Summary Report
NCWCD Benthic Macroinvertebrate Biomonitoring Program
2015
Prepared for:
Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District Berthoud, Colorado
Prepared by:
David E. Rees Timberline Aquatics, Inc. 4219 Table Mountain Place, Suite A Fort Collins, Colorado 80526
17 August 2016
Summary Report
NCWCD Benthic Macroinvertebrate Biomonitoring Program
2015
Prepared for:
Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District Berthoud, Colorado
Prepared by:
David E. Rees Timberline Aquatics, Inc. 4219 Table Mountain Place, Suite A Fort Collins, Colorado 80526
17 August 2016 Table of Contents
Introduction ...... 1 Objectives ...... 2 Study Area ...... 3 Methods...... 7 Alternative Analysis Tools (aMIS) ...... 8 Other Analysis Tools ...... 10 CDPHE Tools (MMI) ...... 11 Biotype 2 Metrics ...... 12 Biotype 1 Metrics ...... 13 Results ...... 15 Spring Sampling - 2015 ...... 15 West Slope ...... 15 East Slope...... 19 Fall Sampling - 2015 ...... 24 West Slope ...... 24 East Slope...... 30 Discussion ...... 35 Traditional Analysis and aMIS ...... 35 West Slope ...... 35 East Slope...... 39 Data Analysis Using CDPHE Tools (MMI) ...... 42 Literature Cited ...... 48 Appendix A ...... A-1 Appendix B ...... B-1 Appendix C ...... C-1 Appendix D ...... D-1
______Biomonitoring Summary Report Page i Timberline Aquatics, Inc. 17 August 2016
List of Tables
Table 1. Description of benthic biomonitoring sites...... 3 Table 2. UTM coordinates and elevation for West Slope sample sites...... 4 Table 3. UTM coordinates and elevation for East Slope sample sites...... 5 Table 4. Individual metric values and aMIS scores for macroinvertebrate samples collected from the upper Colorado River drainage on 21 April 2015...... 16 Table 5. Relative abundance of functional feeding groups for spring 2015 sampling at NCWCD West Slope study sites...... 18 Table 6. Individual metric values and aMIS scores for macroinvertebrate samples collected from East Slope sample sites on 16 April 2015...... 20 Table 7. Relative abundance of functional feeding groups for spring 2015 sampling at NCWCD East Slope study sites...... 23 Table 8. Individual metric values and aMIS scores for macroinvertebrate samples collected from the upper Colorado River drainage on 10 September 2015. Values highlighted in red indicate impairment based on CDPHE thresholds...... 26 Table 9. Individual metric scores and MMI scores for macroinvertebrate samples collected from the upper Colorado River drainage in Biotypes 1 and 2 on 10 September 2015. MMI scores highlighted in red indicate impairment based on CDPHE thresholds...... 27 Table 10. Relative abundance of functional feeding groups for fall 2015 sampling at NCWCD West Slope study sites...... 29 Table 11. Individual metric values and aMIS scores for macroinvertebrate samples collected from East Slope sample sites on 10 September 2015. Values highlighted in red indicate impairment based on CDPHE thresholds...... 31 Table 12. Individual metric scores and MMI scores for macroinvertebrate samples collected from East Slope sample sites (Biotype 1) on 10 September 2015. MMI scores highlighted in red indicate impairment based on CDPHE thresholds...... 31 Table 13. Relative abundance of functional feeding groups for fall 2015 sampling at NCWCD East Slope study sites...... 34 Table 14. Aquatic life use designations based on MMI scores from samples collected at West Slope and East Slope sampling sites during September of 2015...... 47
______Biomonitoring Summary Report Page ii Timberline Aquatics, Inc. 17 August 2016
List of Figures
Figure 1. Map of West Slope NCWCD macroinvertebrate sample sites...... 5 Figure 2. Map of East Slope NCWCD macroinvertebrate sample sites ...... 6 Figure 3. Functional feeding group composition for NCWCD West Slope study sites during spring 2015...... 19 Figure 4. Functional feeding group composition for NCWCD East Slope study sites during spring 2015...... 23 Figure 5. Functional feeding group composition for NCWCD West Slope study sites during fall 2015...... 30 Figure 6. Functional feeding group composition for NCWCD East Slope study sites during the fall of 2015...... 34 Figure 7. aMIS (combined metric) scores for the West Slope study area during the spring of 2015. Mean values (± 1 standard deviation) are also provided based on the two previous sampling events...... 38 Figure 8. aMIS (combined metric) scores for the West Slope study area during the fall of 2015. Mean values (± 1 standard deviation) are also provided based on the two previous sampling events...... 38 Figure 9. aMIS scores for NCWCD biomonitoring sites from the East Slope study area during spring 2015...... 41 Figure 10. aMIS scores for NCWCD biomonitoring sites from the East Slope study area during fall 2015...... 41 Figure 11. MMI scores from samples collected at NCWCD biomonitoring sites in the West Slope study area during the fall season. MMI scores from 2015 and previous sampling events have been provided for comparison...... 43 Figure 12. . MMI scores from composited quantitative (Hess) samples collected at NCWCD biomonitoring sites from the East Slope study area during fall of 2011 and 2015...... 43 Figure 13. HBI values from samples collected at NCWCD biomonitoring sites in the West Slope study area during the fall season. HBI values from 2015 and previous sampling events have been provided for comparison...... 45 Figure 14. HBI values from composited quantitative (Hess) samples collected at NCWCD biomonitoring sites in the East Slope study area during the fall of 2011 and 2015...... 45 Figure 15. Shannon Diversity values from samples collected at NCWCD biomonitoring sites in the West Slope study area during the fall season. Values from 2015 and previous sampling events have been provided for comparison...... 46 Figure 16. Shannon Diversity values from composited quantitative (Hess) samples collected at NCWCD biomonitoring sites in the East Slope study area during the fall of 2011 and 2015...... 46
______Biomonitoring Summary Report Page iii Timberline Aquatics, Inc. 17 August 2016 Introduction
As human populations continue to expand, rivers and streams have become one of the most valuable natural resources in both rural and urbanized watersheds, and the close monitoring of these aquatic systems is an important step toward ensuring their sustainability. River systems are particularly susceptible to a wide range of stressors because they are often found in close proximity to human developments and associated anthropogenic disturbances (Wooster et al. 2011). An increase in human population coupled with the expansion of anthropogenic changes in land use (urbanization, agriculture, etc.) has the potential to increase water demands while decreasing water quality (Voelz et al. 2005). In order to assess anthropogenic effects on aquatic environments, it is often necessary to monitor the physical, chemical, and biological components of these aquatic systems. Biomonitoring (using benthic macroinvertebrates) provides a valuable tool that can be used to evaluate the quality and condition of aquatic ecosystems over time (Plafkin et al. 1989, Barbour et al. 1999, Paul et al. 2005).
Benthic macroinvertebrate communities have been used more than any other biological group to assess human impacts on aquatic life (Paul and Meyer 2001). These biotic communities have the ability to detect disturbance at a structural (species/taxon) and functional (trophic) level because each taxon in the community is expected to vary in its sensitivity to disturbances. Unfortunately, the wide range of possible disturbances and potential interaction of stressors found in streams can make diagnosis of perturbations difficult (Johnson et al. 2013). Despite the limitations associated with stressor identification, biomonitoring has become an important tool in the evaluation of aquatic conditions in rivers and streams, while also providing advantages not realized by physical or chemical water quality monitoring alone (Plafkin et al. 1989, Barbour et al. 1999, Paul et al. 2005, Hawkins 2006, Ward et al. 2002).
Long-term monitoring studies are essential for the evaluation of aquatic life in systems with increasing water demands or changes in land use practices (Likens and Lambert 1998, Voelz et al. 2005). The results provided by consistent sampling practices and accurate identifications can improve the value of information regarding short-term and long-term changes in aquatic conditions. The level of detection and accuracy of information can typically be improved by using a more quantitative approach to sample collecting and processing. The objective of this particular study required that three (3) quantitative replicate samples were taken from similar habitat at each station. Because certain taxa can survive or even thrive in the presence of various contaminants, it becomes necessary to employ the use of several biotic indices (metrics) in the analysis of data. Although some individual metrics can provide insight into specific types of stress, Bonada et al. (2006) found that limitations associated with individual metrics can be improved upon by using multiple metric indices. The analysis of data in this study relied on individual metrics and multi-metric indices to make comparisons between sampling sites, provide information regarding areas with impacts, and evaluate seasonal variations within the study area.
______Biomonitoring Summary Report Page 1 Timberline Aquatics, Inc. 17 August 2016
The Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District (NCWCD) provides water for municipal and agricultural needs in northeastern Colorado. Much of this water is transported from the West Slope of Colorado to the East Slope through a series of canals, tunnels, reservoirs, and existing streams and rivers. Although a water chemistry monitoring program has already been established, a biomonitoring program that utilizes benthic macroinvertebrates has been conducted at three-year intervals to provide information regarding the overall ecological integrity of the aquatic environment at designated locations. Results from data collected during the spring (April) and fall (September) of 2015 are presented in this report. Although the information provided by this study describes the overall aquatic conditions at each site, this study was designed specifically to test for possible biological stressors that could be directly related to water transport operations conducted by the NCWCD. Analysis of samples and comparison between sampling sites provided information regarding locations of potential impacts, degree of impacts, and other possible types of disturbance within the study area.
During the fall of 2013, most streams in the East Slope study area experienced a catastrophic flood event that not only rearranged stream habitat, but actually repositioned the stream channels at several locations. Floods of this magnitude are expected to supersede other influences on aquatic life and result in substantial losses and redistribution of macroinvertebrate communities (Negishi and Richardson 2006, Robinson and Uehlinger 2008). Although this study was designed to monitor and evaluate impacts from water transfer systems, the impacts from flooding were expected to have some residual effects on aquatic life at most East Slope study locations. Fortunately, this ongoing biomonitoring study has accumulated two years of historical data that could be used to differentiate between impacts from the 2013 flood and other influences on benthic macroinvertebrate communities.
Objectives
The objective of the NCWCD Biomonitoring Program is to evaluate the biological and ecological integrity of streams on the West Slope and East Slope of Northern Colorado that may be influenced by NCWCD activities. Specific objectives for this study include the following:
1. Assess the existing state of aquatic ecosystems related to the C-BT and Windy Gap projects. 2. Monitor trends and changes in the health of those aquatic ecosystems. 3. Monitor and assess potential impacts of C-BT and Windy Gap operations on the health of aquatic ecosystems. 4. Analyze data using a variety of techniques that allow for cross examination of the evaluation tools recommended by the WQCD. 5. Assess compliance with the WQCD’s aquatic life standard implemented in 2010.
______Biomonitoring Summary Report Page 2 Timberline Aquatics, Inc. 17 August 2016
Study Area
The NCWCD transports water from the West Slope of Colorado to the East Slope via the Colorado-Big Thompson Project (C-BT). This project uses an array of canals, diversions and other distribution systems to move water from lakes associated with the upper Colorado River basin to several streams and rivers along the Northern Colorado Front Range. The geographic scope of the biomonitoring sites covers both the collection and distribution systems used by the NCWCD. On the West Slope, monitoring sites are located upstream and downstream of C-BT and Windy Gap facilities to assess the potential impact of facilities on the aquatic ecosystem. On the East Slope, sites are located upstream and downstream of locations where C-BT project water is introduced into the South Platte tributaries (Table 1).
Table 1. Description of benthic biomonitoring sites.
Station ID Description West Slope Study Area EI-GLU East Inlet upstream of Grand Lake CR-SMU North Fork of the Colorado River upstream of Shadow Mountain Reservoir CR-SMD Colorado River downstream of Shadow Mountain Reservoir CR-GRD Colorado River downstream of Lake Granby CR-WGU Colorado River upstream of Windy Gap Reservoir FR-WGU Fraser River upstream of Windy Gap Reservoir CR-WGD Colorado River downstream of Windy Gap Reservoir East Slope Study Area HSC-PRU Cache La Poudre River upstream of the Hansen Supply Canal HSC-PRD Cache La Poudre River downstream of the Hansen Supply Canal HFC-BTU Big Thompson River upstream of the Hansen Feeder Canal HFC-BTD Big Thompson River downstream of the Hansen Feeder Canal SVSC-LTU Little Thompson River upstream of the Saint Vrain Supply Canal SVSC-LTD Little Thompson River downstream of the Saint Vrain Supply Canal SVSC-SVU Saint Vrain Creek upstream of the Saint Vrain Supply Canal SVSC-SVD Saint Vrain Creek downstream of the Saint Vrain Supply Canal
______Biomonitoring Summary Report Page 3 Timberline Aquatics, Inc. 17 August 2016
Benthic macroinvertebrate sampling was conducted as part of the NCWCD Biomonitoring Program in April and September of 2015 at seven study sites on the West Slope and eight sites on the East Slope. Site locations that were sampled during 2015 on the West Slope included one site that provided reference information (sites EI-GLU), two study sites with little or no influence from NCWCD activities (CR-SMU and FR-WGU), and four study sites that may potentially be influenced by water collection and transfer systems (sites CR-SMD, CR-GRD, CR-WGU, and CR-WGD). The distribution and elevation of West Slope study sites varied within the study area (Figure 1, Table 2). A general increase in discharge also occurred in a downstream direction.
East Slope sampling sites were strategically established at locations that would assist in the evaluation of introduced water in several East Slope streams. The sampling strategy consisted of pairing study sites at each receiving stream to detect potential impacts and provide information that would be specifically related to NCWCD activities. On the East Slope, a total of four streams were sampled with sites located upstream and downstream of introduced water (Figure 2, Table 3). A comparison of upstream and downstream results for each stream was conducted to provide information regarding aquatic conditions at both study sites and identify possible influences of introduced water in these streams.
Table 2. UTM coordinates and elevation for West Slope sample sites. Zone & Easting Northing Elevation EI-GLU 13T 432015m 4454303m 8443ft CR-SMU 13T 426988m 4452443m 8419ft CR-SMD 13T 428681m 4450952m 8374ft CR-GRD 13T 425739m 4443531m 8093ft CR-WGU 13T 417111m 4439359m 7877ft FR-WGU 13T 417076m 4439148m 7893ft CR-WGD 13T 414472m 4440260m 7840ft
______Biomonitoring Summary Report Page 4 Timberline Aquatics, Inc. 17 August 2016
Figure 1. Map of West Slope NCWCD macroinvertebrate sample sites. This map was created with TOPO! © National Geographic Maps.
Table 3. UTM coordinates and elevation for East Slope sample sites. Zone & Easting Northing Elevation HSC-PRU 13T 482280m 4501040m 5240ft HSC-PRD 13T 482809m 4501110m 5231ft HFC-BTU 13T 480732m 4474634m 5354ft HFC-BTD 13T 481633m 4475071m 5283ft SVSC-LTU 13T 482281m 4456451m 5261ft SVSC-LTD 13T 483012m 4456592m 5224ft SVSC-SVU 13T 477907m 4451916m 5325ft SVSC-SVD 13T 478204m 4451376m 5285ft
______Biomonitoring Summary Report Page 5 Timberline Aquatics, Inc. 17 August 2016
Figure 2. Map of East Slope NCWCD macroinvertebrate sample sites. This map was created with TOPO! © National Geographic Maps.
______Biomonitoring Summary Report Page 6 Timberline Aquatics, Inc. 17 August 2016 Methods
The biomonitoring and analysis approach used for this project was intended to provide information describing the location and type of disturbances, along with seasonal variation. Three replicate Hess samples were taken from each site on the West Slope and East Slope during the spring and fall of 2015. One semi-quantitative ‘sq’ sample was also collected at site CR-WGD during the fall season using sampling protocols described by the WQCD (Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment 2010). All other samples were taken in similar riffle habitat at each station using a Hess Sampler to provide comparable quantitative benthic macroinvertebrate data. Substrate within each sample was thoroughly agitated and individual rocks were scrubbed by hand to dislodge benthic organisms. All macroinvertebrates were rinsed into sample jars and preserved in 80% ethanol solution. Each sample jar was labeled with date, location, and sample ID number. Samples were transported to the lab at Timberline Aquatics, Inc. where benthic macroinvertebrates were sorted, identified and enumerated. For each quantitative sample, the sorting and identification process was conducted for the entire sample in order to retain the most biotic information while avoiding potential problems or controversy associated with subsampling.
The process of sorting and identification used in this study was consistent with the process used for other similar studies in Colorado (Rees 2008). The sorting process involved separating macroinvertebrates from debris in each sample and placing macroinvertebrates into vials containing coarse taxonomic groups. Macroinvertebrates were identified to the “lowest practical taxonomic level” based primarily on Merritt et al. (2008), Ward et al. (2002), and other taxonomic keys. The “lowest practical taxonomic level” means all specimens were identified to a level permitted by available physical characteristics and species keys using a dissecting microscope. This level of identification consisted of genus or species for mayflies, stoneflies, caddisflies, and many dipterans. The Family Chironomidae was identified to the subfamily or tribe level during the spring and the genus level during the fall.
As part of the quality control protocols at Timberline Aquatics, Inc., all sorted macroinvertebrate samples were checked for accuracy, and approximately 10% of identifications were checked by an additional taxonomist (Dr. Boris Kondratieff - Professor of Entomology at Colorado State University). In all cases where the classification of a species was difficult or questionable, identifications of specimens were validated by another taxonomist.
Population densities and species lists were developed for each sampling site in the study area; however, much of the analysis of macroinvertebrate data for this study was specific to the geographic location of the study sites. Samples from the West Slope were collected at a higher elevation with a colder mean annual air temperature, while sites on the East Slope were located in the transitional zone between the mountains and plains (lower elevation with warmer temperatures). The CDPHE has found that there are expected changes in macroinvertebrate communities that can be attributed to natural
______Biomonitoring Summary Report Page 7 Timberline Aquatics, Inc. 17 August 2016 changes in environmental conditions in Colorado streams (Jessup 2009, Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment 2010). Based on expected (natural) changes in macroinvertebrate communities, the CDPHE has recommended different tools for analysis of macroinvertebrate data from different biotypes (in this case, mountain vs transition zone streams) in Colorado. The tools used for data analysis in this study were based (in part) on recommendations by the CDPHE for mountain and transition zone streams; however, additional metrics that provided relevant information were also used to evaluate data from both biotypes.
The variety of analysis techniques used in this study included a set of metrics that were applied to all macroinvertebrate data (regardless of location or season) and several analysis tools that were specific to the sampling season and location. A multiple metric index that provided an alternative Multi-Index Score (aMIS) was constructed to produce information regarding aquatic conditions in both biotypes. The aMIS was applied during both seasons and the individual metrics used in the aMIS were specific to East Slope and West Slope study areas in 2015. The CDPHE has calibrated the Multi-Metric Index (MMI) to specifically detect impairment from samples collected during the late summer or fall seasons, therefore this multi-metric tool was only applied to data collected during the fall. Each of the multiple metric tools should provide general information on the health of aquatic communities while the individual metrics were expected to provide more specific information regarding aquatic conditions. The following sections provide descriptions of each metric used in this study.
Alternative Analysis Tools (aMIS)
In order to provide an evaluation of macroinvertebrate data that could be compared among all sample sites and seasons, an alternative Multiple Index Score (aMIS) was developed specifically for this study. The aMIS was developed in much the same way as the MMI in that it provided a score based on the compilation of several (six) equally weighted metrics (although the aMIS differs in the calculation of each metric value). Since state-wide reference values were not available for the metrics used in the aMIS, reference metric values from within the study area were used for comparison. Reference values for the West Slope were taken from site EI-GLU which receives minimal anthropogenic influences. Reference values for the East Slope were weighted using optimum values observed among East Slope study sites and reference information provided by Jessup (2009). Each metric value for a non-reference site was expressed as a percentage of the value obtained at the reference location. The aMIS score was given as the mean value derived from combining the six relative percentage values produced at each non-reference site. The methodology for development of the aMIS was taken in part from EPA Rapid Bioassessment Protocols (Plafkin et al. 1989), and the Wyoming Bioassessment Method (King 1993). The preliminary scale that was used for the aMIS to evaluate aquatic conditions was also based on these previous studies. The scale is as follows:
______Biomonitoring Summary Report Page 8 Timberline Aquatics, Inc. 17 August 2016
aMIS SCALE
80-100 No Detectable Stress 50-79 Slightly Stressed 21-49 Moderately Stressed 0-20 Severely Stressed
Each metric used in the aMIS was selected because it provides useful information for the evaluation of aquatic conditions in Colorado and other Rocky Mountain streams. A description of the metrics used in the aMIS provides some additional explanation for their selection. The following six metrics were used in the calculation of the aMIS.
Shannon Diversity (Diversity) and Evenness (Evenness): Diversity and Evenness values were used at all sites in the NCWCD Biomonitoring Study to detect changes in macroinvertebrate community structure and balance. In unpolluted waters Diversity values typically range from near 3.0 to 4.0. In polluted waters this value is generally less than 1.0 (Ward et al. 2002). The Evenness value ranges between 0.0 and 1.0. Values lower than 0.3 are generally considered indicative of organic pollution or other substantial perturbations (Ward et al. 2002).
Diversity and Taxa Index (DAT): The DAT was also used throughout the study area to assist in the evaluation of aquatic conditions. This metric is useful because it incorporates components of community balance with taxa richness. Calculated DAT values fall within a range of numbers that are correlated to a scale describing aquatic conditions (Mangum 1986). This index has been previously used to indicate changes in water quality and/or habitat that have occurred in Boulder Creek and other Front Range streams in Colorado (Rees 2008). The DAT scale is as follows:
DAT Value SCALE 18-30+ Excellent 11-17 Good 6-10 Fair 0-5 Poor
Ephemeroptera Plecoptera Trichoptera (EPT): The design of this metric is based on the assumption that the orders of Ephemeroptera (mayflies), Plecoptera (stoneflies), and Trichoptera (caddisflies) are generally more sensitive to pollution than other benthic macroinvertebrate orders (Lenat 1988). The EPT metric is currently an important and widely used metric in many regions of the United States (Barbour et al. 1999). The EPT value is given as the total number of distinguishable taxa in the orders Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera found at each station. This number will naturally vary
______Biomonitoring Summary Report Page 9 Timberline Aquatics, Inc. 17 August 2016 among river systems, but it can be an excellent indicator of disturbance within a specific drainage. The EPT score is expected to decrease in response to a variety of stressors including nutrients (Wang et al. 2007).
Hilsenhoff Biotic Index (HBI): The HBI was used in this study because it has been widely used and/or recommended in numerous regional biomonitoring studies (Jessup 2010). Most of its value lies in the detection of nutrient enrichment, but it is also used to evaluate aquatic conditions in a variety of other circumstances. The HBI was originally developed using macroinvertebrate taxa from streams in Wisconsin; therefore, it often requires regional modifications (Hilsenhoff 1988). Although the value indicating a certain water quality rating may vary among regions, comparison of the values produced within the same system should provide information regarding sites with impacts from nutrient enrichment or other stressors. Values for the HBI range from 0.0 to 10.0, and increase as water quality decreases.
Total Taxa Richness (Total Taxa): The Total Taxa metric is reported as the total number of identifiable taxa collected from each sampling location. Total Taxa has become one of the most widely used metrics to evaluate stream health, and it provides a general indication of community health and stability (Courtemanch 1996). Total Taxa values are expected to decrease with increased perturbation to the aquatic environment (Resh and Jackson 1993).
Other Analysis Tools
Density: Macroinvertebrate abundance (Density) was reported as the mean number of macroinvertebrates per m2 found at each study site. Density provides a means of measuring and comparing standing crop at each site and provides an indication of productivity for the macroinvertebrate portion of the food web at each sampling location.
Functional Feeding Groups: Most of the previously described metrics use macroinvertebrate information that is based on community structure; however, macroinvertebrate taxa were also separated into functional guilds based on food acquisition to provide a measurement of community function. Benthic macroinvertebrates were categorized according to feeding strategy to determine the relative proportion of various groups. Some representation from each group is usually an indication of good aquatic conditions; however, it is normal for certain groups (collector- gatherers) to be more abundant than others (Ward et al. 2002). Scrapers and shredders are often considered sensitive to disturbance because they are specialized feeders (Barbour et al. 1999). Consequently, the specialized groups are expected to be well represented in healthy streams. Much of the value in this type of analysis comes from a comparison of sites within a specific study area. Changes in the proportion of functional feeding groups can provide insight into various types of stress in river systems (Ward et al. 2002).
______Biomonitoring Summary Report Page 10 Timberline Aquatics, Inc. 17 August 2016 CDPHE Tools (MMI)
In the fall of 2010, the Water Quality Control Division (WQCD) of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) published specific guidelines for benthic macroinvertebrate sampling and analysis to assist in the evaluation of aquatic life in Colorado streams (Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment 2010). These guidelines described specific protocols for using a Multi-Metric Index (MMI) in the analysis of benthic macroinvertebrate data. For proper use of the MMI, benthic macroinvertebrates should be identified to a taxonomic level based on the Operational Taxonomic Unit Level (OTU) developed by the CDPHE. This level of identification is usually genus or species for mayflies, stoneflies, caddisflies and many dipterans. This methodology was applied to composited quantitative macroinvertebrate samples collected during macroinvertebrate surveys during the fall of 2015. The information generated from this additional analysis was used to: 1) evaluate study sites based on state standards, 2) compare aquatic conditions among sites, and 3) compare results from the MMI with other analysis tools. The following section provides a brief description of the MMI and its components.
The MMI provides a single index score based on five or six equally weighted metrics. The group of metrics used in MMI calculations depends on the location of the sampling site and corresponding Biotype (Mountains, Transitional, or Plains). Each of the metrics used in the MMI produces a value that is adjusted to a scale from 1 to 100 based on the range of metric scores found at ‘reference sites’ in the state of Colorado.
The study area for the NCWCD Biomonitoring Program is located within Biotype 2 (the Mountain Zone) and Biotype 1 (the Transition Zone) which includes high and low elevation (respectively) mountain streams. The thresholds for MMI scores that determine attainment or impairment for aquatic life use in Biotypes 2 and 1 are as follows:
Biotype Attainment Threshold Impairment Threshold Mountains (Biotype 2) 50 42 Transition (Biotype 1) 52 42
Metric scores that fall between the thresholds for attainment and impairment require further evaluation using additional metrics in order to determine an aquatic life designation. The additional metrics include the Shannon Diversity (Diversity) and Hilsenhoff Biotic Index (HBI). A description of these metrics was provided in the previous section. Thresholds determined by the CDPHE for these metrics are as follows:
Biotype HBI Diversity Mountains (Biotype 2) 5.1 3.0 Transition (Biotype 1) 5.4 2.4
Specific metrics used in the MMI are dependent on site location and corresponding Biotype. Metrics currently recommended for Biotype 2 include: Total Taxa, Predator and
______Biomonitoring Summary Report Page 11 Timberline Aquatics, Inc. 17 August 2016 Shredder Taxa, Percent Ephemeroptera, Beck’s Biotic Index, and Clinger Taxa. These metrics were employed for each site location in Biotype 2 to assist in data analysis during the fall of 2015. Metrics currently used for Biotype 1 include: Percent Non-insect Taxa, EP Taxa, Percent Chironomidae, Percent Sensitive Plains Families, Predator-Shredder Taxa, and Clinger Taxa. These metrics were employed to assist in the data analysis for sites occurring in Biotype 1. The CDPHE does not provide information regarding the mechanisms or types of stressors that influence each metric. The following section provides a limited description of each metric based on a literature review conducted by Timberline Aquatics, Inc.
Biotype 2 Metrics
Total Taxa: The Total Taxa metric was used and described as part of the aMIS. This metric has been widely used to evaluate stream health, and it is known to be sensitive to a variety of perturbations (Courtemanch 1996). Total taxa values are expected to decrease with increased stress in the aquatic environment (Resh and Jackson 1993).
Predator/Shredder Taxa: This biotic metric is based on the classification of benthic macroinvertebrates into functional feeding groups. Predators primarily rely on living animal tissue for food (often other aquatic insects) while shredders feed on coarse particulate organic matter (CPOM), often in the form of leaf packs (Merritt et al. 2008). The CDPHE has recommended that the number of taxa from both of these feeding groups be used as indicators of stress. The number of predator and shredder taxa is expected to decrease in response to stressed aquatic conditions.
