0 0 1 1 Polypedilum illinoense gr. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Polypedilum laetum 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Polypedilum sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Polypedilum tritum 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Potthastia gaedii gr. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Psilometriocnemus sp. 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Rheocricotopus sp. 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Rheotanytarsus exiguus gr. 1 4 6 4 6 0 6 1 Rheotanytarsus pellucidus gr. 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Stempellinella sp. 0 0 8 1 0 0 0 0 Synorthocladius sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tanytarsini 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tanytarsus sp. 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Thienemanniella sp. 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Thienemannimyia gr. sp. 2 3 0 0 0 0 4 1 Tvetenia bavarica gr. 5 1 2 8 0 0 1 0 Tvetenia discoloripes gr. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Zavrelimyia sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diptera Anopheles sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Antocha sp. 1 0 0 4 0 2 0 0 Atherix sp. 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 Atrichopogon sp. 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Bezzia/Palpomyia sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Chelifera/Metachela sp. 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Dasyhelea sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dicranota sp. 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Dixa sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dixella sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27

Indiantown Indiantown Indiantown Indiantown Indiantown Bow Stream Run Run Run Run Vesle Run Run Creek Trout Run Site utir-01 ir-0.5 HatImp ir-3 vr-1 ir-2 bcRef-1 tr-1 07-31- Date 07-28-2009 07-28-2009 07-28-2009 07-31-2009 2009 07-30-2009 08-11-2009 07-30-2009 Device D-frame D-frame D-frame D-frame D-frame D-frame D-frame D-frame Habitat kicks kicks kicks kicks kicks kicks kicks kicks Percent Subsampled 3.13 8.33 4.70 12.50 3.13 37.45 18.76 18.76 EcoAnalysts Sample ID 5360.1-1 5360.1-2 5360.1-3 5360.1-4 5360.1-5 5360.1-6 5360.1-7 5360.1-8 Simulium sp. 0 0 0 1 0 5 0 0 Tabanidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Tipula sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tipulidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Wiedemannia sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Trichoptera Adicrophleps hitchcocki 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cheumatopsyche sp. 0 4 1 6 10 21 5 5 Chimarra aterrima 0 2 0 8 3 8 17 0 Chimarra obscura 0 0 0 0 27 6 0 0 Diplectrona sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 Dolophilodes sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Glossosoma sp. 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 Glossosomatidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Goera sp. 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hydatophylax sp. 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hydropsyche betteni 0 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 Hydropsyche bronta 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hydropsyche morosa 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hydropsyche sp. 3 14 0 5 0 7 3 0 Hydropsyche sparna 0 0 0 1 0 6 0 0 Hydropsyche ventura 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Hydropsychidae 0 4 0 5 0 3 0 4 Hydroptila sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lype diversa 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Micrasema sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Molanna sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Neophylax sp. 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Nyctiophylax sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Philopotamidae 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 Polycentropus sp. 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Psilotreta sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Psychomyia flavida 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rhyacophila carolina gr. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rhyacophila fuscula 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rhyacophila minora 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rhyacophila nigrita 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rhyacophila sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Trichoptera 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lepidoptera Pyralidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Gastropoda Ancylidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lymnaeidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Stream Indiantown Run St. Josephs Spring Trout Run Manada Creek Manada Creek Manada Creek Qureg Run Aires Run Aires Run Site ir-1 sjs-1 tr-2 utmcm-2 utmcm-3 mc-2 qr-1 ar-2 qr-2 Date 07-30-2009 07-28-2009 07-30-2009 08-07-2009 08-07-2009 08-07-2009 08-04-2009 07-31-2009 08-04-2009 Device D-frame D-frame D-frame D-frame D-frame D-frame D-frame D-frame D-frame Habitat kicks kicks kicks kicks kicks kicks kicks kicks kicks Percent Subsampled 12.50 14.58 4.17 6.25 7.29 32.79 12.50 10.42 10.42 EcoAnalysts Sample ID 5360.1-9 5360.1-10 5360.1-11 5360.1-12 5360.1-13 5360.1-14 5360.1-15 5360.1-16 5360.1-17 Ephemeroptera Acentrella turbida 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 Acerpenna macdunnoughi 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Acerpenna sp. 0 0 0 1 0 0 6 4 0 Baetidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Baetis flavistriga 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 Baetis intercalaris 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 12 0 Baetis pluto 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Baetis sp. 2 0 6 2 0 2 3 5 0 Baetis tricaudatus 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Caenis anceps 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Caenis sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Diphetor hageni 1 10 0 10 0 0 5 1 1 Epeorus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ephemerella sp. 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 Ephemerellidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Eurylophella funeralis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Eurylophella sp. 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Heptageniidae 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Heterocloeon sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Isonychia sp. 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 1 Leptophlebiidae 1 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Leucrocuta sp. 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 6 Maccaffertium modestum 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Maccaffertium sp. 9 0 3 5 0 5 8 3 6 Plauditus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Procloeon sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Serratella deficiens 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Stenacron sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Odonata Cordulegaster sp. 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Gomphidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Plecoptera Acroneuria abnormis 1 0 3 2 0 1 0 0 0 Acroneuria sp. 2 3 4 0 0 8 0 0 0 Amphinemura sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Capniidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Eccoptura xanthenes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Leuctra sp. 7 7 10 11 1 2 0 0 0 Paragnetina media 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Perlesta sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 Perlidae 3 7 0 2 0 0 0 0 0

Stream Indiantown Run St. Josephs Spring Trout Run Manada Creek Manada Creek Manada Creek Qureg Run Aires Run Aires Run Site ir-1 sjs-1 tr-2 utmcm-2 utmcm-3 mc-2 qr-1 ar-2 qr-2 Date 07-30-2009 07-28-2009 07-30-2009 08-07-2009 08-07-2009 08-07-2009 08-04-2009 07-31-2009 08-04-2009 Device D-frame D-frame D-frame D-frame D-frame D-frame D-frame D-frame D-frame Habitat kicks kicks kicks kicks kicks kicks kicks kicks kicks Percent Subsampled 12.50 14.58 4.17 6.25 7.29 32.79 12.50 10.42 10.42 EcoAnalysts Sample ID 5360.1-9 5360.1-10 5360.1-11 5360.1-12 5360.1-13 5360.1-14 5360.1-15 5360.1-16 5360.1-17 Perlodidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Plecoptera 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pteronarcys sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Soyedina sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sweltsa sp. 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tallaperla sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Coleoptera Anchytarsus bicolor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dubiraphia sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ectopria sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Elmidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Macronychus glabratus 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Microcylloepus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Optioservus ovalis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Optioservus sp. 0 2 1 1 0 3 6 10 12 Optioservus trivittatus 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Oulimnius latiusculus 3 5 2 2 0 4 0 0 0 Oulimnius sp. 2 0 4 3 0 1 0 0 0 Promoresia sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Promoresia tardella 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 Psephenus herricki 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 3 Stenelmis sp. 0 0 0 1 0 5 21 9 19 Megaloptera Corydalidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Corydalus cornutus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Nigronia serricornis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nigronia sp. 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Sialis sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diptera-Chironomidae Cardiocladius sp. 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Chaetocladius sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Chironomini 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cladotanytarsus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Corynoneura sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cricotopus bicinctus gr. 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 Cricotopus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 Demicryptochironomus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Diamesa sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dicrotendipes sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 Diplocladius sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Eukiefferiella brehmi gr. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Eukiefferiella claripennis gr. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Eukiefferiella devonica gr. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Eukiefferiella gracei gr. 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 Eukiefferiella sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Stream Indiantown Run St. Josephs Spring Trout Run Manada Creek Manada Creek Manada Creek Qureg Run Aires Run Aires Run Site ir-1 sjs-1 tr-2 utmcm-2 utmcm-3 mc-2 qr-1 ar-2 qr-2 Date 07-30-2009 07-28-2009 07-30-2009 08-07-2009 08-07-2009 08-07-2009 08-04-2009 07-31-2009 08-04-2009 Device D-frame D-frame D-frame D-frame D-frame D-frame D-frame D-frame D-frame Habitat kicks kicks kicks kicks kicks kicks kicks kicks kicks Percent Subsampled 12.50 14.58 4.17 6.25 7.29 32.79 12.50 10.42 10.42 EcoAnalysts Sample ID 5360.1-9 5360.1-10 5360.1-11 5360.1-12 5360.1-13 5360.1-14 5360.1-15 5360.1-16 5360.1-17 Nilotanypus fimbriatus 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Nilotanypus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Orthocladiinae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Orthocladius (Symp.) lignicola 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 Orthocladius Complex 0 0 0 1 3 1 0 4 2 Pagastia sp. 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 Parachaetocladius sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 Paracricotopus sp. 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Parametriocnemus sp. 3 3 1 0 4 2 0 0 4 Paraphaenocladius sp. 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 Pentaneurini 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Polypedilum aviceps 12 0 20 4 4 4 3 1 0 Polypedilum flavum 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Polypedilum illinoense gr. 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 Polypedilum laetum 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Polypedilum sp. 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Polypedilum tritum 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Potthastia gaedii gr. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Psilometriocnemus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rheocricotopus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 Rheotanytarsus exiguus gr. 0 0 0 3 11 0 1 4 4 Rheotanytarsus pellucidus gr. 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 Stempellinella sp. 0 0 0 4 2 2 0 0 2 Synorthocladius sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tanytarsini 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Tanytarsus sp. 0 4 0 3 4 1 0 0 0 Thienemanniella sp. 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Thienemannimyia gr. sp. 2 4 0 1 3 7 4 2 1 Tvetenia bavarica gr. 2 1 6 2 26 1 0 12 6 Tvetenia discoloripes gr. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Zavrelimyia sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diptera Anopheles sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Antocha sp. 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 Atherix sp. 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 Atrichopogon sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bezzia/Palpomyia sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Chelifera/Metachela sp. 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dasyhelea sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dicranota sp. 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 Dixa sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dixella sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Stream Indiantown Run St. Josephs Spring Trout Run Manada Creek Manada Creek Manada Creek Qureg Run Aires Run Aires Run Site ir-1 sjs-1 tr-2 utmcm-2 utmcm-3 mc-2 qr-1 ar-2 qr-2 Date 07-30-2009 07-28-2009 07-30-2009 08-07-2009 08-07-2009 08-07-2009 08-04-2009 07-31-2009 08-04-2009 Device D-frame D-frame D-frame D-frame D-frame D-frame D-frame D-frame D-frame Habitat kicks kicks kicks kicks kicks kicks kicks kicks kicks Percent Subsampled 12.50 14.58 4.17 6.25 7.29 32.79 12.50 10.42 10.42 EcoAnalysts Sample ID 5360.1-9 5360.1-10 5360.1-11 5360.1-12 5360.1-13 5360.1-14 5360.1-15 5360.1-16 5360.1-17 Simulium sp. 9 0 9 5 3 3 6 4 0 Tabanidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tipula sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Tipulidae 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Wiedemannia sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Trichoptera Adicrophleps hitchcocki 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cheumatopsyche sp. 6 1 5 11 4 4 6 0 4 Chimarra aterrima 0 0 1 0 0 0 14 7 14 Chimarra obscura 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 1 Diplectrona sp. 0 13 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 Dolophilodes sp. 13 8 20 0 1 4 0 1 0 Glossosoma sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Glossosomatidae 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Goera sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hydatophylax sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hydropsyche betteni 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Hydropsyche bronta 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Hydropsyche morosa 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hydropsyche sp. 21 1 10 0 2 14 0 0 0 Hydropsyche sparna 12 1 7 0 0 2 0 0 0 Hydropsyche ventura 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hydropsychidae 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 Hydroptila sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lype diversa 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Micrasema sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Molanna sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Neophylax sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nyctiophylax sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Philopotamidae 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 Polycentropus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Psilotreta sp. 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Psychomyia flavida 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 Rhyacophila carolina gr. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rhyacophila fuscula 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rhyacophila minora 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rhyacophila nigrita 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rhyacophila sp. 1 4 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 Trichoptera 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Lepidoptera Pyralidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Gastropoda Ancylidae 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Lymnaeidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0

Fishing Fishing Fishing UNT Manada Manada Manada Stony Stony Stony Stream Creek Creek Creek Creek Creek Creek Creek Creek Creek Site fsh-1 fsh-2 fsh-3 utmcm-1 mc-1.5 mc-1 sc-2 sc-4 sc-3 Date 08-06-2009 08-06-2009 08-06-2009 07-27-2009 07-27-2009 07-27-2009 08-10-2009 08-10-2009 08-10-2009 Device D-frame D-frame D-frame D-frame D-frame D-frame D-frame D-frame D-frame Habitat kicks kicks kicks kicks kicks kicks kicks kicks kicks Percent Subsampled 13.55 4.70 31.25 12.50 12.76 4.69 58.48 10.42 8.33 EcoAnalysts Sample ID 5360.1-18 5360.1-19 5360.1-20 5360.1-21 5360.1-22 5360.1-23 5360.1-24 5360.1-25 5360.1-26 Ephemeroptera Acentrella turbida 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Acerpenna macdunnoughi 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 Acerpenna sp. 0 0 0 3 0 0 2 0 1 Baetidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 Baetis flavistriga 0 2 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 Baetis intercalaris 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 Baetis pluto 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 2 Baetis sp. 6 0 2 11 2 2 0 0 0 Baetis tricaudatus 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 Caenis anceps 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Caenis sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diphetor hageni 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 Epeorus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Ephemerella sp. 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 2 0 Ephemerellidae 0 1 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 Eurylophella funeralis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Eurylophella sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Heptageniidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Heterocloeon sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Isonychia sp. 1 5 1 1 5 0 0 1 0 Leptophlebiidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Leucrocuta sp. 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 1 0 Maccaffertium modestum 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Maccaffertium sp. 2 5 1 3 5 0 6 3 1 Plauditus sp. 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 Procloeon sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Serratella deficiens 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Stenacron sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Odonata Cordulegaster sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Gomphidae 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 Plecoptera Acroneuria abnormis 1 1 5 0 1 1 0 3 2 Acroneuria sp. 0 5 9 0 5 2 0 2 2 Amphinemura sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Capniidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Eccoptura xanthenes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Leuctra sp. 5 0 1 1 7 7 12 10 3 Paragnetina media 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Perlesta sp. 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 Perlidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 35

Fishing Fishing Fishing UNT Manada Manada Manada Stony Stony Stony Stream Creek Creek Creek Creek Creek Creek Creek Creek Creek Site fsh-1 fsh-2 fsh-3 utmcm-1 mc-1.5 mc-1 sc-2 sc-4 sc-3 Date 08-06-2009 08-06-2009 08-06-2009 07-27-2009 07-27-2009 07-27-2009 08-10-2009 08-10-2009 08-10-2009 Device D-frame D-frame D-frame D-frame D-frame D-frame D-frame D-frame D-frame Habitat kicks kicks kicks kicks kicks kicks kicks kicks kicks Percent Subsampled 13.55 4.70 31.25 12.50 12.76 4.69 58.48 10.42 8.33 EcoAnalysts Sample ID 5360.1-18 5360.1-19 5360.1-20 5360.1-21 5360.1-22 5360.1-23 5360.1-24 5360.1-25 5360.1-26 Perlodidae 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 Plecoptera 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pteronarcys sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Soyedina sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sweltsa sp. 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 Tallaperla sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 Coleoptera Anchytarsus bicolor 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dubiraphia sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ectopria sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Elmidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Macronychus glabratus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Microcylloepus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Optioservus ovalis 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 Optioservus sp. 23 21 21 1 2 15 0 0 0 Optioservus trivittatus 3 0 4 0 1 0 0 1 1 Oulimnius latiusculus 2 1 0 10 3 2 0 1 2 Oulimnius sp. 1 0 0 0 2 4 0 2 0 Promoresia sp. 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 1 Promoresia tardella 0 0 0 22 0 0 1 2 22 Psephenus herricki 4 2 2 0 2 1 0 2 0 Stenelmis sp. 16 6 12 2 1 3 0 3 4 Megaloptera Corydalidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Corydalus cornutus 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nigronia serricornis 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 2 0 Nigronia sp. 0 1 6 0 1 0 0 0 0 Sialis sp. 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diptera- Chironomidae Cardiocladius sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Chaetocladius sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Chironomini 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cladotanytarsus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 Corynoneura sp. 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 Cricotopus bicinctus gr. 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cricotopus sp. 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Demicryptochironomus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diamesa sp. 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dicrotendipes sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diplocladius sp. 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Eukiefferiella brehmi gr. 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Eukiefferiella claripennis gr. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Eukiefferiella devonica gr. 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 Eukiefferiella gracei gr. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Eukiefferiella sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 36

Fishing Fishing Fishing UNT Manada Manada Manada Stony Stony Stony Stream Creek Creek Creek Creek Creek Creek Creek Creek Creek Site fsh-1 fsh-2 fsh-3 utmcm-1 mc-1.5 mc-1 sc-2 sc-4 sc-3 Date 08-06-2009 08-06-2009 08-06-2009 07-27-2009 07-27-2009 07-27-2009 08-10-2009 08-10-2009 08-10-2009 Device D-frame D-frame D-frame D-frame D-frame D-frame D-frame D-frame D-frame Habitat kicks kicks kicks kicks kicks kicks kicks kicks kicks Percent Subsampled 13.55 4.70 31.25 12.50 12.76 4.69 58.48 10.42 8.33 EcoAnalysts Sample ID 5360.1-18 5360.1-19 5360.1-20 5360.1-21 5360.1-22 5360.1-23 5360.1-24 5360.1-25 5360.1-26 Nilotanypus fimbriatus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nilotanypus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Orthocladiinae 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Orthocladius (Symp.) lignicola 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Orthocladius Complex 0 0 2 0 1 2 1 1 0 Pagastia sp. 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Parachaetocladius sp. 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 8 Paracricotopus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Parametriocnemus sp. 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 3 1 Paraphaenocladius sp. 0 0 0 1 0 5 5 1 1 Pentaneurini 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Polypedilum aviceps 1 1 2 0 6 0 1 16 2 Polypedilum flavum 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 Polypedilum illinoense gr. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Polypedilum laetum 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Polypedilum sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Polypedilum tritum 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Potthastia gaedii gr. 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Psilometriocnemus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rheocricotopus sp. 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rheotanytarsus exiguus gr. 1 1 0 0 2 2 0 0 1 Rheotanytarsus pellucidus gr. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Stempellinella sp. 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 3 3 Synorthocladius sp. 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tanytarsini 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Tanytarsus sp. 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 5 Thienemanniella sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Thienemannimyia gr. sp. 1 0 0 0 6 1 0 5 0 Tvetenia bavarica gr. 1 3 0 9 5 1 1 1 5 Tvetenia discoloripes gr. 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Zavrelimyia sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Diptera Anopheles sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Antocha sp. 3 8 6 0 1 4 0 1 0 Atherix sp. 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Atrichopogon sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bezzia/Palpomyia sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Chelifera/Metachela sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dasyhelea sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 Dicranota sp. 0 0 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 Dixa sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dixella sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 37

Fishing Fishing Fishing UNT Manada Manada Manada Stony Stony Stony Stream Creek Creek Creek Creek Creek Creek Creek Creek Creek Site fsh-1 fsh-2 fsh-3 utmcm-1 mc-1.5 mc-1 sc-2 sc-4 sc-3 Date 08-06-2009 08-06-2009 08-06-2009 07-27-2009 07-27-2009 07-27-2009 08-10-2009 08-10-2009 08-10-2009 Device D-frame D-frame D-frame D-frame D-frame D-frame D-frame D-frame D-frame Habitat kicks kicks kicks kicks kicks kicks kicks kicks kicks Percent Subsampled 13.55 4.70 31.25 12.50 12.76 4.69 58.48 10.42 8.33 EcoAnalysts Sample ID 5360.1-18 5360.1-19 5360.1-20 5360.1-21 5360.1-22 5360.1-23 5360.1-24 5360.1-25 5360.1-26 Simulium sp. 0 2 0 5 0 0 13 3 3 Tabanidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tipula sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tipulidae 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Wiedemannia sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Trichoptera Adicrophleps hitchcocki 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Cheumatopsyche sp. 20 23 8 4 8 11 0 7 18 Chimarra aterrima 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Chimarra obscura 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diplectrona sp. 0 0 0 1 0 0 8 0 0 Dolophilodes sp. 1 4 0 0 11 0 4 5 1 Glossosoma sp. 0 3 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 Glossosomatidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Goera sp. 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 Hydatophylax sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hydropsyche betteni 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 Hydropsyche bronta 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Hydropsyche morosa 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hydropsyche sp. 0 12 0 3 4 3 7 3 3 Hydropsyche sparna 3 4 1 1 1 2 0 1 0 Hydropsyche ventura 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 Hydropsychidae 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 Hydroptila sp. 1 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 Lype diversa 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Micrasema sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Molanna sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Neophylax sp. 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nyctiophylax sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Philopotamidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Polycentropus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Psilotreta sp. 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 Psychomyia flavida 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rhyacophila carolina gr. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rhyacophila fuscula 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rhyacophila minora 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Rhyacophila nigrita 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rhyacophila sp. 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Trichoptera 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lepidoptera Pyralidae 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Gastropoda Ancylidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lymnaeidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Stream Gold Mine Run Evening Branch Bear Hole Run Aires Run Stony Creek Forge Creek UNT Manada Creek Site GoldMineRun-Ref-1 ebMRef-1 bh-Ref-1 ar-1ScMRef-1 fc-1 utmcv-Ref-1 Date 08-11-2009 08-11-2009 08-11-2009 08-04-2009 08-12-2009 08-12-2009 08-12-2009 Device D-frame D-frame D-frame D-frame D-frame D-frame D-frame Habitat kickskicks kicks kickskicks kicks kicks Percent Subsampled 17.70 20.83 8.33 10.4216.67 3.13 2.60 EcoAnalysts Sample ID 5360.1-27 5360.1-28 5360.1-29 5360.1-30 5360.1-31 5360.1-32 5360.1-33 Ephemeroptera Acentrella turbida 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Acerpenna macdunnoughi 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Acerpenna sp. 0 0 0 3 6 0 0 Baetidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Baetis flavistriga 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 Baetis intercalaris 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Baetis pluto 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Baetis sp. 0 0 2 0 12 1 1 Baetis tricaudatus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Caenis anceps 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Caenis sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Diphetor hageni 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 Epeorus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ephemerella sp. 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 Ephemerellidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Eurylophella funeralis 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Eurylophella sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Heptageniidae 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 Heterocloeon sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Isonychia sp. 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Leptophlebiidae 0 2 4 0 0 0 0 Leucrocuta sp. 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 Maccaffertium modestum 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Maccaffertium sp. 0 0 9 33 2 2 0 Plauditus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Procloeon sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Serratella deficiens 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Stenacron sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Odonata Cordulegaster sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Gomphidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Plecoptera Acroneuria abnormis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Acroneuria sp. 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 Amphinemura sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Capniidae 1 0 1 00 1 0 Eccoptura xanthenes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Leuctra sp. 10 1 8 1 2 22 0 Paragnetina media 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Perlesta sp. 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 Perlidae 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

Stream Gold Mine Run Evening Branch Bear Hole Run Aires Run Stony Creek Forge Creek UNT Manada Creek Site GoldMineRun-Ref-1 ebMRef-1 bh-Ref-1 ar-1ScMRef-1 fc-1 utmcv-Ref-1 Date 08-11-2009 08-11-2009 08-11-2009 08-04-2009 08-12-2009 08-12-2009 08-12-2009 Device D-frame D-frame D-frame D-frame D-frame D-frame D-frame Habitat kickskicks kicks kickskicks kicks kicks Percent Subsampled 17.70 20.83 8.33 10.4216.67 3.13 2.60 EcoAnalysts Sample ID 5360.1-27 5360.1-28 5360.1-29 5360.1-30 5360.1-31 5360.1-32 5360.1-33 Perlodidae 0 1 0 0 4 3 0 Plecoptera 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pteronarcys sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Soyedina sp. 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sweltsa sp. 4 0 3 0 0 0 0 Tallaperla sp. 0 0 5 0 1 1 0 Coleoptera Anchytarsus bicolor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dubiraphia sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Ectopria sp. 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Elmidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Macronychus glabratus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Microcylloepus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Optioservus ovalis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Optioservus sp. 0 0 0 7 0 5 12 Optioservus trivittatus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Oulimnius latiusculus 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Oulimnius sp. 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 Promoresia sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Promoresia tardella 0 7 2 0 35 0 0 Psephenus herricki 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 Stenelmis sp. 0 1 0 5 0 0 16 Megaloptera Corydalidae 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Corydalus cornutus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nigronia serricornis 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Nigronia sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sialis sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diptera-Chironomidae Cardiocladius sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Chaetocladius sp. 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Chironomini 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cladotanytarsus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Corynoneura sp. 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Cricotopus bicinctus gr. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cricotopus sp. 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Demicryptochironomus sp. 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Diamesa sp. 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Dicrotendipes sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diplocladius sp. 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 Eukiefferiella brehmi gr. 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Eukiefferiella claripennis gr. 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Eukiefferiella devonica gr. 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 Eukiefferiella gracei gr. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Eukiefferiella sp. 0 12 1 0 0 0 0

Stream Gold Mine Run Evening Branch Bear Hole Run Aires Run Stony Creek Forge Creek UNT Manada Creek Site GoldMineRun-Ref-1 ebMRef-1 bh-Ref-1 ar-1ScMRef-1 fc-1 utmcv-Ref-1 Date 08-11-2009 08-11-2009 08-11-2009 08-04-2009 08-12-2009 08-12-2009 08-12-2009 Device D-frame D-frame D-frame D-frame D-frame D-frame D-frame Habitat kickskicks kicks kickskicks kicks kicks Percent Subsampled 17.70 20.83 8.33 10.4216.67 3.13 2.60 EcoAnalysts Sample ID 5360.1-27 5360.1-28 5360.1-29 5360.1-30 5360.1-31 5360.1-32 5360.1-33 Nilotanypus fimbriatus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nilotanypus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Orthocladiinae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Orthocladius (Symp.) lignicola 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Orthocladius Complex 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pagastia sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Parachaetocladius sp. 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 Paracricotopus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Parametriocnemus sp. 3 0 1 0 0 0 3 Paraphaenocladius sp. 1 1 3 1 1 6 1 Pentaneurini 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 Polypedilum aviceps 0 11 12 2 0 2 3 Polypedilum flavum 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Polypedilum illinoense gr. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Polypedilum laetum 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Polypedilum sp. 0 0 4 0 0 2 2 Polypedilum tritum 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Potthastia gaedii gr. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Psilometriocnemus sp. 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rheocricotopus sp. 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Rheotanytarsus exiguus gr. 0 8 0 1 3 2 1 Rheotanytarsus pellucidus gr. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Stempellinella sp. 0 3 0 0 2 1 1 Synorthocladius sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tanytarsini 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 Tanytarsus sp. 1 0 6 0 8 1 3 Thienemanniella sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Thienemannimyia gr. sp. 2 5 3 6 1 11 1 Tvetenia bavarica gr. 1 1 6 4 2 2 6 Tvetenia discoloripes gr. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Zavrelimyia sp. 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 Diptera Anopheles sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Antocha sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Atherix sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Atrichopogon sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bezzia/Palpomyia sp. 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 Chelifera/Metachela sp. 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Dasyhelea sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dicranota sp. 1 1 1 0 0 4 2 Dixa sp. 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Dixella sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 5

Stream Gold Mine Run Evening Branch Bear Hole Run Aires Run Stony Creek Forge Creek UNT Manada Creek Site GoldMineRun-Ref-1 ebMRef-1 bh-Ref-1 ar-1ScMRef-1 fc-1 utmcv-Ref-1 Date 08-11-2009 08-11-2009 08-11-2009 08-04-2009 08-12-2009 08-12-2009 08-12-2009 Device D-frame D-frame D-frame D-frame D-frame D-frame D-frame Habitat kickskicks kicks kickskicks kicks kicks Percent Subsampled 17.70 20.83 8.33 10.4216.67 3.13 2.60 EcoAnalysts Sample ID 5360.1-27 5360.1-28 5360.1-29 5360.1-30 5360.1-31 5360.1-32 5360.1-33 Simulium sp. 19 10 1 1 1 9 0 Tabanidae 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Tipula sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tipulidae 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Wiedemannia sp. 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 Trichoptera Adicrophleps hitchcocki 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cheumatopsyche sp. 0 0 9 13 4 0 8 Chimarra aterrima 0 2 0 21 0 0 11 Chimarra obscura 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diplectrona sp. 11 5 0 0 0 8 0 Dolophilodes sp. 13 1 8 3 0 10 0 Glossosoma sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Glossosomatidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Goera sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hydatophylax sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hydropsyche betteni 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Hydropsyche bronta 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hydropsyche morosa 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hydropsyche sp. 0 22 1 3 2 1 3 Hydropsyche sparna 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Hydropsyche ventura 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 Hydropsychidae 2 0 0 3 0 0 0 Hydroptila sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lype diversa 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Micrasema sp. 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 Molanna sp. 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Neophylax sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nyctiophylax sp. 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Philopotamidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Polycentropus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Psilotreta sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Psychomyia flavida 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rhyacophila carolina gr. 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 Rhyacophila fuscula 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 Rhyacophila minora 12 0 1 0 0 0 0 Rhyacophila nigrita 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rhyacophila sp. 11 0 2 0 0 0 0 Trichoptera 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Lepidoptera Pyralidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Gastropoda Ancylidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lymnaeidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

APPENDIX 2 Metrics for 2009 Indiantown Indiantown Stream Run Run Indiantown Run Indiantown Run Vesle Run Indiantown Run Bow Creek Trout Run Site utir-01 ir-0.5 HatImp ir-3 vr-1 ir-2 bcRef-1 tr-1 Date 07-28-2009 07-28-2009 07-28-2009 07-31-2009 07-31-2009 07-30-2009 08-11-2009 07-30-2009 Device D-frame D-frame D-frame D-frame D-frame D-frame D-frame D-frame Habitat kicks kicks kicks kicks kicks kicks kicks kicks Percent Subsampled 3.13 8.33 4.70 12.50 3.13 37.45 18.76 18.76 EcoAnalysts Sample ID 5360.1-1 5360.1-2 5360.1-3 5360.1-4 5360.1-5 5360.1-6 5360.1-7 5360.1-8

Abundance Measures Corrected Abundance 3669.65 1476.00 2170.56 920.00 3605.83 293.70 666.25 538.33 EPT Abundance 1021.12 588.00 191.52 488.00 2169.88 216.27 255.84 453.05

Dominance Measures Micropsectra Micropsectra Chimarra Cheumatopsyche Chimarra Dominant Taxon sp. sp. Micropsectra sp. Leucrocuta sp. obscura sp. aterrima Leuctra sp. Dominant Abundance 1084.94 336.00 574.56 88.00 861.57 56.07 90.61 175.89 Maccaffertium Polypedilum Maccaffertium 2nd Dominant Taxon Leuctra sp. sp. Sphaeriidae flavum Baetis sp. Chimarra aterrima Optioservus sp. sp. 2nd Dominant Abundance 478.65 216.00 255.36 72.00 510.56 21.36 85.28 74.62 Hydropsyche Parametriocnemus Chimarra 3rd Dominant Taxon Stenelmis sp. sp. sp. aterrima Stenelmis sp. Leucrocuta sp. Gammarus sp. Baetis sp. 3rd Dominant Abundance 159.55 168.00 234.08 64.00 414.83 18.69 79.95 31.98 % Dominant Taxon 29.57 22.76 26.47 9.57 23.89 19.09 13.60 32.67 % 2 Dominant Taxa 42.61 37.40 38.24 17.39 38.05 26.36 26.40 46.53 % 3 Dominant Taxa 46.96 48.78 49.02 24.35 49.56 32.73 38.40 52.48

Richness Measures Species Richness 38.00 34.00 30.00 35.00 26.00 30.00 33.00 28.00 EPT Richness 13.00 10.00 8.00 14.00 10.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 Ephemeroptera Richness 5.00 3.00 5.00 8.00 5.00 7.00 9.00 6.00 Plecoptera Richness 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 Trichoptera Richness 5.00 5.00 2.00 6.00 5.00 7.00 5.00 7.00 Chironomidae Richness 14.00 10.00 12.00 10.00 5.00 5.00 7.00 5.00 Oligochaeta Richness 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Non-Chiro. Non-Olig. Richness 24.00 23.00 18.00 24.00 19.00 25.00 26.00 23.00 Rhyacophila Richness 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00

Community Composition % Ephemeroptera 6.09 16.26 5.88 30.43 19.47 22.73 15.20 30.69 % Plecoptera 15.65 3.25 0.98 0.00 0.00 3.64 0.80 33.66 % Trichoptera 6.09 20.33 1.96 22.61 40.71 47.27 22.40 19.80 % EPT 27.83 39.84 8.82 53.04 60.18 73.64 38.40 84.16 % Coleoptera 12.17 12.20 4.90 4.35 17.70 1.82 31.20 0.99 % Diptera 56.52 42.28 65.69 40.00 13.27 15.45 12.80 9.90 % Oligochaeta 0.00 0.81 0.00 0.87 1.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 % Baetidae 3.48 0.81 2.94 13.04 15.93 9.09 10.40 10.89 % Brachycentridae 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 % Chironomidae 53.91 35.77 59.80 25.22 8.85 8.18 12.00 6.93 45

% Ephemerellidae 0.87 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 % Hydropsychidae 2.61 17.89 0.98 14.78 12.39 33.64 7.20 15.84 % Odonata 0.00 0.81 0.98 0.00 0.00 0.91 0.00 0.00 % Perlidae 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.64 0.80 0.00 % Pteronarcyidae 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 % Simuliidae 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.87 0.00 4.55 0.80 0.00

Functional Group Composition % Filterers 4.35 24.39 27.45 30.43 48.67 57.27 28.80 19.80 % Gatherers 53.91 32.52 54.90 29.57 20.35 12.73 28.80 19.80 % Predators 7.83 14.63 7.84 12.17 9.73 9.09 5.60 7.92 % Scrapers 10.43 24.39 3.92 18.26 19.47 15.45 32.00 16.83 % Shredders 20.00 3.25 2.94 9.57 0.88 5.45 0.80 33.66 % Piercer-Herbivores 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 % Unclassified 3.48 0.81 2.94 0.00 0.88 0.00 4.00 1.98 Filterer Richness 3.00 7.00 5.00 8.00 8.00 11.00 8.00 7.00 Gatherer Richness 13.00 11.00 10.00 12.00 7.00 6.00 12.00 6.00 Predator Richness 7.00 10.00 6.00 6.00 4.00 5.00 3.00 8.00 Scraper Richness 8.00 3.00 3.00 6.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 4.00 Shredder Richness 5.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 Piercer-Herbivore Richness 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Unclassified 2.00 1.00 3.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 2.00 1.00

Diversity/Evenness Measures Shannon-Weaver H' (log 10) 1.25 1.22 1.16 1.42 1.15 1.31 1.29 1.13 Shannon-Weaver H' (log 2) 4.16 4.06 3.86 4.71 3.82 4.35 4.27 3.74 Shannon-Weaver H' (log e) 2.88 2.81 2.68 3.27 2.64 3.01 2.96 2.59 Margalef's Richness 4.51 4.52 3.77 4.98 3.05 5.10 4.92 4.29 Pielou's J' 0.79 0.80 0.79 0.92 0.81 0.89 0.85 0.78 Simpson's Heterogeneity 0.88 0.90 0.88 0.95 0.89 0.93 0.93 0.86

Biotic Indices % Indiv. w/ HBI Value 93.91 96.75 97.06 99.13 96.46 97.27 99.20 94.06 Hilsenhoff Biotic Index 4.69 4.87 5.53 4.47 4.67 4.37 4.97 2.60 % Indiv. w/ MTI Value 65.22 62.60 65.69 45.22 47.79 42.73 60.80 27.72 Metals Tolerance Index 2.29 2.82 2.49 4.04 4.13 4.70 3.34 2.68 % Indiv. w/ FSBI Value 9.57 22.76 8.82 31.30 32.74 39.09 24.80 19.80 Fine Sediment Biotic Index 39.00 22.00 24.00 45.00 18.00 35.00 22.00 29.00 FSBI - average 1.03 0.65 0.80 1.29 0.69 1.17 0.67 1.04 FSBI - weighted average 4.45 4.18 3.78 4.33 3.49 3.23 3.26 3.65 % Indiv. w/ TPM Value 27.83 33.33 31.37 43.48 20.35 44.55 37.60 25.74 46

Indiantown Indiantown Stream Run Run Indiantown Run Indiantown Run Vesle Run Indiantown Run Bow Creek Trout Run Site utir-01 ir-0.5 HatImp ir-3 vr-1 ir-2 bcRef-1 tr-1 Date 07-28-2009 07-28-2009 07-28-2009 07-31-2009 07-31-2009 07-30-2009 08-11-2009 07-30-2009 Device D-frame D-frame D-frame D-frame D-frame D-frame D-frame D-frame Habitat kicks kicks kicks kicks kicks kicks kicks kicks Percent Subsampled 3.13 8.33 4.70 12.50 3.13 37.45 18.76 18.76 EcoAnalysts Sample ID 5360.1-1 5360.1-2 5360.1-3 5360.1-4 5360.1-5 5360.1-6 5360.1-7 5360.1-8 % Clingers 54.78 71.54 43.14 54.78 54.87 70.00 59.20 50.50 Intolerant Taxa Richness 8.00 6.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 6.00 2.00 6.00 % Tolerant Individuals 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.03 0.70 0.00 0.20 % Tolerant Taxa 2.63 2.94 0.00 5.71 3.85 3.33 0.00 3.57 Coleoptera Richness 5.00 5.00 3.00 2.00 4.00 2.00 6.00 1.00

Abundance Measures Corrected Abundance 1048.00 816.34 2904.00 1664.00 1466.97 335.50 904.00 EPT Abundance 656.00 617.40 1728.00 928.00 123.39 161.65 416.00

Dominance Measures Dominant Taxon Hydropsyche sp. Diplectrona sp. Dolophilodes sp. Leuctra sp. Tvetenia bavarica gr. Hydropsyche sp. Stenelmis sp. Dominant Abundance 168.00 89.18 480.00 176.00 356.46 42.70 168.00 Polypedilum Cheumatopsyche Rheotanytarsus exiguus Chimarra 2nd Dominant Taxon Dolophilodes sp. Baetis tricaudatus aviceps sp. gr. Acroneuria sp. aterrima 2nd Dominant Abundance 104.00 68.60 480.00 176.00 150.81 24.40 112.00 Hydropsyche Thienemannimyia gr. Maccaffertium 3rd Dominant Taxon sparna Diphetor hageni Leuctra sp. Diphetor hageni Nais behningi sp. sp. 3rd Dominant Abundance 96.00 68.60 240.00 160.00 54.84 21.35 64.00 % Dominant Taxon 16.03 10.92 16.53 10.58 24.30 12.73 18.58 % 2 Dominant Taxa 25.95 19.33 33.06 21.15 34.58 20.00 30.97 % 3 Dominant Taxa 35.11 27.73 41.32 30.77 38.32 26.36 38.05

Richness Measures Species Richness 29.00 27.00 26.00 42.00 33.00 44.00 25.00 EPT Richness 14.00 17.00 13.00 16.00 5.00 17.00 12.00 Ephemeroptera Richness 4.00 5.00 4.00 6.00 0.00 8.00 9.00 Plecoptera Richness 4.00 5.00 3.00 3.00 1.00 3.00 0.00 Trichoptera Richness 6.00 7.00 6.00 7.00 4.00 6.00 3.00 Chironomidae Richness 8.00 5.00 5.00 15.00 15.00 10.00 5.00 Oligochaeta Richness 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 2.00 0.00 Non-Chiro. Non-Olig. Richness 21.00 22.00 20.00 26.00 15.00 32.00 20.00 47

St. Josephs Stream Indiantown Run Spring Trout Run Manada Creek Manada Creek Manada Creek Qureg Run Site ir-1 sjs-1 tr-2 utmcm-2 utmcm-3 mc-2 qr-1 Date 07-30-2009 07-28-2009 07-30-2009 08-07-2009 08-07-2009 08-07-2009 08-04-2009 Device D-frame D-frame D-frame D-frame D-frame D-frame D-frame Habitat kicks kicks kicks kicks kicks kicks kicks Percent Subsampled 12.50 14.58 4.17 6.25 7.29 32.79 12.50 EcoAnalysts Sample ID 5360.1-9 5360.1-10 5360.1-11 5360.1-12 5360.1-13 5360.1-14 5360.1-15 % EPT 62.60 75.63 59.50 55.77 8.41 48.18 46.02 % Coleoptera 3.82 5.88 6.61 6.73 2.80 13.64 24.78 % Diptera 30.53 16.81 33.06 31.73 73.83 29.09 21.24 % Oligochaeta 0.00 0.00 0.83 1.92 8.41 2.73 0.00 % Baetidae 2.29 16.81 5.79 12.50 0.00 5.45 14.16 % Brachycentridae 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 % Chironomidae 22.14 11.76 23.97 25.96 64.49 20.91 10.62 % Ephemerellidae 0.00 0.84 0.00 2.88 0.00 0.91 0.00 % Hydropsychidae 29.77 19.33 18.18 16.35 5.61 18.18 5.31 % Odonata 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.96 0.00 0.00 0.00 % Perlidae 4.58 8.40 5.79 3.85 0.00 8.18 0.00 % Pteronarcyidae 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 % Simuliidae 6.87 0.00 7.44 4.81 2.80 2.73 5.31

Functional Group Composition % Filterers 47.33 29.41 44.63 28.85 28.04 28.18 29.20 % Gatherers 16.79 31.09 18.18 32.69 50.47 27.27 13.27 % Predators 13.74 26.05 7.44 8.65 11.21 22.73 15.04 % Scrapers 6.87 5.04 4.13 9.62 2.80 14.55 32.74 % Shredders 14.50 5.88 25.62 16.35 7.48 5.45 3.54 % Piercer-Herbivores 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 % Unclassified 0.76 2.52 0.00 3.85 0.00 1.82 6.19 Filterer Richness 6.00 7.00 8.00 8.00 9.00 8.00 6.00 Gatherer Richness 9.00 9.00 8.00 13.00 12.00 18.00 7.00 Predator Richness 10.00 6.00 4.00 7.00 7.00 8.00 3.00 Scraper Richness 1.00 2.00 3.00 6.00 1.00 6.00 5.00 Shredder Richness 2.00 1.00 3.00 4.00 4.00 2.00 2.00 Piercer-Herbivore Richness 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Unclassified 1.00 2.00 0.00 4.00 0.00 2.00 2.00

Diversity/Evenness Measures Shannon-Weaver H' (log 10) 1.26 1.32 1.19 1.46 1.31 1.51 1.23 Shannon-Weaver H' (log 2) 4.19 4.37 3.96 4.86 4.35 5.01 4.07 Shannon-Weaver H' (log e) 2.91 3.03 2.75 3.37 3.02 3.47 2.82 Margalef's Richness 4.03 3.88 3.14 5.53 4.39 7.39 3.53 Pielou's J' 0.86 0.92 0.84 0.90 0.86 0.92 0.88 Simpson's Heterogeneity 0.93 0.94 0.91 0.95 0.91 0.96 0.92

Biotic Indices % Indiv. w/ HBI Value 96.18 91.60 100.00 96.15 93.46 95.45 94.69 Hilsenhoff Biotic Index 4.29 2.72 4.10 3.85 5.15 4.35 4.67 % Indiv. w/ MTI Value 57.25 49.58 57.02 46.15 55.14 60.91 59.29 48

Karr BIBI Metrics Long-Lived Taxa Richness 2.00 3.00 3.00 5.00 2.00 5.00 2.00 Clinger Richness 18.00 16.00 14.00 20.00 11.00 20.00 12.00 % Clingers 74.05 67.23 61.98 60.58 33.64 58.18 53.10 Intolerant Taxa Richness 8.00 9.00 5.00 9.00 2.00 8.00 2.00 % Tolerant Individuals 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.22 0.94 0.00 % Tolerant Taxa 0.00 0.00 3.85 0.00 6.06 6.82 0.00 Coleoptera Richness 2.00 2.00 4.00 4.00 1.00 6.00 3.00

Fishing UNT Manada Stream Indiantown Run Aires Run Aires Run Fishing Creek Fishing Creek Creek Creek Manada Creek Site ir-1 ar-2 qr-2 fsh-1 fsh-2 fsh-3 utmcm-1 mc-1.5 Date 07-30-2009 07-31-2009 08-04-2009 08-06-2009 08-06-2009 08-06-2009 07-27-2009 07-27-2009 Device D-frame D-frame D-frame D-frame D-frame D-frame D-frame D-frame Habitat kicks kicks kicks kicks kicks kicks kicks kicks Percent Subsampled 12.50 10.42 10.42 13.55 4.70 31.25 12.50 12.76 EcoAnalysts Sample ID 5360.1-9 5360.1-16 5360.1-17 5360.1-18 5360.1-19 5360.1-20 5360.1-21 5360.1-22

Abundance Measures Corrected Abundance 1048.00 1132.80 1036.80 833.94 2808.96 352.00 952.00 917.28 EPT Abundance 656.00 393.60 336.00 309.96 1468.32 99.20 400.00 439.04

Dominance Measures Cheumatopsyche Optioservus Promoresia Dominant Taxon Hydropsyche sp. Hemerodromia sp. Stenelmis sp. Optioservus sp. sp. sp. tardella Dolophilodes sp. Dominant Abundance 168.00 134.40 182.40 169.74 489.44 67.20 176.00 86.24 Chimarra Cheumatopsyche Cheumatopsyche 2nd Dominant Taxon Dolophilodes sp. Baetis intercalaris aterrima sp. Optioservus sp. Stenelmis sp. Baetis sp. sp. 2nd Dominant Abundance 104.00 115.20 134.40 147.60 446.88 38.40 88.00 62.72 Hydropsyche Tvetenia bavarica Acroneuria Oulimnius 3rd Dominant Taxon sparna gr. Optioservus sp. Stenelmis sp. Hydropsyche sp. sp. latiusculus Leuctra sp. 3rd Dominant Abundance 96.00 115.20 115.20 118.08 255.36 28.80 80.00 54.88 % Dominant Taxon 16.03 11.86 17.59 20.35 17.42 19.09 18.49 9.40 % 2 Dominant Taxa 25.95 22.03 30.56 38.05 33.33 30.00 27.73 16.24 % 3 Dominant Taxa 35.11 32.20 41.67 52.21 42.42 38.18 36.13 22.22

Richness Measures Species Richness 29.00 35.00 30.00 31.00 33.00 35.00 40.00 43.00 EPT Richness 14.00 13.00 9.00 11.00 14.00 11.00 21.00 15.00 Ephemeroptera Richness 4.00 9.00 4.00 4.00 6.00 3.00 9.00 6.00 49

Plecoptera Richness 4.00 1.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 4.00 3.00 3.00 Trichoptera Richness 6.00 3.00 5.00 5.00 6.00 4.00 9.00 6.00 Chironomidae Richness 8.00 10.00 10.00 9.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 12.00 Oligochaeta Richness 0.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Non-Chiro. Non-Olig. Richness 21.00 24.00 18.00 21.00 26.00 28.00 33.00 31.00 % EPT 62.60 34.75 32.41 37.17 52.27 28.18 42.02 47.86 % Coleoptera 3.82 17.80 31.48 43.36 22.73 37.27 33.61 9.40 % Diptera 30.53 43.22 29.63 13.27 15.91 14.55 20.17 33.33 % Oligochaeta 0.00 0.85 2.78 2.65 3.03 1.82 0.84 0.00 % Baetidae 2.29 22.03 0.93 6.19 3.03 1.82 18.49 3.42 % Brachycentridae 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 % Chironomidae 22.14 25.42 25.00 7.96 6.06 7.27 13.45 29.06 % Ephemerellidae 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.76 0.00 2.52 0.00 % Hydropsychidae 29.77 0.85 5.56 20.35 31.06 9.09 10.08 11.11 % Odonata 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.84 2.56 % Perlidae 4.58 1.69 0.00 0.88 4.55 12.73 1.68 5.13 % Pteronarcyidae 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 % Simuliidae 6.87 3.39 0.00 0.00 1.52 0.00 4.20 0.00

Functional Group Composition % Filterers 47.33 14.41 25.00 24.78 40.15 11.82 17.65 26.50 % Gatherers 16.79 36.44 23.15 18.58 17.42 13.64 40.34 25.64 % Predators 13.74 21.19 9.26 7.08 12.12 31.82 7.56 23.08 % Scrapers 6.87 21.19 42.59 42.48 28.03 38.18 30.25 11.97 % Shredders 14.50 3.39 0.00 6.19 2.27 3.64 0.84 11.97 % Piercer-Herbivores 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.88 0.00 0.00 0.84 0.85 % Unclassified 0.76 3.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.91 2.52 0.00 Filterer Richness 6.00 5.00 8.00 7.00 8.00 6.00 9.00 6.00 Gatherer Richness 9.00 12.00 10.00 11.00 10.00 7.00 13.00 15.00 Predator Richness 10.00 9.00 7.00 4.00 7.00 11.00 7.00 12.00 Scraper Richness 1.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 7.00 8.00 6.00 Shredder Richness 2.00 3.00 0.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 1.00 3.00 Piercer-Herbivore Richness 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Unclassified 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00

Diversity/Evenness Measures Shannon-Weaver H' (log 10) 1.26 1.35 1.26 1.19 1.28 1.30 1.38 1.50 Shannon-Weaver H' (log 2) 4.19 4.48 4.20 3.97 4.26 4.33 4.60 4.98 Shannon-Weaver H' (log e) 2.91 3.11 2.91 2.75 2.95 3.00 3.19 3.45 Margalef's Richness 4.03 4.83 4.18 4.46 4.03 5.80 5.69 6.16 Pielou's J' 0.86 0.87 0.86 0.80 0.84 0.84 0.86 0.92 Simpson's Heterogeneity 0.93 0.94 0.92 0.90 0.92 0.93 0.93 0.96 50

Biotic Indices % Indiv. w/ HBI Value 96.18 93.22 99.07 94.69 93.18 87.27 94.96 94.87 Hilsenhoff Biotic Index 4.29 5.16 4.77 4.61 4.32 4.02 3.85 3.73 % Indiv. w/ MTI Value 57.25 58.47 54.63 72.57 69.70 54.55 50.42 50.43 Temp. Pref. Metric - average 1.52 1.49 1.37 1.55 1.61 1.46 1.68 1.23 TPM - weighted average 3.47 3.91 3.56 2.42 2.73 3.00 4.06 3.55

Karr BIBI Metrics Long-Lived Taxa Richness 2.00 3.00 3.00 4.00 4.00 11.00 4.00 5.00 Clinger Richness 18.00 16.00 12.00 15.00 21.00 19.00 20.00 23.00 % Clingers 74.05 50.85 54.63 74.34 80.30 74.55 42.02 49.57 Intolerant Taxa Richness 8.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 5.00 6.00 12.00 9.00 % Tolerant Individuals 0.00 0.09 0.19 0.38 0.15 0.98 0.00 0.00 % Tolerant Taxa 0.00 2.86 6.67 3.23 3.03 5.71 5.00 0.00 Coleoptera Richness 2.00 3.00 3.00 6.00 4.00 6.00 6.00 6.00

Stream Manada Creek Stony Creek Stony Creek Stony Creek Gold Mine Run Evening Branch Bear Hole Run Aires Run GoldMineRun-Ref- Site mc-1 sc-2 sc-4 sc-3 1 ebMRef-1 bh-Ref-1 ar-1 Date 07-27-2009 08-10-2009 08-10-2009 08-10-2009 08-11-2009 08-11-2009 08-11-2009 08-04-2009 Device D-frame D-frame D-frame D-frame D-frame D-frame D-frame D-frame Habitat kicks kicks kicks kicks kicks kicks kicks kicks Percent Subsampled 4.69 58.48 10.42 8.33 17.70 20.83 8.33 10.42 EcoAnalysts Sample ID 5360.1-23 5360.1-24 5360.1-25 5360.1-26 5360.1-27 5360.1-28 5360.1-29 5360.1-30

Abundance Measures Corrected Abundance 2282.31 189.81 1152.00 1356.00 644.10 590.40 1440.00 1171.20 EPT Abundance 853.20 138.51 537.60 444.00 384.20 187.20 828.00 816.00

Dominance Measures Polypedilum Polypedilum Dominant Taxon Optioservus sp. Simulium sp. aviceps Promoresia tardella Simulium sp. Hydropsyche sp. aviceps Maccaffertium sp. Dominant Abundance 319.95 22.23 153.60 264.00 107.35 105.60 144.00 316.80 Cheumatopsyche Baetis Cheumatopsyche 2nd Dominant Taxon sp. tricaudatus Leuctra sp. sp. Dolophilodes sp. Eukiefferiella sp. Maccaffertium sp. Chimarra aterrima 2nd Dominant Abundance 234.63 20.52 96.00 216.00 73.45 57.60 108.00 201.60 Cheumatopsyche Parachaetocladius Polypedilum Cheumatopsyche Cheumatopsyche 3rd Dominant Taxon Leuctra sp. Leuctra sp. sp. sp. Rhyacophila minora aviceps sp. sp. 3rd Dominant Abundance 149.31 20.52 67.20 96.00 67.80 52.80 108.00 124.80 % Dominant Taxon 14.02 11.71 13.33 19.47 16.67 17.89 10.00 27.05 % 2 Dominant Taxa 24.30 22.52 21.67 35.40 28.07 27.64 17.50 44.26 % 3 Dominant Taxa 30.84 33.33 27.50 42.48 38.60 36.59 25.00 54.92 51

Richness Measures Species Richness 38.00 29.00 49.00 34.00 33.00 31.00 42.00 29.00 EPT Richness 14.00 17.00 24.00 12.00 12.00 11.00 21.00 12.00 Ephemeroptera Richness 4.00 6.00 9.00 4.00 0.00 1.00 7.00 4.00

Plecoptera Richness 4.00 2.00 9.00 4.00 4.00 3.00 6.00 3.00 Trichoptera Richness 6.00 9.00 6.00 4.00 8.00 7.00 8.00 5.00 Chironomidae Richness 11.00 8.00 12.00 11.00 14.00 9.00 12.00 8.00 Oligochaeta Richness 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 Non-Chiro. Non-Olig. Richness 26.00 21.00 37.00 23.00 17.00 20.00 30.00 19.00 % EPT 37.38 72.97 46.67 32.74 59.65 31.71 57.50 69.67 % Coleoptera 23.36 0.90 9.17 26.55 0.00 7.32 3.33 11.48 % Diptera 34.58 26.13 41.67 37.17 36.84 54.47 38.33 17.21 % Oligochaeta 0.93 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.63 4.88 0.00 1.64 % Baetidae 3.74 17.12 4.17 4.42 0.00 0.00 2.50 2.46 % Brachycentridae 0.00 0.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 % Chironomidae 21.50 11.71 35.00 30.97 15.79 43.09 34.17 13.93 % Ephemerellidae 3.74 0.90 1.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.83 0.00 % Hydropsychidae 16.82 20.72 9.17 18.58 11.40 21.95 13.33 15.57 % Odonata 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 % Perlidae 4.67 0.00 7.50 3.54 0.00 0.81 3.33 1.64 % Pteronarcyidae 0.00 0.00 0.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 % Simuliidae 0.00 11.71 2.50 2.65 16.67 8.13 0.83 0.82

Functional Group Composition % Filterers 19.63 36.04 17.50 32.74 41.23 39.02 29.17 36.89 % Gatherers 35.51 27.93 25.00 23.01 12.28 30.89 17.50 7.38 % Predators 18.69 2.70 18.33 10.62 34.21 13.01 14.17 9.02 % Scrapers 19.63 7.21 13.33 27.43 0.00 6.50 12.50 40.98 % Shredders 6.54 22.52 25.83 4.42 10.53 9.76 25.83 3.28 % Piercer-Herbivores 0.00 1.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 % Unclassified 0.00 1.80 0.00 1.77 1.75 0.81 0.83 2.46 Filterer Richness 7.00 6.00 7.00 9.00 6.00 6.00 9.00 7.00 Gatherer Richness 15.00 11.00 15.00 8.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 6.00 Predator Richness 10.00 3.00 11.00 7.00 12.00 10.00 10.00 6.00 Scraper Richness 5.00 3.00 10.00 6.00 0.00 2.00 6.00 6.00 Shredder Richness 1.00 4.00 6.00 2.00 3.00 2.00 6.00 3.00 Piercer-Herbivore Richness 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Unclassified 0.00 1.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Diversity/Evenness Measures Shannon-Weaver H' (log 10) 1.44 1.27 1.53 1.30 1.25 1.25 1.45 1.13 Shannon-Weaver H' (log 2) 4.77 4.23 5.07 4.33 4.14 4.16 4.83 3.76 Shannon-Weaver H' (log e) 3.31 2.93 3.51 3.00 2.87 2.89 3.35 2.61 Margalef's Richness 4.78 5.34 6.81 4.58 4.95 4.70 5.64 3.96 Pielou's J' 0.91 0.87 0.90 0.85 0.82 0.84 0.90 0.77 Simpson's Heterogeneity 0.95 0.94 0.96 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.95 0.87

Biotic Indices % Indiv. w/ HBI Value 96.26 90.09 96.67 96.46 96.49 96.75 93.33 96.72 Hilsenhoff Biotic Index 4.36 3.15 3.76 4.15 2.67 4.66 3.59 4.14 % Indiv. w/ MTI Value 65.42 45.05 44.17 45.13 54.39 55.28 44.17 39.34 Temp. Pref. Metric - average 1.39 1.93 2.08 1.74 1.88 1.84 1.57 2.45 TPM - weighted average 3.69 4.43 3.71 2.79 5.39 3.67 3.11 2.94

Karr BIBI Metrics Long-Lived Taxa Richness 3.00 2.00 5.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 5.00 3.00 Clinger Richness 21.00 15.00 28.00 15.00 14.00 14.00 22.00 16.00 % Clingers 64.49 64.86 53.33 45.13 70.18 54.47 53.33 63.93 Intolerant Taxa Richness 7.00 7.00 20.00 8.00 10.00 7.00 14.00 3.00 % Tolerant Individuals 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.18 0.00 0.26 % Tolerant Taxa 2.63 6.90 0.00 0.00 12.12 3.23 4.76 10.34 Coleoptera Richness 5.00 1.00 6.00 5.00 0.00 3.00 3.00 3.00

Stream Stony Creek Forge Creek UNT Manada Creek Site ScMRef-1 fc-1 utmcv-Ref-1 Date 08-12-2009 08-12-2009 08-12-2009 Device D-frame D-frame D-frame Habitat kicks kicks kicks Percent Subsampled 16.67 3.13 2.60 EcoAnalysts Sample ID 5360.1-31 5360.1-32 5360.1-33

Abundance Measures Corrected Abundance 660.00 3552.00 4147.20 EPT Abundance 252.00 1632.00 1305.60

Dominance Measures Dominant Taxon Promoresia tardella Leuctra sp. Stenelmis sp. Dominant Abundance 210.00 704.00 614.40 2nd Dominant Taxon Baetis sp. Thienemannimyia gr. sp. Optioservus sp. 2nd Dominant Abundance 72.00 352.00 460.80 53

3rd Dominant Taxon Tanytarsus sp. Dolophilodes sp. Chimarra aterrima 3rd Dominant Abundance 48.00 320.00 422.40 % Dominant Taxon 31.82 19.82 14.81 % 2 Dominant Taxa 42.73 29.73 25.93 % 3 Dominant Taxa 50.00 38.74 36.11

Richness Measures Species Richness 30.00 31.00 33.00 EPT Richness 13.00 11.00 11.00 Ephemeroptera Richness 5.00 3.00 6.00

Plecoptera Richness 3.00 4.00 0.00 Trichoptera Richness 5.00 4.00 5.00 Chironomidae Richness 9.00 13.00 11.00 Oligochaeta Richness 0.00 0.00 1.00 Non-Chiro. Non-Olig. Richness 21.00 18.00 21.00 % EPT 38.18 45.95 31.48 % Coleoptera 32.73 5.41 28.70 % Diptera 24.55 46.85 33.33 % Oligochaeta 0.00 0.00 4.63 % Baetidae 16.36 1.80 6.48 % Brachycentridae 3.64 0.00 0.00 % Chironomidae 20.91 34.23 24.07 % Ephemerellidae 1.82 0.00 0.00 % Hydropsychidae 7.27 8.11 11.11 % Odonata 0.00 0.00 0.00 % Perlidae 0.00 0.00 0.00 % Pteronarcyidae 0.00 0.00 0.00 % Simuliidae 0.91 8.11 0.00

Functional Group Composition % Filterers 19.09 28.83 26.85 % Gatherers 23.64 18.92 30.56 % Predators 11.82 18.02 4.63 % Scrapers 33.64 7.21 28.70 % Shredders 6.36 26.13 7.41 % Piercer-Herbivores 0.00 0.00 0.00 % Unclassified 5.45 0.90 1.85 Filterer Richness 8.00 7.00 7.00 Gatherer Richness 9.00 10.00 13.00 Predator Richness 7.00 4.00 4.00 Scraper Richness 2.00 3.00 4.00 54

Shredder Richness 3.00 6.00 3.00 Piercer-Herbivore Richness 0.00 0.00 0.00 Unclassified 1.00 1.00 2.00

Diversity/Evenness Measures Shannon-Weaver H' (log 10) 1.17 1.27 1.33 Shannon-Weaver H' (log 2) 3.89 4.21 4.43 Shannon-Weaver H' (log e) 2.70 2.91 3.07 Margalef's Richness 4.47 3.67 3.84 Pielou's J' 0.79 0.85 0.88 Simpson's Heterogeneity 0.87 0.92 0.93

Biotic Indices % Indiv. w/ HBI Value 89.09 99.10 97.22 Hilsenhoff Biotic Index 3.53 3.28 5.06 % Indiv. w/ MTI Value 38.18 51.35 65.74 Temp. Pref. Metric - average 2.27 1.94 1.82 TPM - weighted average 4.37 4.62 2.86

Karr BIBI Metrics Long-Lived Taxa Richness 3.00 3.00 2.00 Clinger Richness 16.00 15.00 15.00 % Clingers 43.64 43.24 53.70 Intolerant Taxa Richness 9.00 5.00 1.00 % Tolerant Individuals 0.00 0.03 0.15 % Tolerant Taxa 6.67 3.23 6.06 Coleoptera Richness 2.00 2.00 4.00

A Benthic Macroinvertebrate Attachment 2 Index of Biotic Integrity for Wadeable Freestone Riffle-Run Streams in Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Division of Water Quality Standards March 2012

PLEASE PRINT RESPONSIBLY!

Some of the figures and tables in this report require full color for comprehension and are best viewed in electronic format. In an effort to help conserve resources, please print only as much of this report as you really, really need to.

THANK YOU!

i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This project would not have been possible without the skills and dedication of biologists currently and formerly employed with the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection and affiliated organizations. These wonderful people collected and processed the many thousands of fascinating organisms that form the foundation of this project:

Bill Andrus Tim Daley Ron Hughey John Ryder Kristen Bardell Jared Dressler Gary Kenderes Rob Ryder Steve Barondeau Scott Dudzic Rod Kime Tony Shaw Heidi Biggs Mark Embeck Andy Klinger Derek Smith Dan Bogar Alan Everett Sherry Leap Rick Spear Bill Botts Ed Filip Kim Long Kay Spyker Mike Boyer Aaron Frey Josh Lookenbill Olyssa Starry Mark Brickner Martin Friday Rod McAllister Harry Vitolins Joe Brancato Jay Gerber Charlie McGarrell Gary Walters Angela Bransteitter Joy Gillespie Steve Means Rick Weber Mark Brickner Jim Grazio Eric Mosbacher Carrie Wengert Brian Chalfant Joe Hepp Abbey Owoc Allen Whitehead Dan Counahan Jennifer Hill Molly Pulket Amy Williams

Mike Bilger with EcoAnalysts, Inc.; Tom Shervinskie with the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission; Erik Silldorf with the Delaware River Basin Commission; Adam Griggs with the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin; Jen Hoffman and Susan Buda with the Susquehanna River Basin Commission; Theodore Buckwalter, Heather Eggleston, Leif Olson, Andrew Reif and Mark Roland with the United States Geological Survey; Amy Seidel with the Monroe County Planning Commission; Celina Seftas with Huntingdon County Conservation District; and Doug Ebert with Erie County Department of Health also collected and/or processed samples used in this project.

Andy Klinger and Charlie McGarrell, both formerly with the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection’s Central Office, provided helpful data analyses and advice, respectively, during the early phases this project. The members of the peer review committee for this project also provided valuable guidance and comments during its development. The committee members are listed in the table immediately below.

Name Affiliation Location Bill Botts Pennsylvania Department of Rod Kime Central Office Harrisburg, PA Environmental Protection Tony Shaw Maggie Passmore Region III Office Wheeling, WV Greg Pond United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research Karen Blocksom Cincinnati, OH and Development Mike Bilger EcoAnalysts, Inc. Selinsgrove, PA John Jackson Stroud Water Research Center Avondale, PA John Arway Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission Bellefonte, PA Jeremy Deeds Pittsburgh, PA Western Pennsylvania Conservancy Mary Walsh Middletown, PA

ii The participants in the Pennsylvania Tiered Aquatic Life Use workshops, who also provided invaluable input and guidance for this project, are listed in the table immediately below.

Workshop Year Name Affiliation Location 2006 2007 2008 Joe Brancato X X Northwest Meadville, PA Scott Dudzic X X Regional Office Ron Hughey X Martin Friday X X X Northcentral Williamsport, PA Steve Means X Regional Office John Ryder X Tim Daley X X Northeast Wilkes-Barre, PA Sherry Leap X X X Regional Office Abbey Falcone X Southwest Pittsburgh, PA Rick Spear X X X Regional Office Kristen Bardell X Mark Embeck X Southcentral Jay Gerber X Harrisburg, PA Regional Office Joe Hepp X X Bob Schott X X X Mike Boyer X Alan Everett X X X Pennsylvania Southeast Ed Filip X Department of Norristown, PA Regional Office Joy Gillespie X Environmental Kim Long X Protection Dan Bogar X X X Bill Botts X X X Mark Brickner X X X Angela Bransteitter X X Brian Chalfant X X X Rod Kime X X X Josh Lookenbill X Charlie McGarrell X Central Office Harrisburg, PA Steve Moyer X Jen Orr X X Molly Pulket X X Rob Ryder X X X Tony Shaw X Olyssa Starry X Gary Walters X X Amy Williams X Mary Walsh X Western Pennsylvania Conservancy Middletown, PA Jeroen Gerritsen X Tetra Tech, Inc. Fairfax, VA Benjamin Jessup X Evan Horning X United States Office of Water Washington, DC Maggie Passmore X X X Environmental Region III Office Wheeling, WV Greg Pond X X X Protection Agency Mike Bilger X X X EcoAnalysts, Inc. Selinsgrove, PA Bob Limbeck X Delaware River Basin Commission West Trenton, NJ Erik Silldorf X

Thanks everybody!

iii TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 Project Summary

2 Introduction

6 Data Collection Methods

8 Sites and Samples

15 Defining Site Condition

22 Data Exploration and Sample Classification

50 Metrics Analysis and Index Development

65 Index Performance Evaluation

84 Pennsylvania Tiered Aquatic Life Use Workshops

87 Aquatic Life Use Attainment Benchmarks

100 References

Appendix A: Field Sampling and Lab Methods

Appendix B: Cluster Maps

Appendix C: Metrics and Index Calculation Examples

Appendix D: Table of Taxa

iv PROJECT SUMMARY

The principal motivation for this project was to develop an index of biological integrity (IBI) for benthic macroinvertebrate communities in Pennsylvania’s larger wadeable, freestone, riffle-run streams. This project builds on previous work to develop a benthic macroinvertebrate IBI for smaller wadeable, freestone, riffle-run streams in Pennsylvania. The following report synthesizes analyses of benthic macroinvertebrate samples from wadeable, freestone, riffle-run streams across Pennsylvania – sizeable, tiny, and otherwise.

The IBI developed in this project incorporates six biological metrics that measure relevant aspects of benthic macroinvertebrate community composition in Pennsylvania’s wadeable, freestone, riffle-run streams. Before combining the individual metrics into IBI scores, two different sets of metric standardization values are applied. One set of metric standardization values is applied to samples from smaller streams while a second set of values is applied to samples from larger streams. Broadly speaking, smaller streams are characterized as first through third order streams (using the Strahler stream ordering system) that drain 25 or fewer square miles of land. For this project, larger streams are broadly characterized as fifth and higher order wadeable streams draining 50 or more square miles of land – different sampling and assessment protocols apply to non-wadeable rivers. Detailed discussion about how to apply these procedures as well as considerations about whether to apply the large-stream or the small-stream procedures to fourth order freestone streams and streams draining 25 to 50 square miles are discussed in detail in the body of this report.

Aquatic life use attainment benchmarks are established based on IBI scores. Different benchmarks apply to samples collected in different seasons. One set of benchmarks applies to samples collected from November to May and another set of benchmarks applies to samples collected from June to September. Depending on the particular climatological conditions in a given year and other considerations discussed in this report, either of these two sets of seasonal benchmarks can apply to samples collected during October. Different benchmarks and assessment criteria are also developed for streams with different protected aquatic life uses. To strengthen the assessment process, a series of additional biological screening criteria – detailed in the report – are applied to samples from streams of different sizes at different times of the year.

The biological and ecological concepts concerning changes in the composition of benthic macroinvertebrate communities related to stream size (e.g., Vannote et al. 1980) and annual seasons are well established. This project provides analyses that support specific stream size and seasonal classifications for an IBI and aquatic life use assessment procedures for benthic macroinvertebrate samples from Pennsylvania’s wadeable, freestone, riffle-run streams. This report also presents some considerations for applying the index to wadeable, limestone-influenced, riffle-run streams. Separate protocols exist for evaluating lower gradient pool-glide streams (PADEP 2007) as well as true limestone spring streams (PADEP 2009a).

Happy reading!

1 INTRODUCTION

This project aims to develop an indicator of biological integrity for benthic macroinvertebrate communities in the wadeable, freestone, riffle-run streams of Pennsylvania. Through direct quantification of biological attributes along a gradient of ecosystem conditions, this indicator will measure the extent to which anthropogenic activities compromise a stream’s ability to support healthy aquatic communities (Davis and Simon 1995). This biological assessment tool will help guide and evaluate legislation, policy, goals, and management strategies for Pennsylvania’s aquatic resources (Davis and Simon 1995; Davies and Jackson 2006; Hawkins 2006).

Legislative Background

The objective of the United States Federal Water Pollution Control Act (United States Code 2011: Title 33, Sections 1251 through 1387) – more commonly known as the Clean Water Act – as stated in section 1251(a) is,

“to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.”

An interim goal of the Clean Water Act as stated in Section 1251(a)(2) is,

“… water quality which provides for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife…”

Section 1251(b) of the Clean Water Act indicates that the primary authority and responsibility for prevention, reduction, and elimination of pollution as well as for management of land and water resources rests with the States. Thus, States are responsible for setting water quality goals to protect aquatic life. To this end, States have defined various levels of designated aquatic life use (ALU) – such as recreational fishing and fish migration – to be protected for specific water bodies.

In addition to the federal Clean Water Act, Pennsylvania’s Clean Streams Law (35 P. S. § § 691.1 – 691.1001) aims to,

“… preserve and improve the purity of the waters of the Commonwealth for the protection of public health, animal and aquatic life, and for industrial consumption, and recreation…”

To this end, the Pennsylvania Code (2011: Title 25, Chapter 93.3) recognizes four categories of protected ALUs, including: (1) cold water fishes (CWF); (2) warm water fishes (WWF); (3) migratory fishes (MF); and (4) trout stocking (TSF). The CWF and WWF uses include protection of fish as well as additional flora and fauna (e.g., benthic macroinvertebrates) indigenous to a cold or warm water habitat, respectively. The TSF use also includes protection of fish and additional flora/fauna indigenous to a warm water habitat. Pennsylvania regulations also recognize two antidegradation – or “special protection” – water uses: high quality waters (HQ) and exceptional value waters (EV). Details concerning these uses and their application to Pennsylvania’s waters can be found

2 in Chapter 93 of the Pennsylvania Code.

3 Biological Monitoring

To meet the objectives outlined in the federal Clean Water Act – as well as Pennsylvania’s Clean Streams Law – evaluations of aquatic ecosystem integrity ideally include evaluations of physical characteristics (e.g. types and distribution of habitats and substrates; flow patterns; channel stability), water chemistry (e.g., concentrations of toxic and nontoxic chemicals), and biological communities (e.g., fish, benthic macroinvertebrates, periphyton). However, chemical water quality evaluations are of limited value in assessing overall ecosystem condition because of the difficulty of evaluating every relevant chemical parameter, the synergistic chemical effects on ecosystems, and the highly transient nature of lotic water chemistry, as well as cost and logistical considerations of frequent chemical monitoring. Abiotic physical evaluations of streams – although informative in many respects – are also of limited value in assessing overall ecosystem integrity for a wide array of stressors. For example, in some acid deposition situations, watershed and in-stream physical conditions may be largely undisturbed, but the biotic community may be drastically altered by the acidification.

Biological monitoring offers the ability to assess long-term, cumulative effects of many types of ecosystem stress, including stress related to chemical and physical habitat factors. Organisms living in aquatic environments are intimately associated with and affected by chemical water quality and the physical conditions of streams and watersheds. As such, these organisms can be viewed as living indicators of overall ecosystem condition. However, biological monitoring also has its limitations and cannot always unequivocally identify causative stressors, which may be better identified when biological data is viewed in conjunction with chemical water quality and physical habitat assessments (Novotny 2004).

Indicators of biological integrity – based on direct measures of community and population response – provide relevant and useful tools that can be used independently, or in concert with other information (e.g., physical and chemical evaluations) for the purpose of assessing protected ALUs (Novotny 2004).

Indicators of Biological Integrity

Although the Clean Water Act outlines the general objective of biological integrity, no legislation explicitly defines biological integrity. The United States House and Senate Committee on Public Works deliberations on the Clean Water Act included the concept of “naturalness” as a key part of biological integrity (see Stoddard et al. 2006). Legislation in the United States, Europe, and Australia expresses a need to characterize biological conditions that occur in natural states, with minimal human impacts (Stoddard et al. 2006).

Consistent with this concept, a definition of biological integrity proposed and endorsed by many ecologists states that an ecosystem with biological integrity supports and maintains a balanced, integrated, adaptive system having a full range of ecosystem elements (e.g., genes, species, assemblages) and processes (e.g., mutation, metapopulation dynamics, nutrient and energy dynamics) expected in areas with minimal human influence (Karr and Dudley 1981; Davis and Simon 1995; Davies and Jackson 2006).

Monitoring and assessment of the biological integrity of inland water resources across the world frequently involves measuring the degree to which community-level biological

4 attributes (e.g., structure, composition, function, diversity) differ from a community minimally influenced by human activities: a reference community (Davis and Simon 1995; Davies and Jackson 2006; Hawkins 2006; Stoddard et al. 2006). Often, a major goal of biological monitoring and assessment is to describe the impacts of human activities on the structure and function of aquatic ecosystems (Stoddard et al. 2006).

Accurate assessment of biological condition requires integration of biological responses at varying scales, from individual organism responses to community-level responses and ecosystem-level responses (Barbour et al. 1995). Past efforts have helped develop and refine the science of using biological indicators to assess ecosystem conditions (Hawkins 2006). Such indicators of biological integrity help to document environmental conditions at community and ecosystem levels, which can assist in diagnostic analyses of sources and causes of ecosystem stress (Barbour et al. 1995).

Many States have developed and are using indicators of biological integrity based on stream benthic macroinvertebrate communities as ALU assessment tools, including Maryland (Stribling et al. 1998), West Virginia (Gerritsen et al. 2000), Virginia (Burton and Gerritsen 2003), and Kentucky (Pond et al. 2003) among many others.

The Commonwealth and Its Waters

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania encompasses approximately 45,000 square miles of land (Figure 1) with diverse climatic, geological, physiographic, and land use characteristics. Well over 80,000 miles of flowing waters drain Pennsylvania’s varied landscape, ranging from ephemeral headwater hollows, small perennial creeks and brooks, to massive rivers such as the Ohio, Delaware, and Susquehanna.

The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) recognizes that certain types of streams naturally differ in physiochemical, climatological, geological, and many other -ological characteristics and, consequently, in biological potential. For example, benthic macroinvertebrate communities in limestone spring streams (streams in which most or all of the flow arises from springs and groundwater in areas with primarily calcareous geologies) often exhibit noticeably different characteristics (e.g. low diversity, high abundance) than communities in many freestone streams. These differences are attributable, in large part, to the unique physiochemical conditions associated with spring- fed, groundwater-dominated streams (e.g., relatively constant thermal and flow regimes).

Currently, PADEP utilizes three different methodologies to monitor and assess the benthic macroinvertebrate communities in three types of streams in Pennsylvania: true limestone spring streams (PADEP 2009a); lower gradient pool-glide type streams (PADEP 2007); and wadeable, freestone, riffle-run type streams. The last of these three stream types is the focus of this project. PADEP is also currently developing biological assessment methods for large, non-wadeable rivers.

Figure 1. Shaded relief map of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, with county boundaries.

6 DATA COLLECTION METHODS

All benthic macroinvertebrate samples analyzed in this project were collected using D-frame nets with 500-micron mesh. At a sampling site, biologists worked progressively upstream, compositing six kicks from riffle areas distributed throughout a 100-meter stream reach. Biologists sampled areas representative of the variety of riffle habitats (e.g., slower flowing, shallow riffles and faster flowing, deeper riffles) present within the sample reach. With each kick, biologists disturbed approximately one square meter immediately upstream of the net for approximately one minute to an approximate depth of 10 cm, as substrate allowed. Composited samples were preserved with 95% ethanol in the field and transported back to the laboratory for processing.

In the lab, each composited sample was placed into a 3.5” deep rectangular pan (measuring 14” long x 8” wide on the bottom of the pan) marked off into 28 four-square inch (2” x 2”) grids. Four of the grids were randomly selected. The contents of the randomly selected grids were extracted – using plastic spoons, knives, turkey basters, and other implements as needed – from within four-square inch circular “cookie cutters” placed in the selected grids in the pan. These extracted contents were then placed into a second pan with the same dimensions and markings as the initial pan. All the organisms were picked from this second pan.

If less than 160 identifiable organisms were picked from the second pan, an additional grid was randomly selected and extracted from the first pan. The contents of this additional grid were transferred to the second pan, and the organisms were picked from the second pan. This process was continued until the target number of organisms was reached. The target number of organisms was 200 ± 40 identifiable organisms, with 190 to 210 identifiable organisms being the preferred range. In situations with a count of identifiable organisms in a sub-sample between 160 and 180 and a sample that has not been entirely picked, PADEP highly encourages picking an additional grid or two to get closer to the target number of 200 identifiable organisms (i.e., in the preferred 190 to 210 organism range).

If more than 240 identifiable organisms were picked from the initial four grids, then those organisms were all placed into another pan and floated. A grid was then randomly selected and the organisms were picked from the selected grid. This process continued until the target number of organisms (200 ± 40, with 190 to 210 preferred) was reached.

Any grid selected during any part of the sub-sampling process was picked in its entirety. The total number of grids selected for each part of the sub-sampling process (e.g., 4 of 28 grids from the first pan, 10 of 28 grids from the second pan) was recorded.

Organisms in the sub-sample were identified and counted. Midges were identified to the family level of Chironomidae. Snails, clams, and mussels were all also identified to family levels. Roundworms and proboscis worms were identified to the phylum levels of Nematoda and Nemertea, respectively. Moss animacules were identified to the phylum level of Bryozoa. Flatworms and leeches were identified to the class levels of Turbellaria and Hirudenia, respectively. Segmented worms, aquatic earthworms, and tubificids were identified to the class level of Oligochaeta. All water mites were identified as Hydracarina, an artificial taxonomic grouping of several mite superfamilies. All other macroinvertebrates

7 were identified to genus level. Field sampling and laboratory methods are more fully described in Appendix A.

Land uses were calculated for the upstream basins of each sampling location using ESRI ® TM ArcMap 9.3 geographic information system (GIS) software and the 2001 National Land Cover Dataset (Homer et al. 2004).

Biologists collected water chemistry samples and conducted physical habitat assessments concurrently with many macroinvertebrate samples, although not all macroinvertebrate samples in the dataset had accompanying water chemistry and habitat data.

In addition to benthic macroinvertebrates, land use, water chemistry, and physical habitat data, a suite of GIS-based data were included in the analysis for each sample, including: watershed area; Strahler stream order; river basin; county; sampling location elevation; current ALU and attainment status of the stream segment from which the sample was taken; proportion of stream miles upstream impaired by various sources and causes; geologic composition of the watershed; and slope of the stream segment from which the sample was taken. Strahler stream order was determined from the 1:100,000-scale National Hydrography Dataset Plus (http://www.horizon-systems.com/nhdplus) and from an internal PADEP GIS stream layer. Slope data was derived from Anderson and Olivero (2003) and from Gawler et al. (2008).

Numerous biologists (see Acknowledgements) collected the data used in this analysis. The samples in the dataset were collected for a variety of PADEP survey types, with most samples collected as part of in-stream comprehensive evaluation surveys (1,167 samples) and antidegradation surveys (773 samples). Some samples in this dataset were also collected as probabilistic surveys (341 samples), long-term fixed-site water quality network monitoring surveys (264 samples), cause and effect surveys (186 samples), effluent dominated stream surveys (127 samples), intensive unassessed follow-up surveys (48 samples), basin surveys (46 samples), benthic macroinvertebrate surveys at fish sampling sites (38 samples), use attainability surveys (34 samples), point of first use surveys (14 samples), nonpoint source remediation surveys (5 samples), outside agency surveys (4 samples), and a stream enrichment risk analysis survey (1 sample).

In areas with multiple samples taken within a short distance (i.e., within a few hundred meters on the same stream reach), nearby samples were considered to be from one site, unless there were major intervening differences between spatially proximate samples (e.g., samples collected just upstream and just downstream of a discharge; substantial changes in land use between samples), in which case nearby samples were considered as representing distinct sites.

8 SITES AND SAMPLES

The dataset consisted of 3,047 benthic macroinvertebrate samples from 2,480 sites. All sites were located within the borders of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania except for five sites on larger streams in the Potomac River basin whose headwaters are in Pennsylvania (Figure 2). Samples from these five Potomac basin sites were collected at long-term, fixed- location monitoring sites located just south of the Mason-Dixon Line in Maryland on Antietam Creek, Conococheague Creek, Tonoloway Creek, Town Creek, and Sideling Hill Creek.

Although samples were collected from sites representing many areas of Pennsylvania, some basins had noticeably higher sampling densities than other basins (Figure 2) as a result of PADEP’s rotating basin monitoring strategy.

In terms of major basins in Pennsylvania, sampling densities were particularly high in the following basins:

Brandywine River - Christina River Chautauqua Creek - Conneaut Creek Lower West Branch Susquehanna River Clarion River Lehigh River Schuylkill River Middle Delaware River Lackawaxen River Middle Allegheny River - Tionesta Creek

Sampling densities were also high in some basins that drain smaller areas of Pennsylvania such as:

Upper Genesee River Upper Monongahela River Gunpowder River - Patapsco River Crosswicks Creek - Neshaminy Creek Monocacy River

Of the larger basins in Pennsylvania, sampling densities were lowest in the following basins:

Upper Ohio River Connoquenessing Creek Raystown Branch Juniata River Lower Delaware River Upper West Branch Susquehanna River Upper Allegheny River Conemaugh River Lower Monongahela River Lower Juniata River Shenango River Upper Susquehanna River - Lackawanna River

Sampling densities were also low in some basins that drain smaller areas of Pennsylvania such as:

Owego Creek - Wappasening Creek Cacapon River - Town Creek North Branch Potomac River Cheat River Mahoning River

Figure 2. Sample site locations, with larger streams, Pennsylvania county boundaries, and major watershed boundaries.

10 Most of the samples were collected from first through third Strahler order stream reaches draining less than 25 square miles of land (Table 1).

Table 1. Number of samples by drainage area ranges and Strahler stream order. Drainage area range Strahler stream order (square miles) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 to 3 364 551 70

3 to 10 15 348 433 31

10 to 25 12 323 172 10

25 to 50 2 47 149 16

50 to 100 2 106 63

100 to 500 1 20 185 50

500 to 1,000 5 44 1

1,000 to 5,000 1 4 13

5,000 to 10,000 4 2

> 10,000 1 2

Samples were collected from streams at a range of elevations (Figure 3, Figure 4) with a range of slopes (Figure 4, Figure 5). The smallest stream sites tended to have the highest slopes while larger stream sites tended to have lower slopes (Figure 5).

Figure 3. Relationship of sample site elevation and drainage area coded by Strahler stream order. Note logarithmic scale for drainage area.

Figure 4. Relationship of sample site slope and elevation coded by Strahler stream order. Note logarithmic scale for slope. This figure only includes 2,690 samples for which slope data was readily available. Slope is presented as a ratio of vertical drop over longitudial distance.

Figure 5. Relationship of sample site slope and drainage area coded by Strahler stream order. Note logarithmic scales on both axes. This figure only includes 2,692 samples for which slope and drainage area data were readily available. Slope is presented as a ratio of vertical drop over longitudial distance.

Samples were collected from November 10, 1999 to June 4, 2010 with about 75% of samples collected in 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009 (Figure 6, Table 2). Around 60% of samples were collected during the months of March, April, and May (Figure 7, Table 2). Smaller stream sites tended to be sampled proportionally more in the spring while the largest stream sites tended to be sampled more in late summer and autumn (Figure 8).

Figure 6. Distribution of samples by sampling date.

Figure 7. Distribution of samples by Julian day of sample collection.

13 Table 2. Sample collection dates by month and year. Year # of samples % of samples Month 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 by month by month January 2 10 22 38 5 5 82 2.7% February 3 9 22 13 15 4 9 1 76 2.5% March 2 5 3 14 2 50 92 85 100 31 384 12.6% April 14 14 24 53 55 38 99 120 242 170 65 894 29.3% May 15 22 24 32 4 25 44 148 124 101 11 550 18.1% June 2 7 6 26 29 9 79 2.6% July 2 1 3 30 12 23 6 77 2.5% August 5 1 8 22 15 58 39 34 11 193 6.3% September 4 5 10 6 22 39 29 36 151 5.0% October 4 2 14 6 16 28 39 15 124 4.1% November 12 10 4 5 11 19 12 41 36 94 21 265 8.7% December 4 2 19 5 23 4 2 40 20 13 40 172 5.6% # of samples by year 16 56 65 81 136 137 133 430 577 751 543 122 3,047 % of samples by year 0.5% 1.8% 2.1% 2.7% 4.5% 4.5% 4.4% 14.1% 18.9% 24.7% 17.8% 4.0%

Figure 8. Distribution of samples by drainage area and Julian day, coded by Strahler stream order. Note logarithmic scale for drainage area.

14 Just under half of the samples in the dataset were collected from stream segments with protected antidegradation ALUs of EV or HQ, with about 25% of samples collected from streams with protected CWF, 9% with TSF, and 17% with WWF ALUs (Table 3).

Table 3. Number of samples by stream order and protected aquatic life use. Protected uses were undetermined for 17 samples (< 1% of the total number of samples) because the stream segments were not digitized in the National Hydrography Dataset. Strahler Protected aquatic life use stream HQ- HQ- HQ- EV CWF TSF WWF order CWF TSF WWF 1 75 123 9 16 89 13 44 2 198 234 20 7 264 58 130 3 181 279 18 5 219 71 103 4 110 131 10 4 106 48 68 5 17 26 8 3 57 59 108 6 12 2 25 15 10 32 7 4 15 8 4 total # 593 795 90 35 754 259 504 % of total 19% 26% 3% 1% 25% 9% 17%

15 DEFINING SITE CONDITION

A critical step in development and implementation of any indicator of biological integrity used to evaluate effects of human activities on stream ecosystems involves quantification and comparison of the current condition of a stream’s biology to a standard or benchmark condition. The standard or benchmark condition is often referred to as the reference condition and can be defined for a given type of water body and a given ALU (Hughes 1995; Barbour et al. 1999; Hawkins 2006; Stoddard et al. 2006). This reference condition represents the desired state of biotic assemblages based on relatively undisturbed conditions representative of a region and serves as the foundation for development of biological criteria (Hughes 1995; Stoddard et al. 2006). Reference conditions must be tailored to certain regions or certain types of water bodies because attainable biological conditions cannot be expected to be the same for every region or type of water body. For example, one would expect naturally different biological conditions in a stream in a tropical rainforest than in an arctic lake. The reference condition is usually defined as a range of conditions resulting from natural temporal and spatial variation and sampling error (Hughes 1995; Stoddard et al. 2006).

Expectations of biological condition can be estimated in a number of ways, including: the reference site approach (i.e., comparison to minimally or least disturbed sites); best professional judgment; interpretation of historical conditions; extrapolation of empirical models; and evaluation of ambient distributions (Hughes 1995; Stoddard et al. 2006). Each method of determining the reference condition has its own strengths and weaknesses and each method relies on ecosystem classification to some degree (Hughes 1995). The most useful means of defining reference conditions draw on all these approaches (Hughes 1995).

Although the process of defining the reference condition should be as objective as possible (e.g., use of defined abiotic criteria), considerable professional judgment is involved in site selection, data analysis and subsequent determination of acceptable versus unacceptable indicator scores (Hughes 1995). Professional sagacity can be difficult to quantify, but it plays an important role in any method of defining the reference condition (Hughes 1995) and can be strengthened when used in concert with other methods, such as abiotic criteria. Experienced biologists can develop empirical understanding of biological conditions in the absence of substantial human disturbance (Stoddard et al. 2006). The scientific credibility of professional judgment improves if it is tied to sound ecological theory, can be replicated by similarly experienced peers, and any decision rules or guidelines can be documented or quantified (Stoddard et al. 2006). The discussion later in this paper about PADEP’s tiered aquatic life use workshops further explores the scientific credibility of applying professional judgment to macroinvertebrate communities in the wadeable, freestone, riffle-run streams of Pennsylvania, with encouraging results.

