Ohio Valley Environmental Coal v. Fola Coal Company, LLC
Filing
OPINION ATTACHMENT. [16-1024]
Appeal: 16-1024
Doc: 75-5
Filed: 01/04/2017
Pg: 1 of 80
A STREAM CONDITION INDEX FOR
WEST VIRGINIA WADEABLE STREAMS
2
d1
e
6
9/1
/1
w
vieDivision,
U.S. EPA Region 3 Environmental Services
24,Technology, Office of Water
and U.S. EPA Office of Science and
0
6-1
Work Assignment Managers:
o. 13) and William Swietlik (OST)
James Green (Region
N
Prepared for:
Prepared by:
Tetra Tech, Inc.
10045 Red Run Boulevard
Suite 110
Owings Mills, MD 21117
March 28, 2000 (Revised July 21, 2000)
Appeal: 16-1024
Doc: 75-5
Filed: 01/04/2017
Pg: 2 of 80
A Stream Condition Index for West Virginia Wadeable Streams
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This report was prepared under 3 work assignments of EPA contract #68-C7-0014 to Tetra Tech, Inc.
Authors of this report are Jeroen Gerritsen, June Burton, and Michael T. Barbour. We thank Maggie
Passmore and Jim Green of EPA Region 3 for helpful guidance, discussions and review. The biological
index was made possible by the intensive data collection efforts and discussion of West Virginia DEP; in
particular, Janice Smithson, Jeffrey Bailey, Pat Campbell, and John Wirts. This report was prepared with
the assistance of Jeffrey White, Erik Leppo, and Brenda Fowler.
102
6-
o. 1
N
Tetra Tech, Inc.
w
e
, vi
4
iii
2
d1
e
6
9/1
/1
March 28, 2000 (Revised July 21, 2000)
Appeal: 16-1024
Doc: 75-5
Filed: 01/04/2017
Pg: 3 of 80
A Stream Condition Index for West Virginia Wadeable Streams
w
e
, vi
4
2
d1
e
6
9/1
/1
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
102
6-
o. 1
N
Tetra Tech, Inc.
iv
March 28, 2000 (Revised July 21, 2000)
Appeal: 16-1024
Doc: 75-5
Filed: 01/04/2017
Pg: 4 of 80
A Stream Condition Index for West Virginia Wadeable Streams
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii
LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix
1.0
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2.0
THE APPLICATION OF STREAM BIOASSESSMENT IN WEST VIRGINIA . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.0
ESTABLISHING BIOREGIONS AS A BASIS FOR BIOASSESSMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.0
6
9./.1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
AGGREGATING METRICS INTO A BIOLOGICAL INDEX . /1 . . .
2...
d 1 DATA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
e
TESTING AND REFINING THE INDEX USING INDEPENDENT
ew
, vi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
02.4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
7.1
Rating System . . .-1 . . . . .
6 .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
7.2
Refining the index
o. 1
7.3
Maintaining the index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
N
5.0
6.0
7.0
TRANSFORMING BIOLOGICAL ATTRIBUTES INTO METRICS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
APPENDICES
A
ANALYTICAL METHODS AND STEP-BY-STEP PROCESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
B
LITERATURE CITED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
C
METRICS AND METRIC SCORES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
D
SUPPORTING GRAPHS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Tetra Tech, Inc.
v
A-1
B-1
C-1
D-1
March 28, 2000 (Revised July 21, 2000)
Appeal: 16-1024
Doc: 75-5
Filed: 01/04/2017
Pg: 5 of 80
A Stream Condition Index for West Virginia Wadeable Streams
w
e
, vi
4
2
d1
e
6
9/1
/1
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
102
6-
o. 1
N
Tetra Tech, Inc.
vi
March 28, 2000 (Revised July 21, 2000)
Appeal: 16-1024
Doc: 75-5
Filed: 01/04/2017
Pg: 6 of 80
A Stream Condition Index for West Virginia Wadeable Streams
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
Page
3-1
Geographic distribution of benthic macroinvertebrate sampling sites by data source
and ecoregion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3-2
Ordination (NMDS) of EMAP (a) and West Virginia (b) reference site macroinvertebrate
data by 3 ecoregions: Ridge and Valley (67), Central Appalachians (69) and Western
Allegheny Plateau (70) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3-3
Ordination (NMDS) of West Virginia reference site macroinvertebrate data by month
of sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3-4
Metric values in 67 West Virginia reference sites plotted by Julian day. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5-1
Working SCI discriminates between West Virginia reference and impaired sites in the
1996-1997 calibration data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5-2
6-1
7-1
2
d1
e
6
9/1
/1
iew
vVirginia stream index (SCI). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Effect of sampling season on working West
24,
10
6-between West Virginia reference and stressed sites in the new
Working SCI discriminates
.1
independentNo as well as in the original data set (a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
data (b)
Reference and stressed sites, combined 1996-1998 data, and possible rating categories . . . . . 23
Tetra Tech, Inc.
vii
March 28, 2000 (Revised July 21, 2000)
Appeal: 16-1024
Doc: 75-5
Filed: 01/04/2017
Pg: 7 of 80
A Stream Condition Index for West Virginia Wadeable Streams
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Page
3-1
Strength of alternative classifications of macroinvertebrate assemblages in
reference sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3-2
Frequency and relative abundance of top 20 taxa in West Virginia reference sites,
by ecoregion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4-1
Candidate metrics: expected response to stress, discrimination ability, and final
recommendation for WV stream condition index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4-2
Pearson Correlation Coefficients among 15 Candidate Metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6-1
6-2
7-1
6
9/1 . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
West Virginia final SCI: Metric standard values and standardization formulas
1
12/
ed
Percentile distribution of Index (SCI) values in all 1996-1998 reference samples . . . . . . . . . . 21
w
vie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Example rating system for West Virginia SCI scores
24,
0
6-1
o. 1
N
Tetra Tech, Inc.
viii
March 28, 2000 (Revised July 21, 2000)
Appeal: 16-1024
Doc: 75-5
Filed: 01/04/2017
Pg: 8 of 80
A Stream Condition Index for West Virginia Wadeable Streams
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ATV
All terrain vehicle
B-IBI
Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity
BPJ
Best professional judgement
DE
Discrimination efficiency
DEP
Division of Environmental Protection (West Virginia); also WVDEP
EDAS
Ecological Data Application System
EMAP
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (USEPA); also
EMAP-MAHA
EMAP-MAHA
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program—Mid-Atlantic
Highlands Assessment (USEPA)
EPA
Environmental Protection Agency (U.S.); also USEPA
IBI
Index of Biotic Integrity
ICI
Invertebrate Condition Index
IQR
NMDS
OWR
RBP
SCI
SWRB
TMDL
2
d1
e
6
9/1
/1
w
vie Virginia)
Office of Water Resources (West
24,
0
Rapid Bioassessment Protocol
6-1 Index
Stream Condition
o. 1
State Water Resources Board (West Virginia)
N
Interquartile range
Non-metric multidimensional scaling
Total Maximum Daily Load
USEPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; also EPA
WAP
Watershed Assessment Program (West Virginia)
WQ
Water quality
WVDEP
West Virginia Division of Environmental Protection; also DEP
Tetra Tech, Inc.
ix
March 28, 2000 (Revised July 21, 2000)
Appeal: 16-1024
Doc: 75-5
Filed: 01/04/2017
Pg: 9 of 80
A Stream Condition Index for West Virginia Wadeable Streams
w
e
, vi
4
2
d1
e
6
9/1
/1
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
102
6-
o. 1
N
Tetra Tech, Inc.
x
March 28, 2000 (Revised July 21, 2000)
Appeal: 16-1024
Doc: 75-5
Filed: 01/04/2017
Pg: 10 of 80
A Stream Condition Index for West Virginia Wadeable Streams
1.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Over the past century, land use activities such as mining, agriculture, urbanization, and industrialization
have seriously threatened the quality of surface waters by contributing to nonpoint-source pollution. In
West Virginia, the investigation of these nonpoint sources of water pollution has become a priority. It is
the responsibility of West Virginia Division of Environmental Protection (DEP) to maintain and protect
the ecosystem health of the state’s waters. In keeping with the Clean Water Act and technical guidance
from USEPA, DEP developed water quality standards for the protection of ecosystem health. In support
of the state's water quality standards, which mandate the implementation of biological and chemical
criteria and a strict antidegradation policy, the ambient monitoring program has established an
assessment "toolbox" that includes physical, chemical, and biological techniques.
6
9/1
/1
West Virginia DEP uses a rotating basin network of monitoring, scheduled on a 5-year rotation. A core
team of biologists, naturalists, and chemists provides the technical resources to conduct the monitoring.
Biological data (e.g., the diversity of organisms) are necessary to assess the health of West Virginia’s
surface waters and to measure the attainment of biological integrity goals as directed by USEPA and
characterized by the state of West Virginia. DEP established a Biological Assessment Program patterned
after the Rapid Bioassessment Protocols of EPA (Plafkin et al. 1989). The results presented in this report
establish a framework for the assessment and monitoring of West Virginia’s streams using rapid
bioassessment procedures.
102
6-
.1
ocomparing the
Bioassessment consists of
N
w
e
, vi
4
2
d1
e
Biocriteria: under the Clean Water Act,
biological condition of a stream to a reference
numerical values or narrative statements that
define a desired biological condition for a
condition, which is an aggregate of conditions in
waterbody and are part of the WQ standards.
unimpaired streams of a region. Reference
conditions are “best available” conditions where
Bioassessments: evaluations of the biological
biological potential is at its highest for the
condition of a waterbody that use biological
particular region or area. These reference
surveys of the resident biota.
conditions are representative of sustainable
Biosurveys: the collection, processing, and
ecosystem health. For West Virginia, the
analysis of representative portions of a resident
Mountain State, a single region appears sufficient
biotic community or assemblage.
for statewide and rotating basin assessments.
Partitioning the streams and watersheds into Level
3 ecoregions does not appear to improve biological assessment. The information derived from a survey
is aggregated into a Stream Condition Index (SCI) for West Virginia. This SCI is used as a primary
Tetra Tech, Inc.
1
March 28, 2000 (Revised July 21, 2000)
Appeal: 16-1024
Doc: 75-5
Filed: 01/04/2017
Pg: 11 of 80
A Stream Condition Index for West Virginia Wadeable Streams
indicator of ecosystem health and can identify impairment with respect to the reference (or natural)
condition. The index includes six biological attributes, called metrics, that represent elements of the
structure and function of the bottom-dwelling macroinvertebrate assemblage. Metrics are specific
measures of diversity, composition, and tolerance to pollution, that include ecological information.