Although there has been some research suggesting that predator and shredder taxa are sensitive to environmental perturbations, there has also been some debate over the accuracy of functional feeding group metrics in multi-metric indices. The food source for shredders (CPOM) may contain toxins from the surrounding terrestrial environment; which, if found in high enough concentrations, can produce a negative impact on shredder richness and abundance. However, it has also been suggested that physical parameters such as stream size and canopy cover can influence shredder taxa richness and abundance, making detection of human influences more difficult (Kerans and Karr 1994). Although the relationship between predators and stressors is less clear, Kerans and Karr (1994) found that predator taxa in certain streams may be important indicators of changes in nutrient levels. While the metrics that utilize functional feeding groups may provide information not readily obtainable from other taxonomic metrics, functional feeding group measures have also been found to produce variable responses when used in different ecoregions (Rawler-Jost et al. 2000).
Clinger Taxa: The Clinger Taxa metric is the only habit/mode of locomotion metric included in the Biotype 2 MMI. Clinger Taxa are benthic macroinvertebrates having behavioral and/or morphological adaptations that allow them to attach or “cling” to substrate surfaces, often in riffle habitat (Merritt et al. 2008). Clingers typically require
______Biomonitoring Summary Report Page 12 Timberline Aquatics, Inc. 17 August 2016 clean substrate surfaces for attachment and are therefore influenced by stressors that result in habitat alterations. Clingers have often been used to evaluate the impacts from sedimentation because the deposition of fine sediment reduces the availability of their preferred habitat (Rinella 2003, Hughes and Brossett 2009). The Clinger Taxa metric may also respond negatively to increases in algal growth (that alters potential points of attachment) and rapid changes in discharge (because they are typically poor swimmers).
Percent Ephemeroptera Taxa: This metric is a measure of the percent composition of mayflies at each study site. Ephemeroptera taxa are considered relatively sensitive to a variety of anthropogenic disturbances and are consequently good indicators of stress in the aquatic environment (Lenat 1988). The Percent Ephemeroptera Taxa metric is expected to decrease in response to increasing stress.
Beck’s Biotic Index: Beck (1955) determined that the benthic macroinvertebrate community structure will predictably shift in response to perturbations to the aquatic environment. The Beck’s Biotic Index relies on the classification of macroinvertebrates into three major groups: Class 1 organisms are intolerant or sensitive to pollution; Class 2 organisms are facultative or can survive a variety of conditions; and Class 3 are pollution tolerant. A healthy benthic community will consist mostly of Class 1 and Class 2 organisms; however, there may be a few specimens representing Class 3. If a community is dominated by tolerant organisms (Class 3), then the stream is considered adversely affected by pollution. This metric can be relatively sensitive to nutrient enrichment (Terrell and Perfetti 1996).
Biotype 1 Metrics
Percent Non-Insect Taxa: Percent Non-Insect Taxa relies on community richness for detection of perturbations. When using metrics that rely on community richness, it is important that specimens are identified to a consistent taxonomic level in order to obtain comparable results among sites (Resh and Jackson 1993). Since many insect taxa are thought to be relatively sensitive to perturbations, the Percent Non-Insect Taxa value is expected to increase in response to impacts from various types of stress.
EP Taxa: Another metric that relies on community richness is the EP Taxa metric. This metric uses components (Ephemeroptera and Plecoptera) of the EPT metric, which is widely accepted as a good indicator of overall benthic community health (Resh and Jackson 1993). The “intolerant” classification of the three EPT orders was suggested in 1983 and was later confirmed in 1988 (Lenat 1988). Some research has suggested the Plecoptera component may be most important because many of these taxa are among the most sensitive to human disturbance (Fore et al. 1996), but Eaton and Lenat (1991) recommend using all components of the EPT metric to avoid restrictions in its applicability. The WQCD has opted to use only two of the EPT components (Ephemeroptera and Plecoptera) and has adjusted the metric for elevation when evaluating Colorado streams in Biotype 1.
______Biomonitoring Summary Report Page 13 Timberline Aquatics, Inc. 17 August 2016
Percent Chironomidae: Chironomidae taxa are considered fairly tolerant of environmental stress compared to other aquatic insect families (Plafkin et al. 1989). The Percent Chironomidae metric relies on the assumption that Chironomidae density will increase with decreasing water quality. Streams that are undisturbed often have a relatively even distribution of Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera, and Chironomidae (Mandaville 2002); while the Chironomidae family often dominates (75% or more of the macroinvertebrate density) at sites degraded by metals or other pollutants (Barton and Metcalf-Smith 1992). One ecological reason why this group is used as an indicator of environmental stress involves the Chironomidae life cycle. Most species of Chironomidae tend to have a relatively short life cycle which enables them to continually re-colonize unstable or polluted habitats (Lenat 1983).
There is some debate regarding the consistency of the Chironomidae group as indicators of stress. Severe pollution has been found to cause a decrease in Chironomidae abundance (Lenat 1983), and there are detectable differences in tolerance to stress at the genus or species level. Although low to moderate levels of stress are expected to result in increased Chironomidae abundance, the number of taxa representing this Family has been documented as unchanging along a gradient of negative human impacts (Lenat 1983, Fore et al. 1996). For these reasons, Rabeni & Wang (2001) have suggested that the Chironomidae group can be removed from some bioassessment evaluations without risking a loss of sensitivity.
Percent Sensitive Plains Families: This metric has not been previously reviewed in benthic macroinvertebrate bioassessment studies because it was specifically designed for Colorado by the CDPHE. Macroinvertebrate data from “plains” streams were evaluated to determine the presence and absence of taxa that may be influenced by impacts from human activity. It is assumed that sensitive Families include taxa that are intolerant to perturbations occurring in the Colorado plains and transition zone ecosystems. There is little evidence to support the value of this metric, particularly when it is applied to high elevations in the transition zone (Biotype 1). It is likely that this metric becomes negatively biased at higher elevations.
Predator/Shredder Taxa: This is the same metric that was applied to the MMI in Biotype 2. It is a measure of the number of taxa in the Predator and Shredder functional feeding groups. A description of the Predator/Shredder Taxa metric can be found in the previous section describing metrics used in Biotype 2. The number of predator and shredder taxa is expected to decrease in response to stressed aquatic conditions.
Clinger Taxa: The Clinger Taxa metric was also used in the MMI for Biotype 2. A more detailed description of this metric can be found in the previous section. The number of clinger taxa is expected to decrease in response to stress.
______Biomonitoring Summary Report Page 14 Timberline Aquatics, Inc. 17 August 2016 Results
Spring Sampling - 2015
West Slope Benthic macroinvertebrate sampling from the upper Colorado River drainage was conducted on 21 April 2015 in order to evaluate the existing aquatic conditions and monitor potential impacts from NCWCD activities during the spring season. All macroinvertebrate samples were transported to the lab at Timberline Aquatics, Inc. where specimens were sorted, identified, and enumerated using the previously described methods (Appendix A: Tables A1-A7). A variety of individual metrics were applied to the benthic macroinvertebrate data and the combination of these values were used to produce an aMIS, or alternative multiple index score (Table 4). The MMI analysis tool was not utilized during the spring sampling event due to seasonal limitations in its applicability. In general, results from the West Slope study area indicated that the structure and function of aquatic communities remained healthiest at study sites with less exposure to anthropogenic activities. Most of the evidence of stress to aquatic life was detected at sites CR-SMU, CR-SMD, and CR-GRD during the spring of 2015.
Site EI-GLU was used as a reference site for the West Slope study area because it was located immediately downstream from the boundary of Rocky Mountain National Park and upstream from any potential disturbances associated with NCWCD activities. Individual metric values for site EI-GLU indicated that the macroinvertebrate community was well-balanced during the spring of 2015, based on relatively high Diversity, Evenness, and DAT metric values (Table 4). Metrics used to measure sensitive taxa (EPT and HBI) and overall taxa richness (Total Taxa) also suggested that aquatic conditions at this location were able to support a variety of taxa, including those that are sensitive to disturbances. Results produced at site EI-GLU in April of 2015 provided valuable reference information that was used to assess potential impacts occurring at other sampling locations in the West Slope study area.
Another West Slope study site that was positioned downstream from the Rocky Mountain National Park boundary, but upstream from NCWCD activities was site CR-SMU. This site differed from the reference site because it was located on the Colorado River immediately downstream from an area of residential development. When the results from site CR-SMU were compared to site EI-GLU, an overall decline in aquatic conditions was observed. Sensitive taxa were reduced by nearly 50% at site CR-SMU (based on EPT values), and the Diversity, Evenness, and DAT metrics detected a consistent reduction in community balance (Table 4). The only metric values that remained similar between sites CR-SMU and EI-GLU were produced by the HBI and Total Taxa metrics. The HBI detected a slight increase in nutrient-tolerant taxa at site CR-SMU, while the relatively high Total Taxa value (combined with the low EPT value) suggested that sensitive taxa had been replaced by tolerant organisms at this location (Table 4). The aMIS score of 67 for site CR-SMU suggested that this location was ‘slightly stressed’ compared to the reference site during April of 2015.
______Biomonitoring Summary Report Page 15 Timberline Aquatics, Inc. 17 August 2016
Table 4. Individual metric values and aMIS scores for macroinvertebrate samples collected from the upper Colorado River drainage on 21 April 2015. Metric EI-GLU CR-SMU CR-SMD CR-GRD CR-WGU FR-WGU CR-WGD Density (mean #/m2) 1,934 4,938 8,399 17,717 7,733 9,957 23,791
Diversity 3.96 2.35 2.57 2.21 3.25 3.38 2.89 Evenness 0.791 0.488 0.577 0.461 0.624 0.644 0.551 DAT 21.2 11.9 11.8 13.1 24.7 23.1 23.2 EPT 22 12 7 12 24 23 21 HBI 2.62 3.18 5.07 4.83 4.27 4.00 4.34 Total Taxa 32 28 22 28 37 38 38 aMIS -- 67 58 62 87 89 83
______Biomonitoring Summary Report Page 16 Timberline Aquatics, Inc. 17 August 2016 Farther downstream, sites CR-SMD and CR-GRD were positioned on the Colorado River immediately below two large reservoirs (Shadow Mountain Reservoir and Lake Granby, respectively). Many of the individual metric values for these sites indicated that the level of stress was similar to results found at site CR-SMU; however, further investigation showed that the macroinvertebrate community structure was predictably altered by changes in the temperature and flow regime associated with reservoir operations. Individual metrics that measure community balance detected a decline in aquatic conditions compared to the reference site, and the EPT and HBI demonstrated a loss in sensitive taxa (Table 4). Despite the detectable impacts, most metrics suggested that the level of stress to aquatic communities remained relatively consistent between both sites (CR-SMD and CR-GRD). The elevated Density values found at these sites were a product of the relatively stable temperature and flow regimes which are conducive to the life-cycle of several prolific macroinvertebrate species. When individual metric values were combined for sites CR-SMD and CR-GRD, the aMIS scores (58 and 62, respectively) indicated that there was a “slight” increase in the level of stress (Table 4).
Site CR-WGU was established approximately 10 km downstream from Lake Granby, but upstream from the confluence with the Fraser River. Individual and combined metric results from this site suggested that benthic macroinvertebrate communities had recovered from most of the disturbances associated with the reservoir releases, and many of the metric values for site CR-WGU had improved to near reference conditions. Community balance increased (based on Diversity, Evenness, and DAT values) and the EPT value doubled at site CR-WGU compared to site CR-GRD (Table 4). These individual metric results suggested that there were minimal impacts from altered temperatures or regulated flows, and the aMIS indicated that aquatic conditions at site CR-WGU were similar to reference conditions in the spring of 2015 (Table 4).
The single sampling site on the Fraser River (FR-WGU) was located upstream of Windy Gap Reservoir and the confluence with the Colorado River. The biological community at this location appeared to be generally ‘healthy’, with metrics designed to measure community balance (Diversity, Evenness, and DAT) and taxa richness (EPT and Total Taxa) generating some of the highest values in the study area at this location (Table 4). An aMIS score of 89 (also the highest in the study area) was calculated for site FR-WGU suggesting that there was no detectable increase in stress at this location.
Site CR-WGD was established on the Colorado River below Windy Gap Reservoir at the downstream boundary of the study area. This site was primarily used to evaluate possible impacts associated with the operation of Windy Gap Reservoir; although there was potential for residual impacts from some of the previously described stressors that existed upstream. Despite the possibility for anthropogenic impacts at this site, the results from data analysis detected only minor increases in stress when compared to study sites upstream from Windy Gap Reservoir (Table 4). A slight decline in Diversity and Evenness values (used to measure community balance) was observed at site CR-WGD; however, the EPT and Total Taxa values remained relatively high. These results suggested that influences affecting macroinvertebrate communities at site CR-WGD were
______Biomonitoring Summary Report Page 17 Timberline Aquatics, Inc. 17 August 2016 related to reservoir releases rather than water quality. Results from the HBI metric also remained consistent with values produced upstream indicating that the proportions of nutrient tolerant taxa were not influenced by operations at Windy Gap Reservoir. Similar to other sites located downstream from reservoirs (CR-SMD and CR-GRD), the Density value at site CR-WGD (23,791 individuals/m2) was unusually high. This was likely due to the altered temperatures and flow regime below Windy Gap Reservoir that provided ideal conditions for the rapid colonization of certain taxa. No evidence of impairment could be detected at site CR-WGD when the aMIS was applied during April of 2015.
The reorganization of macroinvertebrates according to their method of food acquisition provided a measurement of macroinvertebrate community health that was based on ecological function rather than taxonomic structure (Table 5, Figure 3). In healthy Colorado streams, all feeding groups should be well-represented; however, certain groups (collector-gatherers) are expected to be found in higher proportions. In general, the results from functional feeding group analysis during the spring of 2015 supported the results generated by the aMIS and other individual metrics. The reference site (EI-GLU) supported the highest proportions of sensitive and specialized feeding groups (shredders and scrapers) within the study area; however, these sensitive taxa were lost or reduced at sites located near anthropogenic activities (Table 5, Figure 3). Sites CR-SMD, CR-GRD, and CR-WGD were consistently dominated by the collector-gatherer group while shredders and scrapers were poorly represented (Table 5). The proportional balance of feeding groups improved at sites CR-WGU and FR-WGU, where the distance from potential upstream stressors had increased. The changes in proportions of functional feeding groups throughout the study area provided evidence of minor impacts to macroinvertebrate communities that supported the results from other individual metrics during the spring of 2015 (Table 5, Figure 3).
Table 5. Relative abundance of functional feeding groups for spring 2015 sampling at NCWCD West Slope study sites. Site Functional Feeding Group Collector- Collector- Shredder Scrapers Omnivore Predators
Gatherer Filterer EI-GLU 23.25% 13.23% 13.23% 42.28% 0.00% 8.02%
CR-SMU 57.06% 37.52% 0.47% 3.14% 0.00% 1.81%
CR-SMD 95.20% 1.85% 0.05% 0.42% 0.00% 2.49%
CR-GRD 90.29% 2.95% 0.04% 0.04% 6.06% 0.61%
CR-WGU 77.59% 10.08% 3.61% 3.21% 0.00% 5.51%
FR-WGU 62.51% 15.76% 11.72% 2.06% 0.04% 7.90%
CR-WGD 81.43% 12.22% 0.78% 1.50% 0.11% 3.96%
______Biomonitoring Summary Report Page 18 Timberline Aquatics, Inc. 17 August 2016
100.0%
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
Percent Composition Percent 30.0%
20.0% Collector-Gatherer Collector-Filterer 10.0% Shredder Scrapers 0.0% Omnivore Predators
Figure 3. Functional feeding group composition for NCWCD West Slope study sites during spring 2015.
East Slope
On 16 April 2015, benthic macroinvertebrates were collected from paired study sites at four Colorado Front Range streams to monitor aquatic communities both upstream and downstream from water transfer systems used by the NCWCD. After macroinvertebrate samples were collected in the field, they were brought to the lab at Timberline Aquatics Inc. where specimens were sorted, identified, and enumerated (Appendix B: Tables B1- B8). As part of the evaluation process, seven metrics were applied to macroinvertebrate data and an aMIS score was calculated for each site based on optimum values observed among East Slope study sites and previously acquired reference information (Table 6). Results from the spring of 2015 provided evidence of elevated stress at several of the study sites; however, a comparison between recent and historical results revealed that most of the stress observed in 2015 could probably be attributed flooding that occurred during the fall of 2013. In September of 2013, most of the East Slope study area experienced catastrophic flooding that substantially altered the structure and function of benthic macroinvertebrate assemblages. The residual impacts from this flood appeared to overshadow most of the potential impacts associated with NCWCD activities during the spring of 2015.
______Biomonitoring Summary Report Page 19 Timberline Aquatics, Inc. 17 August 2016
Table 6. Individual metric values and aMIS scores for macroinvertebrate samples collected from East Slope sample sites on 16 April 2015. Metric HSC-PRU HSC-PRD HFC-BTU HFC-BTD SVSC-LTU SVSC-LTD SVSC-SVU SVSC-SVD
Density (mean #/m2) 15,857 12,171 7,717 6,233 10,578 12,174 1,605 3,050 Diversity 2.06 2.74 2.14 1.56 1.24 0.64 2.35 1.89 Evenness 0.401 0.543 0.446 0.344 0.279 0.146 0.465 0.393 DAT 16.0 15.9 9.8 7.7 5.4 2.6 11.6 9.8 EPT 22 19 15 10 10 9 17 15 HBI 4.89 4.23 5.01 5.14 5.81 5.94 4.63 5.07 Total Taxa 35 33 28 23 22 21 33 28 aMIS 79.1 87.3 69.3 54.4 47.2 36.6 77.6 66.6
______Biomonitoring Summary Report Page 20 Timberline Aquatics, Inc. 17 August 2016 Paired study sites on the Cache la Poudre River were located upstream (HSC-PRU) and downstream (HSC-PRD) from the Hansen Supply Canal. Metric results from both sampling locations indicated that stress to aquatic life was minimal during the spring of 2015, although some minor differences in aquatic communities were observed between sites (Table 6). Macroinvertebrate community balance appeared to be slightly better at the downstream study site based on Diversity and Evenness values, and results from the HBI metric (used to evaluate proportions of nutrient-tolerant taxa) also improved slightly in a downstream direction (from 4.89 at site HSC-PRU to 4.23 at site HSC-PRD). Alternatively, the EPT and Total Taxa metrics (used to measure taxa richness) produced slightly better results at the upstream site (Table 6). While most results from the applied metrics determined that aquatic conditions were similar between sites HSC-PRU and HSC-PRD, the aMIS for these sites (79.1 and 87.3, respectively) suggested that aquatic communities were slightly stressed at site HSC-PRU, while no evidence of stress could be detected at site HSC-PRD (Table 6). Overall, results from the Cache la Poudre River indicated that both sites maintained relatively healthy benthic communities, and potential impacts from the Hansen Supply Canal could not be detected during the spring of 2015.
The paired study sites on the Big Thompson River (HFC-BTU and HFC-BTD) produced results that demonstrated continued degradation from the 2013 flood. Both sites exhibited minor to moderate deficiencies in macroinvertebrate community balance and taxa richness, with evidence of slightly greater impacts occurring at the downstream study site (Table 6). The Diversity, Evenness, and DAT values for site HFC-BTU indicated that community balance was ‘fair’; however, these metrics detected ‘fair’ to ‘poor’ conditions at site HFC-BTD. Similarly, the richness of sensitive taxa (measured by the EPT metric) decreased by more than 30% from site HFC-BTU to site HFC-BTD. Only the HBI metric produced similar values between sites, suggesting that proportions of nutrient tolerant taxa remained essentially unchanged. After combining the individual metric values and comparing the results with reference information, both of these sampling locations produced aMIS scores indicating ‘slight’ additional stress on the Big Thompson River (Table 6). The majority of impacts detected during the spring of 2015 were likely associated with the high levels of sand and fine sediment that were observed during spring field work. The deposited sand was a persistent consequence of flooding that occurred in 2013, and the lower stream gradient found at site HFC-BTD likely contributed to the potential for sediment deposition and impacts to aquatic life. Future biomonitoring investigations in the East Slope study area will be valuable in the assessment of post-flood recovery as habitat begins to stabilize and the sand and fine sediment continue to disperse in a downstream direction.
Impacts from the 2013 flood were also apparent on the Little Thompson River during April of 2015 where results from the paired sampling sites (SVSC-LTD and SVSC-LTU) generally revealed moderate impacts to benthic macroinvertebrate communities. Field notes from these sites during the spring sampling event indicated that up to 0.5 m of sand and fine sediment had been deposited in riffle and pool habitat on top of the historical stream bed and cobble substrate. Sites SVSC-LTD and SVSC-LTU collectively produced the lowest Diversity, Evenness, and DAT values in the East Slope study area,
______Biomonitoring Summary Report Page 21 Timberline Aquatics, Inc. 17 August 2016 while results from the EPT and HBI metrics indicated that sensitive taxa had been reduced and replaced by disturbance-tolerant taxa (Table 6). The aMIS scores for sites SVSC-LTU and SVSC-LTD (47.2 and 36.6, respectively) suggested both sites were ‘moderately’ stressed compared to reference conditions. It is likely that macroinvertebrate communities in the Little Thompson River will continue to improve as aquatic habitat develops and stabilizes during the years following the flood.
The paired study sites on Saint Vrain Creek were located immediately upstream (SVSC- SVU) and about 1 km downstream (SVSC-SVD) from the Saint Vrain Supply Canal. Although evidence of minor stress was detected at these sites during the spring of 2015, most of the disturbances could probably be attributed to lingering impacts from the 2013 flood. This assumption was based on the unusually high levels of sand and fine sediment that had increased the embeddedness of the cobble substrate at both study sites during the spring sampling event. While the density of macroinvertebrates appeared to increase in a downstream direction, most metrics indicated that slightly better aquatic conditions could be found at the upstream study site (Table 6). The Diversity, Evenness, DAT, EPT, HBI, and Total Taxa metrics all detected a slight decline in macroinvertebrate community health downstream at site SVSC-SVD (Table 6). It is possible that the lower gradient and decreasing current velocity in the vicinity of site SVSC-SVD may have contributed to greater sediment deposition following the flood in 2013. The aMIS scores for sites SVSC-SVU and SVSC-SVD (77.6 and 66.6, respectively) suggested that there were minor detectable impacts to macroinvertebrate community health at both sampling sites during the spring of 2015 (Table 6).
Results from the evaluation of functional feeding groups revealed that collector-gatherers (a group thought to be tolerant of most disturbances) and collector-filterers were found in relatively high proportions throughout much of the study area, while feeding groups that are most sensitive to stress (shredders and scrapers) were poorly represented (less than 3.0%) at all study sites during the spring of 2015 (Table 7, Figure 4). In the Cache la Poudre River, site HSC-PRU was dominated (61.18%) by collector-filterers, while the macroinvertebrate community at site HSC-PRD was dominated (74.87%) by collector- gatherers. The shift in proportional abundance between these two feeding groups may have been influenced by a change in the prevailing food resources downstream from the Hansen Supply Canal. Both sites on the Big Thompson River and Saint Vrain Creek were dominated by similar proportions of collector-gatherers, while both sites on the Little Thompson River were dominated by collector-filterers (Table 7, Figure 4). The high proportions of collector-filterers in the Little Thompson River could almost exclusively be attributed to the presence of Simulium sp., a type of black fly larvae that has the ability to rapidly recolonize disturbed habitats (Appendix B: Tables B5-B6). In general, results from functional feeding group analysis supported other individual metrics and the aMIS by detecting evidence of minor stress (likely associated with the 2013 floods) throughout much of the study area. Future biomonitoring studies in the East Slope study area will be valuable for assessing the continued recovery of benthic macroinvertebrate communities at these study sites in the years following the 2013 flood.
______Biomonitoring Summary Report Page 22 Timberline Aquatics, Inc. 17 August 2016
Table 7. Relative abundance of functional feeding groups for spring 2015 sampling at NCWCD East Slope study sites. Site Functional Feeding Group Collector- Collector- Shredder Scrapers Omnivore Predators
Gatherer Filterer HSC-PRU 34.73% 61.18% 0.27% 2.03% 0.00% 1.78% HSC-PRD 74.87% 21.21% 0.16% 1.82% 0.00% 1.94% HFC-BTU 64.84% 32.45% 0.10% 1.66% 0.05% 0.90% HFC-BTD 69.90% 27.99% 0.00% 0.87% 0.06% 1.18% SVSC-LTU 15.83% 80.21% 0.07% 0.33% 0.00% 3.55% SVSC-LTD 6.18% 91.75% 0.10% 0.10% 0.00% 1.88% SVSC-SVU 74.15% 14.49% 1.93% 2.90% 0.48% 6.04% SVSC-SVD 87.42% 5.21% 0.25% 1.78% 0.13% 5.21%
100.0%
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
Percent Composition Percent 30.0%
20.0%
10.0% Collector-Gatherer Collector-Filterer Shredder 0.0% Scrapers Omnivore Predators
Figure 4. Functional feeding group composition for NCWCD East Slope study sites during spring 2015.
______Biomonitoring Summary Report Page 23 Timberline Aquatics, Inc. 17 August 2016
Fall Sampling - 2015
West Slope
Seasonal benthic macroinvertebrate sampling from the upper Colorado River drainage continued on the 10th of September, 2015 at the same seven (7) study sites that were sampled during the spring. All benthic macroinvertebrates were, sorted, identified and enumerated, and a taxa list was constructed specifically for the West Slope sampling area during the fall season (Appendix C: Tables C1-C7). Quantitative replicate samples were taken at each of the study sites using a Hess sampler; however, one additional semi- quantitative (sq) kick-net sample was collected from site CR-WGD (according to CDPHE protocols) to evaluate the consistencies between these two methodologies. An aMIS and MMI score were calculated for each sampling location using a combination of the appropriate metrics (Tables 8 and 9). Results from the West Slope study area during the fall of 2015 generally exhibited a pattern of variability among sites that was similar to the pattern of stress and recovery observed during the spring season.
Site EI-GLU was used once again as the reference site in the West Slope study area during the fall of 2015 because of its location upstream from NCWCD activities and most other potential sources of stress. An evaluation of metric results suggested that aquatic conditions continued to remain near optimum for supporting benthic communities at this sampling location in September of 2015 (Tables 8 and 9). The highest Diversity, Evenness, and DAT values in the West Slope study area were produced at site EI-GLU indicating that the macroinvertebrate community was well-balanced, and sensitive and specialized taxa were abundant based on the high values from the EPT, Predator- Shredder Taxa, Beck’s Biotic Index, and Clinger Taxa metrics (Tables 8 and 9). The MMI score (83.3) calculated for site EI-GLU was the highest in the West Slope study area and was well above the attainment threshold for aquatic life use. The results obtained from site EI-GLU in September of 2015 provided valuable reference information that was used to assess potential disturbances occurring at other locations in the West Slope study area.
During the fall of 2015, some evidence of stress was again detected by the applied metrics at site CR-SMU (Tables 8 and 9). Despite its location upstream from NCWCD activities, there was continued potential for impacts to aquatic life from the adjacent residential developments at this location. In general, the metrics that detected the most evidence of stress at this site were designed to measure sensitive and specialized taxa (EPT, HBI, Clinger Taxa, Percent Ephemeroptera, and Beck’s Biotic Index). The HBI value at site CR-SMU (6.12) was the highest within the West Slope study area and exceeded the acceptable threshold established by the CDPHE for Biotype 2 streams (Table 8). The elevated HBI value combined with the low Percent Ephemeroptera value suggested that there were relatively low proportions of sensitive taxa (specifically those sensitive to nutrients) at site CR-SMU during the fall of 2015. Metrics designed to measure community balance (Diversity, Evenness, and DAT) indicated that aquatic conditions were relatively healthy and these metrics appeared to be less sensitive to the ______Biomonitoring Summary Report Page 24 Timberline Aquatics, Inc. 17 August 2016 impacts that were affecting sensitive taxa. After combining individual metric values from site CR-SMU the aMIS score (73) suggested that this site was ‘slightly stressed’ compared to reference conditions at site EI-GLU (Table 8). The MMI score (50.9) indicated ‘attainment’ for aquatic life use during the fall of 2015; however, a 1.0% decline in this score would have resulted in an ‘impairment’ designation due to the high HBI value (Tables 8 and 9).
