2016 Cherry Creek Monitoring Report January 2017 2016 Cherry Creek Monitoring Report January 2017

PRESENTED TO PREPARED BY

Cherry Creek Basin Water Quality Authority Tetra Tech, Inc. Clifton Larson Allen LLP 1576 Sherman Street, 8390 East Crescent Parkway, Suite 500 Suite 100 Greenwood Village, CO 80111-2814 Denver, CO 80203

Reviewed by:

Harry Gibbons, Ph.D. Date Senior Scientist/Limnologist 01/17/2017

Authorized by: .

Julie Vlier, P.E Date Project Manager 01/17/2017 2016 Cherry Creek Monitoring Report

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The 2016 Cherry Creek Monitoring Report provides a comprehensive update of monitoring efforts conducted in Cherry Creek Reservoir (Reservoir) and it’s watershed during the 2016 water year, October 1, 2015 to September 30, 2016. The reservoir and watershed monitoring program (“program”) is conducted in the Cherry Creek basin (Figure ES-1) in accordance with Cherry Creek Reservoir Control Regulation No. 72 (CR72) and the Cherry Creek Sampling and Analysis Program and Quality Assurance Procedures and Protocols (SAP/QAPP, 2016). The program is comprised of routine and continuous monitoring of physical, chemical and biological conditions, including evaluations of:  Attainment of long term water quality goals and compliance with water quality standards, including the growing season chlorophyll-a (chl-a) water quality standard in Cherry Creek Reservoir, pursuant to CR72.

 Water quality characterization of inflows and the Reservoir.

 Effectiveness of the pollutant reduction facilities (PRFs) within the Cherry Creek basin, owned and operated by the Cherry Creek Basin Water Quality Authority (Authority).

 Streamflow measurements during base flow and stormflow conditions.

 Flow weighted total phosphorus (TP) and total nitrogen (TN) concentrations conveyed to Reservoir from Cherry Creek and Cottonwood Creek.

 Trends observed over the long-term since 1987 when the Authority began collecting data, including flow based The Cherry Creek concentration of phosphorus. Figure ES-1. Cherry Creek Watershed Map. Basin is generally located in the Denver metropolitan area, south of Interstate 225 and east of Interstate 25.

Key watershed and Reservoir findings from the 2016 monitoring season are summarized below.

ES-i 2016 Cherry Creek Monitoring Report

2016 Watershed Highlights Higher than normal streamflow was observed in the watershed April through September. The streamflow from April – September was above the historical median measured in Cherry Creek (ES-2). Annual precipitation, 15.3 inches, was 93 percent (%) of average, however, the July through September total was only 44% of average (ES-3). The higher Cherry Creek inflows observed July through September may be a function of recharged shallow groundwater from the March through June precipitation events, resulting in delayed return flows through September.

Figure ES-2. WY 2016 Cherry Creek Streamflow near Parker, CO. 2016 data are compared to the past 25 year median daily statistic. April – September 2016 flows were considerably greater than the historic record (Source: USGS, Station 393109104464500, Cherry Creek near Parker, CO).

ES-ii 2016 Cherry Creek Monitoring Report

Figure ES-3. Monthly Precipitation near Cherry Creek Reservoir. Comparison of WY2016 precipitation and 11-year average (Data Source: NOAA Precipitation Statin at Centennial Airport - KAPA).

Cottonwood Creek PRF passive treatment train approach provided phosphorus reduction during storm events, which could be improved upon with future maintenance, i.e. vegetative harvesting. The passive treatment train approach developed for PRFs in the Cottonwood Creek sub- basin includes a series of wetland detention systems and stream reclamation. This approach provided for a phosphorus reduction strategy, reducing TP concentration during stormflow conditions by 20% (Table ES-1). Total suspended solids concentration (TSS, a quantification of sediment concentration in streamflow) was reduced 77%. This is important, as the phosphorus content in sediments in the creek have been measured to contain high phosphorus content, on average of 0.9 pounds/cubic yard (Ruzzo, 2000). During base flow conditions, there was an increase in TP and TSS concentrations and the loading calculations bear out the instances when there is a net gain (net export) of TP and TSS. Soluble reactive phosphorus (SRP) concentrations were reduced by 25% during base flow conditions, however there was an increased load, or export of SRP, during stormflow events. TN concentrations (and loads) increased during both base flow and stormflow events, resulting in a net gain of nitrogen. Future wetland maintenance on this PRF is recommended. With routine maintenance, i.e. vegetation harvesting, N and P can be further reduced.

ES-iii 2016 Cherry Creek Monitoring Report

Table ES- 1. Pollutant Reduction Effectiveness of the Cottonwood PRFs - 2016 Median Concentrations (µg/L) at Cottonwood Stations, CT-P1 and CT-P2 (Sources of Data: IEH Analytical, Inc. (March 1 2016 -.September 30, 2016); GEI Consultants, Inc. (November 1, 2015 – February 28, 2016). Analyte Cottonwood Cr, Cottonwood Cr, upstream of PRFs downstream of PRFs (Station CT-P1) (Station CT-2)

Base Flow Stormflow Base Flow Stormflow TP, µg/L 42 81 62 65 SRP, 12 5 9 14 µg/L

TN, µg/L 1196 1820 1927 1860 TSS, 11.8 81.5 26 18.5 mg/L

Cherry Creek nutrient and sediment (TSS) concentrations were elevated upstream of Reservoir. Total dissolved phosphorus (TDP), TP and TSS concentrations measured upstream of the Reservoir at Cherry Creek Monitoring Station CC-10 (Figure ES-4) were over four times greater than what was measured in Cottonwood Creek at Station CT-2 during routine sampling, and an order of magnitude greater during storm events. Phosphorus was generally present at CC-10 in the dissolved form in WY2016 with the exception of during storm-related high flows. During the higher flow generated by storm runoff, large amounts of sediment (and associated phosphorus) were transported in Cherry Creek. There is a strong relationship between particulate phosphate and suspended sediment conveyed by Cherry Creek. The flow weighted TP concentration at CC-10 for WY2016 was 250 µg/L, slightly lower than the 2011 – 2015 flow weighted total phosphorus concentration of 263 µg/L (GEI, 2016), yet considerably elevated. The TP inflow concentrations from Cherry Creek remain too elevated to sustain water quality goals within the Reservoir. Therefore, treatment train PRF approaches, located upstream of the Reservoir on Cherry Creek (similar to Cottonwood Creek), may be appropriate for future consideration to reduce TP, SRP, and TSS concentrations of Cherry Creek inflows to the Reservoir.

ES-iv 2016 Cherry Creek Monitoring Report

Figure ES-4. Comparison of TP Concentrations of Cherry Creek versus Cottonwood Creek (WY2016). Cherry Creek TP concentration measured at CC-10 (upstream of Reservoir) is on average three times greater than Cottonwood Creek TP concentrations measured upstream of Reservoir at CT-2. (Sources of Data: IEH Analytical (March 1, 2016 - September 30, 2016); GEI Consultants, Inc. (November 1, 2015 – February 28, 2016).

Cherry Creek pH and specific conductance, a surrogate for total dissolved solids (TDS), increased upstream to downstream. The 2016 basin-wide monitoring events indicated an increase in pH and specific conductance in Cherry Creek as surface water moved from the upper basin downstream to the Reservoir (Figure ES-5). As shown, the background pH at Castlewood was 6.1, then increased to pH 8 downstream of CC-6. In the case of specific conductance, during the May 2016 basin-wide monitoring event values increased approximately 4 fold from the upper monitoring stations (Castlewood and CC-1) to those in Cherry Creek State Park (CC-9 and CC-10) (Figure ES-5). This increase in specific conductance is due, in part, to increased levels of sulfate and chloride in Cherry Creek in the downstream direction. Review of the historic data from CC-10 suggests that the pH of surface water entering the Reservoir from Cherry Creek appear to be decreasing slightly through time and that specific conductance values at CC-10 appear to have doubled since the mid-2000s (Figure ES-6).

ES-v 2016 Cherry Creek Monitoring Report

Figure ES-5. Specific Conductance and pH in Cherry Creek Basin, May 2016. (Source of Data: IEH Analytical, Inc.)

The pH of water in lower Cottonwood Creek was consistent with the pH values observed in lower Cherry Creek. However, the concentration of TDS, as inferred by specific conductance values, was higher in Cottonwood Creek than in Cherry Creek. This higher specific conductance is due, in part, to elevated levels of chloride and sulfate present in Cottonwood Creek.

ES-vi 2016 Cherry Creek Monitoring Report

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000 Specific Specific Conductance(µS)

500

0 Jan-01 Jan-03 Jan-05 Jan-07 Jan-09 Jan-11 Jan-13 Jan-15 Jan-17

Figure ES-6. Historic specific conductance values at Cherry Creek Monitoring Site CC-10. (Sources of Data: GEI Consultants, Inc. (2001 – February 2016; IEH Analytical, Inc. (March –September 2016)

Alluvial groundwater quality indicated contrast differences in TN and TP concentrations between surface water and ground water media. A comparison of Cherry Creek surface water and alluvial groundwater data from the May 2016 basin-wide sampling event suggested a difference in TN concentrations between the two media. The median concentrations of TN in May 2016 were 1,500 µg/L in surface water and 300 µg/L in alluvial groundwater. In contrast to TN, comparison of Cherry Creek surface water and alluvial groundwater data from the May 2016 basin-wide sampling event suggests little difference in TP concentrations between the two media, with the exception of well MW-2. The median concentrations of TP differed little between the two media in May 2016, 207 µg/L in surface water and 214 µg/L in alluvial groundwater. Specific conductance increased in several wells (i.e., MW- 1, -5, -6, -9 and Kennedy). It is likely that increases in the concentrations of sulfate and chloride in alluvial groundwater through time contributed to a portion of the observed increase in specific conductance in some wells. Median soluble reactive phosphorus (SRP) levels in the Cherry Creek alluvial groundwater (2010 – present) were generally similar to median concentrations observed in nearby Cherry Creek surface water (approximately 200 µg/L), over ten times eutrophic levels. The Cherry Creek alluvial SRP data support the TP trend observed in May 2016, although some wells (e.g., MW-2) have historically exhibited a wide range in SRP levels. In general, upstream of the Reservoir the median SRP levels (the horizontal line located in rectangle of each box and whisker plot) in the alluvial groundwater were similar to median concentrations observed in nearby surface water (Figure ES-7), approximately 200 µg/L.

ES-vii 2016 Cherry Creek Monitoring Report

Figure ES-7. Soluble Reactive Phosphorus in Surface Water and Groundwater along Cherry Creek (2010 to Present). (Sources of Data: GEI Consultants, Inc. (2010 – February 2016; IEH Analytical, Inc. (March 2016 – September 2016)

The observed Cherry Creek surface water inflow SRP concentrations were approximately ten times eutrophic levels, and considered too high for sustaining water quality goals, promoting an over- abundance of algae in the Reservoir. Due to the geochemistry of the area, higher in phosphorus, the groundwater is expected to have a higher SRP concentration than the surface water. However, what was observed at some sampling stations (i.e. CC-7 and CC-9) is that the groundwater SRP levels were closer in value and less variable than the surface water, likely due in part to nonpoint sources in the surface water that increase P delivery to groundwater. With exception, the SRP concentrations in surface water released from the Reservoir (CC-O) has historically been lower than Reservoir inflows and that in alluvial groundwater downstream of the Reservoir (alluvial well at Kennedy Golf Course). Over the past 20 years, the concentration of SRP in the alluvial groundwater upstream of the Reservoir (well MW-9) appears to be gradually increasing (ES-8).

ES-viii 2016 Cherry Creek Monitoring Report

350

300

250

200

150

100

Soluble Reactive Phosphorus(µg/L) 50

0 Jan-94 Jan-98 Jan-02 Jan-06 Jan-10 Jan-14

Figure ES-8. Historic SRP Concentrations in Alluvial Well MW-9 (1994 – 2016) (Sources of Data: IEH Analytical, Inc. (March 1 2016 – September 30, 2016); GEI Consultants, Inc. (2010 – February 28, 2016); Halepaska and Associates, Inc. (1994 – 2010). 2016 Reservoir Highlights Reservoir operations were more variable in 2016 and the higher flushing rate provided water quality benefits to the Reservoir. The US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) operates Cherry Creek Reservoir for flood control purposes. The higher inflows from the Cherry Creek watershed resulted in higher annual pass through volume from the Reservoir outlet works, an average of 15.7 cubic feet per second (cfs), or 11,400 acre-feet. This was over three times the 57-year average daily discharge of 4.6 cfs, or 3,300 acre-feet. The increased flushing rate of the Reservoir helped water quality in 2016. While the Reservoir continued to retain much more nitrogen and phosphorus on a mass basis than it was flushing, the increased flush in the outflow provided a temporal improvement that would have otherwise resulted in greater water quality impacts to the Reservoir. Phytoplankton and zooplankton data indicated over-productive and nutrient rich Reservoir conditions observed in 2016. Cherry Creek Reservoir continued to exhibit characteristics of an over- productive, nutrient rich Reservoir as indicated by its planktonic communities, density, pH and DO. The phytoplankton taxa included an abundance of Chlorophyta (green algae), Cyanophyta (cyanobacteria), and Bacillariophyta (diatoms) (Figure ES-9). The algal abundance (measured as cell counts/mL) for Cyanobacteria (photosynthetic bacteria, “blue green algae”) and Chlorophyta were all in excess of eutrophic levels, >10,000 cells/mL and > 3,000 cells/mL, respectively. The high cyanobacteria and green algae concentrations caused water quality issues in the Reservoir late May – September, including elevated chl-a concentrations and harmful algal blooms (HABs). The best water quality conditions were observed in the Reservoir on June 14, 2016, as reflected in the plankton data, as well as low concentrations of chl-a and TP, and greater reservoir transparency. This was also during a period of higher than normal inflow and reservoir releases.

ES-ix 2016 Cherry Creek Monitoring Report

Figure ES-9. Algal Cell Concentrations Measured in Cherry Creek Reservoir in 2016. The top 5 phytoplankton taxa observed in Cherry Creek Reservoir are depicted. The algal abundance (measured as cell counts/mL) for Cyanobacteria (photosynthetic bacteria, “blue green algae”) and Chlorophyta were all in excess of eutrophic levels (Source of Data: PhycoTech, Inc.)

Chl-a accounted for the total phytoplankton community biomass and this biomass was dominated by Chlorophyta (green algae) and Bacillariophyta (diatoms) during the growing season, as depicted in Figure ES-10. A significant amount of biomass energy from phytoplankton and bacteria was also stored in the sediments as organic carbon, which contributed to excess nutrient production during this timeframe.

ES-x 2016 Cherry Creek Monitoring Report

Figure ES-10. Algal Community Biomass. The algal biomass was dominated by Chlorophyta (green algae) and Bacillariophyta (diatoms) during the growing season. (Source of Data: PhycoTech, Inc.)

The 2016 zooplankton community structure was generally illustrative of a hypereutrophic system and not overly productive (biomass) relative to food base for fisheries (Figure ES-11). A generally higher Daphnid biomass was present in June and September, indicating this preferred fish food was available and abundant for the fishery. However, Bosminids, which are ten times smaller than the preferred Daphnids, were prevalent in July 2016, indicating that most of the primary production was not being used by higher aquatic biota during that period, contributing to over enrichment of the Reservoir.

ES-xi 2016 Cherry Creek Monitoring Report

Figure ES-11. Zooplankton Biomass. A generally higher Daphnid biomass was present in June and September, indicating this preferred fish food was available and abundant for the fishery. However, Bosminids, which are ten times smaller than the preferred Daphnids were prevalent in July 2016. (Source of Data: PhycoTech, Inc.)

Harmful algal blooms (HABs) observed near Marina and Tower Loop facilitated partnerships and rapid response plan between Authority and Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW). In late May/early June, cyanotoxic HABs were observed and measured near the Marina and Tower Loop (Figure ES-12). The spatial distribution of the Microcystin concentrations above 10 µg/L were limited and lower measurements were observed at the swim beach (less than 0.3 µg/L and non-detect (ND). Low risk Microcystin thresholds for recreation are defined as concentrations less than 10 µg/L (US EPA, 2016; World Health Organization (WHO), 2003; Chorus, et.al, 2000). Warning signage was posted in accordance with WHO criteria. The HAB occurrence prompted a collaborative partnership between the Authority and CPW for future cyanotoxin sampling and analysis efforts if HABs are observed in the future. The partnership is a big step for the agencies that work to protect recreation uses, aquatic life, and public safety at Cherry Creek Reservoir. The occurrence of HABs within the Reservoir are likely to continue to occur on the periodic and unpredictable level until phosphorus is reduced in both its external and internal loading dynamics. Fortunately, the dominant cyanobacteria observed in 2016 is not known as a significant toxin producer. However, when conditions are aligned to enable other cyanobacteria to grow that have a greater potential for toxin generation there will be a HAB occurrence. This is particularly true if nutrient and light conditions within the Reservoir are such that they promote nitrogen fixing cyanobacteria to have greater dominance than is currently occurring.

ES-xii 2016 Cherry Creek Monitoring Report

Figure ES-12. Microcystin concentrations in Cherry Creek Reservoir, May 31 - June 9, 2016. A harmful algal bloom was observed on May 31, 2016 by CPW staff. Microcystin concentrations had subsided as non-detect (ND) or less than 1 µg/L by June 9, 2016 at all six sampling locations. Samples were taken by various staff during the period of the HAB and analyzed using different methods. (CPW staff used an Abraxis Dipstick field test for rapid turnaround of Microcystin concentrations. CDPHE lab used ELISA method. EPA lab used ELISA method confirmed by HPLC/MS. Tetra Tech samples were analyzed by GreenWater Lab, using ELISA method confirmed by LC-MS/MS.)

ES-xiii 2016 Cherry Creek Monitoring Report

2016 Regulatory Highlights Temperature, pH, and dissolved oxygen (DO) in Reservoir met water quality standards. The physical data collected in Cherry Creek Reservoir, temperature, DO, and pH, were within the water quality standards for aquatic life in Warm Water 1 Lakes (WQCC Regulation #38, effective 12/31/2016). The 2016 DO profile at Cherry Creek Reservoir station CCR-2 is shown in Figure ES-13. Data demonstrated DO concentrations more than 5 mg/L throughout the majority of the Reservoir providing refuge for fish species. However, lower DO levels, measured at depths near 5 to 7 meters in June through September, were a result of the anoxic conditions that occurred in the reservoir sediments and sediment-water interface that promote internal phosphorus loading. The pH and DO compared to the temperature profiles, indicating that the chemo-stratification that is occurring is due to biological metabolic activity; namely, photosynthetic in the photic zone 0 to 3 meters and respiration at deeper depths.

CCR-2 Dissolved Oxygen 2016 Water Year 0 DO (mg/l) < 2.5 1 2.5– 5.0 5.0– 7.5 7.5– 10.0 2 10.0– 12.5 > 12.5 3

4 Depth(m) 5

11/1/2015 1/1/2016 3/1/2016 5/1/2016 7/1/2016 9/1/2016 Date

ES-xiv 2016 Cherry Creek Monitoring Report

Chlorophyll-a growing season standard was exceeded. The Reservoir chl-a growing season (July through September) concentration was 23.6 µg/L, in exceedance of the 18 µg/L growing season average regulated for chl-a. The seasonal mean concentration is measured in the upper three meters of the water column (photic zone), with an exceedance frequency of once in five years. The Reservoir has exceeded the chl-a standard in four of the last five years (Figure ES-14).

Figure ES-14. Chl-a Growing Season Concentrations in Cherry Creek Reservoir, 1992 – 2016. The chl-a growing season average in 2016 was 23.6 ug/L, in exceedance of the water quality standard, 18.0 ug/L, with a 1 in 5 year exceedance frequency. (Sources of Data: IEH Analytical (2016); GEI Consultants (2006 – 2015); Chadwick Ecological Consultants (1995 – 2006); University of Missouri (1992 – 1994).

Nutrient concentrations in Reservoir were elevated, representative of inflow concentrations, sediment recycling, and algal biomass (as chl-a). Average TP and TN concentrations measured in the Reservoir photic zone during the growing season were 122 µg/L and 897 µg/L, respectively. A portion of both TP and TN settled to the bottom sediments, now having several years to recycle several times into the Reservoir before they are flushed in the outflow or sequestered into the Reservoir sediments and no longer available to be recycled. Elevated nutrient concentrations coupled with nutrient recycling in the sediments, supported the growing season chl-a concentrations observed in the Reservoir, 23.6 µg/L.

ES-xv 2016 Cherry Creek Monitoring Report

2016 Net Nutrient Loading Highlights Nearly 3 tons of TP was retained in the Reservoir in 2016. Surface water inflow from Cherry Creek was the dominant source of water (and TP load) to the Reservoir. In WY2016, Cherry Creek provided 64% of the 25,014 acre-ft of water that flowed into the Reservoir, with Cottonwood Creek providing an additional 15%. The relative contribution of the inflows to the Reservoir in WY2016 are illustrated in Figure ES -15. Inflows and outflows to/from the Reservoir were approximately equaled in WY2016, with the year-end reservoir storage with 26 ac-ft more water than it began the water year with.

4% 8% 9%

15% 64%

Cherry Cr Cottonwood Cr Alluvial GW Precipitation Net Ungaged In/Out

Figure ES-15. Relative Contribution of Cherry Creek Inflows to Reservoir Water Balance in WY2016.

During WY2016 the flow weighted TP concentration was 213 µg/L and an estimated 14,783 pounds (7.4 tons) of phosphorus was delivered to the Reservoir. The relative contributions of the phosphorus loads to the Reservoir in WY2016 are illustrated in Figure ES-16. The relative contribution Cherry Creek to phosphorus loads, 82%, exceeds its relative water contribution, while that of Cottonwood Creek is less. A net 5,627 pounds (2.8 tons) of TP is estimated to have been retained in the Reservoir, available for TP recycling within the Reservoir. TP loads were larger than those observed in long-term trends, with the 2011-2015 median of 200 µg/L.

ES-xvi 2016 Cherry Creek Monitoring Report

8% 3% 7%

82%

Cherry Cr Cottonwood Cr Alluvial GW Precipitation

Figure ES-16. Relative Contribution of Cherry Creek Inflows to Reservoir Phosphorus Balance in WY2016.

A net 20,992 pounds (10.5 tons) of nitrogen is estimated to have been retained in the Reservoir in WY2016. An estimated 81,619 pounds (40.8 tons) of nitrogen was delivered to the Reservoir, with a flow weighted concentration of 1,175 µg/L, well below the 2011-2015 median of 1,344 µg/L. The relative contributions of the nitrogen loads to the Reservoir are illustrated in Figure ES-17. The relative contribution of Cherry Creek to nitrogen is roughly equivalent to its relative water contribution, while that of Cottonwood Creek is much greater.

A net 20,992 pounds (10.5 tons) of nitrogen is estimated to have been retained in the Cherry Creek Reservoir in WY2016. In contrast, the overall WY2016 flow-weighted total nitrogen concentration of 1,175 µg/L is higher than the WY2015 value of 1,057 µg/L. Like phosphorus, the WY2016 total nitrogen loads are similar to those calculated in WY2015 and the loads in both WY2015 and WY2016 are larger than those observed in long-term trends.

ES-xvii 2016 Cherry Creek Monitoring Report

Figure ES-17. Relative Contribution of Cherry Creek Inflows to Reservoir Nitrogen Balance in WY2016.

2017 Next Steps and Recommendations The Reservoir is getting more productive as time goes on due to the natural progression of man-made lakes, elevated nutrient concentrations observed within the watershed (particularly from Cherry Creek) and recycled nutrients in the Reservoir sediments that are 2 -100 times that of the flushing rate under current conditions in the Reservoir.

Opportunities for water quality improvement exist. Ongoing management of both external (in watershed) and internal (in-reservoir) nutrient concentrations and loads, through strong partnerships with local, state, and federal stakeholders, will support lower productivity in the Reservoir to promote long term protection of beneficial uses.

2017 monitoring recommendations support program objectives. The following next steps are recommended in 2017 to support the monitoring program, data collection and water quality benefits.

 Wetland Harvesting – Commence wetland harvesting and monitoring at Shop Creek PRF (SC-1 and SC-2) to understand the nutrient reduction benefits of this maintenance program. Similar vegetation harvesting is also recommended for the Cottonwood wetlands at CT-2 to promote additional pollutant reduction effectiveness.  Split Sampling - Continue split sampling of nutrients and chl-a to support QAPP and parametric and nonparametric statistical evaluations to understand and quantify inter-lab variability.  Replace Stream Gaging Equipment at Strategic Locations - Replace continuous monitoring hardware at CC-10 and CT-2.

ES-xviii 2016 Cherry Creek Monitoring Report

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... ES-I 2016 Watershed Highlights ...... ii 2016 Reservoir Highlights ...... ix 2016 Regulatory Highlights ...... xiv 2016 Net Nutrient Loading Highlights ...... xvi 2017 Next Steps and Recommendations ...... xviii 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 2.0 MONITORING PROGRAM ...... 2 2.1 Monitoring Objectives ...... 4 2.2 SAP/QAPP ...... 5 2.2.1 Laboratory Analyses ...... 5 3.0 DATA AND RESULTS ...... 6 3.1 Watershed ...... 6 3.1.1 Surface Water ...... 7 3.1.2 Groundwater ...... 28 3.2 Reservoir ...... 36 3.2.1 Transparency ...... 37 3.2.2 Total Phosphorus ...... 40 3.2.3 Soluble Reactive Phosphorus ...... 44 3.2.4 Total Nitrogen ...... 45 3.2.5 Total Inorganic Nitrogen (TIN) ...... 45 3.2.6 Chl-a ...... 47 3.2.7 Temperature ...... 50 3.2.8 pH ...... 51 3.2.9 Dissolved Oxygen ...... 52 3.2.10 Reservoir Phycology ...... 53 3.2.11 Harmful Algal Blooms ...... 58 4.0 RESERVOIR NUTRIENT BALANCE ...... 60 4.1 Water Balance ...... 60 4.2 Nutrient Loads ...... 63 4.2.1 Surface Water Loads ...... 63 4.2.2 Precipitation Loads ...... 64

i 2016 Cherry Creek Monitoring Report

4.2.3 Alluvial Groundwater Loads...... 64 4.2.4 Nutrient Balances ...... 65 4.3 Flow-Weighted Nutrient Concentrations ...... 68 5.0 2017 RECOMMENDATIONS AND NEXT STEPS ...... 69 6.0 REFERENCES ...... 69 7.0 APPENDICES ...... 71

LIST OF TABLES

Table ES- 1. Pollutant Reduction Effectiveness of the Cottonwood PRFs - 2016 Median Values at Cottonwood Stations, CT-P1 and CT-P2 (Sources of DataP: IEH Analytical, Inc. (March 1 2016 -.September 30, 2016); GEI Consultants, Inc. (November 1, 2015 – February 28, 2016)...... iv Table 1. Reservoir Sampling Parameters, Frequency, and Sites ...... 3 Table 2. Rain Gage Sampling Parameters ...... 3 Table 3. Stream and Groundwater Sampling Parameters, Frequency, and Sites ...... 4 Table 4. Laboratories Responsible for Analyzing Samples (2016 Labs) ...... 6 Table 5. Summary Statistics for Total Phosphorus Samples Collected at CC-10 during Base Flow (Routine) and Storm Events, WY2016...... 21 Table 6. Summary Statistics for Total Nitrogen Samples Collected at CC-10 during Base Flow (Routine) and Storm Events, WY2016. (Sources of Data: GEI Consultants, Inc. (October 2015 – February 2016) and IEH Analytical, Inc. (March 2016 – September 2016) ...... 23 Table 7. Summary Statistics for TN and TP Samples Collected at CT-2 during Routine and Storm Events, WY2016...... 25 Table 8. Pollutant Reduction Effectiveness of the Cottonwood PRFs – Passive treatment train approach reduced TP by 20% during stormflows and reduced SRP by 25% during base flow conditions, 2016 Median Values at Cottonwood Stations, CT-P1 and CT-P2. (Sources of Data: IEH Analytical (March 1 2016 -.September 30, 2016); GEI Consultants, Inc. (November 1, 2015 – February 28, 2016)...... 27 Table 9. Pollutant Reduction Effectiveness of the McMurdo Gulch – Stream Reclamation approach reduced TP concentrations by 14% and SRP by 30% during base flow conditions, Median Values at McMurdo Gulch, Stations MCM-1 and -2. (Sources of Data: IEH Analytical (March 1 2016 -.September 30, 2016); GEI Consultants, Inc. (November 1, 2015 – February 28, 2016)...... 27 Table 10. Chloride Concentrations in Alluvial Wells, May 2016 ...... 32 Table 11. Summary of Historic Chl-a Concentrations in Exceedance of 50 µg/L in the Reservoir. (1992 – 2016) ...... 49 Table 12. Summary of Primary Plankton Taxa Observed, Ecological Benefits and Stressors ...... 54 Table 13. Cherry Creek Reservoir WY2016 Water Balance ...... 62 Table 14. Cherry Creek Reservoir WY2016 Surface Water Nutrient Loads ...... 64 Table 15. Cherry Creek Reservoir WY2016 Total Phosphorus ...... 65 Table 16. Comparison of Cherry Creek Reservoir WY2016 Total Phosphorus Loading to Historic Loads 66

ii 2016 Cherry Creek Monitoring Report

Table 17. Cherry Creek Reservoir WY2016 Total Nitrogen Mass Balance ...... 67 Table 18. Comparison of Cherry Creek Reservoir WY2016 Total Nitrogen Loading to Historic Loads ...... 68

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure ES-1. Cherry Creek Watershed Map. The Cherry Creek Basin is generally located in the Denver metropolitan area, south of Interstate 225 and east of Interstate 25...... i Figure ES-2. WY 2016 Cherry Creek Streamflow near Parker, CO. 2016 data are compared to the past 25 year median daily statistic. April – September 2016 flows were considerably greater than the historic record (Source: USGS, Station 393109104464500, Cherry Creek near Parker, CO)...... ii Figure ES-3. Monthly Precipitation near Cherry Creek Reservoir. Comparison of WY2016 precipitation and 11-year average (Data Source: NOAA Precipitation Statin at Centennial Airport - KAPA)...... iii Figure ES-4. Comparison of TP Concentrations of Cherry Creek versus Cottonwood Creek (WY2016). Cherry Creek TP concentration measured at CC-10 (upstream of Reservoir) is on average three times greater than Cottonwood Creek TP concentrations measured upstream of Reservoir at CT-2. (Sources of Data: IEH Analytical (March 1, 2016 - September 30, 2016); GEI Consultants, Inc. (November 1, 2015 – February 28, 2016)...... v Figure ES-5. Specific Conductance and pH in Cherry Creek Basin, May 2016. (Source of Data: IEH Analytical, Inc.) ...... vi Figure ES-6. Historic specific conductance values at Cherry Creek Monitoring Site CC-10. (Sources of Data: GEI Consultants, Inc. (2001 – February 2016; IEH Analytical, Inc. (March –September 2016) ...... vii Figure ES-7. Soluble Reactive Phosphorus in Surface Water and Groundwater along Cherry Creek (2010 to Present). (Sources of Data: GEI Consultants, Inc. (2010 – February 2016; IEH Analytical, Inc. (March 2016 – September 2016) ...... viii Figure ES-8. Historic SRP Concentrations in Alluvial Well MW-9 (1994 – 2016) (Sources of Data: IEH Analytical, Inc. (March 1 2016 – September 30, 2016); GEI Consultants, Inc. (2010 – February 28, 2016); Halepaska and Associates, Inc. (1994 – 2010)...... ix Figure ES-9. Algal Cell Concentrations Measured in Cherry Creek Reservoir in 2016. The top 5 phytoplankton taxa observed in Cherry Creek Reservoir are depicted. The algal abundance (measured as cell counts/mL) for Cyanobacteria (photosynthetic bacteria, “blue green algae”) and Chlorophyta were all in excess of eutrophic levels (Source of Data: PhycoTech, Inc.) ...... x Figure ES-10. Algal Community Biomass. The algal biomass was dominated by Chlorophyta (green algae) and Bacillariophyta (diatoms) during the growing season. (Source of Data: PhycoTech, Inc.) ...... xi Figure ES-11. Zooplankton Biomass. A generally higher Daphnid biomass was present in June and September, indicating this preferred fish food was available and abundant for the fishery. However, Bosminids, which are ten times smaller than the preferred Daphnids were prevalent in July 2016. (Source of Data: PhycoTech, Inc.) ...... xii Figure ES-12. Microcystin concentrations in Cherry Creek Reservoir, May 31 - June 9, 2016. A harmful algal bloom was observed on May 31, 2016 by CPW staff. Microcystin concentrations had subsided as non- detect (ND) or less than 1 µg/L by June 9, 2016 at all six sampling locations. Samples were taken by various staff during the period of the HAB and analyzed using different methods. (CPW staff used an Abraxis Dipstick field test for rapid turnaround of Microcystin concentrations. CDPHE lab used ELISA method. EPA lab used ELISA method confirmed by HPLC/MS. Tetra Tech samples were analyzed by GreenWater Lab, using ELISA method confirmed by LC-MS/MS.) ...... xiii

iii 2016 Cherry Creek Monitoring Report

Figure ES-13. DO Profile at Cherry Creek Reservoir Monitoring Station CCR-2 (2016). DO was above 5 mg/L at more shallow depths, providing refuge for the fishery. However, lower DO levels ( less than 5 mg/L) were measured at depths near 5 to 7 meters in June through September, a result of the anoxic conditions in the sediment water interface. (Sources of Data: Tetra Tech, (March 1 2016 -.September 30, 2016); GEI Consultants, Inc. (November 1, 2015 – February 28, 2016) ...... xiv Figure ES-14. Chl-a Growing Season Concentrations in Cherry Creek Reservoir, 1992 – 2016. The chl-a growing season average in 2016 was 23.6 ug/L, in exceedance of the water quality standard, 18.0 ug/L, with a 1 in 5 year exceedance frequency. (Sources of Data: IEH Analytical (2016); GEI Consultants (2006 – 2015); Chadwick Ecological Consultants (1995 – 2006); University of Missouri (1992 – 1994)...... xv Figure ES-15. Relative Contribution of Cherry Creek Inflows to Reservoir Water Balance in WY2016...... xvi Figure ES-16. Relative Contribution of Cherry Creek Inflows to Reservoir Phosphorus Balance in WY2016...... xvii Figure ES-17. Relative Contribution of Cherry Creek Inflows to Reservoir Nitrogen Balance in WY2016. xviii Figure 1. Cherry Creek Basin Watershed Map. The watershed is 386 square miles in size, with over 600 stream miles...... 1 Figure 2. Sampling Location Map (Source: Tetra Tech, Inc.) ...... 2 Figure 3. WY2016 Hydrograph and Historical Median Flows for USGS Gage near Franktown (Source: http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/uv?06712000) ...... 8 Figure 4. WY2016 Hydrograph and Historical Median Flows for USGS Gage near Parker (Source: http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/uv?393109104464500) ...... 9 Figure 5. Monthly Precipitation near Cherry Creek Reservoir (Data Source NOAA Precipitation Station at Centennial Airport - KAPA)...... 10 Figure 6. WY2016 Hydrograph for the Authority’s Cherry Creek CC-10 Gage (Source of Data: ISCO Samplers, Data uploaded by GEI Consultants (October 2015 – February 2016) and Tetra Tech, Inc. (March 2016 – September 2016) ...... 11 Figure 7. WY2016 Hydrograph for the Authority’s Cottonwood CT-2 Gage (Source of Data: ISCO Samplers, Data uploaded by GEI Consultants, Inc. (October 2015 – February 2016) and Tetra Tech, Inc. (March 2016 – September 2016) ...... 11 Figure 8. Specific Conductance and pH in Cherry Creek Basin, May 2016. (Source of Data: IEH Analytical, Inc.) ...... 13 Figure 9. Historic pH values at Cherry Creek Monitoring Site CC-10. (Sources of Data: GEI Consultants, Inc. (2001 – February 2016; IEH Analytical, Inc. (March –September 2016) ...... 14 Figure 10. Historic specific conductance values at Cherry Creek Monitoring Site CC-10. (Sources of Data: GEI Consultants, Inc. (2001 – February 2016; IEH Analytical, Inc. (March –September 2016) ...... 14 Figure 11. Chloride and Sulfate Concentrations in Cherry Creek Basin, May 2016. Secondary drinking water supply standards for each is 250 mg/L. (Source of Data: IEH Analytical, Inc.) ...... 15 Figure 12. TN and TP Concentrations in Cherry Creek Basin, May 2016. (Source of Data: IEH Analytical, Inc.) ...... 16 Figure 13. TP Concentrations in Cherry Creek Basin, October 2015. (Source of Data: GEI Consultants, Inc.) ...... 17

iv 2016 Cherry Creek Monitoring Report

Figure 14. Nitrogen and Phosphorus Species in Cherry Creek Basin, May 2016 (Source of Data: IEH Analytical, Inc.) ...... 18 Figure 15. Phosphorus Species in Cherry Creek Basin, October 2015. (Source of Data: GEI Consultants, Inc.) ...... 19 Figure 16. Comparison of Dissolved and Total Phosphorus and TSS at CC-10, WY2016. (Sources of Data: GEI Consultants, Inc. (October 2015 – February 2016) and IEH Analytical, Inc. (March 2016 – September 2016) ...... 20 Figure 17. Particulate Phosphate versus TSS at CC-10, WY2016. (Sources of Data: GEI Consultants, Inc. (October 2015 – February 2016) and IEH Analytical, Inc. (March 2016 – September 2016) ...... 21 Figure 18. Comparison of Dissolved and Total Nitrogen and TSS at CC-10, WY2016. (Sources of Data: GEI Consultants, Inc. (October 2015 – February 2016) and IEH Analytical, Inc. (March 2016 – September 2016) ..... 22 Figure 19. Comparison of Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus at CT-2, WY2016 ...... 24 Figure 20. Particulate Phosphate versus TSS at CT-2, WY2016 (Sources of Data: GEI Consultants, Inc. (October 2015 – February 2016; IEH Analytical, Inc. (March 2016 – September 2016)...... 25 Figure 21. WY2016 Mean Daily Alluvial Groundwater Elevation in Well MW-9. (Sources of Data: Tetra Tech, Inc. (April 2016 – September 2016) ...... 29 Figure 22. Historic pH values in Well MW-9. (Source of Data: IEH Analytical, Inc. (March 1 2016 – September 30, 2016); GEI Consultants, Inc. (2006 – February 28, 2016); Chadwick Ecological Consultants (1995 – 2006); University of Missouri (1994)...... 30 Figure 23. Historic specific conductance values in Well MW-9. (Source of Data: IEH Analytical, Inc. (March 1 2016 – September 30, 2016); GEI Consultants, Inc. (2006 – February 28, 2016); Chadwick Ecological Consultants (1995 – 2006); University of Missouri (1994)...... 31 Figure 24. Total Nitrogen concentrations in Cherry Creek Surface Water and Alluvial Groundwater, May 2016. (Source of Data: IEH Analytical, Inc. (March 1 2016 – September 30, 2016); GEI Consultants, Inc. (October 2015 – February 2016) ...... 32 Figure 25. TP concentrations in Cherry Creek Surface Water and Alluvial Groundwater, May 2016 (Source of Data: IEH Analytical, Inc. (March 1 2016 – September 30, 2016); GEI Consultants, Inc. (October 2015 – February 2016) ...... 33 Figure 26. Soluble Reactive in Surface Water and Groundwater along Cherry Creek (2010 to Present) Sources of Data: GEI Consultants, Inc. (Jan 2010 – Feb 2016); IEH Analytical, Inc. (March 2016 – September 2016) ...... 34 Figure 27. Historic SRP Concentrations in Alluvial Well MW-9 (1994 – 2016) (Sources of Data: IEH Analytical, Inc. (March 1 2016 – September 30, 2016); GEI Consultants, Inc. (2010 – February 28, 2016); Halepaska and Associates (1994 - 2010)...... 35 Figure 28. Total and Dissolved Organic Carbon Data from MW-9. Sources of Data: GEI Consultants, Inc. (May 2014 – February 2016; IEH Analytical, Inc. (March 2016 – September 2016) ...... 36 Figure 29. WY2016 Secchi Disk Depth in Cherry Creek Reservoir, Station CCR-2 (Source of Data: IEH Analytical, Inc. (March 1 2016 – September 30, 2016); GEI Consultants, Inc. (2006 – February 28, 2016); Chadwick Ecological Consultants (1995 – 2006); University of Missouri (1992 – 1994)...... 38

v 2016 Cherry Creek Monitoring Report

Figure 30. Annual Mean Secchi Disk Depth Measured in Reservoir, 1992 – 2016. The Secchi Disk depth decreased 1992 – 2000. There is no trend in the data from 2001 – 2016. (Sources of Data: IEH Analytical, Inc. (March 1, 2016 – September 30, 2016); GEI Consultants, Inc. (2006 – February 28, 2016); Chadwick Ecological Consultants (1995 – 2006); University of Missouri (1992 – 1994)...... 39 Figure 31. Relationship between Secchi Disk Depth X 3 (m) and Depth of 1% Light Attenuation in Reservoir (m) – There is a direct relationship between Secchi disk depth and 1% light attenuation (R2=0.70). A stronger relationship is observed with Secchi Disk depth up to 1.8 m and 1 % light attenuation of 5 m. (Sources of Data: IEH Analytical, Inc. (March 1, 2016 – September 30, 2016); GEI Consultants, Inc. (2006 – February 28, 2016); Chadwick Ecological Consultants (1995 – 2006); University of Missouri (1992 – 1994)...... 40 Figure 32. Total Phosphorus in Cherry Creek Reservoir – As measured in photic zone at all reservoir stations. The error bar represents the 95thpercentile around the mean. (Sources of Data: IEH Analytical (March 1 2016 – Sept 30 2016); GEI Consultants (Oct 1 2015 – Feb 28 2016) ...... 41 Figure 33. Seasonal Mean TP Concentrations in Cherry Creek Reservoir, 1992 – 2016. The error bar represents the 95th percentile around the mean. (Sources of Data: IEH Analytical (March 1 2016 – Sept 30 2016); GEI Consultants (2006 – February 28, 2016); Chadwick Ecological Consultants (1995 – 2005); University of Missouri (1992 – 1994)...... 42 Figure 34. 2016 TP at Monitoring Station CCR-2 (1.5 – 7 meter depth profiles). Internal loading of TP observed at depths below 5 m in July, August, and September (Sources of Data: IEH Analytical (March 1 2016 – Sept 30 2016); GEI Consultants (Oct 1 2015 – Feb 28 2016) ...... 43 Figure 35. SRP Variability in Reservoir at CCR-2. Depth profile measurements confirm internal phosphorus loading at depths below 5 m during May 24th through July 12th. (Sources of Data: IEH Analytical (March 1 2016 – Sept 30 2016); GEI Consultants (October 1, 2015 – February 28, 2016)...... 44 Figure 36. TN Measured in Cherry Creek Reservoir, 1992 – 2016. In 2016, TN concentration was 910 µg/L; the long term average is 938 µg/L. No long term trends, increasing or decreasing, are noted. (Sources of Data: IEH Analytical (March 1 2016 – Sept 30 2016); GEI Consultants (2006 – February 28, 2016); Chadwick Ecological Consultants (1995 – 2006); University of Missouri (1992 – 1994)...... 45 Figure 37. Total inorganic nitrogen (TIN) Concentrations at CCR-2, Photic Zone – 7 meters. Elevated data observed at depths of 6-7 meters in June/July suggest occurrence of internal nitrogen loading. (Sources of Data: IEH Analytical (March 1, 2016 – Sept 30, 2016); GEI Consultants (October 1, 2015 – February 28, 2016)...... 46 Figure 38. Nitrate-nitrite and ammonia concentrations at CCR-2, Photic Zone – 7 meters. Elevated ammonia observed at depths of 6-7 meters in June/July suggest occurrence of sediment degradation with the release of ammonia that could become available for cyanobacteria. (Sources of Data: IEH Analytical (March 1, 2016 – Sept 30 2016); GEI Consultants (October 1, 2015 – February 28, 2016) ...... 47 Figure 39. Chl-a, Growing Season Average, was 23.6 µg/L, in exceedance of the 18 µg/L standard. The error bar represents the 95th percentile around the mean. (Sources of Data: IEH Analytical (March 1, 2016 – Sept 30, 2016); GEI Consultants, Inc. (October 1, 2015 – February 28, 2016)...... 48 Figure 40. Algae in Zooplankton Net at CCR-2 (Photo taken July 12, 2016) The algal bloom, which appears as small grass clippings, was prolific at this site and supported the high, but not unprecedented, concentration of chl-a at 59 µg/L...... 48 Figure 41. Seasonal Means of Chl-a in Reservoir, 1992 – 2016. The chl-a water quality standard is 18 µg/L, with a 1-in -5 year exceedance frequency. The Reservoir has exceeded the chl-a standard the last 4 out of 5 years. The error bar represents the 95th percentile around the mean. (Sources of Data: IEH Analytical (March 1, 2016 – Sept 30 2016); GEI Consultants (2006 – February 28, 2016); Chadwick Ecological Consultants (1995 – 2006); University of Missouri (1992 – 1994)...... 49

vi 2016 Cherry Creek Monitoring Report

Figure 42. WY2016 Temperature Profile in Cherry Creek Reservoir, Station CCR-2. Data demonstrate the temperatures is protective of aquatic life. (Sources of Data: Tetra Tech, Inc. (March 1, 2016 – Sept 30 2016); GEI Consultants (October 1, 2015 – February 28, 2016)...... 51 Figure 43. WY2016 pH Profile in Cherry Creek Reservoir, Station CCR-2 (October 1 2015 – September 30, 2016) – pH ranged 7.4 – 8.6. (Sources of Data: Tetra Tech, (March 1, 2016 -.September 30, 2016); GEI Consultants, Inc. (November 1, 2015 – February 28, 2016) ...... 52 Figure 44. WY2016 DO Profile at Cherry Creek Reservoir Monitoring Station CCR-2 (2016) - DO was above 5 mg/L, providing refuge for the fishery. However, lower DO levels (less than 5 mg/L) were measured at depths near 5 to 7 meters in June through September, a result of the anoxic conditions in the sediment water interface. (Sources of Data: Tetra Tech, (March 1, 2016 -.September 30, 2016); GEI Consultants, Inc. (November 1, 2015 – February 28, 2016) ...... 53 Figure 45. Algal Cell Concentrations Measured in Cherry Creek Reservoir in WY2016. The top 5 phytoplankton taxa observed in Cherry Creek Reservoir are depicted. The algal abundance (measured as cell counts/mL) for Cyanobacteria (photosynthetic bacteria, “blue green algae”) and Chlorophyta were all in excess of eutrophic levels, >1,000 algal cells/mL (Source of Data: PhycoTech, Inc.) ...... 56 Figure 46. Algal Community Biomass - biomass was dominated by Chlorophyta (green algae) and Bacillariophyta (diatoms) during the growing season. (Source of Data: PhycoTech, Inc.) ...... 57 Figure 47. Zooplankton Biomass - A generally higher Daphnid biomass was present in June and September, indicating this preferred fish food was available and abundant for the fishery. However, Bosminids, which are ten times smaller than the preferred Daphnids, were prevalent in July 2016. (Source of Data: PhycoTech, Inc.) ..... 58 Figure 48. Microcystin concentrations in Cherry Creek Reservoir, May 31 - June 9, 2016. A harmful algal bloom was observed on May 31 by CPW staff. Microcystin concentrations had subsided by June 9, 2016 at all six sampling locations as less than 1 µg/L and non-detect (ND). Samples were taken by various staff during the period of the HAB and analyzed using different methods. (CPW staff used an Abraxis Dipstick field test for rapid turnaround of Microcystin concentrations. CDPHE lab used ELISA method. EPA lab used ELISA method confirmed by HPLC/MS. Tetra Tech samples were analyzed by GreenWater Lab, using ELISA method confirmed by LC-MS/MS.) ...... 59 Figure 49. WY2016 Hydrograph and Historical Median Flows for USGS Gage Cherry Creek below Cherry Creek Lake (Source: https://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/uv?06713000) ...... 61 Figure 50. Relative Contribution of Cherry Creek Inflows to Reservoir Water Balance in WY2016 ...... 62 Figure 51. Relative Contribution of Cherry Creek Inflows to Reservoir Phosphorus Balance in WY2016 . 66 Figure 52. Relative Contribution of Cherry Creek Inflows to Reservoir Nitrogen Balance in WY2016 ...... 67

vii 2016 Cherry Creek Monitoring Report

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A – SUMMARY OF CHERRY CREEK BASIN DESIGNATED USES AND WATER QUALITY STANDARDS (REG 38) APPENDIX B – CHERRY CREEK SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLAN/QUALITY ASSURANCE PROTOCOLS AND PRECEDURES, 2016 APPENDIX C – SPLIT SAMPLE ANALYSIS APPENDIX D – STREAMFLOW DATA, EQUATIONS AND HYDROGRAPHS APPENDIX E- USACE DATA AP0PENDIX F – WATER QUALITY DATA APPENDIX G – PHYCOLOGY DATA

viii 2016 Cherry Creek Monitoring Report

ACRONYMS/ABBREVIATIONS

Acronyms/Abbreviations Definition Ac-ft Acre-feet CCR Code of Colorado Regulations CDPHE Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment CPW Colorado Parks and Wildlife cfs Cubic feet per second Chl-a Chlorophyll a CR72 Control Regulation 72 DO Dissolved Oxygen ELISA Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assays HPLC/MS High performance liquid chromatography combined with mass spectrometry LC-MS/MS Liquid chromatography followed by a combination of two mass spectrometry analyzers mg/L Milligrams per liter µg/L Micrograms per liter ND Non-detect % Percent POR Period of record PRF Pollutant Reduction Facilities QA/QC Quality Assurance/Quality Control QAPP Quality Assurance Procedures and Protocols SAP Sampling and Analysis Program SM Standard Methods SRP Soluble Reactive Phosphorus TN Total Nitrogen TP Total Phosphorus USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

US EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency USGS U.S. Geological Survey WHO World Health Organization WQCC Water Quality Control Commission

ix 2016 Cherry Creek Monitoring Report

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The Cherry Creek watershed (watershed) includes over 386 square miles of land and 600 stream miles (Figure 1). The 875-acre Cherry Creek Reservoir (Reservoir), located at the downstream terminus, is one of the most productive fisheries and widely enjoyed recreational areas in Colorado. The Reservoir, operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for flood control, also supports downstream agriculture and water supplies. Protecting the beneficial uses of the Reservoir are paramount. The Water Quality Control Commission (WQCC) has adopted specific water quality standards for the Reservoir, Cherry Creek, Cottonwood Creek and other watershed tributaries to protect recreation, aquatic life, agriculture and water supply uses. Excerpts from Regulation #38, (5 CCR 1002-38, effective June 30, 2016) summarizing water quality standards pertinent to the Cherry Creek Basin is provided in Appendix A. In accordance with Cherry Creek Reservoir Control Regulation #72 (5 CCR 1002-72, (CR72), the Authority implements a routine annual water quality monitoring program of the watershed and Reservoir to characterize water quality of inflows and the Reservoir and determine regulatory compliance. This report describes the Authority’s monitoring effort, the 2016 data, and evaluation of results.

Figure 1. Cherry Creek Basin Watershed Map. The watershed is 386 square miles in size, with over 600 stream miles.

1 2016 Cherry Creek Monitoring Report

2.0 MONITORING PROGRAM

The monitoring program (“program”) is conducted in accordance with the Cherry Creek Sampling and Analysis Program and Quality Assurance Procedures and Protocols (SAP/QAPP, updated May 2016; Appendix B). The program includes characterization of the Reservoir water quality, inflow volumes, alluvial water quality, nonpoint source flows, and pollutant reduction facilities (PRF). The reservoir, precipitation, and watershed (surface water, groundwater, and PRF) sampling locations are depicted on Figure 2. Tables 1, 2, and 3 summarize program analytes at each monitoring site and sampling frequency.

Figure 2. Sampling Location Map (Source: Tetra Tech, Inc.)