Stoddard et al. (2006) argue that the term reference condition should be used consistently to refer to a state of naturalness of the biotic structure and function, and that “naturalness implies the absence of significant human disturbance or alteration.” Stoddard et al. (2006) also propose that this reference condition should be properly referred to as the reference condition of biological integrity. Stoddard et al. (2006) define four additional terms to describe the expected condition to which current conditions are compared, including: (1)

16 minimally disturbed condition; (2) historical condition; (3) least disturbed condition; and (4) best attainable condition.

In many areas, if not all over the planet, it is difficult to locate sampling sites representative of the natural state, or reference condition of biological integrity, and the goal of “pristine” waters (i.e., free from all human impacts) is an unrealistic goal due to widespread human impacts. As a result, reference conditions and water resource goals often practically describe minimally disturbed, least disturbed, or best attainable conditions (Hughes 1995; Novotny 2004; Stoddard et al. 2006). However, it is important to select reference sites representative of a region and ecosystem type that are disturbed as little as possible by human activities because the definition of the reference site has important consequences for development of biological indicators and subsequent establishment of ALU attainment thresholds (Hughes 1995; Barbour et al. 1999).

For natural resource management purposes, defining the reference condition helps establish the ecological potential of aquatic ecosystem types in a region while accounting for irreversible and reversible changes caused by humans (Novotny 2004). Reference sites representing least-disturbed conditions are moving targets of which human activities and natural processes are a part (Hughes 1995; Stoddard et al. 2006), but the range of conditions defined by what Stoddard et al. (2006) name the minimally disturbed condition should serve as a nearly invariant anchor by which we can assess ecosystem integrity.

Limited resources, time and data often hinder our ability to holistically assess exposure of stream ecosystems to the full range of stressors that impact them, so suites of criteria are often used to describe the characteristics of sites in a region that are least and most exposed to stressors, representing reference and stressed conditions respectively (Stoddard et al. 2006).

This project defines a reference condition based on a population of sites exhibiting biological integrity from across Pennsylvania to which sites of unknown biological integrity can be compared (Hughes 1995). This population-based approach to defining reference conditions provides comparability of samples for sites across the state from similar types of water bodies (i.e., wadeable, freestone, riffle-run streams) and promotes efficient use of limited public resources for monitoring and assessment of aquatic resources.

For this project, a suite of abiotic parameters comprised of watershed land uses, physical habitat evaluations, abandoned mine land prevalence, upstream ALU impairments, and water chemistry was used to determine relative anthropogenic impacts at each site and to define reference conditions. Initial site condition categories were assigned with a site condition index calculated from metrics of upstream land use, physical habitat evaluations, abandoned mine land prevalence, and upstream ALU impairments. The components of the initial site condition index were calculated for the upstream basin at each site as follows:

17 Land use component = (% forest + % wetlands) – (% high-density development * 5) – (% medium-density development * 3) – (% low-density development *2) – (% row crops) – (% hay or pasture * 0.5)

Physical habitat component = minimum total habitat score at site / 240 * 100

Abandoned mine lands component = (% abandoned mine lands * -2)

Upstream impairments component = (% impaired stream miles * -1)

These four components were added together to calculate the initial site condition index for each site.

Initial site condition index = Land use component + Physical habitat component + Abandoned mine lands component + Upstream impairments component

As shown above, various weightings were applied to the land use, abandoned mine lands, and upstream impairments components of the condition index. A number of different site characterization approaches were evaluated. The component weighting and condition index approach presented above is based on empirical observation and reasoning about how different types of impacts affect streams and benthic macroinvertebrate communities. For example, relatively small areas of high-density development can cause severe impacts to a stream by drastically altering flow patterns (e.g., increased overland runoff associated with impervious surfaces). An equal spatial extent of hay or pasture often has much less pronounced in-stream effects. In other words, if three percent of an otherwise forested stream’s watershed is densely developed and imperviously paved, this will often have a much more severe impact on the basin’s streams than if that three percent of land were utilized for hay or pasture. That is why high-density developed land use percentage was given a weighting of five while hay/pasture land use percentage was assigned a weighting of one-half. Similar reasoning was used to assign the weightings for each site condition component. Of course, the impact of any human activity on a stream depends on where the activity is located in the basin relative to the stream and a host of other situation-specific factors. However – for the purposes of this project – the site condition index as presented above represents a useful, tenable tool for comparing watershed condition across a large number of sites. There are certainly instances where the index does not holistically gauge the condition of certain streams and watersheds, but – by and large – it accomplishes its intent of quantifying the level of anthropogenic impacts to streams and their basins. This multifaceted quantification of anthropogenic impacts is conceptually similar to that of the Ecological Risk Index developed by Mattson and Angermeier (2007).

The initial site condition index values ranged from a maximum of 197 to a minimum of -255 (Figure 9). Higher initial site condition index values represent relatively pristine watersheds and streams while lower values represent streams and watersheds more impacted by anthropogenic activities.

Figure 9. Boxplot of initial site condition index values by drainage area ranges. Diamonds mark the mean index value for each drainage area range. Box widths are proportional to the number of sites in each drainage area range.

The initial site condition index values were divided into bins based on the distribution of values for different sizes of streams (Table 4). Sample sites were grouped into seven groups based on drainage area (i.e., 0-3 square miles, 3-10 square miles, 10-25 square miles, 25-50 square miles, 50-100 square miles, 100-500 square miles, 500-1,000 square miles). Within each of the seven drainage area groups, sites were grouped into six condition tiers based on the initial site condition index based on percentiles of the index distribution in each size group. Sites with initial condition index values greater than the 85th percentile of the index distributions in each size group were designated as “condition 1.” Sites with initial condition index values less than the 25th percentile of index distributions in each size group were designated as “condition 6.” Sites designated as “condition 2,” “condition 3,” “condition 4,” and “condition 5” were those sites with initial site condition index values between the 85th to 70th, 70th to 55th, 55th to 40th, and 40th to 25th percentiles, respectively. In other words, “condition 1” sites represent sites that were the least impacted by human activities with subsequent tiers representing progressively more impacted sites.

Table 4. Determination of initial site condition categories based on distribution of initial site condition index values. Percentiles were determined for each drainage area grouping. Drainage area range Initial Site Condition Category (square miles) 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 to 3 3 to 10 > 85th 85th to 70th 70th to 55th 55th to 40th 40th to 25th < 25th 10 to 25 percentile percentile percentile percentile percentile percentile 25 to 50 of initial site of initial site of initial site of initial site of initial site of initial site 50 to 100 condition condition condition condition condition condition 100 to 500 index values index values index values index values index values index values 500 to 1,000

19 Sites without physical habitat data – about 10% of all sites – were assigned to initial site condition categories of zero (0). Sites from streams draining > 1,000 square miles were not assigned into condition categories since there were only samples from 26 sites draining that much land; each of these samples were evaluated individually.

The percentiles of initial site condition index values chosen as breakpoints between condition categories were selected such that each category would have a reasonably comparable number of samples, and such that “condition 1” and “condition 2” sites would represent the least impacted conditions possible. Other approaches to defining site conditions often set threshold values for each of a suite of abiotic components (e.g., greater than 85% forested land use, less than 5% abandoned mine lands). The condition index approach is analogous to this component-by-component threshold approach since the condition index is built from a suite of abiotic components.

The percentile breakpoints were applied to different groupings of stream sizes because the characteristics of the least disturbed small headwater brooks may be quite different from the least disturbed larger rivers. For example, there are many small streams in Pennsylvania that drain basins with greater than 90% forested land use, but there are relatively few larger rivers that have this high a proportion of forested land in their upstream basins. Applying the site condition index percentile breakpoints to different sizes of streams facilitated distinguishing the least disturbed streams in various size ranges and maintaining stringent standards for what constitutes minimally disturbed streams. This is a key component of such a project since we know and expect that benthic macroinvertebrate communities exhibit natural changes with stream size (Vannotte et al. 1980).

Over 39% of all “condition 1” samples and over 34% of all “condition 2” samples were from streams with EV aquatic life uses. Over 46% of all “condition 1” samples and over 38% of all “condition 2” samples were from streams with HQ aquatic life uses. Across stream sizes, “condition 1” and “condition 2” sites predominantly represented sites in excellent condition with very high percentages of forested land use and optimal total habitat scores (Figure 10) across the state (see Figure 11 below). These two condition tiers (i.e., “condition 1” and “condition 2”) represent the reference conditions for subsequent analyses in this project.

20 a

Figure 10. Distribution of (a) percent forested land use in upstream basins and (b) total habitat scores among sites by initial site condition categories.

Field-observed water chemistry data – which consisted of pH, total alkalinity, and specific conductance – were used to further determine site conditions. Any site with a pH recorded below 5.5 was flagged for possible impacts from atmospheric acid deposition, although pH was not recorded for 887 of the 2,482 sites so it is possible that some sites impacted by acidic deposition were not identified. Any site with a specific conductance recorded over 500 µS/cmc was considered “condition 6.” Specific conductance was not recorded for 837 of the 2,482 sites. The site condition for each sample was assigned as the initial site condition category adjusted for these water chemistry screenings (Table 5).

Table 5. Number of samples by drainage area range and site condition. Site condition

1 2 3 4 5 6 0

Drainage area range

(square miles)

pH < pH 5.5 < pH 5.5 < pH 5.5 < pH 5.5 < pH 5.5 < pH 5.5 < pH 5.5

0 to 3 97 33 148 18 118 7 126 3 120 6 244 3 61 1 3 to 10 121 11 108 6 119 5 115 1 96 8 196 5 36 10 to 25 86 2 76 65 76 1 55 1 118 37

25 to 50 29 25 30 41 28 3 47 11

50 to 100 31 26 29 23 19 4 35 4

100 to 500 38 45 38 29 27 50 29

500 to 1,000 19 4 3 4 3 16

22 DATA EXPLORATION AND SAMPLE CLASSIFICATION

In addition to varying impacts of human activities, natural variation exists among different types of stream ecosystems. For example, biotic assemblages in streams often vary in space and time with basin geology, soil types, stream gradient, substrate composition, climate, and other non-anthropogenic factors. The goal of a classification scheme is to provide a framework for organizing and interpreting the non-anthropogenic spatial and temporal variation of stream ecosystems in order to establish meaningful reference conditions (Whittaker 1962; Hughes 1995; Barbour et al. 1999). Appropriate ecosystem classification is critical to the reference condition concept because it helps determine the spatial and temporal extent to which particular biological attributes apply (Hughes 1995).

Stream classification identifies relatively homogenous classes of streams. Workable classification schemes are characterized by biological expectations that vary less within each class of streams than among the different classes. Representative sites can be selected from each class of streams to establish reference conditions (Barbour et al. 1999). Classification across heterogeneous classes may result in misrepresentation of the biological condition in certain ecosystem types. For these reasons, the need for some sort of classification scheme that groups streams together that are more similar than others (e.g., true limestone spring streams, freestone streams) should be carefully evaluated (Hughes 1995). Evaluation of biological attributes that represent structures and functions of reference condition communities represents a critical component of any classificatory analysis of biological data (Hughes 1995). An analysis of taxa sampled from streams in different areas during different seasons can help identify important classifications for biological expectations (Hughes 1995).

In this project, two multivariate statistical methods – agglomerative hierarchical cluster analysis (Lance and Williams 1967; Milligan 1989) and nonmetric multidimensional scaling, or NMDS (Kruskal and Wish 1978; Ludwig and Reynolds 1988) – were used to explore patterns of variation in the biological data as related to abiotic variables, and to evaluate the biological relevance of various potential classification schemes. Both types of analyses, which have been used in similar applications evaluating biological integrity of stream ecosystems (see Barbour et al. 1995; Hawkins and Norris 2000), were performed using SAS ® 9.1 software. The groups defined by the cluster analysis can be thought of as an a posteriori classification scheme based solely on characteristics of the biological community, while the other classification schemes tested were determined a priori based on physiochemical, biogeographical, and/or seasonal characteristics (Barbour et al. 1999).

All classification analyses were based on matrices of Bray-Curtis similarity measures (Ludwig and Reynolds 1988) calculated on natural log-transformed proportional abundance of taxa. In order to minimize variation attributable to anthropogenic impacts, all classification analyses were based only on the 923 samples from the 715 reference sites (i.e., “condition 1” or “condition 2’) (Figure 11). These 923 least-disturbed samples contained 293 taxa. Extremely rare taxa (i.e., those encountered in less than five of the 923 samples) were not included in the classification analyses, which resulted in excluding the rarest 101 taxa from the classification analyses and including 192 more common taxa. Previous analyses (see Marchant 1999, 2002) suggest that extremely rare taxa are largely unimportant to multivariate analyses, especially when considering only relatively

23 undisturbed sites, because only more commonly encountered taxa can be adequately characterized in terms of response to environmental variables. In addition, extremely rare taxa are more likely to have been misidentified and could obscure the ability to detect biologically significant differences among sites (Hawkins et al. 2000).

Figure 11. Map of the 715 basins for the 923 samples from reference (i.e., condition 1 and condition 2) sites used in cluster and NMDS analyses.

Cluster Analysis

The cluster tree resulting from the SAS ® CLUSTER procedure using the flexible beta method with a beta value of -0.25 was analyzed at the level of 11 clusters (Figure 12), which explained 27% of the variation in the data. For purposes of the cluster analysis Bray- Curtis similarity measures were converted to distance measures by subtraction from one. The beta value of -0.25 was chosen based on literature (Milligan 1989) and visual inspection of cluster trees constructed using other beta values; a value of -0.25 produced a tree with visually distinguishable groupings, as opposed to other values that tended to produce overly detailed groups (more positive beta values) or overly simplified groups (more negative beta values).

Figure 12. Cluster tree for the 192 most common taxa from 923 reference samples.

At the 11-cluster level, the first break in the cluster tree occurs between clusters 1-7 and clusters 8-11, with the second break between clusters 8-10 and cluster 11, the third break between clusters 1-4 and clusters 5-7, and the fourth break between clusters 1-2 and 3-4.

Condition category

As evidenced by the very even distribution of samples from “condition 1” and “condition 2” sites in each cluster (Table 6), the influence of anthropogenic impacts between these two clusters accounts for very little of the variation in taxa patterns among samples in the cluster analysis. As shown below, much more of the variation in the cluster analysis is accounted for by natural factors such as stream size and sampling season. This provides support for the argument that including samples from both “condition 1” and “condition 2” sites in the cluster analysis does not introduce substantial variation attributable to human impacts.

Table 6. Number of samples in each cluster by condition category. condition Cluster category 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 64 46 28 17 19 11 41 43 43 82 2 67 54 32 12 14 22 47 65 36 64 1 acid 1 10 16 3 12 5 68

25 Drainage area

Clusters 8-11 contained samples mostly from sites on smaller streams (Figure 13). Of the 422 samples in clusters 8-11, only six samples were from stream sites draining more than 25 square miles of land and no samples were from stream sites draining more than 50 square miles of land. Of the 422 samples in clusters 8-11, 55% drained less than three square miles of land and 90% drained less than ten square miles of land. Samples in cluster 11 were from especially small streams. Of the 69 samples in cluster 11, 60 were from stream sites draining less than three square miles of land and the other nine samples were from stream sites draining between three and ten square miles of land.

Clusters 5 and 7 contained samples mostly from sites on smaller streams, with over 70% of the samples in each of those two clusters being from stream sites draining less than 10 square miles of land and over 90% coming from stream sites draining less than 25 square miles of land. Cluster 6 contained samples mostly from moderate-size and larger stream sites, with over 80% of the 33 samples in that cluster coming from stream sites draining more than 50 square miles of land.

Clusters 1-4 contained samples from sites draining the largest streams in the cluster analysis dataset. Of the 321 samples in clusters 1-4, only eight were from sites on streams draining less than three square miles of land and only 48 were from sites on streams draining less than ten square miles of land. Of all 163 samples in the cluster analysis dataset from streams draining more than 50 square miles of land, 85% were in clusters 1-4. Of the 106 samples from stream sites draining over 100 square miles of land, 67% were in clusters 3 and 4. Samples in clusters 1 and 2 were mostly from more moderate-sized streams, while samples in clusters 3 and 4 were mostly from larger streams.

Figure 13. Distribution of sample site drainage areas by cluster, coded by Strahler stream order. Note logarithmic scale for drainage area. Lines are drawn at 25 and 50 square miles.

26 Stream order

If we look at the cluster results in terms of Strahler stream order we – not surprisingly – see similar patterns as with upstream drainage area (Table 7). Over 95% of the samples in clusters 8-11 were from 1st through 3rd order streams, with no samples from streams larger than 4th order. Cluster 11 contained mostly samples from 1st through 2nd order streams, with no samples from streams larger than 3rd order.

Clusters 5 and 7 were also over 90% comprised of samples from 1st through 3rd order streams, with a few 4th and 5th order samples. About 73% of the samples in cluster 6 were from 4th or 5th order streams, with at least one sample from every stream order represented in this cluster.

Over 85% of the samples in clusters 1 and 2 were from 3rd through 5th order streams, with no samples from 1st order streams. All of the samples in cluster 4 and over 85% of the samples in cluster 3 were from 4th through 6th order streams, with no samples smaller than 4th order in cluster 4 and no samples smaller than 3rd order in cluster 3.

27 Table 7. Number and percentage of samples in each cluster by Strahler stream order. Strahler Cluster stream 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 order # % # % # % # % # % # % # % # % # % # % # % 1 7 16% 2 6% 16 15% 31 28% 21 23% 18 12% 29 42% 2 12 9% 11 11% 14 33% 2 6% 36 35% 54 49% 39 43% 77 51% 34 49% 3 50 38% 43 43% 7 12% 21 49% 2 6% 43 41% 21 19% 28 31% 49 32% 6 9%

4 45 34% 38 38% 8 13% 4 14% 11 33% 6 6% 5 5% 3 3% 7 5%

5 17 13% 8 8% 23 38% 11 38% 1 2% 13 39% 3 3% 6 8 6% 22 37% 14 48% 2 6% 7 1 3%

28 Slope

Samples in clusters 8-11 were collected mostly from streams with slopes over 2% (Figure 14). Samples in cluster 7 were also collected mostly form higher gradient streams, with samples in clusters 1, 2, and 5 collected mostly from more moderate gradient (i.e., 0.5% to 2.0%) streams and samples in clusters 3, 4, and 6 collected from mostly lower slope (< 0.5%) streams. These results reflect the inverse relationship of stream slope and drainage area noted earlier (Figure 5).

Figure 14. Distribution of sample site slopes by cluster, coded by Strahler stream order. Note logarithmic scale for slope.

Elevation

Patterns of elevation (Figure 15) in the cluster analysis were much less distinct than drainage area, stream order, and slope patterns.

Figure 15. Distribution of sample site elevations by cluster, coded by Strahler stream order.

29 Seasons

Clusters 8-11 contained samples mostly from the spring months, March through May (Table 8, Figure 16). This was particularly the case for clusters 9-11 where over 90% of the samples in those clusters were March through May samples. In cluster 11, all of the samples were collected March through May.

Samples in cluster 7 were mostly collected late summer, autumn, and early winter, with 81% of samples in this cluster collected August through December. Samples in clusters 5 and 6 were mostly collected late autumn, winter, and early spring, with all the samples in cluster 6 and 93% of the samples in cluster 5 collected November through March.

Samples in cluster 4 were all mostly collected late summer and autumn, with 97% of samples in this cluster collected August through November. Samples in cluster 3 were also concentrated in late summer and early autumn, with 64% of samples in this cluster collected August through October. Samples in cluster 2 were somewhat bimodal in terms of sampling season with 44% of samples in this cluster collected in November or December, and 45% of samples collected in March and April. Samples in cluster 1 were mostly collected late spring, with 86% of samples in this cluster collected in April and May.

30 Table 8. Number and percentage of samples in each cluster by month. Cluster month 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 # % # % # % # % # % # % # % # % # % # % # % January 2 2% 5 5% 1 2% 5 15% 1 1% 1 1% 2 1% February 1 1% 2 2% 1 2% 3 9% 17 15% 9 6%

March 8 6% 20 20% 2 3% 12 28% 4 12% 3 3% 13 12% 4 4% 30 20% 10 14%

April 58 44% 25 25% 8 13% 17 40% 12 12% 38 34% 26 29% 70 46% 33 48% May 56 42% 3 3% 2 3% 3 7% 3 3% 17 15% 58 64% 37 25% 26 38%

June 2 2% 3 5% 2 2% 1 1% 1 1% July 1 1% 3 5% 2 2% 1 1%

August 1 1% 10 17% 8 28% 24 23% 1 1% September 2 2% 22 37% 10 34% 16 15%

October 1 1% 6 10% 2 7% 12 12% 2 2%

November 23 23% 1 2% 8 28% 5 12% 4 12% 21 20% 11 10% 2 1% December 1 1% 21 21% 3 5% 1 3% 4 9% 17 52% 11 11% 9 8%

a b

Figure 16. Side-by-side plots of sample site (a) drainage area and (b) Julian day of sample collection in each cluster. Note logarithmic scale for drainage area.

31 Location

Some patterns in latitude and longitude coordinates of sample locations in each cluster are apparent (Figure 17). However, the patterns in latitude and longitude among clusters were not as consistent among the first, second, third, and fourth major breaks in the cluster tree as were patterns of drainage area and – less so – sampling season. Maps of basin locations for each cluster are presented in Appendix B.

Looking at clusters 8-11, most samples in clusters 9, 10, and 11 were from sites north of the 41st parallel, with a number of sites in more southerly parts of Pennsylvania, while samples in cluster 8 were from sites a touch further south than the samples in cluster 9,10, and 11. Samples in cluster 11 were mostly from western parts of the state, concentrated around the 79th meridian (largely reflecting the density of sites in the Clarion River and Tionesta Creek basins). Samples in cluster 9 were also mostly from sites in the western parts of the state, west of the 78th meridian, while samples in cluster 8 were mostly from sites east of the 78th meridian, and samples in cluster 10 were spread fairly evenly across the state from east to west.

Looking at clusters 5-7, samples in cluster 5 were mostly from sites north of the 41st parallel. Samples in cluster 6 were also from sites mostly north of or near the 41st parallel, but there were also eight samples in cluster 6 from sites south of 40.5° north latitude. Samples in cluster 7 were from sites fairly well distributed in the state from north to south. Samples in clusters 5, 6, and 7 were fairly spread across the state from east to west, although samples in cluster 5 were from sites more concentrated in the eastern parts of the state (particularly the Pocono Plateau), with samples in cluster 6 mostly from sites more in the east-west center of the state (but also including four sites in the very southwest corner of the state in Greene County), and samples in cluster 7 being more from sites in western parts of the state (with a number of samples in the Allegheny Mountains of eastern Fayette County and western Somerset County).

Looking at clusters 3 and 4, there was only one site (on Aughwick Creek) in cluster 4 that was south of the 41st parallel. Samples in cluster 3 were also mostly from sites north of the 41st parallel, but with a number of samples from sites in the southcentral and southwestern parts of the state. Samples in cluster 3 were from sites spread across the state from east to west, while samples in cluster 4 were very concentrated between the 77th and 79th meridian (showing the heavy concentration of sites in this cluster from south-draining tributaries of the West Branch Susquehanna River).

Looking at cluster 1 and 2, the only two samples in cluster 2 from sites south of 40.8° north latitude were from two sites on Dunbar Creek in central Fayette County. Most of the samples in cluster 1 were also from more northerly parts of the state, but this cluster also included many samples from sites in more southerly parts of the state. East to west, samples in clusters 1 and 2 were from sites a bit more in the eastern parts of the state, but with fairly decent east-west spread across the state.

32 a b

Figure 17. Distribution of sample site (a) latitude and (b) longitude by cluster.

33 The remainder of the discussion in this section looks at sample locations cluster-by-cluster and basin-by-basin in more detail (Table 9 and see Appendix B). The basins described below are those defined by the United States Geological Survey in their Hydrologic Unit system (Seaber et al. 1987) at the eight-digit level.

Samples in cluster 11 were highly concentrated in northwestern parts of the state, particularly in the upper and middle reaches of the Clarion River basin and in the southern part of the Tionesta Creek basin in eastern Forest County and western Elk County. In fact, 49 of the 69 samples in cluster 11 were located in the Clarion River basin, with another six located in the Tionesta Creek basin. With 71% of the samples in cluster 11 located in the Clarion River basin, this cluster exhibited the highest degree of geographical concentration of any cluster. Cluster 11 also contained six samples from the upper and middle reaches of the Lehigh River basin as well as: two samples from an unnamed tributary to Williams Run in the Conemaugh River basin; one sample from Long Pine Run in the headwaters of the Conococheague Creek basin draining off South Mountain; one sample from Dothan Run – a tributary to Conodoguinet Creek draining off Kittatinny Mountain in northern Franklin County; two samples from an unnamed tributary to Shohola Creek in north-central Pike County; and two samples from Rock Run – a tributary to Dunbar Creek draining the western part of Chestnut Ridge in central Fayette County.

Samples in cluster 10 were particularly concentrated in the Middle Allegheny River - Tionesta Creek basin in southern Warren County and northern Forest County with 44 of the 151 samples (or 43%) in this cluster located in this area. There were also 14 samples from the nearby Clarion River basin in cluster 10. There were also quite a few samples in cluster 10 located in the Lower West Branch Susquehanna River basin, particularly in the upper reaches of Loyalsock Creek in Sullivan County and eastern Lycoming County. Cluster 10 also contained samples from sites in other parts of the state.

Samples in cluster 9 were also primarily concentrated in the Middle Allegheny River - Tionesta Creek basin and secondarily in the neighboring Clarion River basin, but less heavily than clusters 11 and 10. Other samples in cluster 9 were located in various parts of the Commonwealth.

Samples in cluster 8 were noticeably less concentrated in the vicinities of the Tionesta Creek and Clarion River basins. In fact, the basin with the most samples in cluster 8 was the Lehigh River basin, where 36 of the 111 samples in the cluster were located. There were a few handfuls of samples in cluster 8 located in other parts of the upper and middle Delaware River drainages as well some samples from other regions of Pennsylvania.

Samples in cluster 7 were more distributed around the state. The basin with the most samples in cluster 7 was the Youghiogheny River basin with 22 of 104 samples located in the highlands of this basin in eastern Fayette County and western Somerset County. The three samples from sites draining over 100 square miles of land in cluster 7 were located on West Branch Tionesta Creek and East Branch Clarion River.

Samples in cluster 6 were also distributed around Pennsylvania, with many samples located in the West Branch Susquehanna River basin. Cluster 6 contained three samples from White Deer Hole Creek, two samples from the lower reaches of Loyalsock Creek, one sample from the lower reaches of Lycoming Creek, and one sample from White Deer

34 Creek, all in the Lower West Branch Susquehanna River basin. This cluster also contained three samples from Brodhead Creek, two samples from Dunkard Creek (and one from Dunkard Fork), two samples from Sherman Creek as well as samples from streams in other parts of the state.

Samples in cluster 5 were primarily concentrated in the upper Lehigh River basin and secondarily in the Middle Delaware River basin as well as the Tionesta Creek and Clarion River basins with a few samples from other parts of the state. The only sample in cluster 5 from a site draining more than 30 square miles of land was from a site on Kettle Creek draining about 220 square miles.

Samples in cluster 4 were concentrated in the northcentral part of the state. Twelve of the 29 samples in cluster 4 were from the main stem of Pine Creek in eastern Potter County, southwestern Tioga County, and northwestern Lycoming County at sites ranging in drainage area from 38 square miles to 940 square miles. This cluster also included three samples from different sites along First Fork Sinnemahoning Creek, two samples from a site on Driftwood Branch Sinnemahoning Creek, two samples from different sites along Kettle Creek, two samples from a site on Lycoming Creek, three samples from two sites along lower reaches of Loyalsock Creek, and two samples from a site on Aughwick Creek as well as one sample each from the Lackawaxen River, Potato Creek, and Tionesta Creek. The only sample in this cluster from a site draining less than 35 square miles was a sample from the upper reaches of First Fork Sinnemahoning Creek.

Samples in cluster 3 were also concentrated in the northcentral part of the state with nine samples from the middle and lower reaches of Pine Creek in eastern Potter County, southwestern Tioga County, and northwestern Lycoming County as well as one sample from near the mouth of Little Pine Creek. There were also five samples from Spruce Run in Union County in cluster 3 as well as two samples from the lower reaches of Loyalsock Creek and one sample from a site on Muncy Creek. Cluster 3 also contained seven samples from the lower reaches of Brodhead Creek as well as a sample from two other nearby creeks: Marshalls Creek and Shohola Creek. Eight samples from Aughwick Creek also clustered into cluster 3 as well as some other samples from other parts of the state. Five of the six samples from sites draining less than 25 square miles of land in cluster three were from Spruce Creek in Union County, with the other one from Trout Creek in Monroe County.

Samples in cluster 2 were most heavily concentrated in the northcentral part of the state. This cluster contained 25 samples from the Lower West Branch Susquehanna River basin, with six samples from Muncy Creek, three samples from White Deer Hole Creek, and samples from many other streams in this area. There were quite a few samples from the Middle Allegheny River - Tionesta Creek basin in cluster 2, with six samples from West Branch Caldwell Creek, four samples from East Hickory Creek, and a number of other samples from other creeks in this area. Nine samples in cluster 2 were located at various sites along Sinnemahoning Portage Creek with two other samples from a site in the lower reaches of First Fork Sinnemahoning Creek. This cluster also contained many samples from the Middle Delaware River basins and other samples from around the state. The only samples from sites draining over 75 square miles in cluster 2 were from a site on First Fork Sinnemahoning Creek draining 205 square miles. The next largest site in this cluster was a site draining 73 square miles on Sinnemahoning Portage Creek.

35 Samples in cluster 1 were spread about the state quite a bit. There were over 15 samples in this cluster from four different basins: 22 from a variety of streams in the Middle Allegheny River - Tionesta Creek basin; 20 from various streams in the Lower West Branch Susquehanna River basin; 17 from the Middle West Branch Susquehanna River basin (11 of those from Kettle Creek); and 16 samples from different streams in the Lehigh River basin. Cluster 1 also included samples from many other parts of the state.

Table 9. Number of samples in each cluster by basin. Basins are those defined by the United States Geological Survey’s Hydrologic Unit system (Seaber et al. 1987) at the eight-digit level. Hydrologic Unit Cluster Code Name 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 02040101 Upper Delaware 1 2 1

02040103 Lackawaxen 5 6 1 1 2 4 1 9

02040104 Middle Delaware-Mongaup-Brodhead 4 11 9 6 3 12 15 4 2

02040105 Middle Delaware-Musconetcong 1 1 3

02040106 Lehigh 16 5 15 3 36 7 6

02040203 Schuylkill 3 1 3

02050101 Upper Susquehanna 2 2 1 5

02050103 Owego-Wappasening 1

02050104 Tioga 1 5 3

02050106 Upper Susquehanna-Tunkhannock 2 2 3 2

02050107 Upper Susquehanna-Lackawanna 1 2 2 3 2

02050201 Upper West Branch Susquehanna 8 1 2

02050202 Sinnemahoning 2 13 3 5 1 3 1 11

02050203 Middle West Branch Susquehanna 17 11 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 5

02050204 Bald Eagle 8 4 2

02050205 Pine 9 7 10 12 1 1 3 3 3 4

02050206 Lower West Branch Susquehanna 20 25 9 5 8 7 9 5 21

02050301 Lower Susquehanna-Penns 1 1 2 1

02050302 Upper Juniata 4 3 1 1

02050303 Raystown 2 1 1 2

02050304 Lower Juniata 5 8 2 1 1 1

02050305 Lower Susquehanna-Swatara 4 2 1 1

02050306 Lower Susquehanna 4 2 4

02070003 Cacapon-Town 1

02070004 Conococheague-Opequon 1 2 1

05010001 Upper Allegheny 4 1 1 2 5 1 3

05010003 Middle Allegheny-Tionesta 22 16 4 1 6 2 6 10 39 44 6 05010004 French 1

05010005 Clarion 7 1 7 11 3 20 14 49

05010007 Conemaugh 1 4 1 1 2

05010008 Kiskiminetas 2 1

05020004 Cheat 2 1 1

05020005 Lower Monongahela 1 3 2

05020006 Youghiogheny 1 2 2 22 4 6 1 2

05030105 Connoquenessing 1

05030106 Upper Ohio-Wheeling 1 1 4

36 Note that different samples from the same site could – and often did – appear in different clusters. For example, one site in the lower reaches of Loyalsock Creek in Lycoming County near Butternut Grove was sampled eight different times and these eight samples ended up in four different clusters: one in cluster 1; three in cluster 3; two in cluster 4; and two in cluster 6. The differential clustering of samples from the same site in this instance appears directly related to sampling season: the one sample in cluster 1 was sampled in mid-April; the three samples in cluster 3 were sampled June, July, and August; the two samples in cluster4 were sampled mid-October and early December; and the two samples in cluster 6 were sampled late December and mid-January. Of all the sites in the cluster analysis dataset, 58 had samples that ended up in two different clusters, 10 had samples that ended up in three different clusters, and the one site on Loyalsock Creek had samples that ended up in four different clusters.

Taxa

The biotic characteristics of each cluster were thoroughly explored by tabulating abundance (i.e., number of individuals per sample in each cluster) and occurrence (i.e., percent of samples encountered in each cluster) of each taxon in each cluster. The abundance and occurrence of each taxon was ranked for each cluster. Taxa were sorted by abundance rank and abundance to determine which taxa were uniquely abundant – and uniquely scarce or absent – in each cluster. Taxa were then sorted by occurrence rank and occurrence to determine which taxa were uniquely encountered most often – and least often – in each cluster. Taxa were sorted by rank first to determine patterns unique to each cluster. As an example, Chironomidae were fairly abundant and nearly ubiquitously encountered in every cluster. Ranking the abundance and occurrence provides a picture of how those patterns vary cluster to cluster in relative terms. Only the 192 taxa included in the cluster analysis were considered in this tabulation. Rather than go through detailed taxa patterns cluster by cluster – which would require substantial space – the following discussion focuses on the patterns on taxa abundance and occurrence related to the major breaks in the agglomerative cluster tree. In other words, the following analysis focuses on the differences in taxa driving the major branches in the cluster tree. More details on this analysis are available upon request.

A few taxa exhibited distinct abundance and/or occurrence patterns at the first break in the cluster tree – between clusters 1-7 and clusters 8-11 (Table 10). The following taxa were much more commonly encountered in clusters 1-7 than clusters 8-11 (taxa with the largest differences in abundance and occurrence between these two cluster groups are listed first): Cheumatopsyche and Chimarra caddisflies; Ophiogomphus and Stylogomphus dragonflies; Atherix true flies; Isonychia mayflies; Ancylidae snails; Ephemera mayflies; Optioservus beetles; Paragnetina stoneflies; Psephenus and Stenelmis beetles; Eurylophella mayflies; Hydracarina water mites; Taeniopteryx stoneflies; Clinocera true flies; Dubiraphia beetles; Allocapnia stoneflies; Ceratopsyche and Glossosoma caddisflies; and Stenonema mayflies. The following taxa were much more commonly encountered in clusters 8-11 than clusters 1- 7: Amphinemura stoneflies; Diplectrona caddisflies; Haploperla stoneflies; Probezzia true flies; Leuctra stoneflies; Wormaldia caddisflies; Ameletus mayflies; Hexatoma true flies; Oulimnius beetles; Chelifera true flies; Cambaridae crayfish; Dicranota true flies; Rhyacophila caddisflies; Tallaperla and Alloperla stoneflies; Pteronarcys stoneflies; Polycentropus caddisflies; and Sweltsa stoneflies. Similar patterns were observed for abundance for almost all of the previously mentioned taxa at the first split in the cluster tree.

37 Table 10. Summary of major taxonomic patterns at the first cluster tree split. Taxonomic Taxa more common and/or Taxa more common and/or group abundant in clusters 1-7 abundant in clusters 8-11 Isonychia Ameletus Ephemera Mayflies Eurylophella Stenonema Ophiogomphus Odonates Stylogomphus Paragnetina Amphinemura Taeniopteryx Haploperla Allocapnia Leuctra Stoneflies Tallaperla Alloperla Pteronarcys Sweltsa Cheumatopsyche Diplectrona Chimarra Wormaldia Caddisflies Ceratopsyche Rhyacophila Glossosoma Polycentropus Optioservus Oulimnius Psephenus Beetles Stenelmis Dubiraphia Clinocera Probezzia Atherix Hexatoma True Flies Chelifera Dicranota Ancylidae Cambaridae Other Taxa Hydracarina

At the second split in the cluster tree, which broke cluster 11 from clusters 8-10, many mayfly taxa were much more commonly encountered in clusters 8-10 than cluster 11, primarily: Cinygmula; Habrophlebiodes; Epeorus; Paraleptophlebia; Acerpenna; Diphetor; Baetis; Ephemerella; and Drunella (Table 11). A few other taxa were also much more common in clusters 8-10 than cluster 11, including: Pteronarcys stoneflies; Ectopria beetles; and Isoperla stoneflies.

In fact, the outstanding patterns in cluster 11 taxa were very high abundance of Leuctra and Amphinemura stoneflies relative to other clusters combined with very low occurrence and abundance of mayflies relative to other clusters. Average Leuctra and Amphinemura abundance per sample in cluster 11 – 65 and 42, respectively – were both at least double that of the next most abundant cluster for those two taxa – cluster 9 average abundances per sample were 27 and 21, respectively. Prosimulium black flies were also relatively abundant in cluster 11 – averaging 25 individuals per sample – compared to clusters 8-10. Mayfly abundance and occurrence was very low in cluster 11 relative to other clusters. The most abundant mayflies in cluster 11 were Eurylophella and Ameletus, but both averaged less than 1 individual per sample. Eurylophella was the most commonly encountered mayfly in cluster 11 samples, but was only found in 22% of all samples in that cluster, ranking seventh among all clusters for occurrence of that taxon.

38 Table 11. Summary of major taxonomic patterns at the second cluster tree split. Taxonomic Taxa more common and/or Taxa more common and/or group abundant in clusters 8-10 abundant in cluster 11 Cinygmula Habrophlebiodes Epeorus Paraleptophlebia Mayflies Acerpenna Diphetor Baetis Ephemerella Drunella Pteronarcys Leuctra Stoneflies Isoperla Amphinemura Beetles Ectopria True Flies Prosimulium

The third split in the cluster tree broke out clusters 1-4 from clusters 5-7. Taxa that were more commonly encountered in clusters 1-4 than clusters 5-7 (Table 12) included: Acroneuria stoneflies; Baetis, Acentrella, Ephemerella, and Leucrocuta mayflies; Agnetina stoneflies; Serratella and Plauditus mayflies; Optioservus beetles; and Paragnetina stoneflies. Taxa more commonly found in clusters 5-7 than clusters 1-4 included: Eurylophella mayflies; Pycnopsyche caddisflies and Sialis alderflies. Similar abundance patterns were observed for many of these same taxa at the third split in the cluster tree. Allocapnia stoneflies were more abundant in clusters 5-7 – particularly cluster 6 and less so cluster 7 – than in clusters 1-4.

Table 12. Summary of major taxonomic patterns at the third cluster tree split. Taxonomic Taxa more common and/or Taxa more common and/or group abundant in clusters 1-4 abundant in clusters 5-7 Baetis Eurylophella Acentrella Ephemerella Mayflies Leucrocuta Serratella Plauditus Acroneuria Allocapnia Stoneflies Agnetina Paragnetina Caddisflies Pycnopsyche Beetles Optioservus Other Taxa Sialis

The fourth split in the cluster tree separated clusters 1-2 and clusters 3-4. Taxa more commonly encountered in clusters 1-2 than clusters 3-4 (Table 13) included: Isoperla stoneflies; Neophylax caddisflies; Sweltsa stoneflies; Probezzia, Prosimulium, and Dicranota true flies; Amphinemura stoneflies; Rhyacophila caddisflies; Leuctra stoneflies; Diplectrona caddisflies; Tallaperla stoneflies; Polycentropus caddisflies; Hexatoma true flies; Haploperla stoneflies; Lanthus dragonflies; Paraleptophlebia mayflies; Cinygmula mayflies; Chelifera true flies; Alloperla stoneflies; Dolophilodes caddisflies; Ectopria beetles;

39 Pteronarcys stoneflies; as well as Epeorus, Drunella, and Ephemerella mayflies. Taxa more commonly encountered in clusters 3-4 than clusters 1-2 included: Stenelmis beetles; Brachycentrus and Chimarra caddisflies; Heterocloeon, Caenis, and Plauditus mayflies; Cheumatopsyche caddisflies; Argia damselflies; Corydalus dobsonflies; Isonychia and Tricorythodes mayflies; Macrostemmum caddisflies; Paragnetina stoneflies; Leucrocuta and Serratella mayflies; Optioservus beetles; and Acroneuria stoneflies.

Table 13. Summary of major taxonomic patterns at the fourth cluster tree split. Taxonomic Taxa more common and/or Taxa more common and/or group abundant in clusters 1-2 abundant in clusters 3-4 Paraleptophlebia Heterocloeon Cinygmula Caenis Epeorus Plauditus Mayflies Drunella Isonychia Ephemerella Tricorythodes Leucrocuta Serratella Odonates Lanthus Argia Isoperla Paragnetina Sweltsa Acroneuria Amphinemura Leuctra Stoneflies Tallaperla Haploperla Alloperla Pteronarcys Neophylax Brachycentrus Rhyacophila Chimarra Caddisflies Diplectrona Cheumatopsyche Polycentropus Macrostemmum Dolophilodes Ectopria Stenelmis Beetles Optioservus Probezzia Prosimulium True Flies Dicranota Hexatoma Chelifera Other Taxa Corydalus

Discussion

Patterns of occurrence and abundance of various taxa were apparent in the cluster analysis when viewed at the 11-cluster level. These taxonomic patterns correlated primarily to patterns in stream size and sampling season.

The first break in the cluster tree differentiated clusters 1-7 from clusters 8-11. Clusters 8- 11 consisted mostly of samples from small, first- through third-order streams draining less than 25 square miles of land. Most of the samples in clusters 8-11 were collected in the

40 spring months of March, April, and May with a few samples from other times of the year, but very few samples collected June through October. Samples in clusters 8-11, relative to samples in clusters 1-7, were characterized by higher abundance and/or occurrence of Ameletus mayflies, many stonefly genera from a number of families, a handful of caddisfly genera (two of which are net-spinning genera that construct relatively coarse-mesh nets, one of which is a free living genera, and one of which makes a silk tube retreat), Oulimnius beetles, a handful of true fly genera, and a crayfish family.

Clusters 1-7 – as a group – contained samples from larger streams than clusters 8-11. However, clusters 5 and 7 contained samples from streams similar in size to clusters 8-11. Samples in clusters 1-7 represented a range of sampling seasons, with at least a few samples collected during every month of the year. Samples in clusters 1-7, relative to samples in clusters 8-11, were characterized by higher abundance and/or occurrence of a handful of mayfly genera, one stonefly genera in the Perlidae family, two winter stonefly genera, a handful of caddisfly genera (three of which are net-spinning genera that construct relatively fine-mesh nets and one of which typically builds cases out of small pieces of rock), a handful of beetle genera, a couple true fly genera, Ancylidae snails, and water mites.

The data shows that this first split in the cluster tree breaks samples from relatively small streams sampled mostly in the spring (clusters 8-11) distinct from samples from larger streams and smaller streams sampled outside of spring. Samples in clusters 5 and 7 were from streams of similar size as samples in clusters 8-11, but were grouped differently in the cluster tree’s first break. Although cluster 7 drained mostly first through third order streams, samples in this cluster were collected mostly during late summer (i.e., August) through early winter (i.e., December). Taxa that were most notably higher in abundance and/or occurrence in cluster 7 than clusters 8-11 include: Cheumatopsyche caddisflies; Taeniopteryx stoneflies; Glossosoma caddisflies; Ephemera and Eurylophella mayflies; Chimarra caddisflies; Isonychia mayflies; and Ceratopsyche caddisflies. Taxa that were most notably higher in abundance and/or occurrence in clusters 8-11 than cluster 7 included: Haploperla and Amphinemura stoneflies; and Diplectrona caddisflies. The difference in abundance and occurrence of Amphinemura stoneflies was particularly dramatic between cluster 7 and clusters 8-11 and was a big driver of the split of cluster 7 from clusters 8-11. Amphinemura stoneflies occurred in at least 75% of all samples in clusters 8-11, while that genus was only seen in 25% of samples in cluster 7. Likewise, Amphinemura stoneflies averaged over 20 individuals per sample in clusters 8-11 and only 2 individuals per sample in cluster 7. Amphinemura stoneflies exhibit one of the most pronounced seasonal booms of any benthic macroinvertebrate taxon in Pennsylvania streams. Larvae of this stonefly genus greatly increase in abundance in small, cold Pennsylvania streams from late March through May. Thus, it is not surprising this taxa was the major driver of a split between samples from small streams sampled in the spring (clusters 8-11) from larger streams (clusters 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6) and small streams sampled at other times of the year (cluster 7).

But what about cluster 5? Samples in cluster 5 were almost exclusively from first through third order streams and were sampled mostly in March and April with a fair percentage of samples from May, November, and December as well. Why did cluster 5 separate from its small stream, springtime comrades in clusters 8-11? Taxa more commonly encountered and/or abundant in cluster 5 than clusters 8-11 included: Promoresia beetles; Eurylophella mayflies; Hydropsyche caddisflies; Prosimulium black flies; Chimarra caddisflies;

41 Acerpenna mayflies; Sialis alderflies; Paracapnia and Prostoia stoneflies; Stenelmis beetles; Atherix true flies; and Allocapnia stoneflies. Taxa that were more commonly encountered and/or abundant in clusters 8-11 than cluster 5 included: several stonefly genera (Sweltsa, Amphinemura, Pteronarcys, Isoperla, Haploperla, Peltoperla, Alloperla) and mayfly genera (Cinygmula, Ephemerella, Baetis, Epeorus, Drunella, Paraleptophlebia); as well as Hexatoma crane flies; Diplectrona caddisflies; Probezzia blackflies; and Wormaldia caddisflies. However, the biggest drivers of cluster 5 separating from clusters 8- 11 appeared to have to do with patterns of taxa abundance. Prosimulium blackflies and Chironomidae midges exhibited much higher abundances in cluster 5 than clusters 8-11. Prosimulium blackflies averaged 58 individuals per sample in cluster 5 and only 15 individuals per sample in clusters 8-11. Chironomidae midges averaged 50 individuals per sample in cluster 5 and only 31 individuals per sample in clusters 8-11. Thus, it appears samples in cluster 5 separated from their small stream, springtime comrades in clusters 8- 11 because samples in cluster 5 were dominated by Prosimulium blackflies and less so Chironomidae midges. Prosimulium blackflies are another taxon that exhibits very pronounced seasonal population booms, particularly from December through May. The benthic larvae of Prosimulium blackflies and Chironomidae midges are often very small in size relative to other benthic macroinvertebrates. Individuals of these two taxa often are found in very dense colonies, so that if a particular area containing one of these dense colonies is sampled with one or a few kicks, many hundreds or even thousands of individuals can wash into the net. This can lead to an overwhelming of the sub-sample by Prosimulium blackflies and/or Chironomidae midges, which is what we see in many of the samples in cluster 5. This issue of samples and sub-samples being dominated by large numbers of individuals from one or a few taxa is discussed further below.

The second break in the cluster tree separated cluster 11 from clusters 8-10. This second break does not appear to be driven by differences in stream size or sampling season – almost all samples in clusters 8-11 were from small streams sampled in the spring. The overwhelming pattern in taxa driving the split of cluster 11 from clusters 8-10 – as discussed above – is that samples in cluster 11 were often much more dominated by Leuctra and Amphinemura stoneflies – and less so Prosimulium blackflies and Chironomidae midges than samples in clusters 8-10. Samples in cluster 11 also exhibited marked absence or scarcity of mayflies compared to samples in cluster 8-10. In addition , samples in cluster 11 exhibited the highest degree of geographic concentration of any cluster, with over 75% of samples in cluster 11 located in the upper and middle reaches of the Clarion River basin and in the southern part of the Tionesta Creek basin in eastern Forest County and western Elk County. This part of Pennsylvania has historically received some of the most severe acidic deposition anywhere in the state (Figure 18; see Lynch et al. 2007). In addition, the geologies of the plateau between the Tionesta Creek basin and the Clarion River basin in this area are largely of the Pottsville Formation, which is a Pennsylvanian-age formation primarily made up of sandstone, secondarily conglomerate, with tertiary shale, siltstone, claystone, limestone, and coal. These geologies do not confer much acid buffering capacity to streams draining this landscape. Additionally, Ciolkosz and Levine (1983) identify the soils in this part of the state as being very sensitive to acidic deposition. The severe acid deposition that has impacted this region for many decades, combined with the low geological and edaphic buffering capacity, results in streams that can experience very low pH levels seasonally – especially in early spring – or chronically.

42 a

Figure 18. Reproduced from Lynch et al. (2007). Mean annual hydrogen ion deposition across Pennsylvania and neighboring states (a) before (1983-1994) and (b) after (1995-2006) implementation of Title IV of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990.

43 Many studies have documented sensitivity of a number of mayflies and other taxa to acidic conditions in streams (Madarish and Kimmel 2000; Guerold et al. 2000; Kimmel 1999; Griffith et al. 1995; Rosemond et al. 1992; Giberson and Mackay 1991; Simpson et al. 1985; see Sutcliffe and Hildrew 1989) as well as relative tolerance of acidic conditions in streams by some stonefly taxa, particularly Leuctra and Amphinemura (Madarish and Kimmel 2000; Guerold et al. 2000; Kimmel 1999; Griffith et al. 1995; Griffith et al. 1994; Simpson et al. 1985). Taken together, these lines of evidence suggest that the samples in cluster 11 reflect streams impacted by acid deposition. More consideration to acid deposition is presented below.

The third break in the cluster tree separated clusters 1-4 from clusters 5-7. Characteristics of samples in clusters 5 and 7 were already discussed. Samples in cluster 6 were mostly from fourth and fifth order streams, but streams sites in this cluster ranged from first order through seventh order. Samples in cluster 6 were all collected November through March. The strongest defining characteristic of samples in cluster 6 was high abundance of a few winter stonefly genera in the families Taeniopterygidae (Taeniopteryx, Strophopteryx, Taenionema) and Capniidae (Allocapnia). Prosimulium blackfly abundance was also fairly high in cluster 6 samples relative to other clusters, with samples in cluster 6 averaging 39 Prosimulium blackfly individuals per sample, the second highest of any cluster. So, cluster 6 can be characterized as representing streams – mostly of moderate size – sampled from early winter to early spring.

Samples in clusters 1-4 were from mostly moderate to larger, third to sixth order streams sampled at different times of the year. Broadly, samples in these clusters exhibited relatively high diversity and abundances of a few different mayfly genera as well as a few genera of Perlidae stoneflies. Since the fourth break in the cluster tree separated clusters 1-2 from clusters 3-4, discussion of these four clusters will focus on the fourth break.

Samples in clusters 1-2 were from mostly moderate size, second through fifth order streams while samples in clusters 3-4 were from mostly larger, fourth through sixth order streams. Samples in cluster 1 were collected mostly in April and May, while samples in cluster 2 were collected mostly November through May. Samples in cluster 3 were collected mostly August through October, but ranging from March through December, while samples in cluster 4 were almost all collected August through November. So, the break between clusters 1-2 and clusters 3-4 appears to be related to both drainage area and sampling season, with samples in clusters 1-2 mostly from moderate size streams sampled early winter through spring and samples in clusters 3-4 mostly from larger streams sampled mostly August through November. Notable differences in taxa between samples in clusters 1-2 and samples in clusters 3-4 are summarized above, but a broad pattern driving the split of these two groups of samples was the lower stonefly diversity in clusters 3-4, particularly in families other than Perlidae.

Discriminant Function Analysis

Discriminant function analysis (Fisher 1936; Hand 1981), another multivariate statistical technique, was used to further explore the results of the cluster analysis. This technique can be used to determine how much various parameters contribute to the classifications resulting from the cluster analysis.

44 A nonparametric linear discriminant function based on the four nearest-neighbors method using the 11 clusters from the cluster analysis as groups and 17 variables (Table 14) showed that stream size (measured by Strahler stream order and upstream drainage area in square miles) had the strongest coefficient values for the primary canonical function. Note that the primary canonical function had an eigenvalue nearly four times that of the secondary function, so most of the variability in the data was explained by the primary canonical function. Stream slope also showed a strong coefficient value for the primary canonical function, which is not surprising since it was highly correlated with stream size (Figure 5). Three percentage land use metrics (% forest, % developed, % agriculture) also showed fairly strong coefficient values for the primary canonical function, which can also be attributed in large part to correlations with stream size (i.e., even the most pristine larger basins have proportionally less forested land and more agricultural and developed land than smaller basins). Sampling season (measured either by Julian day or by month) showed fairly strong coefficients for the primary canonical function. Note that sampling month and Julian day are cyclical variables, so a linear model will not fully account for variability in these variables, although will provide some useful information. Other variables with fairly strong coefficients for the primary canonical function were the % calcareous geologies metrics (especially tertiary calcareous geologies) and total habitat score. The weakest primary function coefficients were for % wetland, latitude, and % abandoned mine lands. The primary function coefficients were also fairly weak for elevation and longitude. Looking at the secondary function, Julian day and month have the strongest coefficients by far, with latitude, slope, elevation, and % agriculture having moderately strong secondary function coefficients. Thus, the discriminant function analysis results suggest primacy of stream size and secondary importance of sampling season in determining the cluster groups.

Table 14. Canonical function coefficient values from a nonparametric linear discriminant function analysis using the 11 clusters from the cluster analysis as groups.. Coefficient value Variable Canonical Canonical Canonical Canonical Canonical function 1 function 2 function 3 function 4 function 5 Latitude -0.08 -0.41 0.07 0.51 0.01 Longitude 0.19 0.06 0.35 -0.63 0.09 Julian Day 0.42 0.80 -0.01 0.18 0.11 Month 0.42 0.80 0.00 0.18 0.10 Drainage area 0.69 -0.03 -0.34 -0.03 -0.49 Strahler stream order 0.89 -0.14 -0.02 0.14 0.03 Slope -0.64 0.30 0.05 -0.02 -0.42 Elevation -0.17 0.30 -0.09 0.51 0.12 % primary calcareous geologies 0.29 -0.19 -0.07 -0.16 0.13 % secondary calcareous geologies 0.28 -0.05 -0.12 -0.15 0.19 % tertiary calcareous geologies -0.38 0.15 -0.67 0.23 0.10 Total habitat score -0.37 -0.08 0.02 -0.06 0.00 % forest -0.48 0.16 0.12 0.39 -0.31 % developed 0.39 -0.08 -0.17 -0.41 0.04 % wetland 0.03 -0.03 -0.15 -0.35 0.40 % agriculture 0.58 -0.29 -0.07 0.10 0.00 % AML 0.08 0.10 0.01 -0.02 0.17 Eigenvalue 2.19 0.57 0.46 0.21 0.20 Cumulative proportion 0.56 0.71 0.83 0.88 0.94

45 Nonmetric Multidimensional Scaling

The same dataset that was used in the cluster analysis (i.e., the 192 most common taxa in 923 samples from 715 “condition 1” and “condition 2” sites) was run through NMDS analyses to look at the data from different perspectives. A variety of grouping and classification approaches – based on sampling season, stream size, and some other variables – were used in the NMDS analyses. The “badness-of-fit” – or “final stress” – criterion for the two-dimensional NMDS was 0.23.

Methods described by Van Sickle and Hughes (2000) – aided by MEANSIM, Version 6.0 software (Van Sickle 1998) – were used to quantify classification strengths of various grouping approaches (see Hawkins and Norris 2000). The classification strength of each grouping was quantified in two primary parameters: Wbar, which measures within-group similarity; and Bbar, which measures among-group similarity. Stronger grouping approaches minimize similarity among groups while maximizing similarity within groups, resulting in relatively low values of Bbar / Wbar and relatively high values of Wbar - Bbar.

Since the groups from the cluster analysis can be thought of as an a posteriori classification scheme based solely on characteristics of the biological community, the goal of the a priori grouping approaches tested in the NMDS and classification strength analyses is to find the grouping approach or approaches – based on abiotic characteristics such as stream size and sampling season, for example – that result in classification strengths near that of the cluster analysis groupings. Because the preceding analyses show that stream size and sampling season most strongly influenced the cluster analysis groupings, the classification strength analyses focused on grouping approaches based on those factors.

Of the ten stream size grouping approaches examined (Table 15), the two approaches producing the strongest classifications were: a two-group approach based on drainage area (< 50 square miles and > 50 square miles) followed by a two-group approach based on Strahler stream order (1st to 4th order and 5th to 7th order). Another two-group approach based on drainage area (< 25 square miles and > 25 square miles) also produced a relatively strong classification, as did a three-group drainage area approach (< 25 square miles, 25 to 50 square miles, > 50 square miles). These findings reflect patterns seen in the first break in the cluster tree with 95% of the samples in clusters 8-11 coming from first, second, or third order sites mostly draining less than 25 to 50 square miles of land.

Of the five sampling season grouping approaches examined, the approach with the strongest classification was a four-group approach based on sample month (January to March, April to May, June to September, October to December). The sampling season grouping approach with each month as a group also had a fairly strong classification strength among the seasonal grouping approaches, but the aforementioned three-group seasonal approach resulted in a relatively high Wbar-Bbar value and a relatively low Bbar/Wbar value while the 12-group monthly approach had a relatively high Wbar-Bbar value but fairly high Bbar/Wbar value. Two other grouping approaches based on sampling month produced fairly strong classifications among the seasonal grouping approaches: another four-season approach (March to May, June to August, September to November, December to February) and a three-season approach (March to May, June to September, October to February). Nearly all the grouping approaches based on sampling seasons were weaker than approaches based on stream size, further confirming the primary influence of stream size

46 and secondary influence of sampling season on patterns observed in the most common taxa in samples from “condition 1” and “condition 2” sites.

Six grouping approaches were examined based on combinations of the strongest stream size and a few of the strongest sampling season grouping approaches. Of these six grouping approaches, the strongest classification strengths were produced by two four- group approaches based of two stream size groups (< 50 square miles and > 50 square miles for drainage area; 1st to 4th order and 5th to 7th order for Strahler stream order) and two seasonal groups (October to May and June to September). Grouping approaches based on both stream size and sampling season tended to be stronger than the corresponding approaches based only on sampling season, but weaker than the corresponding approaches based only on stream size. Interestingly, the seasonal grouping approaches that produced the strongest classifications did not result in the strongest classifications when combined with stream size components, rather the two-season (October to May and June to September) grouping approaches produced stronger classifications when combined with stream size factors. Some of this phenomenon may be attributable to limited sampling of larger streams during winter months (e.g., there were only 7 samples from 5th order or larger streams in the January to March season).

Overall, the two grouping approaches that produced the strongest classifications – aside from the cluster tree groupings – were based on stream size. These two grouping approaches – along with patterns observed in the cluster analysis – suggest that the most significant taxonomic patterns in samples from relatively undisturbed sites relate to stream size, with strong differences in taxa abundances and occurrences between first, second, third, and fourth order streams draining less than 25 or 50 square miles of land, and fifth, sixth, and seventh order streams draining more than 25 or 50 square miles of land.

The patterns and performance of each grouping approach can be visualized in NMDS ordination plots with symbols coded according to the various groups. Only two NMDS ordinations are reproduced here: the cluster analysis groupings (Figure 19); and the four- group approach based on two drainage area groups (< 50 square miles and > 50 square miles) and two seasonal groups (October to May and June to September) (Figure 20). The strongest patterns in the NMDS ordinations are along the Dimension 1 axes with secondary patterns plotted along the Dimension 2 axes. Notice that the NMDS ordination of the cluster groups shows similar patterns as the cluster tree, with fairly distinct groupings of clusters 1- 4, 8-10, and 11 along the Dimension 1 axis and further separation of clusters 1-2 from clusters 3-4 as well as clusters 5-7 from clusters 1-2 and 8-10 along the Dimension 2 axis. Note that the polarity of the Dimension 1 axes in the two NMDS ordinations (Figure 19, Figure 20) are reversed from each other (i.e., spring samples from small streams appear to the left in Figure 19, but to the right in Figure 20). This is an artifact of the way the plots are produced. The designation of one end of each NMDS axis as positive and one as negative is arbitrary. What is important is the relative position of samples in the plots to one another.

It is not surprising that none of the abiotic grouping approaches produced classifications as strong as that of the cluster analysis groupings since there was substantial overlap among the eleven clusters for many abiotic parameters (e.g., drainage area, stream order, slope, elevation, sampling season, basin, latitude, longitude). Still, the NMDS and classification strength analyses further support that stream size is a primary variable driving taxonomic patterning in relatively undisturbed streams, with secondary influence of sampling seasons.

47 Table 15. Classification strengths of various grouping approaches of the 192 most common taxa in 923 samples from 715 reference sites. After Table 1 of Van Sickle and Hughes (2000). # of Grouping Basis Groups W (%) B (%) W - B (%) B / W (%) groups bar bar bar bar bar bar Cluster analysis (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Clusters 11 51.5 36.9 14.6 71.7 (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) Stream size (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6-7) 6 42.4 35.4 7.0 83.4 Strahler (1) (2-3) (4) (5-7) 4 41.7 33.8 8.1 78.6 Stream (1-3) (4) (5-7) 3 41.0 32.4 8.6 79.0 order (1-3) (4-7) 2 40.0 32.8 7.2 81.9 (1-4) (5-7) 2 39.8 29.2 10.5 73.5 (0-3) (3-10) (10-25) (25-50) 7 42.8 34.4 8.4 80.4 (50-100) (100-500) (500-1,000) (0-10) (10-25) 4 41.8 32.8 9.0 78.4 Drainage area (25-100) (100-1,000) (square miles) (0-25) (25-50) (50-1,000) 3 40.4 30.0 10.4 74.3 (0-25) (25-1,000) 2 40.1 29.6 10.5 73.7 (0-50) (50-1,000) 2 39.8 28.9 10.9 72.6 Sampling season (Jan) (Feb) (Mar) (Apr) (May) (Jun) (Jul) (Aug) 12 45.1 38.1 7.0 84.5 (Sep) (Oct) (Nov) (Dec) (Jan-Mar) (Apr-May) 4 44.1 36.7 7.4 83.2 Months (Jun-Sep) (Oct-Dec) (Mar-May) (Jun-Aug) 4 42.8 36.0 6.8 84.1 (Sep-Nov) (Dec-Feb) (Mar-May) (Jun-Sep) (Oct-Feb) 3 42.7 35.8 6.9 83.8 (Oct-May) (Jun-Sep) 2 40.7 35.0 5.7 86.0 Stream size x Sampling season Strahler (1-4) (5-7) x (Jan-Mar) (Apr-May) 8 39.9 31.8 8.1 79.8 Stream (Jun-Sep) (Oct-Dec) Order (1-4) (5-7) x 6 39.2 30.6 8.6 78.0 x (Mar-May) (Jun-Sep) (Oct-Feb) (1-4) (5-7) x 4 37.8 28.0 9.8 74.0 Months (Oct-May) (Jun-Sep) (0-50) (50-1,000) x Drainage area (Jan-Mar) (Apr-May) 8 40.4 31.8 8.5 78.9 (square miles) (Jun-Sep) (Oct-Dec) (0-50) (50-1,000) x x 6 39.7 30.7 9.1 77.2 (Mar-May) (Jun-Sep) (Oct-Feb) Months (0-50) (50-1,000) x 4 38.3 28.3 9.9 74.0 (Oct-May) (Jun-Sep)

Figure 19. NMDS ordination plot (first two dimensions) of the 192 most common taxa in 923 samples from 715 reference sites, coded by the 11 clusters from the cluster analysis.

Figure 20. NMDS ordination plot (first two dimensions) of the 192 most common taxa in 923 samples from 715 reference sites, coded by drainage area range (< 50 square miles; > 50 square miles) and sampling seasons (June to September; October to May).

50 METRICS ANALYSIS AND INDEX DEVELOPMENT

A biological metric quantifies measurable characteristics of the biota that changes in predictable ways with increased anthropogenic stress (Barbour et al. 1995). Metrics measure meaningful indicator attributes in assessing the biological condition of sample sites (Barbour et al. 1999). Vast arrays of metrics have been tested in developing various indices of biotic integrity for a variety of aquatic assemblages, including benthic macroinvertebrates (Barbour et al. 1995). The utility of each metric is based on a hypothesis about the predictable relationship between the biological response measured by that metric and ecosystem stress caused by human impacts (Barbour et al. 1995; Yoder and Rankin 1995).

Multimetric Indices

Most water resource agencies in the United States use a multimetric approach to developing indices of biological integrity (Barbour et al. 1999). This approach utilizes a suite of metrics that measure diverse biological attributes and respond to different stressors. A major benefit of the multimetric approach is the ability to incorporate information from a number of metrics that, when integrated into a single measure, or index, can provide a meaningful indicator of overall biological condition (Barbour et al. 1995). Such an index helps to increase sensitivity to a broad range of ecosystem stressors and to minimize any weaknesses or limitations that each underlying metric may have if used individually. For example, some metrics are sensitive across a broad range of biological conditions and other metrics are only sensitive in part of the range. Metrics that exhibit detectable responses to changing disturbance conditions are important for indicating comparability to – or departure from – the established reference biological condition. Overlap in the ranges of sensitivity of individual metrics helps strengthen conclusions regarding biological condition reached using an integrative, multimetric index approach (Barbour et al. 1995).

Pollution Tolerance

PADEP assigns numeric pollution tolerance value (PTV) to most benthic macroinvertebrate taxa encountered in Pennsylvania. These PTVs are integer values that range from zero to ten, with values closer to zero representing relative sensitivity to pollution and values closer to ten representing relative tolerance of pollution. The PTVs are based on information from a number of sources, such as U.S. EPA (1990) and Barbour et al. (1999). Experience and many studies indicate that different organisms respond differently to different types of pollution (e.g., Pond 2010; Carlisle et al. 2007). Most of the PTVs used by PADEP to date reflect organismal responses to pollution related to organic enrichment and sedimentation, while these PTVs are not necessarily reflective of organismal responses to other types of pollution, notably low pH conditions related to stream acidification. For example, Leuctra stoneflies are assigned a PTV of 0, reflecting the extreme sensitivity of this stonefly genus to organic pollution and sedimentation. However, Leuctra stoneflies are very tolerant of low pH conditions and often thrive in streams that experience low pH conditions (Madarish and Kimmel 2000; Kimmel 1999; Rosemond et al. 1992; Simpson et al. 1985). Similarly, Baetis mayflies are assigned a PTV of 6, indicating relative tolerance of organic pollution and sedimentation, but this mayfly genus – as with most mayfly taxa (Madarish and Kimmel 2000; Kimmel 1999; Rosemond et al. 1992; Simpson et al. 1985) – are quite sensitive to low pH conditions.

51 PADEP also assigned a second set of numeric values to most taxa related to pollution sensitivity and tolerance. This second set of values – named as Biological Condition Gradient (BCG) attributes – was assigned at a series of Tiered Aquatic Life Use (TALU) workshops, which are further described below, by Gerritsen and Jessup (2007), and by Davies and Jackson (2006). Davies and Jackson (2006) provide more detail on the BCG attribute values, but briefly, these BCG attribute values are integers that range from one to six with the six attributes described as: (I) historically documented, sensitive, long-lived, or regionally endemic taxa; (II) sensitive-rare taxa; (III) sensitive-ubiquitous taxa; (IV) taxa of intermediate tolerance; (V) tolerant taxa; and (VI) non-native or intentionally introduced taxa. Like the PTVs, the BCG attribute values are mostly geared towards organismal responses to pollution related to organic enrichment and sedimentation and do not always reflect responses to other types of pollution, notably acidification.

Since pH was not recorded for 887 of the 2,482 sites, and since stream acidification can be a seasonal phenomenon that one-time pH observations may not pick up, the dataset was screened for samples exhibiting impacts from acid deposition using the biological patterns seen in samples in cluster 11 of the cluster analysis. Any sample with less than 5% mayfly individuals combined with over 25% Amphinemura and/or Leuctra individuals was flagged as likely impacted by acid deposition. For metrics analysis and index development, these samples were grouped with samples that had pH values recorded below 5.5 into an “acid impacted” category for each stream size class as defined above. Although classifying samples based on biology is not typically done in developing indices of biological integrity, the paucity of available pH data and ephemeral nature of acid deposition impacts makes it difficult to address these impacts through abiotic parameters. Plus, there is strong empirical evidence and support in the literature characterizing acid deposition impacted benthic macroinvertebrate communities. If this was not done, a substantial number of acid impacted samples would have been grouped in with ‘condition 1” and “condition 2” samples, unduly skewing the reference conditions.

Since some metrics are based on PTVs and/or BCG attributes, the types of pollution they are calibrated to carry implications for interpreting metric and multimetric indices. These implications are discussed in more detail below.

Candidate Metrics

Ideally, evaluation of candidate metrics should result in selection of metrics that: (1) are based in well-understood ecological principles relevant to the biological community in the type of water body being studied as well as to sampling methods and assessment objectives; (2) respond to anthropogenic stress in a predictable manner; (3) have responses to stressors that can be distinguished from natural variation and that can discriminate along a gradient of anthropogenic stress; (4) are environmentally benign to measure; and (5) are cost-effective to sample (Barbour et al. 1995). Barbour et al. (1999) and Flotemersch et al. (2006) offer additional relevant considerations for selecting metrics. The most useful indices of biological integrity incorporate metrics based on sound ecological principles and representing diverse aspects of structure, composition, individual health, and/or processes of the biological community. Such metrics quantify expectations defined by the reference condition and can serve as the foundation of a sound, integrated assessment of biological condition (Barbour et al. 1995).

52 A number of major classes of attributes have been generally defined for metrics applied to benthic macroinvertebrate communities: taxonomic richness; community composition; pollution tolerance; trophic guild; behavior or motility habit; and life cycle (Barbour et al. 1999). Candidate metrics considered in this analysis generally fit into one of these major categories, although some metrics incorporate aspects of two or more of these major classes (Table 16). No measures of individual condition were considered because PADEP does not routinely assess nor record individual condition of benthic macroinvertebrates.

Table 16. Candidate metrics evaluated in this project.

Expected

Response

Taxa Notes to Increasing

Anthropogenic

Stress

Taxa Richness Proportional Richness Taxa Individuals % Other Total Taxa X Decrease Mayfly Taxa *** X X X Decrease Stonefly Taxa X X X Decrease Caddisfly Taxa *** X X X Decrease Mayfly (E) + Stonefly (P) + X X X Decrease Caddisfly (T) Taxa*** BCG Attribute I Taxa X X X Decrease BCG Attribute II Taxa X X X Decrease BCG Attribute III Taxa X X X Decrease BCG Attribute I + II + III Taxa X X X Decrease BCG Attribute IV Taxa X X X Increase BCG Attribute V Taxa X X X Increase BCG Attribute IV + V + VI Taxa X X X Increase (BCG Attribute I + II + III Taxa) / X X X Decrease (BCG Attribute IV + VI + VI Taxa) PTV 0 – 5 Taxa X X X Decrease PTV 0 – 4 Taxa X X X Decrease PTV 0 – 3 Taxa X X X Decrease PTV 0 – 2 Taxa X X X Decrease PTV 5 – 10 Taxa X X X Increase PTV 6 – 10 Taxa X X X Increase PTV 7 – 10 Taxa X X X Increase PTV 8 – 10 Taxa X X X Increase Number of individuals Hilsenhoff Biotic Index X Increase weighted by PTV score Number of individuals BCG Index X Increase weighted by BCG Attribute Taxa richness weighted by Beck’s Index X Decrease PTV – multiple versions tested Predator Taxa X X X Decrease Shredder Taxa X X X Decrease Filter-Collector Taxa X X X Increase Collector-Gatherer Taxa X X X Increase Scraper Taxa X X X Increase Dominant Taxa X Increase Shannon Diversity X Distribution of individuals among taxa Decrease Non-Insect Taxa X Increase Oligochaeta Taxa X Increase Diptera Taxa *** X X Variable Chironomidae Taxa X Increase Used various combinations Hydropsychidae Taxa *** X X X Increase of genera *** these metrics were computed using all taxa and using only certain sensitive and/or tolerant taxa

54 Discrimination Efficiency

As a first cut, the ability of each candidate metric to discriminate along a gradient of anthropogenic impacts was evaluated visually by looking at boxplots of values of each candidate metric by the condition categories defined above.

For metrics that exhibited ability to distinguish conditions along this gradient of impact severity, discrimination efficiencies were calculated in order to quantify the ability of each metric to distinguish least impacted from most impacted condition. For metrics expected to decrease in value with increasing anthropogenic stress, or negative-response metrics, the following equation was used to calculate the discrimination efficiency:

D.E. (%) = n / n * 100 condition6<%condition1 condition6total where

 D.E. = the discrimination efficiency  n = the number of “condition 6” samples with metric values less condition6<%condition1 than the 25th percentile value of all “condition 1” samples, and  n = the total number of “condition 6” samples. condtion6total

For metrics expected to increase in value with increasing stress, or positive-response metrics, the following equation was used to calculate the discrimination efficiency:

D.E. (%) = n / n * 100 condition6>%condition1 condition6total where

 D.E. = the discrimination efficiency  n = the number of “condition 6” samples with metric values condition6>%condition1 greater than the 75th percentile value of all “condition 1” samples, and  n = the total number of “condition 6” samples. condition6total

Metrics with minimal or no overlap between the distribution of scores for “condition 1” and “condition 6” samples (i.e., high discrimination efficiencies) can be considered strong, predictable discriminators between reference and stressed conditions. Such metrics provide the most confidence for assessing the biological condition of unknown sites (Barbour et al. 1999).

Discrimination efficiencies were evaluated within each stream size class as defined above. Metrics with high discrimination efficiencies were selected for further evaluation. With such a large number of metrics evaluated, discrimination efficiencies are presented below only for the six metrics selected for inclusion in the final IBI (Table 17). Discrimination efficiency evaluations for other candidate metrics are available upon request.

55 Table 17. Discrimination efficiencies of selected core metrics by drainage area range.

Drainage area range (square miles)

Expected

Response

Metric to Increasing

1,000

0 to 0 3 500 to 500

Anthropogenic to 3 10

10 to 25 10 to 50 25 50 to 100 50 Stress to 500 100 Discrimination Efficiency Total Taxa Richness Decrease 87% 89% 89% 94% 94% 76% 56% EPT Taxa Richness Decrease 97% 96% 97% 98% 100% 92% 81% (PTV 0-4 only) Beck’s Index (version 3) Decrease 98% 99% 98% 100% 100% 98% 100% Hilsenhoff Biotic Index Increase 90% 90% 93% 96% 94% 84% 88% Shannon Diversity Decrease 90% 94% 94% 94% 86% 70% 56% % Sensitive Individuals Decrease 89% 90% 91% 92% 91% 82% 88% (PTV 0-3 only)

Discrimination efficiencies were excellent across all stream sizes for most of the six core metrics. Discrimination efficiencies dropped off a bit for the Total Taxa Richness metric and the Shannon Diversity metric in streams draining more than 100 square miles of land, and especially in streams draining more than 500 square miles of land. These two metrics are fairly strongly correlated, and the reduced discrimination efficiencies for both metrics in larger streams can be explained by a few factors. Firstly, there are relatively few larger streams compared with the number of smaller streams. This means that we are comparing fewer samples from fewer sites as streams get larger and larger. For example, in the 7.6 condition category, there are 16 samples from 8 sites on 5 streams. In the 7.1 condition category there are 19 samples from 4 sites on 3 streams. So, we are comparing small numbers of samples and sites in these larger streams. A second factor reducing the discrimination efficiencies of these two diversity metrics in larger streams has to do with the nature of the human activities in the basins of the larger streams classified as condition category 7.6 in this dataset. The six samples with the highest taxonomic diversity (measured by either Total Taxa Richness or Shannon Diversity) were collected from two locations in French Creek in the northwest part of Pennsylvania. Agriculture occupies over 33% of the land use in this basin, but the in-stream impacts of human activities in this basin do not manifest as reduced overall taxonomic diversity. Rather, we see these impacts in the relative preponderance of more tolerant taxa (e.g., Simulium, Stenacron, Anthopotamus, Oligochaeta, Gammarus, gastropods, Sphaeriidae) compared with the taxa we see more in the 7.1 samples (e.g., Acroneuria, Leucrocuta, Serratella, Epeorus, Corydalus, Isonychia). A third factor likely contributing to the reduced discrimination efficiency of these two metrics is seasonality. These discrimination efficiencies were calculated with samples collected throughout the year. However, the 7.6 samples with the highest taxonomic diversity were collected in April, May, or November while the 7.1 samples with the lowest taxonomic diversity were collected in September or October, when we expect naturally lower seasonal diversity.

It can be argued that – due to their reduced discrimination efficiencies in larger streams – the Total Taxa Richness metric and the Shannon Diversity metric should be dropped from or replaced in the IBI for larger streams. However – even with these two metrics left in – the large-stream IBI demonstrated very good discrimination efficiency in streams of all sizes (as shown below). Furthermore, there is value to utilizing the same suite of metrics across the

56 board in terms of programmatic consistency and in terms of communicating assessment methods to colleagues and the public. With that in mind, IBI scores for larger streams should be interpreted mindful of these taxonomic diversity metric considerations.

Metric Correlations

In order to help select strongly discriminating metrics while reducing the number of metrics relating redundant information, metric correlations were analyzed for all metrics with high discrimination efficiencies. Due to the large number of metrics analyzed, correlations are presented here only for the six metrics selected for inclusion in the final IBI (Table 18). Correlation analyses for other candidate metrics are available upon request.

Table 18. Pearson correlation (r) values for selected core metrics. Total EPT Taxa Beck’s Hilsenhoff % Sensitive Shannon Metric Taxa Richness Index Biotic Individuals Diversity Richness (PTV 0-4 only) (version 3) Index (PTV 0-3 only) Total Taxa Richness 1 ------EPT Taxa Richness 0.87 1 ------(PTV 0-4 only) Beck’s Index (version 3) 0.75 0.91 1 ------Hilsenhoff Biotic Index -0.48 -0.69 -0.73 1 ------Shannon Diversity 0.86 0.77 0.66 -0.49 1 --- % Sensitive Individuals 0.43 0.67 0.71 -0.93 0.41 1 (PTV 0-3 only)

The correlation between the EPT Taxa Richness (counting only taxa with pollution tolerance values, or PTVs, 0 – 4) metric and the Beck’s Index, version 3 metric was fairly high (r = 0.91), as was the correlation between the Hilsenhoff Biotic Index metric and the % Sensitive Individuals (PTV 0 – 3) metric (r = -0.93). However, scatterplots of the relationship between these pairs of metrics (Figure 21) revealed enough variation that all were retained for inclusion in the final IBI.

a b

Figure 21. Scatterplots of (a) EPT Taxa Richness and Beck’s Index metric scores and (b) Percent Sensitive Individuals and Hilsenhoff Biotic Index metric scores.

Core Metrics

A number of different metric combinations were evaluated during index development. Based on discrimination efficiencies, correlation matrix analyses, and other index

57 performance characteristics discussed below, the following six metrics were selected for inclusion as core metrics in the multimetric index (Appendix C shows examples of the six core metric and index calculations for a sample and Appendix D contains the pollution tolerance values for all taxa in this dataset).

1. Total Taxa Richness

This taxonomic richness metric is a count of the total number of taxa in a sub- sample. Generally, this metric is expected to decrease with increasing anthropogenic stress to a stream ecosystem, reflecting loss of taxa and increasing dominance of a few pollution-tolerant taxa. Other benefits of including this metric include its common use in many biological monitoring and assessment programs in other parts of the world as well as its ease of explanation and calculation.

2. Ephemeroptera + Plecoptera + Trichoptera Taxa Richness (PTV 0-4 only)

This taxonomic richness metric is a count of the number of taxa belonging to the orders Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera (EPT) in a sub-sample – common names for these orders are mayflies, stoneflies, and caddisflies, respectively. The aquatic life stages of these three insect orders are generally considered sensitive to, or intolerant of, many types of pollution (Lenat and Penrose 1996), although sensitivity to different types of pollution varies among taxa in these insect orders. The version of this metric used here only counts EPT taxa with PTVs of 0 to 4, excluding a few of the most tolerant mayfly and caddisfly taxa. This metric is expected to decrease in value with increasing anthropogenic stress to a stream ecosystem, reflecting the loss of taxa from these largely pollution-sensitive orders. This metric has a history of use across the world and is relatively easy to use, explain, and calculate (Lenat and Penrose 1996).

3. Beck’s Index (version 3)

This taxonomic richness and tolerance metric is a weighted count of taxa with PTVs of 0, 1, or 2. The name and conceptual basis of this metric are derived from the water quality work of William H. Beck in Florida (Beck 1955). This metric is expected to decrease in value with increasing anthropogenic stress to a stream ecosystem, reflecting the loss of pollution-sensitive taxa. It should be noted that the version of the Beck’s Index metric used for this project, although similar in name and concept, differs slightly in its calculation from the Beck’s Index used in PADEP’s multihabitat protocol for assessing biological condition of low gradient, pool-glide type streams (see Appendix C for calculation details).

4. Shannon Diversity

This community composition metric measures taxonomic richness and evenness of individuals across taxa in a sub-sample. This metric is expected to decrease in value with increasing anthropogenic stress to a stream ecosystem, reflecting loss of pollution-sensitive taxa and increasing dominance of a few pollution-tolerant taxa. The name and conceptual basis for this metric are derived from the information theory work of Claude Elwood Shannon (Shannon 1968).

5. Hilsenhoff Biotic Index

58 This community composition and tolerance metric is calculated as an average of the number of individuals in a sub-sample, weighted by PTVs. Developed by William Hilsenhoff, the Hilsenhoff Biotic Index (Hilsenhoff 1977, 1987, 1988; Klemm et al. 1990) generally increases with increasing ecosystem stress, reflecting increasing dominance of pollution-tolerant organisms.

6. Percent Sensitive Individuals (PTV 0-3 only)

This community composition and tolerance metric is the percentage of individuals with PTVs of 0 to 3 in a sub-sample and is expected to decrease in value with increasing anthropogenic stress to a stream ecosystem, reflecting loss of pollution- sensitive organisms.

These six metrics all exhibited a strong ability to distinguish between reference and stressed conditions. In addition, these six metrics measure different aspects of the biological communities represented by the sub-samples. When used together in a multimetric index, these metrics provide a solid foundation for assessing the biological condition of benthic macroinvertebrate assemblages in Pennsylvania’s wadeable, freestone, riffle-run stream ecosystems.

A number of different metric combinations were evaluated during index development and that this combination of metrics provided among the strongest performance characteristics of any metric combination tested. The selected six metrics do not include a metric that directly utilizes the functional feeding group assignment of each taxon (e.g., scraper, predator, shredder). A functional feeding metric was not included in the multimetric index for a number of reasons, primarily because of the difficulty predicting how functional feeding metrics respond to different anthropogenic stressors and because natural changes are expected in the distribution of organisms among functional feeding groups with increasing drainage area and associated changes in a stream’s trophic dynamics (Vannote et al. 1980). These factors limit the range of applicability of functional feeding metrics to certain stream sizes; further, difficulties with proper assignment of taxa to functional feeding groups contribute to the unreliability of these metrics.

Core Metrics, Stream Size, Sampling Season

Since the above analyses show that benthic macroinvertebrate communities in relatively undisturbed streams naturally vary with stream size and sampling season, PADEP thought it prudent to consider how these natural variations manifest in the selected core metrics.

If we look just at “condition 1” samples to minimize the influence of anthropogenic impacts, some of the selected core metrics exhibit distinct patterns with stream size (Figure 22). The Beck’s Index metric displays the strongest variability with stream size, with higher values observed in samples from small streams than from larger streams. The Hilsenhoff Biotic Index and the Percent Sensitive Individuals metrics also exhibit fairly strong correlations with stream size, with lower Hilsenhoff Biotic Index values and higher Percent Sensitive Individuals values in samples from smaller streams than from larger streams. The Total Taxa Richness and the EPT Richness metrics display weaker, although still noticeable variability with stream size, with lower values observed in samples from larger streams than from smaller streams. This pattern is weaker for the Total Taxa Richness metric than the EPT Richness metric. The Shannon Diversity metric does not vary much with stream size.

Figure 22. Boxplots of core metric distributions for “condition 1” samples by size range. The first digit in each condition category represents square-mile drainage area ranges (1 = 0 to 3 mi2; 2 = 3 to 10 mi2; 3 = 10 to 25 mi2; 4 = 25 to 50 mi2; 5 = 50 to 100 mi2; 6 = 100 to 500 mi2; 7 = 500 to 1,000 mi2). The second condition category digit indicates “condition 1” designation. The correlation of these metric scores with stream size can be explained by the patterns seen in the cluster analysis. Taxa with very low PTVs (i.e., 0 or 1) – such as: Ameletus, Paraleptophlebia, Epeorus, and Cinygmula, mayflies; Pteronarcys, Tallaperla, Leuctra, Haploperla, Alloperla, and Sweltsa stoneflies; Wormaldia, Dolophilodes, Parapsyche, Diplectrona, and Rhyacophila caddisflies – are much less commonly encountered in larger streams than smaller streams. Rather, we more commonly encounter taxa with higher PTVs (i.e., >2) – such as: Isonychia, Acentrella, Plauditus, Maccaffertium, Stenonema, and Caenis mayflies; Cheumatopsyche, Ceratopsyche, Hydropsyche, Macrostemmum, and Chimarra caddisflies. That is not to say we don’t encounter low PTV taxa – such as: Heterocloeon, Leucrocuta, and Serratella mayflies; and Acroneuria and Paragnetina stoneflies – in larger streams, but such taxa typically compose a much smaller proportion of the taxa and individuals in larger streams than smaller streams. These patterns have the greatest impact on metrics that are weighted by PTVs: the Beck’s Index metric, which is a taxa richness based metric weighted by PTVs; and the Hilsenhoff Biotic Index metric, which is an abundance based metric weighted by PTVs. The patterns of occurrence and abundance of low PTV taxa also impact – although to a lesser extent than PTV-weighted metrics – the metrics that only count lower PTV taxa: the EPT Taxa Richness metric, which

60 only counts EPT taxa with PTVs less than 5; and the Percent Sensitive Individuals metric, which only counts individuals from taxa with PTVs less than 4. The Total Taxa Richness metric and Shannon Diversity metric do not show much variation with stream size – particularly the Shannon Diversity metric – in part because these metrics do not incorporate PTVs into their calculation. The Total Taxa Richness metric shows a slight drop with increasing stream size mainly because – broadly speaking – we often see reduced diversity in the stonefly (Plecoptera) and true fly (Diptera) orders in larger streams, but this is somewhat tempered because we often see increased diversity of mayflies (Ephemeroptera) in larger streams. Keep in mind, these patterns are described using the target taxonomic levels utilized by PADEP (e.g., family level for Chironomidae).

If we look just at “condition 1” samples to minimize the influence of anthropogenic effects, some of the selected core metrics exhibit distinct patterns with sampling season (Figure 23). Although “condition 1” samples from June and July are rare, the three metrics based on taxa richness (Total Taxa Richness, EPT Taxa Richness, Beck’s Index) exhibit substantial drops in scores during the summer and early autumn, from June through October. The Hilsenhoff Biotic Index metric and the Percent Sensitive Individuals metric also show distinct patterns in scores during the summer and early autumn. Since these two metrics respond oppositely to increasing anthropogenic stress, the patterns sort of mirror one another, but exhibit similar seasonality. Beginning in June – possibly even late May – the Percent Sensitive Individuals scores drop and the Hilsenhoff Biotic Index scores rise. In September and October, the Percent Sensitive Individuals scores begin to rise again and the Hilsenhoff Biotic Index scores begin to drop again, although these metrics do not appear to return to close to their respective maximum and minimum potentials until November. The Shannon Diversity metric exhibits only a slight drop in scores during the summer and early autumn relative to the other five metrics. Scores for this metric also return to full maximum potential in November.

The seasonal patterns in metric scores can be explained by the phenological life cycles of many benthic macroinvertebrate taxa. For example, mayflies – as a taxonomic order – are named as such because many species in this order emerge from streams as subimagos in the month of May. Of course, different mayfly species exhibit different life cycle characteristics and timing – some mayflies emerge from streams in late March, some in September. The preceding characterization of many mayflies emerging from streams in the month of May was just a simple, low-hanging example meant to illustrate that many benthic macroinvertebrate life cycles follow predictable seasonal cycles. During the summer and early autumn months, many taxa are present in stream benthos in egg stages or very early – and small – instars. During these times of the year, we often observe reduced benthic diversity because we cannot easily identify these organisms in such miniscule life stages. As autumn ends and winter arrives, many of these organisms become large enough to accurately and precisely identify. Diversity can also be observed to increase in the winter months as winter stonefly taxa mature and other taxa continue to grow. This is a very broad characterization of phenological phenomena observed in benthic macroinvertebrates. Each species of organism exhibits different, nuanced life cycle patterns – a treatment of which is beyond the scope of this report – but these broad observations help explain why we see metrics behave as they do with changing seasons of the year.

Figure 23. Scatterplots of core metrics by Julian day of sample collection and color-coded by condition category. The first digit in each condition category represents drainage area ranges (1 = 0 to 3 square miles; 2 = 3 to 10 square miles; 3 = 10 to 25 square miles; 4 = 25 to 50 square miles; 5 = 50 to 100 square miles; 6 = 100 to 500 square miles; 7 = 500 to 1,000 square miles). The second condition category digit indicates “condition 1” designation.