Site CR-SMD was positioned on the Colorado River downstream from Shadow Mountain Reservoir primarily to monitor potential impacts from reservoir operations. The alterations in temperature and flow regime, as a consequence of reservoir releases, resulted in predictable influences on benthic assemblages at this site during the fall of 2015; however, the impacts were generally less than expected (Tables 8 and 9). The Diversity value produced at site CR-SMD (2.76) fell below the acceptable threshold according to CDPHE calculations for a Biotype 2 stream, and Evenness and DAT values (used to evaluate community balance) also declined compared to the two upstream study sites. A loss of sensitive and specialized taxa was exhibited by the EPT, Beck’s Biotic Index, and Predator-Shredder Taxa metrics which collectively produced the lowest values and scores (10, 45.5, and 28.6, respectively) within this study area (Tables 8 and 9). Despite these measurable impacts, the highest Density value (22,891 individuals/m2) was observed at site CR-SMD. The elevated Density along with a decline in community balance and sensitive taxa were expected responses for a macroinvertebrate community immediately downstream from a reservoir. The aMIS detected only a ‘slight’ increase in stress at site CR-SMD and the MMI score of 55.4 resulted in an ‘attainment’ designation for aquatic life use during the fall of 2015 (Tables 8 and 9).
Site CR-GRD was also located downstream from a deep-release reservoir (Lake Granby) and this site represented the farthest upstream sampling location in Biotype 1 (according to CDPHE guidelines). Similar to site CR-SMD, a reduction in community balance and sensitive taxa was observed at site CR-GRD, while the Density value remained elevated (Tables 8 and 9). The Diversity and Evenness values (2.78 and 0.490, respectively) were among the lowest in this study area, but they were not unusual for a tail-water stream. Some loss of sensitive and specialized taxa (measured by the EPT, Clinger Taxa, and EP Taxa metrics) was also demonstrated at this site; however, this location produced one of the highest Total Taxa values (51) in the study area (Table 8). The unique aquatic conditions downstream from Lake Granby likely reduced the richness of sensitive and specialized taxa, resulting in an influx of species that were more tolerant to the existing aquatic conditions. After comparing this site with reference conditions, the MIS score (78) indicated that additional stress was “slight” at site CR-GRD during the fall of 2015; however, this was the only sampling location in the study area that produced an MMI score (36.7) indicating ‘impairment’ for aquatic life (Tables 8 and 9). It is likely that several of the metrics used for the MMI calculation in Biotype 1 (Sensitive Plains Families, Percent Non-Insect Taxa, and EP Taxa) were negatively biased due to the high elevation and location (downstream from a reservoir) of this site. Special consideration for site CR-GRD may be warranted due to its location and the inconsistencies among individual metric values during September of 2015.
______Biomonitoring Summary Report Page 25 Timberline Aquatics, Inc. 17 August 2016
Table 8. Individual metric values and aMIS scores for macroinvertebrate samples collected from the upper Colorado River drainage on 10 September 2015. Values highlighted in red indicate impairment based on CDPHE thresholds. CR-WGD Metric EI-GLU CR-SMU CR-SMD CR-GRD CR-WGU FR-WGU CR-WGD Semi-Q
Density (mean #/m2) 3,457 7,504 22,891 19,163 12,779 14,674 20,911 ≈ 2,100
Diversity 4.24 3.15 2.76 2.78 3.01 3.73 2.83 2.50 Evenness 0.759 0.574 0.533 0.490 0.561 0.654 0.505 0.526 DAT 29.4 23.6 20.7 25.8 24.2 31.9 27.3 NA EPT 28 18 10 16 19 27 22 NA HBI 3.20 6.12 3.71 3.53 2.41 3.45 2.80 2.48 Total Taxa 48 45 36 51 41 52 49 NA aMIS -- 73 67 78 80 94 84 NA
______Biomonitoring Summary Report Page 26 Timberline Aquatics, Inc. 17 August 2016
Table 9. Individual metric scores and MMI scores for macroinvertebrate samples collected from the upper Colorado River drainage in Biotypes 1 and 2 on 10 September 2015. MMI scores highlighted in red indicate impairment based on CDPHE thresholds. CR-WGD Metric EI-GLU CR-SMU CR-SMD CR-GRD CR-WGU FR-WGU CR-WGD Semi Q Biotype 2 Biotype 1 Total Taxa 91.7 80.6 66.7 Predator-Shredder Taxa 85.7 64.3 28.6 57.1 50.0 64.3 42.9 50.0 Clinger Taxa 88.2 41.2 58.8 40.5 69.9 86.7 71.5 54.5 Percent Ephemeroptera 57.1 1.8 77.7 Beck’s Biotic Index 93.9 66.7 45.5 EP Taxa 30.9 77.8 88.2 47.4 58.1 Percent Chironomidae 88.1 99.3 77.3 93.2 93.1 Sensitive Plains Families 3.3 32.4 51.3 25.5 30.6 Percent Non-Insect Taxa 0.0 70.3 64.4 85.8 84.5 MMI Score 83.3 50.9 55.4 36.7 66.6 72.0 61.0 61.8
______Biomonitoring Summary Report Page 27 Timberline Aquatics, Inc. 17 August 2016
Site CR-WGU was positioned on the Colorado River approximately 10 km downstream from Lake Granby and immediately upstream from the confluence with the Fraser River. This site was originally established to evaluate the recovery of macroinvertebrate communities as potential impacts from reservoir operations decreased with distance downstream. As expected, results from most metrics showed improvements in aquatic conditions at site CR-WGU compared to the study sites located immediately downstream from reservoirs (Tables 8 and 9). The Diversity and Evenness values at site CR-WGU provided evidence that macroinvertebrate community balance had improved, and the richness of sensitive taxa also increased slightly based on EPT values (Table 8). The aMIS score (80) indicated that no additional stress could be detected at site CR-WGU, and the MMI score (66.6) demonstrated ‘attainment’ for aquatic life use during September of 2015 (Tables 8 and 9).
An evaluation for the single site on the Fraser River produced results indicating that aquatic conditions were nearly optimal for supporting healthy benthic macroinvertebrate communities. Diversity, Evenness, and DAT values for site FR-WGU were among the highest in the study area and indicated that the macroinvertebrate assemblage was well- balanced at this location (Tables 8 and 9). Metrics designed to measure the richness and proportion of sensitive and specialized taxa (EPT, Predator-Shredder Taxa, Clinger Taxa, and Sensitive Plains Families) also produced some of the better values in the West Slope study area. The combination of individual metrics generated an aMIS score of 94 for site FR-WGU suggesting that aquatic communities were healthy and no additional stress could be detected. The MMI score for site FR-WGU (72.0) was well above the attainment threshold for aquatic life use and was one of the highest scores within the study area (Table 9).
The farthest downstream sampling location in the West Slope study area (CR-WGD) had the potential to receive impacts from a variety of upstream sources; however, this site appeared to receive only minor influences from Windy Gap Reservoir. The two sampling methodologies that were employed at site CR-WGD in the fall of 2015 included: 1) the quantitative ‘Hess’ sampling method that was used at all other study sites, and 2) a semi- quantitative timed kick-net method recommended by the CDPHE. These two sampling methods were used to evaluate the consistency between MMI scores and other individual metric values (Tables 8 and 9). Results from these methods were consistent in demonstrating a slight decline in community balance (based on Diversity and Evenness values); however, most of the other individual metrics used in the aMIS calculation were likely biased due to the semi-quantitative sampling approach and the subsampling technique used during the processing of ‘sq’ samples. Results from the ‘Hess’ method generally demonstrated some marginal influences from Windy Gap Reservoir that appeared to be less severe than the impacts observed at other sites located downstream from reservoirs (CR-SMD and CR-GRD). Sensitive taxa were adequately represented at site CR-WGD and the aMIS score (84) suggested that no evidence of stress could be detected (Tables 8). Results from the metrics used in the calculation of the MMI were more compatible using both sampling methods because the MMI program uses a
______Biomonitoring Summary Report Page 28 Timberline Aquatics, Inc. 17 August 2016 rarefication process that selects a consistent number of specimens to be used in the data analysis process. The MMI scores from the ‘Hess’ and ‘sq’ methods were quite similar (61.0 and 61.8, respectively) and indicated that aquatic conditions were in attainment for aquatic life use at this location (Tables 8).
The results from functional feeding group analysis supported other metrics and the multi- metric indices (MMI and aMIS) by demonstrating minor impacts to the ecological balance of macroinvertebrate communities in the middle portion of the study area (sites CR-SMU, CR-SMD, and CR-GRD) during the fall of 2015 (Table 10, Figure 5). The most optimum distributions of functional feeding groups were found at sites EI-GLU, CR-WGU, and FR-WGU where benthic macroinvertebrate communities were well- balanced with relatively high proportions of the most sensitive groups (shredders and scrapers) and lower proportions of collector-gatherers (Table 10, Figure 5). A shift in feeding groups was observed at sites CR-SMU, CR-SMD, and CR-GRD where collector- gatherers became proportionally dominant, and sensitive and specialized taxa were poorly represented (always less than 2.00%). These stressed conditions were likely related to impacts associated with residential developments (site CR-SMU) or the altered temperature and flow regime that typically occurs immediately downstream from reservoirs (sites CR-SMD and CR-GRD). Although site CR-WGD was also located downstream from a reservoir, and was found to support a relatively high proportion of collector-gatherers (76.68%), both of the most sensitive groups (shredders and scrapers) were maintained in adequate proportions (5.06% and 5.32%, respectively) at this location (Table 10, Figure 5). In general, the evaluation of community function in the West Slope study area supported many of the previously described individual and combined metric results during the fall of 2015.
Table 10. Relative abundance of functional feeding groups for fall 2015 sampling at NCWCD West Slope study sites. Site Functional Feeding Group Collector- Collector- Shredder Scrapers Omnivore Predators
Gatherer Filterer EI-GLU 56.39% 8.63% 5.38% 21.75% 0.00% 7.85% CR-SMU 73.97% 19.63% 0.52% 1.34% 0.00% 4.55% CR-SMD 89.79% 6.37% 0.07% 0.20% 0.00% 3.57% CR-GRD 85.07% 8.96% 0.53% 0.20% 2.47% 2.77% CR-WGU 58.11% 16.92% 9.58% 9.49% 0.00% 5.88% FR-WGU 48.65% 14.32% 10.80% 21.71% 0.00% 4.52% CR-WGD 76.68% 9.51% 5.06% 5.32% 0.02% 3.41%
______Biomonitoring Summary Report Page 29 Timberline Aquatics, Inc. 17 August 2016 100.0%
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
Percent Composition Percent 30.0%
20.0% Collector-Gatherer Collector-Filterer 10.0% Shredder Scrapers 0.0% Omnivore Predators
Figure 5. Functional feeding group composition for NCWCD West Slope study sites during fall 2015.
East Slope
Benthic macroinvertebrate sampling during the fall season was conducted in the East Slope study area on 10 September 2015. All specimens from each study site were sorted, identified, and enumerated, and a taxa list was developed that was specific to the East Slope study area during the fall season (Appendix D; Tables D1-D8). The study area included the same paired sampling sites that have been used previously in this study, which consisted of locations upstream and downstream from NCWCD water transfer systems on the Cache la Poudre, Big Thompson, Little Thompson, and Saint Vrain rivers. The metrics used to analyze data collected during the spring of 2015 were included in the fall evaluation; however, additional analysis was conducted using the MMI tool and associated metrics during the fall (Tables 11 and 12). Overall, the benthic macroinvertebrate data collected during September of 2015 suggested that the condition of biological communities had improved during the months prior to sampling as the majority of detectable flood-related impacts began to subside.
______Biomonitoring Summary Report Page 30 Timberline Aquatics, Inc. 17 August 2016 Table 11. Individual metric values and aMIS scores for macroinvertebrate samples collected from East Slope sample sites on 10 September 2015. Values highlighted in red indicate impairment based on CDPHE thresholds. Metric HSC-PRU HSC-PRD HFC-BTU HFC-BTD SVSC-LTU SVSC-LTD SVSC-SVU SVSC-SVD Density (mean #/m2) 2,907 4,795 2,430 7,671 7,244 12,403 4,376 4,035 Diversity 3.53 3.70 3.24 3.25 3.22 2.58 3.50 3.96 Evenness 0.668 0.674 0.675 0.600 0.634 0.511 0.657 0.725 DAT 20.1 26.2 14.5 25.7 19.9 16.7 21.9 28.1 EPT 24 25 14 22 17 15 23 23 HBI 3.10 3.40 3.65 3.52 5.06 4.20 3.85 3.65 Total Taxa 39 45 28 43 34 33 40 44 aMIS 97 96 86 94 91 84 95 97
Table 12. Individual metric scores and MMI scores for macroinvertebrate samples collected from East Slope sample sites (Biotype 1) on 10 September 2015. MMI scores highlighted in red indicate impairment based on CDPHE thresholds. Metric HSC-PRU HSC-PRD HFC-BTU HFC-BTD SVSC-LTU SVSC-LTD SVSC-SVU SVSC-SVD
EP Taxa 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 96.2 100.0 100.0 Percent Chironomidae 98.8 75.2 87.3 95.0 43.1 99.6 94.8 81.3 Sensitive Plains Families 70.6 54.5 32.8 81.9 39.0 35.3 65.0 64.3 Predator-Shredder Taxa 78.6 78.6 50.0 57.1 64.3 42.9 64.3 64.3 Clinger Taxa 100.0 100.0 81.3 100.0 83.0 66.7 100.0 100.0 Percent Non-Insect Taxa 67.6 87.3 83.0 49.1 73.6 64.4 87.7 77.0 MMI Score 85.9 82.6 72.4 80.5 67.2 67.5 85.3 81.1
______Biomonitoring Summary Report Page 31 Timberline Aquatics, Inc. 17 August 2016 Sites HSC-PRU and HSC-PRD were located on the Cache la Poudre River upstream and downstream (respectively) from the Hansen Supply Canal. During the fall of 2015, both of these sites produced individual metric values and multi-metric scores indicating that the existing aquatic conditions were near optimal for supporting healthy macroinvertebrate communities (Tables 11 and 12). While metrics that measure community balance (Diversity, Evenness, and DAT) and taxa richness (EPT and Total Taxa) detected minor differences between sties, all of the metric values remained within a range indicating healthy aquatic conditions (Tables 11). Most of the evidence of changes in community structure between these sites came from Density values which increased from 2,907 at site HSC-PRU to 4,795 at site HSC-PRD. This increase in macroinvertebrate abundance at site HSC-PRD may have been related to augmented flows that enter the Cache la Poudre River through the Hansen Supply Canal. Both sites generated aMIS and MMI scores suggesting that stress to aquatic life could not be detected in the Cache la Poudre River during the fall of 2015 (Tables 11 and 12).
Benthic macroinvertebrate sampling locations on the Big Thompson River were positioned upstream (site HFC-BTU) and downstream (site HFC-BTD) from the Hansen Feeder Canal. During the fall season, macroinvertebrate communities at both of these study sites were generally healthy, although some of the individual metrics detected minor changes in community structure. Both of the macroinvertebrate assemblages were well-balanced based on relatively high Diversity and Evenness values; however, metrics that incorporated a measure of taxa richness (DAT, EPT, Total Taxa, and Sensitive Plains Families) detected consistent improvements at site HFC-BTD (Tables 11 and 12). Similar to the results from the Cache la Poudre River, the abundance (Density) of macroinvertebrates also improved at the downstream study site. While the aMIS and MMI detected healthy aquatic conditions at both study sites, the minor shifts in community structure resulted in slightly better multi-metric scores for site HFC-BTD (Tables 11 and 12). The seasonal improvements in metric values observed at both sampling sites on the Big Thompson River could probably be attributed to a reduction in fine sediments that was noted during the September field observations.
Results from sampling on the Little Thompson River (sites SVSC-LTU and SVSC-LTD) indicated that aquatic conditions remained similar between study sites, with only slight changes in community structure upstream and downstream from the Saint Vrain Supply Canal (Tables 11 and 12). Most of the differences in macroinvertebrate communities between these sites were detected by the Diversity, Evenness, and DAT metrics which suggested there was slightly better community balance at site SVSC-LTU (Table 11). While many of the remaining metrics produced values that were similar between sites, two of the metrics that measure the proportion of tolerant taxa (HBI and Percent Chironomidae) indicated that the ratio of sensitive taxa had improved at site SVSC-LTD. Similar to other East Slope study sites, the density of macroinvertebrates was also higher (more than 40%) downstream. Despite the evidence of minor disturbances detected by some individual metrics, results from both the aMIS and MMI indicated that benthic macroinvertebrate communities were relatively healthy in the Little Thompson River during the fall of 2015 (Tables 11 and 12). The substrate in riffle habitat at both of these
______Biomonitoring Summary Report Page 32 Timberline Aquatics, Inc. 17 August 2016 sites had improved compared to observations made during the spring, and the majority of sand and fine sediment had been removed from habitats with higher current velocities. Unfortunately, much of the fine sediment still remained in lower velocity habitats and along the stream margins indicating that the recovery process following the 2013 floods was not complete.
Individual and combined metric results from the sampling sites upstream (site SVSC- SVU) and downstream (site SVSC-SVD) from the Saint Vrain Supply Canal indicated that St. Vrain Creek supported healthy macroinvertebrate communities that were similar to those found on the Cache la Poudre River during the fall of 2015. Both sites produced some of the highest Diversity, Evenness, and DAT values within the study area which provided evidence of healthy community balance at both locations (Table 11). Results from metrics used to measure sensitive and specialized taxa (EPT, Predator-Shredder Taxa, and Clinger Taxa) and metrics designed to detect abnormal proportions of tolerant taxa (Percent Chironomidae and Percent Non-Insect Taxa) also indicated that aquatic conditions were near optimum at both sites on St. Vrain Creek. Results from the aMIS and MMI indicated that evidence of stress could not be detected, and both sites were in attainment for aquatic life use (Tables 11 and 12). These results, along with field observations of relatively clean substrate, suggested that the sediment deposition observed during the spring had been greatly reduced during the months prior to fall sampling on Saint Vrain Creek.
A review of functional feeding groups in the East Slope study area provided an opportunity to assess macroinvertebrate assemblages based on their ecological function rather than taxonomic structure. Overall, the distributions of feeding groups suggested that macroinvertebrate communities were relatively healthy with some indications of minor stress throughout the study area (Table 13, Figure 6). The most sensitive and specialized groups (shredders and scrapers) were present at all study sites, but they continued to be found in relatively low proportions (Figure 6). The majority of streams were dominated by collector-gatherers or collector-filterers, while the paired study sites on the Cache la Poudre River supported the highest proportions of scrapers. A shift in feeding groups was observed between the two sites on the Big Thompson River where a portion of the most dominant group (collector-gatherers) at the upstream site was replaced by collector-filterers at site HFC-BTD (Figure 6). Alternatively, the collector- filterer group was most abundant at site SVSC-SVU on St. Vrain Creek, and this group was largely replaced by collector-gatherers at the downstream location (SVSC-SVD). A shift in the proportional dominance between these two feeding groups was likely influenced by changes in the abundance of fine particulate organic material (FPOM) which is an essential food source for collector-filterers. Overall, the results from functional feeding group analysis suggested that macroinvertebrate communities were fairly healthy throughout much of the East Slope study area; however, the poor representation of scrapers at many locations may have been an indication that most of these study sites were still recovering from impacts associated with the 2013 floods. Future biomonitoring investigations may be necessary to evaluate long-term ecological impacts and recovery following the catastrophic flood event in 2013.
______Biomonitoring Summary Report Page 33 Timberline Aquatics, Inc. 17 August 2016 Table 13. Relative abundance of functional feeding groups for fall 2015 sampling at NCWCD East Slope study sites. Site Functional Feeding Group Collector- Collector- Shredder Scrapers Omnivore Predators
Gatherer Filterer HSC-PRU 38.67% 24.40% 1.07% 23.33% 0.13% 12.40% HSC-PRD 48.59% 37.59% 1.29% 8.16% 0.00% 4.37%
HFC-BTU 70.49% 19.46% 1.75% 2.55% 0.00% 5.74% HFC-BTD 41.94% 50.88% 1.01% 2.88% 0.15% 3.13%
SVSC-LTU 68.54% 24.40% 1.02% 0.86% 0.00% 5.19% SVSC-LTD 63.22% 29.22% 6.47% 0.16% 0.00% 0.94%
SVSC-SVU 42.43% 47.12% 1.68% 3.99% 0.00% 4.78% SVSC-SVD 54.76% 34.49% 2.88% 2.50% 0.00% 5.38%
100.0%
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
Percent Composition Percent 30.0%
20.0%
10.0% Collector-Gatherer Collector-Filterer Shredder 0.0% Scrapers Omnivore Predators
Figure 6. Functional feeding group composition for NCWCD East Slope study sites during the fall of 2015.
______Biomonitoring Summary Report Page 34 Timberline Aquatics, Inc. 17 August 2016 Discussion
The NCWCD Biomonitoring Program was established in 2008 to monitor benthic macroinvertebrate communities upstream and downstream from areas that are exposed to potential stressors associated with NCWCD operations. These operations include impoundments and water transfer systems that may alter the natural stream flow and temperature in streams at various locations throughout the year. The third year of seasonal macroinvertebrate sampling was conducted in the spring (April) and fall (September) of 2015. Results from the analysis of benthic macroinvertebrate samples were compared with historical data from previous sampling events (when applicable) to evaluate recent trends and to assess spatial changes over time. A portion of the metric results from 2008 could not be included in these comparisons because the final MMI calculations (and associated taxonomic identification requirements) were not developed by the WQCD until 2010 (Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment 2010).
In 2015, the NCWCD Biomonitoring Program included the same 15 study sites (seven on the West Slope and eight on the East Slope) that have been sampled since the onset of this study. Study sites in the West Slope study area were strategically located to evaluate potential impacts from NCWCD operations surrounding Shadow Mountain Reservoir, Lake Granby, and Windy Gap Reservoir, while the East Slope study sites were selected to evaluate the effects of water transfer systems on aquatic life. Results from seasonal macroinvertebrate studies provided evidence that a variety of stressors (some related to NCWCD activities and some related to other sources) influenced aquatic conditions at various locations during 2015. In general, macroinvertebrate communities in the West Slope study area exhibited a loss of sensitive taxa and community balance immediately downstream from reservoirs; however, Density values increased substantially during both sampling seasons at these locations. Alternatively, the metric results from East Slope study sites indicated that macroinvertebrate communities were experiencing continued impacts (particularly during the spring season) from catastrophic flooding that occurred during the fall of 2013. Most of the detectable impacts in the East Slope study area did not appear to be associated with water transfer systems, but were likely caused by high proportions of sand and silt that had been deposited in the streambed as a result of continuing erosion following the 2013 flood. Future sampling will help to validate recent observations and provide continued monitoring of streams impacted by the 2013 floods.
Traditional Analysis and aMIS
West Slope Seasonal macroinvertebrate sampling in the West Slope study area was conducted on 21 April and 10 September, 2015. A variety of individual metrics were used to identify the specific impacts that macroinvertebrate communities may be experiencing, while multi- metric indices (aMIS and MMI) provided a more general assessment of aquatic conditions at each study site. Results from most of the individual metrics and the aMIS
______Biomonitoring Summary Report Page 35 Timberline Aquatics, Inc. 17 August 2016 detected similar patterns of stress throughout the study area; however, the aMIS generally suggested that aquatic conditions were better during the fall season (Figures 7 and 8). Overall, results from the West Slope study area indicated that aquatic conditions were near optimal for macroinvertebrate communities at the reference site (EI-GLU), while evidence of perturbations could be detected at the three most upstream sites on the Colorado River (CR-SMU, CR-SMD, and CR-GRD). Farther downstream at sites CR- WGU, FR-WGU, and CR-WGD aquatic conditions appeared to improve and benthic communities were found to be relatively healthy based on the aMIS results. Although the macroinvertebrate communities appeared to be generally healthier during 2015 than those observed during previous sampling events, the recent pattern of impacts was similar to the results from historical studies (Figures 7 and 8).
Study sites on the West Slope were separated into two groups based on likely sources for perturbations. The first group included three study sites (EI-GLU, CR-SMU, and FR- WGU) that were not subjected to the regulated flows and altered temperatures occurring immediately downstream from reservoirs. Site EI-GLU was located upstream from all known sources of anthropogenic disturbances, and the metric results from this location were used to provide reference information for the remainder of the study area. Site CR- SMU was positioned upstream from Shadow Mountain Reservoir; however, adjacent residential developments and associated stormwater runoff provided potential perturbations in the immediate vicinity and upstream of this location. The developed area along the Colorado River likely contributed to the relatively low aMIS scores found at site CR-SMU during both sampling seasons (Figures 7 and 8). The single site on the Fraser River (FR-WGU) was another study site that was not influenced by impoundments; however, there were several areas of urban development and other potential stressors that could be found in the upstream reaches of this river. The aMIS scores from site FR-WGU were some of the highest within the study area during both sampling seasons suggesting that aquatic conditions at this location were relatively healthy and similar to reference conditions (Figures 7 and 8).
The four remaining study sites (CR-SMD, CR-GRD, CR-WGU and CR-WGD) were all potentially influenced by alterations to the natural temperature and flow regime due to their locations downstream from reservoirs. Consequently, the results from most of the applied metrics at these sites exhibited the types of impacts that are generally associated with reservoir releases. Impacts related to reservoir operations are expected to be greatest immediately downstream from the reservoir and eventually diminish in a downstream direction. Although changes in water quality or habitat could potentially influence macroinvertebrate communities at these sites, the reduction in diversity and sensitive taxa observed at these locations was an expected response to the deviations from the natural temperature and flow regime.
Sites CR-SMD and CR-GRD were both located immediately downstream from two large reservoirs (Shadow Mountain and Lake Granby, respectively). These two study sites have consistently received some of the lowest aMIS scores (both historically and during 2015) in the West Slope study area (Figures 7 and 8). A reduction in sensitive taxa and
______Biomonitoring Summary Report Page 36 Timberline Aquatics, Inc. 17 August 2016 Diversity, along with an overall increase in abundance of individuals was detected at sites CR-SMD and CR-GRD. These results were consistent with observations from other studies regarding the influence of deep-water releases in regulated streams (Ward and Stanford 1979, Hauer and Stanford 1982, Armitage et al. 1987, Voelz and Ward 1989, Vinson 2001). A comparison of macroinvertebrate data between these sites and the reference site indicated there was a general decrease in EPT taxa at sites CR-SMD and CR-GRD, while the abundance of chironomid midges (particularly Orthocladiinae) and non-insect taxa increased (Appendix A and C). Additionally, all of the stonefly taxa that were found at site EI-GLU were absent at site CR-SMD during both sampling seasons and only three mayfly taxa (Baetis bicaudatus, Baetis tricaudatus, and Ephemerella dorothea infrequens) were present. Similar results were demonstrated at site CR-GRD; however, some species of stoneflies were collected in low proportions during both sampling seasons. A general reduction in stoneflies and an increase in the density of chironomids are typical responses to regulated flows that have been previously documented in Colorado streams (Rader and Ward 1988, Ward et al. 2002). In general, results from the 2015 biomonitoring study demonstrated predictable stress from the associated impoundments at sites CR-SMD and CR-GRD; however, the level of stress and impacts to macroinvertebrate communities were less than expected based on previous sampling events (Figures 7 and 8).
An improvement in aMIS scores was consistently observed in a downstream direction (from Lake Granby) at site CR-WGU (Figures 7 and 8). This study site received an aMIS score of 87 during the spring and a score of 80 during the fall, indicating that no additional stress could be detected based on reference information from site EI-GLU. These results were similar to the results from previous sampling events at this location which have consistently showed recovery from impacts associated with reservoir operations (Figures 7 and 8). Other studies conducted on the Colorado River downstream of Granby Reservoir have suggested that macroinvertebrate communities continue to recover as distance increases downstream from Lake Granby (Voelz and Ward 1989).