The SCI is to be used as the basis for
bioassessment in West Virginia and has been
calibrated for a long-term biological index period
extending from April through October. A data
analysis application has been developed to ensure
consistency in data management and analysis
throughout the state as DEP biologists conduct
biological monitoring.
CORE METRICS
@
@
@
@
@
@
See definitions in Table A-2.
Benefits expected from the implementation of the
WV SCI will apply to a broad spectrum of
management programs, including:
EPT taxa
Total taxa
% EPT
% Chironomidae
% Top 2 Dominant Taxa
HBI (Family biotic index)
w
e
, vi
4
2
d1
e
6
9/1
/1
characterizing the existence and severity of point and nonpoint source impairment;
102
6-
targeting and prioritizing watersheds and ecosystem management areas for remedial or
preventive programs;
o. 1
N
evaluating the effectiveness of nonpoint source best management programs;
screening ecosystems for use attainability; and
developing a basis for establishing biocriteria that relate to regional water quality goals,
an EPA priority.
The West Virginia SCI was tested with independent data collected in 1998 and was able to correctly
identify the majority of the stream sites stressed in some way by human disturbance or pollution. Index
scores were divided into 5 proposed rating categories for reporting on the condition of West Virginia
streams.
Tetra Tech, Inc.
2
March 28, 2000 (Revised July 21, 2000)
Appeal: 16-1024
Doc: 75-5
Filed: 01/04/2017
Pg: 12 of 80
A Stream Condition Index for West Virginia Wadeable Streams
2. THE APPLICATION OF STREAM BIOASSESSMENT IN WEST VIRGINIA
The West Virginia Division of Environmental Protection (DEP) is developing biological criteria for use
in assessing the quality of streams as part of the state’s Watershed Assessment Program. Through the
303(d) and Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) framework outlined in the Clean Water Act of 1972
(and revisions of 1977, 1987), those waters considered to be impaired and threatened must be identified
and improved to meet their designated uses. The definition of impairment by natural resource
management or regulatory agencies is typically based on attainment or non-attainment of numerical water
quality standards associated with a waterbody’s designated use. If those standards are not met (or
attained), then the waterbody is considered to be impaired. Resident biota in a watershed function as
continual natural monitors of environmental quality, responding to the effects of both episodic as well as
cumulative pollution and habitat alteration. Conducting ambient biological surveys is one of the primary
approaches to biomonitoring. These surveys, in turn, are used to measure the attainment of biological
integrity. The assessment of ecosystem health cannot be done without measuring the attainment of
biological integrity goals as directed by USEPA and characterized by the state of West Virginia.
w
e
, vi
4
2
d1
e
6
9/1
/1
The Clean Water Act of 1972 (PL-92-500) has as
Biological integrity is commonly defined as
one of its primary goals the maintenance and
“the capability of supporting and maintaining a
restoration of biological integrity, which
balanced, integrated, adaptive community of
incorporates biological, physical, and chemical
organisms having a species composition,
quality. This concept refers to the natural
diversity and functional organization
comparable to that of the natural habitat of the
assemblage of indigenous organisms that would
regions” (Karr and Dudley 1981, Gibson et al.
inhabit a particular area if it had not been affected
1996).
by human activities. This integrity or naturally
occurring structure and function of the aquatic
community becomes the primary reference condition
used to measure and assess waterbodies in a particular region.
102
6-
o. 1
N
Careful measurement of the natural aquatic ecosystem and its constituent biological communities can
determine the condition of biological integrity. Several key attributes are measured to indicate the
quality of the aquatic resources. Biological surveys establish the attributes or measures used to
summarize several community characteristics, such as taxa richness, number of individuals, sensitive or
insensitive species, observed pathologies, and the presence or absence of essential habitat elements.
Tetra Tech, Inc.
3
March 28, 2000 (Revised July 21, 2000)
Appeal: 16-1024
Doc: 75-5
Filed: 01/04/2017
Pg: 13 of 80
A Stream Condition Index for West Virginia Wadeable Streams
Multimetric, invertebrate indices of biotic integrity, variously called RBP (Rapid Bioassessment
Protocol; Plafkin et al. 1989; Barbour et al. 1999), ICI (Invertebrate Condition Index; Ohio EPA 1989),
B-IBI (Benthic IBI; Kerans and Karr 1994) and SCI (Stream Condition Index; Barbour et al. 1996) have
been developed for many regions of North America and are generally accepted for biological assessment
of aquatic resource quality (e.g., Gibson et al. 1996, Southerland and Stribling 1995, Karr 1991). The
framework of bioassessment consists of characterizing reference conditions upon which comparisons can
be made and identifying appropriate biological attributes with which to measure the condition.
Reference conditions are “best available” conditions where biological potential is at its highest for the
particular region or area. These reference conditions are representative of sustainable ecosystem health.
Biological measurements, called metrics, represent elements of the structure and function of the bottomdwelling macroinvertebrate assemblage. Metrics change in some predictable way with increased human
influence (Barbour et al. 1996). They include specific measures of diversity, composition, and functional
feeding group representation and include ecological information on tolerance to pollution. Multimetric
indices, such as the IBI, incorporate multiple biological community characteristics and measure the
overall response of the community to environmental stressors (Karr et al. 1986, Barbour et al. 1995).
Such a measure of the structure and function of the biota (using a regionally-calibrated multimetric
index) is an appropriate indicator of ecological quality, reflecting biological responses to changes in
physical habitat quality, the integrity of soil and water chemistry, geologic processes, and land use
changes (to the degree that they affect the sampled habitat).
w
e
, vi
4
10a2
The purpose of this study was16
to develop
o.
multimetric biological index for West Virginia
N
streams. State Watershed Assessment Program
2
d1
e
6
9/1
/1
This study was designed to address the following
questions:
4
What are the seasonal differences in
biological metrics? (Are two index periods
required for monitoring?)
What are the appropriate metrics for a West
Virginia Stream Condition Index (SCI)?
Tetra Tech, Inc.
What is the most appropriate site classification
for assessment of ecosystem health?
(WAP) stream assessment data from 1996 and
1997 were used for developing an index, and
1998 data were used to test and validate the
index. Results of the analysis were used to make
recommendations for improving the state’s
biological sampling program to achieve more
reliable assessments of West Virginia streams.
What are thresholds that indicate the degree of
comparability of West Virginia streams to
reference condition?
March 28, 2000 (Revised July 21, 2000)
Appeal: 16-1024
Doc: 75-5
Filed: 01/04/2017
Pg: 14 of 80
A Stream Condition Index for West Virginia Wadeable Streams
3.
ESTABLISHING BIOREGIONS AS A BASIS FOR BIOASSESSMENT
Biological systems naturally vary in composition and diversity of the fauna, depending on the physical
characteristics and geomorphology of the waterbodies (in this case, streams) in which they reside.
Partitioning this natural variability into relatively homogenous classes, or bioregions, can aid in
establishing reference conditions, or benchmarks, from which to assess biological condition. The
purpose of this classification analysis is to evaluate Level 3 ecoregions as a means of establishing
bioregions for West Virginia streams. Sites sampled in 1996-1997 were located in three Level 3
ecoregions: the Ridge and Valley (No. 67), Central Appalachians (No. 69), and Western Allegheny
Plateau (No. 70).
Identification of reference sites (i.e., those having the expected composition and diversity of biota for a
region or class of sites) provides the basis for evaluating bioregions. Out of 720 sites sampled by West
Virginia DEP in 1996-1997, there were 67 identified
as reference (see Appendix A, Table A-1, for
Methods of Analysis
criteria). The relative geographic clustering of the
Non-metric Multidimensional Scaling
benthic data from the West Virginia data set
(NMDS) Ordination — Spatial array of sites
suggested that testing an ecoregional classification
based on similarity/difference of benthic
might not be reliable with this data set alone.
composition and abundance.
Therefore, similar benthic data were obtained from
Similarity Analysis — Tests for statistical
EPA’s Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
significance and the strength of the
Program (EMAP) in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands for
classification.
this analysis. From the EMAP database, 79
Box-and-Whisker Plots — Display of ranges
reference sites (using same criteria as for West
of values for the biological data oriented by
Virginia) were identified that were geographically
spatial and temporal groupings.
distributed within the same 3 ecoregions and
Scatterplots by date — Tests for correlation
encompassed a broader pattern than the clustered
of biological attributes (metrics) with
distribution of the West Virginia database (Figure 3sampling date.
1).
102
6-
o. 1
N
w
e
, vi
4
2
d1
e
6
9/1
/1
See Appendix A for full discussion of methods.
Tetra Tech, Inc.
5
March 28, 2000 (Revised July 21, 2000)
Appeal: 16-1024
Doc: 75-5
Filed: 01/04/2017
Pg: 15 of 80
A Stream Condition Index for West Virginia Wadeable Streams
102
6-
o. 1
N
w
e
, vi
4
2
d1
e
6
9/1
/1
Figure 3-1. Geographic distribution of benthic macroinvertebrate sampling sites by data source and ecoregion.
Tetra Tech, Inc.
6
March 28, 2000 (Revised July 21, 2000)
Appeal: 16-1024
Doc: 75-5
Filed: 01/04/2017
Pg: 16 of 80
A Stream Condition Index for West Virginia Wadeable Streams
The development of an appropriate classification for bioassessment was confounded by a broad temporal
range of collections (May - September). The issue of seasonal differences in the benthic
macroinvertebrate assemblage might require grouping the data by narrower date ranges for classification.
Therefore, analyses were performed to evaluate both ecoregions and date.
Conclusion for Classification into Bioregions
•
Use of ecoregions to serve as bioregions for benthic assessments of cobble habitat in streams of
West Virginia is not necessary.
•
While the broad collection timeframe of West Virginia DEP introduces variability into the
dataset, no clear differentiation of sampling periods was discernable.
Documentation for results are as follows:
•
•
w
e
, vi
4
2
d1
e
6
9/1
/1
Ordination of the benthic data by ecoregion indicated that a spatial classification was not
distinct (Figure 3-2). Neither the EMAP data (based on genus-level taxonomy) nor the
West Virginia data (based on family-level taxonomy) were able to distinguish ecoregions
adequately to serve as bioregions.
102
6-
o. 1
N
Ordination of the West Virginia benthic data by date was not distinct enough to partition
into separate sampling periods (Figure 3-3). There was a slight indication that the early
sampling dates May - June would provide less variability for assessments. The EMAP
data were primarily restricted to a July - August time period, and thus not tested for date
differences in this analysis.