2 2016 Cherry Creek Monitoring Report

Table 1. Reservoir Sampling Parameters, Frequency, and Sites

Bi-monthly Monthly Monthly Nutrient- Sonde & Nutrient Analyte Biological Samples Nutrient Profile (Photic Zone) Samples (4m-7m) (May- Sept) CCR-1, CCR-1, CCR-2, CCR-2 CCR-2 CCR-3 CCR-3 Total Nitrogen √ √ √ √ Total Dissolved Nitrogen √ √ √ √ Ammonia as N √ √ √ √ Nitrate + Nitrite as N √ √ √ √ Total Phosphorus √ √ √ √ Total Dissolved Phosphorus √ √ √ √ Orthophosphate as P √ √ √ √ Total Organic Carbon √ √ √ Dissolved Organic Carbon √ √ √ Total Volatile Suspended Solids √ √ √ Total Suspended Solids √ √ √ Chlorophyll a √ √ √ Phytoplankton √ √ Zooplankton √ √

Table 2. Rain Gage Sampling Parameters

Analyte CCR-Precip Total Nitrogen √ Total Dissolved Nitrogen √ Ammonia as N √ Nitrate + Nitrite as N √ Total Phosphorus √ Total Dissolved Phosphorus √ Orthophosphate as P √

3 2016 Cherry Creek Monitoring Report

Table 3. Stream and Groundwater Sampling Parameters, Frequency, and Sites

Storm Event Monthly Surface Bi-annual Bi-annual Surface Water Water ISCO Surface Water Groundwater Samples Samples Samples Samples 9 sites Analyte (CC-0, CC-10, CC-7-EcoPark, 6 sites 8 sites 8 sites CT-1, CT-2, CT- (CC-10, CC-7- (Castlewood, (MW-1, MW-2, P1, CT-P2, EcoPark, CT- CC-1, CC-2, CC- MW-3c, MW-5, MCM-1, MCM- 1, CT-2, CT- 4, CC-5, CC-6, MW-6, MW-7a, 2) P1, CT-P2,) CC-8, CC-9) MW-9, Kennedy) Total Nitrogen √ √ √ √ Total Dissolved √ √ Nitrogen Ammonia as N √ √ √ √ Nitrate + Nitrite as N √ √ √ √ Total Phosphorus √ √ √ √ Total Dissolved √ √ √ √ Phosphorus Orthophosphate as P √ √ √ √ Chloride √ √ Sulfate √ √ Total Organic Carbon √ Dissolved Organic √ Carbon Total Volatile √ √ Suspended Solids Total Suspended √ √ Solids

2.1 MONITORING OBJECTIVES

The program was designed to understand and quantify the relationships between nutrient loading (both in-lake and external) and Reservoir productivity. The routine monitoring of surface water and groundwater is implemented to promote the concentration based management strategy for phosphorus control in the basin, and determination of the total annual flow-weighted concentration of nutrients to the Reservoir, evaluation of watershed nutrient sources and transport mechanisms, and effectiveness of PRFs and BMPs in the basin. The specific objectives of the program include the following:  Assess protection of beneficial uses and compliance with water quality standards.  Determine base flow and storm flow concentrations for nitrogen and phosphorus in tributary inflows, as well as concentrations in the Reservoir and the outflow.

4 2016 Cherry Creek Monitoring Report

 Determine the hydrological inflows and nutrient loads entering the Reservoir, including Reservoir exports.  Determine the annual flow-weighted phosphorus concentration and changes to the concentrations entering the Reservoir from streams and precipitation and the phosphorus export from the Reservoir via the outlet structure.  Determine biological productivity in the Reservoir, as measured by algal biomass (chl-a concentration), and species composition of the plankton community.  Evaluate relationships between the biological productivity and nutrient concentrations within the Reservoir and total inflows.  Assess the effectiveness of pollutant reduction facilities (PRFs) on Cottonwood Creek and McMurdo Gulch to reduce phosphorus loads into the Reservoir. The program has also supported other complimentary Authority activities over the years, such as calibration of the Reservoir water quality model, determining water quality effectiveness of Authority owned PRFs and additional non-specified monitoring determined by the Authority to be supportive of Authority long term goals for the Reservoir and watershed that promote protection of beneficial uses and preservation and enhancement of water quality. 2.2 SAP/QAPP

The SAP/QAPP (Sample and Analysis Plan/Quality Assurance Project Plan) provides the foundation for all sampling and analysis program activities, including sampling methods, QA/QC (quality assurance/quality control) protocols, etc. All monitoring and analytical work are performed in accordance with this document, provided in Appendix B. In 2016, a variety of field procedure refinements were implemented (e.g., improve sampling methodology for plankton samples, discontinuance of certain monitoring locations due to access issues, etc.). The QAPP documents the 2016 refinements and approaches used to manage change in the dynamic program. The refinements to the program recognize opportunities to enhance the integrity of the data to promote sound science and limnology, while maintaining the dynamic nature of the program and changes that are warranted from time to time based on:  Monitoring objectives being met,  New objectives being formulated,  Changes to sampling methodology,  Duplicative efforts and opportunities to reduce costs,  Meeting regulatory objectives or regulatory changes,  Opportunities to improve quality of data and sampling methodology to reflect sound science and limnology.

2.2.1 Laboratory Analyses Analytical services were provided by a variety of accredited laboratories in accordance with laboratory QA/QC protocols outlined in the QAPP prepared by each respective laboratory to meet state certification requirements. Table 4 summarizes laboratories utilized during the 2016 program.

5 2016 Cherry Creek Monitoring Report

Table 4. Laboratories Responsible for Analyzing Samples (2016 Labs)

Laboratory/Manager Analytical Services IEH Analytical, Inc., Damien Gadomski, Nutrients, inorganics, organics, and chl-a. Ph.D. PhycoTech, Inc., Ann St. Amand, Ph.D. Phytoplankton and Zooplankton, identification, enumeration, concentration, biovolume and biomass. GEI Consultants, Inc., Ecological Nutrients, inorganics, organics, and chl-a. Division, Ms. Sarah Skigen GreenWater Laboratory, Inc., Mark Cyanotoxins Aubel, Ph.D.

As part of the QA/QC protocol, nutrient and chl-a samples were split between IEH Analytical and GEI Consultants to understand lab variability and data comparability. A preliminary evaluation of the comparability of TP and TN between labs (with limited sample size) are within margin of error, approximately 20%. However, chl-a, TDP, and SRP concentrations were more variable amongst the two laboratories. For chl-a there are noted differences between laboratories in standard method of analysis (SM 10200 H (IEH) and modified SM 10200 H with hot ethanol extraction (GEI)) and sampling containers provided by the lab (amber glass (IEH) and clear plastic cubitainer (GEI)) that may contribute to differences in results. The chl-a standard methods of analysis employed by IEH and GEI are both approved by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (WQCC Regulation No. 85, effective 9/30/12). The amber glassware used by IEH may mitigate the potential post-collection chl-a growth. The chl-a concentrations are consistently lower with IEH (amber glassware) and may bear out the differences in sample preservation. Over the course of the coming years, additional split sampling of nutrients and chl-a is recommended to increase sample size between labs to facilitate parametric and non-parametric statistical evaluations of data and compare results between labs to help us understand the inter-laboratory variability and relationship between historic data and current data for nutrient parameters and chl-a (see Appendix C, Split Sample Analysis).

3.0 DATA AND RESULTS

The monitoring program is comprised of data and results from the (1) watershed (including water quality and quantity of surface water, groundwater, stormwater, and pollutant reduction effectiveness of PRFs) and (2) Reservoir. The 2016 water quality data and results are described herein and made available on the Authority’s website, www.cherrycreekbasin.org. 3.1 WATERSHED

The watershed-wide water quality monitoring program evaluated the location, timing, and magnitude, quantity and quality, of nutrient sources to the Reservoir. The surface water and groundwater monitoring program data contains the following elements:  Routine surface sater sampling results, including PRF effectiveness.

6 2016 Cherry Creek Monitoring Report

 Storm event sampling results.  Groundwater sampling results.

During WY2016, 18 surface water sites were monitored on a monthly to semi-annual basis (Table 3) and some were included in a storm event monitoring program. The USACE performed its annual operational check and flushing of the of the Reservoir outlet works on June 1, 2016. The USACE individually operated the gates between 0900 and 1400 on June 1 and the discharge in Cherry Creek downstream of the Reservoir increased from approximately 50 cfs to approximately 1,300 cfs in five separate pulses. An estimated 218 ac-ft of water, above that which would have been released had the discharge be held steady at 50 cfs, was released from the Reservoir during the test. The Reservoir level decreased 0.22 feet as a result of the releases. 3.1.1 Surface Water During WY2016 the Cherry Creek surface water monitoring sites were routinely sampled monthly or twice per year (Table 3). Additionally, six of the monitoring sites were included in the storm event program. In the WY2016 storm event program, runoff generated from storm events was sampled up to seven times at four locations in Cottonwood Creek and two locations in lower Cherry Creek.

3.1.1.1 Stream Flows The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has operated two gaging stations on Cherry Creek upstream of the Reservoir for numerous years. The Cherry Creek near Franktown gage (number 0671200) has a 76 year period of record (POR) and the Cherry Creek near Parker gage (number 393109104464500) has a 25 year POR. The Authority operates two gaging stations upstream of the Reservoir at surface water monitoring sites CC-7 (Eco Park) and CC-10. The Authority’s gage locations are illustrated on Figure 2. The USGS’s Cherry Creek near Franktown gage is located just upstream of the Authority’s Castlewood monitoring location and has a drainage area of 169 mi2. The WY2016 flows at the USGS Franktown gage totaled 4,395 ac-ft, with an average daily discharge rate of 6.1 cfs. The WY2016 average rate was approximately 30% higher than the long-term (WY1940-WY2016) average daily rate of 4.6 cfs. The WY2016 daily hydrograph for the Cherry Creek near Franktown gage is illustrated, along with the 76 year POR mean daily flow, on Figure 3.

7 2016 Cherry Creek Monitoring Report

Figure 3. WY2016 Hydrograph and Historical Median Flows for USGS Gage near Franktown (Source: http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/uv?06712000)

The USGS Cherry Creek near Parker gage is located approximately nine miles upstream of the Reservoir, about ½ mile upstream of Authority monitoring site CC-4, and has a drainage area of 287 mi2. The WY2016 flows at the USGS Parker gage totaled 4,908 ac-ft, with an average daily discharge rate of 6.8 cfs. The WY2016 average rate was approximately 21% higher than the long-term (WY1992- WY2016) average daily rate of 5.6 cfs. The WY2016 daily hydrograph for the USGS Parker gage is illustrated, along with the 25-year POR mean daily flow, on Figure 4.

8 2016 Cherry Creek Monitoring Report

Figure 4. WY2016 Hydrograph and Historical Median Flows for USGS Gage near Parker (Source: http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/uv?393109104464500)

Above average flows were measured at both USGS gaging stations in WY2016. These flows are in contrast to the slightly below average precipitation measured at the nearby Centennial Airport weather station (KAPA) in WY2016, 15.3 inches, which was 93% of average. Even more anomalous, the July through September precipitation total was only 44% of average (Figure 5), yet streamflow at the USGS gage near Parker remained approximately twice the historical mean for this period (Figure 4). However, review of precipitation data for the entire basin (http://water.weather.gov/precip/) suggests that the southern (upper) portion of the basin may have received substantially more precipitation in WY2016 than the northern portion of the basin where the Authority’s monitoring efforts are focused.

9 2016 Cherry Creek Monitoring Report

Figure 5. Monthly Precipitation near Cherry Creek Reservoir (Data Source NOAA Precipitation Station at Centennial Airport - KAPA). The Authority operates and maintains two continuous recording stations on Cherry Creek at CC-7 (Eco Park) and CC-10 (Figure 2). Data for these stations are provided in Appendix D. The estimated WY2016 flows at the Authority’s CC-10 monitoring site totaled 16,002 ac-ft, with an average daily discharge rate of 22 cfs (Figure 6). These values are approximately 3.25 times greater than those observed 9 miles upstream at the USGS gage near Parker (Figure 4).

The Authority also operates continuous recording equipment at the four monitoring sites on Cottonwood Creek. Monitoring sites CT-P1 and CT-P2 monitor the inflow and outflow, respectively, of the PRF located west of Peoria Street. Monitoring sites CT-1 and CT-2 monitor the inflow and outflow, respectively, of the PRF located just upstream of the Reservoir inside the Park boundary (the “Perimeter Pond”). Streamflow data and hydrograph equations for these stations are provided in Appendix D. The estimated WY2016 flows at the Authority’s CT-2 monitoring site totaled 3,854 ac-ft, with an average daily discharge rate of 5.3 cfs. The WY2016 daily hydrograph for the CT-2 gage, which reflects the flow of water entering the Reservoir from Cottonwood Creek, is illustrated on Figure 7.

10 2016 Cherry Creek Monitoring Report

30 Mean Mean Daily Discharge (cfs) 20

0 Oct-15 Dec-15 Feb-16 Apr-16 Jun-16 Aug-16 Oct-16

Figure 6. WY2016 Hydrograph for the Authority’s Cherry Creek CC-10 Gage (Source of Data: ISCO Samplers, Data uploaded by GEI Consultants (October 2015 – February 2016) and Tetra Tech, Inc. (March 2016 – September 2016)

30 Mean Mean Daily Discharge (cfs) 20

0 Oct-15 Dec-15 Feb-16 Apr-16 Jun-16 Aug-16 Oct-16

Figure 7. WY2016 Hydrograph for the Authority’s Cottonwood CT-2 Gage (Source of Data: ISCO Samplers, Data uploaded by GEI Consultants, Inc. (October 2015 – February 2016) and Tetra Tech, Inc. (March 2016 – September 2016)

11 2016 Cherry Creek Monitoring Report

The USACE also calculates net daily inflow into the Cherry Creek Reservoir by estimating the change in reservoir storage and then accounting for losses (measured releases from outlet works, estimated evaporation) and gains (precipitation based on reservoir surface area). The USACE’s net daily inflow combines the flows from Cherry Creek, Cottonwood Creek, other minor tributaries, and alluvial groundwater gains/losses. The USACE’s WY2016 daily inflow estimates are included in Appendix E.

The continuous recording equipment (ISCO samplers) at many of the Authority’s monitoring sites malfunctioned during WY2016 and some units had parts replaced during the course of the year at the recommendation of the ISCO representative. Periods of flow data had to be estimated when the equipment was offline. Because of the age of some of the ISCO recorders (up to 17 years old) and the importance of accurate data, particularly at key inflow stations CC-10 and CT-2, it is prudent for the Authority to consider purchasing new equipment at key monitoring locations in 2017.

Photo 1 – Cherry Creek Sampling Team collecting streamflow data in Cottonwood Creek (CT-P1).

3.1.1.2 Cherry Creek Water Quality The Cherry Creek sub-basin is significantly larger than the Cottonwood Creek sub-basin, 234,000- acres and 9,050-acres, respectively. The larger Cherry Creek sub-basin area, with greater runoff volume and different land uses resulted in a different water quality character in comparison with the Cottonwood Creek sub-basin. The Cherry Creek basin had higher TP, however, Cottonwood Creek basin had higher TDS, TN, chloride, and sulfate. WY2016 water quality data are provided in Appendix F. The pH and specific conductance (surrogate for total dissolved solids (TDS)) of water in Cherry Creek both increase as surface water moves from the upper basin downstream to the Reservoir. In the case of specific conductance, during the May 2016 basin-wide monitoring event values increased approximately 4 fold from the upper monitoring stations (Castlewood and CC-1) to those in Cherry Creek State Park (CC-9 and CC-10) (Figure 8).

12 2016 Cherry Creek Monitoring Report

Figure 8. Specific Conductance and pH in Cherry Creek Basin, May 2016. (Source of Data: IEH Analytical, Inc.) Review of the historic pH values measured at CC-10 suggests that the pH of surface water entering the Reservoir at CC-10 appears to be decreasing through time (Figure 9) although the WY2016 values are higher than the overall trend. Review of the historic specific conductance values measured at CC-10 also indicate that surface water quality in Cherry Creek is evolving (Figure 10). Since the mid-2000s, specific conductance values at CC-10 appear to have doubled although the WY2016 values are slightly lower than the recent trend.

13 2016 Cherry Creek Monitoring Report

Figure 9. Historic pH values at Cherry Creek Monitoring Site CC-10. (Sources of Data: GEI Consultants, Inc. (2001 – February 2016; IEH Analytical, Inc. (March –September 2016)

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000 Specific Specific Conductance(µS)

500

0 Jan-01 Jan-03 Jan-05 Jan-07 Jan-09 Jan-11 Jan-13 Jan-15 Jan-17

Figure 10. Historic specific conductance values at Cherry Creek Monitoring Site CC-10. (Sources of Data: GEI Consultants, Inc. (2001 – February 2016; IEH Analytical, Inc. (March –September 2016)

14 2016 Cherry Creek Monitoring Report

Data from the May 2016 basin-wide surface water sampling event indicated that the concentrations of chloride and sulfate increased downstream through the basin (Figure 11). These concentration increases accounted for at least a portion of the increase in specific conductance previously noted (Figure 8).

Figure 11. Chloride and Sulfate Concentrations in Cherry Creek Basin, May 2016. Secondary drinking water supply standards for each is 250 mg/L. (Source of Data: IEH Analytical, Inc.) As illustrated in Figure 11, the May 2016 chloride value measured at CC-9 exceeded the surface water (water supply) standard of 250 mg/L (5 CCR 1002-38, Appendix 38-1, Stream Segment COSPCH01). Surface water samples currently collected from Authority monitoring sites CC-7, CC-10 and CC-Out are not analyzed for chloride or sulfate (Table 3) and data from these sites are, therefore, not available to include in Figure 11. However, chloride and sulfate were analyzed in five monthly samples collected at CC-10 from October 2015 through February 2016 and all values were below the 250 mg/L. The sources of chloride and sulfate may be attributable to chemical addition (ferric chloride or aluminum sulfate (alum) used in wastewater treatment processes to reduce phosphorus concentrations in discharges to meet permit requirements. However, chloride and sulfate are also used as tracers for septic system and pasture sources and this is often tied to nitrogen increases which was also observed in the basin. During the May 2016 basin-wide surface water sampling event, the level of total phosphorus remained relatively constant upstream of the Reservoir while total nitrogen increased from

15 2016 Cherry Creek Monitoring Report the Castlewood State Park downstream to Parker (CC-4) and then remained relatively constant to the Cherry Creek State Park, when levels decreased (Figure 12). In May 2016, the levels of both TP and TN leaving the Reservoir (CC-Out) were lower than those entering the Reservoir (Figure 12). As will be quantified in Section 4, this is due to the retention of nutrients in the Reservoir and is the result of a significant portion of the nutrient inflow load settling to the bottom sediments. The relative Reservoir concentration was high but less than the inflow due to sedimentation, and that was reflected in the outflow concentration.

Figure 12. TN and TP Concentrations in Cherry Creek Basin, May 2016. (Source of Data: IEH Analytical, Inc.) During the October 2015 basin-wide surface water sampling event, TP levels were slightly higher than those observed the following spring and also fluctuated (Figure 13). TN data are not available for all sites from October 2015.

16 2016 Cherry Creek Monitoring Report

Figure 13. TP Concentrations in Cherry Creek Basin, October 2015. (Source of Data: GEI Consultants, Inc.) In May 2016, ammonium accounted for less than 6% of the TN present in Cherry Creek, with nitrate/nitrite comprising a larger component of the total nitrogen load. Soluble reactive phosphorus (SRP) comprised the majority of the total phosphate in both the October 2015 and May 2016 basin- wide surface water sampling events. The relative distribution of the various nitrogen and phosphorus species measured during the May 2016 basin-wide surface water sampling event are illustrated in Figure 14. The relative distribution of the phosphorus species measured during the October 2015 basin-wide surface water sampling event is illustrated in Figure 15.

17 2016 Cherry Creek Monitoring Report

Figure 14. Nitrogen and Phosphorus Species in Cherry Creek Basin, May 2016 (Source of Data: IEH Analytical, Inc.)

18 2016 Cherry Creek Monitoring Report

Figure 15. Phosphorus Species in Cherry Creek Basin, October 2015. (Source of Data: GEI Consultants, Inc.) Just upstream of the Reservoir, phosphorus was generally present at CC-10 in the dissolved form in WY2016, which includes SRP, with the exception of during storm-related high flows (e.g., June 14, 2016). During the higher flows generated by storm runoff, large amounts of sediment (and associated phosphorus) are transported in Cherry Creek (Figure 16).

19 2016 Cherry Creek Monitoring Report

Figure 16. Comparison of Dissolved and Total Phosphorus and TSS at CC-10, WY2016. (Sources of Data: GEI Consultants, Inc. (October 2015 – February 2016) and IEH Analytical, Inc. (March 2016 – September 2016) There is a strong relationship between particulate phosphate and suspended sediment conveyed by Cherry Creek. Particulate phosphate is calculated as the difference between the total and the dissolved phosphorus concentrations (or the difference in the height of the red and blue bars in Figure 16). The relationship between particulate phosphate and TSS at CC-10 in WY2016 is illustrated in Figure 17.

20 2016 Cherry Creek Monitoring Report

350

300

250

200 y = 0.8769x + 28.01 R² = 0.9621 150

100 Total Particulate Phosphorus (µg/L)

0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Total Suspended Solids (mg/L)

Figure 17. Particulate Phosphate versus TSS at CC-10, WY2016. (Sources of Data: GEI Consultants, Inc. (October 2015 – February 2016) and IEH Analytical, Inc. (March 2016 – September 2016) The positive relationship between phosphorus and suspended sediment concentrations is reflected in the difference between the median total phosphorus concentrations in samples collected at CC-10 during storm events versus those in samples collected during routine (non-storm) sampling events. Summary statistics for total phosphorus concentrations at CC-10 in WY2016 under these two flow regimes are provided in Table 5.

Table 5. Summary Statistics for Total Phosphorus Samples Collected at CC-10 during Base Flow (Routine) and Storm Events, WY2016.

Total Phosphorus Statistic Base Flow Sampling Events Storm Sampling Events (Routine, Non- Storm) Count 11 5 Minimum (µg/L) 128 172 Maximum (µg/L) 561 336 Mean (µg/L) 250 261 Median (µg/L) 215 301

21 2016 Cherry Creek Monitoring Report

The flow weighted total phosphorus concentration at CC-10 for WY2016 was 250 µg/L. The WY2016 value is slightly lower than the recent (2011 – 2015) flow weighted total phosphorus concentration of 263 µg/L published in GEI (2016) but much higher than the WY2016 flow weighted total phosphorus concentration of 87.6 µg/L calculated at site CT-2 in lower Cottonwood Creek (Section 3.1.1.3). Nitrogen was predominately present at CC-10 in the dissolved form in WY2016 with the exception of during storm-related high flows (Figure 18). However in contrast to phosphorus, there is not a strong relationship between particulate nitrogen and TSS.

Figure 18. Comparison of Dissolved and Total Nitrogen and TSS at CC-10, WY2016. (Sources of Data: GEI Consultants, Inc. (October 2015 – February 2016) and IEH Analytical, Inc. (March 2016 – September 2016) Summary statistics for total nitrogen concentrations at CC-10 in WY2016 under these storm and non- storm (routine sampling) flow regimes are provided in Table 6.

22 2016 Cherry Creek Monitoring Report

Table 6. Summary Statistics for Total Nitrogen Samples Collected at CC-10 during Base Flow (Routine) and Storm Events, WY2016. (Sources of Data: GEI Consultants, Inc. (October 2015 – February 2016) and IEH Analytical, Inc. (March 2016 – September 2016)

Total Nitrogen Statistic Base Flow Sampling Events Storm Sampling Events (Routine, Non- Storm) Count 11 5 Minimum (µg/L) 444 562 Maximum (µg/L) 1,820 1,100 Mean (µg/L) 897 882 Median (µg/L) 833 924

The flow weighted TN concentration at CC-10 for WY2016 was 1,012 µg/L. The WY2016 value is lower than the recent (2011 – 2015) flow weighted TN concentration of 1,261 µg/L published in GEI (2016) and approximately half the WY2016 flow weighted TN concentration of 2,020 µg/L calculated at site CT-2 in lower Cottonwood Creek (Section 3.1.1.3).

3.1.1.3 Cottonwood Creek Water Quality The quality of surface water in lower Cottonwood Creek just above the Reservoir (monitoring site CT-2) is discussed in this section. The water quality at the other Cottonwood Creek monitoring sites is discussed in Section 3.1.1.4 in the context of PRF performance. WY2016 water quality data are provided in Appendix F.

The pH of water in lower Cottonwood Creek ranged from 7.1 to 8.2, with a median value of 8. This pH range is consistent with the pH values observed in lower Cherry Creek (see Figure 9). However, the concentration of dissolved solids, as inferred by specific conductance values, was higher in Cottonwood Creek than in Cherry Creek. In WY2016, the specific conductance at CT-2 ranged from approximately 1,500 to 3,200 µS/cm with a median value of 1,750 µS/cm (compared to Cherry Creek specific conductance values at CC-10 in Figure 10). This higher specific conductance is due, in part, to elevated levels of chloride and sulfate present in Cottonwood Creek. Specially, the concentration of chloride exceeded 250 mg/L in four of five WY2016 samples collected at CT-2 while the concentration of sulfate exceeded 250 mg/L in all five WY2016 samples collected at CT-2. Cottonwood Creek has a chloride standard of 250 mg/L and water supply (WS) standard for sulfate (5 CCR 1002-38, Appendix 38-1, Stream Segment COSPCH04B). The concentrations of TP and TN measured at CT-2 in WY2016 are shown in Figure 19. The level of nitrogen present in lower Cottonwood Creek is higher than that observed in Cherry Creek, but the level of phosphorus is an order of magnitude lower in Cottonwood Creek than in Cherry Creek (compare Figure 19 to Figures 12 and 13).

23 2016 Cherry Creek Monitoring Report

Figure 19. Comparison of Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus at CT-2, WY2016 Consistent with the mode of transport in Cherry Creek, there is a moderately strong relationship between particulate phosphorus and TSS in Cottonwood Creek (Figure 20).

24 2016 Cherry Creek Monitoring Report

300

4/18/2016 250

200

150 y = 1.2928x + 18.993 R² = 0.785 (Does not include April 18 value) 100 Particulate Particulate Phosphorus(µg/L)

0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Total Suspended Solids (mg/L)

Figure 20. Particulate Phosphate versus TSS at CT-2, WY2016 (Sources of Data: GEI Consultants, Inc. (October 2015 – February 2016; IEH Analytical, Inc. (March 2016 – September 2016). Summary statistics for total nitrogen and total phosphorus concentrations at CT-2 in WY2016 under storm and non-storm (routine sampling) flow regimes are provided in Table 7.

Table 7. Summary Statistics for TN and TP Samples Collected at CT-2 during Routine and Storm Events, WY2016. Statistic Total Phosphorus Total Nitrogen Base Flow Storm Sampling Base Flow Storm Sampling Sampling Events Events Sampling Events Events (Routine, Non- (Routine, Non- Storm) Storm) Count 12 7 11 7 Minimum (µg/L) 43 29 954 1,584 Maximum (µg/L) 78 275 4,085 3,030 Mean (µg/L) 59 84 2,009 2,116 Median (µg/L) 58 65 2,034 1,860

25 2016 Cherry Creek Monitoring Report

The flow weighted TP concentration at CT-2 for WY2016 was 87.6 µg/L, which is higher than the recent (2011 – 2015) flow weighted TP concentration of 75 µg/L published in GEI (2016) but far below the WY2016 flow weighted TP concentration of 1,261 µg/L calculated at site CC-10 in lower Cherry Creek (Section 3.1.1.2) . The flow weighted TN concentration at CT-2 for WY2016 was 2,020 µg/L, which is also higher than the recent (2011 – 2015) flow weighted TN concentration of 1,592 µg/L published in GEI (2016) and approximately twice the WY2016 flow weighted TN concentration of 1,012 µg/L calculated at site CC-10 in lower Cherry Creek (Section 3.1.1.2).

3.1.1.4 Pollutant Reduction Facility Performance The passive treatment train approach developed in the Cottonwood Creek sub-basin includes a series of wetland detention systems and stream reclamation (PRFs). The Authority collects water quality samples under both routine (monthly) and storm (spring and summer) flow conditions at four monitoring sites on Cottonwood Creek. Monitoring sites CT-P1 and CT-P2 monitor the inflow and outflow, respectively, of the PRF located west of Peoria Street (the “Peoria Pond”). Monitoring sites CT-1 and CT-2 monitor the inflow and outflow, respectively, of the PRF located just upstream of the Reservoir inside the Park boundary (the “Perimeter Pond”). Data for these stations are provided in Appendix F. Historically, the Authority has evaluated the effectiveness of the Peoria and Perimeter Ponds separately. Beginning in WY2016, the combined effectiveness of these two PRFs is evaluated. This holistic approach will provide an assessment of the PRFs but will also account for water quality changes between the two PRFs, thus providing an assessment of the net impact of the passive treatment approach on nutrient concentrations in Cottonwood Creek. In WY2016, the passive treatment approach provided for an effective phosphorus reduction strategy under stormflow conditions, reducing TP concentrations by 20% (Table 8). Total suspended solids concentration (TSS, a quantification of sediment concentration in streamflow) was also reduced 77% during storm flows. This TSS reduction is important, as the phosphorus content in sediments in Cottonwood Creek have been measured to contain high phosphorus content, on average of 0.9 pounds/cubic yard (Ruzzo, 2005), as illustrated in Figure 20. During base flow conditions, there was an increase in TP and TSS concentrations and the loading calculations in Appendix F bear out the instances when there is a net gain (net export) of TP and TSS. Soluble reactive phosphorus (SRP) concentrations were reduced by 25% during base flow conditions, however there was an increase, or export of SRP, during stormflow events. TN concentrations (and loads) increased during both base flow and stormflow events, resulting in a net gain of nitrogen. Future wetland maintenance on this PRF, particularly around the Perimeter Pond, is prudent. With routine maintenance, i.e. vegetation harvesting, N and P will be further reduced.

26 2016 Cherry Creek Monitoring Report

Table 8. Pollutant Reduction Effectiveness of the Cottonwood PRFs – Passive treatment train approach reduced TP by 20% during stormflows and reduced SRP by 25% during base flow conditions, 2016 Median Values at Cottonwood Stations, CT-P1 and CT-P2. (Sources of Data: IEH Analytical (March 1 2016 -.September 30, 2016); GEI Consultants, Inc. (November 1, 2015 – February 28, 2016).

Analyte Cottonwood Cr, Cottonwood Cr, upstream of PRFs downstream of PRFs (Station CT-P1) (Station CT-2)

Base Flow Stormflow Base Flow Stormflow TP, µg/L 42 81 62 65 SRP, 12 5 9 14 µg/L

TN, µg/L 1,196 1,820 1,927 1,860 TSS, 11.8 81.5 26 18.5 mg/L

The PRF developed in McMurdo Gulch is a stream reclamation project. The Authority collected water quality samples only under routine flow (base flow) conditions at two monitoring sites on McMurdo Gulch. Monitoring site MCM-1 is located upstream of the steam reclamation project area while monitoring site MCM-2 is located downstream of the stream reclamation project area. Streamflow, water quality, and load calculations for these stations are provided in Appendix F. In WY2016, the McMurdo Gulch Stream Reclamation Project reduced the median TP and median SRP concentrations by 14% and 30%, respectfully (Table 9). TN and TSS concentrations were essentially unchanged through the stream reclamation project area in McMurdo Gulch in WY2016. (Table 8). However, as shown in the loading analysis (Appendix F), an increase in pollutant load was observed during some months for TN, TP, and TSS, resulting in a net export of pollutant loads between the upstream and downstream stations.

Table 9. Pollutant Reduction Effectiveness of the McMurdo Gulch – Stream Reclamation approach reduced TP concentrations by 14% and SRP by 30% during base flow conditions, Median Values at McMurdo Gulch, Stations MCM-1 and -2. (Sources of Data: IEH Analytical (March 1 2016 -.September 30, 2016); GEI Consultants, Inc. (November 1, 2015 – February 28, 2016).

Analyte McMurdo Gulch McMurdo Gulch Upstream of Downstream of PRFs PRFs (Station MCM-2) (Station MCM-1) Base Flow Base Flow

TP, µg/L 351 300

SRP, µg/L 276 192

TN, µg/L 495 476

TSS, mg/L 4.0 4.1

27 2016 Cherry Creek Monitoring Report

3.1.2 Groundwater The Cherry Creek alluvial groundwater is currently scheduled to be monitored twice per year (Table 3). Many of the wells in the Authority’s alluvial groundwater monitoring network have been regularly sampled since 1994. The wells are located throughout the basin, including just upstream (MW-9) and just downstream (Kennedy) of the Reservoir (Figure 2). The depths of the wells ranges from approximately 27 to 60 feet. Alluvial groundwater samples were collected from by GEI monthly from well MW-9 from October 2015 through February 2016. Tetra Tech collected samples from all seven (7) Authority wells in May 2015. WY2016 water quality data are provided in Appendix F.

3.1.2.1 Groundwater Levels Groundwater levels are scheduled to be measured twice per year (spring and fall). Monitoring well MW-9 was also equipped with a continuous water level and temperature monitoring device from April 14, 2016 through the end of the water year. The Kennedy well is owned by the City and County of Denver and their employees “purge” the well prior to sampling; consequently, water levels obtained from the Kennedy well are not representative of static groundwater levels as Denver personnel initiate well pumping prior to arrival of Authority sampling personnel.

Hydrographs illustrating the groundwater levels in the Authority’s alluvial wells are provided in Appendix D. The historic groundwater level data for the Authority monitoring wells provided on these hydrographs dates from the mid-1990s through WY2016. In general, the trends in groundwater levels in the Authority wells is similar during the first decade of monitoring; groundwater levels in all wells decreased from highs in the early- to mid-1990s to lows in the early- to mid-2000s. Beginning in the early- to mid-2000s the groundwater levels in some of the wells exhibit different trends. From upstream to downstream, these general trends are summarized below.

 After decreasing from the mid-1990s through the early-2000s, alluvial groundwater levels observed in well MW-1 have increased slightly but are not back to the mid-1990 levels. The depth to groundwater in this well, current about 25 feet below ground surface, is much deeper than the other Authority wells where groundwater levels are less than 10 feet below ground surface.  After decreasing from the mid-1990s through the mid-2000s, alluvial groundwater levels observed in wells MW-2 and 5 have increased to the highest levels historically measured.  After decreasing from the mid-1990s through the early- to mid-2000s, alluvial groundwater levels in wells MW-6 and MW-9 fluctuated with no major apparent recent trends.

Well MW-9 was also equipped with a continuous data logger starting on April 14, 2016 to monitor shorter-term changes in alluvial groundwater levels and temperature. The WY2016 continuous water level data collected from well MW-9 are illustrated in Figure 21.

28 2016 Cherry Creek Monitoring Report

5,572.5

5,572.0

5,571.5

5,571.0 Mean Daily Daily GroundwaterElevation Mean Project(Feet, Datum)

5,570.5 Oct-15 Dec-15 Jan-16 Apr-16 Jun-16 Aug-16 Oct-16

Figure 21. WY2016 Mean Daily Alluvial Groundwater Elevation in Well MW-9. (Sources of Data: Tetra Tech, Inc. (April 2016 – September 2016)

As anticipated, the alluvial groundwater level monitored at MW-9 exhibits seasonality with groundwater levels decreasing over a foot from springtime highs to fall lows. WY2016 daily average groundwater level and temperature measurements from MW-9 are provided in Appendix F.

3.1.2.2 Groundwater Quality Based on the review of the historic pH and specific conductance data collected from the Authority wells, the quality of the alluvial groundwater appears to be slowly evolving through time. The pH of the alluvial groundwater is generally near neutral, predominately ranging from approximately 6.5 to 7.5. The data from some wells (i.e., MW-1, -2, -5 and -9) suggest a slight decrease in pH over the past 20 years. The historic pH values measured in samples collected from well MW-9 are illustrated in Figure 22.

29 2016 Cherry Creek Monitoring Report

7 pH

5 Jan-94 Jan-98 Jan-02 Jan-06 Jan-10 Jan-14

Figure 22. Historic pH values in Well MW-9. (Source of Data: IEH Analytical, Inc. (March 1 2016 – September 30, 2016); GEI Consultants, Inc. (2006 – February 28, 2016); Chadwick Ecological Consultants (1995 – 2006); University of Missouri (1994).

The pH values in well Kennedy, located downstream of the Reservoir, have remained relatively constant through time. Specific conductance, a surrogate of the total dissolved solids (TDS) content of the alluvial groundwater, has increased in several wells (i.e., MW-1, -5, -6, -9 and Kennedy). The historic specific conductance values measured in samples collected from well MW-9 are illustrated in Figure 23.

30 2016 Cherry Creek Monitoring Report

1,250

1,000

750

500 Specific Specific (µS) Conductance

250

0 Jan-94 Jan-98 Jan-02 Jan-06 Jan-10 Jan-14

Figure 23. Historic specific conductance values in Well MW-9. (Source of Data: IEH Analytical, Inc. (March 1 2016 – September 30, 2016); GEI Consultants, Inc. (2006 – February 28, 2016); Chadwick Ecological Consultants (1995 – 2006); University of Missouri (1994).

Based on the results of the May 2016 groundwater sample, median sulfate and chloride concentrations in the alluvial groundwater samples were 100 mg/L and 277 mg/L, respectively. It is likely that increases in the concentrations of both these anions through time contributes to a portion of the observed increase in specific conductance in some wells. Data from the May 2016 basin-wide alluvial groundwater sampling event indicated that the concentration of sulfate in all the wells was below the applicable state groundwater (domestic water supply) standard (5 CCR 1002-41.8, Table 2). However, as illustrated in Table 10, chloride concentrations in four of the seven alluvial wells sampled exceeded the applicable domestic water supply standard of 250 mg/L (ibid.). As mentioned in Section 3.1.1.2, this is a marker for septic system and land use impacts on groundwater.

31 2016 Cherry Creek Monitoring Report

Table 10. Chloride Concentrations in Alluvial Wells, May 2016

Well Chloride Number (mg/L)* MW-1 609 MW-2 279 MW-5 208 MW-6 205 MW-7A 277 MW-9 290 Kennedy 231 *Bolded concentrations exceed groundwater standard of 250 mg/L Comparison of Cherry Creek surface water and alluvial groundwater data from the May 2016 basin- wide sampling event suggests a difference in total nitrogen concentrations between the two media (Figure 24). The median concentrations of TN in May 2016 were 1.5 mg/L in surface water and 0.3 mg/L in alluvial groundwater. The exception to this pattern was well MW-1, where the total nitrogen level was much greater than that in the adjacent surface water. Note that nitrate/nitrite concentration in well MW-1, 8.29 mg/L, was below the state groundwater (domestic water supply) standard (5 CCR 1002-41.8, Table 1).

4 Total Nitrogen Total (mg/L) 2

Surface Water Groundwater

Figure 24. Total Nitrogen concentrations in Cherry Creek Surface Water and Alluvial Groundwater, May 2016. (Source of Data: IEH Analytical, Inc. (March 1 2016 – September 30, 2016); GEI Consultants, Inc. (October 2015 – February 2016) In contrast to TN, comparison of Cherry Creek surface water and alluvial groundwater data from the May 2016 basin-wide sampling event suggests little difference in total phosphate concentrations between the two media, with the exception of well MW-2 (Figure 25). The median concentrations of total phosphorus differed little between the two media in May 2016, 207 µg/L in surface water and 214 µg/L in alluvial groundwater.

32 2016 Cherry Creek Monitoring Report

Figure 25. TP concentrations in Cherry Creek Surface Water and Alluvial Groundwater, May 2016 (Source of Data: IEH Analytical, Inc. (March 1 2016 – September 30, 2016); GEI Consultants, Inc. (October 2015 – February 2016) Recent (2010 to present) SRP data supported the TP trend observed in May 2016, although some wells (e.g., MW-2) historically exhibited a wide range in SRP levels. In general, upstream of the Reservoir the SRP levels in the alluvial groundwater are similar to that in nearby surface water (Figure 27). However the SRP level in surface water released from the Reservoir (CC-Out) has historically been lower than that in alluvial groundwater downstream of the Reservoir (alluvial well Kennedy) (Figure 26).

33 2016 Cherry Creek Monitoring Report

Figure 26. Soluble Reactive in Surface Water and Groundwater along Cherry Creek (2010 to Present) Sources of Data: GEI Consultants, Inc. (Jan 2010 – Feb 2016); IEH Analytical, Inc. (March 2016 – September 2016) Over the past 20 years, the concentration of SRP in the alluvial groundwater upstream of the Reservoir appears to be gradually increasing, adding to the Reservoir nutrient source pool (Figure 27).

34 2016 Cherry Creek Monitoring Report

350

300

250

200

150

100

Soluble Reactive Reactive (µg/L) Soluble Phosphorus 50

0 Jan-94 Jan-98 Jan-02 Jan-06 Jan-10 Jan-14

Figure 27. Historic SRP Concentrations in Alluvial Well MW-9 (1994 – 2016) (Sources of Data: IEH Analytical, Inc. (March 1 2016 – September 30, 2016); GEI Consultants, Inc. (2010 – February 28, 2016); Halepaska and Associates (1994 - 2010). Well MW-9 was sampled and analyzed for the total and dissolved forms of organic carbon (TOC and DOC, respectively) six (6) times during WY2016. The WY2016 TOC and DOC results are illustrated in Figure 28 along with historical data from the well.

35 2016 Cherry Creek Monitoring Report

2 Organic Carbon(mg/L) Organic

TOC DOC

Figure 28. Total and Dissolved Organic Carbon Data from MW-9. Sources of Data: GEI Consultants, Inc. (May 2014 – February 2016; IEH Analytical, Inc. (March 2016 – September 2016) The long-term TOC concentrations in the alluvial groundwater samples collected from well MW-9 range from 2.7 mg/L to 4.3 mg/L, averaging 3.3 mg/L. The TOC concentrations measured in the six samples collected in WY2016 exhibited the slightly lower average of 3.2 mg/L. As illustrated in Figure 28, historically the dissolved fraction comprises between 66% and 100% of the total organic carbon present in the alluvial groundwater samples collected from well MW-9, with a long- term average of 91%. In WY2016, essentially all the organic carbon (99%) was present in the dissolved fraction. 3.2 RESERVOIR

Monitoring at the Reservoir has focused on data to support regulatory requirements and attaining beneficial uses; aquatic life, recreation and indirect downstream uses, water supply and agriculture. As such, the primary constituents of concern are phosphorus, nitrogen, and chl-a. Nutrients, TP and TN, are often the contributing or limiting factor in the growth of algae (Cole 1979; Horne and Goldman 1994; Wetzel 2001; Cooke, et al. 1993). Excessive amounts of these nutrients in aquatic systems often result in algal blooms that create an imbalance in the Reservoir, aesthetic problems, as well as potentially unsuitable conditions for aquatic life. High external loads from the watershed, coupled with internal phosphorus loading in the Reservoir itself, impact water quality in the Reservoir. Chl-a, a regulated indicator of algae level, affects aquatic life, fishing, swimming and other recreational uses. Ultimately, lower nutrient concentrations are necessary to greatly reduce algal biomass as measured by chl-a.

36 2016 Cherry Creek Monitoring Report

The phycology data provides an excellent biological indicator of what plankton species are thriving and helps determine ecological stressors, overall health of the Reservoir, and an understanding of the basis for some water quality issues. Other physical parameters described in this section, transparency, dissolved oxygen, temperature, and pH, support protection of aquatic life and recreational uses. 3.2.1 Transparency Secchi disk depth and a LI-COR water sensor provided a measurement of Reservoir water clarity or transparency in WY2016. Transparency is a basic indicator of the health of an aquatic ecosystem and the level of biological productivity. Figure 29 depicts mean Secchi disk depth in the Reservoir at CCR-2 during WY2016. The mean Secchi disk depth was as high as 1.7 meters (m) in mid-June, representing the highest clarity condition which coincided with:  Highest precipitation events and Reservoir flushing rates,  Lowest phytoplankton cell counts and chl-a concentration (7.6 μg/L), and  Lowest TP concentration (4.6 μg/L). The end of July Secchi disk depth measurements of approximately 0.6 meters represented hypereutrophic conditions and reduced clarity. The greatest chl-a and TP concentrations were also measured during this timeframe (34 μg/L and 154 μg/L, respectively). Secchi disk depth from 1992 to present is depicted in Figure 30. Over the past 25 years the Secchi disk depth has declined, although the statistical relationship is poor (R2 =0.29). Since 2000 there is no statistical change in Secchi disk depth (R2 = 0.05). The LI-COR sensor measured light attenuation to determine transparency and the depth at which 1% of photosynthetically active radiation penetrated the water column (i.e., photic zone depth). The depth of 1% light attenuation ranged from 1.1 m in late July/August timeframe to a maximum depth 6.5 m in mid- June. Figure 31 depicts the direct relationship between Secchi disk depth and 1% light attenuation (R2=0.70). A stronger relationship is observed with Secchi disk depth up to 1.8 m and 1 % light attenuation up to 5 m.

37 2016 Cherry Creek Monitoring Report

Figure 29. WY2016 Secchi Disk Depth in Cherry Creek Reservoir, Station CCR-2 (Source of Data: IEH Analytical, Inc. (March 1 2016 – September 30, 2016); GEI Consultants, Inc. (2006 – February 28, 2016); Chadwick Ecological Consultants (1995 – 2006); University of Missouri (1992 – 1994).

38 2016 Cherry Creek Monitoring Report

39 2016 Cherry Creek Monitoring Report

Figure 31. Relationship between Secchi Disk Depth X 3 (m) and Depth of 1% Light Attenuation in Reservoir (m) – There is a direct relationship between Secchi disk depth and 1% light attenuation (R2=0.70). A stronger relationship is observed with Secchi Disk depth up to 1.8 m and 1 % light attenuation of 5 m. (Sources of Data: IEH Analytical, Inc. (March 1, 2016 – September 30, 2016); GEI Consultants, Inc. (2006 – February 28, 2016); Chadwick Ecological Consultants (1995 – 2006); University of Missouri (1992 – 1994).

3.2.2 Total Phosphorus The WY2016 TP concentrations measured in the photic zone ranged between 48 μg/L and 175 μg/L (Figure 32). The growing season mean TP concentration was 126 μg/L. The lowest TP concentration of 48 μg/L was measured on June 14, 2016, after the HABs were observed May 31, 2016 – June 9, 2016. This is most likely due to the increase in precipitation and outflow effectively flushing some of the algal biomass with organic-P out of the Reservoir, coupled with sedimentation of the algal bloom biomass that transported TP to the Reservoir sediments. Data collected throughout the growing season indicated an abundance of TP in the Reservoir, resulting in a eutrophic reservoir that continues to age and even show hypereutrophic tendencies. Therefore, it appears the light and hydraulic residence time (flushing rate) were the limiting factors in controlling phytoplankton productivity.

40 2016 Cherry Creek Monitoring Report

Figure 32. Total Phosphorus in Cherry Creek Reservoir – As measured in photic zone at all reservoir stations. The error bar represents the 95thpercentile around the mean. (Sources of Data: IEH Analytical (March 1 2016 – Sept 30 2016); GEI Consultants (Oct 1 2015 – Feb 28 2016)

41 2016 Cherry Creek Monitoring Report

An evaluation of seasonal mean TP concentrations (1992 – 2016) in the Reservoir indicates an increasing pattern in the last 30 years of 200% (Figure 33).

Figure 33. Seasonal Mean TP Concentrations in Cherry Creek Reservoir, 1992 – 2016. The error bar represents the 95th percentile around the mean. (Sources of Data: IEH Analytical (March 1 2016 – Sept 30 2016); GEI Consultants (2006 – February 28, 2016); Chadwick Ecological Consultants (1995 – 2005); University of Missouri (1992 – 1994).

TP profiles at Reservoir monitoring station CCR-2 at depths 1.5 meters to 7 meters are depicted in Figure 34. Internal TP loading was observed and more prevalent during June and August. As shown, the TP concentration at 7 m was measured up to 225 μg/L on June 14, 2016. The internal nutrient release of phosphorus from bottom sediments occurred when the bottom of the Reservoir becomes anoxic (very low DO concentrations) as discussed in Section 3.2.9. The sediment phosphorus load accumulates over time from external sources, including from the Reservoir, and is geochemically transformed and released when the sediment surface becomes anoxic (Nürnberg and LaZerte, 2008). This internal release of phosphorus facilitated the growth of all algae; increasing the seasonal mean chl-a concentrations and the production of cyanobacteria (blue green algae). Throughout June, DO concentrations at depths greater than 6 m were less than the upper threshold that facilitates internal loading (2 mg/L) and created an anoxic environment near the water/sediment boundary (see Figure 44) which resulted in elevated phosphorus concentrations at depth (Figure 34). Phosphorus can be released at rates as much as 1,000 times faster during anoxic conditions than during well oxygenated conditions (Horne and Goldman, 1994). Although the rate of exchange of nutrients (mainly phosphorus)

42 2016 Cherry Creek Monitoring Report at the water/sediment interface remains unknown for the Reservoir, this internal nutrient loading component of the Reservoir has been estimated to account for approximately 25% of the cumulative TP load from 1992 to 2006 (Nürnberg and LaZerte, 2008). However, it was not just the total amount of TP loading that was important in 2016. The timing of the load and bioavailability of TP was critical. Given Cherry Creek Reservoir is a polymictic reservoir1 (Section 3.2.7) and the rapid influx of TP and SRP (Figures 34 and 35) during periods of robust biological activity shown by pH and DO changes (Sections 3.2.8 and 3.2.9), internal cycling of P within the Reservoir is one of the foremost drivers enabling excessive phytoplanktonic productivity. The WY2016 data illustrated in Figure 34 indicated that overall levels of phosphorus were very high, given the eutrophic-hypereutrophic boundary for TP is 100 µg/L and the eutrophic boundary starts at 25 µg/L (Nürnberg, 1996).

Figure 34. 2016 TP at Monitoring Station CCR-2 (1.5 – 7 meter depth profiles). Internal loading of TP observed at depths below 5 m in July, August, and September (Sources of Data: IEH Analytical (March 1 2016 – Sept 30 2016); GEI Consultants (Oct 1 2015 – Feb 28 2016)

1 Polymictic reservoirs and lakes are too shallow to develop strong thermal stratification. Consequently, their waters tend to mix from top to bottom, many times through the ice-free period.

43 2016 Cherry Creek Monitoring Report

3.2.3 Soluble Reactive Phosphorus Soluble reactive phosphorus (SRP) represents the bioavailable form of this nutrient. Figure 35 depicts SRP data collected at Reservoir monitoring station CCR-2 during profile sampling in WY2106. As shown, the Reservoir was well-mixed in October 2015 through March 2016. During May 24th through July 12th, elevated bioavailable nutrients, up to 156 µg/L, were observed at depths below 5m, indicating an extended period of nutrient release from bottom sediments. The period of observed heightened nutrients at the Reservoir bottom suggest that even a few centimeters of anoxic water at the water/sediment interface, which the Sonde monitoring device may not have captured, is sufficient for creating a reducing environment and internal load release of nutrients (GEI, 2015). There may also be significant aerobic and anaerobic mineralization of organic-P to SRP with the decay of phytoplankton that has settled to the bottom. The elevated SRP at these depths show a rapid and dramatic spike in concentration of SRP at deeper reservoir depth, confirming soluble phosphorus was released from sediments during this time. This also indicates the P recycling within the reservoir is happening at a rapid rate and through multifaceted processes due to the history of nutrient retention within the Reservoir over the past several decades.

Figure 35. SRP Variability in Reservoir at CCR-2. Depth profile measurements confirm internal phosphorus loading at depths below 5 m during May 24th through July 12th. (Sources of Data: IEH Analytical (March 1 2016 – Sept 30 2016); GEI Consultants (October 1, 2015 – February 28, 2016).