The farthest downstream site in the study area (CR-WGD) was positioned at a strategic location to measure potential impacts from operations at Windy Gap Reservoir; however, the typical impacts associated with reservoir releases were less apparent at this location than other sites in the study area (Figures 7 and 8). Site CR-WGD produced aMIS scores that were markedly similar during both sampling seasons, and both scores indicated that additional stress could not be detected when compared to reference conditions. This was likely due to the smaller size of Windy Gap Reservoir, and releases that more closely resemble natural conditions. When results from 2015 were compared with previous sampling events, the aMIS score during the spring season showed some improvement while the score from the fall approached the mean value from the two historical samples. The slight variation that has been observed in aMIS scores among years may be a result of annual changes in ambient conditions along with reservoir operations. Future sampling in the West Slope study area will be valuable for providing additional information regarding potential changes in macroinvertebrate communities that are related to anthropogenic activities.
______Biomonitoring Summary Report Page 37 Timberline Aquatics, Inc. 17 August 2016 aMIS (West Slope - Spring Season)
100 Mean Spring 2015 90
Stress not Detected 80
70
Slight Stress 60
50
40 aMIS Score aMIS Moderate Stress 30
20
Severe Stress 10
0 EI-GLU CR-SMU CR-SMD CR-GRD CR-WGU FR-WGU CR-WGD
Figure 7. aMIS (combined metric) scores for the West Slope study area during the spring of 2015. Mean values (± 1 standard deviation) are also provided based on the two previous sampling events.
aMIS (West Slope - Fall Season)
100 Mean Fall 2015 90
Stress not Detected 80
70
Slight Stress 60
50
40 sMIS Score sMIS Moderate 30
20
Severe Stress 10
0 EI-GLU CR-SMU CR-SMD CR-GRD CR-WGU FR-WGU CR-WGD
Figure 8. aMIS (combined metric) scores for the West Slope study area during the fall of 2015. Mean values (± 1 standard deviation) are also provided based on the two previous sampling events.
______Biomonitoring Summary Report Page 38 Timberline Aquatics, Inc. 17 August 2016 East Slope
The purpose of the biomonitoring study in East Slope streams was to evaluate potential impacts to macroinvertebrate communities at locations where C-BT (Colorado-Big Thompson) project water is introduced into South Platte tributaries. Paired study sites were positioned on four tributaries, upstream and downstream of water transfer systems. The water being introduced into these tributaries was transported from the West Slope to East Slope reservoirs where it was then distributed to Front Range streams through a series of canals. The canals may have provided some buffer between the reservoirs and receiving systems; however, the structure of macroinvertebrate communities that develop in canals has been found to differ from communities in nearby rivers and streams due to differences in available habitat and flow (Schneider 2003).
Results from the aMIS during the spring of 2015 detected a wide range of impacts to aquatic communities, while results during the fall season exhibited less stress and greater stability in aquatic conditions among sites (Figures 9 and 10). Most of the impacts observed during the spring season (and some influences during the fall) were likely caused by high levels of sand and silt that had been deposited in the substrate after the 2013 flood. The catastrophic flooding and subsequent changes to the substrate and stream channels that occurred during September 2013 severely impacted benthic communities throughout the East Slope study area. Flood events of this magnitude have been shown to reduce the density, biomass, and taxa richness of macroinvertebrate populations as a result of major changes in current velocity and habitat (Robinson and Uehlinger 2008). The addition of fine sediments, whether in a suspended or deposited state, is also expected to have negative impacts on aquatic life in streams (Waters 1995; Wood and Armitage 1997; Henley et al. 2000). The increase in fine sediment bedload typically results in a reduction in habitat complexity (filling spaces that exist between cobbles and gravel), and consequently a reduction in macroinvertebrate density and diversity (Wohl 2000). These types of impacts often overshadow other potential impacts that originate from anthropogenic sources. In naturally flowing, un-manipulated streams, many macroinvertebrates are retained and sheltered from flooding by backwaters formed during increased stream flows (Negishi et al. 2002). Most of the streams in this study area have adjacent roads and/or housing developments that may have inhibited the process of post- flood re-colonization. The differences in metric values observed among individual study sites during the spring of 2015 may have been at least partially related to the level of impact from flooding and resilience of habitat at various locations. While fine sediment will continue to be deposited in the stream bed as new stream channels continue to stabilize, much of the sand and silt will be reduced and dispersed in a downstream direction during periods of high flows associated with snow-melt runoff and storm events. The aMIS scores from the fall of 2015 showed improvements in aquatic conditions and were similar to historical scores suggesting that no additional stress could be detected.
During the spring of 2015, the majority of sites in the East Slope study area produced aMIS scores that detected a ‘slight’ increase in stress, while ‘moderate’ levels of stress
______Biomonitoring Summary Report Page 39 Timberline Aquatics, Inc. 17 August 2016 were demonstrated by both sites on the Little Thompson River (Figures 9 and 10). The two study sites on the Cache la Poudre River (HSC-PRD and HSC-PRU) generated the highest aMIS scores in the East Slope study area, although both scores were slightly lower than historical mean values (Figure 9). The study sites on the Cache la Poudre River also had the least amount of sand and silt in the streambed, based on field observations. Deposits of fine sediment were much more obvious at study sites from the remaining East Slope streams (based on field notes) suggesting that the erosion and stabilization of new stream channels following the 2013 flood was continuing at these locations. Results from the aMIS detected ‘slight’ to ‘moderate’ impacts at the remaining study sites; however, a comparison of recent results to previous sampling events showed a substantial increase in the level of stress during the spring of 2015 (Figure 9). Each of these streams also demonstrated an increase in stress at the downstream study sites (HFC- BTD, SVSC-LTD, and SVSC-SVD) that could probably be attributed to the lower gradient at these locations creating an area with greater potential for sediment deposition. The natural removal of sand and fine sediments typically takes place during high flow events, and this cycle of deposition and transport of fine sediment could continue for several years as habitat in these stream channels continues to stabilize.
Some of the anticipated recovery at East Slope study sites was observed during the fall season when results from most metrics improved considerably at each sampling location. Although most of the aMIS scores from the fall were slightly different than those observed during previous sampling events, all of the scores fell within the range indicating that no additional stress could be detected when compared to reference conditions (Figure 10). The decrease in fine sediment (observed during the fall season) also allowed for a more accurate assessment of potential impacts from water transfer systems in the East Slope study area. Some minor variations in macroinvertebrate communities and the corresponding metrics were observed between paired study sites, but overall, impacts or impairment from water transfer systems could not be detected. Although minor differences in macroinvertebrate communities were occasionally detected between paired sites, it is likely that natural changes in habitat (along with NCWCD activities) may have contributed to these subtle changes in community structure and function. The most obvious and consistent change in community structure was the increase in macroinvertebrate abundance that occurred at the downstream sampling sites on three of the East Slope streams (Cache la Poudre, Big Thompson, and Little Thompson Rivers). It is likely that augmented stream flows from water transfer systems may have slightly improved habitat through part of the year which ultimately contributed to higher macroinvertebrate densities at these sampling locations. Future biomonitoring efforts in the East Slope study area will provide continued assessment of post-flood recovery while monitoring aquatic conditions at sites where macroinvertebrate communities may be influenced by NCWCD activities.
______Biomonitoring Summary Report Page 40 Timberline Aquatics, Inc. 17 August 2016 aMIS Scores (East Slope - Spring Season)
100
90
80 Stress not Detected
70
Slight Stress 60
50
40 aMIS Score aMIS Moderate Stress 30
20
Severe Stress 10 Mean Spring 2015 0 HSC-PRU HSC-PRD HFC-BTU HFC-BTD SVSC-LTU SVSC-LTD SVSC-SVU SVSC-SVD
Figure 9. aMIS scores for NCWCD biomonitoring sites from the East Slope study area during spring 2015.
aMIS Scores (East Slope - Fall Season)
100
90
80 Stress not Detected
70
Slight Stress 60
50
40 aMIS Score aMIS Moderate Stress 30
20
Severe Stress 10 Mean Fall 2015 0 HSC-PRU HSC-PRD HFC-BTU HFC-BTD SVSC-LTU SVSC-LTD SVSC-SVU SVSC-SVD
Figure 10. aMIS scores for NCWCD biomonitoring sites from the East Slope study area during fall 2015.
______Biomonitoring Summary Report Page 41 Timberline Aquatics, Inc. 17 August 2016 Data Analysis Using CDPHE Tools (MMI)
During the fall season in 2015, additional data analysis was conducted using the multi- metric tool (MMI) recommended by the CDPHE. Individual metrics used in the calculation of the MMI varied depending on location of the sampling site and corresponding biotype. West Slope sampling sites that were upstream from Granby Reservoir were included in Biotype 1 and sampling sites downstream from Granby Reservoir were in Biotype 2. All sites in the East Slope study area were located within Biotype 2. Since MMI scores from the two biotypes are calculated differently, the threshold to determine attainment was adjusted according to biotype. The thresholds for each biotype were expected to indicate attainment versus impairment for aquatic life use.
All of the macroinvertebrate specimens from the fall of 2015 were identified to the Operational Taxonomic Unit (OTU) level, recommended by the CDPHE (Appendix C and Appendix D). Composited quantitative Hess samples were used to produce MMI scores that ranged from 36.7 (site CR-GRD) to 83.3 (site EI-GLU) on the West Slope, and from 67.2 (site SVSC-LTU) to 85.7 (site HSC-PRU) on the East Slope (Figures 11 and 12). An additional macroinvertebrate sample was collected at site CR-WGD in the fall of 2015 using the semi-quantitative sampling method recommended by the CDPHE. MMI scores from both sampling methods produced nearly identical results (Figures 11). Study sites that detected the greatest amount of stress mainly occurred in the West Slope study area and included site CR-SMU and the two sites located immediately downstream from large reservoirs (CR-SMD and CR-GRD).
The MMI scores from all previous sampling events (that met the taxonomic requirements for MMI calculations) were compared with threshold values to determine attainment or impairment within the study area (Figures 11 and 12). Sites that produced MMI scores greater than 50.0 in Biotype 2 and greater than 52.0 in Biotype 1 (the green lines in Figures 11 and 12) were considered in attainment for aquatic life use. MMI scores below 42.0 in Biotypes 2 and 1 (the red lines in Figures 11 and 12) were considered impaired for aquatic life use. During the fall of 2015, all study sites were in attainment for aquatic life use except site CR-GRD; however, two other sites (CR-SMU and CR-SMD) exhibited some signs of stress. Despite the evidence of stress at these sites, the MMI scores indicated that aquatic communities had improved at most West slope study sites compared to results from 2011 (Figures 11). All sites from the East Slope study area have consistently produced MMI scores above the threshold for attainment (Figure 12).
The established thresholds have a recognized ‘grey zone’ between the attainment threshold and impairment threshold (Figures 11 and 12). MMI scores within the “grey zone” require the application of auxiliary metrics (the Hilsenhoff Biotic Index and the Shannon Diversity Index) to determine the status of aquatic conditions. If a particular site fails to meet the criteria of either of the two auxiliary metrics, the site will be considered impaired. The threshold for the HBI is 5.1 in Biotype 2 and 5.4 in Biotype 1. The threshold for the Shannon Diversity Index is 3.0 in Biotype 2 and 2.4 in Biotype 1. During the fall of 2015 none of the study sites produced MMI scores in the ‘grey zone’.
______Biomonitoring Summary Report Page 42 Timberline Aquatics, Inc. 17 August 2016 West Slope MMI Scores 100.0 Fall 2011 Fall 2012 90.0 2012 Semi-Q Fall 2015 80.0 2015 Semi-Q
70.0
60.0
50.0 MMI Score MMI 40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
Figure 11. MMI scores from samples collected at NCWCD biomonitoring sites in the West Slope study area during the fall season. MMI scores from 2015 and previous sampling events have been provided for comparison.
East Slope MMI Scores 100.0 Fall 2011
90.0 Fall 2015
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0 MMI Score MMI 40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
Figure 12. . MMI scores from composited quantitative (Hess) samples collected at NCWCD biomonitoring sites from the East Slope study area during fall of 2011 and 2015.
______Biomonitoring Summary Report Page 43 Timberline Aquatics, Inc. 17 August 2016 Auxiliary metrics were applied as part of the MMI process for all sampling locations; however, none of the study sites produced an MMI score in the ‘grey zone’ in 2015 and the only one site (CR-SMU) produced a score in the ‘grey zone’ during 2011 (Figure 11). Results from the HBI metric indicated that site CR-SMU was impaired in 2011 and would have been impaired in 2015 (due to an HBI value of 6.12) if the MMI score had been 1.0% lower (Figure 13). During the fall of 2015 all other study sites in the West Slope study area (and East Slope study area) produced HBI values that indicated relatively healthy aquatic conditions (Figures 13 and 14). These results provided fairly strong evidence of stress from nutrients and/or sedimentation at site CR-SMU. Scores from the Diversity metric were also calculated using data from the fall of 2015 and previous sampling events (Figures 15 and 16). Only site CR-SMD has consistently generated Diversity values indicating stressed conditions (2.30 in 2011 and 2.76 in 2015). All East Slope study sites produced HBI and Diversity values indicating attainment for aquatic life use (Figures 14 and 16).
Results from MMI scores and auxiliary metrics were used to determine aquatic life use designations for sites in both NCWCD study areas. During the fall of 2015, most sites from the West Slope study area and all study sites from the East Slope were in attainment for aquatic life use (Table 14). The MMI score for site CR-GRD was the only score that fell below the threshold indicating impairment for aquatic life use. The MMI score for site CR-SMU (50.9) was slightly above the attainment threshold and auxiliary metrics for this site produced mixed results.
The MMI tool provided assistance in the analysis of benthic macroinvertebrate data during the fall seasons of this study and these scores were similar to results produced by other analysis tools. Due to the variety of potential perturbations in this study area, it was difficult to determine the proportional contribution of various stressors to individual metric values or multi-metric scores. During 2015, the results from this study detected a wide range in the level of stress to aquatic communities that could likely be attributed to a variety of natural and anthropogenic sources. Several of the metrics used in this study could have been influenced by changes in water quantity in addition to water quality. Based on the assortment of analysis tools used in this study, it is likely that stressed conditions at site CR-SMU were related to water quality issues, while disturbances at sites CR-SMD and CR-GRD resulted from deviations in the natural temperature and flow regime. Impacts to aquatic communities observed during the spring on the East Slope were likely related to sediment deposition and post-flood impacts.
Results from this study described aquatic communities as they existed during the spring and fall of 2015. The metrics used in this study may produce results that vary slightly from year to year due to natural and ambient controlling factors (temperature, annual precipitation, etc.), but because most of these study sites supported a high proportion of sensitive taxa, future changes in the level of anthropogenic stress should create noticeable changes in macroinvertebrate community structure and function. Consistent sampling at established study sites will help to validate patterns of disturbances within the study area, and assist in monitoring recovery following the 2013 floods.
______Biomonitoring Summary Report Page 44 Timberline Aquatics, Inc. 17 August 2016 West Slope HBI Values 10.0 Fall 2011 Fall 2012 9.0 2012 Semi-Q Fall 2015 8.0 2015 Semi-Q
7.0
6.0
5.0 HBI Value HBI
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
Figure 13. HBI values from samples collected at NCWCD biomonitoring sites in the West Slope study area during the fall season. HBI values from 2015 and previous sampling events have been provided for comparison.
East Slope HBI Values 10.0 Fall 2011
9.0 Fall 2015
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0 HBI Value HBI
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
Figure 14. HBI values from composited quantitative (Hess) samples collected at NCWCD biomonitoring sites in the East Slope study area during the fall of 2011 and 2015.
______Biomonitoring Summary Report Page 45 Timberline Aquatics, Inc. 17 August 2016 West Slope Diversity Values 5.0 Fall 2011 Fall 2012 4.5 2012 Semi-Q Fall 2015 4.0 2015 Semi-Q
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0 Diversity Value Diversity
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
Figure 15. Shannon Diversity values from samples collected at NCWCD biomonitoring sites in the West Slope study area during the fall season. Values from 2015 and previous sampling events have been provided for comparison.
East Slope Diversity Values 5.0 Fall 2011
4.5 Fall 2015
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0 Diversity Value Diversity
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
Figure 16. Shannon Diversity values from composited quantitative (Hess) samples collected at NCWCD biomonitoring sites in the East Slope study area during the fall of 2011 and 2015.
______Biomonitoring Summary Report Page 46 Timberline Aquatics, Inc. 17 August 2016
Table 14. Aquatic life use designations based on MMI scores from samples collected at West Slope and East Slope sampling sites during September of 2015. Aquatic Life Designations in 2015 Site West Slope EI-GLU Attainment CR-SMU Attainment CR-SMD Attainment CR-GRD Impaired CR-WGU Attainment FR-WGU Attainment CR-WGD Attainment CR-WGD Semi-Q Attainment East Slope HSC-PRU Attainment HSC-PRD Attainment HFC-BTU Attainment HFC-BTD Attainment SVSC-LTU Attainment SVSC-LTD Attainment SVSC-SVU Attainment SVSC-SVD Attainment
______Biomonitoring Summary Report Page 47 Timberline Aquatics, Inc. 17 August 2016 Literature Cited
Armitage, P. D., R. J. M. Gunn, M. T. Furse, J. F. Wright, and D. Moss. 1987. The use of prediction to assess macroinvertebrate response to river regulation. Hydrobiologia 144: 25-32.
Barbour, M. T., J. Gerritsen, B. D. Snyder, and J.B. Stribling. 1999. Rapid bioassessment protocols for use in streams and wadeable rivers: Periphyton, benthic macroinvertebrates and fish, second edition. EPA 841-B-99-002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Office of Water; Washington, D.C.
Barton, D.R. and J.L. Metcalfe-Smith. 1992. A comparison of sampling techniques and summary indices for assessment of water quality in Yamaska River, Quebec, based on benthic macroinvertebrates. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 21:225-244.
Beck, W.M. 1955. Suggested Method for Reporting Biotic Data. Sewage and Industrial Wastes 27: 1193-1197.
Bonada, N., N. Prat, V. H. Resh, and B. Statzner. 2006. Developments in aquatic insect biomonitoring: A comparative analysis of recent approaches. Annual Review of Entomology 51: 495-523.
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. 2010. Aquatic life use attainment: Methodology to determine use attainment for rivers and streams. Policy Statement 2010-1.
Courtemanch, D.L. 1996. Commentary on the Subsampling Procedures Used for Rapid Bioassessments. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 15: 381-385.
Eaton, L.E. and D.R. Lenat. 1991. Comparison of a Rapid Bioassessment Method with North Carolina’s Qualitative Macroinvertebrate Collection Method. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 10: 335-338.
Fore, L.S., J.R. Karr, and R.W. Wisseman. 1996. Assessing Invertebrate Responses to Human Activities: Evaluation Alternative Approaches. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 15: 212-231.
Hauer, F. R., and J. A. Stanford. 1982. Ecological responses of hydropsychid caddisflies to stream regulation. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 39:1235-1242.
Hawkins, C. P. 2006. Quantifying biological integrity by taxonomic completeness: Its utility in regional and global assessments. Ecological Applications 16 (4): 1277-1294.
______Biomonitoring Summary Report Page 48 Timberline Aquatics, Inc. 17 August 2016 Henley, W. F., M. A. Patterson, R. A. Neves, and A. D. Lemly. 2000. Effects of Sedimentation and Turbidity on Lotic Food Webs: A concise Review for Natural Resource Managers. Reviews in Fisheries Science 8:125-139.
Hilsenhoff, W. L. 1988. Rapid field assessment of organic pollution with a family level biotic index. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 7(1): 65-68.
Hughes, D.L. and M.O. Brossett. 2009. Rapid Bioassessment of Stream Health. CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group. Boca Raton, FL.
Jessup, B. 2009. Recalibration of the macroinvertebrate multi-metric index for Colorado. Prepared for the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Water Quality Control Division – Monitoring Unit, Denver, CO.
Johnson, R.C., H. Jin, M.M. Carreriro, and J.D. Jack. 2013. Macroinvertebrate community structure, secondary production and trophic-level dynamics in urban streams affected by non-point-source pollution. Freshwater Biology 58: 843-857.
Kerans, B.L. and J.R. Karr. 1994. A Benthic Index of Integrity (B-IBI) for Rivers of the Tennessee Valley. Ecological Society of America 4:768-785.
King, K. W. 1993. Draft. A bioassessment method for use in Wyoming stream and river water quality monitoring. Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality. Water Quality Division. Cheyenne, Wyoming.
Lenat, D.R. 1983. Chironomid Taxa Richness: Natural Variation and Use in Pollution Assessment. Freshwater Invertebrate Biology 2:192-198.
Lenat, D.R. 1988. Water quality assessment of streams using a qualitative collection method for benthic macroinvertebrates. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 7:222-33.
Likens, G. E., and K. F. Lambert. 1998. The importance of long-term data in addressing regional environmental issues. Northeastern Naturalist 5: 127-136.
Mandaville, S.M. 2002. Benthic Macroinvertebrates in Freshwaters-Taxa Tolerance Values, Metrics, and Protocols. Project H-1. Soil and Water Conservation Society of Metro Halifax,.xviii. 48. Pp., Appendices A-B 120pp.
Mangum, F.A. 1986. Macroinvertebrates, p. 661-675 in Cooperrider, A. Y., R. J. Boyd, and H. R. Stuart, eds. Inventory and monitoring of wildlife habitat. U.S. Dept. Inter., Bureau of Land Management. Service Center. Denver, Co. xviii, 858pp.
Merritt, R. W., K. W. Cummins and M. B. Berg. 2008. An Introduction to the Aquatic Insects of North America. Fourth Edition, Kendall/Hunt. Dubuque, Iowa.
______Biomonitoring Summary Report Page 49 Timberline Aquatics, Inc. 17 August 2016
Negishi, J.N., and J.S. Richardson. 2006. An experimental test of the effects of food resources and hydraulic refuge on patch colonization by stream macroinvertebrates during spates. Journal of Animal Ecology 75:118-129.
Paul, M. J., and J. L. Meyer. 2001. Streams in the urban landscape. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 32:333-365.
Paul, M. J., J. Gerritsen, C. Hawkins, and E. Leppo. 2005. Draft. Development of biological assessment tools for Colorado. Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Water Quality Control Division – Monitoring Unit. Denver, Colorado.
Plafkin, J. L., M. T. Barbour, K. D. Porter, S. K. Gross, and R. M. Hughes. 1989. Rapid bioassessment protocols for use in streams and rivers: benthic macroinvertebrates and fish. EPA/444/4-89/001.
Rabeni, C.F. and N. Wang. 2001. Bioassessment of streams using macroinvertebrates: are the Chironomidae necessary?. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 71: 177- 185.
Rader, R. B., and J. V. Ward. 1988. Influence of regulation on environmental conditions and the macroinvertebrate community in the Upper Colorado River. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 2: 597-618.
Rawler-Jost, C., J. Bohmer, J. Blank, and H. Rahmann. 2000. Macroinvertebrate functional feeding group methods in ecological assessment. Hydrobiologia 422/423: 225-232.
Rees, D. E. 2008. Benthic macroinvertebrate biomonitoring program, St. Vrain Creek, Colorado. Summary Report. Prepared for City of Longmont. Water Quality Services. 21pp.
Resh, V.H. and J.K. Jackson. 1993. Rapid assessment approaches in biomonitoring using benthic macroinvertebrates. In Rosenberg, D.M, V.H. Resh. (Editors). Freshwater Biomonitoring and Benthic Macroinvertebrates. Chapman & Hall, New York: 195-223.
Rinella, D. 2003. Monitoring to evaluate partial-buffer timber harvest after 9 years, Michael Creek, Admiralty Island, Alaska. Prepared for Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Forestry, Anchorage, AK.
Robinson, C.T., and U. Uehlinger. 2008. Experimental floods cause ecosystem regime shift in a regulated river. Ecological Applications 18: 511-526.
______Biomonitoring Summary Report Page 50 Timberline Aquatics, Inc. 17 August 2016 Schneider, S. C. 2003. The colonization of two Colorado Front Range agricultural canal systems by benthic macroinvertebrates. M. S. Thesis. Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado.
Terrell, C.R. and P.B. Perfetti. 1996. Water quality indicators guide. Surface waters. Terrene Institute. Washington D.C.
Vinson, M. R. 2001. Long-term dynamics of an invertebrate assemblage downstream from a large dam. Ecological Applications 11(3):711-730.
Voelz, N. J., and J. V. Ward. 1989. Biotic and abiotic gradients in a regulated high elevation Rocky Mountain river. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 3:143- 152.
Voelz, N. J., R. E. Zuellig, S. Shieh, and J. V. Ward. 2005. The effects of urban areas on benthic macroinvertebrates in two Colorado plains rivers. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 101: 175-202.
Wang, L., D. M. Robertson, and P. J. Garrison. 2007. Linkages between nutrients and assemblages of macroinvertebrates and fish in wadeable streams: implication to nutrient criteria development. Environmental Management 39: 194-212.
Ward, J. V., and J. A. Stanford. 1979. Ecological factors controlling stream zoobenthos with emphasis on thermal modification of regulated streams. Pages 35-55 in J. V. Ward and J. A. Stanford, editors. The ecology of regulated streams. Plenum, New York, New York.
Ward, J. V., B. C. Kondratieff, and R. E. Zuellig. 2002. An Illustrated Guide to the Mountain Stream Insects of Colorado. Second Edition. University Press of Colorado. Boulder, Colorado.
Waters, T.F. 1995. Sediment in streams: sources, biological effects, and control. American Fisheries Society Monograph 7.
Wohl, E. E. 2000. Virtual rivers: Lessons from the mountain rivers of the Colorado Front Range. Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut.
Wood P. J., and P. D. Armitage. 1997. Biological effects of fine sediment in the lotic environment. Environmental Management 21:203-217.
Wooster, D.E., S.W. Miller, and S. J. Debano. 2011. An examination of the impact of multiple disturbances on a river system: taxonomic metrics versus biological traits. River Research and Application 28:1630-1643.
______Biomonitoring Summary Report Page 51 Timberline Aquatics, Inc. 17 August 2016
Appendix A
West Slope Benthic Macroinvertebrate Data Spring 2015
______Biomonitoring Summary Report Appendix Page A-1 Timberline Aquatics, Inc. 17 August 2016 Table A1. Macroinvertebrate data collected from site EI-GLU on 21 Apr 2015.
East Inlet EI-GLU Sample Mean Count HBI 21 April 2015 1 2 3
Ephemeroptera Baetis (bicaudatus) 11 11 7 9.67 1 0.1162 Baetis (tricaudatus) 4 2 3 3.00 1 0.0902 Diphetor hageni 4 6 3.33 1 0.1002 Drunella doddsii 5 6 3.67 1 0.0000 Drunella grandis Ephemerella dorothea infrequens 15 5 2 7.33 1 0.0441 Cinygmula sp. 42 51 26 39.67 1 0.9539 Epeorus sp. 22 22 13 19.00 1 0.0000 Rhithrogena sp. 1 8 1 3.33 1 0.0000 Paraleptophlebia sp. 1 2 3 2.00 1 0.0240
Plecoptera Chloroperlidae 4 6 2 4.00 1 0.0240 Sweltsa sp. Triznaka sp. Prostoia besametsa 16 26 17 19.67 1 0.2365 Zapada cinctipes 1 2 1.00 1 0.0120 Zapada oregonensis 1 1 0.67 1 0.0080 Claassenia sabulosa 8 2.67 1 0.0481 Hesperoperla pacifica 2 1 1.00 1 0.0060 Cultus aestivalis Diura knowltoni 1 0.33 1 0.0040 Isoperla fulva Isoperla sp. Skwala americana Taenionema sp. 2 6 2.67 1 0.0321
Trichoptera Brachycentrus americanus 1 0.33 1 0.0020 Brachycentrus occidentalis Glossosoma sp. 2 3 1.67 1 0.0000 Helicopsyche sp. Arctopsyche grandis 13 4 5.67 1 0.0681 Cheumatopsyche sp. Ceratopsyche morosa Hydropsyche cockerelli Hydropsyche oslari Hydroptila sp. Lepidostoma sp. 2 0.67 1 0.0160 Ceraclea sp. Oecetis sp. Hesperophylax sp. Psychomyia flavida Rhyacophila brunnea Rhyacophila coloradensis 2 1 1.00 1 0.0000
______Biomonitoring Summary Report Appendix Page A-2 Timberline Aquatics, Inc. 17 August 2016 Table A1 cont. Macroinvertebrate data collected from site EI-GLU on 21 Apr 2015.