62 Index Development

An index is simply a means to integrate information from various metrics of biological integrity (Barbour et al. 1999). In order to compare and combine sundry measures (e.g., percentage of individuals, counts of taxa, unitless numbers) of biological condition in a meaningful manner, it is necessary to standardize metrics with some mathematical transformation that results in a logical progression of values (Barbour et al. 1995). Barbour et al. (1999) recommend using a composite of sites representing a gradient of biological conditions (e.g., natural to severely degraded) in the metric standardization and index development process to calibrate the index to a range of biological conditions.

Each selected core metric was evaluated at a selected percentile of the distribution of all samples by the size groupings established above. The 95th percentile of the distribution was determined for the five metrics that decrease in value with increasing anthropogenic impact: Total Taxa Richness; EPT Taxa Richness; Beck’s Index; Shannon Diversity; and Percent Sensitive Individuals. Since the Hilsenhoff Biotic Index metric increases in value with increasing anthropogenic impact, the 5th percentile of the distribution was determined for this metric. Some metrics showed variability in the 95th or 5th percentiles with drainage area (Table 19, Figure 24).

Table 19. 95th (5th for Hilsenhoff Biotic Index) percentiles of all samples for each core metric by drainage area range. Drainage area range (square miles) 0 to 3 3 to 10 10 to 25 25 to 50 50 to 100 100 to 500 500 to 1,000 Metric 95th (5th for Hilsenhoff Biotic Index) percentiles of all samples by drainage area range Total Taxa Richness 32 34 35 34 34 33 33 EPT Taxa Richness 18 20 20 20 19 19 17 (PTV 0-4 only) Beck's Index 37 41 37 35 31 28 22 (version 3) Hilsenhoff Biotic Index 1.69 1.78 2.03 2.15 2.55 3.09 3.10 Shannon Diversity 2.83 2.90 2.90 2.88 2.87 2.87 2.95 % Sensitive Individuals 88.0 84.1 82.6 81.0 78.5 65.5 68.3 (PTV 0-3 only)

Figure 24. Plot of 95th (5th for Hilsenhoff Biotic Index) percentiles of all samples for each core metric by drainage area range.

In order to incorporate the variability of metric scores with drainage area in setting biological expectations through metric standardization values, PADEP decided to set two sets of standardization values for each selected core metric (Table 20). One set of metric standardization values applies to smaller streams – generally first through third order streams draining less than 25 square miles of land. The other set of metric standardization values applies to larger streams – generally fifth order and larger streams draining more than 50 square miles of land. The metric standardization values were chosen based on the 95th and 5th percentile values of the distributions. For larger streams, consideration was also given to the distribution of metric values for samples from streams larger than 1,000 square miles.

64 Table 20. Metric standardization values. Metric Standardization Values Metric smaller streams larger streams most 1st to 3rd order most 5th order and larger < 25 square miles > 50 square miles Total Taxa Richness 33 31 EPT Taxa Richness 19 16 (PTV 0-4 only) Beck's Index 38 22 (version 3) Hilsenhoff Biotic Index 1.89 3.05 Shannon Diversity 2.86 2.86 % Sensitive Individuals 84.5 66.7 (PTV 0-3 only)

To calculate the index of biological integrity, observed metric values are first standardized using the standardization values (Table 20) and the following standardization equations.

The Hilsenhoff Biotic Index metric values are expected to increase in value with increasing anthropogenic stress and are standardized using the following equation:

Hilsenhoff Biotic Index standardized score = (10 – observed value) / (10 – standardization value) * 100

The other five core metrics values are expected to decrease in value with increasing anthropogenic stress and are standardized using the following equation:

Standardized metric score = observed value / standardization value * 100

Once the observed metric values are standardized, the standardized metric scores are adjusted to maximum value of 100 if necessary. Detailed examples of metric calculation and standardization along with index calculation are presented in Appendix C. By standardizing metrics and setting a maximum value of 100 for the standardized metrics, the resulting adjusted standardized metric scores can range from maximum values of 100 to minimum values of zero, with scores closer to zero corresponding to increasing deviation from the expected reference condition and progressively higher values corresponding more closely to the biological reference condition (Barbour et al. 1995). This approach establishes upper bounds on the expected condition and moderates effects of metrics that may respond in some manner other than a monotonic response to stress. The index of biological integrity is calculated by calculating the arithmetic mean of these adjusted standardized metric values for the six core metrics, resulting in a multimetric index of biological integrity score that can range from 0 to 100. To get a score of zero, a sample would have to contain no organisms at all.

In order to incorporate the variability of metric scores with annual seasons in setting biological expectations, PADEP chose to implement different use attainment benchmarks as discussed below rather than adjust metric standardization values.

65 INDEX PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

Biological Condition Discrimination

Across stream sizes, the IBI exhibited excellent ability to measure gradients of anthropogenic disturbance as defined by the condition categories in both the November to May time frame (Figure 25) and the June to September time frame (Figure 26).

Figure 25. Boxplots of (a) small-stream IBI scores and (b) large-stream IBI scores by condition category for the November to May time frame. Within each figure, box widths are proportional to number of samples in each category. Total numbers of samples in each figure are: 2,110 samples for (a) and 473 samples for (b).

66 a

Figure 26. Boxplots of (a) small-stream IBI scores and (b) large-stream IBI scores by condition category for the June to September time frame. Within each figure, box widths are proportional to number of samples in each category. Total numbers of samples in each figure are: 353 samples for (a) and 169 samples for (b).

Using the same calculations as used for negative-response metrics above, discrimination efficiencies were calculated for the small-stream IBI and large-stream IBI across stream size ranges and time of year (Table 21). These IBI discrimination efficiencies further support the excellent ability of the IBIs to distinguish between reference conditions and severely impacted conditions.

67 Table 21. Discrimination efficiencies of the small-stream IBI and large-stream IBI by drainage area range and by seasons.

Drainage area range (square miles)

IBI Season

1,000

0 to 0 3

500 to 500

3 to 3 10

10 to 25 10 to 50 25

50 to 100 50 100 to 50 100 Discrimination Efficiency Nov - May 97% 98% 100% 100% small-stream IBI Jun - Sep 100% 100% 100% 100% Nov - May 100% 100% 100% 75%** large-stream IBI Jun - Sep 100% 100% 94% 100% ** there were only eight “condition 6” samples from sites draining 500 to 1,000 square miles collected in the November to May time frame

The ability of the IBI to quantifiably differentiate biological communities among the condition categories as defined for this project strongly supports the utility of the IBI in measuring the biological condition of benthic macroinvertebrate communities in Pennsylvania’s wadeable, freestone, riffle-run streams.

Intrasite Spatial Variability

Duplicate biological samples were taken at 56 sites and triplicate samples were taken at one site – each replicate set collected on the same day within the same 100-meter reach of stream. Analysis of all the replicate samples can provide an estimate of IBI intrasite spatial precision. These estimates of IBI and metric precision incorporate natural intrasite spatial variability and methodological variability.

Results of an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the intrasite, same-day replicated sample data with site as a factor provides an estimate of variation for each set of replicated samples (Table 22). For purposes of this analysis, the small-stream IBI was applied to samples from streams draining less than 50 square miles and the large-stream IBI was applied to samples from streams draining more than 50 square miles. The metric values used in the ANOVA procedures were standardized and adjusted as described above and in Appendix C so that the relative magnitudes would be comparable with the IBI scores. The ANOVA mean square error (MSE) provides an estimate of within site standard deviation and can be used to calculate confidence intervals around a score. The lower the standard deviation, as estimated by the ANOVA MSE, the more confident we can be in methodological precision at a given site. The one-tailed 90% confidence intervals were calculated according to the following equation:

0.5 0.5 One-tailed 90% Confidence Interval = 1.282 x [(ANOVA MSE) / (number of samples) ]

68 Table 22. Intrasite spatial precision estimates for IBI scores and each core metric based on ANOVA results. The ANOVA mean square error (MSE) estimates intrasite standard deviation. Coefficients of variation (CV) were calculated for each sample pair (or triplet) and then averaged across all sample pairs. “s” indicates standardized metric values. “r” indicates raw metric values. For simplicity, the small-stream procedures were applied to samples from sites draining less than 50 square miles and the large-stream procedures were applied to samples from sites draining more than 50 square miles. There were only two large-stream samples from one site in the November to May time frame, so ANOVA was not possible: standard deviations and CVs are reported. small-stream large-stream

November to May June to September November to May June to September Metric 79 samples from 39 sites 8 samples from 4 sites 22 samples from 11 sites 2 samples from 1 site ANOVA ANOVA ANOVA standard 90% CI CV 90% CI CV 90% CI CV CV MSE (1 sample) MSE (1 sample) MSE (1 sample) deviation IBI score 16.2 5.16 5.7% 21.1 5.89 16.6% 15.2 5.00 5.9% 0.00 0.0% s 50.5 9.11 8.9% 109.0 13.38 22.4% 84.2 11.76 8.4% 0 0.0% Total Taxa Richness r 5.8 3.09 9.5% 11.9 4.42 22.4% 8.1 3.65 8.4% 0 0.0% EPT Taxa Richness s 75.5 11.14 22.8% 31.2 7.16 51.1% 130.0 14.62 18.4% 0 0.0% (PTV 0-4 only) r 2.8 2.14 24.0% 1.1 1.36 51.1% 3.6 2.45 18.4% 0 0.0% Beck’s Index s 63.4 10.21 29.9% 4.3 2.67 14.5% 85.5 11.85 24.8% 0 0.0% (version 3) r 11.2 4.29 33.6% 0.6 1.01 14.5% 9.6 3.98 25.4% 0 0.0% s 11.8 4.40 2.6% 0.7 1.09 1.5% 15.1 4.98 5.1% 0.03 0.7% Hilsenhoff Biotic Index r 0.1 0.39 7.0% 0.0 0.09 1.0% 0.1 0.36 4.9% 0.45 0.6% s 33.4 7.41 5.9% 121.0 14.10 20.4% 15.0 4.97 4.8% 0.00 0.1% Shannon Diversity r 0.0 0.21 6.0% 0.1 0.40 20.4% 0.0 0.14 4.8% 0.05 0.1% % Sensitive Individuals s 60.7 9.99 16.3% 10.3 4.11 60.2% 28.4 6.83 21.7% 0.24 3.6% (PTV 0-3 only) r 44.4 8.54 18.2% 7.4 3.48 60.2% 12.7 4.57 21.7% 0.36 3.6%

69 The results of the intrasite spatial precision estimate analysis (Table 22) suggest that the Hilsenhoff Biotic Index metric – standardized and adjusted or raw – tends to vary less intrasite than other core metric and the IBI scores. The IBI scores tend to vary relatively little intrasite compared with the standardized and adjusted metric values. These results highlight that the IBI, by combining the six metrics into a single index, attenuates much of the intrasite variability of each metric individually, providing a more spatially stable indication of biotic condition than any one metric could alone.

Temporal Variability

Two-hundred ninety-two sites were sampled on more than one date, ranging from two to twelve samples taken over time at a given site, for a total of 813 samples. Analysis of all samples from the same sites over time can provide an estimate of temporal variability of the IBI and metric scores. As with the intrasite spatial precision estimates, the estimates of IBI and metric temporal precision incorporate natural intrasite spatial variability and methodological variability, but they also incorporate natural temporal variability and variability due to changes in condition over time.

The same approach was used to analyze temporal variability as was used to evaluate intrasite spatial variability described above. The results of the temporal precision estimate analysis (Table 23) suggest that the Percent Sensitive Individuals metric tends to vary the most of any of the metrics or the IBI score over time at a site. Like the intrasite precision estimates, the temporal precision results also highlight that the IBI attenuates much of the temporal variability of each metric individually, providing a more temporally stable indication of biotic condition than any one metric could alone.

In the temporal precision estimate dataset, there was not any substantial relationship between stream size and variability of IBI scores at sites over time as measured by standard deviation of IBI scores (Figure 27).

Figure 27. Standard deviation of IBI scores of samples at sites in the temporal precsion estimate dataset by drainage area.

70 Table 23. Temporal precision estimates for IBI scores and core metrics based on ANOVA results. The ANOVA mean square error (MSE) estimates intrasite standard deviation. Coefficients of variation (CV) were calculated for each sample pair (or triplet or quadruplet…) and then averaged across all sample pairs. “s” indicates standardized metric values. “r” indicates raw metric values. For simplicity, the small-stream procedures were applied to samples from sites draining less than 50 square miles and the large-stream procedures were applied to samples from sites draining more than 50 square miles.

small-stream large-stream Metric November to May June to September November to May June to September 384 samples from 137 sites 26 samples from 12 sites 78 samples from 26 sites 26 samples from 7 sites ANOVA 90% CI ANOVA 90% CI ANOVA 90% CI ANOVA 90% CI CV CV CV CV MSE (1 sample) MSE (1 sample) MSE (1 sample) MSE (1 sample) IBI score 48.9 8.96 8.8% 95.7 12.54 19.6% 69.0 10.65 10.3% 18.5 5.51 4.8% Total Taxa s 115.0 13.75 10.9% 101.0 12.88 13.3% 128.0 14.50 12.5% 103.0 13.01 10.0% Richness r 16.6 5.22 13.2% 16.1 5.14 14.8% 15.5 5.05 13.2% 12.1 4.46 11.3% EPT Taxa s 138.0 15.06 18.5% 89.5 12.13 23.8% 185.0 17.44 17.3% 78.8 11.38 10.7% Richness (PTV 0-4 only) r 6.3 3.21 19.7% 4.8 2.81 24.7% 7.9 3.59 20.8% 2.0 1.82 10.7% Beck’s s 127.0 14.45 22.8% 94.4 12.46 36.9% 132.0 14.73 14.2% 142.0 15.28 24.6% Index (version 3) r 21.9 6.00 23.7% 17.9 5.42 37.5% 16.0 5.13 19.7% 10.4 4.13 26.4% Hilsenhoff s 53.1 9.34 7.3% 222.0 19.10 22.6% 71.3 10.83 8.3% 18.5 5.51 4.5% Biotic Index r 0.4 0.79 15.6% 1.5 1.57 21.2% 0.4 0.81 15.4% 0.1 0.38 6.1% Shannon s 96.1 12.57 10.1% 131.0 14.67 14.1% 120.0 14.04 10.5% 33.5 7.42 5.3% Diversity r 0.1 0.38 10.7% 0.1 0.45 14.4% 0.1 0.42 10.8% 0.0 0.24 5.7% % Sensitive s 215.0 18.80 23.6% 361.0 24.36 65.7% 337.0 23.53 27.7% 133.0 14.78 16.5% Individuals (PTV 0-3 only) r 157.0 16.06 23.8% 258.0 20.59 65.7% 197.0 23.53 30.2% 59.1 9.86 16.5%

71 Application to an Independent Dataset

To further evaluate its performance, the IBI was applied to 116 samples collected from 112 wadeable, freestone, riffle-run stream sties in Pennsylvania – using the same sampling collection and processing protocol outlined above – for the Regional Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (REMAP), a project coordinated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency. None of the REMAP samples were used in the IBI development process.

Samples for REMAP were collected at sites across the state (Figure 28) between March 30, 2005 and May 27, 2005 (Figure 29) by biologists with the United States Environmental Protection Agency, the Delaware River Basin Commission, or SoBran, a private contractor.

Figure 28. Map of 112 sites and associated basins for the 116 samples collected in Pennsylvania for the REMAP project coordinated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency.

Figure 29. Distribution of REMAP samples by Julian day. All REMAP samples were collected in the spring of 2005.

Most REMAP samples were collected from sites on relatively small, first and second Strahler order streams draining less than ten square miles of land (Table 24).

Table 24. Number of REMAP samples by drainage area range and Strahler stream order. Drainage area range Strahler stream order (square miles) 1 2 3 4 5 0 to 3 27 12 3 to 10 11 26 10 to 25 10 11 25 to 50 9 50 to 100 2 6 100 to 500 1 1

As with the IBI development dataset, the highest gradient streams tended to be smaller streams (Figure 30), with less relationship between slope and elevation (Figure 31), and with larger sites being at mostly lower elevations (Figure 32). Since the REMAP sampling was conducted in a two-month window, from March to May in 2005, seasonal considerations (Figure 33) are as not much of a concern with the REMAP dataset as with the IBI development dataset.

Figure 30. Relationship of slope and drainage area at 98 REMAP sites for which slope data was available. Note logarithmic scale for drainage area.

Figure 31. Relationship of slope and elevation at 98 REMAP sites for which slope data was available.

Figure 32. Relationship of elevation and drainage area at 112 REMAP sites. Note logarithmic scale for drainage area.

Figure 33. Relationship of drainage area and Julian day of sample collection for 116 REMAP samples. Note logarithmic scale for drainage area.

For purposes of comparison with the IBI development dataset, the abiotic condition determination process described above – without biotic screening for acid deposition impacts – was applied to the REMAP sites. Condition index scores for the REMAP sites ranged from 198 to -180. Since the REMAP dataset consisted of many fewer samples than the IBI development dataset, the REMAP samples were simply divided into five groups based on condition index scores in order to assess the efficacy of the IBI in distinguishing among sites variously impacted by human activities. The large-stream IBI was applied to REMAP samples from sites draining more than 50 square miles and the small-stream IBI was applied to REMAP samples from sites draining less than 50 square miles. Applied in this way to the REMAP samples, the IBI displayed marvelous ability to distinguish among various levels of human impacts as measured by the condition index (Figure 34).

Figure 34. Boxplot of IBI scores and condition index ranges for 116 REMAP samples. The large- stream IBI was applied to samples from sites draining more than 50 square miles. The small- stream IBI was applied to samples from sites draining less than 50 square miles.

Ten of the REMAP sub-samples contained more than 240 organisms and eight of the REMAP sub-samples contained less than 160 organisms. Whether these samples with sub-samples out of the target range or organisms are included in the REMAP analyses or not, the IBI demonstrates very good ability to distinguish among sites variously impacted by human activities.

Duplicate biological samples were taken at four REMAP sites on the same day. The variability of the IBI scores for each pair of duplicate REMAP samples was very low, with the standard deviation of duplicate sample pairs ranging from 0.49 for McMichaels Creek to 3.46 for O’Donnell Creek (Table 25). If we run these four duplicate sample pairs through a one-way ANOVA with IBI score as the response and site as the factor and apply the confidence interval calculation discussed above, we get a one-sample 90% confidence interval of 3.47 IBI points.

Table 25. IBI scores for REMAP sites sampled twice on the same day. IBI scores IBI score Sampling Drainage area Condition Stream Name standard date (square miles) Index small- large- stream stream deviation 89.1 Bush Kill May 27, 2005 55.9 185 2.55 92.7 82.9 McMichaels Creek 64.7 127 0.49 83.6 May 24, 2005 70.9 O’Donnell Creek 0.8 182 3.46 75.8 46.7 Sandy Run May 12, 2005 22.4 77 3.25 51.3

76 Large Wadeable Rivers

The preceding analysis only considered samples from streams draining less than 1,000 square miles of land. However, there were 29 samples collected and processed using the same methodology described above from 26 sites draining more than 1,000 square miles of land. The sample collection and processing methods described above are intended to be applied to wadeable, freestone, riffle-run streams. These methods focus on sampling riffle areas because these habitats are typically the most productive in riffle-run streams. The substrate area sampled and the target number of organisms sub-sampled with these methods yield sufficient representation of the benthic communities in these streams to assess biological integrity and anthropogenic impacts with reasonable accuracy and precision.

Although PADEP does not currently have strict guidelines for determining the upper limit of stream size for which these methods are tenable, there is general recognition that these methods may not sufficiently represent the benthic or overall biotic communities in the largest of Pennsylvania’s streams and rivers. As a river system becomes larger and larger, these sampling methods – which observe a fixed area of one habitat type regardless of the size of the stream or the proportion of various habitat types in the stream – represent smaller and smaller proportions of the whole stream benthos and biota. PADEP is currently working to develop methods to assess ALUs in larger streams and rivers, including non- wadeable, dam-pool rivers like the lower Monongahela River, the lower Allegheny River, and the Ohio River. These methods will likely include sampling and assessment of various biotic assemblages (e.g., benthic macroinvertebrates, fish, mussels) and may utilize different sampling equipment (e.g., Hester-Dendy type multiplate samplers) and approaches (e.g., littoral sampling, sampling larger areas, targeting different habitat types, identifying chironomids to finer taxonomic levels) to evaluate the benthos in larger streams and rivers.

As noted above, PADEP does not have hard-and-fast guidelines for determining the upper limit of stream size to which the methods outlined in this report can be tenably applied. Some sections of some streams are obviously and always wadeable throughout their course (e.g., first-order headwater creeks). In larger streams and rivers, some areas (e.g., shallow riffles) are consistently wadeable while other areas (e.g., deeper pools and runs) may never be wadeable or may only be wadeable during low flow conditions. In certain situations it should be clear that these methods do not apply (e.g., if a stream is not wadeable in over 90% or more of its channel area under base flow conditions). If a stream is only unwadeable in one small spot of one deep pool in the sampling reach at baseflow, but wadeable throughout the rest of the reach, it is likely tenable to apply these sampling methods. If a stream is unwadeable only during 100-year flood flows, but entirely wadeable during other flows, it is likely tenable to apply these methods. Between these extremes, discretion must be used in applying the sampling and assessment methods outlined in this report to the largest of wadeable streams and rivers. In rivers where riffle habitat represents exceedingly small proportions of the overall channel area, the ALU assessment methods presented in this report should be not applied.

With that in mind, the large-stream IBI developed in this project was applied to the 27 samples from 24 sites draining more than 1,000 square miles of land in this dataset, and it performed well even with these large river samples (Table 26, Figure 35). Of these large river samples, the four samples that scored highest on the IBI were from the highly forested

77 upper Delaware River, at locations that had total habitat scores between 180 and 195. Two samples from the middle Delaware River – 10 to 15 miles upstream of the confluence with Lehigh River – scored noticeably lower on the IBI than samples from the upper river. Although the middle Delaware basin is still mostly forested, there are more anthropogenic impacts here than in the upper reaches along with natural changes that occur as the stream flows downstream. A sample from the lower Delaware River – near Trenton, New Jersey – scores even lower than samples from the middle part of the river. Note that the samples from the upper Delaware River were collected in April while the samples from the middle and lower parts of the river were collected in August and September, so we may be seeing some drop in IBI scores related to sampling season, although this is difficult to determine conclusively with such a small number of samples at these sites. We must also be mindful that the flow and thermal patterns in the Delaware River are hugely influenced by releases from upstream drinking water reservoirs.

A sample from Sinnemahoning Creek – a highly forested basin – collected early September 2007 scored 57.6 on the IBI. We might expect the score from such a highly forested basin to be higher. This sample was collected in early September, so we are likely seeing some drop in the IBI score due to sampling season. The physical habitat may also be naturally limiting the macroinvertebrate community at this location. A few in-stream habitat parameters were scored quite low here, which may reflect predominance of bedrock substrate which is not uncommon throughout the lower reaches of Sinnemahoning Creek.

Two samples from the same location on the lower Juniata River scored fairly high on the IBI, with a sample collected in August 2007 scoring about five points higher than a sample collected mid-October 2003. The Juniata River basin encompasses a variety of human impacts including mine drainage in some upper reaches and some population centers, with the most prevalent impact being agriculture. This basin also drains a fair amount of calcareous geologies.

A sample from the mouth of French Creek – near Franklin – collected mid-September 2007 scored 70.1 on the IBI. There is a fair amount of agriculture and low-density residential land use in this basin, but the benthic macroinvertebrate community appears to be in relatively good condition.

Two samples from a site on the middle Allegheny River – near Parker, about a mile downstream of the confluence with Clarion River – score about 25 points differently on the IBI, with a sample from early May 2003 scoring 64.6 and a sample from mid-October 2001 scoring 38.8. It appears seasonal considerations may explain much of this large difference in IBI scores with the May sample containing much higher mayfly diversity and abundance as well as higher stonefly and caddisfly diversity. Beetle diversity was much higher in the May sample as well. However, with such a small dataset from large rivers, it is difficult to determine conclusively what factors contribute to variability in sampled taxa. Some of the large differences we see in IBI scores at some these sites over time may have as much to do with considerations of patchy habitat and organismal distributions in larger systems as it does with the seasonal patterns we see in smaller systems.

Samples from various locations along the Susquehanna River score in the middle of the pack on the IBI among large river samples. We have two samples from the middle reaches of the “North Branch” Susquehanna River – near Towanda, about a mile upstream of the

78 confluence with Towanda Creek – collected early October 2003 and mid-July 2008 that score 58.6 and 59.7 on the IBI, respectively. These two samples score remarkably close on most core metrics and had fairly similar taxa lists. There was one sample from further downstream on the “North Branch” – about four miles west of Nanticoke, between the confluences of Hunlock Creek and Shickshinny Creek – collected mid-October 2007 that scored 47.3 on the IBI. This lower IBI score compared to upstream is mostly attributable to the Hilsenhoff Biotic Index and Percent Sensitive Individuals metrics, reflecting the relatively lower abundance of mayflies compared to two samples from further upstream as well as relatively high abundances of a few high-PTV snail families and Stenelmis beetles at the site near Nanticoke compared to the site near Towanda. On the West Branch Susquehanna, we have one sample collected early September near Jersey Shore between the confluences of Antes Creek and Larrys Creek that scores 53.9 on the IBI. In the lower reaches of the Susquehanna River, we have two samples: one sample collected mid- October near Sunbury just downstream of the confluence of the West Branch and “North Branch” upstream of the confluence with Shamokin Creek that scores 57.7 on the IBI; and one sample collected early October near Wrightsville and Columbia between the confluence of Chiques Creek and Kreutz Creek that scores 61.5 on the IBI.

The large river samples that scored lowest on the IBI were collected in late April 2008 from the lower Lehigh River at locations downstream of or within the highly urbanized areas of Allentown, Bethlehem, and Easton. The lower Lehigh River basin is also impacted by agriculture and anthracite coal mine drainage as well as some calcareous geologies. However, a sample from the lower Lehigh River collected mid-August 2007 scored over 20 points higher on the IBI than a sample collected less than a half mile upstream in April 2008. This suggests the possibility of a counterintuitive seasonal pattern to the taxa (mayfly diversity and abundance were notably higher in the August 2007 sample than the April 2008 sample), an intervening pollution event, anomalous weather events, and/or patchiness of habitat at this location.

Other samples that scored low on the IBI from heavily-impacted large rivers include samples from Mahoning River (early October 2007), Conemaugh River (late September 2007), Schuylkill River (early August 2007), and Youghiogheny River (late September 2007). These low IBI scores may be attributable in part to the samples being collected in late summer and early autumn, but it is likely that the substantial human impacts to these basins and rivers also drives down the IBI scores. On the Schuylkill River, the sample from further upstream – near Pottstown, just downstream of the confluence with Manatawny Creek – scores about 11 points higher on the IBI than the sample from further downstream – near western Philadelphia, just downstream of the confluence with Wissahickon Creek – where the urbanized land use is more intense. Note that both these Schuylkill River samples were collected a day apart in early August 2007.

It may be worth noting that the four upper Delaware River samples from April 2006 contain a number of taxa unique among these large river samples. These four samples were the only samples from sites draining more than 1,000 square miles that had more than two stonefly taxa. All four of these samples encountered Acroneuria and Perlesta stoneflies, with Paragnetina and Agnetina – fellow members of the Perlidae family – found in two and one of these samples, respectively. Three genera of Perlodidae stoneflies were also found in these samples: Cultus in three samples; Helopicus in two; and Isoperla in one. Acroneuria were only encountered in one other sample from a site draining more than 1,000

79 square miles: the mid-September sample from French Creek. Likewise, Perlesta and Perlodidae were only encountered in one other sample from a site draining more than 1,000 square miles: the early May sample from the Allegheny River. These four upper Delaware River samples accounted for the only records of Paragnetina among samples from sites draining more than 1,000 square miles. Cinygmula, Drunella, and Eurylophella mayflies were only found in these upper Delaware River samples as well, with Epeorus only being found in these samples as well as in one Lehigh River sample. In addition, among these large river samples, the only records of Rhyacophila and Lepidostoma caddisflies as well as Clinocera dance flies and Prosimulium blackflies are from the upper Delaware River samples. Although it is difficult to draw conclusions from such a small dataset it appears the upper Delaware River contains an unusual benthic community for such a large river.

Another interesting taxonomic phenomenon among these large river samples has to do with gastropods, which PADEP identifies to the family level. Hydrobiidae and Pleuroceridae snails are rarely seen in samples from smaller streams (usually only in smaller streams with substantial amounts of agriculture in their basin), but are somewhat common in samples from larger streams, especially those draining over 1,000 square miles.

Although the large-steam IBI appears to work fairly well when applied to this limited dataset of samples from large rivers (i.e., sites draining over 1,000 square miles), discretion must be used when applying this IBI to samples from such large rivers. The relatively small dataset of samples from such large rivers limits analysis of variability (i.e., estimates of spatial and temporal precision) in metric and IBI performance with samples from such large rivers.

As long as the area of riffle habitat relative to total channel area is not exceedingly low, the methods outlined in this project may be tenably applied to larger river systems. If riffle habitats represent a very small proportion of the total channel area in a larger river, these methods may be less appropriate to apply. The aquatic life uses of these lower gradient larger rivers may be better assessed by deploying different types of sampling equipment (e.g. Hester-Dendy multiplate samplers), targeting different habitats (e.g., pools, littoral areas), utilizing different levels of taxonomic identification (e.g., identifying chironomids to tribe, genus, or species), and incorporating assessments of other biological assemblages (e.g., fish, mussels, plankton, perphyton).

PADEP is currently working on assessment methods for non-wadeable rivers and larger partially-wadeable or sometimes-wadeable rivers. These developing methods may be better suited to conducting assessments in some of Pennsylvania’s largest river systems, but – as an interim procedure – the methods outlined in this project can be tenably applied to larger systems with adequate riffle habitats that can be consistently and safely accessed by foot.

80 Table 26. Habitat scores, % land uses, IBI scores, and core metric values for the 27 samples from 24 sites draining more than 1,000 square miles of land.

% land uses Core metric values

Total

4) 3) -

Drainage area IBI score - Index

Stream Name Month Habitat (square miles) large-stream

Score

forest

(PTV 0 (PTV 0 (PTV

(version 3) (version

Diversity

Shannon

Richness

EPT Taxa EPT

Hilsenhoff

developed TotalTaxa

agriculture

Individuals

% Sensitive %

BioticIndex Beck’s

Sinnemahoning Creek 1,033 9 167 93.5 3.0 0.2 57.6 21 10 7 4.76 2.46 14.6 Mahoning River 1,100 10 148 34.4 31.7 12.5 27.8 11 1 0 5.61 1.77 0.0 Schuylkill River 1,147 8 174 45.3 37.7 7.2 48.6 22 8 5 5.75 2.35 3.2 Lehigh River 1,227 4 153 59.2 18.2 6.6 25.9 12 2 3 5.83 0.86 0.5 French Creek 1,237 9 53.0 33.4 1.8 70.1 26 11 10 4.42 2.67 32.6 Lehigh River 1,357 4 185 55.5 20.5 7.9 25.5 13 1 2 5.84 0.91 2.8 Lehigh River 1,360 8 164 55.5 20.5 7.9 49.9 25 5 0 5.33 2.53 21.2 Conemaugh River 1,362 9 152 67.7 20.3 2.8 32.9 13 3 0 5.11 1.90 0.0 Delaware River 1,522 4 189 81.3 11.8 0.4 79.1 24 14 20 4.16 2.15 39.9 Delaware River 1,621 4 194 81.3 11.7 0.4 94.7 30 20 25 3.55 2.80 53.8 Delaware River 1,713 4 182 81.4 11.6 0.4 87.6 36 17 16 3.92 2.93 43.5 Youghiogheny River 1,713 9 153 65.4 23.0 3.0 38.7 15 5 0 4.45 1.70 9.2 Schuylkill River 1,879 8 173 39.8 38.2 10.2 37.5 13 5 2 5.27 1.92 5.0 Delaware River 1,906 4 190 79.9 13.0 0.4 94.7 33 19 24 3.52 2.96 49.8 8 72.5 30 11 7 4.02 2.84 34.6 Juniata River 3,352 69.5 21.9 2.3 10 67.0 28 11 9 5.03 2.71 23.6 Delaware River 4,542 9 76.4 10.9 1.1 54.9 21 9 7 5.39 2.63 10.3 Delaware River 4,552 9 76.3 11.0 1.1 68.7 28 10 10 4.58 2.67 28.3 West Branch Susquehanna River 5,230 9 163 53.9 25 10 3 6.12 2.64 12.5 Delaware River 6,788 8 48.9 20 8 4 5.10 2.35 5.5 5 64.6 34 11 7 5.91 3.05 18.8 Allegheny River 7,663 land use not 10 38.8 21 5 3 7.46 2.26 3.1 calculated for sites 7 59.7 24 9 4 4.88 2.57 28.8 Susquehanna River 7,792 189 draining more than 10 5,000 square miles 58.6 24 10 6 4.92 2.60 13.6 Susquehanna River 10,155 10 178 47.3 26 7 1 6.06 2.54 4.0 Susquehanna River 18,299 10 166 57.7 20 9 5 4.92 2.55 26.9 Susquehanna River 26,003 10 61.5 23 11 3 4.73 2.62 29.9

Figure 35. IBI scores for 27 samples from 24 large river sites (i.e. sites with drainage area over 1,000 square miles) coded by sample month. Note logarithmic scale for drainage area.

82 Dominance

Sometimes, individuals from one taxon or a couple taxa will heavily dominate a sub-sample (i.e., represent more than 33%, 50%, even 67% of all the organisms in the sub-sample). This often occurs in smaller streams in the spring, but can vary depending which taxon or taxa dominate. Frequently, only a handful of taxa heavily dominate sub-samples. Common dominance characteristics for each of these taxa are discussed below.

1. Chironomidae

Chironomidae often dominate springtime samples, but can dominate in just about any season. This dipteran family can dominate samples from streams large and small. Very heavy Chironomidae dominance in wadeable, freestone, riffle-run streams often signals some sort of pollution, commonly organic enrichment and/or sedimentation.

2. Prosimulium

Prosimulium dominance often occurs in March and April during seasonal larval population booms. Early spring dominance by this blackfly genus is often heavy (over 50% of sub- samples) and can occur in relatively pristine streams as well as streams impacted by a variety of human activities, so is not a reliable sign of anthropogenic impact. However, extremely heavy Prosimulium dominance (over 75% of sub-samples) may be a sign of agricultural impacts.

3. Amphinemura and Leuctra

Dominance by either or both of these stonefly genera often occurs in March, April, and May – particularly April and May. Often times, dominance by either or both of these stonefly genera can be heavy (over 50% of sub-samples), which is a fairly reliable sign of acid deposition impacts, especially if observed concurrently with low mayfly abundance and diversity.

4. Ephemerella

Ephemerella dominance often occurs in March, April, and May – particularly April and May. These mayflies can be dominant in larger streams as well as smaller streams. Dominance by this mayfly genus may be a signal of agricultural impacts, but can occur in relatively pristine streams too.

5. Hydropsychidae (Diplectrona, Cheumatopsyche, Ceratopsyche, Hydropsyche)

Dominance by these hydropsychid caddisfly genera more commonly occurs in summer, fall, and early winter than spring. These caddisflies can dominate larger stream samples. Diplectrona dominance is a fairly reliable sign of mining impacts – especially when seen with low mayfly diversity and abundance. Cheumatopsyche, Ceratopsyche, and Hydropsyche dominances are fairly reliable signs of agriculture and/or development impacts.

6. Stenelmis

Dominance by this beetle genus often occurs from late spring through fall and can occur in larger systems as well as smaller systems. Stenelmis dominance is a fairly reliable signal of agricultural impacts, although Stenelmis dominance can occur in more pristine streams that are lower gradient as well.

83 In addition to the taxa listed above, Baetis, Isonychia, Allocapnia, Oligochaeta, and Gammarus sometimes dominate sub-samples, but much less frequently than those taxa described above.

Because of the sub-sampling procedures used in sample processing, heavy dominance by individuals from one taxon or a few taxa often means that the diversity of organisms in the sub-sample is low compared with the diversity of organisms in the whole sample. Such dominance can drive down individual metric scores – especially Shannon Diversity and metrics based on taxonomic richness – and subsequently the multimetric IBI score. This is of particular concern with Prosimulium because dominance by this blackfly genus can occur in relatively pristine streams, whereas dominance by many of the other commonly-dominant taxa listed above often signals some sort of pollution impact. If a sample is heavily dominated by Prosimulium, it may mean that many taxa present in the sample do not appear in the sub-sample, and the index scores may be unduly low.

Although this phenomenon could be dealt with by altering sub-sampling procedures for heavily-dominated samples, biologists are encouraged to use their best professional discretion when dealing with these situations, and to realize the discussed implications heavy dominance by one taxon or a few taxa may have on the metric and index scores. It may be helpful to document what taxa are present in the entire sample that do not appear in the sub-sample and even to determine rough relative abundances of these taxa in the whole sample to get an idea how much diversity is not represented in the sub-samples. In some instances, additional sampling may be required to confidently assess the stream if an initial sample is heavily dominated by individuals representing one or a few taxa. This especially may be the case with late winter or early spring samples dominated by Prosimulium.

PENNSYLVANIA TIERED AQUATIC LIFE USE WORKSHOPS

Numerous professional aquatic biologists gathered in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania on three separate occasions (August 8 and 9, 2006; August 22 and 23, 2007; May 15 and 16, 2008) to conduct tiered aquatic life use (TALU) workshops. The underlying concepts and procedural details of these workshops are described by Gerritsen and Jessup (2007). The basic idea of the workshop was to assign benthic macroinvertebrate samples to one of a series of biological condition tiers based on experienced biologists voting for different tier assignments. Good agreement among 45 biologists participating in the three TALU workshops and consistency with empirical evidence indicates the conceptual biological condition gradient (BCG) model reflects important aspects of biological condition along a general stressor gradient (Davies and Jackson 2006). Davies and Jackson (2006) promote use of the BCG as a descriptive model of ecosystem response to stress using six conceptual tiers (Figure 36).

Figure 36. The Biological Condition Gradient – a conceptual model depicting stages of biological condition responses to an increasing stressor gradient – adapted from Davies and Jackson (2006).

Davies and Jackson (2006) offer that the biological condition required to support an ALU for a specific water body can be described in terms of BCG tiers. For example, the biological condition associated with wild brook trout reproduction requires a very high-quality stream and may be defined as a narrow range of nearly natural BCG tiers, while the biological condition needed to support warm water recreational fisheries may span a broader range of conditions. Davies and Jackson (2006) note that individual applications of the BCG may not require – or be able to distinguish – six tiers, but the BCG development group concluded that six biological condition tiers can be qualitatively distinguished by well-designed and rigorous monitoring programs and that smaller increments of change are useful to show improvements or losses in biological condition.

In addition, many of the biologists who participated in development and testing of the BCG reported that the ecological characteristics conceptually described by tiers 1 through 4 correspond to how they interpret the Clean Water Act interim goal for protection and propagation of aquatic life (Davies and Jackson 2006). Further, the same biologists identified the characteristics described by tiers 1 and 2 as indicative of biological integrity (Davies and Jackson 2006).

85 Potential pitfalls of the BCG approach include: (1) lack of assessment experience and difficulty of practically and accurately assessing the status of some BCG attributes (e.g., ecosystem function); (2) a consensus definition of tier 1 conditions; and (3) the lack of regionally evaluated species tolerance to general and specific stressors.

The results of the Pennsylvania TALU workshops indicate that professional aquatic biologists from a number of organizations with extensive experience sampling benthic macroinvertebrates and other aquatic life (e.g., fish, periphyton) in the region generally agree on the characteristics exhibited by “reference condition” or “natural” benthic macroinvertebrate communities in the Commonwealth for wadeable, freestone, riffle-run streams. This is an important finding that provides consistent meaning to quantification of these characteristics and decisions based on biological criteria for ALU attainment.

If we apply the large-stream IBI to samples from streams draining more than 50 square miles and the small-stream IBI to samples from streams draining less than 50 square miles, we see very good agreement between IBI scores and mean BCG tier assignments for 92 samples evaluated at the three TALU workshops in Pennsylvania (Figure 37). It should be noted that the IBI scores presented by Gerritsen and Jessup (2007) are based on a different set of metrics than the IBI developed in this report. The IBI scores presented by Gerritsen and Jessup (2007) differ from the IBI presented in the present report in the following ways:

 The standardization value for the Total Taxa Richness metric was 35 in the 2007 IBI.  The EPT Richness metric in the 2007 IBI was calculated using all EPT taxa rather than only EPT taxa with PTVs of 4 or less. The 2007 standardization value for this metric was 23.  The 2007 standardization value for the Beck’s Index metric was 39.  The 2007 standardization value for the Shannon Diversity metric was 2.90.  The 2007 standardization value for the Hilsenhoff Biotic Index metrics was 1.78.  The Percent Sensitive Individuals metric in the 2007 IBI was calculated using taxa with PTVs from 0 to 5 rather than 0 to 3. The 2007 standardization value for this metric was 92.5.

86 second digit of condition category

Figure 37. Scatterplot of IBI scores with mean BCG tier assignment from the most recent TALU workshop color-coded by last digit of the condition categories defined in this project. The large- stream IBI was applied to samples from sites draining more than 50 square miles. The small- stream IBI was applied to samples from sites draining less than 50 square miles.

87 AQUATIC LIFE USE ATTAINMENT BENCHMARKS

For purposes of assessing ALU attainment based on IBI scores, use attainment thresholds or benchmarks can be established for specific stream types, regions and ALU levels. The multimetric index approach offers the ability to use a single index score to simplify management and decision-making (Barbour et al. 1999). The single index value may not determine the exact nature of stressors affecting the ecosystem, but analysis of the individual metrics may offer some insight into causes of ecosystem stress (Barbour et al. 1999). Thus, the index score can be used as a stand-alone assessment tool to represent aquatic life use attainment status, but the assessment process may be strengthened by considering the index score in concert with other available information (Barbour et al. 1999).

The selection of the appropriate criteria heavily depends on the nature of the samples in the dataset, especially the samples used to define the reference condition (Hughes 1995; Barbour et al. 1999; Stoddard et al. 2006). The extremes of biological condition (i.e., severely degraded and nearly pristine conditions) are usually easier to deem acceptable or unacceptable deviations from natural conditions than middle-of-the-road conditions (Hughes 1995). Any set of undisturbed sites will naturally exhibit a range of scores at any point in time (Stoddard et al. 2006), which is why spatial and temporal precision of the index were estimated for this project. Barbour et al. (1999) recommend using established percentiles of multimetric index scores for the reference sites to discriminate between severely degraded and nearly natural conditions. Barbour et al. (1999) also note that the range of index scores can be subdivided into any number of categories corresponding to various levels of degradation or use attainment.

Due to the influences of annual seasons and drainage area seen in the dataset, PADEP recognizes different assessment tools and use attainment thresholds are appropriate for samples collected during different times of the year and from different size stream systems. It is noted that some site-specific exceptions to any thresholds may exist because of local scale natural limitations (e.g., habitat availability) on biological condition (Hughes 1995).

Based on the results of the technical analyses presented above, the results of the TALU workshops, feedback from PADEP biologists and other colleagues, as well as policy considerations, PADEP implements a multi-tiered benchmark decision process for wadeable, freestone, riffle-run streams in Pennsylvania that incorporates stream size and sampling season as factors for determining ALU attainment and impairment based on benthic macroinvertebrate sampling (Figure 38).

89 Figure 38. A simplified framework for the aquatic life use assessment process. *** Questions 1 and 3 must be applied to small-stream samples collected from November to May, but do not have to be applied to large-stream samples or samples collected from June to September. Although this simplified decision matrix should guide most assessment decisions for benthic macroinvertebrate samples from Pennsylvania’s wadeable, freestone, riffle-run streams using the collection and processing methods discussed above, situations exist where this simplified assessment schematic will not apply exactly as outlined – some such situations are discussed in the following text.

The first step in the aquatic life use assessment process for wadeable, freestone, riffle-run streams in Pennsylvania based on benthic macroinvertebrate sampling considers stream size. PADEP does not set a single cutoff drainage area or stream order threshold to define which set of metric standardization values and which resulting IBI (i.e., large-stream or small-stream) should be applied. However – as stated above – data suggest that the small-stream approach is usually appropriate for samples from first, second, and third order streams draining less than 25 square miles of land, while the large- stream approach is usually appropriate for samples from fifth order and larger streams draining more than 50 square miles.

There are many important considerations when deciding whether to apply the small-stream or large-stream metric standardization values to a sample. Many stream systems experience a variety of changes as they flow from headwaters on downstream. These changes include, but are certainly not limited to changes in canopy shading, energy dynamics, algal growth, erosional and depositional patterns, habitat distributions, water temperature, and flow regimes. These shifts manifest themselves uniquely in each watershed. Streams in more northern, high elevation, high relief areas of the state may maintain cooler water, flashier flows, larger-particle substrates, and other characteristics typical of smaller streams at comparable drainage areas or stream orders when compared with streams in more southern, low elevation, low relief areas of the state. Local climatological and geological patterns also affect a stream’s character.

When deciding which set of metric standardization values (i.e., small-stream or large- stream) to apply, care should be taken not to conflate human-induced changes to streams with natural landscape and climatological variations. For example, a stream draining 26 square miles of mostly corn and soybean fields with little forested riparian buffer may experience warmer water temperatures and more silted substrates than a stream of similar size draining a more forested watershed. The warmer water and more silted substrates of the agricultural stream may be characteristics typical of larger streams, but if those characteristics are primarily human-induced, then that argues against applying the large- stream metric standardization values based on the presence of those characteristics in the stream.

For streams of intermediate size (i.e., third, fourth, and some fifth order streams draining between 25 and 50 square miles of land), it will often be informative to consider both the small-stream and large-stream IBI scores and associated benchmarks. For example, if a sample from a fourth order site draining 30 square miles scores 77.0 on the small-stream IBI and 90.2 on the large-stream IBI and passes the additional screening questions, both approaches indicate aquatic life use attainment, so the use assessment decision is the same regardless of which set of metric standardization values is applied. In another instance, a sample collected in mid-March from a site draining 36 square miles may score

90 44.1 on the small-stream IBI – indicating impairment – while scoring 51.2 on the large- stream IBI – indicating possible attainment. Here, the small-stream and large-stream IBI score assessment decisions diverge. In such situations it may be especially useful to consider the additional screening questions – detailed below – when making an assessment decision.

The second step in the aquatic life use assessment process for wadeable, freestone, riffle-run streams in Pennsylvania based on benthic macroinvertebrate sampling considers sampling season. Samples collected during summer and early autumn months (i.e. June through September) are held to different IBI attainment thresholds than samples collected November through May since benthic macroinvertebrate communities in most wadeable, freestone, riffle-run streams in Pennsylvania exhibit consistent patterns of lower taxonomic diversity and organismal abundance during the summer and early autumn months compared with other times of the year. These seasonal index periods are intended as general guidelines and may vary slightly year-to-year depending on local climatological conditions. For example, a sample collected from a low elevation, low latitude stream during the last week of May in a particularly hot, dry year may be more properly evaluated using procedures set forth for the summer months – especially if many mayflies have already emerged from the stream – while a sample collected from a high elevation, high latitude location during the first week of June in a uncharacteristically cool, wet year may be more properly evaluated using the November to May procedures – especially if many mayfly nymphs are still present in the benthos.

October often is a transitional time for benthic macroinvertebrate communities in Pennsylvania with samples from earlier in the month resembling late summer communities (e.g., relatively low diversity and abundance) and samples from later in the month resembling early winter communities (e.g., increasing abundance of winter stoneflies). Therefore, depending on local climate, basin geology, and other factors discussed above (e.g., latitude, elevation, basin relief) samples from October may be evaluated using the June to September benchmarks or the November to May benchmarks. PADEP advises against sampling in mid-October to avoid these issues. In fact, PADEP encourages sampling be conducted in the November to May time frame whenever possible.

For samples collected between November and May, IBI scores < 50 result in aquatic life use impairment. Samples collected during these months scoring ≥ 50 on the appropriate IBI are subject to four screening questions before the aquatic life use can be considered attaining. These additional screening questions are:

1. Are mayflies, stoneflies, or caddisflies absent from the sub-sample? Organisms representing these three taxonomic orders are usually found in most healthy wadeable, freestone, riffle-run streams in Pennsylvania. If any or all of these orders are absent from a sample, this strongly suggests some sort of anthropogenic impact. Samples where one of these taxonomic orders is absent due to natural conditions (e.g., mayflies absent from a low-pH tannic stream) should be evaluated accordingly. This question must be applied to small-stream samples collected between November and May, but does not have to be applied to samples from larger streams and samples collected between June and September.

2. Is the standardized metric score for the Beck’s Index metric < 33.3 with the standardized metric score for the Percent Sensitive Individuals metric < 25.0?

91 Although these two metrics go into the IBI calculations, this screening question serves to double check that a sample has substantial richness and abundance of the most sensitive organisms. This question arose from observing that the Beck’s Index metric is less sensitive at the lower end of its range and the Percent Sensitive Individuals metric is less sensitive at the upper end of its range. When both these metrics score relatively low, it serves as strong confirmation of impairment. This question must be applied to all samples.

3. Is the ratio of BCG attribute 1,2,3 taxa to BCG attribute 4,5,6 taxa < 0.75 with the ratio of BCG attribute 1,2,3 individuals to BCG attribute 4,5,6 individuals < 0.75? This screening question evaluates the balance of pollution tolerant organisms with more sensitive organisms in terms of taxonomic richness and organismal abundance. By using the BCG attributes to measure pollution tolerance, this screening question serves as a check against the IBI metrics which account for pollution sensitivity based only on PTVs. This question must be applied to small-stream samples collected between November and May, but can be relaxed for samples from larger streams and samples collected between June and September.

4. Does the sub-sample show signatures of acidification year-round? The primary acidification signatures in a sub-sample include low mayfly abundance and low mayfly diversity (i.e., scarce mayfly individuals and few mayfly taxa), especially when combined with high abundance of Amphinemura and/or Leuctra stoneflies, occasionally combined with high abundance of Simuliidae and/or Chironomidae individuals. A sub-sample with < 3 mayfly taxa, < 5% mayfly individuals, and > 25% Leuctra and/or Amphinemura stoneflies indicates likely acidification impacts. Acidification effects on benthic macroinvertebrate communities are often most pronounced in small streams with low buffering capacity during the spring months when snowpacks melt and vernal rains are frequent. While it can be difficult to determine if low pH conditions in a stream are natural or more attributable to anthropogenic acidification, sampling of water chemistry and/or fish communities (see Appendix F of PADEP 2009b) in addition to benthic macroinvertebrate communities can help inform assessment of acidic in-stream conditions. With this protocol, PADEP will only impair sites that show persistent acidification signatures year-round. In other words, if a sample has no mayflies and is dominated by Leuctra and Amphinemura in the spring, but a November sample from the same site contains three or more mayfly taxa or over five percent mayfly individuals, the aquatic life use will not be considered impaired because the stream exhibits the ability to recover biological integrity in the fall and winter months. If a spring sample shows acidification signatures, a late fall or early winter sample must be collected before making an aquatic life use assessment decision. This question must be applied to all samples.

If the answer to any of the required screening questions is yes for a sample collected between November and May with an IBI score ≥ 50, then the sample is considered impaired without compelling reasons otherwise. If the answer to all of these questions is no for a sample collected between November and May with an IBI score ≥ 50, then the aquatic life use represented by the sample can be considered attaining unless other information (e.g., water chemistry) indicates the aquatic life use may not be fully supported at that location.

For samples collected between June and September, the same logic applies as for samples collected between November and May, but the attainment/impairment threshold is lowered to 43 instead of 50. The 43 benchmark was selected based on analysis of seasonal IBI fluctuations at a number of sites. These analyses showed that sites with relatively high IBI scores (i.e., above 50) during the November to May time frame very rarely had IBI scores drop below 43 during the summer and early autumn months (Figure 39 – see the Big

92 Wapwallopen Creek sample in particular; many similar plots were evaluated to establish the 43 June to September benchmark). Thus, a June to September benchmark of 43 should prevent assessment decisions to impair a stream’s ALU based on summer or early autumn samples when samples from other times of the year indicate the stream is supporting its ALU, while still maintaining the ability to detect ALU impairments that persist year-round.

Figure 39. Large-stream IBI scores plotted by Julian Day of sample collection for four sites. Lines drawn at the 50 and 43 benchmarks for visual emphasis. (Black circle = Tunkhannock Creek at 188 square miles. Red plus = Big Wapwallopen Creek at 53 square miles. Green X = Towanda Creek at 66 square miles. Blue asterisk = Susquehanna River at 7,792 square miles.)

For samples collected in the summer and early autumn time frame, the absence of mayflies – and in some instances stoneflies – in samples collected immediately after seasonal hatches may be relaxed. Because benthic diversity may be underrepresented in summer and early autumn samples PADEP encourages monitoring in the November to May time frame if possible. Benthic macroinvertebrate sampling for determining aquatic life use support should only be conducted from June to early October if sampling during other seasons is not possible due to hazardous conditions such as high, fast stream flow.

By combining the ALU-specific IBI benchmarks with the additional ALU assessment screening questions, the ALU assessment decision process outlined above provides for protection of the least impacted wadeable, freestone, riffle-run streams in Pennsylvania at a high level of biotic integrity, while recognizing impacted streams as having impaired ALUs (Figures 40-42, Table 27). These ALU assessment procedures are applied specific to each of Pennsylvania’s five ALUs and calibrated according to stream size and sampling season.

94 b

Figure 40. Distribution of (a) small-stream and (b) large-stream IBI scores by condition category for samples from EV and HQ streams in the November to May time frame. Total number of samples in each plot are (a) n = 1,186 and (b) n = 110. For simplicity, the small-stream IBI was applied to samples from sites draining less than 50 square miles and the large-stream IBI was applied to samples from sites draining more than 50 square miles. The antidegradation ALU benchmark of 63 is drawn in for visual reference.

95 b

Figure 41. Distribution of (a) small-stream and (b) large-stream IBI scores by condition category for samples from CWF, TSF, and WWF streams in the November to May time frame. Total number of samples in each plot are (a) n = 924 and (b) n = 195. For simplicity, the small-stream IBI was applied to samples from sites draining less than 50 square miles and the large-stream IBI was applied to samples from sites draining more than 50 square miles. The ALU benchmark of 50 is drawn in for visual reference.

96 b

Figure 42. Distribution of (a) small-stream and (b) large-stream IBI scores by condition category for samples from CWF, TSF, and WWF streams in the June to September time frame. Total number of samples in each plot are (a) n = 214 and (b) n = 101. For simplicity, the small-stream IBI was applied to samples from sites draining less than 50 square miles and the large-stream IBI was applied to samples from sites draining more than 50 square miles. The ALU benchmarks of 43 is drawn in for visual reference.

Table 27. Assessment decision results by condition category, stream size, and sampling season. For simplicity, the small-stream procedures were applied to samples from sites draining less than 50 square miles and the large-stream procedures were applied to samples from sites draining more than 50 square miles. Stream Assessment condition category Season Uses Size Decision 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 acid # Attaining 22 240 220 158 97 31 13 90 # Impaired 17 11 20 38 42 41 89 57 HQ # Total 39 251 240 196 139 72 b102 147 EV % Attaining 56% 96% 92% 81% 70% 43% 13% 61%

November % Impaired 44% 4% 8% 19% 30% 57% 87% 39% to May # Attaining 19 21 57 66 96 74 45 11 small # Impaired 43 0 1 19 65 87 287 33 CWF TSF # Total 62 21 58 85 161 161 332 44 WWF % Attaining 31% 100% 98% 78% 60% 46% 14% 25% % Impaired 69% 0% 2% 22% 40% 54% 86% 75% # Attaining 8 5 4 8 13 14 13 0 CWF June to TSF # Impaired 7 0 0 8 11 16 104 3 September WWF # Total 15 5 4 16 24 30 117 3

97 % Attaining 53% 100% 100% 50% 54% 47% 11% 0% % Impaired 47% 0% 0% 50% 46% 53% 89% 100% # Attaining 0 33 21 9 9 2 0 4 # Impaired 0 4 2 8 2 6 10 0 HQ # Total 0 37 23 17 11 8 10 4 EV % Attaining 0% 89% 91% 53% 82% 25% 0% 100%

November % Impaired 0% 11% 9% 47% 18% 75% 100% 0% to May # Attaining 1 18 26 28 24 11 16 0 # Impaired 1 0 3 4 5 16 42 0 CWF large TSF # Total 2 18 29 32 29 27 58 0 WWF % Attaining 50% 100% 90% 88% 83% 41% 28% 0% % Impaired 50% 0% 10% 13% 17% 59% 72% 0% # Attaining 3 6 10 12 6 2 6 0 # Impaired 22 1 3 4 3 4 19 0 CWF June to TSF # Total 25 7 13 16 9 6 25 0 September WWF % Attaining 12% 86% 77% 75% 67% 33% 24% 0% % Impaired 88% 14% 23% 25% 33% 67% 76% 0% # Attaining 53 323 338 281 245 134 93 105 # Impaired 90 16 29 81 128 170 551 93 overall # Total 143 339 367 362 373 304 644 198 % Attaining 37% 95% 92% 78% 66% 44% 14% 53% % Impaired 63% 5% 8% 22% 34% 56% 86% 47% Limestone Influence

As discussed in the introduction, PADEP deploys a different sampling methodology and assessment protocol for limestone spring streams whose flow is mostly or entirely derived from groundwater in areas with substantial primary calcareous geologies (PADEP 2009a) than for freestone streams. The sampling methodology and assessment protocol for these limestone spring streams incorporate the understanding that streams in areas receiving a substantial amount of flow from groundwater attributable to karst geologies often naturally have less diverse benthic macroinvertebrate communities than streams draining freestone geologies. This lower benthic macroinvertebrate community diversity in limestone spring streams is attributable in large part to less variable flow and thermal characteristics of such systems when compared with freestone streams that often exhibit flashier flows and a wider range of temperatures.

Some streams in Pennsylvania drain basins underlain partially by freestone geologies and partially by calcareous geologies. Such streams are often encountered in central regions of the state – especially in upper portions of the Juniata River basin – where they drain sandstone and/or quartzite upland ridges, fairly steep shale slopes, and lower gradient calcareous valley floors. The calcareous valley geologies in these basins contributes to relatively high alkalinities and relatively high and consistent base flows in streams – characteristics of limestone spring streams – when compared with streams draining basins

98 with no calcareous geologies. However, the upland sandstone, quartzite, and shale areas of these basins often contribute substantial surface runoff, which leads to surges in flow during rainfall and snowmelt events and dilution of alkalinity derived from the calcareous valleys. These streams – often referred to as “limestone-influenced” – exhibit some characteristics of limestone spring streams and some characteristics of freestone streams.

We often see substantial agriculture in the fertile valleys of these limestone-influenced streams, which makes it difficult to definitively establish reference conditions specific to these unique streams. However, there is evidence that the benthic macroinvertebrate communities in limestone-influenced streams are naturally less diverse than in freestone streams of similar size and with similar land uses. This lower diversity of benthic macroinvertebrate communities in limestone-influenced streams likely reflects the less variable flow and thermal patterns in these streams caused by the stabilizing influence of the substantial groundwater flowing into the streams through the calcareous valley geologies. Commonly, the benthic macroinvertebrate communities in limestone-influenced streams exhibit relatively low stonefly diversity and abundance when compared with streams of similar size and condition that drain freestone geologies.

In light of these considerations, use attainment benchmarks may be justifiably relaxed for samples from limestone-influenced streams. The June to September IBI benchmark of 43 for freestone streams can be applied to limestone-influenced streams year-round, but the four screening question should still be applied as outlined above to samples from limestone- influenced streams to make ALU assessment decisions.

Antidegradation, Special Protection Considerations

The assessment decision process is somewhat different for streams with special protection uses of high-quality (HQ) or exceptional value (EV) waters. PADEP will protect special protection streams based on a baseline IBI score determined by previous surveys. Subsequent samples from HQ and EV streams will be compared to the baseline IBI score for a given site using the IBI temporal precision estimates (Table 23). For example, if Riverkill Creek is designated HQ and a previous sample from a given site on Riverkill Creek using the protocol described above results in a mid-April IBI score of 78.0, this IBI score of 78.0 would be the baseline IBI score for that site. Future samples from that site collected November to May that score more than 10.0 IBI points below 78.0, would be considered impaired. Since PADEP’s sampling season for special protection surveys is November to May, we need not be concerned about how June to October samples compare to the baseline IBI – PADEP will only make assessment decisions for HQ and EV streams based on samples collected November to May. The temporal precision estimate of 10.0 points is used because it approximates the October to May temporal precision estimate calculated above (Table 23). PADEP will apply the more restrictive March to May and October to February temporal precision estimates – about 9.0 and 8.0 IBI points, respectively – to special protection use assessments if the situation is appropriate (e.g., if the baseline IBI was established in April, future March to May samples that score more than 9.0 points lower than the baseline will be considered impaired). Furthermore, any sample from an HQ or EV stream that scores less than 63.0 on the IBI will be considered impaired without compelling reasons otherwise (e.g., a stream was designated HQ or EV for a reason other than assessment of the benthic macroinvertebrate community).

99 Applications and Exceptions

If a sample results in fewer than 160 total organisms in the entire sample, the IBI and assessment procedures may not apply exactly as outlined above. The IBI and associated benchmarks are calibrated for use with sub-samples containing 160 to 240 organisms, so applications of the IBI to samples containing less – or more – than the target number of organisms, cannot necessarily be assessed using the procedures and benchmarks outlined above. Low abundance of benthic organisms often indicates toxic pollution or severe habitat alterations, which must be considered in making holistic stream assessments.

The use assessment decision processes set forth above are intended as general guidelines, not as hard-and-fast rules. The procedures and guidelines discussed above will provide tenable assessments – as required by federal and state law – of benthic macroinvertebrate community conditions for the vast majority of samples collected from wadeable, freestone, riffle-run streams in Pennsylvania. However, as noted by Hughes (1995), there will be exceptional circumstances – such as those outlined in the Pennsylvania Code (2011: Title 25, Section 93.4.(b) relating to less restrictive uses) – when the above assessment procedures do not apply (e.g., there are no obvious sources of impairment and natural factors such as habitat availability or water chemistry limit biotic potential). In some situations a biologist’s local knowledge of conditions may warrant a decision not arrived at using these guidelines. As discussed above, the use assessment procedures outlined in this report should be applied with care to samples from large rivers (i.e., rivers draining more than 1,000 square miles of land) because of the limited dataset of samples available on such rivers. In other situations, like when samples are heavily dominated by Prosimulium larvae – as discussed above – often times this will unduly lower metric and IBI scores, confounding the assessment decision procedures outlined above. In such situations, the investigating biologist may have to re-sample the site after the seasonal Prosimulium larval boom, or the biologist may have to rely on a more qualitative analysis of metric scores, sample composition, and site conditions to arrive at an assessment decision. In any instance, evaluating stream samples requires mindfulness of particular conditions, and is not always a definite, exact exercise. A certain section of stream may represent a transition between pool-glide, low-relief, marshy, glaciated uplands where the substrate is mostly fine-grained sand and higher-gradient lower reaches filled with cobble-strewn riffles and runs. Some years see cooler, wetter springs than other years. Nevertheless, for the vast majority of cases involving benthic macroinvertebrate samples from wadeable, freestone (and limestone-influenced), riffle-run streams in Pennsylvania using the protocols described above, the assessment procedures described in this report will lead to tenable ALU assessment decisions.

100 REFERENCES

Anderson, M.A. and A.P. Olivero. 2003. The Nature Conservancy stream macrohabitats: lower New England ecoregional plan. The Nature Conservancy.

Barbour, M.T., J. Gerritsen, B.D. Snyder, and J.B. Stribling. 1999. Rapid bioassessment protocols for use in streams and wadeable rivers: periphyton, benthic macroinvertebrates and fish, second edition. EPA 841-B-99-002. United States Environmental Protection Agency; Office of Water; Washington, D.C.

Barbour, M.T., J.B. Stribling, and J.R. Karr. 1995. Multimetric approach for establishing biocriteria and measuring biological condition. Chapter 6 in Biological assessment and criteria: tools for water resource planning and decision making, W.S. Davis and T.P. Simon, eds. (pp. 63 – 77). CRC Press, Boca Raton.

Beck, W.H., Jr. 1955. Suggested method for reporting biotic data. Sewage and Industrial Waste 27(10): 1193-1197.

Burton, J. and J. Gerritsen. 2003. A stream condition index for Virginia non-coastal streams. Prepared for United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Region 3 Environmental Services Division, and Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. Tetra Tech, Inc. Owings Mills, Maryland.

Carlisle, D.M., M.R. Meador, S.R. Moulton II, and P.M. Ruhl. 2007. Estimation and application of indicator values for common macroinvertebrate genera and families of the United States. Ecological Indicators 7(2007): 22-33.

Ciolkosz, E.J. and E.R. Levine. 1983. Evaluation of acid rain sensitivity of Pennsylvania soils. Research Project Technical Completion Report A-058-PA. Institute for Research on Land and Water Resources, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania.

Davies, S.P. and S.K. Jackson. 2006. The biological condition gradient: a descriptive model for interpreting change in aquatic ecosystems. Ecological Applications 16(4):1251-1266.

Davis, W.S. and T.P. Simon. 1995. Introduction to Biological assessment and criteria: tools for water resource planning and decision making, W.S. Davis and T.P. Simon, eds. (pp. 3 – 6). CRC Press, Boca Raton.

Fisher, R.A. 1936. The use of multiple measurements in taxonomic problems. Annals of Eugenics 7: 179-188.

Flotemersch, J.E., J.B. Stribling, and M.J. Paul. 2006. Concepts and approaches for the bioassessment of non-wadeable streams and rivers. EPA/600/R-06/127. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development. Washington, D.C.

Gawler, S.C., M.G. Anderson, A.P. Olivero, and M. Clark. 2008. The Northeast Habitat Classification and Mapping Project Final Report. Boston, Massachusetts.

Gerritsen, J., J. Burton, and M.T. Barbour. 2000. A stream condition index for West Virginia wadeable streams. Prepared for United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Region 3 Environmental Services Division, and West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection. Tetra Tech, Inc. Owings Mills, Maryland.

Gerritsen, J. and B. Jessup. 2007. Identification of the biological condition gradient for freestone (non- calcareous) streams of Pennsylvania. Prepared for United States Environmental Protection Agency and Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. Tetra Tech, Inc. Owings Mills, Maryland. 53 pp.

101 Giberson, D.J. and R.J. Mackay. 1991. Life history and distribution of mayflies (Ephemeroptera) in some acid streams in south central Ontario, Canada. Canadian Journal of Zoology 69: 899-910.

Griffith, M.B., S.A. Perry, and W.B. Perry. 1995. Macroinvertebrate communities in headwater streams affected by acidic precipitation in the central Appalachians. Journal of Environmental Quality 24(2): 233- 238.

Griffith, M.B., S.A. Perry, and W.B. Perry. 1994. Secondary production of macroinvertebrate shredders in headwater streams with different baseflow alkalinity. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 13(3): 345-356.

Guerold, F., J. Boudot, G. Jacquemin, D. Vein, D. Merlet, and J. Rouiller. 2000. Macroinvertebrate community loss as a result of headwater stream acidification in the Vosges Mountains. Biodiversity and Conservation 9: 767-783.

Hand, D.J. 1981. Discrimination and classification. John Wiley and Sons, New York.

Hawkins, C.P. and R.H. Norris. 2000. Performance of different landscape classifications for aquatic bioassessments: introduction to the series. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 19(3): 367-369.

Hawkins, C.P., R.H. Norris, J.N. Hogue, and J.W. Feminella. 2000. Development and evaluation of predictive models for measuring the biological integrity of streams. Ecological Application 10(5): 1456- 1477.

Hawkins, C.P. 2006. Quantifying biological integrity by taxonomic completeness: its utility in regional and global assessments. Ecological Applications 16(4): 1277-1294.

Hilsenhoff, W.L. 1977. Use of arthropods to evaluate water quality of streams. Technical Bulletin Number 100. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 15 pp. Madison, Wisconsin.

Hilsenhoff, W.L. 1987. An improved biotic index of organic stream pollution. The Great Lakes Entomologist 20(1): 31-39.

Hilsenhoff, W.L. 1988. Rapid field assessment of organic pollution with a family-level biotic index. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 7(1): 65-68.

Homer, C., C. Huang, L. Yang, B. Wylie, and M. Coan. 2004. Development of a 2001 National Landcover Database for the United States. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 70(7): 829-840.

Hughes, R.M. 1995. Defining acceptable biological status by comparing with reference conditions. Chapter 4 in Biological assessment and criteria: tools for water resource planning and decision making, W.S. Davis and T.P. Simon, eds. (pp. 31 – 47). CRC Press, Boca Raton.

Karr, J.R. and D.R. Dudley. 1981. Ecological perspective on water quality goals. Environmental Management 5: 55-68.

Klemm, D.J, P.A. Lewis, F. Fulk, and J.M. Lazorchak. 1990. Macroinvertebrate field and laboratory methods for evaluating the biological integrity of surface waters. Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory, United States Environmental Protection Agency. Cincinnati, Ohio. EPA-600-4-90-030.

Kimmel, W.G. 1999. Macroinvertebrate community responses to episodic stream acidification on the Laurel Hill in southwestern Pennsylvania. Chapter 4 in The effects of acidic deposition on aquatic ecosystems in Pennsylvania, eds. W.E. Sharpe and J.R. Drohan. Proceedings of the 1998 Pennsylvania

102 acidic deposition conference, Volume II. Environmental Resources Research Institute, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania.

Kruskal, J.B. and M. Wish. 1978. Multidimensional Scaling. Sage University paper series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences 07 – 011. Sage Publications. Beverly Hills and London.

Lance, G.N. and W.T. Williams. 1967. A general theory of classificatory sorting strategies – 1. Hierarchical systems. Computer Journal 9: 373-380.

Lenat, D.R. and D.L. Penrose. 1996. History of the EPT taxa richness metric. Bulletin of the North American Benthological Society 13(2).

Ludwig, J.A., and J.F. Reynolds. 1988. Statistical ecology. John Wiley and Sons. New York, New York.

Lynch, J.A., K.S. Horner, J.W. Grimm, E. Boyer, and H. Carrick. 2007. Reductions in Acidic Wet Deposition in Pennsylvania Following Implementation of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990: 1995- 2006. Penn State Institutes of Energy and the Environment – The Pennsylvania State University. University Park, Pennsylvania.

Madarish, D.M. and W.G. Kimmel. 2000. Benthic macroinvertebrate community structure in relation to seasonal and geochemical changes in a chronically acidified stream. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 15(1): 13-27.

Marchant, R. 1999. How important are rare species in aquatic community ecology and bioassessment? A comment on the conclusions of Cao et al. 1999. Limnology and Oceanography 44: 1840-1841.

Marchant, R. 2002. Do rare species have any place in multivariate analysis for bioassessment? Journal of the North American Benthological Society 21(2): 311-313.

Mattson, K.M. and P.L. Angermeier. 2007. Integrating human impacts and ecological integrity into a risk- based protocol for conservation planning. Environmental Management 39(1): 125-138.

Milligan, G.W. 1989. A study of the beta-flexible clustering method. Multivariate Behavioral Research 24: 163-176.

Novotny, V. 2004. Linking pollution to water body integrity – literature review. Center for Urban Environmental Studies, Northeastern University. Boston, Massachusetts.

Pennsylvania Code. Accessed June 24, 2011. http://www.pacode.com/.

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. 2007. Multihabitat stream assessment protocol. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. 2009a. An index of biological integrity for “true” limestone streams. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. 2009b. Survey Protocol – Instream Comprehensive Evaluation Surveys. 391-3200-001. Harrisburg, PA.

Pond, G.J. 2010. Patterns of Ephemeroptera taxa loss in Appalachian headwater streams (Kentucky, USA). Hydrobiologia 641: 184-201.

Pond, G.J., S.M. Call, J.F. Brumley, and M.C. Compton. 2003. The Kentucky macroinvertebrate bioassessment index: derivation of regional narrative ratings for assessing wadeable and headwater streams. Kentucky Department for Environmental Protection, Water Quality Branch, Ecological Support Section. Frankfort, Kentucky.

103

Rosemond, A.D., S.R. Reice, J.W. Elwood, and P.J. Mulholland. 1992. The effects of stream acidity on benthic invertebrate communities in the south-eastern United States. Freshwater Biology 27: 193-209.

Seaber, P.R., F.P. Kapinos, and G.L. Knapp. 1987. Hydrologic unit maps. United States Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2294. Shannon, C.E. 1948. A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technical Journal 27: 379- 423 and 623-656.

Simpson, K.W., R.W. Bode, and J.R. Colquhoun. 1985. The macroinvertebrate fauna of an acid- stressed headwater stream system in the Adirondack Mountains, New York. Freshwater Biology 15: 671- 681.

Stoddard, J.L., D.P. Larsen, C.P. Hawkins, R.K. Johnson, and R.H. Norris. 2006. Setting expectations for the ecological condition of streams: the concept of reference condition. Ecological Applications 16(4): 1267-1276.

Stribling, J.B., B.K. Jessup, J.S. White, D. Boward, and M. Hurd. 1998. Development of a benthic index of biotic integrity for Maryland streams. Chesapeake Bay and Watershed Programs, Monitoring, and Non-Tidal Assessment Division. CBW-MANTA – EA-98-3.

Sutcliffe, D.W. and A.G. Hildrew. 1989. Invertebrate communities in acid streams. In: Acid toxicity and aquatic animals. Society for Experimental Biology Seminar Series, Volume 34. Morris, R., E.W. Taylor, D.J.A. Brown, and J.A. Brown, eds. Cambridge University Press. pp. 13-30.

Unites States Code. Accessed June 24, 2011. http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1990. Freshwater macroinvertebrate species list including tolerance values and functional feeding group designations for use in rapid bioassessment protocols. Report Number 11075.05.

Van Sickle, J. 1998. A set of programs for mean similarity analysis. United States Environmental Protection Agency National Health and Environmental Effects Laboratory, Western Ecology Division. Corvallis, Oregon, USA.

Van Sickle, J. and R.M. Hughes. 2000. Classification strengths of ecoregions, catchments, and geographic clusters for aquatic vertebrates in Oregon. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 19: 370-384.

Vannote, R. L., G. W. Minshall, K. W. Cummins, J. R. Sedell, AND C. E. Cushing. 1980. The river continuum concept. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 37: 130-137.

Whittaker, R.H. 1962. Classification of natural communities. Botanical Review 28: 1-239.

Yoder, C.O. and E.T. Rankin. 1995. Biological criteria program development and implementation in Ohio. Chapter 9 in Biological assessment and criteria: tools for water resource planning and decision making, W.S. Davis and T.P. Simon, eds. (pp. 109 – 144). CRC Press, Boca Raton.

104

Appendix A: Field Sampling and Lab Methods not all sections of this appendix apply to the foregoing protocol

1. Habitat Assessments

The Department has adopted the habitat assessment methods outlined in USEPA’s Rapid Bioassessment Protocols (RBP; Plafkin, et al. 1989) and subsequently modified1. The matrix used to assess habitat quality is based on key physical characteristics of the water body and surrounding lands. All parameters evaluated represent potential limitations to the quality and quantity of instream habitat available to aquatic biota. These, in turn, affect community structure and composition.

The main purpose of the habitat assessment is to account for the limitations that are due to existing stream conditions. This is particularly important in cause/effect and cumulative impact studies where the benthic community at any given station may already be self- limited by background watershed and habitat conditions or impacts from current land uses. In order to minimize the effects of habitat variability, every effort is made to sample similar habitats at all stations. The habitat assessment process involves rating twelve1 parameters as excellent, good, fair, or poor, by assigning a numeric value (ranging from 20 - 01), based on the criteria included on the Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheets.

The twelve habitat assessment parameters used in the DEP-RBP evaluations for Riffle/Run prevalent (and Glide/Pool prevalent) streams are discussed below. The Glide/Pool parameters that differ from the Riffle/Run parameters are shown in italics. The first four parameters evaluate stream conditions in the immediate vicinity of the benthic macroinvertebrate sampling point:

• Instream Fish Cover - evaluates the percent makeup of the substrate (boulders, cobble, other rock material) and submerged objects (logs, undercut banks) that provide refuge for fish.

• Epifaunal Substrate - evaluates riffle quality, i.e. areal extent relative to stream width and dominant substrate materials that are present. (In the absence of well-defined riffles, this parameter evaluates whatever substrate is available for aquatic invertebrate colonization.)

• Embeddedness - estimates the percent (vertical depth) of the substrate interstitial spaces filled with fine sediments. (pool substrate characterization: evaluates the dominant type of substrate materials, i.e. gravel, mud, root mats, etc. that are more commonly found in glide/pool habitats.)

1. Plafkin et al. (1989) originally presented nine habitat assessment parameters divided into three different scoring ranges of 20-0, 15-0, and 10-0. Modifications to these original habitat methods were presented at several seminars following this 1989 publication. These modifications added one more habitat parameter to each of the three original categories; bringing the total parameters to 12. The scoring ranges eventually were increased to 20-0 for all 12. This Habitat Protocol has undergone several more iterations – resulting in yet more variations from the original and the Department’s current 12 criteria - 20 point scoring habitat assessment method.

A - 1

• Velocity/Depth Regime - evaluates the presence/absence of four velocity/depth regimes - fast-deep, fast-shallow, slow-deep, and slow-shallow. (Generally, shallow is <0.5m and slow is <0.3m/sec. Pool variability: describes the presence and dominance of several pool depth regimes.)

The next four parameters evaluate a larger area surrounding the sampled riffle. As a rule of thumb, this expanded area is the stream length defined by how far upstream and downstream the investigator can see from the sample point.

• Channel Alteration - primarily evaluates the extent of channelization or dredging but can include any other forms of channel disruptions that would be detrimental to the habitat.

• Sediment Deposition - estimates the extent of sediment effects in the formation of islands, point bars, and pool deposition.

• Riffle Frequency (pool/riffle or run/bend ratio) - estimates the frequency of riffle occurrence based on stream width. (Channel sinuosity: the degree of sinuosity to total length of the study segment.)

• Channel Flow Status - estimates the areal extent of exposed substrates due to water level or flow conditions.

The next four parameters evaluate an even greater area. This area is usually defined as the length of stream that was electro-shocked for fish (or an approximate 100 meter stream reach when no fish were sampled). It can also take into consideration upstream land-use activities in the watershed:

• Condition of Banks - evaluates the extent of bank failure or signs of erosion.

• Bank Vegetative Protection - estimates the extent of stream bank that is covered by plant growth providing stability through well-developed root systems.

• Grazing or Other Disruptive Pressures - evaluates disruptions to surrounding land vegetation due to common human activities, such as crop harvesting, lawn care, excavations, fill, construction projects, and other intrusive activities.

• Riparian Vegetative Zone Width - estimates the width of protective buffer strips or riparian zones. This is a rating of the buffer strip with the least width.

It is best to conduct the habitat assessment after sampling since the investigator has observed all conditions in the sampled segment and immediate surrounding watershed. After all parameters in the matrix are evaluated and scored, the scores are summed to derive a habitat score for that station. The “optimal” category scores range from 240-192; “sub-optimal” from 180-132; “marginal” from 120-72; and “poor” is 60 or less. The gaps between these categories are left to the discretion of the investigator’s best professional judgment.

A - 2

2. Benthic Macroinvertebrates

2.A. Net Mesh Considerations

In recent years, many state water quality programs, federal agencies (e.g. USEPA, USGS), and other water quality monitoring organizations began using net sampling devices with adopted for the Department’s D-frame sampler used in the DEP-RBP sampling method (described below). Future references to the D-frame sampler in the document assume 500- µ mesh netting. The net mesh size of other screen samplers has not changed and still is to be 800-900 µ. Because of this net mesh size change, the mesh size of the sampler used must be noted on field and bench identification sheets for the collected benthic sample.

2.B. Qualitative Methods

The type of sampling gear used is dependent on survey type and site-specific conditions. The recommended gear in wadeable streams are 3’ x 3’ flexible kick-screens and 12-inch diameter round D-frame nets. In larger streams or rivers, grab-type samplers may be used to obtain qualitative samples. While generally thought of as quantitative devices, Eckman, Peterson, or Petite Ponar grab samplers can also be used to obtain qualitative data. The type of gear, dimensions, and mesh size must be reported for all collections. When more than one gear type is used, the results must be recorded separately.

Physical variables should be matched as closely as possible between background and impact stations when selecting locations for placement of the sampling gear within each station. Matching these variables helps minimize or eliminate the effects of compounding variables.

Macrobenthos often exhibit clustered distributions, and if the sampling points are selected in close proximity to each other, a single clustered population may be obtained rather than a generalized measure of the overall population within the selected sub-habitat. Spacing the sampling points as far apart as possible within the sub-habitat can minimize the problem of clustered distributions.

2.B.1. Kick-screen. A common qualitative sampling method uses a simple hand-held kick- screen. This device is designed to be used by two persons. However, with experience, it may be used by one person and still provide adequate results. The kick-screen is constructed with a 3’ x 3’ piece of net material (800-900 µ mesh size) fastened to two dowel handles (approximately 1”d. X 4’ long).

2.B.1.a. Traditional Method. Facing up stream, one person places the net in the stream with the bottom edge of the net held firmly against the streambed. An assistant then vigorously kicks the substrate within a 3’ x 3’ area immediately upstream of the net to a depth of 3” - 4” (approximately 10 cm). The functional depth sampled may vary due to ease of disturbance as influenced by substrate embeddedness.

The amount of effort expended in collecting each sample should be approximately equivalent in order to make valid comparisons. The effort, expressed as area, must be reported for all collections.

A - 3

Collect a minimum of four screens at each site. Initial sampling should be conducted in riffle areas. Collection in additional habitats to generate a more complete taxa list can be conducted at the discretion of the investigator. Initial analysis of the data must be limited to the riffle data for standardization. A second analysis including other habitats may be conducted as needed.

Data observations shall be recorded on a standard field sheet created for each station sampled. Record the relative abundance of each recognizable Family in each individual collection in the field. Relative abundance categories, with the observed “total” ranges indicated in parenthesis include: rare (0-3), present (3-10), common (11-24), abundant (25- 99), and (occasionally) very abundant (100+). The investigator, at his/her discretion, may elect to enumerate certain target taxa.

Recording the results of each collection has several advantages that are lost if the data are composited for each station: a. A stressed or enriched community often exhibits little variability in community structure over an area while a healthy community should have a more complex structure. If varied taxa are found on each screen, the community is probably complex, while the presence of only a few dominant taxa on every screen indicates the community is a simple one. b. Collecting intolerant taxa in a majority of screens is a good indication of an unstressed community. However, collecting intolerant taxa in only one out of four screens may be an indication that the intolerant taxa have only a marginal existence at that location. A comparison of the composited taxa lists for each location may not indicate the rarity of the intolerant taxa, but this rarity would be readily apparent if the taxa lists for individual screens were compared. c. Separate screen taxa lists provide information concerning the distribution of taxa. For example, mayflies are taken in one of four screens at the background station and in none of the four screens at the impact station. All the other taxa collected at both the stations are tolerant forms. Based on a composited taxa list for each station, one might conclude that the impact station is depressed due to the absence of mayflies. However, the individual screen taxa lists would indicate that the mayflies may have a clumped distribution and there is a possibility that the collector simply missed the clumps at the impact station. This will be apparent to the biologist while in the field and he/she can continue collecting until comfortable that mayflies are indeed absent or less abundant at the impact station. Later, it can be reported, for example, that 4 of 10 screens contained mayflies at the background station while only 1 of 10 screens contained mayflies at the impact station. This is an instance when the collector, while still in the field, may choose to count the mayflies in each screen (especially if the background screens had many mayflies while the impact screens only had one or two). d. Separate screen data can lend weight to an analysis when classification techniques (ordination or clustering) are used. Results that cluster or score the individual background screens differently than the individual impact screens indicates a difference between the locations. When the classification technique scores background and impact screens in an apparent random manner, then it is likely that there is no impact or that the natural variability is large and masks any impacts.

A - 4

Individuals of representative taxa for a station may be composited in a single vial and preserved for later laboratory verification or identification. Generally, the level of taxonomic identification would follow that as listed in section 2.E.1.

Answers to several questions can be useful in subsequent analysis and can be stored with the taxa lists as remark fields. The answers to the following questions, which require collector judgment, can be recorded in the field on a coded form. What are the dominant and rare taxa? Are there any taxa that are found to be unusually abundant?

2.B.1.b Assessment Method. This method is used for assessments conducted as part of the Statewide Surface Waters Assessment Program and employs the same kick screen gear, physical disturbance techniques, and relative abundance determinations as the traditional method (2.B.1.a). The main difference is that only two kicks are usually required and macroinvertebrate identifications are done streamside to family level taxonomy with hand-held lens (10X) if necessary. Data are recorded on standard field forms. Refer to the Statewide Surface Waters Assessment Protocol for further details.

2.B.2. D-Frame. The handheld D-frame sampler consists of a bag net attached to a half- circle (“D” shaped) frame that is 1’ wide. The net’s design is that of an extended, round bottomed bag (500µ mesh size). The methodology is basically the same as with the kick- screen - except for the following points: one person, facing downstream and holding the net firmly on the stream bottom, employs the net. One “D-frame effort” is defined as such: the investigator vigorously kicks an approximate area of 1 m2 immediately upstream of the net to a depth of 10 cm (or approximately 4”, as the embeddedness of the substrate will allow) for approximately one minute. All benthic dislodgement and substrate scrubbing should be done by kicks only. Substrate handling should be limited to only moving large rocks or debris (as needed) with no hand washing. Since the width of the kick area is wider than the net opening, net placement is critical in order to assure all kicked material flows toward the net. Avoiding areas with crosscurrents, the substrate material from within the square meter area should be kicked toward the center of the area – above the net opening.

The concepts and field forms concerning field recording of invertebrate data discussed in the kick-screen method section (2.B.1a) also apply to the D-frame method.

2.C. Semi-Quantitative Method (DEP-RBP):

In Plafkin (1989), USEPA presented field-sampling methods designed to assess impacts normally associated with pollution impacts, cause/effect issues, and other water quality degradation problems in a relatively rapid manner. These are referred to as Rapid Bioassessment Protocols (RBPs). The DEP-RBP method is a bioassessment technique involving systematic field collection and subsequent lab analysis to allow detection of benthic community differences between reference (or control) waters and waters under evaluation. The DEP-RBP is a modification of the USEPA RBP III (Plafkin, et al; 1989); designed to be compatible with Pennsylvania's historical database. Modifications include: 1) the use of a D-frame net for the collection of the riffle/run samples, 2) different laboratory sorting procedures, 3) elimination of the CPOM (coarse particulate organic matter) sampling, and 4) metrics substitutions. Unlike the USEPA’s RBP III methodology, no field sorting is done. Only larger rocks, detritus, and other debris are rinsed and removed while in the field before the sample is preserved. While USEPA’s RBP III method was designed to

A - 5

compare impacted waters to reference conditions (cause/effect approach), the DEP-RBP modifications were designed for un-impacted waters, as well as impacted waters.

2.C.1. Sample Collection. The purpose of the standardized DEP-RBP collection procedure is to obtain representative macroinvertebrate fauna samples from comparable stations. The DEP-RBP assumes the riffle/run habitat to be the most productive habitat. Riffle/run habitats are sampled using the D-frame net method described above. The number of D-frame efforts is dependent on the type of survey conducted as described below:

2.C.1.a. Limestone Streams. For limestone stream surveys, two paired D-frame efforts are collected from each station - one from an area of fast current velocity and one from an area of slower current velocity within the same riffle.

2.C.1.b. Antidegradation Surveys. For Antidegradation surveys, it is necessary to characterize macroinvertebrate fauna communities from an area larger than a single riffle. Therefore, an Antidegradation survey station is defined as a stream reach of approximately 100 meters in length. At each station, six “D-frame efforts” are collected. Make an effort to spread the samples out over the entire reach. Choose the best riffle habitat areas and be certain to include areas of different depths (fast and slow) and substrate types that are typical of the riffle.

The resulting “D-frame efforts” (six for Anti-degradation, two for other survey types) are composited into one sample jar (or more as necessary). Care must be taken to minimize “wear and tear” on the collected organisms when compositing the materials. It is recommended that the benthic material be placed in a bucket and filled with water to facilitate gentle stirring and mixing. The sample is preserved in ethanol and returned to the lab for processing.

2.C.2. Sample Processing. Samples collected with a D-frame net are generally considered to be qualitative. However, the preserved samples can be processed in a manner which yields data that are “semi-quantitative” - data that were collected by qualitative methods but gives information that is almost statistically as strong as that collected by quantitative methods.

The following procedure is adapted from USEPA 1999 RBP methodology and used to process qualitative D-frame samples so that the resulting data can be analyzed using benthic macroinvertebrate biometric indices (or “metrics”). Equipment needed for the benthic sample processing are:

 2 large laboratory pans gridded into 28 squares* (more gridded pans may be necessary depending on the size of the sample);  an illuminated magnifying viewer;  slips of paper (numbered from 1 to 28) for drawing random numbers;  forceps (or any tools that can be used to pick floating benthic organisms); and  grid cutters made from tubular material that approximates an inside area of 4 in2*.

* USEPA’s (1989) gridding techniques suggest using “5 cm x 5 cm” (2” x 2”) grids. Existing equipment consisted of 14” x 8” x 2” pans which were conducive to dividing into 2” x 2” grids and thus, contained 28 squares. The 4-in2 grid cutters conform to these pan dimensions. While pan size is not critical, the number of grids (28) must be maintained if any basic density comparisons wish to be made between samples. Grid cutters (or similar sub-sampling devices) used with different sized pans should conform to the pans’ grid dimensions.

A - 6

The procedure described below begins with the premise that the collected samples have been properly composited according to the type of survey. For Antidegradation surveys, a station sample represents a composition of six D-frame efforts (collected from fast and slow riffle areas in a 100 meter reach). For Limestone surveys, a station sample is a composition of two D-frame efforts.