•
The classification into ecoregions did not explain differences among sites (0% difference
explained) for EMAP data, and only a weak explanation (6.5% difference explained) for
the West Virginia data (Table 3-1).
•
By grouping the benthic data into individual months, classification was improved over
ecoregions (9.7% difference explained), but still inconsequential to explaining variability
(Table 3-1).
Tetra Tech, Inc.
7
March 28, 2000 (Revised July 21, 2000)
Appeal: 16-1024
Doc: 75-5
Filed: 01/04/2017
Pg: 17 of 80
A Stream Condition Index for West Virginia Wadeable Streams
•
Comparisons of frequencies and relative abundance of taxa did not reveal distinct
differences among sites in the 3 ecoregions (Table 3-2).
•
Correlation of various biological attributes or metrics with day of the year sampled
illustrated a weak relationship only with abundance of Chironomids (Figure 3-4).
•
Box-and-whisker plots performed on various benthic attributes illustrated only weak
distinction among ecoregions and sampling periods (Appendix D, Figures D1-D2). The
lack of distinction supports using a single class structure for assessment of West Virginia
streams.
Recommendations From this Analysis
•
•
6
9/1
/1
Classification by some regional physiographic structure (e.g., ecoregions) was not supported by
this analysis of the benthic assemblage from cobble substrate in wadeable streams within the
Appalachian Mountains. The issue of using bioregions to stratify or partition the aquatic
community may still be valid if collecting methods change, level of taxonomy changes, and/or
non-cobble habitats are sampled.
102
6-
w
e
, vi
4
2
d1
e
A narrower sampling window of late spring to early summer would improve the assessments by
reducing variability.
o. 1
N
Tetra Tech, Inc.
8
March 28, 2000 (Revised July 21, 2000)
Appeal: 16-1024
Doc: 75-5
Filed: 01/04/2017
Pg: 18 of 80
A Stream Condition Index for West Virginia Wadeable Streams
(a) Ordination of EMAP reference sites
Ecoregion
Axis 3
67
69
70
Axis 1
(b) Ordination of WV reference sites
2
67
69
d1
e 70
6
9/1
/1
Axis 2
Ecoregion
o. 1
N
102
6-
w
e
, vi
4
Axis 1
Figure 3-2. Ordination (NMDS) of EMAP (a) and West Virginia (b) reference site macroinvertebrate
data by 3 ecoregions: Ridge and Valley (67), Central Appalachians (69) and Western Allegheny Plateau
(70). The ordination plots allow sites to be visualized in “ordination space,” such that sites that are
similar to each other (i.e., they share a similar species composition) are close together in the plot, while
sites that are highly dissimilar are plotted far apart. Ordination of the EMAP macroinvertebrate data
(79 sites) from the 3 ecoregions revealed no clear ecoregional pattern, as seen by the overlapping
locations of points (Figure a). West Virginia benthic data (67 sites) show a weak but discernible
pattern associated with ecoregion (Figure b). Ridge and Valley sites (No. 67) are more abundant in the
top half of the plot, Central Appalachian sites (No. 69) are more abundant in the bottom half of the plot,
and the 3 Allegheny Plateau sites (No. 70) occur close together in the upper right area. Further
similarity analysis is reported in Table 3-1.
Tetra Tech, Inc.
9
March 28, 2000 (Revised July 21, 2000)
Appeal: 16-1024
Doc: 75-5
Filed: 01/04/2017
Pg: 19 of 80
A Stream Condition Index for West Virginia Wadeable Streams
Ordination of WV reference sites
Month
Axis 3
5
6
7
8
9
2
d1
e
Axis 1
6
9/1
/1
w
vie reference site
Figure 3-3. Ordination (NMDS) of West Virginia
24,sampling. The plot shows a slight
0
macroinvertebrate data by month of
effect due to time-of-sampling, but as with ordination by ecoregion,
6-1
there is considerable overlap of data points among the different
o. 1
N
sampling months.
Table 3-1. Strength of alternative classifications of macroinvertebrate assemblages in reference sites.
Similarity analysis revealed that the ecoregional classification for West Virginia data accounted
for approximately 6.5% of the dissimilarity among sites. Similarly, month of sampling
accounted for approximately 9.7% of the total dissimilarity. We found that the effects of
ecoregion and date were confounded but that neither gave a particularly strong classification:
both were less than 10% of the total average dissimilarity.
Percent Differences
Data Source
Classification
Explained
EMAP data
ecoregions (n=79)
0
WV data
ecoregions (n=67)
6.5%
WV data
month (n=67)
9.7%
Tetra Tech, Inc.
10
March 28, 2000 (Revised July 21, 2000)
Appeal: 16-1024
Doc: 75-5
Filed: 01/04/2017
Pg: 20 of 80
A Stream Condition Index for West Virginia Wadeable Streams
Table 3-2. Frequency and relative abundance of top 20 taxa in West Virginia reference sites, by
ecoregion. Frequencies of top 10 taxa in each ecoregion are in bold. Differences among sites in
this analysis are caused by differences in taxa composition. Overall, these were relatively minor
at the family level. Four families were at least 25% more common and abundant in the Ridge
and Valley ecoregion than in the Central Appalachians: the Chloroperlidae, Ephemerellidae,
Peltoperlidae, and Gammaridae. Taxa more common in the Central Appalachians were the
Tipulidae, Rhyacophilidae, and Cambaridae. There were only 3 sites in the Western
Appalachians, so estimates of frequency of occurrence are unreliable (not shown).
Ridge and Valley
Central Appalachians
(Region 67) n=32
(Region 69) n=32
mean rel.
mean rel.
frequency
frequency
abund.
abund.
Chironomidae
94%
6.0%
97%
9.3%
Heptageniidae
91%
12.6%
97%
9.0%
Baetidae
94%
18.0%
88%
9.1%
Capniidae
97%
9.8%
84%
20.2%
Hydropsychidae
100%
10.4%
81%
21.2%
Philopotamidae
84%
5.1%
81%
6.1%
Chloroperlidae
91%
5.1%
66%
6.9%
Tipulidae
63%
2.5%
91%
4.6%
Perlidae
66%
4.4%
69%
3.7%
Perlodidae
50%
3.2%
72%
3.5%
Leptophlebiidae
63%
5.1%
56%
4.3%
Rhyacophilidae
34%
2.1%
81%
2.6%
Pteronarcydae
47%
1.8%
69%
3.8%
Ephemerellidae
63%
2.3%
38%
4.0%
Peltoperlidae
28%
3.2%
75%
6.7%
Simuliidae
47%
2.5%
41%
2.7%
Cambaridae
31%
2.6%
56%
1.4%
Elmidae
25%
1.8%
47%
2.8%
Oligochaeta
25%
3.1%
44%
3.7%
Nemouridae
31%
5.2%
19%
17.9%
102
6-
o. 1
N
Tetra Tech, Inc.
w
e
, vi
4
11
2
d1
e
6
9/1
/1
March 28, 2000 (Revised July 21, 2000)
Appeal: 16-1024
Doc: 75-5
Filed: 01/04/2017
Pg: 21 of 80
A Stream Condition Index for West Virginia Wadeable Streams
50
% Chironomid
40
30
20
10
0
120
140
160
180
200
Julian day
24
102
6-
20
Total taxa
16
o. 1
N
2
d1
e
220
w
e
, vi
4
240
220
240
6
9/1
/1
260
280
260
280
12
8
4
0
120
140
160
180
200
Julian day
Figure 3-4. Metric values in 67 West Virginia reference sites plotted by Julian day. This analysis
showed a weak relationship in the %Chironomid metric (top), but other candidate metrics, such as Total
taxa (bottom), showed no discernible relationship.
Tetra Tech, Inc.
12
March 28, 2000 (Revised July 21, 2000)
Appeal: 16-1024
Doc: 75-5
Filed: 01/04/2017
Pg: 22 of 80
A Stream Condition Index for West Virginia Wadeable Streams
4.
TRANSFORMING BIOLOGICAL ATTRIBUTES INTO METRICS
Various attributes of the benthic macroinvertebrate community have
been characterized in the form of quantitative measures called
metrics. The attributes of the community that are measured by these
metrics fall into several categories of benthic community
characteristics, and the specific metrics within those categories can
indicate different aspects of the community condition. For example,
metrics dealing with species richness or diversity, such as Total Taxa, can be used as indicators of
community health because an ecologically healthy system is generally expected to support a more diverse
community of fauna than can be supported in an ecologically impaired area. Multiple metrics evaluated
together can give an overall indication of ecological integrity.
A metric is a characteristic of
the biota that changes in some
predictable way with increased
human influence.
West Virginia’s benthic macroinvertebrate samples
collected in the 1996-1997 seasons were identified to the
family taxonomic level, and 100 organisms were counted
for each sample. Within each 100-organism sample, the
number of individuals of each family were tallied. The
identifications and counts of organisms collected at each
site provide the information used to calculate a suite of
metrics for each benthic sample.
102
6-
o. 1
N
4, v
iew
Metrics evaluated for use with the West Virginia 19961997 benthic macroinvertebrate data represented four
categories: taxonomic richness, taxonomic composition,
feeding groups, and tolerance (see metric categories
box). Habit metrics were not calculated because they are
not useful with family level taxa identification. Since
classification analysis did not demonstrate the need for
partitioning West Virginia data collection sites into
separate bioregions or index periods (Chapter 3), all 720
sampling sites were considered as one site class.
Candidate metrics were calculated for each of the 720
benthic samples. Selection of specific metrics for use in
a stream condition index was based on several evaluation
criteria (see metric evaluation box).
Tetra Tech, Inc.
13
6
9/1
/1
Metric Categories
Taxonomic richness — counts of distinct
taxa within selected taxonomic groups.
12
dTaxonomic composition — proportions
e
of individuals belonging to specific
selected taxonomic groups.
Functional feeding group — dominant
mode of feeding, though not the specific
nutritional source or benefits (e.g.,
suspension feeder, predator, etc.).
Habit — dominant behavior of an
animal for moving and maintaining
physical position in its habitat (e.g.,
sprawling, clinging, etc.).
•
Degree of tolerance — counts,
proportions, or weighted scores of taxa
based on ability to survive exposure to
pollutants.
See Appendix A, A.4.1 for full discussion.
