Contra Costa Monitoring and Assessment Program

Preliminary Assessment of Aquatic Life Use Condition in Contra Costa Creeks

Summary of Benthic Macroinvertebrate Bioassessment Results (2001-2006)

Prepared for: Contra Costa Clean Water Program 255 Glacier Drive Martinez, CA 94543

Prepared by: Eisenberg, Olivieri and Associates, Inc. (EOA) 1410 Jackson St. Oakland, CA 94612

June 22, 2007

Preface and Acknowledgements

Please note that assessments described, and conclusions presented in this report should be considered preliminary and non-regulatory in nature. Results are based on limited data analyses and may be revised in the future as new analytical tools are developed. Additionally, many volunteers, agency staff and consultants assisted the Contra Costa Clean Water Program in collecting bioassessment data described in this report. In particular, volunteers from the Friends of Pinole, Alhambra, Marsh, Kirker and Mt. Diablo Creek Watersheds, Friends of Five Creeks, and the San Pablo Creek Watershed Awareness Network, as well numerous other volunteers have put in countless hours in the field. Additionally, the Program’s Watershed Assessment and Monitoring (WAM) Subcommittee members have provided guidance to Program staff, and Scott Cressey (Cressey and Associates) has provided assistance to the Program throughout the implementation of the Contra Costa Monitoring and Assessment Program (CCMAP).

Executive Summary

Stormwater monitoring programs use a variety of indicators to assess the physical, chemical and biological integrity (i.e., condition) of water bodies, including conventional water quality measurements (e.g., dissolved oxygen and pH), sediment and water chemistry (e.g., heavy metal concentrations) and toxicity (e.g., bioassays) testing, channel geomorphology measurements and biological assessments (e.g., bioassessments). In 2001, the Contra Costa Clean Water Program selected fresh water benthic macroinvertebrate (BMI) communities as their lead indicator of aquatic life use condition in Contra Costa water bodies. Additionally, volunteer monitors began to conduct bioassessments using BMIs in 2005.

BMIs are composed primarily of insect larvae, mollusks, and worms and they are an essential link in the aquatic food web, providing food for fish and consuming algae and aquatic vegetation. These organisms are also sensitive to disturbances in water and sediment chemistry, and physical habitat, both in the stream channel and along the riparian zone.

From 2001 to 2006 the Program and volunteers conducted bioassessments at 120 sampling stations in creeks within 16 of the 30 major watersheds in Contra Costa County using the California Stream Bioassessment Protocol developed by the California Department of Fish and Game. To provide an initial measurement of Aquatic Life Use condition at these stations, a preliminary Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity (B-IBI) for creeks in Contra Costa County was calculated using information gained from the development of similar indices for creeks in Southern and Northern California regions. Ranges of B-IBI scores were then assigned to poor, marginal, fair, good and very good categories.

Preliminary results suggest that roughly 40% of creek stations sampled in Contra Costa County score in the very good, good or fair categories. Stations draining open space and East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) land located in Upper Marsh Creek watershed and open space areas in the Kellogg Creek watershed scored the highest of all stations sampled. Additionally, individual stations in upper Las Trampas Creek, Mitchell Creek (Mt. Diablo Creek watershed), Franklin Creek (Alhambra Creek watershed), and North Fork Rodeo Creek had relatively high preliminary B-IBI scores. The lowest B-IBI scores were calculated for stations in East Antioch, Grayson and Kirker Creek watersheds. Annual variability in B-IBI scores at stations sampled in three or more years is moderate to low, indicating that the ability for the Program to detect significant changes (positive and negative) in aquatic life use conditions over a relatively short period of time (<10 years) may be possible. Additionally, volunteer citizen monitors have provided and continue to provide valuable information regarding the condition of aquatic life uses in Contra Costa creeks, and the Program should consider continuing to provide support for volunteers in the future.

Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1

1.1 OVERVIEW OF MONITORING PROGRAMS ...... 1 1.1.1 Contra Costa Monitoring and Assessment Program ...... 1 1.1.2 Contra Costa Volunteer Creek Monitoring Program ...... 2 1.2 BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATES AS INDICATORS OF AQUATIC LIFE USE CONDITION ...... 2 2.0 CONTRA COSTA CREEKS AND BIOASSESSMENT METHODS ...... 4

2.1 CONTRA COSTA WATERSHEDS AND SAMPLING STATIONS ...... 4 2.2 BIOASSESSMENT METHODS ...... 5 2.2.1 Field Procedures ...... 5 2.2.2 Laboratory Procedures ...... 5 2.3 PHYSICAL HABITAT ASSESSMENT METHODS ...... 13 2.4 DATA QUALITY ASSESSMENT ...... 13 2.5 ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION METHODS ...... 13 2.5.1 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Metrics ...... 13 2.5.2 Benthic Indices of Biotic Integrity ...... 13 3.0 RESULTS ...... 17

3.1 COUNTY-WIDE OVERVIEW ...... 17 3.1.1 Most Dominant Taxa...... 17 3.1.2 Functional Feed Groups (FFGs) ...... 17 3.2 CONDITION OF AQUATIC LIFE USES IN CONTRA COSTA CREEKS ...... 18 3.3 ANNUAL VARIABILITY IN B-IBI SCORES ...... 23 3.4 POTENTIAL FACTORS AFFECTING AQUATIC LIFE USES ...... 24 3.4.1 Urbanization ...... 24 3.4.2 Reach-Scale Physical Habitat Quality ...... 25 3.5 WATERSHED SPECIFIC OBSERVATIONS ...... 26 3.5.1 Alhambra Creek Watershed ...... 26 3.5.2 Pinole Creek Watershed ...... 26 3.5.3 Wildcat Creek Watershed ...... 26 3.5.4 San Pablo Creek Watershed ...... 26 3.5.5 Mt. Diablo Creek Watershed ...... 26 3.5.6 Marsh Creek Watershed ...... 26 3.5.8 Kellogg Creek Watershed ...... 27 3.5.9 Baxter and Cerrito Creek Watersheds ...... 27 3.5.10 Las Trampas Creek Watershed ...... 27 3.5.11 Grayson Creek Watershed ...... 27 3.5.12 East and West Antioch Creek Watersheds ...... 27 3.5.13 Rodeo and Refugio Creek Watersheds ...... 27 3.5.14 Rheem Creek Watershed ...... 28 4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE MONITORING...... 29 5.0 REFERENCES ...... 31

Appendix A – Physical Habitat Scores for Sites Sampled from 2001 to 2006 Appendix B – Data Quality Assessment Appendix C – Contra Costa Benthic IBI Calculation Tables Appendix D - Benthic Macroinvertebrate Taxa Identified in Contra Costa County from 2001 to 2006 Appendix E – CCMAP Factsheet

Preliminary Assessment of Aquatic Life Use Condition in Contra Costa Creeks iv

List of Tables

Table 1. Five core management questions that guided the implementation of the Contra Costa Monitoring and Assessment Program (CCMAP). Table 2. Watersheds areas and creek distances within the major watersheds of Contra Costa County (watersheds where bioassessments have been conducted to-date are shaded). Table 3. Benthic Macroinvertebrate (BMI) bioassessment stations sampled by the Contra Costa Clean Water Program and/or the Volunteer Monitoring Program in 2001-2006. C= CCCMAP and V = Volunteer Monitoring Program. Table 4. Six general steps typically used to develop an Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) Table 5. Metrics selected for development of the Southern and Northern California B-IBIs. Table 6. Reference stations selected during the development of the preliminary B-IBI for Contra Costa County. Table 7. Scoring ranges for the five metrics included in the preliminary Contra Costa County Benthic-IBI and scoring categories that define biotic condition. Table 8. Percentages of benthic macroinvertebrate groups identified in samples collected from 2001 – 2006. Table 9. Five most frequently identified benthic macroinvertebrate taxa identified in samples collected from 2001 – 2006. List of Figures

Figure 1. Examples of benthic macroinvertebrates (BMIs) used by the Contra Costa Clean Water Program as indicators of aquatic life use condition. Figure 2. Benthic Macroinvertebrate (BMI) bioassessment stations sampled by the Contra Costa Clean Water Program and/or the Volunteer Monitoring Program in 2001-2006. Figure 3. Percentages of organisms identified in functional feeding groups (FFGs). Figure 4. Percentages of creek stations sampled in Contra Costa that fall into one of five preliminary B-IBI scoring categories. Figure 5. Preliminary Benthic-Index of Biotic Integrity (B-IBI) scores (black circles) for Wildcat, Rheem, Refugio, San Pablo, Rodeo, Pinole, Cerrito and Baxter Creek stations sampled from 2001-2006. Figure 6. Preliminary Benthic-Index of Biotic Integrity (B-IBI) scores (black circles) for Las Trampas, Grayson, Mt. Diablo, Kirker, Edwards and Alhambra Creek stations sampled from 2001- 2006. Figure 7. Preliminary Benthic-Index of Biotic Integrity (B-IBI) scores (black circles) for Upper Marsh, Lower Marsh, Kellogg, and East & West Antioch Creek stations sampled from 2001-2006. Figure 8. Ranges of Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) grouped by watershed. Minimum (lower whisker), maximum (upper whisker), 25th percentile (lower box), median (box midline) and 75th percentile (upper box) IBI scores for each watershed are presented. Figure 9. Comparison of B-IBI scores for stations samples in 2002-2006. Figure 10. Comparison of elevation and preliminary Contra Costa B-IBI scores at stations sampled from 2001-2006. Figure 11. Comparison of reach-level qualitative physical habitat scores and preliminary Contra Costa B-IBI scores at stations sampled in 2001-2006.

Preliminary Assessment of Aquatic Life Use Condition in Contra Costa Creeks v

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Municipal stormwater quality management programs throughout the United States have developed monitoring programs to assist State agencies in assessing the condition of aquatic life uses (e.g., benthic and fish communities) and determining the sources of impairments in surface water bodies. In Contra Costa County, the Contra Costa Clean Water Program (Program)1 has conducted monitoring in local water bodies since 1994 to comply with monitoring requirements in its Joint Municipal NPDES Permits (Permits) issued by the San Francisco Bay and Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Boards (Water Boards). Currently, monitoring is conducted under the Contra Costa Monitoring and Assessment Program (CCMAP), which began in 2001 to guide the Program’s monitoring and watershed assessment efforts and provide the Program with a working plan designed to assess the condition of beneficial uses in individual creeks throughout Contra Costa County. Additional comparable data have also been collected through the Contra Costa Volunteer Creek Monitoring Program since 2005.

This report summarizes data collected to-date under the CCMAP and the Contra Costa Volunteer Creek Monitoring Program (Volunteer Monitoring Program) that are used assess the condition of aquatic life uses in Contra Costa County creeks. Results of analyses conducted on a county-wide basis are used to develop preliminary conclusions and lessons learned that are intended to inform future monitoring efforts conducted by the Program. The intended audience for the summary report includes: Contra Costa municipal agencies, Co-permittees of the Contra Costa Clean Water Program, the Water Board and other State resource agencies, volunteer monitors, and other individuals interested in the condition of aquatic life uses in Contra Costa creeks.

1.1 OVERVIEW OF MONITORING PROGRAMS

1.1.1 Contra Costa Monitoring and Assessment Program The CCMAP was created to provide the Program with a strategy to assess the condition of Table 1. Five core management questions that guide beneficial uses in Contra Costa creeks and identify the implementation of the Contra Costa Monitoring and likely stressors and associated sources. The CCMAP Assessment Program (CCMAP). entails a tiered monitoring approach that assists 1. What is the condition/status of beneficial uses in the Program in answering core management Contra Costa receiving waters? questions (shown in Table 1) and in reaching its overall goal of protecting beneficial uses in Contra 2. What is the extent and magnitude of the current Costa creeks and water bodies by reducing or or potential receiving water problems? eliminating pollutants in stormwater. 3. What is the relative stormwater contribution to the receiving water problem(s)? The first phase of CCMAP was initiated in 2001 in the Program’s pilot watershed, Alhambra Creek. 4. What are the sources to stormwater that contribute to receiving water problem(s)? Lessons learned from this pilot effort were used to refine CCMAP in subsequent years. Initial 5. Are conditions in receiving waters getting better monitoring activities include the characterization or worse? of beneficial use condition in Contra Costa creeks through the implementation of screening level monitoring (i.e., benthic macroinvertebrate bioassessments), followed by more detailed investigative monitoring at selected sites. To assess the condition of aquatic life uses, the Program developed a watershed-based sampling design, where creeks within particular watersheds are monitored for (at least) two consecutive years before Program monitoring resources are moved to another watershed. Roughly 25-30 sites are typically sampled each year, based on the availability of resources. Indicators used to assess aquatic life use condition include benthic macroinvertebrates (BMIs).

1The Contra Costa Clean Water Program is comprised of Contra Costa County, all nineteen of its incorporated cities and the Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District (i.e., Co-permittees).

Preliminary Assessment of Aquatic Life Use Condition in Contra Costa Creeks 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1.2 Contra Costa Volunteer Creek Monitoring Program In 2003, the Program submitted a grant application to the State Water Resources Control Board in collaboration with the Contra Costa Watershed Forum2 to create a citizen-based watershed monitoring and assessment program (i.e., Volunteer Monitoring Program). Among the variety of tasks described in the grant was the expansion of the CCMAP’s bioassessment monitoring using citizen-monitors. The overall goal of the Volunteer Monitoring Program is to aid in protecting and restoring the San Francisco estuary and its tributaries by reducing/eliminating pollutants and impacts to water bodies in Contra Costa County. The Volunteer Monitoring Program is jointly managed by the Contra Costa County Community Development Department, the Contra Costa Clean Water Program, and the Contra Costa Watershed Forum.

1.2 BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATES AS INDICATORS OF AQUATIC LIFE USE CONDITION Stormwater monitoring programs use a variety of indicators to assess the physical, chemical and biological integrity (i.e., condition) of water bodies, including conventional water quality measurements (e.g., dissolved oxygen and pH), sediment and water chemistry (e.g., heavy metal concentrations) and toxicity (e.g., bioassays) testing, channel geomorphology measurements and biological assessments (e.g., bioassessments). The criteria for selecting environmental indicators are typically Caddisfly Larva based on scientific, practical and programmatic (Trichoptera) Fishfly Larva considerations. Scientific validity is the (Megaloptera) foundation for determining whether data can be compared with reference conditions or other sites. An indicator must not only be scientifically valid, but its application must be Black Fly Larva practical when placed within the constraints of (Simuliidae) a monitoring program. Of primary importance is that the indicator must be able to address the question posed by the ambient monitoring program (see Table 1). Backswimmer (Corixidae) The Program selected fresh water benthic macroinvertebrate (BMI) communities as their lead indicator of aquatic life use condition in Contra Costa water bodies. As illustrated in Figure 1, BMIs are composed primarily of insect Stonefly Nymph larvae, mollusks, and worms. They are an (Plecoptera) essential link in the aquatic food web, Mayfly Nymph (Ephemeroptera) providing food for fish and consuming algae and aquatic vegetation (Karr et al., 1999). The presence and distribution of BMIs can vary across geographic locations based on elevation, Figure 1. Examples of benthic macroinvertebrates (BMIs) creek gradient, and substrate (Barbour et al., used by the Contra Costa Clean Water Program as 1999). These organisms are sensitive to indicators of aquatic life use condition. disturbances in water and sediment chemistry,

2 The Contra Costa Watershed Forum is an open committee of private individuals and agency staff that seeks to identify common principles among parties involved in creek and watershed issues and promotes actions that transform our variety of water resources into healthy, functional, attractive, and safe community assets.

Preliminary Assessment of Aquatic Life Use Condition in Contra Costa Creeks 2 1.0 INTRODUCTION and physical habitat, both in the stream channel and along the riparian zone. Because of their relatively long life cycles (approximately one year) and limited migration, BMIs are particularly susceptible to site-specific stressors (Barbour et al., 1999).