Diptera Orthocladiinae 12 3 6 7.00 1 0.2525 Tanypodinae 1 5 2.00 1 0.0721 Tanytarsini 18 9 14 13.67 1 0.2465 Chironomini Diamesinae 1 2 1.00 1 0.0120 Atherix pachypus Lispoides aequifrons Chelifera sp. Clinocera sp. Neoplasta sp. Pericoma sp. Prosimulium sp. 3 2 1 2.00 1 0.0361 Simulium sp. Antocha sp. Dicranota sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0060 Hexatoma sp. 3 1 3 2.33 1 0.0281 Tipula sp.
Coleoptera Heterlimnius corpulentus 2 4 7 4.33 1 0.1042 Optioservus sp. Zaitzevia parvula
Miscellaneous Acarina Caecidotea sp. Crangonyx sp. Gyraulus sp. Physa sp. Pisidium sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0160 Dugesia sp. Polycelis coronata Oligochaeta 2 1 1.00 1 0.0601 Erpobdellidae Nematoda
Totals 200 181 118 166.33 32 2.6 2
______Biomonitoring Summary Report Appendix Page A-3 Timberline Aquatics, Inc. 17 August 2016 Table A2. Macroinvertebrate data collected from site CR-SMU on 21 Apr 2015.
Colorado River CR-SMU Sample Mean Count HBI 21 April 2015 1 2 3
Ephemeroptera Baetis (bicaudatus) Baetis (tricaudatus) 2 6 2 3.33 1 0.0392 Diphetor hageni 8 1 3.00 1 0.0353 Drunella doddsii Drunella grandis 1 0.33 1 0.0000 Ephemerella dorothea infrequens Cinygmula sp. 4 1 1.67 1 0.0157 Epeorus sp. 1 15 14 10.00 1 0.0000 Rhithrogena sp. Paraleptophlebia sp.
Plecoptera Chloroperlidae 2 0.67 1 0.0016 Sweltsa sp. Triznaka sp. Prostoia besametsa 2 3 1.67 1 0.0078 Zapada cinctipes Zapada oregonensis Claassenia sabulosa Hesperoperla pacifica Cultus aestivalis Diura knowltoni Isoperla fulva 1 1 0.67 1 0.0031 Isoperla sp. Skwala americana Taenionema sp.
Trichoptera Brachycentrus americanus 16 286 163 155.00 1 0.3650 Brachycentrus occidentalis Glossosoma sp. Helicopsyche sp. Arctopsyche grandis 3 4 2.33 1 0.0110 Cheumatopsyche sp. Ceratopsyche morosa Hydropsyche cockerelli Hydropsyche oslari 1 0.33 1 0.0031 Hydroptila sp. Lepidostoma sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0031 Ceraclea sp. Oecetis sp. Hesperophylax sp. Psychomyia flavida Rhyacophila brunnea Rhyacophila coloradensis
______Biomonitoring Summary Report Appendix Page A-4 Timberline Aquatics, Inc. 17 August 2016 Table A2 cont. Macroinvertebrate data collected from site CR-SMU on 21 Apr 2015.
Diptera Orthocladiinae 94 168 118 126.67 1 1.7896 Tanypodinae 3 3 2 2.67 1 0.0377 Tanytarsini Chironomini 1 0.33 1 0.0063 Diamesinae 30 120 123 91.00 1 0.4286 Atherix pachypus Lispoides aequifrons 1 0.33 1 0.0047 Chelifera sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0047 Clinocera sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0047 Neoplasta sp. Pericoma sp. Prosimulium sp. Simulium sp. 3 2 1.67 1 0.0235 Antocha sp. Dicranota sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0024 Hexatoma sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0016 Tipula sp.
Coleoptera Heterlimnius corpulentus 6 7 4 5.67 1 0.0534 Optioservus sp. 2 2 1.33 1 0.0126 Zaitzevia parvula
Miscellaneous Acarina 2 1 2 1.67 1 0.0314 Caecidotea sp. Crangonyx sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0055 Gyraulus sp. Physa sp. Pisidium sp. Dugesia sp. Polycelis coronata Oligochaeta 21 2 13 12.00 1 0.2826 Erpobdellidae Nematoda 1 0.33 1 0.0039
Totals 184 632 458 424.67 28 3.18
______Biomonitoring Summary Report Appendix Page A-5 Timberline Aquatics, Inc. 17 August 2016 Table A3. Macroinvertebrate data collected from site CR-SMD on 21 Apr 2015.
Colorado River CR-SMD Sample Mean Count HBI 21 April 2015 1 2 3
Ephemeroptera Baetis (bicaudatus) 188 94 25 102.33 1 0.2833 Baetis (tricaudatus) 562 189 85 278.67 1 1.9289 Diphetor hageni Drunella doddsii Drunella grandis Ephemerella dorothea infrequens 9 1 3.33 1 0.0046 Cinygmula sp. Epeorus sp. Rhithrogena sp. Paraleptophlebia sp.
Plecoptera Chloroperlidae Sweltsa sp. Triznaka sp. Prostoia besametsa Zapada cinctipes Zapada oregonensis Claassenia sabulosa Hesperoperla pacifica Cultus aestivalis Diura knowltoni Isoperla fulva Isoperla sp. Skwala americana Taenionema sp.
Trichoptera Brachycentrus americanus Brachycentrus occidentalis Glossosoma sp. Helicopsyche sp. Arctopsyche grandis 1 4 1.67 1 0.0046 Cheumatopsyche sp. Ceratopsyche morosa 3 3 3 3.00 1 0.0083 Hydropsyche cockerelli Hydropsyche oslari 2 2 8 4.00 1 0.0222 Hydroptila sp. Lepidostoma sp. Ceraclea sp. Oecetis sp. Hesperophylax sp. Psychomyia flavida Rhyacophila brunnea Rhyacophila coloradensis 5 1.67 1 0.0000
______Biomonitoring Summary Report Appendix Page A-6 Timberline Aquatics, Inc. 17 August 2016 Table A3 cont. Macroinvertebrate data collected from site CR-SMD on 21 Apr 2015.
Diptera Orthocladiinae 150 205 14 123.00 1 1.0217 Tanypodinae 18 13 7 12.67 1 0.1052 Tanytarsini 1 2 1.00 1 0.0042 Chironomini Diamesinae 56 78 10 48.00 1 0.1329 Atherix pachypus Lispoides aequifrons Chelifera sp. 4 1.33 1 0.0111 Clinocera sp. 2 0.67 1 0.0055 Neoplasta sp. Pericoma sp. Prosimulium sp. Simulium sp. 7 2 2 3.67 1 0.0305 Antocha sp. Dicranota sp. Hexatoma sp. Tipula sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0018
Coleoptera Heterlimnius corpulentus Optioservus sp. Zaitzevia parvula
Miscellaneous Acarina 1 2 1.00 1 0.0111 Caecidotea sp. 111 110 132 117.67 1 1.3032 Crangonyx sp. 10 13 12 11.67 1 0.1131 Gyraulus sp. 1 6 2.33 1 0.0258 Physa sp. 2 0.67 1 0.0074 Pisidium sp. Dugesia sp. Polycelis coronata Oligochaeta 2 1 6 3.00 1 0.0415 Erpobdellidae 2 0.67 1 0.0074 Nematoda
Totals 1131 725 311 722.33 22 5.07
______Biomonitoring Summary Report Appendix Page A-7 Timberline Aquatics, Inc. 17 August 2016 Table A4. Macroinvertebrate data collected from site CR-GRD on 21 Apr 2015.
Colorado River CR-GRD Sample Mean Count HBI 21 April 2015 1 2 3
Ephemeroptera Baetis (bicaudatus) 11 225 241 159.00 1 0.2087 Baetis (tricaudatus) 1189 326 220 578.33 1 1.8978 Diphetor hageni Drunella doddsii Drunella grandis 1 0.33 1 0.0000 Ephemerella dorothea infrequens 40 4 5 16.33 1 0.0107 Cinygmula sp. Epeorus sp. Rhithrogena sp. Paraleptophlebia sp. 1 2 1.00 1 0.0013
Plecoptera Chloroperlidae Sweltsa sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0002 Triznaka sp. 1 6 2.33 1 0.0015 Prostoia besametsa Zapada cinctipes Zapada oregonensis Claassenia sabulosa Hesperoperla pacifica Cultus aestivalis Diura knowltoni Isoperla fulva Isoperla sp. 7 1 2.67 1 0.0035 Skwala americana Taenionema sp.
Trichoptera Brachycentrus americanus 3 1.00 1 0.0007 Brachycentrus occidentalis Glossosoma sp. Helicopsyche sp. Arctopsyche grandis 7 2 3.00 1 0.0039 Cheumatopsyche sp. Ceratopsyche morosa Hydropsyche cockerelli Hydropsyche oslari Hydroptila sp. Lepidostoma sp. Ceraclea sp. Oecetis sp. Hesperophylax sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0011 Psychomyia flavida Rhyacophila brunnea 1 0.33 1 0.0000 Rhyacophila coloradensis
______Biomonitoring Summary Report Appendix Page A-8 Timberline Aquatics, Inc. 17 August 2016 Table A4 cont. Macroinvertebrate data collected from site CR-GRD on 21 Apr 2015.
Diptera Orthocladiinae 907 467 300 558.00 1 2.1973 Tanypodinae 1 0.33 1 0.0013 Tanytarsini 1 1 2 1.33 1 0.0026 Chironomini 1 0.33 1 0.0018 Diamesinae 26 46 9 27.00 1 0.0354 Atherix pachypus Lispoides aequifrons Chelifera sp. Clinocera sp. 2 0.67 1 0.0026 Neoplasta sp. Pericoma sp. 1 1 0.67 1 0.0018 Prosimulium sp. Simulium sp. 68 25 26 39.67 1 0.1562 Antocha sp. Dicranota sp. 2 0.67 1 0.0013 Hexatoma sp. Tipula sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0009
Coleoptera Heterlimnius corpulentus Optioservus sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0009 Zaitzevia parvula
Miscellaneous Acarina 3 2 1 2.00 1 0.0105 Caecidotea sp. 1 2 1.00 1 0.0053 Crangonyx sp. 4 1 3 2.67 1 0.0123 Gyraulus sp. Physa sp. Pisidium sp. Dugesia sp. Polycelis coronata 131 80 66 92.33 1 0.0606 Oligochaeta 14 78 2 31.33 1 0.2056 Erpobdellidae Nematoda
Totals 2416 1270 885 1523.67 28 4.83
______Biomonitoring Summary Report Appendix Page A-9 Timberline Aquatics, Inc. 17 August 2016 Table A5. Macroinvertebrate data collected from site CR-WGU on 21 Apr 2015.
Colorado River CR-WGU Sample Mean Count HBI 21 April 2015 1 2 3
Ephemeroptera Baetis (bicaudatus) 7 3 5 5.00 1 0.0150 Baetis (tricaudatus) 34 40 80 51.33 1 0.3860 Diphetor hageni 9 9 7 8.33 1 0.0627 Drunella doddsii Drunella grandis 1 0.33 1 0.0000 Ephemerella dorothea infrequens 20 20 34 24.67 1 0.0371 Cinygmula sp. Epeorus sp. 1 2 2 1.67 1 0.0000 Rhithrogena sp. Paraleptophlebia sp. 4 16 2 7.33 1 0.0221
Plecoptera Chloroperlidae Sweltsa sp. Triznaka sp. 4 4 2 3.33 1 0.0050 Prostoia besametsa Zapada cinctipes Zapada oregonensis Claassenia sabulosa 2 4 5 3.67 1 0.0165 Hesperoperla pacifica Cultus aestivalis 3 3 1 2.33 1 0.0070 Diura knowltoni Isoperla fulva 2 2 1.33 1 0.0040 Isoperla sp. 11 24 13 16.00 1 0.0481 Skwala americana 5 2 2 3.00 1 0.0090 Taenionema sp.
Trichoptera Brachycentrus americanus 10 7 12 9.67 1 0.0145 Brachycentrus occidentalis 9 4 3 5.33 1 0.0080 Glossosoma sp. 4 12 15 10.33 1 0.0000 Helicopsyche sp. Arctopsyche grandis 4 1 6 3.67 1 0.0110 Cheumatopsyche sp. 3 4 2.33 1 0.0175 Ceratopsyche morosa Hydropsyche cockerelli 9 17 46 24.00 1 0.1444 Hydropsyche oslari 14 10 10 11.33 1 0.0682 Hydroptila sp. Lepidostoma sp. 39 16 15 23.33 1 0.1404 Ceraclea sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0025 Oecetis sp. Hesperophylax sp. 2 0.67 1 0.0050 Psychomyia flavida 1 1 0.67 1 0.0020 Rhyacophila brunnea Rhyacophila coloradensis
______Biomonitoring Summary Report Appendix Page A-10 Timberline Aquatics, Inc. 17 August 2016 Table A5 cont. Macroinvertebrate data collected from site CR-WGU on 21 Apr 2015.
Diptera Orthocladiinae 265 239 312 272.00 1 2.4541 Tanypodinae 11 3.67 1 0.0331 Tanytarsini 11 4 17 10.67 1 0.0481 Chironomini 3 3 8 4.67 1 0.0561 Diamesinae 94 109 161 121.33 1 0.3649 Atherix pachypus Lispoides aequifrons Chelifera sp. 1 3 1.33 1 0.0120 Clinocera sp. Neoplasta sp. 2 0.67 1 0.0060 Pericoma sp. Prosimulium sp. Simulium sp. Antocha sp. 10 7 10 9.00 1 0.0406 Dicranota sp. Hexatoma sp. Tipula sp.
Coleoptera Heterlimnius corpulentus Optioservus sp. 6 8 13 9.00 1 0.0541 Zaitzevia parvula
Miscellaneous Acarina 2 1 1.00 1 0.0120 Caecidotea sp. 3 4 2 3.00 1 0.0361 Crangonyx sp. Gyraulus sp. Physa sp. Pisidium sp. Dugesia sp. Polycelis coronata Oligochaeta 7 9 9 8.33 1 0.1253 Erpobdellidae Nematoda 1 0.33 1 0.0025
Totals 598 593 804 665.00 37 4.27
______Biomonitoring Summary Report Appendix Page A-11 Timberline Aquatics, Inc. 17 August 2016 Table A6. Macroinvertebrate data collected from site FR-WGU on 21 Apr 2015.
Fraser River FR-WGU Sample Mean Count HBI 21 April 2015 1 2 3
Ephemeroptera Baetis (bicaudatus) 2 0.67 1 0.0016 Baetis (tricaudatus) 44 34 52 43.33 1 0.2530 Diphetor hageni 11 13 13 12.33 1 0.0720 Drunella doddsii Drunella grandis 8 2 3.33 1 0.0000 Ephemerella dorothea infrequens 110 91 84 95.00 1 0.1109 Cinygmula sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0016 Epeorus sp. 2 5 12 6.33 1 0.0000 Rhithrogena sp. Paraleptophlebia sp. 63 40 36 46.33 1 0.1082
Plecoptera Chloroperlidae Sweltsa sp. Triznaka sp. 5 9 20 11.33 1 0.0132 Prostoia besametsa Zapada cinctipes Zapada oregonensis Claassenia sabulosa 2 0.67 1 0.0023 Hesperoperla pacifica Cultus aestivalis 6 7 8 7.00 1 0.0163 Diura knowltoni Isoperla fulva 1 1 0.67 1 0.0016 Isoperla sp. 53 28 21 34.00 1 0.0794 Skwala americana 3 6 5 4.67 1 0.0109 Taenionema sp.
Trichoptera Brachycentrus americanus 41 19 17 25.67 1 0.0300 Brachycentrus occidentalis Glossosoma sp. 4 1.33 1 0.0000 Helicopsyche sp. 2 0.67 1 0.0023 Arctopsyche grandis 4 1 2 2.33 1 0.0054 Cheumatopsyche sp. 19 22 6 15.67 1 0.0915 Ceratopsyche morosa Hydropsyche cockerelli 18 8 10 12.00 1 0.0561 Hydropsyche oslari 102 47 17 55.33 1 0.2585 Hydroptila sp. Lepidostoma sp. 144 73 84 100.33 1 0.4687 Ceraclea sp. Oecetis sp. Hesperophylax sp. Psychomyia flavida 1 0.33 1 0.0008 Rhyacophila brunnea Rhyacophila coloradensis
______Biomonitoring Summary Report Appendix Page A-12 Timberline Aquatics, Inc. 17 August 2016 Table A6 cont. Macroinvertebrate data collected from site FR-WGU on 21 Apr 2015.
Diptera Orthocladiinae 389 223 310 307.33 1 2.1534 Tanypodinae 6 12 8 8.67 1 0.0607 Tanytarsini 32 9 28 23.00 1 0.0806 Chironomini 1 1 0.67 1 0.0062 Diamesinae 48 13 21 27.33 1 0.0638 Atherix pachypus Lispoides aequifrons Chelifera sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0023 Clinocera sp. Neoplasta sp. Pericoma sp. Prosimulium sp. Simulium sp. 1 2 1.00 1 0.0070 Antocha sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0012 Dicranota sp. Hexatoma sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0008 Tipula sp.
Coleoptera Heterlimnius corpulentus Optioservus sp. 3 4 8 5.00 1 0.0234 Zaitzevia parvula 1 1 0.67 1 0.0031
Miscellaneous Acarina Caecidotea sp. 2 0.67 1 0.0062 Crangonyx sp. Gyraulus sp. Physa sp. 1 1 0.67 1 0.0062 Pisidium sp. Dugesia sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0016 Polycelis coronata Oligochaeta 1 0.33 1 0.0039 Erpobdellidae Nematoda
Totals 1120 674 775 856.33 38 4.00
______Biomonitoring Summary Report Appendix Page A-13 Timberline Aquatics, Inc. 17 August 2016 Table A7. Macroinvertebrate data collected from site CR-WGD on 21 Apr 2015.
Colorado River CR-WGD Sample Mean Count HBI 21 April 2015 1 2 3
Ephemeroptera Baetis (bicaudatus) 3 8 3.67 1 0.0036 Baetis (tricaudatus) 334 236 284 284.67 1 0.6957 Diphetor hageni 17 26 59 34.00 1 0.0831 Drunella doddsii Drunella grandis Ephemerella dorothea infrequens 108 147 104 119.67 1 0.0585 Cinygmula sp. Epeorus sp. 16 42 8 22.00 1 0.0000 Rhithrogena sp. 2 0.67 1 0.0000 Paraleptophlebia sp. 45 42 116 67.67 1 0.0661
Plecoptera Chloroperlidae Sweltsa sp. Triznaka sp. 1 2 2 1.67 1 0.0008 Prostoia besametsa Zapada cinctipes Zapada oregonensis Claassenia sabulosa 5 6 2 4.33 1 0.0064 Hesperoperla pacifica Cultus aestivalis 9 7 3 6.33 1 0.0062 Diura knowltoni Isoperla fulva Isoperla sp. 54 74 45 57.67 1 0.0564 Skwala americana 3 1 3 2.33 1 0.0023 Taenionema sp.
Trichoptera Brachycentrus americanus 12 4 5.33 1 0.0026 Brachycentrus occidentalis Glossosoma sp. Helicopsyche sp. Arctopsyche grandis 1 1 1 1.00 1 0.0010 Cheumatopsyche sp. Ceratopsyche morosa Hydropsyche cockerelli 15 35 49 33.00 1 0.0645 Hydropsyche oslari 22 34 6 20.67 1 0.0404 Hydroptila sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0010 Lepidostoma sp. 23 18 6 15.67 1 0.0306 Ceraclea sp. 3 1 1.33 1 0.0033 Oecetis sp. 1 2 1.00 1 0.0039 Hesperophylax sp. Psychomyia flavida 1 0.33 1 0.0003 Rhyacophila brunnea Rhyacophila coloradensis
______Biomonitoring Summary Report Appendix Page A-14 Timberline Aquatics, Inc. 17 August 2016 Table A7 cont. Macroinvertebrate data collected from site CR-WGD on 21 Apr 2015.
Diptera Orthocladiinae 504 943 1121 856.00 1 2.5103 Tanypodinae 1 7 8 5.33 1 0.0156 Tanytarsini 33 107 409 183.00 1 0.2683 Chironomini Diamesinae 311 210 290 270.33 1 0.2643 Atherix pachypus 1 2 1 1.33 1 0.0013 Lispoides aequifrons Chelifera sp. 1 1 0.67 1 0.0020 Clinocera sp. Neoplasta sp. Pericoma sp. Prosimulium sp. Simulium sp. 2 1 18 7.00 1 0.0205 Antocha sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0005 Dicranota sp. Hexatoma sp. Tipula sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0007
Coleoptera Heterlimnius corpulentus Optioservus sp. 11 9 2 7.33 1 0.0143 Zaitzevia parvula 3 1.00 1 0.0020
Miscellaneous Acarina 1 0.33 1 0.0013 Caecidotea sp. 5 8 39 17.33 1 0.0678 Crangonyx sp. 5 1.67 1 0.0057 Gyraulus sp. Physa sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0013 Pisidium sp. Dugesia sp. Polycelis coronata 1 5 1 2.33 1 0.0011 Oligochaeta 12 11 1 8.00 1 0.0391 Erpobdellidae Nematoda
Totals 1550 2000 2588 2046.00 38 4.34
______Biomonitoring Summary Report Appendix Page A-15 Timberline Aquatics, Inc. 17 August 2016
Appendix B
East Slope Benthic Macroinvertebrate Data Spring 2015
______Biomonitoring Summary Report Appendix Page B-1 Timberline Aquatics, Inc. 17 August 2016 Table B1. Macroinvertebrate data collected from site HSC-PRU on 16 Apr 2015.
Poudre River HSC-PRU Sample Mean Count HBI 16 April 2015 1 2 3
Ephemeroptera Acentrella sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0010 Baetis tricaudatus 216 219 380 271.67 1 0.9961 Drunella doddsii Drunella grandis 6 2 2.67 1 0.0000 Ephemerella dorothea infrequens 77 215 185 159.00 1 0.1166 Serratella sp. Cinygmula sp. Epeorus longimanus 12 17 12 13.67 1 0.0000 Heptagenia sp. 2 1 1 1.33 1 0.0020 Rhithrogena sp. 1 3 1 1.67 1 0.0000 Paraleptophlebia sp. 27 24 15 22.00 1 0.0323
Plecoptera Eucapnopsis brevicauda Chloroperlidae Sweltsa sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0002 Triznaka signata 1 1 0.67 1 0.0005 Prostoia besametsa Claassenia sabulosa 2 0.67 1 0.0015 Hesperoperla pacifica Perlodidae Cultus sp. Diura knowltoni Isoperla fulva Isoperla sp. 15 24 12 17.00 1 0.0249 Pteronarcella badia 1 1 0.67 1 0.0000 Pteronarcys californica 4 1 2 2.33 1 0.0000
Trichoptera Brachycentrus americanus 1 0.33 1 0.0002 Brachycentrus occidentalis 3 2 7 4.00 1 0.0029 Glossosoma sp. 6 10 2 6.00 1 0.0000 Arctopsyche grandis 5 1.67 1 0.0024 Cheumatopsyche sp. Ceratopsyche morosa Hydropsyche cockerelli 5 21 13 13.00 1 0.0381 Hydropsyche occidentalis 7 26 39 24.00 1 0.0704 Hydropsyche oslari 1 4 11 5.33 1 0.0156 Lepidostoma sp. 1 1 0.67 1 0.0020
______Biomonitoring Summary Report Appendix Page B-2 Timberline Aquatics, Inc. 17 August 2016 Table B1 cont. Macroinvertebrate data collected from site HSC-PRU on 16 Apr 2015.
Diptera Orthocladiinae 5 12 16 11.00 1 0.0484 Tanypodinae 1 2 1.00 1 0.0044 Tanytarsini 2 1 1.00 1 0.0022 Chironomini 2 8 10 6.67 1 0.0391 Diamesinae Atherix pachypus 1 2 5 2.67 1 0.0039 Bibiocephala sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0000 Ceratopogoninae Chelifera sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0015 Hemerodromia sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0015 Simulium sp. 280 1316 759 785.00 1 3.4539 Dicranota sp. Hexatoma sp. Pedicia sp. Tipula sp.
Coleoptera Optioservus sp. 6 2.00 1 0.0059 Zaitzevia sp. 1 6 2.33 1 0.0068
Miscellaneous Acarina 2 2 1.33 1 0.0078 Caecidotea sp. Crangonyx sp. Physa/Physella sp. Dugesia sp. Polycelis coronata Oligochaeta 2 0.67 1 0.0049 Nematoda
Totals 673 1924 1494 1363.6667 35 4.89
______Biomonitoring Summary Report Appendix Page B-3 Timberline Aquatics, Inc. 17 August 2016 Table B2. Macroinvertebrate data collected from site HSC-PRD on 16 Apr 2015.
Poudre River HSC-PRD Sample Mean Count HBI 16 April 2015 1 2 3
Ephemeroptera Acentrella sp. Baetis tricaudatus 219 506 468 397.67 1 1.8997 Drunella doddsii 1 0.33 1 0.0000 Drunella grandis 1 0.33 1 0.0000 Ephemerella dorothea infrequens 212 196 127 178.33 1 0.1704 Serratella sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0003 Cinygmula sp. Epeorus longimanus 16 22 12.67 1 0.0000 Heptagenia sp. Rhithrogena sp. 1 3 1.33 1 0.0000 Paraleptophlebia sp. 35 24 32 30.33 1 0.0580
Plecoptera Eucapnopsis brevicauda Chloroperlidae Sweltsa sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0003 Triznaka signata 4 8 15 9.00 1 0.0086 Prostoia besametsa Claassenia sabulosa Hesperoperla pacifica Perlodidae Cultus sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0006 Diura knowltoni Isoperla fulva Isoperla sp. 2 7 10 6.33 1 0.0121 Pteronarcella badia Pteronarcys californica
Trichoptera Brachycentrus americanus 1 1 0.67 1 0.0006 Brachycentrus occidentalis 3 1.00 1 0.0010 Glossosoma sp. 2 4 2.00 1 0.0000 Arctopsyche grandis Cheumatopsyche sp. Ceratopsyche morosa Hydropsyche cockerelli 1 4 1.67 1 0.0064 Hydropsyche occidentalis 7 29 26 20.67 1 0.0790 Hydropsyche oslari 1 0.33 1 0.0013 Lepidostoma sp. 3 1 1.33 1 0.0051
______Biomonitoring Summary Report Appendix Page B-4 Timberline Aquatics, Inc. 17 August 2016 Table B2 cont. Macroinvertebrate data collected from site HSC-PRD on 16 Apr 2015.
Diptera Orthocladiinae 180 126 51 119.00 1 0.6822 Tanypodinae 6 2.00 1 0.0115 Tanytarsini 46 5 1 17.33 1 0.0497 Chironomini 26 4 10 13.33 1 0.1019 Diamesinae 47 76 9 44.00 1 0.0841 Atherix pachypus Bibiocephala sp. Ceratopogoninae Chelifera sp. 2 1 1.00 1 0.0057 Hemerodromia sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0019 Simulium sp. 3 123 415 180.33 1 1.0338 Dicranota sp. Hexatoma sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0006 Pedicia sp. Tipula sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0013
Coleoptera Optioservus sp. 2 5 2.33 1 0.0089 Zaitzevia sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0013
Miscellaneous Acarina Caecidotea sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0025 Crangonyx sp. Physa/Physella sp. Dugesia sp. Polycelis coronata Oligochaeta Nematoda 1 1 0.67 1 0.0032
Totals 799 1135 1206 1046.6667 33 4.23
______Biomonitoring Summary Report Appendix Page B-5 Timberline Aquatics, Inc. 17 August 2016 Table B3. Macroinvertebrate data collected from site HFC-BTU on 16 Apr 2015.