March 28, 2000 (Revised July 21, 2000)
Appeal: 16-1024
Doc: 75-5
Filed: 01/04/2017
Pg: 23 of 80
A Stream Condition Index for West Virginia Wadeable Streams
Criteria for identifying stressed sites were
established using parameters similar to those
used by West Virginia DEP for identifying
reference sites (see stressed site criteria box,
below). To be categorized as stressed, a site
needed to meet only one of the listed
conditions. Out of the 720 benthic samples
used in this analysis, there were 69 sites
identified as meeting at least one of the
criteria for stress.
Metric Evaluation. Metrics are included if they:
are able to differentiate between reference and
impaired sites (methods: box plots, discrimination
efficiencies [DE]);
represent at least some different aspects of the
community (taxa composition, richness, tolerance,
and the like); and
minimize redundancy among individual component
metrics (method: Pearson correlations).
Stressed Site Criteria. 69 sites were deemed stressed by meeting at least one of these criteria:
Dissolved oxygen < 4.0 mg/l
pH < 4.0
Conductivity > 1000 µmhos
Epifaunal substrate score < 7 and Total habitat score <120
Channel alteration score < 7 and Total habitat score <120
Sediment deposition score < 7 and Total habitat score <120
Bank disruptive pressure score < 7 and Total habitat score <120
Riparian vegetation zone width score < 4 and Total habitat score <120
102
6-
o. 1
N
w
e
, vi
4
2
d1
e
6
9/1
/1
Discrimination of site impairment
Box-and-whisker plots for 24 candidate metrics, comparing the distribution of values in 67 reference
sites with the distribution of values in 69 impaired sites, are presented in Appendix D (Figures D3-D6).
The distributions displayed in these plots were evaluated as described in Appendix A (section A.4.2;
Figures A-1 - A-2). Eleven candidate metrics exhibited discrimination efficiencies (as described in
Appendix A.4.2) above 60% (Table 4-1).
Representation of different community attributes
Discriminatory metrics, identified on the basis of boxplots and discrimination efficiencies, represent
three different categories of benthic community attributes: taxonomic richness, taxonomic composition,
and tolerance to environmental stress (Table 4-1).
Tetra Tech, Inc.
14
March 28, 2000 (Revised July 21, 2000)
Appeal: 16-1024
Doc: 75-5
Filed: 01/04/2017
Pg: 24 of 80
A Stream Condition Index for West Virginia Wadeable Streams
Minimized redundancy
Pearson correlation coefficients (Table 4-2) identified that EPT taxa and Intolerant taxa had a correlation
of 0.92, and that %Chironomidae was highly correlated with %Diptera (0.91) and with %Tolerant (0.88).
In addition, with the family-level West Virginia data, individual component metrics involving
Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera were eliminated in favor of the more highly discriminatory
composite metrics of %EPT and EPT taxa.
The process of metric selection is iterative, with the areas of consideration being revisited and weighed
throughout the process. Table 4-1 reports the final recommended metrics for use in a stream condition
index, along with reasons for including or excluding each metric.
6
9/1 in riffle
For scoring West Virginia stream condition based on 1996-1997 /1 collected
2 data %Chironomidae,
habitats, six recommended metrics are: EPT taxa, Total taxa, %EPT,
d1
HBI (family level), and % 2 Dominant taxa.
e
ew
, vi
024
6-1
o. 1
N
Recommendation for Use of Metrics to Measure Biological Attributes
Tetra Tech, Inc.
15
March 28, 2000 (Revised July 21, 2000)
Appeal: 16-1024
Doc: 75-5
Filed: 01/04/2017
Pg: 25 of 80
A Stream Condition Index for West Virginia Wadeable Streams
Table 4-1. Candidate metrics: Expected response to stress, discrimination ability, and final
recommendation for WV stream condition index
Metric
Expected Discrimination
efficiency1
response
Used
in final
! increase
(DE)
index Reason for including or excluding metric in the final index
± decrease
Taxonomic Richness
Total taxa
EPT taxa
Ephemeroptera taxa
Plecoptera taxa
Trichoptera taxa
Diptera taxa
Chironomidae taxa
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
71.0%
82.6%
58.0%
59.4%
65.2%
—
—
Taxonomic Composition
%EPT
% Ephemeroptera
% Plecoptera
% Trichoptera
% Diptera
% Chironomidae
% Oligochaeta
% Dominant taxon
% 2 Dominant taxa
±
±
±
±
!
!
!
!
!
78.3%
58.0%
62.3%
68.1%
72.5%
73.9%
—
49.3%
55.1%
Feeding groups
% Filterers
% Scrapers
% Collectors
% Predators
% Shredders
o. 1
N
102
6-
&
&
&
Good DE in this category
Good DE in this category
Included in EPT taxa with family-level data
Included in EPT taxa with family-level data
Included in EPT taxa with family-level data
Poor discrimination
Poor discrimination
w
e
, vi
4
&
&
6
9/1
/1
Good DE in this category
Included in %EPT with family-level data
Included in %EPT with family-level data
Included in %EPT with family-level data
91% correlated with %Chironomidae
Good DE in this category
Poor discrimination
Poor discrimination
Acceptable DE; included after ruling out %tolerant and
%diptera
2
d1
e
!
±
±
±
±
na
—
na
—
55.1%
Trend opposite from expected; interpretation unclear
Poor discrimination
Trend opposite from expected; interpretation unclear
Poor discrimination
Skewed distribution, high variance; marginal discrimination
±
!
!
79.7%
73.9%
68.1%
92% correlated with EPT taxa
88% correlated with %Chironomidae
Acceptable DE in this category, after ruling out other
tolerance metrics
Tolerance/Intolerance
Intolerant taxa
% Tolerant
HBI (family level)
1
&
See Appendix A, section A.4.2
Tetra Tech, Inc.
16
March 28, 2000 (Revised July 21, 2000)
Appeal: 16-1024
Doc: 75-5
Filed: 01/04/2017
Pg: 26 of 80
A Stream Condition Index for West Virginia Wadeable Streams
Table 4-2. Pearson Correlation Coefficients among 15 Candidate Metrics. Metrics for all 1996-1997 samples (n=720) were included
in the correlation. Bold R values are greater than 0.85.
Total
taxa
EPT
taxa
Ephem
taxa
Plecop
taxa
Trichop
taxa
Total taxa
0.85
0.72
0.76
1.00
Plecoptera taxa
0.55
0.78
0.35
1.00
Trichoptera taxa
0.64
0.66
0.36
0.25
1.00
% EPT
0.35
0.57
0.34
0.54
0.36
% Ephemeroptera
0.33
0.45
0.58
0.29
0.12
% Plecoptera
0.02
0.19
-0.11
0.46
-0.02
% Trichoptera
0.07
0.03
-0.08
-0.13
0.38
% Diptera
-0.32
-0.45
-0.26
-0.42
-0.30
% Chironomidae
-0.29
-0.39
-0.20
-0.36
% top 2 dominant
-0.67
-0.66
-0.56
0.82
0.92
0.62
%
Plecop
%
Dip
%
Chiro
1.00
Ephemeroptera
%
Ephem
1.00
EPT taxa
%
EPT
Intolerant taxa
% Tolerant
HBI (family)
Tetra Tech, Inc.
-0.35
-0.34
-0.27
-0.22
vie
4,
ed
w
Intol..
taxa
%
Tolerant
/16
19
2/
1
0.47
1.00
0.47
-0.21
1.00
0.27
-0.27
-0.28
-0.79
-0.37
-0.36
1.00
-0.30
-0.72
-0.31
-0.35
0.91
1.00
-0.47
-0.43
-0.33
-0.33
-0.05
0.34
0.37
1.00
0.82
0.57
0.55
0.35
0.28
-0.45
-0.41
-0.60
1.00
0.80
0.65
0.88
0.39
0.38
-0.47
-0.56
02
-1
. 16
No
-0.46
-0.50
1.00
%top
2 dom
-0.40
-0.56
-0.35
-0.29
-0.80
-0.76
-0.36
-0.18
17
-0.36
-0.71
0.67
1.00
0.82
March 28, 2000 (Revised July 21, 2000)
Appeal: 16-1024
Doc: 75-5
Filed: 01/04/2017
Pg: 27 of 80
A Stream Condition Index for West Virginia Wadeable Streams
5.
AGGREGATING METRICS INTO A BIOLOGICAL INDEX
Using the final six selected metrics (Chapter 4), a
working index for scoring West Virginia stream
condition was determined following the steps
summarized in the box to the right. Appendix A
describes the entire procedure in detail. The range
of reference site values for the working West
Virginia stream condition index was compared
with the range of values in the impaired sites by
means of box-and-whisker plots (Figure 5-1), and
these boxplots confirmed that the working index is
able to discriminate between reference and
stressed sites.
Metrics and Scoring
• Select metrics —
Total taxa
EPT taxa
% EPT
% Chironomidae
% 2 dominant taxa
HBI (Family)
• Calculate metrics — Calculate values for the 6
selected metrics for all 720 sampling sites.
• Standardize scores — Convert all metric values
to a standard 0-100 point scale.
6
9/1
/1
• Calculate index — Average the 6 standardized
metric scores for each benthic sampling site.
2
d1
e
See Appendix A, A.5 for full discussion.
100
102
6-
90
o. 1
N
Working Stream Condition Index (SCI)
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
reference
w
e
, vi
4
Though classification analysis (Chapter 3) did not
indicate distinct partitioning of sampling into separate
index periods, the possible variability of a long sampling
period was examined again in the working index. Figure
5-2, showing boxplots of the working index by sampling
period and a scatterplot of reference site index scores by
Julian day, demonstrates that though the degree of
discrimination is slightly better in the May-June period
(Figure 5-2[a]), the working index does discriminate
between reference and impaired sites in both sampling
periods.
impaired
Figure 5-1. Working SCI discriminates between
West Virginia reference and impaired sites in the
1996-1997 calibration data.
Tetra Tech, Inc.
18
March 28, 2000 (Revised July 21, 2000)
Appeal: 16-1024
Doc: 75-5
Filed: 01/04/2017
Pg: 28 of 80
A Stream Condition Index for West Virginia Wadeable Streams
May-June
July-Sept
100
80
80
60
60
40
40
20
20
Working SCI
100
0
ref
0
impaired
ref
6
9/1
/1
impaired
2
d1
e
(a) Performance of working index score by index period.
Working SCI, Reference sites only
100
102
6-
90
o. 1
N
80
70
w
e
, vi
4
60
50
40
30
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
260
280
Julian day
(b) Reference site index scores by Julian day.