44 2016 Cherry Creek Monitoring Report

3.2.4 Total Nitrogen The July – September seasonal mean TN in the Reservoir was 910 µg/L. The long term average from 1992 – 2016 is 938 µg/L and no discernible increasing or decreasing trend was identified with the TN data (Figure 36).

Figure 36. TN Measured in Cherry Creek Reservoir, 1992 – 2016. In 2016, TN concentration was 910 µg/L; the long term average is 938 µg/L. No long term trends, increasing or decreasing, are noted. (Sources of Data: IEH Analytical (March 1 2016 – Sept 30 2016); GEI Consultants (2006 – February 28, 2016); Chadwick Ecological Consultants (1995 – 2006); University of Missouri (1992 – 1994). 3.2.5 Total Inorganic Nitrogen (TIN) TIN is calculated as the sum of nitrate-nitrite as N and ammonia as N. Similar to SRP, TIN was elevated at depths of 6-7m, specifically during the June/July timeframe, suggesting the presence of internal nitrogen loading (Figure 37).

45 2016 Cherry Creek Monitoring Report

Figure 37. Total inorganic nitrogen (TIN) Concentrations at CCR-2, Photic Zone – 7 meters. Elevated data observed at depths of 6-7 meters in June/July suggest occurrence of internal nitrogen loading. (Sources of Data: IEH Analytical (March 1, 2016 – Sept 30, 2016); GEI Consultants (October 1, 2015 – February 28, 2016). Figure 38 depicts nitrate-N and ammonium-N separately in the Reservoir at 3-7 meters to determine whether it was decay of organics through aerobic or anaerobic processes that contributed to the N availability. This graphical analysis also serves to support our understanding of N utilization and the potential for N limitation for what algal group and, if so, the timing of this limitation. Of particular note is that cyanobacteria (blue-green algae) can use both ammonium and nitrate, while chlorophyta (green algae) and most diatoms require nitrate. Also, blue-greens can be a producer of ammonium. As shown, the highest ammonium concentration occurred at the middle of the lowest DO in the bottom water (7m) at CCR-2. This indicated sediment degradation with the release of ammonium that cyanobacteria could utilize.

46 2016 Cherry Creek Monitoring Report

Figure 38. Nitrate-nitrite and ammonia concentrations at CCR-2, Photic Zone – 7 meters. Elevated ammonia observed at depths of 6-7 meters in June/July suggest occurrence of sediment degradation with the release of ammonia that could become available for cyanobacteria. (Sources of Data: IEH Analytical (March 1, 2016 – Sept 30 2016); GEI Consultants (October 1, 2015 – February 28, 2016) 3.2.6 Chl-a The chl-a growing season (July through September) concentration was 23.6 µg/L, in exceedance of the 18 µg/L growing season average regulated for chl-a (Figure 39). The seasonal mean concentration is measured in the photic zone, with an allowable exceedance frequency of once in five years. The late July 12, 2016 sampling indicated a higher concentration and more variability in chl-a between the three reservoir stations. An algal bloom was observed at Station CCR-2 in July, affecting the chl-a concentration at this site (Figure 40). To add some perspective, Table 11 shows the past occurrences of chl-a concentrations above 50 µg/L. While the 59 µg/L is high, it is not unprecedented, nor is it unexpected given other parameters and the hypereutrophic condition (greater > 25 µg/L, Nürnberg, 1996) of the Reservoir during this time. Specifically, TP at this location was 190 µg/L and the chl:TP ratio was at the world average of 0.3 (from data used by Nürnberg, 1996 and presented in Welch and Jacoby, 2004), consistent with the chl-a measurement of 59 µg/L.

47 2016 Cherry Creek Monitoring Report

Figure 39. Chl-a, Growing Season Average, was 23.6 µg/L, in exceedance of the 18 µg/L standard. The error bar represents the 95th percentile around the mean. (Sources of Data: IEH Analytical (March 1, 2016 – Sept 30, 2016); GEI Consultants, Inc. (October 1, 2015 – February 28, 2016).

Figure 40. Algae in Zooplankton Net at CCR-2 (Photo taken July 12, 2016) The algal bloom, which appears as small grass clippings, was prolific at this site and supported the high, but not unprecedented, concentration of chl-a at 59 µg/L.

48 2016 Cherry Creek Monitoring Report

Table 11. Summary of Historic Chl-a Concentrations in Exceedance of 50 µg/L in the Reservoir. (1992 – 2016) Date Monitoring Location Chlorophyll-a Concentration (µg/L) 8/27/1992 CCR1 65.1 8/4/1998 CCR1 60.75 7/27/1999 CCR3 54.85 8/17/1999 CCR1 53.65 1/17/2007 CCR3 53.7 1/17/2007 CCR2 56.8 2/23/2010 CCR3 52.8 8/10/2010 CCR2 56.6 10/14/2010 CCR2 51.3 11/16/2010 CCR2 52.5

The Reservoir has exceeded the chl-a standard in four of the last five years (Figure 41). The Reservoir is in a eutrophic-hypereutrophic state as defined by chl-a concentrations of >9 µg/L (eutrophic) and > 25 µg/L (hypereutrophic) and total phosphorus concentrations >25 µg/L (eutrophic) to >100 µg/L (hypereutrophic) (Nürnberg, 1996).

Figure 41. Seasonal Means of Chl-a in Reservoir, 1992 – 2016. The chl-a water quality standard is 18 µg/L, with a 1-in -5 year exceedance frequency. The Reservoir has exceeded the chl-a standard the last 4 out of 5 years. The error bar represents the 95th percentile around the mean. (Sources of Data: IEH Analytical (March 1, 2016 – Sept 30 2016); GEI Consultants (2006 – February 28, 2016); Chadwick Ecological Consultants (1995 – 2006); University of Missouri (1992 – 1994).

49 2016 Cherry Creek Monitoring Report

External P loading from the watershed, coupled with internal P loading in the Reservoir, were high enough to result in the generation of excess algal production and chl-a levels above the standard. The likely control factors for low versus high production summers appear to include internal mixing, flushing rate, and light limitation during the growing season. However, these factors are not really controllable or predictable and the Reservoir is getting more productive as time goes on due to the natural progression of man-made lakes, elevated nutrient concentrations observed within the watershed and recycled nutrients in the Reservoir sediments that are 2 -100 times that of the flushing rate under current conditions in the Reservoir. Reduction in external loading and management of internal P cycling are needed to meet the chl-a water quality standard in the Reservoir. Ongoing management of both external (in watershed) and internal (in-reservoir) nutrient loads will support lower productivity in the Reservoir to promote long term protection of beneficial uses. 3.2.7 Temperature

Figure 42 depicts the temperature variability (in degrees Celsius) at Reservoir station CCR-2. The Reservoir met the temperature standards established for the Reservoir, protective of the warm water fishery (WQCC Regulation No. 31, effective December 31, 2016) including the April – December temperature standards of 26.2 oC (chronic) and 29.3 oC (acute) and January – March temperature standards of 13.1 oC (chronic) and 24.1 oC (acute). As observed in polymictic lakes, the Reservoir was mixed relative to temperature, with very little vertical thermal stratification (thermal resistance to mixing).

50 2016 Cherry Creek Monitoring Report

CCR-2 Temperature 0 Temperature (°C) 1 < 0 0– 13 13– 16 2 16– 20 20– 24 3 24– 26 26– 29 > 29 4 Depth(m) 5

11/1/2015 1/1/2016 3/1/2016 5/1/2016 7/1/2016 9/1/2016 Date

3.2.8 pH The pH in the Reservoir ranged 7.4 to 8.6 (Figure 43). The higher pH observed during March through June and, to a slightly lesser extent, through the end of September was a direct result of photosynthetic production within the Reservoir. Given the historically higher reservoir releases during this period that flush some of the biomass, there was likely less chlorophyll buildup in the Reservoir than there was potential for, given the elevated nutrient levels.

51 2016 Cherry Creek Monitoring Report

Figure 43. WY2016 pH Profile in Cherry Creek Reservoir, Station CCR-2 (October 1 2015 – September 30, 2016) – pH ranged 7.4 – 8.6. (Sources of Data: Tetra Tech, (March 1, 2016 -.September 30, 2016); GEI Consultants, Inc. (November 1, 2015 – February 28, 2016)

3.2.9 Dissolved Oxygen The DO standard for Cherry Creek Reservoir is 5 mg/L near the surface. The DO may be less than 5 mg/L near the bottom as long as there is a refuge with DO levels greater than 5 mg/L available for aquatic life. Figure 44 depicts DO levels in the Reservoir at Station CCR-2. During June through September there were periods of low DO in the deeper waters; however, data demonstrated DO concentrations more than 5 mg/L throughout the majority of the Reservoir providing adequate habitat (refuge) for aquatic life. The lower DO levels, measured at depths near 7 meters, were a result of the sediment oxygen demand affecting DO. Based on review of the DO data, combined with the pH data, the Reservoir was chemo-stratified prior to the sampling on 13 September.

52 2016 Cherry Creek Monitoring Report

Figure 44. WY2016 DO Profile at Cherry Creek Reservoir Monitoring Station CCR-2 (2016) - DO was above 5 mg/L, providing refuge for the fishery. However, lower DO levels (less than 5 mg/L) were measured at depths near 5 to 7 meters in June through September, a result of the anoxic conditions in the sediment water interface. (Sources of Data: Tetra Tech, (March 1, 2016 -.September 30, 2016); GEI Consultants, Inc. (November 1, 2015 – February 28, 2016) 3.2.10 Reservoir Phycology The primary plankton taxa observed in the Reservoir during WY2016 and their significance as an ecological stressor or benefit to the aquatic community is summarized in Table 12. The phytoplankton and zooplankton data indicates nutrient rich Reservoir conditions observed in WY2016. Cherry Creek Reservoir continues to exhibit characteristics of an over-productive, nutrient rich Reservoir. Phytoplankton. The phytoplankton taxa included an abundance of Chlorophyta (green algae), Cyanophyta (cyanobacteria), and Bacillariophyta (diatoms, a great source of food for zooplankton) (Figure 45). The algal abundance (measured as cell counts/mL) for Cyanobacteria (photosynthetic bacteria, “blue green algae”) and Chlorophyta were all in excess of eutrophic levels, >1,000 algal cells/mL for each group. The green algae and diatoms community were dominated by species that are indicative of over-enriched conditions and some are not utilized as efficiently as other species as base of the food web. Also, the densities observed contributed to increased oxygen demand and other poor water quality conditions such as increasing phosphorus recycling and chlorophyll concentrations. Cyanobacteria do not directly contribute greatly to the food web and caused water quality issues such as turbidity, dissolve oxygen depletion, nutrient generation, elevated chl-a concentrations and potential periodic production of harmful algal blooms (HABs).

53 2016 Cherry Creek Monitoring Report

Table 12. Summary of Primary Plankton Taxa Observed, Ecological Benefits and Stressors

Phytoplankton or Picture Zooplankton (Photos courtesy of Ecological Benefits for Ecological Stressors for Period of Occurrence Abundance (Yes/No) Taxonomic Division PhycoTech, Inc. and Reservoir Reservoir and Common Name NOAA) Phytoplankton During periods of high Small colonial and single Sometimes filamentous Yes. When cell numbers Chlorophyta nutrient concentrations; celled greens are a good green algae and large exceed 3,000 to 5,000 “Green algae” indicates both nitrogen food source for zooplankton. colonial forms (i.e. volvox) cells/mL it is high and in and phosphorus are in do not add to food web excess of the excess supply. Higher and create water quality eutrophic/beneficial use ratio of desmids to other problems. Also creates levels, >1,000 cells/mL; Reservoir typically measured greens is indication of problems when it grows in over 10,000 cell/mL nitrogen abundance. "cotton candy" type

clouds in the water. Phtoplankton During periods of over Do not contribute greatly to Blue-greens create water Yes. Cyanophyta, were Cyanophyta abundant enrichment and food web. Few people view quality problems, i.e. observed at nearly 75,000 “Cyanobacteria” - with very high nutrients, cyanobacteria as beneficial oxygen depletion when cells/mL; this is too high for a “Blue green algae” especially phosphorus. organisms in a lake their excessive growth balanced system, keeping Note: Truly are Their excess production environment. produces algae blooms the risk for cyanotoxins bacteria so proper will lead to water quality Some species are toxic elevated. classification is problems. (cyanotoxins) and result in Cyanobacteria. HABs.

Phytoplankton Typically, the first algae to Important contributors to the Freshwater diatoms Abundant in early June and Bacilliaraphyta bloom in early primary production in aquatic commonly observed in the early August, over 10,000 “Diatoms” spring.When conditions in ecosystems. Food resource reservoir are indicators of cells/mL. Predominant the upper mixed layer for zooplankton and also eutrophic (over enriched biovolume during same (nutrients and light) are produces atmospheric conditions) and their timeframe. favorable (spring), their oxygen. Some diatoms can densities are greater than competitive edge and host nitrogen-fixing a balanced system would rapid growth rate enables cyanobacterial symbionts support. This contributes them to dominate that are high in protein, to environmental phytoplankton which may benefit the degradation through communities organisms grazing these increased oxygen diatoms. demand and phosphorus recycling.

54 2016 Cherry Creek Monitoring Report

Phytoplankton or Picture Zooplankton (Photos courtesy of Ecological Benefits for Ecological Stressors for Period of Occurrence Abundance (Yes/No) Taxonomic Division PhycoTech, Inc. and Reservoir Reservoir and Common Name NOAA) Phytoplankton Cryptophytes are They are also an important Due to proliferation over the Cryptophyta abundant in the food for zooplankton. winter, Cryptophyta numbers phytoplankton and can Zooplankton, in turn, are were higher in May and also live through the food for fish and other June, tapering off later in the winter, under ice-cover organisms that are part of growing season. and with little solar the aquatic food web. radiation for photosynthesis.

Zooplankton Daphnids Historically conditions are Excellent zooplankton that Higher density in June “Water flea”, “Daphnia ideal for Daphnids around play a significant role in the reflects phytoplankton magna” and “Daphnia early June timeframe. food web as major source of community structure, higher dubia” These are the most oils and proteins for fish. numbers with balance effective phytoplankton Large in size and preferred moderate production of harvesters and food fish food (over 10 times the phytoplankton. source for fish. size of Bosminids). Zooplankton Bosminid High percentage of Provides food base, but Given Bosminids are Bosminids indicates that because of their small size, smaller than the preferred the Cryptophytes and the not a preferred food source. Daphnids for fish food this single cells, chlorophytes, indicates that most of the are the major algal food primary production is not base. being used by higher aquatic biota and hence contributes to over enrichment of the reservoir.

55 2016 Cherry Creek Monitoring Report

Figure 45. Algal Cell Concentrations Measured in Cherry Creek Reservoir in WY2016. The top 5 phytoplankton taxa observed in Cherry Creek Reservoir are depicted. The algal abundance (measured as cell counts/mL) for Cyanobacteria (photosynthetic bacteria, “blue green algae”) and Chlorophyta were all in excess of eutrophic levels, >1,000 algal cells/mL (Source of Data: PhycoTech, Inc.) Chl-a accounted for the total phytoplankton community biomass and this biomass was dominated by Chlorophyta and Bacillariophyta (diatoms, a significant source of food for zooplankton, however not all of the diatoms species present fit into this function) during the growing season, as depicted in Figure 46. A significant amount of biomass energy from phytoplankton and bacteria was also stored in the sediments as organic carbon, which contributed to excess nutrient production during this timeframe.

56 2016 Cherry Creek Monitoring Report

Figure 46. Algal Community Biomass - biomass was dominated by Chlorophyta (green algae) and Bacillariophyta (diatoms) during the growing season. (Source of Data: PhycoTech, Inc.)

Zooplankton. The 2016 zooplankton community structure was generally illustrative of a hypereutrophic system and not overly productive (biomass) relative to food base for fisheries (Figure 47). A generally higher Daphnid biomass was present in June and September, indicating this preferred fish food was available and abundant for the fishery. However, Bosminids, which are ten times smaller than the preferred Daphnids, were prevalent in July 2016. The dominance of Bosminids indicates that most of the primary production was not being used by higher aquatic biota during that period, which contributes to the over enrichment of the Reservoir.

57 2016 Cherry Creek Monitoring Report

Figure 47. Zooplankton Biomass - A generally higher Daphnid biomass was present in June and September, indicating this preferred fish food was available and abundant for the fishery. However, Bosminids, which are ten times smaller than the preferred Daphnids, were prevalent in July 2016. (Source of Data: PhycoTech, Inc.) 3.2.11 Harmful Algal Blooms A HAB was observed near Marina and Tower Loop from May 31 – June 9, 2016 (Figure 48). Due to the limited spatial distribution of the Microcystin concentrations above 10 µg/L, and the lower measurements at the swim beach (less than 0.3 µg/L and non-detect (ND) warning signage was posted. Low risk Microcystin thresholds for recreation are defined as concentrations less than 10 µg/L (US EPA, 2016; WHO, 2003). The HAB occurrence prompted a collaborative partnership between the Authority and CPW for future cyanotoxin sampling and analysis efforts if HABs are observed in the future. The partnership is a big step for the agencies that work to protect recreation uses, aquatic life, and public safety at Cherry Creek Reservoir. The occurrence of HABs within the Reservoir are likely to continue to occur on the periodic and unpredictable level until phosphorus is reduced in both its external and internal loading dynamics. Fortunately, the dominant cyanobacteria observed in 2016 is not known as a significant toxin producer. However, when conditions are aligned to enable other cyanobacteria to grow that have a greater potential for toxin generation there will be a HAB occurrence. This is particularly true if nutrient and light conditions within the Reservoir are such that they promote nitrogen fixing cyanobacteria to have greater dominance than is currently occurring.

58 2016 Cherry Creek Monitoring Report

Figure 48. Microcystin concentrations in Cherry Creek Reservoir, May 31 - June 9, 2016. A harmful algal bloom was observed on May 31 by CPW staff. Microcystin concentrations had subsided by June 9, 2016 at all six sampling locations as less than 1 µg/L and non-detect (ND). Samples were taken by various staff during the period of the HAB and analyzed using different methods. (CPW staff used an Abraxis Dipstick field test for rapid turnaround of Microcystin concentrations. CDPHE lab used ELISA method. EPA lab used ELISA method confirmed by HPLC/MS. Tetra Tech samples were analyzed by GreenWater Lab, using ELISA method confirmed by LC-MS/MS.)

59 2016 Cherry Creek Monitoring Report

4.0 RESERVOIR NUTRIENT BALANCE

The calculated WY2016 water, phosphorus and nitrogen balances in the Cherry Creek Reservoir are presented in this section. 4.1 WATER BALANCE

The calculated WY2016 water balance for Cherry Creek Reservoir is presented in this section. The reservoir water balance can be calculated by the following equation:

Ending Storage9/30/2016 + ∑Reservoir Inflows – ∑Reservoir Outflows - Starting Storage10/1/2015= Δ Storage The USACE’s daily storage calculations (Appendix E), which are based on pool elevation, indicate a 26 ac-ft gain in storage (+Δ Storage) from October 1, 2015 through September 30, 2016. The reservoir inflows (gains) considered in the water balance include: 1. Precipitation (incident to the reservoir’s surface). 2. Alluvial groundwater. 3. Cherry Creek surface water. 4. Cottonwood Creek surface water. 5. Ungaged inflows. The reservoir outflows (losses) considered in the water balance include: 1. Evaporation. 2. Alluvial groundwater. 3. Reservoir releases. The Authority measures surface water inflows (inflow item numbers 3 and 4), while precipitation (inflow item 1) can be estimated from the acreage of the reservoir and the amount of precipitation. Alluvial groundwater inflow (inflow item 2) is estimated at a constant 2,200 ac-ft/year based on evaluations conducted by Lewis, et al. (2005) and used by Hydros (2015) in the reservoir model. The USGS measures outflow item number 3 and the USACE provides an estimate of outflow item 1. The net influence of ungagged surface water inflows and alluvial groundwater losses (seepage) (inflow item 5 less outflow item 2) is calculated based on the difference between the measured and estimated inflows and outflows, and the USACE calculated WY2016 inflow of 25,014 ac-ft (Appendix E). Surface water inflow from Cherry and Cottonwood Creeks are estimated from the continuous flow stations operated by the Authority at monitoring sites CC-10 (Cherry Creek) and CT-2 (Cottonwood Creek) (Figure 2). The estimated volumes of surface entering the Reservoir from these two surface water sources in WY2016 are:  Cherry Creek: 16,002 ac-ft  Cottonwood Creek: 3,854 ac-ft Flow data from the Authority’s gaging stations are provided in Appendix D. Water is released from the Reservoir through the dam’s outlet works. The USGS operates the Cherry Creek below Cherry Creek “Lake” gage approximately 2,300 feet downstream of the Reservoir. Other than releases from the Reservoir, there are no major surface water contributions to flow measured at this gage. The WY2016 flows at the gage totaled 22,532 ac-ft, with the

60 2016 Cherry Creek Monitoring Report

WY2016 mean daily discharge rate of 15.6 cfs exceeding the 57 year POR mean daily rate of 4.6 cfs (Figure 49).

Figure 49. WY2016 Hydrograph and Historical Median Flows for USGS Gage Cherry Creek below Cherry Creek Lake (Source: https://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/uv?06713000) During WY2016, the surface area of Cherry Creek Reservoir varied between 836 acres and 870 acres, with a median value of 849 acres2. During WY2016, 15.26 inches (1.27 feet) of precipitation was recorded at the Denver-Centennial Airport weather station (KAPA). Assuming that 1.27 feet of water fell evenly over 849 acres results in an estimated 1,080 ac-ft of water contributed to the Reservoir by precipitation.

The USACE estimated evaporative losses from the reservoir in WY2016 at 2,996 ac-ft (Appendix E), or approximately 42.3 inches per acre assuming a median surface area of 849 acres.

The reservoir WY2016 water balance is summarized in Table 13.

2 http://www.dwr.state.co.us/SurfaceWater/data/detail_graph.aspx?ID=CHRRESCO&MTYPE=STORAGE

61 2016 Cherry Creek Monitoring Report

Table 13. Cherry Creek Reservoir WY2016 Water Balance

Water Volume Water Source (ac-ft) Surface Water Cherry Creek ( CC-10) 16,002 Cottonwood Creek (CT-2) 3,854 Reservoir Release (CC-Out) -22,532

Alluvial Groundwater Inflow 2,200

Atmospheric Precipitation 1,080 Evaporation -2,996

Net Ungaged Inflows/Outflows Calculation 2,418

WY2016 Change in Storage 26

The net ungaged inflows/outflows is calculated result in the Reservoir change in storage to equal the 26 ac-ft reported by the USACE (Appendix E). Components included in this calculated term are ungaged surface water inflows into the reservoir, groundwater seepage from the reservoir through the dam, and measurement uncertainties. The relative contribution of the inflows to the reservoir in WY2016 are illustrated in Figure 50.

4% 9% 8%

15% 64%

Cherry Cr Cottonwood Cr Alluvial GW Precipitation Net Ungaged In/Out

Figure 50. Relative Contribution of Cherry Creek Inflows to Reservoir Water Balance in WY2016

62 2016 Cherry Creek Monitoring Report

In keeping with prior year’s nutrient loading calculations, the 2,418 ac-ft difference between the Authority’s and the USACE’s calculated inflows was apportioned to the two dominant surface water inflows (Cherry Creek and Cottonwood Creek) for purposes of calculating reservoir nutrient loads (Section 4.2). For WY2016 nutrient loading evaluation (Section 4.2), 81% of the 2,418 ac-ft (1,949 ac-ft) was allocated to the Cherry Creek inflow (CC-10) annual total while the remaining 19% of the 2,418 ac-ft (469 ac-ft) was allocated to the Cottonwood Creek inflow (CT-2). 4.2 NUTRIENT LOADS

The calculated WY2016 phosphorus and nitrogen balances in the Cherry Creek Reservoir are presented in this section. The reservoir nutrient loading was calculated using a mass-balance approach:

∑Reservoir InflowsNutrient – ∑Reservoir ReleasesNutrients = Δ StorageNutrients

A positive change in storage (+Δ StorageNutrients) indicates that inflows exceed releases and that nutrients are being retained (stored) within the Reservoir (both within the water and sediment). A negative change in storage (-Δ StorageNutrients) indicates the opposite and would suggest that previously stored nutrients are being exported from the Reservoir. The reservoir inflows (nutrient loads) considered in the WY2016 nutrient balance are:  Precipitation (incident to the reservoir’s surface).  Alluvial groundwater.  Cherry Creek surface water.  Cottonwood Creek surface water. The only physical release mechanism considered from the Reservoir in the WY2016 nutrient mass balance is surface water released through the dam’s outlet works. Nutrient loss through evaporation is considered zero as the evaporating water is assumed to not contain any nutrients. The net ungagged inflow/outflow load was apportioned to the measured WY2016 Cherry Creek and Cottonwood Creek loads based on the flow adjustments described in Section 4.1. Internal loading (nutrient recycling) discussed in Section 3.2 is not included in the mass balance but contributes to the overall nutrients available to the phytoplankton that thrive in the Reservoir. 4.2.1 Surface Water Loads The Authority collects water quality samples on a monthly basis at surface water monitoring stations CC-10, CT-2 and CC-Out (Table 4). The Authority also periodically collects storm event samples at CC-10 and CT-2 (Table 4). These samples are analyzed for the parameters indicated in Table 3, which includes total phosphorus and total nitrogen. The nutrient concentrations in samples collected at CC-10, CT-2 and CC-Out in WY2016 are summarized in Section 3.1. When combined with the WY2016 flows, the annual total phosphorus and total nitrogen loads can be calculated for the surface water inflows and outflows (releases) to/from the reservoir (Table 14). The Cherry Creek and Cottonwood Creek loads presented in Table 14 have been adjusted to apportion the ungagged inflows as discussed in Section 4.1.

63 2016 Cherry Creek Monitoring Report

Table 14. Cherry Creek Reservoir WY2016 Surface Water Nutrient Loads

WY2016 Nutrient Load Total Phosphorus Total Nitrogen Site (Pounds) (Pounds) Inflows Cherry Creek @ CC-10 12,182 49,400 Cottonwood Creek @ CT-2 1,030 23,748

Releases USGS Gage & CC-Out - 9,156 - 60,627

4.2.2 Precipitation Loads The WY2016 atmospheric nutrient loading through precipitation and dry deposition was seasonally monitored (April 2016 through June 2016) at the Authority’s rain gage located immediately east of the reservoir (see “PRECIP” site on Figure 2). Seven precipitation samples were collected in WY2016 and analyzed for various forms of phosphorus and nitrogen, including total phosphorus and total nitrogen. The results are summarized below:  WY2016 total phosphorus concentrations ranged from 14 µg/L to 1,907 µg/L, with a median value of 60 µg/L. The WY2016 median value is lower than the long-term median3 of 148 µg/L.  WY2016 total nitrogen concentrations ranged from 444 µg/L to 12,074 µg/L, with a median value of 2,547 µg/L. The WY2016 median value is higher than the long-term median of 2,009 µg/L. The long-term median total phosphorus and total nitrogen precipitation/dry fall concentrations were combined with the estimated 1,080 ac-ft of precipitation to calculate these nutrient loads from direct precipitation to the Reservoir:  Total Phosphorus: 435 pounds  Total Nitrogen: 5,898 pounds 4.2.3 Alluvial Groundwater Loads Water quality samples collected from well MW-9 in WY2016 were analyzed for total phosphorus six times and for total nitrogen once. The results are summarized below:  The WY2016 total phosphorus concentrations ranged from 189 µg/L to 239 µg/L, with a median value of 206 µg/L. The WY2016 median value is slightly higher than the long-term median of 190 µg/L (GEI, 2016).  The one WY2016 total nitrogen result available from the May 2016 basin-wide event of 217 µg/L is approximately half the long-term median of 430 µg/L (GEI, 2016).

3 Available data in the Authority’s database for location “Rain Gauge” from 2001, 2008-2010, and 2014-2016 were used to calculate long-term median total nitrogen and total phosphorus statistics.

64 2016 Cherry Creek Monitoring Report

The long-term median total phosphorus and total nitrogen concentrations reported in GEI (2016) were combined with the estimated 2,200 ac-ft of inflow to calculate these nutrient loads from the alluvial groundwater inflow to the Reservoir:  Total Phosphorus: 1,136 pounds  Total Nitrogen: 2,573 pounds 4.2.4 Nutrient Balances The WY2016 total phosphorous and total nitrogen load balance calculations are presented in this section. . Internal loads are not included in the mass balances presented in this section.

4.2.4.1 Total Phosphorus Mass Balance Based on the data presented in Sections 4.2.1 through 4.2.3, the WY2016 total phosphorous mass balance is summarized in Table 15.

Table 15. Cherry Creek Reservoir WY2016 Total Phosphorus Mass Balance Mass Source (pounds) Surface Water Cherry Creek ( CC-10) 12,182 Cottonwood Creek (CT-2) 1,030 Reservoir Release (CC-Out) -9,156

Alluvial Groundwater Inflow 1,136

Atmospheric Precipitation 435 Evaporation 0

WY2016 Change in Storage 5,627

The difference between the inflow and the outflow loads (Δ StorageNutrients) indicates that a net 5,627 pounds (2.8 tons) of phosphorus were retained in the reservoir in WY2016. Some of this phosphorus was retained in the additional 26 ac-ft of water that was stored in the Reservoir in WY2016.

65 2016 Cherry Creek Monitoring Report

The relative contributions of the inflow sources to the Reservoir phosphorus load WY2016 are illustrated in Figure 51.

3% 8% 7%

82%

Cherry Cr Cottonwood Cr Alluvial GW Precipitation

Figure 51. Relative Contribution of Cherry Creek Inflows to Reservoir Phosphorus Balance in WY2016

The WY2016 total phosphorus loading data are compared to prior year’s loads in Table 16.

Table 16. Comparison of Cherry Creek Reservoir WY2016 Total Phosphorus Loading to Historic Loads Inflows (pounds) Surface Alluvial Outflow Δ Storage Period Water Groundwater Precipitation Total (pounds) (pounds) Median 7,868 1,033 379 9,301 -4,113 5,599 (1993 – 2015) Median 7,164 1,033 323 8,588 -4,114 5,187 (2011 – 2015) WY 2015 15,141 1,033 526 16,701 -8,222 8,479

WY2016 13,212 1,136 435 14,783 -9,156 5,627

Note: Historic data modified from GEI (2016) Table 4-6. The WY2016 total phosphorus inflow and outflow loads are similar to those in WY2015 and both are larger than those exhibited in long-term trends. However, the mass of phosphorus retained in the Reservoir in WY2016 is more consistent with the historic retention rates that that calculated in 2015.

66 2016 Cherry Creek Monitoring Report

4.2.4.2 Total Nitrogen Mass Balance Based on the data presented in Sections 4.2.1 through 4.2.3, the WY2016 total nitrogen mass balance calculation is presented in Table 17.

Table 17. Cherry Creek Reservoir WY2016 Total Nitrogen Mass Balance Mass Source (pounds) Surface Water Cherry Creek ( CC-10) 49,400 Cottonwood Creek (CT-2) 23,748 Reservoir Release (CC-Out) -60,627 Alluvial Groundwater Inflow 2,573 Atmospheric Precipitation 5,898 Evaporation 0 WY2016 Change in Storage 20,992

The difference between the inflow and the outflow loads (Δ StorageNutrients) indicates that a net 20,992 pounds (10.5 tons) of nitrogen were retained in the Reservoir in WY2016. Some of this nitrogen was retained in the additional 26 ac-ft of water that was stored in the Reservoir in WY2016. The relative contributions of the inflow sources to the reservoir nitrogen load WY2016 are illustrated in Figure 52.

3% 7%

29%

61%

Cherry Cr Cottonwood Cr Alluvial GW Precipitation

Figure 52. Relative Contribution of Cherry Creek Inflows to Reservoir Nitrogen Balance in WY2016

67 2016 Cherry Creek Monitoring Report

The WY2016 total nitrogen loading data are compared to prior year’s loads in Table 18.

Table 18. Comparison of Cherry Creek Reservoir WY2016 Total Nitrogen Loading to Historic Loads

Inflows (pounds) Surface Alluvial Outflow Δ Storage Period Water Groundwater Precipitation Total (pounds) (pounds) Median 59,573 2,337 6,578 68,592 -35,727 32,865 (1999 – 2015) Median 54,126 2,337 5,720 62,234 -32,120 21,434 (2011 – 2015) WY 2015 68,630 2,339 8,546 79,515 -58,186 21,329

WY2016 73,148 2,573 5,898 81,619 -60,627 20,992

Note: Historic data modified from GEI (2016) Table 4-8. The WY2016 total nitrogen inflow and outflow loads are similar to those in WY2015 and both are larger than those exhibited in the long-term trends. The mass of nitrogen retained in the Reservoir in WY2016 is similar to the recent (2011 – 2015) retention rate. 4.3 FLOW-WEIGHTED NUTRIENT CONCENTRATIONS

As summarized in Table 16, the phosphorus loading to the Reservoir from external sources in WY2016 totaled 14,783 pounds (7.4 tons) and was derived from these sources:  Surface water: 13,212 pounds.  Groundwater: 1,236 pounds.  Precipitation: 435 pounds.

With respect to nitrogen, external sources resulted in 81,619 pounds (40.8 tons) of this nutrient being delivered to the Reservoir in WY2016 from these sources (Table 18):  Surface water: 73,148 pounds.  Groundwater: 2,573 pounds.  Precipitation: 5,898 pounds.

The “surface water” loads of phosphorus and nitrogen include those from Cherry Creek and Cottonwood Creek and have been adjusted for ungaged runoff (Section 4.1). The flow adjusted -weighted concentrations of total phosphorus and total nitrogen in WY2016 are summarized in Table 19.

68 2016 Cherry Creek Monitoring Report

Table 19. WY2016 Flow-Weighted TP and TN Concentrations

Nutrient Inflows (µg/L)

Cherry Cottonwood Alluvial Precipitation Total Creek Creek Groundwater

Total Nitrogen 1,012 2,020 430 2,008 1,175

Total Phosphorus 250 88 190 148 213

The overall WY2016 flow-weighted TP inflow concentration of 213 µg/L is lower than the WY2015 value of 222 µg/L, but higher than the 2011-2015 median of 200 µg/L. In contrast, the overall WY2016 flow-weighted TN concentration of 1,175 µg/L is higher than the WY2015 value of 1,057 µg/L, but well below the 2011-2015 median of 1,344 µg/L.

5.0 2017 RECOMMENDATIONS AND NEXT STEPS

The following next steps are recommended in 2017 to support the monitoring program, data collection and water quality benefits.

 Wetland Harvesting – Commence wetland harvesting and monitoring at Shop Creek PRF (SC-1 and SC-2) to understand the nutrient reduction benefits of this maintenance program. Scheduling of harvesting program must be coordinated with State Parks Manager, Cherry Creek Stewardship Partners, and birding community. Similar vegetation harvesting is also recommended for the Cottonwood wetlands at CT-2 to promote additional pollutant reduction effectiveness.

 Split Sampling - Continue split sampling of nutrients and chl-a to support QAPP and parametric and nonparametric statistical evaluations to understand and quantify inter-lab variability.

 Replace Stream Gaging Equipment at Strategic Locations - Replace continuous monitoring hardware at CC-10 and CT-2.

6.0 REFERENCES

Chorus, I., Falconer, I.R., Salas, H.J., and Bartram, J. 2000. Health Risks Caused by Freshwater Cyanobacteria in Recreational Waters. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part B 3, 323–347.

GEI Consultants, Inc. February 2016. Cherry Creek Reservoir 2015 Water Year Aquatic Biological Nutrient Monitoring Study and Cottonwood Creek Pollutant Reduction Facilities Monitoring. Prepared for the Cherry Creek Basin Water Quality Authority.

69 2016 Cherry Creek Monitoring Report

Halepaska and Associates, Inc. 1998 -2006. Annual Reports, Baseline Water Quality Data Collection Study for the Upper Cherry Creek Basin. Prepared for the Cherry Creek Basin Water Quality Authority. Hydros Consulting Inc. July 31, 2015. Technical Memorandum, Key Findings to Tasks 3 and 3a, Cherry Creek Reservoir Water Quality Modeling Project: Model Calibration and Sensitivity Analyses. Jones, J.R., and M.F. Knowlton. 1993. Limnology of Missouri Reservoirs: An analysis of regional patterns. Lake and Reservoir Management 8: 17-30. Lewis, W. M., and J. F. Saunders. 2002. Review and Analysis of Hydrologic Information on Cherry Creek Watershed and Cherry Creek Reservoir. Prepared for the Cherry Creek Basin Water Quality Authority. Lewis, W. M., J. F. Saunders, and J. H. McCutchan. 2004. Studies of Phytoplankton Response to Nutrient Enrichment in Cherry Creek Reservoir, Colorado. Prepared for Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Water Quality Control Division. Lewis, W. M., J. H. McCutchan, and J. F. Saunders. 2005. Estimation of Groundwater Flow into Cherry Creek Reservoir and its Relationship to the Phosphorous Budget of the Reservoir. Prepared for the Cherry Creek Basin Water Quality Authority. Nürnberg, G. K. 1996. Trophic Status of Clear and Colored, Soft-and Hard Water Lakes with Special Consideration of Nutrient, Anoxia, Phytoplankton and Fish. Lake and Reservoir Management, 12:432-47. Nürnberg, G., and LaZerte, B. 2008. Cherry Creek Reservoir Model and Proposed Chlorophyll Standard. Prepared for the Cherry Creek Basin Water Quality Authority. Ruzzo, W. P. 2000. Memorandum: Phosphorus Content in Soils. To: Julie Vlier. From J.C. Halepaska and Associates, December 9, 1999. Cherry Creek Basin Soils Analysis. Tetra Tech, Inc. May 2016. Cherry Creek Sampling and Analysis Program/Quality Assurance Protocol. Prepared for the Cherry Creek Basin Water Quality Authority. US EPA. 2016. Policies and Guidelines. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/nutrient-policy- data/guidelines-and-recommendations (accessed on 15 December 2016). US Geological Survey. 2016. Streamflow for USGS Gage Cherry Creek near Parker, CO. https://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis US Geological Survey, Flows for USGS Gage Cherry Creek below Cherry Creek Lake. https://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis Water Quality Control Commission, 2015. Cherry Creek Control Regulation No. 72, effective xxxx, 5-CCR-1002-72, Water Quality Control Commission, 2016. South Platte Standards and Use Classifications, Regulation No. 38, 5-CCR-1002-38. Water Quality Control Commission, 2015. Nutrient Control Regulation No. 85, 5-CCR-1002-85. Welch, E. B., J. M Jacoby. 2004. Pollutant Effects in Freshwater, Applied Limnology. 3rd ed. Spoon Press. World Health Organization (WHO). 2003. Guidelines for Safe Recreational Water Environments, Vol.1, Chapter 8: Algae and Cyanobacteria in Freshwater. Geneva, World Health Organization.

70 2016 Cherry Creek Monitoring Report

7.0 APPENDICES

Appendices A through G are provided under separate cover.

71 1576 Sherman St., Denver, CO 80203

Office: 303.825.5999

Fax: 303.825.0642 tetratech.com 2016 Cherry Creek Monitoring Report

7.0 APPENDICES

72 2016 Cherry Creek Monitoring Report

APPENDIX A – SUMMARY OF CHERRY CREEK BASIN USE DESIGNATIONS AND WATER QUALITY STANDARDS (EXCERPTS FROM REGULATION 38-1)

73 COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT

WATER QUALITY CONTROL COMMISSION

5 CCR 1002-38

REGULATION NO. 38 CLASSIFICATIONS AND NUMERIC STANDARDS FOR SOUTH PLATTE RIVER BASIN, LARAMIE RIVER BASIN REPUBLICAN RIVER BASIN, SMOKY HILL RIVER BASIN

APPENDIX 38-1 Stream Classifications and Water Quality Standards Tables

Effective 0//2016

1 REGULATION #38 STREAM CLASSIFICATIONS and WATER QUALITY STANDARDS Cherry Creek Basin

1. Mainstem of Cherry Creek from the source of East and West Cherry Creek to the inlet of Cherry Creek Reservoir. COSPCH01 Classifications Physical and Biological Metals (ug/L) Designation Agriculture DM MWAT acute chronic Reviewable Aq Life Warm 2 Temperature °C WS-II WS-II Aluminum ------Recreation E acute chronic Arsenic 340 0.02-10(T) A Water Supply D.O. (mg/L) --- 5.0 Beryllium ------Qualifiers: pH 6.5 - 9.0 --- Cadmium TVS TVS 2 Other: chlorophyll a (mg/m ) --- 150* Cadmium 5.0(T) --- E. Coli (per 100 mL) --- 126 Temporary Modification(s): Chromium III 50(T) TVS Copper(ac/ch) = current condition* Inorganic (mg/L) Chromium VI TVS TVS Expiration Date of 12/31/2020 acute chronic Copper TVS TVS

2 Ammonia TVS TVS Iron --- WS *chlorophyll a (mg/m )(chronic) = applies only above the facilities listed at 38.5(4). Boron --- 0.75 Iron --- 1000(T) *Phosphorus(chronic) = effective 12/31/2020. Applies only above the facilities listed at 38.5(4). Chloride --- 250 Lead TVS TVS *TempMod: Copper = below the PWSD WWTF Chlorine 0.019 0.011 Lead 50(T) --- outfall. Cyanide 0.005 --- Manganese TVS TVS Nitrate 10 --- Manganese --- WS Nitrite --- 0.5 Mercury --- 0.01(t) Phosphorus --- 0.17* Molybdenum --- 150(T) Sulfate --- WS Nickel TVS TVS Sulfide --- 0.002 Nickel --- 100(T) Selenium TVS TVS Silver TVS TVS Uranium ------Zinc TVS TVS 2. Cherry Creek Reservoir. COSPCH02 Classifications Physical and Biological Metals (ug/L) Designation Agriculture DM MWAT acute chronic Reviewable Aq Life Warm 1 Temperature °C WL WL Aluminum ------Recreation E acute chronic Arsenic 340 0.02(T) Water Supply D.O. (mg/L) --- 5.0 Beryllium ------Qualifiers: pH 6.5 - 9.0 --- Cadmium TVS TVS Other: chlorophyll a (ug/L) 7/1 - 9/30 --- 18* Cadmium 5.0(T) --- E. Coli (per 100 mL) --- 126 Chromium III 50(T) TVS *chlorophyll a (ug/L)(chronic) = Season mean concentration measured in the upper three meters of Inorganic (mg/L) Chromium VI TVS TVS the water column for the months of July through acute chronic Copper TVS TVS September with an exceedance frequency of once in five years. Ammonia TVS TVS Iron --- WS Boron --- 0.75 Iron --- 1000(T) Chloride --- 250 Lead TVS TVS Chlorine 0.019 0.011 Lead 50(T) --- Cyanide 0.005 --- Manganese TVS TVS Nitrate 10 --- Manganese --- WS Nitrite --- 0.5 Mercury --- 0.01(t) Phosphorus ------Molybdenum --- 150(T) Sulfate --- WS Nickel TVS TVS Sulfide --- 0.002 Nickel --- 100(T) Selenium TVS TVS Silver TVS TVS Uranium ------Zinc TVS TVS

All metals are dissolved unless otherwise noted. D.O. = dissolved oxygen 28 T = total recoverable DM = daily maximum t = total MWAT = maximum weekly average temperature tr = trout See 38.6 for details on TVS, TVS(tr), WS, temperature standards. REGULATION #38 STREAM CLASSIFICATIONS and WATER QUALITY STANDARDS Cherry Creek Basin

3. Mainstem of Cherry Creek from the outlet of Cherry Creek Reservoir to the confluence with the South Platte River. COSPCH03 Classifications Physical and Biological Metals (ug/L) Designation Agriculture DM MWAT acute chronic Reviewable Aq Life Warm 2 Temperature °C WS-II WS-II Aluminum ------Recreation E acute chronic Arsenic 340 0.02-10(T) A Water Supply D.O. (mg/L) --- 5.0 Beryllium ------Qualifiers: pH 6.5 - 9.0 --- Cadmium TVS TVS 2 Other: chlorophyll a (mg/m ) ------Cadmium 5.0(T) --- E. Coli (per 100 mL) --- 126 Chromium III 50(T) TVS Inorganic (mg/L) Chromium VI TVS TVS acute chronic Copper TVS TVS Ammonia TVS TVS Iron --- WS Boron --- 0.75 Iron --- 1000(T) Chloride --- 250 Lead TVS TVS Chlorine 0.019 0.011 Lead 50(T) --- Cyanide 0.005 --- Manganese TVS TVS Nitrate 10 --- Manganese --- WS Nitrite --- 0.5 Mercury --- 0.01(t) Phosphorus ------Molybdenum --- 150(T) Sulfate --- WS Nickel TVS TVS Sulfide --- 0.002 Nickel --- 100(T) Selenium TVS TVS Silver TVS TVS Uranium ------Zinc TVS TVS 4a. All tributaries to Cherry Creek, including all wetlands, from the source of East and West Cherry Creeks to the confluence with the South Platte River except for specific listings in Segment 4b. COSPCH04A Classifications Physical and Biological Metals (ug/L) Designation Agriculture DM MWAT acute chronic UP Aq Life Warm 2 Temperature °C WS-II WS-II Aluminum ------Recreation E acute chronic Arsenic 340 0.02-10(T) A Water Supply D.O. (mg/L) --- 5.0 Beryllium ------Qualifiers: pH 6.5 - 9.0 --- Cadmium TVS TVS 2 Other: chlorophyll a (mg/m ) --- 150* Cadmium 5.0(T) --- E. Coli (per 100 mL) --- 126 Chromium III 50(T) TVS *chlorophyll a (mg/m2)(chronic) = applies only above the facilities listed at 38.5(4). Inorganic (mg/L) Chromium VI TVS TVS *Phosphorus(chronic) = effective 12/31/2020. acute chronic Copper TVS TVS Applies only above the facilities listed at 38.5(4). Ammonia TVS TVS Iron --- WS Boron --- 0.75 Lead TVS TVS Chloride --- 250 Lead 50(T) --- Chlorine 0.019 0.011 Manganese TVS TVS Cyanide 0.005 --- Manganese --- WS Nitrate 10 --- Mercury --- 0.01(t) Nitrite --- 0.5 Molybdenum --- 150(T) Phosphorus --- 0.17* Nickel TVS TVS Sulfate --- WS Nickel --- 100(T) Sulfide --- 0.002 Selenium TVS TVS Silver TVS TVS Uranium ------Zinc TVS TVS

All metals are dissolved unless otherwise noted. D.O. = dissolved oxygen 29 T = total recoverable DM = daily maximum t = total MWAT = maximum weekly average temperature tr = trout See 38.6 for details on TVS, TVS(tr), WS, temperature standards. REGULATION #38 STREAM CLASSIFICATIONS and WATER QUALITY STANDARDS Cherry Creek Basin

4b. Cottonwood Creek, including all tributaries and wetlands, from the source to Cherry Creek Reservoir. COSPCH04B Classifications Physical and Biological Metals (ug/L) Designation Agriculture DM MWAT acute chronic UP Aq Life Warm 2 Temperature °C WS-II WS-II Aluminum ------Recreation E acute chronic Arsenic 340 0.02-10(T) A Water Supply D.O. (mg/L) --- 5.0 Beryllium ------Qualifiers: pH 6.5 - 9.0 --- Cadmium TVS TVS 2 Other: chlorophyll a (mg/m ) --- 150* Cadmium 5.0(T) --- E. Coli (per 100 mL) --- 126 Chromium III 50(T) TVS *chlorophyll a (mg/m2)(chronic) = applies only above the facilities listed at 38.5(4). Inorganic (mg/L) Chromium VI TVS TVS *Phosphorus(chronic) = effective 12/31/2020. acute chronic Copper TVS TVS Applies only above the facilities listed at 38.5(4). *Selenium(acute) = See section 38.6(4)(i) for Ammonia TVS TVS Iron --- WS selenium standards and assessment locations. Lead TVS TVS *Selenium(chronic) = See section 38.6(4)(i) for Boron --- 0.75 selenium standards and assessment locations. Chloride --- 250 Lead 50(T) --- Chlorine 0.019 0.011 Manganese TVS TVS Cyanide 0.005 --- Manganese --- WS Nitrate 10 --- Mercury --- 0.01(t) Nitrite --- 0.5 Molybdenum --- 150(T) Phosphorus --- 0.17* Nickel TVS TVS Sulfate --- WS Nickel --- 100(T) Sulfide --- 0.002 Selenium varies* varies* Silver TVS TVS Uranium ------Zinc TVS TVS 5. Lakes and reservoirs in the Cherry Creek system from the source of East and West Cherry Creeks to the confluence with the South Platte River, except for specific listings in Segments 2 and 6. COSPCH05 Classifications Physical and Biological Metals (ug/L) Designation Agriculture DM MWAT acute chronic Reviewable Aq Life Warm 2 Temperature °C WL WL Aluminum ------Recreation E acute chronic Arsenic 340 0.02-10(T) A Water Supply D.O. (mg/L) --- 5.0 Beryllium ------Qualifiers: pH 6.5 - 9.0 --- Cadmium TVS TVS Other: chlorophyll a (ug/L) --- 20* Cadmium 5.0(T) --- E. Coli (per 100 mL) --- 126 Chromium III 50(T) TVS *chlorophyll a (ug/L)(chronic) = applies only above the facilities listed at 38.5(4), applies only to lakes Inorganic (mg/L) Chromium VI TVS TVS and reservoirs larger than 25 acres surface area. acute chronic Copper TVS TVS *Phosphorus(chronic) = applies only above the facilities listed at 38.5(4), applies only to lakes and Ammonia TVS TVS Iron --- WS reservoirs larger than 25 acres surface area. Boron --- 0.75 Iron --- 1000(T) Chloride --- 250 Lead TVS TVS Chlorine 0.019 0.011 Lead 50(T) --- Cyanide 0.005 --- Manganese TVS TVS Nitrate 10 --- Manganese --- WS Nitrite --- 0.5 Mercury --- 0.01(t) Phosphorus --- 0.083* Molybdenum --- 150(T) Sulfate --- WS Nickel TVS TVS Sulfide --- 0.002 Nickel --- 100(T) Selenium TVS TVS Silver TVS TVS Uranium ------Zinc TVS TVS

All metals are dissolved unless otherwise noted. D.O. = dissolved oxygen 30 T = total recoverable DM = daily maximum t = total MWAT = maximum weekly average temperature tr = trout See 38.6 for details on TVS, TVS(tr), WS, temperature standards. REGULATION #38 STREAM CLASSIFICATIONS and WATER QUALITY STANDARDS Cherry Creek Basin

6. Lakes and reservoirs in watersheds tributary to Cherry Creek within the City and County of Denver. COSPCH06 Classifications Physical and Biological Metals (ug/L) Designation Agriculture DM MWAT acute chronic Reviewable Aq Life Warm 2 Temperature °C WL WL Aluminum ------Recreation E acute chronic Arsenic 340 7.6(T) Qualifiers: D.O. (mg/L) --- 5.0 Beryllium ------Fish Ingestion Standards pH 6.5 - 9.0 --- Cadmium TVS TVS Other: chlorophyll a (ug/L) ------Chromium III TVS TVS E. Coli (per 100 mL) --- 126 Chromium III --- 100(T) Inorganic (mg/L) Chromium VI TVS TVS acute chronic Copper TVS TVS Ammonia TVS TVS Iron --- 1000(T) Boron --- 0.75 Lead TVS TVS Chloride ------Manganese TVS TVS Chlorine 0.019 0.011 Mercury --- 0.01(t) Cyanide 0.005 --- Molybdenum --- 150(T) Nitrate 100 --- Nickel TVS TVS Nitrite --- 0.5 Selenium TVS TVS Phosphorus ------Silver TVS TVS Sulfate ------Uranium ------Sulfide --- 0.002 Zinc TVS TVS

All metals are dissolved unless otherwise noted. D.O. = dissolved oxygen 31 T = total recoverable DM = daily maximum t = total MWAT = maximum weekly average temperature tr = trout See 38.6 for details on TVS, TVS(tr), WS, temperature standards. 2016 Cherry Creek Monitoring Report

APPENDIX B – SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLAN / QUALITY ASSURANCE PROCEDURES AND PROTOCOLS, 2016

74 PRGLILHG THE CHERRY CREEK BASIN WATER QUALITY AUTHORITY ROUTINE SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLAN/ QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN SAP | QAPP 1 Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction ...... 3 2.0 Purpose ...... 4 3.0 Sampling Program Objectives ...... 5 4.0 Regulation No. 72 Requirements ...... 6 5.0 Review and Updates ...... 7 6.0 Timeline ...... 7 7.0 Project Description ...... 8 7.1 Sample Site Locations ...... 8 7.1.1 Cherry Creek Reservoir Monitoring Sites ...... 8 7.1.2 Stream Monitoring Sites ...... 8 7.1.2.1 Cherry Creek ...... 8 7.1.2.2 Cottonwood Creek ...... 10 7.1.2.3 DĐDƵƌĚŽ'ƵůĐŚ ...... ͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘͘ϭϭ

7.1.3 Precipitation Sampling Site ...... 11 7.1.4 Alluvial Groundwater Sites...... 11 7.2 Sampling Parameters and Frequency ...... 15 7.3 Authority Roles and Participation ...... 17 7.4 Sampling Teams and Structure ...... 17 7.4.1 Project Manager ...... 17 7.4.2 Quality Assurance Manager ...... 17 7.4.3 Analytical and Biological Laboratory Managers ...... 18 7.4.4 Sampling Crew ...... 18 7.5 Field Methodologies ...... 18 7.5.1 Reservoir Sampling ...... 18 7.5.1.1 Transparency ...... 18 7.5.1.2 Depth Profile Measurements ...... 19 7.5.1.3 Continuous Temperature Monitoring ...... 19 7.5.1.4 Water Samples ...... 19 7.5.1.5 Zooplankton Samples ...... 20

i 7.5.2 Stream Sampling ...... 20 7.5.2.1 Monthly Base Flow Sampling ...... 20 7.5.2.2 Storm Event Sampling ...... 21 7.5.2.3 Continuous Water Level Monitoring ...... 21 7.5.3 Watershed Surface Water Sampling ...... 22 7.5.4 Alluvial Groundwater Sampling ...... 22 7.5.5 Precipitation Sampling ...... 23 8.0 Laboratory Procedures...... 23 9.0 Program Quality Assurance/Quality Control Protocols ...... 25 Field Sampling ...... 25 Laboratory ...... 26 10.0 Data Validation and Usability ...... 26 11.0 Data Verification, Reduction, and Reporting ...... 26 12.0 References ...... 27 APPENDIX A – Sampling Site Locations ...... 28 APPENDIX B –Abandoned Sampling Sites ...... 30 APPENDIX C - May 2016 Sampling Modifications and Rationale…………………………………………………………….33

ii Preamble The 2015 SAP was modified, as approved by the Cherry Creek Basin Water Quality Authority (Authority), on May 19, 2016 to refine sampling procedures and monitoring locations in the Reservoir and Watershed. Refinements to the sampling and analysis program are important, recognizing that the program is dynamic and changes are needed from time to time based on:

x Monitoring objectives being met, x New objectives being formulated, x Changes to sampling methodology, x Duplicative efforts and opportunities to reduce costs, x Meeting regulatory objectives or regulatory changes, x Opportunities to improve quality of data and sampling methodology to reflect sound science and limnology. The SAP modifications, summarized in the Table below, support regulatory requirements and SAP objectives to provide defensible data to track ongoing water quality benefits of the Cherry Creek Basin Water Quality Authority’s current and future actions. Appendix C provides additional description of the 2016 modifications and rationale.