Following the steps listed below; process each composited D-frame sample to render a sub- sample size targeted for the specific survey type. The targeted sub-sample size for Antidegradation surveys is 200 benthic organisms and 300 for Limestone surveys (± 20% for each).

a. The composited sample is placed in a 28-square gridded pan (Pan1). It is recommended that the sample be rinsed in a standard USGS No. 35 sieve (or sieve bucket) to remove fine materials and residual preservative prior to sub-sampling.

b. The sample is gently stirred to disperse the contents evenly throughout Pan1 as thoroughly as possible. (In order to ease mixing and to minimize “wear-and-tear” on the more delicate organisms, water may be added to the pan to the depth of the sample material before stirring.)

c. Randomly select a grid using the 28 random number set and, using the grid cutters, remove the debris and organisms entirely from within the grid cutter (centered over the selected grid and “cut” into the debris) and place removed materials in a second gridded pan (Pan2).

i. Float and pick, count, and sub-total all identifiable organisms (excluding pupae, larval bodies missing too many critical structures to render confident IDs, extremely small instar larvae, empty shells or cases, and non-benthic taxa) from each cut grid placed in Pan2. Repeat until at least 4 grids have been subsampled from Pan1. If, after 4 Pan1 grids have been sorted, the sub-total is less than the targeted sub-sample (20 ± 20%), then continue to remove and sort grids one at a time until 200 organisms (± 20%) are obtained from Pan2. If the benthic organism yield from the 4 Pan1 grids exceeds the 200 ± 20% target (240+), then proceed to Step ii.

ii. With all of the 240+ identifiable organisms remaining in Pan2, randomly select one grid and “back count” (removing) all the organisms from that grid. Repeat one grid at a time until the bug count remaining in Pan2 satisfies the “200 ± 20%” rule.

d. If not identified immediately, the sub-sample should be preserved and properly labeled for future identification.

e. The benthic material remaining (Pan1) after the target sub-sample has been picked can be returned to its original sample jar and preserved. They shall be retained in accordance with QA retention times as specified for the respective survey type.

f. Any grid chosen must be picked in its entirety.

A - 7

g. Record the final grid counts selected for each gridding phase (Pan1, Pan2, and Pan2 “back counting” as necessary) on the lab bench ID sheet for the sample.

Processing larger, excessive amounts of D-frame sample debris

Hopefully, the collector will rarely have very large amounts of D-frame materials to process. The reduction of large materials by careful removal, inspection, and rinsing in a bucket or using a sieve prior to field preservation or at the lab is encouraged. However, if the amount of material composited in the field jars exceeds the functional sorting capacity of Pan1, then follow this guidance:

o Evenly distribute the material between as many pans as necessary. o From each pan (Pan1a, Pan1b, etc.), remove debris and organisms from 4 random grids and place in Pan2 as described in Step 2.C.2.c above. o Once the required 4 grids from each Pan1 have been placed in Pan2, evenly and gently redistribute the materials as in Step 2.C.2.b. o Then, resume processing, again as described in Step 2.C.2.c, selecting a grid from Pan2 and placing the materials into a gridded Pan3. o Process this material and repeat as described in Step 2.C.2.c.i until the targeted 200 ± 20% sub-sample is obtained from Pan3. o If, after processing 4 grids, the +20% upper limit (240+) is obtained, follow “back counting” method in Step 2.C.2.c.ii. o Once the targeted sub-sample is reached, continue with Step 2.C.2.d.

2.D. Identification

2.D.1. Taxonomic Level. The level of identification for most aquatic macroinvertebrates will be to genus. Presently, the identification of Chironomidae, or midges, is to the family level. Some individuals collected will be immature and not exhibit the characteristics necessary for confident identification. Therefore, the lowest level of taxonomy attainable will be sufficient. Certain groups, however, may be identified to a higher taxonomic level as follows:

Snails (Gastropoda) - Family Clams, mussels (Bivalvia) - Family Flatworms (Turbellaria) identifiable planariids - genus or Family Planariidae others – Class Turbellaria Segmented worms (Annelida) aquatic earthworms & tubificids - Class Oligochaeta leeches - Class Hirudinea Moss animacules - Phylum Bryozoa Proboscis worms – Phylum Nemertea Roundworms - Phylum Nematoda Water mites- “Hydracarina” (an artificial taxonomic grouping of several mite superfamilies)

A - 8

2.D.2. Verifications. For Quality Assurance purposes, certain laboratory invertebrate processing procedures should be checked routinely. Normally, a colleague may perform these spot checks. These include the floating/picking steps, taxonomic identifications, and total taxa list scans:

a. Sorting. After the floating and picking has been completed for samples that require this treatment (Pa-RBP, Surber-type, multi-plate, and grab samples), the residue should be briefly scanned before discarding to assure that the sample has been sufficiently “picked”. This should be done for 10% of the samples (or at least one sample) per survey.

b. Identification. For samples not involving litigation or enforcement issues, laboratory bench ID sheets for all samples should be reviewed. Any unusual taxa or taxa that are not typical to the type of stream or water quality condition that was surveyed, should be checked. For samples involving legal issues, representative specimens of each taxon may need to be verified by independent expert taxonomists.

A - 9

Appendix B: Cluster Maps

B - 1

B - 2

B - 3

B - 4

B - 5

B - 6

B - 7

B - 8

B - 9

B - 10

B - 11

Appendix C: Metrics and Index Calculation Examples

This appendix presents example metric calculations and proceeds step-by-step through the index development process using data from two samples: a sample from a 5th order site draining 84.5 square miles on Driftwood Branch Sinnemahoning Creek in Cameron County collected November 3, 2008; and a sample from a 1st order site draining 0.3 square miles in the headwaters of the West Branch Susquehanna River in Cambria County collected October 7, 2008. The taxa lists from the two sub-samples are below, followed by core metric and IBI calculations for each sample.

Driftwood Branch Sinnemahoning Creek West Branch Susquehanna River 5th order @ 84.5 square miles 1st order @ 0.3 square miles November 3, 2008 October 7, 2008 Number of Number of Taxa Name Taxa Name Individuals Individuals Isonychia 15 Baetis 5 Epeorus 10 Sweltsa 5 Leucrocuta 13 Sialis 1 Maccaffertium 18 Diplectrona 76 Ephemerella 3 Rhyacophila 10 Eurylophella 3 Oligochaeta 9 Serratella 8 Optioservus 1 Paraleptophlebia 5 Chelifera 2 Stylogomphus 1 Tipula 5 Taeniopteryx 13 Hexatoma 2 Taenionema 37 Limnophila 1 Allocapnia 1 Prosimulium 3 Neoperla 4 Simulium 15 Paragnetina 2 Chironomidae 68 Acroneuria 2 Cambarus 2 Nigronia 1 Chimarra 3 Polycentropus 2 Ceratopsyche 3 Cheumatopsyche 1 Rhyacophila 1 Glossosoma 2 Lepidostoma 2 Apatania 5 Neophylax 1 Oligochaeta 2 Psephenus 5 Optioservus 20 Atherix 2 Antocha 1 Chironomidae 6

C - 1 Number of Taxa Name Total Taxa Richness Individuals Driftwood Branch Sinnemahoning Creek 1 Isonychia 15 2 Epeorus 10 = total number of taxa in a sub-sample 3 Leucrocuta 13 4 Maccaffertium 18 5 Ephemerella 3 6 Eurylophella 3 There are 31 taxa in this sub-sample. 7 Serratella 8 8 Paraleptophlebia 5 9 Stylogomphus 1 Total Taxa Richness = 31 10 Taeniopteryx 13 11 Taenionema 37 12 Allocapnia 1 13 Neoperla 4 14 Paragnetina 2 15 Acroneuria 2 16 Nigronia 1 17 Chimarra 3 18 Polycentropus 2 19 Ceratopsyche 3 20 Cheumatopsyche 1 21 Rhyacophila 1 22 Glossosoma 2 23 Lepidostoma 2 24 Apatania 5 25 Neophylax 1 26 Oligochaeta 2 27 Psephenus 5 28 Optioservus 20 29 Atherix 2 30 Antocha 1 31 Chironomidae 6

C - 2 Number of Total Taxa Richness Taxa Name Individuals West Branch Susquehanna River 1 Baetis 5 2 Sweltsa 5 = total number of taxa in a sub-sample 3 Sialis 1 4 Diplectrona 76 5 Rhyacophila 10 6 Oligochaeta 9 There are 15 taxa in this sub-sample. 7 Optioservus 1 8 Chelifera 2 9 Tipula 5 Total Taxa Richness = 15 10 Hexatoma 2 11 Limnophila 1 12 Prosimulium 3 13 Simulium 15 14 Chironomidae 68 15 Cambarus 2

C - 3 Pollution Number of Taxa Name Tolerance EPT Taxa Richness (PTV 0-4) Individuals Driftwood Branch Sinnemahoning Creek Value Isonychia 15 3 Epeorus 10 0 = number of taxa belonging to the insect orders Leucrocuta 13 1 Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, or Trichoptera with pollution Maccaffertium 18 3 tolerance values < 4 in a sub-sample Ephemerella 3 1 Eurylophella 3 4 Serratella 8 2 Paraleptophlebia 5 1 There are 8 Ephemeroptera taxa (PTV < 4) in this sub-sample. Stylogomphus 1 4 Isoychia Epeorus Leucrocuta Taeniopteryx 13 2 Maccaffertium Ephemerella Eurylophella Taenionema 37 3 Serratella Paraleptophlebia Allocapnia 1 3 Neoperla 4 3 There are 6 Plecoptera taxa (PTV < 4) in this sub-sample. Paragnetina 2 1 Taeniopteryx Taenionema Allocapnia Acroneuria 2 0 Nigronia 1 2 Neoperla Paragnetina Acroneuria Chimarra 3 4 Polycentropus 2 6 There are 6 Trichoptera taxa (PTV < 4) in this sub-sample. Ceratopsyche 3 5 Chimarra Rhyacophila Glossosoma Cheumatopsyche 1 6 Lepidostoma Apatania Neophylax Rhyacophila 1 1 Glossosoma 2 0 Lepidostoma 2 1 Apatania 5 3 (PTV 0-4) EPT Taxa Richness = 8 + 6 + 6 Neophylax 1 3 EPT Taxa Richness (PTV 0-4) = 20 Oligochaeta 2 10 Psephenus 5 4 Optioservus 20 4 Atherix 2 2 Antocha 1 3 Chironomidae 6 6

C - 4 Pollution Number of EPT Taxa Richness (PTV 0-4) Taxa Name Tolerance Individuals West Branch Susquehanna River Value Baetis 5 6 = number of taxa belonging to the insect orders Sweltsa 5 0 Sialis 1 6 Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, or Trichoptera with pollution Diplectrona 76 0 tolerance values < 4 in a sub-sample Rhyacophila 10 1 Oligochaeta 9 10 Optioservus 1 4 There are 0 Ephemeroptera taxa (PTV < 4) in this sub-sample. Chelifera 2 6 Tipula 5 4 Hexatoma 2 2 There is 1 Plecoptera taxa (PTV < 4) in this sub-sample. Limnophila 1 3 Sweltsa Prosimulium 3 2 Simulium 15 6 There are 2 Trichoptera taxa (PTV < 4) in this sub-sample. Chironomidae 68 6 Diplectrona Rhyacophila Cambarus 2 6

EPT Taxa Richness (PTV 0-4) = 0 + 1 + 2 EPT Taxa Richness (PTV 0-4) = 3

C - 5 Pollution Number of Taxa Name Tolerance Beck’s Index (version 3) Individuals Driftwood Branch Sinnemahoning creek Value Isonychia 15 3 Epeorus 10 0 = 3(ntaxaHILS0) + 2(ntaxaHILS1) + 1(ntaxaHILS2) Leucrocuta 13 1 Maccaffertium 18 3 where n = the number of taxa in a sub-sample with a pollution taxaHILSi Ephemerella 3 1 tolerance value (PTV) of i Eurylophella 3 4 Serratella 8 2 Paraleptophlebia 5 1 There are 3 taxa in this sub-sample with PTV = 0. Stylogomphus 1 4 Epeorus Acroneuria Glossosoma Taeniopteryx 13 2 Taenionema 37 3 There are 6 taxa in this sub-sample with PTV = 1. Allocapnia 1 3 Leucrocuta Ephemerella Paraleptophlebia Neoperla 4 3 Paragnetina Rhyacophila Lepidostoma Paragnetina 2 1 Acroneuria 2 0 Nigronia 1 2 There are 4 taxa in this sub-sample with PTV = 2. Chimarra 3 4 Serratella Taeniopteryx Nigronia Polycentropus 2 6 Atherix Ceratopsyche 3 5 Cheumatopsyche 1 6 Rhyacophila 1 1 Beck’s Index (version 3) = 3(3) + 2(6) + 1(4) Glossosoma 2 0 Lepidostoma 2 1 Beck’s Index (version 3) = 9 + 12 + 4 Apatania 5 3 Beck’s Index (version 3) = 25 Neophylax 1 3 Oligochaeta 2 10 Psephenus 5 4 Optioservus 20 4 Atherix 2 2 Antocha 1 3 Chironomidae 6 6

C - 6 Pollution Number of Taxa Name Tolerance Beck’s Index (version 3) Individuals Value West Branch Susquehanna River Baetis 5 6 Sweltsa 5 0 = 3(ntaxaHILS0) + 2(ntaxaHILS1) + 1(ntaxaHILS2) Sialis 1 6 Diplectrona 76 0 where ntaxaHILSi = the number of taxa in a sub-sample with a pollution Rhyacophila 10 1 tolerance value (PTV) of i Oligochaeta 9 10 Optioservus 1 4 Chelifera 2 6 There are 2 taxa in this sub-sample with PTV = 0. Tipula 5 4 Sweltsa Diplectrona Hexatoma 2 2 Limnophila 1 3 There is 1 taxa in this sub-sample with PTV = 1. Prosimulium 3 2 Rhyacophila Simulium 15 6 Chironomidae 68 6 There are 2 taxa in this sub-sample with PTV = 2. Cambarus 2 6

Hexatoma Prosimulium

Beck’s Index (version 3) = 3(2) + 2(1) + 1(2) Beck’s Index (version 3) = 6 + 2 + 2 Beck’s Index (version 3) = 10

C - 7 Pollution Hilsenhoff Biotic Index Number of Taxa Name Tolerance Individuals Driftwood Branch Sinnemahoning Creek Value

10 Isonychia 15 3 Epeorus 10 0 =  [(i * nindvPTVi)] / N Leucrocuta 13 1 i = 0 Maccaffertium 18 3 where nindvPTVi = the number of individuals in a sub-sample with Ephemerella 3 1 pollution tolerance value (PTV) of i and N = the total number of Eurylophella 3 4 individuals in a sub-sample Serratella 8 2 Paraleptophlebia 5 1 There are 14 individuals with PTV = 0 Stylogomphus 1 4 There are 26 individuals with PTV = 1 Taeniopteryx 13 2 There are 24 individuals with PTV = 2 Taenionema 37 3 Allocapnia 1 3 There are 82 individuals with PTV = 3 Neoperla 4 3 There are 32 individuals with PTV = 4 Paragnetina 2 1 There are 3 individuals with PTV = 5 Acroneuria 2 0 There are 9 individuals with PTV = 6 Nigronia 1 2 There are 0 individuals with PTV = 7, 8, or 9 Chimarra 3 4 There are 2 individuals with PTV = 10. Polycentropus 2 6 Ceratopsyche 3 5 There are a total of 192 individuals in the sub-sample. Cheumatopsyche 1 6 Rhyacophila 1 1 Glossosoma 2 0 Hilsenhoff Biotic Index = Lepidostoma 2 1 [(0 * 14) + (1 * 26) + (2 * 24) + Apatania 5 3 (3 * 82) + (4 * 32) + (5 * 3) + Neophylax 1 3 Oligochaeta 2 10 (6 * 9) + (7 * 0) + (8 * 0) + Psephenus 5 4 (9 * 0) + (10 * 2)] / 192 Optioservus 20 4 Atherix 2 2 Antocha 1 3 Hilsenhoff Biotic Index = 2.80 Chironomidae 6 6

C - 8 Pollution Number of Taxa Name Tolerance Hilsenhoff Biotic Index Individuals West Branch Susquehanna River Value Baetis 5 6 10 Sweltsa 5 0 Sialis 1 6 =  [(i * nindvPTVi)] / N i = 0 Diplectrona 76 0 Rhyacophila 10 1 where nindvPTVi = the number of individuals in a sub-sample with Oligochaeta 9 10 pollution tolerance value (PTV) of i and N = the total number of Optioservus 1 4 individuals in a sub-sample Chelifera 2 6 Tipula 5 4 There are 81 individuals with PTV = 0 Hexatoma 2 2 There are 10 individuals with PTV = 1 Limnophila 1 3 There are 5 individuals with PTV = 2 Prosimulium 3 2 There is 1 individual with PTV = 3 Simulium 15 6 There are 6 individuals with PTV = 4 Chironomidae 68 6 here are 0 individuals with PTV = 5 Cambarus 2 6 T There are 93 individuals with PTV = 6 There are 0 individuals with PTV = 7, 8, or 9 There are 9 individuals with PTV = 10.

There are a total of 205 individuals in the sub-sample.

Hilsenhoff Biotic Index = [(0 * 81) + (1 * 10) + (2 * 5) + (3 * 1) + (4 * 6) + (5 * 0) + (6 * 93) + (7 * 0) + (8 * 0) + (9 * 0) + (10 * 9)] / 205

Hilsenhoff Biotic Index = 3.39

C - 9 Number of Shannon Diversity Taxa Name Individuals Driftwood Branch Sinnemahoning Creek Isonychia 15 Rich Epeorus 10 Leucrocuta 13 = [–  (ni / N) ln (ni / N)] i = 1 Maccaffertium 18 Ephemerella 3 where ni = the number of individuals in each taxon (relative Eurylophella 3 abundance); N = the total number of individuals in a sub-sample; Serratella 8 and Rich = the total number of taxa in a sub-sample (total taxa Paraleptophlebia 5 richness) Stylogomphus 1 Taeniopteryx 13 Taenionema 37 There are 31 taxa in this sub-sample. The numbers of Allocapnia 1 individuals in each taxon are listed in the table to the Neoperla 4 right. There are a total of 192 individuals in the sub- Paragnetina 2 sample. Starting at the top of the taxa list and working Acroneuria 2 Nigronia 1 down – row by row, taxon by taxon – this metric is Chimarra 3 calculated as, Polycentropus 2 Ceratopsyche 3 Cheumatopsyche 1 Shannon Diversity = Rhyacophila 1 Glossosoma 2 – (15 / 192) ln (15 / 192) + Lepidostoma 2 (10 / 192) ln (10 / 192) + Apatania 5 (13 / 192) ln (13 / 192) + Neophylax 1 (18 / 192) ln (18 / 192) + Oligochaeta 2 Psephenus 5 (3 / 192) ln (3 / 192) + Optioservus 20 (3 / 192) ln (3 / 192) + Atherix 2 (8 / 192) ln (8 / 192) + Antocha 1 Chironomidae 6 (do this for all 31 taxa) … … (6 / 192) ln (6 / 192)

Shannon Diversity = 2.88

C - 10 Number of Taxa Name Shannon Diversity Individuals West Branch Susquehanna River Baetis 5 Sweltsa 5 Rich Sialis 1 = [–  (ni / N) ln (ni / N)] Diplectrona 76 i = 1 Rhyacophila 10 where ni = the number of individuals in each taxon (relative Oligochaeta 9 abundance); N = the total number of individuals in a sub-sample; Optioservus 1 and Rich = the total number of taxa in a sub-sample (total taxa Chelifera 2 richness) Tipula 5 Hexatoma 2 Limnophila 1 There are 15 taxa in this sub-sample. The numbers of Prosimulium 3 individuals in each taxon are listed in the table to the Simulium 15 Chironomidae 68 right. There are a total of 205 individuals in the sub- Cambarus 2 sample. Starting at the top of the taxa list and working down – row by row, taxon by taxon – this metric is calculated as,

Shannon Diversity = – (5 / 205) ln (5 / 205) + (5 / 205) ln (5 / 205) + (1 / 205) ln (1 / 205) + (76 / 205) ln (76 / 205) + (10 / 205) ln (10 / 205) + (9 / 205) ln (9 / 205) + (1 / 205) ln (1 / 205) + … (do this for all 13 taxa) … (2 / 205) ln (2 / 205)

Shannon Diversity = 1.76

C - 11 Pollution Percent Sensitive Individuals (PTV 0-3 only) Number of Taxa Name Tolerance Individuals Driftwood Branch Sinnemahoning Creek Value

3 Isonychia 15 3 Epeorus 10 0 = (  nindvPTVi) / N * 100 Leucrocuta 13 1 i = 0 Maccaffertium 18 3 where nindvPTVi = the number of individuals in a sub-sample with pollution Ephemerella 3 1 tolerance value (PTV) of i and N = the total number of individuals in a sub- Eurylophella 3 4 sample Serratella 8 2 Paraleptophlebia 5 1 Stylogomphus 1 4 There are 14 individuals with PTV = 0 Taeniopteryx 13 2 There are 26 individuals with PTV = 1 Taenionema 37 3 Allocapnia 1 3 There are 24 individuals with PTV = 2 Neoperla 4 3 There are 82 individuals with PTV = 3 Paragnetina 2 1 Acroneuria 2 0 There are a total of 192 individuals in the sub-sample. Nigronia 1 2 Chimarra 3 4 Polycentropus 2 6 Percent Sensitive Individuals (PTV 0-3 only) = Ceratopsyche 3 5 Cheumatopsyche 1 6 (14 + 26 + 24 + 82) / 192 *100 Rhyacophila 1 1 Glossosoma 2 0 Percent Sensitive Individuals (PTV 0-3 only) = Lepidostoma 2 1 Apatania 5 3 146 / 192 * 100 Neophylax 1 3 Oligochaeta 2 10 Percent Sensitive Individuals (PTV 0-3 only) = 76.0% Psephenus 5 4 Optioservus 20 4 Atherix 2 2 Antocha 1 3 Chironomidae 6 6

C - 12 Pollution Number of Percent Sensitive Individuals (PTV 0-3 only) Taxa Name Tolerance Individuals West Branch Susquehanna River Value Baetis 5 6 3 Sweltsa 5 0 = (  nindvPTVi) / N * 100 Sialis 1 6 i = 0 Diplectrona 76 0 Rhyacophila 10 1 where n = the number of individuals in a sub-sample with pollution indvPTVi Oligochaeta 9 10 tolerance value (PTV) of i and N = the total number of individuals in a sub- sample Optioservus 1 4 Chelifera 2 6 Tipula 5 4 Hexatoma 2 2 There are 81 individuals with PTV = 0 Limnophila 1 3 There are 10 individuals with PTV = 1 Prosimulium 3 2 There are 5 individuals with PTV = 2 Simulium 15 6 There is 1 individual with PTV = 3 Chironomidae 68 6 Cambarus 2 6 There are a total of 205 individuals in the sub-sample.

Percent Sensitive Individuals (PTV 0-3 only) = (81 + 10 + 5 + 1) / 205 *100

Percent Sensitive Individuals (PTV 0-3 only) = 97 / 205 * 100

Percent Sensitive Individuals (PTV 0-3 only) = 47.3%

C - 13

Metric Standardization and Index Scoring

Table D1 lists the small-stream and large-stream standardization values for each core metric.

Table D1. Values used to standardize core metrics Metric Standardization Values Metric Smaller streams Larger streams (1st to 3rd order, < 25 square miles) (5th order and larger, > 50 square miles) Total Taxa Richness 33 31 EPT Taxa Richness 19 16 (PTV 0-4 only) Beck's Index 38 22 (version 3) Hilsenhoff Biotic Index 1.89 3.05 Shannon Diversity 2.86 2.86 % Sensitive Individuals 84.5 66.7 (PTV 0-3 only)

The Hilsenhoff Biotic Index metric values are expected to increase in value with increasing anthropogenic stress and are standardized using the following equation:

Hilsenhoff Biotic Index standardized score = (10 – observed value) / (10 – standardization value) * 100

The other five core metrics values are expected to decrease in value with increasing anthropogenic stress and are standardized using the following equation:

Standardized metric score = observed value / standardization value * 100

C - 14

Table D2 and Table D3 show the standardization and index scoring calculations for the two samples discussed above.

Table D2. Standardization and index calculations for the Driftwood Branch Sinnemahoning Creek sample. The large-stream standardization values are used here because the sample is from a 5th order site draining 84.5 square miles of land. Observed Adjusted Standardized Metric Standardization Equation Metric Standardized Metric Score Value Metric Score Maximum = 100 Total Taxa Richness observed value / 31 * 100 31 100.0 100 EPT Taxa Richness observed value / 16 * 100 20 125.0 100 (PTV 0-4 only) Beck’s Index (version 3) observed value / 22 * 100 25 113.6 100 Hilsenhoff Biotic Index (10 – observed value) / (10 – 3.05) * 100 2.80 103.6 100 Shannon Diversity observed value / 2.86 * 100 2.88 100.7 100 Percent Sensitive Individuals observed value / 66.7 * 100 76.0 113.9 100 (PTV 0-3 only) Arithmetic average of adjusted standardized core metric scores = IBI Score = 100.0

Table D3. Standardization and index calculations for the West Branch Susquehanna River sample. The small-stream standardization values are used here because the sample is from a 1st order site draining 0.3 square miles of land. Observed Adjusted Standardized Metric Standardization Equation Metric Standardized Metric Score Value Metric Score Maximum = 100 Total Taxa Richness observed value / 33 * 100 15 45.5 45.5 EPT Taxa Richness observed value / 19 * 100 3 15.8 15.8 (PTV 0-4 only) Beck’s Index (version 3) observed value / 38 * 100 10 26.3 26.3 Hilsenhoff Biotic Index (10 – observed value) / (10 – 1.89) * 100 3.39 81.5 81.5 Shannon Diversity observed value / 2.86 * 100 1.76 61.5 61.5 Percent Sensitive Individuals observed value / 84.5 * 100 47.3 56.0 56.0 (PTV 0-3 only) Arithmetic average of adjusted standardized core metric scores = IBI Score = 47.8

C - 15

Appendix D: Table of Taxa

The following table lists the pollution tolerance value (PTV), BCG attributes, and functional feeding group (FFG) assignment used by PADEP for each benthic macroinvertebrate taxon. The FFG abbreviations stand for collector-gatherer (CG), filter-collector (FC), piercer (PI), predator (PR), scraper (SC), shredder (SH), and unknown (UK). Note that some taxa were assigned different BCG attributes for smaller streams and for larger streams.

BCG Heptagenia 4 2 3 SC

attribute

Leucrocuta 1 3 3 SC

Taxa - Nixe 2 1 1 SC PTV

FFG Rhithrogena 0 2 2 CG

large

small stream stream Stenacron 4 4 4 SC Insecta Stenonema(old genus) 3 3 3 SC Stenonema 4 4 4 SC Collembola 9 CG Maccaffertium 3 3 3 SC Onychiuridae 9 CG Cinygmula 1 1 1 CG Onychiurus 9 CG Arthropleidae 3 SC Poduridae 9 CG Arthroplea 3 SC Podura 9 CG Ephemerellidae 2 CG Ephemeroptera Attenella 2 2 2 SC Ameletidae 0 CG Drunella 1 2 2 SC Ameletus 0 2 2 CG Ephemerella 1 3 2 CG Siphlonurus 7 CG Eurylophella 4 3 2 SC Metrotopus 2 CG Serratella 2 3 3 CG Siphloplecton 2 2 2 CG Dannella 3 3 3 CG Baetidae 6 3 3 CG Neoephemeridae 3 CG Acentrella 4 3 3 SC Neoephemera 3 CG Acerpenna 6 3 3 CG Caenidae 7 CG Baetis 6 4 5 CG Brachycercus 3 CG Barbaetis 6 CG Caenis 7 5 5 CG Callibaetis 9 4 4 CG Baetiscidae 3 CG Centroptilum 2 3 3 CG Baetisca 4 2 2 CG Cloeon 4 3 3 CG Leptophlebiidae 4 2 2 CG Diphetor 6 2 2 CG Choroterpes 2 2 2 CG Fallceon 6 CG Habrophlebia 4 3 3 CG Procloeon 6 4 4 CG Habrophlebiodes 6 2 2 SC Heterocloeon 2 3 3 SC Leptophlebia 4 3 3 CG Plauditus 4 CG Paraleptophlebia 1 2 2 CG Pseudocloeon 4 3 3 CG Anthopotamus 4 3 3 CG Isonychiidae 3 CG Ephemeridae 4 CG Isonychia 3 3 3 CG Ephemera 2 3 2 CG Heptageniidae 3 SC Hexagenia 6 4 4 CG Epeorus 0 2 2 SC Litobrancha 6 1 1 CG

D - 1

Pentagenia 4 CG Erythrodiplax 5 PR Polymitarcyidae 2 CG Ladona 6 PR Ephoron 2 3 3 CG Leucorrhinia 6 PR Tricorythidae 4 CG Libellula 8 PR Tricorythodes 4 5 5 CG Nannothemis 6 PR Leptohyphes 4 CG Pachydiplax 8 PR Odonata PR Pantala 7 PR Petaluridae 5 PR Perithemis 4 PR Tachopteryx 5 PR Plathemis 3 PR Gomphidae 4 3 3 PR Sympetrum 4 PR Aphylla 4 PR Tramea 4 PR Arigomphus 4 4 4 PR Calopterygidae 5 4 4 PR Dromogomphus 4 4 4 PR Calopteryx 6 4 4 PR Gomphus 5 4 4 PR Hetaerina 6 4 4 PR Hagenius 3 3 3 PR Lestes 9 PR Lanthus 5 2 2 PR Coenagrionidae 8 4 4 PR Ophiogomphus 1 3 3 PR Amphiagrion 5 PR Progomphus 5 3 3 PR Argia 6 4 4 PR Stylogomphus 4 4 4 PR Chromagrion 4 PR Stylurus 4 4 4 PR Enallagma 8 4 4 PR Aeshnidae 3 PR Ischnura 9 4 4 PR Aeshna 5 4 4 PR Nehalennia 7 PR Anax 5 4 4 PR Plecoptera PR Basiaeschna 2 4 4 PR Pteronarcyidae 0 SH Boyeria 2 3 3 PR Pteronarcys 0 1 2 SH Epiaeschna 2 PR Peltoperlidae 2 2 2 SH Gomphaeschna 2 4 4 PR Peltoperla 2 1 1 SH Nasiaeschna 2 PR Tallaperla 0 1 1 SH Cordulegastridae 3 PR Viehoperla 2 SH Cordulegaster 3 3 3 PR Taeniopterygidae 2 3 3 SH Corduliidae 5 PR Taeniopteryx 2 3 3 SH Didymops 4 4 4 PR Bolotoperla 2 SH Cordulia 4 PR Oemopteryx 3 2 2 SH Dorocordulia 4 PR Strophopteryx 3 3 3 SH Epitheca 4 PR Taenionema 3 1 1 SH Helocordulia 2 PR Nemouridae 2 3 3 SH Somatochlora 1 2 2 PR Amphinemura 3 3 3 SH Williamsonia 4 PR Ostrocerca 2 1 1 SH Macromia 2 4 4 PR Paranemoura 2 SH Neurocordulia 3 PR Podmosta 2 SH Libellulidae 9 PR Prostoia 2 3 3 SH Celithemis 2 PR Shipsa 2 1 1 SH Erythemis 5 PR Soyedina 0 1 1 SH

D - 2

Zapada 2 SH Suwallia 0 1 1 CG Nemoura 1 1 1 SH Sweltsa 0 3 3 PR Leuctridae 0 3 3 SH Hemiptera Megaleuctra 0 SH Hydrometridae 9 PR Leuctra 0 2 2 SH Veliidae 8 PR Paraleuctra 0 1 1 SH Microvelia 9 PR Zealeuctra 0 SH Rhagovelia 9 PR Capniidae 3 3 3 SH Steinovelia 9 PR Allocapnia 3 3 3 SH Ceratocombidae 9 PR Capnia 1 SH Ceratocombus 9 PR Nemocapnia 1 SH Gerridae 9 PR Paracapnia 1 2 2 SH Aquarius 9 PR Utacapnia 1 SH Gerris 9 PR Capnura 1 SH Halobates 9 PR Perlidae 3 3 3 PR Rheumatobates 9 PR Agnetina 2 3 3 PR Metrobates 9 PR Hansonoperla 3 PR Trepobates 9 PR Neoperla 3 2 2 PR Limnoporus 9 PR Paragnetina 1 2 2 PR Belostomatidae 9 PR Acroneuria 0 3 3 PR Belostoma 9 PR Attaneuria 3 2 2 PR Lethocerus 9 PR Eccoptura 2 2 2 PR Nepidae 8 PR Perlesta 4 3 3 PR Nepa 8 PR Perlinella 2 2 2 PR Ranatra 8 PR Perlodidae 2 2 2 PR Pleidae 8 PR Cultus 2 1 1 PR Neoplea 8 PR Diploperla 2 2 2 PR Naucoridae 8 PR Diura 2 PR Pelocoris 8 PR Helopicus 2 3 3 PR Corixidae 8 5 5 PR Hydroperla 1 PR Hesperocorixa 5 5 5 PR Isogenoides 0 1 1 PR Palmacorixa 8 4 4 PR Malirekus 2 1 1 PR Ramphocorixa 8 4 4 PR Oconoperla 2 PR Sigara 8 4 4 PR Remenus 2 1 1 PR Trichocorixa 8 5 5 PR Yugus 2 1 1 PR Notonectidae 8 PR Clioperla 2 PR Buenoa 8 PR Isoperla 2 2 2 PR Notonecta 8 PR Arcynopteryx 2 PR Mesoveliidae 9 PR Chloroperlidae 0 2 2 PR Mesovelia 9 PR Utaperla 0 PR Hebridae 8 PR Alloperla 0 1 1 CG Hebrus 8 PR Haploperla 0 3 3 PR Merragata 8 PR Rasvena 0 1 1 PR Saldidae 8 PR

D - 3

Micracanthia 8 PR Macrostemum 3 4 4 FC Pentacora 8 PR Rhyacophilidae 1 SC Salda 8 PR Rhyacophila 1 2 2 PR Saldula 8 PR Glossosomatidae 0 3 3 SC Gelastocoridae 8 PR Glossosoma 0 3 3 SC Gelastocoris 8 PR Agapetus 0 3 3 SC Ochteridae 8 PR Culoptila 1 3 3 SC Ochterus 8 PR Protoptila 1 2 2 SC Megaloptera 8 PR Hydroptilidae 4 PI Sialis 6 5 5 PR Palaeagapetus 1 1 1 SH Corydalidae 3 PR Agraylea 8 4 4 CG Corydalus 4 4 4 PR Dibusa 4 SC Chauliodes 4 4 4 PR Hydroptila 6 5 5 SC Neohermes 2 PR Ochrotrichia 4 SC Nigronia 2 3 3 PR Oxyethira 3 2 2 CG Neuroptera 3 PR Stactobiella 2 SC Sisyridae 1 PI Leucotrichia 6 4 4 SC Climacia 1 PI Ithytrichia 6 SC Sisyra 1 PI Orthotrichia 6 SH Trichoptera Neotrichia 2 SC Mayatrichia 4 SC Philopotamidae 3 FC Chimarra 4 4 4 FC Phryganeidae 4 SH Dolophilodes 0 2 2 FC Agrypnia 7 SH Wormaldia 0 1 1 FC Banksiola 2 SH Fabria 4 SH Psychomyiidae 2 3 3 CG Hagenella 5 SH Lype 2 2 2 CG Oligostomis 5 SH Psychomyia 2 3 3 CG Phryganea 8 SH Polycentropodidae 6 FC Ptilostomis 5 2 2 SH Cernotina 6 PR Brachycentridae 1 2 2 FC Cyrnellus 8 5 5 FC Adicrophleps 2 1 1 SH Neureclipsis 7 3 3 FC Brachycentrus 1 3 3 FC Polycentropus 6 4 4 FC Micrasema 2 3 3 SH Phylocentropus 5 4 4 FC Nyctiophylax 5 4 4 PR Lepidostomatidae 1 2 2 SH Lepidostoma 1 2 2 SH Hydropsychidae 5 FC Arctopsyche 1 FC Limnephilidae 4 3 3 SH Parapsyche 0 1 1 FC Ironoquia 3 SH Diplectrona 0 2 2 FC Onocosmoecus 3 SH Homoplectra 5 FC Apatania 3 2 2 SC Ceratopsyche 5 4 4 FC Pseudostenophylax 0 3 3 SH Cheumatopsyche 6 5 5 FC Anabolia 5 SH Hydropsyche 5 5 5 FC Arctopora 5 SH Potamyia 5 3 3 FC Clostoeca 5 SH

D - 4

Frenesia 4 SH Petrophila 5 5 5 SC Hesperophylax 4 3 3 CG Acentria 5 SH Hydatophylax 2 2 2 SH Schoenobius 5 SH Leptophylax 2 SH Chilo 5 SH Limnephilus 3 3 3 SH Acigona 5 SH Philarctus 3 SH Ostrinia 5 SH Platycentropus 4 3 3 SH Nepticulidae 5 SH Pycnopsyche 4 3 3 SH Stigmella 5 SH Goera 0 1 1 SC Cosmopterigidae 5 SH Madeophylax 4 SH Cosmopteryx 5 SH Glyphopsyche 3 SH Lymnaecia 5 SH Uenoidae 3 SC Noctuidae 5 SH Neophylax 3 3 3 SC Archanara 5 SH Beraeidae 3 SC Bellura 5 SH Beraea 3 SC Simyra 5 SH Sericostomatidae 3 SH Tortricidae 5 SH Agarodes 3 2 2 SH Archips 5 SH Psilotreta 0 1 1 SC Coleophoridae 6 SH Molannidae 6 SC Colephora 6 SH Molanna 6 2 2 SC Coleoptera Helicopsychidae 3 SC Gyrinidae 4 4 4 PR Helicopsyche 3 3 3 SC Dineutus 4 4 4 PR Calamoceratidae 5 SH Gyrinus 4 4 4 PR Heteroplectron 5 1 1 SH Spanglerogyrus 4 PR Leptoceridae 4 PR Haliplidae 5 SH Ceraclea 3 3 3 CG Haliplus 5 SH Leptocerus 3 SH Peltodytes 5 SH Mystacides 4 3 3 CG Dytiscidae 5 4 4 PR Nectopsyche 3 3 3 SH Acilius 5 4 4 PR Oecetis 8 3 3 PR Agabetes 5 4 4 PR Setodes 2 2 2 CG Agabus 5 4 4 PR Triaenodes 6 3 3 SH Bidessonotus 5 PR Odontoceridae 0 1 1 SH Brachyvatus 5 PR Lepidoptera 5 SH Celina 5 PR Pyralidae 5 SH Copelatus 5 4 4 PR Langessa 5 SH Colymbetes 5 PR Munroessa 5 SH Coptotomus 5 PR Neocataclysta 5 SH Cybister 5 4 4 PR Nymphula 7 SH Desmopachria 5 PR Nymphuliella 5 SH Dytiscus 5 PR Parapoynx 5 SH Graphoderus 5 PR Synclita 5 FC Hydaticus 5 PR Eoparargyractis 5 SH Hydrovatus 5 4 4 PR

D - 5

Hygrotus 5 PR Psephidonus 5 PR Ilybius 5 4 4 PR Thinobius 5 PR Laccophilus 5 4 4 PR Stenus 5 PR Laccornis 5 PR Hydraenidae 6 CG Liodessus 5 PR Hydraena 6 CG Lioporius 5 PR Limnebius 6 CG Matus 5 PR Ochthebius 6 CG Nebrioporus 5 PR Psephenidae 4 SC Oreodytes 5 PR Eubrianax 4 SC Rhantus 5 PR Psephenus 4 4 4 SC Stictotarsus 5 PR Dicranopselaphus 4 SC Uvarus 5 4 4 PR Ectopria 5 3 3 SC Hydroporus 5 4 4 PR Dryopidae 5 SC Noteridae 5 PR Dryops 5 SC Hydrocanthus 5 PR Helichus 5 4 4 SC Pronoterus 5 PR Scirtidae 8 SC Suphis 5 PR Cyphon 8 SC Suphisellus 5 PR Elodes 8 SC Helophoridae 5 SH Flavohelodes 8 SC Helophorus 5 SH Scirtes 8 SC Hydrochidae 5 SH Elmidae 5 CG Hydrochus 5 SH Ancyronyx 2 4 4 CG Hydrophilidae 5 PR Dubiraphia 6 4 4 SC Anacaena 5 PR Gonielmis 5 SC Berosus 5 5 5 PR Macronychus 2 4 4 SC Chaetarthria 5 PR Microcylloepus 2 4 4 SC Crenitis 5 PR Optioservus 4 4 4 SC Cymbiodyta 5 PR Ordobrevia 5 SC Derallus 5 PR Oulimnius 5 3 2 SC Dibolocelus 5 PR Promoresia 2 3 2 SC Enochrus 5 PR Stenelmis 5 5 5 SC Helochares 5 PR Anchytarsus 5 3 2 SH Helocombus 5 PR Lutrochidae 6 UK Hydrobius 5 PR Lutrochus 6 UK Hydrochara 5 PR Chrysomelidae 5 SH Hydrophilus 5 PR Disonycha 5 SH Laccobius 5 PR Donacia 5 SH Paracymus 5 PR Hydrothassa 5 SH Sperchopsis 5 PR Neohaemonia 5 SH Tropisternus 5 PR Prasocuris 5 SH Staphylinidae 5 PR Pyrrhalta 5 SH Bledius 5 PR Curculionidae 6 SH Carpelimus 5 PR Auleutes 6 SH

D - 6

Bagous 6 SH Caraphractus 5 UK Brachybamus 6 SH Trichogrammatida 5 UK Euhrychiopsis 6 SH Hydrophylita 5 UK Lissorhoptrus 6 SH Lathromeroidea 5 UK Listronotus 6 SH Paracentrobia 5 UK Lixellus 6 SH Trichogramma 5 UK Lixus 6 SH Eulophidae 5 UK Notiodes 6 SH Aprostocetus 5 UK Onychylis 6 SH Mestocharis 5 UK Perenthis 6 SH Tetrastichus 5 UK Pelenomus 6 SH Pteromalidae 5 UK Phytobius 6 SH Gyrinophagus 5 UK Stenopelmus 6 SH Sisridivora 5 UK Steremnius 6 SH Eucoilidae 5 UK Tanysphyrus 6 SH Hexacola 5 UK Histeridae 5 SH Diptera Pompilidae 5 UK Blephariceridae 0 SC Anoplius 5 UK Blepharicera 0 1 1 SC Scelionidae 5 UK Ceratopogonidae 6 4 4 PR Pseudanteris 5 UK Dasyhelea 6 4 4 CG Telenomus 5 UK Atrichopogon 2 4 4 PR Thoron 5 UK Forcipomyia 6 4 4 SC Tiphodytes 5 UK Alluaudomyia 6 4 4 PR Diapriidae 5 UK Bezzia 6 4 4 PR Trichopria 5 UK Brachypogon 6 PR Ichneumonidae 5 UK Ceratopogon 6 4 4 PR Apsilops 5 UK Clinohelea 6 PR Cremastus 5 UK Culicoides 10 4 4 PR Medophron 5 UK Johannsenomyia 6 PR Mesoleptus 5 UK Mallochohelea 6 4 4 PR Phygadeuon 5 UK Monohelea 6 PR Braconidae 5 UK Nilobezzia 6 PR Ademon 5 UK Palpomyia 6 4 4 PR Aphanta 5 UK Probezzia 6 4 4 PR Asobara 5 UK Serromyia 6 PR Bracon 5 UK Sphaeromias 6 PR Chaenusa 5 UK Stilobezzia 6 4 4 PR Chorebidella 5 UK Leptoconops 6 PR Chorebus 5 UK Chaoboridae 8 PR Dacnusa 5 UK Chaoborus 8 PR Opius 5 UK Mochlonyx 8 PR Phaenocarpa 5 UK Dixidae 1 2 2 CG Mymaridae 5 UK Dixa 1 2 2 CG

D - 7

Dixella 1 CG Proclinopyga 6 PR Nymphomyiidae 6 SC Rhamphomyia 6 PR Palaeodipteron 6 SC Roederiodes 6 PR Psychodidae 10 5 5 CG Stilpon 6 PR Pericoma 4 5 5 CG Trichoclinocera 6 PR Philosepedon 10 CG Oreogeton 6 PR Psychoda 10 5 5 CG Stratiomyidae 8 6 6 CG Telmatoscopus 10 5 5 CG Caloparyphus 8 CG Threticus 10 CG Euparyphus 8 CG Ptychopteridae 8 CG Hedriodiscus 8 SC Bittacomorpha 8 CG Labostigmina 8 CG Bittacomorphella 8 CG Nemotelus 8 CG Ptychoptera 8 CG Odontomyia 8 CG Protoplasa 6 CG Oxycera 8 SC Thaumalea 6 SC Sargus 8 CG Trichothaumalea 6 SC Stratiomys 5 CG Athericidae 2 PR Tabanidae 6 5 5 PI Atherix 2 3 3 PR Atylotus 6 PI Pelecorhynchidae 5 PR Chrysops 7 5 5 PI Glutops 5 PR Haematopota 6 PR Dolichopodidae 4 PR Hybomitra 6 PR Argyra 4 PR Merycomyia 6 PR Asyndetus 4 PR Tabanus 5 5 5 PR Campsicnemus 4 CG Diachlorus 6 PR Dolichopus 4 PR Ephydridae 6 5 5 PI Hercostomus 4 PR Leptopsilopa 6 CG Hydrophorus 4 PR Psilopa 6 CG Hypocharassus 4 PR Rhysophora 6 SH Liancalus 4 PR Muscidae 6 PR Pelastoneurus 4 PR Caricea 6 PR Sympycnus 4 PR Limnophora 6 PR Tachytrechus 4 PR Lispe 6 PR Telmaturgus 4 PR Lispoides 6 PR Thinophilus 4 PR Phaonia 6 PR Empididae 6 4 4 PR Spilogona 6 PR Chelifera 6 4 4 PR Phoridae 6 CG Chelipoda 6 PR Dohrniphora 6 CG Clinocera 6 4 4 PR Megaselia 6 CG Dolichocephala 5 PR Scathophagidae 6 SH Hemerodromia 6 4 4 PR Acanthocnema 6 SH Metachela 6 PR Cordilura 6 SH Neoplasta 6 PR Hydromyza 6 SH Oreothalia 6 PR Orthacheta 6 PR

D - 8

Spaziphora 6 SC Aedes 8 FC Syrphidae 10 CG Anopheles 8 FC Blera 10 CG Culex 8 FC Callicera 10 CG Culiseta 8 FC Ceriana 10 CG Mansonia 8 FC Chalcosyrphus 10 CG Orthopodomyia 8 FC Chrysogaster 10 CG Psorophora 8 PR Eristalinus 10 CG Toxorhynchites PR Helophilus 10 CG Uranotaenia 8 FC Mallota 10 CG Wyeomyia 8 FC Myolepta 10 CG Simuliidae 6 FC Neoascia 10 CG Cnephia 4 3 3 FC Sericomyia 10 CG Ectemnia 1 FC Spilomyia 10 CG Greniera 6 FC Tipulidae 4 4 4 SH Prosimulium 2 3 3 FC Brachypremna 4 SH Simulium 6 5 5 FC Leptotarsus 4 SH Stegopterna 6 FC Prionocera 4 SH Twinnia 6 FC Tipula 4 5 5 SH Chironomidae 6 5 5 CG Phalacrocera 4 SH Sciomyzidae 10 PR Triogma 4 SH Spongillidae 4 FC Antocha 3 4 4 CG Hydridae 4 PR Arctoconopa 4 SH Cavidae 4 PR Cryptolabis 4 3 3 CG Petasidae 4 PR Dactylolabis 4 SH Turbellaria 9 5 5 PR Dicranota 3 3 3 PR Elliptera 4 SH Nemertea 6 4 4 PR Gonomyia 4 SH Nematoda 9 CG Helius 4 SH Gastropoda Hexatoma 2 3 3 PR Valvatidae 2 4 4 SC Limnophila 3 4 4 PR Limonia 6 4 4 SH Viviparidae 7 4 4 CG Molophilus 4 3 3 SH Ampullaridae 7 SC Ormosia 6 3 3 CG Bithyniidae 7 SC Paradelphomyia 4 SH Micromelaniidae 7 SC Pedicia 6 3 3 PR Hydrobiidae 8 4 4 SC Pilaria 7 4 4 PR Pomatiopsidae 8 SC Pseudolimnophila 2 4 4 PR Pleuroceridae 7 4 4 SC Rhabdomastix 4 SH Lymnaeidae 7 5 5 SC Ulomorpha 4 PR Physidae 8 5 5 SC Erioptera 7 4 4 CG Planorbidae 6 5 5 SC Lipsothrix 4 4 4 SH Ancylidae 7 4 4 SC Culicidae 8 FC Margaritiferidae 5 FC

D - 9

Unionidae 4 FC Pontoporeiidae 5 CG Sphaeriidae 8 FC Hyalella 8 4 4 CG Corbiculidae 4 5 5 FC Decapoda 4 4 UK Dreissenidae 5 FC Cambaridae 6 4 4 CG Hirudinea 8 5 5 PR Cambarus 6 4 4 CG Oligochaeta 10 5 5 CG Fallicambarus 6 CG Tubificidae 10 5 5 CG Orconectes 6 4 4 CG Procambarus 6 SH Branchiobdellida 6 4 4 CG Isopoda 8 5 5 CG Polychaeta 10 FC Asellidae 8 5 5 CG Amphipoda 6 4 4 CG Caecidotea 6 5 5 CG Crangonyctidae 4 CG Lirceus 8 6 6 CG Crangonyx 4 4 4 CG Ostracoda 8 CG Stygonectes 4 CG Cladocera 5 FC Gammaridae 4 CG Gammarus 4 4 4 CG Bryozoa 4 FC Haustoriidae 5 CG Hydracarina 7 4 4 PR Monoporeia 5 CG Nematomorpha 9 CG

D - 10 AAttachment 3

Prepared in cooperation with the Pennsylvania Department of Military and Veterans Affairs

Surface-Water Quantity and Quality, Aquatic Biology, Stream Geomorphology, and Groundwater-Flow Simulation for National Guard Training Center at Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania, 2002–05

Scientific Investigations Series 2010–5155

U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey 1 2

4 5

Cover.

Activities at Fort Indiantown Gap, where military training and environmental stewardship coexist. Photographs 1 and 2 by M.J. Langland, U.S. Geological Survey. Photographs 3, 4, and 5 by J. Hovis, Pennsylvania Department of Military and Veterans Affairs.

Back cover:

View of the Fort Indiantown Gap Training Center overlooking the training corridor. Photograph by J. Hovis, Pennsylvania Department of Military and Veterans Affairs. Surface-Water Quantity and Quality, Aquatic Biology, Stream Geomorphology, and Groundwater-Flow Simulation for National Guard Training Center at Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania, 2002–05

By Michael J. Langland, Peter J. Cinotto, Douglas C. Chichester, Michael D. Bilger, and Robin A. Brightbill

Prepared in cooperation with the Pennsylvania Department of Military and Veterans Affairs

Scientific Investigations Report 2010–5155

U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior KEN SALAZAR, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Marcia K. McNutt, Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2010

For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment, visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1-888-ASK-USGS For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod To order this and other USGS information products, visit http://store.usgs.gov

Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.

Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report.

Suggested citation: Langland, M.J., Cinotto, P.J., Chichester, D.C., Bilger, M.D., and Brightbill, R.A., 2010, Surface-water quantity and quality, aquatic biology, stream geomorphology, and groundwater-flow simulation for National Guard Training Center at Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania, 2002–05: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2010–5155, 180 p. iii

Contents

Abstract...... 1 Introduction...... 1 Purpose and Scope...... 1 Description of Study Area...... 3 Physiography and Geology...... 3 Study Approach and Design...... 3 Study Methods...... 5 Surface Water...... 7 Streamflow...... 7 Water Quality...... 9 Nutrients...... 10 Major Ions...... 10 Field Characteristics...... 10 Sediment...... 10 Metals ...... 16 Volatile and Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds, Pesticides, and Explosives...... 18 Aquatic Biology...... 18 Habitat ...... 18 Aquatic Invertebrates...... 18 Inventory of Aquatic Invertebrates...... 22 Metrics and Impacts...... 22 Fish Community...... 26 Stream Geomorphology, Classification, and Assessment...... 30 Stream Classification...... 30 Geomorphic Analyses...... 31 Simulations of Groundwater Flow...... 35 Conceptual Model...... 35 Cross-Sectional Model...... 35 3-Dimensional Model...... 37 Model Development...... 40 Model Results...... 40 Model Limitations...... 40 Summary...... 45 References Cited...... 46 Appendix 1—Parameter Codes, Constituents Analyzed, Reporting Levels, and Primary and Secondary Drinking Water Standards...... 49 Appendix 2—Statistical Summaries of Water-Quality Data...... 57 Appendix 3—Sample Habitat Assessment Forms...... 77 Appendix 4—Aquatic Invertebrates: Summary of Site-Assessment Results...... 83 Appendix 5—Fish Sampling Data: Summary of Site-Assessment Results...... 87 Appendix 6—Final Taxa List...... 109 iv

Figures

1. Map showing location of study area, streamgages and water-quality sites, and major features in Fort Indiantown Gap (FIG), Lebanon and Dauphin Counties, Pa...... 2 2. Map showing major geologic units identified at the Fort Indiantown Gap facility, Lebanon and Dauphin Counties, Pa...... 4 3. Graph showing daily mean-flow hydrograph for Indiantown Run at Indiantown, Pa., October 1, 2002, through September 30, 2005...... 8 4. Graph showing daily mean-flow hydrograph for Manada Creek at Manada Gap, Pa., October 1, 2002, through September 30, 2005...... 8 5. Graph showing relation between streamflow and turbidity at Manada Creek, October 1, 2002, through September 30, 2003...... 12 6. Graph showing sediment loads (tons) by month for years 2003 through 2005 at Indiantown Run (01572950) with (top) and without (bottom) the remnants of Hurricane Ivan...... 14 7. Graph showing sediment loads (tons) by month for years 2003 through 2005 at Manada Creek (01573482) with (top) and without (bottom) the remnants of Hurricane Ivan...... 15 8. Graph showing comparison of sediment yields from the Fort Indiantown Gap sites (in red) with other basins in the Susquehanna River Basin...... 16 9. Map showing location of biological sampling sites, Fort Indiantown Gap (FIG), Lebanon and Dauphin Counties, Pa...... 19 10. Graph showing habitat assessment scores for 27 sites from 2002 through 2005...... 22 11. Pie chart showing results of mean impact scores for 27 aquatic-invertebrate sites from 2002 through 2005, Fort Indiantown Gap facility, Lebanon and Dauphin Counties, Pa...... 24 12. Graph showing results of mean impact scores for the 27 aquatic invertebrate sites by year, Fort Indiantown Gap facility, Lebanon and Dauphin Counties, Pa...... 26 13. TWINSPAN analysis for the 25 fish sampling sites and warm-water (red-orange) or cold-water (blue) designation based on indicator species...... 28 14. Photograph showing backwater flooding on a tank trail resulting from a beaver dam plugging the culvert below an existing tank trail...... 32 15. Longitudinal profile at Indiantown Run showing locations of two surveyed cross sections, Fort Indiantown Gap facility, Lebanon and Dauphin Counties, Pa...... 33 16. Longitudinal profile at Manada Creek showing locations of two surveyed cross sections, Fort Indiantown Gap facility, Lebanon and Dauphin Counties, Pa...... 34 17. Map showing location of the 2-dimensional, cross-sectional model (trace A-A’), and extent of the 3-dimensional finite-difference model at Fort Indiantown Gap, Lebanon and Dauphin Counties, Pa...... 36 18. Cross-sectional model through the Fort Indiantown Gap study area showing topography, hydraulic-conductivity values, and local geographic features...... 37 19. Simulated groundwater flow paths in the 2-dimensional cross-sectional model of the Fort Indiantown Gap study area...... 38 20. Hypothetical interbasin groundwater flow simulated in the 2-dimensional cross-sectional model within a relatively narrow band of northward dipping bedrock with large hydraulic conductivity (blue), surrounded by bedrock with smaller hydraulic conductivity (red)...... 39 21. Map showing groundwater model area with active area, inactive area, and the surface representation of different geologic units...... 41 v

22. Map showing regional altitude and configuration of the water table simulated in the 3-dimensional model of the Fort Indiantown Gap area, Lebanon and Dauphin Counties, Pa...... 42 23. Map showing groundwater flow paths simulated by the 3-dimensional model of the Cantonment Area of the Fort Indiantown Gap facility, Lebanon and Dauphin Counties, Pa...... 43 24. Map showing groundwater flow paths from a hypothetical contaminant spill in the Manada Creek Training Corridor area, Fort Indiantown Gap, Lebanon and Dauphin Counties, Pa...... 44

Tables

1. Summary of surface-water sampling activities...... 5 2. Summary statistics for two project and two nearby streamgage sites...... 9 3. U.S. Geological Survey surface-water-quality site numbers and names, drainage area, and site purpose...... 10 4. Summary statistics for selected nutrient and total suspended solids concentrations in milligrams per liter for all samples collected at the Fort Indiantown Gap facility, Lebanon and Dauphin Counties, Pa...... 11 5. Relation between the measured turbidity and sediment concentrations for sites at the Fort Indiantown Gap facility, Lebanon and Dauphin Counties, Pa...... 11 6. Monthly and annual estimated sediment loads for the two continuous-record long-term sites at the Fort Indiantown Gap facility based on suspended sediment concentrations and turbidity values. Loads for September 2004 and total loads for 2004 are shown with and (without) the remnants of Hurricane Ivan...... 13 7. Monthly and annual estimated sediment yields for the two long-term sites at the Fort Indiantown Gap facility, Lebanon and Dauphin Counties, Pa...... 13 8. Summary statistics for selected metals concentrations, in micrograms per liter, from samples collected at the two long-term water-quality sites at Fort Indiantown Gap, Lebanon and Dauphin Counties, Pa...... 17 9. Summary statistics for selected total metal concentrations, in micrograms per liter, from the two continuous-record long-term monitoring sites at Fort Indiantown Gap and five off-facility comparison sites...... 17 10. U.S. Geological Survey site information for the 27 biological sampling sites, collected July-August 2002–05 at Fort Indiantown Gap, Lebanon and Dauphin Counties, Pa...... 20 11. Individual and mean habitat scores for 2002–05 and site classification for the 27 sample sites, Fort Indiantown Gap facility, Lebanon and Dauphin Counties, Pa...... 21 12. Summary totals for the classification and identification of aquatic invertebrates collected at Fort Indiantown Gap, Lebanon and Dauphin Counties, Pa., 2002–05...... 23 13. Water-quality impact assessment based on biological metrics...... 23 14. Number of sites by year, metric, and level of impact with mean scores for 2002–05, Fort Indiantown Gap facility and off-facility sites, Lebanon and Dauphin Counties, Pa...... 25 15. Fish metric statistics for fish data collected at Fort Indiantown Gap and nearby off-facility sites, Lebanon and Dauphin Counties, Pa...... 27 16. Number and type of trout found at Fort Indiantown Gap and nearby off-facility sites, Lebanon and Dauphin Counties, Pa...... 29 vi

17. Potential stream-channel evolutionary scenarios...... 31 18. Site-specific geomorphic data for Manada Creek and Indiantown Run, Fort Indiantown Gap, Lebanon and Dauphin Counties, Pa...... 34 19. Hydraulic-conductivity values assigned to represent geologic units in the cross-sectional and 3-dimensional groundwater models of the Fort Indiantown Gap area, Lebanon and Dauphin Counties, Pa...... 38 vii

Conversion Factors and Datum

Multiply By To obtain Length inch (in.) 2.54 centimeter (cm) inch (in.) 25.4 millimeter (mm) foot (ft) 0.3048 meter (m) mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer (km) Area square foot (ft2) 929.0 square centimeter (cm2) square foot (ft2) 0.09290 square meter (m2) square mile (mi2) 259.0 hectare (ha) square mile (mi2) 2.590 square kilometer (km2) Flow rate foot per second (ft/s) 0.3048 meter per second (m/s) cubic foot per second (ft3/s) 0.02832 cubic meter per second (m3/s) cubic foot per second per square 0.01093 cubic meter per second per square mile [(ft3/s)/mi2] kilometer [(m3/s)/km2] million gallons per day per square 1,461 cubic meter per day per square mile [(Mgal/d)/mi2] kilometer [(m3/d)/km2] inch per hour (in/h) 0.0254 meter per hour (m/h) inch per year (in/yr) 25.4 millimeter per year (mm/yr) mile per hour (mi/h) 1.609 kilometer per hour (km/h) Mass pound, avoirdupois (lb) 0.4536 kilogram (kg) ton, short (2,000 lb) 0.9072 megagram (Mg) ton per day (ton/d) 0.9072 metric ton per day ton per day (ton/d) 0.9072 megagram per day (Mg/d) ton per day per square mile 0.3503 megagram per day per square [(ton/d)/mi2] kilometer [(Mg/d)/km2] ton per year (ton/yr) 0.9072 megagram per year (Mg/yr) ton per year (ton/yr) 0.9072 metric ton per year Hydraulic conductivity foot per day (ft/d) 0.3048 meter per day (m/d)

Temperature in degrees Celsius (°C) may be converted to degrees Fahrenheit (°F) as follows: °F=(1.8×°C)+32 Temperature in degrees Fahrenheit (°F) may be converted to degrees Celsius (°C) as follows: °C=(°F-32)/1.8 Vertical coordinate information is referenced to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929. Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83). Altitude, as used in this report, refers to distance above the vertical datum. Specific conductance is given in microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius (μS/cm at 25 °C). Concentrations of chemical constituents in water are given either in milligrams per liter (mg/L) or micrograms per liter (μg/L). viii Surface-Water Quantity and Quality, Aquatic Biology, Stream Geomorphology, and Groundwater-Flow Simulation for National Guard Training Center at Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania, 2002–05

By Michael J. Langland, Peter J. Cinotto, Douglas C. Chichester, Michael D. Bilger, and Robin A. Brightbill

Abstract nor eroding. A regional, uncalibrated groundwater-flow model indicated the surface-water and groundwater-flow divides coincided. Because of folding of rock layers, groundwater was Base-line and long-term monitoring of water resources of under confined conditions and nearly all the water leaves the the National Guard Training Center at Fort Indiantown Gap in facility via the streams. south-central Pennsylvania began in 2002. Results of continuous monitoring of streamflow and turbidity and monthly and stormflow water-quality samples from two continuous-record long-term stream sites, periodic collection of water-quality Introduction samples from five miscellaneous stream sites, and annual collection of biological data from 2002 to 2005 at 27 sites are dis- The National Guard Training Center at Fort Indiantown cussed. In addition, results from a stream-geomorphic analysis Gap (hereafter referred to as the FIG facility) is a 27-mi2 and classification and a regional groundwater-flow model are military facility in Dauphin and Lebanon Counties, Pa. (fig. 1), included. Streamflow at the facility was above normal for that has been in use since 1931 as a training and mobilization the 2003 through 2005 water years and extremely high-flow facility by the U.S. Army and National Guard. Major training events occurred in 2003 and in 2004. Water-quality samples facilities at the FIG facility include a bombing range, artil- were analyzed for nutrients, sediments, metals, major ions, lery ranges, and maneuver areas for tanks and other tracked pesticides, volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds, and vehicles. Training activities, as well as general operations explosives. Results indicated no exceedances for any constitu- (vehicle maintenance, petroleum storage, and waste storage ent (except iron) above the primary and secondary drinking- and disposal), have the potential to affect water and biological water standards or health-advisory levels set by the U.S. resources on the FIG facility and adjacent lands. Environmental Protection Agency. Iron concentrations were The Pennsylvania Department of Military and Veterans naturally elevated in the groundwater within the watershed Affairs (PADMVA) is responsible for managing lands at the because of bedrock lithology. The majority of the constitu- FIG facility. As part of their management program, PADMVA ents were at or below the method detection limit. Sediment recently completed an Integrated Training Area Management loads were dominated by precipitation due to the remnants Program and Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan of Hurricane Ivan in September 2004. More than 60 percent to protect the environment while ensuring that the military of the sediment load measured during the entire study was training mission is achieved. The U.S. Geological Survey transported past the streamgage in just 2 days during that (USGS) and the PADMVA entered into an agreement in x event. Habitat and aquatic-invertebrate data were collected in year to conduct baseline and long-term monitoring of water the summers of 2002–05, and fish data were collected in 2004. resources on the FIG facility to allow assessments of current Although 2002 was a drought year, 2003–05 were above-nor- and future water-quality and biological conditions. mal flow years. Results indicated a wide diversity in invertebrates, good numbers of taxa (distinct organisms), and on the basis of a combination of metrics, the majority of the 27 sites Purpose and Scope indicated no or slight impairment. Fish-metric data from 25 sites indicated results similar to the invertebrate data. Stream This report presents results of a preliminary assess- classification based on evolution of the stream channels ment conducted for the PADMVA at the FIG facility. The indicates about 94 percent of the channels were considered to primary objectives of this study are to provide a baseline of be in equilibrium (type B or C channels), neither aggrading current water-quality and biological conditions of the stream

2 Surface-Water Quantity and Quality, Aquatic Biology, Stream Geomorphology, and Groundwater-Flow Simulation

n n

u u

R a

g g

r r udy St u

n n

u u

IA R R

s s

VAN e e

r r YL

i i

NNS A A

n n

u u

R R

e e

s s

l l e e V V

76°35' Cantonment Area Cantonment

u 4 MILES R

w to n ia

d 3

40°28' In KILOMETERS 4 2 3 2 76°40'

r 1

s a

n 0 a 0

s Training Corridor Training M te y lity site lity si - qua undar er - qua bo er wat 40°26' nd wat a s 40°24' ous one s anges g ages gs r ct z ocation of study area, streamgages and water-quality sites, and major features in Fort Indiantown Gap (FIG), Lebanon Dauphin Counties, Pa. ocation of study area, streamgages and water-quality am am ng L ildin sce llane pa re re ri

Fort Indiantown Gap Indiantown Fort Bu St Mi Fi Im St EXPLANATION Figure 1. Study Approach and Design 3 environment and implement a water-quality monitoring and of Qureg Run also was impacted to some extent by the track- biological-assessment network for the FIG facility. This vehicle training maneuvers that occasionally occur. No con- report presents the results of the five specific goals from 2002 tinuous streamgages or water-quality monitors were located in to 2005. this eastern area of the FIG facility. Infrequent water-quality Specific goals are: samples were collected at several of the stream sites in the • Determine the baseline occurrence and distribution of Cantonment Area. contaminants in surface water and sediment, • Assess the biological community by collecting, quanti- Physiography and Geology fying, and identifying benthic macroinvertebrates, fish data, and habitat information, The FIG facility is in the Valley and Ridge Physiographic Province (VRPP). The VRPP consists of complexly folded and • Implement a long-term monitoring network to measure faulted sedimentary rocks generally of Paleozoic age (Berg seasonal and episodic water-quality changes, quantify and Dodge, 1981). The training areas of the FIG facility are contaminant and sediment loads, and evaluate the qual- predominantly in the Appalachian Mountain Section of the ity of water leaving the FIG facility, VRPP, which consists mainly of sandstone (ridges tops) and • Assess the geomorphological condition of streams on shale (valley). The cantonment area is predominantly in the the FIG facility and classify them, Great Valley Section of the VRPP, which consists primarily of limestone, shale, and dolomite. Based on mapping by Berg • Assess the potential for groundwater transport of con- and others (1981), the FIG facility is underlain by a total of 10 taminants on and off the FIG facility. geologic units, 7 of which are formations (Catskill, Trimmers Rock, Spechty Kopf, Pocono, Martinsburg, Bloomsburg, and Description of Study Area Tuscarora), 2 groups (Hamilton and Clinton), and 1 sequence (Hamburg) (fig. 2). The FIG facility is in south-central Pennsylvania; the majority of the facility is in Lebanon County, and the remainder is in Dauphin County (fig. 1). The facility is divided into Study Approach and Design two major sections, training and cantonment. The major training areas are in the central and western areas of the facil- Approach—The specific surface-water goals of the study ity, confined mainly between the Blue and Second Mountain. were accomplished by (1) synoptic sampling of streams at Training includes both ground (field and live fire) and air high and low base-flow conditions, (2) synoptic sampling (fixed and rotary wing, airborne and assault, and air-to-ground during a storm event, (3) sampling of suspended and bed fire) activities. Two predominantly forested watersheds drain sediments, and (4) long-term monitoring of water quality the majority of the area within the Training Corridor (fig. 1)— Manada Creek and the upper reaches of Indiantown Run. Con- in streams leaving the FIG facility. Baseline groundwater tinuous streamflow and turbidity, along with periodic water conditions were characterized by (1) base-flow sampling of quality, were measured at two sites near the facility boundary. stream-water quality, and (2) applying a groundwater-flow Within the Training Corridor, a previous study (Ogden Envi- model to evaluate groundwater-flow paths. Additional infor- ronmental and Energy Services Co., Inc, 2000) suggested sedi- mation was collected for evaluation of aquatic biology (macro- ment erosion (siltation) was the leading water-quality impair- invertebrates and fish habitat) and stream geomorphology ment. Historically, baseline stream-water quality, including the (assessments and classification). effects of spent ammunition and explosive material, had not Design—A network of synoptic, biological, and long- been previously characterized spatially or temporally. term monitoring sites was designed on the basis of reconnais- The developed area of the FIG facility, commonly known sance baseline sampling, data from previous studies, evalua- as the Cantonment Area (fig. 1), is drained by the lower tion of possible contaminant transport pathways, and logistical reaches of Indiantown Run, the upper reaches of Qureg Run, considerations. Sampling frequencies and major constituents Aires Run, a tributary to Qureg Run, and the headwaters of sampled for are provided in table 1. Additional information Forge Creek, all located entirely in the Lebanon Valley. Most on laboratory-method codes and detection limits for major of this area is categorized as residential/light industrial and ions, nutrients, metals, pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls, it consists of recreational areas, maintenance buildings, and volatile and semi-volatile organics, and explosives residue is a storage yard. The potential for additional water-quality presented in the appendixes. problems as a result of past practices has been suggested by The long-term monitoring plan involved streamgaging Ogden Environmental and Energy Services Co., Inc. (2000). and water-quality sample collection at two continuous-record Past practices included continual construction/destruction of sites (Indiantown Run and Manada Creek, fig. 1), and addi- buildings, vehicle storage and maintenance areas, fuel spills tional water-quality sample collection and streamflow mea- and leaks, and landfill hazards. However, the headwaters area surements at five miscellaneous sites (table 1). The long-term 4 Surface-Water Quantity and Quality, Aquatic Biology, Stream Geomorphology, and Groundwater-Flow Simulation sg Om Oh Oh Oh Om sg St 76°35' Oh Sc sc Dc Great Valley Section Sc St r Sc Dt St 40°28' Sb Sc St Om

sk iv n

MD Valley and Ridge Physiographic Province tai

cf 76°40' Moun Sc St

Dc ue ue

Dc Bl

ain

Moun

wacke) Dh Second Sc 40°26' ill Formation Catskill Formation sk d Mp Dc r of Catskill Formation r ember of of ember Dt M ce 40°24' Rock Formation lley Member of Catskill Formation Group Ferry Mem be Formation ajor geologic units identified at the Fort Indiantown Gap facility, Lebanon and Dauphin Counties, Pa. ajor geologic units identified at the Fort Indiantown Gap facility, sk M Appalachian Mountain Section sk MD

burg Formation Om, Martins burg Formation Sb, Blooms burg Sc, Clinton Group St, Tuscarora Formation faults Thrust faults Displacement burg Sequence (Shale with Gray with (Shale Sequence Ohsg, Ham burg rg Sequen Oh, Hambu rg Dciv, Irish Va Creek Dcsc, Sherm an Dh, Hamilt on Dtr, Trimme rs MDsk, Spechty Kopf Formation Pocono Mp, Dccf, Clark s Cat of Member Dcd, Dunca nnon GEOLOGY EXPLANATION MD Figure 2. Study Methods 5

Table 1. Summary of surface-water sampling activities.

Sampling activity Location Number of samples Constituents Synoptic sediment Training area 4 sites/2 samples Training and off-facility sites— Cantonment 8 sites/2 samples Nutrients, metals, polychlorinated Off-facility 4 sites/2 samples biphenyls, explosives, sand/silt/clay Cantonment sites—Nutrients, metals, polychlorinated biphenyls, volatile organic compounds, semi-volatile organic compounds, pesticides, phenols, major ions, sand/silt/clay fraction, oil and grease

Long-term surface-water 2 sites near facility perimeter Non-storm (monthly, quarterly, Monthly—Nutrients, sediments, metals, quality monitoring bi-annual) ions Quarterly—Total organic carbon, explosives Storm Bi-annual—Pesticides, polychlorinated 3 samples per storm/ biphenyls, semi-volatile and volatile 4 storms per year organic compounds, oil and grease Storm—Sediments, nutrients, occasional metals, organic compounds, total organic carbon Miscellaneous surface- 5 sites within study area Quarterly to bi-annual and se- Quarterly—total organic carbon, explo- water quality sites lected storm sampling sives Bi-annual—pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls, semi-volatile and volatile organic compounds, oil and grease Storm—part of quarterly or bi-annual sampling monitoring plan also included additional monitoring points to Study Methods fully characterize other streams leaving the FIG facility. A synoptic survey of stream sediments was conducted to Streamflow and water quality—Measurements of stream- help define the areal patterns of chemical quality of sediment. flow at all sites and computations of streamflow records for the Sediment was collected and analyzed from stream depositional long-term continuous sites were conducted in accordance with areas, selected sediment ponds, depositional wetland areas, standard USGS methods (Rantz and others, Volumes I and II, and stream impoundments to help document sediment chemis- 1982). Measurements of temperature, specific conductance, try in the cantonment area. Limited historical water-quality data from streams within and turbidity were monitored continuously at the two long- the FIG facility were available. Most data were the result of term sites using instream probes. Field measurements were one-time sampling events and were collected to accompany conducted routinely at all sites to monitor the performance invertebrate community assessments in the late 1990s. Sam- of the probes and record actual conditions (Wilde and others, ples from periodic water-quality assessments of the Susque- 1999; Wood, 1976). Water-quality samples were collected by hanna River Basin by the Susquehanna River Basin Commis- automatic and manual means according to USGS methods sion were collected near the mouth of Manada Creek about (Wilde and others, 1999). The structures built at both continu- 8 mi downstream from the FIG facility boundary (Traver, ous monitoring sites house automatic samplers that can collect 1997). Routine water-quality samples also were collected samples remotely on the basis of a change in flow or a change near the mouth of Manada Creek as a part of the Pennsylvania in turbidity. Department of Environmental Protection (PaDEP) Statewide Sampling procedures and quality assurance—Some Water-Quality Network (WQN). physical and water-quality constituents were measured in the field at the time of sample collection. Temperature, pH, and specific conductance of all surface-water samples were determined on site using standard USGS methods (Wilde and others, 1999; Wood, 1976). In streams, discharge was recorded continuously, and a stage/discharge rating was developed for the two continuous-record long-term monitoring locations; 6 Surface-Water Quantity and Quality, Aquatic Biology, Stream Geomorphology, and Groundwater-Flow Simulation measurements of streamflow were conducted at the time of all and water temperature), weather conditions (present and sampling for the five miscellaneous sites. past 24 hours), site location map, stream characteristics, Water and sediment samples were prepared in the field watershed features, riparian vegetation, instream features, and or at the office according to the specific processing, filtering, substrate type. and preservation techniques required by the USGS (Wilde and Invertebrates were sampled according to the PaDEP sam- others, 1999) or contract laboratories. Samples were analyzed pling protocol (Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 2004). Sam- by the USGS National Water-Quality Laboratory and Severn ples were preserved in buffered formalin and brought back to Trent Laboratory for the chemical constituents and physical the USGS laboratory in New Cumberland, Pa. In the lab, the properties listed in appendix 1. formalin was removed from the samples for hazardous-waste Quality-assurance (QA) samples were collected to evalu- disposal; the samples were rinsed in tap water several times ate the integrity of the sampling and analytical procedures and gridded and picked according to PaDEP procedures of 100 (table showing QA samples is shown below). A minimum of 5 animal subsamples. These subsamples were identified to the to 10 percent of all samples collected were blanks, replicates, lowest taxonomic level possible. The results were tabled, and or spikes obtained for QA purposes. Blanks were samples of the metrics were calculated. Taxa richness, total number of water known to be free of any dissolved constituents. Blanks individuals, total EPT (Ephemeroptera, mayflies; Plecoptera, (both field and equipment) were submitted to the laboratory stoneflies; and Trichoptera, caddisflies), the percentage of EPT to help evaluate if samples were being contaminated from the individuals, the dominant species and their number of indi- sampling process. Replicates were split aliquots of the same viduals, a Hilsenhoff Biotic Index (HBI), number of chirono- water sample that were submitted to the laboratory for dupli- mid (midge) taxa, and percent chironomids were calculated for cate analysis. Replicates helped evaluate the precision inherent each site. These metrics (both individual and mean) were used in the sampling and analysis process. Spikes were samples to determine the health of a stream (Barbour and others, 1999; of known concentration that were submitted to the labora- Klemm and others, 1990, Hilsenhoff, 1988, Eaton, 1997). tory. Spikes helped evaluate the accuracy of the sampling and However, because the metrics of taxa richness, EPT taxa rich- analysis process. ness (value), and HBI measured different aspects of the community, a unanimous assessment was not expected; therefore, Types and percentages of quality-assurance samples by a majority “score” of the metrics defined the impact present. constituent. Using the impact scheme of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (Bode and others, 2002), sites [—, no samples collected] were categorized in a four-tiered classification system where Repli- Blanks Spikes the level of impact was assessed for each individual parameter cates (percent (percent and then averaged for consensus determination. The impact Constituent (percent of total of total scheme was non-impacted, indicative of excellent water qual- of total samples) samples) ity; slightly impacted, indicative of good water quality; mod- samples) erately impacted, indicative of fair water quality, and severely Major cations and metals 5 5 — impacted, indicative of poor water quality. Anions 5 5 — Fish were sampled in 2004 at 25 of the 27 invertebrate Nutrients 5 5 — sites. A backpack electrofishing unit was used to shock all fish Radiochemicals — 10 — Semi-volatile/volatile organic 10 5 10 within a 100-m reach. The fish were collected, put in buckets, compounds sorted by species, measured for total length, and weighed. Pesticides 10 5 10 Aerators and ice were used to keep the fish alive in the buckets Explosives 10 10 — while awaiting processing. When 30 individuals of a given species were measured and weighed, the other individuals of Biology—Habitat, aquatic invertebrates, and fish were that species were batch weighed. The fish were then released studied at selected sites on and off the FIG facility. The habitat back to the same stream reach. A Two-way Indicator Species and invertebrates data were collected and sampled at 27 sites Analysis (TWINSPAN) was used to show the relation of the for 4 years (2002–05) during July and August each year. A sites to each other on the basis of communities at the sites. The qualitative survey of the stream habitat was completed at each TWINSPAN uses the relative abundance of fish species at all site when the macroinvertebrates were sampled. The habitat sites to show which sites are similar in community and which assessment was conducted using a Rapid Bio-assessment are not. This hierarchical classification program arranges simi- Protocol approach for high-gradient streams (Barbour and lar samples together in a dendogram by using indicator species others, 1999) that uses a score from 0 to 200, higher being to separate the sites from each other (Gauch, 1982). By using better, to determine the condition of the stream reach sampled. this polythetic technique, some of the noise in community data Some scored categories were epifaunal substrate/avail- is lost, and a more accurate picture of the community struc- able cover, embeddedness, flow, bank stability, and human tures can be seen (Gauch, 1982). TWINSPAN uses recipro- impact. Categories were optimal, sub-optimal, marginal, and cal averaging focusing on different community gradients as poor. The following were recorded as part of the assessment: important factors in partitioning the data sets for the sites in basic water-quality characteristics (pH, specific conductance, ordination space (Gauch, 1982). Surface Water 7

Channel morphology—Fluvial geomorphic analysis at and potential containment flow paths on the FIG facility and the two continuous-record long-term monitoring sites and surrounding areas. the subsequent stream classification were based primarily on methods and theory developed by Rosgen (1996, 1998, 2002), Simon (1989), and Cinotto (2003). Stream classifica- Surface Water tion was used to broadly categorize the character of a stream reach on the basis of its morphology, a Level I classification. Climatological processes (rainfall) are primarily respon- A geomorphic assessment generally was based on the Level sible for the annual and seasonal variability in streamflow. II and Level III classification (Rosgen, 1996) and involved a This variability introduces a great deal of complexity when much more intensive and descriptive study of selected reaches discussing and evaluating changes in constituent water quality, to estimate the current stability of the stream channel as well transport, and delivery. This section discusses streamflow, as a description of the fluvial geomorphic processes acting water quality, and sediment in terms of summary statistics and on the reach. At each geomorphic study site, three detailed drinking-water standards. surveys were conducted—a longitudinal profile and two cross sections. Reinforcement bars were driven below grade at the ends of each cross section and a global positioning system Streamflow (GPS) was used to mark the end points of all surveys so that future recovery and study are possible. At each cross section, All surface waters leaving the FIG facility drain into a pebble count, adopted from Wolman (1954), was conducted the Swatara Creek watershed. Streamflow was continuously to determine the particle-size distribution of the streambed monitored at the two largest streams draining the facility, materials. One core sample also was collected at each cross Indiantown Run and Manada Creek. Streamflow hydrographs section by excavating the materials within a plastic cylinder for the two sites for the period of record, Oct. 1, 2002, through that had been pressed into the sediment; these sediments were Sept. 30, 2005, are presented in figures 3 and 4. These dates later sieved in the laboratory. Data from these core samples correspond to the 2003, 2004, and 2005 water years.1 were utilized to determine the particle-size distribution of the Statistics for total annual and annual mean daily flows materials that were potentially mobile (entrained) during the and maximum and minimum mean daily flows are presented in process of stream-channel formation. Core samples were col- table 2. Streamflow statistics from two additional streamgages lected from the downstream third of a bar at an approximate (within 10 mi of FIG) of the project are presented to provide a elevation equal to half the distance between the deepest part greater spatial and temporal comparison of hydrologic condi- of the bankfull channel and the top of the bankfull channel. tions (table 2). The total annual flows for 2003, 2004, and These core samples were collected on the nearest bar to the 2005 at the two “on-facility” and two “off-facility” sites are riffle wherein the cross-section survey was completed. When comparable in terms of relative magnitude and change from no depositional feature, such as a point bar, was present, core year to year. The total annual flows for the two “on-facility” samples were collected from the streambed within the same sites were about one-half to one-third less than the total annual riffle wherein the cross-section survey was completed. Digital flow at the two “off-facility” sites in 2001 and 2002, which photographs also were taken at each geomorphic study site to indicates the total annual flows for years 2001 and 2002 for document current site conditions, and ancillary data such as the two “on-facility” sites were lower than the water yield for the valley type (Rosgen, 1996) were noted. years 2003, 2004, and 2005 (Durlin and Schaffstall, 2003, Groundwater-flow models—A 2-dimensional cross-sec- 2004). Annual water yields (volume of water normalized by tional or profile model and a 3-dimensional flow model of the area) for the two “off-facility” sites also indicate above-normal area were constructed using natural hydrogeologic boundaries. flow conditions in 2003–05 compared to 2001 and 2002. The profile model is representative of a north-south cross sec- Extreme hydrologic events—Two separate extreme events tion in the central part of the study area from Stony Creek in occurred during the period of record. The first was on August the north toward Swatara Creek in the south. The steady-state 11, 2003, in Qureg and Aires Run drainage areas, on the south- model was simulated quantitatively using the USGS software eastern-most boundary of the FIG facility. The intense rainfall called TopoDrive (Hsieh, 2001). The model as constructed from a thunderstorm produced an estimated flow of 1,980 3 was 11,000 m long with 100 columns and 10 rows. Represen- ft /s at the miscellaneous sampling point in Aires Run (Lloyd tative geology, structure, and hydraulic properties were input Reed, U.S. Geological Survey, written commun., 2004). On into the model. The uncalibrated 3-dimensional model was the basis of the estimated rainfall amount of approximately 8 extended beyond the boundary of the FIG facility to represent in. in 3.5 hours, rainfall frequency flow durations from nearby the hydrogeologic characteristics of the area and to provide long-term streamgages, and estimations of unit discharges, the flow would be equivalent to greater than a 500-year flow estimates of flow paths. The simulation was evaluated quan- (Herschfield, 1961; Bonnin and others, 2004). titatively by the use of the finite-difference groundwater-flow model software package called MODFLOW-2000 (Harbaugh 1A water year is the 12-month period October 1 through September 30. and others, 2000). The simulation was done to determine the The water year is designated by the calendar year in which it ends and which recharge and discharge areas and the intermediate groundwater includes 9 of the 12 months. 8 Surface-Water Quantity and Quality, Aquatic Biology, Stream Geomorphology, and Groundwater-Flow Simulation

700

600

EXPLANATION 500 Indiantown Run

400

300

200

Discharge, in cubic feet per second 100

0 10/1/2002 5/8/2003 12/13/2003 7/19/2004 2/23/2005 9/30/2005 Date

Figure 3. Daily mean-flow hydrograph for Indiantown Run at Indiantown, Pa., October 1, 2002, through September 30, 2005.

1,200

1,000 EXPLANATION Manada Creek 800

600

400

200 Discharge, in cubic feet per second

0 10/1/2002 5/8/2003 12/13/2003 7/19/2004 2/23/2005 9/30/2005 Date

Figure 4. Daily mean-flow hydrograph for Manada Creek at Manada Gap, Pa., October 1, 2002, through September 30, 2005. Surface Water 9

Table 2. Summary statistics for two project and two nearby streamgage sites.

[USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; mi2, square miles, ft3/s; cubic feet per second; (ft3/s)/mi2, cubic feet per second per square mile; WY; water year]

Stream site name Drainage Total Annual mean Maximum mean Minimum mean and USGS Annual yield area annual flow daily flow daily flow daily flow identification [(ft3/s)/mi2] (mi2) (ft3/s) (ft3/s) (ft3/s) (ft3/s) number Indiantown Run (01572950) WY 2003 5.48 5,056 923 13.9 90 1.8 WY 2004 5,292 966 14.5 384 2.8 WY 2005 4,730 863 13.0 139 1.2 Manada Creek (01573482) WY 2003 8.59 7,589 883 20.8 201 1.7 WY 2004 7,848 913 21.5 819 4.0 WY 2005 6,010 700 16.5 215 1.7 Comparison to nearby sites Swatara Creek near Pine Grove (01572025) WY 2001 116 50,670 437 139 2,850 18 WY 2002 37,985 327 104 829 14 WY 2003 121,200 1,045 332 2,760 34 WY 2004 108,640 936 297 6,790 51 WY 2005 91,260 767 250 3,220 19 Swatara Creek at Harpers Tavern (01573000) WY 2001 337 142,070 421 389 6,980 37 WY 2002 97,350 289 267 2,580 13 WY 2003 344,910 1,020 945 7,780 69 WY 2004 330,380 980 903 16,500 129 WY 2005 279,140 828 740 9,200 35

The other extreme hydrologic event was on September Water Quality 18, 2004 (figs. 3–4), when precipitation from the remnants of Hurricane Ivan produced the highest recorded peak flows Major objectives of this study include characterizing the during the study. The hydrographs (appendix 2) illustrate water quality within the boundary of the FIG facility, deter- that the flows were three times the magnitude of any other mining the baseline occurrence and distribution of contami- rainfall event. Peak instantaneous flows were estimated to nants in water, and assessing the potential for the surface water be approximately 1,700 ft3/s at Manada Creek and 960 ft3/s (groundwater to be discussed in a later section) transport of at Indiantown Run. The flows overtopped the bridge road contaminants on and off the FIG facility. Therefore, a long- surfaces at both locations, toppled the gage house on Manada term monitoring plan was designed and implemented at two continuous flow and water-quality monitoring sites and five Creek (crest was approximately 11 ft), and scoured out and miscellaneous water-quality sites (table 3). Two of the miscel- destroyed the instream monitoring equipment at Indiantown laneous sites (01573490 and 01573497) have staff gages to Run. On the basis of an estimated rainfall amount of approxi- record stream height, and streamflow is measured at the time mately 7 in. in 4 hours, rainfall frequency flow durations from water-quality samples are collected. The other three miscella- nearby long-term flow sites, and estimations of unit dis- neous sites have very limited sampling. Manual samples were charges, the flow would be equivalent to about a 500-year flow collected at the three sites in order to characterize the sites and (Herschfield, 1961; Bonnin and others, 2004). The damage determine the need for future sampling. All sites had samples to the FIG facility was in the millions of dollars, the major- analyzed for nutrients, major ions, field characteristics, metals, ity confined to the major training sites and tank trails, an area volatile and semi-volatile organics, pesticides, explosives, and where a large amount of resources has been expended, mainly sediments. Additional details on the sampling frequency and on sediment controls. sampled constituents are presented in table 1 and appendix 1. 10 Surface-Water Quantity and Quality, Aquatic Biology, Stream Geomorphology, and Groundwater-Flow Simulation

Table 3. U.S. Geological Survey surface-water-quality site numbers and names, drainage area, and site purpose.

[USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; mi2, square miles]

USGS Drainage area Site name Latitude/longitude Site purpose site number (mi2) 01572950 Indiantown Run near Harper Tavern 5.48 402620 763555 Continuous flow and turbidity and long-term monitoring 01573482 Manada Creek near Manada Gap 8.59 402424 764234 Continuous flow and turbidity and long-term monitoring 01573490 Tributary along Horseshoe Trail to 1.64 402409 754252 Miscellaneous site Manada Creek 01573497 Unnamed tributary along Rt. 443 to 3.06 402403 764257 Miscellaneous site Manada Gap 01572809 Aires Run above Coulter Road at 1.74 402539 763314 Miscellaneous site Fort Indiantown Gap (limited sampling) 01572979 Vesle Run downstream Airfield at .73 402540 763446 Miscellaneous site Fort Indiantown Gap (limited sampling) 01572981 Unnamed tributary to Vesle Run at .79 402541 763450 Miscellaneous site Fort Indiantown Gap (limited sampling)

Nutrients from fertilized areas, and atmospheric deposition also can lead to increased concentrations. Concentrations of the major ions Nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) are naturally occur- are within the expected range (although on the lower end) on ring compounds found in every ecosystem. Human activities the basis of the geology and soils when compared to similar such as fertilizer use, wastewater treatment systems, septic geologic settings in Pennsylvania (Barker, 1984). Statistical systems, and car and power-plant emissions contribute addi- summaries of the major-ion data including maximum, mean, tional nutrients to water resources through runoff, discharges, median, and minimum concentrations of all sampled constitu- and atmospheric deposition. Elevated concentrations of ents are presented in appendix 2a. nutrients increase aquatic plant growth, which in turn can alter benthic-macroinvertebrate communities. A total of 82 samples were collected and analyzed for nutrients. The majority were Field Characteristics collected at the two continuous-record streamgages during Specific conductance and temperature were measured base flow and stormflow. Additional samples were collected continuously at the two continuous-record long-term sites. at the miscellaneous sites. The USEPA has set maximum The pH was measured at the time of sample collection at all and secondary contaminant levels for drinking water (U.S. sites. Specific conductance is a measure of the capacity of Environmental Protection Agency, 1991, 1992, 1994), which water to conduct electrical current and is directly related to are listed in appendix 1a. Results indicate concentrations for the concentration of dissolved ions. The daily mean specific selected nutrients (table 4) were well below any primary or conductance during base-flow conditions averaged 52 and secondary drinking-water standards and Pennsylvania water- 38 μS/cm at Indiantown Run and Manada Creek, respectively, quality criteria for aquatic life and water supply. For example, indicating low ionic strength and low concentrations of ions. the drinking-water standard for nitrate is 10 mg/L. The highest The pH (measure of the hydrogen ion activity) of the stream observed concentration was 1.8 mg/L or about five times waters at the FIG facility ranged from 6.4 to 7.8; the mean was less than the standard. Statistical summaries of nutrient data 7.1. The secondary drinking-water standard ranges from 6.5 to including maximum, mean, median, and minimum concentra- 8.5 (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1992). If the pH tions of all sampled constituents are presented in appendix 2a. is constantly 6 or lower, in conjunction with low ionic strength waters and low calcium concentrations, there may be some concern that the water might create corrosive conditions harm- Major Ions ful to some plumbing systems. A total of 89 samples were analyzed for major ions. Calcium, magnesium, chloride, potassium, and sodium are the Sediment major ions present in most waters. They naturally originate from the soil and rock and are present in surface water through A 1995 report by the U.S. Department of Agriculture groundwater discharge. However, human activities such as Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA) identified road/ice treatments, septic-field discharge, overland runoff major soil-erosion areas at the FIG facility (U.S. Department Surface Water 11

Table 4. Summary statistics for selected nutrient and total suspended solids concentrations in milligrams per liter for all samples collected at the Fort Indiantown Gap facility, Lebanon and Dauphin Counties, Pa. (sediment samples collected on Sept. 18, 2004, not included).

[P00600, total nitrogen as N; P00610, total ammonia as N; P00620, total nitrate as N; P00665, total phosphorus as P; P00671, dissolved inorganic phosphorus as P; P00530, total suspended solids]

P00600 P00610 P00620 P00665 P00671 P00530 Minimum 0.67 0.02 0.15 0.02 0.03 1 25th percentile .88 .05 .29 .03 .05 4 Mean 1.35 .10 .47 .07 .07 57 Median 1.3 .1 .34 .05 .05 16 75th percentile 1.6 .1 .45 .05 .05 71 Maximum 2.4 .5 1.8 1.2 .22 590 Total samples 127 127 127 127 127 127 of Agriculture, 1995). Manada Creek and Indiantown Run, the and r2 of 0.80 at 01573482, Manada Creek). Future discussion two largest watersheds, were identified as having the greatest in this report of SS and TSS will be referred to as sediment. problems, which were related to military training activities Sediment concentrations ranged from less than 3.0 mg/L (Ogden Environmental and Energy Services Co., Inc., 2000). (method reporting limit) to 14,000 mg/L on September 18, The USDA identified the primary source of erosion as the 2004, during the remnants of Hurricane Ivan. The maximum tracked-vehicle roads and trails; secondary sources include concentrations of sediment were 11,500 mg/L at Indiantown open range areas and streambank erosion. Major improve- Run and 14,000 mg/L in Manada Creek and were 10–15 times ments to the vehicle trails and drainage systems began in 1997 higher than any previous sediment-concentration data. The and are ongoing (2009). data from this storm were not included in table 4 but were The USDA study estimated soil loss only to the streams. included in the statistical analysis presented in appendix 2a Data for fluvial sediment transport did not exist. Therefore, and in the estimation of sediment loads and yields for the two one of the objectives of long-term monitoring was to pro- long-term streamgages. vide data on sediment concentrations and loads in streams to Sediment and turbidity data have been collected inten- provide an indication of how much sediment leaves the FIG sively for 3 years at the two continuous-record sites estab- facility in surface water. The two continuous-record long-term lished for long-term monitoring at the FIG facility. This short sites were equipped with automatic samplers that would trig- period of record prohibits a detailed analysis of seasonal ger to collect a sample on the basis of an increase in flow and patterns and trends, and more detailed information on actual (or) in turbidity. It was assumed that there could be occasions when the turbidity would increase with little change in flow, source areas of sediment was not feasible. In addition to the reflecting the sediment disturbance from ongoing training collection of sediment samples, measurements of continuous activity. However, the automatic samplers were rarely trig- turbidity were recorded. The measurement of turbidity was to gered on the basis of turbidity alone, a good indication that reduce cost in sediment collection and analysis and to have a sediment-management efforts may be reducing sediment continuous record of sediment flux over the hydrograph. The inputs to the streams. regression between the turbidity values and sediment concen- A total of 115 total suspended solids (TSS) samples were trations indicates a good relation at the two continuous-record collected from all 7 surface-water-quality sites during the long-term sites (table 5). study. In addition, 55 samples were collected and analyzed for suspended sediment (SS) by the USGS to correct for “inher- Table 5. Relation between the measured turbidity and sediment ent bias” between TSS and SS concentrations and to verify concentrations for sites at the Fort Indiantown Gap facility, the turbidity readings. The bias is a result of different analyti- Lebanon and Dauphin Counties, Pa. cal methods used to measure TSS and SS concentrations, which tend to underestimate TSS concentrations at increased [USGS, U.S. Geological Survey] flow as the percentage of sand in the sample increases (Grey Number Coefficient of USGS site and others, 2000). The majority of samples were collected of data Regression equation determination number during stormflow when the majority of the sediment load is points (r2) transported. The measure of the relation (variability) between 01572950 70 y = 1.013x + 1.41 0.89 TSS and SS was generally high at both of the long-term monitoring sites (r2 of 0.85 at 01572950, Indiantown Run, 01573482 69 y = 0.99x + 19.5 .78 12 Surface-Water Quantity and Quality, Aquatic Biology, Stream Geomorphology, and Groundwater-Flow Simulation

Because the turbidity probes used in the earlier part of 63 percent of the total sediment load during the study (2003– the study only measured accurately to 1,000 NTU, sediment 05) for Indiantown Run and Manada Creek, respectively. concentrations greater than 1,000 mg/L could not be used in Loads give an indication of the total mass of sediment the regression analysis. Sediment concentrations exceeded passing a gaging site. In general, larger watersheds have more 1,000 mg/L for only one storm event, September 18, 2004, contributing drainage area and, therefore generate larger loads. during the remnants of Hurricane Ivan. Current turbidity Yields normalize the loads to drainage-area size to provide probes can measure up to 1,200 NTUs. an estimation of the total mass generated per unit area. This Typically, a change in flow creates a corresponding normalization along with hydrologic and other basin char- change in turbidity. The relation between turbidity and flow is acteristics (changes in land use and amount of disturbed indicated in figure 5. Although figure 5 is limited to 1 year of land) was useful when comparing the amount of transported record for clarity, it is typical of the turbidity/flow relation at sediment to other watersheds. Similar to the sediment loads, the two continuous-record long-term sites. Note the general yields are presented in table 7 with and without the September seasonal pattern when turbidity readings are lower in winter 18, 2004, storm. The impact of the storm event was obvious. versus the opposite in late summer and fall. Monthly average yields for 2004 were reduced from 17.9 to Sediment samples were used to help calibrate and verify 4.46 ton/mi2 at Indiantown Run and 23.5 to 4.47 ton/mi2 at the turbidity curve. The turbidity curve was used in conjunc- Manada Creek. The maximum and minimum monthly yields tion with a discharge curve to estimate daily, monthly, and were measured at Indiantown Run in the same year (0.11 and annual sediment loads using the USGS software program 14.78 ton/mi2, September and March 2005, respectively). On Graphical Constituent Loading Analysis System (GCLAS). average, Indiantown Run generated more sediment per unit Even though the monthly and annual loads were similar at the area (4.85 ton/mi2) than Manada Creek (3.98 ton/mi2) during two sites (maximum and minimum loads occurred in about the study period. the same months, and annual loads were comparable by year), The annual yields for Indiantown Run and Manada Creek variability in the loads was primarily due to variability in flow. are lower than some other monitored subbasins in the Lower By far, the remnants of Hurricane Ivan had the most domi- Susquehanna River Basin (fig. 8) and are related to the land nant effect on sediment loads (table 6 and figs. 6 and 7). The use and amount of disturbed land. While some error exists in estimated monthly loads for September 2004 were 931 tons figure 8 because of the fact that all sites were not monitored for Indiantown Run and 2,020 tons for Manada Creek. These concurrently, the relative magnitudes of error in yield estima- loads represent approximately 95 and 97 percent of the Sep- tions do provide comparable data (all sites monitored for at tember 2004 monthly load, approximately 79 and 83 percent least 5 years between 1985 to present). Annual mean yields are of the total annual load for water year 2004, and 50 and arranged from high to low and generally represent changes in

250 350

EXPLANATION Streamflow 300 200 Turbidity 250

150 200

150 100 , in cubic feet per second

100 , in Nephelometric Turbidity Units 50 Stremflo w 50 urbidit y T

0 0 10/1/02 12/30/02 3/30/03 6/28/03 9/26/03 Date

Figure 5. Relation between streamflow and turbidity at Manada Creek, October 1, 2002, through September 30, 2003. Surface Water 13

Table 6. Monthly and annual estimated sediment loads for the two continuous-record long-term sites at the Fort Indiantown Gap facility based on suspended sediment concentrations and turbidity values. Loads for September 2004 and total loads for 2004 are shown with and (without) the remnants of Hurricane Ivan.

Indiantown Run loads (tons) Manada Creek loads (tons) Month 2003 2004 2005 2003 2004 2005 October 9.1 41 4 12 69 12 November 12 11 31 11 27 30 December 15 62 63 29 69 57 January 11 7.1 59 19 17 66 February 4.8 4.9 6.9 3 16 13 March 68 7.1 81 94 18 98 April 11 37 79 10 85 79 May 9.8 20 4 15 23 7.3 June 33 9.1 15 46 26 3.6 July 12 16 21 12 22 24 August 51 32 1.5 63 34 3.6 September 61 931 (46) .59 62 2,020 (55) 2.3 Totals 298 1,178 (293) 366 376 2,426 (461) 396

Table 7. Monthly and annual estimated sediment yields for the two long-term sites at the Fort Indiantown Gap facility, Lebanon and Dauphin Counties, Pa.

Indiantown Run yields Manada Creek yields Month (tons per square mile) (tons per square mile) 2003 2004 2005 2003 2004 2005 October 1.66 7.48 0.73 1.40 8.03 1.40 November 2.19 2.01 5.66 1.28 3.14 3.49 December 2.74 11.31 11.50 3.38 8.03 6.64 January 2.01 1.30 10.77 2.21 1.98 7.68 February .88 .89 1.26 .35 1.86 1.51 March 12.41 1.30 14.78 10.94 2.10 11.41 April 2.01 6.75 14.42 1.16 9.90 9.20 May 1.79 3.65 .73 1.75 2.68 .85 June 6.02 1.66 2.74 5.36 3.03 .42 July 2.19 2.92 3.83 1.40 2.56 2.79 August 9.31 5.84 .27 7.33 3.96 .42 September 11.13 170 (8.39) .11 7.22 235 (6.40) .27 Totals 54.36 214.8 (53.52) 66.79 43.80 282.0 (53.64) 46.08 Average monthly 4.53 17.9 (4.46) 5.57 3.65 23.5 (4.47) 3.84 14 Surface-Water Quantity and Quality, Aquatic Biology, Stream Geomorphology, and Groundwater-Flow Simulation

Indiantown Run Sediment Loads 1,000 EXPLANATION 2003 800 2004 2005

600

400 Load, in tons per month 200

April May June July March August October January February November December September Month

Indiantown Run Sediment Loads (without Hurricane Ivan) 100 EXPLANATION 2003 80 2004 2005

Load, in tons per month 20

April May June July March August October January February November December September Month

Figure 6. Sediment loads (tons) by month for years 2003 through 2005 at Indiantown Run (01572950) with (top) and without (bottom) the remnants of Hurricane Ivan (note scales are not the same). Surface Water 15

Manada Creek Sediment Loads 2,100 EXPLANATION 1,800 2003 2004 1,500 2005

1,200

900

Load, in tons per month 600

300

April May June July March August October January February November December September Month

Manada Creek Sediment Loads (without Hurricane Ivan) 100 EXPLANATION 2003 80 2004 2005

40 Load, in tons per month 20

April May June July March August October January February November December September Month

Figure 7. Sediment loads (tons) by month for years 2003 through 2005 at Manada Creek (01573482) with (top) and without (bottom) the remnants of Hurricane Ivan (note scales are not the same). 16 Surface-Water Quantity and Quality, Aquatic Biology, Stream Geomorphology, and Groundwater-Flow Simulation

500

400

300

200 ield, in tons per square mile

Y 100

Stoney Creek Swatara Creek Codorus Creek Indiantown Run Manada Creek Conestoga River Conewago Creek

Figure 8. Comparison of sediment yields from the Fort Indiantown Gap sites (in red) with other basins in the Susquehanna River Basin. land use from more to less agriculture (amount of disturbed from 50 μg/L to 10 μg/L in 2006. The maximum concentra- land) and less to more forest (undisturbed land). Yields do tion was 34 μg/L, and all other arsenic samples were at or not include the September 2004 storm. Yields for the sites below the current (2005) method detection level of 15 μg/L at the FIG facility are within expectations—yields are lower (table 8). The secondary drinking-water standards are set for than more disturbed agricultural, residential, and urban basins odor and aesthetic reasons. Iron has a secondary drinking- (Conestoga, Conewago, Swatara, and Codorus watersheds) water standard of 300 μg/L. The mean iron concentration was and higher than the nearby undisturbed forested basin (Stony approximately 1,800 and 1,900 μg/L, respectively, for Indian- Creek). Because of the large amount of forested area in the town Run and Manada Creek, and the maximum concentration watershed and the more recent sediment-erosion controls, the was 8,600 μg/L. A previous study indicated naturally high iron yields from the two largest streams draining the FIG facility concentrations in the groundwater underlying the FIG facility are more representative of the yields from a forested basin (Barker, 1984). For this reason, underlying geology contrib- than from urban and agricultural basins. utes to the high iron concentrations in the sampled water and does not imply “unnatural” or contaminated conditions. Statistical summaries of the metals data including maximum, Metals mean, median, and minimum concentrations of all sampled constituents are presented in appendix 2b. A total of 85 samples were collected and analyzed for Selected metals concentration data from the two contin- metals. The majority of the samples were collected at the two uous-record long-term sites at the FIG facility were compared continuous-record streamgages during base-flow and storm- to metals data from five randomly chosen nearby “off-facility” flow conditions. Additional samples were collected at the current sampling sites. Three sites are within the Swatara miscellaneous sites. Metals were reported in micrograms per Creek Basin and two sites are outside the basin (table 9). The liter (parts per million). Similar to the nutrient data, results three sites in the Swatara Creek Basin in close proximity to the indicate mean concentrations were well below any primary or FIG-facility sites represented streams impacted by acid mine secondary drinking-water standards and Pennsylvania water- discharge. The two sites outside the Swatara Creek Basin are quality criteria for aquatic life and water supply for all metals not in close proximity to the FIG facility sites and are in areas except iron. For example, lead had a drinking-water action predominantly impacted by urban (Letort Run) and agricul- level of 15 μg/L (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, tural (Rambo Run) land use. In summary, the sites at the FIG 1994). The maximum concentration during the study from one facility had lower concentrations of metals than the three sample was 6 μg/L; all the remaining samples for lead were “off-facility” sites within the Swatara Creek Basin and higher at or below the method detection limit of 3.0 μg/L (table 8). concentrations than the two “off-facility” sites outside the The USEPA drinking-water standard for arsenic was lowered Swatara Creek Basin. Surface Water 17

Table 8. Summary statistics for selected metals concentrations, in micrograms per liter, from samples collected at the two long-term water-quality sites at Fort Indiantown Gap, Lebanon and Dauphin Counties, Pa.

[P01106, Aluminum as Al; P01002, Arsenic as As; P01042, Copper as Cu; P01045, Iron as Fe; P01051, Lead as Pb; P71900, Mercury as Hg]

P01106 P01002 P01042 P01045 P01051 P71900 Minimum 20 4 10 120 3 0.1 25th percentile 47 10 10 310 3 .2 Mean 74 14.4 10.6 1,900 3.1 .19 Median 79.5 15 10 700 3 .2 75th percentile 100 15 10 3,300 3 .2 Maximum 130 34 20 8,600 6 .2 Total number of samples 127 127 127 127 127 127

Table 9. Summary statistics for selected total metal concentrations, in micrograms per liter, from the two continuous-record long-term monitoring sites at Fort Indiantown Gap and five off-facility comparison sites.

[USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; DA, drainage area in square miles; <, less than; --, no data; Al, aluminum; As, arsenic; Cu, copper; Fe, iron; Pb, lead]

USGS station name Minimum Median Maximum and (identification DA number) Al As Cu Fe Pb Al As Cu Fe Pb Al As Cu Fe Pb Indiantown Run at Indiantown Gap 5.5 100 <10 <10 140 <3 350 15 10 530 3.2 1,700 30 20 3,700 6 (01572950) Manada Creek near Manada Gap 10.6 100 <10 <10 120 <3 300 15 10 250 3 800 30 20 980 6 (01573482) Letort Run near Carl- 7.3 -- <4 <4 20 <1 -- <4 <4 84 <1 -- <4 <4 160 <1 isle (01567795) Rambo Run near Stew- 10 100 <4 <4 90 <1 116 <4 <4 215 <1 200 <4 <4 450 <1 artstown (01577180) Swatara Creek at Lorberry Junction 42 100 40 <3 180 40 404 46 <3 960 40 1,600 80 <3 4,200 80 (01571798) Swatara Creek near Ravine 43 30 30 <3 60 <1 2,430 46 14 6,260 35 27,000 400 90 60,000 100 (01571820) Swatara Creek near Pine Grove 116 200 -- 10 40 <1 2,400 -- 15 4,200 4.8 18,900 -- 120 54,400 100 (015720205) 18 Surface-Water Quantity and Quality, Aquatic Biology, Stream Geomorphology, and Groundwater-Flow Simulation

Volatile and Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds, become refuges for sensitive taxa (Carvell, 2002; Anders and Pesticides, and Explosives Dearborn, 2004). A total of 10 samples were collected for analysis of vola- Habitat tile and semi-volatile organic compounds (VOCs and SVOCs), 7 samples for pesticides, and 13 samples for explosives from Habitat scores (based on RBP, sample forms in the 2 continuous-record long-term and 5 miscellaneous sam- appendix 3) were fairly consistent at each site for the four con- pling sites. Due to increased analysis costs, less samples were secutive sampling years. Four classifications were determined collected when compared to the number of samples collected on the basis of score; poor, less than 47; marginal, 48 to 100; for nutrients and metals. Sample collection was targeted to suboptimal, 101 to 153; and optimal, greater than 153; 200 possible source areas considering location, land uses, and is the highest possible score (Barbour and others, 1999). The season. VOCs and SVOCs are widely used in industrial, lowest score was 85 at Forge Creek (fc-1, fig. 9, map number commercial, and household applications. Many are suspected 6) in 2002 and the highest score was 188 at Gold Mine Run to cause cancer and enter the groundwater and surface water (GoldMineRunref-1, fig. 9, map number 7) in 2004 (table 11). through spills, leakage from storage sites (tanks and lagoons), Mean annual scores increased from 151 in 2002 to 155 and and disposal sites. Similar to the nutrients and metals, no 163 in 2003 and 2004, respectively, then decreased to 140 in concentrations were above any USEPA primary or secondary 2005. Between the 2004 and 2005 samplings, the remnants of drinking-water standards. In fact, no VOCs or SVOCs were Tropical Storm Ivan caused widespread and severe flooding above the method detection limit in any of the samples, except and damage to the FIG facility. On the basis of mean scores, one sample from Indiantown Run that had a detectable con- no sites were classified in the poor or marginal category. centration of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) but was well Thirteen sites were in the suboptimal category. The remain- below the drinking-water standard. Pesticides (herbicides and ing 14 sites were in the optimal category including 4 of the 7 insecticides) are used to control weed growth and insect popu- off-facility sites. Annual scores indicated two sites were in the lations. No pesticide concentrations were detected above the marginal category; Forge Creek (fc-1, fig. 9, map number 6) in method detection limit. Explosives have been widely used at 2002 and unnamed tributary to Indiantown Run (utir-01, fig. 9, the FIG facility for more than 60 years. Several samples from map number 22) in 2003. Both sites were on or predominantly each of the two continuous-record long-term sites had low but drain the FIG facility (table 11). The overall mean classifica- detectable levels of compounds related to the use of explosives tion was suboptimal for all sites and all years. that included cyclotrimethylenetrinitramine (RDX) and per- The largest change in year-to-year score (-74) was at St. chlorate. Currently (2009), no drinking-water or health-related Joseph’s Spring (sjs-01, fig. 9, map number 19) from 2004 standard exists for RDX or perchlorate. Statistical summaries to 2005; this was the only site to start as optimal and end as including maximum, mean, median, and minimum concentra- nearly marginal in the 4 years of sampling. Three sites, Gold tions of all sampled pesticide and explosive constituents are Mine Run (GoldMineRunRef-1, fig. 9, map number 7), Indian- included in appendix 2b; VOCs and SVOCs are presented in town Run site 2 (ir-2, fig. 9, map number 11), and Indiantown appendix 2c. Run above Vesle Run at Indiantown (ir-3, fig. 9, map number 12), were in the optimal classification for all four sampling years; one site (unnamed tributary to Indiantown Run at Fort Aquatic Biology Indiantown Gap) (utir-01, fig. 9, map number 22) was classified as marginal all 4 years. The number of sites classified as optimum increased from During July and August of 2002–05, the aquatic- 9 in 2002 to 18 in 2004 (fig. 10). Some of the changes may invertebrate communities were sampled each year at 27 sites have been because of the drought conditions in 2002 followed (fig. 9 and table 10) within and outside the boundaries of the by the two wetter years that allowed for more vegetation to FIG facility. Fish communities were sampled in 2004 for grow, which helped raise the scores within certain categories. the purpose of comparing “on- and off-facility” sites to help However, these positive changes were offset in 2005 when the determine if there were environmental impacts attributable to number of sites classified as optimum decreased to three, most base operations. likely because of the extreme flooding event following the Land disturbance commonly results in soil erosion, 2004 sampling. No streams were classified as poor in any year. leading to water-quality problems and potential habitat loss (Jansen, 1997). Many studies have indicated the potential for environmental problems related to military training (Lanier- Aquatic Invertebrates Graham, 1993; Austin and Bruch, 2000; Ehlen and Harmon, 2001; Dudley and others, 2002; Fang and others, 2003). How- Over the 4-year period 2002–05, land-use characteristics ever, other studies have shown that military areas having large remained mostly unchanged; however, the hydrologic condi- tracts of undisturbed and less fragmented land than adjacent tions at these sites were highly variable. During 2002, the lands actually can increase plant and animal diversity and study area was subject to an intense drought, reducing streams

Aquatic Biology 19

n n

u u

R R

g g

e e

4 MILES

r r 6

u Q 17 21 16 1 2

n n

u u

R R

s s KILOMETERS

e e

4 r r

i i

A A

n n

u u

R R

e e

s s l l

e e V V 3

76°35'

27 Cantonment Area Cantonment 2 12 20 1 11 10 1

n 19 u 0 R 0

22 18

w to 9 n ia Ind 40°28' 3

76°40'

e e

a 13

M Training Corridor Training 23 15 14 40°26' 40°24' 24 ocation of biological sampling sites, Fort Indiantown Gap (FIG), Lebanon and Dauphin Counties, Pa. (four numbers 4, 5, 7 , 26, are beyond L 25 Fort Indiantown Gap boundary Gap Indiantown Fort Building range Firing zone Impact Stream Biological sampling site and number

13 13 EXPLANATION Figure 9. the extent of this map) 20 Surface-Water Quantity and Quality, Aquatic Biology, Stream Geomorphology, and Groundwater-Flow Simulation 763751 763230 763241 762823 763554 763313 763229 763355 763313 763236 763337 763739 763714 763651 763648 763609 763601 753512 763509 763954 764136 764216 764234 764252 764345 764238 764102 Longitude 402834 403130 403133 403043 402753 402852 402722 402553 402535 402602 402532 402656 402654 402640 402640 402640 402532 402456 402456 402301 402506 402448 402424 402409 402410 402332 402036 Latitude Site name ScMRef-1 ebMRef-1 GoldMineRunRef-1 bhRef-1 tr-1 tr-2 fc-1 ar-1 ar-2 qr-1 qr-2 ir-0.5 utir-01 sjs-01 HatImpact ir-1 ir-2 ir-3 vr-1 bcRef-1 mc-1 utmcm-1 mc-1.5 utmcm-2 utmcm-3 mc-2 utmcvRef-1 Station name Stony Creek near Fort Indiantown Gap, Pa. Pa. City, Tower Evening Branch above Gold Mine Run near Pa. City, Tower Gold Mine Run near Pa. Bear Hole Run at Suedberg, Run at Fort Indiantown Gap, Pa. Trout Run near Inwood, Pa. Trout Creek near Lickdale, Pa. Forge Aires Run at Fort Indiantown Gap, Pa. Aires Run above Qureg at Fort Indiantown Gap, Pa. Qureg Run at Fort Indiantown Gap, Pa. Aires Run below Qureg at Fort Indiantown Gap, Pa. Indiantown Run above unnamed tributary at Fort Gap, Pa. Unnamed tributary to Indiantown Run at Fort Gap, Pa. St Joseph Springs outflow at Fort Indiantown Gap, Pa. Indiantown Run below Hatchery at Fort Gap, Pa. Indiantown Run in Gap at Fort Gap, Pa. Indiantown Run above Memorial Lake near Indiantown, Pa. Run at Indiantown, Pa. Vesle Indiantown Run above Run at Indiantown, Pa. Vesle Bow Creek at Grantville, Pa. Manada Creek along McLean Road near Gap, Pa. Unnamed tributary to Manada Creek near Gap, Pa. Manada Creek near Gap, Pa. to Manada Creek at Gap, Pa. Trail along Horseshoe Tributary Unnamed tributary to Manada Creek at Rt 443 near Gap, Pa. Manada Creek below Gap at Gap, Pa. Unnamed tributary to Manada Creek near Sand Beach, Pa.

5 7 4 6 1 2 9 8 3 11 18 20 21 16 17 22 19 10 12 27 13 23 14 24 25 15 26 Map (fig. 9) number .39 .26 .86 2.57 7.51 2.45 1.16 1.35 6.30 1.60 2.25 2.51 5.58 1.47 1.12 4.68 5.38 6.27 8.38 2.90 6.19 1.08 8.59 1.64 2.55 10.6 14.3 (square miles) Drainage area U.S. Geological Survey site information for the 27 biological sampling sites, collected July-August 2002–05 at Fort Indiantown Gap, Lebanon and Dauphin Counties,

USGS station number 01572112 01572113 01568693 01572124 01572145 01572150 01572300 01572804 01572814 01572834 01572844 01572924 01572928 01572940 01572944 01572948 01572956 01572975 01572986 01573300 01573472 01573480 01573482 01573490 01573496 01573501 01573535 identification Table 10. Table Pa. site] [USGS, U.S. Geological survey; shaded, off-facility Aquatic Biology 21

Table 11. Individual and mean habitat scores for 2002–05 and site classification for the 27 sample sites, Fort Indiantown Gap facility, Lebanon and Dauphin Counties, Pa.

[shaded; off-facility site]

Map Site Habitat scores Classification number name 2002 2003 2004 2005 Mean 1 ar-1 111 119 168 142 135 Suboptimal 2 ar-2 152 121 125 127 131 Suboptimal 3 bcRef-1 124 140 125 139 132 Suboptimal 4 BHRef-1 149 169 180 147 161 Optimal 5 ebMRef1 186 173 180 150 172 Optimal 6 fc-1 85 114 136 124 115 Suboptimal 7 GoldMineRunRef-1 185 187 188 165 181 Optimal 8 HatImpact 152 157 160 136 151 Suboptimal 9 ir-0.5 119 163 164 143 147 Suboptimal 10 ir-1 153 169 172 119 153 Suboptimal 11 ir-2 177 180 185 171 178 Optimal 12 ir-3 171 164 176 168 170 Optimal 13 mc-1 167 160 166 143 159 Optimal 14 mc-1.5 176 171 186 130 166 Optimal 15 mc-2 157 174 183 144 165 Optimal 16 qr-1 120 129 114 127 123 Suboptimal 17 qr-2 147 134 171 151 151 Suboptimal 18 ScMRef-1 154 176 169 141 160 Optimal 19 sjs-01 169 164 181 107 155 Optimal 20 tr-1 157 178 175 135 161 Optimal 21 tr-2 164 152 174 147 159 Optimal 22 utir-01 104 94 115 112 106 Suboptimal 23 utmcm-1 175 173 168 142 165 Optimal 24 utmcm-2 164 170 168 144 162 Optimal 25 utmcm-3 144 156 152 158 153 Suboptimal 26 utmcvRef-1 147 148 151 111 139 Suboptimal 27 vr-1 172 158 166 151 162 Optimal Mean 151 155 163 140 152 Suboptimal 22 Surface-Water Quantity and Quality, Aquatic Biology, Stream Geomorphology, and Groundwater-Flow Simulation

20 EXPLANATION 18 Optimal 16 Suboptimal Marginal 14 Poor

8 Number of sites 6

0 2002 2003 2004 2005

Figure 10. Habitat assessment scores for 27 sites from 2002 through 2005. to low-flow conditions. In 2003, a series of severe thunder- (9 taxa); and Chelicerata (10 taxa). In addition, seven taxa of storms crossed the FIG facility during the sampling period and crustaceans were identified; however, Crustacea is not used in caused major streamflow alterations, scouring and transporting any metric or index determination. the bottom materials. In 2004, the streamflow was well above average during the sampling period. In 2005, streamflow during the sampling period (July-August) was below normal, fol- Metrics and Impacts lowing an above-normal spring flow. Separating these natural In order to analyze the benthic-macroinvertebrate com- hydrologic changes from actual impacts resulting from anthro- munity data, a series of metrics was calculated. Species taxa pogenic factors at the FIG facility could be difficult. However, (total richness); Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera examining the benthic-invertebrate community statistically (EPT) values; and the HBI were selected as the primary met- over multiple years was useful for this purpose. rics (table 13). However, because the metrics of taxa richness, The 27 streams sampled ranged from less than 3 to about EPT value, and HBI measure different aspects of the inverte- 30 ft wide; depths were from 0.1 to 1 m. Many of the sites brate community, a unanimous assessment is not expected and were within forested areas with riparian buffer zones of vary- a majority defines the impact present (Bode and others, 2004). ing widths. The pH values were mostly in the moderate range Species or taxa richness and EPT value are the total number of 6–7, specific conductance ranged from 15 to 400 μS/cm, of taxa (distinct organisms) found in a 100-animal subsample. and dissolved oxygen concentrations were saturated. The HBI is a measure of the pollution tolerance of the animals in the sample, calculated by multiplying the number of indi- Inventory of Aquatic Invertebrates viduals of each taxa by its assigned tolerance value, summing the products, and dividing by the total number of individuals. A comprehensive taxa (distinct organisms) list for the On a 0–10 scale, tolerance values range from intolerant (0) to aquatic invertebrates collected from the 27 sites for each year tolerant (10) (Hilsenhoff, 1988). from 2002 to 2005 is included in appendix 6. The summary Lydy and others (2000) suggested that examining one totals and calculated metric values used in the analysis are also metric alone in comparison studies may not be a suitable included. A total of 280 distinct taxa were identified (table 12). method for examining changes in water quality and instead There were 273 of 280 distinct taxa used in the calcula- suggested using a combination of metrics to define and tion of the selected metrics and mean impact score; 237 were describe the conditions. An impact scheme used by the New from the Phylum Arthropoda. Within this phylum, the greatest York State Department of Environmental Conservation (Bode numbers of taxa identified were in the Class Insecta. Other and others, 2002) was followed in the present study, employ- phyla represented were Platyhelminthes (1 taxon); Nemertea ing a four-tiered classification system (table 13) where the (1 taxon); Nematoda (1 taxon); Annelida (14 taxa); Mollusca level of impact was assessed for each individual metric and Aquatic Biology 23

Table 12. Summary totals for the classification and identification of aquatic invertebrates collected at Fort Indiantown Gap, Lebanon and Dauphin Counties, Pa., 2002–05.

[(n); number of distinct taxa]

Phylum Class Order (Common name) Arthropoda (237) Insecta Collembola (4) springtails Ephemeroptera (28) mayflies Odonata (12) dragon and damsel flies Hemiptera (3) true bugs Plecoptera (23) stoneflies Coleoptera (18) beetles Megaloptera (4) dobson and fish flies Trichoptera (40) caddisflies Lepidoptera (2) moths Diptera true flies Midges (78) non midges (25) Platyhelminthes (1) Nemertea (1) Nematoda (1) Annelida (14) Mollusca (9) Chelicerata (10) Crustacea (7)

Table 13. Water-quality impact assessment based on biological metrics.

[EPT; Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera; HBI, Hilsenhoff Biotic Index]

Metrics Mean Water-quality Level of impact impact condition Taxa richness EPT taxa richness HBI score score Non-impacted Greater than 26 Greater than 10 0.0 to 4.50 7.51 to 10 Excellent Slightly impacted 19 to 26 6 to 10 4.51 to 6.50 5.01 to 7.5 Good Moderately impacted 11 to 18 2 to 5 6.51 to 8.50 2.51 to 5.0 Fair Severely impacted 0 to 10 0 to 1 8.51 to 10.0 0 to 2.5 Poor 24 Surface-Water Quantity and Quality, Aquatic Biology, Stream Geomorphology, and Groundwater-Flow Simulation then averaged for a consensus determination. The “water- sites sampled on the FIG facility over the 4 years of study, 15 quality condition” was calculated on the basis of a range in (75 percent) were considered to have excellent water quality individual metric score. Each individual score was converted and 5 (25 percent) had good water quality. Of the seven sites to a “new” scale ranging from 0 to 10 and then averaged for sampled off the base boundary, five sites (71 percent) were the consensus (mean impact) determination of water-quality considered to be excellent and two (29 percent) were consid- condition. For example, “non-impacted” indicated excel- ered to be good. On the basis of the percentages of excellent lent water quality. The invertebrate community was diverse and good water quality, site selection was valid for the repre- with at least 27 taxa in riffle habitat. The EPT taxa were well sentation of conditions on and off the FIG facility. represented with greater than 10. The HBI was 0.00–4.50 and The number of sites by year for three metrics with associ- mean impact scores were between 7.50 and 10. This level ated level of impact and mean impact score are shown in of water quality includes pristine habitats and those receiv- table 14 and figure 12. The number of non-impacted sites was ing minimally adverse sources of pollutants. Conversely, greatest in 2005. The greatest change was in the taxa rich- “severely impacted” was reflective of poor water quality. The ness metric where 12 fewer sites were classified as slightly invertebrate community was limited to a few tolerant taxa. impacted in 2003 as compared to 2002. Conversely, 11 more Taxa richness values were 10 or less. EPT value (taxa rich- sites were classified as non-impacted in 2003 than in 2002 ness) was rare, with a range of 0–1. The dominant taxa were using the taxa richness metric. The HBI metric did not clas- almost all midges and worms. The HBI ranges from 8.51–10, sify any sites as moderately or severely impacted. The EPT and mean impact scores were between 0 and 2.5. Ranges in metric classified sites as moderately impacted in 3 of 4 years impact assessment criteria for four different levels of impact of sampling, the highest number of sites was five in 2002. The are presented in table 13. number of non-impacted sites generally increased in all three The three metrics selected for invertebrate analysis— metrics from 2002 to 2005. Regardless of the metric used, Taxa richness, EPT value (taxa richness), and HBI score—not none of the sites were classified as severely impacted in any of surprisingly showed variability over the 4 years of study. the 4 years. Taxa richness numbers ranged from 16 at bcREF-1 (fig. 9, Mean impact scores in table 14 were based on a “consen- map number 3) in 2003 to 46 at utmcm-1 (fig. 9, map number sus” of the three metrics; taxa richness, EPT score, and HBI 23) in 2004. The mean for all sites for all years was 28. EPT score. Figure 12 represents the mean scores based on the three values ranged from 2 at qr-1 (fig. 9, map number 16) in 2002 metrics and indicates an increase each year in the number to 18 at ir-1 (fig. 9, map number 10) in 2004; the EPT scores at of sites classified as having excellent water quality. One site 80 percent of the sites were greater than 5. HBI scores ranged was classified as having fair water quality in 2003; no sites from 1.79 to 6.20 at the same site (fc-1, fig. 9, map number 6), were classified as having poor water quality. Overall, benthic- invertebrate communities were in a less-affected condition in and the mean score was 3.97. 2005 than in 2002 likely due to climate conditions and severe A detailed annual summary for each of the 27 sites sam- drought rather than to FIG-facility operations. pled for 2002–05 is presented in appendix 4. Of the 27 sites Seven sites were rated as excellent during the entire sampled, the mean impact scores at 17 sites were reflective of 4-year sampling period: Bear Hole Run (bhRef-1, fig. 9, map excellent water quality and at 10 sites indicated good water number 4, not shown), Indiantown Run in Gap (ir-1, fig. 9, quality. No sites had fair or poor water quality on the basis of map number 10), Manada Gap along Mclean Rd (mc-1, fig. 9, the 4-year average 2002–05 impact score (fig. 11). Of the 20 map number 13), St. Joseph’s Spring (sjs-01, fig. 9, map number 19), Trout Run at Gap (tr-1, fig. 9, map number 20), Trout Run near Inwood (tr-2, fig. 9, map number 21), and unnamed tributary to Indiantown Run (utir-01, fig. 9, map number 22). EXPLANATION Two sites were “worse” than others but not considered fair or

Excellent (17 sites) poor—Bow Creek (bcRef-1, fig. 9, map number 3) and Qureg Run (qr-1, fig. 9, map number 16). The site that showed the Good (10 sites) most improvement over the 4-year period was Forge Creek (fc-1, fig. 9, map number 6), which had the lowest score (5.83) Fair (0 sites) in water-quality condition in 2002 and improved to excellent

Poor (0 sites) (8.34) in 2005. Based on the habitat and aquatic-invertebrate data from 2002 to 2005, habitat conditions worsened with time; in contrast, the invertebrate metrics and mean impacts improved with time. The dominant effects during the 4-year sampling period were the severe drought conditions in 2002 and the Figure 11. Results of mean impact scores for 27 aquatic- massive flooding event after the 2004 sampling. The inverte- invertebrate sites from 2002 through 2005, Fort Indiantown Gap brates appeared most affected by the severe drought condition, facility, Lebanon and Dauphin Counties, Pa. which created less wetted area for community growth, and Aquatic Biology 25 condition Water-quality Water-quality Excellent Good Fair Poor 5 0 0 22 27 2005 8 0 0 19 27 2004 1 0 13 13 27 2003 Mean impact score 0 0 11 16 27 2002 4 0 0 23 27 2005 7 0 0 20 27 2004 7 0 0 HBI scores 20 27 2003 9 0 0 18 27 2002 9 0 0 18 27 2005 1 0 16 10 27 2004 6 3 0 19 27 2003 Metrics and year EPT Value (taxa richness) EPT Value 5 0 10 12 27 2002 6 0 0 21 27 2005 8 0 0 19 27 2004 5 2 0 20 27 2003 Taxa richness Taxa 9 1 0 17 27 2002 Number of sites by year, metric, and level of impact with mean scores for 2002–05, Fort Indiantown Gap facility off-facility sites, Lebanon Dauphin Counties, Number of sites by year,

Level of impact Non-impacted Slightlyimpacted Moderatelyimpacted Severely impacted Total Table 14. Table Pa. Biotic Index] HBI; Hilsenhoff Trichoptera, Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and [EPT; 26 Surface-Water Quantity and Quality, Aquatic Biology, Stream Geomorphology, and Groundwater-Flow Simulation

25 EXPLANATION Excellent 20 Good Fair Poor 15

10 Number of sites

0 2002 2003 2004 2005

Figure 12. Results of mean impact scores for the 27 aquatic invertebrate sites by year, Fort Indiantown Gap facility, Lebanon and Dauphin Counties, Pa. higher average air and water temperatures; the habitat was the distribution being equal. At 20 of the sites, the percent most affected by the flooding that created physical (geomor- intolerant species was 5 percent or less. The site with the phic) change to the stream channel. most evenly distributed community was Quereg Run, where the dominant taxa were only 24 percent of the total species at Fish Community the site. Gold Mine Run was the only site to have one taxon. With an increase in stream size, the number of taxa at a site Fish were sampled at 25 of the 27 invertebrate sites also increased. The smaller, headwater streams had the lowest (table 15). Summary tables of the fish communities were number of taxa, and the wider, deeper, warm-water sites had created for each site and are presented in appendix 5. Simple the highest number of taxa. statistics such as average length and weight were calculated. A TWINSPAN analysis was used to show the relation of The percentage of each species to the total numbers collected the sites to each other on the basis of the communities present. in the community was calculated. Several metrics, catch-per- This technique reduces “noise” in community data to provide unit effort (CPUE), percent native species, percent intoler- a more accurate picture of the community structures (Gauch, ant species, percent dominant species, and total number of 1982). The TWINSPAN analysis (fig. 13) showed site group- individuals, were calculated to show community differences or ings on the basis of the species collected at each site. The similarities among all the sites. first two sites to separate out were Gold Mine Run (Gold- The fish surveys of the 25 sites on and off the FIG facility MineRunRef-1) and Evening Branch above Gold Mine Run yielded a total of 4,818 fish with a biomass of 36,568 g. The (ebMRef-1). These sites separated out because brook trout CPUE ranged from 0.6 fish per minute at Evening Branch were dominant species at these sites. Next, the sites separated above Gold Mine Run to 15.1 at Aires Run above Quereg Run out as warm-water and cold-water sites. This break was based (table 15). A total of 33 species were collected. on brown trout as an indicator species for the cold-water sites, The fish metrics indicate most sites were healthy. The two and longnose dace (Rhinichthys cataractae), tessellated darter sites with the highest CPUE were Aires Run above Quereg (Etheostoma olmstedi) and green sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus) Run and below Quereg Run. These two sites also yielded the as indicator species for the warm-water sites. greatest total number of individuals at a site. The number of The cold-water sites were Gold Mine Run, Evening sites with 100 percent native species was seven. Most sites had Branch, all the Manada Creek sites, both Trout Run sites, all 90 percent or more of the taxa that were native species. The the unnamed tributary sites to Manada Creek except for the site with the lowest percentage of native species was Stony off-facility sites, the unnamed tributary to Indiantown Run, Creek. Gold Mine Run was the only site that had 100 percent and the Indiantown Run sites above Memorial Lake, Stony of the species as intolerant, and the only species collected at Creek, St. Joseph’s Spring, and Bear Hole Run (fig. 13). The the site were brook trout. Bear Hole Run and Evening Branch first subgrouping includes Gold Mine Run (GoldMineRun- scored 45 percent or higher in both numbers of intolerant Ref-1) and Evening Branch (ebMRef-1), which separated species and percent dominant species in their communities, out based on the absence of brown trout and river chub. The Aquatic Biology 27

Table 15. Fish metric statistics for fish data collected at Fort Indiantown Gap and nearby off-facility sites, Lebanon and Dauphin Counties, Pa.

[shaded, off-facility site]

Fish metrics Map Catch- Site name number per-unit Percent Percent Percent Total Total (fig. 9) effort native intolerant dominant number of number of species1 species species individuals taxa Aires Run at Fort Indiantown Gap (ar-1) 1 3.7 100 0 67 236 9 Aires Run above Quereg Run (ar-2) 2 15.1 100 0 50 725 8 Bow Creek (bcRef-1) 3 5.7 99 0 47 321 10 Bear Hole Run (bhRef-1) 4 7.1 100 47 47 163 6 Evening Branch above Gold Mine Run (ebMRef-1) 5 .6 86 45 45 22 4 Forge Creek (fc-1) 6 No fish data collected Gold Mine Run (GoldMineRunRef-1) 7 1.2 100 100 100 29 1 Indiantown Run below hatchery (HatImpact) 8 4.9 89 1 65 205 6 Indiantown Run above unnamed tributary (ir-0.5) 9 3.8 100 0 37 163 3 Indiantown Run at Fort Indiantown Gap (ir-1) 10 4.8 86 0 79 145 5 Indiantown Run above Memorial Lake (ir-2) 11 4.9 74 0 33 148 8 Indiantown Run above Vesle Run (ir-3) 12 3.7 98 0 36 194 17 Manada Creek above McLean Road (mc-1) 13 5.0 93 1 39 211 9 Manada Creek near Manada Gap (mc-1.5) 14 2.3 89 1 59 167 10 Manada Creek below Manada Gap (mc-2) 15 3.9 94 3 45 141 13 Quereg Run (qr-1) 16 2.0 83 0 24 82 14 Aires Run below Quereg Run (qr-2) 17 11.9 99 0 34 751 20 Stony Creek (ScMRef-1) 18 .9 50 21 46 28 6 St. Joseph’s Spring (sjs-01) 19 2.3 97 0 97 70 2 Trout Run at Fort Indiantown Gap (tr-1) 20 1.7 100 26 70 47 3 Trout Run near Inwood (tr-2) 21 3.7 99 2 45 147 17 Unnamed tributary to Indiantown Run (utir-01) 22 3.2 100 1 49 89 5 Unnamed tributary to Manada Creek (utmcm-1) 23 3.4 81 4 64 181 5 Unnamed tributary to Manada Creek (utmcm-2) 24 No fish data collected Unnamed tributary to Manada Creek (utmcm-3) 25 1.0 94 0 53 34 7 Unnamed tributary to Manada Creek (utmcvRef-1) 26 4.0 99 0 43 260 9 Vesle Run (vr-1) 27 6.2 98 0 28 259 13 1Cooper, 1983; Plafkin and others, 1989; Roth and others, 1997. 28 Surface-Water Quantity and Quality, Aquatic Biology, Stream Geomorphology, and Groundwater-Flow Simulation

GoldMineRunRef

ebMRef-1

tr-1

sjs-01

ir-1

BHRef-1

utmcm-1

ScMRef-1 White sucker Brook trout

utir-01

ir-0.5 Brook trout River chub

mc-1 White sucker

HatImpact Brook trout Brown trout utmcm-3

Cutlips minnow mc-1.5

tr-2

mc-2

Longnose dace darter Tessellated Green sunfish ar-1

Qr1

utmcvRef-1

White sucker BcRef-1

vr-1

qr-2 Spotfin shiner

ar-2 Central stoneroller ir-3

ir-2

Figure 13. TWINSPAN analysis for the 25 fish sampling sites and warm-water (red-orange) or cold-water (blue) designation based on indicator species. Aquatic Biology 29 next subgrouping contains sites Trout Run (tr-1), St. Joseph’s These sites separated out on the presence of spotfin shiner Spring (sjs-01), Indiantown Run at Fort Indiantown Gap (ir-1), (Cyprinella spiloptera). The next split consisted of Aries and Bear Hole Run (bhRef-1). The sites separated out on the Run at Fort Indiantown Gap (ar-1) and Quereg Run at Fort basis of the absence of white sucker (Catastomus commer- Indiantown Gap (Qr-1) based on the absence of white sucker. soni) and brook trout. The next subgrouping of sites included The last break was based on the presence/absence of central an unnamed tributary to Manada Creek (utmcm-1) and Stony stoneroller (Campostoma anomalum). A group of sites with Creek (ScMRef-1), which was based on the presence of brook the central stoneroller included unnamed tributary to Manada trout at these two sites. The next subgroup break was deter- Creek (utmcvRef-1) and Bow Creek (BcRef-1), which were mined by the presence of white sucker for the next grouping— off-facility sites. The last grouping of sites indicated central an unnamed tributary to Indiantown Run (utir-01), Indiantown stonerollers were present at Vesle Run (vr-1), Aires Run below Run above the unnamed tributary (ir-0.5), Manada Creek Quereg Run (qr-2), and Aires Run above Quereg Run (ar-3). above McLean Road (mc-1), and Indiantown Run below In this survey of 25 sites (table 15, fig. 9), trout were the hatchery (HatImpact)—or cutlips minnow (Exoglossum found at 14 sites, on and off the FIG facility (table 16, maxillingua) for the next-to-last grouping—unnamed tribu- appendix 5). Brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) were found tary to Manada Creek below Route 443 (utmcm-3), and at 10 sites, brown trout (Salmo trutta) at 9 sites, and rainbow Manada Creek near Manada Gap (mc-1.5). The last cold-water trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) at 3 sites. At Bear Hole Run subgroup contains sites Trout Run (tr-2) and Manada Creek (bhREF-1), one trout had a deformity of the spine. All the (mc-2), which separate out on the presence of river chub. other trout had no visible deformities and appeared to be in The warm-water sites that broke out first were Indian- good health. Bear Hole Run had the highest density of trout town Run above Memorial Lake (ir-3) and Indiantown Run within a 100-m reach. above Vesle Run (ir-2) and were at the opposite end of the Not all the collected fish were native fish. Several TWINSPAN from Gold Mine Run and Evening Branch. reaches along Manada Creek, Stony Creek, and Trout Run

Table 16. Number and type of trout found at Fort Indiantown Gap and nearby off-facility sites, Lebanon and Dauphin Counties, Pa.

[shaded, off-facility site; mm,millimeters]

Map Size class Site name number Trout species Small Medium Large (fig. 9) (1–100 mm) (101–180 mm) (181–500 mm) Bear Hole Run (bhRef-1) 4 Brook 23 47 5 Evening Branch (ebMRef-1) 5 Brook 0 6 4 Gold Mine Run (GoldMineRunRef-1) 7 Brook 13 22 2 Indiantown Run below hatchery (HatImpact) 8 Brook 0 0 1 Brown 5 13 5 Indiantown Run at Fort Indiantown Gap (ir-1) 10 Brown 13 7 0 Rainbow 0 1 0 Manada Creek above McLean Road (mc-1) 13 Brook 0 1 1 Brown 5 7 2 Manada Creek near Manada Gap (mc-1.5) 14 Brook 0 1 0 Brown 14 3 2 Manada Creek below Manada Gap (mc-2) 15 Brown 5 0 1 Rainbow 0 0 2 Stony Creek (ScMRef-1) 18 Brook 0 5 1 Brown 0 0 13 St. Joseph’s Spring (sjs-01) 19 Brown 0 2 0 Trout Run at Fort Indiantown Gap (tr-1) 20 Brook 12 0 0 Trout Run near Inwood (tr-2) 21 Brook 0 1 1 Unnamed tributary to Manada Creek (utmcm-1) 23 Brook 5 2 0 Brown 29 4 1 Unnamed tributary to Manada Creek (utmcm-3) 25 Brown 0 0 1 Rainbow 0 0 1 30 Surface-Water Quantity and Quality, Aquatic Biology, Stream Geomorphology, and Groundwater-Flow Simulation were stocked by the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission Stream Geomorphology, Classification, (2007). If a site had only larger fish, it was probably not a self- reproducing population and was likely stocked. Stocked trout and Assessment usually are greater than 181 mm in total length. Size classes of fish for this study were defined as small (1–100 mm), medium The fluvial geomorphic assessment of the FIG facility (101–180 mm), and large (181–500 mm). Sites with a range was conducted in two parts in the summer of 2004, broadly of size classes are indicative of self-reproducing populations. following the guidelines defined in Rosgen (1996). The first Several sites, on and off the FIG facility, had several size part of the fluvial geomorphic assessment was a delineation of the watersheds within the boundaries of the FIG facility classes of either brook trout or brown trout (table 16). Sites and geomorphic stream classification. These classifications with only a few large fish were probably stocked or the fish were not used in this report to imply the relative stability or migrated there from a nearby larger body of water. instability of a stream channel (in relation to how sensitive the Brook trout were found at 10 sites (table 16). Several channel is to future disturbances) but to describe the stream of the off-facility sites had multiple counts of brook trout of channel on the basis of the relative pattern, profile, and dimen- varying size classes (Bear Hole Run, Evening Branch, Gold sion (geomorphic properties). The second part of the fluvial Mine Run, and Stony Creek). Bear Hole Run and Gold Mine geomorphic assessment involved a detailed analysis of two Run had all three size classes. Trout Run at Fort Indiantown individual stream reaches. These reaches were near USGS Gap (tr-1) only had smaller fish, but this stream was very streamgages in the two largest watersheds within the boundary narrow and shallow and it would be difficult to support fish of the FIG facility, 01572950 (Indiantown Run near Harper in the larger size classes. The unnamed tributary to Manada Tavern, Pa.), and 01573482 (Manada Creek near Manada Gap, Creek (utmcm-1) had no fish in the large class but had fish in Pa.). This analysis was used to predict how “stable” the stream the small and medium ranges. Conversely, Evening Branch channel was, as well as the vulnerability of the stream channel (ebMRef-1) did not have any brook trout in the small range, to future changes within the watershed. but the medium and large size classes had several fish. Other sites with only one or two brook trout in either the medium Stream Classification or large size classes were Indiantown Run below Hatchery (HatImpact), two Manada Creek sites (mc-1 and mc-1.5), and The geomorphic stream classes within the FIG facility Trout Run near Inwood (tr-2). were delineated and included in a geographic information Brown trout were found at nine sites including one off- system (GIS) coverage. On the basis of the total distance of facility site (table 16). Sites with fish in all three size classes all stream reaches classified within the FIG facility, 58 percent included Indiantown Run below Hatchery (HatImpact) and were classified as B class, 36 percent were C class, 2 percent three of the Manada Creek sites (mc-1, mc-1.5, and utmcm-1). were A class, 1 percent were E class, 1 percent were G class, Indiantown Run at Fort Indiantown Gap (ir-1) contained 1 percent were F class, and <1 percent were undifferenti- 13 brown trout in the small size and 7 in the median size. ated B and F class. Stream classes B, C, and A are generally Manada Creek below Manada Gap (mc-2) had five brown considered to be in dynamic equilibrium with the transport of sediment and, therefore, relatively stable. On this basis, trout in the small size class and one in the large size class. approximately 96 percent of the stream reaches are “stable.” St. Joseph’s Spring had only brown trout in the medium size More detailed discussion on stream “class” is included later in class. Unnamed tributary to Manada Creek (utmcm-3), which the section. is close to the mouth into Manada Creek, had one large brown Fluvial geomorphic stream classes change over time, or trout. The Stony Creek off-facility site contained 13 brown “evolve,” in relation to the characteristics of the watershed. trout, all in the large size class. Therefore, stream types within a watershed generally can be Four rainbow trout in the medium and large size classes related to each other by what is called the “stage of reach evo- were found at three sites—two at Manada Creek (mc-2), one lution” (Simon, 1989). The stage of reach evolution does not at Indiantown Run (ir-1), and one at an unnamed tributary to imply long-term stability but describes a process when used Manada Creek (utmcm-3). Rainbow trout were not native and in conjunction with the stream classification that can help to therefore represent stocked streams. identify the previous classification of a disturbed stream reach. It also indicates what that reach will likely become (evolve to) in the future as it returns to a state of dynamic equilibrium (balanced with the water and sediment loads supplied from the upstream basin). Simon (1989) and Rosgen (2002), among others, have identified at least nine possible scenarios to generally describe common, evolutionary sequences that many natural streams undergo as they progress from an undisturbed state to a disturbed state and back to a new undisturbed state Stream Geomorphology, Classification, and Assessment 31

(table 17). The beginning and end classes of each of the nine Other natural factors also affect the morphology and scenarios (C-, E-, and B-class streams) generally describe a stability of the stream channels within the FIG facility. Type stream reach that is considered to be in a state of dynamic and concentration of riparian vegetation, natural flooding, equilibrium, transporting the upstream watershed-supplied and wildlife can alter the local stream-channel morphology. water and sediment without exhibiting signs of rapid erosion For example, beavers have constructed several dams within or aggradation within the stream channel. the FIG facility; these dams will cause backwater flooding (fig. 14) as well as accelerated bank erosion in the immediate Table 17. Potential stream-channel evolutionary scenarios (from vicinity of the dam. Accelerated bank erosion near a beaver Rosgen, 2002; Simon, 1989). dam (or other obstruction) also is common and is the natural result of a stream trying to bypass an obstacle by taking the Scenario number Evolutionary sequence path of least resistance; the bank material is easier to erode 1 E>C>Gc>F>C>E than the beaver dam. 2 C>D>C Beaver dams also trap sediments. Because the stream has the ability (energy) to transport a certain amount of sediment, 3 C>D>Gc>F>C any sediment lost within the impoundment area of the dam 4 C>G>F>Bc will be restored downstream by increased erosion. For this 5 E>Gc>F>C>E reason, waters exiting a dam or any environment that limits 6 B>G>Fb>B or removes sediment from the stream are termed “sediment 7 Eb>G>B starved.” In time, the stream channel downstream from these 8 C>G>F>D>C dams will likely experience increased erosion and potentially become entrenched, going from a non-entrenched class of C 9 C>G>F>C or E to an entrenched class of G or F. Removal of the riparian vegetation by beavers also affects the reaches they occupy. Entrenched stream classes exhibiting little or no avail- Beavers can clear a substantial amount of woody vegetation able flood plains (G- and F-class streams) are in the center of from the riparian areas of the stream channel; these areas are an evolutionary sequence. These stream reaches likely began then susceptible to accelerated bank erosion upon abandon- as non- or lesser-entrenched stream classes (C-, E-, or B-class ment of the dam by beavers and (or) subsequent failure of the streams) and are likely in the process of evolving back into structure. Even though beavers can seriously affect stream- these same classes described above (table 17). This evolution- channel morphology, they also create a very diverse and ary process depends on confined streams attempting to erode important habitat, form wetlands that can filter many patho- restrictive banks (those that confine flood waters to a narrow, gens from the water column, and create areas of emergent high-energy channel) and develop a flood plain. vegetation. There are two general exceptions to the concept of stream evolution, the A- and D-class channels. A-class stream channels are absent from the evolutionary scenarios (table 17) Geomorphic Analyses because these channels are considered robust and usually will not evolve into another stream class in a time scale reason- Detailed geomorphic study reaches were selected at two able for description in this context. D-class (braided) stream sites to assess fluvial geomorphic conditions in the largest channels are generally the result of large sediment loads that watersheds within the FIG facility. The stream reaches were exceed the ability of the stream to transport the material under near existing USGS streamgages at Indiantown Run and the given flow conditions. Manada Creek. At each site, the force the stream could exert In the case of the FIG facility, most G-class channels are on the streambed was evaluated against the size of the materi- confined to developed, or previously developed, areas and are als within the stream channel. Imbalances in this relation likely the result of stormwater runoff from impervious areas. generally are indicative of either an unstable condition or other When entrenched stream classes (G- and F-class streams) are factors that may be influencing the hydraulics of the stream mapped and located among largely non-entrenched stream reach; for example, excess force could result in increased reaches (C-, E-, or B-class streams), this commonly indicates erosion, and too little force could result in aggradation of the the response of the stream channel to changes in the runoff stream channel. The analysis included determination of the characteristics of the watershed above. On the basis of this entrenchment ratio (does the stream have an available flood potential response to changes within the watershed, the pres- plain?), width to depth ratio (is the channel narrow and deep ence of G- and F-class streams commonly indicates locations or wide and shallow?), channel materials (how big or small is with runoff or sediment-supply problems, such as excessive the streambed material?), particle entrainment (how large of a downstream sedimentation resulting from entrenchment. particle can the stream move?), and the slope. On the basis of These excess sediments may lead to degradation of down- these measurements and calculations, the force available in the stream stormwater structures and fish-spawning beds and may channel to move streambed materials can be estimated, as well cause increased flooding within downstream reaches. as the size and type of the material available to be moved. 32 Surface-Water Quantity and Quality, Aquatic Biology, Stream Geomorphology, and Groundwater-Flow Simulation

Figure 14. Backwater flooding on a tank trail resulting from a beaver dam plugging the culvert below an existing tank trail. The Indiantown Run geomorphic study reach was Severe aggradation in the stream channel and the flood adjacent to Pennsylvania State Highway (SR) 443 and begins plain was evident in the downstream portion of the geomor- approximately 200 ft upstream from the intersection of SR 443 phic study reach and was likely because of sediment-laden and Lake Road and ends approximately 700 ft downstream water deposition within the flood plain and losing competence from the streamgage. This geomorphic study reach was 900 ft as it exited the gap. The bulk of this sediment was likely the long and is adjacent to USGS streamgage 01572950 (Indi- result of large-magnitude flooding associated with the rem- antown Run near Harper Tavern, Pa.); 5.48 mi2 drains to the nants of Hurricane Ivan on September 18, 2004, and was not reach. The reach is at the downstream end of a narrow gap likely representative of bankfull conditions. During the rem- through a prominent ridge; the adjacent valley and flood plain nants of Hurricane Ivan, 960 ft3/s passed through this reach widened abruptly approximately half way along the reach compared to an estimated bankfull discharge of 195 ft3/s; the as the stream exited this gap. Deciduous and evergreen trees resulting competence of the stream under these extreme condi- dominated the valley and adjacent hillsides in the watershed, tions was substantially higher than the more frequent bankfull which was largely undeveloped and comprised of military- discharge. This aggradation was apparent throughout the reach training areas; however, the headwaters of Indiantown Run in several ways. First, mapping of geomorphic stream classes were home to several beavers that had created several large prior to the hurricane indicated this reach was classified as a impoundment/wetland areas. The bankfull channel was well- slightly entrenched B-class stream; subsequent to the hurri- defined throughout this reach and generally was denoted by an cane, aggradation of streambed changed the stream type to a abrupt change in bank angle, changes in riparian vegetation, non-entrenched C-class stream. Second, many trees within the and depositional features throughout the reach. In this area, flood plain had no visible root flare and large amounts of cob- Indiantown Run was not entrenched and had an available, bles and boulders covered the entire flood plain, generally an functioning flood plain to dissipate the forces associated with indication of sediment deposition within the flood plain. Third, natural, intermittent flooding; however, immediately upstream, the longitudinal profile (fig. 15, thalweg, center of channel) the flood plain was severely limited because of a narrow gap showed a prominent bulge on the downstream end of the reach in the ridge through which the stream flowed. that is comprised of a large pile of large cobbles and boulders Stream Geomorphology, Classification, and Assessment 33

108 EXPLANATION 106 Thalweg Large pile of accumulated 104 Water surface sediments 347 Bankfull surface 102 Cross-section 347 Cross-section 767 100

98 767

96 USGS Streamgage Elevation, in feet 01572950 at 94 station 222

88 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 Station, in feet

Figure 15. Longitudinal profile at Indiantown Run showing locations of two surveyed cross sections, Fort Indiantown Gap facility, Lebanon and Dauphin Counties, Pa. [thalweg; center of channel] in the approximate location where the stream lost competence particles within the streambed would likely be transported by because of overflow onto an adjacent flood plain. frequent bankfull flows and the previous graded system would At the upstream cross section (station 347, fig. 15 and likely be reformed at a lower elevation and a lesser slope as table 18), calculations indicated the stream, at bankfull flow, the excess sediment was transported downstream. This predic- had the potential to move an estimated 90 to 210 mm particle; tion of evolution to a future graded condition was conditional the largest particle (Di) in a core sample collected from an in that the runoff response and sediment loads upstream adjacent point bar was 457 mm. To move the 457 mm par- within the watershed must remain unchanged. On the basis ticle, the estimated mean bankfull water depth required was of these observations and the geomorphic data presented in 2.5 ft and the estimated bankfull water-surface slope required table 18, this reach of Indiantown Run was likely in a state of was 0.022 ft/ft. The existing mean bankfull water depth at flux because of the effects of the hurricane and should not be cross-section 347 was 1.4 ft, and the existing bankfull water- considered either stable or graded under the current pattern, surface slope was 0.012 ft/ft. At the downstream cross section profile, and dimension. (station 767, fig. 15 and table 18), calculations indicated the The Manada Creek geomorphic study reach was directly stream had the potential to move an estimated 145 to 338 mm downstream from Fogarty Road and began at the USGS particle; the largest particle (Di) in a core sample collected streamgage 01573482 (Manada Creek near Manada Gap, Pa.) from an adjacent point bar was 305 mm. To move the 305 mm and ended 1,300 ft downstream. The longitudinal profile, or particle, the estimated mean bankfull water depth required was side view, of the Manada Creek geomorphic study reach is 1.3 ft and the estimated bankfull water-surface slope required shown in figure 16 with the locations of each of the two sur- was 0.038 ft/ft. The existing mean bankfull water depth at veyed cross sections. The reach is in a relatively narrow valley cross-section 767 was 1.0 ft, and the existing bankfull water- bounded by steep ridges on both sides, and the drainage area surface slope was 0.028 ft/ft. above the reach is 8.59 mi2. Deciduous and evergreen trees Cross-section 347 indicated that most fine sediment was dominated the valley and adjacent hillsides and the watershed removed by Hurricane Ivan and only large aggregate remained above the reach was largely undeveloped and comprised of in the stream channel; analysis of current project data pre- military-training areas. dicted that finer sediments supplied from upstream would The bankfull channel was well-defined throughout this likely be deposited through this reach until a graded condition reach and generally was denoted by an abrupt change in bank was achieved. Cross-section 767 indicated a very high slope angle, changes in riparian vegetation, and depositional features developed along the downstream face of the sediment pile, throughout the reach; however, the culvert carrying Fogarty which increased the available energy and the consequent abil- Road over Manada Creek prevented this feature from being ity to entrain particles. Within the downstream portion of the extended to the staff plate at the USGS streamgage. Manada geomorphic study reach (767 to 900 ft), a large majority of the Creek, in this area, was not entrenched and had an available, 34 Surface-Water Quantity and Quality, Aquatic Biology, Stream Geomorphology, and Groundwater-Flow Simulation

Table 18. Site-specific geomorphic data for Manada Creek and Indiantown Run, Fort Indiantown Gap, Lebanon and Dauphin Counties, Pa.

[XS, cross section; ft3/s, cubic feet per second; ft2, feet squared; ft, feet; ft/ft, feet per foot; mm, millimeter; >, greater than; D84, particle size of which 84 percent of total sample is finer; D50, particle size which is 50 percent of particle size; D100, largest particle size from core sample]

Manada Creek geomorphic study site Indiantown Run geomorphic study site Parameter Reach XS 761 XS 1218 Reach XS 347 XS 767 Bankfull discharge (ft3/s) 340 195 Bankfull area (ft2) 95.6 91.3 43.6 40.4 Mean bankfull depth (ft) 2.4 1.9 1.4 1.0 Maximum bankfull depth (ft) 3.5 3.1 1.9 Bankfull width (ft) 40.3 47.0 31.0 40.5 Entrenchment ratio >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 Hydraulic radius (ft) 2.1 1.8 1.4 1.0 Bankfull slope (ft/ft) .004 .004 .004 .004 .012 .028 Sinuosity 1.1 1.1 Stream class1 C4 C4 C4 C3b Valley type2 II II II III D84 (mm) 110 118 136 147 D50 (mm) 50 35 52 69 D100 (mm) 229 76 457 305 1C-class streams are characterized by Rosgen (1996) as located in narrow to wide valleys, constructed from alluvial deposition, with well-developed flood plains. 2Valley Type II is characterized by moderate slope with gentle sloping sides in colluvial valleys while Valley Type III is characterized by alluvial fans and debris cones (Rosgen, 1996)

104 EXPLANATION 103 Thalweg Water surface 102 761 Bankfull surface 101 Cross-section 761 Cross-section 1218 100 1218

Elevation, in feet 98 USGS Streamgage 97 01573482 at station 0 96

95 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 Station, in feet

Figure 16. Longitudinal profile at Manada Creek showing locations of two surveyed cross sections, Fort Indiantown Gap facility, Lebanon and Dauphin Counties, Pa. Simulations of Groundwater Flow 35 functioning flood plain to dissipate the forces associated with large material within the stream channel, as noted at cross- natural, intermittent flooding (with the exception of the area in section 761. Fine material would likely be deposited within the immediate vicinity of the Fogarty Road culvert). the region of this cross section until the reach again comes into Debris piles were common throughout the reach; field equilibrium with additional sediment supplied from upstream observations suggested that the majority of this debris origi- in the watershed. Where previous bars or portions of those nated from the steep hillsides of the adjacent ridges because bars remain, such as downstream at cross-section 1218, data of slope failure and dead material washing into the stream suggested that Manada Creek had sufficient energy to trans- from the flood-plain areas. Limited streambank erosion and port these sediments through the reach without eroding the (or) channel migration undoubtedly added to the total debris streambed, which was armored by much larger particles as within the stream channel. This debris caused local areas of observed upstream at cross-section 761. This data, along with high energy and scour as was noted by the observation of the presence of an available, functioning flood plain, suggested “bright” or clean sediment in these areas. Clean sediments a graded condition exists within the Manada Creek Watershed were readily visible in the field because the biological coatings within and above this geomorphic study reach. were removed by abrasion as the particles were transported downstream. These clean sediments were eventually deposited in local scour holes or stored in bars upon recession of flood waters and the consequent decrease in the energy required to Simulations of Groundwater Flow transport them. Geomorphic data collected within this Manada Creek Computer models of groundwater flow were developed reach suggested it was stable and could be conditionally con- on a regional scale surrounding the entire area of the FIG sidered graded, assuming the stream was allowed to recover facility to simulate patterns of groundwater movement from to pre-flood condition with no changes in runoff response recharge to discharge areas on the basis of a generalized con- or sediment supply upstream within the watershed. This ceptual model of the regional hydrogeology. Vertical ground- reach had recently been subjected to a large-magnitude flood water-flow patterns were illustrated by use of a 2-dimensional resulting from the remnants of Hurricane Ivan on September finite-element, cross-sectional model and horizontal patterns 18, 2004 (1,700 ft3/s as compared to an estimated bankfull of flow were illustrated by use of a 3-dimensional finite-dif- discharge of 330 ft3/s). The reach remained relatively intact ference model. Locations of the cross-sectional and 3-dimen- with little sign of erosion or disturbance other than an influx sional models are shown in figure 17. of debris from the surrounding hillsides and flood plain and the associated local scour holes as water was forced around Conceptual Model these obstructions. The largest change between pre- and post-flood conditions, with the exception of added debris, was A conceptual model of recharge, movement, and dis- the removal of many bars and other fine sediments along the charge of groundwater was used to guide development of the streambed and banks. cross-sectional and 3-dimensional models. The groundwater- At cross-section station 761 (fig. 16 and table 18), flow system at the FIG facility was conceptualized as a calculations indicated the stream at bankfull flow had the complex system in which water moves through the subsurface potential to move an estimated 49- to 114-mm particle; the within fractured bedrock from topographically high areas to largest particle (Di) was 229 mm in a core sample collected low areas, discharging as base flow to local streams. Recharge from an adjacent mid-channel bar (formed largely of displaced to the system is by precipitation. The distribution of the bed materials and not stored transient sediments). To move recharge can vary spatially because of differences in precipita- the 229-mm particle, the estimated mean bankfull water depth tion amount, slope, aspect, soils, and rock type. required was 6.2 ft, and the estimated bankfull water-surface Groundwater-flow patterns in the local system are slope required was 0.012 ft/ft. The existing mean bankfull affected by the numerous rock types of differing lithologic water depth at cross-section 761 was 2.4 ft, and the existing and hydrologic properties, the folded and faulted geologic bankfull water-surface slope was 0.004 ft/ft. At cross-section structure, and the distribution of fractures. Discharge from the 1218 (fig. 16 and table 18), calculations indicated the stream system is to local streams on and near the FIG facility. Sub- had the potential to move an estimated 35- to 82-mm particle; stantial interbasin flow was probably unlikely because of the the largest particle (Di) in a core sample collected from an well-integrated drainage network and steep topography, but adjacent point bar was 76 mm. To move a 76-mm particle, that possibility was tested with the cross-sectional model. the estimated mean bankfull water depth required was 2.1 ft, and the estimated bankfull water-surface slope required was 0.004 ft/ft. The existing mean bankfull water depth at cross- Cross-Sectional Model section 1218 was 1.9 ft, and the existing bankfull water-surface slope was 0.004 ft/ft. A 2-dimensional, steady-state, finite element, cross- These data indicated that much of the fine sediment had sectional model was constructed along a representative trace been washed downstream by the flood event caused by pre- in the central part of the FIG study area. The cross section was cipitation from the remnants of Hurricane Ivan, leaving mostly constructed from Stony Creek in the northwest to Swatara 36 Surface-Water Quantity and Quality, Aquatic Biology, Stream Geomorphology, and Groundwater-Flow Simulation

76°40' 76°30'

40°30'

A S MN M LU O CO D L E DE L O R M O k W ree S y C Ston

ek re C

d a

a A’

n n

a a

M M

k ree C

w S

40°20'

EXTENT OF 3-DIMENSIONAL MODEL GRID

0 2 4 MILES EXPLANATION Active domain of 0 3 6 KILOMETERS 3-dimensional finite- difference model

Fort Indiantown Gap

Stream

A A’ Trace of 2-dimensional cross- sectional model shown in figures 18-20

Figure 17. Location of the 2-dimensional, cross-sectional model (trace A-A’), and extent of the 3-dimensional finite-difference model at Fort Indiantown Gap, Lebanon and Dauphin Counties, Pa. Simulations of Groundwater Flow 37

Creek in the southeast (fig. 18). Groundwater-flow paths were the valleys and was discharged to local streams that were simulated quantitatively along this trace using the modeling tributaries to Swatara Creek to the south. software TopoDrive (Hsieh, 2001). Hypothetical simulations, constructed by varying the The model was 11,000 m long with 100 columns (each hydraulic conductivity of geologic units in the 2-dimensional 110 m wide) and 10 rows dividing the saturated thickness of cross-sectional model, were conducted to determine if ground- the aquifer into 10 layers of variable thickness. The top surface water was likely to flow from the Training Corridor area north- of the cross section was represented as the water table and the ward into Stony Creek valley. In hypothetical modeling simu- aquifer thickness varied from 300 m on the eastern end of the lations, interbasin groundwater flow to the north under Second section to about 500 m beneath the ridges (fig. 18). Mountain could only be achieved by assigning a narrow band of highly permeable, northward-dipping bedrock with a good The geologic structure represented in the model was hydraulic connection to Stony Creek, surrounded by much less generalized into five units with similar horizontal hydraulic permeable units. In this simulation, one hydrogeologic unit conductivity, as indicated by different colors in figure 18. with a hydraulic conductivity of 0.01 m/d encompassed most The monoclinal beds dipping to the north from Second and of the study area and a single unit with hydraulic conductiv- Blue Mountains are part of a larger synclinorium to the north. ity of 86 m/d extended from the Training Corridor to the Geologic units to the south of Blue Mountain were generalized Stony Creek valley (fig. 20). Given that a nearly 4-order-of- and represented by discontinuous horizontal beds displaced magnitude difference in hydraulic-conductivity difference by thrust faults in this area. At the base of the model, horizon- was needed under Second Mountain in the model to simulate tal units of low hydraulic conductivity were used to simulate interbasin groundwater flow to Stony Creek, it is unlikely that a conceptualized decrease in water-bearing fractures and groundwater is able to move out of the Training Corridor area groundwater flow at depth. The values of hydraulic conductiv- to the north. ity assigned to each geologic unit in the cross-sectional model are given in table 19. Simulations from the 2-dimensional cross-sectional 3-Dimensional Model model showed the strong influence of topography on ground- A steady-state 3-dimensional model was developed to water-flow paths, resulting in groundwater basins that were simulate regional groundwater flow by use of the finite-differ- essentially coincident with surface-water basins. In the Train- ence groundwater-flow model MODFLOW-2000 (Harbaugh ing Corridor area, groundwater flow was contained between and others, 2000) and particle-tracking program MODPATH Second Mountain and Blue Mountain. Groundwater recharge (Pollock, 1994). The model was used to simulate the general in the Training Corridor moved from topographically high altitude and configuration of the potentiometric surface and to areas toward the valley between the mountains, and dis- illustrate generalized groundwater-flow paths in the Training charged to Manada Creek (fig. 19). In the southern part of the and Cantonment Areas. Because the model was uncalibrated, cross-sectional model, which included the Cantonment Area, the results could differ substantially if the assumed model groundwater moved from topographically high areas toward parameters are not representative of actual conditions.

EXPLANATION Horizontal hydraulic conductivity, in meters per second Training corridor 1.4 x 10-6 -7 Second 2.0 x 10 400 Mountain Blue 6.0 x 10-7 1,310 Mountain -6 350 2.2 x 10 1,150 1.8 x 10-6 300 985

250 Stony 820 Creek Manada Figure 18. Cross- 200 Creek Cantonment 655 area sectional model 150 490 Swatara through the Fort Creek 100 330 Indiantown Gap Elevation, in feet Elevation, in meters 50 165 study area showing

0 0 topography, hydraulic- conductivity values, -50 -165 and local geographic -100 -330 features (vertical NORTH SOUTH exaggeration times 11,000 METERS 10). 38 Surface-Water Quantity and Quality, Aquatic Biology, Stream Geomorphology, and Groundwater-Flow Simulation

Table 19. Hydraulic-conductivity values assigned to represent geologic units in the cross-sectional and 3-dimensional groundwater models of the Fort Indiantown Gap area, Lebanon and Dauphin Counties, Pa.

Horizontal hydraulic conductivity, in meters per day Values used in the Median Values used in the upper layer of the Geologic unit Geologic age values from cross-sectional model 3-dimensional specific-capacity and color code used finite-difference data in figures 18–19 model Mauch Chunk Formation Mississippian 1.4 × 10-6 1.4 × 10-6 1.4 × 10-6 Pocono Formation Mississippian 4.0 × 10-7 2.2 × 10-7 3.0 × 10-7 Spechty Kopf Formation1 Mississippian 4.0 × 10-7 2.2 × 10-7 6.0 × 10-7 Duncannon Member of Catskill Formation Devonian 1.0 × 10-7 2.2 × 10-7 2.9 × 10-7 Clarks Ferry Member of Catskill Formation Devonian 2.1 × 10-7 2.2 × 10-7 2.2 × 10-7 Sherman Creek Member of Catskill Formation Devonian 1.7 × 10-6 1.8 × 10-6 1.7 × 10-6 Irish Valley Member of Catskill Formation Devonian 5.8 × 10-7 6.0 × 10-7 5.8 × 10-7 Trimmers Rock Formation Devonian 5.8 × 10-7 6.0 × 10-7 5.8 × 10-7 Hamilton Group Devonian 2.1 × 10-6 2.2 × 10-6 2.1 × 10-6 Onondaga Formation Devonian/Silurian 5.8 × 10-7 Not present in section 5.8 × 10-7 Bloomsburg Formation Silurian 2.2 × 10-6 2.2 × 10-6 2.2 × 10-6 Clinton Group Silurian 1.4 × 10-6 1.4 × 10-6 1.2 × 10-6 Tuscarora Formation Silurian 3.0 × 10-7 2.2 × 10-7 3.0 × 10-7 Martinsburg Formation Ordovician 6.8 × 10-7 6.0 × 10-7 6.8 × 10-7 Hamburg Sequence rocks (Multiple Units) Ordovician 1.4 × 10-6 6.0 × 10-7 2.2 × 10-6 1.4 × 10-6 1Specific-capacity data were not available for the Spechty Kopf Formation, so hydraulic conductivity initially was assigned the same value as the Pocono Formation.

250 Stony Groundwater head values 820 Creek Manada 200 Creek Cantonment 655 area 150 490 Swatara 100 Creek 330 Elevation, in feet Elevation, in meters 50 165

0 0

-50 -165

-100 -330

NORTH SOUTH 11,000 METERS

Figure 19. Simulated groundwater flow paths in the 2-dimensional cross-sectional model of the Fort Indiantown Gap study area. Simulations of Groundwater Flow 39

EXPLANATION Hypothetical large horizontal hydraulic-conductivity values Training corridor Hypothetical very low horizontal hydraulic-conductivity values Second 400 Mountain Blue Groundwater flow path 1,310 Mountain Hypothetical groundwater 350 head values 1,150 300 985

250 Stony 820 Creek Manada 200 Creek Cantonment 655 area 150 490 Swatara Creek 100 330 Elevation, in feet Elevation, in meters 50 165

0 0

-50 -165

-100 -330

NORTH SOUTH 11,000 METERS

Figure 20. Hypothetical interbasin groundwater flow simulated in the 2-dimensional cross-sectional model within a relatively narrow band of northward dipping bedrock with large hydraulic conductivity (blue), surrounded by bedrock with smaller hydraulic conductivity (red). 40 Surface-Water Quantity and Quality, Aquatic Biology, Stream Geomorphology, and Groundwater-Flow Simulation

Model Development (3) advective movement from a hypothetical contaminant in the Training Area. The steady-state altitude and configuration The location of the 3-dimensional model is shown in of the potentiometric surface under natural, unstressed condi- figure 17. The modeled area was divided into 161 rows and tions is shown in figure 22. Water-level altitudes ranged from 240 columns, creating a grid of square cells 328 ft on a side. 325 to 1,070 ft above NGVD 29. The highest water levels Lateral boundaries of the model were placed, to the extent were present beneath Second Mountain and Blue Mountain. possible, at natural hydrologic boundaries, which resulted in From those highs, groundwater-level altitudes decreased an active model area of a considerably greater size (112 mi2) toward the central part of the Training Corridor and toward than the area of the FIG facility (26.5 mi2). To the north and local stream valleys within the Cantonment Area. The lowest northwest, Stony Creek was simulated as a specified-head groundwater altitudes were along Swatara Creek, the regional boundary. To the north and northeast, the surface-water basin discharge location for groundwater. divides of small streams were simulated as no-flow boundar- Steady-state groundwater-flow paths were simulated in ies. To the east and south, Swatara Creek was simulated as a the Cantonment Area by starting a flow path at land surface to specified-head boundary. To the south and west, the western represent recharge at every cell within the upper layer of the part of the Manada Creek surface-water basin boundary was model and then by tracking each particle to its discharge loca- simulated as a no-flow boundary, and the remaining western tion (fig. 23). The flow paths indicated that nearly all ground- part of the model was simulated as a no-flow boundary to its water that was recharged in the Cantonment Area discharged intersection with Swatera Creek. to a local stream within the FIG facility (fig. 23). Deep Vertically, the model was divided into two layers to regional flow beneath the local streams to a distant discharge separate the more highly fractured bedrock aquifers close to location such as Swatara Creek was not indicated. However, land surface from the less fractured deeper bedrock aquifers. groundwater discharged to local streams eventually flowed off The top of the upper layer was set equal to the altitude of land the FIG facility as part of the streamflow. surface from the USGS 30-m digital elevation model. The Simulated groundwater-flow paths for a hypothetical spill thickness of the upper layer was 50 m throughout the model. or leaking landfill in the western part of the Training Corridor The bottom layer was 100 m thick, and the bottom surface was area of the FIG facility are shown in figure 24. Flow paths simulated as a no-flow boundary. The model grid was oriented showed groundwater movement from a source location to dis- with the rows roughly parallel to the general strike of the rock charge locations within the local headwaters of Manada Creek. (north-northeast) and has 161 rows and 240 columns. The Simulations indicated that movement of groundwater was mapped contacts between geologic units at the surface were within a local flow system and not beyond FIG boundaries. assumed to be vertical with depth (fig. 21). All inflow to the model was from areal recharge, and all discharge was to streams. The assigned recharge value was Model Limitations 12 in/yr. Streams were simulated with the drain package in MODFLOW with altitudes set equal to land surface and the The groundwater models developed for this study are drain-conductance multiplier set equal to 5 m/d. No withdraw- uncalibrated and conceptual in nature and are presented to als from wells were simulated. demonstrate the potential usefulness of groundwater modeling Hydraulic-conductivity values were computed using to show groundwater-flow directions. The hydraulic proper- specific-capacity data from short-duration, single-well pump- ties of geologic units beneath the FIG facility have not been ing tests obtained from the USGS Ground Water Inventory tested and water levels were not available for calibration, System (GWSI). Those values were subsequently adjusted so the results should be viewed with caution. The geologic where necessary in the model so that simulated groundwater structure of the area is complex and was highly generalized altitudes were below land surface. Horizontal hydraulic-con- in this model with two layers. Information on the general ductivity values assigned to geologic units in the upper layer aquifer properties of geologic units described in county water- of the 3-dimensional model are presented in table 19. The resources reports were used to assign hydraulic-conductivity vertical hydraulic conductivity of the upper layer was assumed values; recharge was assumed to be spatially uniform, and to be one-tenth of the horizontal hydraulic-conductivity value. GIS data layers of land-surface altitude and stream locations In the lower layer, the horizontal hydraulic conductivity were used to define boundary conditions. The model could be was assigned as one-twentieth of the upper layer and verti- improved if data were collected to better define hydrologic cal hydraulic conductivity was one-fiftieth of the horizontal properties and provide observations to which model results hydraulic conductivity of the lower layer. could be compared.