Preliminary Assessment of Aquatic Life Use Condition in Contra Costa Creeks 3

2.0 CONTRA COSTA CREEKS AND BIOASSESSMENT METHODS

2.1 CONTRA COSTA WATERSHEDS AND SAMPLING STATIONS There are 30 major watersheds in Contra Costa County with approximately 1,605 miles of creeks flowing through them (Contra Costa CDD, 2003). Some watersheds have no creeks or only small creeks with ephemeral water flow. Other larger watersheds have been broken into smaller sub-watersheds for planning purposes. Additionally, a few of the watersheds in the southern portion of County make up the headwaters of major watersheds in Alameda County. Major watersheds, their respective land areas, and miles of creeks (including tributaries) within each watershed are presented in Table 2.

Table 2. Watersheds areas and creek distances within the major watersheds of Contra Costa County (watersheds where bioassessments have been conducted to-date are shaded).

Watershed Name Watershed Area (mi2) Creek Length (mi)

1. Alamo Creek / Tassajara Creek 41.2 101.0 2. Alhambra Creek 16.7 48.1 3. Baxter / Cerrito / Richmond Drainages 18.5 20.3 4. Brushy Creek 37.1 45.9 5. Carquinez Area Drainages 10.3 27.0 6. Cayetano Creek 6.9 14.1 7. Concord 8.7 0 8. East Antioch Creek 11.4 8.7 9. Garrity Creek 6.2 4.1 10. Grayson Creek / Murderers Creek 24.0 25.4 11. Kellogg Creek 32.6 67.6 12. Kirker Creek 17.4 43.7 13. Las Trampas Creek 26.9 64.1 14. Lower Marsh Creek (Below Reservoir) 42.3 56.8 15. Mt. Diablo Creek 38.2 80.0 16. Peyton Slough 6.4 8.1 17. Pine Creek / Galindo Creek 31.5 60.0 18. Pinole Creek 15.2 46.6 19. Refugio Creek 4.9 9.2 20. Rheem Creek 2.8 3.4 21. Rodeo Creek 10.4 31.6 22. San Leandro Creek / Moraga Creek 20.6 53.8 23. San Pablo Creek 43.6 108.6 24. San Ramon Creek 54.0 136.7 25. South San Ramon Creek 13.1 26.2 26. Upper Marsh Creek (Above Reservoir) 51.5 110.4 27.Walnut Creek (Mainstem) 146.2 309.8 Formatted: Bullets and Numbering 28.27. West Antioch Creek 12.8 26.5 Formatted: Bullets and Numbering 29.28. Wildcat Creek 11.0 22.2 Formatted: Bullets and Numbering 30.29. Willow Creek and Coastal Drainages 23.6 44.8 Formatted: Bullets and Numbering Total 639.8762.4 1,294.91,604.7 Formatted Table

Preliminary Assessment of Aquatic Life Use Condition in Contra Costa Creeks 4 2.0 CONTRA COSTA CREEKS AND BIOASSESSMENT METHODS

The locations of creek stations sampled during 2001 to 2006 are presented in Figure 2. Additional information on sampling stations and events conducted by CCMAP and/or the Volunteer Monitoring Program is also presented in Table 3.

2.2 BIOASSESSMENT METHODS From 2001 to 2006, the California Stream Bioassessment Procedure (CSBP) for wadable streams (CDFG 1999 and 2003) was consistently utilized by the Program and volunteer monitors in Contra Costa County. That said, field and laboratory protocols described in the CSBP have evolved during the implementation of CCMAP. Changes in field protocols have been relatively small and include decreases in the total square footage of stream substrate disturbed at each sampling station (18 ft² to 9 ft²) and the addition of protocols for low gradient creek reaches. Changes in laboratory procedures include the compositing of samples in the lab and the number of organisms identified per sample (900 vs. 500). The methods described below are those most recently used by the Program and volunteer monitors in Contra Costa County.

2.2.1 Field Procedures The CSBP protocols were used by Program-contracted field biologists from 2001 to 2006, and by citizen monitors during in 2005 and 2006. Following the CSBP, each BMI station was defined as a 100-meter linear reach of creek, with a gradient equal to or greater than 1%, and containing four or more riffles of sufficient length and width to allow three subsamples per riffle to be taken with a kick net. A random number table was used to select the three riffles to be sampled in this reach. Within each selected riffle, a transect location for sampling was randomly chosen.

Starting with the most downstream riffle, the benthos of three 1 ft2 areas along the transect was disturbed by manually rubbing cobble and boulder substrates followed by ‘kicking’ the upper layers of substrate to dislodge any remaining invertebrates into the D- frame kick net. Material collected in all three 1 ft2 areas (i.e., sample) was then transferred into a 500- ml wide-mouth jar containing approximately 200 ml of 95% ethanol. This technique was repeated for each of the three riffles in each monitoring sampling reach (i.e., station). The three samples per station were later joined into one composite sample at the laboratory.

2.2.2 Laboratory Procedures The Chico Research Foundation laboratory (contract lab for Fish and Game) was contracted to “pick” (or remove) BMIs from the contents in the sample jars. This entailed compositing the material from the three jars, rinsing jar contents through a No. 35 standard testing sieve (0.5 mm brass mesh), and transferring it into a tray marked with 20, 25cm2 grids. Then, all material was removed from one randomly selected grid at a time and placed in a petri dish for inspection under a stereomicroscope (10x). All macroinvertebrates from the grid were separated from the surrounding detritus and transferred to vials containing 70% ethanol and 5% glycerol. This process was continued until 500 organisms were removed from each station’s composited sample. The picked samples were then delivered to trained aquatic entomologists.

The bioassessment entomologists contracted to identify and analyze (enumeration and developing the metrics) the picked samples were Dr. Richard Borttoff and Tom King (Bioassessment Services, Inc.). Dr. Borttoff and Mr. King participate in the Southwest Association of Freshwater Invertebrate Taxonomists (SAFIT) organization (formerly the California Bioassessment Laboratories Network) and are approved for CSBP sample analysis by the California Department of Fish and Game (CFDG) Aquatic Bioassessment Laboratory. Both entomologists identified BMIs to a standard taxonomic level established by the CDFG (typically genus for insects and order or class for non-insects) using standard taxonomic references.

Preliminary Assessment of Aquatic Life Use Condition in Contra Costa Creeks 5

Formatted: Font: (Default) Trebuchet MS, 10 pt Formatted: Bottom: 63 pt

Figure 2. Benthic Macroinvertebrate (BMI) bioassessment stations sampled by the Contra Costa Clean Water Program (CCMAP) and/or the Contra Costa Volunteer Monitoring Program in 2001-2006. Formatted: Normal, Space After: 0 pt

Preliminary Assessment of Aquatic Life Use Condition in Contra Costa Creeks 6

Table 3. Benthic Macroinvertebrate (BMI) bioassessment stations sampled by the Contra Costa Clean Water Program and/or the Volunteer Monitoring Program in 2001-2006. C= CCMAP and V = Volunteer Monitoring Program. Station Station Water Body Alias Location Latitude Longitude Elevation 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Code

Alhambra Creek Watershed

Alhambra Creek 207ALH020 AC-1 Alhambra Cr. above Susana St. 38.01373 122.13277 1 C C V V Alhambra Creek 207ALH030 AC-2 Alhambra Cr. between Soto and Allen streets 38.0116 122.12904 C

Alhambra Creek 207ALH040 AC-2.5 Alhambra Cr. Below D Street 38.00596 122.1299 C

Alhambra Creek 207ALH050 AC-2.65 Alhambra Creek AT Martinez Adult School 38.0005 122.12978 70 V V Alhambra Creek 207ALH060 AC-2.7 Alhambra Cr. Below Alhambra Way 37.99958 122.13013 48 C C/V

Franklin Creek 207ALH070 FC-1 Franklin Creek at John Muir House 37.99117 122.13234 C

Franklin Creek 207ALH080 FC-1.5 Franklin Cr. At 1530 Franklin Canyon Road 37.98828 122.13784 160 C C/V V V

Franklin Creek 207ALH090 FC-2 Franklin Cr. at Wolcott Lane 37.99828 122.15648 256 C C C/V V V

Franklin Creek 207ALH100 FC-3 Franklin Cr. above 2700 Franklin Canyon Rd. 38.00163 122.16762 310 C

Alhambra Creek 207ALH110 AC-3 Alhambra Cr. above Franklin Cr. 37.99545 122.13152 98 C C V Alhambra Creek 207ALH130 AC-4 Alhambra Cr. below Arroyo del Hambre 37.97423 122.12595 205 C C

Arroyo del Hambre 207ALH140 ADH-1 Arroyo del Hambre above Alhambra Cr. 37.97287 122.12693 205 C C C/V V V

Arroyo del Hambre 207ALH150 ADH-3 Arroyo del Hambre above Vaca Creek Rd 37.96481 122.1462 405 C C V V Arroyo del Hambre 207ALH160 ADH-2 Arroyo del Hambre Creek at Castle Creek Court 37.9672 122.13048 C

Alhambra Creek 207ALH170 AC-5 Alhambra Cr. above Arroyo del Hambre 37.97212 122.12568 230 C C V V Baxter Creek Watershed Baxter Creek 203BAX030 BAX030 Booker T. Anderson Park 37.91898 122.3261 20 V Baxter Creek 203BAX045 BAX045 At Gateway restoration Site 37.93121 122.32229 V V Carquinez Watershed Edwards Creek 207EDW010 ED-1 Edwards Creek below J. Swett High School 38.05468 122.22238 39 C Formatted Table Cerrito Creek Watershed Cerrito Creek Pacific East Mall 203CER010 CER010 37.89807 122.3069571 V Cerrito Creek Creekside Park (Belmont/Yosemite) 203CER020 CER020 37.89825 122.30392 V Cerrito Creek Cerrito Creek at El Cerrito Plaza 203CER040 EC-1 37.89833 122.29908 38 C C C C

Preliminary Assessment of Aquatic Life Use Condition in Contra Costa Creeks 7 2.0 CONTRA COSTA CREEKS AND BIOASSESSMENT METHODS

Table 3. (continued). C= CCMAP and V = Volunteer Monitoring Program Station Station Water Body Location Latitude Longitude Elevation 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Code Alias

East Antioch Creek Watershed

E Antioch Creek 543EAN020 EA-1 At Trembath St 38.00374 121.7816 C

E Antioch Creek 543EAN030 EA-2 Below Viera Ave off E. 18th St 37.99666 121.76952 C

E Antioch Creek 543EAN050 EA-3 Upstream of Highway 4 bypass culvert off Neroly Rd 37.97667 121.7394 C

E Antioch Creek 543EAN065 EA-4 Downstream of Fairside Way culvert 37.96405 121.75243 C

E Antioch Creek 543EAN066 EA-5 Upstream of Fairside Way Culvert 37.96283 121.74957 C

Grayson Creek Watershed

Grayson Creek 207WAL030 GY-1 Grayson Cr upstream of Center Ave near Pacheco Blvd 37.9832 122.06855 C C

Grayson Creek 207WAL050 GY-2 Grayson Cr along Diablo Valley College 37.96694 122.06664 C C

E. Fk. Grayson Cr. 207WAL070 GY-3 East Fk Grayson Ck downstream of Boyd Rd 37.94355 122.06578 52 C C

W. Fk. Grayson Cr. 207WAL080 GY-4 West Fk Grayson Cr at 100 Ward Ct off of Strad Ave 37.95136 122.08491 C C

W. Fk. Grayson Cr. 207WAL090 GY-5 West Fk Grayson Cr at Grayson Lane and Buttner Rd 37.94763 122.09476 C C

Murderers Creek 207WAL100 GY-6 Murderer's Creek upstream of Oak Park Lane 37.93253 122.0079 C C

Murderers Creek 207WAL110 GY-7 Middle Fk Murderer's Cr above mouth of South Fk 37.93132 122.08343 C C

N. Fk. Murderers Ck. 207WAL120 GY-8 N. Fk. Murderer's Cr near Withers Ave and Pleasant Hill 37.93173 122.00877 C C

Murderers Creek 207WAL130 GY-9 North Fk Murderers Creek at Brookwood Park 37.93447 122.09472 C C

Kellogg Creek Watershed

Kellogg Creek 543KEL010 KEL-1 Just above Los Vaq. Reservoir 37.80102 121.74748 510 C

Mallory Creek 543KEL020 MAL-1 900 feet above road, lower site 37.80203 121.75225 612 C C

Mallory Creek 543KEL030 MAL-2 0.25 mile above road, upper site 37.8024 121.7533 671 C C

Kellogg Creek 543KEL040 KEL-2 0.3 miles above Mallory Creek 37.79698 121.74952 536 C

Preliminary Assessment of Aquatic Life Use Condition in Contra Costa Creeks 8 2.0 CONTRA COSTA CREEKS AND BIOASSESSMENT METHODS

Table 3. (continued). C= CCMAP and V = Volunteer Monitoring Program Station Station Water Body Location Latitude Longitude Elevation 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Code Alias

Kirker Creek Watershed Loveridge Rd (Downstream of Loveridge Rd next to Auto Kirker Creek 207KIR040 K-1 Public Auction) 38.0147127 121.8579738 V C

Kirker Creek 207KIR085 KI-2 Downstream of Garcia Avenue 38.01178 121.87692 C Upstream of EBMUD pipeline, behind Fox Creek Kirker Creek 207KIR095 KI-3 Apartments 38.00763 121.88174 C

Kirker Creek 207KIR110 KIR-110 At Buchanan Park 38.00088 121.87997 V C

Kirker Creek 207KIR115 KIR-115 At Kirker Creek Apts 37.99067 121.89485 V C

Las Trampas Creek Watershed Las Trampas Creek 207WAL300 LT-1 Las Trampas Cr. below Boulevard Way bridge 37.88816 122.07809 177 C C

Reliez Creek 207WAL310 RZ-1 Reliez Cr. below Old Tunnel Road 37.89504 122.09315 239 C C

Reliez Creek 207WAL320 RZ-2 Reliez Cr. below high school 37.90283 122.09285 328 C C

Reliez Creek 207WAL330 RZ-3 Reliez Cr. at 3400 Springhill Road 37.91234 122.1074 416 C C Las Trampas Creek 207WAL340 LT-2 Las Trampas Cr. above Reliez Creek 37.88729 122.09118 203 C C Happy Valley Creek 207WAL350 HV-1 Happy Valley Cr. upstream of Rose Lane 37.90105 122.1342 430 C C

Lafayette Creek 207WAL360 LF-1 Lafayette Cr. above Fiesta Square 37.88941 122.12011 282 C C Las Trampas Creek 207WAL380 LT-3 Las Trampas Cr. above Lafayette Creek 37.88757 122.11107 276 C C Las Trampas Creek 207WAL390 LT-4 Las Trampas Cr. below Grizzly Creek 37.87077 122.09725 359 C C

Grizzly Creek 207WAL400 GZ-1 Grizzly Cr. above Las Trampas Creek 37.86775 122.09553 404 C C Las Trampas Creek 207WAL410 LT-5 Las Trampas Cr. above Grizzly Creek 37.86793 122.09835 370 C C Las Trampas Creek 207WAL420 LT-6 Bollinger Canyon Rd 37.83922 122.09908 612 C C

Preliminary Assessment of Aquatic Life Use Condition in Contra Costa Creeks 9 2.0 CONTRA COSTA CREEKS AND BIOASSESSMENT METHODS

Table 3. (continued). C= CCMAP and V = Volunteer Monitoring Program

Station Station Water Body Location Latitude Longitude Elevation 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Code Alias