Summary of 2016 SAP Modifications

Reservoir Program

Zooplankton Sampling - Discontinue compositing zooplankton tows from all 3 reservoir sample sites; Station CCR-2 shall be analyzed for zooplankton; 1 Tow = 1 Sample. The sampling frequency remains unchanged.

Phytoplankton Sampling – Discontinue compositing phytoplankton samples from all 3 reservoir sample sites. Analyze the photic zone composite from Station CCR-2; Sampling frequency remains unchanged.

De-stratification Profile Sampling - Discontinue de-stratification vertical profile sampling from sampling program, particularly as de-stratification system is not operational.

Watershed Program (Surface Water, Groundwater and PRFs)

Discontinue Groundwater Monitoring at MW-3c (historic KOA well site) – No monitoring access at this site; Identify as deleted from SAP. Clarify No Sampling in the Piney Creek sub-basin. Monitoring station and monitoring well do not exist at this time; Identify as deleted from SAP until such time as a monitoring site(s) are initiated.

Page 3 of 31

1.0 Introduction The Cherry Creek Basin Water Quality Authority (Authority) was formally created in 1988 by the Colorado State Legislature by statue (see Colorado Revised Statues (C.R.S.) 25.8.5-101 et seq.). The Authority was created as a quasi-municipal corporation and political subdivision of the state, and was provided with specific authorities. The Authority is tasked with improving, protecting, and preserving the water quality of Cherry Creek and Cherry Creek Reservoir as well as achieving and maintaining state water quality standards for the reservoir and watershed. The Authority has the power to develop and implement plans and studies for water quality controls for the reservoir and watershed to achieve and maintain the water quality standards, and make recommendations regarding water quality projects and programs to achieve water quality standards. The Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) and Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) includes long-term monitoring of nutrient levels within the reservoir and its tributaries, nutrient levels in precipitation and groundwater, and chlorophyll a levels within the reservoir. The overall goal of the monitoring program is to assess attainment of the water quality standards (including beneficial uses and the numeric criteria adopted to protect the uses) and to assess the effectiveness of the Authority’s actions.

2.0 Purpose The Cherry Creek Basin Water Quality Authority (Authority) is required to samples biological, physical, and nutrient parameters in the Cherry Creek Reservoir and its tributaries under Regulation 72, the Cherry Creek Reservoir Control Regulation. Pursuant to this charge, the monitoring program is to meet the following purposes stemming from Regulation 72:

x For the purpose of supporting and calibrating the reservoir water quality model, as anticipated by Regulation 721; x For the purpose of meeting parameter-specific monitoring required of the Authority by Regulation 72 and additional non-specified monitoring determined by the Authority to be supportive of Authority goals; x For the purpose of meeting nutrient Pollutant Reduction Facility (PRF) monitoring required of the Authority by Regulation 72;

1 As future special studies are identified, the SAP/QAPP will be reviewed to determine if any modifications need to be made to support the new study. In some instances, a short, stand-alone SAP may be more appropriate. “Special studies” are anticipated by Regulation 72, the Cherry Creek Reservoir Control Regulation, Section 72.8.4: “Special studies may include, but are not limited to, the following areas of investigation: (a) Feasibility study of nutrient removal from point sources; (b) Quantification of effectiveness of nonpoint source concentration-based phosphorus control strategies called PRFs; (c) Quantification of effectiveness of regulated stormwater concentration-based phosphorus control strategies called BMPs; and (d) Quantification of the effectiveness of source control BMPs that include low-impact development techniques.” The reservoir model qualifies as a special study. A special study such as a side-by-side comparison of methods for cyanobacteria analysis, e.g., filtering vs. settling, would also require a separate special SAP.

Page 4 of 31

x For the purpose of assessing the effects of the destratification system, as required of the Authority by Regulation 72 as part of its PRF monitoring for nutrients and additional monitoring as may be determined by the Authority; x For the purpose of determining attainment of applicable water quality standards, as required of the Authority by Regulation 72; and x For the purpose of evaluating nutrient sources and transport, evaluating fate and transport of phosphorus, and calculating flow-weighted phosphorus concentrations, as required of the Authority by Regulation 72. x For the purpose of calculating flow-weighted nitrogen concentrations and evaluating the fate and transport of nitrogen, as well as calculating mass balances for both phosphorus and nitrogen inputs and losses from the reservoir, as determined by the Authority to be supportive of its goals, according to the 2010 expansion of Regulation 72 to consider all nutrients, and not just phosphorus.

3.0 Sampling Program Objectives The Authority’s long-term goals serve as assessment end-points for the reservoir and watershed (for example, protection of beneficial uses, and preservation and enhancement of water quality). The sampling program helps the Authority evaluate whether it is attaining its long-term goals. Specific objectives of the sampling program are to:

x Determine biological productivity in the reservoir, as measured by chlorophyll a concentrations and collect other data (i.e., phytoplankton) related to the effect of chlorophyll a on beneficial uses; x Determine the concentrations of phosphorus and nitrogen species in the reservoir and streams, and how it changes over time; x Determine the annual flow-weighted phosphorus concentration and changes to the concentrations entering the reservoir from streams and precipitation and the phosphorus export from the reservoir via the outlet structure; x Determine the effectiveness of pollutant removal by Pollutant Reduction Facilities; and x Determine the effectiveness of the destratification system2 in protecting the beneficial uses by reducing the algal biomass as measured by chlorophyll a and reducing

2 Note that the destratification system was originally designed to achieve the following goals: 1) reduce the release of phosphorus and nitrogen nutrients from the bottom sediments into the water column of the reservoir in a typical year by 810 lbs/yr and 1140 lbs/yr, respectively; 2) decrease the seasonal mean (July-Sept) chlorophyll a concentrations by approximately 8 ug/L under typical year conditions; 3) decrease annual peak chlorophyll a concentrations by up to 30 ug/L; 4) increase dissolved oxygen concentrations in the deepest and most vulnerable zones of the reservoir into the range of 5 mg/L; and 5) reduce the production of blue-green algae by making the habitat of the reservoir less suitable for the production of blue-green algae via vertical mixing. (AMEC Earth & Environmental, Inc., Alex Horne Associates, Hydrosphere Resource Consultants, Inc. (December 5, 2005). Feasibility Report Cherry Creek Reservoir Destratification.)

Page 5 of 31

cyanobacteria production as measured by species identification, enumeration, and biovolume.

The SAP/QAPP identifies field and laboratory protocols necessary to achieve high quality data. The 2014 SAP/QAPP is intended to build off of the 2008 Sampling and Analysis Plan and Quality Assurance Work Plan (GEI 2008) and includes: quality assurance objectives for the measurement of data in terms of accuracy, representativeness, comparability, and completeness; field sampling and sample preservation procedures, laboratory processing and analytical procedures; and guidelines for data verification and reporting; quality control check; corrective actions; and quality assurance reporting.

4.0 Regulation No. 72 Requirements Regulation 72 states that the Authority shall develop and implement, in conjunction with local governments, a routine annual water quality monitoring program of the Cherry Creek watershed and Cherry Creek Reservoir. The monitoring program shall include monitoring of the reservoir water quality and inflow volumes, alluvial water quality, and nonpoint source flows. Monitoring shall include, but not be limited to nitrate, nitrite, ammonia, total phosphorus, total soluble phosphorus, and orthophosphate concentrations.

x Routine monitoring of surface water, ground water, and the reservoir shall be implemented to determine the total annual flow-weighted concentration of nutrients to the reservoir; and x Monitoring of PRFs shall be implemented to determine inflow and outflow nutrient concentrations.

The Authority shall consult with the Colorado Water Quality Control Division (Division) in the development of the monitoring program to ensure that the monitoring plan includes the collection of data to evaluate nutrient sources and transport, to characterize reductions in nutrient concentrations, and to determine attainment of water quality standards in Cherry Creek Reservoir. In addition, the Authority shall consult with the Division and other appropriate entities in development of any water quality investigative special studies.

The monitoring data shall be used by the Authority to determine phosphorus fate and transport, calculate annual flow-weighted phosphorus concentrations, document compliance with the applicable water quality standards, analyze long-term trends in water quality for both the reservoir and the Cherry Creek watershed, and calibrate water quality models (72.8).

Reporting requirements are also required under Regulation 72. The Authority shall submit an annual report on the activities to the Commission and Division by March 31 of each year (72.9).

The SAP/QAPP facilitates the above Regulation 72 requirements, and ensures a high quality, auditable, and well-documented monitoring program.

Page 6 of 31

5.0 Review and Updates A review of the SAP/QAPP shall be performed by the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) or Water Quality Committee when there are material changes made to the sampling program (e.g. new monitoring sites, additional parameters, laboratory changes, changes in personnel, etc.), and any updates shall be made as needed. In addition, a review and update of the SAP/QAPP shall be conducted by the TAC or Water Quality Committee in preparation for Water Quality Control Commission (WQCC) Rule Making Hearings (RMH) and other special studies, as needed. Changes and amendments shall be incorporated into the SAP/QAPP in a timely manner, and shall be well- documented.

6.0 Timeline Sampling and data collection shall be implemented per Regulation 72. The Cherry Creek Basin is subject to the hearing timelines of the Cherry Creek Reservoir Control Regulation (Regulation 72), statewide water quality standards (Regulation 31), Cherry Creek water quality standards (Regulation 38), statewide water quality standards assessment (Regulation 93), and other regulations (Regulation 22, 43, 61, 85). As these regulations change, the SAP/QAPP may need to be revisited and may change. The next Water Quality Control Commission Triennial Review Informational Hearing for Regulation 72 will be held in May 2015. Figure 1 below shows the timeline of regulation hearings pertaining to the Cherry Creek Basin.

Regulation 38 Regulation 72 Regulation 93

May 2015 Triennial Review Informational Hearing

2015 June 2015 Rulemaking Hearing

Dec. 2015 Rulemaking Hearing

2016

Figure 1: Water Quality Control Commission Regulation Hearing Timeline

Page 7 of 31

7.0 Project Description The Authority has been collecting water quality data since 1994. The data has provided an extensive site-specific data set for Cherry Creek Reservoir and its tributaries. This SAP/QAPP has been designed to better define water quality conditions and to gain a better understanding of changes of nutrients in the reservoir and its tributaries and the effectiveness of PRFs. The following includes an overview of sampling site locations, sampling teams and structures, sampling parameters, and frequency of sampling.

7.1 Sample Site Locations Reservoir, watershed, and PRF sampling shall be routinely conducted at 13 sites, including three sites in Cherry Creek Reservoir, eighteen stream monitoring sites (on Cherry Creek, Cottonwood Creek, and McMurdo Gulch), and seven alluvial groundwater sites along Cherry Creek mainstem, and one site on Cherry Creek downstream of the Reservoir (Figure 2). Data from many of these monitoring sites are used to assess the effectiveness of several of the Authority’s PRFs (Figure 3). In addition to these routine monitoring sites, three continuous temperature logging sites are located in the reservoir near the three routine reservoir monitoring sites.

All sampling sites are summarized below. Site coordinates for the currently monitored sites can be found in Appendix A. Information on sites that were previously monitored but have been abandoned is found in Appendix B.

7.1.1 Cherry Creek Reservoir Monitoring Sites CCR-1 This site is also called the Dam site, and was established in 1987. Site CCR-1 corresponds to the northwest area within the reservoir (Knowlton, 1993). Sampling was discontinued at this site in 1996 and 1997 following determination that this site exhibited similar characteristics to the other two sites. Sampling recommenced in July 1998 at the request of consultants for Greenwood Village.

CCR-2 This site is also called the Swim Beach site, and was established in 1987. Site CCR-2 corresponds to the northeast area within the reservoir (Knowlton, 1993).

CCR-3 This site is also called the Inlet site, and was established in 1987. Site CCR-3 corresponds to the south area within the reservoir (Knowlton, 1993).

7.1.2 Stream Monitoring Sites 7.1.2.1 Cherry Creek Castlewood This site has been sampled since 1994, and is located in Castlewood Canyon State Park where the Homestead Trail crosses Cherry Creek. It is located about 0.2 miles north of the USGS gaging station known as “Cherry Creek near Franktown.”

Page 8 of 31

CC-1 This site was established in 2012 on Cherry Creek. This site is located on Cherry Creek approximately 380 m upstream of where Bayou Gulch Road crosses Cherry Creek near Parker Road.

CC-2 This site has been sampled since 1994 and is located on Cherry Creek below the Pinery’s wastewater treatment plant. This site is located approximately 0.85 km upstream of Stroh Road.

CC-4 This site has been sampled since 1994, and is located on Cherry Creek below the confluence with Sulphur Gulch and below the outfall for Parker’s AWT plant. This site is located approximately 0.50 km downstream of Main Street in Parker.

CC-5 This site has been sampled since 1994, and is located on Cherry Creek immediately downgradient of the confluence with Newlin Gulch. This site is located where Pine Lane crosses Cherry Creek, approximately 0.65 km west of Parker Road.

CC-6 This site has been sampled since 1994, and is located on Cherry Creek downgradient of Parker’s North AWT plant. However, the discharge from this AWT plant is transported via pipeline to Sulphur Gulch. This site is located approximately 1.38 km downstream of Cottonwood Drive and 0.41 km west of Parker Road.

CC-7 EcoPark This site was reestablished in 2013 on Cherry Creek at the downstream boundary of Cherry Creek Valley Ecological Park (EcoPark). This site is approximately 1.7 kilometers (km) upstream (south) of Arapahoe Road, and serves to monitor water quality conditions downstream of the EcoPark Stream Reclamation Project (PRF). This site also provides more accurate flow estimates in this reach of Cherry Creek. (The original CC-7 site, located ¾ mile south of Arapahoe Road, was abandoned in 2000 due to development.)

CC-8 This site has been sampled since 1994, and is located on Cherry Creek, approximately 0.5 miles north of Arapahoe Road.

CC-9 This site was re-established in 2012 on Cherry Creek, and is located in Cherry Creek State Park just upgradient of Cherry Creek Reservoir. This site is located immediately downstream of where East Lake View Drive crosses Cherry Creek in Cherry Creek State Park.

CC-10 This site is on Cherry Creek immediately downstream of the Shop Creek confluence, approximately 0.5 km upstream of Cherry Creek Reservoir. This site provides data to estimate phosphorus loads to the Reservoir from Cherry Creek and includes inputs from upstream tributaries, including Shop Creek.

CC-O This site was established in 1987, and is located on Cherry Creek downstream of Cherry Creek Reservoir and upstream of the Hampden Avenue-Havana Street junction in the Kennedy Golf Course near the historical USGS gage (06713000).

Page 9 of 31

In 2007, Site CC-O (also identified in the past as Site CC-Out at I225) was relocated immediately downstream of the dam outlet structure and is used to monitor the water quality of the Reservoir outflow.

7.1.2.2 Cottonwood Creek CT-P1 This site was established in 2002, and is located on Cottonwood Creek just north of where Caley Avenue crosses Cottonwood Creek, and west of Peoria Street. This site monitors the water quality of Cottonwood Creek before it enters the Peoria Pond PRF, also created in 2001/2002 on the west side of Peoria Street.

CT-P2 This site was established in 2002 and is located on Cottonwood Creek at the outfall of the PRF, on the west side of Peoria Street. The ISCO® stormwater sampler and pressure transducer is located inside the outlet structure. This site monitors the effectiveness of the PRF on water quality.

CT-1 This site was established in 1987 where the Cherry Creek Park Perimeter Road crosses Cottonwood Creek. It was chosen to monitor the water quality of Cottonwood Creek before it enters the Reservoir. During the fall/winter of 1996, a PRF, consisting of a water quality/detention pond and wetland system, was constructed downstream of this site. As a result of the back-flow from this pond inundating this site, this site was relocated approximately 250 m upstream near Belleview Avenue in 1997. In 2009, this site was relocated approximately 75 m upstream of the Perimeter Road as it crosses Cottonwood Creek, due to the Cottonwood Creek stream reclamation project. This site is now approximately 200 m upstream of the PRF. It is also used to evaluate the effectiveness of the PRF by documenting the stream concentrations above the PRF.

CT-2 This site was established in 1996, and was originally located downstream of the Perimeter Pond on Cottonwood Creek. The ISCO pressure transducer and staff gage was located in a section of the stream relatively unobstructed by vegetation, and approximately 50 m downstream of the PRF. However, over the years the growth of vegetation considerably increased along the channel, creating problems with accurately determining stream flow. Eventually, when no accurate and reliable streamflow measurements could be performed in 2003, other locations were evaluated. In August 2004, the pressure transducer and staff gage were relocated inside of the outlet structure for the PRF to mitigate problems associated with streamflow measurements by providing a reliable multilevel weir equation. In 2013, modifications to the PRF overflow elevation and internal weir structure changed the relationship of the multilevel weir equation, resulting in unreliable stream flow estimates. In 2014, the weir elevations were resurveyed and the weir equations were adjusted accordingly. Water quality samples are collected from the outlet structure. This site monitors the effectiveness of the PRF on Cottonwood Creek water quality and provides information on the stream before it enters the Reservoir.

Page 10 of 31

7.1.2.3 McMurdo Gulch MCM-1 This site was established in 2012 on McMurdo Gulch, approximately 150 m upstream of the McMurdo Gulch Stream Reclamation Project boundary. This site is also 120 m upstream of the confluence with an unnamed tributary that receives runoff from the Castle Oaks Subdivision. This site serves as the upstream monitoring location for the McMurdo Gulch Stream Reclamation project.

MCM-2 This site was established in 2012 on McMurdo Gulch, approximately 80 m upstream of the Castle Oaks Drive Bridge crossing of McMurdo Gulch, near the North Rocky View Road intersection. This site serves as the downstream monitoring location for the McMurdo Gulch Stream Reclamation Project. This site is located within the project boundary, and consistently maintains base flows, whereas the reach further downstream was often dry due to surface flow becoming subsurface.

7.1.3 Precipitation Sampling Site PRECIP This site is located near the Quincy Drainage, upstream of the Perimeter Road. The sampler consists of a clean, inverted trash can lid used to funnel rainfall into a one-gallon container. While this collection vessel is maintained and cleaned on a routine basis, precipitation will wash any atmospheric dry fall that has accumulated between cleanings into the one-gallon container. Therefore, these data more appropriately represent a “bulk” atmospheric deposition component for the reservoir.

7.1.4 Alluvial Groundwater Sites MW-1 This alluvial well monitor has been sampled since 1994, and is located approximately 270 m southeast of where Bayou Gulch Road crosses Cherry Creek near Parker Road.

MW-2 This alluvial well monitor has been sampled since 1994, and is located downstream of the Pinery’s wastewater treatment plant. This site is located approximately 0.85 km upstream of Stroh Road.

MW-5 This alluvial well monitor has been sampled since 1994, and is located immediately downgradient of the confluence with Newlin Gulch. This site is located where Pine Lane crosses Cherry Creek, approximately 0.65 km west of Parker Road.

MW-6 This alluvial well monitor has been sampled since 1994, and is located downgradient of Parker’s North AWT plant. However, the discharge from this AWT plant is transported via pipeline to Sulphur Gulch. This site is located approximately 1.38 km downstream of Cottonwood Drive and is approximately 0.41 km west of Parker Road.

Page 11 of 31

MW-7a Site MW-7a was established in 2013 as part of monitoring for the Eco-Park Reclamation Project. This alluvial well monitor has been sampled since 2013, and is located at the downstream boundary of Cherry Creek Valley Ecological Park (EcoPark). This site is approximately 1.7 km upstream of Arapahoe Road. (The original site MW-7 was located adjacent to the Arapahoe Ford #2 production well; it was abandoned as a water quality monitoring site in 2000 due to development.)

MW-9 This alluvial well monitor has been sampled since 1994, and is located in Cherry Creek State Park near the Nature Center. This site is monitored to assess alluvial groundwater that is entering Cherry Creek Reservoir.

Kennedy This alluvial well monitor has been sampled since 1994, and is located on the Kennedy Golf Course to monitor groundwater quality downgradient from Cherry Creek Reservoir.

Page 12 of 31

Figure 2: Sample Sites on Cherry Creek Reservoir, Surface Water Monitoring Sites, and Alluvial Groundwater Sites (Note: Transect sites D1-D10 and groundwater monitoring site 3C (MW-3C) are discontinued effective May 2016).

Page 13 of 31

Figure 3: Pollutant Reduction Facility (PRF) Sites Located Throughout the Cherry Creek Watershed.

Page 14 of 31

7.2 Sampling Parameters and Frequency To ensure a high level of accuracy and precision, sampling and analyses shall be conducted according to the protocols and method and detection limits set forth in this SAP/QAPP. Monitoring parameters include physical, inorganic, organic, and biological parameters. Table 1 summarizes reservoir sampling parameters and sampling frequencies for sites within the reservoir. Table 2 summarizes similar information for stream and alluvial groundwater monitoring.

Table 1. Reservoir Sampling Parameters and Frequency.

Monthly Bi- Vertical Monthly monthly Monthly Profile Nutrient- Sonde & Nutrient Precipi- WQ Biological Nutrient Profile tation Sonde Samples Samples ANALYTE (4m-7m) (Oct – (Photic Zone) (May- April) Sept)

CCR-1, CCR-1, CCR-1, Rain CCR-2, CCR-2 CCR-2 CCR- 2, CCR-3 Sampler CCR-3 CCR- 3 Temperature XX Conductivity XX pH XX Dissolved Oxygen XX Oxidation/Reduction Pot’l XX 1% Transmittance XX Secchi disk XX

Temperature, Continuous X (15-minute interval) Total Nitrogen XX X X X Total Dissolved Nitrogen XX X X X Ammonia as N XX X X X Nitrate+Nitrite as N XX X X X Total Phosphorus XX X X X Total Dissolved XX X X X Orthophosphate as P XX X X Total Organic Carbon XX X Dissolved Organic XX X Total Volatile Suspended XX X Total Suspended Solids XX X Chlorophyll a XX X Phytoplankton X X Zooplankton XX

Table 2. Stream and Groundwater Sampling Parameters and Frequency.

Monthly Storm Event Bi-annual Surface Surface Water Surface Water Bi-annual Water ISCO Samples Groundwater ANALYTE Samples Samples Samples 10 sites 7sites 9sites 7sites (CC-0, CC-10, (CC-10,

Page 15 of 31

CC-7-EcoPark, CC-7-EcoPark, (Castlewood, CC-1, (MW-1, MW-2, MW- CT-1, CT-2, CT-1, CT-2, CC-2. 5, MW-6, MW-7a, CT-P1, CT-P2, CT-P1, CT-P2, CC-4. CC-5, MW-9, Kennedy) MCM-1, MCM-2, PC-1) CC-6, CC-8, PC-1) CC-9) Physical Temperature XXX Conductivity XXX pH XXX

Dissolved Oxygen XXX Oxidation/Reduction Pot’l X

Water Level, Continuous X X (15-minute interval) (MW-9 only) Discharge, Rating Curve X Inorganics Total Nitrogen XX

Total Dissolved Nitrogen XX Ammonia as N XX X X

Nitrate+Nitrite as N XX X X Nitrate as N XX

Nitrite as N XX Total Phosphorus XX X Total Dissolved XX X X Phosphorus Orthophosphate as P XX X X Chloride XX

Sulfate XX

Organics X Total Organic Carbon (MW-9 only) X Dissolved Organic Carbon (MW-9 only) Total Volatile Suspended XX Solids Total Suspended Solids XX

Note that the Total and Dissolved Organic Carbon samples collected at CCR-1, CCR-2, CCR-3, and MW-9, and the water levels at MW-9, are being collected at the request of the Authority’s Reservoir Modeler as input for the model, and should be revisited and perhaps discontinued when this SAP/QAPP is next updated.

Page 16 of 31

7.3 Authority Roles and Participation The Authority is responsible for the following tasks:

x Manage the water quality monitoring contract x Prepare the Annual Report to the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission x Ensure periodic outside Peer Review is solicited at appropriate times x Coordinate the monitoring program and budgetary needs arising from regulatory changes and new facility monitoring needs (e.g., PRFs) x Identify and coordinate monitoring needs for any new special studies (see footnote 1 on the bottom of page 3 for more detail re: special studies) x Periodically review and revise, as needed, the Sampling Program Objectives (see Section 3.0) x Ensure the monitoring program complies with Regulation 72 requirements (see Section 4.0) x Provide periodic review and updates to this SAP/QAPP (see Section 5.0)

7.4 Sampling Teams and Structure The monitoring consultant shall be responsible for implementing sampling requirements per the SAP/QAPP. All personnel involved in the investigation and in the generation of data are a part of the overall project and quality assurance program. The following roles have specifically delegated responsibilities, which is structured to ensure the highest quality of data collection, management, and reporting.

7.4.1 Project Manager The Project Manager is responsible for fiscal oversight and management of the project and for ensuring that all work is conducted in accordance with the Scope of Service, Sampling and Analysis Plan, and approved procedures. Tasks include:

x Maintain routine contact with the project’s progress; x Regularly review the project schedule, and review all work products; and x Evaluate impacts on project objectives and the need for corrective actions based on quality control checks.

7.4.2 Quality Assurance Manager The Quality Assurance Manager is responsible for the aquatic biological and field sampling portions of the project as well as the technical management of the monitoring program and reporting. The Quality Assurance Manager shall be responsible for evaluation and review of all data reports relevant to the project and perform data verification. The Quality Assurance Manager shall work with the Project Manager to determine the need for corrective actions and, together, will make recommendations for any needed changes to either sampling methodologies or laboratory analytical procedures. Tasks include:

x Ensure data collection is in accordance with the Sampling and Analysis Plan; x Maintain a repository for all documents relating to this project; and

Page 17 of 31

x Coordinate with the Authority, the WQCD, and the Authority’s other consultants to ensure compliance with the Cherry Creek Reservoir Control Regulation 72.

7.4.3 Analytical and Biological Laboratory Managers The Analytical Laboratory Manager will ensure that all water quality and chlorophyll a samples are analyzed in a technically sound and timely manner. The Analytical Laboratory Manager shall be responsible for ensuring all laboratory quality assurance procedures associated with the project are followed, including proper sample entry, sample handling procedures, and quality control records for samples delivered to the laboratory. The Analytical Laboratory Manager will be responsible for all data reduction and verification, and ensure that the data is provided in a format agreed upon between the Project Manager, the Analytical Laboratory Manager, and the Authority. The Biological Laboratory Manager(s) will ensure that phytoplankton and zooplankton identification, enumeration, and biovolume/biomass analyses are analyzed in a technically sound and timely manner, in accordance with the requirements of this SAP/QAPP. The Biological Laboratory Manager(s) shall be responsible for ensuring all laboratory quality assurance procedures associated with the project are followed, including proper sample entry, sample handling procedures, and quality control records for samples delivered to the laboratory.

7.4.4 Sampling Crew The field sampling efforts shall be conducted by individuals qualified in the collection of chemical, physical, and biological surface water samples. Field tasks and sampling oversight will be provided by the Quality Assurance Manager. The Sampling Crew shall be responsible for following all procedures for sample collection, including complete and accurate documentation.

7.5 Field Methodologies

7.5.1 Reservoir Sampling 7.5.1.1 Transparency Transparency shall be determined using a Secchi disk and Licor quantum sensors. The Secchi reading shall be slowly lowered on the shady side of the boat, until the white quadrants disappear, at which point the depth is recorded. The disk is then lowered roughly 1 m further and slowly brought back up until the white quadrants reappear and again the depth is recorded. The Secchi disk depth is recorded as the average of these two readings.

Licor quantum sensors provide a quantitative approach to determine the depth at which 1 percent of the light penetrates the water column. This is considered the point at which light no longer can sustain photosynthesis in excess of oxygen consumption from respiration (Goldman and Horne 1983) and represents the deepest portion of the photic zone. This is accomplished by using an ambient and underwater quantum sensor attached to a data logger. The ambient quantum

Page 18 of 31

sensor remains on the surface, while the underwater sensor is lowered into the water on the sunny side of the boat. The underwater sensor is lowered until the value displayed on the data logger is 1 percent of the value of the ambient sensor, and the depth is recorded.

7.5.1.2 Depth Profile Measurements Measurements for dissolved oxygen, temperature, conductivity, pH, and oxidation/reduction potential (ORP) shall be collected at 1 m intervals, including the surface and near the water/sediment interface, using a multiparameter sonde. The sonde shall be calibrated prior to each sampling episode to ensure accurate readings.

In an effort to minimize probe contamination at the water/sediment interface, a depth sounding line is used to determine maximum depth. The bottom profile measurement is collected approximately 10 cm from the benthos.

7.5.1.3 Continuous Temperature Monitoring Continuous temperature monitoring to document the water column profiles shall be performed at three locations in the Reservoir (CCR-1, CCR-2, and CCR-3). At each site, Onset HOBO® Water Temp Pro data loggers shall be deployed at 1 m increments, from the 1 m layer to near the sediment/water interface and configured to collect 15-minute interval temperature data.

The temperature arrays shall be deployed using the State Park’s buoy system, beginning in March/April and operated through October/November, with periodic downloading of data to minimize potential loss of data.

7.5.1.4 Water Samples A primary task of the monitoring program is to characterize the chemical and biological constituents of the upper 3 m layers of the reservoir. This layer represents the most active layer for algae production (photic zone), and represents approximately 54 percent of the total lake volume given the typical lake level of 5550 ft. At each reservoir site, water from the surface, and 1 m, 2 m, and 3 m depths is sampled individually using a 2-liter vertical Van Dorn water sampler and combined into a clean 5-gallon container to create a composite photic zone sample (Table 3). The vertical Van Dorn sampler is lowered to the appropriate depth, such that the middle of the sampler is centered on the selected depth. The “messenger” is sent to activate the sampler and the water is retrieved. Four one-liter aliquots are collected from the composite photic zone sample and stored on ice, until transferred to the laboratory for chemical and biological analyses (Table 2). Nutrient analyses shall be performed on all reservoir water samples. Chlorophyll a analyses shall be performed on all photic zone composite samples. Phytoplankton analyses shall be performed on all photic zone composite samples. See Table 4 on page 24 for the list of analytes, laboratory methods, and detection limits.

Page 19 of 31

At Site CCR-2, profile water samples are also collected on 1 m increments, starting from 4 m and continuing down to the 7 m depth. The 7 m sample is collected as close to the water/sediment interface as possible, without disturbing the sediment. At times, if the reservoir is unusually full, it may be necessary to collect an additional profile water sample, such as occurred after the September 2013 precipitation events. The sampler and 5-gallon container are rinsed thoroughly with lake water between sites. Based on this sampling scheme, the number of samples collected at each site is shown in Table 3 below:

Table 3. Number of Reservoir Samples Collected.

Upper 3 m 1m Depth Number of Reservoir Site Composite Profiles Samples (Photic zone) CCR-1 1 0 1 CCR-2 1 4 5 CCR-3 1 0 1 Total Samples/Sample Event 3 4 7

7.5.1.5 Zooplankton Samples

Zooplankton samples shall be collected at reservoir site CCR-2. The zooplankton sample should always be collected following the collection of water samples, so as not to compromise the integrity of the water samples. Collection of a vertical water column zooplankton sample is performed using an eight inch mouth, 80 μm mesh Turtox Student Net. The zooplankton net is rinsed with reservoir water and lowered to the 6 m depth at site CCR-2. At each site, the net is slowly retrieved and the concentrated sample is drained into the sample container with all organic matter being rinsed from the net and into the sample container. One site tow at CCR-2 is pulled per sampling event. The sample is preserved with 70% alcohol. The diameter of the tow net and combined length of each tow is recorded to provide an estimate of the water volume sampled. The zooplankton are identified, enumerated, and estimates of biomass are performed.

7.5.2 Stream Sampling

7.5.2.1 Monthly Base Flow Sampling One sample shall be collected from each stream site on a monthly basis, when there is sufficient flow (CT-1, CT-2, CT-P1, CT-P2, CC-10, EcoPark, Piney Creek, MCM-1, and MCM-2). Samples shall be collected as mid-stream mid-depth grab samples using a 5-gallon container. Two one-liter aliquots are collected from this grab sample and stored on ice, until transferred to the laboratory for chemical analyses.

Page 20 of 31

7.5.2.2 Storm Event Sampling Samples from storm flow events are collected using ISCO automatic samplers, which are programmed to collect samples when the flow reaches a threshold level. The threshold level is determined by analyzing annual hydrographs from each stream and determining storm levels. When the threshold is reached, the ISCO collects a sample every 15 minutes for approximately 2.5 hours (i.e., a timed composite) or until the water recedes below the threshold level. This sampling procedure occurs at CT-1, CT-2, CT-P1, CT-P2, CC-10, EcoPark, and Piney Creek. Following the storm event, water collected by the automatic samplers is combined (timed composite) into a clean 5-gallon container, with two 1 liter (L) aliquots collected from the composited sample and stored on ice until transferred to the laboratory for analysis. Approximately 4 L would be collected from the 24 bottles, with each bottle contributing a sample amount representative of the flow at which it was collected. Up to seven storm samples shall be collected from each of the monitoring sites during the April to October storm season.

7.5.2.3 Continuous Water Level Monitoring At sites containing an ISCO automated sampler, continuous water level is also monitored using an ISCO flow module and pressure transducer. Rating curves are developed for each sampling site by measuring stream discharge (ft3/sec) with a Marsh McBirney Model # 2000 flowmeter, and recording the water level at the staff gage (ft) and ISCO flowmeter (ft). Discharge is measured using methods outlined in Harrelson et al. 1994. To determine flow rate, the level must be translated into flow rate using a stage-discharge relationship. Since stage-discharge relationships can change over the years, the relationship is calibrated annually using a flow meter to record stream flow measurements three to four times per year at a range of flows. These data are combined with historical data, as long as stream geomorphology conditions are similar, to validate and modify the stage-discharge relationship for that site. If the staff gage is reset, moved to a new location, or geomorphology conditions have changed, then a new stage-discharge relationship is created for that site.

Water level data are collected on 15-minute intervals and stored in the ISCO sampler. These data are downloaded on a monthly basis to minimize the risk of data loss due to power failure or ISCO failure. The flow data and stage-discharge rating curves shall be checked throughout the year by comparing calculated flow estimates to actual flow measurements recorded in the field with a flowmeter.

The USACE also reports daily inflow to Cherry Creek Reservoir as a function of storage, based on changes in reservoir level. This daily inflow value incorporates information regarding measured outflow, precipitation, and evaporation. The Authority monitors inflow to the Reservoir using gaging stations on Cherry Creek and Cottonwood Creek to provide a daily surface inflow record. Given the differences in the two methods for determining inflow, combined with the potential of unmonitored alluvial and surface flows that may result in greater seepage through the adjacent wetlands during storm events, and other unmonitored surface

Page 21 of 31

inflows (i.e., Belleview and Quincy drainages), an exact match between USACE and calculated inflows is not expected. Therefore, the Authority normalizes their streamflow data to match the USACE computed inflow value.

7.5.3 Watershed Surface Water Sampling The Cherry Creek mainstem monitoring was initiated in 1994. The monitoring includes semiannual sampling at seven surface water sites along Cherry Creek (Castlewood, CC-1, CC-2, CC-4, CC-5, CC-6, CC-8, and CC-9). Other sites are included on the Cherry Creek mainstem (e.g. CC-7 (EcoPark), CC-10, and CC-0) which are monitoring on a more frequent basis as part of the Reservoir and PRF efforts. The following constituents are monitored on a semi-annual basis at the seven Cherry Creek mainstem sites:

x Nitrite + Nitrate x Nitrite x Nitrate x Ammonia x Total dissolved phosphorus x Total phosphorus x Soluble reactive phosphorus (AKA Orthophosphate) x Chloride x Sulfate

Historically, the sampling frequency was on a monthly basis, but was reduced to semiannual monitoring (May and November) in 2003.

7.5.4 Alluvial Groundwater Sampling Cherry Creek alluvial groundwater sites are generally paired with mainstem surface water sites to provide corresponding data. Groundwater sampling was initiated in 1994, and includes semiannual sampling at eight alluvial sites along Cherry Creek (MW-1, MW-2, MW-5, MW-6, MW-7a, MW-9, and Kennedy) for the following constituents:

x Nitrite + Nitrate x Nitrite x Nitrate x Ammonia x Total dissolved phosphorus x Soluble reactive phosphorus (AKA Orthophosphate) x Chloride x Sulfate

The sampling frequency was reduced from monthly monitoring to semiannual monitoring (May and November) in 2003.

Page 22 of 31

7.5.5 Precipitation Sampling After each monitored storm, the sample bottle shall be removed, stored on ice, and transferred to the laboratory for analysis of phosphorus and nitrogen fractions. The sampler shall be inspected and cleaned of any accumulations of unimportant precipitation on a weekly basis. This will minimize extraneous “dry fall” from being washed into the sampler between monitored storm events. A precipitation event of greater than 0.25 inches at the Centennial Airport KAPA weather station is generally a sufficient storm event that activates ISCO samplers and storm event monitoring.

8.0 Laboratory Procedures The sampling and analyses shall be conducted in accordance with the methods and detection limits provided in the table below.

The turnaround time is variable and generally ranges from 30 days for most routine chemical analyses up to 120 days for biological (i.e., phytoplankton and zooplankton) analyses, but the turnaround time will depend on the analyses to be performed, the number of samples, and the laboratory backlog. Rapid turnaround time is generally available for an additional fee by most laboratories. In the case of cyanotoxin analyses, the turnaround time is generally 2-3 days, but rapid turnaround times (i.e., 12 hours) are generally available for an additional fee by most laboratories.

Page 23 of 31

Table 4. List of Analytes, Abbreviations, Analytical Methods, Recommended Hold Times, and Detection Limits for Chemical Laboratory Analyses.

Recommended Parameter Abbreviation Analytical Method Detection Limit Hold Times Physicochemical < 24 hrs before digestion; Total Nitrogen TN 10-107-04-4-B* 2 μg/L < 7 days after digestion Total Dissolved Nitrogen TDN 10-107-04-4-B 48 hrs 2 μg/L

Nitrate/Nitrite Nitrogen NO3+NO2 10-107-04-1-C 48 hrs 2 μg/L

Ammonium Ion Nitrogen NH4 10-107-06-2-A 24 hrs 3 μg/L < 24 hrs before Total Phosphorus TP 10-115-01-4-B* 2 μg/L digestion Total Dissolved TDP 10-115-01-4-B 48 hrs 2 μg/L Phosphorus Soluble Reactive SRP 10-115-01-1-T 48 hrs 2 μg/L Phosphorus Total Suspended Solids TSS SM 2540D 7 days 4 mg/L Total Volatile Suspended TVSS SM 2540 E 7 days 4 mg/L Solids Total Organic Carbon TOC SM 5310 B 28 days 0.16 mg/L Dissolved Organic Carbon DOC SM 5310 B 28 days EPA 300.0/SW846 Chloride Cl 28 days 0.1 mg/L 9056 EPA 300.0/SW846 Sulfate SO4 28 days 0.1 mg/L 9056 Biological < 24 hrs before Chlorophyll a Chl SM 10200 H 0.1 μg/L filtration SM 10200 B.2.a SM 10200 C.2 Phytoplankton -- SM 10200 .D.2 NA NA SM 10200 E.4 SM 10200 F.2.c SM 10200 B.2.B SM 10200 C.4 Zooplankton -- SM 10200 D.4 NA NA SM 10200 E.4 SM 10200 .G * TP and TN can be measured from same digest.

Method References: American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association, and Water Environment Federation. (2005). Standard Methods for Examination of Water and Wastewater. (21st Edition). Washington DC 1985.

Pfaff, John D. August 1993. Method 300.0 - Determination of Inorganic Anions by Ion Chromatography, Inorganic Chemistry Branch, Chemistry Research Division, Revision 2.1. Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory, Office Of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Cincinnati, Ohio 45268 http://water.epa.gov/scitech/methods/cwa/bioindicators/upload/2007_07_10_methods_method_300_0.pdf

http://www.epa.gov/wstew/hazard/testmethods/sw846/online/index.htm

Page 24 of 31

8.1 Biological Laboratory Analysis

Biological analyses for the samples collected in the study, include chlorophyll a, phytoplankton (identification, enumeration, and biovolume), and zooplankton (identification, enumeration, and biomass). The methods of these analyses, with appropriate QA/QC procedures shall be in accordance with the methods provided in Table 1.

8.2 Laboratory Quality Assurance/Quality Control Protocols

Analytical laboratory equipment calibrations are performed every time new standards are prepared (minimum of once per week). Instrument values are compared to known standard concentration and if the correlation coefficient of the standard curve is less than 0.999, the instrument is recalibrated or standards are remade, with the process being completed until the instrument passes the test. Pseudo-replicate analyses are performed on each sample analyzed (i.e., sample analyzed twice) and the percent difference must be within 10 percent, if the resultant concentration is above the minimum detection limit. If the difference of the pseudo-replicate analyses are >10 percent, a new analytical sample is placed in a clean test tube and analyzed. During a sample analysis run, check standards are analyzed between every 5 samples (or 10 replicates). The check standards consist of one high range standard, one mid-range standard, and the control blank (zero). Check standards analyzed before and after each group of samples must be within 10 percent of the theoretical value. If standards are outside of this range, new analytical samples and standards are placed in clean test tubes and analyzed to try to determine the source of the error. Sample values are not accepted until the problem has been resolved and all check standards pass the QC criteria. One matrix spike is run for every 10 samples analyzed (or 20 replicates). The percent recovery for matrix spikes must be ± 20 percent.

Following sample analyses, a final QC check is performed to determine if all parameters measured are in agreement. Final analyses for each sample are compared to ensure that concentƌĂƚŝŽŶƐŽĨƚŽƚĂůƉŚŽƐƉŚŽƌƵƐшƚŽƚĂůĚŝƐƐŽůǀĞĚƉŚŽƐƉŚŽƌƵƐшŽƌƚŚŽƉŚŽƐƉŚĂƚĞĂŶĚƚŚĂƚ ƚŚĞĐŽŶĐĞŶƚƌĂƚŝŽŶŽĨƚŽƚĂůŶŝƚƌŽŐĞŶшƚŽƚĂůĚŝƐƐŽůǀĞĚ ŶŝƚƌŽŐĞŶшŶŝƚƌĂƚĞͬŶŝƚƌŝƚĞĂŶammonia. If parameters are not in agreement samples are reanalyzed.

9.0 Program Quality Assurance/Quality Control Protocols

Field Sampling All field team members will be responsible for visually inspecting and monitoring for contamination and should a bottle be contaminated it will be replaced with a clean one. To provide Quality Control/Quality Assurance (QC/QA) information on the field samples, both field blanks and field duplicates shall be collected and will comprise approximately 10 percent of the total number of samples analyzed for the project. The field blank and duplicate samples will be labeled and stored with the field collected samples and analyzed using the same laboratory methods. The QC/QA samples will provide information on sampling and analytical error.

Page 25 of 31

Laboratory The analytical and biological laboratories will follow their in-house Quality Assurance Plans (QAP), which will be consistent with specific state requirements. These documents will be available to the Authority upon request.

10.0 Data Validation and Usability All field data and chain-of-custody (COC) forms will be reviewed the Field Team Leader for correctness. The QA Manager will be responsible for data validation, and will review the field book, laboratory’s results and reports for accuracy and will report any issues to the Project Manager. Laboratory data will be reviewed to ensure that appropriate methods were used and that data are qualified with method detection limits. Any problems that arise will be brought to the attention of the Project Manager and it is this person’s responsibility to accept or reject the data.

11.0 Data Verification, Reduction, and Reporting Data verification shall be conducted to ensure that raw data are not altered. All field data, such as those generated during any field measurements and observations, will be entered directly into a bound Field Book. Sampling Crew members will be responsible for proof reading all data transfers, if necessary. All data transfers will be checked for accuracy.

The Quality Assurance Project Manager will conduct data verification activities to assess laboratory performance in meeting quality assurance requirements. Such reviews include verification that: 1) the correct samples were analyzed and reported in the correct units; 2) the samples were properly preserved and not held beyond applicable holding times; 3) instruments are regularly calibrated and meeting performance criteria; and 4) laboratory QA objectives for precision and accuracy are being met.

Data reduction for laboratory analyses is conducted by Consultant’s personnel in accordance with EPA procedures, as available, for each method. Analytical results and appropriate field measurements are input into a computer spreadsheet. No results will be changed in the spreadsheet unless the cause of the error is identified and documented.

A data control program will be followed to insure that all documents generated during the project are accounted for upon their completion. Accountable documents include: Field Books, Sample Chain of Custody, Sample Log, analytical reports, quality assurance reports, and interpretive reports.

Data shall be summarized and provided to the Authority’s Technical Advisory Committee on a monthly basis and presented in the Annual Report.

Page 26 of 31

12.0 References

AMEC Earth & Environmental, Inc., Alex Horne Associates, Hydrosphere Resource Consultants, Inc. (December 5, 2005). Feasibility Report Cherry Creek Reservoir Destratification.

American Public Health Association. (20th Edition American Public Health Association). Standard Methods for Examination of Water and Wastewater. Washington DC: 1985.

Cheryl C. Harrelson, C. P. (1994). Stream channel reference sites: an illustrated guide to field technique. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station 61 p.: Gen Tech. Rep. RM-245.

Denver Regional Council of Governments. (1985). Cherry Creek Basin Water Quality Management Master Plan. Prepared in Cooperation with Counties, Municipalities, and Water and Sanitation Districts in the Cherry Creek Basin and Colorado Department of Health.

Goldman, C. a. (1983). Limnology. NY: McGraw-Hill Company.

Knowlton, M. a. (1993). Limnological Investigations of Cherry Creek Lake. Final report to Cherry Creek Basin Water Quality Authority.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (August 1999). Site-Specific Sampling and Analysis Plan Template.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (December 2000). Peer Review Handbook, 2nd Edition. Washington, DC 20460: Science Policy Council.

Page 27 of 31

APPENDIX A – Sampling Site Locations

Page 28 of 31

Waterbody ID Latitude Longitude Cherry Creek Reservoir CCR-1 39°38'34.68"N 104°51'41.88"W Cherry Creek Reservoir CCR-2 39°38'49.09"N 104°51'08.15"W Cherry Creek Reservoir CCR-3 39°38'17.46"N 104°51'09.69"W Cherry Creek Reservoir D-1 39°38'47.04"N 104°51'34.27"W Cherry Creek Reservoir D-2 39°38'43.13"N 104°51'31.93"W Cherry Creek Reservoir D-3 39°38'39.66"N 104°51'29.20"W Cherry Creek Reservoir D-3.5 39°38'36.42"N 104°51'26.95"W Cherry Creek Reservoir D-4 39°38'33.91"N 104°51'24.64"W Cherry Creek Reservoir D-5 39°38'30.57"N 104°51'22.50"W Cherry Creek Reservoir D-6 39°38'27.78"N 104°51'20.76"W Cherry Creek Reservoir D-7 39°38'25.01"N 104°51'18.02"W Cherry Creek Reservoir D-8 39°38'22.46"N 104°51'15.87"W Cherry Creek Reservoir D-9 39°38'19.75"N 104°51'13.29"W Cherry Creek Reservoir D-10 39°38'17.52"N 104°51'10.12"W Cherry Creek Castlewood 39°21'28.58"N 104°45'49.69"W Cherry Creek CC-1 39°25'57.80"N 104°46'05.10"W Cherry Creek CC-2 39°28'6.90"N 104°46'04.20"W Cherry Creek CC-4 39°31'33.10"N 104°46'50.50"W Cherry Creek CC-5 39°32'38.70"N 104°46'46.00"W Cherry Creek CC-6 39°33'59.40"N 104°47'25.70"W Cherry Creek CC-7 39°35'12.06"N 104°48'18.63"W Cherry Creek CC-8 39°36'10.40"N 104°48'55.10"W Cherry Creek CC-9 39°37'28.10"N 104°50'03.60"W Cherry Creek CC-10 39°38'00.46"N 104°50'17.22"W Cherry Creek CC-O 39°39'10.60"N 104°51'22.52"W Cottonwood Creek CT-P1 39°36'07.96"N 104°51'20.03"W Cottonwood Creek CT-P2 39°36'19.23"N 104°50'55.01"W Cottonwood Creek CT-1 39°37'27.73"N 104°50'54.95"W Cottonwood Creek CT-2 39°37'40.27"N 104°51'00.94"W Piney Creek PC-1 39°36'23.21"N 104°48'52.02"W McMurdo Gulch MCM-1 39°23'19.54"N 104°48'53.63"W McMurdo Gulch MCM-2 39°24'16.60"N 104°48'46.01"W Precipitation PRECIP 39°38'12.40"N 104°50'8.47"W Groundwater MW-1 39°26'07.50"N 104°45'59.80"W Groundwater MW-2 39°28'03.50"N 104°46'4.90"W Groundwater MW-3c 39°30'34.57"N 104°46'05.07"W Groundwater MW-5 39°32'39.10"N 104°46'46.88"W Groundwater MW-6 39°33'57.70"N 104°47'30.90"W Groundwater MW-7a 39°35'07.55"N 104°48'17.63"W Groundwater MW-9 39°37'25.00"N 104°50'11.20"W Groundwater Kennedy 39°39'15.80"N 104°52'0.20"W

Page 29 of 31

APPENDIX B –Abandoned Sampling Sites

Page 30 of 31

Historical Surface Water Sites (Abandoned)

CC-3 This site was located 1 mile south of West Parker Road. It is no longer used as a water quality sampling location.