Figure 5-2. Effect of sampling season on working West Virginia stream index (SCI). This
graph shows slight improvement in discrimination between reference and impaired sites in
the earlier sampling period (a), though the index does discriminate impairment in the later
sampling period as well. A narrower sampling window of late spring to early summer
might improve the assessments by reducing overall variability.
Tetra Tech, Inc.
19
March 28, 2000 (Revised July 21, 2000)
Appeal: 16-1024
Doc: 75-5
Filed: 01/04/2017
Pg: 29 of 80
A Stream Condition Index for West Virginia Wadeable Streams
6.
TESTING AND REFINING THE INDEX USING INDEPENDENT DATA
New data provided by WV DEP were used (as described in Appendix A.6) to test the discrimination
efficiency of the recommended West Virginia multimetric index. A comparison of the working index
values in the original data with those in the independent test data shows good agreement (Figure 6-1).
Discrimination efficiencies of the test data set were also good: 85% of the 40 test reference sites scored
higher than the 25th percentile of the original reference sites. Stressed sites in the test data also were
very similar to the original sites: 92% scored below the 25th percentile of the original reference sites.
100
100
70
50
No
4, v
02
iew
6-1
.1
40
30
Working Stream Condition Index
Working Stream Condition Index (SCI)
80
60
2
d1
e
90
90
6
9/1
/1
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
20
10
10
0
reference
0
stressed
a. Original 1996-1997 data (Figure 5-1).
reference (new data)
stressed (new data)
b. Independent 1998 data.
Figure 6-1. Working SCI discriminates between West Virginia reference and stressed sites in the new
independent data (b) as well as in the original data set (a).
Tetra Tech, Inc.
20
March 28, 2000 (Revised July 21, 2000)
Appeal: 16-1024
Doc: 75-5
Filed: 01/04/2017
Pg: 30 of 80
A Stream Condition Index for West Virginia Wadeable Streams
Final Recommended West Virginia Stream Condition Index (SCI):
To refine the working index by making use of the entire set of data provided by WVDEP (1996-1998), all
samples were combined. Percentile distributions of each metric’s values were determined for the entire
set of 1996-1998 data (n=1268 benthic samples). The revised, final Stream Condition Index (SCI) makes
use of the 95th or 5th percentile (depending on the metric) standard values determined from this
combined set of all samples. Table 6-1 presents metric standard values and standardization formulas for
the six metrics that compose the final recommended West Virginia multimetric SCI. Individual metrics
in exceptionally high quality streams may score higher than 100, but a maximum metric score of 100 is
used when averaging the six metrics to determine the final SCI score; this assures that each metric
contributes equally to the multimetric index.
Table 6-1. West Virginia final SCI: Metric standard values and standardization formulas.
Metrics that decrease with stress
Total taxa
21
EPT taxa
13
4, v
02
%EPT
91.9
%Chironomidae
No
HBI (family)
% 2 dominant
Standard (best value)
X5
6-1
.1
Metrics that increase with stress
/16
9(X/21)
0
score = /1×
100
12100 × (X/13)
0
score
edscore = 100 × (X/91.9)
0
=
iew
Standard (best value)
X95
Xmin
Standardization formula
(Appendix A.5, Equation 2; X=metric value)
Standardization formula
Xmax (Appendix A.5, Equation 3; X=metric value)
0.98
100
score = 100 × [(100-X)/(100-0.98)]
36.0
100
score = 100 × [(100-X)/(100-36.0)]
2.9
10
score = 100 × [(10-X)/(10-2.9)]
Final index score (SCI) for a site is determined by averaging the site’s 6 standardized metric scores, using a
maximum metric score of 100 for any metric whose individual score at a site may have exceeded 100.
Percentile distributions of the final SCI in the 1996-1998 combined set of 107 reference samples are
reported in Table 6-2. Metric values, metric standardized scores, and SCI scores for all sites in the
original and new data sets are provided in Appendix C.
Table 6-2. Percentile distribution of Index (SCI) values in all 1996-1998 Reference samples.
N
minimum
5th
10th
25th
median
75th
90th
95th
maximum
107
49
68
74
78
86
90
93
94
96
Tetra Tech, Inc.
21
March 28, 2000 (Revised July 21, 2000)
Appeal: 16-1024
Doc: 75-5
Filed: 01/04/2017
Pg: 31 of 80
A Stream Condition Index for West Virginia Wadeable Streams
7.
7.1
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Rating System
The macroinvertebrate Stream Condition Index (SCI) for West Virginia streams is robust and repeatable
and can be used to assess the biological condition of West Virginia streams. The relatively low
variability of scores in the reference sites suggests that at least 5 rating classes can be used. A rating of
“highly comparable to reference sites” could apply to sites that score greater than the 25th percentile of
reference sites. A “comparable” to below-average reference sites could apply to sites scoring greater
than the 5th percentile of reference sites (Table 7-1, Figure 7-1). Scores below the 5th percentile of
reference sites are increasingly different from the reference condition. Alternatively, the range of scores
from 0 to 100 could be divided into 5 equal categories (80-100, 60-80, etc.).
Table 7-1. Example rating system for West Virginia SCI scores.
6
9/1
/1
SCI score
Rating
> 78 - 100
Highly comparable to reference sites (above 25th percentile)
> 68 - 78
Comparable to below-average reference sites (between 5th
and 25th percentiles)
> 45 - 68
> 22 - 45
0 - 22
7.2
o. 1
N
102
6-
w
e
, vi
4
2
d1
e
}
Increasingly different from reference condition
Refining the index
The preliminary breakdown of site scores in Table 7-1 could be refined and narrowed by reducing the
index period and by examination of outliers:
The length of the sampling index period (spring to fall) was shown to contribute to index
variability, although not fatally. This variability could be reduced by restricting sampling to a
smaller window in spring and early summer, for example, May and June.
Tetra Tech, Inc.
22
March 28, 2000 (Revised July 21, 2000)
Appeal: 16-1024
Doc: 75-5
Filed: 01/04/2017
Pg: 32 of 80
A Stream Condition Index for West Virginia Wadeable Streams
100
90
80
comparable
70
60
increasingly unlike reference
West Virginia Stream Condition Index (SCI)
highly comparable
50
40
30
20
10
0
w
e
, vi
4
reference
2
d1
e
6
9/1
/1
stressed
102 stressed sites, combined 1996-1998
Figure 7-1. Reference and
16- rating categories.
data, . possible
No and
Combined 1996-1998 sites
Several reference sites scored low (less than 68) in the original data (and one in the test data).
These outliers should be examined in more detail to determine if they were misidentified as
reference sites, or if they are not representative of reference sites. They should not be excluded
simply because of a low SCI score, but should be excluded if previously undetected humancaused stress or pollution is found at the sites (unknown discharges, erosion, non-point source
pollution, habitat disruption).
The outliers also may be excluded from the reference sites if their physical-chemical habitat is
not representative of the other reference sites. For example, there were too few reference sites in
limestone valleys to identify valley streams as a separate class. Limestone valley streams may be
outliers, unless it can be demonstrated that they are similar to non-limestone streams. Another
example of a non-representative outlier is a site where the stream bed is composed entirely of
Tetra Tech, Inc.
23
March 28, 2000 (Revised July 21, 2000)
Appeal: 16-1024
Doc: 75-5
Filed: 01/04/2017
Pg: 33 of 80
A Stream Condition Index for West Virginia Wadeable Streams
bedrock. The habitat in all-bedrock sites is impaired and not representative, although it is
entirely natural. Such sites should be identified as special cases and removed from the list of
reference sites, yet they should not be listed impaired in an assessment only because the (natural)
habitat is impaired.
7.3
Maintaining the index
In West Virginia’s sampling program, new reference sites will be sampled each year. Confidence in the
index will be enhanced if new data are incorporated into the index, especially as more watersheds are
sampled and a more representative coverage is obtained of the entire state.
New reference sites can be added to the reference data set, and both the metric standard values (Table 61) as well as the distribution of reference scores (Table 6-2) can be recalculated on an annual basis. As
the database becomes more representative of the entire state, both the standard values and the distribution
should become quite stable.
2
d1
e
6
9/1
/1
A larger reference site database will allow WVDEP to revisit the issue of classification, especially with
respect to under-represented ecoregions in the current database (e.g., valley streams of the Ridge and
Valley; Greenbrier Karst streams). Limestone valley streams are thought to be different from ridge
streams, but there were not sufficient reference sites from the valley subregions to make this
determination in the current database.
102
6-
o. 1
N
Tetra Tech, Inc.
w
e
, vi
4
24
March 28, 2000 (Revised July 21, 2000)
Appeal: 16-1024
Doc: 75-5
Filed: 01/04/2017
Pg: 34 of 80
APPENDIX A
ANALYTICAL METHODS AND
STEP-BY-STEP PROCESS
/16
A.1
A.2
A.3
A.4
Database development
Reference site criteria
Site classification
Testing of candidate metrics
A.4.1 Metric categories
A.4.2 Metric discrimination ability
Index development
A.5.1 Scoring for metrics whose values are expected to decrease with
site degradation
A.5.2 Scoring for metrics whose values are expected to increase with
site degradation
A.5.3 Combining scores into an index
Index validation and refinement
, vi
024
-1
. 16
o
A.5 N
A.6
e
ed
w
/19
12
Appeal: 16-1024
Doc: 75-5
Filed: 01/04/2017
Pg: 35 of 80
A Stream Condition Index for West Virginia Wadeable Streams
ANALYTICAL METHODS
The analytical framework used in site classification, final metric selection, biological index development,
and development of scoring criteria follows that used in other states and regions (e.g., Barbour et al.
1996, Maxted et al. in press, Stribling et al. 1998), with application to West Virginia’s biological
sampling and monitoring program. The approach used for development of a regionally-calibrated
multimetric biotic index for West Virginia streams (a Stream Condition Index, or SCI) followed these
basic steps:
1) Develop database
2) Identify criteria for stream reference sites
3) Determine site classification strata
4) Compile and test candidate metrics
5) Combine metrics into an index
6) Test and validate the index (SCI)
A.1
Database development
6
9/1
/1
Biological, habitat, and water quality data from 1996 and 1997 were received from West Virginia DEP as
FoxPro® data files and were transferred into EDAS (Ecological Data Application System, version 1.1c)
(Tetra Tech, 1999), for ongoing data management and analysis. In EDAS (a custom application
developed for use with Microsoft Access97®), data, metadata, and other information reside in a series of
relational tables, including: stations, samples, benthic taxa, chemistry, habitat, and related information.