Marsh Creek Watershed Lower Marsh Creek 544MSH010 MR-1 Marsh Creek above Laurel Road 37.9832 121.69004 14 C C V Lower Marsh Creek 544MSH020 MR-2 Marsh Creek below Delta Road 37.96936 121.68277 37 C C Lower Marsh Creek 544MSH030 MR-3 Marsh Creek above Sunset Road 37.95273 121.69592 56 C C Lower Marsh Creek 544MSH050 MR-4 Above Central Avenue 37.93325 121.71158 82 C C V Lower Marsh Creek 544MSH060 MR-5 Marsh Creek above Dry Creek 37.92269 121.71245 93 C C Lower Marsh Creek 544MSH070 MR-6 Below Marsh Cr. Reservoir 37.89413 121.71931 136 C C Upper Marsh Creek 543MSH090 MR-7 At Round Valley Park 37.86859 121.75152 323 C C V Upper Marsh Creek 543MSH110 MR-8 Below Sycamore Creek 37.89349 121.79832 372 C C Upper Marsh Creek 543MSH120 MR-9 Above Sycamore Creek 37.88507 121.82751 542 C C Upper Marsh Creek 543MSH130 MR-10 Marsh Creek at Detention Center 37.89722 121.86031 603 C C V Upper Marsh Creek 543MSH140 MR-11 Below Curry Cr. at Tumbleweed Ct. 37.88522 121.86527 702 C C V Curry Creek 543MSH150 CUR-1 Between 1st and 3rd bridges near mouth 37.87817 121.86908 748 C C V V Upper Marsh Creek 543MSH160 UMR-1 3.8 miles above Curry Creek 37.84667 121.8389 1150 C C V Upper Marsh Creek 543MSH170 UMR-2 4.8 miles above Curry Creek 37.84145 121.82352 1300 C C Upper Marsh Creek 543MSH180 UMR-3 At Highland Ridge Trail 37.8352 121.80803 1404 C C V V Mt. Diablo Creek Watershed Mt. Diablo Creek 207MTD010 MTD-010 At Port Chicago Hwy 38.01861 122.02602 V V Mt. Diablo Creek 207MTD020 MTD-020 In Diablo Creek Golf Course 38.01362 122.01487 V V Mt. Diablo Creek 207MTD050 MTD-050 Near North Mitchell Canyon Rd. 37.94937 121.94407 V V Mt. Diablo Creek 207MTD060 MTD-060 Near George Cardinet Path 37.94405 121.93749 V V Mitchell Creek 207MTD100 MTD-100 At Oak St. 37.9357 121.93886 V V Mitchell Creek 207MTD120 MTD-120 At Mitchell Canyon Fire Trail 37.91361 121.94821 V V

Preliminary Assessment of Aquatic Life Use Condition in Contra Costa Creeks 10 2.0 CONTRA COSTA CREEKS AND BIOASSESSMENT METHODS

Table 3. (continued). C= CCMAP and V = Volunteer Monitoring Program Station Station Water Body Code Alias Location Latitude Longitude Elevation 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Pinole Creek Watershed Pinole Creek 206PNL010 PNL-1 Pinole Creek at Senior Center 38.00722 122.2903 16 C C V V Pinole Creek 206PNL020 PNL-2 Pinole Creek behind Collins School 38.00036 122.28949 29 C C Pinole Creek 206PNL030 PNL-3 Pinole Creek behind tennis courts and library 37.99221 122.28397 42 C C Pinole Creek 206PNL040 PNL-4 Pinole Creek at Amber Swartz Park 37.98295 122.27256 81 C C V V Pinole Creek 206PNL050 PNL-5 Pinole Creek at riprap at EBMUD land 37.97329 122.24866 182 C C Simas Creek 206PNL060 SI-1 Simas Creek 400 feet above Pinole Creek 37.97121 122.24114 201 C C V V Pinole Creek 206PNL070 PNL-6 Pinole Creek above Simas Creek 37.97028 122.2404 197 C C V V Pinole Creek 206PNL090 PNL-7 Pinole Creek below waterfall 37.96764 122.20989 302 C C Periera Creek 206PNL100 PNL-8 Periera Creek 200 feet above Pinole Creek 37.96392 122.20161 361 C C V V Pinole Creek 206PNL110 PNL-9 Pinole Creek along Bear Creek Road 37.96249 122.20126 357 C C V V No Name Creek 206PNL120 PNL-10 No Name Creek above Bear Creek Road 37.96292 122.19892 381 C C Refugio Creek Watershed Refugio Creek 206RFG010 RFG-1 Refugio Creek west of Hwy 80 38.01687 122.27472 10 C C Refugio Creek 206RFG030 RFG-2 Refugio Cr. above Refugio Valley Park 38.00755 122.26642 54 C C Refugio Creek 206RFG040 RFG-3 Refugio Creek above Country Run Road 38.00501 122.26335 69 C C Refugio Creek 206RFG050 RFG-4 Refugio Cr. at parking area opposite H.S. 38.00282 122.25656 110 C C Refugio Creek 206RFG060 RFG-5 Refugio Cr. between Malibou & Mirimar St. 37.99445 122.23788 232 C C Rheem Creek Watershed Rheem Creek 206RHM005 RHM005 Giant Road V Rheem Creek 206RHM010 RHM010 Bayview School V Rheem Creek 206RHM020 RHM020 Wanlass Park (Rivers/San Pablo) 37.97305 122.34383 V Rheem Creek 206RHM030 RHM030 Community College 37.97034 122.33972 V

Preliminary Assessment of Aquatic Life Use Condition in Contra Costa Creeks 11 2.0 CONTRA COSTA CREEKS AND BIOASSESSMENT METHODS

Table 3. (continued). C= CCMAP and V = Volunteer Monitoring Program Station Station Water Body Code Alias Location Latitude Longitude Elevation 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Rodeo Creek Watershed Rodeo Creek 206RDO010 ROD-1 Rodeo Creek at Viewpointe Road 38.01844 122.25655 59 C C Unnamed Trib 206RDO040 ROD-3 Unnamed trib. on north side of Hwy 4 38.01268 122.22627 157 C C Rodeo Creek 206RDO050 ROD-2 Rodeo Cr. below Franklin Cany. Golf Course 38.0113 122.23373 114 C C N. Fk. Rodeo Creek 206RDO060 ROD-4 N. Fk. Rodeo Cr. above Franklin Cany. G.C. 38.00605 122.21036 217 C C Rodeo Creek 206RDO070 ROD-5 Rodeo Creek along upper Christie Road 37.99704 122.20064 237 C C San Pablo Creek Watershed San Pablo Creek 206SPA020 SPA-020 At 3rd Ave Bridge 37.9675 122.36583 16 V V San Pablo Creek 206SPA070 SPA-070 El Portal Rd at Bridge 37.96278 122.33278 94 V V Wilkie Creek 206SPA110 SPA110 Wilkie at Santa Rita Rd by de Anza School 37.96883 122.29048 197 V V San Pablo Creek 206SPA124 SPA124 San Pablo Creek at Laurel Ln, EcoFarm 37.96654 122.2993 105 V V Castro Creek 206SPA130 SPA-130 Above Olinda Road 37.95592 122.26992 275 V V Oak Creek 206SPA132 SPA132 27 Oak Cr Rd at Clay 37.9525985 122.2777492 V San Pablo Creek 206SPA134 SPA134 San Pablo Creek at Stanley Ln 37.95232 122.26844 162 V V San Pablo Creek 206SPA240 SPA240 Below Camino Encinas Road 37.8725 122.17861 527 V West Antioch Creek Watershed Markley Creek 543WAN050 MK-2 In Black Diamond Regional Preserve 37.97877 121.85856 C W Antioch Creek 543WAN060 WA-1 Downstream of Putnam St downstream of drop structure 37.99392 121.81814 C W Antioch Creek 543WAN080 WA-2 Downstream of James Donlon Rd 37.97998 121.81235 C Wildcat Creek Watershed Wildcat Creek 206WIL030 WCC-1 3rd St bridge 37.960346 122.36701 V V Wildcat Creek 206WIL050 WCC-2 At Davis Park 37.961837 122.353614 V V Wildcat Creek 206WIL058 Church Lane by Senior Center 37.584383 122.342097 V V Wildcat Creek 206WIL060 WIL060 At Vale Road 37.96027 122.3675 V Wildcat Creek 206WIL070 WCC-4 Alvarado Park at Buckeye Picnic Area 37.952367 122.321051 V V Wildcat Creek 206WIL130 WCC-5 ¼ mile up Lone Oak Picnic Area Trail 37.95319 122.33836 V V Wildcat Creek 206WIL180 Big Springs Picnic Area 37.889793 122.236814 V V

Preliminary Assessment of Aquatic Life Use Condition in Contra Costa Creeks 12

Bioassessment results (i.e., taxa lists) were provided to Program and Volunteer Monitoring Program staff in Excel spreadsheets, which were later entered into a version of the California Ecological Data Application System (CalEDAS) for standardization and BMI metric development.

2.3 PHYSICAL HABITAT ASSESSMENT METHODS Physical habitat quality was assessed by field personnel and volunteer monitors at each BMI monitoring reach using the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Rapid Bioassessment Protocol (Barbour et al., 1999). These qualitative habitat assessments were recorded for each sampling station during field sampling. Scores can range from 0 to 200 (higher scores = higher quality habitat). A summary of physical habitat scores for all bioassessment stations is provided in Appendix A.

2.4 DATA QUALITY ASSESSMENT The CCMAP and Volunteer Monitoring Program comply with quality control and assurance procedures described in the Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) developed for the Volunteer Monitoring Program, which in turn is comparable with data quality assessment procedures implemented by the State of California’s Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). The QAPP identifies data quality acceptance criteria (i.e., data quality objectives) related to the accuracy, precision, completeness, comparability, sensitivity and representativeness of data collected. Based on these criteria, duplicate samples are collected and analyzed annually for 10% of stations sampled and assessed for precision. Precision is assessed by calculating the percent of species similarity between original and duplicate samples. Additionally, accuracy is measured by annually re-analyzing 10-20% of samples by an independent taxonomist. Taxonomy QA/QC analysis was conducted by the Chico Research Foundation, a contract laboratory for CDFG’s Aquatic Bioassessment Laboratory. Results of data quality assessments conducted to-date are presented in previously competed monitoring reports (Cressey and Sommers 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005; 2006) and summarized in Appendix B.

2.5 ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION METHODS

2.5.1 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Metrics According to Barbour et al. (1999), a metric is “a measure of the biota that changes in a predictable way with increased human influence”. For Contra Costa data, a variety of metrics are typically calculated for each sample to allow interpretation of BMI taxonomic data received from entomologist. Using the CalEDAS data management system, a total of 71 metrics can be calculated for any sample. Metrics can be categorized into five main types:

• Richness Measures (total number of distinct taxa); • Composition Measures (distribution of individuals among taxonomic groups and includes measures of diversity); • Tolerance/Intolerance Measures (reflects the relative sensitivity of the assemblage to disturbance); • Functional Feeding Groups (shows the balance of feeding strategies in the aquatic assemblage); • Abundance (estimates total number of organisms in sample based on a nine sq. ft. sampling area).

2.5.2 Benthic Indices of Biotic Integrity An Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) is an index that reduces complex information about biological community structure into a simple numerical value based on measures of taxonomic richness (number of taxa); taxonomic composition (e.g., insects vs. non-insects); taxonomic diversity; feeding groups (e.g., shredders, scrapers, or predators); habits (e.g., burrowing, clinging, or climbing taxa); and tolerance to stressors. Typically, separate metrics are used from each of these categories to develop a

Preliminary Assessment of Aquatic Life Use Condition in Contra Costa Creeks 13 2.0 CONTRA COSTA CREEKS AND BIOASSESSMENT METHODS

multi-metric index (IBI) for a particular region of interest (e.g., Western U.S., California or Contra Costa County) to assess the biological condition in creeks.

Barbour et al. (1999) identify six general Table 4. Six general steps typically used to develop an Index of steps involved in the development of an Biotic Integrity (IBI) IBI (Table 4); each step can be modified 1. Classify stream types into classes and select reference sites based on the needs of the region or availability of research tools. Benthic 2. Select potential metrics macroinvertebrate IBIs (B-IBI) recently 3. Evaluate metrics to select most robust ones developed for Southern and Northern California wadable streams and the status 4. Score metrics and combine scores into IBI of the San Francisco Bay B-IBI are 5. Assign rating categories to IBI score ranges discussed here, along with steps used to develop a preliminary B-IBI for Contra 6. Evaluate IBI and refine Costa creeks.

Northern and Southern California B-IBIs Benthic Indices of Biotic Integrity (B-IBIs) were recently developed for Northern California (i.e., Coastal Oregon border to Marin County) and Southern California (i.e., Coastal Mexico Border to Monterey County) using the steps presented in Table 4 (Ode et al., 2005; Rhen and Ode, 2006). Of the 71 possible metrics, eight were selected for the Northern California B-IBI and seven for the Southern California B- IBI (Table 5). Four metrics were selected for both the Northern and Southern California B-IBIs.

San Francisco Bay Area B-IBI Table 5. Metrics selected for development of the Southern and Northern To better understand of the California B-IBIs. biological integrity of Bay Area Southern Northern B-IBI Metric creeks, the Bay Area California California Macroinvertebrate Bioassessment Information (BAMBI) network3 has Coleoptera Richness x x begun to develop a provisional B-IBI EPT Richness x x for San Francisco Bay Area Creeks. Predator Richness x The Bay Area B-IBI will be developed using data collected from Contra Diptera Richness x Costa, Alameda, Santa Clara, San % Collector individuals x Mateo, Napa, Marin, Sonoma and % Noninsect Taxa x Solano counties, and will fill a geographical data gap created by the % Tolerant x x Northern and Southern California B- % Intolerant Taxa x x IBIs. The Bay Area B-IBI is scheduled % Non-Gastropoda Scraper Individuals x to be completed in 2007. % Predator Taxa x Contra Costa B-IBI % Shredder Taxa x As a preliminary step in developing the B-IBI for San Francisco Bay Area creeks, data from Contra Costa County were used to test metrics used in Southern and/or Northern California B-IBIs for applicability in the Bay Area. As a result, a preliminary B-IBI for Contra Costa was developed. To determine which metrics are applicable, IBI development steps 1-5 were followed (see Table 4). The following paragraphs briefly describe this process.

3 BAMBI is a network of scientists, watershed managers, regulators and community members interested in using biological communities as indicators of stream health in the San Francisco Bay Area.

Preliminary Assessment of Aquatic Life Use Condition in Contra Costa Creeks 14 2.0 CONTRA COSTA CREEKS AND BIOASSESSMENT METHODS

Reference Station Selection Reference stations are sections of creeks that have “reference conditions” representing the desired state of stream health for a region of interest. There are many definitions of the term “reference condition” ranging from the pristine, undisturbed state of a stream, to merely the “best available” or “best attainable” conditions in a region. Since practical considerations limit our ability to find minimally disturbed sites, most reference condition approaches seek to identify a compromise, the “least disturbed condition” in region. In some regions like the Bay Area, it is necessary to select sites that represent the “best attainable” condition given best management practices in a heavily human- impacted ecosystem. Once candidate reference stations have been identified, these are used to characterize the range of biotic conditions expected for minimally disturbed sites. Deviation from this range can then be used as an indication that non-reference stations may be impacted.

To date, the two Table 6. Reference stations selected during the development of the preliminary B-IBI for bioassessment programs in Contra Costa County. Contra Costa County have attempted to include Water Body Station Code Location information about Upper Marsh 543MSH170 Upper Marsh Creek 4.8 miles above Curry Creek minimally impacted Upper Marsh 543MSH160 Upper Marsh Creek 3.8 miles above Curry Creek conditions at a few Upper Marsh 543MSH150 Curry Creek between 1st and 3rd bridges near mouth “reference” stations to Upper Marsh 543MSH140 Marsh Cr. below Curry Cr. at Tumbleweed Ct. supplement data collected Upper Marsh 543MSH130 Marsh Creek at Detention Center at test sites. Using “best Kellogg 543KEL040 Kellogg Creek at 0.3 miles above Mallory Creek professional judgment” and Mallory 543KEL030 Mallory Creek 0.25 mile above road, upper site qualitative physical habitat Mallory 543KEL020 Mallory Creek 900 feet above road, lower site scores, a pool of potential Kellogg 543KEL010 Kellogg Creek just above Los Vaqueros Reservoir reference stations (~30) Las Trampas 207WAL420 Las Trampas Creek below Valley Hill Road were selected. This pool Mitchell 207MTD100 Mitchell Creek at Oak Street was then reduced to the 11 stations which are listed in Table 6.