CC-7 This was the original CC-7 site, located ¾ mile south of Arapahoe Road. It was abandoned in 2000 due to development.

CC-10A This site was established in 1999 on an intermittent channel of Cherry Creek. CC-10A is active during spring runoff and some precipitation events. Flow measurements at this site were used to provide additional data on total inflows into the Reservoir. This site has not been monitored since 2001.

SC-1 This site was established in 1987, immediately east of Parker Road on Shop Creek. Originally, SC-1 monitored phosphorous levels prior to the confluence with Cherry Creek. From 1990 through 2001, this site monitored water quality upstream of the Shop Creek detention pond/wetland PRF. This site has not been monitored since 2001.

SC-2 This site was established in 1990, and was located west of Parker Road at the outlet from the Shop Creek detention pond. This site monitored the water quality as it left the detention pond. This site has not been monitored since 2001.

SC-3 This site is located 35 m upstream of its confluence with Cherry Creek, and was used to monitor the water quality of Shop Creek before it joins Cherry Creek. Sampling ceased at this site in 2013 because flow and total phosphorus loads were less than one percent of the total annual flow-weighted load entering the reservoir.

QD-1 This site was established in 1996 on Quincy Drainage, above of the Perimeter Road wetlands, which were constructed in 1990 just downstream of the outlet for the Quincy Road/Parker Road stormwater drain. This site monitored water quality of the Quincy Drainage upstream of the wetlands and a new PRF, consisting of a water quality/berm system, established in late 1995, downstream of the Perimeter Road. This site has not been monitored since 2001.

BD-1 This site was established in mid-1996 at the suggestion of State Parks personnel, and is used to monitor the inflow to an old stock pond on this drainage near Belleview Avenue. This site has not been monitored since 2001.

BD-2 This site was established in mid-1996 at the suggestion of State Parks personnel, and is used to monitor this drainage as it crosses the Perimeter Road before entering the Reservoir. This site monitors the nutrient removal abilities of the

Page 31 of 31

historic stock pond and natural wetland system. This sites has not been monitored since 2001.

Historical Groundwater Sites (Abandoned)

MW-3c This is the historic KOA well. Access was denied starting in 2014. This site was discontinued May 2016.

MW-4b This site was located downstream of Sulphur Gulch, and was abandoned in 2002 due to development.

MW-7 This site was located south of Arapahoe Road near EcoPark, and it was abandoned in 2000 due to development.

MW-8 This site was the Arapahoe Deem production well, located north of Arapahoe Road. It was abandoned as a sampling site in 2000 due to development.

Page 32 of 31

APPENDIX C – May 2016 Sampling Modifications and Rationale

Page 33 of 31

SAP Refinement - Background Memorandum

To: CCBWQA

From: Tetra Tech

Date: July 18, 2016

Subject: 2016 Sampling and Analysis Program Refinements - Zooplankton

This memo provides the scientific basis and institutional history to support the proposed monitoring refinement(s) for zooplankton, while addressing the potential issues and implications of these actions. Specific parameters in the 2016 Sampling and Analysis Program were reviewed by the TAC in March – May 2016. Based on review of data collected and analyzed by the Authority in accordance with the SAP, there are opportunities to refine the sampling and data collection effort to promote sound science and limnology. Refinements to the sampling and analysis program are important, recognizing that the program is dynamic and changes are needed from time to time based on:

These proposed refinement(s) provided herein for zooplankton will support regulatory requirements and SAP objectives and provide defensible data to track ongoing water quality benefits of the Board’s current and future actions. Zooplankton sampling addresses objectives of Regulation 72 (72.8 (5). The monitoring data shall be used by Authority to determine water quality trends in the reservoir and calibrate water quality models. The data promotes understanding of reservoir biology, promoting a sustainable fishery, and food chain dynamics to maintain the aquatic life beneficial use in the Reservoir.

Page 34 of 31

Potential Issues and Refinement Justification 1 Implications

Conduct Recognizing prior 9 Vertical zooplankton tows are necessary due to vertical zooplankton methodology was diurnal migration of the zooplankton based upon predation composite from inappropriate, what are the and food source swimming to depth. Zooplankton will be both vertically and horizontally distributed depending upon food CCR-2 (1 sample = implications of this refinement source and refugia. Hence vertical tows at specific sites not 1 tow; Discontinue on the following; composited between sites is necessary compositing the (Cooke,G.D.,E.B.Welch,S.A.Peterson, and S. A. Nichols. zooplankton tows 2005. Restoration and Management of Lakes and Reservoirs. from the 3 3rd ed., CRC Press, Boca Raton, Fl.) x Changes on sampling reservoir sites) methodology to future data. 9 The original sampling procedure of compositing the zooplankton tows for the whole reservoir did not reflect the actual zooplankton community and characteristics; potential x Changes on sampling to errors result when trying to look at relationships between future modeling and chlorophyll, phytoplankton, zooplankton or the food web. calibration efforts.

9 Sound science - Representative zooplankton data are required to understand food web dynamics in Cherry Creek Reservoir. Accurate data will address food chain dynamics and whether zooplankton are grazing on algae or not.

9 Monitoring refinement supports regulatory objectives to protect beneficial uses (promotes understanding of the fishery, aquatic life use and sustainability of fishery).

9 Addresses objectives of Regulation 72 (72.8 (5)). The monitoring data shall be used by Authority to determine….water quality trends in the reservoir and calibrate water quality models.

9 Database and annual reports will document and note changes to lab and methodology.

9 Models are adaptive fluid processes. As such, the model will be calibrated in the future with valid zooplankton data and model is adjusted accordingly.

Page 35 of 31

Potential Issues and Refinement Justification 1 Implications

9 Splitting samples between prior phycology lab and Phycotech What are the implications of is not cost effective; there will be a miscorrelation between changing labs and the chl-a and biomass. differences between zooplankton biomass, cell 9 Database metadata and documentation (Annual Reports, count, and # species? updates, etc.) will document lab change and sampling methodology.

Is there a concern of not performing split samples between the original and current phycology lab or is there merit to split samples?

1 The rationale to implement a proposed change while understanding (1) the potential impacts this change would have on meeting regulatory requirements & SAP objectives (2) evaluating long term trends, (3) ability to track water quality benefits of our current and future actions, (4) sampling procedures with a sound scientific and limnology basis, and (5) duplicative efforts and opportunities to reduce costs. Budget Impact: No change in budget impact of monitoring refinements proposed herein; better data results in better science and decision-making.

Project Partners: Protection of aquatic life uses are important to CPW and avid sportsman using the fishery. Fish data from the Reservoir are obtained annually from CPW. Protecting beneficial uses in the reservoir benefits local economies receiving dollars from residents and out of state visitors (BBC Research & Consulting, “The Economic Impacts of Hunting, Fishing and Wildlife Watching in Colorado, September, 2008).

Authority Nexus: Sound data to support Authority decision-making and meet regulatory requirements.

Page 36 of 31

Next Steps: Document and implement SAP refinements as approved by Board; include these approved changes, by addendum, in the field team sampling notebook (along with the SAP (2015); include discussion of these proposed changes in the 2016 monitoring report; incorporate these refinements and other potential updates in the future version of the SAP.

Page 37 of 31

SAP Refinement - Background Memorandum

To: CCBWQA

From: Tetra Tech

Date: July 18, 2016

Subject: 2016 Sampling and Analysis Program Refinements - Phytoplankton

This memo provides the scientific basis and institutional history to support the proposed sampling and analysis program refinement(s) for phytoplankton, while addressing the potential issues and implications of these actions. Specific parameters in the 2016 Sampling and Analysis Program were reviewed by the TAC in March – May 2016. Based on review of data collected and analyzed by the Authority in accordance with the SAP, there are opportunities to refine the sampling and data collection effort to promote sound science and limnology. Refinements to the sampling and analysis program are important, recognizing that the program is dynamic and changes are needed from time to time based on:

These proposed refinement(s) provided herein for phytoplankton will support regulatory requirements and SAP objectives and provide defensible data to track ongoing water quality benefits of the Board’s current and future actions. The phytoplankton data supports promoting protection of aquatic life and recreational beneficial uses in the reservoir, by providing important data for understanding reservoir nutrient loading, chlorophyll a, cyanobacteria, oxygen depletions and the fishery food chain dynamics to meet the aquatic life beneficial use in the Reservoir.

Phytoplankton sampling addresses objectives of Regulation 72 (72.8 (3) and (5), as follows;

72.8 (3)…the monitoring plan includes the collection of data to evaluate nutrients in the watershed and Reservoir….and to determine the attainment of water quality standards in Cherry Creek Reservoir.

72.8 (5) …the data shall be used by Authority to determine….water quality trends in the reservoir and calibrate water quality models.

Page 38 of 31

Potential Issues and Refinement Justification 1 Implications

Conduct Recognizing prior methodology 9 The current sampling approach does not have a scientific or phytoplankton was inappropriate, what are limnology basis. Vertical compositing of phytoplankton will composite from the implications of this under estimate algal production and bloom risk. Phytoplankton are horizontally distributed based upon depth, CCR-2; Discontinue refinement on the following; wind, and currents so multiple site composite will also compositing underestimate production and bloom risk. (Cooke,G.D., between all 3 E.B.Welch, S.A.Peterson, and S.A. Nichols. 2005. Reservoir Stations Restoration and Management of Lakes and Reservoirs. 3rd x Changes on sampling for one ed., CRC Press, Boca Raton, Fl.) methodology to future data. phytoplankton analysis. x Changes on sampling to future modeling and 9 Under the prior sampling procedure, the photic zone calibration efforts. composites diluted the phytoplankton sample; therefore this historic sampling practice and procedure was not representative of the phytoplankton community in the reservoir.

9 The prior sampling approach leads to the inability to correlate phytoplankton to chlorophyll a concentrations and TP concentrations or zooplankton.

9 The monitoring refinement supports scientific basis and regulatory objectives to understand (or correlate) chlorophyll a and TP concentrations and protect the beneficial uses in the reservoir (recreation, aquatic life, water supply, and agriculture).

9 Database and annual reports will document and note changes to lab and methodology.

9 Models are adaptive and dynamic processes. As such, the model can be calibrated in the future with valid phytoplankton data and model is adjusted accordingly.

Page 39 of 31

Potential Issues and Refinement Justification 1 Implications

Changing While the phycology data may 9 Defensible data. Phycology from Phycotech laboratory phycology be more accurate or precise, provides the most reputable and valid phycological data by laboratories for the mere fact that the field using the inverted scope and focusing counts of biomass, cell counts and species based on full profile or entire phytoplankton sampling team and phycology spectrum of the sample (not just the bottom, like most labs); analyses. laboratory has changed will focusing on bottom only will miss blue greens because they result in different data and are typically found on top of sample. results from what was historically collected by 9 Reduces misinformation and data errors. Authority. 9 Phycotech provides reduced turnaround time (4-6 weeks). Timely data will support decision making and scientific understanding. What are the implications of changing labs and the 9 Splitting samples between prior phycology lab and differences between Phycotech is not cost effective; there will be a miscorrelation phytoplankton biomass, cell between chl-a and biomass. count, and # species? 9 Documentation in the database metadata and reports will clearly note changes in phycology lab and sampling methodology. Is there a concern of not performing split samples between the original and current phycology lab or is there merit to split samples?

1 The rationale to implement a proposed change while understanding (1) the potential impacts this change would have on meeting regulatory requirements & SAP objectives (2) evaluating long term trends, (3) ability to track water quality benefits of our current and future actions, (4) sampling procedures with a sound scientific and limnology basis, and (5) duplicative efforts and opportunities to reduce costs. Budget Impact: No budget impact of monitoring refinements proposed herein; better data results in better science and decision-making.

Project Partners: Protection of recreation and aquatic life uses are important to CPW, Tri-County Health and those visitors that use the reservoir for recreation and water contact. Protecting beneficial uses in the reservoir benefits local economies receiving dollars from residents and out of state visitors (BBC Research, 2008(BBC Research & Consulting, “The Economic Impacts of Hunting, Fishing and Wildlife Watching in Colorado, September, 2008))

Authority Nexus: Sound data to support Authority decision-making and meet regulatory requirements.

Page 40 of 31

Page 41 of 31

SAP Refinement - Background Memorandum

To: CCBWQA

From: Tetra Tech

Date: July 18, 2016

Subject: 2016 Sampling and Analysis Program Refinements – Discontinue De-stratification Profile Sampling

This memo provides the scientific basis and institutional history to support the proposed sampling and analysis program refinement(s) for discontinuing de-stratification profile sampling in Cherry Creek Reservoir, while addressing the potential issues and implications of these actions. Specific parameters in the 2016 Sampling and Analysis Program were reviewed by the TAC in March – May 2016. Based on review of data collected and analyzed by the Authority in accordance with the SAP, there are opportunities to refine the sampling and data collection effort to promote sound science and limnology. Refinements to the sampling and analysis program are important, recognizing that the program is dynamic and changes are needed from time to time based on:

These proposed refinement for discontinuing de-stratification profile sampling continue to support regulatory requirements and SAP objectives and provide defensible data to track ongoing water quality benefits of the Board’s current and future actions. The table below summarizes the refinement, potential issues and justification.

Page 42 of 31

Potential Issues and Refinement Justification 1 Implications

Discontinue de- Will we regret not 9 Ten-years of data are available from these de- stratification continuing to monitor at stratification transect locations (12 monitoring transect vertical these de-stratification sites), characterizing periods of aeration system operation and non-operation. Data analysis profile data at sites even though the supports discontinuance of D-transect data 12 monitoring system has not been collection during operation and non-operation. sites. operational since 2012? 9 The de-stratification profile transect data was evaluated by reservoir modelers and it did not provide critical data for the reservoir modeling. Remove from Do existing profile data (Hydros, Memo 3, September 2015). sampling and monitoring at the program, three reservoir 9 Through the existing monitoring procedure, similar particularly as monitoring stations profile data continue to be collected at 3 sampling the de- (CCR-1, CCR-2, and sites in the Reservoir (CCR-1, CCR-2 and CCR- stratification CCR-3) provide 3). system is not adequate data, operational. representative of the 9 The existing sampling procedure does not provide reservoir profiles at these value added data and information when the de- de-stratification sites? stratification system is not operating; it is not cost effective.

9 Regulatory water quality objectives are met under proposed recommendation.

9 Cost savings. 1 The rationale to implement a proposed change while understanding (1) the potential impacts this change would have on meeting regulatory requirements & SAP objectives (2) evaluating long term trends, (3) ability to track water quality benefits of our current and future actions, (4) sampling procedures with a sound scientific and limnology basis, and (5) duplicative efforts and opportunities to reduce costs. Budget Impact: Reduced level of staff monitoring effort during the June – September timeframe.

Project Partners: N/A

Authority Nexus: Cost effective refinement to support Authority decision-making and meet regulatory requirements.

Next Steps: Document and implement SAP refinements as approved by Board; include these approved changes, by addendum, in the field team sampling notebook (along with the SAP (2015);

Page 43 of 31

include discussion of these proposed changes in the 2016 monitoring report; incorporate these refinements and other potential updates in the future version of the SAP.

Page 44 of 31

SAP Refinement - Background Memorandum

To: CCBWQA

From: Tetra Tech

Date: August 8, 2016

Subject: 2016 Sampling and Analysis Program Refinements –Discontinue Sampling at MW-3C and Piney Creek Station

This memo provides the scientific basis and institutional history to support the proposed sampling and analysis program refinement(s) for discontinuing watershed sampling at groundwater monitoring site MW-3C (aka KOA well) and deleting reference to the Piney Creek monitoring station, as this monitoring site has not been constructed. Specific parameters in the 2016 Sampling and Analysis Program were reviewed by the TAC in March – May 2016, including the subject of this memo. Based on review of data collected and analyzed by the Authority in accordance with the SAP, there are opportunities to refine the sampling and data collection effort to promote sound science and cost efficiencies. Refinements to the sampling and analysis program are important, recognizing that the program is dynamic and changes are needed from time to time based on:

Discontinuing MW-3C and clarifying the Piney creek site does not exist, continues to support regulatory requirements and SAP objectives, while providing defensible data to track ongoing water quality benefits of the Board’s current and future actions. The table below summarizes the refinements, potential issues and justification.

Page 45 of 31

Potential Issues and Refinement Justification 1 Implications

Formally Do other groundwater 9 Geochemistry (phosphate) and depth to discontinue sites provide sufficient groundwater suggests this well is not reflective of groundwater data to characterize the alluvial groundwater sources. Monitoring MW- alluvium? 3c (historic KOA 9 No sampling access; last sampled in 2014. well site)

9 Other alluvial groundwater sites along Cherry creek provide sufficient data to characterize groundwater quality.

9 Cost savings. Delete None. Add to SAP when 9 SAP clarification. reference to site is installed. Piney Creek monitoring site, as it does not exist at this time.

Project Partners: N/A

Authority Nexus: Cost effective refinement to support Authority decision-making and meet regulatory requirements.

Page 46 of 31

2016 Cherry Creek Monitoring Report

APPENDIX C – SPLIT SAMPLE ANALYSIS

75 Cherry Creek Reservoir Split Sample Analysis: December 2016 Statistical Methods to Utilize for Determining Consistency between Laboratories

Purpose: Results Comparison between two Water Quality Laboratories (IEH and GEI) 1. Understand lab variability; 2. Understand data comparability. Laboratory performance for reporting of water quality results is evaluated by estimating precision between repeated measures of the same sample. Precision of laboratory performance is different than precision measured from replicate samples collected in the field. Precision in field replicates represents temporal variability (timing) in sample collection. These concepts are further described below by standard language included in a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) that describe elements of measurement quality objectives (EPA 2001; Section A7). Precision is the degree of agreement among repeated measurements of the same parameter and provides information about the consistency of methods. Precision is expressed in terms of the relative percent difference (RPD) between two measurements (A and B). For field measurements, precision is assessed by measuring replicate (paired) samples at the same locations and as soon as possible to limit temporal variance in sample results. Overall project precision is measured by collecting blind (to the laboratory) field replicate samples. Laboratory precision is determined similarly via analysis of laboratory duplicate samples. For paired and small data sets, project precision is calculated using the following formula: ሺܣെܤሻ כ ൌ ͳͲͲ ܦܴܲ ሺܣ൅ܤሻ ቀ ൗʹቁ Where: RPD = relative percent difference A = primary sample B = replicate field sample or laboratory duplicate sample

Note: Precision is agreement among repeated measures by using the same instrument to make those measurements and hopefully the same analyst that runs the instrument. All aspects of the analytical process are held constant when determining concentrations in the split sample or in field replicates.

Determining Differences between Laboratory Results Comparison of results generated by two independent laboratories uses a parametric statistic for determining if both are identical or if results from analyzing the same water sample are significantly different. This comparison is different from estimating precision within a laboratory. Results generated independently by each laboratory using the same water sample is a measure of difference, if any, in laboratory performance. Results generated from individual laboratories represent the combined within-laboratory error (e.g., precision, accuracy, bias, et al.). Laboratory split samples were provided to IEH and GEI during each water sample date. Results for each split sample were reported and compared. Further comparison of these pairs of results Cherry Creek Reservoir Split Sample Analysis: December 2016 Statistical Methods to Utilize for Determining Consistency between Laboratories should be made for each parameter using a parametric statistic (Analysis of Variance: pairwise comparisons). The goal for this approach is to determine if both laboratories are generating identical results and, if not, is there a consistent bias between the laboratories. The utility for identifying bias would be used to construct a “correction factor” that could re-express results for individual parameters and then combine data from both laboratories. Statistical design for evaluating data results from each laboratory following analysis of split samples is as follows:

Total Phosphorus Sampling Results (mg/L) Sample Effects Laboratory Effects a) Sample Site b) Sample Date c) IEH d) GEI CCR-1 Photic 05/24/2016 0.080 0.050 CCR-2 Photic 05/24/2016 0.058 0.048 CCR-3 Photic 05/24/2016 0.063 0.051 CCR-1 Photic 09/27/2016 0.104 0.118 CCR-2 Photic 09/27/2016 0.109 0.103 CCR-3 Photic 09/27/2016 0.102 0.115

Steps for analysis of pairs of results for each sampling date: 1) ANOVA: Pairwise Comparison a. Comparison of results c) and d); determine if the difference between each pair is significant. 2) Determine if a) sample site or b) sample date has an effect on the outcome of the pairwise analysis. 3) Describe the relationship between laboratory results if significantly different (e.g., regression analysis). 4) If secondary effects from date or sample site, partition data set into multiple sets before developing a regression function. Some of the parameters can show high variability in the environment; spatially and temporally. If this is the case, then an alternative non-parametric statistic for use with paired data from the two laboratories would be the following: Wilcoxon Ranks Test (comparing pairs of variables; non-parametric test)

Factors Explaining Differences between Laboratory Results Pairs of results from each laboratory are compared and statistically analyzed to identify a significant difference, if one exists. A significant difference between paired results for samples from the two laboratories means there is one or more factors that provide an explanation that include the following: a) Different Analytical Methods; b) Effect of Inconsistent Detection Limits between laboratories; or c) Field Sampling Technique and Sample Container types. Cherry Creek Reservoir Split Sample Analysis: December 2016 Statistical Methods to Utilize for Determining Consistency between Laboratories

The value in determining the factor(s) that cause differences in analytical results is to identify how changes can be made in the laboratory setting to begin generating results with greater accuracy. This way both sets of data can be combined and used for analysis of conditions. Analytical methods and detection limits are listed in the following Table for identification of potential factors that cause differences in paired samples. Analytical Methods and Data Quality Objectives

WQ Laboratory Method Detection Parameter Limit (mg/L) Total IEH SM18 4500PF 0.002 Phosphorus GEI Total IEH SM18 4500PF 0.002 Dissolved GEI Phosphorus Soluble IEH SM18 4500PF 0.001 Reactive GEI Phosphorus Ammonia IEH SM18 4500NH3H 0.010 GEI NO3+NO2-N IEH SM184500N03F 0.010 GEI Total IEH SM204500NC 0.050 Nitrogen GEI Dissolved IEH SM204500NC 0.050 Nitrogen GEI Chlorophyll a IEH SM10200 H 0.10 GEI SM10200 H 0.10 (modified)

Conclusion Comparison of results between laboratories should be completed for each water quality parameter in 2017, after another season of split samples are collected to provide a suitable sample size for statistical analysis. Should significant differences be identified, determination for accuracy of each data set should be made. If possible, the data set with results further from the known concentration(s) should be corrected and can be combined for further use. References EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2001. EPA Requirements for Quality Assurance Project Plans (QA/R-5), EPA/240/B-01/003, Office of Environmental Information. Washington, D.C. 40p.

2016 Cherry Creek Monitoring Report

APPENDIX D – EQUATIONS AND HYDROGRAPHS

76 WY2016 - Cherry Creek Reservoir Discharge - CC-outflow Day October November December January February March April May June July August September 1 3.2 36 38 25 23 25 70 56 155 3.9 18 4.7 2 3.2 36 38 24 24 20 71 108 49 4.9 18 4.8 3 3 11 34 25 23 20 74 146 45 4.3 14 4.8 4 3 0.79 31 25 27 21 73 142 46 4.2 11 4.7 5 3.1 1.4 31 25 31 21 74 149 47 17 11 4.7 6 1.8 0.6 31 25 31 21 71 153 49 38 11 4.7 7 0.45 0.54 30 25 31 22 72 157 48 37 11 22 8 0.33 0.58 30 24 31 21 52 159 48 37 11 34 9 0.31 0.59 30 24 24 21 35 111 48 37 6.6 35 100.378.728242021354148374.335 11 0.42 23 26 24 20 21 35 41 49 37 4.4 35 12 0.48 22 27 25 20 22 35 42 48 31 4.3 36 13 0.52 22 26 24 20 22 36 44 52 20 4.4 35 14 0.52 22 26 24 20 22 36 45 51 20 4.4 23 15 0.58 22 26 24 20 22 37 45 56 21 4.3 13 160.62426242021394762204.413 17 0.65 30 26 24 20 21 40 45 62 20 4.3 14 18 0.65 38 27 24 25 21 66 45 62 21 4.4 14 19 0.63 38 26 24 30 20 89 44 62 22 4.4 13 20 0.64 38 26 23 30 20 133 44 62 18 4.3 12 21 1.7 38 26 24 30 20 186 43 43 18 4.2 9.1 22 2.2 38 26 24 31 20 184 42 29 18 4.2 9.4 23 0.81 38 26 24 31 21 185 19 29 18 4.2 9.2 24 0.48 38 26 24 31 21 187 2.2 28 18 4.3 9.4 25 0.57 38 26 24 31 40 183 2 28 18 4.3 9.6 26 19 38 25 23 31 54 116 1.7 28 18 4.3 9.8 27 34 38 25 23 31 55 53 20 16 18 4.3 12 28 35 38 24 22 31 54 54 43 4.4 18 4.3 14 29 36 38 25 23 31 64 56 44 3.9 18 4.8 14 30 36 38 25 23 71 56 43 3.9 18 4.9 14 31 36 25 23 69 43 18 4.9 WY 2016 - Cottonwood Creek Streamflows at CT-2 Day October November December January February March April May June July August September 1 2.2 0.4 2.6 1.4 2.1 0.9 17.5 27.2 13.6 11.8 0.2 31.6 2 1.8 0.4 1.5 1.4 2.9 1.0 11.7 26.1 17.8 18.6 0.2 5.5 3 1.6 0.7 1.6 0.1 1.7 0.9 7.3 24.2 7.1 6.4 0.2 3.6 4 1.5 0.8 1.6 0.3 2.0 0.8 6.3 18.8 4.5 2.6 0.2 3.0 5 1.7 11.6 2.2 0.9 2.1 0.5 4.8 10.4 3.5 2.0 0.2 2.7 6 0.5 11.3 1.1 0.7 1.8 1.6 3.8 6.9 4.0 2.0 0.2 2.6 7 1.1 2.1 1.1 1.0 1.7 1.1 3.7 5.8 27.4 2.0 0.2 2.8 8 1.7 1.0 1.3 1.9 1.9 10.1 3.7 6.9 28.4 1.8 0.2 2.6 9 1.4 0.7 1.7 1.4 2.5 2.8 3.1 6.0 25.5 1.7 1.8 2.7 10 1.2 0.7 1.6 0.8 4.5 0.9 3.0 5.5 4.1 1.6 2.1 2.5 11 1.1 4.3 1.4 0.9 6.6 0.6 7.4 5.4 2.9 1.7 1.6 2.4 12 1.6 13.5 1.3 0.8 4.4 0.6 6.2 4.5 2.9 1.7 1.4 3.0 13 1.7 4.4 1.6 1.0 3.0 0.2 15.1 3.9 4.9 1.8 1.2 5.8 14 1.8 2.3 2.1 1.2 2.3 0.3 12.9 3.1 24.9 1.9 0.9 3.0 15 1.8 1.5 1.8 1.2 1.8 0.2 4.9 2.7 6.7 2.9 0.9 2.3 16 1.7 1.4 1.2 0.5 2.0 1.5 37.2 4.3 2.9 2.2 1.0 1.9 17 1.8 15.4 1.3 0.3 2.0 1.6 29.2 22.1 2.4 1.9 1.0 1.7 18 1.7 21.7 1.1 1.7 1.7 2.6 49.1 22.9 2.1 2.8 1.1 1.4 19 1.7 19.7 2.1 2.0 1.8 3.8 47.0 14.1 2.1 3.5 1.4 1.5 20 1.7 10.8 4.2 2.0 1.2 1.3 46.3 2.7 2.2 2.3 1.7 1.6 21 21.0 4.6 4.0 2.0 0.9 1.3 45.2 1.4 2.5 2.2 1.3 1.4 22 26.4 4.0 2.4 2.1 1.2 0.4 42.9 0.9 2.5 2.0 1.2 1.1 23 27.9 3.2 1.6 2.2 1.8 2.3 26.2 1.1 3.1 1.9 1.3 1.3 24 17.3 3.2 1.1 2.2 1.9 24.8 10.5 1.2 2.8 1.8 1.3 1.2 25 2.9 3.0 0.6 2.1 1.9 26.4 7.4 1.4 2.6 1.8 1.7 1.0 26 1.6 1.7 0.2 1.8 1.5 25.2 10.3 1.9 2.3 1.8 2.2 1.4 27 1.3 1.1 0.3 0.3 1.3 18.7 6.9 15.5 1.9 1.8 1.5 1.5 28 1.0 1.6 0.4 1.0 0.9 16.1 5.1 19.3 4.1 2.0 1.1 1.5 29 1.0 1.1 0.6 1.1 1.0 22.7 12.7 7.3 7.6 2.1 2.3 1.8 30 1.1 1.4 0.2 1.1 18.1 27.6 3.5 3.7 0.2 9.9 1.8 31 0.7 0.3 1.4 17.2 4.7 0.2 57.0 WY 2016 - Cherry Creek Streamflow at CC-10 Day October November December January February March April May June July August September 1 7.0 5.4 16.6 14.8 24.1 17.2 47.1 82.2 25.6 26.1 11.1 53.2 2 7.7 7.7 16.0 15.4 26.6 16.0 39.1 77.3 68.3 31.4 10.5 30.9 3 7.7 9.8 16.0 15.4 16.0 15.4 31.9 55.5 34.2 44.6 11.1 20.5 4 9.8 17.2 17.2 16.0 15.4 15.4 29.1 54.0 23.1 31.9 9.8 17.7 5 9.1 28.1 16.6 17.2 16.6 16.0 27.1 55.1 21.5 26.6 11.8 17.7 6 8.4 19.4 14.8 17.2 16.6 15.4 25.6 46.3 21.5 21.5 13.0 16.6 7 11.8 13.6 16.0 19.9 16.6 26.6 23.6 40.4 34.6 18.3 11.1 13.6 8 14.8 12.4 18.3 20.5 17.7 24.1 24.1 36.4 62.0 17.2 12.4 14.3 9 9.8 13.6 19.9 18.3 18.8 18.3 19.4 34.6 55.9 17.7 13.6 16.0 10 7.7 18.8 20.5 17.7 20.5 16.6 17.2 31.4 41.7 14.3 10.5 16.0 11 7.0 25.1 23.1 16.0 23.6 16.6 17.7 28.1 29.5 12.4 11.1 11.8 12 7.0 23.6 23.6 14.8 23.1 16.6 18.3 30.5 22.1 13.0 11.8 14.3 13 8.4 18.3 19.9 16.0 22.6 0.0 19.9 28.6 21.5 12.4 11.1 18.8 14 7.0 16.0 20.5 16.6 21.5 16.0 19.9 24.1 24.1 11.1 11.1 21.0 15 6.2 16.6 30.5 16.6 19.4 16.6 19.4 22.1 74.1 11.8 10.5 17.2 16 7.0 34.2 18.3 16.6 18.3 14.8 20.5 22.1 53.2 17.2 9.1 13.0 17 8.4 40.8 17.7 16.0 18.3 14.3 60.1 36.9 28.6 18.3 9.1 13.6 18 7.7 37.3 16.0 15.4 19.9 17.7 69.8 51.6 24.6 14.3 9.1 13.6 19 7.7 37.8 20.5 16.6 16.0 23.6 70.5 40.0 21.0 12.4 9.1 12.4 20 7.7 28.6 26.1 16.6 19.9 21.5 67.2 30.5 18.8 15.4 9.8 11.8 21 9.8 20.5 24.1 16.6 21.5 18.8 80.8 25.1 19.9 16.6 10.5 11.1 22 29.5 17.7 23.1 16.6 21.5 16.6 80.8 20.5 16.6 16.6 9.8 11.8 23 52.0 19.4 22.1 16.6 21.0 17.7 80.4 19.4 16.0 15.4 9.8 11.1 24 52.4 18.3 21.0 16.6 20.5 51.2 68.3 19.9 22.1 13.6 11.1 13.0 25 25.1 18.3 19.9 16.0 17.2 29.5 51.2 18.8 20.5 12.4 9.8 9.1 26 13.6 18.8 17.7 16.0 16.6 55.9 41.2 17.7 15.4 11.1 11.8 9.8 27 9.8 16.6 15.4 16.0 16.6 49.6 40.4 28.1 10.5 11.8 13.6 10.5 28 7.7 14.8 15.4 16.0 16.6 38.6 36.4 67.2 11.8 13.0 13.6 10.5 29 6.2 17.7 14.8 16.6 16.6 38.2 36.4 49.6 18.3 11.8 13.6 11.8 30 5.4 18.8 14.8 18.3 49.2 56.3 33.7 26.1 12.4 13.0 11.1 31 7.0 14.8 19.4 49.6 26.1 12.4 32.3 CC-10 WY2016 Flow 90

Flow (cfs) 40

0 CCWQA vs USACE for % Valid >80% 120 y = 1.589x0.759 R² = 0.7262 100

60 CC-10 Data (cfs) CC-10 Data 40

0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 USACE Cherry Creek Reservoir Inflow (cfs) CT-2 WY2016 Flow

30 FLow (cfs)

2016 Cherry Creek Monitoring Report

APPENDIX E – USACE DATA

77 USACE Data - Cherry Creek Inflow Day October November December January February March April May June July August September 1 7 5 22 19 36 23 87 181 39 40 13 102 2 8 8 21 20 41 21 68 167 142 51 12 50 3 8 11 21 20 21 20 52 108 57 81 13 29 4 11 23 23 21 20 20 46 104 34 52 11 24 5 10 44 22 23 22 21 42 107 31 41 14 24 6 9 27 19 23 22 20 39 85 31 31 16 22 7 141721282241357158251317 8 19 15 25 29 24 36 36 62 125 23 15 18 9 11 17 28 25 26 25 27 58 109 24 17 21 1082629242922235174181221 1173834213522244447151314 1273535193422254932161418 1392528213322284531151326 1472129223121283636131330 15 6 22 49 22 27 22 27 32 158 14 12 23 16 7 57 25 22 25 19 29 32 102 23 10 16 17 9 72 24 21 25 18 120 63 45 25 10 17 18 8 64 21 20 28 24 146 98 37 18 10 17 19 8 65 29 22 21 35 148 70 30 15 10 15 20 8 45 40 22 28 31 139 49 26 20 11 14 21 11 29 36 22 31 26 177 38 28 22 12 13 22 47 24 34 22 31 22 177 29 22 22 11 14 23 99 27 32 22 30 24 176 27 21 20 11 13 24 100 25 30 22 29 97 142 28 32 17 13 16 25 38 25 28 21 23 47 97 26 29 15 11 10 26 17 26 24 21 22 109 73 24 20 13 14 11 27 11 22 20 21 22 93 71 44 12 14 17 12 28 8 19 20 21 22 67 62 139 14 16 17 12 2962419222266629325141714 30 5 26 19 25 92 110 56 40 15 16 13 317192793401553 USACE Cherry Creek Pool Elevation Day October November December January February March April May June July August September 1 5549.7 5550.2 5550.3 5550.3 5550.2 5550.0 5550.7 5550.7 5550.6 5550.2 5549.9 5550.1 2 5549.7 5550.1 5550.3 5550.3 5550.2 5550.0 5550.7 5550.9 5550.4 5550.3 5549.8 5550.2 3 5549.7 5550.0 5550.3 5550.3 5550.2 5550.0 5550.6 5550.9 5550.4 5550.4 5549.8 5550.2 4 5549.7 5550.1 5550.2 5550.3 5550.2 5550.0 5550.5 5550.8 5550.4 5550.5 5549.8 5550.3 5 5549.7 5550.2 5550.2 5550.3 5550.2 5550.0 5550.4 5550.8 5550.3 5550.6 5549.8 5550.3 6 5549.7 5550.2 5550.2 5550.3 5550.1 5550.0 5550.3 5550.6 5550.2 5550.6 5549.8 5550.3 7 5549.7 5550.3 5550.2 5550.3 5550.1 5550.1 5550.2 5550.5 5550.3 5550.6 5549.8 5550.3 8 5549.8 5550.3 5550.2 5550.3 5550.1 5550.1 5550.1 5550.3 5550.4 5550.5 5549.8 5550.3 9 5549.8 5550.3 5550.2 5550.3 5550.1 5550.1 5550.0 5550.1 5550.5 5550.5 5549.8 5550.2 10 5549.8 5550.4 5550.2 5550.3 5550.1 5550.1 5550.0 5550.0 5550.6 5550.4 5549.8 5550.2 11 5549.8 5550.4 5550.2 5550.3 5550.1 5550.1 5550.0 5550.0 5550.5 5550.3 5549.8 5550.1 12 5549.8 5550.4 5550.2 5550.2 5550.2 5550.1 5550.0 5550.0 5550.5 5550.2 5549.8 5550.0 13 5549.8 5550.4 5550.2 5550.2 5550.2 5550.1 5550.0 5550.0 5550.4 5550.2 5549.8 5550.0 14 5549.8 5550.4 5550.2 5550.2 5550.2 5550.1 5550.0 5550.0 5550.4 5550.1 5549.8 5549.9 15 5549.8 5550.4 5550.3 5550.2 5550.3 5550.1 5550.1 5550.0 5550.6 5550.1 5549.8 5549.9 16 5549.8 5550.5 5550.3 5550.2 5550.3 5550.1 5550.1 5549.9 5550.7 5550.1 5549.8 5549.9 17 5549.8 5550.6 5550.2 5550.2 5550.3 5550.1 5550.3 5550.0 5550.6 5550.1 5549.8 5549.9 18 5549.8 5550.7 5550.2 5550.2 5550.3 5550.1 5550.5 5550.1 5550.5 5550.1 5549.8 5549.9 19 5549.8 5550.7 5550.2 5550.2 5550.3 5550.1 5550.7 5550.2 5550.4 5550.1 5549.7 5549.9 20 5549.8 5550.7 5550.3 5550.2 5550.2 5550.2 5550.8 5550.2 5550.3 5550.0 5549.7 5549.9 21 5549.9 5550.7 5550.3 5550.2 5550.2 5550.2 5550.9 5550.2 5550.2 5550.0 5549.7 5549.8 22 5550.0 5550.7 5550.3 5550.2 5550.2 5550.2 5550.9 5550.1 5550.1 5550.0 5549.7 5549.8 23 5550.2 5550.6 5550.4 5550.2 5550.2 5550.3 5550.9 5550.1 5550.1 5550.0 5549.7 5549.8 24 5550.4 5550.6 5550.4 5550.2 5550.2 5550.4 5550.8 5550.1 5550.1 5550.0 5549.7 5549.8 25 5550.5 5550.6 5550.4 5550.2 5550.2 5550.5 5550.6 5550.2 5550.1 5550.0 5549.7 5549.8 26 5550.5 5550.5 5550.4 5550.2 5550.1 5550.6 5550.4 5550.2 5550.1 5550.0 5549.7 5549.8 27 5550.5 5550.5 5550.4 5550.2 5550.1 5550.6 5550.3 5550.3 5550.0 5550.0 5549.7 5549.8 28 5550.4 5550.4 5550.3 5550.1 5550.1 5550.6 5550.3 5550.6 5550.0 5549.9 5549.8 5549.8 29 5550.4 5550.4 5550.3 5550.1 5550.1 5550.7 5550.3 5550.7 5550.0 5549.9 5549.8 5549.8 30 5550.3 5550.4 5550.3 5550.1 5550.7 5550.4 5550.7 5550.1 5549.9 5549.8 5549.8 31 5550.3 5550.3 5550.2 5550.6 5549.9 5549.9 USACE - Cherry Creek Storage Day October November December January February March April May June July August September 1 12324.8 12720.1 12836.8 12809.7 12710.3 12599.1 13161.0 13116.7 13055.9 12706.5 12448.5 12637.6 2 12321.5 12609.8 12800.7 12798.9 12741.9 12596.8 13131.1 13323.7 12906.0 12786.8 12430.4 12714.9 3 12319.1 12599.6 12773.3 12788.0 12735.2 12595.2 13070.2 13342.9 12907.0 12926.2 12413.9 12747.8 4 12318.5 12635.5 12759.2 12779.5 12716.3 12593.5 12997.4 13272.0 12865.8 13005.1 12398.8 12773.9 5 12318.5 12715.7 12742.3 12773.9 12692.8 12592.6 12918.5 13208.6 12818.0 13057.5 12388.9 12796.2 6 12318.5 12760.6 12719.5 12771.5 12670.2 12592.2 12828.1 13100.9 12769.4 13074.8 12384.9 12815.2 7 12336.2 12786.7 12700.8 12779.3 12647.5 12631.0 12730.9 12966.6 12773.1 13035.0 12382.9 12831.3 8 12364.7 12810.6 12691.6 12787.4 12628.5 12661.8 12639.1 12815.9 12909.0 12988.3 12380.8 12810.7 9 12376.7 12837.7 12686.5 12788.6 12628.2 12668.5 12590.4 12652.9 13013.1 12942.0 12379.4 12760.7 10 12385.1 12865.3 12688.5 12787.3 12647.4 12669.0 12585.9 12549.9 13047.7 12888.4 12379.4 12705.0 11 12391.0 12892.5 12704.7 12780.8 12678.3 12669.0 12584.4 12553.3 13026.5 12823.7 12381.8 12649.4 12 12394.2 12917.8 12723.8 12770.6 12706.8 12669.0 12585.3 12562.8 12974.8 12760.9 12384.5 12593.8 13 12397.0 12925.2 12729.0 12764.7 12734.3 12668.6 12591.0 12564.1 12926.1 12708.9 12384.8 12548.5 14 12399.9 12925.2 12736.2 12760.3 12757.5 12665.1 12597.6 12547.5 12886.5 12679.7 12381.2 12515.7 15 12402.8 12925.2 12780.0 12756.4 12772.4 12651.8 12601.0 12525.7 13077.9 12651.7 12376.1 12493.3 16 12405.8 12995.2 12775.5 12751.9 12784.3 12638.6 12605.2 12504.6 13140.8 12643.8 12370.8 12480.9 17 12410.4 13076.9 12769.2 12744.8 12796.2 12640.8 12786.2 12545.5 13074.4 12641.2 12363.8 12471.2 18 12416.7 13117.6 12762.8 12736.1 12799.9 12666.4 13020.2 12655.6 12999.6 12623.5 12356.8 12461.7 19 12423.8 13164.3 12770.9 12730.7 12773.1 12683.6 13193.0 12706.5 12905.0 12601.2 12350.6 12450.6 20 12432.0 13172.5 12801.3 12726.2 12759.9 12690.8 13265.8 12718.0 12806.0 12592.0 12346.1 12437.2 21 12446.4 13148.1 12823.8 12721.5 12753.1 12693.6 13352.2 12706.7 12714.8 12594.1 12342.9 12427.1 22 12533.2 13117.0 12842.5 12716.6 12745.6 12694.6 13350.9 12675.3 12656.6 12595.0 12339.5 12423.5 23 12723.4 13091.9 12856.8 12711.7 12737.6 12839.9 13345.1 12640.9 12636.8 12589.1 12336.4 12421.5 24 12912.1 13062.7 12867.7 12706.9 12727.9 12889.4 13271.4 12653.3 12641.1 12578.7 12334.8 12412.3 25 12977.1 13034.4 12873.6 12700.7 12705.8 13018.3 13109.3 12698.4 12638.7 12562.9 12334.8 12398.1 26 13002.9 13004.1 12871.2 12694.2 12681.0 13080.3 12900.1 12737.8 12617.0 12540.0 12337.2 12388.3 27 12988.0 12968.0 12862.6 12687.7 12656.2 13087.4 12792.1 12818.3 12579.6 12523.6 12346.9 12381.6 28 12936.3 12927.9 12853.2 12681.5 12631.5 13095.6 12791.2 13044.7 12566.5 12511.1 12356.8 12374.0 29 12882.3 12898.3 12842.3 12677.4 12607.3 13136.0 12790.0 13118.2 12593.2 12497.6 12366.7 12363.6 30 12827.7 12870.8 12831.5 12679.5 13154.5 12885.7 13118.5 12651.0 12484.1 12372.9 12351.0 31 12775.7 12820.6 12686.3 13087.9 12466.6 12457.7 USACE - Cherry Creek Evaporation Day October November December January February March April May June July August September 1 3.9 4.9 2.7 0.6 0.8 2.0 3.1 6.1 4.8 7.2 7.8 6.0 2 4.0 3.2 1.5 0.6 0.8 3.5 3.3 4.1 3.8 4.7 8.0 6.4 3 4.0 6.9 2.0 0.6 0.8 1.9 2.8 3.0 4.5 6.4 7.6 5.3 4 6.0 4.5 0.9 0.6 0.8 1.8 2.1 3.1 4.2 8.0 7.7 5.6 5 5.4 3.4 1.3 0.6 0.8 2.6 1.4 2.9 4.5 10.0 9.7 8.1 6 4.2 4.8 1.4 0.6 0.8 1.5 4.5 2.6 4.9 7.0 8.6 7.4 7 3.1 3.9 1.4 0.6 0.8 2.5 4.0 2.4 5.6 7.4 5.2 4.2 8 4.6 2.5 1.0 0.6 0.8 1.7 2.2 2.3 5.5 8.8 7.0 5.8 9 4.7 3.4 1.5 0.6 0.8 2.2 2.4 4.4 5.7 10.0 8.6 6.0 10 4.2 4.9 2.0 0.6 0.8 2.7 2.5 3.3 6.0 7.7 6.7 9.4 11 4.2 5.5 1.7 0.6 0.8 2.4 2.0 2.6 7.4 9.8 6.3 2.7 12 5.8 3.5 1.6 0.6 0.8 2.5 1.7 4.1 7.7 10.0 7.2 6.2 13 7.6 2.7 1.6 0.6 0.8 2.5 2.0 4.5 4.5 9.6 8.1 9.2 14 5.1 2.0 1.4 0.6 0.8 4.6 1.6 4.2 5.3 8.9 10.1 7.2 15 4.5 2.7 3.4 0.6 0.8 6.5 2.0 3.6 10.6 8.8 9.8 8.1 16 5.9 3.0 3.0 0.6 0.8 5.5 3.6 3.0 9.7 8.0 8.1 7.8 17 6.8 4.0 3.2 0.6 0.8 3.9 5.8 3.1 8.8 7.2 9.1 7.8 18 4.9 5.3 0.7 0.6 0.8 3.6 4.6 3.0 5.7 7.4 8.3 7.8 19 4.0 3.9 0.7 0.6 0.8 3.7 2.6 4.7 8.5 6.6 7.8 6.4 20 3.6 3.0 0.7 0.6 0.8 3.5 2.9 3.5 6.4 6.9 8.4 6.6 21 3.8 3.2 0.7 0.6 0.8 1.7 2.6 3.7 5.1 6.6 8.1 5.6 22 3.7 1.8 0.7 0.6 0.8 4.0 2.4 5.4 7.7 7.1 7.3 6.4 23 3.1 1.7 0.7 0.6 0.8 4.6 2.8 4.9 8.2 8.2 7.4 4.5 24 4.8 1.8 0.7 0.6 0.8 3.1 3.7 5.0 6.9 7.4 9.0 11.0 25 5.1 1.8 0.7 0.6 0.8 3.0 3.5 3.4 7.5 8.5 6.4 8.3 26 3.9 3.0 0.7 0.6 0.8 3.3 4.1 4.3 8.1 9.6 7.3 6.8 27 4.1 2.5 0.7 0.6 0.8 4.3 4.6 3.5 7.7 8.2 6.7 6.2 28 5.8 1.9 0.7 0.6 0.8 2.9 4.3 5.5 7.3 7.5 6.6 4.3 29 4.8 1.6 0.7 0.6 0.8 1.7 3.7 5.0 7.1 6.3 6.7 5.2 30 4.1 2.6 0.7 0.6 3.2 3.0 4.6 6.6 7.2 7.4 5.4 31 4.5 0.7 0.6 4.9 9.5 5.4 2016 Cherry Creek Monitoring Report

APPENDIX F – WATER QUALITY RESULTS

78 Cottonwood Creek Combined PRF Effectivess, WY2016 Loading Analysis

Total Nitrogen CT-P1 CT-2 ∆ Date Flow (cfs) Conc (mg/L) Load (#/day) Flow (cfs) Conc (mg/L) Load (#/day) Flow (cfs) Load (#/day) 3/16/2016 0.86 1.1 5.1 0 1.8 0.0 -0.9 -5.1 4/12/2016 3.4 0.87 16.0 5.22 1.3 35.2 1.8 19.2 5/11/2016 1.7 1.5 13.5 5.60 2.6 78.5 3.9 65.0 6/14/2016 13 1.7 112 17.0 1.8 162 4.5 50.7 7/12/2016 0.93 1.3 6.3 1.57 1.1 9.2 0.6 2.9 8/9/2016 0.94 1.3 6.5 3.73 0.95 19.2 2.8 12.7 9/13/2016 2.0 1.6 17.6 4.86 2.0 51.6 2.9 34.0

Total Phosphorus CT-P1 CT-2 ∆ Date Flow (cfs) Conc (mg/L) Load (#/day) Flow (cfs) Conc (mg/L) Load (#/day) Flow (cfs) Load (#/day) 3/16/2016 0.86 0.058 0.27 0 0.063 0 -0.9 -0.3 4/12/2016 3.4 0.061 1.1 5.22 0.050 1.4 1.8 0.3 5/11/2016 1.7 0.046 0.42 5.60 0.069 2.1 3.9 1.7 6/14/2016 13 0.185 12.5 17.0 0.075 6.9 4.5 -5.6 7/12/2016 0.93 0.031 0.16 1.57 0.033 0.28 0.6 0.1 8/9/2016 0.94 0.041 0.21 3.73 0.043 0.87 2.8 0.7 9/13/2016 2.0 0.078 0.84 4.86 0.067 1.8 2.9 0.9

Total Suspended Solids (TSS) CT-P1 CT-2 ∆ Date Flow (cfs) Conc (mg/L) Load (#/day) Flow (cfs) Conc (mg/L) Load (#/day) Flow (cfs) Load (#/day) 3/16/2016 0.86 16 74.2 0 21 0 -0.9 -74.2 4/12/2016 3.4 9.2 169 5.22 13 366 1.8 198 5/11/2016 1.7 3.0 27.2 5.60 14 423 3.9 395 6/14/2016 13 64 4329 17.0 9.2 844 4.5 -3485 7/12/2016 0.93 16 80.3 1.57 4.0 33.9 0.64 -46.3 8/9/2016 0.94 12 60.8 3.73 6.7 135 2.8 74.0 9/13/2016 2.0 21 225 4.86 20 524 2.9 299 McMurdo Gulch PRF Effectivess, WY2016 Loading Analysis

Total Nitrogen MCM-1 MCM-2 ∆ Date Flow (cfs) Conc (mg/L) Load (#/day) Flow (cfs) Conc (mg/L) Load (#/day) Flow (cfs) Load (#/day) 3/16/2016 0.2 0.45 0.49 0.2 0.22 0.24 0.0 -0.2 4/12/2016 0.2 0.42 0.45 0.4 0.54 1.17 0.2 0.71 5/11/2016 0.3 0.49 0.79 1 0.45 2.4 0.7 1.6 6/14/2016 1.946 0.926 9.7 5.910 1.6 52.0 4.0 42.2 7/12/2016 0.278 1.77 2.7 0.547 1.6 4.75 0.3 2.1 8/9/2016 0.194 0.491 0.51 0.578 0.58 1.80 0.4 1.3 9/13/2016 0.150 0.571 0.46 0.460 0.50 1.25 0.3 0.8

Total Phosphorus MCM-1 MCM-2 ∆ Date Flow (cfs) Conc (mg/L) Load (#/day) Flow (cfs) Conc (mg/L) Load (#/day) Flow (cfs) Load (#/day) 3/16/2016 0.2 0.281 0.30 0.2 0.211 0.23 0.0 -0.1 4/12/2016 0.2 0.398 0.43 0.4 0.284 0.61 0.2 0.18 5/11/2016 0.3 3.340 5.4 1 0.230 1.2 0.7 -4.2 6/14/2016 1.946 0.367 3.9 5.910 0.454 14 4.0 10.6 7/12/2016 0.278 0.524 0.79 0.547 0.371 1.1 0.3 0.31 8/9/2016 0.194 0.457 0.48 0.578 0.289 0.90 0.4 0.42 9/13/2016 0.150 0.439 0.36 0.460 0.310 0.77 0.3 0.41

Total Suspended Solids (TSS) MCM-1 MCM-2 ∆ Date Flow (cfs) Conc (mg/L) Load (#/day) Flow (cfs) Conc (mg/L) Load (#/day) Flow (cfs) Load (#/day) 3/16/2016 0.2 1.0 1.1 0.2 1 1.1 0.0 0.00 4/12/2016 0.2 1.1 1.2 0.4 1 2.2 0.2 0.92 5/11/2016 0.3 1.0 1.6 1 1 5.4 0.7 3.8 6/14/2016 1.946 63.0 661 5.910 268 8543 4.0 7882 7/12/2016 0.278 5.3 7.9 0.547 1.6 4.7 0.3 -3.2 8/9/2016 0.194 2.1 2.2 0.578 0.5 1.6 0.4 -0.64 9/13/2016 0.150 1.7 1.4 0.460 2.5 6.2 0.3 4.8 2016 Cherry Creek Monitoring Report

APPENDIX G – PHYCOLOGY DATA

79 Algae Analysis with Biovolume Estimates Report and Data Set

Customer ID: 327 Tracking Code: 160001-327 Sample ID: CCR - Photic Composite Replicate: 1 Customer ID: 327 Sample Date: 3/16/2016 Sample Level: Composite Job ID: 1 Station: . Sample Depth: 0

System Name: Cherry Creek Site: CCR Photic Composite Preservative: Lugols Report Notes: .