Model Results Simulations were made to illustrate the (1) general altitude and configuration of the water table, (2) generalized groundwater-flow paths in the Cantonment Area, and Simulations of Groundwater Flow 41

40°30'

76°40' 76°30'

FORT INDIANTOWN GAP BOUNDARY

EXTENT OF ACTIVE CELLS IN 3-DIMENSIONAL MODEL 40°20'

EXTENT OF GRID FOR 3-DIMENSIONAL MODEL

EXPLANATION GEOLOGIC UNITS 0 2 4 MILES Mauch Chunk Formation

Pocono Formation 0 3 6 KILOMETERS Spechty Kopf Formation Duncannon Member of Catskill Formation Clarks Ferry Member of Catskill Formation Sherman Creek Member of Catskill Formation Irish Valley Member of Catskill Formation Trimmers Rock Formation Hamilton Group Onondaga Formation through Poxono Island Formation, undivided Bloomsburg Formation Clinton Group Tuscarora Formation Martinsburg Formation Hamburg sequence rocks

Figure 21. Groundwater model area with active area (colored), inactive area (not colored), and the surface representation of different geologic units (in various colors). 42 Surface-Water Quantity and Quality, Aquatic Biology, Stream Geomorphology, and Groundwater-Flow Simulation

76°40' 76°30'

40°30' AREA OF FLOW PATHS SHOWN IN FIGURE 23

AREA OF FLOW PATHS SHOWN IN FIGURE 24 k ree y C Ston

ek re C

a a

n n

a a

M M

k ree C

a EXPLANATION

t a Simulated water-table w S altitude, in feet above NGVD 29 40°20' 901 - 1,070 801 - 900 701 - 800 601 - 700 501 - 600 401 - 500 0 2 4 MILES 325 - 400

Stream 0 3 6 KILOMETERS

Figure 22. Regional altitude and configuration of the water table simulated in the 3-dimensional model of the Fort Indiantown Gap area, Lebanon and Dauphin Counties, Pa. Simulations of Groundwater Flow 43

76°36' 76°34' 76°32' 40°28'

40°26'

40°24'

0 0.5 1 MILE EXPLANATION Simulated water-table Stream 0 0.5 1 KILOMETER altitude, in feet above Groundwater-flow path NGVD 29 Fort Indiantown Gap 901 - 1,070 boundary 801 - 900 701 - 800 601 - 700 501 - 600 401 - 500 325 - 400

Figure 23. Groundwater flow paths simulated by the 3-dimensional model of the Cantonment Area of the Fort Indiantown Gap facility, Lebanon and Dauphin Counties, Pa. 44 Surface-Water Quantity and Quality, Aquatic Biology, Stream Geomorphology, and Groundwater-Flow Simulation

76°42' 76°41' 76°40' 76°39'

40°26'

Source Area

40°25'

0 0.5 1 MILE EXPLANATION Simulated water-table Stream 0 0.5 1 KILOMETER altitude, in feet above Groundwater- NGVD 29 flow path 901 - 1,070 801 - 900 701 - 800 601 - 700 501 - 600 401 - 500

Figure 24. Groundwater flow paths from a hypothetical contaminant spill in the Manada Creek Training Corridor area, Fort Indiantown Gap, Lebanon and Dauphin Counties, Pa. Summary 45

Summary impact scores increased from 11 in 2002, to 13 in 2003, to 19 in 2004, and to 22 in 2005. Overall, benthic-invertebrate communities were in a less-affected condition in 2005 compared to The USGS in cooperation with the Pennsylvania Depart- 2002, likely due to the severe drought condition in 2002 rather ment of Military and Veterans Affairs began a project in the than any specific base operations. summer of 2002 at the Fort Indiantown Gap (FIG) National Fish were sampled at 25 of the 27 invertebrate sites in Guard training facility in south-central Pennsylvania. This 2004. Simple statistics such as average length and weight were report describes the results of this investigation from 2002 calculated. Several metrics—catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE), to 2005. The National Guard is charged with protecting the percent native species, percent intolerant species, percent environment while ensuring that the military-training mission dominant species, and total number of individuals—were cal- is achieved. The USGS collected base-line data on water qual- culated to show community differences or similarities among ity, stream habitat, and stage of stream evolution and initiated all the sites. The sampling totaled 4,818 fish from 33 species long-term monitoring of water resources on the FIG facility to with a biomass of 36,568 grams. The fish metrics indicated meet the goals of assessing current conditions and protecting most fish communities at sampled sites were healthy. The the resources. two sites with the highest CPUE, Aires Run above and below Continuous monitoring of streamflow was conducted Quereg Run, also yielded the greatest total number of indi- at two sites that were established for collection of long-term viduals at a site. The number of sites with 100 percent native record. Annual mean flows for water years 2003–05 indicated species was seven. Most sites had 90 percent or more of the above-normal streamflow conditions. Instantaneous stream- taxa that were native species. At 20 of the sites, the percent flow was measured at five miscellaneous sites at the same time intolerant species was 5 percent or less. Trout were found at water-quality samples were collected. Water-quality analyses 14 sites, on and off the FIG facility. Brook trout were found at included nutrients, metals, major ions, sediment, pesticides, 10 sites, brown trout were found at 9 sites, and rainbow trout volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds, and explosives. were found at 3 sites. In addition, turbidity was continuously monitored at the two A fluvial geomorphic assessment of the FIG facility was continuous-record long-term sites. The continuous turbidity conducted in two parts in the summer of 2004. The first part of data were used to develop daily sediment loads. the assessment was a delineation of the watersheds within the Results of the water-quality sampling indicated no boundaries of the FIG facility and geomorphic stream classifi- exceedances for any constituent except iron above the primary cation. The second part of the fluvial geomorphic assessment and secondary drinking-water standards or health-advisory involved a detailed analysis of two individual stream reaches levels set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency near the long-term streamgages to predict how “stable” the (USEPA). Iron concentrations were naturally elevated in the stream channel was, as well as the vulnerability of the stream groundwater within the watershed. The mean iron concentra- channel to future changes within the watershed. On the basis tion was about1,800 μg/L at Indiantown Run and 1,900 μg/L of the total distance of all stream reaches classified within the in Manada Creek; the secondary standard set for iron is FIG facility, 94 percent were classified as B-class or C-class 300 μg/L. The majority of the other constituents analyzed channels and considered “stable;” 6 percent were classified as were at or below the detection limit. Detectable concentrations A class, E class, G class, F class, and as undifferentiated B and were measured for two by-products of explosives, compounds F class and considered “unstable.” that currently (2009) have no drinking water or health-related Severe aggradation in both the stream channel and flood standards. plain was evident in the downstream portion of the geomor- Sediment loads were dominated by the effects of the phic study reach near the Indiantown Run streamgage and was remnants of Hurricane Ivan in September 2004. More than likely the result of large-magnitude flooding associated with 60 percent of the sediment load measured during the entire the effects of the remnants of Hurricane Ivan on September study was transported past the monitoring sites in just 2 days 18, 2004, and was not representative of bankfull conditions. during that event. Sediment yields from sites within the FIG The other geomorphic study reach was near the streamgage on facility, when compared to basins with varying amount of Manada Creek. The reach remained relatively intact with little disturbed land (agriculture, urban, mining, and forest), were sign of erosion or disturbance from the flooding associated similar to yields from areas with higher amounts of undis- with the effects of the remnants of Hurricane Ivan, other than turbed land (forest). an influx of debris and large scour holes as water was forced Aquatic invertebrates were collected at 27 sites in the around these obstructions. The most observable change at summers of 2002–05. Using mean metrics scores and impact Manada Creek between pre- and post-flood conditions, other classifications, 15 of the 20 sites within the FIG facility were than added debris, was the obvious removal of many bars and considered non-impacted and 5 were slightly impacted. Seven other fine sediments along the streambed and banks. sites were outside the boundary of the FIG facility; five of Two groundwater-flow models were constructed as part those sites were considered non-impacted and two were of this study. They included a conceptual, 2-dimensional slightly impacted. When sites were broken out by year, the cross-sectional digital model and a preliminary, uncalibrated number of sites considered non-impacted according to mean 3-dimensional finite-difference model Conceptual modeling of 46 Surface-Water Quantity and Quality, Aquatic Biology, Stream Geomorphology, and Groundwater-Flow Simulation the regional study area indicated that the hydrogeology of the Bonnin, G.M., Todd, D., Lin, B., Parzybok, T., Yekta, M., and area involved a complex system with 21 geologic units and 2 Riley, D., 2004, Precipitation-frequency atlas of the United general hydrologic settings. Cross-sectional or profile model- States: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ing indicated localized flow from topographically high areas Atlas 14, v. 2, ver. 2. to discharge areas at local streams and creeks in the topographically low areas. This model also indicated interbasin Carvell, Claire, 2002, Habitat use and conservation of bumble- flow of groundwater from the corridor area of the FIG facility bees under different grassland management regimes: Bio- northward to Stony Creek valley was unlikely. An uncali- logical Conservation, v. 103, no. 1, p. 33–49. brated, 3-dimensional finite-difference flow model indicated Cinotto, P.J., 2003, Development of regional curves of that simulated water-table contours closely reflect observed bankfull-channel geometry and discharge for streams in the conditions. Also, flow-path analyses indicated that nearly all non-urban, Piedmont Physiographic Province, Pennsylvania recharge in the Cantonment area flows to local creeks and and Maryland: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources streams on the FIG facility and then leaves via those creeks Investigations Report 03–4014, 27 p. and streams. Finally, simulated results in the Training Corridor area indicate that the groundwater-flow model can be used to Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, April 2004, Pennsylvania’s track flow paths from a hypothetical contaminant location to surface water quality monitoring network (WQN): Har- eventual groundwater discharge as base flow in local creeks risburg, Pa., Department of Environmental Protection, and streams. 3800-BK-DEP0636, available at http://164.156.71.80/ VWPage.asp?pageSrc=XDLCabinets_J\ Cdd74bd5b\Fb45042d\F478f329b\Fsf5981f4\ References Cited D2751689\3800-BK-DEP0630.ren\prev. Cooper, E.L., 1983, Fishes of Pennsylvania and the northeast- Anders, A.D., and Dearborn, D.C., 2004, Population trends ern United States: University Park, Pa., Penn State Press, of the endangered Golden-cheeked warbler at Fort Hood, 243 p. Texas, from 1992–2001: The Southwestern Naturalist, v. 49, no. 1, p. 39–47. Dudley, J.P., Ginsing, J.R., Plumptre, A.J., Hart, J.A., and Campos, L.C., 2002, Effects of war and civil strife on Austin, J.E., and Bruch, C.E., eds., 2000, The environmental wildlife and wildlife habitats: Conservation Biology, v. 16, consequnces of war—Legal, economic, and scientific per- p. 319–329. spectives: New York, Cambridge University Press, 691 p. Durlin, R.R., and Schaffstall, W.P., 2003, Water resources Barbour, M.T., Gerritsen, J., Snyder, B.D., and Stribling, J.B., data, Pennsylvania, water year 2003, v. 2, Susquehanna and 1999, Rapid bioassessment protocols for use in streams and Potomac River basins: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Data wadeable rivers—Periphyton, benthic macroinvertebrates, Report PA-03-2, 564 p. and fish (2d ed.): Washington, D.C., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, EPA-841-B-99-002. Durlin, R.R., and Schaffstall, W.P., 2004, Water resources data, Pennsylvania, water year 2004, v. 2, Susquehanna and Barker, J.L., 1984, Compulation of ground-water-quality data Potomac River basins: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Data in Pennsylvania: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report Report PA-04-2, 566 p. 84–706, 102 p. Eaton, K.P., 1997, Aquatic biological investigation, Manada Berg, T.M., and Dodge, C.M., eds., 1981, Atlas of preliminary Creek Watershed, Lebanon and Dauphin County. “Unas- geologic quadrangle maps of Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania sessed Waters of the Commonwealth” project, Water Man- Topographic and Geologic Survey, 4th ed., Map 61. agement Program, Southcentral Region, PA-DEP.

Bode, R.W., Novak, M.A., Abele, L.E., Heitzman, D.L., and Ehlen, Judy, and Harmon, R.S., eds., 2001, The environmental Smith, A.J., 2002, Quality assurance work plan for biologi- legacy of military operations: Boulder, Colo., Geological cal stream monitoring in New York state: Albany, N.Y., Society of America, Reviews in Engineering Geology, v. 14, NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, Stream 228 p. Biomonitoring Unit, Bureau of Water Assessment and Man- agement, Division of Water, 41 p. + appendices. Fang, S., Wente, S., Gertner, G.Z., and Anderson, A., 2003, Uncertainty analysis of predicted disturbance from off-road Bode, R.W., Novak, M.A., Abele, L.E., Heitzman, D.L., and vehicular traffic in complex landscapes at Ft. Hood: Envi- Smith, A.L., 2004, Thirty-year trends in water quality of ronmental Management, v. 30, no. 2, p. 199–208. rivers and streams in New York state based on macroinvertebrate data 1972–2002: New York State Department of Gauch, H.G., Jr., 1982, Multivariate analysis in community Environmental Conservation Report, 384 p. ecology: New York, Cambridge University Press, 298 p. References Cited 47

Grey, J.R., Glysson, G.D., Turcios, L.M., and Schwarz, G.E., Plafkin, J.L., Barbour, M.T., Porter, K.D., Gross, S.K., and 2000, Comparability of suspended-sediment concentration Hughes, R.M., 1989, Rapid bioassessment protocols for use and total suspended solids data: U.S. Geological Survey in streams and rivers—Benthic macroinvertebrates and fish: Water-Resources Investigations Report 00–4191, 20 p. Washington, D.C., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Regulations and Standards, EPA 440-4-89- Harbaugh, A.W., Banta, E.R., Hill, M.C., and McDonald, 001, 196 p. M.G., 2000, MODFLOW-2000, The U.S. Geological Sur- vey modular ground-water model—User guide to modular- Pollock, D.W., 1994, User’s guide for MODPATH/MOD- ization concepts and the ground-water flow process: U.S. PATH-PLOT, Version 3; a particle tracking post-processing Geological Survey Open-File Report 00–92, 121 p. package for MODFLOW, the U.S. Geological Survey finite-difference ground-water flow model: U.S. Geological Hershfield, D.A., 1961, Rainfall frequency atlas of the United Survey Open-File Report 94–464, 249 p. States for durations from 30 minutes to 24 hours and return periods from 1 to 100 years: Washington, D.C., U.S. Rantz, S.E., and others, 1982, Measurement and computa- Department of Commerce, Technical Paper No. 40, 61 p. tion of streamflow, Volume I, Measurement of stage and discharge, Volume II, Computation of discharge: U.S. Hilsenhoff, W.L., 1988, Rapid field assessment of organic pol- Geological Water Supply Paper 2175, 631 p. lution with a family-level biotic index: The Journal of the North American Benthological Society, v. 7, no. 1, p. 65–68. Rosgen, D.L., 1996, Applied river morphology: Minneapolis, Minn., Printed Media Companies, 352 p. Hsieh, P.A., 2001, Topodrive and particleflow—Two computer models for simulation and visualization of ground-water Rosgen, D.L., 1998, The reference reach field book: Pagosa flow and transport of fluid particles in two dimensions: U.S. Springs, Colo., Wildland Hydrology, 210 p. Geological Survey Open File Report 01–286, 30 p. Rosgen, D.L., 2002, River assessment and monitoring, August, Jansen, Amy, 1997, Terrestrial invertebrate community 2002, field guide: Pagosa Springs, Colo., Wildland Hydrol- structure as an indicator of the success of a tropical rainfor- ogy, variously paged. est restoration project: Restoration Ecology, v. 5, no. 2, Roth, N.E., Southerland, M.T., Chaillou, J., Volstad, J.H., p. 115–124. Weisberg, S.B., Wilson, H.T., Heimbuch, D.G., and Seibel, Klemm, D.J., Lewis, P.A., Fulk, Florence, and Lazorchak, J.C., 1997, Maryland biological stream survey—Ecologi- J.M., 1990, Macroinvertebrate field and laboratory methods cal status of non-tidal streams in six basins sampled in for evaluating the biological integrity of surface waters: 1995: Linthicum, Md., Coastal Environmental Services, Cincinnati, Ohio, EPA/600/4-90/030, Aquatic Biology Chesapeake Bay and Watershed Programs Monitoring and Branch and Development and Evaluation Branch, Quality Non-Tidal Assessment, CBWP-MANTA-EA-97-2, 151 p. + Assurance REsearch Division, Environmental Monitor- 6 appendices. ing Systems Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Simon, Andrew, 1989, A model of channel response in Agency, 256 p. disturbed alluvial channels: Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, v. 14, no. 1, p. 11–26. Lanier-Graham, S.D., 1993, The ecology of war—Environ- mental impacts of weaponry and warfare: New York, Traver, C.L., 1997, Water quality and biological assessment of Walker S. Co., 185 p. the Lower Susquehanna River Subbasin: Harrisburg, Pa., Susquehanna River Basin Commission, Publication 190. Lydy, M.J., Crawford, C.G., and Frey, J.W., 2000, A comparison of selected diversity, similarity, and biotic indices U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1995, Soil erosion and for detecting changes in benthic-invertebrate community sediment control plan: Natural Resources Conservation structure and stream quality: Archives of Environmental Service. Contamination and Toxicology, v. 39, p. 469–479. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1991, Maximum Ogden Environmental and Energy Services Co., Inc., 2000, containment level goals and national primary drinking water Draft Water Resources Management Plan, National Guard regulations for lead and copper; final rule: Federal Register, Training Center at Fort Indiantown Gap, Lebanon and Dau- June 7, 1991, p. 26,460–26,563. phin Counties, Pennsylvania. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1992, Drinking water Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission, 2007, 2007 regulations U.S. Code of Federal regulations, Title 40, Part Pennsylvania fishing summary: accessed Jan. 17, 2007, 141.61, Part 141.62 and Part 143.30, revised December, at http://sites.state.pa.us/PA_Exec/Fish_Boat/fishpub/ 1992: Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency summary/troutregs_sc.htm. Office of Water, 12 p. 48 Surface-Water Quantity and Quality, Aquatic Biology, Stream Geomorphology, and Groundwater-Flow Simulation

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1994, National primary drinking waters standards: EPA 810-F-94-001A, 8 p. Wilde, F.D., Radtke, D.B., Gibs, Jacob, and Iwatsubo, R.T., 1999, National field manual for the collection of water- quality data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A5 and A6. Wolman, M.G., 1954, A method for sampling coarse river-bed material: Transactions of the American Geophysical Union, v. 35, p. 951–956. Wood, W.W., 1976, Guidelines for collection and field analysis of ground-water samples for selected unstable constituents: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 1, chap. D2, 24 p. Appendix 1—Parameter Codes, Constituents Analyzed, Reporting Levels, and Primary and Secondary Drinking Water Standards

Appendix 1a. Nutrients, sediment, and major ions.

[mg/L, milligrams per liter; —, no standard]

Drinking Parameter Reporting level water Parameter name code (mg/L) standard (mg/L) 80124 Drainage area (square miles)

00900 Hardness, total (mg/L as CaCO3) — — 00915 Calcium, dissolved (mg/L as CA) 0.2 — 00916 Calcium, total recoverable (mg/L as Ca) .2 — 00925 Magnesium, dissolved (mg/L as Mg) .2 — 00927 Magnesium, total (mg/L as Mg) .2 — 00935 Potassium, dissolved (mg/L as K) 3 — 00937 Potassium, total (mg/L as K) 3 — 00931 Sodium adsorption ratio — — 00940 Chloride, dissolved (mg/L as Cl) 3 250 00951 Fluoride, total (mg/L as F) 1 2

00945 Sulfate, dissolved (mg/L as SO4) 5 250 00540 Residue, fixed non filterable (mg/L) 4 — 00530 Residue, total non filterable (mg/L) 4 — 80154 Suspended sediment 1 — 00625 Nitrogen, ammonia plus organic, total (mg/L as N) .5 —

71846 Nitrogen, ammonia, dissolved (mg/L as NH4) .1 — 00610 Nitrogen, ammonia, total (mg/L as N) .1 —

71845 Nitrogen, ammonia, total (mg/L as NH4) — — 00620 Nitrogen, nitrate, total (mg/L as N) .1 10 00630 Nitrogen, nitrite plus nitrate, total (mg/L as N) .1 10 00615 Nitrogen, nitrite, total (mg/L as N) .01 1 00605 Nitrogen, organic, total (mg/L as N) — 00600 Nitrogen, total (mg/L as N) — 10

00660 Phosphate ortho, dissolved (mg/L as PO4) .5 — 00671 Phosphorus, orthophosphate, dissolved (mg/L as P) .05 — 00665 Phosphorus, total (mg/L as P) .05 — 00680 Carbon organic, total (mg/L as C) 1 — 50 Surface-Water Quality and Quantity, Aquatic Biology, Stream Geomorphology, and Groundwater Flow Simulation

Appendix 1b. Metals.

Drinking Parameter Reporting level water Parameter name code (μg/L) standard (μg/L) 01106 Aluminum dissolved (as Al) 100 50-200 01105 Aluminum, total (as Al) 100 01095 Antimony dissolved (as Sb) 10 6 01097 Antimony total (as Sb) 10 6 01000 Arsenic dissolved (as As) 15 50 (new standard of 10 in 2006) 01002 Arsenic total (as As) 15 50 (new standard of 10 in 2006) 01005 Barium dissolved (as Ba) 10 2,000 01007 Barium total (as Ba) 10 2,000 01010 Beryllium dissolved (as Be) 5 4 01012 Beryllium total (as Be) 5 5 01025 Cadmium dissolved (as Cd) 5 5 01027 Cadmium total (as Cd) 5 5 01030 Chromium dissolved (as Cr) 10 100 01034 Chromium total (as Cr) 10 100 01035 Cobalt dissolved (as Co) 10 100 01037 Cobalt total (as Co) 10 — 01040 Copper dissolved (as Cu) 10 — 01042 Copper total (as Cu) 10 1,300 01046 Iron dissolved (as Fe) 100 1,300 01045 Iron, total, (as Fe) 100 300 01049 Lead dissolved (as Pb) 3 300 01051 Lead total (as Pb) 3 15 01056 Manganese dissolved (as Mn) 10 50 01055 Manganese total (as Mn) 10 50 71890 Mercury, dissolved (as Hg) .2 2 71900 Mercury, total recov (as Hg) .2 2 01060 Molybdenum dissolved (as Mo) 20 — 01062 Molybdenum total (as Mo) 20 — 01065 Nickel dissolved (as Ni) 40 01067 Nickel total (as Ni) 40 — 01145 Selenium dissolved (as Se) 15 50 01147 Selenium total (as Se) 15 15 01075 Silver dissolved (as Ag) 10 50 01077 Silver total (as Ag) 10 100 01057 Thallium dissolved (as Tl) 10 2 01059 Thallium total (as Tl) 10 2 01085 Vanadium dissolved (as V) 10 — 01087 Vanadium total (as V) 10 — 01090 Zinc dissolved (as Zn) 20 5,000 01092 Zinc total (as Zn) 20 5,000 Appendix 1 51

Appendix 1c. Pesticides and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB).

[µg/L, micrograms per liter]

Drinking Reporting level water Parameter code Parameter name (μg/L) standard (μg/L) 39330 Aldrin, total 0.05 39337 Alpha BHC total .05 34671 Aroclor 1016CB total 1 2 39488 Aroclor 1221CB total 1 2 39492 Aroclor 1232CB total 1 2 39496 Aroclor 1242CB total 1 2 39500 Aroclor 1248CB total 1 2 39504 Aroclor 1254CB total 1 2 39508 Aroclor 1260CB total 1 2 39062 Chlordane, cis isomer, water, whole .05 2 39065 Chlordane, trans isomer, water .05 2 39380 Dieldrin, total .05 — 34361 Endosulfan I, water, whole .05 — 34356 Endosulfan II, water, unfiltered .05 — 34351 Endosulfan sulfate total .05 — 34366 Endrin aldehyde total .05 2 39390 Endrin, water, unfiltered, recoverable .05 2 39420 Heptachlor epoxide, total .05 .2 39410 Heptachlor, total .05 .04 39340 Lindane, total .05 .2 39480 Methoxychlor, total .05 40 39310 p’-DDD, total .05 — 39320 p’-DDE total .05 — 39300 p’-DDT, total .05 — 52 Surface-Water Quality and Quantity, Aquatic Biology, Stream Geomorphology, and Groundwater Flow Simulation

Appendix 1d. Explosives.

[µg/L, micrograms per liter; —, no standard]

Drinking Reporting level water Parameter code Parameter name (μg/L) standard (μg/L) 49232 Benzene, 1,3,5-trinitro-, water, filtered 0.12 — 49230 Benzene, m-dinitro- water, filtered .12 — 49229 Benzene, nitro- water, filtered .12 — 34447 Benzene, nitro-, water, unfiltered .12 — 49234 HMX, octogen (cyclotetramethylene-tetranitramine), water, filtered .6 — 49233 RDX, cyclonite (cyclotrimethylenetrinitramine), water, filtered .6 — 62226 Tetryl, water, unfiltered .12 — 49226 Toluene, 2,4,6-trinitro-, water .12 — 49228 Toluene, 2,4-dinitro-, water, filtered .12 — 49227 Toluene, 2,6-dinitro-, water, filtered .12 — 49221 Toluene, m-nitro-, water, filtered .12 — 49223 Toluene, o-nitro-, water, filtered .12 — 49222 Toluene,-nitro-, water, filtered .12 — 61209 Perchlorate, water,total .01 — Appendix 1 53

Appendix 1e. Volatile and semi-volatile organics.

µg/L, mirograms per liter; —, no standard] Drinking Reporting level water Parameter code Parameter name (μg/L) standard (μg/L) 62268 O-Cresol, soil 10 — 34556 1,2,5,6-Dibenzanthracene, total 10 — 77687 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol, water, whole, total 10 — 34621 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol, total 10 — 34606 2,4,Dimethylphenol, total 10 — 34601 2,4-Dichlorophenol, total 10 — 34616 2,4-Dinitrophenol, total 10 — 34611 2,4-Dinitrotoluene, total 10 — 34626 2,6-Dinitrotoluene, total 10 — 34581 2-Chloronaphthalene, total 10 — 34586 2-Chlorophenol, total 10 — 30195 2-Nitroaniline, water, whole 50 — 34591 2-Nitrophenol, total 10 — 34631 3,3’-Dichlorobenzidine, total 50 — 78300 3-Nitroaniline, water, whole, total 50 — 34657 4,6-Dinitroorthocresol, total 50 — 34636 4-Bromophenylhenyl ether, water, unfiltered 10 — 50312 4-Chloroaniline, water, filtered 10 — 34641 4-Chlorophenylhenyl ether, water, unfiltered 10 — 30196 4-Nitroaniline, water, whole 50 — 34646 4-Nitrophenol, total 50 — 34205 Acenaphthene, total 10 — 34200 Acenapthylene, total 10 — 77057 Acetate, vinyl, water, unfiltered 2 — 49225 Aniline, 2-methyl-, 3,5-dinitro-, water, filtered .12 — 49224 Aniline, 4-methyl-, 3,5-dinitro-, water, filtered .12 — 34220 Anthracene, total 10 — 34247 Benzo ayrene, total 10 — 34230 Benzo b fluoranthene, total 10 — 34242 Benzo k fluoranthene, total 10 — 34526 Benzo[a]anthracene, water, unfiltered 10 — 34521 Benzo[g,h,i]perylene, water, unfiltered, 10 — 39338 Beta benzene hexachloride, total .05 — 34278 Bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane, total 10 — 34273 Bis(2-chloroethyl) ether, water, unfiltered 10 — 34283 Bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether, total 10 — 39100 Bis(2-etylhexyl)hthalate, whole, water, 10 — 77571 Carbazole, water, unfiltered 10 — 34320 Chrysene, total 10 — 34386 Cyclopentadiene, hexachloro-, water, unfiltered 50 50 34259 Delta benzene hexachloride, total .05 — 81302 Dibenzofuran, water, whole, total 10 — 34336 Diethylhthalate, total 10 — 34341 Dimethylhthalate, total 10 — 39110 Di-n-butylphthalate, total 10 — 34596 Dinoctylhthalate, total 10 — 34376 Fluoranthene, total 10 — 34381 Fluorene, total 10 — 54 Surface-Water Quality and Quantity, Aquatic Biology, Stream Geomorphology, and Groundwater Flow Simulation

Appendix 1e. Volatile and semi-volatile organics.

µg/L, mirograms per liter; —, no standard] Drinking Reporting level water Parameter code Parameter name (μg/L) standard (μg/L) 39700 Hexachlorobenzene, total 10 1 34403 Indeno (1,2,3-cd)yrene, total 10 — 34408 Isophorone, total 10 — 34292 n-Butylbenzylphthalate, total 10 — 34428 n-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine, total 10 — 34433 n-Nitrosodiphenylamine, total 10 — 34452 Arachlorometa cresol, total 10 — 39032 Entachlorophenol, total 50 — 34461 Phenanthrene, total 10 — 34694 Phenol, water, unfiltered, 10 — 32730 Phenols, total 20 — 34469 Pyrene, total 10 0.2 34506 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, total 1 200 34511 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, total 1 5 34496 1,1-Dichloroethane, total 1 — 34501 1,1-Dichloroethylene, total 1 7 77443 1,2,3-Trichloropropane, water, whole, total 1 — 32103 1,2-Dichloroethane, total 1 5 34541 1,2-Dichloropropane, total 1 5 34546 Trans-1,2-dichloroethene, total 1 — 77103 2-Hexanone, water, whole, total 5 — 81552 Acetone, water, whole, total 10 — 34551 Benzene, 1,2,4-trichloro-, water, unfiltered 1 — 34566 Benzene, 1,3-dichloro-, water, unfiltered 1 — 34571 Benzene, 1,4-dichloro-, water, unfiltered 1 — 34536 Benzene, o-dichloro-, water, unfiltered 1 — 34030 Benzene, total 1 5 32104 Bromoform, total 1 — 77041 Carbon disulfide, water, whole, , total 1 — 32102 Carbon tetrachloride, water, unfiltered 1 5 34301 Chlorobenzene, total 1 100 32105 Chlorodibromomethane, total 1 — 34311 Chloroethane, total 2 — 32106 Chloroform, total 1 — 77093 Cis-1,2-dichloroethene, water, whole,, total 1 7 34704 Cis-1,3-dichloropropene, total 1 — 32101 Bromodichloromethane, water, unfiltered 1 — 77562 Ethane, 1,1,1,2-tetrachloro-, water, unfiltered 10 — 34516 Ethane, 1,1,2,2-tetrachloro-, water, unfiltered 10 — 34396 Ethane, hexachloro-, water, unfiltered 10 — 34371 Ethylbenzene, total 1 7 39702 Hexachlorobutadiene, total µg/L 10 — 78032 Methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE), water unfiltered 5 — 34413 Methylbromide, total 2 — 34418 Methylchloride,, total 2 — 34423 Methylene chloride, water, unfiltered 1 — 81595 Methylethylketone, water, whole, , total 5 — 78133 Methyl isobutyl ketone, water, whole, total 5 — Appendix 1 55

Appendix 1e. Volatile and semi-volatile organics.

µg/L, mirograms per liter; —, no standard] Drinking Reporting level water Parameter code Parameter name (μg/L) standard (μg/L) 85795 m-Xylene/p-xylene, water, unfiltered 2 — 34696 Naphthalene, total 10 — 77135 o-Xylene, water, whole, total 1 — 77128 Styrene, total 1 100 34475 Tetrachloroethylene, total 1 5 34010 Toluene,, total 1 100 34699 Trans-1,3-dichloropropene, total 1 — 39180 Trichloroethylene, total 1 5 39175 Vinyl chloride, total 1 2 56 Surface-Water Quality and Quantity, Aquatic Biology, Stream Geomorphology, and Groundwater Flow Simulation Appendix 2—Statistical Summaries of Water-Quality Data

For all tables in appendix 2, if one sample was collected, only the median concentration value is presented; if two samples were collected, the minimum and maximum concentration values are presented; if three samples were collected, the minimum, median, and maximum concentrations values are presented; otherwise, all statistics are reported.

Appendix 2a. Nutrients, major ions, and metals.

[Pxxxx, parameter code–see appendix 1 for name of parameter; n, number of samples; <. less than; N/D, not detected]

Station number 01572809 Statistics P81024 P00916 P00927 P00937 P00929 P00951 P00530 P00625 P71845 P00610 Minimum 1.9 4.4 1.5 3.9 <1 <1 <0.15 <0.18 <0.14 Median 1.74 25 6.2 2.2 8.7 <1 <1 <.15 <.18 <.14 Maximum 32 7.5 2.8 12 <1 <1 <.15 <.18 <.14 n 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Statistics P00620 P00615 P00665 P01105 P01097 P01002 P01012 P01027 P01034 P01037 Minimum <0.15 <0.004 <0.05 <100 <10 15 <5 <5 <10 <10 Median <.15 <.004 <.05 <100 <10 15 <5 <5 <10 <10 Maximum <.15 <.004 <.05 <100 <10 15 <5 <5 <10 <10 n 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Statistics P01042 P01045 P01051 P01055 P71900 P01062 P01067 P01147 P01077 P01059 Minimum <10 250 <3 <20 0.2 <20 40 15 0.94 <10 Median <10 250 <3 <20 .2 <20 40 15 .94 <10 Maximum <10 250 <3 <20 .2 <20 40 15 .94 <10 n 3 3 <3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Statistics P01087 P01092 Minimum <10 20 Median <10 20 Maximum <10 20 n 3 3

Station number 01572950 Statistics P81024 P00900 P00915 P00916 P00925 P00927 P00935 P00937 P00931 P00930 Minimum 15 3.7 2.6 1.4 1.1 0.55 0.5 0.7 2.3 Mean 19 4.9 4.27 1.7 1.69 .72 1.05 .7 4.1 Median 5.48 19 4.9 4.2 1.7 1.6 .72 1.1 .7 4.1 Maximum 23 6.1 6.3 2 3.1 .89 1.7 .7 5.9 n 1 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 58 Surface-Water Quality and Quantity, Aquatic Biology, Stream Geomorphology, and Groundwater Flow Simulation

Appendix 2a. Nutrients, major ions, and metals.

[Pxxxx, parameter code–see appendix 1 for name of parameter; n, number of samples; <. less than; N/D, not detected]

Statistics P00929 P00940 P00951 P00945 P00530 P81054 P80154* P00625 P71845 Minimum 1.5 2.8 0.1 2.4 2 16 16 0.09 0.13 Mean 3.75 4.18 .53 4.31 58.1 419 1,324 .37 .18 Median 2.7 3.6 .25 4.3 16 240 474 .39 .18 Maximum 11 11 1 6.9 590 1,390 11,500 .5 .23 n 40 40 40 40 40 36 32 40 40

Statistics P00610 P00620 P00630 P00615 P00660 P00671 P00665 P00600 P00680 P01106 Minimum 0.022 0.23 0.12 0.002 0.15 0.028 0.017 0.12 0.8 48 Mean .08 .34 .3 .01 .47 .08 .06 .33 1.1 75.75 Median .088 .325 .2 .005 .5 .05 .04 .3 1.1 77.5 Maximum .18 .51 1.3 .01 .5 .22 .38 1.5 1.4 100 n 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40

Statistics P01105 P01095 P01097 P01000 P01002 P01005 P01010 P01012 P01025 P01027 Minimum 100 <10 <10 <10 4 19 <5 <5 <5 5 Mean 576 <10 11.36 11.25 14.73 21.75 <5 <5 <5 5.71 Median 350 <10 10 10 15 22 <5 <5 <5 5 Maximum 1700 <10 20 15 30 24 <5 <5 <5 10 n 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40

Statistics P01030 P01034 P01035 P01037 P01040 P01042 P01046 P01045 P01049 P01051 Minimum <10 1 <10 <10 <10 <10 70 140 <3 3 Mean <10 8.73 <10 <10 <10 10.83 167.5 887.09 <3 3.2 Median <10 10 <10 <10 <10 10 140 530 <3 3 Maximum <10 20 <10 <10 <10 20 320 3700 <3 6 n 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40

Statistics P01056 P01055 P71890 P71900 P01060 P01062 P01065 P01067 P01145 P01147 Minimum <20 10 0.03 0.1 2 20 <40 40 5 5 Mean <20 142.86 .16 .18 15.5 22.73 <40 42.35 7.5 14.32 Median <20 40 .2 .2 20 20 <40 40 5 15 Maximum <20 880 .2 .2 20 40 <40 80 15 30 n 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40

Statistics P01075 P01077 P01057 P01059 P01085 P01087 P01090 P01092 Minimum <10 0.78 <10 10 <10 10 <20 10 Mean <10 9.74 <10 11.36 <10 10.6 <20 28.5 Median <10 10 <10 10 <10 10 <20 20 Maximum <10 20 <10 20 <10 20 <20 120 n 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Statistical Summaries of Water-Quality Data 59

Appendix 2a. Nutrients, major ions, and metals.

[Pxxxx, parameter code–see appendix 1 for name of parameter; n, number of samples; <. less than; N/D, not detected]

Station number 01572979 Statistics P81024 P00916 P00927 P00937 P00929 P00951 P00530 P00625 P71845 P00610 Minimum 0.73 18 4.4 3.3 7.9 1 22 0.43 0.64 0.04 Maximum 18 4.4 3.3 7.9 1 24 .67 .64 .5 n 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Statistics P00620 P00630 P00615 P00605 P00671 P00665 P00600 P71887 P01105 P01095 Minimum 0.24 0.33 0.007 0.17 N/D 0.04 1 4.4 1400 N/D Maximum .24 .36 .007 .17 N/D .049 1 4.4 1400 N/D n 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Statistics P01097 P01002 P01012 P01027 P01034 P01045 P01055 P71900 P01062 P01067 Minimum <10 <15 <5 <5 <2 2000 70 0.2 20 40 Maximum <10 <15 <5 <5 <2 2000 70 .2 20 40 n 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Statistics P01147 P01077 P01057 P01059 P01092 Minimum <15 <10 N/D <10 <10 Maximum <15 <10 N/D <10 <10 n 2 2 2 2 2

Station number 01572981 Statistics P81024 P00916 P00925 P00927 P00935 P00937 P00929 P00951 P00530 P00625 Minimum 0.79 3.7 N/D 1.4 N/D 1.6 3.9 1 24 0.4 Maximum 3.7 N/D 1.4 N/D 1.6 3.9 1 35 .43 n 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Statistics P71845 P00610 P00620 P00630 P00615 P00665 P00600 P01105 P01097 P01002 Minimum 0.15 0.12 0.54 0.3 0.005 0.03 0.3 900 <10 15 Maximum .19 .15 .54 .52 .02 .037 .55 900 <10 15 n 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Statistics P01012 P01027 P01034 P01045 P01051 P01055 P71900 P01062 P01067 P01147 Minimum 5 5 <10 1200 3 130 0.2 20 40 15 Maximum 5 5 <10 1200 3 130 .2 20 40 15 n 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Statistics P01077 P01059 P01087 P01092 Minimum <10 <10 <10 20 Maximum <10 <10 <10 20 n 2 2 2 2 60 Surface-Water Quality and Quantity, Aquatic Biology, Stream Geomorphology, and Groundwater Flow Simulation

Appendix 2a. Nutrients, major ions, and metals.

[Pxxxx, parameter code–see appendix 1 for name of parameter; n, number of samples; <. less than; N/D, not detected]

Station number 01573482 Statistics P81024 P00900 P00915 P00916 P00925 P00927 P00935 P00937 P00931 P00930 Minimum 9 1.9 1.9 0.98 0.9 0.58 0.6 N/D 1.8 Mean 10.67 2.3 2.43 1.19 1.26 .64 1.33 N/D 3.93 Median 8.59 11 2.4 2.4 1.3 1.3 .61 1.1 N/D 5 Maximum 12 2.6 3.3 1.3 1.8 .74 3 N/D 5 n 1 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50

Statistics P00929 P00940 P00951 P00945 P00530 P80154 P80154* P00625 P71845 Minimum 1.4 0.7 0.1 2.2 1.6 9 9 0.09 0.15 Mean 3.65 1.69 .64 4.15 89 298 1,330 .36 .22 Median 4.2 1.8 1 4.6 63 301 328 .385 .24 Maximum 5 2 1 6.2 300 601 14,000 .54 .26 n 50 50 50 50 54 26 30 50 50

Statistics P00610 P00620 P00630 P00615 P00605 P00660 P00671 P00665 P00600 P71887 Minimum 0.031 0.17 0.12 0.003 N/D <0.5 0.03 0.018 0.67 <3 Mean .1 .32 .34 .01 N/D <.5 .06 .05 .67 <3 Median .1 .3 .2 .004 N/D <.5 .05 .05 .67 <3 Maximum .2 .55 2 .01 N/D <.5 .15 .14 .67 <3 n 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50

Statistics P00680 P01106 P01105 P01095 P01097 P01000 P01002 P01005 P01010 P01012 Minimum 1.4 28 <100 5 4 10 10 19 <0.5 <0.5 Mean 2.7 66.2 344 9 11 11 15.2 22.7 <.5 <.5 Median 1.5 59 300 10 10 10 15 23.8 <.5 <.5 Maximum 5.2 100 800 10 20 15 30 26 <.5 <.5 n 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50

Statistics P01025 P01027 P01030 P01034 P01035 P01037 P01040 P01042 P01046 P01045 Minimum <0.5 5 <10 1 <10 <10 <10 10 50 120 Mean <.5 5.23 <10 7.91 <10 <10 <10 11.67 116 386 Median <.5 5 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 10 130 250 Maximum <.5 10 <10 20 <10 <10 <10 20 160 980 n 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50

Statistics P01049 P01051 P01056 P01055 P71890 P71900 P01060 P01062 P01065 P01067 Minimum <3 3 10 20 <0.05 0.1 <20 3 <40 40 Mean <3 3.27 20 146.4 .15 .19 <20 20.9 <40 42.6 Median <3 3 20 140 .2 .2 <20 20 <40 45 Maximum <3 6 30 420 .2 .2 <20 40 <40 80 n 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 Statistical Summaries of Water-Quality Data 61

Appendix 2a. Nutrients, major ions, and metals.

[Pxxxx, parameter code–see appendix 1 for name of parameter; n, number of samples; <. less than; N/D, not detected]

Statistics P01145 P01147 P01075 P01077 P01057 P01059 P01085 P01087 P01090 P01092 Minimum 5 5 <10 0.65 <10 <10 <10 <10 <20 <10 Mean 7 14.2 <10 9.72 <10 10.8 <10 10.7 <20 29.5 Median 5 15 <10 10 <10 10 <10 10 <20 20 Maximum 15 30 <10 20 <10 20 <10 20 <20 60 n 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50

Station number 01573490 Statistics P00916 P00927 P00937 P00929 P00940 P00951 P00945 P00530 P00625 P71845 Minimum 1.2 0.6 1.4 1.3 0.1 3.3 2 0.25 0.15 Mean 1.39 .92 2.99 2.24 .38 5.38 31.85 .466 .21 Median 2.2 1.4 .8 2.6 1.85 .2 5.15 4 .5 .21 Maximum 1.6 1.8 5 5.2 1 7.7 350 .51 .27 n 1 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19

Statistics P00610 P00620 P00630 P00615 P00605 P00660 P00671 P00665 P00600 P71887 Minimum 0.029 0.2 0.13 <0.004 0.3 0.5 0.032 0.018 0.15 3.7 Mean .097 .333 .24 .01 .3 .5 .08 .04 .27 3.7 Median .1 .33 .21 .01 .3 .5 .05 .05 .25 3.7 Maximum .21 .45 .45 .01 .3 .5 .18 .05 .55 3.7 n 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19

Statistics P00680 P01106 P01105 P01095 P01097 P01000 P01002 P01005 P01010 P01012 Minimum <2 <100 100 <10 4 <10 8 35 <5 <5 Mean <2 115 344 <10 9.54 <10 13.31 38 <5 <5 Median <2 115 300 <10 10 <10 15 38 <5 <5 Maximum <2 130 800 10 10 <10 15 41 <5 <5 n 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19

Statistics P01025 P01027 P01030 P01034 P01035 P01037 P01040 P01042 P01046 P01045 Minimum <5 <5 <10 2 <10 <10 <10 <10 <100 120 Mean <5 <5 <10 9.38 <10 <10 <10 <10 215 386 Median <5 <5 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 215 250 Maximum <5 <5 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 330 980 n 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19

Statistics P01049 P01051 P01056 P01055 P71890 P71900 P01060 P01062 P01065 P01067 Minimum <3 <3 20 20 <0.2 <0.2 <20 2 <40 <40 Mean <3 <3 35 60 <.2 <.2 <20 17.2 <40 <40 Median <3 <3 35 40 <.2 <.2 <20 20 <40 <40 Maximum <3 <3 50 170 <.2 <.2 <20 20 <40 <40 n 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 62 Surface-Water Quality and Quantity, Aquatic Biology, Stream Geomorphology, and Groundwater Flow Simulation

Appendix 2a. Nutrients, major ions, and metals.

[Pxxxx, parameter code–see appendix 1 for name of parameter; n, number of samples; <. less than; N/D, not detected]

Statistics P01145 P01147 P01075 P01077 P01057 P01059 P01085 P01087 P01090 P01092 Minimum <0.5 5 1 0.8 <10 3 <10 <10 20 10 Mean <.5 15 5.5 8.61 <10 9.46 <10 <10 20 17 Median <.5 15 10 10 <10 10 <10 <10 20 20 Maximum <.5 19 19 10 <10 10 <10 <10 20 20 n 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19

Station number 01573497 Statistics P81024 P00916 P00925 P00927 P00937 P00929 P00940 P00951 P00945 P00530 Minimum 4.6 N/D 2 0.9 1.7 1.8 0.1 2.2 2 Mean 6.02 N/D 2.38 1.56 4.42 9.19 .43 8.86 20.18 Median 3.06 5.7 N/D 2.35 1.25 4.7 7.8 .2 4.8 5.5 Maximum 8.6 N/D 3 2.6 5.7 31 1 42 200 n 1 17 0 17 17 17 17 17 17 17

Statistics P00625 P71845 P00610 P00620 P00630 P00615 P00605 P00660 P00671 P00665 Minimum 0.12 0.19 0.03 0.35 0.32 0.002 N/D 0.12 0.05 0.02 Mean .34 .19 .08 1.02 1.08 .01 N/D .46 .07 .13 Median .2 .19 .086 .975 .97 .007 N/D .5 .05 .045 Maximum .61 .19 .15 1.7 2 .034 N/D .5 .16 1.2 n 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17

Statistics P00600 P71887 P00680 P01106 P01105 P01095 P01097 P01000 P01002 P01005 Minimum 1.6 6.9 1.7 20 <100 <10 <10 <10 4 26 Mean 1.87 8.13 1.7 20 387.5 <10 <10 <10 13.25 26 Median 1.6 7 1.7 20 300 <10 <10 <10 15 26 Maximum 2.4 10.5 1.7 20 1100 <10 <10 <10 15 26 n 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17

Statistics P01010 P01012 P01025 P01027 P01030 P01034 P01035 P01037 P01040 P01042 Minimum <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <10 3 <10 <10 <10 <10 Mean <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <10 9.42 <10 <10 <10 <10 Median <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 Maximum <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 n 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17

Statistics P01046 P01045 P01049 P01051 P01056 P01055 P71890 P71900 P01060 P01062 Minimum 120 130 <3 <3 20 20 0.04 0.2 <20 <20 Mean 120 490 <3 <3 20 65.8 .04 .2 <20 <20 Median 120 330 <3 <3 20 50 .04 .2 <20 <20 Maximum 120 1600 <3 <3 20 140 .04 .2 <20 <20 n 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 Statistical Summaries of Water-Quality Data 63

Appendix 2a. Nutrients, major ions, and metals.

[Pxxxx, parameter code–see appendix 1 for name of parameter; n, number of samples; <. less than; N/D, not detected]

Statistics P01065 P01067 P01145 P01147 P01075 P01077 P01057 P01059 P01085 P01087 Minimum <40 <40 <0.5 5 <10 0.46 <10 <10 <10 <10 Mean <40 <40 <.5 13.3 <10 7.68 <10 <10 <10 <10 Median <40 <40 <.5 15 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 Maximum <40 <40 <.5 15 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 n 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17

Statistics P01090 P01092 Minimum <20 <10 Mean <20 19 Median <20 20 Maximum <20 30 n 17 17 *Includes results with the flood event of September 19, 2004. 64 Surface-Water Quality and Quantity, Aquatic Biology, Stream Geomorphology, and Groundwater Flow Simulation

Appendix 2b. Explosives and pesticides.

[Pxxxxx, parameter code–see appendix 1 for name of parameter; n, number of samples; N/D, not detected]

Station number 01572809 Statistics P49232 P49230 P49228 P49227 P49223 P49221 P49222 P39330 P34361 P39065 Median N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D n 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Statistics P39337 P34671 P39488 P39492 P39496 P39500 P39504 P39508 P34356 Median N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D n 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Statistics P39062 P39380 P34351 P34366 P39390 P39420 P39410 P49234 P39340 Median N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D n 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Statistics P49229 P34447 P39310 P39320 P39300 P39480 P49233 P62226 P49226 Median N/D 0.12 N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D 0.12 N/D n 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Station number 01572950 Statistics P49232 P49230 P49228 P49227 P49223 P49221 P49222 P39330 P34361 P39065 Minimum <0.12 <0.12 <0.12 <0.12 <0.12 <0.12 <0.12 <0.05 <0.1 <0.1 Mean <.12 <.12 <.12 <.12 <.12 <.12 <.12 <.05 <.1 <.1 Median <.12 <.12 <.12 <.12 <.12 <.12 <.12 <.05 <.1 <.1 Maximum <.12 <.12 <.12 <.12 <.12 <.12 <.12 <.05 <.1 <.1 n 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12

Statistics P39337 P34671 P39488 P39492 P39496 P39500 P39504 P39508 P49226 Minimum <0.05 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <0.12 Mean <.05 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 <.12 Median <.05 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 <.12 Maximum <.05 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 <.12 n 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12

Statistics P34356 P39062 P39380 P34351 P34366 P39390 P39420 P39410 P49234 Minimum <0.05 <0.1 <0.05 <0.1 <0.1 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.12 Mean <.05 <.1 <.05 <.1 <.1 <.05 <.05 <.05 <.12 Median <.05 <.1 <.05 <.1 <.1 <.05 <.05 <.05 <.12 Maximum <.05 <.1 <.05 <.1 <.1 <.05 <.05 <.05 <.12 n 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Statistical Summaries of Water-Quality Data 65

Appendix 2b. Explosives and pesticides.

[Pxxxxx, parameter code–see appendix 1 for name of parameter; n, number of samples; N/D, not detected]

Statistics P39340 P49229 P34447 P39310 P39320 P39300 P39480 P49233 P62226 Minimum <0.05 0.12 0.12 <0.1 <0.05 <0.1 <0.1 <0.039 <0.12 Mean <.05 .12 6.71 <.1 <.05 <.1 <.1 <.039 <.12 Median <.05 .12 10 <.1 <.05 <.1 <.1 <.039 <.12 Maximum <.05 .12 10 <.1 <.05 <.1 <.1 <.039 <.12 n 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12

Station number 01572979 Statistics P49232 P49230 P49228 P49227 P49223 P49221 P49222 P39330 P34361 P39065 Minimum N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D Maximum N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D n 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Statistics P39337 P34671 P39488 P39492 P39496 P39500 P39504 P39508 P34356 Minimum N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D Maximum N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D n 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Statistics P39062 P39380 P34351 P34366 P39390 P39420 P39410 P49234 P39340 Minimum N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D Maximum N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D n 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Statistics P49229 P34447 P39310 P39320 P39300 P39480 P49233 P62226 P49226 Minimum N/D <10 N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D Maximum N/D <10 N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D n 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Station number 01572981 Statistics P49232 P49230 P49228 P49227 P49223 P49221 P49222 P39330 P34361 P39065 Minimum N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D Maximum N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D n 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Statistics P39337 P34671 P39488 P39492 P39496 P39500 P39504 P39508 P34356 Minimum N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D Maximum N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D n 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 66 Surface-Water Quality and Quantity, Aquatic Biology, Stream Geomorphology, and Groundwater Flow Simulation

Appendix 2b. Explosives and pesticides.

[Pxxxxx, parameter code–see appendix 1 for name of parameter; n, number of samples; N/D, not detected]

Statistics P39062 P39380 P34351 P34366 P39390 P39420 P39410 P49234 P39340 Minimum N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D Maximum N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D n 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Statistics P49229 P34447 P39310 P39320 P39300 P39480 P49233 P62226 P49226 Minimum N/D <10 N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D Maximum N/D <10 N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D n 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Station number 01573482 Statistics P49232 P49230 P49228 P49227 P49223 P49221 P49222 P39330 P34361 P39065 Minimum <0.12 <0.12 <0.12 <0.12 <0.12 <0.12 <0.12 <0.05 <0.1 <0.1 Mean <.12 <.12 <.12 <.12 <.12 <.12 <.12 <.05 <.1 <.1 Median <.12 <.12 <.12 <.12 <.12 <.12 <.12 <.05 <.1 <.1 Maximum <.12 <.12 <.12 <.12 <.12 <.12 <.12 <.05 <.1 <.1 n 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13

Statistics P39337 P34671 P39488 P39492 P39496 P39500 P39504 P39508 P34356 P49226 Minimum <0.05 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <0.05 <0.12 Mean <.05 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <.05 <.12 Median <.05 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <.05 <.12 Maximum <.05 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <.05 <.12 n 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13

Statistics P39062 P39380 P34351 P34366 P39390 P39420 P39410 P49234 P39340 Minimum <0.1 <0.05 <0.1 <0.1 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 0.12 <0.05 Mean <.1 <.05 <.1 <.1 <.05 <.05 <.05 .12 <.05 Median <.1 <.05 <.1 <.1 <.05 <.05 <.05 .12 <.05 Maximum <.1 <.05 <.1 <.1 <.05 <.05 <.05 .12 <.05 n 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13

Statistics P49229 P34447 P39310 P39320 P39300 P39480 P49233 P62226 Minimum <0.12 0.12 <0.1 <0.05 <0.1 <0.1 0.18 <0.12 Mean <.12 6.7 <.1 <.05 <.1 <.1 .245 <.12 Median <.12 10 <.1 <.05 <.1 <.1 .245 <.12 Maximum <.12 10 <.1 <.05 <.1 <.1 .31 <.12 n 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 Statistical Summaries of Water-Quality Data 67

Appendix 2c. Semi-volatile and volatile organics.

[Pxxxxx, parameter code–see appendix 1 for name of parameter; n, number of samples; N/D, not detected]

Station number 01572809 Statistics P81024 P77687 P34621 P34601 P34606 P34616 P34611 P34626 P49225 Median 1.74 N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D 0.12 0.12 N/D n 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Statistics P34581 P34586 P34657 P30195 P34591 P34631 P78300 P49224 P34636 Median N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D n 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Statistics P34452 P50312 P34641 P30196 P34646 P34381 P34205 P34200 P34220 Median N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D n 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Statistics P34526 P34247 P34230 P34521 P34242 P34292 P39338 P34278 P34273 Median N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D n 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Statistics P34283 P39100 P77571 P34320 P34259 P34556 P81302 P34336 P34341 Median N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D n 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Statistics P39110 P34596 P34376 P39700 P34386 P34403 P34408 P34428 P34433 Median N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D n 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Statistics P62268 P39032 P34461 P34694 P32730 P34469 P77057 P77562 P34506 Median N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D n 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Statistics P34516 P34511 P34496 P34501 P77443 P34551 P34536 P32103 P34541 Median N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D n 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Statistics P34566 P34571 P81552 P34030 P32101 P34413 P77041 P34301 P34311 Median N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D n 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Statistics P34418 P77093 P34704 P32105 P34423 P81595 P34371 P39702 P34396 Median N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D n 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 68 Surface-Water Quality and Quantity, Aquatic Biology, Stream Geomorphology, and Groundwater Flow Simulation

Appendix 2c. Semi-volatile and volatile organics.

[Pxxxxx, parameter code–see appendix 1 for name of parameter; n, number of samples; N/D, not detected]

Statistics P78133 P85795 P34696 P77103 P77135 P77128 P78032 P34475 P32102 Median N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D n 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Statistics P34010 P34546 P34699 P32104 P39180 P32106 P39175 Median N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D n 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Station number 01572950 Statistics P81024 P77687 P34621 P34601 P34606 P34616 P34611 P34626 P49224 Minimum <10 <10 <10 <10 50 0.12 0.12 <0.12 Mean <10 <10 <10 <10 50 6.7 6.7 <.12 Median 5.48 <10 <10 <10 <10 50 10 10 <.12 Maximum <10 <10 <10 <10 50 10 10 <.12 n 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6

Statistics P49225 P34581 P34586 P34657 P30195 P34591 P34631 P78300 Minimum <0.12 <10 <10 <50 <50 <10 <50 <50 Mean <.12 <10 <10 <50 <50 <10 <50 <50 Median <.12 <10 <10 <50 <50 <10 <50 <50 Maximum <.12 <10 <10 <50 <50 <10 <50 <50 n 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6

Statistics P34636 P34452 P50312 P34641 P30196 P34646 P34381 P34205 P34200 Minimum <10 <10 <10 <10 <50 <50 <10 <10 <10 Mean <10 <10 <10 <10 <50 <50 <10 <10 <10 Median <10 <10 <10 <10 <50 <50 <10 <10 <10 Maximum <10 <10 <10 <10 <50 <50 <10 <10 <10 n 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6

Statistics P34220 P34526 P34247 P34230 P34521 P34242 P34292 P39338 P34278 Minimum <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <0.05 <10 Mean <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <.05 <10 Median <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <.05 <10 Maximum <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <.05 <10 n 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6

Statistics P34273 P34283 P39100 P77571 P34320 P34259 P34556 P81302 P34336 Minimum <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <0.05 <10 <10 <10 Mean <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <.05 <10 <10 <10 Median <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <.05 <10 <10 <10 Maximum <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <.05 <10 <10 <10 n 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Statistical Summaries of Water-Quality Data 69

Appendix 2c. Semi-volatile and volatile organics.

[Pxxxxx, parameter code–see appendix 1 for name of parameter; n, number of samples; N/D, not detected]

Statistics P34341 P39110 P34596 P34376 P39700 P34386 P34403 P34408 P34428 Minimum <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <50 <10 <10 <10 Mean <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <50 <10 <10 <10 Median <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <50 <10 <10 <10 Maximum <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <50 <10 <10 <10 n 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6

Statistics P34433 P62268 P39032 P34461 P34694 P32730 P34469 P77057 P77562 Minimum <10 <10 50 <10 <10 0.02 <10 <2 <1 Mean <10 <10 50 <10 <10 .02 <10 <2 <1 Median <10 <10 50 <10 <10 .02 <10 <2 <1 Maximum <10 <10 50 <10 <10 .02 <10 <2 <1 n 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6

Statistics P34506 P34516 P34511 P34496 P34501 P77443 P34551 P34536 P32103 Minimum <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <10 <10 <1 Mean <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <10 <10 <1 Median <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <10 <10 <1 Maximum <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <10 <10 <1 n 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6

Statistics P34541 P34566 P34571 P81552 P34030 P32101 P34413 P77041 P34301 Minimum <1 <10 <10 <10 <1 <1 <2 <1 <1 Mean <1 <10 <10 <10 <1 <1 <2 <1 <1 Median <1 <10 <10 <10 <1 <1 <2 <1 <1 Maximum <1 <10 <10 <10 <1 <1 <2 <1 <1 n 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6

Statistics P34311 P34418 P77093 P34704 P32105 P34423 P81595 P34371 P39702 Minimum <2 <2 <1 <1 <1 <1 <5 <1 <10 Mean <2 <2 <1 <1 <1 <1 <5 <1 <10 Median <2 <2 <1 <1 <1 <1 <5 <1 <10 Maximum <2 <2 <1 <1 <1 <1 <5 <1 <10 n 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6

Statistics P34396 P78133 P85795 P34696 P77103 P77135 P77128 P78032 P34475 Minimum <10 5 <2 <10 <5 <1 <1 <5 <1 Mean <10 5 <2 <10 <5 <1 <1 <5 <1 Median <10 5 <2 <10 <5 <1 <1 <5 <1 Maximum <10 5 <2 <10 <5 <1 <1 <5 <1 n 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 70 Surface-Water Quality and Quantity, Aquatic Biology, Stream Geomorphology, and Groundwater Flow Simulation

Appendix 2c. Semi-volatile and volatile organics.

[Pxxxxx, parameter code–see appendix 1 for name of parameter; n, number of samples; N/D, not detected]

Statistics P32102 P34010 P34546 P34699 P32104 P39180 P32106 P39175 Minimum <1 <1 0.5 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Mean <1 <1 .5 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Median <1 <1 .5 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Maximum <1 <1 .5 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 n 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6

Station number 01572979 Statistics P81024 P77687 P34621 P34601 P34606 P34616 P34611 P34626 P49225 Minimum 0.73 <10 <10 <10 <10 50 <10 <10 N/D Maximum .73 <10 <10 <10 <10 50 <10 <10 N/D n 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Statistics P34581 P34586 P34657 P30195 P34591 P34631 P78300 P49224 P34636 Minimum <10 <10 50 50 <10 50 50 N/D <10 Maximum <10 <10 50 50 <10 50 50 N/D <10 n 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Statistics P34452 P50312 P34641 P30196 P34646 P34381 P34205 P34200 P34220 Minimum <10 <10 <10 50 50 <10 <10 <10 <10 Maximum <10 <10 <10 50 50 <10 <10 <10 <10 n 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Statistics P34526 P34247 P34230 P34521 P34242 P34292 P39338 P34278 P34273 Minimum <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 N/D <10 <10 Maximum <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 N/D <10 <10 n 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Statistics P34283 P39100 P77571 P34320 P34259 P34556 P81302 P34336 P34341 Minimum <10 <10 <10 <10 N/D <10 <10 <10 <10 Maximum <10 <10 <10 <10 N/D <10 <10 <10 <10 n 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Statistics P39110 P34596 P34376 P39700 P34386 P34403 P34408 P34428 P34433 Minimum <10 <10 <10 <10 50 <10 <10 <10 <10 Maximum <10 <10 <10 <10 50 <10 <10 <10 <10 n 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Statistics P62268 P39032 P34461 P34694 P32730 P34469 P77057 P77562 P34506 Minimum <10 50 <10 <10 0.02 <10 N/D N/D N/D Maximum <10 50 <10 <10 .02 <10 N/D N/D N/D n 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Statistical Summaries of Water-Quality Data 71

Appendix 2c. Semi-volatile and volatile organics.

[Pxxxxx, parameter code–see appendix 1 for name of parameter; n, number of samples; N/D, not detected]

Statistics P34516 P34511 P34496 P34501 P77443 P34551 P34536 P32103 P34541 Minimum N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D <10 <10 N/D N/D Maximum N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D <10 <10 N/D N/D n 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Statistics P34566 P34571 P81552 P34030 P32101 P34413 P77041 P34301 P34311 Minimum <10 <10 N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D Maximum <10 <10 N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D n 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Statistics P34418 P77093 P34704 P32105 P34423 P81595 P34371 P39702 P34396 Minimum N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D <10 <10 Maximum N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D <10 <10 n 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Statistics P78133 P85795 P34696 P77103 P77135 P77128 P78032 P34475 P32102 Minimum N/D N/D <10 N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D Maximum N/D N/D <10 N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D n 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Statistics P34010 P34546 P34699 P32104 P39180 P32106 P39175 Minimum N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D Maximum N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D n 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Station number 01572981 Statistics P81024 P77687 P34621 P34601 P34606 P34616 P34611 P34626 P49225 Minimum 0.79 <10 <10 <10 <10 50 <10 <10 N/D Maximum .79 <10 <10 <10 <10 50 <10 <10 N/D n 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Statistics P34581 P34586 P34657 P30195 P34591 P34631 P78300 P49224 P34636 Minimum <10 <10 50 50 <10 50 50 N/D <10 Maximum <10 <10 50 50 <10 50 50 N/D <10 n 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Statistics P34452 P50312 P34641 P30196 P34646 P34381 P34205 P34200 P34220 Minimum <10 <10 <10 50 50 <10 <10 <10 <10 Maximum <10 <10 <10 50 50 <10 <10 <10 <10 n 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 72 Surface-Water Quality and Quantity, Aquatic Biology, Stream Geomorphology, and Groundwater Flow Simulation

Appendix 2c. Semi-volatile and volatile organics.

[Pxxxxx, parameter code–see appendix 1 for name of parameter; n, number of samples; N/D, not detected]

Statistics P34526 P34247 P34230 P34521 P34242 P34292 P39338 P34278 P34273 Minimum <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 N/D <10 <10 Maximum <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 N/D <10 <10 n 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Statistics P34283 P39100 P77571 P34320 P34259 P34556 P81302 P34336 P34341 Minimum <10 14 <10 <10 N/D <10 <10 <10 <10 Maximum <10 14 <10 <10 N/D <10 <10 <10 <10 n 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Statistics P39110 P34596 P34376 P39700 P34386 P34403 P34408 P34428 P34433 Minimum <10 <10 <10 <10 50 <10 <10 <10 <10 Maximum <10 <10 <10 <10 50 <10 <10 <10 <10 n 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Statistics P62268 P39032 P34461 P34694 P32730 P34469 P77057 P77562 P34506 Minimum <10 50 <10 <10 N/D <10 N/D N/D N/D Maximum <10 50 <10 <10 N/D <10 N/D N/D N/D n 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Statistics P34516 P34511 P34496 P34501 P77443 P34551 P34536 P32103 P34541 Minimum N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D <10 <10 N/D N/D Maximum N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D <10 <10 N/D N/D n 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Statistics P34566 P34571 P81552 P34030 P32101 P34413 P77041 P34301 P34311 Minimum <10 <10 N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D Maximum <10 <10 N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D n 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Statistics P34418 P77093 P34704 P32105 P34423 P81595 P34371 P39702 P34396 Minimum N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D <10 <10 Maximum N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D <10 <10 n 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Statistics P78133 P85795 P34696 P77103 P77135 P77128 P78032 P34475 P32102 Minimum N/D N/D <10 N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D Maximum N/D N/D <10 N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D n 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Statistical Summaries of Water-Quality Data 73

Appendix 2c. Semi-volatile and volatile organics.

[Pxxxxx, parameter code–see appendix 1 for name of parameter; n, number of samples; N/D, not detected]

Statistics P34010 P34546 P34699 P32104 P39180 P32106 P39175 Minimum N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D Maximum N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D n 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Station number 01573482 Statistics P81024 P77687 P34621 P34601 P34606 P34616 P34611 P34626 P49224 Minimum <10 <10 <10 <10 <50 0.12 0.12 <0.12 Mean <10 <10 <10 <10 <50 6.7 6.7 <.12 Median 8.59 <10 <10 <10 <10 <50 10 10 <.12 Maximum <10 <10 <10 <10 <50 10 10 <.12 n 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8

Statistics P34273 P34283 P39100 P77571 P34320 P34259 P34556 P81302 P34336 Minimum <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <0.05 <10 <10 <10 Mean <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <.05 <10 <10 <10 Median <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <.05 <10 <10 <10 Maximum <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <.05 <10 <10 <10 n 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 74 Surface-Water Quality and Quantity, Aquatic Biology, Stream Geomorphology, and Groundwater Flow Simulation

Appendix 2c. Semi-volatile and volatile organics.

[Pxxxxx, parameter code–see appendix 1 for name of parameter; n, number of samples; N/D, not detected]

Statistics P34433 P62268 P39032 P34461 P34694 P32730 P34469 P77057 P77562 Minimum <10 <10 <50 <10 <10 <0.02 <10 <2 <1 Mean <10 <10 <50 <10 <10 <.02 <10 <2 <1 Median <10 <10 <50 <10 <10 <.02 <10 <2 <1 Maximum <10 <10 <50 <10 <10 <.02 <10 <2 <1 n 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8

Statistics P34396 P78133 P85795 P34696 P77103 P77135 P77128 P78032 P34475 Minimum <10 <5 <2 <10 <5 <1 <1 <5 <1 Mean <10 <5 <2 <10 <5 <1 <1 <5 <1 Median <10 <5 <2 <10 <5 <1 <1 <5 <1 Maximum <10 <5 <2 <10 <5 <1 <1 <5 <1 n 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 Statistical Summaries of Water-Quality Data 75

Appendix 2c. Semi-volatile and volatile organics.

[Pxxxxx, parameter code–see appendix 1 for name of parameter; n, number of samples; N/D, not detected]

Statistics P32102 P34010 P34546 P34699 P32104 P39180 P32106 P39175 Minimum <1 <1 <0.5 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Mean <1 <1 <.5 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Median <1 <1 <.5 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Maximum <1 <1 <.5 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 n 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8

Station number 01573497 Statistics P81024 P77687 P34621 P34601 P34606 P34616 P34611 P34626 P49225 Median 3.06 N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D n 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Statistics P34581 P34586 P34657 P30195 P34591 P34631 P78300 P49224 P34636 Median N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D n 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Statistics P34452 P50312 P34641 P30196 P34646 P34381 P34205 P34200 P34220 Median N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D n 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Statistics P34526 P34247 P34230 P34521 P34242 P34292 P39338 P34278 P34273 Median N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D n 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Statistics P34283 P39100 P77571 P34320 P34259 P34556 P81302 P34336 P34341 Median N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D n 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Statistics P39110 P34596 P34376 P39700 P34386 P34403 P34408 P34428 P34433 Median N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D n 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Statistics P62268 P39032 P34461 P34694 P32730 P34469 P77057 P77562 P34506 Median N/D N/D N/D N/D 0.02 N/D N/D N/D N/D n 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Statistics P34516 P34511 P34496 P34501 P77443 P34551 P34536 P32103 P34541 Median N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D n 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Statistics P34566 P34571 P81552 P34030 P32101 P34413 P77041 P34301 P34311 Median N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D n 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 76 Surface-Water Quality and Quantity, Aquatic Biology, Stream Geomorphology, and Groundwater Flow Simulation

Appendix 2c. Semi-volatile and volatile organics.

[Pxxxxx, parameter code–see appendix 1 for name of parameter; n, number of samples; N/D, not detected]

Statistics P34418 P77093 P34704 P32105 P34423 P81595 P34371 P39702 P34396 Median N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D n 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Statistics P78133 P85795 P34696 P77103 P77135 P77128 P78032 P34475 P32102 Median N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D n 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Statistics P34010 P34546 P34699 P32104 P39180 P32106 P39175 Median N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D N/D n 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Appendix 3—Sample Habitat Assessment Forms 78 Surface-Water Quality and Quantity, Aquatic Biology, Stream Geomorphology, and Groundwater Flow Simulation Appendix 3 79 80 Surface-Water Quality and Quantity, Aquatic Biology, Stream Geomorphology, and Groundwater Flow Simulation Appendix 3 81 82 Surface-Water Quality and Quantity, Aquatic Biology, Stream Geomorphology, and Groundwater Flow Simulation Appendix 4—Aquatic Invertebrates: Summary of Site-Assessment Results

Aries Run at Fort Indiantown Gap, Pa. (ar-1) Aries Run at Fort Indiantown Gap was in the cantonment area of the Fort Indiantown Gap facility in a narrow riparian buffer zone. The average stream width was about 2 meters, and the depth was 0.1 meter. Over the 4 years of sampling, this site was very stable; taxa richness ranged from 25 to 30, the EPT values from 6 to 11, and the HBI scores from 3.91 to 4.22. The caddisfly Chimarra and elmid beetle Optioservus were the dominant taxa. The dominance of these animals was indicative of a slightly impacted water-quality condition.

Aries Run above Qureg Run at Fort Indiantown Gap, Pa. (ar-2) Aries Run above Qureg Run was in the vicinity of the filtration plant in a narrow riparian buffer zone. The average stream width was about 2 meters, and the depth was 0.1 meter. This site was highly affected by high-water events in 2003 and the placement of a rip-rap structure upstream in 2004. The taxa richness ranged from 20 to 29, the EPT values from 7 to 11, and the HBI scores from 4.10 to 4.35. The dominant taxa were the same as Aries Run at Fort Indiantown Gap (ar-1), Chimarra and Optioservus (2002-2004), and the beetle Psephenus in 2005. The invertebrate community was indicative of a slightly impacted water-quality condition.

Bow Creek at Grantville, Pa. (bcRef-1) Bow Creek at Grantville was near an interstate highway interchange within a very thin riparian buffer zone containing a few residences. The stream width was about 2 meters, and the depth was 0.1 meter. The dominant bottom material was mostly gravel. The pH value near 7.5, specific conductance of 400 µS/cm, and the occurrence of gammaridean amphipods were evidence of water quality influenced by limestone. The taxa richness ranged from 16 to 28, the EPT values from 4 to 13, and the HBI scores from 4.87 to 5.08. The dominant taxa were the elmid beetles Optioservus and Stenelmis. The invertebrate community was indicative of a slightly impacted to moderately impacted water-quality condition.

Bear Hole Run at Suedberg, Pa. (bhRef-1) Bear Hole Run at Suedberg flowed from a heavily forested ridge on state game lands; the stream width was 1.5 meters, and the depth was 0.1 meter. The pH was near 6, and the specific conductance values were about 15 µS/cm. The invertebrate community was indicative of a highly non-impacted condition; taxa richness ranged from 22 to 32, EPT values from 12 to 15, and HBI scores from 2.22 to 3.18. The mayfliesParaleptophlebia and Stenonema, the stoneflyLeuctra , and hydropsychid caddisflies dominated. This stream was reflective of a non-impacted condition.

Evening Branch above Gold Mine Run near Tower City, Pa. (ebMRef-1) Evening Branch above Gold Mine Run was in a heavily forested (mostly coniferous) area near state game lands. The stream width was about 6 meters, and the depth was 0.3 meter. Water quality was representative of a slightly acidic dark water condition; pH was near 6.5, and specific conductance was near 30 µS/cm.The dominant bottom material was boulder, making collection difficult. Taxa richness ranged from 23 to 37, EPT values from 8 to 13, and HBI scores from 3.49 to 4.85. The invertebrate community was mostly chironomids (Tanytarsus) in composition, which resulted in a slightly impacted designation. The site may have better water quality than the invertebrate community indicates, because the EPT taxa may have been present but difficult to collect because of the boulders.

Forge Creek near Lickdale, Pa. (fc-1) Forge Creek near Lickdale is on the boundary of the Fort Indiantown Gap facility and flows off a ridge through mostly forested areas. The water chemistry was representative of the area; pH values were near 6.5 and specific conductance values were near 30 µS/cm. The dominant substrate was sand, and riffle habitat made up less than 10 percent of the sampling reach. The stream width was 1 meter, and depth was 0.1 meter. The invertebrate community metrics and water-quality assessment varied greatly over the 4-year period. In 2002, the severe drought condition may have caused the slightly impacted water-quality condition because flow was reduced and ambient water temperatures were higher. In 2002, the tubificid worms (tolerance value 10) were dominant. In 2003 and 2004, worms were replaced by the stoneflyLeuctra (tolerance value 0). Perhaps these stoneflies were simply absent in 2002 or may have been in a state of diapause. The fact that the HBI score was 6.21 in 2002, the highest at any site in 4 years, 1.79 in 2004, the lowest in 4 years, and 4.43 in 2005 is not easily explained. The site ranks as slightly impacted. 84 Surface-Water Quality and Quantity, Aquatic Biology, Stream Geomorphology, and Groundwater Flow Simulation

Gold Mine Run near Tower City, Pa. (GoldMineRunRef-1) Gold Mine Run near Tower City is in a forested area that is also part of state game lands. The stream width was about 2 meters, and the depth was 0.3 meters. This high gradient stream had pH values around 5 and a low specific conductance of around 30 µS/cm. There was a good riffle-run-pool sequence with a boulder-rubble-cobble substrate. Taxa richness ranged from 22 to 28, EPT values from 10 to 11, and HBI scores from 2.05 to 4.26. Although the stoneflyLeuctra and blackflySimulium were dominant, the numbers of enchytraeid worms and chironomids raised the biotic index score in 2003. The invertebrate community was indicative of a non-impacted water-quality condition.

Indiantown Run below Hatchery at Fort Indiantown Gap, Pa. (HatImpact) Indiantown Run below Hatchery was in a low-gradient area, heavily forested, and below the GAP trout hatchery. The water chemistry was indicative of the land use; the stream exhibited a slight tea color, a pH near 6, and low specific conductance. Taxa richness ranged from 24 to 32, EPT values from 4 to 11, and HBI scores from 4.06 to 4.99. In 2002 and 2003, the metrics reflected a slightly impacted condition, but in 2004, the scoring was more representative of a non-impacted condition. It appears that the large percentage of midges in 2002 and 2003 (60 percent) was influential in lowering the scores. However, in 2004, high numbers of Stenonema mayflies raised the overall condition ranking. In 2005, the midges increased again in number and were (35 percent) of the taxa richness again raising the HBI score to 4.88. Although no single taxa present, with the exception of the midge Micropsectra, pointed to enrichment from the hatchery operations, there was some evidence of that possibility, and the HBI scores were indicative of this slight impact. The invertebrate community was indicative of a non-impacted water-quality condition.

Indiantown Run above Unnamed Tributary at Fort Indiantown Gap, Pa. (ir-0.5) Indiantown Run above Unnamed Tributary was a low-gradient site in a mostly forested area with some beaver activity. The stream width averaged 5 meters, and depth was 0.5 meter. Taxa richness ranged from 29 to 37, EPT values from 10 to 13, and HBI scores from 4.17 to 4.87. In 2002, large numbers of fingernail clams,Sphaerium , were collected, and in 2003 and 2004, large numbers of chironomids increased the HBI scores. In 2005, an increase in the numbers of Heptageniid mayflies and Hydropsychid caddisflies resulted in a lower HBI score. The invertebrate community was just within the non-impacted classification.

Indiantown Run at Fort Indiantown Gap (ir-1) Indiantown Run at Fort Indiantown Gap was a higher-gradient forested area just downstream of Route 443. The stream width averaged 5 meters, and the depth was 0.3 meter. The taxa richness ranged from 28 to 34, EPT values from 13 to 18, and HBI scores from 2.31 to 3.92. The presence of chironomids and worms in 2003 raised the HBI score, but overall, the invertebrate community was indicative of a non-impacted water-quality condition.

Indiantown Run above Memorial Lake near Indiantown, Pa. (ir-2) Indiantown Run above Memorial Lake was off Boundary Road in a mostly forested area. The stream width was about 5 meters, and the depth was 0.3 meter. The taxa richness ranged from 22 to 26, EPT values from 7 to 11, and HBI scores from 3.89 to 4.31. Mayflies and hydropsychid caddisflies made up the dominant taxa.The invertebrate community was indicative of a slightly impacted water-quality condition, and the scores rose slowly with time showing more impact over the years.

Indiantown Run above Vesle Run (ir-3) Indiantown Run above Vesle Run displayed a highly bedrock substrate and was within a moderately wide riparian buffer zone. The stream width was about 3 meters, and the depth was 0.3 meter. Taxa richness ranged from 20 to 28, EPT values from 5 to 9, and HBI scores from 4.35 to 5.40. Hydropsychid caddisflies and elmid beetles were the dominant taxa.The invertebrate community was indicative of a slightly impacted water-quality condition.

Manada Creek along McLean Road near Manada Gap, Pa. (mc-1) Manada Creek along McLean Road site is within a forested area. The stream width was about 5 meters, and the depth was 0.5 meter. During the 4 years of study, a beaver was active in the area. The taxa richness ranged from 33 to 36, EPT values from 12 to 16, and the HBI scores from 3.64 to 4.96. It appears some of the increase in biotic index score was due to the presence of oligochaetes and chironomids such as Micropsectra. Over time, the percentage of chironomids decreased and the numbers of mayflies increased, lowering the HBI score and reflecting better water quality over time.The invertebrate community was indicative of a non-impacted water-quality condition. Appendix 4 85

Manada Creek near Manada Gap. Pa. (mc-1.5) Manada Creek near Manada Gap was of a forested land use within a delayed harvest trout area. The stream width was about 10 meters, and the depth was 0.3 meter. The reach included a good mix of riffle-run-pool habitat. The taxa richness ranged from 25 to 36, EPT values from 8 to 12, and HBI scores from 3.10 to 4.13. The dominant taxon was the stoneflyLeuctra for the first 3 years of collection; the fourth year was dominated by the hydropsychid caddisfly, Cheumatopsyche, which raised the HBI score. The invertebrate community was indicative of non-impacted water-quality conditions.

Manada Creek below Manada Gap at Manada Gap, Pa. (mc-2) Manada Creek below Manada Gap was the widest and deepest stream sampled. The stream width was 15 meters, and the depth was 1 meter. The area was mostly forested, with a few residences in sight; the reach contained a delayed harvest trout designation. The dominant taxon was the hydropsychid caddisflieCheumatopsyche in 2002 and 2004. Taxa richness ranged from 27 to 35, EPT values from 9 to 13, and HBI scores from 3.31 to 4.27. The invertebrate community was indicative of a non-impacted water-quality condition as the EPT numbers increased over time.

Qureg Run at Fort Indiantown Gap, Pa. (qr-1) Qureg Run at Fort Indiantown Gap was in a narrow riparian buffer zone in the base cantonment area. Stream width was about 2 meters, and the depth was 0.1 meter. Water chemistry yielded pH near 7 and specific conductance around 200 µS/cm. Taxa richness ranged from 19 to 32, EPT values from 2 to 10, and HBI scores ranged from 4.52 to 5.12. The beetles Stenelmis (2002 and 2005) and Optioservus (2003-2005) and Psephenus (2002) were the dominant taxa. Between sampling events in 2003 and 2004, a rip-rap dam was constructed and shoreline vegetation was removed immediately above the reach. The aquatic- invertebrate community in 2002 may have been influenced by drought conditions.The invertebrate community was indicative of a slightly impacted water-quality condition.

Aires Run below Qureg Run at Fort Indiantown Gap, Pa. (qr-2) Aries Run below Qureg Run was upstream of the confluence with Reeds Run where a mix of trees and shrubs comprised the riparian zone. The stream width was about 3 meters, and the depth was 0.1 meter. The pH was 7.5 and the specific conductance was 250 µS/cm. The taxa richness ranged from 17 to 33, EPT values from 6 to 11, and HBI scores from 4.28 to 4.44. The dominant taxa were the beetles Psephenus and Optioservus and the blackflySimulium (2003 only). The 2002 sample appeared to be influenced by drought conditions. The invertebrate community was indicative of a slightly impacted water-quality condition.

Stony Creek near Fort Indiantown Gap, Pa. (ScMRef-1) Stony Creek near Fort Indiantown Gap was a tea-colored stream in a highly forested area. The stream width was around 10 meters, and the depth was 1 meter. The pH was around 6 and specific conductance was near 30 µS/cm. Taxa richness ranged from 22 to 33, EPT values from 9 to 14, and the HBI scores from 2.78 to 4.28. Collection of invertebrates at this site was difficult because of the high number of large boulders. The dominant taxon for the first 3 years was the pollution sensitive elmid beetle Promoresia, which is in agreement with the non-impacted water-quality assessment. In 2005, the more tolerant midge, Micropsectra, increased in number and the site started showing the beginnings of some impact.

St. Joseph’s Spring outflow at Fort Indiantown Gap, Pa. (sjs-1) St. Joseph’s Spring outflow was in a high-gradient, heavily forested area. Stream width was around 1.5 meters, and the depth was 0.1 meter. Taxa richness ranged from 29 to 37, EPT values from 11 to 17, and HBI scores from 2.71 to 3.87. The dominant taxa were mayflies, stoneflies, and caddisflies. The invertebrate community was indicative of a non-impacted water- quality condition.

Trout Run at Fort Indiantown Gap, Pa. (tr-1) Trout Run at Fort Indiantown Gap was in a heavily forested, high-gradient area. Stream width was about 1 meter, and the depth was 0.1 meter. The pH was around 6 and the specific conductance was near 30 µS/cm. Taxa richness ranged from 31 to 36, EPT values from 9 to 14, and HBI scores from 2.78 to 4.29. In 2002, there was barely enough water depth to sample because of the lack of riffle areas caused by the drought. The mayflyMaccaffertium and the stonefly Leuctra were the dominant taxa. The invertebrate community was indicative of a non-impacted water-quality condition. 86 Surface-Water Quality and Quantity, Aquatic Biology, Stream Geomorphology, and Groundwater Flow Simulation

Trout Run near Inwood, Pa. (tr-2) Trout Run near Inwood was in a narrow riparian buffer zone and between several residences. The stream width was about 3 meters, and the depth was 0.2 meter. A good riffle-run-pool sequence was present. Taxa richness ranged from 32 to 36, EPT values from 12 to 16, and HBI scores from 3.06 to 4.03. The dominant taxa were the mayflyMaccaffertium and the caddisfly Dolophilodes. This stream had a noticeable high-quality invertebrate community and was indicative of a non-impacted water- quality condition.

UNT Indiantown Run at Fort Indiantown Gap, Pa. (utir-1) Unnamed Tributary to Indiantown Run stream reach was immediately below a wetland in a forested area. Because this was a short tributary, the collection reach was not 100 meters in length. The stream width was about 1 meter, and the depth was 0.1 meter. There was a large sand-silt component to the substrate. Taxa richness ranged from 24 to 41, EPT values from 8 to 16, and HBI scores from 4.31 to 5.34. Large numbers of tubificid and naidid worms in 2003 and 2004 raised the HBI. Although this stream had good percentage of EPT values, the presence of oligochaetes and the silt load resulted in a water-quality condition of slightly impacted.

UNT Manada Creek near Manada Gap, Pa. (utmcm-1) Unnamed Tributary near Manada Gap was in a mixed forested, low-brush area heavily canopied with shrubs. Stream width was about 1 meter, and the depth was 0.1 meter. The pH was around 6, specific conductance around 20 µS /cm, and water temperatures near 16.5°C. Taxa richness ranged from 22 to 46, EPT values from 9 to 17, and HBI scores from 3.15 to 4.55. The stream was not visible from the access road and exhibited a variety of habitats. The beetle Promoresia and mayfly Maccaffertium were dominant. This reach also yielded the highest number of taxa richness collected at all 27 sites over 4 years. The HBI for 2002 and 2004 was likely because of the more tolerant chironomid abundance. The invertebrate community was indicative of a non-impacted to slightly impacted water-quality condition.

Unnamed Tributary along Horseshoe Trail to Manada Creek at Manada Gap, Pa. (utmcm-2) Unnamed Tributary along Horseshoe Trail was in a nearly impassable forested area with much overhanging vegetation. The stream width was around 1.5 meters, and the depth was 0.2 meter. The substrate was high in silt composition. The taxa richness ranged from 26 to 43, EPT values from 11 to 15, and HBI scores from 2.64 to 4.44. The dominant taxa were the stoneflyLeuctra and pollution-sensitive caddisflyDiplectrona until 2005 when chironomids became the dominant animal showing the beginnings of impact. The invertebrate community was indicative of a non-impacted water-quality condition until 2005 and was then indicative of a slightly impacted condition.

Unnamed Tributary to Manada Creek at Route 443 near Manada Gap, Pa. (utmcm-3) This unnamed tributary to Manada Creek directly paralleled Route 443 and flowed within a narrow band of thick shrubs and trees. Stream width was around 2 meters, and the depth was 0.3 meter. Taxa richness ranged from 26 to 34, EPT values from 9 to 14, and HBI scores from 3.22 to 5.40. A large number of naidid worms in 2004 raised the biotic index. In 2003, the midge Rheotanytarsus was dominant. The water-quality condition varied from a non-impacted to a slightly impacted condition.

Unnamed Tributary to Manada Creek near Sand Beach, Pa. (utmcvRef-1) This unnamed tributary to Manada Creek near Sand Beach was in a narrow forested riparian buffer zone, below a large diameter culvert pipe and near a housing development. The stream width was around 3 meters, and the depth was 0.3 meter. A pH about 7 was recorded and a specific conductance near 300 µS/cm. Taxa richness ranged from 17 to 24, EPT values from 4 to 9, and HBI scores from 4.56 to 4.95. The dominant taxa were the elmid beetle Stenelmis and the caddisflyChimarra . The site was heavily influenced by the suburban land use with part of the reach stabilized by rip-rap and showed definite fectsef of siltation. The water-quality condition was slightly impacted.