Please note that variation in BMI assemblages due to natural factors (e.g., elevation) that have not been fully evaluated during the development of the Preliminary B-IBI for Contra Costa County can have direct implications on the development and interpretation of IBI scores. Ideally, reference conditions are developed for each set of sampling sites with significantly different BMI assemblages due to natural conditions. This process is currently underway in the development of the B-IBI for San Francisco Bay Area creeks.

Metrics Screening and Selection for Use in IBI Selection of the most appropriate bioassessment metrics for an IBI is a critical phase in the creation of an IBI and typically undergoes the most revision in subsequent refinement of an index. Ideal metrics differ from region to region (hence the need for regional IBIs), but share common characteristics. Most critically, “core” metrics should be able to discriminate between known reference stations and stations with known impacts.

A series of techniques to select appropriate metrics were used in the development of the preliminary Contra Costa B-IBI following the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) recommendations (Barbour et al. 1999, Hughes et al. 1998, McCormick et al. 2001). However, since similar techniques were used in the development of the Northern and Southern California B-IBIs, the 11 metrics selected in these indices were used as the starting point for the Contra Costa B-IBI, instead of testing all possible metrics (~71). Each of the 11 metrics was tested for its power to discriminate between reference and test stations. Based on the results of these screening techniques, the following 5 “core” metrics used in either the Northern of Southern California B-IBIs were selected for inclusion in the preliminary Contra Costa B-IBI:

Preliminary Assessment of Aquatic Life Use Condition in Contra Costa Creeks 15 2.0 CONTRA COSTA CREEKS AND BIOASSESSMENT METHODS

1. EPT Richness 4. Percent Collector Individuals 2. Diptera Richness 5. Percent Noninsect Taxa 3. Predator Richness

Defining Scoring Ranges of Core Metrics Metric scoring ranges were defined using techniques described in Hughes et al. (1998) and McCormick et al. (2001). Statistical properties of the distribution of metric scores for both reference and test stations were used to define cutoffs for each of the 5 metrics selected using the following criteria: 1) any station with a metric value of less than the 5th percentile of the test stations was assigned a “0” score, 2) any site with a metric value of greater than the 25th percentile of the reference stations was assigned a “10” score. The range between these values was divided into 9 equal portions and assigned values between 1 and 9. Table 7 presents the scoring ranges for the five metrics included in the preliminary Contra Costa County B-IBI.

Table 7. Scoring ranges for the five metrics included in the preliminary Contra Costa County Benthic-IBI and scoring categories that define biotic condition.

Cumulative EPT % Non-Insecta % IBI Score Diptera Taxa Predator Taxa Taxa Taxa Collectorers

10 >9 0-17 > 5 > 9 0-78 9 9 18-22 9 79-80 8 8 23-28 5 8 81-82 7 7 29-33 7 83-85 6 6 34-39 4 6 86-87 5 5 40-44 5 88-89 4 4 45-50 3 4 90-91 3 3 51-55 3 92-94 2 2 56-61 2 2 95-96 1 1 62-66 1 97-99 0 0 >66 < 2 0 100 B-IBI Scoring Categories

Very Good Good Fair Marginal Poor 50-43 42-35 34-23 22-11 10-0

Calculation of the B-IBI After the core metrics have all been assigned scoring ranges (Table 7), the B-IBI score for each site is calculated by summing the component metric scores. The distribution of resulting B-IBI scores for all stations is then divided into scoring categories that define thresholds of biotic condition (Table 7). Scoring categories for the preliminary Contra Costa B-IBI were established by using the 25th percentile of reference stations to set the boundary between the “Good” and “Fair” scoring ranges. Then the top end of the scale was divided into two equal sections (“Good” and “Very Good”) and the bottom end of the scale was divided into three equal sections (“Fair”, “Marginal” and “Poor”).

Preliminary Assessment of Aquatic Life Use Condition in Contra Costa Creeks 16

3.0 RESULTS

3.1 COUNTY-WIDE OVERVIEW Table 8. Percentages of all organisms identified that fall into various BMI A considerable amount of time and groups (2001 – 2006). resources has been spent by the Program and volunteer monitors in collecting and % OF ALL GROUPS OF BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATES IDENTIFIED identifying BMIs in Contra Costa County ORGANISMS from 2001 to 2006. In total, Aquatic Insects/Spiders/Crustaceans (Arthropoda) 76.0 approximately 140,000 BMIs have been Aquatic Insects: identified at 120 different sites in 17 True Flies (Diptera) 47.8 watersheds. These organisms were made up of 334 distinct BMI taxa present at Mayflies (Ephemeroptera) 20.6 sites in varying degrees (Table 8). A Stoneflies (Plecoptera) 2.5 complete list of taxa identified in Contra Caddisflies (Trichoptera) 1.3 Costa County is included in Appendix C. Beetles (Coleoptera) 0.4 Dragonflies and Damselflies (Odonata) 0.2 Alderflies and Dobsonflies (Megaloptera) 0.2 3.1.1 Most Dominant Taxa True Bugs (Hemiptera) 0.02 Over 85% of the organisms identified Segmented Worms (Annelida) 21.5 from 2001-2006 belonged one of five Oligochaetes 21.4 distinct taxa (Table 9). Moderately Snails and Clams (Mollusca) 1.2 pollution tolerant non-biting midges (Chironomids) and segmented worms Flat Worms (Platyhelminthes) 0.6 (Oligocheates) were the most frequent Other (Coelenterata, Nematoda and Nemertea) 0.7 taxa identified. Chironomids are closely related to mosquitoes (Culicidae) and biting midges (Ceratopogonidae), and are usually the most abundant macroinvertebrate group, in numbers of species and individuals, encountered in the majority of freshwater aquatic habitats (Epler, 2001). Oligochaetes are aquatic segmented worms common in most freshwater habitats. Some aquatic worms closely resemble terrestrial earthworms while others can be much narrower or thread-like. Many aquatic worms can tolerate low dissolved oxygen and may be found in large numbers in organically polluted habitats.

Table 9. Five most frequently identified benthic macroinvertebrate taxa identified in samples collected from 2001 – 2006.

% OF ALL TAXON TAXONOMIC GROUP COMMON NAME TOLERANCE VALUE (0-10)* ORGANISMS Chironomidae Diptera Non-biting Midges 6 30.2 Oligochaeta Annelida Segmented Worms 5 21.4 Baetis sp. Ephemeroptera Baetid Mayflies 5 16.9 Simulium sp. Diptera Black Flies 6 15.8 Ostracoda Mollusca Seed Shrimp 8 1.2 Total 85.5

*Tolerance values range from 0-10, 0 = the least tolerant and 10 = the most tolerant to stress (e.g., pollution).

3.1.2 Functional Feed Groups (FFGs) Without a relatively stable source and variety of food types (e.g., fine and coarse particulate organic material, algae and other BMIs), an imbalance in BMI community structure will occur, reflecting stressed conditions. To assess if conditions are likely stressed in a creek, BMI taxa are classified into functional feeding groups (FFGs) based on their feeding mechanisms. FFGs include collector-gatherers, collector-filterers, scrapers, shredders and predators.

Collector-filterers and collector-gatherers depend upon fine particulate organic matter (FPOM) for their primary food resource. Filterers obtain fine suspended material from the water column, while collector-gatherers, also called deposit-feeders, generally gather fine materials, including plant,

Preliminary Assessment of Aquatic Life Use Condition in Contra Costa Creeks 17 3.0 RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

animal, and fungal detritus, from the surfaces of substrates. Scrapers Shredders (1.3%) (grazers) depend upon attached Scrapers (1.7%) Other (0.5%) periphyton (i.e., algae and associated flora and fauna) that Predators (4.5%) develops on submerged substrates for their primary food resource. Collector-filterers Shredders depend upon coarse (17.4%) particulate organic matter (CPOM) for their primary food resource. CPOM is any material greater than about 1 mm in diameter; examples Collector-gatherers include twigs, leaves, fruits and (74.2%) flowers of terrestrial or aquatic vegetation. Lastly, predators attack living prey organisms.

Generalists, such as collector- gatherers and collector-filterers, Figure 3. Percentages of organisms identified in functional feeding groups. have a broader range of acceptable food materials than specialists (Cummins and Klug 1979), and thus are more tolerant to stressors that might alter availability of certain food. BMI communities at sampling stations in Contra Costa County are dominated by these FFGs (Figure 3). Specialized feeders, such as scrapers, shredders and predators are typically considered the more sensitive types of BMIs and thought to be well represented in healthy streams. Organisms from these FFGs have been identified in Contra Costa creeks, but to a lesser degree than collector-gatherers and collector-filterers.

3.2 CONDITION OF AQUATIC LIFE USES IN CONTRA COSTA CREEKS Using the preliminary B-IBI scoring ranges developed for Contra Costa County, B-IBI scores were calculated for each creek sampling station and event. B-IBI scores should not be confused with BMI “Ranking Scores” for stations/watersheds in Contra County that were included in previous CCMAP reports (Cressey and Sommers 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006). B-IBI scores presented in this report represent the most up-to-date evaluation of bioassessment data on a “county-wide” basis. Ranking scores were used as place holders for the B-IBI and should now be considered obsolete.

In summary, preliminary calculations suggest that roughly 40% of creek Very Good stations sampled in Contra Costa County score in the Very Good, Good Good or Fair B-IBI categories (Figure 4). Fair Stations draining open space and East Marginal Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) Poor land located in Upper Marsh and Kellogg creeks scored the highest of all stations sampled. Additionally, individual stations in upper Las Trampas Creek, Mitchell Creek (Mt. 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Diablo Creek watershed), Franklin Percentage of Sampling Stations Creek (Alhambra Creek watershed), and North Fork Rodeo Creek had relatively high preliminary B-IBI Figure 4. Percentages of creek stations sampled in Contra Costa that fall scores. The lowest B-IBI scores were into one of five preliminary B-IBI scoring categories. calculated for stations in East and West Antioch, Grayson and Kirker Creek watersheds.

Preliminary Assessment of Aquatic Life Use Condition in Contra Costa Creeks 18 3.0 RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

Results for each site and sampling event are presented in Figures 5, 6 and 7. Box-whisker plots illustrating medians and ranges of B-IBI scores are provided for stations that have been sampled three or more times.

Preliminary Assessment of Aquatic Life Use Condition in Contra Costa Creeks 19 3.0 RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

Wildcat San Pablo Rheem Refugio Rodeo Pinole Cerrito & Baxter

Formatted: Font: 8 pt

Poor Marginal Fair Good Very Good

Figure 5. Preliminary Benthic-Index of Biotic Integrity (B-IBI) scores (black circles) for Wildcat, Rheem, Refugio, San Pablo, Rodeo, Pinole, Cerrito and Baxter Creek stations sampled from 2001-2006. For stations sampled three or more times, 25th percentiles (lower box), medians (box midline) and 75th percentiles (upper box) are also presented.

Preliminary Assessment of Aquatic Life Use Condition in Contra Costa Creeks 20 3.0 RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

Las Trampas Grayson Grayson Mt. Diablo Mt. Diablo Kirker

Edwards Alhambra

Poor Marginal Fair Good Very Good

Figure 6. Preliminary Benthic-Index of Biotic Integrity (B-IBI) scores (black circles) for Las Trampas, Grayson, Mt. Diablo, Kirker, Edwards and Alhambra Creek stations sampled from 2001-2006. For stations sampled three or more times, 25th percentiles (lower box), medians (box midline) and 75th percentiles (upper box) are also presented.

Preliminary Assessment of Aquatic Life Use Condition in Contra Costa Creeks 21 3.0 RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

(Below Reservoir) Lower Marsh (Above Reservoir) Upper Marsh Kellogg East and WestEast Antioch

Poor Marginal Fair Good Very Good

Figure 7. Preliminary Benthic-Index of Biotic Integrity (B-IBI) scores (black circles) for Upper Marsh, Lower Marsh, Kellogg, and East & West Antioch Creek stations sampled from 2001-2006. For stations sampled three or more times, 25th percentiles (lower box), medians (box midline) and 75th percentiles (upper box) are also presented.

Preliminary Assessment of Aquatic Life Use Condition in Contra Costa Creeks 22 3.0 RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

To assess the general condition of aquatic life uses on a watershed scale, B-IBI scores were calculated for 16 Contra Costa watersheds using the average score of all stations within the watershed boundaries (Figure 8). Due to a limited number of stations sampled, some smaller watersheds were combined (i.e., East and West Antioch Creeks). Data used to calculate B-IBI scores are presented in Appendix C.

Kellogg Upper Marsh Rodeo Wildcat Rheem Alhambra Las Trampas Pinole Mt. Diablo

Watershed San Pablo Lower Marsh Kirker Refugio Grayson East/West Antioch Cerrito/Baxter 0 10 20 30 40 50 Poor Marginal Fair Good Very Good Contra Costa Benthic IBI Score

Figure 8. Ranges of Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) grouped by watershed. Minimum (lower whisker), maximum (upper whisker), 25th percentile (lower box), median (box midline) and 75th percentile (upper box) IBI scores for each watershed are presented.

3.3 ANNUAL VARIABILITY IN B-IBI SCORES One of the fundamental challenges of bioassessment is the fact that BMI communities naturally vary spatially and temporally. In order for bioassessment to provide meaningful guidance for water quality managers, it is critical that this variation be managed so that signals (evidence of impairment) can be detected over the noise of variation.

In Contra Costa County, bioassessments are conducted once annually during the late spring or early summer. Sampling occurs during this “index period” because benthic communities are typically at their most diverse and are highly abundant prior to emergence (i.e., adult flight). Considering that only a single annual sampling event occurs at a given station, it is therefore it is assumed that intra-annual (within year) variability is a null issue. In contrast, inter-annual (between years) variability could be a significant barrier to assessing changes in the condition of aquatic life use indicators.

Preliminary Assessment of Aquatic Life Use Condition in Contra Costa Creeks 23 3.0 RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

To assess inter-annual variability in BMI communities, stations that were sampled during the same four years were plotted and standard deviations were calculated. Figure 9 illustrates B-IBI scores for stations sampled in three of more years between 2001 and 2006. Standard deviations range between 1.5 and 7.9 for these stations and B-IBI scores generally remain somewhat constant at a large majority of stations evaluated. The variation in scores that was observed can be roughly grouped into two classes: 1) differences in the quality of BMIs due to impacts that did or did not occur in a given year; and, 2) natural variation in bioassessment metrics at these sites. During the development of the B-IBI for San Francisco Bay Area Creeks, differences in B-IBI scores between years will continue to be evaluated to better understand the degree to which variations are associated with natural and anthropogenic sources.

50

45

40

35 2001 30 2002 2003 25 2004 20 2005 2006 Preliminary B-IBIPreliminary Score 15

10

5

0 206PNL010 206PNL040 206PNL060 206PNL070 206PNL100 206PNL110 207ALH020 207ALH080 207ALH090 207ALH110 207ALH140 207ALH150 207ALH170 203CER040 544MSH010 544MSH050 543MSH090 543MSH130 543MSH140 543MSH150 543MSH160 543MSH180 Sampling Station

Figure 9. Comparison of B-IBI scores for stations sampled three or more times during 2001-2006.

3.4 POTENTIAL FACTORS AFFECTING AQUATIC LIFE USES BMI communities can be affected by a variety of natural (e.g., elevation, hydrology, instream and riparian physical habitat quality, food availability and predation) and anthropogenic (e.g., urbanization, impoundments and water quality) factors. Limited data are currently available on food availability, stream hydrology and water quality, and therefore no analyses were performed on these factors. The effects of watershed-scale urbanization (via elevation) and reach-scale physical habitat quality were examined using available data.

3.4.1 Urbanization Urbanization can affect the type and diversity of BMIs present at creek stations due to changes in hydrology, riparian vegetation, creek substrate and water quality. In previous studies, the effects of urbanization on BMIs have been evaluated using indicators such as percent impervious surfaces and percent urban area in upstream land areas. Although data were not available for these urbanization indicators, information on other indicator, elevation, was available to assess correlation between urbanization and IBI scores.