Division: Bacillariophyta

Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Form Morph Structure GALD Count Relative Total Relative μm NU/ml Count Biovolume Total μm^3 /ml Biovolume 1432 Aulacoseira granulata . . . straight Vegetative 202.00 5.113 0.00 23,899.813 0.94

1210 Navicula spp . . . . Vegetative 24.00 20.451 0.01 6,938.944 0.27

1221 Nitzschia acicularis . . . . Vegetative 84.00 84.692 0.05 21,285.515 0.84

1293 Stephanodiscus niagarae . . . . Vegetative 28.00 20.451 0.01 176,300.571 6.97

Summary for Division ~ Bacillariophyta (4 detail records) Sum Total Bacillariophyta 130.707 0.07 228,424.843 9.03

Division: Chlorophyta

Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Form Morph Structure GALD Count Relative Total Relative μm NU/ml Count Biovolume Total μm^3 /ml Biovolume 2683 *Chlorococcaceae spp . . . 2-9.9 um spherical Vegetative 2.00 1,020.526 0.55 4,787.694 0.19

1000031 Ankistrodesmus falcatus . . . straight Vegetative 14.00 1,020.526 0.55 13,393.786 0.53

2080 Chlamydomonas spp . . . . Vegetative 8.67 169.385 0.09 79,496.670 3.14

2193 Crucigenia tetrapedia . . . . Vegetative 11.20 510.263 0.28 37,620.655 1.49

2861 Monomastix astigmata . . . . Vegetative 4.00 510.263 0.28 2,137.389 0.08

2031 Monoraphidium arcuatum . . . monoraphidiod Vegetative 21.00 6,633.416 3.60 127,553.962 5.04

8041 Monoraphidium capricornutum . . . . Vegetative 4.00 1,530.788 0.83 6,460.692 0.26

2363 Oocystis parva . . . . Vegetative 14.00 338.770 0.18 69,059.690 2.73

; = Identification is Uncertain 160001-327 Monday, June 13, 2016 * = Family Level Identification Phytoplankton - Grab Page 2 of 22 2484 Scenedesmus abundans . . . . Vegetative 12.53 1,530.788 0.83 30,641.485 1.21

2483 Scenedesmus bijuga . . . . Vegetative 4.00 84.692 0.05 709.519 0.03

8226 Scenedesmus intermedius . . . . Vegetative 16.00 510.263 0.28 10,259.446 0.41

2501 Selenastrum minutum . . . . Vegetative 8.00 1,530.788 0.83 107,796.128 4.26

2911 Stichococcus bacillaris . . . . Vegetative 2.40 510.263 0.28 923.372 0.04

2562 Tetrastrum heteracanthum . . . . Vegetative 30.00 84.692 0.05 5,392.330 0.21

2561 Tetrastrum staurogeniaeforme . . . . Vegetative 20.00 84.692 0.05 5,392.330 0.21

Summary for Division ~ Chlorophyta (15 detail records) Sum Total Chlorophyta 16,070.115 8.71 501,625.148 19.83

Division: Chrysophyta

Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Form Morph Structure GALD Count Relative Total Relative μm NU/ml Count Biovolume Total μm^3 /ml Biovolume 1472 Chrysococcus minutus . . . . Vegetative 8.00 84.692 0.05 2,561.360 0.10 1000637 Kephyrion gracile . . . . Vegetative 8.00 84.692 0.05 1,596.418 0.06

; 1570 Ochromonas spp . . . . Vegetative 4.80 19,389.986 10.51 1,085,678.289 42.91 9511 Polygoniochloris circularis . . . . Vegetative 6.40 510.263 0.28 42,361.354 1.67

Summary for Division ~ Chrysophyta (4 detail records) Sum Total Chrysophyta 20,069.634 10.88 1,132,197.420 44.75

Division: Cryptophyta

Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Form Morph Structure GALD Count Relative Total Relative μm NU/ml Count Biovolume Total μm^3 /ml Biovolume 3043 Rhodomonas minuta . nannoplanctica . . Vegetative 8.00 2,551.314 1.38 85,495.297 3.38

Summary for Division ~ Cryptophyta (1 detail record) Sum Total Cryptophyta 2,551.314 1.38 85,495.297 3.38

Division: Cyanophyta

Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Form Morph Structure GALD Count Relative Total Relative μm NU/ml Count Biovolume Total μm^3 /ml Biovolume 4282 *Chroococcaceae spp . . . <1 um spherical Vegetative 0.80 114,809.129 62.23 30,780.327 1.22

; = Identification is Uncertain 160001-327 Monday, June 13, 2016 * = Family Level Identification Phytoplankton - Grab Page 3 of 22 4054 Aphanocapsa delicatissima . . . . Vegetative 20.00 84.692 0.05 886.899 0.04

1000424 Cyanocatena planctonica . . . . Vegetative 3.60 1,020.526 0.55 670.383 0.03

1000546 Geitlerinema spp . . . . Vegetative 70.00 84.692 0.05 4,656.209 0.18

4321 Synechococcus elongatus . . . . Vegetative 4.00 510.263 0.28 683.956 0.03

4323 Synechococcus sp. 1 . . . < 1um ovoid Vegetative 1.20 12,756.570 6.91 5,129.417 0.20

Summary for Division ~ Cyanophyta (6 detail records) Sum Total Cyanophyta 129,265.872 70.06 42,807.191 1.69

Division: Haptophyta

Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Form Morph Structure GALD Count Relative Total Relative μm NU/ml Count Biovolume Total μm^3 /ml Biovolume 1731 Chrysochromulina parva . . . . Vegetative 4.00 16,328.409 8.85 525,502.098 20.77

Summary for Division ~ Haptophyta (1 detail record) Sum Total Haptophyta 16,328.409 8.85 525,502.098 20.77

Division: Pyrrhophyta

Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Form Morph Structure GALD Count Relative Total Relative μm NU/ml Count Biovolume Total μm^3 /ml Biovolume 6033 Gymnodinium sp. 2 . . . . Vegetative 10.00 84.692 0.05 14,190.344 0.56

Summary for Division ~ Pyrrhophyta (1 detail record) Sum Total Pyrrhophyta 84.692 0.05 14,190.344 0.56

; = Identification is Uncertain 160001-327 Monday, June 13, 2016 * = Family Level Identification Phytoplankton - Grab Page 4 of 22 Total Sample Concentration Total Sample Biovolume 184,500.744 2,530,242.340 NU/ml μm^3 /ml

Total Sample Concentration Bacillariophyta S Chloromonadophyta Chlorophyta U Chrysophyta M Cryptophyta Cyanophyta M Euglenophyta A Haptophyta Miscellaneous R Phaeophyta Pyrrhophyta Y Rhodophyta 0 102030405060708090100Xanthophyta

G Total Sample Biovolume Bacillariophyta Chloromonadophyta R Chlorophyta A Chrysophyta Cryptophyta P Cyanophyta Euglenophyta H Haptophyta I Miscellaneous Phaeophyta C Pyrrhophyta Rhodophyta 0 102030405060708090100 S Xanthophyta

; = Identification is Uncertain 160001-327 Monday, June 13, 2016 * = Family Level Identification Phytoplankton - Grab Page 5 of 22 Tracking Code: 160003-327 Sample ID: CCR - Photic Composite Replicate: 1 Customer ID: 327 Sample Date: 4/12/2016 Sample Level: Composite Job ID: 1 Station: . Sample Depth: 0

System Name: Cherry Creek Site: CCR Photic Composite Preservative: Lugols Report Notes: .

Division: Bacillariophyta

Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Form Morph Structure GALD Count Relative Total Relative μm NU/ml Count Biovolume Total μm^3 /ml Biovolume 1210 Navicula spp . . . . Vegetative 32.00 20.451 0.01 25,699.793 1.46

1221 Nitzschia acicularis . . . . Vegetative 58.80 510.263 0.26 30,008.861 1.70

9818 Stephanodiscus medius . . . . Vegetative 12.00 84.692 0.04 57,470.893 3.26

1298 Stephanodiscus parvus . . . . Vegetative 6.40 255.131 0.13 26,264.170 1.49

1477 Synedra filiformis . . . . Vegetative 56.00 255.131 0.13 20,573.796 1.17

Summary for Division ~ Bacillariophyta (5 detail records) Sum Total Bacillariophyta 1,125.669 0.58 160,017.513 9.08

Division: Chlorophyta

2035 Ankistrodesmus convolutus . . . . Vegetative 19.20 255.131 0.13 6,966.669 0.40

1000031 Ankistrodesmus falcatus . . . straight Vegetative 34.67 1,785.920 0.92 53,100.396 3.01

2080 Chlamydomonas spp . . . . Vegetative 4.40 2,041.051 1.05 74,593.889 4.23

2171 Coelastrum microporum . . . . Vegetative 12.00 169.385 0.09 14,367.723 0.82

2193 Crucigenia tetrapedia . . . . Vegetative 10.00 169.385 0.09 12,945.518 0.73

2031 Monoraphidium arcuatum . . . monoraphidiod Vegetative 19.20 18,879.723 9.73 398,433.906 22.61

; = Identification is Uncertain 160003-327 Monday, June 13, 2016 * = Family Level Identification Phytoplankton - Grab Page 6 of 22 8041 Monoraphidium capricornutum . . . . Vegetative 4.00 1,020.526 0.53 7,931.729 0.45

2363 Oocystis parva . . . . Vegetative 3.80 1,785.920 0.92 16,368.133 0.93

2367 Oocystis pusilla . . . . Vegetative 2.00 510.263 0.26 769.476 0.04

2761 Phacotus lendneri . . . . Vegetative 16.00 20.451 0.01 4,687.642 0.27

2484 Scenedesmus abundans . . . . Vegetative 16.00 510.263 0.26 10,054.269 0.57

8399 Scenedesmus acutus . . . . Vegetative 15.33 254.077 0.13 22,834.598 1.30

2483 Scenedesmus bijuga . . . . Vegetative 4.00 1,020.526 0.53 5,654.120 0.32

2884 Scenedesmus quadricauda . . . . Vegetative 8.00 255.131 0.13 820.758 0.05

2501 Selenastrum minutum . . . . Vegetative 4.80 1,275.657 0.66 28,422.786 1.61

2981 Spermatozopsis exsultans . . . . Vegetative 8.00 255.131 0.13 4,924.521 0.28

2911 Stichococcus bacillaris . . . . Vegetative 3.20 510.263 0.26 2,188.670 0.12

2554 Tetraedron minimum . . . . Vegetative 8.00 255.131 0.13 32,006.948 1.82

2561 Tetrastrum staurogeniaeforme . . . . Vegetative 16.00 255.131 0.13 4,189.283 0.24

Summary for Division ~ Chlorophyta (20 detail records) Sum Total Chlorophyta 38,117.613 19.64 725,499.079 41.17

Division: Chrysophyta

Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Form Morph Structure GALD Count Relative Total Relative μm NU/ml Count Biovolume Total μm^3 /ml Biovolume ; 1590 Chromulina spp . . . . Vegetative 1.60 255.131 0.13 547.180 0.03 1472 Chrysococcus minutus . . . . Vegetative 5.00 84.692 0.04 2,561.360 0.15

; 1570 Ochromonas spp . . . . Vegetative 4.80 6,888.548 3.55 385,701.497 21.89

9511 Polygoniochloris circularis . . . . Vegetative 5.60 255.131 0.13 14,138.132 0.80

Summary for Division ~ Chrysophyta (4 detail records) Sum Total Chrysophyta 7,483.503 3.85 402,948.170 22.87

Division: Cryptophyta

Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Form Morph Structure GALD Count Relative Total Relative μm NU/ml Count Biovolume Total μm^3 /ml Biovolume 3018 Cryptomonas lucens . . . . Vegetative 10.00 84.692 0.04 7,982.070 0.45

; = Identification is Uncertain 160003-327 Monday, June 13, 2016 * = Family Level Identification Phytoplankton - Grab Page 7 of 22 3043 Rhodomonas minuta . nannoplanctica . . Vegetative 9.20 1,020.526 0.53 34,198.119 1.94

Summary for Division ~ Cryptophyta (2 detail records) Sum Total Cryptophyta 1,105.218 0.57 42,180.189 2.39

Division: Cyanophyta

1000424 Cyanocatena planctonica . . . . Vegetative 3.20 6,888.548 3.55 3,808.678 0.22 10651 Cyanogranis ferruginea . . . . Vegetative 12.00 255.131 0.13 1,340.716 0.08

1000546 Geitlerinema spp . . . . Vegetative 69.00 169.385 0.09 9,179.383 0.52 4321 Synechococcus elongatus . . . . Vegetative 2.40 30,615.768 15.77 38,471.774 2.18

4323 Synechococcus sp. 1 . . . < 1um ovoid Vegetative 1.20 13,777.095 7.10 5,539.770 0.31 4285 Synechocystis spp . . . >1 um spherical Vegetative 1.50 255.131 0.13 447.245 0.03

Summary for Division ~ Cyanophyta (8 detail records) Sum Total Cyanophyta 139,300.689 71.76 167,322.676 9.50

Division: Euglenophyta

Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Form Morph Structure GALD Count Relative Total Relative μm NU/ml Count Biovolume Total μm^3 /ml Biovolume 5047 Trachelomonas volvocina . . . . Vegetative 8.00 510.263 0.26 29,547.175 1.68

Summary for Division ~ Euglenophyta (1 detail record) Sum Total Euglenophyta 510.263 0.26 29,547.175 1.68

Division: Haptophyta

Summary for Division ~ Haptophyta (1 detail record) Sum Total Haptophyta 6,378.285 3.29 205,274.257 11.65

; = Identification is Uncertain 160003-327 Monday, June 13, 2016 * = Family Level Identification Phytoplankton - Grab Page 8 of 22 Division: Pyrrhophyta

6044 Peridinium umbonatum . . . . Vegetative 16.00 20.451 0.01 12,335.900 0.70

Summary for Division ~ Pyrrhophyta (2 detail records) Sum Total Pyrrhophyta 105.144 0.05 29,364.311 1.67

; = Identification is Uncertain 160003-327 Monday, June 13, 2016 * = Family Level Identification Phytoplankton - Grab Page 9 of 22 Total Sample Concentration Total Sample Biovolume 194,126.383 1,762,153.369 NU/ml μm^3 /ml

; = Identification is Uncertain 160003-327 Monday, June 13, 2016 * = Family Level Identification Phytoplankton - Grab Page 10 of 22 Tracking Code: 160005-327 Sample ID: CCR - Photic Composite Replicate: 1 Customer ID: 327 Sample Date: 5/10/2016 Sample Level: Composite Job ID: 1 Station: . Sample Depth: 0

System Name: Cherry Creek Site: CCR Photic Composite Preservative: Lugols Report Notes: .

Division: Bacillariophyta

; 1071 Cyclotella sp. 1 . . . . Vegetative 4.69 4,209.668 1.64 201,565.221 12.72

1210 Navicula spp . . . . Vegetative 4.80 382.697 0.15 7,386.781 0.47

9118 Nitzschia linearis . . . . Vegetative 64.00 382.697 0.15 153,891.649 9.71

9123 Nitzschia palea . . . . Vegetative 24.00 10.226 0.00 1,541.987 0.10 1315 Synedra ulna . . . . Vegetative 106.00 15.338 0.01 93,867.310 5.92

Summary for Division ~ Bacillariophyta (6 detail records) Sum Total Bacillariophyta 5,003.182 1.95 465,191.602 29.35

Division: Chlorophyta

2035 Ankistrodesmus convolutus . . . . Vegetative 8.00 42.346 0.02 456.763 0.03

2080 Chlamydomonas spp . . . . Vegetative 3.10 1,530.788 0.60 26,390.333 1.67

2197 Crucigenia apiculata . . . . Vegetative 16.00 382.697 0.15 55,400.992 3.50

2194 Crucigenia crucifera . . . . Vegetative 16.00 382.697 0.15 22,160.382 1.40

2193 Crucigenia tetrapedia . . . . Vegetative 8.80 765.394 0.30 47,025.819 2.97

; = Identification is Uncertain 160005-327 Monday, June 13, 2016 * = Family Level Identification Phytoplankton - Grab Page 11 of 22 2211 Dictyosphaerium pulchellum . . . . Vegetative 10.00 2,678.880 1.04 51,851.323 3.27

2853 Lagerheimia quadriseta . . . . Vegetative 8.00 84.692 0.03 1,108.623 0.07

2031 Monoraphidium arcuatum . . . monoraphidiod Vegetative 22.67 3,826.971 1.49 84,788.455 5.35

8041 Monoraphidium capricornutum . . . . Vegetative 4.00 3,061.577 1.19 23,795.187 1.50

2363 Oocystis parva . . . . Vegetative 6.93 1,530.788 0.60 64,189.937 4.05

2367 Oocystis pusilla . . . . Vegetative 3.80 1,913.486 0.75 6,484.228 0.41

2389 Pediastrum boryanum . longicorne . . Vegetative 25.60 382.697 0.15 136,967.903 8.64

2761 Phacotus lendneri . . . . Vegetative 12.00 42.346 0.02 10,515.046 0.66

2484 Scenedesmus abundans . . . . Vegetative 14.67 1,148.091 0.45 16,081.659 1.01

8399 Scenedesmus acutus . . . . Vegetative 10.00 42.346 0.02 1,827.048 0.12

8303 Scenedesmus opoliensis . carinatus . . Vegetative 24.00 42.346 0.02 3,547.586 0.22

2884 Scenedesmus quadricauda . . . . Vegetative 8.00 382.697 0.15 1,923.627 0.12

2900 Sphaerellopsis spp . . . . Vegetative 20.00 127.039 0.05 42,571.031 2.69

2911 Stichococcus bacillaris . . . . Vegetative 2.40 382.697 0.15 692.529 0.04

2554 Tetraedron minimum . . . . Vegetative 8.00 382.697 0.15 48,010.422 3.03

8332 Tetraedron muticum . . . . Vegetative 9.60 382.697 0.15 37,620.655 2.37

2561 Tetrastrum staurogeniaeforme . . . . Vegetative 10.00 42.346 0.02 2,696.165 0.17

Summary for Division ~ Chlorophyta (23 detail records) Sum Total Chlorophyta 31,039.230 12.10 791,367.313 49.93

Division: Chrysophyta

Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Form Morph Structure GALD Count Relative Total Relative μm NU/ml Count Biovolume Total μm^3 /ml Biovolume 1180 Mallomonas spp . . . . Vegetative 11.20 382.697 0.15 91,924.608 5.80

9511 Polygoniochloris circularis . . . . Vegetative 6.40 382.697 0.15 25,695.010 1.62

Summary for Division ~ Chrysophyta (2 detail records) Sum Total Chrysophyta 765.394 0.30 117,619.618 7.42

; = Identification is Uncertain 160005-327 Monday, June 13, 2016 * = Family Level Identification Phytoplankton - Grab Page 12 of 22 Division: Cryptophyta

Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Form Morph Structure GALD Count Relative Total Relative μm NU/ml Count Biovolume Total μm^3 /ml Biovolume 3015 Cryptomonas erosa . . . . Vegetative 44.57 92.031 0.04 40,532.246 2.56

3043 Rhodomonas minuta . nannoplanctica . . Vegetative 8.00 1,530.788 0.60 51,297.178 3.24

Summary for Division ~ Cryptophyta (2 detail records) Sum Total Cryptophyta 1,622.819 0.63 91,829.424 5.79

Division: Cyanophyta

4062 Aphanothece nidulans . . . . Vegetative 4.80 765.394 0.30 3,077.803 0.19 10651 Cyanogranis ferruginea . . . . Vegetative 4.40 1,530.788 0.60 3,418.863 0.22

10361 Cyanonephron styloides . . . . Vegetative 4.80 382.697 0.15 923.333 0.06 1000546 Geitlerinema spp . . . . Vegetative 200.00 42.346 0.02 14,966.380 0.94

4166 Merismopedia warmingiana . . . . Vegetative 4.00 382.697 0.15 1,206.644 0.08 4321 Synechococcus elongatus . . . . Vegetative 2.53 5,740.456 2.24 7,614.716 0.48

4323 Synechococcus sp. 1 . . . < 1um ovoid Vegetative 1.20 53,577.593 20.88 21,543.550 1.36

Summary for Division ~ Cyanophyta (8 detail records) Sum Total Cyanophyta 217,414.297 84.73 94,304.731 5.95

Division: Haptophyta

Summary for Division ~ Haptophyta (1 detail record) Sum Total Haptophyta 765.394 0.30 24,632.911 1.55

; = Identification is Uncertain 160005-327 Monday, June 13, 2016 * = Family Level Identification Phytoplankton - Grab Page 13 of 22 Total Sample Concentration Total Sample Biovolume 256,610.316 1,584,945.598 NU/ml μm^3 /ml

; = Identification is Uncertain 160005-327 Monday, June 13, 2016 * = Family Level Identification Phytoplankton - Grab Page 14 of 22 Tracking Code: 160007-327 Sample ID: CCR-2 Photic Composite Replicate: 1 Customer ID: 327 Sample Date: 5/24/2016 Sample Level: Composite Job ID: 1 Station: . Sample Depth: 0

System Name: Cherry Creek Site: CCR-2 Photic Composite Preservative: Lugols Report Notes: .

Division: Bacillariophyta

Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Form Morph Structure GALD Count Relative Total Relative μm NU/ml Count Biovolume Total μm^3 /ml Biovolume 1021 Asterionella formosa . . . . Vegetative 144.00 2.556 0.00 12,900.829 0.73

1432 Aulacoseira granulata . . . straight Vegetative 430.00 10.225 0.01 77,738.638 4.42

; 1071 Cyclotella sp. 1 . . . . Vegetative 5.07 1,530.788 0.80 100,337.361 5.71

9117 Nitzschia intermedia . . . . Vegetative 80.00 2.556 0.00 1,284.936 0.07

9123 Nitzschia palea . . . . Vegetative 32.00 84.692 0.04 17,028.411 0.97

Summary for Division ~ Bacillariophyta (5 detail records) Sum Total Bacillariophyta 1,630.819 0.85 209,290.175 11.91

Division: Chlorophyta

1000031 Ankistrodesmus falcatus . . . straight Vegetative 8.00 255.131 0.13 1,231.137 0.07

2080 Chlamydomonas spp . . . . Vegetative 4.80 765.394 0.40 44,876.133 2.55

2195 Crucigenia quadrata . . . . Vegetative 14.00 254.077 0.13 34,880.294 1.98

2193 Crucigenia tetrapedia . . . . Vegetative 18.13 1,020.526 0.53 118,435.362 6.74

2211 Dictyosphaerium pulchellum . . . . Vegetative 5.60 3,061.577 1.60 32,810.612 1.87

2853 Lagerheimia quadriseta . . . . Vegetative 3.20 255.131 0.13 1,094.335 0.06

; = Identification is Uncertain 160007-327 Monday, June 13, 2016 * = Family Level Identification Phytoplankton - Grab Page 15 of 22 2031 Monoraphidium arcuatum . . . monoraphidiod Vegetative 16.00 1,020.526 0.53 15,784.878 0.90

8041 Monoraphidium capricornutum . . . . Vegetative 4.00 765.394 0.40 5,948.797 0.34

2363 Oocystis parva . . . . Vegetative 9.44 1,275.657 0.67 105,603.860 6.01

2761 Phacotus lendneri . . . . Vegetative 15.00 338.770 0.18 188,437.120 10.72

2484 Scenedesmus abundans . . . . Vegetative 10.00 84.692 0.04 2,394.618 0.14

102793 Scenedesmus acutus alternans . . . Vegetative 20.00 84.692 0.04 7,982.070 0.45

2483 Scenedesmus bijuga . . . . Vegetative 6.00 84.692 0.04 1,064.278 0.06

2501 Selenastrum minutum . . . . Vegetative 6.40 255.131 0.13 3,643.940 0.21

2554 Tetraedron minimum . . . . Vegetative 7.80 592.847 0.31 44,216.874 2.52

2561 Tetrastrum staurogeniaeforme . . . . Vegetative 10.00 84.692 0.04 2,378.653 0.14

Summary for Division ~ Chlorophyta (17 detail records) Sum Total Chlorophyta 11,729.719 6.14 619,811.244 35.26

Division: Chrysophyta

9511 Polygoniochloris circularis . . . . Vegetative 5.60 255.131 0.13 14,138.132 0.80

Summary for Division ~ Chrysophyta (2 detail records) Sum Total Chrysophyta 510.263 0.27 15,206.826 0.87

Division: Cryptophyta

3043 Rhodomonas minuta . nannoplanctica . . Vegetative 8.00 4,337.234 2.27 145,342.004 8.27

Summary for Division ~ Cryptophyta (2 detail records) Sum Total Cryptophyta 4,591.311 2.40 278,908.626 15.87

; = Identification is Uncertain 160007-327 Monday, June 13, 2016 * = Family Level Identification Phytoplankton - Grab Page 16 of 22 Division: Cyanophyta

; 4011 Anabaena circinalis . . . . Vegetative 102.67 254.077 0.13 565,432.530 32.17

4062 Aphanothece nidulans . . . . Vegetative 4.80 255.131 0.13 1,282.418 0.07

1000424 Cyanocatena planctonica . . . . Vegetative 9.33 2,296.183 1.20 6,435.281 0.37

10651 Cyanogranis ferruginea . . . . Vegetative 16.00 765.394 0.40 2,681.406 0.15

; 10361 Cyanonephron styloides . . . . Vegetative 9.60 255.131 0.13 2,462.273 0.14

4323 Synechococcus sp. 1 . . . < 1um ovoid Vegetative 1.20 42,096.681 22.05 16,927.075 0.96

Summary for Division ~ Cyanophyta (7 detail records) Sum Total Cyanophyta 172,212.639 90.20 629,079.343 35.79

Division: Miscellaneous

Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Form Morph Structure GALD Count Relative Total Relative μm NU/ml Count Biovolume Total μm^3 /ml Biovolume 7140 *. spp . . . Microflagellate Vegetative 4.00 255.131 0.13 5,471.701 0.31

Summary for Division ~ Miscellaneous (1 detail record) Sum Total Miscellaneous 255.131 0.13 5,471.701 0.31

; = Identification is Uncertain 160007-327 Monday, June 13, 2016 * = Family Level Identification Phytoplankton - Grab Page 17 of 22 Total Sample Concentration Total Sample Biovolume 190,929.881 1,757,767.916 NU/ml μm^3 /ml

; = Identification is Uncertain 160007-327 Monday, June 13, 2016 * = Family Level Identification Phytoplankton - Grab Page 18 of 22 Species List

Division: Bacillariophyta

Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Form PhysiState Structure Authority

1021 Asterionella formosa . . . Vegetative Hass.

1432 Aulacoseira granulata . . . Vegetative (Ehrenberg) Simonsen

1071 Cyclotella sp. 1 . . . Vegetative (Kutzing) de Brebisson

1210 Navicula spp . . . Vegetative Bory .

1221 Nitzschia acicularis . . . Vegetative (Kutzing) W. Smith

9117 Nitzschia intermedia . . . Vegetative Hantzsch

9118 Nitzschia linearis . . . Vegetative (C. Agardh) W. Sm.

9123 Nitzschia palea . . . Vegetative (K• tz.) W. Sm.

9818 Stephanodiscus medius . . . Vegetative Hakansson

1293 Stephanodiscus niagarae . . . Vegetative Ehrenberg

1298 Stephanodiscus parvus . . . Vegetative Stoermer & H†k.

1477 Synedra filiformis . . . Vegetative Grunow

1315 Synedra ulna . . . Vegetative (Nitzsch) Ehrenb.

Division: Chlorophyta

Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Form PhysiState Structure Authority

2683 *Chlorococcaceae spp . . . Vegetative N/A

2035 Ankistrodesmus convolutus . . . Vegetative Corda

1000031 Ankistrodesmus falcatus . . . Vegetative (Corda) Ralfs

2080 Chlamydomonas spp . . . Vegetative Ehrenberg

2171 Coelastrum microporum . . . Vegetative Naeg

2197 Crucigenia apiculata . . . Vegetative (Lemmermann) Schmidle

2194 Crucigenia crucifera . . . Vegetative (Wolle) Collins

2195 Crucigenia quadrata . . . Vegetative C. Morren 2193 Crucigenia tetrapedia . . . Vegetative (Kirch.) W. West and G. S. West

2211 Dictyosphaerium pulchellum . . . Vegetative Wood

2853 Lagerheimia quadriseta . . . Vegetative (Lemmermann) G.M. Smith

2861 Monomastix astigmata . . . Vegetative Skuja

2031 Monoraphidium arcuatum . . . Vegetative (Corda) Ralfs

8041 Monoraphidium capricornutum . . . Vegetative (Printz) Nygaard

2363 Oocystis parva . . . Vegetative West & West

2367 Oocystis pusilla . . . Vegetative Hansgirg

2389 Pediastrum boryanum . longicorne . Vegetative Raciborski

2761 Phacotus lendneri . . . Vegetative Chodat

2484 Scenedesmus abundans . . . Vegetative (Kirchn.) Chodat

8399 Scenedesmus acutus . . . Vegetative Lagh. Chodat

102793 Scenedesmus acutus alternans . . Vegetative Hortobagyi 1941

2483 Scenedesmus bijuga . . . Vegetative (Turpin) Lagerh.

8226 Scenedesmus intermedius . . . Vegetative Chodat

8303 Scenedesmus opoliensis . carinatus . Vegetative Lemmermann

2884 Scenedesmus quadricauda . . . Vegetative (Turpin) Breb.

2501 Selenastrum minutum . . . Vegetative (Naegeli) Collins

2981 Spermatozopsis exsultans . . . Vegetative .

2900 Sphaerellopsis spp . . . Vegetative Korshikov

2911 Stichococcus bacillaris . . . Vegetative Nageli

2554 Tetraedron minimum . . . Vegetative (Braun) Hansgirg

8332 Tetraedron muticum . . . Vegetative (A. Braun) Hansgirg

2562 Tetrastrum heteracanthum . . . Vegetative (Nordstedt) Chodat

2561 Tetrastrum staurogeniaeforme . . . Vegetative (Schroeder) Lemm. Division: Chrysophyta

Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Form PhysiState Structure Authority

1590 Chromulina spp . . . Vegetative Cienkowski

1472 Chrysococcus minutus . . . Vegetative (Fritsch) Nygaard .

1000637 Kephyrion gracile . . . Vegetative Pascher

1180 Mallomonas spp . . . Vegetative Perty

1570 Ochromonas spp . . . Vegetative Wyssotzki

9511 Polygoniochloris circularis . . . Vegetative Lemmermann

Division: Cryptophyta

Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Form PhysiState Structure Authority

3015 Cryptomonas erosa . . . Vegetative Ehrenberg .

3018 Cryptomonas lucens . . . Vegetative Skuja .

3043 Rhodomonas minuta . nannoplanctica . Vegetative Skuja

Division: Cyanophyta

Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Form PhysiState Structure Authority

4282 *Chroococcaceae spp . . . Vegetative N/A

10220 Anabaena augstumalis . . . Vegetative Schmidle

4011 Anabaena circinalis . . . Vegetative Rabenhorst

4054 Aphanocapsa delicatissima . . . Vegetative West & West

4062 Aphanothece nidulans . . . Vegetative P. Richter

1000424 Cyanocatena planctonica . . . Vegetative Hindak

10651 Cyanogranis ferruginea . . . Vegetative Hindak

10361 Cyanonephron styloides . . . Vegetative Hickel

1000546 Geitlerinema spp . . . Vegetative (Skuja) Anagnostidis 2001

4166 Merismopedia warmingiana . . . Vegetative Lagerheim

4321 Synechococcus elongatus . . . Vegetative Nageli 4323 Synechococcus sp. 1 . . . Vegetative Nageli

4285 Synechocystis spp . . . Vegetative N/A

Division: Euglenophyta

Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Form PhysiState Structure Authority

5047 Trachelomonas volvocina . . . Vegetative Ehrnb

Division: Haptophyta

Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Form PhysiState Structure Authority

1731 Chrysochromulina parva . . . Vegetative Lackey

Division: Miscellaneous

Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Form PhysiState Structure Authority

7140 *. spp . . . Vegetative N/A

Division: Pyrrhophyta

Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Form PhysiState Structure Authority

6033 Gymnodinium sp. 2 . . . Vegetative Stein

6044 Peridinium umbonatum . . . Vegetative Stein Algae Analysis with Biovolume Estimates Report and Data Set

Customer ID: 327 Tracking Code: 160009-327 Sample ID: CCR-2 Photic Composite Replicate: 1 Customer ID: 327 Sample Date: 6/14/2016 Sample Level: Composite Job ID: 1 Station: . Sample Depth: 0

System Name: Cherry Creek Site: CCR-2 Photic Composite Preservative: Lugols Report Notes: .

Division: Bacillariophyta

1000830 Aulacoseira granulata . angustissima . straight Vegetative 317.60 3,061.577 8.96 9,436,634.990 78.27

1432 Aulacoseira granulata . . . straight Vegetative 540.00 42.346 0.12 646,547.557 5.36

1152 Fragilaria crotonensis . . . . Vegetative 71.00 84.692 0.25 1,122,544.915 9.31

9124 Nitzschia recta . . . . Vegetative 52.00 170.088 0.50 80,023.647 0.66

Summary for Division ~ Bacillariophyta (5 detail records) Sum Total Bacillariophyta 3,359.981 9.83 11,289,513.850 93.63

Division: Chlorophyta

2080 Chlamydomonas spp . . . . Vegetative 4.00 170.088 0.50 5,878.891 0.05

8041 Monoraphidium capricornutum . . . . Vegetative 4.00 85.044 0.25 660.977 0.01

2363 Oocystis parva . . . . Vegetative 10.40 510.263 1.49 83,525.529 0.69

2389 Pediastrum boryanum . longicorne . . Vegetative 47.00 42.346 0.12 6,059.922 0.05

2381 Pediastrum duplex . . . . Vegetative 60.00 169.385 0.50 177,099.724 1.47

2761 Phacotus lendneri . . . . Vegetative 12.00 85.044 0.25 22,119.356 0.18

; = Identification is Uncertain 160009-327 Monday, July 11, 2016 * = Family Level Identification Phytoplankton - Grab Page 2 of 12 2484 Scenedesmus abundans . . . . Vegetative 13.47 255.131 0.75 6,132.874 0.05

8399 Scenedesmus acutus . . . . Vegetative 12.00 42.346 0.12 1,008.026 0.01

2483 Scenedesmus bijuga . . . . Vegetative 24.50 42.346 0.12 5,620.707 0.05

8226 Scenedesmus intermedius . . . . Vegetative 8.00 85.044 0.25 547.172 0.00

8308 Scenedesmus serratus . . . . Vegetative 1.60 85.044 0.25 45.601 0.00

2491 Schroederia judayi . . . . Vegetative 20.27 340.175 1.00 5,958.067 0.05

2530 Staurastrum spp . . . . Vegetative 84.00 85.044 0.25 252,792.659 2.10

2561 Tetrastrum staurogeniaeforme . . . . Vegetative 4.00 85.044 0.25 346.545 0.00

Summary for Division ~ Chlorophyta (15 detail records) Sum Total Chlorophyta 2,422.518 7.09 570,227.927 4.73

Division: Chrysophyta

Summary for Division ~ Chrysophyta (1 detail record) Sum Total Chrysophyta 1,530.788 4.48 11,080.153 0.09

Division: Cryptophyta

3043 Rhodomonas minuta . nannoplanctica . . Vegetative 8.00 2,126.095 6.22 71,246.080 0.59

Summary for Division ~ Cryptophyta (2 detail records) Sum Total Cryptophyta 2,296.183 6.72 117,208.376 0.97

Division: Cyanophyta

4062 Aphanothece nidulans . . . . Vegetative 16.00 85.044 0.25 1,567.417 0.01

; = Identification is Uncertain 160009-327 Monday, July 11, 2016 * = Family Level Identification Phytoplankton - Grab Page 3 of 12 4323 Synechococcus sp. 1 . . . < 1um ovoid Vegetative 1.20 2,296.183 6.72 923.295 0.01

Summary for Division ~ Cyanophyta (3 detail records) Sum Total Cyanophyta 24,577.658 71.89 8,441.575 0.07

Division: Pyrrhophyta

Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Form Morph Structure GALD Count Relative Total Relative μm NU/ml Count Biovolume Total μm^3 /ml Biovolume 6011 Ceratium hirundinella . . . . Vegetative 200.00 1.278 0.00 60,734.650 0.50

Summary for Division ~ Pyrrhophyta (1 detail record) Sum Total Pyrrhophyta 1.278 0.00 60,734.650 0.50

; = Identification is Uncertain 160009-327 Monday, July 11, 2016 * = Family Level Identification Phytoplankton - Grab Page 4 of 12 Total Sample Concentration Total Sample Biovolume 34,188.407 12,057,206.530 NU/ml μm^3 /ml

; = Identification is Uncertain 160009-327 Monday, July 11, 2016 * = Family Level Identification Phytoplankton - Grab Page 5 of 12 Tracking Code: 160011-327 Sample ID: CCR-2 Photic Composite Replicate: 1 Customer ID: 327 Sample Date: 6/28/2016 Sample Level: Composite Job ID: 1 Station: . Sample Depth: 0

System Name: Cherry Creek Site: CCR-2 Photic Composite Preservative: Lugols Report Notes: .

Division: Bacillariophyta

; 1522 Cyclostephanos tholiformis . . . . Vegetative 5.27 4,762.453 2.67 338,572.767 3.83

1071 Cyclotella sp. 1 . . . . Vegetative 4.16 680.350 0.38 20,409.423 0.23

1152 Fragilaria crotonensis . . . . Vegetative 66.00 42.346 0.02 482,915.149 5.47

1210 Navicula spp . . . . Vegetative 5.20 1,190.613 0.67 19,869.072 0.22 9123 Nitzschia palea . . . . Vegetative 30.00 42.346 0.02 4,489.916 0.05

Summary for Division ~ Bacillariophyta (6 detail records) Sum Total Bacillariophyta 6,760.455 3.78 949,402.874 10.75

Division: Chlorophyta

2687 *Chlorococcaceae spp . . . > 1 um ovoid Vegetative 2.40 170.088 0.10 547.172 0.01

2071 Characium limneticum . . . . Vegetative 50.00 42.346 0.02 12,096.312 0.14

2080 Chlamydomonas spp . . . . Vegetative 4.16 1,020.526 0.57 69,172.143 0.78

2171 Coelastrum microporum . . . . Vegetative 8.00 42.346 0.02 8,514.205 0.10

2194 Crucigenia crucifera . . . . Vegetative 17.60 170.088 0.10 30,778.320 0.35

; = Identification is Uncertain 160011-327 Monday, July 11, 2016 * = Family Level Identification Phytoplankton - Grab Page 6 of 12 2195 Crucigenia quadrata . . . . Vegetative 16.00 170.088 0.10 10,868.189 0.12

2193 Crucigenia tetrapedia . . . . Vegetative 9.60 170.088 0.10 9,405.164 0.11

2211 Dictyosphaerium pulchellum . . . . Vegetative 9.60 680.350 0.38 14,803.676 0.17

2031 Monoraphidium arcuatum . . . monoraphidiod Vegetative 18.00 42.346 0.02 462.014 0.01

2363 Oocystis parva . . . . Vegetative 8.96 2,381.226 1.33 514,267.030 5.82

2381 Pediastrum duplex . . . . Vegetative 39.60 510.263 0.29 279,791.326 3.17

2761 Phacotus lendneri . . . . Vegetative 13.60 4,252.190 2.38 812,456.579 9.20

2484 Scenedesmus abundans . . . . Vegetative 10.40 340.175 0.19 5,129.706 0.06

2483 Scenedesmus bijuga . . . . Vegetative 32.80 340.175 0.19 14,249.225 0.16

8303 Scenedesmus opoliensis . carinatus . . Vegetative 12.00 170.088 0.10 2,279.871 0.03

2554 Tetraedron minimum . . . . Vegetative 5.60 170.088 0.10 7,467.526 0.08

2561 Tetrastrum staurogeniaeforme . . . . Vegetative 6.40 170.088 0.10 2,845.293 0.03

Summary for Division ~ Chlorophyta (18 detail records) Sum Total Chlorophyta 12,713.521 7.12 1,808,279.141 20.47

Division: Chrysophyta

Summary for Division ~ Chrysophyta (1 detail record) Sum Total Chrysophyta 510.263 0.29 3,693.384 0.04

Division: Cryptophyta

Summary for Division ~ Cryptophyta (2 detail records) Sum Total Cryptophyta 9,311.769 5.21 510,616.300 5.78

; = Identification is Uncertain 160011-327 Monday, July 11, 2016 * = Family Level Identification Phytoplankton - Grab Page 7 of 12 Division: Cyanophyta

4041 Aphanizomenon flos-aquae . . . . Vegetative 200.00 42.346 0.02 59,865.515 0.68

4054 Aphanocapsa delicatissima . . . . Vegetative 4.00 170.088 0.10 1,424.926 0.02

1000424 Cyanocatena planctonica . . . . Vegetative 4.80 340.175 0.19 1,752.753 0.02

4166 Merismopedia warmingiana . . . . Vegetative 4.00 170.088 0.10 350.551 0.00

4323 Synechococcus sp. 1 . . . < 1um ovoid Vegetative 1.20 33,167.082 18.57 13,336.484 0.15

Summary for Division ~ Cyanophyta (6 detail records) Sum Total Cyanophyta 148,698.907 83.24 107,510.555 1.22

Division: Haptophyta

Summary for Division ~ Haptophyta (1 detail record) Sum Total Haptophyta 510.263 0.29 16,421.941 0.19

Division: Pyrrhophyta

Summary for Division ~ Pyrrhophyta (1 detail record) Sum Total Pyrrhophyta 127.039 0.07 5,437,385.134 61.56

; = Identification is Uncertain 160011-327 Monday, July 11, 2016 * = Family Level Identification Phytoplankton - Grab Page 8 of 12 Total Sample Concentration Total Sample Biovolume 178,632.216 8,833,309.329 NU/ml μm^3 /ml

; = Identification is Uncertain 160011-327 Monday, July 11, 2016 * = Family Level Identification Phytoplankton - Grab Page 9 of 12 Species List

Division: Bacillariophyta

Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Form PhysiState Structure Authority

1021 Asterionella formosa . . . Vegetative Hass.

1432 Aulacoseira granulata . . . Vegetative (Ehrenberg) Simonsen

1000830 Aulacoseira granulata . angustissima . Vegetative (Otto Müller) Simonsen

1522 Cyclostephanos tholiformis . . . Vegetative Stoermer H†k. & Theriot

1071 Cyclotella sp. 1 . . . Vegetative (Kutzing) de Brebisson

1152 Fragilaria crotonensis . . . Vegetative Kitton

1210 Navicula spp . . . Vegetative Bory .

9123 Nitzschia palea . . . Vegetative (K• tz.) W. Sm.

9124 Nitzschia recta . . . Vegetative Hantzsch

Division: Chlorophyta

Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Form PhysiState Structure Authority

2683 *Chlorococcaceae spp . . . Vegetative N/A

2687 *Chlorococcaceae spp . . . Vegetative (Brandt) Beijerinck

2071 Characium limneticum . . . Vegetative Lemmermann

2080 Chlamydomonas spp . . . Vegetative Ehrenberg

2171 Coelastrum microporum . . . Vegetative Naeg

2194 Crucigenia crucifera . . . Vegetative (Wolle) Collins

2195 Crucigenia quadrata . . . Vegetative C. Morren

2193 Crucigenia tetrapedia . . . Vegetative (Kirch.) W. West and G. S. West

2211 Dictyosphaerium pulchellum . . . Vegetative Wood

2031 Monoraphidium arcuatum . . . Vegetative (Corda) Ralfs

8041 Monoraphidium capricornutum . . . Vegetative (Printz) Nygaard

2363 Oocystis parva . . . Vegetative West & West 2389 Pediastrum boryanum . longicorne . Vegetative Raciborski

2381 Pediastrum duplex . . . Vegetative West and West

2761 Phacotus lendneri . . . Vegetative Chodat

2484 Scenedesmus abundans . . . Vegetative (Kirchn.) Chodat

8399 Scenedesmus acutus . . . Vegetative Lagh. Chodat

2483 Scenedesmus bijuga . . . Vegetative (Turpin) Lagerh.

8226 Scenedesmus intermedius . . . Vegetative Chodat

8303 Scenedesmus opoliensis . carinatus . Vegetative Lemmermann

8308 Scenedesmus serratus . . . Vegetative (Corda) Bohlin

2491 Schroederia judayi . . . Vegetative G. M. Smith

2530 Staurastrum spp . . . Vegetative Meyen

2554 Tetraedron minimum . . . Vegetative (Braun) Hansgirg

2561 Tetrastrum staurogeniaeforme . . . Vegetative (Schroeder) Lemm.

Division: Chrysophyta

Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Form PhysiState Structure Authority

1590 Chromulina spp . . . Vegetative Cienkowski

Division: Cryptophyta

Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Form PhysiState Structure Authority

3015 Cryptomonas erosa . . . Vegetative Ehrenberg .

3043 Rhodomonas minuta . nannoplanctica . Vegetative Skuja

Division: Cyanophyta

Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Form PhysiState Structure Authority

4282 *Chroococcaceae spp . . . Vegetative N/A

4041 Aphanizomenon flos-aquae . . . Vegetative (L.) Ralfs

4054 Aphanocapsa delicatissima . . . Vegetative West & West

4062 Aphanothece nidulans . . . Vegetative P. Richter 1000424 Cyanocatena planctonica . . . Vegetative Hindak

4166 Merismopedia warmingiana . . . Vegetative Lagerheim

4323 Synechococcus sp. 1 . . . Vegetative Nageli

Division: Haptophyta

Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Form PhysiState Structure Authority

1731 Chrysochromulina parva . . . Vegetative Lackey

Division: Pyrrhophyta

Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Form PhysiState Structure Authority

6011 Ceratium hirundinella . . . Vegetative Dujardin Algae Analysis with Biovolume Estimates Report and Data Set

Customer ID: 327 Tracking Code: 160013-327 Sample ID: CCR-2 Photic Composite Replicate: 1 Customer ID: 327 Sample Date: 7/12/2016 Sample Level: Composite Job ID: 1 Station: . Sample Depth: 0

System Name: Cherry Creek Site: CCR-2 Photic Composite Preservative: Lugols Report Notes: .