Big Thompson HFC-BTU Sample Mean Count HBI 16 April 2015 1 2 3
Ephemeroptera Acentrella sp. Baetis tricaudatus 339 190 522 350.33 1 2.6394 Drunella doddsii 1 0.33 1 0.0000 Drunella grandis Ephemerella dorothea infrequens 7 7 62 25.33 1 0.0382 Serratella sp. Cinygmula sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0020 Epeorus longimanus 3 4 19 8.67 1 0.0000 Heptagenia sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0010 Rhithrogena sp. Paraleptophlebia sp. 3 4 2.33 1 0.0070
Plecoptera Eucapnopsis brevicauda Chloroperlidae Sweltsa sp. Triznaka signata Prostoia besametsa Claassenia sabulosa 1 3 1.33 1 0.0060 Hesperoperla pacifica Perlodidae Cultus sp. Diura knowltoni Isoperla fulva 2 0.67 1 0.0020 Isoperla sp. Pteronarcella badia Pteronarcys californica
Trichoptera Brachycentrus americanus 1 2 1.00 1 0.0015 Brachycentrus occidentalis Glossosoma sp. 2 0.67 1 0.0000 Arctopsyche grandis Cheumatopsyche sp. Ceratopsyche morosa Hydropsyche cockerelli 4 7 3.67 1 0.0221 Hydropsyche occidentalis 13 10 33 18.67 1 0.1125 Hydropsyche oslari 6 24 46 25.33 1 0.1527 Lepidostoma sp. 1 1 0.67 1 0.0040
______Biomonitoring Summary Report Appendix Page B-6 Timberline Aquatics, Inc. 17 August 2016 Table B3 cont. Macroinvertebrate data collected from site HFC-BTU on 16 Apr 2015.
Diptera Orthocladiinae 16 17 106 46.33 1 0.4189 Tanypodinae 2 0.67 1 0.0060 Tanytarsini 1 1 0.67 1 0.0030 Chironomini 3 3 5 3.67 1 0.0442 Diamesinae 3 3 2.00 1 0.0060 Atherix pachypus 1 0.33 1 0.0010 Bibiocephala sp. Ceratopogoninae Chelifera sp. 2 0.67 1 0.0060 Hemerodromia sp. Simulium sp. 23 82 393 166.00 1 1.5008 Dicranota sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0015 Hexatoma sp. Pedicia sp. Tipula sp.
Coleoptera Optioservus sp. 2 0.67 1 0.0040 Zaitzevia sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0020
Miscellaneous Acarina 1 3 2 2.00 1 0.0241 Caecidotea sp. Crangonyx sp. Physa/Physella sp. Dugesia sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0020 Polycelis coronata Oligochaeta Nematoda
Totals 425 344 1222 663.66667 28 5.01
______Biomonitoring Summary Report Appendix Page B-7 Timberline Aquatics, Inc. 17 August 2016 Table B4. Macroinvertebrate data collected from site HFC-BTD on 16 Apr 2015.
Big Thompson HFC-BTD Sample Mean Count HBI 16 April 2015 1 2 3
Ephemeroptera Acentrella sp. Baetis tricaudatus 394 331 293 339.33 1 3.1654 Drunella doddsii Drunella grandis Ephemerella dorothea infrequens 4 7 22 11.00 1 0.0205 Serratella sp. Cinygmula sp. Epeorus longimanus 2 3 3 2.67 1 0.0000 Heptagenia sp. 2 0.67 1 0.0025 Rhithrogena sp. Paraleptophlebia sp. 8 2 6 5.33 1 0.0199
Plecoptera Eucapnopsis brevicauda Chloroperlidae Sweltsa sp. Triznaka signata Prostoia besametsa Claassenia sabulosa 3 3 2 2.67 1 0.0149 Hesperoperla pacifica Perlodidae Cultus sp. Diura knowltoni Isoperla fulva 1 1 0.67 1 0.0025 Isoperla sp. Pteronarcella badia Pteronarcys californica
Trichoptera Brachycentrus americanus Brachycentrus occidentalis Glossosoma sp. 2 0.67 1 0.0000 Arctopsyche grandis Cheumatopsyche sp. Ceratopsyche morosa Hydropsyche cockerelli Hydropsyche occidentalis 1 2 1.00 1 0.0075 Hydropsyche oslari 3 1 1 1.67 1 0.0124 Lepidostoma sp.
______Biomonitoring Summary Report Appendix Page B-8 Timberline Aquatics, Inc. 17 August 2016 Table B4 cont. Macroinvertebrate data collected from site HFC-BTD on 16 Apr 2015.
Diptera Orthocladiinae 8 8 29 15.00 1 0.1679 Tanypodinae 1 1 2 1.33 1 0.0149 Tanytarsini 2 0.67 1 0.0037 Chironomini 3 2 1.67 1 0.0249 Diamesinae 1 5 2.00 1 0.0075 Atherix pachypus Bibiocephala sp. Ceratopogoninae Chelifera sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0037 Hemerodromia sp. Simulium sp. 96 126 218 146.67 1 1.6418 Dicranota sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0019 Hexatoma sp. Pedicia sp. Tipula sp.
Coleoptera Optioservus sp. 1 1 0.67 1 0.0050 Zaitzevia sp.
Miscellaneous Acarina 1 1 0.67 1 0.0100 Caecidotea sp. Crangonyx sp. Physa/Physella sp. Dugesia sp. Polycelis coronata 1 0.33 1 0.0006 Oligochaeta 1 0.33 1 0.0062 Nematoda 1 0.33 1 0.0031
Totals 527 497 584 536 23 5.14
______Biomonitoring Summary Report Appendix Page B-9 Timberline Aquatics, Inc. 17 August 2016 Table B5. Macroinvertebrate data collected from site SVSC-LTU on 16 Apr 2015.
Little Thompson SVSC-LTU Sample Mean Count HBI 16 April 2015 1 2 3
Ephemeroptera Acentrella sp. 2 1 1.00 1 0.0044 Baetis tricaudatus 78 106 158 114.00 1 0.6266 Drunella doddsii Drunella grandis Ephemerella dorothea infrequens Serratella sp. Cinygmula sp. Epeorus longimanus Heptagenia sp. Rhithrogena sp. Paraleptophlebia sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0007
Plecoptera Eucapnopsis brevicauda Chloroperlidae Sweltsa sp. Triznaka signata Prostoia besametsa Claassenia sabulosa Hesperoperla pacifica Perlodidae Cultus sp. Diura knowltoni Isoperla fulva Isoperla sp. 2 1 1.00 1 0.0022 Pteronarcella badia 1 1 0.67 1 0.0000 Pteronarcys californica
Trichoptera Brachycentrus americanus Brachycentrus occidentalis Glossosoma sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0000 Arctopsyche grandis Cheumatopsyche sp. 2 0.67 1 0.0037 Ceratopsyche morosa 1 1 2 1.33 1 0.0029 Hydropsyche cockerelli Hydropsyche occidentalis 6 4 18 9.33 1 0.0410 Hydropsyche oslari 7 6 4.33 1 0.0191 Lepidostoma sp.
______Biomonitoring Summary Report Appendix Page B-10 Timberline Aquatics, Inc. 17 August 2016 Table B5 cont. Macroinvertebrate data collected from site SVSC-LTU on 16 Apr 2015.
Diptera Orthocladiinae 24 12 44 26.67 1 0.1759 Tanypodinae 1 0.33 1 0.0022 Tanytarsini 1 1 0.67 1 0.0022 Chironomini 5 1.67 1 0.0147 Diamesinae Atherix pachypus Bibiocephala sp. Ceratopogoninae 28 3 27 19.33 1 0.1275 Chelifera sp. 5 1.67 1 0.0110 Hemerodromia sp. 1 3 3 2.33 1 0.0154 Simulium sp. 690 174 1276 713.33 1 4.7050 Dicranota sp. 6 8 4.67 1 0.0154 Hexatoma sp. Pedicia sp. Tipula sp.
Coleoptera Optioservus sp. 8 2.67 1 0.0117 Zaitzevia sp.
Miscellaneous Acarina 3 1 5 3.00 1 0.0264 Caecidotea sp. Crangonyx sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0026 Physa/Physella sp. Dugesia sp. Polycelis coronata Oligochaeta Nematoda
Totals 840 314 1575 909.66667 22 5.81
______Biomonitoring Summary Report Appendix Page B-11 Timberline Aquatics, Inc. 17 August 2016 Table B6. Macroinvertebrate data collected from site SVSC-LTD on 16 Apr 2015.
Little Thompson SVSC-LTD Sample Mean Count HBI 16 April 2015 1 2 3
Ephemeroptera Acentrella sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0013 Baetis tricaudatus 39 27 50 38.67 1 0.1847 Drunella doddsii Drunella grandis Ephemerella dorothea infrequens Serratella sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0003 Cinygmula sp. Epeorus longimanus Heptagenia sp. Rhithrogena sp. Paraleptophlebia sp.
Plecoptera Eucapnopsis brevicauda Chloroperlidae Sweltsa sp. Triznaka signata Prostoia besametsa Claassenia sabulosa Hesperoperla pacifica Perlodidae 2 0.67 1 0.0013 Cultus sp. Diura knowltoni Isoperla fulva Isoperla sp. Pteronarcella badia 1 2 1.00 1 0.0000 Pteronarcys californica
Trichoptera Brachycentrus americanus Brachycentrus occidentalis Glossosoma sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0000 Arctopsyche grandis Cheumatopsyche sp. Ceratopsyche morosa 2 0.67 1 0.0013 Hydropsyche cockerelli Hydropsyche occidentalis 1 3 1.33 1 0.0051 Hydropsyche oslari 2 0.67 1 0.0025 Lepidostoma sp.
______Biomonitoring Summary Report Appendix Page B-12 Timberline Aquatics, Inc. 17 August 2016 Table B6 cont. Macroinvertebrate data collected from site SVSC-LTD on 16 Apr 2015.
Diptera Orthocladiinae 13 41 19 24.33 1 0.1394 Tanypodinae Tanytarsini 1 2 1 1.33 1 0.0038 Chironomini 2 0.67 1 0.0051 Diamesinae 1 0.33 1 0.0006 Atherix pachypus Bibiocephala sp. Ceratopogoninae 6 10 18 11.33 1 0.0649 Chelifera sp. 1 1 3 1.67 1 0.0096 Hemerodromia sp. 7 1 2 3.33 1 0.0191 Simulium sp. 1186 1193 491 956.67 1 5.4823 Dicranota sp. 2 0.67 1 0.0019 Hexatoma sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0006 Pedicia sp. Tipula sp.
Coleoptera Optioservus sp. 2 0.67 1 0.0025 Zaitzevia sp.
Miscellaneous Acarina 2 1 2 1.67 1 0.0127 Caecidotea sp. Crangonyx sp. Physa/Physella sp. Dugesia sp. Polycelis coronata Oligochaeta Nematoda
Totals 1258 1283 600 1047 21 5.94
______Biomonitoring Summary Report Appendix Page B-13 Timberline Aquatics, Inc. 17 August 2016 Table B7. Macroinvertebrate data collected from site SVSC-SVU on 16 Apr 2015.
St. Vrain SVSC-SVU Sample Mean Count HBI 16 April 2015 1 2 3
Ephemeroptera Acentrella sp. Baetis tricaudatus 137 43 95 91.67 1 3.3213 Drunella doddsii Drunella grandis 1 0.33 1 0.0000 Ephemerella dorothea infrequens 2 2 3 2.33 1 0.0169 Serratella sp. Cinygmula sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0097 Epeorus longimanus 1 1 0.67 1 0.0000 Heptagenia sp. Rhithrogena sp. Paraleptophlebia sp.
Plecoptera Eucapnopsis brevicauda 1 0.33 1 0.0024 Chloroperlidae Sweltsa sp. Triznaka signata 2 1 3 2.00 1 0.0145 Prostoia besametsa Claassenia sabulosa 2 2 1.33 1 0.0290 Hesperoperla pacifica 1 0.33 1 0.0024 Perlodidae Cultus sp. Diura knowltoni 1 0.33 1 0.0048 Isoperla fulva 2 1 2 1.67 1 0.0242 Isoperla sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0048 Pteronarcella badia Pteronarcys californica
Trichoptera Brachycentrus americanus 2 0.67 1 0.0048 Brachycentrus occidentalis Glossosoma sp. Arctopsyche grandis Cheumatopsyche sp. Ceratopsyche morosa Hydropsyche cockerelli 2 1 6 3.00 1 0.0870 Hydropsyche occidentalis 2 1 1.00 1 0.0290 Hydropsyche oslari 2 1 1.00 1 0.0290 Lepidostoma sp. 2 1 3 2.00 1 0.0580
______Biomonitoring Summary Report Appendix Page B-14 Timberline Aquatics, Inc. 17 August 2016 Table B7 cont. Macroinvertebrate data collected from site SVSC-SVU on 16 Apr 2015.
Diptera Orthocladiinae 5 7 4.00 1 0.1739 Tanypodinae 1 0.33 1 0.0145 Tanytarsini 4 5 18 9.00 1 0.1957 Chironomini 1 5 2.00 1 0.1159 Diamesinae 3 1 1.33 1 0.0193 Atherix pachypus Bibiocephala sp. Ceratopogoninae Chelifera sp. 2 0.67 1 0.0290 Hemerodromia sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0145 Simulium sp. 4 6 6 5.33 1 0.2319 Dicranota sp. 2 0.67 1 0.0145 Hexatoma sp. Pedicia sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0145 Tipula sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0097
Coleoptera Optioservus sp. 1 2 4 2.33 1 0.0676 Zaitzevia sp.
Miscellaneous Acarina 1 0.33 1 0.0193 Caecidotea sp. Crangonyx sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0169 Physa/Physella sp. Dugesia sp. Polycelis coronata 2 0.67 1 0.0048 Oligochaeta 1 1 0.67 1 0.0483 Nematoda
Totals 161 84 169 138 33 4.63
______Biomonitoring Summary Report Appendix Page B-15 Timberline Aquatics, Inc. 17 August 2016 Table B8. Macroinvertebrate data collected from site SVSC-SVD on 16 Apr 2015.
St. Vrain SVSC-SVD Sample Mean Count HBI 16 April 2015 1 2 3
Ephemeroptera Acentrella sp. Baetis tricaudatus 276 43 255 191.33 1 3.6468 Drunella doddsii 1 0.33 1 0.0000 Drunella grandis 1 0.33 1 0.0000 Ephemerella dorothea infrequens 7 1 3 3.67 1 0.0140 Serratella sp. Cinygmula sp. Epeorus longimanus Heptagenia sp. Rhithrogena sp. 2 1 2 1.67 1 0.0000 Paraleptophlebia sp.
Plecoptera Eucapnopsis brevicauda Chloroperlidae 2 0.67 1 0.0025 Sweltsa sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0013 Triznaka signata Prostoia besametsa 1 0.33 1 0.0025 Claassenia sabulosa 2 10 2 4.67 1 0.0534 Hesperoperla pacifica Perlodidae Cultus sp. Diura knowltoni Isoperla fulva Isoperla sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0025 Pteronarcella badia 1 0.33 1 0.0000 Pteronarcys californica
Trichoptera Brachycentrus americanus 2 1 1.00 1 0.0038 Brachycentrus occidentalis Glossosoma sp. Arctopsyche grandis Cheumatopsyche sp. Ceratopsyche morosa Hydropsyche cockerelli 1 0.33 1 0.0051 Hydropsyche occidentalis 2 1 1.00 1 0.0152 Hydropsyche oslari 1 0.33 1 0.0051 Lepidostoma sp.
______Biomonitoring Summary Report Appendix Page B-16 Timberline Aquatics, Inc. 17 August 2016 Table B8 cont. Macroinvertebrate data collected from site SVSC-SVD on 16 Apr 2015.
Diptera Orthocladiinae 20 14 9 14.33 1 0.3278 Tanypodinae 6 6 4.00 1 0.0915 Tanytarsini 6 10 4 6.67 1 0.0762 Chironomini 11 6 6 7.67 1 0.2338 Diamesinae 8 3 3.67 1 0.0280 Atherix pachypus Bibiocephala sp. Ceratopogoninae Chelifera sp. Hemerodromia sp. 2 0.67 1 0.0152 Simulium sp. 2 10 1 4.33 1 0.0991 Dicranota sp. 1 3 1.33 1 0.0152 Hexatoma sp. Pedicia sp. Tipula sp.
Coleoptera Optioservus sp. 2 2 1 1.67 1 0.0254 Zaitzevia sp.
Miscellaneous Acarina 4 1 1.67 1 0.0508 Caecidotea sp. Crangonyx sp. Physa/Physella sp. 1 1 0.67 1 0.0203 Dugesia sp. Polycelis coronata 1 0.33 1 0.0013 Oligochaeta 5 12 9 8.67 1 0.3304 Nematoda
Totals 359 132 296 262.33333 28 5.07
______Biomonitoring Summary Report Appendix Page B-17 Timberline Aquatics, Inc. 17 August 2016
Appendix C
West Slope Benthic Macroinvertebrate Data Fall 2015
______Biomonitoring Summary Report Appendix Page C-1 Timberline Aquatics, Inc. 17 August 2016 Table C1. Macroinvertebrate data collected from site EI-GLU on 10 Sept 2015.
East Inlet EI-GLU Sample Mean Count HBI 10 Sept. 2015 1 2 3
Ephemeroptera Ameletus sp. Acentrella sp. 2 0.67 1 0.0090 Baetis (tricaudatus) 1 1 4 2.00 1 0.0336 Diphetor hageni 1 1 1 1.00 1 0.0168 Attenella margarita Drunella doddsii 6 5 7 6.00 1 0.0000 Drunella grandis 1 8 3.00 1 0.0000 Ephemerella dorothea infrequens 45 55 41 47.00 1 0.1581 Cinygmula sp. 26 46 19 30.33 1 0.4081 Epeorus sp. 2 0.67 1 0.0000 Rhithrogena sp. 1 2 3 2.00 1 0.0000 Tricorythodes explicatus Paraleptophlebia sp. 8 21 3 10.67 1 0.0717
Plecoptera Capniidae 1 0.33 1 0.0011 Paracapnia angulata Paraperla frontalis 1 4 1.67 1 0.0056 Sweltsa sp. Triznaka sp. Zapada cinctipes 13 6 19 12.67 1 0.0852 Zapada oregonensis 2 2 1.33 1 0.0090 Claassenia sabulosa 2 10 4.00 1 0.0404 Hesperoperla pacifica 9 2 3.67 1 0.0123 Perlodidae Diura knowltoni Isoperla fulva 1 0.33 1 0.0022 Isoperla sp. Skwala americana Pteronarcys californica Taenionema sp. 12 2 22 12.00 1 0.0807
Trichoptera Brachycentrus americanus 6 3 4 4.33 1 0.0146 Brachycentrus occidentalis Micrasema sp. 2 2 1.33 1 0.0045 Culoptila sp. Glossosoma sp. 4 3 25 10.67 1 0.0000 Protoptila sp. Arctopsyche grandis 32 7 21 20.00 1 0.1345 Ceratopsyche morosa Hydropsyche cockerelli Hydropsyche oslari 1 0.33 1 0.0045 Agraylea multipunctata 1 5 2.00 1 0.0538 Hydroptila sp. Leucotrichia pictipes Lepidostoma sp. Ceraclea sp. Oecetis sp. Dolophilodes sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0011 Psychomyia flavida Rhyacophila brunnea 1 3 1.33 1 0.0000 Rhyacophila coloradensis 1 1 5 2.33 1 0.0000 Rhyacophila sibirica group 1 1 0.67 1 0.0000
______Biomonitoring Summary Report Appendix Page C-2 Timberline Aquatics, Inc. 17 August 2016 Table C1 cont. Macroinvertebrate data collected from site EI-GLU on 10 Sept 2015. Diptera Chironomidae Cardiocladius sp. Cricotopus/Orthocladius sp. 11 17 4 10.67 1 0.2152 Cricotopus nostocicola Diamesa sp. 2 0.67 1 0.0112 Dicrotendipes sp. Eukiefferiella sp. 7 1 3 3.67 1 0.0987 Micropsectra/Tanytarsus sp. 2 7 3 4.00 1 0.0942 Microtendipes sp. Nanocladius sp. Pagastia sp. 7 8 5 6.67 1 0.0224 Parachironomus sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0090 Parametriocnemus sp. Paratanytarsus sp. Pentaneura sp. Phaenopsectra sp. Polypedilum sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0067 Potthastia sp. Rheocricotopus sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0067 Synorthocladius sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0022 Thienemanniella sp. Thienemannimyia group 12 5 5.67 1 0.1143 Tvetenia sp. 10 3 13 8.67 1 0.1457
Other Diptera Atherix pachypus Chelifera sp. Clinocera sp. Neoplasta sp. 1 1 0.67 1 0.0135 Wiedemannia sp. Pericoma sp. Simulium sp. 2 1 1.00 1 0.0202 Antocha sp. Hexatoma sp. 5 1.67 1 0.0112 Tipula sp.
Coleoptera Cleptelmis addenda 1 0.33 1 0.0045 Heterlimnius corpulentus 39 65 53 52.33 1 0.7040 Optioservus sp. Zaitzevia parvula
Miscellaneous Atractides sp. Hygrobates sp. Lebertia sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0090 Protzia sp. Sperchon sp. 2 0.67 1 0.0179 Torrenticola sp. Caecidotea sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0090 Crangonyx sp. Hyalella azteca Gyraulus sp. Lymnaeidae Physa sp. Pisidium sp. Dugesia sp. Polycelis coronata Enchytraeidae 36 10 2 16.00 1 0.5381 Lumbricidae Naididae Nematoda
Totals 307 296 289 297.33 48 3.20
______Biomonitoring Summary Report Appendix Page C-3 Timberline Aquatics, Inc. 17 August 2016 Table C2. Macroinvertebrate data collected from site CR-SMU on 10 Sept 2015. Colorado River CR-SMU Sample Mean Count HBI 10 Sept. 2015 1 2 3
Ephemeroptera Ameletus sp. Acentrella sp. 1 1 1 1.00 1 0.0062 Baetis (tricaudatus) 2 9 3 4.67 1 0.0362 Diphetor hageni Attenella margarita Drunella doddsii Drunella grandis Ephemerella dorothea infrequens 3 5 2 3.33 1 0.0052 Cinygmula sp. Epeorus sp. 1 1 0.67 1 0.0000 Rhithrogena sp. Tricorythodes explicatus Paraleptophlebia sp. 3 1 1.33 1 0.0041
Plecoptera Capniidae 1 0.33 1 0.0005 Paracapnia angulata 1 1 1 1.00 1 0.0015 Paraperla frontalis 2 3 1 2.00 1 0.0031 Sweltsa sp. 1 1 0.67 1 0.0010 Triznaka sp. Zapada cinctipes Zapada oregonensis Claassenia sabulosa 1 0.33 1 0.0015 Hesperoperla pacifica Perlodidae Diura knowltoni 1 0.33 1 0.0010 Isoperla fulva Isoperla sp. Skwala americana 5 4 3.00 1 0.0093 Pteronarcys californica Taenionema sp.
Trichoptera Brachycentrus americanus 101 162 80 114.33 1 0.1772 Brachycentrus occidentalis Micrasema sp. Culoptila sp. Glossosoma sp. Protoptila sp. Arctopsyche grandis 4 6 10 6.67 1 0.0207 Ceratopsyche morosa Hydropsyche cockerelli 1 0.33 1 0.0021 Hydropsyche oslari Agraylea multipunctata 1 0.33 1 0.0041 Hydroptila sp. Leucotrichia pictipes Lepidostoma sp. 3 2 1.67 1 0.0103 Ceraclea sp. Oecetis sp. Dolophilodes sp. Psychomyia flavida Rhyacophila brunnea Rhyacophila coloradensis 1 0.33 1 0.0000 Rhyacophila sibirica group
______Biomonitoring Summary Report Appendix Page C-4 Timberline Aquatics, Inc. 17 August 2016 Table C2 cont. Macroinvertebrate data collected from site CR-SMU on 10 Sept 2015. Diptera Chironomidae Cardiocladius sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0026 Cricotopus/Orthocladius sp. 28 108 206 114.00 1 1.0599 Cricotopus nostocicola Diamesa sp. Dicrotendipes sp. Eukiefferiella sp. 10 47 40 32.33 1 0.4008 Micropsectra/Tanytarsus sp. 1 13 4.67 1 0.0506 Microtendipes sp. 5 6 3.67 1 0.0341 Nanocladius sp. Pagastia sp. 10 7 26 14.33 1 0.0222 Parachironomus sp. Parametriocnemus sp. 3 2 1.67 1 0.0129 Paratanytarsus sp. Pentaneura sp. Phaenopsectra sp. Polypedilum sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0031 Potthastia sp. 4 1 15 6.67 1 0.0413 Rheocricotopus sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0031 Synorthocladius sp. 2 0.67 1 0.0021 Thienemanniella sp. Thienemannimyia group 1 3 1.33 1 0.0124 Tvetenia sp. 24 19 82 41.67 1 0.3228
Other Diptera Atherix pachypus Chelifera sp. 1 2 1.00 1 0.0093 Clinocera sp. Neoplasta sp. Wiedemannia sp. 1 4 1.67 1 0.0155 Pericoma sp. Simulium sp. 1 3 1.33 1 0.0124 Antocha sp. Hexatoma sp. Tipula sp.
Coleoptera Cleptelmis addenda Heterlimnius corpulentus 38 15 49 34.00 1 0.2107 Optioservus sp. 3 10 10 7.67 1 0.0475 Zaitzevia parvula 5 1.67 1 0.0103
Miscellaneous Atractides sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0041 Hygrobates sp. Lebertia sp. 14 10 18 14.00 1 0.1736 Protzia sp. Sperchon sp. 3 2 4 3.00 1 0.0372 Torrenticola sp. 3 1.00 1 0.0124 Caecidotea sp. Crangonyx sp. Hyalella azteca Gyraulus sp. Lymnaeidae Physa sp. Pisidium sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0041 Dugesia sp. Polycelis coronata Enchytraeidae Lumbricidae 1 0.33 1 0.0052 Naididae 285 245 113 214.33 1 3.3213 Nematoda 1 0.33 1 0.0026
Totals 548 674 714 645.33 45 6.12
______Biomonitoring Summary Report Appendix Page C-5 Timberline Aquatics, Inc. 17 August 2016 Table C3. Macroinvertebrate data collected from site CR-SMD on 10 Sept 2015. Colorado River CR-SMD Sample Mean Count HBI 10 Sept. 2015 1 2 3
Ephemeroptera Ameletus sp. Acentrella sp. Baetis (tricaudatus) 235 494 175 301.33 1 0.7653 Diphetor hageni Attenella margarita Drunella doddsii Drunella grandis Ephemerella dorothea infrequens 651 523 1124 766.00 1 0.3891 Cinygmula sp. Epeorus sp. Rhithrogena sp. Tricorythodes explicatus Paraleptophlebia sp.
Plecoptera Capniidae Paracapnia angulata Paraperla frontalis Sweltsa sp. Triznaka sp. Zapada cinctipes Zapada oregonensis Claassenia sabulosa Hesperoperla pacifica Perlodidae Diura knowltoni Isoperla fulva Isoperla sp. Skwala americana Pteronarcys californica Taenionema sp.