Preliminary Assessment of Aquatic Life Use Condition in Contra Costa Creeks 24 3.0 RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

Due to historical development patterns, urbanization in Contra Costa 60 County typically increases as elevation decreases. Therefore, a regression 50 analysis was conducted to better understand the effects of watershed- 40 scale urbanization (via elevation) on B- 30 IBI scores in Contra Costa County. r2 = 0.1938 Based on preliminary results, elevation B-IBI Score 20 (as an indicator of urbanization) does not appear to have a significant 10 influence on B-IBI scores (Figure 10), 0 although a large majority of stations sampled are below 500 ft. In 0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 particular, some stations in lower Elevation (ft) elevations (<500 ft) had B-IBI scores ranking “good” to “very good” and Figure 10. Comparison of elevation and preliminary Contra Costa B- stations at higher elevations (>1000 ft) IBI scores at stations sampled from 2001-2006. received relatively low B-IBI scores. It is important to point out, however, that elevation may not be the best indicator of urbanization, especially in watersheds that are highly developed. It is suggested that in the future, better indicators of urbanization be developed in Contra Costa County and multivariate analyses be conducted to simultaneously assess correlations between urbanization, other factors and IBI scores.

3.4.2 Reach-Scale Physical Habitat Quality Physical habitat characteristics that may influence BMI assemblages include substrate composition and embeddedness, instream vegetation, channel alternation and canopy cover. These parameters were qualitatively assessed at each 50 sampling station using the physical habitat assessment (PHAB)

e 45 40 procedures included in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s 35 30 (EPA) Rapid Bioassessment Protocol (Barbour et al., 1999). PHAB scores 25 can range from 0 to 200 (the higher 20 r2 = 0.1809 the score the greater the habitat 15 quality). 10

Contra Costa B-IBI Scor B-IBI Costa Contra 5 To evaluate correlations between 0 reach-scale physical habitat and 0 50 100 150 200 aquatic life use condition, a Physical Habitat Assessment Score regression analysis was conducted using PHAB and B-IBI scores. Figure 11 illustrates that PHAB scores are Figure 11. Comparison of reach-level qualitative physical habitat scores and not well correlated with B-IBI preliminary Contra Costa B-IBI scores at stations sampled in 2001-2006. scores (r2 = 0.18). Possible explanations include: 1) B-IBI scores are affected by watershed-scale characteristics (e.g., changes in hydrology due to increases in imperviousness) as opposed to reach-scale physical habitat conditions; 2) more specific/quantitative measurements of habitat characteristics (as opposed to PHAB scores) are needed to better understand the effects of reach-scale physical habitat on BMI assemblages; and, 3) site specific characteristics (i.e., water quality) are affecting BMI assemblages at particular stations.

Preliminary Assessment of Aquatic Life Use Condition in Contra Costa Creeks 25 3.0 RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

3.5 WATERSHED SPECIFIC OBSERVATIONS

3.5.1 Alhambra Creek Watershed The condition of aquatic life uses in creeks within the Alhambra Creek watershed appears to be good to marginal, compared to other stations in Contra Costa County. Stations in upper Franklin and Arroyo de Hambre creeks had the greatest B-IBI scores (Fair to Good) in the watershed, while stations lower in the watershed fell into the marginal scoring category. The median B-IBI score for all stations in the Alhambra Creek watershed ranks fourth among the 16 watersheds assessed.

3.5.2 Pinole Creek Watershed Similar to Alhambra Creek, aquatic life use condition in creeks within the Pinole Creek watershed appears to be marginal to fair compared to other watersheds in the County. Specifically, stations in the lower watershed are dominated by short-lived tolerant benthic macroinvertebrates that generally indicate stress on a system. Reduced physical habitat quality at these and all stations in the watershed may partially explain benthic community composition. The median B-IBI score for all stations in the Pinole Creek watershed ranks sixth among the 16 watersheds assessed.

3.5.3 Wildcat Creek Watershed Stations in the Wildcat Creek watershed have marginal to good B-IBI scores, compared to other watersheds in the County. In particular, station WIL070 ranked near the top of all stations sampled from 2001 to 2006, while stations lower in the watershed had much lower scores. Based on median B- IBI scores, Wildcat Creek ranked tenth among the 16 watersheds assessed.

3.5.4 San Pablo Creek Watershed Similar to Wildcat Creek, the condition of aquatic life uses in creek stations located in the San Pablo Creek watershed appears to be marginal, compared to other Contra Costa County stations. The variation in B-IBI scores among creek stations was minimal. Additionally, the watershed (as a whole) ranked 11th out of 16 watersheds assessed.

3.5.5 Mt. Diablo Creek Watershed Based on median B-IBI scores, the Mt. Diablo Creek watershed ranked ninth among the 16 watersheds assessed in the county. Stations in the upper watershed, particularly MTD120, had B-IBI scores in the good to very good categories. Scores in the mid to lower watershed stations (below MTD100) were much lower, falling into the marginal and poor categories. These stations were generally dominated by short-lived tolerant BMIs that generally indicated stress on a system. Lower scores at these stations could indicate that degraded physical habitat and/or water quality may be impacting benthic communities.

3.5.6 Marsh Creek Watershed Aquatic life use conditions in stations located in the Upper Marsh Creek watershed appear to be good to very good, compared to other stations in the county. Specifically, three of the highest ranking stations sampled from 2001 to 2006 are located in Upper Marsh Creek, even though the flow at these sites is intermittent. These scores are likely due to the land use of the areas draining to these stations, which is predominately open space park land.

In contrast to the upper watershed, stations in the lower watershed consistently scored in the poor to marginal categories, and are dominated by short-lived tolerant benthic macroinvertebrates that generally indicated stress on a system. Specifically, station MSH010 was one of the lowest ranking stations sampled. The low score at this and other stations located below the Marsh Creek reservoir is likely due to the reduced habitat complexity caused by the straightening of the channel and lack of riparian habitat. Additionally, the reservoir itself reduces the amount of large substrate (e.g., cobbles and boulders) that can be transported to the sections of the creek directly below the dam, and therefore likely reduced the diversity of BMI habitat available.

Preliminary Assessment of Aquatic Life Use Condition in Contra Costa Creeks 26 3.0 RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

3.5.7 Kirker Creek Watershed Benthic IBI scores for stations in the Kirker Creek watershed consistently scored in the poor to marginal categories. Additionally, the watershed (as a whole) ranked the lowest of the 16 watersheds sampled. Kirker creek stations are dominated by short-lived tolerant benthic macroinvertebrates that generally indicated stress on a system. Based on these results and other known water quality problems (i.e., toxicity attributable to pyrethroid pesticides), it is suggested that additional chemical and toxicity measurements be collected in this watershed to better determine the source of the impacts to BMI assemblages that were observed.

3.5.8 Kellogg Creek Watershed The two stations in the Kellogg Creek watershed ranked good and very good, based on B-IBI scores, while the watershed ranked first among all watersheds assessed. Scores are likely influence by the land use (i.e., open space) within the watershed areas draining to these stations.

3.5.9 Baxter and Cerrito Creek Watersheds Baxter and Cerrito Creek watersheds are made up of predominately urban land uses and creek channels have been heavily altered due the historical effects of urbanization. Therefore, it is not unexpected that stations within these watersheds would have B-IBI scores within the poor to marginal categories. These stations are dominated by short-lived tolerant benthic macroinvertebrates that generally indicated stress on a system.

3.5.10 Las Trampas Creek Watershed With the exception of stations WAL420 and WAL330, B-IBI scores for stations in the Las Trampas creek watershed were marginal. Stations WAL420 (Las Trampas Creek) and WAL330 (Reliez Creek) are located in the upper watersheds and predominately drain open space land uses and relatively large parcels of land. In contrast, other stations in the watershed are surrounded by residential and commercial development. The Las Trampas watershed ranked eighth of the 16 watersheds assessed.

3.5.11 Grayson Creek Watershed Similar to the Kirker Creek watershed, B-IBI scores for stations in the Grayson Creek watershed consistently scored in the poor to marginal categories. The watershed as a whole ranked 13th of 16 watersheds assessed. These stations also were dominated by short-lived tolerant benthic macroinvertebrates that generally indicated stress on a system.

3.5.12 East and West Antioch Creek Watersheds All stations within both East and West Antioch creeks scored in poor to marginal B-IBI scoring categories and BMI assemblages were dominated by short-lived tolerant benthic macroinvertebrates that generally indicated stress on a system. The watersheds are made up of predominately urban land uses and creek channels have been heavily altered due the historical effects of urbanization, which likely affect aquatic life uses. East and West Antioch watersheds ranked 14th out of the 16 watersheds assessed.

3.5.13 Rodeo and Refugio Creek Watersheds Based on median B-IBI scores, the Refugio Creek watershed ranked seventh among the 16 watersheds assessed in the county. Benthic IBI scores for stations in the watershed generally scored in the marginal category. Rodeo Creek stations scored moderately higher than Refugio, falling into the marginal to fair categories. In particular, upper watershed site RDO070 (Rodeo Creek along upper Christie Rd.) scored the highest among all stations in the watershed.

Preliminary Assessment of Aquatic Life Use Condition in Contra Costa Creeks 27 3.0 RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

3.5.14 Rheem Creek Watershed All stations within Rheem creek scored in fair to marginal B-IBI scoring categories. Specifically, stations in the lower watershed are dominated by short-lived tolerant benthic macroinvertebrates that generally indicate stress on a system. Reduced physical habitat quality at these and all stations in the watershed may partially explain benthic community composition. The median B-IBI score for all stations in the Rheem Creek watershed ranks fifth among the 16 watersheds assessed.

Preliminary Assessment of Aquatic Life Use Condition in Contra Costa Creeks 28

4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE MONITORING

A considerable amount of biological data has been collected from 2001 to 2006 in Contra Costa County through the implementation of creek bioassessment programs. Based on data collected to-date, the following conclusions and recommendations were developed to assist in future creek monitoring efforts in Contra Costa County.

• Based on preliminary data analyses and the Draft Contra Costa B-IBI, the condition of aquatic life uses in 60% of the 120 creek stations assessed in Contra Costa County appear to be either poor or marginal, while 40% are either fair, good or very good. Impacts to aquatic life uses may include, but are not limited to: changes to natural (predevelopment) physical habitat within and adjacent to creeks; degraded water quality; and changes in creek hydrology due to impervious surfaces and water impoundments. As resources allow, future monitoring efforts should attempt to identify specific sources of impacts through detailed studies at locations where restoration potential is greatest. Additionally, to protect existing valuable aquatic resources, management efforts should continue focus on watershed areas draining to stations with B-IBI scores in the good to very good categories (e.g., park and water district lands).

• Volunteer citizen monitors have, and continue to provide valuable information regarding the condition of aquatic life uses in Contra Costa creeks. Bioassessment data collected by volunteers with supervision from trained biologists has been shown to be directly comparable to data collected by biologists alone. Additionally, the need for biologists to conduct field work may be reduced as volunteers become more familiar with protocols and quality assurance procedures. Given the illustrated benefits and potential cost savings of utilizing volunteers to conduct bioassessments in the future, it is recommended that the Contra Costa Clean Water Program consider providing continued support for volunteers in the future.

• Initial analysis suggests that annual variability in B-IBI scores at individual stations is moderate to low. Therefore, annual sampling at stations where four or more years of data have been collected can likely be reduced to a biannual or triannual sampling frequency. Additionally, the Program may be able to detect significant changes (positive and negative) in aquatic life use conditions over a relatively short period of time (<10 years) due to relatively low variability.

• Although benthic macroinvertebrates are good indicators of aquatic life use condition, multiple types of biological communities (e.g., BMIs, fish, algae) are ideally used to assess the condition of water bodies. Assessments using multiple biological indicators will likely increase confidence in future assessments because they respond differently to stressors. Therefore, it is recommended that in the future (as resources are available), the Contra Costa Clean Water Program consider conducting bioassessments using at least one additional type of biological community (i.e., periphyton).

• Experience has shown that information derived from bioassessments is useful in: 1) assessing the relative condition of aquatic life uses in surface water bodies; 2) assisting managers in prioritizing restoration and watershed management efforts in geographical areas where aquatic resources appear to be in good condition or have only minor impacts; and, 3) detecting long- term (e.g., decadal) changes in biological assemblages. However, bioassessment data alone are not useful in detecting the sources of impacts to aquatic organisms. It is therefore suggested that additional chemical and toxicological data be collected in concert with bioassessments to better assess factors potentially impacting aquatic life uses in creeks. As suggested in the upcoming Municipal Regional Permit (MRP), it is recommended that chemical and toxicity measurements focus on sediment (fine-grained) collected from creek substrate.

• The Bay Area Macroinvertebrate Bioassessment Information (BAMBI) network is currently developing a Provisional Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity (B-IBI) for San Francisco Bay Area Creeks. This B-IBI will serve as a tool to compare stations within Contra Costa County to

Preliminary Assessment of Aquatic Life Use Condition in Contra Costa Creeks 29 4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE MONITORING

stations in other comparable creeks in the Bay Area. It is recommended that the Program continue to track and support the development and evolution of the Bay Area B-IBI. During the development of the Bay Area B-IBI, natural variation among creek stations will be evaluated and results may allow the partitioning of creek stations or geographical areas based on significant natural differences in biological communities in creeks. If this occurs, it is likely that multiple B-IBIs will be developed for the San Francisco Bay Area.

• Lastly, it is recommended that continued coordination occur among agencies that collect and interpret bioassessment information in the San Francisco Bay Area. Coordination could include the development of: a regional bioassessment data management system, regional bioassessment study designs, guidance on quality assurance and control procedures, and/or the development of “urban” reference and long-term assessment stations.

Preliminary Assessment of Aquatic Life Use Condition in Contra Costa Creeks 30

5.0 REFERENCES

Barbour, M.T., J. Gerritsen, B. D. Snyder, and J. B. Stribling.(1999). Revision to rapid bioassessment protocols for use in streams and rivers: periphyton, BMIs and fish. EPA 841-D-97-002.US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. Cressey, S. and C.A. Sommers. (2002) Alhambra Creek Watershed Rapid Bioassessment Pilot Project Report. Prepared for the Contra Costa Clean Water Program. Martinez, CA. February 12. _____. (2003) Contra Costa Monitoring and Assessment Plan (CCMAP) – 2002 Rapid Bioasssessment Project Report. Prepared for the Contra Costa Clean Water Program. Martinez, CA. March 17. _____. (2004) Contra Costa Monitoring and Assessment Plan (CCMAP) – 2003 Rapid Bioasssessment Project Report. Prepared for the Contra Costa Clean Water Program. Martinez, CA. February 18. _____. (2005) Contra Costa Monitoring and Assessment Plan (CCMAP) – 2004 Rapid Bioasssessment Project Report. Prepared for the Contra Costa Clean Water Program. Martinez, CA. August 18. _____. (2006) Contra Costa Monitoring and Assessment Plan (CCMAP) – 2005 Rapid Bioasssessment Project Report. Prepared for the Contra Costa Clean Water Program. Martinez, CA. August 16. Contra Costa Community Development Department (CDD). (2003). Contra Costa Watershed Atlas. Martinez, CA. Cummins, K. W. and M.J. Klug (1979). Feeding Ecology of Stream Invertebrates. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, Vol. 10, 1979 (1979), pp. 147-172 Eisenberg, Olivieri and Associates (EOA). (2006). Contra Costa Citizen Monitoring Program Rapid Bioassessment Report. Prepared for the Contra Costa Community Development Department. December. Epler, J.H. (2001). Identification Manual for the Larval Chrionomidae of North and South Carolina. USEPA Grant #X984170-97. September 27. Hughes, R. M., P. R. Kaufmann, A. T. Herlihy, T. M. Kincaid, L. Reynolds, and D. P. Larsen. (1998). A process for developing and evaluating indices of fish assemblage integrity. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 55:1618–1631. Karr, J. R. and E. W. Chu. 1999. Restoring life in running waters – better biological monitoring. Island Press, Covelo, CA. McCormick, F. H., R. M. Hughes, P. R. Kaufmann, D. V. Peck, J. L. Stoddard, and A. T. Herlihy. (2001). Development of an index of biotic integrity for the Mid-Atlantic Highlands Region. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 130:857–877. Ode, P.R., A. Rhen, A., J. May. (2005). Quantitative Tool for Assessing the Integrity of Southern Coastal California Streams. Environmental Management Vol. 35, No. 4, pp. 493–504. Rhen, A.C. and P. Ode. (2006). Development of a Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity (B-IBI) for Wadeable Streams in Northern Coastal California and its Application to Regional 305(b) Assessment. Draft Report. Prepared by the California Dept. of Fish and Game, Aquatic Bioassessment Laboratory. Rancho Cordova, CA.