Division: Bacillariophyta

Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Form Morph Structure GALD Count Relative Total Relative μm NU/ml Count Biovolume Total μm^3 /ml Biovolume 1522 Cyclostephanos tholiformis . . . . Vegetative 4.80 2,551.314 0.76 110,802.035 1.97

9856 Cyclotella atomus . . . . Vegetative 4.67 3,061.577 0.91 127,319.650 2.26

1076 Cyclotella meneghiniana . . . . Vegetative 10.40 510.263 0.15 225,399.966 4.00

1153 Fragilaria capucina . . . . Vegetative 64.00 1.704 0.00 16,447.183 0.29

1152 Fragilaria crotonensis . . . . Vegetative 88.00 6.817 0.00 94,607.851 1.68 9458 Navicula cf. lacunolaciniata . . . . Vegetative 5.60 510.263 0.15 11,490.557 0.20

9126 Nitzschia subacicularis . . . . Vegetative 40.00 84.692 0.03 11,973.106 0.21 9818 Stephanodiscus medius . . . . Vegetative 9.60 510.263 0.15 177,283.154 3.15

Summary for Division ~ Bacillariophyta (8 detail records) Sum Total Bacillariophyta 7,236.893 2.16 775,323.501 13.76

Division: Chlorophyta

1000031 Ankistrodesmus falcatus . . . straight Vegetative 42.50 169.385 0.05 10,509.731 0.19

2080 Chlamydomonas spp . . . . Vegetative 7.71 1,185.693 0.35 779,958.299 13.84

2194 Crucigenia crucifera . . . . Vegetative 10.00 84.692 0.03 5,986.549 0.11

; = Identification is Uncertain 160013-327 Tuesday, August 09, 2016 * = Family Level Identification Phytoplankton - Grab Page 2 of 14 2195 Crucigenia quadrata . . . . Vegetative 30.00 84.692 0.03 12,873.242 0.23

2193 Crucigenia tetrapedia . . . . Vegetative 6.00 84.692 0.03 5,420.312 0.10

2191 Crucigenia truncata . . . . Vegetative 8.00 84.692 0.03 2,128.548 0.04

8011 Deasonia Gigantica . . . . Vegetative 8.00 510.263 0.15 136,792.577 2.43

2211 Dictyosphaerium pulchellum . . . . Vegetative 10.00 338.770 0.10 6,516.774 0.12

2031 Monoraphidium arcuatum . . . monoraphidiod Vegetative 16.40 423.462 0.13 9,464.246 0.17

8041 Monoraphidium capricornutum . . . . Vegetative 4.00 2,041.051 0.61 15,863.458 0.28

2363 Oocystis parva . . . . Vegetative 8.40 2,041.051 0.61 277,141.685 4.92

2387 Pediastrum tetras . tetraodon . . Vegetative 12.00 84.692 0.03 6,443.777 0.11

2761 Phacotus lendneri . . . . Vegetative 12.00 1,020.526 0.30 65,857.374 1.17

2440 Pteromonas spp . . . . Vegetative 12.00 84.692 0.03 12,345.600 0.22

8101 Pyramichlamys dissecta . . . . Vegetative 16.00 84.692 0.03 35,475.859 0.63

2462 Quadrigula lacustris . . . . Vegetative 40.00 84.692 0.03 6,385.653 0.11

2484 Scenedesmus abundans . . . . Vegetative 13.00 254.077 0.08 9,245.892 0.16

8399 Scenedesmus acutus . . . . Vegetative 20.00 1,020.526 0.30 94,084.091 1.67

2483 Scenedesmus bijuga . . . . Vegetative 11.00 254.077 0.08 18,137.042 0.32

8226 Scenedesmus intermedius . . . . Vegetative 12.00 84.692 0.03 787.563 0.01 8303 Scenedesmus opoliensis . carinatus . . Vegetative 14.00 510.263 0.15 8,070.776 0.14

2491 Schroederia judayi . . . . Vegetative 30.00 84.692 0.03 1,596.418 0.03 2900 Sphaerellopsis spp . . . . Vegetative 36.00 84.692 0.03 19,156.967 0.34

2551 Tetraedron caudatum . . . . Vegetative 6.00 84.692 0.03 1,760.297 0.03 2554 Tetraedron minimum . . . . Vegetative 7.00 84.692 0.03 7,289.473 0.13

Summary for Division ~ Chlorophyta (26 detail records) Sum Total Chlorophyta 13,931.721 4.16 1,588,363.430 28.19

Division: Chrysophyta

Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Form Morph Structure GALD Count Relative Total Relative μm NU/ml Count Biovolume Total μm^3 /ml Biovolume 1611 Stichogloea olivacea . . . . Vegetative 20.80 510.263 0.15 157,585.020 2.80

; = Identification is Uncertain 160013-327 Tuesday, August 09, 2016 * = Family Level Identification Phytoplankton - Grab Page 3 of 14 Summary for Division ~ Chrysophyta (1 detail record) Sum Total Chrysophyta 510.263 0.15 157,585.020 2.80

Division: Cryptophyta

Summary for Division ~ Cryptophyta (1 detail record) Sum Total Cryptophyta 3,061.577 0.91 102,594.356 1.82

Division: Cyanophyta

; 4011 Anabaena circinalis . . . . Vegetative 42.00 254.077 0.08 322,730.987 5.73

4041 Aphanizomenon flos-aquae . . . . Vegetative 71.60 338.770 0.10 352,701.003 6.26

4054 Aphanocapsa delicatissima . . . . Vegetative 17.40 2,551.314 0.76 37,404.304 0.66

4062 Aphanothece nidulans . . . . Vegetative 17.60 1,020.526 0.30 9,985.843 0.18

1000424 Cyanocatena planctonica . . . . Vegetative 8.00 12,756.570 3.81 42,455.140 0.75

10651 Cyanogranis ferruginea . . . . Vegetative 12.00 2,551.314 0.76 10,055.239 0.18

4113 Dactylococcopsis irregularis . . . . Vegetative 20.00 84.692 0.03 276.504 0.00

4166 Merismopedia warmingiana . . . . Vegetative 8.00 84.692 0.03 88.690 0.00

4172 Pseudanabaena limnetica . . . . Vegetative 80.00 84.692 0.03 11,973.106 0.21

4321 Synechococcus elongatus . . . . Vegetative 4.00 1,020.526 0.30 2,137.389 0.04

4323 Synechococcus sp. 1 . . . < 1um ovoid Vegetative 1.20 86,744.675 25.89 34,880.034 0.62

Summary for Division ~ Cyanophyta (12 detail records) Sum Total Cyanophyta 306,494.337 91.47 878,040.805 15.58

; = Identification is Uncertain 160013-327 Tuesday, August 09, 2016 * = Family Level Identification Phytoplankton - Grab Page 4 of 14 Division: Euglenophyta

Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Form Morph Structure GALD Count Relative Total Relative μm NU/ml Count Biovolume Total μm^3 /ml Biovolume 5020 Euglena spp . . . . Vegetative 20.00 84.692 0.03 13,480.825 0.24

5030 Phacus spp . . . . Vegetative 30.00 84.692 0.03 63,856.546 1.13

Summary for Division ~ Euglenophyta (2 detail records) Sum Total Euglenophyta 169.385 0.05 77,337.370 1.37

Division: Haptophyta

Summary for Division ~ Haptophyta (1 detail record) Sum Total Haptophyta 3,061.577 0.91 98,531.644 1.75

Division: Pyrrhophyta

6033 Gymnodinium sp. 2 . . . . Vegetative 16.00 84.692 0.03 51,085.240 0.91

6034 Gymnodinium sp. 3 . . . . Vegetative 8.00 254.077 0.08 19,156.959 0.34

6044 Peridinium umbonatum . . . . Vegetative 34.00 254.077 0.08 1,773,083.511 31.47

Summary for Division ~ Pyrrhophyta (4 detail records) Sum Total Pyrrhophyta 596.255 0.18 1,957,211.030 34.73

; = Identification is Uncertain 160013-327 Tuesday, August 09, 2016 * = Family Level Identification Phytoplankton - Grab Page 5 of 14 Total Sample Concentration Total Sample Biovolume 335,062.007 5,634,987.156 NU/ml μm^3 /ml

; = Identification is Uncertain 160013-327 Tuesday, August 09, 2016 * = Family Level Identification Phytoplankton - Grab Page 6 of 14 Tracking Code: 160015-327 Sample ID: CCR-2 - Photic Composite Replicate: 1 Customer ID: 327 Sample Date: 7/26/2016 Sample Level: Composite Job ID: 1 Station: . Sample Depth: 0

System Name: Cherry Creek Site: CCR-2 Photic Composite Preservative: Lugols Report Notes: .

Division: Bacillariophyta

1071 Cyclotella sp. 1 . . . . Vegetative 5.00 42.346 0.06 2,078.664 0.05

1220 Nitzschia spp . . . . Vegetative 80.00 0.852 0.00 6,852.993 0.15

9818 Stephanodiscus medius . . . . Vegetative 12.00 42.346 0.06 28,735.446 0.63

Summary for Division ~ Bacillariophyta (4 detail records) Sum Total Bacillariophyta 127.891 0.18 180,579.390 3.93

Division: Chlorophyta

2060 Carteria spp . . . . Vegetative 16.00 169.385 0.23 354,247.757 7.71

2080 Chlamydomonas spp . . . . Vegetative 6.63 423.462 0.58 106,902.108 2.33

8011 Deasonia Gigantica . . . . Vegetative 20.00 42.346 0.06 177,379.302 3.86

2031 Monoraphidium arcuatum . . . monoraphidiod Vegetative 20.00 42.346 0.06 1,212.782 0.03

2363 Oocystis parva . . . . Vegetative 8.00 42.346 0.06 2,838.067 0.06

; 8101 Pyramichlamys dissecta . . . . Vegetative 16.00 7,961.084 10.94 3,334,730.722 72.60

2483 Scenedesmus bijuga . . . . Vegetative 12.00 42.346 0.06 9,578.484 0.21

; = Identification is Uncertain 160015-327 Tuesday, August 09, 2016 * = Family Level Identification Phytoplankton - Grab Page 7 of 14 2554 Tetraedron minimum . . . . Vegetative 6.67 127.039 0.17 9,576.167 0.21

Summary for Division ~ Chlorophyta (9 detail records) Sum Total Chlorophyta 8,935.046 12.28 4,006,043.868 87.21

Division: Chrysophyta

Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Form Morph Structure GALD Count Relative Total Relative μm NU/ml Count Biovolume Total μm^3 /ml Biovolume 1000035 *Chrysocapsaceae spp . . . >1 um spherical Vegetative 5.00 42.346 0.06 2,771.550 0.06

Summary for Division ~ Chrysophyta (1 detail record) Sum Total Chrysophyta 42.346 0.06 2,771.550 0.06

Division: Cryptophyta

3043 Rhodomonas minuta . nannoplanctica . . Vegetative 8.00 2,041.051 2.81 68,396.237 1.49

Summary for Division ~ Cryptophyta (2 detail records) Sum Total Cryptophyta 2,083.397 2.86 133,583.131 2.91

Division: Cyanophyta

4041 Aphanizomenon flos-aquae . . . . Vegetative 340.00 42.346 0.06 180,926.888 3.94 10651 Cyanogranis ferruginea . . . . Vegetative 4.80 1,530.788 2.10 402.138 0.01

4323 Synechococcus sp. 1 . . . < 1um ovoid Vegetative 1.20 11,480.913 15.78 4,616.475 0.10

Summary for Division ~ Cyanophyta (5 detail records) Sum Total Cyanophyta 61,530.717 84.56 224,884.329 4.90

; = Identification is Uncertain 160015-327 Tuesday, August 09, 2016 * = Family Level Identification Phytoplankton - Grab Page 8 of 14 Division: Pyrrhophyta

6033 Gymnodinium sp. 2 . . . . Vegetative 16.00 42.346 0.06 25,542.620 0.56

Summary for Division ~ Pyrrhophyta (2 detail records) Sum Total Pyrrhophyta 43.198 0.06 45,616.178 0.99

; = Identification is Uncertain 160015-327 Tuesday, August 09, 2016 * = Family Level Identification Phytoplankton - Grab Page 9 of 14 Total Sample Concentration Total Sample Biovolume 72,762.596 4,593,478.446 NU/ml μm^3 /ml

; = Identification is Uncertain 160015-327 Tuesday, August 09, 2016 * = Family Level Identification Phytoplankton - Grab Page 10 of 14 Species List

Division: Bacillariophyta

Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Form PhysiState Structure Authority

1432 Aulacoseira granulata . . . Vegetative (Ehrenberg) Simonsen

1522 Cyclostephanos tholiformis . . . Vegetative Stoermer H†k. & Theriot

9856 Cyclotella atomus . . . Vegetative Hust.

1076 Cyclotella meneghiniana . . . Vegetative Kutzing

1071 Cyclotella sp. 1 . . . Vegetative (Kutzing) de Brebisson

1153 Fragilaria capucina . . . Vegetative Desm.

1152 Fragilaria crotonensis . . . Vegetative Kitton

9458 Navicula cf. lacunolaciniata . . . Vegetative Lange-Bertalot & Bonik

1220 Nitzschia spp . . . Vegetative Hassall

9126 Nitzschia subacicularis . . . Vegetative Hust.

9818 Stephanodiscus medius . . . Vegetative Hakansson

Division: Chlorophyta

Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Form PhysiState Structure Authority

2683 *Chlorococcaceae spp . . . Vegetative N/A

1000031 Ankistrodesmus falcatus . . . Vegetative (Corda) Ralfs

2060 Carteria spp . . . Vegetative (Carter) Diesing

2080 Chlamydomonas spp . . . Vegetative Ehrenberg

2194 Crucigenia crucifera . . . Vegetative (Wolle) Collins

2195 Crucigenia quadrata . . . Vegetative C. Morren

2193 Crucigenia tetrapedia . . . Vegetative (Kirch.) W. West and G. S. West

2191 Crucigenia truncata . . . Vegetative G. M. Smith

8011 Deasonia Gigantica . . . Vegetative (Deason) Ettl et Komarek

2211 Dictyosphaerium pulchellum . . . Vegetative Wood 2031 Monoraphidium arcuatum . . . Vegetative (Corda) Ralfs

8041 Monoraphidium capricornutum . . . Vegetative (Printz) Nygaard

2363 Oocystis parva . . . Vegetative West & West

2387 Pediastrum tetras . tetraodon . Vegetative (Corda) Rabenhorst

2761 Phacotus lendneri . . . Vegetative Chodat

2440 Pteromonas spp . . . Vegetative Seligo .

8101 Pyramichlamys dissecta . . . Vegetative (Tiffana) Ettl

2462 Quadrigula lacustris . . . Vegetative (Chodat) G.M. Smith

2484 Scenedesmus abundans . . . Vegetative (Kirchn.) Chodat

8399 Scenedesmus acutus . . . Vegetative Lagh. Chodat

2483 Scenedesmus bijuga . . . Vegetative (Turpin) Lagerh.

8226 Scenedesmus intermedius . . . Vegetative Chodat

8303 Scenedesmus opoliensis . carinatus . Vegetative Lemmermann

2491 Schroederia judayi . . . Vegetative G. M. Smith

2900 Sphaerellopsis spp . . . Vegetative Korshikov

2551 Tetraedron caudatum . . . Vegetative (Corda) Hansgirg

2554 Tetraedron minimum . . . Vegetative (Braun) Hansgirg

Division: Chrysophyta

Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Form PhysiState Structure Authority

1000035 *Chrysocapsaceae spp . . . Vegetative N/A

1611 Stichogloea olivacea . . . Vegetative Chodat

Division: Cryptophyta

Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Form PhysiState Structure Authority

3015 Cryptomonas erosa . . . Vegetative Ehrenberg .

3043 Rhodomonas minuta . nannoplanctica . Vegetative Skuja Division: Cyanophyta

Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Form PhysiState Structure Authority

4282 *Chroococcaceae spp . . . Vegetative N/A

4011 Anabaena circinalis . . . Vegetative Rabenhorst

10222 Anabaena crassa . . . Vegetative Lemmermann

4041 Aphanizomenon flos-aquae . . . Vegetative (L.) Ralfs

4054 Aphanocapsa delicatissima . . . Vegetative West & West

4062 Aphanothece nidulans . . . Vegetative P. Richter

1000424 Cyanocatena planctonica . . . Vegetative Hindak

10651 Cyanogranis ferruginea . . . Vegetative Hindak

4113 Dactylococcopsis irregularis . . . Vegetative Hansgirg

4166 Merismopedia warmingiana . . . Vegetative Lagerheim

4172 Pseudanabaena limnetica . . . Vegetative Lemmermann

4321 Synechococcus elongatus . . . Vegetative Nageli

4323 Synechococcus sp. 1 . . . Vegetative Nageli

Division: Euglenophyta

Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Form PhysiState Structure Authority

5020 Euglena spp . . . Vegetative Ehrenberg

5030 Phacus spp . . . Vegetative Dujardin .

Division: Haptophyta

Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Form PhysiState Structure Authority

1731 Chrysochromulina parva . . . Vegetative Lackey

Division: Pyrrhophyta

Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Form PhysiState Structure Authority

6011 Ceratium hirundinella . . . Vegetative Dujardin

6033 Gymnodinium sp. 2 . . . Vegetative Stein 6034 Gymnodinium sp. 3 . . . Vegetative Stein

6044 Peridinium umbonatum . . . Vegetative Stein Algae Analysis with Biovolume Estimates Report and Data Set

Customer ID: 327 Tracking Code: 160017-327 Sample ID: CCR-2 - Photic Composite Replicate: 1 Customer ID: 327 Sample Date: 8/9/2016 Sample Level: Composite Job ID: 1 Station: . Sample Depth: 0

System Name: Cherry Creek Site: CCR-2 Photic Composite Preservative: Lugols Report Notes: .

Division: Bacillariophyta

Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Form Morph Structure GALD Count Relative Total Relative μm NU/ml Count Biovolume Total μm^3 /ml Biovolume 1431 Aulacoseira ambigua . . . . Vegetative 300.00 42.346 0.02 102,170.480 1.30

1432 Aulacoseira granulata . . . straight Vegetative 320.00 296.423 0.17 1,595,138.803 20.30

1523 Cyclostephanos damasii . . . . Vegetative 21.20 254.077 0.14 967,267.080 12.31

1522 Cyclostephanos tholiformis . . . . Vegetative 7.00 190.558 0.11 27,238.816 0.35

9856 Cyclotella atomus . . . . Vegetative 6.40 4,319.311 2.41 466,791.427 5.94 1076 Cyclotella meneghiniana . . . . Vegetative 7.60 6,097.851 3.40 1,084,283.930 13.80

9361 Cyclotella pseudostelligera . . . . Vegetative 7.20 1,524.463 0.85 235,630.729 3.00 1071 Cyclotella sp. 1 . . . . Vegetative 1.60 42.346 0.02 136.228 0.00

1210 Navicula spp . . . . Vegetative 5.50 84.692 0.05 1,413.490 0.02 1222 Nitzschia gracilis . . . . Vegetative 50.00 84.692 0.05 11,973.106 0.15

9123 Nitzschia palea . . . . Vegetative 32.00 42.346 0.02 19,156.963 0.24 9818 Stephanodiscus medius . . . . Vegetative 16.67 423.462 0.24 777,364.790 9.89

1298 Stephanodiscus parvus . . . . Vegetative 8.00 84.692 0.05 17,028.411 0.22 1477 Synedra filiformis . . . . Vegetative 80.00 42.346 0.02 7,622.314 0.10

Summary for Division ~ Bacillariophyta (14 detail records) Sum Total Bacillariophyta 13,529.608 7.53 5,313,216.564 67.60

; = Identification is Uncertain 160017-327 Wednesday, September 07, 2016 * = Family Level Identification Phytoplankton - Grab Page 2 of 14 Division: Chlorophyta

1000031 Ankistrodesmus falcatus . . . straight Vegetative 20.00 42.346 0.02 798.209 0.01

2080 Chlamydomonas spp . . . . Vegetative 9.11 762.231 0.42 530,208.165 6.75

2171 Coelastrum microporum . . . . Vegetative 40.00 84.692 0.05 363,272.814 4.62

2175 Coelastrum pseudomicroporum . . . . Vegetative 10.00 211.731 0.12 31,928.264 0.41

2180 Cosmarium spp . . . . Vegetative 4.00 42.346 0.02 354.759 0.00

2194 Crucigenia crucifera . . . . Vegetative 18.00 84.692 0.05 10,642.758 0.14

2211 Dictyosphaerium pulchellum . . . . Vegetative 10.00 42.346 0.02 2,362.799 0.03

1000526 Golenkeniopsis parvula . . . . Vegetative 20.00 42.346 0.02 1,419.034 0.02

1000538 Monomastix minuta . . . . Vegetative 5.00 42.346 0.02 886.899 0.01

2031 Monoraphidium arcuatum . . . monoraphidiod Vegetative 15.00 84.692 0.05 1,732.544 0.02

8041 Monoraphidium capricornutum . . . . Vegetative 4.00 719.885 0.40 5,622.879 0.07

2363 Oocystis parva . . . . Vegetative 9.33 127.039 0.07 21,462.899 0.27 2371 Pandorina morum . . . . Vegetative 56.00 42.346 0.02 227,045.509 2.89

2761 Phacotus lendneri . . . . Vegetative 12.00 423.462 0.24 105,150.458 1.34 8101 Pyramichlamys dissecta . . . . Vegetative 6.40 2,456.079 1.37 65,843.302 0.84

2484 Scenedesmus abundans . . . . Vegetative 12.80 423.462 0.24 6,407.825 0.08 8399 Scenedesmus acutus . . . . Vegetative 18.00 84.692 0.05 21,896.562 0.28

2483 Scenedesmus bijuga . . . . Vegetative 14.67 127.039 0.07 26,429.510 0.34 8226 Scenedesmus intermedius . . . . Vegetative 12.00 127.039 0.07 2,128.557 0.03

8303 Scenedesmus opoliensis . carinatus . . Vegetative 16.00 84.692 0.05 2,139.634 0.03 8308 Scenedesmus serratus . . . . Vegetative 5.00 42.346 0.02 997.757 0.01

2551 Tetraedron caudatum . . . . Vegetative 8.00 42.346 0.02 339.807 0.00 2561 Tetrastrum staurogeniaeforme . . . . Vegetative 16.00 42.346 0.02 5,520.931 0.07

Summary for Division ~ Chlorophyta (24 detail records) Sum Total Chlorophyta 7,897.565 4.40 1,460,274.137 18.58

; = Identification is Uncertain 160017-327 Wednesday, September 07, 2016 * = Family Level Identification Phytoplankton - Grab Page 3 of 14 Division: Cryptophyta

3041 Rhodomonas minuta . . . . Vegetative 12.00 42.346 0.02 3,991.035 0.05

3043 Rhodomonas minuta . nannoplanctica . . Vegetative 3.20 762.231 0.42 1,634.758 0.02

Summary for Division ~ Cryptophyta (3 detail records) Sum Total Cryptophyta 1,355.078 0.75 356,588.498 4.54

Division: Cyanophyta

4041 Aphanizomenon flos-aquae . . . . Vegetative 76.00 169.385 0.09 161,769.929 2.06 4082 Chroococcus limneticus . . . . Vegetative 16.00 42.346 0.02 11,352.277 0.14

1000424 Cyanocatena planctonica . . . . Vegetative 8.00 1,913.486 1.07 2,011.073 0.03 4323 Synechococcus sp. 1 . . . < 1um ovoid Vegetative 1.20 17,221.369 9.59 6,924.713 0.09

; 4285 Synechocystis spp . . . >1 um spherical Vegetative 1.50 1,206.866 0.67 2,132.654 0.03

Summary for Division ~ Cyanophyta (7 detail records) Sum Total Cyanophyta 156,412.199 87.10 236,733.917 3.01

Division: Pyrrhophyta

6040 Peridinium spp . . . . Vegetative 12.00 42.346 0.02 8,514.205 0.11 6041 Peridinium cinctum . . . . Vegetative 28.00 84.692 0.05 384,558.329 4.89

Summary for Division ~ Pyrrhophyta (3 detail records) Sum Total Pyrrhophyta 381.116 0.21 492,404.956 6.27

; = Identification is Uncertain 160017-327 Wednesday, September 07, 2016 * = Family Level Identification Phytoplankton - Grab Page 4 of 14 Total Sample Concentration Total Sample Biovolume 179,575.565 7,859,218.071 NU/ml μm^3 /ml

; = Identification is Uncertain 160017-327 Wednesday, September 07, 2016 * = Family Level Identification Phytoplankton - Grab Page 5 of 14 Tracking Code: 160019-327 Sample ID: CCR-2 - Photic Composite Replicate: 1 Customer ID: 327 Sample Date: 8/23/2016 Sample Level: Composite Job ID: 1 Station: . Sample Depth: 0

System Name: Cherry Creek Site: CCR-2 Photic Composite Preservative: Lugols Report Notes: .

Division: Bacillariophyta

1522 Cyclostephanos tholiformis . . . . Vegetative 6.40 1,020.526 1.06 112,935.954 2.28

9856 Cyclotella atomus . . . . Vegetative 4.00 2,551.314 2.65 74,665.989 1.51

1076 Cyclotella meneghiniana . . . . Vegetative 6.40 255.131 0.27 26,264.170 0.53

1108 Diatoma vulgaris . vulgaris . . Vegetative 208.00 0.852 0.00 41,117.957 0.83 1152 Fragilaria crotonensis . . . . Vegetative 52.00 2.556 0.00 25,971.130 0.52

1221 Nitzschia acicularis . . . . Vegetative 72.00 255.131 0.27 13,850.242 0.28 1222 Nitzschia gracilis . . . . Vegetative 46.40 255.131 0.27 74,380.956 1.50

9818 Stephanodiscus medius . . . . Vegetative 10.00 127.039 0.13 49,887.931 1.01 1477 Synedra filiformis . . . . Vegetative 72.00 255.131 0.27 73,477.842 1.48

1315 Synedra ulna . . . . Vegetative 140.00 84.692 0.09 189,710.928 3.83

Summary for Division ~ Bacillariophyta (11 detail records) Sum Total Bacillariophyta 4,810.913 5.00 737,943.667 14.88

Division: Chlorophyta

; = Identification is Uncertain 160019-327 Wednesday, September 07, 2016 * = Family Level Identification Phytoplankton - Grab Page 6 of 14 2687 *Chlorococcaceae spp . . . > 1 um ovoid Vegetative 2.40 255.131 0.27 461.686 0.01

2080 Chlamydomonas spp . . . . Vegetative 5.20 1,530.788 1.59 68,983.754 1.39

2110 Chlorogonium spp . . . . Vegetative 14.00 84.692 0.09 4,469.962 0.09

1000012 Closterium spp . . . straight Vegetative 72.00 255.131 0.27 78,792.510 1.59

2180 Cosmarium spp . . . . Vegetative 10.00 42.346 0.04 5,543.104 0.11

2194 Crucigenia crucifera . . . . Vegetative 24.00 255.131 0.27 12,824.307 0.26

2193 Crucigenia tetrapedia . . . . Vegetative 14.00 84.692 0.09 6,235.053 0.13

1000072 Dictyosphaerium chlorelloides . . . . Vegetative 16.00 0.852 0.00 210.800 0.00

2211 Dictyosphaerium pulchellum . . . . Vegetative 18.00 255.131 0.27 8,888.778 0.18

2031 Monoraphidium arcuatum . . . monoraphidiod Vegetative 14.40 510.263 0.53 7,590.414 0.15

8041 Monoraphidium capricornutum . . . . Vegetative 4.00 6,123.154 6.37 47,590.374 0.96

2363 Oocystis parva . . . . Vegetative 10.80 1,020.526 1.06 599,698.595 12.09

2381 Pediastrum duplex . . . . Vegetative 50.00 42.346 0.04 40,617.008 0.82

2761 Phacotus lendneri . . . . Vegetative 13.07 1,530.788 1.59 378,630.862 7.63

8101 Pyramichlamys dissecta . . . . Vegetative 16.00 2,806.445 2.92 1,175,561.029 23.70

2484 Scenedesmus abundans . . . . Vegetative 10.67 254.077 0.26 3,370.206 0.07

8399 Scenedesmus acutus . . . . Vegetative 13.80 42.346 0.04 4,536.115 0.09 2483 Scenedesmus bijuga . . . . Vegetative 16.00 42.346 0.04 7,095.172 0.14

8303 Scenedesmus opoliensis . carinatus . . Vegetative 6.40 510.263 0.53 2,667.450 0.05 8308 Scenedesmus serratus . . . . Vegetative 4.00 84.692 0.09 709.519 0.01

2900 Sphaerellopsis spp . . . . Vegetative 9.60 255.131 0.27 19,698.134 0.40

Summary for Division ~ Chlorophyta (22 detail records) Sum Total Chlorophyta 17,772.195 18.48 2,478,735.177 49.98

Division: Cryptophyta

3043 Rhodomonas minuta . nannoplanctica . . Vegetative 8.00 3,316.708 3.45 111,143.886 2.24

; = Identification is Uncertain 160019-327 Wednesday, September 07, 2016 * = Family Level Identification Phytoplankton - Grab Page 7 of 14 Summary for Division ~ Cryptophyta (2 detail records) Sum Total Cryptophyta 3,401.401 3.54 128,172.296 2.58

Division: Cyanophyta

; 4011 Anabaena circinalis . . . . Vegetative 54.00 510.263 0.53 1,297,333.816 26.16 4041 Aphanizomenon flos-aquae . . . . Vegetative 60.00 42.346 0.04 31,928.273 0.64

4054 Aphanocapsa delicatissima . . . . Vegetative 8.00 510.263 0.53 5,877.819 0.12 4062 Aphanothece nidulans . . . . Vegetative 4.80 255.131 0.27 2,735.851 0.06

1000424 Cyanocatena planctonica . . . . Vegetative 5.00 1,530.788 1.59 1,508.286 0.03 10651 Cyanogranis ferruginea . . . . Vegetative 4.00 255.131 0.27 410.379 0.01

4166 Merismopedia warmingiana . . . . Vegetative 8.00 42.346 0.04 66.517 0.00 4172 Pseudanabaena limnetica . . . . Vegetative 61.33 765.394 0.80 82,515.387 1.66

4321 Synechococcus elongatus . . . . Vegetative 2.40 1,020.526 1.06 1,282.393 0.03 4323 Synechococcus sp. 1 . . . < 1um ovoid Vegetative 1.20 8,929.599 9.28 3,590.592 0.07

Summary for Division ~ Cyanophyta (11 detail records) Sum Total Cyanophyta 69,990.695 72.76 1,442,297.472 29.08

Division: Euglenophyta

5040 Trachelomonas spp . . . . Vegetative 20.00 84.692 0.09 74,094.880 1.49

Summary for Division ~ Euglenophyta (2 detail records) Sum Total Euglenophyta 127.039 0.13 89,526.878 1.81

; = Identification is Uncertain 160019-327 Wednesday, September 07, 2016 * = Family Level Identification Phytoplankton - Grab Page 8 of 14 Division: Pyrrhophyta

6033 Gymnodinium sp. 2 . . . . Vegetative 13.00 84.692 0.09 32,637.792 0.66

6040 Peridinium spp . . . . Vegetative 40.00 2.556 0.00 27,411.972 0.55

Summary for Division ~ Pyrrhophyta (3 detail records) Sum Total Pyrrhophyta 88.101 0.09 82,955.892 1.67

; = Identification is Uncertain 160019-327 Wednesday, September 07, 2016 * = Family Level Identification Phytoplankton - Grab Page 9 of 14 Total Sample Concentration Total Sample Biovolume 96,190.343 4,959,631.381 NU/ml μm^3 /ml

; = Identification is Uncertain 160019-327 Wednesday, September 07, 2016 * = Family Level Identification Phytoplankton - Grab Page 10 of 14 Species List

Division: Bacillariophyta

Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Form PhysiState Structure Authority

1431 Aulacoseira ambigua . . . Vegetative (Grunow) Simonsen

1432 Aulacoseira granulata . . . Vegetative (Ehrenberg) Simonsen

1523 Cyclostephanos damasii . . . Vegetative (Hustedt) Stoermer & Hakansson

1522 Cyclostephanos tholiformis . . . Vegetative Stoermer H†k. & Theriot

9856 Cyclotella atomus . . . Vegetative Hust.

1076 Cyclotella meneghiniana . . . Vegetative Kutzing

9361 Cyclotella pseudostelligera . . . Vegetative (Hustedt) Houk and Klee

1071 Cyclotella sp. 1 . . . Vegetative (Kutzing) de Brebisson

1108 Diatoma vulgaris . vulgaris . Vegetative Bory

1152 Fragilaria crotonensis . . . Vegetative Kitton

1210 Navicula spp . . . Vegetative Bory .

1221 Nitzschia acicularis . . . Vegetative (Kutzing) W. Smith

1222 Nitzschia gracilis . . . Vegetative Hantzsch

9123 Nitzschia palea . . . Vegetative (K• tz.) W. Sm.

9818 Stephanodiscus medius . . . Vegetative Hakansson

1298 Stephanodiscus parvus . . . Vegetative Stoermer & H†k.

1477 Synedra filiformis . . . Vegetative Grunow

1315 Synedra ulna . . . Vegetative (Nitzsch) Ehrenb.

Division: Chlorophyta

Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Form PhysiState Structure Authority

2687 *Chlorococcaceae spp . . . Vegetative (Brandt) Beijerinck

2683 *Chlorococcaceae spp . . . Vegetative N/A

1000031 Ankistrodesmus falcatus . . . Vegetative (Corda) Ralfs 2080 Chlamydomonas spp . . . Vegetative Ehrenberg

2110 Chlorogonium spp . . . Vegetative Dang.

1000012 Closterium spp . . . Vegetative .

2171 Coelastrum microporum . . . Vegetative Naeg

2175 Coelastrum pseudomicroporum . . . Vegetative Kors

2180 Cosmarium spp . . . Vegetative Corda

2194 Crucigenia crucifera . . . Vegetative (Wolle) Collins

2193 Crucigenia tetrapedia . . . Vegetative (Kirch.) W. West and G. S. West

1000072 Dictyosphaerium chlorelloides . . . Vegetative (Naumann) Komarek

2211 Dictyosphaerium pulchellum . . . Vegetative Wood

1000526 Golenkeniopsis parvula . . . Vegetative (Woronichin) Korschikov 1953

1000538 Monomastix minuta . . . Vegetative .

2031 Monoraphidium arcuatum . . . Vegetative (Corda) Ralfs

8041 Monoraphidium capricornutum . . . Vegetative (Printz) Nygaard

2363 Oocystis parva . . . Vegetative West & West

2371 Pandorina morum . . . Vegetative (O. Muller) Bory De St Vincent

2381 Pediastrum duplex . . . Vegetative West and West

2761 Phacotus lendneri . . . Vegetative Chodat

8101 Pyramichlamys dissecta . . . Vegetative (Tiffana) Ettl

2484 Scenedesmus abundans . . . Vegetative (Kirchn.) Chodat

8399 Scenedesmus acutus . . . Vegetative Lagh. Chodat

2483 Scenedesmus bijuga . . . Vegetative (Turpin) Lagerh.

8226 Scenedesmus intermedius . . . Vegetative Chodat

8303 Scenedesmus opoliensis . carinatus . Vegetative Lemmermann

8308 Scenedesmus serratus . . . Vegetative (Corda) Bohlin

2900 Sphaerellopsis spp . . . Vegetative Korshikov

2551 Tetraedron caudatum . . . Vegetative (Corda) Hansgirg 2561 Tetrastrum staurogeniaeforme . . . Vegetative (Schroeder) Lemm.

Division: Cryptophyta

Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Form PhysiState Structure Authority

3015 Cryptomonas erosa . . . Vegetative Ehrenberg .

3041 Rhodomonas minuta . . . Vegetative Skuja

3043 Rhodomonas minuta . nannoplanctica . Vegetative Skuja

Division: Cyanophyta

Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Form PhysiState Structure Authority

4282 *Chroococcaceae spp . . . Vegetative N/A

4011 Anabaena circinalis . . . Vegetative Rabenhorst

4041 Aphanizomenon flos-aquae . . . Vegetative (L.) Ralfs

4054 Aphanocapsa delicatissima . . . Vegetative West & West

4062 Aphanothece nidulans . . . Vegetative P. Richter

4082 Chroococcus limneticus . . . Vegetative Lemm

1000424 Cyanocatena planctonica . . . Vegetative Hindak

10651 Cyanogranis ferruginea . . . Vegetative Hindak

4166 Merismopedia warmingiana . . . Vegetative Lagerheim

4172 Pseudanabaena limnetica . . . Vegetative Lemmermann

4321 Synechococcus elongatus . . . Vegetative Nageli

4323 Synechococcus sp. 1 . . . Vegetative Nageli

4285 Synechocystis spp . . . Vegetative N/A

Division: Euglenophyta

Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Form PhysiState Structure Authority

5020 Euglena spp . . . Vegetative Ehrenberg

5040 Trachelomonas spp . . . Vegetative Ehrenberg . Division: Pyrrhophyta

Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Form PhysiState Structure Authority

6011 Ceratium hirundinella . . . Vegetative Dujardin

6033 Gymnodinium sp. 2 . . . Vegetative Stein

6040 Peridinium spp . . . Vegetative Ehrenberg

6041 Peridinium cinctum . . . Vegetative (O. F. M• ller) Ehrenberg Algae Analysis with Biovolume Estimates Report and Data Set

Customer ID: 327 Tracking Code: 160021-327 Sample ID: CCR-2 - Photic Composite Replicate: 1 Customer ID: 327 Sample Date: 9/13/2016 Sample Level: Composite Job ID: 1 Station: . Sample Depth: 0

System Name: Cherry Creek Site: CCR-2 Photic Composite Preservative: Lugols Report Notes: .

Division: Bacillariophyta

1522 Cyclostephanos tholiformis . . . . Vegetative 5.92 453.567 2.24 43,135.258 1.71

1071 Cyclotella sp. 1 . . . . Vegetative 4.80 226.784 1.12 9,849.070 0.39

1152 Fragilaria crotonensis . . . . Vegetative 82.00 22.155 0.11 287,311.728 11.42

; 9818 Stephanodiscus medius . . . . Vegetative 15.40 226.784 1.12 342,243.597 13.60

Summary for Division ~ Bacillariophyta (5 detail records) Sum Total Bacillariophyta 944.626 4.67 999,019.430 39.70

Division: Chlorophyta

2687 *Chlorococcaceae spp . . . > 1 um ovoid Vegetative 12.00 56.696 0.28 22,798.763 0.91

2021 Actinastrum hantzschii . . . . Vegetative 17.60 56.696 0.28 2,407.550 0.10

2035 Ankistrodesmus convolutus . . . . Vegetative 16.00 113.392 0.56 2,917.558 0.12

1000031 Ankistrodesmus falcatus . . . straight Vegetative 20.00 56.696 0.28 170.989 0.01

100285 Asterococcus limnecticus . . . . Vegetative 10.40 56.696 0.28 26,264.173 1.04

2071 Characium limneticum . . . . Vegetative 50.00 24.910 0.12 5,534.261 0.22

; = Identification is Uncertain 160021-327 Thursday, October 06, 2016 * = Family Level Identification Phytoplankton - Grab Page 2 of 14 2080 Chlamydomonas spp . . . . Vegetative 5.07 283.479 1.40 20,979.682 0.83

2171 Coelastrum microporum . . . . Vegetative 11.20 56.696 0.28 3,283.020 0.13

2175 Coelastrum pseudomicroporum . . . . Vegetative 17.60 56.696 0.28 6,566.045 0.26

2180 Cosmarium spp . . . . Vegetative 9.60 56.696 0.28 6,566.045 0.26

2194 Crucigenia crucifera . . . . Vegetative 51.73 170.088 0.84 119,636.504 4.75

2195 Crucigenia quadrata . . . . Vegetative 9.60 113.392 0.56 5,303.467 0.21

2193 Crucigenia tetrapedia . . . . Vegetative 20.00 56.696 0.28 13,933.576 0.55

; 2211 Dictyosphaerium pulchellum . . . . Vegetative 17.60 113.392 0.56 15,234.440 0.61

2323 Kirchneriella lunaris . . . . Vegetative 12.00 56.696 0.28 1,359.873 0.05

2853 Lagerheimia quadriseta . . . . Vegetative 4.80 56.696 0.28 683.962 0.03

2031 Monoraphidium arcuatum . . . monoraphidiod Vegetative 15.00 396.871 1.96 5,808.367 0.23

8041 Monoraphidium capricornutum . . . . Vegetative 4.00 623.655 3.08 4,847.168 0.19

2340 Mougeotia spp . . . . Vegetative 200.00 24.910 0.12 62,604.459 2.49

2363 Oocystis parva . . . . Vegetative 11.12 566.959 2.80 90,997.432 3.62

2371 Pandorina morum . . . . Vegetative 96.00 1.704 0.01 14,049.549 0.56

2761 Phacotus lendneri . . . . Vegetative 16.00 396.871 1.96 232,499.014 9.24

8101 Pyramichlamys dissecta . . . . Vegetative 16.00 510.263 2.52 213,738.369 8.49 2480 Scenedesmus spp . . . . Vegetative 9.60 56.696 0.28 4,650.949 0.18

2484 Scenedesmus abundans . . . . Vegetative 12.00 24.910 0.12 208.682 0.01 102793 Scenedesmus acutus alternans . . . Vegetative 20.00 24.910 0.12 2,347.668 0.09

2483 Scenedesmus bijuga . . . . Vegetative 6.40 113.392 0.56 3,890.992 0.15 8303 Scenedesmus opoliensis . carinatus . . Vegetative 8.00 56.696 0.28 474.975 0.02

2884 Scenedesmus quadricauda . . . . Vegetative 11.20 56.696 0.28 121.596 0.00 8301 Scenedesmus verrucosus . . . . Vegetative 9.60 113.392 0.56 10,943.402 0.43

2492 Schroederia setigera . . . . Vegetative 40.00 56.696 0.28 2,735.853 0.11 2641 Sphaerocystis schroeteri . . . . Vegetative 9.60 56.696 0.28 2,918.244 0.12

2551 Tetraedron caudatum . . . . Vegetative 18.00 113.392 0.56 14,253.942 0.57 2552 Tetraedron gracile . . . . Vegetative 24.00 24.910 0.12 4,141.878 0.16

2554 Tetraedron minimum . . . . Vegetative 6.00 24.910 0.12 1,345.114 0.05

; = Identification is Uncertain 160021-327 Thursday, October 06, 2016 * = Family Level Identification Phytoplankton - Grab Page 3 of 14 2561 Tetrastrum staurogeniaeforme . . . . Vegetative 8.00 56.696 0.28 473.076 0.02

Summary for Division ~ Chlorophyta (37 detail records) Sum Total Chlorophyta 5,537.269 27.37 996,347.969 39.60

Division: Cryptophyta

Summary for Division ~ Cryptophyta (2 detail records) Sum Total Cryptophyta 1,247.309 6.17 267,444.639 10.63

Division: Cyanophyta

4054 Aphanocapsa delicatissima . . . . Vegetative 4.00 113.392 0.56 356.232 0.01

1000424 Cyanocatena planctonica . . . . Vegetative 6.67 1,304.005 6.45 2,855.249 0.11

10651 Cyanogranis ferruginea . . . . Vegetative 11.33 1,530.788 7.57 7,733.543 0.31

107710 Planktothrix agardhii . . . . Vegetative 280.00 24.910 0.12 49,301.013 1.96

4191 Pseudanabaena mucicola . . . . Vegetative 9.60 170.088 0.84 1,282.427 0.05

4323 Synechococcus sp. 1 . . . < 1um ovoid Vegetative 1.20 340.175 1.68 136.784 0.01

4285 Synechocystis spp . . . >1 um spherical Vegetative 1.50 113.392 0.56 198.776 0.01

1000513 Synechocystis spp . . . >=2 um spherical Vegetative 2.00 907.134 4.48 3,799.802 0.15

Summary for Division ~ Cyanophyta (9 detail records) Sum Total Cyanophyta 12,157.825 60.10 67,715.847 2.69

Division: Euglenophyta

; = Identification is Uncertain 160021-327 Thursday, October 06, 2016 * = Family Level Identification Phytoplankton - Grab Page 4 of 14 5030 Phacus spp . . . . Vegetative 25.60 56.696 0.28 62,255.814 2.47

5040 Trachelomonas spp . . . . Vegetative 16.00 56.696 0.28 17,509.447 0.70

Summary for Division ~ Euglenophyta (3 detail records) Sum Total Euglenophyta 115.096 0.57 83,420.190 3.32

Division: Haptophyta

Summary for Division ~ Haptophyta (1 detail record) Sum Total Haptophyta 56.696 0.28 1,824.660 0.07

Division: Pyrrhophyta

6033 Gymnodinium sp. 2 . . . . Vegetative 13.60 170.088 0.84 70,106.196 2.79

Summary for Division ~ Pyrrhophyta (2 detail records) Sum Total Pyrrhophyta 171.792 0.85 100,544.906 4.00

; = Identification is Uncertain 160021-327 Thursday, October 06, 2016 * = Family Level Identification Phytoplankton - Grab Page 5 of 14 Total Sample Concentration Total Sample Biovolume 20,230.613 2,516,317.642 NU/ml μm^3 /ml

; = Identification is Uncertain 160021-327 Thursday, October 06, 2016 * = Family Level Identification Phytoplankton - Grab Page 6 of 14 Tracking Code: 160023-327 Sample ID: CCR-2 - Photic Composite Replicate: 1 Customer ID: 327 Sample Date: 9/27/2016 Sample Level: Composite Job ID: 1 Station: . Sample Depth: 0

System Name: Cherry Creek Site: CCR-2 Photic Composite Preservative: Lugols Report Notes: .

Division: Bacillariophyta

1522 Cyclostephanos tholiformis . . . . Vegetative 8.00 318.914 0.25 64,121.504 1.71

9856 Cyclotella atomus . . . . Vegetative 4.80 318.914 0.25 13,850.254 0.37

1076 Cyclotella meneghiniana . . . . Vegetative 12.00 21.173 0.02 14,367.723 0.38

9361 Cyclotella pseudostelligera . . . . Vegetative 4.80 318.914 0.25 13,850.254 0.37 1071 Cyclotella sp. 1 . . . . Vegetative 4.00 1,594.571 1.24 40,075.880 1.07

1152 Fragilaria crotonensis . . . . Vegetative 58.00 11.503 0.01 84,420.306 2.25 1222 Nitzschia gracilis . . . . Vegetative 52.00 21.173 0.02 3,891.259 0.10

9818 Stephanodiscus medius . . . . Vegetative 14.00 637.829 0.49 729,382.203 19.43

Summary for Division ~ Bacillariophyta (9 detail records) Sum Total Bacillariophyta 3,264.165 2.53 977,262.831 26.03

Division: Chlorophyta

2687 *Chlorococcaceae spp . . . > 1 um ovoid Vegetative 12.00 21.173 0.02 8,514.207 0.23

2080 Chlamydomonas spp . . . . Vegetative 7.60 1,275.657 0.99 353,041.898 9.40

; = Identification is Uncertain 160023-327 Thursday, October 06, 2016 * = Family Level Identification Phytoplankton - Grab Page 7 of 14 2162 Closterium moniliferum . . . . Vegetative 80.00 21.173 0.02 9,891.255 0.26

2171 Coelastrum microporum . . . . Vegetative 10.00 21.173 0.02 5,676.138 0.15

2197 Crucigenia apiculata . . . . Vegetative 8.00 42.346 0.03 2,394.622 0.06

2194 Crucigenia crucifera . . . . Vegetative 16.00 637.829 0.49 28,854.659 0.77

2195 Crucigenia quadrata . . . . Vegetative 12.00 42.346 0.03 4,573.388 0.12

2031 Monoraphidium arcuatum . . . monoraphidiod Vegetative 13.87 956.743 0.74 9,462.951 0.25

8041 Monoraphidium capricornutum . . . . Vegetative 4.00 318.914 0.25 2,478.665 0.07

2363 Oocystis parva . . . . Vegetative 8.00 318.914 0.25 9,233.492 0.25

2761 Phacotus lendneri . . . . Vegetative 14.40 956.743 0.74 432,189.302 11.51

8101 Pyramichlamys dissecta . . . . Vegetative 16.00 3,508.057 2.72 1,469,451.286 39.14

2480 Scenedesmus spp . . . . Vegetative 26.00 42.346 0.03 5,498.759 0.15

2484 Scenedesmus abundans . . . . Vegetative 12.00 127.039 0.10 3,591.927 0.10

8399 Scenedesmus acutus . . . . Vegetative 8.00 21.173 0.02 784.021 0.02

2483 Scenedesmus bijuga . . . . Vegetative 4.80 318.914 0.25 2,308.365 0.06

8226 Scenedesmus intermedius . . . . Vegetative 16.00 21.173 0.02 147.668 0.00

8303 Scenedesmus opoliensis . carinatus . . Vegetative 8.00 318.914 0.25 4,616.762 0.12

2491 Schroederia judayi . . . . Vegetative 30.00 21.173 0.02 554.310 0.01 2551 Tetraedron caudatum . . . . Vegetative 10.00 21.173 0.02 402.736 0.01

2561 Tetrastrum staurogeniaeforme . . . . Vegetative 8.00 21.173 0.02 594.663 0.02

Summary for Division ~ Chlorophyta (22 detail records) Sum Total Chlorophyta 9,671.975 7.50 2,358,877.803 62.83

Division: Cryptophyta

3043 Rhodomonas minuta . nannoplanctica . . Vegetative 8.00 956.743 0.74 32,060.736 0.85

Summary for Division ~ Cryptophyta (2 detail records) Sum Total Cryptophyta 1,083.781 0.84 134,053.841 3.57

; = Identification is Uncertain 160023-327 Thursday, October 06, 2016 * = Family Level Identification Phytoplankton - Grab Page 8 of 14 Division: Cyanophyta

4046 Cuspidothrix issatschenkoi . . . . Vegetative 320.00 21.173 0.02 47,892.411 1.28

1000424 Cyanocatena planctonica . . . . Vegetative 4.80 2,870.228 2.23 4,524.915 0.12

10651 Cyanogranis ferruginea . . . . Vegetative 9.92 3,826.971 2.97 19,526.737 0.52

107710 Planktothrix agardhii . . . . Vegetative 240.00 21.173 0.02 35,919.308 0.96

4323 Synechococcus sp. 1 . . . < 1um ovoid Vegetative 1.20 28,064.454 21.77 11,284.717 0.30

4285 Synechocystis spp . . . >1 um spherical Vegetative 1.50 956.743 0.74 1,677.170 0.04

1000513 Synechocystis spp . . . >=2 um spherical Vegetative 1.60 637.829 0.49 1,367.951 0.04

Summary for Division ~ Cyanophyta (8 detail records) Sum Total Cyanophyta 114,213.646 88.61 143,055.430 3.81

Division: Pyrrhophyta

6034 Gymnodinium sp. 3 . . . . Vegetative 4.00 318.914 0.25 3,419.813 0.09 6044 Peridinium umbonatum . . . . Vegetative 12.80 318.914 0.25 134,056.720 3.57

Summary for Division ~ Pyrrhophyta (3 detail records) Sum Total Pyrrhophyta 659.002 0.51 141,024.119 3.76

; = Identification is Uncertain 160023-327 Thursday, October 06, 2016 * = Family Level Identification Phytoplankton - Grab Page 9 of 14 Total Sample Concentration Total Sample Biovolume 128,892.569 3,754,274.024 NU/ml μm^3 /ml

; = Identification is Uncertain 160023-327 Thursday, October 06, 2016 * = Family Level Identification Phytoplankton - Grab Page 10 of 14 Species List

Division: Bacillariophyta

Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Form PhysiState Structure Authority

1432 Aulacoseira granulata . . . Vegetative (Ehrenberg) Simonsen

1522 Cyclostephanos tholiformis . . . Vegetative Stoermer H†k. & Theriot

9856 Cyclotella atomus . . . Vegetative Hust.

1076 Cyclotella meneghiniana . . . Vegetative Kutzing

9361 Cyclotella pseudostelligera . . . Vegetative (Hustedt) Houk and Klee

1071 Cyclotella sp. 1 . . . Vegetative (Kutzing) de Brebisson

1152 Fragilaria crotonensis . . . Vegetative Kitton

1222 Nitzschia gracilis . . . Vegetative Hantzsch

9818 Stephanodiscus medius . . . Vegetative Hakansson

Division: Chlorophyta

Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Form PhysiState Structure Authority

2683 *Chlorococcaceae spp . . . Vegetative N/A

2687 *Chlorococcaceae spp . . . Vegetative (Brandt) Beijerinck

2021 Actinastrum hantzschii . . . Vegetative Lagerheim

2035 Ankistrodesmus convolutus . . . Vegetative Corda

1000031 Ankistrodesmus falcatus . . . Vegetative (Corda) Ralfs

100285 Asterococcus limnecticus . . . Vegetative G. M. Smith

2071 Characium limneticum . . . Vegetative Lemmermann

2080 Chlamydomonas spp . . . Vegetative Ehrenberg

2162 Closterium moniliferum . . . Vegetative (Bory) Ehrenberg

2171 Coelastrum microporum . . . Vegetative Naeg

2175 Coelastrum pseudomicroporum . . . Vegetative Kors

2180 Cosmarium spp . . . Vegetative Corda 2197 Crucigenia apiculata . . . Vegetative (Lemmermann) Schmidle

2194 Crucigenia crucifera . . . Vegetative (Wolle) Collins

2195 Crucigenia quadrata . . . Vegetative C. Morren

2193 Crucigenia tetrapedia . . . Vegetative (Kirch.) W. West and G. S. West

2211 Dictyosphaerium pulchellum . . . Vegetative Wood

2323 Kirchneriella lunaris . . . Vegetative (Kirchner) Moebius

2853 Lagerheimia quadriseta . . . Vegetative (Lemmermann) G.M. Smith

2031 Monoraphidium arcuatum . . . Vegetative (Corda) Ralfs

8041 Monoraphidium capricornutum . . . Vegetative (Printz) Nygaard

2340 Mougeotia spp . . . Vegetative Kisselew

2363 Oocystis parva . . . Vegetative West & West

2371 Pandorina morum . . . Vegetative (O. Muller) Bory De St Vincent

2761 Phacotus lendneri . . . Vegetative Chodat

8101 Pyramichlamys dissecta . . . Vegetative (Tiffana) Ettl

2480 Scenedesmus spp . . . Vegetative Meyen

2484 Scenedesmus abundans . . . Vegetative (Kirchn.) Chodat

8399 Scenedesmus acutus . . . Vegetative Lagh. Chodat

102793 Scenedesmus acutus alternans . . Vegetative Hortobagyi 1941

2483 Scenedesmus bijuga . . . Vegetative (Turpin) Lagerh.

8226 Scenedesmus intermedius . . . Vegetative Chodat

8303 Scenedesmus opoliensis . carinatus . Vegetative Lemmermann

2884 Scenedesmus quadricauda . . . Vegetative (Turpin) Breb.

8301 Scenedesmus verrucosus . . . Vegetative Roll

2491 Schroederia judayi . . . Vegetative G. M. Smith

2492 Schroederia setigera . . . Vegetative (Schroeder) Lemmermann

2641 Sphaerocystis schroeteri . . . Vegetative Chodat

2551 Tetraedron caudatum . . . Vegetative (Corda) Hansgirg 2552 Tetraedron gracile . . . Vegetative (Reinsch) Hansgrig

2554 Tetraedron minimum . . . Vegetative (Braun) Hansgirg

2561 Tetrastrum staurogeniaeforme . . . Vegetative (Schroeder) Lemm.

Division: Cryptophyta

Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Form PhysiState Structure Authority

3015 Cryptomonas erosa . . . Vegetative Ehrenberg .

3043 Rhodomonas minuta . nannoplanctica . Vegetative Skuja

Division: Cyanophyta

Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Form PhysiState Structure Authority

4282 *Chroococcaceae spp . . . Vegetative N/A

4054 Aphanocapsa delicatissima . . . Vegetative West & West

4046 Cuspidothrix issatschenkoi . . . Vegetative (Usachev) Rajaniemi, Komárek, Willame, Hrouzek,

1000424 Cyanocatena planctonica . . . Vegetative Hindak

10651 Cyanogranis ferruginea . . . Vegetative Hindak

107710 Planktothrix agardhii . . . Vegetative (Gomont) Anag. and Komar

4191 Pseudanabaena mucicola . . . Vegetative Naumann & Huber-Pestalozzi

4323 Synechococcus sp. 1 . . . Vegetative Nageli

1000513 Synechocystis spp . . . Vegetative .

4285 Synechocystis spp . . . Vegetative N/A

Division: Euglenophyta

Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Form PhysiState Structure Authority

5020 Euglena spp . . . Vegetative Ehrenberg

5030 Phacus spp . . . Vegetative Dujardin .

5040 Trachelomonas spp . . . Vegetative Ehrenberg . Division: Haptophyta

Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Form PhysiState Structure Authority

1731 Chrysochromulina parva . . . Vegetative Lackey

Division: Pyrrhophyta

Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Form PhysiState Structure Authority

6011 Ceratium hirundinella . . . Vegetative Dujardin

6033 Gymnodinium sp. 2 . . . Vegetative Stein

6034 Gymnodinium sp. 3 . . . Vegetative Stein

6044 Peridinium umbonatum . . . Vegetative Stein Zooplankton Analysis with Biomass Estimates Report and Data Set

Customer ID: 327 Tracking Code: 160002-327 Sample ID: CCR - Composite Replicate: 1 Customer ID: 327 Sample Date: 3/16/2016 Sample Level: Composite Job ID: 1 Station: . Sample Depth: 0

System Name: Cherry Creek Site: CCR Composite Preservative: Ethanol Report Notes: .