Trichoptera Brachycentrus americanus 4 1.33 1 0.0007 Brachycentrus occidentalis Micrasema sp. Culoptila sp. Glossosoma sp. Protoptila sp. Arctopsyche grandis 1 0.33 1 0.0003 Ceratopsyche morosa 105 104 106 105.00 1 0.1067 Hydropsyche cockerelli Hydropsyche oslari 3 18 7.00 1 0.0142 Agraylea multipunctata 7 1 2.67 1 0.0108 Hydroptila sp. Leucotrichia pictipes Lepidostoma sp. Ceraclea sp. 9 7 13 9.67 1 0.0246 Oecetis sp. 13 4.33 1 0.0176 Dolophilodes sp. Psychomyia flavida Rhyacophila brunnea Rhyacophila coloradensis 14 73 2 29.67 1 0.0000 Rhyacophila sibirica group
______Biomonitoring Summary Report Appendix Page C-6 Timberline Aquatics, Inc. 17 August 2016 Table C3 cont. Macroinvertebrate data collected from site CR-SMD on 10 Sept 2015. Diptera Chironomidae Cardiocladius sp. Cricotopus/Orthocladius sp. 717 70 368 385.00 1 1.1734 Cricotopus nostocicola Diamesa sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0008 Dicrotendipes sp. 1 1 1 1.00 1 0.0041 Eukiefferiella sp. 2 28 5 11.67 1 0.0474 Micropsectra/Tanytarsus sp. 15 3 4 7.33 1 0.0261 Microtendipes sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0010 Nanocladius sp. Pagastia sp. 8 3 3.67 1 0.0019 Parachironomus sp. 6 3 8 5.67 1 0.0230 Parametriocnemus sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0008 Paratanytarsus sp. 1 3 1.33 1 0.0041 Pentaneura sp. Phaenopsectra sp. 2 0.67 1 0.0024 Polypedilum sp. Potthastia sp. 18 5 21 14.67 1 0.0298 Rheocricotopus sp. Synorthocladius sp. 11 16 9.00 1 0.0091 Thienemanniella sp. Thienemannimyia group 10 8 19 12.33 1 0.0376 Tvetenia sp. 94 6 139 79.67 1 0.2023
Other Diptera Atherix pachypus Chelifera sp. 14 2 5.33 1 0.0163 Clinocera sp. Neoplasta sp. Wiedemannia sp. 15 3 20 12.67 1 0.0386 Pericoma sp. Simulium sp. 6 21 7 11.33 1 0.0345 Antocha sp. 1 1 0.67 1 0.0010 Hexatoma sp. Tipula sp. 2 1 1 1.33 1 0.0027
Coleoptera Cleptelmis addenda Heterlimnius corpulentus Optioservus sp. Zaitzevia parvula
Miscellaneous Atractides sp. Hygrobates sp. Lebertia sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0014 Protzia sp. Sperchon sp. Torrenticola sp. Caecidotea sp. 276 90 142 169.33 1 0.6881 Crangonyx sp. 1 3 1.33 1 0.0047 Hyalella azteca Gyraulus sp. 2 1 3 2.00 1 0.0081 Lymnaeidae Physa sp. 1 2 1 1.33 1 0.0054 Pisidium sp. Dugesia sp. Polycelis coronata Enchytraeidae Lumbricidae 4 4 2.67 1 0.0135 Naididae Nematoda
Totals 2247 1475 2184 1968.67 36 3.71
______Biomonitoring Summary Report Appendix Page C-7 Timberline Aquatics, Inc. 17 August 2016 Table C4. Macroinvertebrate data collected from site CR-GRD on 10 Sept 2015. Colorado River CR-GRD Sample Mean Count HBI 10 Sept. 2015 1 2 3
Ephemeroptera Ameletus sp. Acentrella sp. Baetis (tricaudatus) 193 243 299 245.00 1 0.7433 Diphetor hageni Attenella margarita Drunella doddsii Drunella grandis 1 0.33 1 0.0000 Ephemerella dorothea infrequens 967 686 746 799.67 1 0.4852 Cinygmula sp. Epeorus sp. 1 1 0.67 1 0.0000 Rhithrogena sp. Tricorythodes explicatus Paraleptophlebia sp. 15 24 34 24.33 1 0.0295
Plecoptera Capniidae Paracapnia angulata Paraperla frontalis Sweltsa sp. Triznaka sp. Zapada cinctipes Zapada oregonensis Claassenia sabulosa Hesperoperla pacifica Perlodidae 1 0.33 1 0.0004 Diura knowltoni Isoperla fulva Isoperla sp. 15 7 15 12.33 1 0.0150 Skwala americana 1 1 0.67 1 0.0008 Pteronarcys californica Taenionema sp.
Trichoptera Brachycentrus americanus 16 9 9 11.33 1 0.0069 Brachycentrus occidentalis Micrasema sp. Culoptila sp. Glossosoma sp. Protoptila sp. Arctopsyche grandis 3 1 2 2.00 1 0.0024 Ceratopsyche morosa Hydropsyche cockerelli 1 3 2 2.00 1 0.0049 Hydropsyche oslari 8 2 3.33 1 0.0081 Agraylea multipunctata 4 1.33 1 0.0065 Hydroptila sp. Leucotrichia pictipes Lepidostoma sp. 2 12 10 8.00 1 0.0194 Ceraclea sp. Oecetis sp. Dolophilodes sp. Psychomyia flavida Rhyacophila brunnea 1 0.33 1 0.0000 Rhyacophila coloradensis 2 2 1.33 1 0.0000 Rhyacophila sibirica group
______Biomonitoring Summary Report Appendix Page C-8 Timberline Aquatics, Inc. 17 August 2016 Table C4 cont. Macroinvertebrate data collected from site CR-GRD on 10 Sept 2015. Diptera Chironomidae Cardiocladius sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0010 Cricotopus/Orthocladius sp. 30 6 99 45.00 1 0.1638 Cricotopus nostocicola Diamesa sp. 1 2 1.00 1 0.0030 Dicrotendipes sp. 1 1 0.67 1 0.0032 Eukiefferiella sp. 13 5 5 7.67 1 0.0372 Micropsectra/Tanytarsus sp. 5 4 24 11.00 1 0.0467 Microtendipes sp. 3 1.00 1 0.0036 Nanocladius sp. 1 1 0.67 1 0.0012 Pagastia sp. 1 5 2.00 1 0.0012 Parachironomus sp. 2 1 7 3.33 1 0.0162 Parametriocnemus sp. 1 2 2 1.67 1 0.0051 Paratanytarsus sp. 4 1.33 1 0.0049 Pentaneura sp. Phaenopsectra sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0014 Polypedilum sp. Potthastia sp. 1 8 12 7.00 1 0.0170 Rheocricotopus sp. Synorthocladius sp. Thienemanniella sp. Thienemannimyia group 5 1 2.00 1 0.0073 Tvetenia sp. 61 20 97 59.33 1 0.1800
Other Diptera Atherix pachypus Chelifera sp. 5 8 12 8.33 1 0.0303 Clinocera sp. 3 1.00 1 0.0036 Neoplasta sp. Wiedemannia sp. Pericoma sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0008 Simulium sp. 175 112 97 128.00 1 0.4660 Antocha sp. 3 4 2.33 1 0.0042 Hexatoma sp. Tipula sp. 2 0.67 1 0.0016
Coleoptera Cleptelmis addenda Heterlimnius corpulentus Optioservus sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0008 Zaitzevia parvula
Miscellaneous Atractides sp. Hygrobates sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0016 Lebertia sp. 7 10 13 10.00 1 0.0485 Protzia sp. Sperchon sp. 1 1 0.67 1 0.0032 Torrenticola sp. Caecidotea sp. 36 44 15 31.67 1 0.1537 Crangonyx sp. 10 1 10 7.00 1 0.0297 Hyalella azteca 1 2 1.00 1 0.0049 Gyraulus sp. 2 0.67 1 0.0032 Lymnaeidae 2 0.67 1 0.0032 Physa sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0016 Pisidium sp. Dugesia sp. Polycelis coronata 41 41 40 40.67 1 0.0247 Enchytraeidae Lumbricidae 120 161 175 152.00 1 0.9223 Naididae Nematoda 14 4.67 1 0.0142
Totals 1735 1444 1765 1648.00 51 3.53
______Biomonitoring Summary Report Appendix Page C-9 Timberline Aquatics, Inc. 17 August 2016 Table C5. Macroinvertebrate data collected from site CR-WGU on 10 Sept 2015. Colorado River CR-WGU Sample Mean Count HBI 10 Sept. 2015 1 2 3
Ephemeroptera Ameletus sp. Acentrella sp. Baetis (tricaudatus) 61 54 122 79.00 1 0.3594 Diphetor hageni Attenella margarita Drunella doddsii Drunella grandis Ephemerella dorothea infrequens 478 414 573 488.33 1 0.4443 Cinygmula sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0012 Epeorus sp. 1 1 1 1.00 1 0.0000 Rhithrogena sp. 3 10 16 9.67 1 0.0000 Tricorythodes explicatus Paraleptophlebia sp. 44 16 42 34.00 1 0.0619
Plecoptera Capniidae Paracapnia angulata 2 3 5 3.33 1 0.0030 Paraperla frontalis Sweltsa sp. Triznaka sp. 5 7 15 9.00 1 0.0082 Zapada cinctipes Zapada oregonensis Claassenia sabulosa 23 38 14 25.00 1 0.0682 Hesperoperla pacifica Perlodidae 1 3 1.33 1 0.0024 Diura knowltoni Isoperla fulva 5 10 20 11.67 1 0.0212 Isoperla sp. Skwala americana 10 2 2 4.67 1 0.0085 Pteronarcys californica Taenionema sp.
Trichoptera Brachycentrus americanus 2 0.67 1 0.0006 Brachycentrus occidentalis 37 17 30 28.00 1 0.0255 Micrasema sp. Culoptila sp. Glossosoma sp. 37 46 35 39.33 1 0.0000 Protoptila sp. Arctopsyche grandis 3 1 8 4.00 1 0.0073 Ceratopsyche morosa Hydropsyche cockerelli 146 109 198 151.00 1 0.5496 Hydropsyche oslari Agraylea multipunctata Hydroptila sp. Leucotrichia pictipes Lepidostoma sp. 73 172 51 98.67 1 0.3591 Ceraclea sp. Oecetis sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0024 Dolophilodes sp. Psychomyia flavida Rhyacophila brunnea Rhyacophila coloradensis Rhyacophila sibirica group
______Biomonitoring Summary Report Appendix Page C-10 Timberline Aquatics, Inc. 17 August 2016 Table C5 cont. Macroinvertebrate data collected from site CR-WGU on 10 Sept 2015. Diptera Chironomidae Cardiocladius sp. 1 1 1 1.00 1 0.0045 Cricotopus/Orthocladius sp. 5 10 12 9.00 1 0.0491 Cricotopus nostocicola 10 3.33 1 0.0212 Diamesa sp. Dicrotendipes sp. Eukiefferiella sp. 6 6 5 5.67 1 0.0412 Micropsectra/Tanytarsus sp. 4 1.33 1 0.0085 Microtendipes sp. 3 2 1 2.00 1 0.0109 Nanocladius sp. Pagastia sp. 2 4 3 3.00 1 0.0027 Parachironomus sp. 2 0.67 1 0.0049 Parametriocnemus sp. 1 2 1.00 1 0.0045 Paratanytarsus sp. Pentaneura sp. Phaenopsectra sp. Polypedilum sp. Potthastia sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0012 Rheocricotopus sp. Synorthocladius sp. 1 3 1.33 1 0.0024 Thienemanniella sp. Thienemannimyia group 1 3 1.33 1 0.0073 Tvetenia sp. 14 15 15 14.67 1 0.0667
Other Diptera Atherix pachypus Chelifera sp. Clinocera sp. Neoplasta sp. 7 5 5 5.67 1 0.0309 Wiedemannia sp. Pericoma sp. Simulium sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0018 Antocha sp. 1 2 1.00 1 0.0027 Hexatoma sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0006 Tipula sp.
Coleoptera Cleptelmis addenda Heterlimnius corpulentus Optioservus sp. 39 43 77 53.00 1 0.1929 Zaitzevia parvula
Miscellaneous Atractides sp. Hygrobates sp. Lebertia sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0024 Protzia sp. Sperchon sp. 3 5 2 3.33 1 0.0243 Torrenticola sp. Caecidotea sp. Crangonyx sp. Hyalella azteca Gyraulus sp. 1 1 0.67 1 0.0049 Lymnaeidae Physa sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0024 Pisidium sp. Dugesia sp. Polycelis coronata Enchytraeidae Lumbricidae Naididae Nematoda
Totals 1020 996 1281 1099.00 41 2.41
______Biomonitoring Summary Report Appendix Page C-11 Timberline Aquatics, Inc. 17 August 2016 Table C6. Macroinvertebrate data collected from site FR-WGU on 10 Sept 2015. Fraser River FR-WGU Sample Mean Count HBI 10 Sept. 2015 1 2 3
Ephemeroptera Ameletus sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0000 Acentrella sp. 2 5 10 5.67 1 0.0180 Baetis (tricaudatus) 58 72 100 76.67 1 0.3038 Diphetor hageni 2 1 1.00 1 0.0040 Attenella margarita 1 0.33 1 0.0008 Drunella doddsii Drunella grandis 3 1.00 1 0.0000 Ephemerella dorothea infrequens 281 230 223 244.67 1 0.1939 Cinygmula sp. Epeorus sp. 10 1 2 4.33 1 0.0000 Rhithrogena sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0000 Tricorythodes explicatus 1 0.33 1 0.0011 Paraleptophlebia sp. 59 38 25 40.67 1 0.0644
Plecoptera Capniidae Paracapnia angulata 4 1 1.67 1 0.0013 Paraperla frontalis Sweltsa sp. Triznaka sp. 6 2.00 1 0.0016 Zapada cinctipes Zapada oregonensis Claassenia sabulosa 11 13 7 10.33 1 0.0246 Hesperoperla pacifica Perlodidae 21 16 18 18.33 1 0.0291 Diura knowltoni Isoperla fulva 4 3 2.33 1 0.0037 Isoperla sp. Skwala americana 12 2 6 6.67 1 0.0106 Pteronarcys californica Taenionema sp.
Trichoptera Brachycentrus americanus 3 13 19 11.67 1 0.0092 Brachycentrus occidentalis 3 1 1.33 1 0.0011 Micrasema sp. Culoptila sp. Glossosoma sp. 119 13 95 75.67 1 0.0000 Protoptila sp. 8 3 5 5.33 1 0.0042 Arctopsyche grandis 5 8 10 7.67 1 0.0122 Ceratopsyche morosa Hydropsyche cockerelli 175 131 172 159.33 1 0.5050 Hydropsyche oslari Agraylea multipunctata Hydroptila sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0016 Leucotrichia pictipes 1 0.33 1 0.0016 Lepidostoma sp. 221 70 108 133.00 1 0.4216 Ceraclea sp. Oecetis sp. 8 2.67 1 0.0169 Dolophilodes sp. Psychomyia flavida Rhyacophila brunnea Rhyacophila coloradensis Rhyacophila sibirica group
______Biomonitoring Summary Report Appendix Page C-12 Timberline Aquatics, Inc. 17 August 2016 Table C6 cont. Macroinvertebrate data collected from site FR-WGU on 10 Sept 2015. Diptera Chironomidae Cardiocladius sp. 3 4 18 8.33 1 0.0330 Cricotopus/Orthocladius sp. 83 193 84 120.00 1 0.5705 Cricotopus nostocicola 1 0.33 1 0.0018 Diamesa sp. Dicrotendipes sp. Eukiefferiella sp. 56 50 55 53.67 1 0.3402 Micropsectra/Tanytarsus sp. 1 1 0.67 1 0.0037 Microtendipes sp. 2 0.67 1 0.0032 Nanocladius sp. 2 1 1.00 1 0.0024 Pagastia sp. 7 3 2 4.00 1 0.0032 Parachironomus sp. Parametriocnemus sp. Paratanytarsus sp. Pentaneura sp. Phaenopsectra sp. Polypedilum sp. 2 2 1.33 1 0.0063 Potthastia sp. 16 23 21 20.00 1 0.0634 Rheocricotopus sp. 2 0.67 1 0.0032 Synorthocladius sp. 2 0.67 1 0.0011 Thienemanniella sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0016 Thienemannimyia group 1 2 1.00 1 0.0048 Tvetenia sp. 23 33 29 28.33 1 0.1123
Other Diptera Atherix pachypus 2 0.67 1 0.0011 Chelifera sp. Clinocera sp. 2 0.67 1 0.0032 Neoplasta sp. 2 0.67 1 0.0032 Wiedemannia sp. Pericoma sp. Simulium sp. Antocha sp. 3 3 2.00 1 0.0048 Hexatoma sp. Tipula sp.
Coleoptera Cleptelmis addenda Heterlimnius corpulentus Optioservus sp. 254 88 217 186.33 1 0.5906 Zaitzevia parvula 16 1 20 12.33 1 0.0391
Miscellaneous Atractides sp. Hygrobates sp. Lebertia sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0021 Protzia sp. Sperchon sp. 2 4 3 3.00 1 0.0190 Torrenticola sp. Caecidotea sp. Crangonyx sp. Hyalella azteca Gyraulus sp. Lymnaeidae Physa sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0021 Pisidium sp. Dugesia sp. Polycelis coronata Enchytraeidae Lumbricidae 1 1 0.67 1 0.0053 Naididae Nematoda
Totals 1488 1032 1266 1262.00 52 3.45
______Biomonitoring Summary Report Appendix Page C-13 Timberline Aquatics, Inc. 17 August 2016 Table C7. Macroinvertebrate data collected from site CR-WGD on 10 Sept 2015. Colorado River CR-WGD Sample Mean Count HBI 10 Sept. 2015 1 2 3
Ephemeroptera Ameletus sp. Acentrella sp. 1 1 1 1.00 1 0.0022 Baetis (tricaudatus) 317 327 487 377.00 1 1.0482 Diphetor hageni 2 0.67 1 0.0019 Attenella margarita Drunella doddsii Drunella grandis Ephemerella dorothea infrequens 770 728 911 803.00 1 0.4465 Cinygmula sp. Epeorus sp. 4 5 9 6.00 1 0.0000 Rhithrogena sp. 14 13 14 13.67 1 0.0000 Tricorythodes explicatus Paraleptophlebia sp. 105 67 79 83.67 1 0.0930
Plecoptera Capniidae Paracapnia angulata Paraperla frontalis Sweltsa sp. Triznaka sp. 2 0.67 1 0.0004 Zapada cinctipes Zapada oregonensis Claassenia sabulosa 18 11 5 11.33 1 0.0189 Hesperoperla pacifica Perlodidae 6 3 5 4.67 1 0.0052 Diura knowltoni Isoperla fulva 12 1 15 9.33 1 0.0104 Isoperla sp. Skwala americana 1 1 1 1.00 1 0.0011 Pteronarcys californica Taenionema sp.
Trichoptera Brachycentrus americanus 37 19 24 26.67 1 0.0148 Brachycentrus occidentalis 3 1.00 1 0.0006 Micrasema sp. Culoptila sp. 8 11 18 12.33 1 0.0000 Glossosoma sp. 2 2 4 2.67 1 0.0000 Protoptila sp. Arctopsyche grandis 1 2 1 1.33 1 0.0015 Ceratopsyche morosa Hydropsyche cockerelli 224 90 98 137.33 1 0.3055 Hydropsyche oslari Agraylea multipunctata Hydroptila sp. Leucotrichia pictipes Lepidostoma sp. 62 86 84 77.33 1 0.1720 Ceraclea sp. 1 2 1.00 1 0.0028 Oecetis sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0015 Dolophilodes sp. Psychomyia flavida 1 0.33 1 0.0004 Rhyacophila brunnea Rhyacophila coloradensis Rhyacophila sibirica group
______Biomonitoring Summary Report Appendix Page C-14 Timberline Aquatics, Inc. 17 August 2016 Table C7 cont. Macroinvertebrate data collected from site CR-WGD on 10 Sept 2015. Diptera Chironomidae Cardiocladius sp. 4 5 4 4.33 1 0.0120 Cricotopus/Orthocladius sp. 27 60 52 46.33 1 0.1546 Cricotopus nostocicola 16 10 15 13.67 1 0.0532 Diamesa sp. Dicrotendipes sp. Eukiefferiella sp. 35 41 39 38.33 1 0.1705 Micropsectra/Tanytarsus sp. 2 1 1.00 1 0.0039 Microtendipes sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0011 Nanocladius sp. Pagastia sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0002 Parachironomus sp. Parametriocnemus sp. 3 1.00 1 0.0028 Paratanytarsus sp. Pentaneura sp. 1 1 0.67 1 0.0022 Phaenopsectra sp. Polypedilum sp. Potthastia sp. Rheocricotopus sp. 2 0.67 1 0.0022 Synorthocladius sp. Thienemanniella sp. Thienemannimyia group 3 3 2 2.67 1 0.0089 Tvetenia sp. 33 11 8 17.33 1 0.0482
Other Diptera Atherix pachypus 28 20 16 21.33 1 0.0237 Chelifera sp. 2 1 1.00 1 0.0033 Clinocera sp. 1 1 0.67 1 0.0022 Neoplasta sp. 3 1.00 1 0.0033 Wiedemannia sp. Pericoma sp. Simulium sp. 7 1 5 4.33 1 0.0145 Antocha sp. 6 2 2.67 1 0.0044 Hexatoma sp. Tipula sp.
Coleoptera Cleptelmis addenda Heterlimnius corpulentus Optioservus sp. 74 52 55 60.33 1 0.1342 Zaitzevia parvula 7 1 1 3.00 1 0.0067
Miscellaneous Atractides sp. Hygrobates sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0015 Lebertia sp. Protzia sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0015 Sperchon sp. 2 2 1 1.67 1 0.0074 Torrenticola sp. Caecidotea sp. 1 1 0.67 1 0.0030 Crangonyx sp. Hyalella azteca Gyraulus sp. Lymnaeidae Physa sp. 2 0.67 1 0.0030 Pisidium sp. Dugesia sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0007 Polycelis coronata Enchytraeidae Lumbricidae Naididae 1 2 1.00 1 0.0056 Nematoda
Totals 1829 1592 1974 1798.33 49 2.80
______Biomonitoring Summary Report Appendix Page C-15 Timberline Aquatics, Inc. 17 August 2016 Table C8. Macroinvertebrate data collected from site CR-WGD (SQ sample) on 10 Sept 2015. Colorado River CR-WGD SemiQ Total Count HBI 10 Sept. 2015 SemiQ 100%
Ephemeroptera Ameletus sp. Acentrella sp. Baetis (tricaudatus) 70 70 1 0.8333 Diphetor hageni Attenella margarita Drunella doddsii Drunella grandis Ephemerella dorothea infrequens 221 221 1 0.5262 Cinygmula sp. Epeorus sp. Rhithrogena sp. 1 1 1 0.0000 Tricorythodes explicatus Paraleptophlebia sp. 35 35 1 0.1667
Plecoptera Capniidae Paracapnia angulata Paraperla frontalis Sweltsa sp. Triznaka sp. Zapada cinctipes Zapada oregonensis Claassenia sabulosa 1 1 1 0.0071 Hesperoperla pacifica Perlodidae 1 1 1 0.0048 Diura knowltoni Isoperla fulva Isoperla sp. 7 7 1 0.0333 Skwala americana 1 1 1 0.0048 Pteronarcys californica 1 1 1 0.0000 Taenionema sp.
Trichoptera Brachycentrus americanus 1 1 1 0.0024 Brachycentrus occidentalis Micrasema sp. Culoptila sp. 1 1 1 0.0000 Glossosoma sp. Protoptila sp. Arctopsyche grandis 1 1 1 0.0048 Ceratopsyche morosa Hydropsyche cockerelli 27 27 1 0.2571 Hydropsyche oslari 1 1 1 0.0095 Agraylea multipunctata Hydroptila sp. Leucotrichia pictipes Lepidostoma sp. 3 3 1 0.0286 Ceraclea sp. Oecetis sp. Dolophilodes sp. Psychomyia flavida Rhyacophila brunnea Rhyacophila coloradensis Rhyacophila sibirica group
______Biomonitoring Summary Report Appendix Page C-16 Timberline Aquatics, Inc. 17 August 2016 Table C8 cont. Macroinvertebrate data collected from site CR-WGD Semi-Q on 10 Sept 2015. Diptera Chironomidae Cardiocladius sp. Cricotopus/Orthocladius sp. 8 8 1 0.1143 Cricotopus nostocicola Diamesa sp. Dicrotendipes sp. Eukiefferiella sp. 7 7 1 0.1333 Micropsectra/Tanytarsus sp. Microtendipes sp. Nanocladius sp. Pagastia sp. Parachironomus sp. Parametriocnemus sp. 1 1 1 0.0119 Paratanytarsus sp. Pentaneura sp. Phaenopsectra sp. Polypedilum sp. Potthastia sp. Rheocricotopus sp. Synorthocladius sp. Thienemanniella sp. Thienemannimyia group 1 1 1 0.0143 Tvetenia sp. 9 9 1 0.1071
Other Diptera Atherix pachypus 5 5 1 0.0238 Chelifera sp. Clinocera sp. Neoplasta sp. Wiedemannia sp. Pericoma sp. Simulium sp. 1 1 1 0.0143 Antocha sp. Hexatoma sp. Tipula sp.
Coleoptera Cleptelmis addenda Heterlimnius corpulentus Optioservus sp. 12 12 1 0.1143 Zaitzevia parvula 1 1 1 0.0095
Miscellaneous Atractides sp. Hygrobates sp. Lebertia sp. Protzia sp. 1 1 1 0.0190 Sperchon sp. 1 1 1 0.0190 Torrenticola sp. Caecidotea sp. Crangonyx sp. Hyalella azteca Gyraulus sp. Lymnaeidae Physa sp. Pisidium sp. Dugesia sp. Polycelis coronata Enchytraeidae Lumbricidae 1 1 1 0.0238 Naididae Nematoda
Totals 415 5 420 27 2.48
______Biomonitoring Summary Report Appendix Page C-17 Timberline Aquatics, Inc. 17 August 2016
Appendix D
East Slope Benthic Macroinvertebrate Data Fall 2015
______Biomonitoring Summary Report Appendix Page D-1 Timberline Aquatics, Inc. 17 August 2016 Table D1. Macroinvertebrate data collected from site HSC-PRU on 22 Sept 2015.
Poudre River HSC-PRU Sample Mean Count HBI
22 Sept. 2015 1 2 3
Ephemeroptera Ameletus sp. Acentrella insignificans 1 0.33 1 0.0053 Baetis flavistriga Baetis notos Baetis tricaudatus 4 13 9 8.67 1 0.1733 Diphetor hageni Fallceon quilleri Drunella doddsii Drunella grandis 1 2 1.00 1 0.0000 Ephemerella dorothea infrequens 55 88 46 63.00 1 0.2520 Epeorus sp. 5 1.67 1 0.0000 Heptagenia sp. 2 15 3 6.67 1 0.1067 Rhithrogena sp. 1 1 1 1.00 1 0.0000 Tricorythodes explicatus Paraleptophlebia sp. 6 9 19 11.33 1 0.0907
Plecoptera Capniidae 1 0.33 1 0.0013 Triznaka sp. 1 2 1.00 1 0.0040 Zapada cinctipes 1 0.33 1 0.0027 Claassenia sabulosa 1 2 1.00 1 0.0120 Perlodidae 5 10 3 6.00 1 0.0480 Isoperla fulva Isoperla sp. Skwala americana 1 0.33 1 0.0027 Pteronarcys sp. 5 1.67 1 0.0000 Taenionema sp. 1 1 0.67 1 0.0053
Trichoptera Brachycentrus americanus Brachycentrus occidentalis 10 16 5 10.33 1 0.0413 Culoptila sp. 2 0.67 1 0.0000 Glossosoma sp. 2 2 1 1.67 1 0.0000 Arctopsyche grandis 1 0.33 1 0.0027 Ceratopsyche morosa Cheumatopsyche sp. Hydropsyche cockerelli 3 1.00 1 0.0160 Hydropsyche occidentalis 13 84 35 44.00 1 0.7040 Hydropsyche oslari 2 0.67 1 0.0107 Hydroptila sp. Lepidostoma sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0053 Oecetis sp. Rhyacophila coloradensis
______Biomonitoring Summary Report Appendix Page D-2 Timberline Aquatics, Inc. 17 August 2016 Table D1 cont. Macroinvertebrate data collected from site HSC-PRU on 22 Sept 2015.
Diptera Chironomidae Brillia sp. Cardiocladius sp. Cladotanytarsus sp. Corynoneura sp. Cricotopus/Orthocladius sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0080 Diamesa sp. Dicrotendipes sp. Eukiefferiella sp. 4 1 1.67 1 0.0533 Micropsectra sp. Microtendipes sp. Nanocladius sp. Pagastia sp. Paracladopelma sp. Parametriocnemus sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0067 Polypedilum sp. Potthastia sp. Rheocricotopus sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0080 Rheotanytarsus sp. Synorthocladius sp. 1 1 0.67 1 0.0053 Thienemanniella sp. Thienemanniella xena Thienemannimyia group Tvetenia sp.