Use of a relational database such as EDAS allows for data elements to be stored in a compact, efficient
manner that reduces the redundancy of spreadsheet-style data management systems. EDAS also incorporates pre-designed queries that can be used to calculate and export metrics and other needed information.
102
6-
o. 1
N
w
e
, vi
4
2
d1
e
West Virginia’s 1996-1997 data were collected during the months of May through September from 720
stream sampling sites. Each sample consisted of 100 macroinvertebrates identified to the family
taxonomic level. In West Virginia’s monitoring program, streams state-wide are sampled on a five-year
cycle, with each year’s sampling sites consisting of a subset of the entire state. In the 1996-1997
sampling seasons, sample sites were concentrated in an area across the central portion of the state (Figure
3-1).
A.2
Reference site criteria
Reference site selection criteria were developed by West Virginia DEP Watershed Assessment Program
personnel to obtain reference conditions for streams that were assessed in the 1996 and 1997 field
seasons. Generally, no effort was made to select candidate reference sites before assessments began.
Reference site selection criteria are reported in Table A-1. To be classified as reference, a site must have
met all of the listed conditions. Based on these criteria, West Virginia DEP identified 67 reference sites
out of the 720 benthic sites sampled during the 1996-97 field seasons. Tetra Tech used the 67 reference
sites identified by West Virginia to characterize reference conditions.
Tetra Tech, Inc.
A-1
March 28, 2000 (Revised July 21, 2000)
Appeal: 16-1024
Doc: 75-5
Filed: 01/04/2017
Pg: 36 of 80
A Stream Condition Index for West Virginia Wadeable Streams
Table A-1. Reference criteria for West Virginia 1996-1997 Stream Assessment1
Parameter
Criterion
Explanation
1
Dissolved oxygen
6.0 mg/l
Taken from “WV Water Quality Standards” as developed by the
State Water Resources Board (SWRB)
2
pH
6.0 and 9.0
3
Conductivity
<500 umhos/cm
Conductivity and pH are based on observations of WAP and OWR
data and from BPJ of experienced OWR field personnel
4
Fecal coliform
<800 colonies/
100 ml
5
No obvious sources of non-point-source pollution (NPS)
6
Epifaunal
substrate score
11
7
Channel alteration
score
11
8
Sediment
deposition score
11
9
Bank disruptive
pressure score
11
10
Riparian
vegetation zone
width score
6 (variable
11
Total habitat score
65% of maximum 240 (% is variable depending on watershed)
12
Evaluation of
anthropogenic
activities and
disturbances
Best professional judgement is employed to make reference site inclusions based on
the number and type of disturbance. For example, a surface mine site would generally
be considered a greater disturbance than the combination of an ATV trail and a small
road and would exclude the site from reference condition consideration. However,
impacts from the ATV trail and/or road may be considered so minor that they do not
exclude the site from reference consideration.
13
1
This limit is double the maximum set by the SWRB (where the
standard is no more than 400 colonies/100 ml in more than 10% of
all samples taken during the month. Reference criterion value was
raised to 800/100ml due to the lengthy holding time of fecal
samples (24 hours in many cases). In addition, experienced field
personnel have encountered fecal levels exceeding the standard in
some streams where no human impacts were possible (possibly due
to wildlife populations), so the higher level of 800/100ml would
reduce the possibility of excluding some anthropogenically
undisturbed streams from reference consideration.
6
9/1assessment modified
Criteria 6-11 are adapted from RBP habitat
/1 These criteria were
for use in the USEPA/EMAP2
1 program.most indicative of
selected because theyd presumably
e are
anthropogenicw
perturbation. A value 11 indicates that stream
e
habitat vat least sub-optimal for that particular parameter. The
is
,WAPisampling strategy dictates that assessments be
4
02WV the habitat scoresthe mouths ofare roadside-accessible tends to
conducted at or near
streams. This strategy
-1 bias
(many sites
or below
. 16
No
depending on
watershed)
bridges) and in many cases results in relatively low scores for those
parameters which are most indicative of human disturbance. It is
for this reason that the minimum values are set to 11 (#6-9) and 6
(#10). Otherwise, few streams (if any) would meet the selection
criteria.
No known point source discharges
(completed after 1-12 are met)
upstream of assessment site
As provided in “WVDEP Watershed Assessment Program Reference Site Selection Guidance for Riffle/Run
Streams” memo dated 2/4/98.
Tetra Tech, Inc.
A-2
March 28, 2000 (Revised July 21, 2000)
Appeal: 16-1024
Doc: 75-5
Filed: 01/04/2017
Pg: 37 of 80
A Stream Condition Index for West Virginia Wadeable Streams
A.3
Site classification
Detection of changes in the biological assemblage due to human effects must take into account inherent
differences due to natural factors. Natural variability in the macroinvertebrate assemblage may result
from natural variability in the physical and chemical site characteristics across a geographic range. Much
of the natural variability can often be accounted for by dividing the area into ecological regions
(ecoregions; Omernik 1987). Level 3 ecoregions (Omernik 1987) have been used as an accepted
geographic framework for delineating regions of relatively homogeneous natural conditions (e.g.,
Barbour et al. 1996). West Virginia data in this analysis were collected from sites in three Level 3
ecoregions: Ridge and Valley (No. 67), Western Allegheny Plateau (No. 70), and Central Appalachians
(No. 69). We examined whether the Level 3 ecoregions accounted for variability of biota among sites,
and whether additional physical and chemical information could account for the variability.
The geographic distribution of West Virginia sampling sites for 1996-1997 was not sufficiently broad to
fully address site classification based on ecoregions (see Figure 3-1). Tetra Tech obtained data from
EPA’s Mid-Atlantic Highlands Assessment of the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment program
(EMAP-MAHA) from 1993-1994 to expand the data set to achieve a sufficient geographic distribution of
reference sites for analyzing possible site classification. Because of the use of different field collection
methods in the two programs, EMAP and West Virginia data were not combined. Instead, West
Virginia’s reference site criteria (Table A-1) were applied as closely as possible to the EMAP data in
order to select substitute reference sites for use in classification analysis. Water chemistry (criteria 1-3;
Table A-1) and habitat (criteria 6-11; Table A-1) could b e applied to the EMAP data. Using this
procedure, 80 EMAP sites (all riffles) were selected from the three ecoregions of Ridge and Valley (67),
Western Allegheny Plateau (70), and Central Appalachians (69). The EMAP reference sites were not
required to be located in West Virginia as long as they were located in an ecoregion that extended from
an adjacent state into West Virginia. Locations of West Virginia sampling sites, EMAP sites, and EMAP
reference sites are shown in Figure 3-1.
102
6-
o. 1
N
w
e
, vi
4
2
d1
e
6
9/1
/1
Alternative classification schemes were examined with multivariate ordination of the sampling sites
based on their species composition, following methods outlined in Jongman et al. (1987) and Ludwig and
Reynolds (1988). Ordination is a family of methods for reducing the dimensionality of multivariate
information (many species in many sites), by placing sites or species in an order. The ordination method
we use is non-metric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) using the Bray-Curtis dissimilarity coefficient.
This method has been shown to be robust for ordination of species composition (e.g., Kenkel and Orloci
1986, Ludwig and Reynolds 1988) and has been used successfully for classification of stream
communities (e.g., Barbour et al. 1996; Reynoldson et al. 1997).
NMDS is a nonlinear ordination that attempts to place sites in a spatial orientation that agrees with some
distance measure between the sites. It is analogous to creating a map using only the distances between
cities. In the case of our ordination of biological samples, the “distance” between two samples is their
percent similarity, as measured by one of several similarity indexes. The Bray-Curtis index is the percent
that two assemblages are similar to each other.
Tetra Tech, Inc.
A-3
March 28, 2000 (Revised July 21, 2000)
Appeal: 16-1024
Doc: 75-5
Filed: 01/04/2017
Pg: 38 of 80
A Stream Condition Index for West Virginia Wadeable Streams
A matrix of Bray-Curtis similarities was calculated from the species-relative abundance data. This
matrix was then used in the NMDS procedure. The NMDS ordination (McCune and Mefford 1995)
follows the procedure of Kruskal (1964). The final ordination was required to have a stress coefficient (a
measure of goodness-of-fit of the ordination to the original data) of less than 20%. This usually required
3 ordination axes. The final NMDS configuration was plotted (as a scatterplot) to determine any obvious
groupings and to evaluate alternative classes (Figures 3-2 and 3-3). Candidate classifications were tested
with similarity analysis (Van Sickle 1997) to determine the strength of the classification. This procedure
calculates the mean similarity of sites within classes, and the mean similarity of sites among classes. The
difference between the two is the % of dissimilarity that is explained or accounted for by the
classification. Thus, a value of 10% indicates that the classification (say, ecoregions) explains 10% of
the total dissimilarity (difference) among all sites (Table 3-1).
A.4
Testing of Candidate Metrics
Various attributes of the benthic macroinvertebrate community have been proposed as metrics to
quantitatively characterize aspects of the community condition (e.g., Gibson et al. 1996, Stribling et al.
1998). Twenty-four candidate measures were considered for use with the West Virginia benthic
macroinvertebrate data. These metrics were selected based upon their known or suspected ability to
discriminate impairment. The 24 candidate metrics fall into five categories of community attributes:
taxonomic composition, taxonomic richness or abundance, feeding or trophic groups, life habit, and
degree of tolerance to stress in the environment.
A.4.1
Metric Categories
102
6-
w
e
, vi
4
2
d1
e
6
9/1
/1
Taxonomic richness. Metrics in this category are counts of the distinct number of taxa within selected
taxonomic groups. “Total taxa” and “EPT taxa” are widely used metrics that provide information on
overall and group-specific taxonomic variety. “EPT taxa” measures richness in three insect orders
known to be generally sensitive to disturbance (Ephemeroptera [mayflies], Plecoptera [stoneflies], and
Trichoptera [caddisflies]), thereby conferring information both on variety and community tolerance.
Other candidate metrics of this category are focused on different orders, families, or non-insect groups of
ecological importance.
o. 1
N
Taxonomic composition. These metrics are based on the proportion of individuals in a sample
belonging to a specified taxonomic group. They are expressed as percentages and reveal the relative
abundance of insect and non-insect groups, each of which may respond differently to environmental
conditions and community dynamics.