; 1000412 Diacyclops thomasi . . Adults Whole Animal 0.97 14.862 9.09 39.315 28.52 Summary for Order ~ Cyclopoida (2 detail records) Sum Total Cyclopoida 89.173 54.55 132.808 96.33

; = Identification is Uncertain 160002-327 Monday, June 13, 2016 * = Family Level Identification Zooplankton - Tow Volume Calculated (Field Method) Page 2 of 14 ^ = Subclass Level Identification Phylum: Rotifera Order: Bdelloida Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Morph Structure Length Concentration Relative Total Relative mm Animals / L Concentratio Biomass Total μg / L Biomass ; 1000752 Rotaria spp . . . Whole Animal 0.10 3.716 2.27 0.027 0.02 Summary for Order ~ Bdelloida (1 detail record) Sum Total Bdelloida 3.716 2.27 0.027 0.02 Order: Ploima Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Morph Structure Length Concentration Relative Total Relative mm Animals / L Concentratio Biomass Total μg / L Biomass 125281 Keratella cochlearis . . . Whole Animal 0.16 7.431 4.55 0.030 0.02 Summary for Order ~ Ploima (1 detail record) Sum Total Ploima 7.431 4.55 0.030 0.02

; = Identification is Uncertain 160002-327 Monday, June 13, 2016 * = Family Level Identification Zooplankton - Tow Volume Calculated (Field Method) Page 3 of 14 ^ = Subclass Level Identification Total Sample Concentration Total Sample Cell Concentration 163.484 137.861

S Sample Concentration Arachnida U Copepoda Diplostraca_Daphiniidae M Diplostraca_Non_Daphiniidae M Diptera A Mollusca R Ostracoda Y Other 0 102030405060708090100 Rotifera

G Sample Biomass Arachnida R Copepoda A Diplostraca_Daphiniidae P Diplostraca_Non_Daphiniidae H Diptera I Mollusca C Ostracoda S Other 0 102030405060708090100Rotifera

; = Identification is Uncertain 160002-327 Monday, June 13, 2016 * = Family Level Identification Zooplankton - Tow Volume Calculated (Field Method) Page 4 of 14 ^ = Subclass Level Identification Tracking Code: 160004-327 Sample ID: CCR - Composite Replicate: 1 Customer ID: 327 Sample Date: 4/12/2016 Sample Level: Composite Job ID: 1 Station: . Sample Depth: 0

System Name: Cherry Creek Site: CCR Composite Preservative: Ethanol Report Notes: .

; 1000412 Diacyclops thomasi . . Adults Whole Animal 1.10 9.837 27.03 36.208 71.17 Summary for Order ~ Cyclopoida (2 detail records) Sum Total Cyclopoida 18.691 51.35 49.376 97.06

; = Identification is Uncertain 160004-327 Monday, June 13, 2016 * = Family Level Identification Zooplankton - Tow Volume Calculated (Field Method) Page 5 of 14 ^ = Subclass Level Identification Phylum: Rotifera Order: Bdelloida Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Morph Structure Length Concentration Relative Total Relative mm Animals / L Concentratio Biomass Total μg / L Biomass ; 1000752 Rotaria spp . . . Whole Animal 0.19 0.984 2.70 0.015 0.03 Summary for Order ~ Bdelloida (1 detail record) Sum Total Bdelloida 0.984 2.70 0.015 0.03 Order: Ploima Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Morph Structure Length Concentration Relative Total Relative mm Animals / L Concentratio Biomass Total μg / L Biomass 125278 Kellicottia longispina . . . Whole Animal 0.48 0.984 2.70 0.024 0.05 125281 Keratella cochlearis . . . Whole Animal 0.23 0.984 2.70 0.015 0.03 Summary for Order ~ Ploima (2 detail records) Sum Total Ploima 1.967 5.41 0.039 0.08

; = Identification is Uncertain 160004-327 Monday, June 13, 2016 * = Family Level Identification Zooplankton - Tow Volume Calculated (Field Method) Page 6 of 14 ^ = Subclass Level Identification Total Sample Concentration Total Sample Cell Concentration 36.398 50.873

S Sample Concentration Arachnida U Copepoda Diplostraca_Daphiniidae M Diplostraca_Non_Daphiniidae M Diptera A Mollusca R Ostracoda Y Other 0 102030405060708090100 Rotifera

G Sample Biomass Arachnida R Copepoda A Diplostraca_Daphiniidae P Diplostraca_Non_Daphiniidae H Diptera I Mollusca C Ostracoda S Other 0 102030405060708090100Rotifera

; = Identification is Uncertain 160004-327 Monday, June 13, 2016 * = Family Level Identification Zooplankton - Tow Volume Calculated (Field Method) Page 7 of 14 ^ = Subclass Level Identification Tracking Code: 160006-327 Sample ID: CCR - Composite Replicate: 1 Customer ID: 327 Sample Date: 5/10/2016 Sample Level: Composite Job ID: 1 Station: . Sample Depth: 0

System Name: Cherry Creek Site: CCR Composite Preservative: Ethanol Report Notes: .

1000248 *. spp . . CI-CV Whole Animal 0.60 160.691 40.47 138.515 49.74 Summary for Order ~ Cyclopoida (2 detail records) Sum Total Cyclopoida 171.773 43.26 168.681 60.58

; = Identification is Uncertain 160006-327 Monday, June 13, 2016 * = Family Level Identification Zooplankton - Tow Volume Calculated (Field Method) Page 8 of 14 ^ = Subclass Level Identification Phylum: Arthropoda Order: Diplostraca Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Morph Structure Length Concentration Relative Total Relative mm Animals / L Concentratio Biomass Total μg / L Biomass ; 1000879 Daphnia mendotae . . Female Whole Animal 0.89 14.776 3.72 56.919 20.44

1000145 Ceriodaphnia reticulata . . . Whole Animal 0.48 5.541 1.40 12.313 4.42 Summary for Order ~ Diplostraca (2 detail records) Sum Total Diplostraca 20.317 5.12 69.233 24.86

Phylum: Arthropoda Order: Diplostraca Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Morph Structure Length Concentration Relative Total Relative mm Animals / L Concentratio Biomass Total μg / L Biomass 104165 Bosmina longirostris . . . Whole Animal 0.39 7.388 1.86 7.721 2.77 Summary for Order ~ Diplostraca (1 detail record) Sum Total Diplostraca 7.388 1.86 7.721 2.77

Phylum: Rotifera Order: Bdelloida Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Morph Structure Length Concentration Relative Total Relative mm Animals / L Concentratio Biomass Total μg / L Biomass ; 1000752 Rotaria spp . . . Whole Animal 0.10 1.847 0.47 0.014 0.00 Summary for Order ~ Bdelloida (1 detail record) Sum Total Bdelloida 1.847 0.47 0.014 0.00 Order: Ploima Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Morph Structure Length Concentration Relative Total Relative mm Animals / L Concentratio Biomass Total μg / L Biomass 125281 Keratella cochlearis . . . Whole Animal 0.18 1.847 0.47 0.009 0.00 Summary for Order ~ Ploima (1 detail record) Sum Total Ploima 1.847 0.47 0.009 0.00

; = Identification is Uncertain 160006-327 Monday, June 13, 2016 * = Family Level Identification Zooplankton - Tow Volume Calculated (Field Method) Page 9 of 14 ^ = Subclass Level Identification Total Sample Concentration Total Sample Cell Concentration 395.262 267.484

S Sample Concentration Arachnida U Copepoda Diplostraca_Daphiniidae M Diplostraca_Non_Daphiniidae M Diptera A Mollusca R Ostracoda Y Other 0 102030405060708090100 Rotifera

G Sample Biomass Arachnida R Copepoda A Diplostraca_Daphiniidae P Diplostraca_Non_Daphiniidae H Diptera I Mollusca C Ostracoda S Other 0 102030405060708090100Rotifera

; = Identification is Uncertain 160006-327 Monday, June 13, 2016 * = Family Level Identification Zooplankton - Tow Volume Calculated (Field Method) Page 10 of 14 ^ = Subclass Level Identification Tracking Code: 160008-327 Sample ID: CCR-2 Composite Replicate: 1 Customer ID: 327 Sample Date: 5/24/2016 Sample Level: Composite Job ID: 1 Station: . Sample Depth: 0

System Name: Cherry Creek Site: CCR-2 Composite Preservative: Ethanol Report Notes: .

Phylum: Arthropoda Order: ^Copepoda Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Morph Structure Length Concentration Relative Total Relative mm Animals / L Concentratio Biomass Total μg / L Biomass 1000531 *. spp . . NI-NVI Whole Animal 0.17 92.147 24.11 14.101 3.61 Summary for Order ~ ^Copepoda (1 detail record) Sum Total ^Copepoda 92.147 24.11 14.101 3.61 Order: Calanoida Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Morph Structure Length Concentration Relative Total Relative mm Animals / L Concentratio Biomass Total μg / L Biomass 100212 Leptodiaptomus ashlandi . . Adults Whole Animal 1.15 5.420 1.42 22.024 5.64 Summary for Order ~ Calanoida (1 detail record) Sum Total Calanoida 5.420 1.42 22.024 5.64 Order: Cyclopoida Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Morph Structure Length Concentration Relative Total Relative mm Animals / L Concentratio Biomass Total μg / L Biomass 1000248 *. spp . . CI-CV Whole Animal 0.53 195.136 51.06 120.714 30.89 Summary for Order ~ Cyclopoida (1 detail record) Sum Total Cyclopoida 195.136 51.06 120.714 30.89

; = Identification is Uncertain 160008-327 Monday, June 13, 2016 * = Family Level Identification Zooplankton - Tow Volume Calculated (Field Method) Page 11 of 14 ^ = Subclass Level Identification Phylum: Arthropoda Order: Diplostraca Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Morph Structure Length Concentration Relative Total Relative mm Animals / L Concentratio Biomass Total μg / L Biomass ; 1000879 Daphnia mendotae . . Female Whole Animal 0.81 54.204 14.18 158.434 40.55

1000149 Daphnia retrocurva . . Female Whole Animal 0.82 13.551 3.55 61.625 15.77 Summary for Order ~ Diplostraca (2 detail records) Sum Total Diplostraca 67.755 17.73 220.059 56.32

Phylum: Arthropoda Order: Diplostraca Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Morph Structure Length Concentration Relative Total Relative mm Animals / L Concentratio Biomass Total μg / L Biomass 104165 Bosmina longirostris . . . Whole Animal 0.36 16.261 4.26 13.817 3.54 Summary for Order ~ Diplostraca (1 detail record) Sum Total Diplostraca 16.261 4.26 13.817 3.54

Phylum: Rotifera Order: Ploima Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Morph Structure Length Concentration Relative Total Relative mm Animals / L Concentratio Biomass Total μg / L Biomass 125281 Keratella cochlearis . . . Whole Animal 0.17 5.420 1.42 0.027 0.01 Summary for Order ~ Ploima (1 detail record) Sum Total Ploima 5.420 1.42 0.027 0.01

; = Identification is Uncertain 160008-327 Monday, June 13, 2016 * = Family Level Identification Zooplankton - Tow Volume Calculated (Field Method) Page 12 of 14 ^ = Subclass Level Identification Total Sample Concentration Total Sample Cell Concentration 382.141 390.742

S Sample Concentration Arachnida U Copepoda Diplostraca_Daphiniidae M Diplostraca_Non_Daphiniidae M Diptera A Mollusca R Ostracoda Y Other 0 102030405060708090100 Rotifera

G Sample Biomass Arachnida R Copepoda A Diplostraca_Daphiniidae P Diplostraca_Non_Daphiniidae H Diptera I Mollusca C Ostracoda S Other 0 102030405060708090100Rotifera

; = Identification is Uncertain 160008-327 Monday, June 13, 2016 * = Family Level Identification Zooplankton - Tow Volume Calculated (Field Method) Page 13 of 14 ^ = Subclass Level Identification Species List

Order: ^Copepoda

Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Form Morph Structure Authority

1000531 *. spp . . . NI-NVI Whole Animal Sars, 1903

Order: Bdelloida

Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Form Morph Structure Authority

1000752 Rotaria spp . . . . Whole Animal .

Order: Calanoida

Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Form Morph Structure Authority

100212 Leptodiaptomus ashlandi . . . Adults Whole Animal Marsh, 1893

Order: Cyclopoida

Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Form Morph Structure Authority

1000248 *. spp . . . CI-CV Whole Animal Burmeister, 1834

1000412 Diacyclops thomasi . . . Adults Whole Animal S. A. Forbes, 1882

Order: Diplostraca

Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Form Morph Structure Authority

1000145 Ceriodaphnia reticulata . . . . Whole Animal Mean of C. lacustris, C. quadrangula and C. reticula

1000149 Daphnia retrocurva . . . Female Whole Animal Forbes, 1882

1000879 Daphnia mendotae . . . Female Whole Animal Birge

104165 Bosmina longirostris . . . . Whole Animal O. F. Mueller, 1785

Order: Ploima

Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Form Morph Structure Authority

125278 Kellicottia longispina . . . . Whole Animal Kellicott 1879)

125281 Keratella cochlearis . . . . Whole Animal (Gosse 1851) Zooplankton Analysis with Biomass Estimates Report and Data Set

Customer ID: 327 Tracking Code: 160010-327 Sample ID: CCR-2 Composite Replicate: 1 Customer ID: 327 Sample Date: 6/14/2016 Sample Level: Composite Job ID: 1 Station: . Sample Depth: 0

System Name: Cherry Creek Site: CCR-2 Composite Preservative: Ethanol Report Notes: .

100212 Leptodiaptomus ashlandi . . Adults Whole Animal 1.15 13.862 2.45 56.322 8.37 Summary for Order ~ Calanoida (2 detail records) Sum Total Calanoida 36.041 6.37 88.120 13.09 Order: Cyclopoida Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Morph Structure Length Concentration Relative Total Relative mm Animals / L Concentratio Biomass Total μg / L Biomass 1000248 *. spp . . CI-CV Whole Animal 0.48 19.406 3.43 9.672 1.44

1000412 Diacyclops thomasi . . Adults Whole Animal 1.25 2.772 0.49 13.527 2.01 Summary for Order ~ Cyclopoida (2 detail records) Sum Total Cyclopoida 22.179 3.92 23.198 3.45

; = Identification is Uncertain 160010-327 Tuesday, July 12, 2016 * = Family Level Identification Zooplankton - Tow Volume Calculated (Field Method) Page 2 of 11 ^ = Subclass Level Identification Phylum: Arthropoda Order: Diplostraca Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Morph Structure Length Concentration Relative Total Relative mm Animals / L Concentratio Biomass Total μg / L Biomass 1000879 Daphnia mendotae . . Female Whole Animal 0.98 55.447 9.80 513.557 76.31 Summary for Order ~ Diplostraca (1 detail record) Sum Total Diplostraca 55.447 9.80 513.557 76.31

Phylum: Arthropoda Order: Diplostraca Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Morph Structure Length Concentration Relative Total Relative mm Animals / L Concentratio Biomass Total μg / L Biomass 1000240 Daphnia sp. . . Neonates Whole Animal 0.24 2.772 0.49 0.890 0.13

104165 Bosmina longirostris . . . Whole Animal 0.42 22.179 3.92 31.025 4.61 Summary for Order ~ Diplostraca (2 detail records) Sum Total Diplostraca 24.951 4.41 31.915 4.74

Phylum: Protozoa Order: Arcellinida Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Morph Structure Length Concentration Relative Total Relative mm Animals / L Concentratio Biomass Total μg / L Biomass 1000425 Difflugia spp . . . Whole Animal 0.08 2.772 0.49 0.500 0.07 Summary for Order ~ Arcellinida (1 detail record) Sum Total Arcellinida 2.772 0.49 0.500 0.07

; = Identification is Uncertain 160010-327 Tuesday, July 12, 2016 * = Family Level Identification Zooplankton - Tow Volume Calculated (Field Method) Page 3 of 11 ^ = Subclass Level Identification Phylum: Rotifera Order: Flosculariaceae Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Morph Structure Length Concentration Relative Total Relative mm Animals / L Concentratio Biomass Total μg / L Biomass 125572 Conochilus unicornis . . . Whole Animal 0.12 2.772 0.49 0.012 0.00 Summary for Order ~ Flosculariaceae (1 detail record) Sum Total Flosculariaceae 2.772 0.49 0.012 0.00 Order: Ploima Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Morph Structure Length Concentration Relative Total Relative mm Animals / L Concentratio Biomass Total μg / L Biomass 126145 Polyarthra dolichoptera . . . Whole Animal 0.11 2.772 0.49 0.091 0.01 125327 Brachionus calyciflorus . . . Whole Animal 0.16 2.772 0.49 0.145 0.02

125406 Keratella quadrata . . . Whole Animal 0.31 8.317 1.47 3.047 0.45 125281 Keratella cochlearis . . . Whole Animal 0.17 329.909 58.33 2.151 0.32 Summary for Order ~ Ploima (4 detail records) Sum Total Ploima 343.771 60.78 5.434 0.81

; = Identification is Uncertain 160010-327 Tuesday, July 12, 2016 * = Family Level Identification Zooplankton - Tow Volume Calculated (Field Method) Page 4 of 11 ^ = Subclass Level Identification Total Sample Concentration Total Sample Cell Concentration 565.558 673.002

S Sample Concentration Arachnida U Copepoda Diplostraca_Daphiniidae M Diplostraca_Non_Daphiniidae M Diptera A Mollusca R Ostracoda Y Other 0 102030405060708090100 Rotifera

G Sample Biomass Arachnida R Copepoda A Diplostraca_Daphiniidae P Diplostraca_Non_Daphiniidae H Diptera I Mollusca C Ostracoda S Other 0 102030405060708090100Rotifera

; = Identification is Uncertain 160010-327 Tuesday, July 12, 2016 * = Family Level Identification Zooplankton - Tow Volume Calculated (Field Method) Page 5 of 11 ^ = Subclass Level Identification Tracking Code: 160012-327 Sample ID: CCR-2 Composite Replicate: 1 Customer ID: 327 Sample Date: 6/28/2016 Sample Level: Composite Job ID: 1 Station: . Sample Depth: 0

System Name: Cherry Creek Site: CCR-2 Composite Preservative: Ethanol Report Notes: .

Phylum: Arthropoda Order: ^Copepoda Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Morph Structure Length Concentration Relative Total Relative mm Animals / L Concentratio Biomass Total μg / L Biomass 1000531 *. spp . . NI-NVI Whole Animal 0.15 136.130 47.65 16.398 8.07 Summary for Order ~ ^Copepoda (1 detail record) Sum Total ^Copepoda 136.130 47.65 16.398 8.07 Order: Calanoida Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Morph Structure Length Concentration Relative Total Relative mm Animals / L Concentratio Biomass Total μg / L Biomass 100212 Leptodiaptomus ashlandi . . Adults Whole Animal 1.12 5.752 2.01 21.790 10.72 Summary for Order ~ Calanoida (1 detail record) Sum Total Calanoida 5.752 2.01 21.790 10.72 Order: Cyclopoida Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Morph Structure Length Concentration Relative Total Relative mm Animals / L Concentratio Biomass Total μg / L Biomass 1000248 *. spp . . CI-CV Whole Animal 0.29 1.917 0.67 0.238 0.12 Summary for Order ~ Cyclopoida (1 detail record) Sum Total Cyclopoida 1.917 0.67 0.238 0.12

; = Identification is Uncertain 160012-327 Tuesday, July 12, 2016 * = Family Level Identification Zooplankton - Tow Volume Calculated (Field Method) Page 6 of 11 ^ = Subclass Level Identification Phylum: Arthropoda Order: Diplostraca Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Morph Structure Length Concentration Relative Total Relative mm Animals / L Concentratio Biomass Total μg / L Biomass 1000879 Daphnia mendotae . . Female Whole Animal 1.18 9.587 3.36 124.370 61.19 Summary for Order ~ Diplostraca (1 detail record) Sum Total Diplostraca 9.587 3.36 124.370 61.19

Phylum: Arthropoda Order: Diplostraca Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Morph Structure Length Concentration Relative Total Relative mm Animals / L Concentratio Biomass Total μg / L Biomass 104165 Bosmina longirostris . . . Whole Animal 0.30 70.941 24.83 35.444 17.44 Summary for Order ~ Diplostraca (1 detail record) Sum Total Diplostraca 70.941 24.83 35.444 17.44

; = Identification is Uncertain 160012-327 Tuesday, July 12, 2016 * = Family Level Identification Zooplankton - Tow Volume Calculated (Field Method) Page 7 of 11 ^ = Subclass Level Identification Phylum: Rotifera Order: Flosculariaceae Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Morph Structure Length Concentration Relative Total Relative mm Animals / L Concentratio Biomass Total μg / L Biomass 125572 Conochilus unicornis . . . Whole Animal 0.10 13.421 4.70 0.049 0.02

; 1000556 Ptygura spp . . . Whole Animal 0.14 13.421 4.70 0.042 0.02 Summary for Order ~ Flosculariaceae (2 detail records) Sum Total Flosculariaceae 26.843 9.40 0.091 0.04 Order: Ploima Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Morph Structure Length Concentration Relative Total Relative mm Animals / L Concentratio Biomass Total μg / L Biomass 126164 Synchaeta pectinata . . . Whole Animal 0.23 3.835 1.34 0.538 0.26

; 125304 Asplanchna girodi . . . Whole Animal 0.48 3.835 1.34 3.648 1.80 125281 Keratella cochlearis . . . Whole Animal 0.19 23.008 8.05 0.130 0.06

125406 Keratella quadrata . . . Whole Animal 0.28 3.835 1.34 0.597 0.29 Summary for Order ~ Ploima (4 detail records) Sum Total Ploima 34.512 12.08 4.914 2.42

; = Identification is Uncertain 160012-327 Tuesday, July 12, 2016 * = Family Level Identification Zooplankton - Tow Volume Calculated (Field Method) Page 8 of 11 ^ = Subclass Level Identification Total Sample Concentration Total Sample Cell Concentration 285.682 203.245

S Sample Concentration Arachnida U Copepoda Diplostraca_Daphiniidae M Diplostraca_Non_Daphiniidae M Diptera A Mollusca R Ostracoda Y Other 0 102030405060708090100 Rotifera

G Sample Biomass Arachnida R Copepoda A Diplostraca_Daphiniidae P Diplostraca_Non_Daphiniidae H Diptera I Mollusca C Ostracoda S Other 0 102030405060708090100Rotifera

; = Identification is Uncertain 160012-327 Tuesday, July 12, 2016 * = Family Level Identification Zooplankton - Tow Volume Calculated (Field Method) Page 9 of 11 ^ = Subclass Level Identification Species List

Order: ^Copepoda

Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Form Morph Structure Authority

1000531 *. spp . . . NI-NVI Whole Animal Sars, 1903

Order: Arcellinida

Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Form Morph Structure Authority

1000425 Difflugia spp . . . . Whole Animal Unknown

Order: Calanoida

Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Form Morph Structure Authority

1000344 *. spp . . . CI-CIV Whole Animal Sars, 1903

100212 Leptodiaptomus ashlandi . . . Adults Whole Animal Marsh, 1893

Order: Cyclopoida

Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Form Morph Structure Authority

1000248 *. spp . . . CI-CV Whole Animal Burmeister, 1834

1000412 Diacyclops thomasi . . . Adults Whole Animal S. A. Forbes, 1882

Order: Diplostraca

Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Form Morph Structure Authority

1000240 Daphnia sp. . . . Neonates Whole Animal O. F. Mueller, 1785

1000879 Daphnia mendotae . . . Female Whole Animal Birge

104165 Bosmina longirostris . . . . Whole Animal O. F. Mueller, 1785

Order: Flosculariaceae

Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Form Morph Structure Authority

1000556 Ptygura spp . . . . Whole Animal .

125572 Conochilus unicornis . . . . Whole Animal Rousselet 1892 Order: Ploima

Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Form Morph Structure Authority

125281 Keratella cochlearis . . . . Whole Animal (Gosse 1851)

125304 Asplanchna girodi . . . . Whole Animal De Geurne 1888

125327 Brachionus calyciflorus . . . . Whole Animal Pallas 1766

125406 Keratella quadrata . . . . Whole Animal (O. F. Muller 1786)

126145 Polyarthra dolichoptera . . . . Whole Animal Idelson 1925

126164 Synchaeta pectinata . . . . Whole Animal Ehrenberg 1832 Zooplankton Analysis with Biomass Estimates Report and Data Set

Customer ID: 327 Tracking Code: 160014-327 Sample ID: CCR-2 Composite Replicate: 1 Customer ID: 327 Sample Date: 7/12/2016 Sample Level: Composite Job ID: 1 Station: . Sample Depth: 6

System Name: Cherry Creek Site: CCR-2 Composite Preservative: Ethanol Report Notes: .

Phylum: Arthropoda Order: Diplostraca Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Morph Structure Length Concentration Relative Total Relative mm Animals / L Concentratio Biomass Total μg / L Biomass 104165 Bosmina longirostris . . . Whole Animal 0.26 15.067 22.81 5.766 21.66 Summary for Order ~ Diplostraca (1 detail record) Sum Total Diplostraca 15.067 22.81 5.766 21.66

; = Identification is Uncertain 160014-327 Tuesday, August 09, 2016 * = Family Level Identification Zooplankton - Tow Volume Calculated (Field Method) Page 2 of 9 ^ = Subclass Level Identification Phylum: Rotifera Order: Ploima Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Morph Structure Length Concentration Relative Total Relative mm Animals / L Concentratio Biomass Total μg / L Biomass 125327 Brachionus calyciflorus . . . Whole Animal 0.16 11.590 17.54 0.630 2.37

; 1000423 Gastropus spp . . . Whole Animal 0.10 1.159 1.75 0.021 0.08

125406 Keratella quadrata . . . Whole Animal 0.24 1.159 1.75 0.240 0.90

126145 Polyarthra dolichoptera . . . Whole Animal 0.08 1.159 1.75 0.015 0.06

; 126164 Synchaeta pectinata . . . Whole Animal 0.10 6.954 10.53 0.092 0.35 Summary for Order ~ Ploima (5 detail records) Sum Total Ploima 22.021 33.33 0.998 3.75

; = Identification is Uncertain 160014-327 Tuesday, August 09, 2016 * = Family Level Identification Zooplankton - Tow Volume Calculated (Field Method) Page 3 of 9 ^ = Subclass Level Identification Total Sample Concentration Total Sample Cell Concentration 66.061 26.620

S Sample Concentration Arachnida U Copepoda Diplostraca_Daphiniidae M Diplostraca_Non_Daphiniidae M Diptera A Mollusca R Ostracoda Y Other 0 102030405060708090100 Rotifera

G Sample Biomass Arachnida R Copepoda A Diplostraca_Daphiniidae P Diplostraca_Non_Daphiniidae H Diptera I Mollusca C Ostracoda S Other 0 102030405060708090100Rotifera

; = Identification is Uncertain 160014-327 Tuesday, August 09, 2016 * = Family Level Identification Zooplankton - Tow Volume Calculated (Field Method) Page 4 of 9 ^ = Subclass Level Identification Tracking Code: 160016-327 Sample ID: CCR-2 Composite Replicate: 1 Customer ID: 327 Sample Date: 7/26/2016 Sample Level: Composite Job ID: 1 Station: . Sample Depth: 6

System Name: Cherry Creek Site: CCR-2 Composite Preservative: Ethanol Report Notes: .

1000412 Diacyclops thomasi . . Adults Whole Animal 1.12 10.264 1.44 41.194 7.32

1000248 *. spp . . CI-CV Whole Animal 0.55 30.792 4.33 24.202 4.30 Summary for Order ~ Cyclopoida (3 detail records) Sum Total Cyclopoida 51.320 7.21 81.829 14.55

; = Identification is Uncertain 160016-327 Tuesday, August 09, 2016 * = Family Level Identification Zooplankton - Tow Volume Calculated (Field Method) Page 5 of 9 ^ = Subclass Level Identification Phylum: Arthropoda Order: Diplostraca Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Morph Structure Length Concentration Relative Total Relative mm Animals / L Concentratio Biomass Total μg / L Biomass 1000879 Daphnia mendotae . . Female Whole Animal 1.15 3.421 0.48 39.710 7.06

1000316 Daphnia lumholtzi . . . Whole Animal 1.54 3.421 0.48 126.315 22.46

104312 Daphnia retrocurva . . Female w eggs Whole Animal 0.96 3.421 0.48 20.327 3.61 Summary for Order ~ Diplostraca (3 detail records) Sum Total Diplostraca 10.264 1.44 186.351 33.13

1000144 Chydorus sphaericus . . Female Whole Animal 0.34 3.421 0.48 5.561 0.99 Summary for Order ~ Diplostraca (2 detail records) Sum Total Diplostraca 400.295 56.25 274.581 48.82

Phylum: Rotifera Order: Ploima Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Morph Structure Length Concentration Relative Total Relative mm Animals / L Concentratio Biomass Total μg / L Biomass ; 126164 Synchaeta pectinata . . . Whole Animal 0.29 6.843 0.96 1.889 0.34 125306 Asplanchna priodonta . . . Whole Animal 0.43 6.843 0.96 2.267 0.40

125327 Brachionus calyciflorus . . . Whole Animal 0.15 143.696 20.19 6.198 1.10 125337 Brachionus havanaensis . . . Whole Animal 0.29 3.421 0.48 0.981 0.17

125281 Keratella cochlearis . . . Whole Animal 0.19 3.421 0.48 0.026 0.00 Summary for Order ~ Ploima (5 detail records) Sum Total Ploima 164.224 23.08 11.360 2.02

; = Identification is Uncertain 160016-327 Tuesday, August 09, 2016 * = Family Level Identification Zooplankton - Tow Volume Calculated (Field Method) Page 6 of 9 ^ = Subclass Level Identification Total Sample Concentration Total Sample Cell Concentration 711.636 562.427

S Sample Concentration Arachnida U Copepoda Diplostraca_Daphiniidae M Diplostraca_Non_Daphiniidae M Diptera A Mollusca R Ostracoda Y Other 0 102030405060708090100 Rotifera

G Sample Biomass Arachnida R Copepoda A Diplostraca_Daphiniidae P Diplostraca_Non_Daphiniidae H Diptera I Mollusca C Ostracoda S Other 0 102030405060708090100Rotifera

; = Identification is Uncertain 160016-327 Tuesday, August 09, 2016 * = Family Level Identification Zooplankton - Tow Volume Calculated (Field Method) Page 7 of 9 ^ = Subclass Level Identification Species List

Order: ^Copepoda

Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Form Morph Structure Authority

1000531 *. spp . . . NI-NVI Whole Animal Sars, 1903

Order: Calanoida

Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Form Morph Structure Authority

100212 Leptodiaptomus ashlandi . . . Adults Whole Animal Marsh, 1893

Order: Cyclopoida

Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Form Morph Structure Authority

1000248 *. spp . . . CI-CV Whole Animal Burmeister, 1834

1000271 Tropocyclops prasinus . . . . Whole Animal Fischer, 1860

1000412 Diacyclops thomasi . . . Adults Whole Animal S. A. Forbes, 1882

Order: Diplostraca

Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Form Morph Structure Authority

1000144 Chydorus sphaericus . . . Female Whole Animal (O. F. Mueller, 1785)

1000316 Daphnia lumholtzi . . . . Whole Animal Sars

1000879 Daphnia mendotae . . . Female Whole Animal Birge

104165 Bosmina longirostris . . . . Whole Animal O. F. Mueller, 1785

104312 Daphnia retrocurva . . . Female w eggs Whole Animal Forbes, 1882

Order: Ploima

Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Form Morph Structure Authority

1000423 Gastropus spp . . . . Whole Animal .

125281 Keratella cochlearis . . . . Whole Animal (Gosse 1851)

125306 Asplanchna priodonta . . . . Whole Animal Gosse 1850

125327 Brachionus calyciflorus . . . . Whole Animal Pallas 1766 125337 Brachionus havanaensis . . . . Whole Animal Rousselet 1913

125406 Keratella quadrata . . . . Whole Animal (O. F. Muller 1786)

126145 Polyarthra dolichoptera . . . . Whole Animal Idelson 1925

126164 Synchaeta pectinata . . . . Whole Animal Ehrenberg 1832 Zooplankton Analysis with Biomass Estimates Report and Data Set

Customer ID: 327 Tracking Code: 160018-327 Sample ID: CCR-2 Composite Replicate: 1 Customer ID: 327 Sample Date: 8/9/2016 Sample Level: Composite Job ID: 1 Station: . Sample Depth: 6

System Name: Cherry Creek Site: CCR-2 Composite Preservative: Ethanol Report Notes: .

100212 Leptodiaptomus ashlandi . . Adults Whole Animal 0.96 2.258 0.52 5.705 3.95 Summary for Order ~ Calanoida (2 detail records) Sum Total Calanoida 29.353 6.81 26.552 18.40 Order: Cyclopoida Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Morph Structure Length Concentration Relative Total Relative mm Animals / L Concentratio Biomass Total μg / L Biomass 1000248 *. spp . . CI-CV Whole Animal 0.43 40.643 9.42 14.691 10.18 Summary for Order ~ Cyclopoida (1 detail record) Sum Total Cyclopoida 40.643 9.42 14.691 10.18

; = Identification is Uncertain 160018-327 Wednesday, September 07, 2016 * = Family Level Identification Zooplankton - Tow Volume Calculated (Field Method) Page 2 of 10 ^ = Subclass Level Identification Phylum: Arthropoda Order: Diplostraca Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Morph Structure Length Concentration Relative Total Relative mm Animals / L Concentratio Biomass Total μg / L Biomass 1000879 Daphnia mendotae . . Female Whole Animal 0.67 2.258 0.52 11.249 7.80

1000149 Daphnia retrocurva . . Female Whole Animal 0.38 2.258 0.52 0.949 0.66 Summary for Order ~ Diplostraca (2 detail records) Sum Total Diplostraca 4.516 1.05 12.198 8.45

Phylum: Arthropoda Order: Diplostraca Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Morph Structure Length Concentration Relative Total Relative mm Animals / L Concentratio Biomass Total μg / L Biomass 104165 Bosmina longirostris . . . Whole Animal 0.31 76.770 17.80 40.369 27.97 Summary for Order ~ Diplostraca (1 detail record) Sum Total Diplostraca 76.770 17.80 40.369 27.97

Phylum: Rotifera Order: Ploima Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Morph Structure Length Concentration Relative Total Relative mm Animals / L Concentratio Biomass Total μg / L Biomass 131850 Trichocerca spp . . . Whole Animal 0.06 2.258 0.52 0.010 0.01 125406 Keratella quadrata . . . Whole Animal 0.29 2.258 0.52 0.468 0.32

125327 Brachionus calyciflorus . . . Whole Animal 0.14 9.032 2.09 0.321 0.22 Summary for Order ~ Ploima (3 detail records) Sum Total Ploima 13.548 3.14 0.799 0.55

; = Identification is Uncertain 160018-327 Wednesday, September 07, 2016 * = Family Level Identification Zooplankton - Tow Volume Calculated (Field Method) Page 3 of 10 ^ = Subclass Level Identification Total Sample Concentration Total Sample Cell Concentration 431.268 144.313

S Sample Concentration Arachnida U Copepoda Diplostraca_Daphiniidae M Diplostraca_Non_Daphiniidae M Diptera A Mollusca R Ostracoda Y Other 0 102030405060708090100 Rotifera

G Sample Biomass Arachnida R Copepoda A Diplostraca_Daphiniidae P Diplostraca_Non_Daphiniidae H Diptera I Mollusca C Ostracoda S Other 0 102030405060708090100Rotifera

; = Identification is Uncertain 160018-327 Wednesday, September 07, 2016 * = Family Level Identification Zooplankton - Tow Volume Calculated (Field Method) Page 4 of 10 ^ = Subclass Level Identification Tracking Code: 160020-327 Sample ID: CCR-2 Composite Replicate: 1 Customer ID: 327 Sample Date: 8/23/2016 Sample Level: Composite Job ID: 1 Station: . Sample Depth: 6

System Name: Cherry Creek Site: CCR-2 Composite Preservative: Ethanol Report Notes: .

1000344 *. spp . . CI-CIV Whole Animal 0.48 15.566 4.79 13.522 4.33 Summary for Order ~ Calanoida (2 detail records) Sum Total Calanoida 42.250 13.01 95.969 30.76 Order: Cyclopoida Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Morph Structure Length Concentration Relative Total Relative mm Animals / L Concentratio Biomass Total μg / L Biomass 1000412 Diacyclops thomasi . . Adults Whole Animal 0.77 2.224 0.68 3.215 1.03

1000248 *. spp . . CI-CV Whole Animal 0.42 17.789 5.48 6.569 2.11 Summary for Order ~ Cyclopoida (2 detail records) Sum Total Cyclopoida 20.013 6.16 9.784 3.14

; = Identification is Uncertain 160020-327 Wednesday, September 07, 2016 * = Family Level Identification Zooplankton - Tow Volume Calculated (Field Method) Page 5 of 10 ^ = Subclass Level Identification Phylum: Arthropoda Order: Diplostraca Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Morph Structure Length Concentration Relative Total Relative mm Animals / L Concentratio Biomass Total μg / L Biomass 1000149 Daphnia retrocurva . . Female Whole Animal 0.85 24.460 7.53 101.260 32.46 Summary for Order ~ Diplostraca (1 detail record) Sum Total Diplostraca 24.460 7.53 101.260 32.46

Phylum: Arthropoda Order: Diplostraca Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Morph Structure Length Concentration Relative Total Relative mm Animals / L Concentratio Biomass Total μg / L Biomass 1000240 Daphnia sp. . . Neonates Whole Animal 0.39 24.460 7.53 28.694 9.20

104165 Bosmina longirostris . . . Whole Animal 0.32 93.394 28.77 62.599 20.07 Summary for Order ~ Diplostraca (2 detail records) Sum Total Diplostraca 117.855 36.30 91.293 29.26

; = Identification is Uncertain 160020-327 Wednesday, September 07, 2016 * = Family Level Identification Zooplankton - Tow Volume Calculated (Field Method) Page 6 of 10 ^ = Subclass Level Identification Phylum: Rotifera Order: Bdelloida Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Morph Structure Length Concentration Relative Total Relative mm Animals / L Concentratio Biomass Total μg / L Biomass ; 1000752 Rotaria spp . . . Whole Animal 0.14 2.224 0.68 0.025 0.01 Summary for Order ~ Bdelloida (1 detail record) Sum Total Bdelloida 2.224 0.68 0.025 0.01 Order: Ploima Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Morph Structure Length Concentration Relative Total Relative mm Animals / L Concentratio Biomass Total μg / L Biomass 125281 Keratella cochlearis . . . Whole Animal 0.15 2.224 0.68 0.006 0.00 ; 125304 Asplanchna girodi . . . Whole Animal 0.31 6.671 2.05 3.482 1.12

125327 Brachionus calyciflorus . . . Whole Animal 0.17 24.460 7.53 1.631 0.52 Summary for Order ~ Ploima (3 detail records) Sum Total Ploima 33.355 10.27 5.119 1.64

; = Identification is Uncertain 160020-327 Wednesday, September 07, 2016 * = Family Level Identification Zooplankton - Tow Volume Calculated (Field Method) Page 7 of 10 ^ = Subclass Level Identification Total Sample Concentration Total Sample Cell Concentration 324.656 311.973

S Sample Concentration Arachnida U Copepoda Diplostraca_Daphiniidae M Diplostraca_Non_Daphiniidae M Diptera A Mollusca R Ostracoda Y Other 0 102030405060708090100 Rotifera

G Sample Biomass Arachnida R Copepoda A Diplostraca_Daphiniidae P Diplostraca_Non_Daphiniidae H Diptera I Mollusca C Ostracoda S Other 0 102030405060708090100Rotifera

; = Identification is Uncertain 160020-327 Wednesday, September 07, 2016 * = Family Level Identification Zooplankton - Tow Volume Calculated (Field Method) Page 8 of 10 ^ = Subclass Level Identification Species List

Order: ^Copepoda

Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Form Morph Structure Authority

1000531 *. spp . . . NI-NVI Whole Animal Sars, 1903

Order: Bdelloida

Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Form Morph Structure Authority

1000752 Rotaria spp . . . . Whole Animal .

Order: Calanoida

Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Form Morph Structure Authority

1000344 *. spp . . . CI-CIV Whole Animal Sars, 1903

100212 Leptodiaptomus ashlandi . . . Adults Whole Animal Marsh, 1893

Order: Cyclopoida

Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Form Morph Structure Authority

1000248 *. spp . . . CI-CV Whole Animal Burmeister, 1834

1000412 Diacyclops thomasi . . . Adults Whole Animal S. A. Forbes, 1882

Order: Diplostraca

Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Form Morph Structure Authority

1000149 Daphnia retrocurva . . . Female Whole Animal Forbes, 1882

1000240 Daphnia sp. . . . Neonates Whole Animal O. F. Mueller, 1785

1000879 Daphnia mendotae . . . Female Whole Animal Birge

104165 Bosmina longirostris . . . . Whole Animal O. F. Mueller, 1785

Order: Ploima

Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Form Morph Structure Authority

125281 Keratella cochlearis . . . . Whole Animal (Gosse 1851)

125304 Asplanchna girodi . . . . Whole Animal De Geurne 1888 125327 Brachionus calyciflorus . . . . Whole Animal Pallas 1766

125406 Keratella quadrata . . . . Whole Animal (O. F. Muller 1786)

131850 Trichocerca spp . . . . Whole Animal Lamarck, 1901 Zooplankton Analysis with Biomass Estimates Report and Data Set

Customer ID: 327 Tracking Code: 160022-327 Sample ID: CCR-2 Composite Replicate: 1 Customer ID: 327 Sample Date: 9/13/2016 Sample Level: Composite Job ID: 1 Station: . Sample Depth: 6

System Name: Cherry Creek Site: CCR-2 Composite Preservative: Ethanol Report Notes: .

100212 Leptodiaptomus ashlandi . . Adults Whole Animal 1.06 15.053 4.95 49.680 8.29 Summary for Order ~ Calanoida (2 detail records) Sum Total Calanoida 22.580 7.43 65.380 10.91 Order: Cyclopoida Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Morph Structure Length Concentration Relative Total Relative mm Animals / L Concentratio Biomass Total μg / L Biomass 1000248 *. spp . . CI-CV Whole Animal 0.54 6.021 1.98 4.403 0.73

1000412 Diacyclops thomasi . . Adults Whole Animal 1.01 3.011 0.99 8.640 1.44 Summary for Order ~ Cyclopoida (2 detail records) Sum Total Cyclopoida 9.032 2.97 13.043 2.18

; = Identification is Uncertain 160022-327 Thursday, October 06, 2016 * = Family Level Identification Zooplankton - Tow Volume Calculated (Field Method) Page 2 of 9 ^ = Subclass Level Identification Phylum: Arthropoda Order: Diplostraca Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Morph Structure Length Concentration Relative Total Relative mm Animals / L Concentratio Biomass Total μg / L Biomass 1000316 Daphnia lumholtzi . . . Whole Animal 1.06 25.590 8.42 398.666 66.54

1000149 Daphnia retrocurva . . Female Whole Animal 0.61 12.042 3.96 19.273 3.22 Summary for Order ~ Diplostraca (2 detail records) Sum Total Diplostraca 37.633 12.38 417.939 69.76

Phylum: Arthropoda Order: Diplostraca Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Morph Structure Length Concentration Relative Total Relative mm Animals / L Concentratio Biomass Total μg / L Biomass 104165 Bosmina longirostris . . . Whole Animal 0.33 111.392 36.63 78.595 13.12 Summary for Order ~ Diplostraca (1 detail record) Sum Total Diplostraca 111.392 36.63 78.595 13.12

Phylum: Rotifera Order: Ploima Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Morph Structure Length Concentration Relative Total Relative mm Animals / L Concentratio Biomass Total μg / L Biomass 125281 Keratella cochlearis . . . Whole Animal 0.18 3.011 0.99 0.014 0.00 125304 Asplanchna girodi . . . Whole Animal 0.38 4.516 1.49 2.992 0.50

125327 Brachionus calyciflorus . . . Whole Animal 0.16 45.159 14.85 2.454 0.41 Summary for Order ~ Ploima (3 detail records) Sum Total Ploima 52.686 17.33 5.460 0.91

; = Identification is Uncertain 160022-327 Thursday, October 06, 2016 * = Family Level Identification Zooplankton - Tow Volume Calculated (Field Method) Page 3 of 9 ^ = Subclass Level Identification Total Sample Concentration Total Sample Cell Concentration 304.071 599.107

S Sample Concentration Arachnida U Copepoda Diplostraca_Daphiniidae M Diplostraca_Non_Daphiniidae M Diptera A Mollusca R Ostracoda Y Other 0 102030405060708090100 Rotifera

G Sample Biomass Arachnida R Copepoda A Diplostraca_Daphiniidae P Diplostraca_Non_Daphiniidae H Diptera I Mollusca C Ostracoda S Other 0 102030405060708090100Rotifera

; = Identification is Uncertain 160022-327 Thursday, October 06, 2016 * = Family Level Identification Zooplankton - Tow Volume Calculated (Field Method) Page 4 of 9 ^ = Subclass Level Identification Tracking Code: 160024-327 Sample ID: CCR-2 Composite Replicate: 1 Customer ID: 327 Sample Date: 9/27/2016 Sample Level: Composite Job ID: 1 Station: . Sample Depth: 6

System Name: Cherry Creek Site: CCR-2 Composite Preservative: Ethanol Report Notes: .

100212 Leptodiaptomus ashlandi . . Adults Whole Animal 1.08 10.036 3.40 35.188 12.66 Summary for Order ~ Calanoida (2 detail records) Sum Total Calanoida 12.903 4.37 36.873 13.26 Order: Cyclopoida Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Morph Structure Length Concentration Relative Total Relative mm Animals / L Concentratio Biomass Total μg / L Biomass 1000248 *. spp . . CI-CV Whole Animal 0.46 12.903 4.37 5.601 2.01

1000412 Diacyclops thomasi . . Adults Whole Animal 1.06 1.434 0.49 4.603 1.66 Summary for Order ~ Cyclopoida (2 detail records) Sum Total Cyclopoida 14.337 4.85 10.204 3.67

; = Identification is Uncertain 160024-327 Thursday, October 06, 2016 * = Family Level Identification Zooplankton - Tow Volume Calculated (Field Method) Page 5 of 9 ^ = Subclass Level Identification Phylum: Arthropoda Order: Diplostraca Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Morph Structure Length Concentration Relative Total Relative mm Animals / L Concentratio Biomass Total μg / L Biomass 1000316 Daphnia lumholtzi . . . Whole Animal 1.44 2.867 0.97 89.335 32.13

1000149 Daphnia retrocurva . . Female Whole Animal 0.90 8.602 2.91 43.514 15.65 Summary for Order ~ Diplostraca (2 detail records) Sum Total Diplostraca 11.469 3.88 132.849 47.78

Phylum: Arthropoda Order: Diplostraca Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Morph Structure Length Concentration Relative Total Relative mm Animals / L Concentratio Biomass Total μg / L Biomass 104165 Bosmina longirostris . . . Whole Animal 0.33 127.597 43.20 85.209 30.65 Summary for Order ~ Diplostraca (1 detail record) Sum Total Diplostraca 127.597 43.20 85.209 30.65

Phylum: Rotifera Order: Flosculariaceae Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Morph Structure Length Concentration Relative Total Relative mm Animals / L Concentratio Biomass Total μg / L Biomass 125572 Conochilus unicornis . . . Whole Animal 0.10 21.505 7.28 0.124 0.04 Summary for Order ~ Flosculariaceae (1 detail record) Sum Total Flosculariaceae 21.505 7.28 0.124 0.04 Order: Ploima Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Morph Structure Length Concentration Relative Total Relative mm Animals / L Concentratio Biomass Total μg / L Biomass 125304 Asplanchna girodi . . . Whole Animal 0.38 1.434 0.49 0.000 0.00

125327 Brachionus calyciflorus . . . Whole Animal 0.17 10.036 3.40 0.596 0.21 Summary for Order ~ Ploima (2 detail records) Sum Total Ploima 11.469 3.88 0.596 0.21

; = Identification is Uncertain 160024-327 Thursday, October 06, 2016 * = Family Level Identification Zooplankton - Tow Volume Calculated (Field Method) Page 6 of 9 ^ = Subclass Level Identification Total Sample Concentration Total Sample Cell Concentration 295.336 278.024

S Sample Concentration Arachnida U Copepoda Diplostraca_Daphiniidae M Diplostraca_Non_Daphiniidae M Diptera A Mollusca R Ostracoda Y Other 0 102030405060708090100 Rotifera

G Sample Biomass Arachnida R Copepoda A Diplostraca_Daphiniidae P Diplostraca_Non_Daphiniidae H Diptera I Mollusca C Ostracoda S Other 0 102030405060708090100Rotifera

; = Identification is Uncertain 160024-327 Thursday, October 06, 2016 * = Family Level Identification Zooplankton - Tow Volume Calculated (Field Method) Page 7 of 9 ^ = Subclass Level Identification Species List

Order: ^Copepoda

Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Form Morph Structure Authority

1000531 *. spp . . . NI-NVI Whole Animal Sars, 1903

Order: Calanoida

Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Form Morph Structure Authority

1000344 *. spp . . . CI-CIV Whole Animal Sars, 1903

100212 Leptodiaptomus ashlandi . . . Adults Whole Animal Marsh, 1893

Order: Cyclopoida

Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Form Morph Structure Authority

1000248 *. spp . . . CI-CV Whole Animal Burmeister, 1834

1000412 Diacyclops thomasi . . . Adults Whole Animal S. A. Forbes, 1882

Order: Diplostraca

Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Form Morph Structure Authority

1000149 Daphnia retrocurva . . . Female Whole Animal Forbes, 1882

1000316 Daphnia lumholtzi . . . . Whole Animal Sars

104165 Bosmina longirostris . . . . Whole Animal O. F. Mueller, 1785

Order: Flosculariaceae

Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Form Morph Structure Authority

125572 Conochilus unicornis . . . . Whole Animal Rousselet 1892

Order: Ploima

Taxa ID Genus Species Subspecies Variety Form Morph Structure Authority

125281 Keratella cochlearis . . . . Whole Animal (Gosse 1851)

125304 Asplanchna girodi . . . . Whole Animal De Geurne 1888

125327 Brachionus calyciflorus . . . . Whole Animal Pallas 1766