Preliminary Assessment of Aquatic Life Use Condition in Contra Costa Creeks 31 APPENDIX A - PHYSICAL HABITAT ASSESSMENT DATA

INCLUDED ON CD-ROM

Preliminary Assessment of Aquatic Life Use Condition in Contra Costa Creeks A-1

APPENDIX B - DATA QUALITY ASSESSMENT

During each year of data collection, the Contra Costa Clean Water Program and the Volunteer Monitoring Program have conducted quality assurance procedures based on guidance from the California Department of Fish and Game. Specifically, field and laboratory quality assurance procedures and conducted annually. Procedures and results of these efforts are briefly summarized below. Additional information on data quality results have been provided in previous monitoring reports (Cressey and Sommers 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006).

To assess the accuracy of field data collection techniques, duplicate samples were collected annually from at least 10% of the sites sampled during that year. Organisms identified in the original sample were then compared duplicate samples using species similarity measurements. Results of these comparisons consistently indicated that duplicate and original samples were at least 80% similar, suggesting that the accuracy of field measurements was high.

In addition to field quality assurance measurements, each year at least 10% of the samples enumerated were analyzed a second time by an independent laboratory for discrepancies, which if determined, were reviewed and resolved. Based on laboratory quality assurance results, overall taxonomy was very good and performed in accordance with the California Stream Bioassessment Procedure (CSBP) Level I standards.

Preliminary Assessment of Aquatic Life Use Condition in Contra Costa Creeks A-2 APPENDIX C – CONTRA COSTA BENTHIC IBI CALCULATION TABLES

Number Number % Non- Collection EPT Metric Metric Metric % Metric Metric Waterbody Name Site Diptera Predator Insecta Total IBI Date Taxa Score Score Score Collectorers Score Score Taxa Taxa Taxa

Baxter Creek 203BAX030 5/4/2006 1 1 2 2 2 2 0.88 5 0.70 0 10 Baxter Creek 203BAX045 5/27/2005 2 2 2 2 1 1 0.99 1 0.56 2 8 Baxter Creek 203BAX045 5/3/2006 2 2 7 10 1 1 0.99 1 0.23 8 22 Cerrito Creek 203CER010 5/4/2006 1 1 2 2 0 0 1.00 0 0.50 4 7 Cerrito Creek 203CER020 5/5/2006 4 4 4 6 4 4 0.96 2 0.47 4 20 Cerrito Creek 203CER040 3/30/2002 1 1 5 7 3 3 0.98 1 0.33 7 19 Cerrito Creek 203CER040 5/15/2003 2 2 4 6 4 4 0.97 1 0.42 5 18 Cerrito Creek 203CER040 4/12/2004 1 1 3 4 0 0 1.00 0 0.20 9 14

Cerrito Creek 203CER040 4/7/2005 4 4 8 10 5 5 0.95 2 0.41 5 26 Cerrito Creek 203CER040 4/28/2006 1 1 2 2 3 3 0.95 2 0.55 3 11 Pinole Creek 206PNL010 4/30/2002 1 1 4 6 3 3 0.98 1 0.54 3 14 Pinole Creek 206PNL010 4/23/2003 2 2 5 7 4 4 0.98 1 0.44 5 19 Pinole Creek 206PNL010 5/6/2005 1 1 3 4 2 2 0.98 1 0.50 4 12 Pinole Creek 206PNL010 5/14/2006 2 2 5 7 2 2 0.99 1 0.30 7 19 Pinole Creek 206PNL020 4/30/2002 2 2 2 2 3 3 0.92 3 0.71 0 10 Pinole Creek 206PNL020 4/23/2003 2 2 2 2 3 3 0.99 1 0.55 3 11 Pinole Creek 206PNL030 4/30/2002 1 1 2 2 4 4 0.99 1 0.60 2 10 Pinole Creek 206PNL030 4/23/2003 1 1 3 4 7 7 0.98 1 0.58 2 15 Pinole Creek 206PNL040 4/29/2002 2 2 2 2 1 1 1.00 0 0.33 7 12 Pinole Creek 206PNL040 4/23/2003 1 1 3 4 2 2 1.00 0 0.33 7 14 Pinole Creek 206PNL040 5/6/2005 2 2 2 2 3 3 0.99 1 0.55 3 11 Pinole Creek 206PNL040 6/20/2006 5 5 5 7 6 6 0.96 2 0.27 8 28 Pinole Creek 206PNL050 4/29/2002 6 6 2 2 2 2 0.98 1 0.25 8 19 Pinole Creek 206PNL050 4/22/2003 7 7 2 2 2 2 0.98 1 0.17 10 22 Simas Creek 206PNL060 4/26/2002 3 3 8 10 9 9 0.94 3 0.28 8 33 Simas Creek 206PNL060 4/22/2003 3 3 4 6 7 7 0.91 4 0.38 6 26 Simas Creek 206PNL060 5/8/2005 2 2 5 7 5 5 0.94 3 0.50 4 21 Simas Creek 206PNL060 5/14/2006 4 4 4 6 3 3 0.97 1 0.31 7 21 Pinole Creek 206PNL070 4/26/2002 5 5 4 6 4 4 0.98 1 0.29 7 23

Preliminary Assessment of Aquatic Life Use Condition in Contra Costa Creeks A-3 APPENDIX C – CONTRA COSTA BENTHIC IBI CALCULATION TABLES

Number Number % Non- Collection EPT Metric Metric Metric % Metric Metric Waterbody Name Site Diptera Predator Insecta Total IBI Date Taxa Score Score Score Collectorers Score Score Taxa Taxa Taxa

Pinole Creek 206PNL070 4/22/2003 5 5 3 4 3 3 0.95 2 0.20 9 23 Pinole Creek 206PNL070 5/8/2005 7 7 3 4 3 3 0.98 1 0.27 8 23 Pinole Creek 206PNL070 5/18/2006 2 2 4 6 1 1 0.99 1 0.14 10 20 Pinole Creek 206PNL090 4/26/2002 3 3 4 6 3 3 0.99 1 0.18 9 22 Pinole Creek 206PNL090 4/22/2003 6 6 4 6 5 5 0.95 2 0.20 9 28 Periera Creek 206PNL100 4/25/2002 2 2 5 7 5 5 0.96 2 0.33 7 23 Periera Creek 206PNL100 4/21/2003 2 2 5 7 6 6 0.94 3 0.47 4 22 Periera Creek 206PNL100 5/14/2005 6 6 8 10 7 7 0.95 2 0.30 7 32 Periera Creek 206PNL100 5/13/2006 3 3 6 10 6 6 0.97 1 0.31 7 27 Pinole Creek 206PNL110 4/25/2002 2 2 5 7 5 5 0.98 1 0.36 6 21 Pinole Creek 206PNL110 4/21/2003 2 2 5 7 7 7 0.96 2 0.36 6 24 Pinole Creek 206PNL110 6/1/2005 4 4 5 7 8 8 0.93 3 0.33 7 29 Pinole Creek 206PNL110 5/13/2006 3 3 4 6 3 3 0.97 1 0.27 8 21 No Name Creek 206PNL120 4/25/2002 3 3 7 10 7 7 0.96 2 0.27 8 30 No Name Creek 206PNL120 4/21/2003 2 2 4 6 4 4 0.98 1 0.33 7 20 Rodeo Creek 206RDO010 3/30/2004 1 1 3 4 1 1 1.00 0 0.33 7 13 Rodeo Creek 206RDO010 4/5/2005 1 1 5 7 3 3 0.99 1 0.33 7 19 Unnamed Trib 206RDO040 3/29/2004 7 7 4 6 5 5 0.94 3 0.28 8 29 Unnamed Trib 206RDO040 4/4/2005 4 4 4 6 3 3 0.94 3 0.31 7 23 Rodeo Creek 206RDO050 3/29/2004 4 4 5 7 5 5 0.96 2 0.41 5 23 Rodeo Creek 206RDO050 4/4/2005 4 4 10 10 5 5 0.91 4 0.24 8 31 N. Fk. Rodeo Creek 206RDO060 3/29/2004 1 1 6 10 8 8 0.92 3 0.20 9 31 N. Fk. Rodeo Creek 206RDO060 4/5/2005 0 0 7 10 5 5 0.98 1 0.25 8 24 Rodeo Creek 206RDO070 3/30/2004 5 5 9 10 9 9 0.93 3 0.14 10 37 Rodeo Creek 206RDO070 4/5/2005 5 5 4 6 5 5 0.95 2 0.26 8 26 Refugio Creek 206RFG010 4/1/2004 0 0 3 4 4 4 0.98 1 0.58 2 11 Refugio Creek 206RFG010 4/6/2005 0 0 3 4 2 2 0.99 1 0.60 2 9 Refugio Creek 206RFG030 3/31/2004 2 2 4 6 4 4 0.98 1 0.42 5 18 Refugio Creek 206RFG030 4/6/2005 2 2 3 4 4 4 0.98 1 0.58 2 13

Preliminary Assessment of Aquatic Life Use Condition in Contra Costa Creeks A-4 APPENDIX C – CONTRA COSTA BENTHIC IBI CALCULATION TABLES

Number Number % Non- Collection EPT Metric Metric Metric % Metric Metric Waterbody Name Site Diptera Predator Insecta Total IBI Date Taxa Score Score Score Collectorers Score Score Taxa Taxa Taxa

Refugio Creek 206RFG040 3/31/2004 2 2 3 4 1 1 1.00 0 0.29 7 14 Refugio Creek 206RFG040 4/6/2005 2 2 3 4 3 3 0.99 1 0.50 4 14 Refugio Creek 206RFG050 3/31/2004 2 2 6 10 7 7 0.99 1 0.44 5 25 Refugio Creek 206RFG050 4/7/2005 2 2 5 7 6 6 0.96 2 0.56 2 19 Refugio Creek 206RFG060 4/1/2004 2 2 4 6 6 6 0.99 1 0.38 6 21 Refugio Creek 206RFG060 4/7/2005 2 2 3 4 2 2 0.99 1 0.33 7 16 Rheem Creek 206RHM005 5/6/2006 2 2 5 7 4 4 0.98 1 0.33 7 21 Rheem Creek 206RHM010 5/7/2006 4 4 2 2 2 2 0.99 1 0.30 7 16 Rheem Creek 206RHM020 5/8/2006 6 6 4 6 6 6 0.94 3 0.29 7 28 Rheem Creek 206RHM030 5/9/2006 10 10 4 6 5 5 0.80 9 0.06 10 40 San Pablo Creek 206SPA020 6/2/2005 2 2 4 6 3 3 0.87 6 0.45 4 21 San Pablo Creek 206SPA020 5/10/2006 4 4 3 4 3 3 0.84 7 0.22 9 27 San Pablo Creek 206SPA070 6/2/2005 2 2 3 4 3 3 0.95 2 0.50 4 15 San Pablo Creek 206SPA070 6/7/2006 11 10 5 7 8 8 0.90 4 0.14 10 39 Wilkie Creek 206SPA110 5/13/2005 2 2 4 6 4 4 0.81 8 0.43 5 25 Wilkie Creek 206SPA110 5/15/2006 1 1 1 0 2 2 0.59 10 0.80 0 13 San Pablo Creek 206SPA124 6/3/2005 1 1 3 4 2 2 1.00 0 0.38 6 13 San Pablo Creek 206SPA124 5/24/2006 1 1 3 4 1 1 0.78 10 0.60 2 18 Castro Creek 206SPA130 5/13/2005 1 1 4 6 3 3 0.99 1 0.44 5 16 Castro Creek 206SPA130 5/15/2006 1 1 4 6 3 3 0.96 2 0.54 3 15 Oak Creek 206SPA132 5/2/2006 0 0 2 2 2 2 0.98 1 0.83 0 5 San Pablo Creek 206SPA134 5/31/2005 1 1 3 4 4 4 0.99 1 0.44 5 15 San Pablo Creek 206SPA134 5/24/2006 1 1 6 10 2 2 0.67 10 0.38 6 29 San Pablo Creek 206SPA240 5/25/2006 2 2 2 2 1 1 1.00 0 0.43 5 10 Wildcat Creek 206WIL030 6/3/2005 2 2 4 6 5 5 0.97 1 0.46 4 18 Wildcat Creek 206WIL030 6/13/2006 1 1 4 6 2 2 0.99 1 0.38 6 16 Wildcat Creek 206WIL050 5/7/2005 4 4 4 6 1 1 0.99 1 0.20 9 21 Wildcat Creek 206WIL050 6/15/2006 2 2 4 6 4 4 0.99 1 0.20 9 22 Wildcat Creek 206WIL058 4/29/2005 6 6 6 10 4 4 0.98 1 0.24 8 29

Preliminary Assessment of Aquatic Life Use Condition in Contra Costa Creeks A-5 APPENDIX C – CONTRA COSTA BENTHIC IBI CALCULATION TABLES

Number Number % Non- Collection EPT Metric Metric Metric % Metric Metric Waterbody Name Site Diptera Predator Insecta Total IBI Date Taxa Score Score Score Collectorers Score Score Taxa Taxa Taxa

Wildcat Creek 206WIL058 6/15/2006 1 1 3 4 1 1 1.00 0 0.33 7 13 Wildcat Creek 206WIL060 6/21/2006 2 2 3 4 3 3 0.98 1 0.25 8 18 Wildcat Creek 206WIL070 4/29/2005 13 10 4 6 4 4 0.87 6 0.14 10 36 Wildcat Creek 206WIL070 5/23/2006 5 5 7 10 5 5 0.30 10 0.17 10 40 Wildcat Creek 206WIL130 4/22/2005 6 6 4 6 6 6 0.77 10 0.40 5 33 Wildcat Creek 206WIL130 5/24/2006 3 3 5 7 4 4 0.98 1 0.09 10 25 Wildcat Creek 206WIL180 4/22/2005 9 9 5 7 7 7 0.77 10 0.23 8 41 Wildcat Creek 206WIL180 5/15/2006 2 2 4 6 4 4 0.98 1 0.30 7 20 Alhambra Creek 207ALH020 5/18/2001 1 1 5 7 8 8 0.94 3 0.44 5 24 Alhambra Creek 207ALH020 4/17/2002 1 1 3 4 5 5 0.98 1 0.44 5 16 Alhambra Creek 207ALH020 5/1/2005 2 2 3 4 3 3 0.98 1 0.44 5 15 Alhambra Creek 207ALH020 5/17/2006 1 1 3 4 2 2 0.99 1 0.50 4 12 Alhambra Creek 207ALH030 5/18/2001 6 6 6 10 10 10 0.79 9 0.38 6 41 Alhambra Creek 207ALH040 5/18/2001 5 5 5 7 8 8 0.88 5 0.36 6 31 Alhambra Creek 207ALH050 5/15/2005 2 2 4 6 4 4 0.97 1 0.50 4 17 Alhambra Creek 207ALH050 5/21/2006 2 2 2 2 1 1 0.98 1 0.33 7 13 Alhambra Creek 207ALH060 4/17/2002 1 1 4 6 4 4 0.98 1 0.44 5 17 Alhambra Creek 207ALH060 5/5/2003 1 1 3 4 3 3 0.99 1 0.38 6 15 Franklin Creek 207ALH070 5/17/2001 3 3 4 6 9 9 0.92 3 0.47 4 25 Franklin Creek 207ALH080 4/12/2002 4 4 7 10 8 8 0.95 2 0.39 6 30 Franklin Creek 207ALH080 5/5/2003 3 3 4 6 5 5 0.98 1 0.38 6 21 Franklin Creek 207ALH080 4/17/2005 5 5 4 6 5 5 0.96 2 0.44 5 23 Franklin Creek 207ALH080 5/17/2006 3 3 5 7 4 4 0.97 1 0.27 8 23 Franklin Creek 207ALH090 5/17/2001 5 5 8 10 9 9 0.73 10 0.38 6 40 Franklin Creek 207ALH090 4/15/2002 9 9 6 10 10 10 0.92 3 0.32 7 39 Franklin Creek 207ALH090 5/5/2003 6 6 5 7 9 9 0.92 3 0.24 8 33 Franklin Creek 207ALH090 4/17/2005 8 8 5 7 9 9 0.89 5 0.32 7 36 Franklin Creek 207ALH090 5/12/2006 6 6 4 6 5 5 0.97 1 0.25 8 26 Franklin Creek 207ALH100 4/15/2002 2 2 4 6 9 9 0.87 6 0.53 3 26