Feeding group. The functional feeding group designation for an organism reflects the dominant mode of
feeding, not the specific nutritional source or benefits (Cummins and Klug 1979, Merritt and Cummins
1984, Wallace and Webster 1996). Designations for each taxon include filterers, scrapers, collectorgatherers, predators, shredders, and others. Scrapers are those organisms that remove periphyton or other
algal material and the associated microbes from mineral or vegetable substrates. Predators engulf or
actively capture living animal tissue or prey. Collector-gatherers feed on organic materials that are
Tetra Tech, Inc.
A-4
March 28, 2000 (Revised July 21, 2000)
Appeal: 16-1024
Doc: 75-5
Filed: 01/04/2017
Pg: 39 of 80
A Stream Condition Index for West Virginia Wadeable Streams
deposited or trapped within episubstrate layers of fine sediments or detritus. Filterers trap, engulf, or
strain suspended particulates from the water column that may be plant or animal in origin. Shredders
chew and break up woody materials, coarse organic particulates, or living macrophyte tissue.
Habit. The habit description categorizes a benthic organism’s behavior with regard to how it maintains
its location or moves. Designations for a taxon include skaters, swimmers, divers, climbers, clingers,
burrowers, and others. Although habit metrics have been used successfully, they are considered
unreliable for family-level data, because there is no assurance that all genera in a family have the same
habit. Because of this, habit metrics were not tested.
Tolerance/Intolerance. Tolerance of a taxon is based on its ability to survive short- and long-term
exposure to organic pollution. The Hilsenhoff Biotic Index (HBI) weights each taxon in a sample by its
proportion of individuals and the taxon’s tolerance value. Following the basic framework established by
Hilsenhoff (1982), tolerance values were assigned to individual taxa on a scale of 0-10, with 0
identifying those taxa least tolerant (most sensitive) to stressors, and 10 identifying those taxa most
tolerant (least sensitive) to stressors. Tolerance values compiled by USEPA (USEPA 1990) and Merritt
and Cummins (1984) were used for this analysis.
6
9/1by the five categories
Specific metrics tested with West Virginia benthic macroinvertebrate data,1
/ grouped
described above, are presented in Table A-2 , along with the expected 2
response of each metric to
increasing impairment of the waterbody.
d1
e
ew
A.4.2 Metric discrimination ability
, vi
024
Metrics are selected for use in the multimetric index on the basis of their ability to differentiate between
unimpaired, or reference, sites and sites whose physical and/or chemical quality is impaired. As
6-1
1
previously noted, West Virginia DEP identified 67 reference sites according to physical and chemical
o. A-1. Tetra Tech used the following criteria, using parameters similar to
parameters reported N
in Table
those used by WVDEP for identifying reference sites, to identify likely impaired sites. To be categorized
as impaired, a site needed to meet only one of the listed conditions. Using these criteria, 69 sites were
identified.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Dissolved oxygen < 4.0 mg/l
pH <4.0
Conductivity > 1000 µmhos
Epifaunal substrate score <7 and Total habitat score <120
Channel alteration score <7 and Total habitat score <120
Sediment deposition score <7 and Total habitat score <120
Bank disruptive pressure score <7 and Total habitat score <120
Riparian vegetation zone width score <4 and Total habitat score <120
Tetra Tech, Inc.
A-5
March 28, 2000 (Revised July 21, 2000)
Appeal: 16-1024
Doc: 75-5
Filed: 01/04/2017
Pg: 40 of 80
A Stream Condition Index for West Virginia Wadeable Streams
Table A-2. Attributes of Benthic Macroinvertebrates used as Candidate Metrics, and Expected Response
of Metric to Increasing Disturbance.
Category
Specific Metrics
Expected
response
! = increase
± = decrease
Definition
Taxonomic richness:
Total taxa
EPT taxa
Ephemeroptera taxa
Number of taxa:
in the entire sample; measures the overall variety of the
macroinvertebrate assemblage
that is the sum of taxa in the insect orders Ephemeroptera,
Plecoptera, and Trichoptera
in the order Ephemeroptera (mayfly nymphs)
Plecoptera taxa
in the order Plecoptera (stonefly naiads)
Trichoptera taxa
in the order Trichoptera (caddisfly larvae)
Diptera taxa
in the order Diptera (“true” flies)
Chironomidae taxa
in the family Chironomidae (midge larvae)
Taxonomic composition:
% Dominant taxon
% 2 Dominant taxa
%EPT
% Ephemeroptera
% Plecoptera
% Trichoptera
% Diptera
% Chironomidae
6
9/1
/1
Percent abundance (of individuals in the sample) of:
the single most abundant taxon
the 2 most abundant taxa
2
d1
e
w
vie
4,
stonefly naiads (order Plecoptera)
2(order Trichoptera)
0
caddisfly larvae
6-1larvae and pupae
1
o. ”true” fly (midge) larvae pupae
N chironomid
% Oligochaeta
Feeding groups
% Filterers
Ephemeroptera (mayfly nymphs), Plecoptera (stonefly naiads), and
Trichoptera (caddisfly larvae)
mayfly nymphs (order Ephemeroptera)
aquatic worms
Percent abundance of individuals belonging to the functional feeding
group:
filterers
% Scrapers
scrapers
% Collectors
collectors
% Predators
predators
% Shredders
shredders
Tolerance/Intolerance
Intolerant taxa
Number of taxa with a Tolerance Value 3
% Tolerant
Percent abundance of organisms with a Tolerance value 7
Hilsenhoff Biotic Index
(HBI)
Abundance-weighted average tolerance of assemblage of organisms
Tetra Tech, Inc.
A-6
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
!
!
±
±
±
±
!
!
!
!
±
±
±
±
±
!
!
March 28, 2000 (Revised July 21, 2000)
Appeal: 16-1024
Doc: 75-5
Filed: 01/04/2017
Pg: 41 of 80
A Stream Condition Index for West Virginia Wadeable Streams
Box-and-whisker plots were used to display differences
in ranges of values of the metrics between stream-quality
categories (reference and impaired sites). This type of
plot displays the statistics of median value, minimum
value, maximum value, and 25th and 75th percentile
values of a population of sites. Figure A-1 illustrates
how the statistical values are displayed by the box-andwhisker plots employed in this report (after Statsoft
1998). The box shows the range from the 25th percentile
to the 75th percentile of the metric values (the
interquartile range, or IQR), and whiskers show the range
from the non-outlier minimum (often 0) to non-outlier
maximum value. The non-outlier maximum limit is
equal to the 75th percentile value plus 1.5 times the
interquartile range, and the non-outlier minimum limit is
equal to the 25th percentile value minus 1.5 times the
interquartile range. The whiskers show the range of data
values that are within these limits, not necessarily the
actual 1.5x limits. Extremes are values that are either (1)
greater than the 75th percentile value plus 3 times the
4, v
02
14
12
EPT taxa
10
No
8
6
4
2
6-1
.1
impaired
Non-Outlier Max
Non-Outlier Min
75%
25%
Median
Outliers
impaired
Non-Outlier Max
Non-Outlier Min
75%
25%
Median
Outliers
Extremes
0
reference
/ 6
9of1 and extremes in
1
Figure A-1. Ranges outliers
12/
box-and-whisker plots (after Statsoft 1998). IQR
is the interquartile range.
ed
iew
100
90
80
% Scrap
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
ref
Figure A-2. Use of boxplots to discriminate between West
Virginia reference and impaired sites. EPT taxa (top)
shows better discrimination ability than does Percent
Scrapers (bottom).
Tetra Tech, Inc.
A-7
interquartile range, or (2) less than the 25th
percentile value minus 3 times the interquartile
range (Figure A-1). Outliers are values falling
between the 1.5×IQR whisker threshold and the
3×IQR Extremes threshold.
Boxplots of the metrics “EPT taxa” and
“Percent Scrapers” may be examined to
illustrate differences in the ability of the metrics
to discriminate between reference and impaired
sites. Figure A-2 illustrates these metric values
calculated from the 1996-1997 West Virginia
data. For the Percent Scrapers metric (Figure
A-2, bottom), there is substantial overlap
between the interquartile ranges of the reference
and impaired populations of sampling sites.
This metric does not differentiate well between
the two populations of sites. In contrast, the
EPT taxa metric (Figure A-2, top) shows no
March 28, 2000 (Revised July 21, 2000)
Appeal: 16-1024
Doc: 75-5
Filed: 01/04/2017
Pg: 42 of 80
A Stream Condition Index for West Virginia Wadeable Streams
overlap between the interquartile ranges of the reference and impaired sites. This metric differentiates
clearly between the two populations of sites.
For quantitative comparison of the discrimination ability of a metric, each metric’s discrimination
efficiency (DE) was examined. The DE of a particular metric measures the agreement between metric
values and the reference status of a site. The DE is a numerical description of the degree of separation
between metric value distributions of reference and impaired sites and is calculated as a percentage
according to Equation 1:
DE ' 100(
(Eq. 1)
a
b
For metrics that are expected to decrease in value with increasing site impairment, such as Total taxa or
%EPT, the values for a and b are:
a=
6
9/1
/1
the number of stressed samples scoring below the 25th percentile of the reference
distribution
the total number of stressed samples
12
dsite impairment, such as HBI or
e
For metrics that are expected to increase in value with increasing
ew
%Diptera, the value for a is:
, vi
a=
the number of stressed samples scoring above the 75th percentile of the reference
024
distribution
6-1
1
o. performance of a metric, or a better ability to distinguish between
A higher DE indicated better
N
unstressed and stressed conditions.
b=
A.5
Index development
A multimetric index is a simple additive approach for combining metric value information from different
types of biological metrics into a single numeric assessment value. Each metric, as described in Section
A.4, is a quantitative measure of some specific attribute of the benthic community structure or
composition. In developing a multimetric index, care is taken to include metrics that
•
•
•
are most able to differentiate between reference and impaired sites,
represent at least some different aspects of the community (species composition, richness,
tolerance, feeding groups, and the like), and
minimize redundancy among individual component metrics.
The process of multimetric index development involved first scoring the selected metrics and then
averaging these scores into a single numerical index value. To score the metrics, the range of values for
Tetra Tech, Inc.
A-8
March 28, 2000 (Revised July 21, 2000)
Appeal: 16-1024
Doc: 75-5
Filed: 01/04/2017
Pg: 43 of 80
A Stream Condition Index for West Virginia Wadeable Streams
each metric was standardized on a 100-point scale, assigning all metric values a score ranging from 0
(worst) to 100 (best). The specific scoring procedure used for achieving the 100-point scoring range
differed depending on the direction of expected response by the metric value to disturbance or
impairment. For those metrics in which higher values are considered a “better” condition and lower
values are considered “worse”(such as, %EPT in Table A-2, where the expected response to increasing
perturbation is a decrease in %EPT individuals), the scoring procedure is described in section A.5.1
below. Conversely, for those metrics in which higher values are considered “worse,” such as %Diptera
in Table A-2, whose expected response to increasing perturbation is for the metric value to increase, the
scoring procedure is described in section A.5.2 below. Note: in exceptionally high quality streams, one
or more of a site’s individual metrics may score greater than 100. The effect of such cases on the site
index is addressed in Section A.5.3.