Vesle Run at Indiantown, Pa. (vr-1) Vesle Run at Indiantown was in a mostly forested area and had a dominant substrate of bedrock. The stream width was around 5 meters, and the depth was 0.3 meter. Average measurements of pH were 7.5 and specific conductance were 250 µS/cm. The taxa richness ranged from 20 to 27, EPT from 6 to 9, and HBI scores from 3.81 to 5.04. The dominant taxa Psephenus (beetle) and Cheumatopsyche (caddisfly) were reflective of a slightly impacted water-quality condition. Appendix 5—Fish Sampling Data: Summary of Site-Assessment Results

Station name: Bear Hole Run at Suedberg, Pa. Date of collection: 08/18/2004 Station identifier: bhRef-1 Station number: 01572124 Lat/Long: 40°30’43”/76°28’23” Number of species at site: 6 Sampling gear code: backpack electroshocker Time/Pass (min.): 23+ (shocker unit unplugged before time was noted) Water temperature (°C): 17.41 pH (units): 5.45 Conductance (µS/cm @ 25°C): 23.2 Discharge (cubic feet per second): 1.54 Investigators: Bilger, Brightbill, Eggleston, Galeone, Schreffler, Embeck, Hammond Range of Total Total Average Percent of Average Range of Percent total number weight of total length Species name total weight weights total lengths per species (milli- number (grams) (grams) weight (milli- species (grams) meters) meters) Blacknose dace 74 45 81 1 1–3 4 49 30–62 Rhinichthys atratulus Longnose dace 2 1 22 11 11–11 1 101 96–106 Rhinichthys cataractae Creek chub 1 1 12 12 12 1 101 101 Semotilus atromaculatus Brook trout 76 47 1,913 25 1–93 91 121 51–210 Salvelinus fontinalis Sculpin 9 5 56 6 1–11 3 71 47–88 Cottus spp. Bluegill sunfish 1 1 21 21 21 1 109 109 Lepomis macrochirus Total 163 2,105 Anomalies: Brook trout—1 percent with deformed spine 88 Surface-Water Quality and Quantity, Aquatic Biology, Stream Geomorphology, and Groundwater Flow Simulation

Station name: Evening Branch above Gold Mine Run near Tower City, Date of collection: 08/18/2004 Pa. Station identifier: ebMRef-1 Station number: 01572112 Lat/Long: 40°31’30”/76°32’30” Number of species at site: 4 Sampling gear code: backpack electroshocker Time/Pass (min.): 36 Water temperature (°C): 17.71 pH (units): 5.57 Conductance (µS/cm @ 25°C): 20.8 Discharge (cubic feet per second): 2.06 Investigators: Bilger, Brightbill, Eggleston, Galeone, Schreffler, Embeck, Hammond Range of Total Total Average Percent of Average Range of Percent total number weight of total length Species name total weight weights total lengths per species (milli- number (grams) (grams) weight (milli- species (grams) meters) meters) Chain pickerel 1 4 49 49 49 5 193 193 Esox niger Brook trout 10 45 775 78 22–257 81 179 129–285 Salvelinus fontinalis Green sunfish 2 9 107 54 47–60 11 138 134–142 Lepomis cyanellus Tessellated darter 9 41 29 3 2–4 3 65 52–73 Etheostoma olmstedi Total 22 960 Anomalies: none

Station name: Gold Mine Run near Tower City, Pa. Date of collection: 08/18/2004 Station identifier: GoldMineRunRef-1 Station number: 01572113 Lat/Long: 40°31’33”/76°32’41” Number of species at site: 1 Sampling gear code: backpack electroshocker Time/Pass (min.): 24 Water temperature (°C): 15.73 pH (units): 5.30 Conductance (µS/cm @ 25°C): 26.9 Discharge (cubic feet per second): 1.22 Investigators: Bilger, Brightbill, Eggleston, Galeone, Schreffler, Embeck, Hammond Range of Total Total Average Percent of Average Range of Percent total number weight of total length Species name total weight weights total lengths per species (milli- number (grams) (grams) weight (milli- species (grams) meters) meters) Brook trout 29 100 632 22 90 100 113 60–198 Salvelinus fontinalis Totals 29 632 Anomalies: none Appendix 5 89

Station name: Manada Creek below Manada Gap at Manada Gap, Pa. Date of collection: 08/25/2004 Station identifier: mc-2 Station number: 01573501 Lat/Long: 40°23’32”/76°42’38” Number of species at site: 13 Sampling gear code: backpack electroshocker Time/Pass (min.): 36 Water temperature (°C): 17.00 pH (units): 5.92 Conductance (µS/cm @ 25°C): 45.4 Discharge (cubic feet per second): 13.14 Investigators: Bilger, Brightbill, Eggleston, O’Brien, Schreffler, Schott, Botts Range of Total Total Average Percent of Average Range of Percent total number weight of total length Species name total weight weights total lengths per species (milli- number (grams) (grams) weight (milli- species (grams) meters) meters) Cutlips minnow 7 5 73 10 1–21 5 85 61–116 Exoglossum maxillingua River chub 2 1 77 38 6–71 5 130 85–176 Nocomis micropogon Spottail shiner 4 3 7 2 1–4 1 56 44–78 Notropis hudsonius Blacknose dace 64 45 123 2 1–4 8 53 40–65 Rhinichthys atratulus Longnose dace 12 9 105 8 1–17 7 82 30–107 Rhinichthys cataractae Creek chub 26 18 152 6 1–29 9 69 30–134 Semotilus atromaculatus White sucker 9 6 347 38 1–113 22 118 40–216 Catostomus commersoni Northern hog sucker 4 3 97 24 8–63 6 115 85–177 Hypentelium nigricans Margined madtom 2 1 32 16 16 2 112 110–113 Noturus insignis Rainbow trout 2 1 441 220 211–230 27 292 180–303 Oncorhynchus mykiss Brown trout 6 4 105 17.5 8–57 7 106 86–186 Salmo trutta Rock bass 1 1 46 46 46 3 120 120 Ambloplites rupestris Tessellated darter 2 1 4 2 2 1 46 45–47 Etheostoma olmstedi Totals 141 1,609 Anomalies: none 90 Surface-Water Quality and Quantity, Aquatic Biology, Stream Geomorphology, and Groundwater Flow Simulation

Station name: Indiantown Run below Hatchery at Fort Indiantown Gap, Date of collection: 08/25/2004 Pa. Station identifier: HatImpact Station number: 01572944 Lat/Long: 40°26’40”/76°36’48” Number of species at site: 6 Sampling gear code: backpack electroshocker Time/Pass (min.): 42 Water temperature (°C): 18.21 pH (units): 6.44 Conductance (µS/cm @ 25°C): 32 Discharge (cubic feet per second): 5.09 Investigators: Bilger, Brightbill, Eggleston, Low, O’Brien, Schott, Hepp Range of Total Total Average Percent of Average Range of Percent total number weight of total length Species name total weight weights total lengths per species (milli- number (grams) (grams) weight (milli- species (grams) meters) meters) Blacknose dace 134 65 231 2 1–4 10 51 31–63 Rhinichthys atratulus Creek chub 31 15 214 7 1–43 10 71 32–150 Semotilus atromaculatus White sucker 9 4 394 44 1–103 15 130 40–201 Catostomus commersoni Brown trout 23 11 1,273 55 2–236 54 147 55–281 Salmo trutta Brook trout 1 1 213 213 213 9 282 282 Salvelinus fontinalis Tessellated darter 7 3 16 2 1–3 1 57 47–65 Etheostoma olmstedi Totals 205 2,341 Anomalies: none Appendix 5 91

Station name: Indiantown Run above Memorial Lake near Date of collection: 08/25/2004 Indiantown, Pa. Station identifier: ir-2 Station number: 01572956 Lat/Long: 40°25’32”/76°36’01” Number of species at site: 8 Sampling gear code: backpack electroshocker Time/Pass (min.): 30 Water temperature (°C): 21.64 pH (units): 6.55 Conductance (µS/cm @ 25°C): 57.5 Discharge (cubic feet per second): 7.67 Investigators: Bilger, Brightbill, Eggleston, Low, O’Brien, Schott, Hepp Range of Total Total Average Percent of Average Range of Percent total number weight of total length Species name total weight weights total lengths per species (milli- number (grams) (grams) weight (milli- species (grams) meters) meters) Spotfin shiner 5 3 23 5 2–7 3 75 60–95 Cyprinella spiloptera River chub 21 14 235 11 1–51 27 87 45–164 Nocomis micropogon Blacknose dace 49 33 90 2 1–2 10 49 35–60 Rhinichthys atratulus Longnose dace 19 13 114 6 1–11 13 75 45–91 Rhinichthys cataractae Yellow bullhead 2 1 8 4 1–7 1 60 41–78 Ameiurus natalis Margined madtom 6 4 54 9 5–11 6 98 84–107 Noturus insignis Green sunfish 39 26 332 9 1–27 38 62 40–117 Lepomis cyanellus Tessellated darter 7 5 9 1 1–2 1 44 31–51 Etheostoma olmstedi Total 148 865 Anomalies: none 92 Surface-Water Quality and Quantity, Aquatic Biology, Stream Geomorphology, and Groundwater Flow Simulation

Station name: Manada Gap near Manada Gap, Pa. Date of collection: 08/23/2004 Station identifier: mc-1.5 Station number: 01573482 Lat/Long: 40°24’24”/76°42’34” Number of species at site: 10 Sampling gear code: backpack electroshocker Time/Pass (min.): 72 Water temperature (°C): 14.85 pH (units): 7.35 Conductance (µS/cm @ 25°C): 33.2 Discharge (cubic feet per second): 11.23 Investigators: Bilger, Brightbill, Eggleston, Schreffler, O’Brien, Botts, Hepp Range of Total Total Average Percent of Average Range of Percent total number weight of total length Species name total weight weights total lengths per species (milli- number (grams) (grams) weight (milli- species (grams) meters) meters) Cutlips minnow 3 2 11 4 3–4 1 66 62–70 Exoglossum maxillingua Blacknose dace 99 59 183 2 1–3 15 52 36–62 Rhinichthys atratulus Longnose dace 9 5 95 11 4–16 8 92 71–111 Rhinichthys cataractae Creek chub 29 17 146 5 1–15 12 70 33–102 Semotilus atromaculatus White sucker 3 2 127 42 18–78 10 149 114–197 Catostomus commersoni Northern hog sucker 1 1 25 25 25 2 127 127 Hypentelium nigricans Brown trout 19 11 573 30 2–217 47 104 51–279 Salmo trutta Brook trout 1 1 53 53 53 4 175 175 Salvelinus fontinalis Bluegill 1 1 3 3 3 1 51 51 Lepomis macrochirus Tessellated darter 2 1 3 2 1–2 1 50 49–50 Etheostoma olmstedi Total 167 1,219 Anomalies: none Appendix 5 93

Station name: Manada Creek above McLean Road near Manada Date of collection: 08/23/2004 Gap, Pa. Station identifier: mc-1 Station number: 01573472 Lat/Long: 40°25’06”/76°41’36” Number of species at site: 9 Sampling gear code: backpack electroshocker Time/Pass (min.): 42 Water temperature (°C): 16.74 pH (units): 6.57 Conductance (µS/cm @ 25°C): 30.2 Discharge (cubic feet per second): 7.35 Investigators: Bilger, Brightbill, Eggleston, Schreffler, O’Brien, Botts, Hepp Range of Total Total Average Percent of Average Range of Percent total number weight of total length Species name total weight weights total lengths per species (milli- number (grams) (grams) weight (milli- species (grams) meters) meters) Cutlips minnow 4 2 37 9 4–22 1 83 68–119 Exoglossum maxillingua Spottail shiner 3 1 11 4 3–4 1 70 70–71 Notropis hudsonius Blacknose dace 82 39 155 2 1–4 6 50 26–67 Rhinichthys atratulus Creek chub 75 36 588 8 1–327 21 74 26–190 Semotilus atromaculatus White sucker 16 8 1,041 65 5–177 37 158 77–257 Catostomus commersoni Brown trout 14 7 527 38 3–121 19 139 68–235 Salmo trutta Brook trout 2 1 243 122 23–220 9 206 132–280 Salvelinus fontinalis Smallmouth bass 1 1 153 153 153 5 228 228 Micropterus dolomieu Tessellated darter 14 7 36 3 1–4 1 53 45–65 Etheostoma olmstedi Total 211 2,791 Anomalies: Creek chub—7 percent with blackspot, Smallmouth bass—100 percent with leeches 94 Surface-Water Quality and Quantity, Aquatic Biology, Stream Geomorphology, and Groundwater Flow Simulation

Station name: Trout Run near Inwood, Pa. Date of collection: 08/24/2004 Station identifier: tr-2 Station number: 01572150 Lat/Long: 40°28’52”/76°33’13” Number of species at site: 17 Sampling gear code: backpack electroshocker Time/Pass (min.): 40 Water temperature (°C): not taken pH (units): not taken Conductance (µS/cm @ 25°C): not taken Discharge (cubic feet per second): 7.06 Investigators: Bilger, Brightbill, Eggleston, Schreffler, O’Brien, Botts, Schott Range of Total Total Average Percent of Average Range of Percent total number weight of total length Species name total weight weights total lengths per species (milli- number (grams) (grams) weight (milli- species (grams) meters) meters) Central stoneroller 4 3 78 20 18–22 5 113 112–115 Campostoma anomalum Cutlips minnow 2 1 12 6 6 1 71 70–72 Exoglossum maxillingua River chub 1 1 73 73 73 4 183 183 Nocomis micropogon Blacknose dace 20 14 39 2 1–4 2 53 33–70 Rhinichthys atratulus Longnose dace 7 5 61 9 1–17 4 82 40–111 Rhinichthys cataractae Creek chub 24 16 218 9 1–76 13 70 32–195 Semotilus atromaculatus Fallfish 5 3 301 60 4–182 18 152 76–218 Semotilus corporalis White sucker 3 2 128 43 3–69 7 168 141–187 Catostomus commersoni Northern hog sucker 1 1 11 11 11 1 95 95 Hypentelium nigricans Brown bullhead 2 1 12 6 6 1 72 69–74 Ameiurus nebulosus Margined madtom 3 2 44 15 8–24 3 114 92–135 Noturus insignis Brook trout 2 1 233 116 49–184 14 216 166–265 Salvelinus fontinalis Sculpin 66 45 301 5 1–10 18 68 45–89 Cottus spp. Pumpkinseed 1 1 11 11 11 1 87 87 Lepomis gibbosus Smallmouth bass 2 1 176 88 56–120 10 182 160–205 Micropterus dolomieu Tessellated darter 2 1 3 2 1–2 1 46 34–59 Etheostoma olmstedi Shield darter 2 1 9 4 4–5 1 73 70–76 Percina peltata Total 147 1,710 Anomalies: Blacknose dace—5 percent with blackspot. Appendix 5 95

Station name: Stony Creek near Fort Indiantown Gap, Pa. Date of collection: 08/24/2004 Station identifier: ScMRef-1 Station number: 01568693 Lat/Long: 40°28’34”/76°37’51” Number of species at site: 6 Sampling gear code: backpack electroshocker Time/Pass (min.): 30 Water temperature (°C): 14.64 pH (units): 6.94 Conductance (µS/cm @ 25°C): 32.9 Discharge (cubic feet per second): 7.40 Investigators: Bilger, Brightbill, Eggleston, Schreffler, O’Brien, Botts, Schott Range of Total Total Average Percent of Average Range of Percent total number weight of total length Species name total weight weights total lengths per species (milli- number (grams) (grams) weight (milli- species (grams) meters) meters) Blacknose dace 2 7 6 3 3 1 68 66–71 Rhinichthys atratulus Creek chub 1 4 1 1 1 1 27 27 Semotilus atromaculatus White sucker 5 18 792 158 4–350 22 214 68–313 Catostomus commersoni Chain pickerel 1 4 60 60 60 2 212 212 Esox niger Brown trout 13 46 2,193 169 113–239 62 252 223–285 Salmo trutta Brook trout 6 21 470 78 32–206 13 176 130–270 Salvelinus fontinalis Total 28 3,522 Anomalies: none.

Station name: Indiantown Run in Gap at Fort Indiantown Gap, Pa. Date of collection: 08/24/2004 Station identifier: ir-1 Station number: 01572948 Lat/Long: 40°26’40”/76°36’09” Number of species at site: 5 Sampling gear code: backpack electroshocker Time/Pass (min.): 30 Water temperature (°C): 17.49 pH (units): 6.76 Conductance (µS/cm @ 25°C): 46.2 Discharge (cubic feet per second): 1.00 Investigators: Bilger, Brightbill, Eggleston, Schreffler, O’Brien, Botts, Schott Range of Total Total Average Percent of Average Range of Percent total number weight of total length Species name total weight weights total lengths per species (milli- number (grams) (grams) weight (milli- species (grams) meters) meters) Blacknose dace 114 79 216 2 1–4 37 52 22–60 Rhinichthys atratulus Creek chub 9 6 41 5 1–8 7 65 30–86 Semotilus atromaculatus Rainbow trout 1 1 19 19 19 3 123 123 Oncorhynchus mykiss Brown trout 20 14 301 15 2–44 52 101 63–164 Salmo trutta Tessellated darter 1 1 2 2 2 1 49 49 Etheostoma olmstedi Total 145 579 Anomalies: none. 96 Surface-Water Quality and Quantity, Aquatic Biology, Stream Geomorphology, and Groundwater Flow Simulation

Station name: Unnamed Tributary to Manada Creek at Route 443 near Date of collection: 09/07/2004 Manada Gap, Pa. Station identifier: utmcm-3 Station number: 01573496 Lat/Long: 40°24’10”/76°43’45” Number of species at site: 7 Sampling gear code: backpack electroshocker Time/Pass (min.): 33 Water temperature (°C): 19.35 pH (units): 7.09 Conductance (µS/cm @ 25°C): 61.1 Discharge (cubic feet per second): 1.16 Investigators: Bilger, Brightbill, Eggleston, Hainly Range of Total Total Average Percent of Average Range of Percent total number weight of total length Species name total weight weights total lengths per species (milli- number (grams) (grams) weight (milli- species (grams) meters) meters) Cutlips minnow 2 6 8 4 4 1 68 66–70 Exoglossum maxillingua Blacknose dace 18 53 46 3 1–4 3 58 36–70 Rhinichthys atratulus Creek chub 7 21 54 8 1–14 3 86 50–114 Semotilus atromaculatus White sucker 4 12 248 62 1–140 15 157 47–244 Catostomus commersoni Rainbow trout 1 3 236 236 236 15 302 302 Oncorhynchus mykiss Brown trout 1 3 1,027 1,027 1,027 63 445 445 Salmo trutta Tessellated darter 1 3 1 1 1 1 48 48 Etheostoma olmstedi Total 34 1,620 Anomalies: none.

Station name: Indiantown Run above Unnamed Tributary at Fort Indi- Date of collection: 09/07/2004 antown Gap, Pa. Station identifier: ir-0.5 Station number: 01572924 Lat/Long: 40°26’56”/76°37’39” Number of species at site: 3 Sampling gear code: backpack electroshocker Time/Pass (min.): 43 Water temperature (°C): 19.89 pH (units): 7.21 Conductance (µS/cm @ 25°C): 31.0 Discharge (cubic feet per second): 1.00 Investigators: Bilger, Brightbill, Eggleston, Hainly Range of Total Total Average Percent of Average Range of Percent total number weight of total length Species name total weight weights total lengths per species (milli- number (grams) (grams) weight (milli- species (grams) meters) meters) Blacknose dace 60 37 106 2 1–8 25 55 22–93 Rhinichthys atratulus Creek chub 78 48 242 3 1–19 56 65 30–123 Semotilus atromaculatus White sucker 25 15 81 3 1–49 19 54 45–164 Catostomus commersoni Total 163 429 Anomalies: none Appendix 5 97

Station name: Unnamed Tributary to Indiantown Run at Fort Indian- Date of collection: 09/07/2004 town Gap, Pa. Station identifier: utir-01 Station number: 01572928 Lat/Long: 40°26’54”/76°37’14” Number of species at site: 5 Sampling gear code: backpack electroshocker Time/Pass (min.): 28 Water temperature (°C): 17.72 pH (units): 7.37 Conductance (µS/cm @ 25°C): 34.2 Discharge (cubic feet per second): 1.16 Investigators: Bilger, Brightbill, Eggleston, Hainly Range of Total Total Average Percent of Average Range of Percent total number weight of total length Species name total weight weights total lengths per species (milli- number (grams) (grams) weight (milli- species (grams) meters) meters) Blacknose dace 37 42 45 1 1–2 32 41 25–60 Rhinichthys atratulus Creek chub 44 49 83 2 1–6 60 45 25–81 Semotilus atromaculatus White sucker 1 1 1 1 1 1 50 50 Catostomus commersoni Brook trout 1 1 3 3 3 2 69 69 Salvelinus fontinalis Tessellated darter 6 7 7 1 1–2 5 45 35–62 Etheostoma olmstedi Total 89 139 Anomalies: none.

Station name: St. Joseph’s Springs Outflow at Fort Indiantown Gap, Pa. Date of collection: 09/07/2004 Station identifier: sjs-01 Station number: 01572940 Lat/Long: 40°26’40”/76°36’51” Number of species at site: 2 Sampling gear code: backpack electroshocker Time/Pass (min.): 30 Water temperature (°C): 16.12 pH (units): 7.70 Conductance (µS/cm @ 25°C): 84.1 Discharge (cubic feet per second): 7.40 Investigators: Bilger, Brightbill, Eggleston, Hainly Range of Total Total Average Percent of Average Range of Percent total number weight of total length Species name total weight weights total lengths per species (milli- number (grams) (grams) weight (milli- species (grams) meters) meters) Blacknose dace 68 97 129 2 1–4 65 51 22–71 Rhinichthys atratulus Brown trout 2 3 69 34 22–47 35 148 128–169 Salmo trutta Total 70 198 Anomalies: none 98 Surface-Water Quality and Quantity, Aquatic Biology, Stream Geomorphology, and Groundwater Flow Simulation

Station name: Aires Run above Qureg Run at Fort Indiantown Gap, Pa. Date of collection: 09/13/2004 Station identifier: ar-2 Station number: 01572814 Lat/Long: 40°25’55”/76°33’13” Number of species at site: 8 Sampling gear code: backpack electroshocker Time/Pass (min.): 48 Water temperature (°C): 17.77 pH (units): 7.00 Conductance (µS/cm @ 25 °C): 252 Discharge (cubic feet per second): 0.61 Investigators: Bilger, Brightbill, Eggleston, Hainly, Schott Range of Total Total Average Percent of Average Range of Percent total number weight of total length Species name total weight weights total lengths per species (milli- number (grams) (grams) weight (milli- species (grams) meters) meters) Central stoneroller 20 3 36 2 1–4 4 50 39–92 Campostoma anomalum Common shiner 1 1 5 5 5 1 79 79 Luxilus cornutus Blacknose dace 366 50 430 1 1–3 44 47 26–62 Rhinichthys atratulus Longnose dace 93 13 149 2 1–7 15 48 30–82 Rhinichthys cataractae Creek chub 155 21 225 4 1–20 23 45 30–118 Semotilus atromaculatus Fallfish 1 1 41 41 41 4 170 170 Semotilus corporalis White sucker 40 6 50 1 1–3 5 46 35–62 Catostomus commersoni Tessellated darter 49 7 46 1 1–3 5 35 22–60 Etheostoma olmstedi Total 725 982 Anomalies: none Appendix 5 99

Station name: Aires Run below Qureg Run at Fort Indiantown Gap, Pa. Date of collection: 09/13/2004 Station identifier: qr-2 Station number: 01572844 Lat/Long: 40°25’32”/76°33’37” Number of species at site: 20 Sampling gear code: backpack electroshocker Time/Pass (min.): 63 Water temperature (°C): 20.76 pH (units): 7.79 Conductance (µS/cm @ 25 °C): 284 Discharge (cubic feet per second): 1.14 Investigators: Bilger, Brightbill, Eggleston, Hainly, Schott Range of Total Total Average Percent of Average Range of Percent total number weight of total length Species name total weight weights total lengths per species (milli- number (grams) (grams) weight (milli- species (grams) meters) meters) Central stoneroller 75 10 207 3 1–6 14 54 44–70 Campostoma anomalum Cutlips minnow 5 .5 24 5 2–11 2 67 55–93 Exoglossum maxillingua Common shiner 8 1 26 3 2–5 2 69 64–87 Luxilus cornutus Pearl dace 6 .5 8 1 1–3 .5 45 38–64 Margariscus margarita River chub 2 .5 2 1 1 .5 35 34–36 Nocomis micropogon Spottail shiner 9 1 13 1 1–3 1 49 36–68 Notropis hudsonius Swallowtail shiner 1 .5 1 1 1 .5 51 51 Notropis procne Bluntnose minnow 10 1 15 2 1–3 1 51 39–66 Pimephales notatus Blacknose dace 256 34 296 1 1–3 20 46 22–69 Rhinichthys atratulus Longnose dace 98 13 242 8 1–9 16 51 30–89 Rhinichthys cataractae Creek chub 104 14 337 3 1–12 22 53 31–101 Semotilus atromaculatus Fallfish 19 3 57 3 1–29 4 47 30–147 Semotilus corporalis White sucker 47 6 69 1 1–3 5 50 40–60 Catostomus commersoni Margined madtom 6 .5 67 11 4–19 4 100 65–126 Noturus insignis Green sunfish 1 .5 4 4 4 .5 55 55 Lepomis cyanellus Pumpkinseed 1 .5 4 4 4 .5 57 57 Lepomis gibbosus Bluegill 1 .5 2 2 2 .5 42 42 Lepomis macrochirus Smallmouth bass 1 .5 33 33 33 2 132 132 Micropterus dolomieu Largemouth bass 1 .5 6 6 6 .5 73 73 Micropterus salmoides Tessellated darter 100 13 103 1 1–3 7 40 25–60 Etheostoma olmstedi Total 751 1,516 Anomalies: none 100 Surface-Water Quality and Quantity, Aquatic Biology, Stream Geomorphology, and Groundwater Flow Simulation

Station name: Indiantown Run above Vesle Run at Indiantown, Pa. Date of collection: 09/14/2004 Station identifier: ir-3 Station number: 01572975 Lat/Long: 40°24’56”/75°35’12” Number of species at site: 17 Sampling gear code: backpack electroshocker Time/Pass (min.): 52 Water temperature (°C): 22.48 pH (units): 6.98 Conductance (µS/cm @ 25 °C): 96.5 Discharge (cubic feet per second): 3.66 Investigators: Bilger, Brightbill, Eggleston, Hainly, Schott Range of Total Total Average Percent of Average Range of Percent total number weight of total length Species name total weight weights total lengths per species (milli- number (grams) (grams) weight (milli- species (grams) meters) meters) Central stoneroller 23 12 552 24 5–43 11 119 72–146 Campostoma anomalum Spotfin shiner 1 .5 4 4 4 .5 70 70 Cyprinella spiloptera River chub 69 36 605 9 1–67 12 78 51–182 Nocomis micropogon Golden shiner 1 .5 12 12 12 .5 107 107 Notemigonus crysoleucas Longnose dace 5 3 44 9 2–16 1 80 55–105 Rhinichthys cataractae Fallfish 11 6 691 63 44–130 14 191 171–240 Semotilus corporalis White sucker 8 4 1,172 146 105–191 23 234 210–262 Catostomus commersoni Yellow bullhead 14 7 667 48 5–175 13 138 69–222 Ameiurus natalis Margined madtom 14 7 136 10 1–15 3 95 47–117 Noturus insignis Rock bass 4 2 229 57 34–88 5 139 118–158 Ambloplites rupestris Redbreast sunfish 14 7 531 38 17–64 11 124 96–148 Lepomis auritus Green sunfish 2 1 31 16 12–19 1 91 84–98 Lepomis cyanellus Pumpkinseed 3 2 42 14 12–16 1 88 83–94 Lepomis gibbosus Bluegill 22 11 169 8 1–23 3 68 34–100 Lepomis macrochirus Smallmouth bass 1 .5 143 143 143 3 225 225 Micropterus dolomieu Largemouth bass 1 .5 7 7 7 .5 81 81 Micropterus salmoides Tessellated darter 1 .5 1 1 1 .5 39 39 Etheostoma olmstedi Total 194 5,036 Anomalies: none Appendix 5 101

Station name: Vesle Run at Indiantown, Pa. Date of collection: 09/14/2004 Station identifier: vr-1 Station number: 01572986 Lat/Long: 40°24’56”/76°35’09” Number of species at site: 13 Sampling gear code: backpack electroshocker Time/Pass (min.): 42 Water temperature (°C): 19.33 pH (units): 7.88 Conductance (µS/cm @ 25 °C): 313 Discharge (cubic feet per second): 0.68 Investigators: Bilger, Brightbill, Eggleston, Hainly, Schott Average Range Total Total Percent Average Range of Percent total of total number weight of Species name of total weight weights total length lengths per species number (grams) (grams) weight (milli- (milli- species (grams) meters) meters) Central stoneroller 44 17 110 2 1–6 13 56 39–78 Campostoma anomalum River chub 2 1 5 2 2–3 .5 54 48–60 Nocomis micropogon Blacknose dace 47 18 66 1 1–3 8 40 22–59 Rhinichthys atratulus Longnose dace 45 17 178 4 1–9 22 65 32–91 Rhinichthys cataractae Creek chub 73 28 214 3 1–7 26 57 32–85 Semotilus atromaculatus White sucker 6 2 7 1 1–2 .5 42 36–50 Catostomus commersoni Yellow bullhead 1 .5 30 30 30 4 130 130 Ameiurus natalis Margined madtom 11 4 76 7 4–9 9 86 66–96 Noturus insignis Rock bass 1 .5 57 57 57 7 157 157 Ambloplites rupestris Green sunfish 1 .5 8 8 8 1 77 77 Lepomis cyanellus Bluegill 1 .5 1 1 1 .5 40 40 Lepomis macrochirus Largemouth bass 5 2 47 9 3–15 6 85 60–104 Micropterus salmoides Tessellated darter 22 8 25 1 1–2 3 40 28–55 Etheostoma olmstedi Total 259 824 1Anomalies: Green sunfish—100 percent with fin erosion. 102 Surface-Water Quality and Quantity, Aquatic Biology, Stream Geomorphology, and Groundwater Flow Simulation

Station name: Qureg Run at Fort Indiantown Gap, Pa. Date of collection: 09/14/2004 Station identifier: qr-1 Station number: 01572834 Lat/Long: 40°26’02”/76°32’36” Number of species at site: 14 Sampling gear code: backpack electroshocker Time/Pass (min.): 42 Water temperature (°C): 21.40 pH (units): 7.68 Conductance (µS/cm @ 25 °C): 199 Discharge (cubic feet per second): 0.35 Investigators: Bilger, Brightbill, Eggleston, Hainly Aver- Range Total Total Percent of Average Range of Percent age total of total number weight of Species name total weight weights total length lengths per species number (grams) (grams) weight (milli- (milli- species (grams) meters) meters) Common shiner 2 2 31 15 5–26 2 103 73–133 Luxilus cornutus Bluntnose minnow 3 4 8 3 1–6 .5 65 45–94 Pimephales notatus Blacknose dace 3 4 3 1 1 .5 42 32–49 Rhinichthys atratulus Longnose dace 11 13 27 2 1–6 .5 57 40–81 Rhinichthys cataractae Creek chub 20 24 241 12 1–38 13 87 35–152 Semotilus atromaculatus Fallfish 6 7 412 69 40–142 23 193 167–250 Semotilus corporalis White sucker 3 4 284 95 67–135 16 209 194–235 Catostomus commersoni Yellow bullhead 8 10 371 46 6–108 20 134 59–195 Ameiurus natalis Rock bass 2 2 177 88 21–156 10 145 101–189 Ambloplites rupestris Redbreast sunfish 3 4 66 22 13–29 4 101 82–114 Lepomis auritus Green sunfish 3 4 44 15 12–16 2 87 80–90 Lepomis cyanellus Smallmouth bass 3 4 97 32 23–40 5 135 121–145 Micropterus dolomieu Largemouth bass 8 10 57 7 3–18 3 74 55–100 Micropterus salmoides 7 9 8 1 .5 42 23–58 Tessellated darter 1–2 Etheostoma olmstedi Total 82 1,826 Anomalies: none Appendix 5 103

Station name: Unnamed Tributary to Manada Creek near Manada Date of collection: 09/15/2004 Gap, Pa. Station identifier: utmcm-1 Station number: 01573480 Lat/Long: 40°24’48”/76°42’16” Number of species at site: 5 Sampling gear code: backpack electroshocker Time/Pass (min.): 53 Water temperature (°C): 21.40 pH (units): 7.68 Conductance (µS/cm @ 25 °C): 199 Discharge (cubic feet per second): 1.16 Investigators: Bilger, Brightbill, Eggleston, Hainly Average Range Total Total Percent of Average Range of Percent total of total number weight of Species name total weight weights total length lengths per species number (grams) (grams) weight (milli- (milli- species (grams) meters) meters) Blacknose dace 116 64 188 2 1–4 27 50 38–66 Rhinichthys atratulus Creek chub 23 13 175 8 1–34 25 80 40–150 Semotilus atromaculatus Brown trout 34 19 267 8 1–98 38 72 47–216 Salmo trutta Brook trout 7 4 67 10 4–22 10 90 64–136 Salvelinus fontinalis Tessellated darter 1 1 6 6 6 1 58 58 Etheostoma olmstedi Total 181 703 Anomalies: none 104 Surface-Water Quality and Quantity, Aquatic Biology, Stream Geomorphology, and Groundwater Flow Simulation

Station name: Aires Run at Fort Indiantown Gap, Pa. Date of collection: 09/15/2004 Station identifier: ar-1 Station number: 01572804 Lat/Long: 40°25’53”/76°33’55” Number of species at site: 9 Sampling gear code: backpack electroshocker Time/Pass (min.): 63 Water temperature (°C): 18.88 pH (units): 7.16 Conductance (µS/cm @ 25 °C): 140 Discharge (cubic feet per second): 0.27 Investigators: Bilger, Brightbill, Eggleston, Hainly Average Range Total Total Percent of Average Range of Percent total of total number weight of Species name total weight weights total length lengths per species number (grams) (grams) weight (milli- (milli- species (grams) meters) meters) Central stoneroller 1 0.5 18 18 18 1 122 122 Campostoma anomalum Common shiner 6 3 50 8 4–14 3 92 77–115 Luxilus cornutus Blacknose dace 43 18 54 1 1–18 3 44 25–62 Rhinichthys atratulus Longnose dace 10 4 28 3 1–8 2 60 40–86 Rhinichthys cataractae Creek chub 162 69 1,287 8 1–970 80 71 22–188 Semotilus atromaculatus Fallfish 2 1 37 18 12–25 2 129 117–141 Semotilus corporalis White sucker 2 1 99 50 22–77 6 160 133–188 Catostomus commersoni Rock bass 1 .5 27 27 27 2 112 112 Ambloplites rupestris Tessellated darter 9 4 11 1 1–3 1 38 30–61 Etheostoma olmstedi Total 236 1,611 Anomalies: none Appendix 5 105

Station name: Trout Run at Fort Indiantown Gap, Pa. Date of collection: 09/15/2004 Station identifier: tr-1 Station number: 01572145 Lat/Long: 40°27’53”/76°35’54” Number of species at site: 3 Sampling gear code: backpack electroshocker Time/Pass (min.): 27 Water temperature (°C): 16.43 pH (units): 6.99 Conductance (µS/cm @ 25 °C): 33.2 Discharge (cubic feet per second): 7.06 Investigators: Bilger, Brightbill, Eggleston, Hainly Average Range Total Total Percent of Average Range of Percent total of total number weight of Species name total weight weights total length lengths per species number (grams) (grams) weight (milli- (milli- species (grams) meters) meters) Blacknose dace 33 70 57 2 1–3 49 51 30–66 Rhinichthys atratulus Creek chub 2 4 18 9 3–15 15 88 76–100 Semotilus atromaculatus Brook trout 12 26 42 4 2–6 36 68 57–80 Salvelinus fontinalis Total 47 117 Anomalies: none 106 Surface-Water Quality and Quantity, Aquatic Biology, Stream Geomorphology, and Groundwater Flow Simulation

Station name: Bow Creek at Grantville, Pa. Date of collection: 09/16/2004 Station identifier: bcRef-1 Station number: 01573300 Lat/Long: 40°23’01”/76°39’54” Number of species at site: 10 Sampling gear code: backpack electroshocker Time/Pass (min.): 56 Water temperature (°C): 17.72 pH (units): 6.93 Conductance (µS/cm @ 25 °C): 459 Discharge (cubic feet per second): 7.99 Investigators: Bilger, Brightbill, Eggleston, Hainly, Schott Average Range Total Total Percent of Average Range of Percent total of total number weight of Species name total weight weights total length lengths per species number (grams) (grams) weight (milli- (milli- species (grams) meters) meters) Cutlips minnow 2 0.5 13 6 3–10 0.5 72 59–86 Exoglossum maxillingua Spottail shiner 13 4 95 7 6–9 5 89 85–97 Notropis hudsonius Bluntnose minnow 7 2 20 3 2–5 1 63 57–81 Pimephales notatus Blacknose dace 150 47 264 2 1–4 14 50 31–71 Rhinichthys atratulus Longnose dace 30 9 80 3 1–9 4 58 37–84 Rhinichthys cataractae Creek chub 89 28 863 10 1–45 45 80 40–161 Semotilus atromaculatus White sucker 13 4 513 39 2–137 27 135 58–229 Catostomus commersoni Pumpkinseed 1 .5 11 11 11 .5 76 76 Lepomis gibbosus Largemouth bass 3 1 16 5 3–10 1 66 52–85 Micropterus salmoides Tessellated darter 13 4 29 2 1–4 2 55 42–68 Etheostoma olmstedi Total 321 1,904 Anomalies: none Appendix 5 107

Station name: Unnamed Tributary to Manada Creek near Sand Date of collection: 09/15/2004 Beach, Pa. Station identifier: utmcvRef-1 Station number: 01573535 Lat/Long: 40°20’36”/76°41’02” Number of species at site: 9 Sampling gear code: backpack electroshocker Time/Pass (min.): 65 Water temperature (°C): 19.24 pH (units): 7.62 Conductance (µS/cm @ 25 °C): 350 Discharge (cubic feet per second): 4.11 Investigators: Bilger, Brightbill, Eggleston, Hainly, Schott Average Range Total Total Percent of Average Range of Percent total of total number weight of Species name total weight weights total length lengths per species number (grams) (grams) weight (milli- (milli- species (grams) meters) meters) Cutlips minnow 14 5 99 7 1–16 7 76 47–101 Exoglossum maxillingua Bluntnose minnow 7 3 14 2 1–4 1 54 44–75 Pimephales notatus Blacknose dace 111 43 164 1 1–3 12 48 25–62 Rhinichthys atratulus Longnose dace 6 2 27 4 1–11 2 69 43–101 Rhinichthys cataractae Creek chub 97 37 946 10 1–68 71 84 30–168 Semotilus atromaculatus White sucker 11 4 38 3 1–21 3 53 35–121 Catostomus commersoni Green sunfish 1 1 19 19 19 1 97 97 Lepomis cyanellus Largemouth bass 2 1 7 3 3–4 1 65 58–72 Micropterus salmoides Tessellated darter 11 4 16 1 1–3 1 42 25–56 Etheostoma olmstedi Total 260 1,330 Anomalies: none 108 Surface-Water Quality and Quantity, Aquatic Biology, Stream Geomorphology, and Groundwater Flow Simulation Appendix 6—Final Taxa List

Aires Run above Qureg Aires Run at Fort Tolerance Run at Fort Indiantown Bow Creek at Grantville, Pa. Taxonomy Indiantown Gap, Pa. score Gap, Pa. 7/31/02 8/25/03 8/4/04 8/4/05 8/13/02 8/25/03 8/4/04 8/4/05 8/14/02 8/13/03 7/29/04 8/5/05 PLATYHELMINTHES TURBELLARIA TRICLADIDA Planariidae 1 — 2 — 1 1 2 4 2 1 — 2 — NEMERTEA ENOPLA HOPLONEMERTEA Tetrastemmatidae Prostoma 8 — — — — — — — — — — — — NEMATODA 5 — — — — — — — — 2 — — — ANNELIDA BRANCHIOBDELLAE 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — OLIGOCHAETA LUBRICULIDA 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Lumbriculidae 5 — — 2 — — 1 1 1 3 — 2 — Eclipidrilus 5 — — — — — — — 1 — — — — Lumbriculus 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — TUBIFICIDA Enchytraeidae 10 — — — — — — — — — — 2 — Naididae 8 1 2 2 1 — — — — 1 1 — — Nais 8 — — — 2 — — — 1 — — — — N. behningi 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Pristina 8 — — — — — — — — — — — — Tubificidae 10 — — — — — — — — — — — 2 Tubificidae w/ capilliform setae 10 — — 1 — — 1 — — — 2 3 — Tubificidae w/o capilliform setae 10 — — 3 — — 1 1 — 3 1 16 — LUMBRICINA 6 — — — — 1 2 1 — — — 1 — MOLLUSCA GASTROPODA MESOGASTROPODA Viviparidae Campeloma decisum 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — BASOMMATOPHORA Ancylidae Ferrissia 6 2 — — — — — — — 2 — — — Physidae Physa 8 — 1 — — — — 1 — — — — — Planorbidae 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Planorbella 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — BIVALVIA VENEROIDA Corbiculidae Corbicula fluminea 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Pisidiidae 6 — — — — — 1 — — — — — — Pisidium 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — 110 Surface-Water Quality and Quantity, Aquatic Biology, Stream Geomorphology, and Groundwater Flow Simulation

Aires Run above Qureg Aires Run at Fort Tolerance Run at Fort Indiantown Bow Creek at Grantville, Pa. Taxonomy Indiantown Gap, Pa. score Gap, Pa. 7/31/02 8/25/03 8/4/04 8/4/05 8/13/02 8/25/03 8/4/04 8/4/05 8/14/02 8/13/03 7/29/04 8/5/05 Caenis 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Ephemerellidae 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — Attenella 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — Drunella 0 — — — — — — — — — — — — Ephemerella 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — Eurylophella 2 — — — — 1 — — — — — — — Serratella 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Baetidae 5 — — — 2 — — — — — — — — Acentrella 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Acerpenna 5 — — — 3 — — 1 1 — — 1 2 Baetis 6 15 3 7 3 15 10 8 5 8 16 10 6 Baetis flavistriga 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Plauditus 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Isonychiidae 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Isonychia 2 1 — 1 — — — 4 1 — — — — Heptageniidae 4 — — — 2 — — — — — — — — Epeorus 0 — — — — — — — — — — — — Leucrocuta 1 17 2 8 6 6 9 6 2 — — — — Stenacron 7 — — — — — — — — — — — — Maccaffertium 3 — — 1 2 — — — 2 — — — — Maccaffertium modestum 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — ODONATA 3 — — — — — — — — — — — — ANISOPTERA Aeschnidae Boyeria 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Cordulegastridae Cordulegaster 3 — — — — — — — — — — — — Gomphidae 4 — — — — — — — — — — — 1 Lanthus 5 3 1 — — — 4 — — — 1 — — Stylogomphus 1 — — — — — — 1 — — — — — Libellulidae 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — ZYGOPTERA Calopterygidae 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Calopteryx 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Hetaerina 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Coenagrionidae 8 — — — — — — — — — — — — Argia 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — HEMIPTERA 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Veliidae Microvelia 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Rhagovelia 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — PLECOPTERA 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — Capniidae 3 — — — — — — — — — — — — Paracapnia 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — Leuctridae 0 — — — — — — — — — — — — Leuctra 0 — 1 — — — — — — — — — — Nemouridae 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Amphinemura 3 — — — — — — — — — — — — 112 Surface-Water Quality and Quantity, Aquatic Biology, Stream Geomorphology, and Groundwater Flow Simulation

Aires Run above Qureg Aires Run at Fort Tolerance Run at Fort Indiantown Bow Creek at Grantville, Pa. Taxonomy Indiantown Gap, Pa. score Gap, Pa. 7/31/02 8/25/03 8/4/04 8/4/05 8/13/02 8/25/03 8/4/04 8/4/05 8/14/02 8/13/03 7/29/04 8/5/05 Taeniopterygidae 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Chloroperlidae 0 — — — — — — — — — — — — Alloperla 0 — — — — — — — — — — — — Sweltsa 0 — — — — — — — — — — — — Peltoperlidae 0 — — — — — — — — — — — — Tallaperla 0 — — — — — — — — — — — — Perlidae 3 — — — 4 — — — 4 — — — 2 Acroneuria 0 4 3 10 — 3 3 4 — 1 — — — A. carolinensis 0 — — — — — — — — — — — — Agnetina 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Eccoptura xanthenes 3 — — — — — — — — — — — 1 Neoperla 3 — — — — — — — — — — — — Perlesta 4 — — — — — — 1 — — — — — Perlodidae 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Isoperla 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Pteronarcyidae Pteronarcys 0 — — — — — — — — — — — — COLEOPTERA ADEPHAGA Gyrinidae Dineutus 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — POLYPHAGA Hydrophilidae Enochrus 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Hydrobius 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Psephenidae Ectopria 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Psephenus 4 17 8 4 12 8 19 14 27 2 5 6 5 Lampyridae 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Elmidae 5 — — — — — — — — — — — 3 Ancyronxy variegata 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Dubiraphia 6 — — — — — — — — — — — 1 Macronychus glabratus 5 — — — — — — — — — — — 3 Macronychus 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Microcylloepus 3 — — — — — — — — — — — — Optioservus 4 25 10 26 25 21 27 38 24 35 29 42 8 Oulimnius 4 1 1 — — — — 1 — — — — — Promoresia 2 — — — — — — — — 1 — — — Stenelmis 5 11 6 12 9 5 25 19 10 25 20 45 16 Ptilodactylidae Anchytarsus 5 — — — 1 — — — — — — — — Curculionidae 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — MEGALOPTERA 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Corydalidae Corydalus 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Nigronia 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Sialidae Sialis 4 2 — — — — — — — — — — — Appendix 6 113

Aires Run above Qureg Aires Run at Fort Tolerance Run at Fort Indiantown Bow Creek at Grantville, Pa. Taxonomy Indiantown Gap, Pa. score Gap, Pa. 7/31/02 8/25/03 8/4/04 8/4/05 8/13/02 8/25/03 8/4/04 8/4/05 8/14/02 8/13/03 7/29/04 8/5/05 TRICHOPTERA 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Rhyacophilidae Rhyacophila 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — Hydroptilidae 6 — — — — — — — — — — — 1 Hydroptila 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Leucotrichia 6 — — — — — — — 1 — — — — Ochrotrichia 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Glossosomatidae 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — Glossosoma 0 — — — 2 — — 3 1 — — 2 2 Philopotamidae 4 — — — — — — — — — — — 1 Chimarra 4 13 16 26 34 22 7 7 — 4 2 6 23 C. aterrima 4 — — — — — — — 8 — — — — C. obscura 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Dolophilodes 4 — 5 4 — — — — — — — — 1 Wormaldia 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Psychomyiidae 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Lype 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Psychomyia 2 — — — — — — — — — — 1 — Dipseudopsidae Phylocentropus 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Polycentropodidae 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Cyrnellus 8 — — — — — — — — — — — 1 Neureclipsis 7 — — — — — — — — — — — — Polycentropus 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Hydropsychidae 5 — — — — — — — — — — — 4 Cheumatopsyche 5 8 11 12 3 10 4 3 2 11 23 12 2 Diplectrona 5 — 3 3 — — — — — — — — — Hydropsyche 4 — 3 14 3 2 2 5 1 1 3 7 6 Hydropsyche morosa gr. 6 — — — — — — 1 — — — — — Phryganeidae Oligostomis 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Brachycentridae Micrasema 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Lepidostomatidae Lepidostoma 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — Limnephilidae Hydatophylax 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Pycnopsyche 4 — — 1 — — — — — — — — — Uenoidae Neophylax 3 — — — — — 1 — — — — 1 — Goeridae 3 — — — — — — — — — — — — Goera 3 — — — — — — — — — — — — Leptoceridae 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Oecetis 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Molannidae Molanna 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Calamoceratidae Heteroplectron 3 — — — — — — — — — — — — 114 Surface-Water Quality and Quantity, Aquatic Biology, Stream Geomorphology, and Groundwater Flow Simulation

Aires Run above Qureg Aires Run at Fort Tolerance Run at Fort Indiantown Bow Creek at Grantville, Pa. Taxonomy Indiantown Gap, Pa. score Gap, Pa. 7/31/02 8/25/03 8/4/04 8/4/05 8/13/02 8/25/03 8/4/04 8/4/05 8/14/02 8/13/03 7/29/04 8/5/05 Odontoceridae Psilotreta 0 — — — — — — — — — — — — LEPIDOPTERA 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Tortricidae Archips 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — DIPTERA (red non-midges, purple midges) 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Ceratopogonidae 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Atrichopogon 6 — — — — — — — 1 — — — — Probezzia 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Bezzia/Palpomyia 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Chironomidae Tanypodinae 7 — — — — — — — — — — — 1 Macropelopiini 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Brundiniella 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Macropelopia 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Natarsiini Natarsia 8 — — — — — — — — — — — — Pentaneurini Ablabesmyia 8 — — — — — — — — — — — — Conchapelopia 6 — — — — — — — 2 — — — 6 Nilotanypus 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Paramerina 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Rheopelopia 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Thienemannimyia gr. 6 3 — — — 1 — — — 5 — 1 — Zavrelimyia 8 1 — — — — — — — — — — — Diamesini Diamesa 5 — 4 4 — — 1 — — — — — — Pagastia 1 — — — 1 — — — 1 — — — — Potthastia longimana 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Orthocladiinae 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Corynoneurini Corynoneura 4 — — — — — — — — — — — 2 Thienemanniella 6 — — — — — — — — — — — 2 Orthocladiini 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Brillia 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Brillia flaviforms 5 — — — — — — — — — — — 3 Cricotopus 7 — — — 1 — — — — — — — — Cricotopus/Orthocladius 7 — — — — — 1 — — — — — — Cricotopus bicinctus 7 — — — — — — — — — — — — Cricotopus vierriensis 7 — — — — — — — — — — — — Diplocladius 8 — — — — — — — — — — — — Eukiefferiella 4 — — — — — 1 — — — — — — Eukiefferiella brehmi gr. 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Eukiefferiella claripennis 8 — — — — — — — — — — — — Eukiefferiella devonica gr. 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Eukiefferiella pseudomontana gr. 8 — — — — — — — — — — — — Heleniella 3 — — — — — — — — — — — — Heterotrissocladius marcidus gr. 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Appendix 6 115

Aires Run above Qureg Aires Run at Fort Tolerance Run at Fort Indiantown Bow Creek at Grantville, Pa. Taxonomy Indiantown Gap, Pa. score Gap, Pa. 7/31/02 8/25/03 8/4/04 8/4/05 8/13/02 8/25/03 8/4/04 8/4/05 8/14/02 8/13/03 7/29/04 8/5/05 Krenosmittia 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — Limnophyes 8 — — — — — — — — — — — — Nanocladius 7 — — — — — — — — — — — — Orthocladius lignicola 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Parachaetocladius 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Paracricotopus 4 1 — — — — — — — — — — — Parametriocnemus 5 1 1 1 1 — — — — 1 — — 4 Rheocricotopus 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Rheocricotopus robacki 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Tvetenia bavarica gr. 4 2 1 1 1 1 1 — — — — — 2 Xylotopus par 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Chironominae 5 — — — 3 — — — — — — — 4 Chironomini Chironomus 10 — — — — — — — — — — — — Cryptochironomus 8 — — — — — — — — — — — — Glyptotendipes 10 — — — — — — — — — — — — Microtendipes pedellus gr. 6 — — — — — — — — — 1 1 — Microtendipes rydalensis gr. 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Paralauterborniella 8 — — — — — — — — — — — — Paratendipes albimanus 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Phaenopsectra 7 — — — — — — — — — — — — Polypedilum 6 1 2 — — 1 — — — — — — — Polypedilum aviceps 4 — — 2 4 — — — 12 — 1 2 11 Polypedilum fallax 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Polypedilum flavum 6 — — — — — — — — — 3 — — Polypedilum illinoense 7 — 1 1 — — — — — — — — — Polypedilum laetum 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Polypedilum scalaenum 6 — — — — — — — — — — 2 — Polypedilum tritum 6 — — — — — — 1 — — — — — Stenochironomus 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Stictochironomus 9 — — — — — — — — — — — — Tribelos 7 — — — — — — — — — — — — Tanytarsini 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Cladotanytarsus 5 — — — — — — — 1 — — — — Micropsectra 7 — — — 1 1 — — — — — — — Micropsectra sp. A 7 — — — — — — — — — — — — Paratanytarsus 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Rheotanytarsus 6 4 — — 6 3 — — 9 1 — — — Rheotanytarsus exiguus gr. 6 1 2 2 — 1 1 1 — — — — — Rheotanytarsus pellucidus 4 — — — — — 1 — — — — — — Stempellina 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Stempellina sp. C 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Stempellinella 4 — — — 2 — 5 2 1 1 — 2 2 Sublettea coffmani 4 — — — — — — 3 1 — — — — Tanytarsus 6 — — — 5 1 1 1 5 — — 4 4 Zavrelia 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Dixidae Dixa 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — 116 Surface-Water Quality and Quantity, Aquatic Biology, Stream Geomorphology, and Groundwater Flow Simulation

Total taxa 25 25 26 30 20 28 29 28 22 16 28 38 Total number 138 104 152 142 105 138 136 129 119 121 184 145 Percent dominant taxa (single) 18 15 17 29 21 20 28 28 29 24 24 22 Total EPT Taxa 6 9 11 11 7 7 11 11 5 4 8 13 Total EPT 58 47 87 64 59 36 43 28 25 44 40 52 Percent EPT 42.03 45.19 57.24 45.07 56.19 26.09 31.62 21.71 21.01 36.36 21.74 35.86 HBI 4.1 4.11 3.91 4.22 4.34 4.35 4.1 4.33 4.96 5.08 4.87 4.79 Number Chironomidae taxa 8 6 6 10 7 8 5 8 4 3 6 11 Percent Chironomidae 10.14 10.58 7.24 17.61 8.57 8.70 5.88 24.81 6.72 4.13 6.52 28.28 Appendix 6 117

Evening Branch above Bear Hole Run at Tolerance Gold Mine Run near Forge Creek near Lickdale, Pa. Taxonomy Suedberg, Pa. score Tower City, Pa. 8/27/02 8/26/03 8/9/04 8/10/05 8/27/02 8/14/03 8/9/04 8/10/05 8/15/02 8/20/03 8/3/04 8/15/05 PLATYHELMINTHES TURBELLARIA TRICLADIDA Planariidae 1 — — 1 — — — — — — 2 2 — NEMERTEA ENOPLA HOPLONEMERTEA Tetrastemmatidae Prostoma 8 — — — — — — — — — — — — NEMATODA 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — ANNELIDA BRANCHIOBDELLAE 6 — — — — 1 — — — — — — — OLIGOCHAETA LUBRICULIDA 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Lumbriculidae 5 — — — — — 1 3 — — — — — Eclipidrilus 5 — — — — — — — 2 — — — — Lumbriculus 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — TUBIFICIDA Enchytraeidae 10 — — — — — 2 — 1 — — — — Naididae 8 — 3 — — — 2 9 — — 5 — 1 Nais 8 — — — — — — — 1 — — — — N. behningi 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Pristina 8 — — — — — — — — — — — — Tubificidae 10 — — — — — — — — — — — — Tubificidae w/ capilliform setae 10 — — — — — 1 — — 13 5 1 — Tubificidae w/o capilliform setae 10 — — — — — — — — — — — — LUMBRICINA 6 — — — — — 3 — — — — — — MOLLUSCA GASTROPODA MESOGASTROPODA Viviparidae Campeloma decisum 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — BASOMMATOPHORA Ancylidae Ferrissia 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Physidae Physa 8 — — — — — — — — — — — — Planorbidae 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Planorbella 6 — — — — — — — — — 1 — — BIVALVIA VENEROIDA Corbiculidae Corbicula fluminea 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Pisidiidae 6 — 1 2 — — 2 4 1 — 1 — — Pisidium 6 — — — — 1 — — — — — — — Sphaerium 6 — — — — — — — — 1 — 4 — CHELICERATA ORIBATEI 8 — — — — — — — — — — — — 118 Surface-Water Quality and Quantity, Aquatic Biology, Stream Geomorphology, and Groundwater Flow Simulation

Evening Branch above Bear Hole Run at Tolerance Gold Mine Run near Forge Creek near Lickdale, Pa. Taxonomy Suedberg, Pa. score Tower City, Pa. 8/27/02 8/26/03 8/9/04 8/10/05 8/27/02 8/14/03 8/9/04 8/10/05 8/15/02 8/20/03 8/3/04 8/15/05 Drunella 0 — — — — — — — — — — — — Ephemerella 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — Eurylophella 2 1 1 — 5 5 3 1 1 2 — — 1 Serratella 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Baetidae 5 — — 1 5 — — — — — — — 8 Acentrella 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Acerpenna 5 2 — — — — — — — — — — — Baetis 6 — 7 6 — — — 2 2 6 6 2 Baetis flavistriga 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Plauditus 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Isonychiidae 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Isonychia 2 — — — — — — — — — — 1 — Heptageniidae 4 — — — 1 — — 2 — — — — — Epeorus 0 — — — — — — — — — — — — Leucrocuta 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — Stenacron 7 — — — — — — — — 4 — — — Maccaffertium 3 8 4 12 9 14 4 22 5 4 3 12 10 Maccaffertium modestum 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — ODONATA 3 — — — — — — — — — — — — ANISOPTERA Aeschnidae Boyeria 2 — — — — 1 1 — 1 — 1 — — Cordulegastridae Cordulegaster 3 — — — — — — — — — — — — Gomphidae 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Lanthus 5 2 — 1 — — 1 — — — — — — Stylogomphus 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — Libellulidae 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — ZYGOPTERA Calopterygidae 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Calopteryx 6 — — — — 1 — — 1 — — — — Hetaerina 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Coenagrionidae 8 — — — — — 1 — — — — — — Argia 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — HEMIPTERA 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Veliidae Microvelia 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Rhagovelia 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — PLECOPTERA 1 — — — — — — — 1 — — — — Capniidae 3 — — 2 — — — — — — — — — Paracapnia 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — Leuctridae 0 — — — — — — — — — — — — Leuctra 0 9 10 11 18 11 13 13 6 2 25 61 21 Nemouridae 2 — — — 3 — — — — — — — — Amphinemura 3 — — — — — — — — — — — — Taeniopterygidae 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Chloroperlidae 0 2 1 — — 1 1 — — — 1 — — Alloperla 0 — — — — — — — — — — — — 120 Surface-Water Quality and Quantity, Aquatic Biology, Stream Geomorphology, and Groundwater Flow Simulation

Evening Branch above Bear Hole Run at Tolerance Gold Mine Run near Forge Creek near Lickdale, Pa. Taxonomy Suedberg, Pa. score Tower City, Pa. 8/27/02 8/26/03 8/9/04 8/10/05 8/27/02 8/14/03 8/9/04 8/10/05 8/15/02 8/20/03 8/3/04 8/15/05 Sweltsa 0 — — 3 — — — 2 — — — — — Peltoperlidae 0 — — — — — — — — — — — — Tallaperla 0 — 2 6 1 — — — — — 1 1 1 Perlidae 3 — — — 1 — — — — — — — — Acroneuria 0 2 9 4 — 2 2 6 — — 10 — — A. carolinensis 0 — — — — — — — — — — — — Agnetina 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Eccoptura xanthenes 3 — — — — — — — 1 — — — — Neoperla 3 — — — — — — — — — — — — Perlesta 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Perlodidae 2 — — — — — — — — — — — 3 Isoperla 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Pteronarcyidae Pteronarcys 0 — — — — — — — — — — — — COLEOPTERA ADEPHAGA Gyrinidae Dineutus 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — POLYPHAGA Hydrophilidae Enochrus 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Hydrobius 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Psephenidae Ectopria 5 — 6 — 1 — — — — — — — — Psephenus 4 1 — — — — — — — — — — — Lampyridae 5 — — — — — — — — — — — 1 Elmidae 5 — — — — — — — — — — — 4 Ancyronxy variegata 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Dubiraphia 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Macronychus glabratus 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Macronychus 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Microcylloepus 3 — — — — — — — 1 — — — — Optioservus 4 — — — 2 — — — — — 2 2 — Oulimnius 4 1 3 5 8 — 1 3 — — — 1 — Promoresia 2 — 2 7 — 1 — 2 2 1 — — 2 Stenelmis 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Ptilodactylidae Anchytarsus 5 — — — — — 2 1 — — — — — Curculionidae 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — MEGALOPTERA 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Corydalidae Corydalus 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Nigronia 4 1 2 1 — — 2 1 1 — — — — Sialidae Sialis 4 — — — — — — — — 4 — — 1 TRICHOPTERA 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Rhyacophilidae Rhyacophila 1 4 6 9 7 — — 1 1 — 1 1 — Appendix 6 121

Evening Branch above Bear Hole Run at Tolerance Gold Mine Run near Forge Creek near Lickdale, Pa. Taxonomy Suedberg, Pa. score Tower City, Pa. 8/27/02 8/26/03 8/9/04 8/10/05 8/27/02 8/14/03 8/9/04 8/10/05 8/15/02 8/20/03 8/3/04 8/15/05 Hydroptilidae 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Hydroptila 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Leucotrichia 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Ochrotrichia 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Glossosomatidae 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — Glossosoma 0 — — — — — — — — — — — — Philopotamidae 4 — — — 2 — — — — — — — — Chimarra 4 — — — — — — — — 1 — — — C. aterrima 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — C. obscura 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Dolophilodes 4 1 9 6 4 — 1 10 — — 7 1 6 Wormaldia 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Psychomyiidae 2 — — — — — — 1 — — — — — Lype 2 — — — — — — — 1 — — — — Psychomyia 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Dipseudopsidae Phylocentropus 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Polycentropodidae 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Cyrnellus 8 — — — — — — — — — — — — Neureclipsis 7 — — — — — — — — — — — — Polycentropus 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Hydropsychidae 5 — — — 8 — — — 3 — — — 17 Cheumatopsyche 5 4 4 2 — — — — — — — — — Diplectrona 5 — 16 11 — 2 1 3 — — 19 17 — Hydropsyche 4 — 5 12 20 4 6 16 9 — — — — Hydropsyche morosa gr. 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Phryganeidae Oligostomis 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Brachycentridae Micrasema 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Lepidostomatidae Lepidostoma 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — Limnephilidae Hydatophylax 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Pycnopsyche 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Uenoidae Neophylax 3 — 1 — — — — — — — — — — Goeridae 3 — — — — — — — — — — — — Goera 3 — — — — — — — — — — — — Leptoceridae 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Oecetis 5 — — — — — 1 — — — — — — Molannidae Molanna 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Calamoceratidae Heteroplectron 3 — — — — — — — — — — — — Odontoceridae Psilotreta 0 1 — — — — — — — — 1 1 — LEPIDOPTERA 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — 122 Surface-Water Quality and Quantity, Aquatic Biology, Stream Geomorphology, and Groundwater Flow Simulation

Evening Branch above Bear Hole Run at Tolerance Gold Mine Run near Forge Creek near Lickdale, Pa. Taxonomy Suedberg, Pa. score Tower City, Pa. 8/27/02 8/26/03 8/9/04 8/10/05 8/27/02 8/14/03 8/9/04 8/10/05 8/15/02 8/20/03 8/3/04 8/15/05 Tortricidae Archips 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — DIPTERA (red non-midges, purple midges) 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Ceratopogonidae 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Atrichopogon 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Probezzia 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Bezzia/Palpomyia 6 — — — — — — — — — — — 1 Chironomidae Tanypodinae 7 — — — — — — — — — — — — Macropelopiini 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Brundiniella 6 — — — — — — — — 5 — — 1 Macropelopia 6 — — — — — — — — 1 — — — Natarsiini Natarsia 8 — — — — — — — — — — — — Pentaneurini Ablabesmyia 8 — — — — — — — — — — — — Conchapelopia 6 — — — — — 3 1 3 — — — 16 Nilotanypus 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Paramerina 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Rheopelopia 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Thienemannimyia gr. 6 2 1 2 — 1 9 2 — 2 2 2 — Zavrelimyia 8 — — — — — — — — 1 — 1 1 Diamesini Diamesa 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Pagastia 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — Potthastia longimana 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Orthocladiinae 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Corynoneurini Corynoneura 4 — — — — — — 1 1 — — — 3 Thienemanniella 6 — — — — — — — — — — — 4 Orthocladiini 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Brillia 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Brillia flaviforms 5 — — — — — — — — — — — 5 Cricotopus 7 — — — — — — — — — — — — Cricotopus/Orthocladius 7 — — — — — — — — — — — — Cricotopus bicinctus 7 — — — — — — — — — — — — Cricotopus vierriensis 7 — — — — — — — — — — — — Diplocladius 8 — — — — — — — — — — — — Eukiefferiella 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Eukiefferiella brehmi gr. 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Eukiefferiella claripennis 8 — — — — — — — — — — — — Eukiefferiella devonica gr. 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Eukiefferiella pseudomontana gr. 8 — — — — — — — — — — — — Heleniella 3 — 1 — — — — — — — — — — Heterotrissocladius marcidus gr. 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Krenosmittia 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — Limnophyes 8 — — — — — — — — — — — — Nanocladius 7 — — — — — — — — — — — — Appendix 6 123

Evening Branch above Bear Hole Run at Tolerance Gold Mine Run near Forge Creek near Lickdale, Pa. Taxonomy Suedberg, Pa. score Tower City, Pa. 8/27/02 8/26/03 8/9/04 8/10/05 8/27/02 8/14/03 8/9/04 8/10/05 8/15/02 8/20/03 8/3/04 8/15/05 Orthocladius lignicola 6 — — — 1 — 1 1 — — — — — Parachaetocladius 2 1 — 2 — — — 1 1 — — — — Paracricotopus 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Parametriocnemus 5 1 3 — — 1 1 — 1 — 2 1 19 Rheocricotopus 6 — — — — — — — 2 — — — — Rheocricotopus robacki 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Tvetenia bavarica gr. 4 — 1 2 1 — — 1 2 — 1 2 9 Xylotopus par 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Chironominae 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Chironomini Chironomus 10 — — — — — — — — — — — — Cryptochironomus 8 — — — — — — — — — — — — Glyptotendipes 10 — — — — — — — — — — — — Microtendipes pedellus gr. 6 — — 2 — — — — 1 — — 1 — Microtendipes rydalensis gr. 4 1 2 — 1 — — — — — — — — Paralauterborniella 8 — — — — — — — — 9 — — — Paratendipes albimanus 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Phaenopsectra 7 — — — — — — — — — — — — Polypedilum 6 — — — — 1 — — — 7 — — — Polypedilum aviceps 4 — 6 6 7 — — — 5 — 6 3 150 Polypedilum fallax 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Polypedilum flavum 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Polypedilum illinoense 7 — — — — — — — — — — — — Polypedilum laetum 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Polypedilum scalaenum 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Polypedilum tritum 6 — — — — — — 1 — — — — — Stenochironomus 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Stictochironomus 9 — — — — — — — — — — — — Tribelos 7 — — — — — — — — — — — — Tanytarsini 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Cladotanytarsus 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Micropsectra 7 — 6 — 8 1 — 4 13 12 4 — 51 Micropsectra sp. A 7 — — — — — — — — — — — — Paratanytarsus 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Rheotanytarsus 6 — — — — 5 — — 37 2 — — 5 Rheotanytarsus exiguus gr. 6 1 1 3 — 1 4 2 — — — 1 — Rheotanytarsus pellucidus 4 — — — — 4 — — — — — — — Stempellina 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Stempellina sp. C 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Stempellinella 4 — 3 — — 19 2 3 14 6 — — — Sublettea coffmani 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Tanytarsus 6 — — 2 — 7 14 3 — 5 — — — Zavrelia 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Dixidae Dixa 1 — — — — — — — — — — — 1 Simuliidae Simulium 5 — 2 — — — 6 6 7 — 6 — — Tipulidae 4 — — — — — — — 1 — — — — 124 Surface-Water Quality and Quantity, Aquatic Biology, Stream Geomorphology, and Groundwater Flow Simulation

Evening Branch above Bear Hole Run at Tolerance Gold Mine Run near Forge Creek near Lickdale, Pa. Taxonomy Suedberg, Pa. score Tower City, Pa. 8/27/02 8/26/03 8/9/04 8/10/05 8/27/02 8/14/03 8/9/04 8/10/05 8/15/02 8/20/03 8/3/04 8/15/05 Tipula 6 — 1 — — — 1 — — 1 — — 1 Antocha 3 — — — — — — — — — — — — Dicranota 3 — — — — — 2 1 — — 1 — — Hexatoma 2 — — 1 2 — 1 — — — — — — Limnophila 3 — — — — — — — — 1 — — — Limonia 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Molophilus 4 — — — — — 1 — — — — — — Pilaria 7 — — — — — 1 — — — — — — Athericidae Atherix 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Empididae 6 — — — 1 — — — 1 — — — 1 Chelifera 6 — — — — — — 1 2 — — — — Clinocera 6 — — — — — 1 1 — — 1 — 1 Hemerodromia 6 — — — — — — — 1 — — — 1 Stratiomyidae 7 — — — — — — — — — — — — Tabanidae Chrysops 5 — — — — — — — — — 3 1 — Ephydridae 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Psychodidae 10 — — — 1 — — — — — — — —

Total taxa 22 32 28 27 23 36 37 34 24 31 26 34 Total number 60 124 127 126 91 106 155 131 92 127 139 353 Percent dominant taxa (single) 20 13 9 20 21 13 14 18 14 20 44 24 Total EPT Taxa 12 15 14 16 8 10 13 9 7 12 11 11 Total EPT 47 80 90 93 45 40 99 27 18 77 112 73 Percent EPT 78.33 64.52 69.29 73.81 49.45 37.74 63.87 20.61 19.57 60.63 80.58 20.68 HBI 2.22 2.77 2.6 3.18 3.53 4.19 3.49 4.85 6.21 2.89 1.79 4.43 Number Chironomidae taxa 5 9 7 5 9 7 11 11 10 5 7 11 Percent Chironomidae 10.00 19.35 14.96 14.29 43.96 32.08 12.90 61.07 54.35 11.81 7.91 74.79 Appendix 6 125

Indiantown Run below Indiantown Run above Gold Mine Run near Tolerance Hatchery at Fort Indiantown Unnamed Tributary at Taxonomy Tower City, Pa. score Gap, Pa. Fort Indiantown Gap, Pa. 8/27/02 8/14/03 8/9/04 8/10/05 8/13/02 8/6/03 8/2/04 8/8/05 7/30/02 8/6/03 8/2/04 8/8/05 HYDRACHNIDIA 8 1 — — 1 — — 2 — 1 — — — Hygrobatidae Atractides 8 — — — — — — — — — — — — Hygrobates 8 — — — — — — — — — — — — Sperchonidae Sperchon 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Torrenticolidae Testudacarus 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Torrenticola 6 — — — — — — — 1 — — — — Hydryphantidae Protzia 8 — — — — — — — — — — — 1 Lebertiidae Lebertia 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Rhynchohydracaridae Clathrosperchon 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — ARTHROPODA CRUSTACEA MALACOSTRACA ISOPODA Asellidae Caecidotea 8 — — — — — — — — — — — — Lirceus 8 — — — — — — — — 2 — — — AMPHIPODA Crangonyctidae Crangonyx 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Gammaridae Gammarus 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — DECAPODA Cambaridae 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Cambarus 6 — 1 1 1 — — — — 1 1 — — Orconectes 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — INSECTA COLLEMBOLA 10 — — — 1 — — — — — — — — Entomobryidae 10 — 1 — — — — — — — — — — Isotomidae 5 — — 2 — — — — — — — — — Isotomurus 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — EPHEMEROPTERA Leptophlebiidae 4 — — — 1 — — — — — — — — Habrophlebia 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Habrophlebiodes 6 — — — — — 2 — — — — — — Paraleptophlebia 1 — — — — — 2 — — 6 1 1 2 Ephemeridae 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Ephemera 2 — — — — 1 — — — 1 — — — Litobrancha recurvata 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Caenidae Caenis 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Ephemerellidae 1 — — — — — — — — — — — 1 Attenella 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — Appendix 6 127

Indiantown Run below Indiantown Run above Gold Mine Run near Tolerance Hatchery at Fort Indiantown Unnamed Tributary at Taxonomy Tower City, Pa. score Gap, Pa. Fort Indiantown Gap, Pa. 8/27/02 8/14/03 8/9/04 8/10/05 8/13/02 8/6/03 8/2/04 8/8/05 7/30/02 8/6/03 8/2/04 8/8/05 Drunella 0 — — — — — — — — — — — — Ephemerella 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — Eurylophella 2 2 — — 2 — — — — — — — — Serratella 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Baetidae 5 — — — — — — — 1 — — — — Acentrella 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Acerpenna 5 — — — — — — — — — — 1 1 Baetis 6 — 1 1 — — 1 3 — — — — 2 Baetis flavistriga 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Plauditus 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Isonychiidae 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Isonychia 2 — — — — 6 — 10 — — — — — Heptageniidae 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Epeorus 0 — — — — — — — — — — — — Leucrocuta 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — Stenacron 7 — — — — — — — — — — 1 — Maccaffertium 3 — — — — 28 9 61 22 34 17 28 42 Maccaffertium modestum 1 — — — — — — — 5 — — — — ODONATA 3 — — — — — — — — — — — — ANISOPTERA Aeschnidae Boyeria 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Cordulegastridae Cordulegaster 3 — — — — — — — — — — — — Gomphidae 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Lanthus 5 — 1 — 1 — 3 — — — 1 — — Stylogomphus 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — Libellulidae 2 — — — — — — 1 — — — — — ZYGOPTERA Calopterygidae 6 — — — — — — — — — — — 2 Calopteryx 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Hetaerina 6 — — — — — — — — — — 1 — Coenagrionidae 8 — — — — — — — — — — — — Argia 6 — — — — — — — — — 1 — — HEMIPTERA 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Veliidae Microvelia 6 — — — 1 — — — — — — — — Rhagovelia 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — PLECOPTERA 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — Capniidae 3 — — — — — — — — — — — — Paracapnia 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — Leuctridae 0 — — — — — — — — — — — 1 Leuctra 0 19 14 26 59 — 5 5 10 18 5 3 — Nemouridae 2 — 1 3 2 — — — — — — — — Amphinemura 3 — 3 — — — — — — — — — Taeniopterygidae 2 — — — — — — — — — 1 — — Chloroperlidae 0 9 3 10 — — — — 1 — — — — Alloperla 0 — — — — — — — — — — — — 128 Surface-Water Quality and Quantity, Aquatic Biology, Stream Geomorphology, and Groundwater Flow Simulation

Indiantown Run below Indiantown Run above Gold Mine Run near Tolerance Hatchery at Fort Indiantown Unnamed Tributary at Taxonomy Tower City, Pa. score Gap, Pa. Fort Indiantown Gap, Pa. 8/27/02 8/14/03 8/9/04 8/10/05 8/13/02 8/6/03 8/2/04 8/8/05 7/30/02 8/6/03 8/2/04 8/8/05 Sweltsa 0 8 5 4 4 — — — — — — — — Peltoperlidae 0 — — — — — — — — — — — — Tallaperla 0 2 — — — — — — — 2 — — — Perlidae 3 — — — — — — — — — — — 1 Acroneuria 0 — 8 — — — 1 — — 2 1 1 — A. carolinensis 0 — — — — — — — — — — — — Agnetina 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Eccoptura xanthenes 3 — — — — — — — — — — — — Neoperla 3 — — — — — — — — — — — — Perlesta 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Perlodidae 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Isoperla 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Pteronarcyidae Pteronarcys 0 — — — — — — — — — — — — COLEOPTERA ADEPHAGA Gyrinidae Dineutus 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — POLYPHAGA Hydrophilidae Enochrus 5 — — — — — 1 — — — — — — Hydrobius 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Psephenidae Ectopria 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Psephenus 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Lampyridae 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Elmidae 5 — — — — — — — 1 — — — — Ancyronxy variegata 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Dubiraphia 6 — — — 1 — — — — — — — — Macronychus glabratus 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Macronychus 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Microcylloepus 3 — — — — — — — — — — — — Optioservus 4 — — — — — — — — — 1 — Oulimnius 4 — — — — 1 4 8 — 3 — 2 — Promoresia 2 1 — — 1 — — — — 2 2 3 5 Stenelmis 5 — — — — 1 — 1 — 7 — 5 3 Ptilodactylidae Anchytarsus 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Curculionidae 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — MEGALOPTERA 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Corydalidae Corydalus 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Nigronia 4 — — — — 2 1 7 3 5 3 1 4 Sialidae Sialis 4 — — — — — — — — 1 — — — TRICHOPTERA 4 — — — 2 — — — — — — — — Rhyacophilidae Rhyacophila 1 4 5 25 — — — 1 4 1 2 — — Appendix 6 129

Indiantown Run below Indiantown Run above Gold Mine Run near Tolerance Hatchery at Fort Indiantown Unnamed Tributary at Taxonomy Tower City, Pa. score Gap, Pa. Fort Indiantown Gap, Pa. 8/27/02 8/14/03 8/9/04 8/10/05 8/13/02 8/6/03 8/2/04 8/8/05 7/30/02 8/6/03 8/2/04 8/8/05 Hydroptilidae 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Hydroptila 6 — — — — — — — — — — — 1 Leucotrichia 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Ochrotrichia 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Glossosomatidae 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — Glossosoma 0 — — — — — — — — — — — — Philopotamidae 4 — — — 1 — — — 1 — — — — Chimarra 4 — 1 — — — — — 2 — — — 8 C. aterrima 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — C. obscura 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Dolophilodes 4 1 1 8 1 — 1 1 — — — — — Wormaldia 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Psychomyiidae 2 — — — — — — 1 — — — — — Lype 2 — — — — — — — — — — 1 2 Psychomyia 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Dipseudopsidae Phylocentropus 5 — — — — — — — — — — 1 — Polycentropodidae 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Cyrnellus 8 — — — — — — — — — — — — Neureclipsis 7 — — — — — — — — — — 1 — Polycentropus 6 1 — — 2 — — — — — — — — Hydropsychidae 5 — — — 2 — — — 8 1 — — 16 Cheumatopsyche 5 — — — — 1 1 7 9 43 — 2 3 Diplectrona 5 10 3 6 — — — — — 3 1 — — Hydropsyche 4 2 — 1 — — 1 19 3 1 1 1 20 Hydropsyche morosa gr. 6 — — — — — — 3 — — — — — Phryganeidae Oligostomis 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Brachycentridae Micrasema 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Lepidostomatidae Lepidostoma 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — Limnephilidae Hydatophylax 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Pycnopsyche 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Uenoidae Neophylax 3 — — — — — — — — — — — — Goeridae 3 — — — — — — — — — — — — Goera 3 — — — — — — — — — — — — Leptoceridae 4 — 1 — — — — — — — — — — Oecetis 5 1 — — — — — — — — — — — Molannidae Molanna 6 — — — — — — — — — 1 — — Calamoceratidae Heteroplectron 3 — — — — — — — — — — — — Odontoceridae Psilotreta 0 — — — — — — — — — 1 — — LEPIDOPTERA 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — 130 Surface-Water Quality and Quantity, Aquatic Biology, Stream Geomorphology, and Groundwater Flow Simulation

Indiantown Run below Indiantown Run above Gold Mine Run near Tolerance Hatchery at Fort Indiantown Unnamed Tributary at Taxonomy Tower City, Pa. score Gap, Pa. Fort Indiantown Gap, Pa. 8/27/02 8/14/03 8/9/04 8/10/05 8/13/02 8/6/03 8/2/04 8/8/05 7/30/02 8/6/03 8/2/04 8/8/05 Tortricidae Archips 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — DIPTERA (red non-midges, purple midges) 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Ceratopogonidae 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Atrichopogon 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Probezzia 6 — — — — 1 — — — — — 2 — Bezzia/Palpomyia 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Chironomidae Tanypodinae 7 — — — — — — — — — — — — Macropelopiini 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Brundiniella 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Macropelopia 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Natarsiini Natarsia 8 — — — — — — — — — — 1 — Pentaneurini Ablabesmyia 8 — — — — — — — — — — — — Conchapelopia 6 — — — 1 — — — 1 — — — 4 Nilotanypus 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Paramerina 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Rheopelopia 4 — — — — — — — 2 — — — — Thienemannimyia gr. 6 — 4 — — 2 5 2 — 7 1 6 — Zavrelimyia 8 — 1 — — — — — — 1 — 3 — Diamesini Diamesa 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Pagastia 1 — — — — — — — — — — — 1 Potthastia longimana 2 — — — — — — 1 1 — — — — Orthocladiinae 5 — — — — — — — 1 — — — — Corynoneurini Corynoneura 4 1 — — — — — — — — — — — Thienemanniella 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Orthocladiini 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Brillia 5 — 1 — — — — — — 1 — — — Brillia flaviforms 5 — — — — — — — 1 — — — — Cricotopus 7 — — — — — — — 5 — — — — Cricotopus/Orthocladius 7 — — — — — — — — — — — — Cricotopus bicinctus 7 — — — — 3 — 1 1 — — — — Cricotopus vierriensis 7 — — — — — — — — — — — — Diplocladius 8 — — — — — — — — — — — — Eukiefferiella 4 — 1 1 — — — — — — — — — Eukiefferiella brehmi gr. 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Eukiefferiella claripennis 8 — — — 1 — — — — — — — — Eukiefferiella devonica gr. 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Eukiefferiella pseudomontana gr. 8 — — — — — — — — — — — — Heleniella 3 — — — — — — — — — — — — Heterotrissocladius marcidus gr. 4 1 — — — — — — — — — — — Krenosmittia 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — Limnophyes 8 — 1 — — — — — — — — — — Nanocladius 7 — — — — — — — — — — — — Appendix 6 131

Indiantown Run below Indiantown Run above Gold Mine Run near Tolerance Hatchery at Fort Indiantown Unnamed Tributary at Taxonomy Tower City, Pa. score Gap, Pa. Fort Indiantown Gap, Pa. 8/27/02 8/14/03 8/9/04 8/10/05 8/13/02 8/6/03 8/2/04 8/8/05 7/30/02 8/6/03 8/2/04 8/8/05 Orthocladius lignicola 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Parachaetocladius 2 — 1 4 2 — — — — 1 — 1 — Paracricotopus 4 — — — — — 1 — — — — — — Parametriocnemus 5 3 — — 1 14 5 1 12 — 1 1 1 Rheocricotopus 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Rheocricotopus robacki 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Tvetenia bavarica gr. 4 — 1 — — — 1 1 1 — 1 — 3 Xylotopus par 2 — — — — — — — — — — 1 — Chironominae 5 — — — — — — — 1 — — — — Chironomini Chironomus 10 — — — — — — — — — — — — Cryptochironomus 8 — — — — — — — — — — — — Glyptotendipes 10 — — — — — — — — — — — — Microtendipes pedellus gr. 6 — — — — — — — — — — 13 — Microtendipes rydalensis gr. 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Paralauterborniella 8 — — — — — — — — — — — — Paratendipes albimanus 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Phaenopsectra 7 — — — — — — — — — — — — Polypedilum 6 5 — — 1 5 2 — — — — — 1 Polypedilum aviceps 4 — — — — 6 9 3 17 1 1 8 — Polypedilum fallax 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Polypedilum flavum 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Polypedilum illinoense 7 — — — — — — — — — — — — Polypedilum laetum 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Polypedilum scalaenum 6 — — — — 1 — — — — — 4 — Polypedilum tritum 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Stenochironomus 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Stictochironomus 9 — — — — — — — 1 — — — — Tribelos 7 — — — — — — — — — — — — Tanytarsini 5 — — — — — — — — — 1 — — Cladotanytarsus 5 — — — — — — — 11 — — — — Micropsectra 7 13 17 1 4 5 25 — 4 — 26 1 — Micropsectra sp. A 7 — — — — — — — — 27 — — — Paratanytarsus 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Rheotanytarsus 6 — — 1 — 17 — — 12 — — — 17 Rheotanytarsus exiguus gr. 6 — — — — 2 5 13 — 3 3 10 — Rheotanytarsus pellucidus 4 — — — — — 1 3 — 5 3 5 — Stempellina 2 — — — — 1 — — — — — — — Stempellina sp. C 4 — — — — — — 5 — — — — — Stempellinella 4 7 15 5 13 13 5 — — — 2 1 — Sublettea coffmani 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Tanytarsus 6 2 — — — 8 3 — 3 — — 17 — Zavrelia 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Dixidae Dixa 1 — — — — — — — — 1 — — — Simuliidae Simulium 5 — 19 2 3 — 2 6 15 1 4 1 1 Tipulidae 4 — — — — — — — — — — — 2 132 Surface-Water Quality and Quantity, Aquatic Biology, Stream Geomorphology, and Groundwater Flow Simulation

Total taxa 22 27 24 28 24 29 32 38 37 29 37 29 Total number 98 128 130 134 126 104 204 209 317 110 145 150 Percent dominant taxa (single) 19 15 20 53 22 24 30 20 38 24 19 34 Total EPT Taxa 11 11 10 10 4 9 10 11 11 10 11 13 Total EPT 59 43 87 74 36 23 111 66 112 31 41 100 Percent EPT 60.20 33.59 66.92 54.48 28.57 22.12 54.41 31.58 35.33 28.18 28.28 66.67 HBI 2.61 4.26 2.05 3 4.63 4.99 4.06 4.88 4.81 4.87 4.88 4.17 Number Chironomidae taxa 7 9 5 7 12 11 9 16 8 9 14 6 Percent Chironomidae 32.65 32.81 9.23 17.16 61.11 59.62 14.71 35.41 14.51 35.45 49.66 18.00 Appendix 6 133

Indiantown Run above Indiantown Run in Gap at Indiantown Run above Vesle Tolerance Memorial Lake near Taxonomy Fort Indiantown Gap, Pa. Run at Indiantown, Pa. score Indiantown, Pa. 7/30/02 8/2/03 8/3/04 8/9/05 7/31/02 8/7/03 7/29/04 8/3/05 7/31/02 8/1//03 7/29/04 8/3/05 HYDRACHNIDIA 8 1 — 1 — 1 — 2 — — — — — Hygrobatidae Atractides 8 — — — — — — — — — — — — Hygrobates 8 — — — — — — — — — — — — Sperchonidae Sperchon 6 — — — — — — — — — — — 1 Torrenticolidae Testudacarus 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Torrenticola 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Hydryphantidae Protzia 8 — — — — — — — — — — — — Lebertiidae Lebertia 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Rhynchohydracaridae Clathrosperchon 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — ARTHROPODA CRUSTACEA MALACOSTRACA ISOPODA Asellidae Caecidotea 8 — — — — — — — — 1 — — — Lirceus 8 — — — — — — — — — — — — AMPHIPODA Crangonyctidae Crangonyx 6 — — — — — — — — 3 — — — Gammaridae Gammarus 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — DECAPODA Cambaridae 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Cambarus 6 — 3 — — — — — — — — — — Orconectes 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — INSECTA COLLEMBOLA 10 — — — 1 — — — — — — — — Entomobryidae 10 — — — — — — — — — — — — Isotomidae 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Isotomurus 5 — — — — — — 1 — — — — — EPHEMEROPTERA Leptophlebiidae 4 — — — 3 — — — — — — — — Habrophlebia 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Habrophlebiodes 6 — 11 — — — — — — — — — — Paraleptophlebia 1 — — 12 — — — — — — — — — Ephemeridae 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Ephemera 2 — 1 — — — — — — — — — — Litobrancha recurvata 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Caenidae Caenis 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Ephemerellidae 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — Attenella 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — Appendix 6 135

Indiantown Run above Indiantown Run in Gap at Indiantown Run above Vesle Tolerance Memorial Lake near Taxonomy Fort Indiantown Gap, Pa. Run at Indiantown, Pa. score Indiantown, Pa. 7/30/02 8/2/03 8/3/04 8/9/05 7/31/02 8/7/03 7/29/04 8/3/05 7/31/02 8/1//03 7/29/04 8/3/05 Drunella 0 — — — — — — — — — — — — Ephemerella 1 — — — — — — — 1 — — — — Eurylophella 2 — — 1 — — — — — — — — — Serratella 2 1 — — — — — — — — — — — Baetidae 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Acentrella 4 — — — — 1 — 6 3 — — — — Acerpenna 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Baetis 6 8 7 5 8 6 2 1 2 1 8 17 15 Baetis flavistriga 4 — — — 1 — — — — — — — 14 Plauditus 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Isonychiidae 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Isonychia 2 3 7 34 24 11 12 13 — — 6 — 1 Heptageniidae 4 — — 1 7 — — — — — — — 10 Epeorus 0 3 — — — 1 — — — — — 1 — Leucrocuta 1 — 1 — — 3 — — — — — — — Stenacron 7 — — — — — — — — — — — — Maccaffertium 3 9 25 14 6 9 21 20 22 17 2 17 9 Maccaffertium modestum 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — ODONATA 3 — — — — — — — 1 — — — — ANISOPTERA Aeschnidae Boyeria 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Cordulegastridae Cordulegaster 3 — — — — — — — — — — — — Gomphidae 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Lanthus 5 2 1 1 — — — — — — — — — Stylogomphus 1 — — — — — — — — — 2 — — Libellulidae 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — ZYGOPTERA Calopterygidae 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Calopteryx 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Hetaerina 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Coenagrionidae 8 — — — — — 1 — — 1 — — — Argia 6 — — — — — 1 — — — — 2 — HEMIPTERA 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Veliidae Microvelia 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Rhagovelia 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — PLECOPTERA 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — Capniidae 3 — — — — — — — — — — — — Paracapnia 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — Leuctridae 0 — — — — — — — — — — — — Leuctra 0 5 1 4 — — — — — — — — — Nemouridae 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Amphinemura 3 — — — — — — — — — — — — Taeniopterygidae 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Chloroperlidae 0 — — — — — — — — — — — — Alloperla 0 — — — — — — — — — — — — 136 Surface-Water Quality and Quantity, Aquatic Biology, Stream Geomorphology, and Groundwater Flow Simulation

Indiantown Run above Indiantown Run in Gap at Indiantown Run above Vesle Tolerance Memorial Lake near Taxonomy Fort Indiantown Gap, Pa. Run at Indiantown, Pa. score Indiantown, Pa. 7/30/02 8/2/03 8/3/04 8/9/05 7/31/02 8/7/03 7/29/04 8/3/05 7/31/02 8/1//03 7/29/04 8/3/05 Sweltsa 0 — — 1 — — — — — — — — — Peltoperlidae 0 — — — — — — — — — — — — Tallaperla 0 13 1 1 3 — — — — — — — — Perlidae 3 — — — 2 — — — — — — — — Acroneuria 0 2 1 4 — 4 3 1 2 — 5 — — A. carolinensis 0 — — — 1 — — — — — — — — Agnetina 2 — — — — 1 — — — — — — — Eccoptura xanthenes 3 — — — — — — — — — — — — Neoperla 3 — — — — — — — — — — — — Perlesta 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Perlodidae 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Isoperla 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Pteronarcyidae Pteronarcys 0 — — — — — — — — — — — — COLEOPTERA ADEPHAGA Gyrinidae Dineutus 4 — — — — — — — — — — 1 — POLYPHAGA Hydrophilidae Enochrus 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Hydrobius 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Psephenidae Ectopria 5 — — — — — 1 — — — — — — Psephenus 4 — — 1 1 1 1 — 1 3 21 2 5 Lampyridae 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Elmidae 5 — — — — — — — — — — — 1 Ancyronxy variegata 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Dubiraphia 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Macronychus glabratus 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Macronychus 5 — — — — — — — — 1 — — — Microcylloepus 3 — — — — — — — — — — — — Optioservus 4 1 3 — 3 — — — 3 3 14 2 — Oulimnius 4 8 8 17 — — — 1 — — — 1 — Promoresia 2 — — 4 — — — — — — — — — Stenelmis 5 — — — — — — — — 3 33 1 2 Ptilodactylidae Anchytarsus 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Curculionidae 5 — — — — — — — — — 1 — — MEGALOPTERA 4 — — — — — — — 1 — — — — Corydalidae Corydalus 4 — — — — 2 1 — — — — — — Nigronia 4 1 1 2 2 3 — 1 4 — — 1 — Sialidae Sialis 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — TRICHOPTERA 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Rhyacophilidae Rhyacophila 1 2 9 5 4 — — — — — — — — Appendix 6 137

Indiantown Run above Indiantown Run in Gap at Indiantown Run above Vesle Tolerance Memorial Lake near Taxonomy Fort Indiantown Gap, Pa. Run at Indiantown, Pa. score Indiantown, Pa. 7/30/02 8/2/03 8/3/04 8/9/05 7/31/02 8/7/03 7/29/04 8/3/05 7/31/02 8/1//03 7/29/04 8/3/05 Hydroptilidae 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Hydroptila 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Leucotrichia 6 — — — — — — — — — — 6 9 Ochrotrichia 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Glossosomatidae 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — Glossosoma 0 2 — 1 — — — — — — — — — Philopotamidae 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Chimarra 4 — — — — 4 14 12 — 1 1 1 — C. aterrima 4 — — — — — — — 10 — — — — C. obscura 4 — — — — — — — — — — — 1 Dolophilodes 4 27 8 23 11 — — — — — — — — Wormaldia 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Psychomyiidae 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Lype 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Psychomyia 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Dipseudopsidae — — — — — — — — — — — — Phylocentropus 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Polycentropodidae 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Cyrnellus 8 — — — — — — — — — — — — Neureclipsis 7 — — — — — — — — — — — — Polycentropus 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Hydropsychidae 5 — — — 6 — — — 6 — — — 2 Cheumatopsyche 5 6 6 7 5 30 16 20 16 37 1 16 — Diplectrona 5 — — 4 — — — — — — — — — Hydropsyche 4 3 6 16 21 7 2 12 32 12 1 20 35 Hydropsyche morosa gr. 6 — — 7 — — — — — — — 31 — Phryganeidae Oligostomis 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Brachycentridae Micrasema 2 — — 1 — — — — — — — — — Lepidostomatidae Lepidostoma 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — Limnephilidae Hydatophylax 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Pycnopsyche 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Uenoidae Neophylax 3 — — — — — — — — — 1 — — Goeridae 3 — — — 1 — — — — — — — — Goera 3 — — — — — — — — — — — — Leptoceridae 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Oecetis 5 — — — — — — 1 — — — — — Molannidae Molanna 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Calamoceratidae Heteroplectron 3 — — — — — — — — — — — — Odontoceridae Psilotreta 0 — — — — — — — — — — — — LEPIDOPTERA 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — 138 Surface-Water Quality and Quantity, Aquatic Biology, Stream Geomorphology, and Groundwater Flow Simulation