Preliminary Assessment of Aquatic Life Use Condition in Contra Costa Creeks A-6 APPENDIX C – CONTRA COSTA BENTHIC IBI CALCULATION TABLES

Number Number % Non- Collection EPT Metric Metric Metric % Metric Metric Waterbody Name Site Diptera Predator Insecta Total IBI Date Taxa Score Score Score Collectorers Score Score Taxa Taxa Taxa

Alhambra Creek 207ALH110 5/17/2001 8 8 6 10 11 10 0.80 9 0.33 7 44 Alhambra Creek 207ALH110 4/16/2002 1 1 4 6 0 0 0.99 1 0.38 6 14 Alhambra Creek 207ALH110 5/1/2005 2 2 3 4 3 3 0.99 1 0.45 4 14 Alhambra Creek 207ALH130 5/16/2001 2 2 5 7 9 9 0.93 3 0.56 2 23 Alhambra Creek 207ALH130 4/11/2002 2 2 5 7 4 4 0.97 1 0.18 9 23 Alhambra Creek 207ALH140 5/16/2001 1 1 4 6 9 9 0.91 4 0.56 2 22 Alhambra Creek 207ALH140 4/11/2002 2 2 4 6 5 5 0.97 1 0.36 6 20 Alhambra Creek 207ALH140 4/24/2005 3 3 4 6 5 5 0.96 2 0.25 8 24 Alhambra Creek 207ALH140 5/16/2006 4 4 4 6 5 5 0.98 1 0.17 10 26 Arroyo del Hambre 207ALH150 5/16/2001 1 1 3 4 7 7 0.97 1 0.57 2 15 Arroyo del Hambre 207ALH150 4/16/2002 2 2 4 6 6 6 0.98 1 0.43 5 20 Arroyo del Hambre 207ALH150 5/4/2003 4 4 4 6 4 4 0.98 1 0.31 7 22 Arroyo del Hambre 207ALH150 4/19/2005 7 7 5 7 7 7 0.96 2 0.22 9 32 Arroyo del Hambre 207ALH150 5/26/2006 6 6 3 4 3 3 0.97 1 0.17 10 24 Arroyo del Hambre 207ALH160 5/16/2001 3 3 4 6 5 5 0.94 3 0.56 2 19 Arroyo del Hambre 207ALH170 4/12/2002 7 7 5 7 4 4 0.96 2 0.13 10 30 Arroyo del Hambre 207ALH170 5/4/2003 7 7 4 6 3 3 0.90 4 0.07 10 30 Arroyo del Hambre 207ALH170 4/19/2005 6 6 4 6 5 5 0.85 7 0.15 10 34 Arroyo del Hambre 207ALH170 5/16/2006 5 5 6 10 6 6 0.97 1 0.19 9 31 Edwards Creek 207EDW010 4/1/2004 2 2 2 2 2 2 0.94 3 0.55 3 12 Kirker Creek 207KIR040 4/14/2005 0 0 2 2 4 4 0.70 10 0.60 2 18 Kirker Creek 207KIR040 4/28/2006 0 0 3 4 1 1 0.97 1 0.63 1 7 Kirker Creek 207KIR085 4/26/2006 0 0 3 4 0 0 0.99 1 0.40 5 10 Kirker Creek 207KIR095 4/26/2006 1 1 3 4 0 0 1.00 0 0.20 9 14 Kirker Creek 207KIR110 4/15/2005 1 1 3 4 1 1 1.00 0 0.33 7 13 Kirker Creek 207KIR110 4/25/2006 1 1 3 4 2 2 0.99 1 0.50 4 12 Kirker Creek 207KIR115 4/28/2005 0 0 3 4 1 1 1.00 0 0.50 4 9 Kirker Creek 207KIR115 4/25/2006 2 2 3 4 2 2 0.99 1 0.30 7 16 Mt. Diablo Creek 207MTD010 4/16/2005 2 2 3 4 2 2 0.99 1 0.44 5 14

Preliminary Assessment of Aquatic Life Use Condition in Contra Costa Creeks A-7 APPENDIX C – CONTRA COSTA BENTHIC IBI CALCULATION TABLES

Number Number % Non- Collection EPT Metric Metric Metric % Metric Metric Waterbody Name Site Diptera Predator Insecta Total IBI Date Taxa Score Score Score Collectorers Score Score Taxa Taxa Taxa

Mt. Diablo Creek 207MTD010 5/25/2006 2 2 2 2 1 1 1.00 0 0.38 6 11 Mt. Diablo Creek 207MTD020 4/16/2005 2 2 2 2 2 2 0.98 1 0.44 5 12 Mt. Diablo Creek 207MTD020 4/30/2006 1 1 3 4 2 2 0.99 1 0.17 10 18 Mt. Diablo Creek 207MTD050 4/30/2005 3 3 3 4 1 1 0.91 4 0.57 2 14 Mt. Diablo Creek 207MTD050 5/6/2006 3 3 3 4 1 1 0.99 1 0.40 5 14 Mt. Diablo Creek 207MTD060 4/30/2005 2 2 2 2 2 2 0.95 2 0.69 0 8 Mt. Diablo Creek 207MTD060 5/6/2006 2 2 2 2 1 1 0.99 1 0.56 2 8 Mitchell Creek 207MTD100 4/23/2005 5 5 3 4 8 8 0.85 7 0.44 5 29 Mitchell Creek 207MTD100 4/22/2006 9 9 4 6 9 9 0.57 10 0.36 6 40 Mitchell Creek 207MTD120 4/23/2005 13 10 5 7 10 10 0.90 4 0.17 10 41 Mitchell Creek 207MTD120 4/22/2006 15 10 7 10 11 10 0.73 10 0.14 10 50 Grayson Creek 207WAL030 4/13/2005 1 1 1 0 2 2 0.99 1 0.78 0 4 Grayson Creek 207WAL030 5/3/2006 1 1 2 2 2 2 0.97 1 0.70 0 6 Grayson Creek 207WAL050 4/13/2005 2 2 2 2 2 2 0.91 4 0.58 2 12 Grayson Creek 207WAL050 5/3/2006 1 1 1 0 4 4 0.97 1 0.69 0 6 Grayson Creek 207WAL070 4/14/2005 1 1 1 0 0 0 1.00 0 0.60 2 3 Grayson Creek 207WAL070 5/3/2006 2 2 1 0 0 0 1.00 0 0.40 5 7 Grayson Creek 207WAL080 4/13/2005 1 1 3 4 1 1 0.99 1 0.60 2 9 Grayson Creek 207WAL080 5/3/2006 1 1 2 2 2 2 0.99 1 0.43 5 11 Grayson Creek 207WAL090 4/11/2005 1 1 5 7 3 3 0.96 2 0.42 5 18 Grayson Creek 207WAL090 5/5/2006 1 1 4 6 3 3 0.99 1 0.25 8 19 Grayson Creek 207WAL100 4/12/2005 1 1 3 4 4 4 0.90 4 0.64 1 14 Grayson Creek 207WAL100 5/5/2006 1 1 5 7 2 2 0.97 1 0.45 4 15 Grayson Creek 207WAL110 4/12/2005 1 1 2 2 1 1 0.98 1 0.63 1 6 Grayson Creek 207WAL110 5/5/2006 1 1 2 2 0 0 0.99 1 0.40 5 9 Grayson Creek 207WAL120 4/11/2005 1 1 2 2 0 0 0.99 1 0.57 2 6 Grayson Creek 207WAL120 5/5/2006 1 1 2 2 0 0 1.00 0 0.25 8 11 Grayson Creek 207WAL130 4/11/2005 1 1 2 2 0 0 1.00 0 0.40 5 8 Grayson Creek 207WAL130 5/5/2006 1 1 2 2 2 2 1.00 0 0.17 10 15

Preliminary Assessment of Aquatic Life Use Condition in Contra Costa Creeks A-8 APPENDIX C – CONTRA COSTA BENTHIC IBI CALCULATION TABLES

Number Number % Non- Collection EPT Metric Metric Metric % Metric Metric Waterbody Name Site Diptera Predator Insecta Total IBI Date Taxa Score Score Score Collectorers Score Score Taxa Taxa Taxa

Las Trampas Creek 207WAL300 4/3/2003 1 1 2 2 1 1 1.00 0 0.20 9 13 Las Trampas Creek 207WAL300 4/12/2004 1 1 2 2 3 3 0.99 1 0.43 5 12 Reliez Creek 207WAL310 4/2/2003 1 1 4 6 5 5 0.98 1 0.40 5 18 Reliez Creek 207WAL310 4/2/2004 1 1 7 10 3 3 0.99 1 0.27 8 23 Reliez Creek 207WAL320 4/1/2003 2 2 3 4 4 4 0.97 1 0.50 4 15 Reliez Creek 207WAL320 4/2/2004 3 3 5 7 4 4 0.94 3 0.29 7 24 Reliez Creek 207WAL330 4/1/2003 3 3 6 10 9 9 0.96 2 0.35 6 30 Reliez Creek 207WAL330 4/2/2004 7 7 7 10 8 8 0.92 3 0.16 10 38 Las Trampas Creek 207WAL340 4/3/2003 2 2 2 2 0 0 1.00 0 0.20 9 13 Las Trampas Creek 207WAL340 4/9/2004 1 1 3 4 1 1 1.00 0 0.33 7 13 Happy Valley Creek 207WAL350 4/1/2003 2 2 5 7 5 5 0.98 1 0.33 7 22 Happy Valley Creek 207WAL350 4/2/2004 2 2 5 7 2 2 0.96 2 0.27 8 21 Lafayette Creek 207WAL360 4/2/2003 2 2 4 6 4 4 0.96 2 0.42 5 19 Lafayette Creek 207WAL360 4/9/2004 1 1 3 4 4 4 0.98 1 0.38 6 16 Las Trampas Creek 207WAL380 4/3/2003 1 1 3 4 2 2 0.99 1 0.33 7 15 Las Trampas Creek 207WAL380 4/9/2004 3 3 3 4 4 4 0.98 1 0.33 7 19 Las Trampas Creek 207WAL390 4/7/2003 1 1 2 2 0 0 1.00 0 0.40 5 8 Las Trampas Creek 207WAL390 4/6/2004 3 3 5 7 3 3 0.98 1 0.10 10 24 Grizzly Creek 207WAL400 4/7/2003 1 1 2 2 4 4 0.99 1 0.50 4 12 Grizzly Creek 207WAL400 4/6/2004 1 1 5 7 6 6 0.96 2 0.50 4 20 Las Trampas Creek 207WAL410 4/7/2003 1 1 4 6 4 4 0.99 1 0.50 4 16 Las Trampas Creek 207WAL410 4/6/2004 5 5 5 7 7 7 0.96 2 0.29 7 28 Las Trampas Creek 207WAL420 4/7/2003 13 10 6 10 8 8 0.83 7 0.17 10 45 Las Trampas Creek 207WAL420 4/6/2004 20 10 11 10 14 10 0.41 10 0.05 10 50 E Antioch Creek 543EAN020 4/26/2006 2 2 2 2 2 2 0.83 7 0.60 2 15 E Antioch Creek 543EAN030 4/27/2006 2 2 2 2 0 0 0.99 1 0.43 5 10 E Antioch Creek 543EAN050 4/27/2006 0 0 2 2 0 0 0.99 1 0.67 1 4 E Antioch Creek 543EAN065 4/27/2006 0 0 1 0 0 0 1.00 0 0.67 1 1 E Antioch Creek 543EAN066 4/27/2006 0 0 1 0 1 1 0.99 1 0.80 0 2

Preliminary Assessment of Aquatic Life Use Condition in Contra Costa Creeks A-9 APPENDIX C – CONTRA COSTA BENTHIC IBI CALCULATION TABLES

Number Number % Non- Collection EPT Metric Metric Metric % Metric Metric Waterbody Name Site Diptera Predator Insecta Total IBI Date Taxa Score Score Score Collectorers Score Score Taxa Taxa Taxa

Kellogg Creek 543KEL010 4/2/2002 10 10 8 10 9 9 0.85 7 0.15 10 46 Mallory Creek 543KEL020 4/3/2002 14 10 4 6 8 8 0.92 3 0.18 9 36 Mallory Creek 543KEL020 4/15/2003 16 10 10 10 13 10 0.87 6 0.14 10 46 Mallory Creek 543KEL030 4/3/2002 12 10 6 10 10 10 0.82 8 0.11 10 48 Mallory Creek 543KEL030 4/15/2003 10 10 8 10 13 10 0.82 8 0.08 10 48 Kellogg Creek 543KEL040 4/2/2002 8 8 4 6 11 10 0.84 7 0.23 8 39 Lower Marsh Creek 543MSH090 4/13/2004 7 7 4 6 7 7 0.90 4 0.29 7 31 543MSH090 Lower Marsh Creek 4/20/2005 4 4 3 4 6 6 0.92 3 0.36 6 23 Lower Marsh Creek 543MSH090 5/5/2006 7 7 4 6 6 6 0.91 4 0.20 9 32 Lower Marsh Creek 543MSH110 4/14/2004 8 8 5 7 8 8 0.87 6 0.21 9 38 Lower Marsh Creek 543MSH110 4/20/2005 7 7 5 7 10 10 0.75 10 0.29 7 41 Lower Marsh Creek 543MSH120 4/13/2004 9 9 3 4 6 6 0.86 6 0.28 8 33 Lower Marsh Creek 543MSH120 4/20/2005 8 8 3 4 6 6 0.84 7 0.33 7 32 Lower Marsh Creek 543MSH130 4/13/2004 4 4 3 4 7 7 0.84 7 0.38 6 28 543MSH130 Lower Marsh Creek 4/19/2005 5 5 4 6 5 5 0.85 7 0.25 8 31 Lower Marsh Creek 543MSH130 4/29/2006 6 6 4 6 6 6 0.82 8 0.21 9 35 Lower Marsh Creek 543MSH140 4/14/2004 11 10 3 4 9 9 0.79 9 0.15 10 42 543MSH140 Lower Marsh Creek 4/19/2005 10 10 6 10 10 10 0.89 5 0.21 9 44 Lower Marsh Creek 543MSH140 5/5/2006 9 9 5 7 8 8 0.93 3 0.14 10 37 Curry Creek 543MSH150 4/4/2002 9 9 7 10 10 10 0.89 5 0.18 9 43 Curry Creek 543MSH150 4/18/2003 11 10 4 6 8 8 0.94 3 0.18 9 36 Curry Creek 543MSH150 4/1/2005 8 8 6 10 12 10 0.76 10 0.21 9 47 Curry Creek 543MSH150 4/21/2006 12 10 7 10 12 10 0.82 8 0.17 10 48 Upper Marsh Creek 543MSH160 4/4/2002 17 10 6 10 12 10 0.62 10 0.18 9 49 Upper Marsh Creek 543MSH160 4/18/2003 15 10 7 10 10 10 0.67 10 0.12 10 50 Upper Marsh Creek 543MSH160 4/9/2005 14 10 6 10 9 9 0.85 7 0.12 10 46 Upper Marsh Creek 543MSH170 4/5/2002 18 10 6 10 10 10 0.69 10 0.10 10 50 Upper Marsh Creek 543MSH170 4/18/2003 15 10 6 10 7 7 0.67 10 0.12 10 47 Upper Marsh Creek 543MSH180 4/5/2002 18 10 4 6 6 6 0.63 10 0.18 9 41