Other Diptera Atherix pachypus 1 13 7 7.00 1 0.0560 Ceratopogoninae Chelifera sp. Hemerodromia sp. Wiedemannia sp. Simulium sp. 4 5 5 4.67 1 0.1120 Hexatoma sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0027
Coleoptera Narpus concolor 2 0.67 1 0.0107 Optioservus sp. 19 54 62 45.00 1 0.7200 Zaitzevia parvula 5 6 17 9.33 1 0.1493
Miscellaneous Lebertia sp. 1 1 0.67 1 0.0213 Sperchon sp. 8 19 15 14.00 1 0.4480 Gammarus sp. Gyraulus sp. Physa sp. Dugesia sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0053 Polycelis coronata Lumbricidae Naididae Nematoda 2 0.67 1 0.0133
Totals 149 359 242 250.00 39 3.10
______Biomonitoring Summary Report Appendix Page D-3 Timberline Aquatics, Inc. 17 August 2016 Table D2. Macroinvertebrate data collected from site HSC-PRD on 22 Sept 2015.
Poudre River HSC-PRD Sample Mean Count HBI
22 Sept. 2015 1 2 3
Ephemeroptera Ameletus sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0000 Acentrella insignificans 2 7 12 7.00 1 0.0679 Baetis flavistriga Baetis notos Baetis tricaudatus 36 62 19 39.00 1 0.4729 Diphetor hageni Fallceon quilleri Drunella doddsii 1 0.33 1 0.0000 Drunella grandis 5 7 6 6.00 1 0.0000 Ephemerella dorothea infrequens 72 86 97 85.00 1 0.2061 Epeorus sp. 3 1.00 1 0.0000 Heptagenia sp. 2 3 6 3.67 1 0.0356 Rhithrogena sp. 2 8 1 3.67 1 0.0000 Tricorythodes explicatus Paraleptophlebia sp. 2 1 1.00 1 0.0049
Plecoptera Capniidae 1 0.33 1 0.0008 Triznaka sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0008 Zapada cinctipes 1 1 3 1.67 1 0.0081 Claassenia sabulosa 1 5 5 3.67 1 0.0267 Perlodidae 1 2 1.00 1 0.0049 Isoperla fulva Isoperla sp. Skwala americana 1 3 1.33 1 0.0065 Pteronarcys sp. Taenionema sp.
Trichoptera Brachycentrus americanus 1 0.33 1 0.0008 Brachycentrus occidentalis 30 32 34 32.00 1 0.0776 Culoptila sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0000 Glossosoma sp. 2 5 4 3.67 1 0.0000 Arctopsyche grandis 8 17 6 10.33 1 0.0501 Ceratopsyche morosa Cheumatopsyche sp. Hydropsyche cockerelli 83 136 66 95.00 1 0.9216 Hydropsyche occidentalis 7 21 7 11.67 1 0.1132 Hydropsyche oslari 4 1.33 1 0.0129 Hydroptila sp. Lepidostoma sp. 1 1 0.67 1 0.0065 Oecetis sp. Rhyacophila coloradensis
______Biomonitoring Summary Report Appendix Page D-4 Timberline Aquatics, Inc. 17 August 2016 Table D2 cont. Macroinvertebrate data collected from site HSC-PRD on 22 Sept 2015.
Diptera Chironomidae Brillia sp. Cardiocladius sp. 5 2 2.33 1 0.0283 Cladotanytarsus sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0057 Corynoneura sp. Cricotopus/Orthocladius sp. 77 29 10 38.67 1 0.5627 Diamesa sp. Dicrotendipes sp. Eukiefferiella sp. 30 19 8 19.00 1 0.3686 Micropsectra sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0057 Microtendipes sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0049 Nanocladius sp. Pagastia sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0008 Paracladopelma sp. Parametriocnemus sp. 1 3 2 2.00 1 0.0243 Polypedilum sp. 5 1 2 2.67 1 0.0388 Potthastia sp. Rheocricotopus sp. Rheotanytarsus sp. 11 3.67 1 0.0534 Synorthocladius sp. 7 10 5.67 1 0.0275 Thienemanniella sp. Thienemanniella xena Thienemannimyia group Tvetenia sp. 1 1 0.67 1 0.0081
Other Diptera Atherix pachypus 3 12 5 6.67 1 0.0323 Ceratopogoninae Chelifera sp. Hemerodromia sp. Wiedemannia sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0049 Simulium sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0049 Hexatoma sp.
Coleoptera Narpus concolor Optioservus sp. 7 12 23 14.00 1 0.1358 Zaitzevia parvula 1 1 0.67 1 0.0065
Miscellaneous Lebertia sp. Sperchon sp. 3 4 2.33 1 0.0453 Gammarus sp. Gyraulus sp. 2 1 1.00 1 0.0194 Physa sp. Dugesia sp. Polycelis coronata Lumbricidae Naididae 1 0.33 1 0.0081 Nematoda
Totals 386 497 354 412.33 45 3.40
______Biomonitoring Summary Report Appendix Page D-5 Timberline Aquatics, Inc. 17 August 2016 Table D3. Macroinvertebrate data collected from site HFC-BTU on 22 Sept 2015.
Big Thompson HFC-BTU Sample Mean Count HBI
22 Sept. 2015 1 2 3
Ephemeroptera Ameletus sp. Acentrella insignificans 1 3 1.33 1 0.0255 Baetis flavistriga 19 13 8 13.33 1 0.3190 Baetis notos Baetis tricaudatus 63 43 81 62.33 1 1.4912 Diphetor hageni Fallceon quilleri Drunella doddsii Drunella grandis Ephemerella dorothea infrequens 44 24 83 50.33 1 0.2408 Epeorus sp. 3 1.00 1 0.0000 Heptagenia sp. 4 1.33 1 0.0255 Rhithrogena sp. Tricorythodes explicatus Paraleptophlebia sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0032
Plecoptera Capniidae Triznaka sp. Zapada cinctipes Claassenia sabulosa 1 0.33 1 0.0048 Perlodidae Isoperla fulva 1 0.33 1 0.0032 Isoperla sp. Skwala americana 7 4 3 4.67 1 0.0447 Pteronarcys sp. Taenionema sp.
Trichoptera Brachycentrus americanus Brachycentrus occidentalis Culoptila sp. Glossosoma sp. Arctopsyche grandis Ceratopsyche morosa Cheumatopsyche sp. Hydropsyche cockerelli 7 8 17 10.67 1 0.2041 Hydropsyche occidentalis 8 23 10.33 1 0.1978 Hydropsyche oslari 11 5 31 15.67 1 0.2998 Hydroptila sp. Lepidostoma sp. 4 3 4 3.67 1 0.0702 Oecetis sp. Rhyacophila coloradensis
______Biomonitoring Summary Report Appendix Page D-6 Timberline Aquatics, Inc. 17 August 2016 Table D3 cont. Macroinvertebrate data collected from site HFC-BTU on 22 Sept 2015.
Diptera Chironomidae Brillia sp. Cardiocladius sp. Cladotanytarsus sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0112 Corynoneura sp. Cricotopus/Orthocladius sp. 2 1 1 1.33 1 0.0383 Diamesa sp. Dicrotendipes sp. Eukiefferiella sp. 1 5 2.00 1 0.0766 Micropsectra sp. 1 1 0.67 1 0.0223 Microtendipes sp. 5 1.67 1 0.0478 Nanocladius sp. Pagastia sp. Paracladopelma sp. Parametriocnemus sp. 2 0.67 1 0.0159 Polypedilum sp. Potthastia sp. Rheocricotopus sp. Rheotanytarsus sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0096 Synorthocladius sp. 9 17 17 14.33 1 0.1372 Thienemanniella sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0096 Thienemanniella xena Thienemannimyia group 2 0.67 1 0.0191 Tvetenia sp.
Other Diptera Atherix pachypus 1 0.33 1 0.0032 Ceratopogoninae Chelifera sp. Hemerodromia sp. Wiedemannia sp. Simulium sp. 2 4 2.00 1 0.0574 Hexatoma sp.
Coleoptera Narpus concolor Optioservus sp. 3 4 2 3.00 1 0.0574 Zaitzevia parvula
Miscellaneous Lebertia sp. Sperchon sp. 9 6 2 5.67 1 0.2169 Gammarus sp. Gyraulus sp. Physa sp. Dugesia sp. Polycelis coronata Lumbricidae Naididae Nematoda
Totals 192 137 298 209.00 28 3.65
______Biomonitoring Summary Report Appendix Page D-7 Timberline Aquatics, Inc. 17 August 2016 Table D4. Macroinvertebrate data collected from site HFC-BTD on 22 Sept 2015.
Big Thompson HFC-BTD Sample Mean Count HBI
22 Sept. 2015 1 2 3
Ephemeroptera Ameletus sp. Acentrella insignificans 3 2 4 3.00 1 0.0182 Baetis flavistriga 2 1 3 2.00 1 0.0152 Baetis notos Baetis tricaudatus 63 57 93 71.00 1 0.5382 Diphetor hageni Fallceon quilleri Drunella doddsii Drunella grandis Ephemerella dorothea infrequens 145 95 233 157.67 1 0.2390 Epeorus sp. 5 3 9 5.67 1 0.0000 Heptagenia sp. 6 1 17 8.00 1 0.0485 Rhithrogena sp. Tricorythodes explicatus 2 0.67 1 0.0040 Paraleptophlebia sp. 3 1 2 2.00 1 0.0061
Plecoptera Capniidae Triznaka sp. Zapada cinctipes 2 0.67 1 0.0020 Claassenia sabulosa 2 2 6 3.33 1 0.0152 Perlodidae 2 0.67 1 0.0020 Isoperla fulva 2 1 1.00 1 0.0030 Isoperla sp. 2 0.67 1 0.0020 Skwala americana 6 6 10 7.33 1 0.0222 Pteronarcys sp. Taenionema sp.
Trichoptera Brachycentrus americanus 1 0.33 1 0.0005 Brachycentrus occidentalis Culoptila sp. Glossosoma sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0000 Arctopsyche grandis Ceratopsyche morosa Cheumatopsyche sp. 3 1.00 1 0.0076 Hydropsyche cockerelli 46 52 111 69.67 1 0.4224 Hydropsyche occidentalis 111 121 241 157.67 1 0.9560 Hydropsyche oslari 88 77 103 89.33 1 0.5417 Hydroptila sp. Lepidostoma sp. 5 3 7 5.00 1 0.0303 Oecetis sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0040 Rhyacophila coloradensis
______Biomonitoring Summary Report Appendix Page D-8 Timberline Aquatics, Inc. 17 August 2016 Table D4 cont. Macroinvertebrate data collected from site HFC-BTD on 22 Sept 2015.
Diptera Chironomidae Brillia sp. Cardiocladius sp. 1 3 1.33 1 0.0101 Cladotanytarsus sp. Corynoneura sp. Cricotopus/Orthocladius sp. 3 1 5 3.00 1 0.0273 Diamesa sp. Dicrotendipes sp. Eukiefferiella sp. 15 12 13 13.33 1 0.1617 Micropsectra sp. 1 1 0.67 1 0.0071 Microtendipes sp. Nanocladius sp. 1 5 2.00 1 0.0091 Pagastia sp. 1 1 0.67 1 0.0010 Paracladopelma sp. 1 1 0.67 1 0.0051 Parametriocnemus sp. 3 3 9 5.00 1 0.0379 Polypedilum sp. 1 1 1 1.00 1 0.0091 Potthastia sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0020 Rheocricotopus sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0030 Rheotanytarsus sp. Synorthocladius sp. 2 2 1.33 1 0.0040 Thienemanniella sp. Thienemanniella xena Thienemannimyia group Tvetenia sp. 5 5 27 12.33 1 0.0935
Other Diptera Atherix pachypus 2 0.67 1 0.0020 Ceratopogoninae Chelifera sp. Hemerodromia sp. Wiedemannia sp. Simulium sp. 6 10 37 17.67 1 0.1607 Hexatoma sp.
Coleoptera Narpus concolor Optioservus sp. 8 2 3 4.33 1 0.0263 Zaitzevia parvula
Miscellaneous Lebertia sp. Sperchon sp. 8 2 6 5.33 1 0.0647 Gammarus sp. Gyraulus sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0040 Physa sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0040 Dugesia sp. Polycelis coronata 2 1 1.00 1 0.0015 Lumbricidae 2 0.67 1 0.0101 Naididae Nematoda
Totals 551 469 959 659.67 43 3.52
______Biomonitoring Summary Report Appendix Page D-9 Timberline Aquatics, Inc. 17 August 2016 Table D5. Macroinvertebrate data collected from site SVSC-LTU on 22 Sept 2015.
Little Thompson SVSC-LTU Sample Mean Count HBI
22 Sept. 2015 1 2 3
Ephemeroptera Ameletus sp. Acentrella insignificans 41 193 99 111.00 1 0.7127 Baetis flavistriga 1 0.33 1 0.0027 Baetis notos 2 2 1.33 1 0.0107 Baetis tricaudatus 7 44 6 19.00 1 0.1525 Diphetor hageni Fallceon quilleri 19 78 91 62.67 1 0.5029 Drunella doddsii Drunella grandis Ephemerella dorothea infrequens 1 0.33 1 0.0005 Epeorus sp. Heptagenia sp. 3 1 2 2.00 1 0.0128 Rhithrogena sp. Tricorythodes explicatus 6 1 8 5.00 1 0.0321 Paraleptophlebia sp. 1 3 1.33 1 0.0043
Plecoptera Capniidae 4 7 3 4.67 1 0.0075 Triznaka sp. Zapada cinctipes Claassenia sabulosa Perlodidae Isoperla fulva Isoperla sp. Skwala americana 2 4 3 3.00 1 0.0096 Pteronarcys sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0000 Taenionema sp.
Trichoptera Brachycentrus americanus Brachycentrus occidentalis Culoptila sp. Glossosoma sp. Arctopsyche grandis Ceratopsyche morosa 9 34 17 20.00 1 0.0642 Cheumatopsyche sp. 3 2 2 2.33 1 0.0187 Hydropsyche cockerelli Hydropsyche occidentalis 53 218 34 101.67 1 0.6528 Hydropsyche oslari 1 0.33 1 0.0021 Hydroptila sp. 6 3 1 3.33 1 0.0321 Lepidostoma sp. Oecetis sp. Rhyacophila coloradensis
______Biomonitoring Summary Report Appendix Page D-10 Timberline Aquatics, Inc. 17 August 2016 Table D5 cont. Macroinvertebrate data collected from site SVSC-LTU on 22 Sept 2015.
Diptera Chironomidae Brillia sp. Cardiocladius sp. 19 30 6 18.33 1 0.1471 Cladotanytarsus sp. 3 1.00 1 0.0112 Corynoneura sp. Cricotopus/Orthocladius sp. 194 249 100 181.00 1 1.7432 Diamesa sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0027 Dicrotendipes sp. Eukiefferiella sp. 31 64 4 33.00 1 0.4238 Micropsectra sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0037 Microtendipes sp. Nanocladius sp. Pagastia sp. Paracladopelma sp. Parametriocnemus sp. 2 0.67 1 0.0054 Polypedilum sp. 2 2 1.33 1 0.0128 Potthastia sp. Rheocricotopus sp. 7 10 1 6.00 1 0.0578 Rheotanytarsus sp. 1 3 1.33 1 0.0128 Synorthocladius sp. Thienemanniella sp. 2 4 5 3.67 1 0.0353 Thienemanniella xena Thienemannimyia group Tvetenia sp.
Other Diptera Atherix pachypus Ceratopogoninae 1 1 0.67 1 0.0064 Chelifera sp. Hemerodromia sp. 2 2 1.33 1 0.0128 Wiedemannia sp. Simulium sp. 2 62 15 26.33 1 0.2536 Hexatoma sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0011
Coleoptera Narpus concolor Optioservus sp. Zaitzevia parvula
Miscellaneous Lebertia sp. 1 11 3 5.00 1 0.0642 Sperchon sp. 11 3.67 1 0.0471 Gammarus sp. Gyraulus sp. Physa sp. Dugesia sp. Polycelis coronata Lumbricidae Naididae Nematoda
Totals 430 1028 411 623.00 34 5.06
______Biomonitoring Summary Report Appendix Page D-11 Timberline Aquatics, Inc. 17 August 2016 Table D6. Macroinvertebrate data collected from site SVSC-LTD on 22 Sept 2015.
Little Thompson SVSC-LTD Sample Mean Count HBI
22 Sept. 2015 1 2 3
Ephemeroptera Ameletus sp. Acentrella insignificans 207 509 650 455.33 1 1.7075 Baetis flavistriga 2 0.67 1 0.0031 Baetis notos 7 4 3.67 1 0.0172 Baetis tricaudatus 1 55 86 47.33 1 0.2219 Diphetor hageni Fallceon quilleri 125 166 135 142.00 1 0.6656 Drunella doddsii Drunella grandis Ephemerella dorothea infrequens 1 0.33 1 0.0003 Epeorus sp. Heptagenia sp. 2 2 1.33 1 0.0050 Rhithrogena sp. Tricorythodes explicatus 4 1 1.67 1 0.0063 Paraleptophlebia sp. 2 0.67 1 0.0013
Plecoptera Capniidae 11 126 61 66.00 1 0.0619 Triznaka sp. Zapada cinctipes Claassenia sabulosa Perlodidae Isoperla fulva Isoperla sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0006 Skwala americana 3 1.00 1 0.0019 Pteronarcys sp. Taenionema sp.
Trichoptera Brachycentrus americanus Brachycentrus occidentalis Culoptila sp. Glossosoma sp. Arctopsyche grandis Ceratopsyche morosa 6 6 8 6.67 1 0.0125 Cheumatopsyche sp. 5 9 4 6.00 1 0.0281 Hydropsyche cockerelli Hydropsyche occidentalis 93 322 233 216.00 1 0.8100 Hydropsyche oslari Hydroptila sp. Lepidostoma sp. Oecetis sp. Rhyacophila coloradensis
______Biomonitoring Summary Report Appendix Page D-12 Timberline Aquatics, Inc. 17 August 2016 Table D6 cont. Macroinvertebrate data collected from site SVSC-LTD on 22 Sept 2015.
Diptera Chironomidae Brillia sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0019 Cardiocladius sp. 6 1 2.33 1 0.0109 Cladotanytarsus sp. 2 0.67 1 0.0044 Corynoneura sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0022 Cricotopus/Orthocladius sp. 4 1 3 2.67 1 0.0150 Diamesa sp. Dicrotendipes sp. Eukiefferiella sp. 3 5 6 4.67 1 0.0350 Micropsectra sp. Microtendipes sp. Nanocladius sp. Pagastia sp. Paracladopelma sp. Parametriocnemus sp. 1 4 7 4.00 1 0.0188 Polypedilum sp. 4 4 2.67 1 0.0150 Potthastia sp. Rheocricotopus sp. 2 4 11 5.67 1 0.0319 Rheotanytarsus sp. 5 3 3 3.67 1 0.0206 Synorthocladius sp. Thienemanniella sp. Thienemanniella xena Thienemannimyia group Tvetenia sp. 2 7 3 4.00 1 0.0188
Other Diptera Atherix pachypus Ceratopogoninae Chelifera sp. Hemerodromia sp. 2 1 1.00 1 0.0056 Wiedemannia sp. Simulium sp. 3 166 69 79.33 1 0.4463 Hexatoma sp. 6 2.00 1 0.0038
Coleoptera Narpus concolor Optioservus sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0013 Zaitzevia parvula 1 0.33 1 0.0013
Miscellaneous Lebertia sp. Sperchon sp. 3 4 3 3.33 1 0.0250 Gammarus sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0013 Gyraulus sp. Physa sp. Dugesia sp. Polycelis coronata Lumbricidae Naididae Nematoda
Totals 504 1407 1289 1066.67 33 4.20
______Biomonitoring Summary Report Appendix Page D-13 Timberline Aquatics, Inc. 17 August 2016 Table D7. Macroinvertebrate data collected from site SVSC-SVU on 22 Sept 2015.
St. Vrain SVSC-SVU Sample Mean Count HBI
22 Sept. 2015 1 2 3
Ephemeroptera Ameletus sp. Acentrella insignificans 8 3 13 8.00 1 0.0850 Baetis flavistriga 1 0.33 1 0.0044 Baetis notos Baetis tricaudatus 90 71 64 75.00 1 0.9965 Diphetor hageni Fallceon quilleri 1 0.33 1 0.0044 Drunella doddsii 1 0.33 1 0.0000 Drunella grandis Ephemerella dorothea infrequens 29 107 47 61.00 1 0.1621 Epeorus sp. 6 1 2.33 1 0.0000 Heptagenia sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0035 Rhithrogena sp. 1 1 0.67 1 0.0000 Tricorythodes explicatus Paraleptophlebia sp. 1 11 1 4.33 1 0.0230
Plecoptera Capniidae Triznaka sp. Zapada cinctipes 2 0.67 1 0.0035 Claassenia sabulosa 2 8 7 5.67 1 0.0452 Perlodidae Isoperla fulva 4 2 2.00 1 0.0106 Isoperla sp. Skwala americana 1 1 0.67 1 0.0035 Pteronarcys sp. Taenionema sp.
Trichoptera Brachycentrus americanus 4 11 5.00 1 0.0133 Brachycentrus occidentalis Culoptila sp. 1 1 0.67 1 0.0000 Glossosoma sp. Arctopsyche grandis 2 9 3 4.67 1 0.0248 Ceratopsyche morosa Cheumatopsyche sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0044 Hydropsyche cockerelli 11 35 29 25.00 1 0.2657 Hydropsyche occidentalis 72 110 55 79.00 1 0.8397 Hydropsyche oslari 20 35 18 24.33 1 0.2586 Hydroptila sp. Lepidostoma sp. 16 1 5.67 1 0.0602 Oecetis sp. Rhyacophila coloradensis 1 0.33 1 0.0000
______Biomonitoring Summary Report Appendix Page D-14 Timberline Aquatics, Inc. 17 August 2016 Table D7 cont. Macroinvertebrate data collected from site SVSC-SVU on 22 Sept 2015.
Diptera Chironomidae Brillia sp. Cardiocladius sp. 7 4 2 4.33 1 0.0576 Cladotanytarsus sp. Corynoneura sp. Cricotopus/Orthocladius sp. 1 2 1.00 1 0.0159 Diamesa sp. Dicrotendipes sp. Eukiefferiella sp. 6 2 3 3.67 1 0.0779 Micropsectra sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0062 Microtendipes sp. Nanocladius sp. Pagastia sp. 1 1 1 1.00 1 0.0027 Paracladopelma sp. Parametriocnemus sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0044 Polypedilum sp. Potthastia sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0035 Rheocricotopus sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0053 Rheotanytarsus sp. Synorthocladius sp. 2 1 1.00 1 0.0053 Thienemanniella sp. Thienemanniella xena 1 0.33 1 0.0053 Thienemannimyia group 1 0.33 1 0.0053 Tvetenia sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0044
Other Diptera Atherix pachypus 1 0.33 1 0.0018 Ceratopogoninae Chelifera sp. Hemerodromia sp. Wiedemannia sp. Simulium sp. 93 16 8 39.00 1 0.6218 Hexatoma sp.
Coleoptera Narpus concolor Optioservus sp. 7 13 12 10.67 1 0.1134 Zaitzevia parvula 2 2 2 2.00 1 0.0213
Miscellaneous Lebertia sp. Sperchon sp. 1 11 1 4.33 1 0.0921 Gammarus sp. Gyraulus sp. Physa sp. Dugesia sp. Polycelis coronata Lumbricidae Naididae Nematoda
Totals 359 492 278 376.33 40 3.85
______Biomonitoring Summary Report Appendix Page D-15 Timberline Aquatics, Inc. 17 August 2016 Table D8. Macroinvertebrate data collected from site SVSC-SVD on 22 Sept 2015.
St. Vrain SVSC-SVD Sample Mean Count HBI
22 Sept. 2015 1 2 3
Ephemeroptera Ameletus sp. Acentrella insignificans 39 12 6 19.00 1 0.2190 Baetis flavistriga 2 6 13 7.00 1 0.1009 Baetis notos Baetis tricaudatus 19 54 46 39.67 1 0.5716 Diphetor hageni 1 0.33 1 0.0048 Fallceon quilleri 4 3 2.33 1 0.0336 Drunella doddsii Drunella grandis 1 1 1 1.00 1 0.0000 Ephemerella dorothea infrequens 38 65 98 67.00 1 0.1931 Epeorus sp. Heptagenia sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0038 Rhithrogena sp. 1 1 1 1.00 1 0.0000 Tricorythodes explicatus 3 8 3.67 1 0.0423 Paraleptophlebia sp. 9 17 12 12.67 1 0.0730
Plecoptera Capniidae 1 0.33 1 0.0010 Triznaka sp. Zapada cinctipes 1 0.33 1 0.0019 Claassenia sabulosa 6 3 3.00 1 0.0259 Perlodidae Isoperla fulva Isoperla sp. Skwala americana 3 7 3.33 1 0.0192 Pteronarcys sp. Taenionema sp.
Trichoptera Brachycentrus americanus 1 4 6 3.67 1 0.0106 Brachycentrus occidentalis Culoptila sp. Glossosoma sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0000 Arctopsyche grandis 1 1 0.67 1 0.0038 Ceratopsyche morosa 1 0.33 1 0.0019 Cheumatopsyche sp. Hydropsyche cockerelli 12 40 57 36.33 1 0.4188 Hydropsyche occidentalis 46 47 89 60.67 1 0.6993 Hydropsyche oslari 10 10 19 13.00 1 0.1499 Hydroptila sp. Lepidostoma sp. 5 5 17 9.00 1 0.1037 Oecetis sp. Rhyacophila coloradensis
______Biomonitoring Summary Report Appendix Page D-16 Timberline Aquatics, Inc. 17 August 2016 Table D8 cont. Macroinvertebrate data collected from site SVSC-SVD on 22 Sept 2015.
Diptera Chironomidae Brillia sp. Cardiocladius sp. Cladotanytarsus sp. Corynoneura sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0067 Cricotopus/Orthocladius sp. 1 5 8 4.67 1 0.0807 Diamesa sp. Dicrotendipes sp. 1 1 0.67 1 0.0154 Eukiefferiella sp. 6 5 3 4.67 1 0.1076 Micropsectra sp. 3 1 5 3.00 1 0.0605 Microtendipes sp. 13 4.33 1 0.0749 Nanocladius sp. Pagastia sp. Paracladopelma sp. Parametriocnemus sp. 2 6 20 9.33 1 0.1345 Polypedilum sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0058 Potthastia sp. 1 2 3 2.00 1 0.0231 Rheocricotopus sp. 3 1 1.33 1 0.0231 Rheotanytarsus sp. Synorthocladius sp. 10 10 12 10.67 1 0.0615 Thienemanniella sp. Thienemanniella xena Thienemannimyia group 1 1 1 1.00 1 0.0173 Tvetenia sp. 2 2 1 1.67 1 0.0240
Other Diptera Atherix pachypus 1 0.33 1 0.0019 Ceratopogoninae Chelifera sp. 1 1 0.67 1 0.0115 Hemerodromia sp. 3 1.00 1 0.0173 Wiedemannia sp. Simulium sp. 1 1 0.67 1 0.0115 Hexatoma sp.
Coleoptera Narpus concolor Optioservus sp. 3 2 11 5.33 1 0.0615 Zaitzevia parvula
Miscellaneous Lebertia sp. 1 0.33 1 0.0077 Sperchon sp. 8 7 12 9.00 1 0.2075 Gammarus sp. Gyraulus sp. 2 0.67 1 0.0154 Physa sp. Dugesia sp. Polycelis coronata Lumbricidae Naididae Nematoda
Totals 231 321 489 347.00 44 3.65
______Biomonitoring Summary Report Appendix Page D-17 Timberline Aquatics, Inc. 17 August 2016
Timberline Aquatics, Inc. 4219 Table Mountain Place, Suite A Fort Collins, Colorado 80526