Indiantown Run above Indiantown Run in Gap at Indiantown Run above Vesle Tolerance Memorial Lake near Taxonomy Fort Indiantown Gap, Pa. Run at Indiantown, Pa. score Indiantown, Pa. 7/30/02 8/2/03 8/3/04 8/9/05 7/31/02 8/7/03 7/29/04 8/3/05 7/31/02 8/1//03 7/29/04 8/3/05 Tortricidae Archips 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — DIPTERA (red non-midges, purple midges) 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Ceratopogonidae 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Atrichopogon 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Probezzia 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Bezzia/Palpomyia 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Chironomidae Tanypodinae 7 — — — — — — — 2 — — — — Macropelopiini 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Brundiniella 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Macropelopia 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Natarsiini Natarsia 8 — — — — — — — — — — — — Pentaneurini Ablabesmyia 8 — — — — — — — — — — — — Conchapelopia 6 — — — — — 1 — 1 — — — — Nilotanypus 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Paramerina 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Rheopelopia 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Thienemannimyia gr. 6 — 1 1 — — — — — 4 3 — — Zavrelimyia 8 — — — — — — — — — — — — Diamesini Diamesa 5 — — — — — — 5 — — — — — Pagastia 1 — — — 1 — — — — — — — — Potthastia longimana 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Orthocladiinae 5 — — — 1 — — — 1 — — — 1 Corynoneurini Corynoneura 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Thienemanniella 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Orthocladiini 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Brillia 5 1 1 — — — 1 — — — — — — Brillia flaviforms 5 — — — 1 — — 1 — — — — — Cricotopus 7 — — — — — — — — — — — — Cricotopus/Orthocladius 7 — — — — — — — — — — — — Cricotopus bicinctus 7 — — — 1 — — — — — — — — Cricotopus vierriensis 7 — — — — — — — — — — — — Diplocladius 8 — 1 — — — — — — — — — — Eukiefferiella 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Eukiefferiella brehmi gr. 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Eukiefferiella claripennis 8 — — — — — — — — — — — — Eukiefferiella devonica gr. 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Eukiefferiella pseudomontana gr. 8 — — — — — — — — — — — — Heleniella 3 — — — — — — — — — — — — Heterotrissocladius marcidus gr. 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Krenosmittia 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — Limnophyes 8 — — — — — — — — — — — — Nanocladius 7 — — — — — — — — — — — — Appendix 6 139

Indiantown Run above Indiantown Run in Gap at Indiantown Run above Vesle Tolerance Memorial Lake near Taxonomy Fort Indiantown Gap, Pa. Run at Indiantown, Pa. score Indiantown, Pa. 7/30/02 8/2/03 8/3/04 8/9/05 7/31/02 8/7/03 7/29/04 8/3/05 7/31/02 8/1//03 7/29/04 8/3/05 Orthocladius lignicola 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Parachaetocladius 2 — — 1 — — — — — — — — — Paracricotopus 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Parametriocnemus 5 1 1 1 — — — — — 2 — — 1 Rheocricotopus 6 — — — — 1 — — — — — — — Rheocricotopus robacki 5 — — — — — — — — — 1 — — Tvetenia bavarica gr. 4 — 3 3 3 — 1 — — — — — — Xylotopus par 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Chironominae 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Chironomini Chironomus 10 — — — — — — — — — — — — Cryptochironomus 8 — — — — — — — — — — — — Glyptotendipes 10 — — — — — — — — 1 — — — Microtendipes pedellus gr. 6 — — — — — — — — 1 — — — Microtendipes rydalensis gr. 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Paralauterborniella 8 — — — — — — — — — — — — Paratendipes albimanus 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Phaenopsectra 7 — — — — — — — — — — — — Polypedilum 6 — — — 1 — — — — — — — — Polypedilum aviceps 4 1 6 14 2 1 15 7 8 3 1 — 1 Polypedilum fallax 6 — — — — — — 1 — — — — — Polypedilum flavum 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Polypedilum illinoense 7 — — — — — — — — 2 — — — Polypedilum laetum 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Polypedilum scalaenum 6 — — — — — 2 — — — — — — Polypedilum tritum 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Stenochironomus 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Stictochironomus 9 — — — — — — — — — — — — Tribelos 7 — — — — — — — — — — — — Tanytarsini 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Cladotanytarsus 5 — — 1 — — — — — — — — — Micropsectra 7 — 3 — — — — — — 1 — — — Micropsectra sp. A 7 2 — — — — — — — — — — — Paratanytarsus 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Rheotanytarsus 6 — — — — 2 — 1 7 6 — — 5 Rheotanytarsus exiguus gr. 6 1 3 — — — — 7 — — — 6 — Rheotanytarsus pellucidus 4 — 2 — — 2 — — — 3 — — — Stempellina 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Stempellina sp. C 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Stempellinella 4 1 1 — — — — — — 2 — — — Sublettea coffmani 4 — — — — — — — 2 — — — — Tanytarsus 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Zavrelia 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Dixidae Dixa 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — Simuliidae Simulium 5 3 2 2 2 — — 1 — — — 2 — Tipulidae 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — 140 Surface-Water Quality and Quantity, Aquatic Biology, Stream Geomorphology, and Groundwater Flow Simulation

Total taxa 29 34 34 28 26 22 26 25 28 20 21 22 Total number 112 133 196 123 108 103 132 140 141 109 136 121 Percent dominant taxa (single) 24 19 17 21 28 20 15 27 27 30 23 31 Total EPT Taxa 13 13 18 15 11 7 9 9 5 8 8 9 Total EPT 84 84 141 103 77 70 86 94 68 25 109 96 Percent EPT 75.00 63.16 71.94 81.30 71.30 67.96 65.15 67.86 48.23 22.94 80.15 79.34 HBI 2.31 3.92 2.77 3.64 4.12 3.89 4.2 4.31 5.4 4.35 4.99 4.46 Number Chironomidae taxa 6 10 6 7 4 5 6 6 10 3 1 4 Percent Chironomidae 6.25 16.54 10.71 8.13 5.56 19.42 16.67 15.00 17.73 4.59 4.41 6.61 Appendix 6 141

Manada Creek along Manada Creek below Manada Creek near Tolerance McLean Road near Manada Gap at Taxonomy Manada Gap, Pa. score Manada Gap, Pa. Manada Gap, Pa. 8/12/02 8/15/03 7/28/04 8/15/05 8/1/02 8/5/03 7/28/04 8/9/05 8/1/02 8/13/03 8/6/04 8/6/05 PLATYHELMINTHES TURBELLARIA TRICLADIDA Planariidae 1 — — 1 — — — 2 — — — 1 — NEMERTEA ENOPLA HOPLONEMERTEA Tetrastemmatidae Prostoma 8 — — — — — — — — — — — — NEMATODA 5 — — — — — — — — — 1 — 1 ANNELIDA BRANCHIOBDELLAE 6 — — — — — — — — — — — 1 OLIGOCHAETA LUBRICULIDA 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Lumbriculidae 5 — 1 — — — — — — 13 15 19 — Eclipidrilus 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Lumbriculus 5 — — — — — — — — — — — 4 TUBIFICIDA Enchytraeidae 10 — — — — — — — — — — — — Naididae 8 4 1 7 — — — 13 — — 3 8 — Nais 8 — — — — — — — — — — — — N. behningi 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Pristina 8 — — — — — — — — — — — — Tubificidae 10 — — — — — — — — — — — 3 Tubificidae w/ capilliform setae 10 — — — — — 2 — — 2 2 — — Tubificidae w/o capilliform setae 10 — — — — — — 1 — — — — — LUMBRICINA 6 — — — — — — — — 1 5 — — MOLLUSCA GASTROPODA MESOGASTROPODA Viviparidae Campeloma decisum 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — BASOMMATOPHORA Ancylidae Ferrissia 6 — — — — — — — — 1 — 2 — Physidae Physa 8 — — — — — — — — — — — — Planorbidae 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Planorbella 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — BIVALVIA VENEROIDA Corbiculidae Corbicula fluminea 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Pisidiidae 6 — 1 1 — — 5 — — — — — — Pisidium 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Sphaerium 6 — — — — — — — — — — 1 — CHELICERATA ORIBATEI 8 — — — — — — — — — — — — 142 Surface-Water Quality and Quantity, Aquatic Biology, Stream Geomorphology, and Groundwater Flow Simulation

Manada Creek along Manada Creek below Manada Creek near Tolerance McLean Road near Manada Gap at Taxonomy Manada Gap, Pa. score Manada Gap, Pa. Manada Gap, Pa. 8/12/02 8/15/03 7/28/04 8/15/05 8/1/02 8/5/03 7/28/04 8/9/05 8/1/02 8/13/03 8/6/04 8/6/05 HYDRACHNIDIA 8 2 — — — 1 — 1 — 2 1 — — Hygrobatidae Atractides 8 — — — — — — — — — — — — Hygrobates 8 — — — — — — — — — — — — Sperchonidae Sperchon 6 — — — 1 — — — — — — — 1 Torrenticolidae Testudacarus 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Torrenticola 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Hydryphantidae Protzia 8 — — — — — — — — — — — — Lebertiidae Lebertia 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Rhynchohydracaridae Clathrosperchon 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — ARTHROPODA CRUSTACEA MALACOSTRACA ISOPODA Asellidae Caecidotea 8 — — — — — — — — — — — — Lirceus 8 — — — — — — — — — — — — AMPHIPODA Crangonyctidae Crangonyx 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Gammaridae Gammarus 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — DECAPODA Cambaridae 6 — — — — 1 — — — — — — — Cambarus 6 — — — — — 1 1 — — — — — Orconectes 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — INSECTA COLLEMBOLA 10 — — — — — — — — — — — — Entomobryidae 10 — — — — — — — — — 1 — — Isotomidae 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Isotomurus 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — EPHEMEROPTERA Leptophlebiidae 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Habrophlebia 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Habrophlebiodes 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Paraleptophlebia 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — Ephemeridae 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Ephemera 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Litobrancha recurvata 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Caenidae Caenis 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Ephemerellidae 1 2 2 6 7 — — — 1 — 1 — 1 Attenella 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — Appendix 6 143

Manada Creek along Manada Creek below Manada Creek near Tolerance McLean Road near Manada Gap at Taxonomy Manada Gap, Pa. score Manada Gap, Pa. Manada Gap, Pa. 8/12/02 8/15/03 7/28/04 8/15/05 8/1/02 8/5/03 7/28/04 8/9/05 8/1/02 8/13/03 8/6/04 8/6/05 Drunella 0 — — — — — — 1 — — — — — Ephemerella 1 — — — — — — — — — — 3 — Eurylophella 2 — — — — — — 1 — — — — — Serratella 2 — — — — — — — — — 1 — — Baetidae 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Acentrella 4 — — — 1 — — 1 7 — — 1 10 Acerpenna 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Baetis 6 19 23 4 4 2 9 10 3 6 9 4 10 Baetis flavistriga 4 — — — 1 — — — — — — — — Plauditus 4 1 — — — — — — — — — — — Isonychiidae 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Isonychia 2 2 6 13 20 15 3 7 18 4 3 7 9 Heptageniidae 4 — — — 2 — — — — — — — 1 Epeorus 0 — — — — 1 — — — — — — — Leucrocuta 1 1 — — — — — — — 1 1 — — Stenacron 7 — — — — — — — — — — — — Maccaffertium 3 4 — — — — — — — — — — — Maccaffertium modestum 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — ODONATA 3 — — — — — — — 1 — — — — ANISOPTERA Aeschnidae Boyeria 2 — — — — — 2 2 — — — — — Cordulegastridae Cordulegaster 3 — — — — — — — — — — — — Gomphidae 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Lanthus 5 2 — 1 — 1 5 — — — 1 1 — Stylogomphus 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — Libellulidae 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — ZYGOPTERA Calopterygidae 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Calopteryx 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Hetaerina 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Coenagrionidae 8 — — — 1 — — — 2 — — — — Argia 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — HEMIPTERA 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Veliidae Microvelia 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Rhagovelia 6 — — — 1 — — — — — — — — PLECOPTERA 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — Capniidae 3 — — — — — — — — — — — — Paracapnia 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — Leuctridae 0 — — — — — — — — — — — — Leuctra 0 1 3 9 2 18 13 34 3 2 18 7 2 Nemouridae 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Amphinemura 3 — — — — — — — — — — — — Taeniopterygidae 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Chloroperlidae 0 — — — 1 — — — — — — — 1 Alloperla 0 — — — — — — — — — — — — 144 Surface-Water Quality and Quantity, Aquatic Biology, Stream Geomorphology, and Groundwater Flow Simulation

Manada Creek along Manada Creek below Manada Creek near Tolerance McLean Road near Manada Gap at Taxonomy Manada Gap, Pa. score Manada Gap, Pa. Manada Gap, Pa. 8/12/02 8/15/03 7/28/04 8/15/05 8/1/02 8/5/03 7/28/04 8/9/05 8/1/02 8/13/03 8/6/04 8/6/05 Sweltsa 0 2 3 — — — — — — — 1 1 — Peltoperlidae 0 — — — — — — — — — — — — Tallaperla 0 1 1 2 — — — — — 1 — — — Perlidae 3 — — — 2 — — — 6 — — — 2 Acroneuria 0 — 1 4 — 7 6 10 1 11 4 11 — A. carolinensis 0 — — — — — — — — — — — — Agnetina 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Eccoptura xanthenes 3 — — — — — — — — — — — — Neoperla 3 — — — — — — — — — — — — Perlesta 4 — — 1 — — — — — — — — — Perlodidae 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Isoperla 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Pteronarcyidae Pteronarcys 0 — — — — — — — — — — — — COLEOPTERA ADEPHAGA Gyrinidae Dineutus 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — POLYPHAGA Hydrophilidae Enochrus 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Hydrobius 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Psephenidae Ectopria 5 — — — 1 — — — — 1 — — — Psephenus 4 1 1 1 3 — 1 — 1 4 2 1 1 Lampyridae 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Elmidae 5 — — — 9 — — — 7 — — — 3 Ancyronxy variegata 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Dubiraphia 6 — — — — — 2 — — — — — — Macronychus glabratus 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Macronychus 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Microcylloepus 3 — — — — — — — — — — — — Optioservus 4 3 5 1 4 1 5 1 2 3 4 4 5 Oulimnius 4 13 4 1 — 1 5 4 — 5 1 6 — Promoresia 2 4 — 1 — — 3 19 7 — 1 2 — Stenelmis 5 6 1 10 7 — — — 1 — — 2 — Ptilodactylidae Anchytarsus 5 — 1 — — — — — — — — — — Curculionidae 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — MEGALOPTERA 4 — — — — — — — — — — — 1 Corydalidae Corydalus 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Nigronia 4 — 1 2 — — — — — — 8 3 — Sialidae Sialis 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — TRICHOPTERA 4 — — — 2 — — — — — — — — Rhyacophilidae Rhyacophila 1 — 1 — 1 — 2 4 2 — 6 5 2 Appendix 6 145

Manada Creek along Manada Creek below Manada Creek near Tolerance McLean Road near Manada Gap at Taxonomy Manada Gap, Pa. score Manada Gap, Pa. Manada Gap, Pa. 8/12/02 8/15/03 7/28/04 8/15/05 8/1/02 8/5/03 7/28/04 8/9/05 8/1/02 8/13/03 8/6/04 8/6/05 Hydroptilidae 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Hydroptila 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Leucotrichia 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Ochrotrichia 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Glossosomatidae 1 — — — — — — — — — — — 2 Glossosoma 0 — 1 — 2 — — — — — — — — Philopotamidae 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Chimarra 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — C. aterrima 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — C. obscura 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Dolophilodes 4 — 10 — 6 3 11 1 16 12 5 11 15 Wormaldia 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Psychomyiidae 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Lype 2 — — 1 — — — — — — 3 — — Psychomyia 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Dipseudopsidae Phylocentropus 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Polycentropodidae 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Cyrnellus 8 — — — — — — — — — — — — Neureclipsis 7 — — — — — — — — — — — — Polycentropus 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Hydropsychidae 5 — — — 18 — — — 11 — — — 3 Cheumatopsyche 5 63 28 32 7 9 3 8 65 18 8 9 — Diplectrona 5 — — — — — — — — — — 1 — Hydropsyche 4 9 17 12 19 3 1 24 11 4 — 31 30 Hydropsyche morosa gr. 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Phryganeidae Oligostomis 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Brachycentridae Micrasema 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Lepidostomatidae Lepidostoma 1 — 1 — — — — — — — — — — Limnephilidae Hydatophylax 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Pycnopsyche 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Uenoidae Neophylax 3 — — — — — — — — — — — — Goeridae 3 — — — — — — — — — — — — Goera 3 1 — 1 — — — — — — 1 — — Leptoceridae 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Oecetis 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Molannidae Molanna 6 — — — — — 3 — — — — — — Calamoceratidae Heteroplectron 3 — — 1 — — — — — — — — — Odontoceridae Psilotreta 0 — 1 — — — — — — — — — — LEPIDOPTERA 5 — — — 1 — — — — — — — — 146 Surface-Water Quality and Quantity, Aquatic Biology, Stream Geomorphology, and Groundwater Flow Simulation

Manada Creek along Manada Creek below Manada Creek near Tolerance McLean Road near Manada Gap at Taxonomy Manada Gap, Pa. score Manada Gap, Pa. Manada Gap, Pa. 8/12/02 8/15/03 7/28/04 8/15/05 8/1/02 8/5/03 7/28/04 8/9/05 8/1/02 8/13/03 8/6/04 8/6/05 Tortricidae Archips 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — DIPTERA (red non-midges, purple midges) 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Ceratopogonidae 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Atrichopogon 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Probezzia 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Bezzia/Palpomyia 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Chironomidae Tanypodinae 7 1 — 1 1 — — — — 1 — — — Macropelopiini 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Brundiniella 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Macropelopia 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Natarsiini Natarsia 8 — — — — — — — — — — — — Pentaneurini Ablabesmyia 8 — — — — — — — — — — — — Conchapelopia 6 — — — — — — — — — — — 5 Nilotanypus 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Paramerina 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Rheopelopia 4 — — — — — — — 1 — — — — Thienemannimyia gr. 6 4 — — — 12 7 — — 7 3 3 — Zavrelimyia 8 — — — — — — — — — 1 — — Diamesini Diamesa 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Pagastia 1 — — — — — — — — — 1 — 1 Potthastia longimana 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Orthocladiinae 5 — — — — — — — — — — — 1 Corynoneurini Corynoneura 4 — 1 — — — — — — 1 — — — Thienemanniella 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Orthocladiini 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Brillia 5 — — — — — 2 — — — — — — Brillia flaviforms 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Cricotopus 7 — — 1 — — — — 1 — — — 1 Cricotopus/Orthocladius 7 — — — — — — — — — — — — Cricotopus bicinctus 7 — — — — — — — — — — — — Cricotopus vierriensis 7 — — — — — — — — — — — — Diplocladius 8 — — — — — — — — — — — — Eukiefferiella 4 — — — — — — — — — 1 — — Eukiefferiella brehmi gr. 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Eukiefferiella claripennis 8 — — — — — — — — — — — — Eukiefferiella devonica gr. 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Eukiefferiella pseudomontana gr. 8 — — — — — — — — — — — 4 Heleniella 3 — — — — — — — — — — — — Heterotrissocladius marcidus gr. 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Krenosmittia 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — Limnophyes 8 — — — — — — — — — — — — Nanocladius 7 — — — — — — — — — — — — Appendix 6 147

Manada Creek along Manada Creek below Manada Creek near Tolerance McLean Road near Manada Gap at Taxonomy Manada Gap, Pa. score Manada Gap, Pa. Manada Gap, Pa. 8/12/02 8/15/03 7/28/04 8/15/05 8/1/02 8/5/03 7/28/04 8/9/05 8/1/02 8/13/03 8/6/04 8/6/05 Orthocladius lignicola 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Parachaetocladius 2 — — — — — 1 1 — — — — — Paracricotopus 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Parametriocnemus 5 2 — 1 1 4 7 3 — — 1 — — Rheocricotopus 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Rheocricotopus robacki 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Tvetenia bavarica gr. 4 2 3 — 1 — 5 — — — — 4 — Xylotopus par 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Chironominae 5 — — — 1 — — — — — — — — Chironomini Chironomus 10 — — — — 1 — — — — — — — Cryptochironomus 8 — 1 — — — — — — — — — — Glyptotendipes 10 — — — — — — — — — — — — Microtendipes pedellus gr. 6 — 1 — — 2 1 — — — — — — Microtendipes rydalensis gr. 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Paralauterborniella 8 — — — — — — — — — — — — Paratendipes albimanus 6 — — — — — 2 — — — — — — Phaenopsectra 7 — — — — — — — — — — — — Polypedilum 6 4 1 — — 2 — — — 4 — — — Polypedilum aviceps 4 — 1 — 2 1 2 1 4 2 2 4 — Polypedilum fallax 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Polypedilum flavum 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Polypedilum illinoense 7 — — — — — — — — — 2 — — Polypedilum laetum 6 1 — — — — — — — — — — — Polypedilum scalaenum 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Polypedilum tritum 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Stenochironomus 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Stictochironomus 9 — — — — — — — — — — — — Tribelos 7 — — — — — 1 — — — — — — Tanytarsini 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Cladotanytarsus 5 6 1 3 1 — 3 1 1 — — — — Micropsectra 7 3 — 2 — 2 — 4 — — — — — Micropsectra sp. A 7 — — — — — — — — — — — — Paratanytarsus 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Rheotanytarsus 6 15 — — — 1 — — 1 2 — — — Rheotanytarsus exiguus gr. 6 11 11 1 — 2 2 2 — — — 2 — Rheotanytarsus pellucidus 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Stempellina 2 — — — — — 2 — — — — — — Stempellina sp. C 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Stempellinella 4 1 — 10 1 1 1 1 1 — — — — Sublettea coffmani 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Tanytarsus 6 2 2 1 4 2 3 — 10 2 3 — 1 Zavrelia 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Dixidae Dixa 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — Simuliidae Simulium 5 3 2 — 1 — 1 — 1 — 2 — — Tipulidae 4 — — — — — — — 1 — — — — 148 Surface-Water Quality and Quantity, Aquatic Biology, Stream Geomorphology, and Groundwater Flow Simulation

Total taxa 33 36 33 35 25 36 30 30 27 35 31 30 Total number 196 148 139 144 94 125 164 190 112 122 159 124 Percent dominant taxa (single) 32 19 23 15 19 10 21 38 16 15 20 27 Total EPT Taxa 12 14 12 16 8 9 11 12 9 13 12 13 Total EPT 106 98 86 94 58 51 101 144 59 61 91 88 Percent EPT 54.08 66.22 61.87 65.28 61.70 40.80 61.59 76.32 52.68 50.00 57.23 70.97 HBI 4.96 4.13 3.93 3.64 3.25 3.12 3.1 4.13 3.82 3.31 3.48 4.27 Number Chironomidae taxa 12 9 8 8 11 14 7 7 7 8 4 6 Percent Chironomidae 26.53 14.86 14.39 8.33 31.91 31.20 7.93 10.00 16.96 11.48 8.18 10.48 Appendix 6 149

Aires Run below Qureg Run at Fort Stony Creek near Tolerance Qureg Run at Taxonomy Indiantown Gap, Pa. Fort Indiantown Gap, Pa. score Fort Indiantown Gap, Pa. 8/13/02 8/25/03 8/4/04 8/4/05 8/15/02 8/25/03 8/4/04 8/4/05 8/15/02 8/26/03 8/16/04 8/11/05 PLATYHELMINTHES TURBELLARIA TRICLADIDA Planariidae 1 2 4 2 1 3 — 8 — — — — — NEMERTEA ENOPLA HOPLONEMERTEA Tetrastemmatidae Prostoma 8 — — — — — — — — — — — — NEMATODA 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — ANNELIDA BRANCHIOBDELLAE 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — OLIGOCHAETA LUBRICULIDA 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Lumbriculidae 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Eclipidrilus 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Lumbriculus 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — TUBIFICIDA Enchytraeidae 10 — — — — — — — — — — — — Naididae 8 — — 2 — — — 1 — — — — — Nais 8 — — — — — — — — — — — — N. behningi 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Pristina 8 — — — — — — — — — — — — Tubificidae 10 — — — — — — — — — — — — Tubificidae w/ capilliform setae 10 1 3 — — — — — — — — — — Tubificidae w/o capilliform setae 10 — — — — — — — — — — — — LUMBRICINA 6 — — — — — 1 — — — — — — MOLLUSCA GASTROPODA MESOGASTROPODA Viviparidae Campeloma decisum 6 — 1 — — — — — — — — — — BASOMMATOPHORA Ancylidae Ferrissia 6 4 1 — — — — — — — — — — Physidae Physa 8 — — — — — — — — — — — — Planorbidae 6 1 — — — — — — — — — — — Planorbella 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — BIVALVIA VENEROIDA Corbiculidae Corbicula fluminea 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Pisidiidae 6 — — 1 1 — — — — — — — — Pisidium 6 — — — — — 1 — — — — — — Sphaerium 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — CHELICERATA ORIBATEI 8 — — — — — — — — — — — — 150 Surface-Water Quality and Quantity, Aquatic Biology, Stream Geomorphology, and Groundwater Flow Simulation

Aires Run below Qureg Run at Fort Stony Creek near Tolerance Qureg Run at Taxonomy Indiantown Gap, Pa. Fort Indiantown Gap, Pa. score Fort Indiantown Gap, Pa. 8/13/02 8/25/03 8/4/04 8/4/05 8/15/02 8/25/03 8/4/04 8/4/05 8/15/02 8/26/03 8/16/04 8/11/05 HYDRACHNIDIA 8 2 — — — 2 — — — 2 1 4 1 Hygrobatidae Atractides 8 — — — 1 — — — — — — — — Hygrobates 8 — — — — — — — — — — — — Sperchonidae Sperchon 6 — — — — — — — 1 — — — — Torrenticolidae Testudacarus 6 — — — — — — — — — — — 1 Torrenticola 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Hydryphantidae Protzia 8 — — — — — — — — — — — — Lebertiidae Lebertia 6 — — — 1 — — — — — — — — Rhynchohydracaridae Clathrosperchon 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — ARTHROPODA CRUSTACEA MALACOSTRACA ISOPODA Asellidae Caecidotea 8 — — — — — — — — — — — — Lirceus 8 — — — — — — — — — — — — AMPHIPODA Crangonyctidae Crangonyx 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Gammaridae Gammarus 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — DECAPODA Cambaridae 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Cambarus 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Orconectes 6 — — 1 — — — — — — — — — INSECTA COLLEMBOLA 10 — — — — — — — — — — — — Entomobryidae 10 — — — — — — — — — — — — Isotomidae 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Isotomurus 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — EPHEMEROPTERA Leptophlebiidae 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Habrophlebia 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Habrophlebiodes 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Paraleptophlebia 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — Ephemeridae 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Ephemera 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Litobrancha recurvata 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Caenidae Caenis 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Ephemerellidae 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — Attenella 1 — — — — — — — — — — — 1 Appendix 6 151

Aires Run below Qureg Run at Fort Stony Creek near Tolerance Qureg Run at Taxonomy Indiantown Gap, Pa. Fort Indiantown Gap, Pa. score Fort Indiantown Gap, Pa. 8/13/02 8/25/03 8/4/04 8/4/05 8/15/02 8/25/03 8/4/04 8/4/05 8/15/02 8/26/03 8/16/04 8/11/05 Drunella 0 — — — — — — — — — — — — Ephemerella 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — Eurylophella 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Serratella 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Baetidae 5 — — — 11 — — — 1 — — — — Acentrella 4 — — — — — 1 — — — — — — Acerpenna 5 — 23 12 5 — — — — 10 — 8 — Baetis 6 — 45 15 — 14 11 3 — — 9 1 — Baetis flavistriga 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Plauditus 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Isonychiidae 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Isonychia 2 — 1 1 1 5 — 2 2 — — 1 — Heptageniidae 4 — — — 1 — — — — — — — 1 Epeorus 0 — — — — — — — — — — — — Leucrocuta 1 2 3 4 6 9 3 4 3 — — — — Stenacron 7 — — — — — — — — — — — — Maccaffertium 3 1 1 — — — — — — — — — — Maccaffertium modestum 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — ODONATA 3 — — — — — — — — — — — — ANISOPTERA Aeschnidae Boyeria 2 1 — — — — — — — — — — — Cordulegastridae Cordulegaster 3 — — — — — — — — — — — 1 Gomphidae 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Lanthus 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Stylogomphus 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — Libellulidae 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — ZYGOPTERA Calopterygidae 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Calopteryx 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Hetaerina 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Coenagrionidae 8 — — — — — — — — — — — — Argia 6 7 — 1 — — 1 — — — — 1 — HEMIPTERA 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Veliidae Microvelia 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Rhagovelia 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — PLECOPTERA 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — Capniidae 3 — — — — — — — — — — — — Paracapnia 1 — — — — — — — — 1 — — — Leuctridae 0 — — — — — — — — — — — 2 Leuctra 0 — — 1 — — — — — 4 4 24 — Nemouridae 2 — — — — — — — — — — — 1 Amphinemura 3 — — — — — — — — — — — — Taeniopterygidae 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Chloroperlidae 0 — — — — — — — — — — — 1 Alloperla 0 — — — — — — — — — — — — 152 Surface-Water Quality and Quantity, Aquatic Biology, Stream Geomorphology, and Groundwater Flow Simulation

Aires Run below Qureg Run at Fort Stony Creek near Tolerance Qureg Run at Taxonomy Indiantown Gap, Pa. Fort Indiantown Gap, Pa. score Fort Indiantown Gap, Pa. 8/13/02 8/25/03 8/4/04 8/4/05 8/15/02 8/25/03 8/4/04 8/4/05 8/15/02 8/26/03 8/16/04 8/11/05 Sweltsa 0 — — — — — — — — — — 1 — Peltoperlidae 0 — — — — — — — — — — — — Tallaperla 0 — — — — — — — — — 1 3 3 Perlidae 3 — — — — — — — 1 — — 2 — Acroneuria 0 — — — — — 1 — — 1 2 2 — A. carolinensis 0 — — — — — — — — — — — — Agnetina 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Eccoptura xanthenes 3 — — — — — — — — — — — — Neoperla 3 — — — — — — — — — — — — Perlesta 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Perlodidae 2 — — — — — — — — — — — 1 Isoperla 2 — — — — — — — — — — 1 — Pteronarcyidae Pteronarcys 0 — — — — — — — — — — — — COLEOPTERA ADEPHAGA Gyrinidae Dineutus 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — POLYPHAGA Hydrophilidae Enochrus 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Hydrobius 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Psephenidae Ectopria 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Psephenus 4 49 12 3 3 54 5 15 32 — — — — Lampyridae 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Elmidae 5 — — — — — — — 1 — — — 6 Ancyronxy variegata 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Dubiraphia 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Macronychus glabratus 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Macronychus 5 2 — — — — — — — — — — — Microcylloepus 3 — — — — — — — — — 1 — — Optioservus 4 2 9 18 15 23 7 45 15 — — — — Oulimnius 4 — — — — — — — — 2 — 3 — Promoresia 2 1 — — — — — — — 30 36 59 30 Stenelmis 5 10 47 55 30 24 3 32 18 — — — — Ptilodactylidae Anchytarsus 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Curculionidae 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — MEGALOPTERA 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Corydalidae Corydalus 4 — 1 — — — — — — — — — — Nigronia 4 — — — — — — — 1 — 2 2 — Sialidae Sialis 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — TRICHOPTERA 4 — — — — — — — 3 — — — — Rhyacophilidae Rhyacophila 1 — — — — — — — — 1 — — — Appendix 6 153

Aires Run below Qureg Run at Fort Stony Creek near Tolerance Qureg Run at Taxonomy Indiantown Gap, Pa. Fort Indiantown Gap, Pa. score Fort Indiantown Gap, Pa. 8/13/02 8/25/03 8/4/04 8/4/05 8/15/02 8/25/03 8/4/04 8/4/05 8/15/02 8/26/03 8/16/04 8/11/05 Hydroptilidae 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Hydroptila 6 — — — — — — — 2 — 3 1 — Leucotrichia 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Ochrotrichia 6 — — — — — — — 3 — — — — Glossosomatidae 1 — — — — — — — — — — — 1 Glossosoma 0 — — — — — — — 1 — — — — Philopotamidae 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Chimarra 4 1 21 14 — 19 6 8 — — — — — C. aterrima 4 — — — 12 — — — 2 — — — — C. obscura 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Dolophilodes 4 — — — — — 6 1 — 1 6 1 — Wormaldia 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Psychomyiidae 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Lype 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Psychomyia 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Dipseudopsidae Phylocentropus 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Polycentropodidae 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Cyrnellus 8 — — — — — — — — — — — — Neureclipsis 7 — — — — — — — — — — — — Polycentropus 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Hydropsychidae 5 — — — 2 — — — — — — — 19 Cheumatopsyche 5 — 9 — 5 12 4 2 1 1 — — — Diplectrona 5 — — — — — 1 1 — 5 6 6 — Hydropsyche 4 — — — 5 2 1 1 3 — 1 12 2 Hydropsyche morosa gr. 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Phryganeidae Oligostomis 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Brachycentridae Micrasema 2 — — — — — — — — 2 5 1 3 Lepidostomatidae Lepidostoma 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — Limnephilidae Hydatophylax 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Pycnopsyche 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Uenoidae Neophylax 3 — — — 1 — — — — — — — — Goeridae 3 — — — — — — — — — — — — Goera 3 — — — — — — — — — — — — Leptoceridae 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Oecetis 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Molannidae Molanna 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Calamoceratidae Heteroplectron 3 — — — — — — — — — — — — Odontoceridae Psilotreta 0 — — — — — — — — — — — — LEPIDOPTERA 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — 154 Surface-Water Quality and Quantity, Aquatic Biology, Stream Geomorphology, and Groundwater Flow Simulation

Aires Run below Qureg Run at Fort Stony Creek near Tolerance Qureg Run at Taxonomy Indiantown Gap, Pa. Fort Indiantown Gap, Pa. score Fort Indiantown Gap, Pa. 8/13/02 8/25/03 8/4/04 8/4/05 8/15/02 8/25/03 8/4/04 8/4/05 8/15/02 8/26/03 8/16/04 8/11/05 Tortricidae Archips 5 — 1 — — — — — — — — — — DIPTERA (red non-midges, purple midges) 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Ceratopogonidae 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Atrichopogon 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Probezzia 6 — — — — — — — — — — 1 — Bezzia/Palpomyia 6 — — — — — — — — — — — 1 Chironomidae Tanypodinae 7 — — — — — — — 1 1 — — — Macropelopiini 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Brundiniella 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Macropelopia 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Natarsiini Natarsia 8 — 1 — — — — — — — — — — Pentaneurini Ablabesmyia 8 — 1 — — — — — — — — — — Conchapelopia 6 — — — 2 — 1 — 2 — — — 2 Nilotanypus 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Paramerina 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Rheopelopia 4 — — — — — — — — — — — 1 Thienemannimyia gr. 6 1 8 1 1 — 1 5 — 1 2 1 — Zavrelimyia 8 — — — — — — — — — — 1 — Diamesini Diamesa 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Pagastia 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — Potthastia longimana 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Orthocladiinae 5 — — — 1 — — — 1 — — — — Corynoneurini Corynoneura 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Thienemanniella 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Orthocladiini 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Brillia 5 — — — — — — — — — 1 — — Brillia flaviforms 5 — — — 1 — — — 1 — — — — Cricotopus 7 — — — — — — — 1 — — — — Cricotopus/Orthocladius 7 — — — — — — — — — — — — Cricotopus bicinctus 7 — 5 — — — — — 1 — — — — Cricotopus vierriensis 7 — — — — — — — — — — — — Diplocladius 8 — — — — — — — — — — — — Eukiefferiella 4 — — — — — — — — — — — 1 Eukiefferiella brehmi gr. 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Eukiefferiella claripennis 8 — — — — — — — — — — — — Eukiefferiella devonica gr. 4 — — — — — — — — — 3 4 — Eukiefferiella pseudomontana gr. 8 — — — — — — — — — — — — Heleniella 3 — — — — — — — — — — — — Heterotrissocladius marcidus gr. 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Krenosmittia 1 — — — — — — 1 — — — — — Limnophyes 8 — — — — — — — — — — — — Nanocladius 7 — — — — — — — — — — — — Appendix 6 155

Aires Run below Qureg Run at Fort Stony Creek near Tolerance Qureg Run at Taxonomy Indiantown Gap, Pa. Fort Indiantown Gap, Pa. score Fort Indiantown Gap, Pa. 8/13/02 8/25/03 8/4/04 8/4/05 8/15/02 8/25/03 8/4/04 8/4/05 8/15/02 8/26/03 8/16/04 8/11/05 Orthocladius lignicola 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Parachaetocladius 2 — 2 1 — 1 — 4 1 — — — 1 Paracricotopus 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Parametriocnemus 5 — 4 — — — 3 — 2 5 6 4 3 Rheocricotopus 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Rheocricotopus robacki 5 — — — — — 1 — — — — — — Tvetenia bavarica gr. 4 — 1 — — 1 1 — — 5 25 1 1 Xylotopus par 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Chironominae 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Chironomini Chironomus 10 — — — — — — — — — — — — Cryptochironomus 8 — — — — — — — — — — — — Glyptotendipes 10 — — — — — — — — — — — — Microtendipes pedellus gr. 6 — — — — — — — — 2 — — — Microtendipes rydalensis gr. 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Paralauterborniella 8 — — — — — — — — — — — — Paratendipes albimanus 6 — — — — — — — — — — 1 — Phaenopsectra 7 — — — — — — — — — — — — Polypedilum 6 — — — — 5 1 — — — — — — Polypedilum aviceps 4 — 1 1 9 — 6 — 14 6 2 6 9 Polypedilum fallax 6 — — — 1 — 1 — — — — — — Polypedilum flavum 6 — 2 — — — — — — — — — — Polypedilum illinoense 7 — — — — — — — — — — — — Polypedilum laetum 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Polypedilum scalaenum 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Polypedilum tritum 6 — — — — — — — — — — 1 — Stenochironomus 5 2 — — — — — — — — — — — Stictochironomus 9 — — — — — — — — — — — — Tribelos 7 — — — — — — — — — — — — Tanytarsini 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Cladotanytarsus 5 — — — — — — — 2 — — — — Micropsectra 7 — 2 — — — 2 — — 9 6 14 27 Micropsectra sp. A 7 — — — — — — — — — — — — Paratanytarsus 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Rheotanytarsus 6 1 — — 1 3 — — 6 3 — — 8 Rheotanytarsus exiguus gr. 6 — 5 — — — 4 1 — — — — — Rheotanytarsus pellucidus 4 — 5 — — — — — — — — 1 — Stempellina 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Stempellina sp. C 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Stempellinella 4 — 2 — 7 — 3 — 1 1 1 1 2 Sublettea coffmani 4 — — — — — — — 2 — — — — Tanytarsus 6 1 15 — 8 1 — — 1 3 — — — Zavrelia 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Dixidae Dixa 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — Simuliidae Simulium 5 — 2 — — — 29 1 — — 17 1 1 Tipulidae 4 — — — 1 — — — — — — — 1 156 Surface-Water Quality and Quantity, Aquatic Biology, Stream Geomorphology, and Groundwater Flow Simulation

Total taxa 19 32 20 27 17 28 20 33 22 23 33 30 Total number 91 240 136 133 179 107 137 129 96 141 171 133 Percent dominant taxa (single) 54 20 40 29 30 27 33 34 31 26 35 38 Total EPT Taxa 3 7 6 10 6 9 8 11 9 9 14 11 Total EPT 4 103 47 49 61 34 22 19 26 37 64 35 Percent EPT 4.40 42.92 34.56 36.84 34.08 31.78 16.06 14.73 27.08 26.24 37.43 26.32 HBI 4.52 5.12 4.65 4.45 4.31 4.44 4.28 4.38 3.42 3.32 2.78 4.28 Number Chironomidae taxa 4 14 3 9 5 11 4 14 10 8 11 10 Percent Chironomidae 5.49 22.50 2.21 23.31 6.15 22.43 8.03 27.91 37.50 32.62 20.47 41.35 Appendix 6 157

St. Joseph Springs Trout Run at Tolerance Outflow at Trout Run near Inwood, Pa. Taxonomy Fort Indiantown Gap, Pa. score Fort Indiantown Gap, Pa. 8/13/02 8/6/03 8/2/04 8/8/05 8/26/02 8/7/03 8/3/04 8/15/05 8/26/02 8/26/03 8/3/04 8/10/05 PLATYHELMINTHES TURBELLARIA TRICLADIDA Planariidae 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — NEMERTEA ENOPLA HOPLONEMERTEA Tetrastemmatidae Prostoma 8 — — — — — — — — — — — — NEMATODA 5 — — — — — — — — — — 1 — ANNELIDA BRANCHIOBDELLAE 6 — — — — — — 5 — — — — — OLIGOCHAETA LUBRICULIDA 5 — — — — 4 — — — — — — — Lumbriculidae 5 — — 3 — — — — — — — — — Eclipidrilus 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Lumbriculus 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — TUBIFICIDA Enchytraeidae 10 — — — — — — — — — — — — Naididae 8 — — — — — 1 — — — — — — Nais 8 — — — 4 — — — — — — — 3 N. behningi 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Pristina 8 — — — — — — — — — — — — Tubificidae 10 — — — — — — — — — — — — Tubificidae w/ capilliform setae 10 — — 2 — — 3 1 — — — — — Tubificidae w/o capilliform setae 10 — 1 — — — 1 — — — 1 2 — LUMBRICINA 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — MOLLUSCA GASTROPODA MESOGASTROPODA Viviparidae Campeloma decisum 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — BASOMMATOPHORA Ancylidae Ferrissia 6 — — — — — — — — 1 — — — Physidae Physa 8 — — — — — — — — — — — — Planorbidae 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Planorbella 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — BIVALVIA VENEROIDA Corbiculidae Corbicula fluminea 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Pisidiidae 6 1 — — — 1 — — 1 2 — — — Pisidium 6 — — — — — — 8 — — — — — Sphaerium 6 — — — — — 3 — — — — 6 — CHELICERATA ORIBATEI 8 — — — — — — — — — — — — 158 Surface-Water Quality and Quantity, Aquatic Biology, Stream Geomorphology, and Groundwater Flow Simulation

St. Joseph Springs Trout Run at Tolerance Outflow at Trout Run near Inwood, Pa. Taxonomy Fort Indiantown Gap, Pa. score Fort Indiantown Gap, Pa. 8/13/02 8/6/03 8/2/04 8/8/05 8/26/02 8/7/03 8/3/04 8/15/05 8/26/02 8/26/03 8/3/04 8/10/05 HYDRACHNIDIA 8 2 — 1 — — — 1 — 3 — — — Hygrobatidae Atractides 8 — — — — — — — — — — — — Hygrobates 8 — — — — — — — — — — — — Sperchonidae Sperchon 6 — — — — — — — — — — — 1 Torrenticolidae Testudacarus 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Torrenticola 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Hydryphantidae Protzia 8 — — — — — — — — — — — — Lebertiidae Lebertia 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Rhynchohydracaridae Clathrosperchon 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — ARTHROPODA CRUSTACEA MALACOSTRACA ISOPODA Asellidae Caecidotea 8 — — — — — — — — — — — — Lirceus 8 — — — — — — — — — — — — AMPHIPODA Crangonyctidae Crangonyx 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Gammaridae Gammarus 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — DECAPODA Cambaridae 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Cambarus 6 1 — 1 1 — 1 1 — — — — — Orconectes 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — INSECTA COLLEMBOLA 10 — — — — — — — — — — — — Entomobryidae 10 — — — — — — — — — — — — Isotomidae 5 — — — — 1 — 1 1 — — — — Isotomurus 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — EPHEMEROPTERA Leptophlebiidae 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Habrophlebia 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Habrophlebiodes 6 11 2 7 — — 4 — — — — 1 — Paraleptophlebia 1 — 1 1 — 5 — 9 4 2 — — 3 Ephemeridae 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Ephemera 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Litobrancha recurvata 2 — — — — 10 — — — — — — — Caenidae Caenis 6 — — — — — — — — 2 — — — Ephemerellidae 1 — — — — — — — 2 — — — 2 Attenella 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — Appendix 6 159

St. Joseph Springs Trout Run at Tolerance Outflow at Trout Run near Inwood, Pa. Taxonomy Fort Indiantown Gap, Pa. score Fort Indiantown Gap, Pa. 8/13/02 8/6/03 8/2/04 8/8/05 8/26/02 8/7/03 8/3/04 8/15/05 8/26/02 8/26/03 8/3/04 8/10/05 Drunella 0 — — — — — — — — — — — — Ephemerella 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — Eurylophella 2 — 1 3 — — 6 2 — — — — — Serratella 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Baetidae 5 — — — 6 — — — 9 — — — — Acentrella 4 — — — 2 — — — — 1 1 3 1 Acerpenna 5 — — — — — — 1 — — 1 — — Baetis 6 5 7 7 — — 2 8 — 5 3 15 7 Baetis flavistriga 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Plauditus 4 — — — — — — — — 1 — — — Isonychiidae 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Isonychia 2 — — — — — — — — — — 1 2 Heptageniidae 4 — — — — — — — 21 1 — — — Epeorus 0 — — — — — — — — — 1 — 1 Leucrocuta 1 — — 2 — — — — — 1 — — — Stenacron 7 1 — 1 — 1 — 5 — — — — — Maccaffertium 3 11 4 9 — 10 23 26 17 21 4 7 23 Maccaffertium modestum 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — ODONATA 3 — — — — — — — 2 — — — — ANISOPTERA Aeschnidae Boyeria 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Cordulegastridae Cordulegaster 3 — — — — — — — — — — — — Gomphidae 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Lanthus 5 1 1 1 — 1 2 — — — — 1 — Stylogomphus 1 — — — — — — — — — 1 — — Libellulidae 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — ZYGOPTERA Calopterygidae 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Calopteryx 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Hetaerina 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Coenagrionidae 8 — — — — — — — — — — — — Argia 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — HEMIPTERA 6 — — — — — — — 1 — — — 1 Veliidae Microvelia 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Rhagovelia 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — PLECOPTERA 1 — — — — — — — 6 — — — — Capniidae 3 — — — — — — — — — — — — Paracapnia 1 4 — — — — — — — — — — — Leuctridae 0 — — — — — — — — — — — — Leuctra 0 6 16 6 15 7 16 38 34 — — 10 3 Nemouridae 2 — 1 1 1 — 1 5 — — — — — Amphinemura 3 — 1 1 — — — — — — — — — Taeniopterygidae 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Chloroperlidae 0 — — — — 5 4 3 — — — — — Alloperla 0 — — — — — — — — — — — — 160 Surface-Water Quality and Quantity, Aquatic Biology, Stream Geomorphology, and Groundwater Flow Simulation

St. Joseph Springs Trout Run at Tolerance Outflow at Trout Run near Inwood, Pa. Taxonomy Fort Indiantown Gap, Pa. score Fort Indiantown Gap, Pa. 8/13/02 8/6/03 8/2/04 8/8/05 8/26/02 8/7/03 8/3/04 8/15/05 8/26/02 8/26/03 8/3/04 8/10/05 Sweltsa 0 — 2 3 — — — — — — — — — Peltoperlidae 0 — — — — — — — — — — — — Tallaperla 0 1 2 — 3 — — — — — — — — Perlidae 3 — — — 5 — — — — — — — 5 Acroneuria 0 2 6 3 2 1 5 2 — 1 4 4 — A. carolinensis 0 — — — — — — — — — — — — Agnetina 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Eccoptura xanthenes 3 — — — — — — — — — — — — Neoperla 3 — — — — — — — — — — — — Perlesta 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Perlodidae 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Isoperla 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Pteronarcyidae Pteronarcys 0 — — — — — — — — — — — — COLEOPTERA ADEPHAGA Gyrinidae Dineutus 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — POLYPHAGA Hydrophilidae Enochrus 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Hydrobius 5 — — — — 1 — — — — — — — Psephenidae Ectopria 5 5 7 5 — — 1 — — — — — — Psephenus 4 2 1 3 — — — — — 7 2 3 1 Lampyridae 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Elmidae 5 — — — 5 — — — — — — — 14 Ancyronxy variegata 5 — — — — — — — — — — — 1 Dubiraphia 6 — — — — — — — 1 — — — — Macronychus glabratus 5 — — — — — — — — — — — 1 Macronychus 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Microcylloepus 3 — — — — — — — — — — — — Optioservus 4 2 — — 2 — — — — 2 4 — 6 Oulimnius 4 3 1 6 — — 1 — — 6 1 5 — Promoresia 2 — — — — — — — — 9 4 15 2 Stenelmis 5 — — — — — — — — 2 1 2 2 Ptilodactylidae Anchytarsus 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Curculionidae 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — MEGALOPTERA 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Corydalidae Corydalus 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Nigronia 4 — — 1 — — — — — 2 — 3 7 Sialidae Sialis 4 — — 1 — 3 1 2 1 — — 1 — TRICHOPTERA 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Rhyacophilidae Rhyacophila 1 — — 1 — — 1 — — — — — 2 Appendix 6 161

St. Joseph Springs Trout Run at Tolerance Outflow at Trout Run near Inwood, Pa. Taxonomy Fort Indiantown Gap, Pa. score Fort Indiantown Gap, Pa. 8/13/02 8/6/03 8/2/04 8/8/05 8/26/02 8/7/03 8/3/04 8/15/05 8/26/02 8/26/03 8/3/04 8/10/05 Hydroptilidae 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Hydroptila 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Leucotrichia 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Ochrotrichia 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Glossosomatidae 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — Glossosoma 0 — — — — — — — — — 1 1 — Philopotamidae 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Chimarra 4 — — — — — — — — 3 1 — — C. aterrima 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — C. obscura 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Dolophilodes 4 9 9 1 29 — — 2 — 2 28 13 — Wormaldia 2 — 2 — — — — — — — — — — Psychomyiidae 2 — — — — — 2 — — — — — — Lype 2 — — — — — — — — 2 — 1 1 Psychomyia 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Dipseudopsidae Phylocentropus 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Polycentropodidae 6 — — — 3 — — — — — — — — Cyrnellus 8 — — — — — — — — — — — — Neureclipsis 7 — — — — — — — — — — — — Polycentropus 6 — — 1 — — — — — — — — — Hydropsychidae 5 — — — 25 — — — 8 — — — 5 Cheumatopsyche 5 — — — — — — — — 4 5 12 2 Diplectrona 5 5 14 28 — 1 4 5 5 1 1 2 — Hydropsyche 4 2 4 8 32 — — 1 3 2 5 41 17 Hydropsyche morosa gr. 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Phryganeidae Oligostomis 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Brachycentridae Micrasema 2 — — — — — — — — 1 1 1 — Lepidostomatidae Lepidostoma 1 — — — — — 1 — — — — — — Limnephilidae Hydatophylax 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Pycnopsyche 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Uenoidae Neophylax 3 — — — — — — — — — — — — Goeridae 3 — — — — — — — — — — — — Goera 3 — — — — — — — — — — — — Leptoceridae 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Oecetis 5 — — — — — — 1 — — — — — Molannidae Molanna 6 — — — — 1 2 — — — — — — Calamoceratidae Heteroplectron 3 — — — — — — — — — — — — Odontoceridae Psilotreta 0 — — — — — — — — — — — — LEPIDOPTERA 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — 162 Surface-Water Quality and Quantity, Aquatic Biology, Stream Geomorphology, and Groundwater Flow Simulation

St. Joseph Springs Trout Run at Tolerance Outflow at Trout Run near Inwood, Pa. Taxonomy Fort Indiantown Gap, Pa. score Fort Indiantown Gap, Pa. 8/13/02 8/6/03 8/2/04 8/8/05 8/26/02 8/7/03 8/3/04 8/15/05 8/26/02 8/26/03 8/3/04 8/10/05 Tortricidae Archips 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — DIPTERA (red non-midges, purple midges) 6 — — — — — — — 1 — — — — Ceratopogonidae 6 — — — — 1 — — — — — — — Atrichopogon 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Probezzia 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Bezzia/Palpomyia 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Chironomidae Tanypodinae 7 — — — — — — — — — — — — Macropelopiini 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Brundiniella 6 — 1 — — — — — — — — — — Macropelopia 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Natarsiini Natarsia 8 — — — — — — — — — — — — Pentaneurini Ablabesmyia 8 — — — — — — — — — — — — Conchapelopia 6 — — — 1 — 2 — — — — 1 1 Nilotanypus 6 — — — — — 1 — — — — — — Paramerina 6 — — — — 1 — — — — — — — Rheopelopia 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Thienemannimyia gr. 6 4 6 1 — 1 5 2 — 1 2 — — Zavrelimyia 8 — — — — 2 — — 2 — — — — Diamesini Diamesa 5 — — — — — — — — — 5 — — Pagastia 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — Potthastia longimana 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Orthocladiinae 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Corynoneurini Corynoneura 4 1 — — — 1 — — — — — — — Thienemanniella 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Orthocladiini 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Brillia 5 — — — — — 5 — — — — — — Brillia flaviforms 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Cricotopus 7 — — — — — — — — — — — — Cricotopus/Orthocladius 7 — — — — — — — — — — — — Cricotopus bicinctus 7 — — — — — — — — — — — — Cricotopus vierriensis 7 — — — — — — — — — — — — Diplocladius 8 — — — — — — — — — — — — Eukiefferiella 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Eukiefferiella brehmi gr. 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Eukiefferiella claripennis 8 — — — — — — — — — — — — Eukiefferiella devonica gr. 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Eukiefferiella pseudomontana gr. 8 — — — — — — — — — — — — Heleniella 3 — — — — — — — — — — — — Heterotrissocladius marcidus gr. 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Krenosmittia 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — Limnophyes 8 — — — — — — — — — — — — Nanocladius 7 — — — — — — — — — — — — Appendix 6 163

St. Joseph Springs Trout Run at Tolerance Outflow at Trout Run near Inwood, Pa. Taxonomy Fort Indiantown Gap, Pa. score Fort Indiantown Gap, Pa. 8/13/02 8/6/03 8/2/04 8/8/05 8/26/02 8/7/03 8/3/04 8/15/05 8/26/02 8/26/03 8/3/04 8/10/05 Orthocladius lignicola 6 — — — — — 2 — — — — — — Parachaetocladius 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Paracricotopus 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Parametriocnemus 5 2 2 3 1 6 3 1 — — 1 — — Rheocricotopus 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Rheocricotopus robacki 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Tvetenia bavarica gr. 4 — — 1 — — 2 1 — — 5 — 2 Xylotopus par 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Chironominae 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Chironomini Chironomus 10 — — — — — — — — — — — — Cryptochironomus 8 — — — — 1 — — — — — — — Glyptotendipes 10 — — — — — — — — — — — — Microtendipes pedellus gr. 6 — — — — — — — — 2 — — 2 Microtendipes rydalensis gr. 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Paralauterborniella 8 — — — — 1 — — — — — — — Paratendipes albimanus 6 — — — — 4 — — — — — — — Phaenopsectra 7 — — — — — — — — — — — — Polypedilum 6 1 — — — 8 1 — — 9 — 1 — Polypedilum aviceps 4 — — — 4 — — — — — 13 1 5 Polypedilum fallax 6 — 1 — — — — — — — — — — Polypedilum flavum 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Polypedilum illinoense 7 — — — — — — — — — — — — Polypedilum laetum 6 — — — — 1 — — — — — — — Polypedilum scalaenum 6 — — — — 1 — — — — — — — Polypedilum tritum 6 — — 1 — — — — — — — — — Stenochironomus 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Stictochironomus 9 — — — — — — — — — — — — Tribelos 7 — — — — — — — — — — — — Tanytarsini 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Cladotanytarsus 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Micropsectra 7 2 3 1 — 1 3 1 — 3 2 — 2 Micropsectra sp. A 7 — — — — — — — — — — — — Paratanytarsus 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Rheotanytarsus 6 1 — — — 2 — — 3 — — — — Rheotanytarsus exiguus gr. 6 1 1 — — — — 2 — 6 5 4 — Rheotanytarsus pellucidus 4 — — — — — 3 1 — 2 — — — Stempellina 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Stempellina sp. C 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Stempellinella 4 2 — 1 — 8 — 6 — 2 2 3 1 Sublettea coffmani 4 — — — — — — — — 1 — — 1 Tanytarsus 6 — 7 2 1 4 — 3 — — — — — Zavrelia 4 — — — — 4 — — — — — — — Dixidae Dixa 1 Simuliidae Simulium 5 — — 1 — — 1 1 — 1 6 — — Tipulidae 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — 164 Surface-Water Quality and Quantity, Aquatic Biology, Stream Geomorphology, and Groundwater Flow Simulation

St. Joseph Springs Trout Run at Tolerance Outflow at Trout Run near Inwood, Pa. Taxonomy Fort Indiantown Gap, Pa. score Fort Indiantown Gap, Pa. 8/13/02 8/6/03 8/2/04 8/8/05 8/26/02 8/7/03 8/3/04 8/15/05 8/26/02 8/26/03 8/3/04 8/10/05 Tipula 6 — — — — — — — 1 — — — — Antocha 3 — — — — — — — — — 1 — — Dicranota 3 — 3 — 3 — 3 — — 1 3 3 — Hexatoma 2 1 2 2 — — — — — — — 1 — Limnophila 3 — — — — — — — — — — — — Limonia 6 — — — — 2 — — — — — — — Molophilus 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Pilaria 7 — — — — — — — — — — — — Athericidae Atherix 4 — — — — — — — — 1 — — 8 Empididae 6 — — — — — — — 1 — — — — Chelifera 6 2 2 2 — — 1 — — — — — — Clinocera 6 — — — — — — — — — — — 1 Hemerodromia 6 — — — 3 — — — — — 1 4 1 Stratiomyidae 7 — — — — — — — — — — — — Tabanidae Chrysops 5 — — — — 2 1 — — — — — — Ephydridae 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Psychodidae 10 — — — — — — — — — — — —

Total taxa 29 30 37 21 34 36 30 21 36 32 32 35 Total number 91 111 122 148 103 118 145 124 113 116 169 137 Percent dominant taxa (single) 12 14 23 23 10 19 26 29 19 24 24 19 Total EPT Taxa 11 15 17 11 9 13 14 10 16 13 14 14 Total EPT 57 72 83 123 41 71 108 103 50 56 112 74 Percent EPT 62.64 64.86 68.03 83.11 39.81 60.17 74.48 84.68 44.25 48.28 66.27 54.01 HBI 3.54 2.71 2.98 3.87 4.29 3.46 2.78 2.85 4.03 3.06 3.48 3.97 Number Chironomidae taxa 8 7 7 4 16 10 8 2 8 8 5 7 Percent Chironomidae 15.38 18.92 8.20 4.73 44.66 22.88 11.72 4.03 23.01 30.17 5.92 10.22 Appendix 6 165

Unnamed Tributary to Tributary along Unnamed Tributary to Tolerance Manada Creek near Horseshoe Trail to Manada Manada Creek at Rt 443 near Taxonomy score Manada Gap, Pa. Creek at Manada Gap, Pa. Manada Gap, Pa. 8/12/02 8/5/03 7/28/04 8/9/05 8/1/02 8/13/03 8/6/04 8/9/05 8/14/02 8/6/03 8/6/04 8/16/05 HYDRACHNIDIA 8 — — — 5 2 — 1 — 1 — 8 — Hygrobatidae Atractides 8 — — — — — — — — — — — — Hygrobates 8 — — — — — — — — — — — — Sperchonidae Sperchon 6 — — — — — — — — — — — 1 Torrenticolidae Testudacarus 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Torrenticola 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Hydryphantidae Protzia 8 — — — — — — — — — — — — Lebertiidae Lebertia 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Rhynchohydracaridae Clathrosperchon 6 — — — 1 — — — — — — — — ARTHROPODA CRUSTACEA MALACOSTRACA ISOPODA Asellidae Caecidotea 8 — — — — — — — — — — — — Lirceus 8 — — — — — — — — — — — — AMPHIPODA Crangonyctidae Crangonyx 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Gammaridae Gammarus 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — DECAPODA Cambaridae 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Cambarus 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Orconectes 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — INSECTA COLLEMBOLA 10 — — — — — — — — — — — — Entomobryidae 10 — — — — — 1 — — — — — — Isotomidae 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Isotomurus 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — EPHEMEROPTERA Leptophlebiidae 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Habrophlebia 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Habrophlebiodes 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Paraleptophlebia 1 1 — 3 — — — 2 — — — — — Ephemeridae 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Ephemera 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Litobrancha recurvata 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Caenidae Caenis 6 6 — — — — — — — — — — — Ephemerellidae 1 — — 3 3 1 — — 4 — — 1 4 Attenella 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — Appendix 6 167

Unnamed Tributary to Tributary along Unnamed Tributary to Tolerance Manada Creek near Horseshoe Trail to Manada Manada Creek at Rt 443 near Taxonomy score Manada Gap, Pa. Creek at Manada Gap, Pa. Manada Gap, Pa. 8/12/02 8/5/03 7/28/04 8/9/05 8/1/02 8/13/03 8/6/04 8/9/05 8/14/02 8/6/03 8/6/04 8/16/05 Drunella 0 — — — — — — — — — — — — Ephemerella 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — Eurylophella 2 1 1 6 — — — 1 — — — — — Serratella 2 1 — — — — — — — — — — — Baetidae 5 — — — 3 1 — — — — — — — Acentrella 4 — — — — — — — — — — — 1 Acerpenna 5 — — — 1 — — — — — — — — Baetis 6 8 6 3 — 12 2 — — 2 7 14 10 Baetis flavistriga 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Plauditus 4 — — 1 — — — — — — — — — Isonychiidae 2 — — 1 — — — — — — — — Isonychia 2 1 — 3 — — — — 4 8 2 — 1 Heptageniidae 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Epeorus 0 — — — — — — — 1 — — — — Leucrocuta 1 1 1 — — — — — — — — — — Stenacron 7 — — — — — — — — 1 — 1 — Maccaffertium 3 16 2 16 2 10 14 10 15 34 5 6 22 Maccaffertium modestum 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — ODONATA 3 — — — — — — — — — — — — ANISOPTERA Aeschnidae Boyeria 2 — — — — — — — 1 — — — — Cordulegastridae Cordulegaster 3 — — — — 1 — — — — — — — Gomphidae 4 1 — — 1 — — — — — — — — Lanthus 5 — — — — — — 2 — 1 — — — Stylogomphus 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — Libellulidae 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — ZYGOPTERA Calopterygidae 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Calopteryx 6 11 — — — — — — — — — — — Hetaerina 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Coenagrionidae 8 — — 6 5 — — — — — — — 1 Argia 6 1 1 — — — — — — — — — — HEMIPTERA 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Veliidae Microvelia 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Rhagovelia 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — PLECOPTERA 1 — — — — — — — 2 — — — — Capniidae 3 — — — 1 — — — — — — — — Paracapnia 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — Leuctridae 0 — — — — — — — — — — — — Leuctra 0 7 6 16 — 17 14 17 1 6 — 2 — Nemouridae 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Amphinemura 3 — — — — — — — — — — — — Taeniopterygidae 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Chloroperlidae 0 — — — — — — — — — — — — Alloperla 0 — — — — — — 1 — — — — — 168 Surface-Water Quality and Quantity, Aquatic Biology, Stream Geomorphology, and Groundwater Flow Simulation

Unnamed Tributary to Tributary along Unnamed Tributary to Tolerance Manada Creek near Horseshoe Trail to Manada Manada Creek at Rt 443 near Taxonomy score Manada Gap, Pa. Creek at Manada Gap, Pa. Manada Gap, Pa. 8/12/02 8/5/03 7/28/04 8/9/05 8/1/02 8/13/03 8/6/04 8/9/05 8/14/02 8/6/03 8/6/04 8/16/05 Sweltsa 0 — — — — — — — — — — — — Peltoperlidae 0 — — — — — — — 1 — — — — Tallaperla 0 — — — 1 7 1 — — — — — — Perlidae 3 — — — — — — — 2 — — — 2 Acroneuria 0 1 — 1 — 4 8 2 — 2 1 1 — A. carolinensis 0 — — — — — — — — — — — — Agnetina 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Eccoptura xanthenes 3 — — — — — — — 1 — — — — Neoperla 3 — — — — — — — — — — — — Perlesta 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Perlodidae 2 — — — 2 — — — 1 — — 1 — Isoperla 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Pteronarcyidae Pteronarcys 0 — 1 — — — — — — — — — — COLEOPTERA ADEPHAGA Gyrinidae Dineutus 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — POLYPHAGA Hydrophilidae Enochrus 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Hydrobius 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Psephenidae Ectopria 5 — — 1 — — — — — 1 — — — Psephenus 4 — — 1 — — — — — 1 — — — Lampyridae 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Elmidae 5 — — — 1 — — — 1 — — — — Ancyronxy variegata 5 — — — — — — — — — — — 2 Dubiraphia 6 — 2 1 — — — — — — — — — Macronychus glabratus 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Macronychus 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Microcylloepus 3 — — — — — — — — — 1 — — Optioservus 4 4 — — 2 — 1 — 2 4 3 1 1 Oulimnius 4 — 1 5 — 5 3 6 — — 1 1 — Promoresia 2 1 22 79 36 — 1 5 — 9 8 29 12 Stenelmis 5 — — — — — 1 1 1 — — 2 — Ptilodactylidae Anchytarsus 5 — — — — — — — — — 1 — — Curculionidae 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — MEGALOPTERA 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Corydalidae Corydalus 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Nigronia 4 1 — 1 — — 4 1 1 5 7 10 9 Sialidae Sialis 4 — 1 — — — 1 — — — — — — TRICHOPTERA 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Rhyacophilidae Rhyacophila 1 — — 1 — — 1 3 — — — 2 — Appendix 6 169

Unnamed Tributary to Tributary along Unnamed Tributary to Tolerance Manada Creek near Horseshoe Trail to Manada Manada Creek at Rt 443 near Taxonomy score Manada Gap, Pa. Creek at Manada Gap, Pa. Manada Gap, Pa. 8/12/02 8/5/03 7/28/04 8/9/05 8/1/02 8/13/03 8/6/04 8/9/05 8/14/02 8/6/03 8/6/04 8/16/05 Hydroptilidae 6 — — — 1 — — — — — — — — Hydroptila 6 2 — — — — — — — — — — — Leucotrichia 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Ochrotrichia 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Glossosomatidae 1 — — — — — — — — — — — 1 Glossosoma 0 — — — — — — 2 — — 3 1 — Philopotamidae 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Chimarra 4 — — — — — — — — — 2 — — C. aterrima 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — C. obscura 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Dolophilodes 4 — — — — 4 4 1 3 6 13 6 2 Wormaldia 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Psychomyiidae 2 — — — — — — — 2 — — — — Lype 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Psychomyia 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Dipseudopsidae Phylocentropus 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Polycentropodidae 6 1 — — — — — — — — — — — Cyrnellus 8 — — — — — — — — — — — — Neureclipsis 7 — — — — — — — — — — — — Polycentropus 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Hydropsychidae 5 — 1 — 7 — — — 10 — — — 10 Cheumatopsyche 5 — 1 7 — 6 2 — 8 11 15 12 4 Diplectrona 5 — — 3 — 4 10 18 — — — 4 — Hydropsyche 4 — — 1 — 2 — 15 2 2 2 23 15 Hydropsyche morosa gr. 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Phryganeidae Oligostomis 2 — 1 2 — — — — — — — — — Brachycentridae Micrasema 2 — — 2 — — — — — — 1 4 — Lepidostomatidae Lepidostoma 1 — — — — 1 — — — — — — — Limnephilidae Hydatophylax 2 — — — — — 1 — — — — — — Pycnopsyche 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Uenoidae Neophylax 3 — — — — — — — — — — — — Goeridae 3 — — — 1 — — — — — — — — Goera 3 — — — — — — — — — — — — Leptoceridae 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Oecetis 5 — — 1 — — — — — — — — — Molannidae Molanna 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Calamoceratidae Heteroplectron 3 — — — — — — — — — — — — Odontoceridae Psilotreta 0 — — 2 — — 2 2 — — — — — LEPIDOPTERA 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — 170 Surface-Water Quality and Quantity, Aquatic Biology, Stream Geomorphology, and Groundwater Flow Simulation

Unnamed Tributary to Tributary along Unnamed Tributary to Tolerance Manada Creek near Horseshoe Trail to Manada Manada Creek at Rt 443 near Taxonomy score Manada Gap, Pa. Creek at Manada Gap, Pa. Manada Gap, Pa. 8/12/02 8/5/03 7/28/04 8/9/05 8/1/02 8/13/03 8/6/04 8/9/05 8/14/02 8/6/03 8/6/04 8/16/05 Tortricidae Archips 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — DIPTERA (red non-midges, purple midges) 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Ceratopogonidae 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Atrichopogon 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Probezzia 6 — — — — — 1 — — — — — — Bezzia/Palpomyia 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Chironomidae Tanypodinae 7 — — — 1 — — — — — — — 1 Macropelopiini 6 — — 1 — — — — — — — — — Brundiniella 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Macropelopia 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Natarsiini Natarsia 8 — — — — — — — 1 — — — — Pentaneurini Ablabesmyia 8 — — — — — — — — — — — — Conchapelopia 6 — — — — — — — 1 — — — — Nilotanypus 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Paramerina 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Rheopelopia 4 — — — 1 — — — 1 1 — 3 — Thienemannimyia gr. 6 5 2 6 1 — 1 — 3 — 2 — — Zavrelimyia 8 — — — — — — — — — — — — Diamesini Diamesa 5 — — — — — — — — — 6 — 1 Pagastia 1 — 1 — — — 1 — — — 3 — — Potthastia longimana 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Orthocladiinae 5 — — — 1 — — 1 1 — — — — Corynoneurini Corynoneura 4 — 1 — — — — — — — — — — Thienemanniella 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Orthocladiini 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Brillia 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Brillia flaviforms 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Cricotopus 7 — — — 2 — — — — — — — — Cricotopus/Orthocladius 7 — — — — — — — — — — — — Cricotopus bicinctus 7 — 1 2 — — — — — — — — — Cricotopus vierriensis 7 — — — — — — 1 — — — — — Diplocladius 8 — — — — — — — — — — — — Eukiefferiella 4 — 1 — 31 — — — 1 — — 4 — Eukiefferiella brehmi gr. 4 — 2 — — — — — — — — — — Eukiefferiella claripennis 8 — — — — — — — — — — — — Eukiefferiella devonica gr. 4 — — — — — — 1 — — — — — Eukiefferiella pseudomontana gr. 8 — — — 1 — — — — — — — — Heleniella 3 — 1 — — — — — — — — — — Heterotrissocladius marcidus gr. 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Krenosmittia 1 — — 1 — — — — — — — — — Limnophyes 8 — — — — — — — — — — — — Nanocladius 7 1 — — — 1 — — — — — — 1 Appendix 6 171

Unnamed Tributary to Tributary along Unnamed Tributary to Tolerance Manada Creek near Horseshoe Trail to Manada Manada Creek at Rt 443 near Taxonomy score Manada Gap, Pa. Creek at Manada Gap, Pa. Manada Gap, Pa. 8/12/02 8/5/03 7/28/04 8/9/05 8/1/02 8/13/03 8/6/04 8/9/05 8/14/02 8/6/03 8/6/04 8/16/05 Orthocladius lignicola 6 — — — — — — 2 5 — — 1 — Parachaetocladius 2 — — — 2 — — — — — — — — Paracricotopus 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Parametriocnemus 5 2 1 9 — — 1 1 2 — 1 2 — Rheocricotopus 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Rheocricotopus robacki 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Tvetenia bavarica gr. 4 — — 8 1 2 1 2 — 1 4 3 — Xylotopus par 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Chironominae 5 — — — 1 — — — — — — — — Chironomini Chironomus 10 — — — — — — — — — — — — Cryptochironomus 8 — — — — — — — — — — — — Glyptotendipes 10 — — — — — — — — — — — — Microtendipes pedellus gr. 6 — — — — — — — 1 — — — — Microtendipes rydalensis gr. 4 — — — — — — — — — — — 1 Paralauterborniella 8 — — — — — — — — — — — — Paratendipes albimanus 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Phaenopsectra 7 — — — — — — — — — — — 1 Polypedilum 6 — — — 1 4 — 1 1 — — — — Polypedilum aviceps 4 — 3 3 6 — 1 2 13 — 5 — — Polypedilum fallax 6 — — 1 — — — — — — — — — Polypedilum flavum 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Polypedilum illinoense 7 — — — — — — — — — — — — Polypedilum laetum 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Polypedilum scalaenum 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Polypedilum tritum 6 — — 1 — — — — — — — — — Stenochironomus 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Stictochironomus 9 — — — — — 1 — — — — — — Tribelos 7 — — — — — — — — — — — — Tanytarsini 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Cladotanytarsus 5 1 — 1 5 — — — 1 — — — 1 Micropsectra 7 5 3 — — 2 6 — — 1 — 3 17 Micropsectra sp. A 7 — — — — — — — — — — — — Paratanytarsus 6 — — 1 — — — — — — — — — Rheotanytarsus 6 9 — — 14 5 — — 5 2 — — — Rheotanytarsus exiguus gr. 6 5 3 2 — 3 8 1 — — 18 2 — Rheotanytarsus pellucidus 4 — — — — — — — — — 1 1 — Stempellina 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Stempellina sp. C 4 — 1 — — — — — — — — — — Stempellinella 4 5 13 10 10 1 — — 5 — 2 — 1 Sublettea coffmani 4 — 3 — — — — — — — — — — Tanytarsus 6 — — 2 28 1 1 1 18 — 1 — 2 Zavrelia 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Dixidae Dixa 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — Simuliidae Simulium 5 — 1 3 — — 1 — — — — 2 — Tipulidae 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — 172 Surface-Water Quality and Quantity, Aquatic Biology, Stream Geomorphology, and Groundwater Flow Simulation

Total taxa 31 33 46 38 26 35 37 43 26 31 34 33 Total number 103 93 226 184 102 111 127 134 107 141 282 145 Percent dominant taxa (single) 15 24 35 45 17 13 14 20 32 13 43 18 Total EPT Taxa 12 9 17 11 12 11 12 15 9 10 14 11 Total EPT 46 20 71 23 69 59 74 55 72 51 78 72 Percent EPT 44.66 21.51 31.42 11.96 67.65 53.15 58.27 41.04 67.29 36.17 27.66 49.66 HBI 4.55 3.82 3.15 4.39 3.27 2.64 2.8 4.44 3.22 3.89 5.4 4.44 Number Chironomidae taxa 8 14 14 16 8 9 10 15 4 10 8 9 Percent Chironomidae 32.04 38.71 21.24 57.61 18.63 18.92 10.24 44.03 4.67 30.50 6.74 17.93 Appendix 6 173

Unnamed Tributary to Unnamed Tributary to Tolerance Manada Creek near Indiantown Run at Vesle Run at Indiantown, Pa. Taxonomy score Sand Beach, Pa. Fort Indiantown Gap, Pa. 8/1/402 8/13/03 8/6/04 8/15/05 7/30/02 8/6/03 8/2/04 8/8/05 7/31/02 8/11/03 7/29/04 8/3/05 HYDRACHNIDIA 8 1 — — — — — — — — — 1 — Hygrobatidae Atractides 8 — — — — — — — — — — — — Hygrobates 8 — — — — — — — — — — — — Sperchonidae Sperchon 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Torrenticolidae Testudacarus 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Torrenticola 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Hydryphantidae Protzia 8 — — — — — — — — — — — — Lebertiidae Lebertia 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Rhynchohydracaridae Clathrosperchon 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — ARTHROPODA CRUSTACEA MALACOSTRACA ISOPODA Asellidae Caecidotea 8 — — — — — — — — — — — — Lirceus 8 — — — — — — — — — — — — AMPHIPODA Crangonyctidae Crangonyx 6 — — — — — — — — — 1 — — Gammaridae Gammarus 6 5 2 3 2 — — — — — — — — DECAPODA Cambaridae 6 1 — — — — — — — — — — — Cambarus 6 — — — — — 1 — — — — — — Orconectes 6 — — — — — — — — 1 — — — INSECTA COLLEMBOLA 10 — — — — — — — — — — — 1 Entomobryidae 10 — — — — — — — — — — — — Isotomidae 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Isotomurus 5 — — — — — — — — — — 1 — EPHEMEROPTERA Leptophlebiidae 4 — — — — 1 — — 1 — — — — Habrophlebia 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Habrophlebiodes 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Paraleptophlebia 1 — — — — — 1 5 — — — — — Ephemeridae 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Ephemera 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Litobrancha recurvata 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Caenidae Caenis 6 — — — — — — — — 1 — — — Ephemerellidae 1 — — — — — — — 3 — — — — Attenella 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — Appendix 6 175

Unnamed Tributary to Unnamed Tributary to Tolerance Manada Creek near Indiantown Run at Vesle Run at Indiantown, Pa. Taxonomy score Sand Beach, Pa. Fort Indiantown Gap, Pa. 8/1/402 8/13/03 8/6/04 8/15/05 7/30/02 8/6/03 8/2/04 8/8/05 7/31/02 8/11/03 7/29/04 8/3/05 Drunella 0 — — — — — — — — — — — — Ephemerella 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — Eurylophella 2 — — — — — — 1 — — — — — Serratella 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Baetidae 5 — — — 6 — — — 1 — — — — Acentrella 4 — — — — — — — 1 — — — — Acerpenna 5 — — — — — — 3 — — — — — Baetis 6 8 13 16 — — 28 — — 10 1 8 8 Baetis flavistriga 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Plauditus 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Isonychiidae 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Isonychia 2 — — 1 — 1 — 1 1 8 1 5 4 Heptageniidae 4 — — — 6 — — — — — — — 6 Epeorus 0 — — — — — — — — — — — — Leucrocuta 1 — 4 1 4 — — — — 25 — — 5 Stenacron 7 — — — — — — 1 — — — — — Maccaffertium 3 1 2 — — 28 62 46 81 2 1 39 7 Maccaffertium modestum 1 — — — — — — — 7 — — — — ODONATA 3 — — — — — — — — — — — — ANISOPTERA Aeschnidae Boyeria 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Cordulegastridae Cordulegaster 3 — — — — — — — — — — — — Gomphidae 4 — — — — 1 — — — — — — — Lanthus 5 — — — — — — — — — — 1 — Stylogomphus 1 — — — — — — — — — — 1 — Libellulidae 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — ZYGOPTERA Calopterygidae 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Calopteryx 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Hetaerina 6 1 — — — — — — — — — — — Coenagrionidae 8 — — — — 3 — — — — — — — Argia 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — HEMIPTERA 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Veliidae Microvelia 6 — — — 2 — — — — — — — — Rhagovelia 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — PLECOPTERA 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — Capniidae 3 — — — — — — — — — — — — Paracapnia 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — Leuctridae 0 — — — — — — — 4 — — — — Leuctra 0 — — — — 11 10 21 60 — — — — Nemouridae 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Amphinemura 3 — — — — — — — — — — — — Taeniopterygidae 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Chloroperlidae 0 — — — — — — — — — — — — Alloperla 0 — — — — — — — — — — — — 176 Surface-Water Quality and Quantity, Aquatic Biology, Stream Geomorphology, and Groundwater Flow Simulation

Unnamed Tributary to Unnamed Tributary to Tolerance Manada Creek near Indiantown Run at Vesle Run at Indiantown, Pa. Taxonomy score Sand Beach, Pa. Fort Indiantown Gap, Pa. 8/1/402 8/13/03 8/6/04 8/15/05 7/30/02 8/6/03 8/2/04 8/8/05 7/31/02 8/11/03 7/29/04 8/3/05 Sweltsa 0 — — — — 1 — — — — — — — Peltoperlidae 0 — — — — — — — — — — — — Tallaperla 0 — — — — — — — — — — — — Perlidae 3 — — — — — — — 1 — — — — Acroneuria 0 — 1 — — — 3 2 — 3 — 6 — A. carolinensis 0 — — — — — — — — — — — — Agnetina 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Eccoptura xanthenes 3 — — — — — — — — — — — — Neoperla 3 — — 1 5 — — — — — — — — Perlesta 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Perlodidae 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Isoperla 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Pteronarcyidae Pteronarcys 0 — — — — — — — — — — — — COLEOPTERA ADEPHAGA Gyrinidae Dineutus 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — POLYPHAGA Hydrophilidae Enochrus 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Hydrobius 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Psephenidae Ectopria 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Psephenus 4 6 1 4 1 — — — — 29 1 14 51 Lampyridae 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Elmidae 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Ancyronxy variegata 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Dubiraphia 6 — — — — — — — 8 — — — — Macronychus glabratus 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Macronychus 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Microcylloepus 3 — — — — — — — — — — — — Optioservus 4 9 22 24 16 1 5 — 5 17 3 22 20 Oulimnius 4 — — — — 6 20 10 — — — — — Promoresia 2 — — — — 1 1 — — — — — — Stenelmis 5 14 27 44 31 — 5 4 2 24 2 25 9 Ptilodactylidae Anchytarsus 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Curculionidae 5 — — — — — — — — 1 — — — MEGALOPTERA 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Corydalidae Corydalus 4 — — — — — — — — — 1 — — Nigronia 4 — — — — 1 5 — 9 — — — — Sialidae Sialis 4 — — — — — — — — 1 — — — TRICHOPTERA 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Rhyacophilidae Rhyacophila 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — Appendix 6 177

Unnamed Tributary to Unnamed Tributary to Tolerance Manada Creek near Indiantown Run at Vesle Run at Indiantown, Pa. Taxonomy score Sand Beach, Pa. Fort Indiantown Gap, Pa. 8/1/402 8/13/03 8/6/04 8/15/05 7/30/02 8/6/03 8/2/04 8/8/05 7/31/02 8/11/03 7/29/04 8/3/05 Hydroptilidae 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Hydroptila 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Leucotrichia 6 — — — — — — — — — — — 1 Ochrotrichia 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Glossosomatidae 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — Glossosoma 0 — — — — — — — — — — — 1 Philopotamidae 4 — — — — — — — 2 — — — — Chimarra 4 22 11 4 4 — 7 — — 10 2 2 — C. aterrima 4 — — — 11 — — — 7 — — — — C. obscura 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Dolophilodes 4 — — — — — — — 9 — — — — Wormaldia 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Psychomyiidae 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Lype 2 — — — — — — — — — — 2 — Psychomyia 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Dipseudopsidae Phylocentropus 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Polycentropodidae 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Cyrnellus 8 — — — — — — — — — — — — Neureclipsis 7 — — — — — — — — — — — — Polycentropus 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Hydropsychidae 5 — — — 11 — — — 24 — — — — Cheumatopsyche 5 3 10 12 5 28 4 1 4 7 84 6 — Diplectrona 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Hydropsyche 4 — 1 14 5 6 45 9 15 6 5 18 4 Hydropsyche morosa gr. 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Phryganeidae Oligostomis 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Brachycentridae Micrasema 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Lepidostomatidae Lepidostoma 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — Limnephilidae Hydatophylax 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Pycnopsyche 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Uenoidae Neophylax 3 — — — — — — — — — — — — Goeridae 3 — — — — — — — — — — — — Goera 3 — — — — — — — — — — — — Leptoceridae 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Oecetis 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Molannidae Molanna 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Calamoceratidae Heteroplectron 3 — — — — — — — — — — — — Odontoceridae Psilotreta 0 — — — — 1 — — — — — — — LEPIDOPTERA 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — 178 Surface-Water Quality and Quantity, Aquatic Biology, Stream Geomorphology, and Groundwater Flow Simulation

Unnamed Tributary to Unnamed Tributary to Tolerance Manada Creek near Indiantown Run at Vesle Run at Indiantown, Pa. Taxonomy score Sand Beach, Pa. Fort Indiantown Gap, Pa. 8/1/402 8/13/03 8/6/04 8/15/05 7/30/02 8/6/03 8/2/04 8/8/05 7/31/02 8/11/03 7/29/04 8/3/05 Tortricidae Archips 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — DIPTERA (red non-midges, purple midges) 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Ceratopogonidae 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Atrichopogon 6 — — — — — — 1 1 — — — — Probezzia 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Bezzia/Palpomyia 6 — — — — — — — 1 — — — — Chironomidae Tanypodinae 7 — — — 1 — — — — — — — — Macropelopiini 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Brundiniella 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Macropelopia 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Natarsiini Natarsia 8 — — — — — — — — — — — — Pentaneurini Ablabesmyia 8 — — — — — — — — — — — — Conchapelopia 6 — 2 — — — — — 8 — — — — Nilotanypus 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Paramerina 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Rheopelopia 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Thienemannimyia gr. 6 — 1 2 3 5 32 6 — 1 — 2 — Zavrelimyia 8 — — — — — 2 — — 1 — — — Diamesini Diamesa 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Pagastia 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — Potthastia longimana 2 — — — — — — 2 — — — — — Orthocladiinae 5 — — — 1 — — — 2 — — — — Corynoneurini Corynoneura 4 1 — — — — — — — — — — — Thienemanniella 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Orthocladiini 5 — — — — — — — — — 1 — — Brillia 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Brillia flaviforms 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Cricotopus 7 — — — — — — — 4 — — — — Cricotopus/Orthocladius 7 — — — — — — — — — — — — Cricotopus bicinctus 7 — — — — — — 11 — — — — — Cricotopus vierriensis 7 — — — — — — 9 — — — — — Diplocladius 8 — — — — — — — — — — — — Eukiefferiella 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Eukiefferiella brehmi gr. 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Eukiefferiella claripennis 8 — — — — — — — — — — — — Eukiefferiella devonica gr. 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Eukiefferiella pseudomontana gr. 8 — — — — — — — — — — — — Heleniella 3 — — — — — — — — — — — — Heterotrissocladius marcidus gr. 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Krenosmittia 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — Limnophyes 8 — — — — — — — — — — — — Nanocladius 7 — — — — — — — 1 — — — — Appendix 6 179

Unnamed Tributary to Unnamed Tributary to Tolerance Manada Creek near Indiantown Run at Vesle Run at Indiantown, Pa. Taxonomy score Sand Beach, Pa. Fort Indiantown Gap, Pa. 8/1/402 8/13/03 8/6/04 8/15/05 7/30/02 8/6/03 8/2/04 8/8/05 7/31/02 8/11/03 7/29/04 8/3/05 Orthocladius lignicola 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Parachaetocladius 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Paracricotopus 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Parametriocnemus 5 4 — 1 — — 5 — 4 — — 6 — Rheocricotopus 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Rheocricotopus robacki 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Tvetenia bavarica gr. 4 3 2 2 — — — — 1 — — — — Xylotopus par 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — Chironominae 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Chironomini Chironomus 10 — — — — — — — — — — — — Cryptochironomus 8 — — — — — — — — — — — — Glyptotendipes 10 — — — — — — — — — — — — Microtendipes pedellus gr. 6 — — — — — 3 — — — — — — Microtendipes rydalensis gr. 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Paralauterborniella 8 — — — — — — — — — — — — Paratendipes albimanus 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Phaenopsectra 7 — — — 1 — — — — — — — — Polypedilum 6 13 — — — 2 — — — 1 — — — Polypedilum aviceps 4 3 1 3 5 1 3 — 10 — — 1 1 Polypedilum fallax 6 — — — 2 — — — — — — — — Polypedilum flavum 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Polypedilum illinoense 7 1 — — — — — — — — — — — Polypedilum laetum 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Polypedilum scalaenum 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Polypedilum tritum 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — Stenochironomus 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Stictochironomus 9 1 — — — — — — — — — — 1 Tribelos 7 — — — — — — — — — — — — Tanytarsini 5 — — — — — — — — — — — — Cladotanytarsus 5 — — — — — — — 6 — — — — Micropsectra 7 — — — — 2 39 3 1 — — — 1 Micropsectra sp. A 7 — — — — 21 — — — — — — — Paratanytarsus 6 — — — — — — — — — — 1 — Rheotanytarsus 6 4 — — — — — 2 3 — — 1 5 Rheotanytarsus exiguus gr. 6 — 3 1 — 2 7 — — 1 1 — — Rheotanytarsus pellucidus 4 — — — — — 1 — — — — — — Stempellina 2 — — — — 1 — — — — — — — Stempellina sp. C 4 — — — — — — 1 — — — — — Stempellinella 4 1 1 1 — 2 — — 2 1 — — — Sublettea coffmani 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Tanytarsus 6 — — — 7 — — 2 2 — — — 2 Zavrelia 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — Dixidae Dixa 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — Simuliidae Simulium 5 1 — 2 — 1 17 — — — 1 1 — Tipulidae 4 — — — 2 — — — — — — — — 180 Surface-Water Quality and Quantity, Aquatic Biology, Stream Geomorphology, and Groundwater Flow Simulation

Total taxa 24 17 21 23 24 31 28 41 22 20 27 22 Total number 106 104 147 132 128 372 215 314 153 125 174 137 Percent dominant taxa (single) 21 26 30 28 22 14 27 30 19 67 22 40 Total EPT Taxa 4 7 7 9 8 8 10 16 9 6 8 8 Total EPT 34 42 49 57 77 160 90 221 72 94 86 36 Percent EPT 32.08 40.38 33.33 43.18 59.38 43.01 41.86 70.06 47.06 75.20 49.43 26.28 HBI 4.95 4.56 4.76 4.74 4.31 5.34 4.9 3.35 3.81 5.04 4.14 4.28 Number Chironomidae taxa 9 6 6 7 8 8 8 12 5 2 5 5 Percent Chironomidae 29.25 9.62 6.80 15.15 28.13 24.73 16.74 14.01 3.27 1.60 6.32 7.30 Prepared by the West Trenton Publishing Service Center.

For more information concerning this report, contact:

Director U.S. Geological Survey Pennsylvania Water Science Center 215 Limekiln Road New Cumberland, PA 07070 [email protected] or visit our Web site at: http://pa.water.usgs.gov Langland and others—Surface-Water Quantity and Quality, Aquatic Biology, Stream Geomorphology, and Groundwater-Flow Simulation—SIR 2010–5155 Attachment 4

Figure 2. Sampling Site Locations at Fort Indiantown Gap (Map B) 7