Preliminary Assessment of Aquatic Life Use Condition in Contra Costa Creeks A-10 APPENDIX C – CONTRA COSTA BENTHIC IBI CALCULATION TABLES

Number Number % Non- Collection EPT Metric Metric Metric % Metric Metric Waterbody Name Site Diptera Predator Insecta Total IBI Date Taxa Score Score Score Collectorers Score Score Taxa Taxa Taxa

Upper Marsh Creek 543MSH180 4/18/2003 18 10 5 7 8 8 0.65 10 0.11 10 45 Upper Marsh Creek 543MSH180 4/9/2005 14 10 4 6 7 7 0.73 10 0.17 10 43 Upper Marsh Creek 543MSH180 4/21/2006 15 10 5 7 6 6 0.76 10 0.20 9 42 Markley Creek 543WAN050 4/25/2006 1 1 3 4 5 5 0.98 1 0.30 7 18 W Antioch Creek 543WAN060 4/28/2006 1 1 2 2 5 5 0.40 10 0.77 0 18 W Antioch Creek 543WAN080 4/28/2006 0 0 2 2 2 2 0.73 10 0.67 1 15 Lower Marsh Creek 544MSH010 4/15/2004 1 1 1 0 3 3 0.97 1 0.70 0 5 Lower Marsh Creek 544MSH010 4/22/2005 3 3 2 2 4 4 0.89 5 0.63 1 15 Lower Marsh Creek 544MSH010 5/20/2006 2 2 2 2 1 1 0.96 2 0.50 4 11 Lower Marsh Creek 544MSH020 4/15/2004 1 1 2 2 5 5 0.93 3 0.62 1 12 Lower Marsh Creek 544MSH020 4/22/2005 3 3 2 2 3 3 0.88 5 0.62 1 14 Lower Marsh Creek 544MSH030 4/15/2004 3 3 2 2 1 1 0.99 1 0.50 4 11 Lower Marsh Creek 544MSH030 4/21/2005 3 3 2 2 3 3 0.83 7 0.53 3 18 Lower Marsh Creek 544MSH050 4/15/2004 0 0 2 2 6 6 0.84 7 0.79 0 15 544MSH050 Lower Marsh Creek 4/21/2005 1 1 1 0 3 3 0.94 3 0.70 0 7 Lower Marsh Creek 544MSH050 5/20/2006 3 3 2 2 4 4 0.95 2 0.64 1 12 Lower Marsh Creek 544MSH060 4/14/2004 2 2 2 2 5 5 0.81 8 0.63 1 18 Lower Marsh Creek 544MSH060 4/22/2005 1 1 1 0 4 4 0.77 10 0.69 0 15 Lower Marsh Creek 544MSH070 4/13/2004 3 3 2 2 3 3 0.99 1 0.40 5 14 Lower Marsh Creek 544MSH070 4/21/2005 2 2 4 6 4 4 0.95 2 0.33 7 21

Preliminary Assessment of Aquatic Life Use Condition in Contra Costa Creeks A-11 APPENDIX D - Benthic Macroinvertebrate Taxa Identified in Contra Costa County from 2001 to 2006

Phylum Subphylum Class Order Family Taxon Life Stage TV FFG Arthropoda Hexapoda Insecta Coleoptera Dryopidae Helichus sp. Adults 5 SH Dytiscidae Agabinus sp. Adults 5 P Agabus sp. Adults 8 P Hydroporus sp. Adults 5 P Sanfilippodytes sp. Adults 5 P Stictotarsus sp. Adults 5 P Agabinus sp. Larvae 5 P Agabus sp. Larvae 8 P Hydroporus sp. Larvae 5 P Sanfilippodytes sp. Larvae 5 P Stictotarsus sp. Larvae 5 P Elmidae Optioservus sp. Adults 4 SC Zaitzevia sp. Adults 4 SC Optioservus sp. Larvae 4 SC Zaitzevia sp. Larvae 4 SC Gyrinidae Gyrinus sp. Larvae 5 P Haliplidae Peltodytes sp. Adults 5 MH Peltodytes sp. Larvae 5 MH Helophoridae Helophorus sp. Adults 0 SH Hydraenidae Hydraena sp. Adults 5 SC Ochthebius sp. Adults 5 SC Hydrophilidae Anacaena sp. Adults 5 CG Cymbiodyta sp. Adults 5 CG Laccobius sp. Adults 5 MH Hydrophilidae Larvae 5 P Cymbiodyta sp. Larvae 5 P Helochares sp. Larvae 5 P Laccobius sp. Larvae 5 MH

Preliminary Assessment of Aquatic Life Use Condition in Contra Costa Creeks A-12 APPENDIX D - Benthic Macroinvertebrate Taxa Identified in Contra Costa County from 2001 to 2006

Phylum Subphylum Class Order Family Taxon Life Stage TV FFG Tropisternus sp. Larvae 5 P Psephenidae Acneus sp. Larvae 4 SC Eubrianax edwardsii Larvae 4 SC Scirtidae Elodes sp. Larvae 0 SC Diptera Brachycera 0 Blephariceridae Agathon sp. 0 SC Ceratopogonidae Ceratopogonidae 6 P Bezzia/ Palpomyia 6 P Ceratopogon sp. 6 P Culicoides sp. 6 P Dasyhelea sp. 6 CG Palpomyia sp. 6 P Probezzia sp. 6 P Sphaeromias sp. 6 P Ceratopogonidae Pupae 0 0 Chironomidae Chironomidae 6 CG Culicidae Culicidae 8 CG Dixidae Dixa sp. 2 CG Dixella sp. 2 CG Meringodixa chalonensis 2 CG Dixidae Pupae 0 0 Dolichopodidae Dolichopodidae 4 P Empididae Empididae 6 P Chelifera sp. 6 P Clinocera sp. 6 P Hemerodromia sp. 6 P Neoplasta sp. 6 P Trichoclinocera sp. 6 P Empididae Pupae 0 0 Ephydridae Ephydridae 6 0

Preliminary Assessment of Aquatic Life Use Condition in Contra Costa Creeks A-13 APPENDIX D - Benthic Macroinvertebrate Taxa Identified in Contra Costa County from 2001 to 2006

Phylum Subphylum Class Order Family Taxon Life Stage TV FFG Hydrellia sp. 6 SH Scatella sp. 6 CG Muscidae Muscidae 6 P Pelecorhynchidae Glutops sp. 3 P Psychodidae Psychodidae 0 CG Pericoma/ Telmatoscopus 4 CG Pericoma sp. 4 CG Psychoda sp. 10 CG Maruina lanceolata 2 SC Psychodidae Pupae 0 0 Sciomyzidae Sciomyzidae 6 P Antichaeta sp. 0 P Sepedon sp. 0 P Simuliidae Prosimulium sp. 3 CF Simulium sp. 6 CF Stratiomyidae Caloparyphus/ Euparyphus 8 CG Caloparyphus sp. 7 CG Euparyphus sp. 8 CG Nemotelus sp. 8 CG Stratiomys sp. 8 CG Tabanidae Tabanidae 8 P Tabanus/ Atylotus 5 P Tipulidae Tipulidae 3 SH Dicranota sp. 3 P Erioptera sp. 3 CG Gonomyia sp. 3 CG Hexatoma sp. 2 P Limnophila sp. 3 SH Limonia sp. 6 SH Molophilus sp. 4 SH Ormosia sp. 3 CG Pedicia sp. 1 SH Rhabdomastix sp. 3 P

Preliminary Assessment of Aquatic Life Use Condition in Contra Costa Creeks A-14 APPENDIX D - Benthic Macroinvertebrate Taxa Identified in Contra Costa County from 2001 to 2006

Phylum Subphylum Class Order Family Taxon Life Stage TV FFG Tipula sp. 4 OM Tipulidae Adults 0 0 Ephemeroptera Ameletidae Ameletus sp. 0 CG Baetidae Baetis sp. 5 CG Callibaetis sp. 9 CG Procloeon sp. 4 CG Diphetor hageni 5 CG Fallceon quilleri 4 CG Caenidae Caenis sp. 7 CG Ephemerellidae Drunella sp. 0 CG Ephemerella sp. 1 CG Serratella sp. 2 CG Heptageniidae Heptageniidae 4 SC Cinygmula sp. 4 SC Epeorus sp. 0 SC Ironodes sp. 3 SC Leucrocuta sp. 1 SC Leptohyphidae Tricorythodes sp. 4 CG Leptophlebiidae Paraleptophlebia sp. 4 CG Siphlonuridae Siphlonurus sp. 7 CG Edmundsius agilis 7 CG Hemiptera Belostomatidae Abedus sp. 8 P Corixidae Corixidae 10 P Corisella sp. 8 P Sigara sp. 8 P Trichocorixa sp. 8 P Megaloptera Corydalidae Neohermes sp. 0 P

Preliminary Assessment of Aquatic Life Use Condition in Contra Costa Creeks A-15 APPENDIX D - Benthic Macroinvertebrate Taxa Identified in Contra Costa County from 2001 to 2006

Phylum Subphylum Class Order Family Taxon Life Stage TV FFG Sialidae Sialis sp. 4 P Odonata Aeshnidae Aeshna sp. 5 P Coenagrionidae Coenagrionidae 0 P Argia sp. 7 P Enallagma sp. 9 P Cordulegastridae Cordulegaster dorsalis 3 P Plecoptera Plecoptera 0 0 Capniidae Capniidae 1 SH Mesocapnia sp. 1 SH Chloroperlidae Chloroperlidae 1 P Sweltsa sp. 1 P Leuctridae Leuctridae 0 SH Paraleuctra sp. 0 SH Nemouridae Malenka sp. 2 SH Nemoura spiniloba 1 SH Perlidae Calineuria californica 2 P Perlodidae Isoperla sp. 2 P Baumannella alameda 2 P Kogotus nonus 2 P Pteronarcyidae Pteronarcys sp. 0 OM Taeniopterygidae Taenionema sp. 2 OM Oemopteryx vanduzeea 2 OM Trichoptera Brachycentridae Micrasema sp. 1 MH Glossosomatidae Agapetus sp. 0 SC

Preliminary Assessment of Aquatic Life Use Condition in Contra Costa Creeks A-16 APPENDIX D - Benthic Macroinvertebrate Taxa Identified in Contra Costa County from 2001 to 2006

Phylum Subphylum Class Order Family Taxon Life Stage TV FFG Anagapetus sp. 0 SC Hydropsychidae Hydropsychidae 4 CF Hydropsyche sp. 4 CF Parapsyche sp. 0 P Hydroptilidae Hydroptila sp. 6 PH Ochrotrichia sp. 4 PH Oxyethira sp. 3 PH Lepidostomatidae Lepidostoma sp. 1 SH Odontoceridae Parthina sp. 0 SH Philopotamidae Wormaldia sp. 3 CF Psychomyiidae Tinodes sp. 2 SC Rhyacophilidae Rhyacophila sp. 0 P Sericostomatidae Gumaga sp. 3 SH Uenoidae Farula sp. 0 SC Neophylax sp. 3 SC Crustacea Branchiopoda Cladocera Daphniidae Daphniidae 8 CG Copepoda Cyclopoida Cyclopoida 8 CG Harpacticoida Harpacticoida 8 CG Malacostraca Amphipoda Corophiidae Corophiidae 4 0 Americorophium sp. 4 CF Crangonyctidae Crangonyx sp. 4 CG

Preliminary Assessment of Aquatic Life Use Condition in Contra Costa Creeks A-17 APPENDIX D - Benthic Macroinvertebrate Taxa Identified in Contra Costa County from 2001 to 2006

Phylum Subphylum Class Order Family Taxon Life Stage TV FFG Stygobromus sp. 4 CG Gammaridae Gammarus sp. 6 CG Hyalellidae Hyalella sp. 8 CG Decapoda Decapoda 0 0 Astacidae Pacifastacus sp. 8 CG Cambaridae Procambarus sp. 8 SH Isopoda Sphaeromatidae Gnorimosphaeroma sp. 0 CG Ostracoda Ostracoda 8 CG Chelicerata Arachnida Acari 5 PA Sarcoptiformes Oribatei 0 0 Trombidiformes Eylaidae Eylaidae 0 P Eylais sp. 0 P Hygrobatidae Hygrobatidae 8 P Atractides sp. 8 P Hygrobates sp. 8 P Mesobates sp. 8 P Lebertiidae Lebertiidae 8 P Lebertia sp. 8 P Mideopsidae Mideopsis sp. 5 P Pionidae Pionidae 5 P Sperchontidae Sperchontidae 8 P Sperchontidae 8 P Sperchon sp. 8 P

Preliminary Assessment of Aquatic Life Use Condition in Contra Costa Creeks A-18 APPENDIX D - Benthic Macroinvertebrate Taxa Identified in Contra Costa County from 2001 to 2006

Phylum Subphylum Class Order Family Taxon Life Stage TV FFG Stygothrombiidae Stygothrombium sp. 5 P Unionicolidae Neumania sp. 5 P Unionicola sp. 5 P Annelida Aclitellata Polychaeta Aciculata Nereididae Nereis sp. 0 CG Clitellata Branchiobdellae Branchiobdellae 0 0 Hirudinea Arhynchobdellida Erpobdellidae Erpobdellidae 8 P Erpobdella sp. 8 P Mooreobdella sp. 8 P Rhynchobdellida Glossiphoniidae Helobdella sp. 6 PA Placobdella sp. 6 PA Oligochaeta Oligochaeta 5 CG Lumbricina Lumbricina 0 CG Coelenterata Hydrozoa Hydroida Hydridae Hydra sp. 5 P Mollusca Bivalvia Veneroida Corbiculidae Corbicula sp. 8 CF Sphaeriidae Pisidium sp. 8 CF Gastropoda

Preliminary Assessment of Aquatic Life Use Condition in Contra Costa Creeks A-19 APPENDIX D - Benthic Macroinvertebrate Taxa Identified in Contra Costa County from 2001 to 2006

Phylum Subphylum Class Order Family Taxon Life Stage TV FFG Basommatophora Ancylidae Ferrissia sp. 6 SC Lymnaeidae Fossaria sp. 8 SC Stagnicola sp. 10 SC Physidae Physa/ Physella 8 SC Physa sp. 8 SC Physella sp. 8 SC Planorbidae Gyraulus sp. 8 SC Menetus sp. 6 SC Planorbella sp. 6 SC Neotaenioglossa Hydrobiidae Hydrobiidae 8 SC Nematoda Nematoda 5 P Nemertea Enopla Hoplonemertea Tertastemmatidae Prostoma sp. 8 P Platyhelminthes Turbellaria Turbellaria 4 P Tricladida Planariidae Planariidae 4 P TV = Tolerance Value FFG = Functional Feeding Group

TV based on a scale of 0 (highly intolerant) to 10 (highly tolerant)

Abbreviations used in denoting FFG are as follows: CF = collector filterer PA = parasite CG = collector-gatherer PH = piercer herbivore MH = macrophyte herbivore SC = scraper OM = omnivore SH = shredder P = predator

Preliminary Assessment of Aquatic Life Use Condition in Contra Costa Creeks A-20 APPENDIX E – CCMAP FACTSHEET

INCLUDED ON CD-ROMIncluded on CD-Rom.

Preliminary Assessment of Aquatic Life Use Condition in Contra Costa Creeks A-21