A.5.1
Scoring for metrics whose values are expected to decrease with site degradation
For metrics such as Total Taxa or %EPT, which are expected to decrease in value with increasing site
impairment (i.e., higher values represent “better” sites), the 95th percentile metric value was assigned a
score of 100. By choosing the 95th percentile value rather than the 100th percentile as the “best” score,
we reduce the effect of unusual outlier values that might otherwise skew the ultimate index (Section
A.5.3). Values between the minimum (“worst,” usually 0) and the 95th percentile value (standard, or
best value) were scored proportionally from 0 (“worst”) to 100 (“best”) according to Equation 2:
2
d1
e
(Eq. 2)
6
9/1
/1
iexw
vwhere,= the metric value
4,
)x100 ; 02
x = the 95th percentile value
x = the minimum possible value, usually 0.
1
16o.
Scoring for N
metrics whose values are expected to increase with site degradation
score =
(
x
x95 -xmin
95
min
A.5.2
For metrics such as HBI or %Diptera, which are expected to increase in value with increasing site
impairment (higher values represent “worse” sites), the 5th percentile metric value was assigned the
“best” score of 100. Again, by choosing the 5th percentile value rather than the minimum value as the
“best” score, we reduce the effect of unusual outlier values that might skew the ultimate index (Section
A.5.3). For these metrics, values between the maximum (“worst”) value in the range and the 5th
percentile (“best”) value were scored proportionally between 0 (“worst”) and 100 (“best”) according to
Equation 3:
(Eq. 3)
score =
Tetra Tech, Inc.
(
xmax -x
xmax -x5
)x100 ;
where, x = the metric value
x5 = the 5th percentile value
xmax = the maximum possible value; e.g., 100% for
percentage metrics; 10 for HBI.
A-9
March 28, 2000 (Revised July 21, 2000)
Appeal: 16-1024
Doc: 75-5
Filed: 01/04/2017
Pg: 44 of 80
A Stream Condition Index for West Virginia Wadeable Streams
A.5.3
Combining scores into an index
By standardizing the metric values to a common 100-point scale, each of the metrics contributes to the
combined index with equal weighting, and all of the metric scores represent increasingly “better” site
conditions as scores increase toward 100. Once all metric values for sites were converted to scores on
the 100-point scale, a single multimetric site index value was calculated by simply averaging the
individual metric values for the site. To assure that each metric did indeed contribute equally to the
final index, any individual metrics that may have scored greater than 100 in any exceptionally high
quality stream sites were converted to a maximum score of 100 when averaging to calculate the index.
An example of metric standardization, showing raw metric values, score standardization, and index
scoring is given in Table A-3.
Table A-3. Metric standardization example for site WVMC-60-K (Glady Fork).
Change
with
impairment
Percentile for
“best” value
%EPT
decrease
95th
%Chironomidae
increase
5th
Total taxa
decrease
95th
EPT taxa
decrease
% 2 dominant taxa
increase
HBI
increase
Metric
No
A.6
Standard
(best value)
. 16
Standardized
metric score
83
90
10
91
16
76
10
77
36
43
89
2.9
4
84
0.98
v
5th4,
2
105th
95th
2
d1
e
w21
e 13
i
91.9
6
9/1
/1
Measured
metric value
Final index (SCI) value for the site:
85
Index validation and refinement
New data were received from West Virginia DEP in August 1999 for use in validating the working index.
These data consisted of sampling and taxonomic results from 549 sites, sampled from four major basins
during the 1998 field season and from one basin (Coal) during fall 1997 and not included with the
previously analyzed data. For the working index to be valid, it should separate reference from stressed
sites in the new data just as with the original data used to develop the index.
Reference and stressed sites in the new data set were identified using non-biological criteria as in the
original data set. The same parameters used for identifying reference and stressed sites in the original
1996-1997 data were used where possible to identify the new data set’s reference and stressed sites.
WVDEP habitat data collection procedures differed somewhat in 1998 from earlier years, so that the
selection criteria for reference and impaired sites were slightly modified for analysis of the 1998
validation data set. West Virginia DEP personnel identified 40 reference sites in the new data set using
criteria similar to those used for the 1996-1997 calibration data set (Table A-1). To identify stressed
Tetra Tech, Inc.
A-10
March 28, 2000 (Revised July 21, 2000)
Appeal: 16-1024
Doc: 75-5
Filed: 01/04/2017
Pg: 45 of 80
A Stream Condition Index for West Virginia Wadeable Streams
sites in the new data, Tetra Tech used parameters similar to those used to identify the original data set’s
stressed sites, modified according to revised data collection procedures. Table A-4 lists selection criteria
that were used to identify 102 stressed sites in the validation data.
To test the effectiveness of the working index, the six recommended metrics (Chapter 4) were calculated
for the new data set. These metric values were standardized, and index values were calculated, as
described in section A.5. The degree to which the recommended index correctly classified these new test
data was examined by calculating the discrimination efficiency (DE) of the working index as applied to
the new data. The DE of the working index for classifying the new data’s reference sites was found
according to Equation 1 (Section A.4.2), where:
a = the number of reference sites from the test data (1998) scoring above the 25th percentile of
the original data’s reference sites, and,
b = the total number of test data reference sites (n=40).
6
9/1
/1
The DE of the working index for classifying the new data’s stressed sites was found according to
Equation 1 (Section A.4.2), where:
2
d1
e
a = the number of stressed sites from the test data scoring below the 25th percentile of the
original data’s reference sites, and,
w
e
, vi
4
b = the total number of test data stressed sites (n=102).
102
6-
o. 1
N
Table A-4. Selection criteria for stressed sites in the new data set. A site was identified as stressed if it
met at least one of the listed criteria.
Stressed (sites meet at
least one of the criteria)
n=102
Dissolved oxygen (mg/L)
<4
pH
<4
Conductivity (µmhos)
>1000
Fecal coliform (colonies/100mL)
not used
Channel alteration score
<7 and total habitat score <120
Sediment deposition score
<7 and total habitat score <120
Riparian vegetation zone width:
• Coal basin (1997); one combined score for both
banks (as in original 1996-97 data)
<4 and total habitat score <120
• 1998 basins; reported separately for each bank
<2 for each bank, and total habitat score <120
Tetra Tech, Inc.
A-11
March 28, 2000 (Revised July 21, 2000)
Appeal: 16-1024
Doc: 75-5
Filed: 01/04/2017
Pg: 46 of 80
A Stream Condition Index for West Virginia Wadeable Streams
Table A-4 (cont’d). Selection criteria for stressed sites in the new data set. A site was identified as stressed if it
met at least one of the listed criteria.
Stressed (sites meet at
least one of the criteria)
n=102
Bank disruptive pressure:
• Coal basin (1997); one combined score for both
banks (as in original 1996-97 data)
• 1998 basins; data not reported; substituted Bank
Stability scores, reported separately for each bank
<7 and total habitat score <120
<4 for each bank and total habitat score <120
Epifaunal substrate score:
• Coal basin (1997)
<7 and total habitat score <120
• 1998 basins, data not reported; no substitute parameter used
6
9/1 the standard, or
Once the discrimination efficiency of the working index was found to be /1
2 acceptable,
“best” values (section A.5) for each metric were re-determined by combining the original 1996-1997 data
1
with the 1998 data. Percentile distributions of each metric’s ed were determined for the combined
values
data set (n=1268 benthic samples). The standard, or “best” values, for each metric were revised to the
iew
95th or 5th percentile (depending on the metric), v distribution of this combined data set.
of the
024 sub-sample sizes
Consideration of the effect of different organism
6-1
.1
Because WVDEP’s benthic macroinvertebrates were sub-sampled to 200 organisms in the 1998 data,
oas in the earlier data set, there was some concern over whether the difference
N
rather than 100 organisms
Refinement of standard “best” values
would cause taxa richness metrics to be over-estimated in the new data (higher numbers of taxa simply
because more organisms were counted and identified). Tetra Tech examined the correlation between the
number of organisms and number of taxa (Total and EPT) in the reference sites of both data sets (Figure
A-3) in order to determine whether it might be appropriate to apply a statistical procedure called
rarefaction to the 200-organism data. This procedure would examine the distribution of metric values
against sample size and adjust the two taxa richness metrics in larger-sized samples to what the expected
values would be at the smaller 100-organism sample size. Although there does appear to be some effect
between sample size (number of organisms) and taxa richness (wherein the number of taxa is greater in
part simply because more organisms are counted and identified), the effect is not great with the familylevel identifications of West Virginia’s data. It was decided among Tetra Tech, EPA Region 3, and
WVDEP that rarefaction would not be applied to the data, since WVDEP plans to continue the 200organism subsampling protocol in their future biological monitoring, so that any effect from different
sample sizes will be diminished as the bioassessment program progresses. The adjustment to the index,
described above, of using distributions from all 1996-1998 data to determine each metric’s standard/best
value also will help to reduce possible effects from the different sub-sample sizes in the data.
Tetra Tech, Inc.
A-12
March 28, 2000 (Revised July 21, 2000)
Appeal: 16-1024
Doc: 75-5
Filed: 01/04/2017
Pg: 47 of 80
A Stream Condition Index for West Virginia Wadeable Streams
a. Total Taxa vs. Individuals
28
Total number of taxa
24
20
16
12
8
0
100
200
400
Number of individuals
w
vie
b. EPT Taxa vs. Individuals
24,
-10
18
16
e
96-97 ref sites
98 ref sites
. 16
No
14
Number of EPT Taxa
6
9/1
1
12/
d
300
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0
100
200
300
400
96-97 ref sites
98 ref sites
Number of individuals
Figure A-3. Number of taxa (Total and EPT) vs. number of individual organisms in
West Virginia benthic sampling reference sites.
Tetra Tech, Inc.
A-13
March 28, 2000 (Revised July 21, 2000)
Appeal: 16-1024
Doc: 75-5
Filed: 01/04/2017
Pg: 48 of 80
6
9/1
APPENDIX B2/1
d1
e
ew
, vi
024
6-1
LITERATURE CITED
o. 1
N
Appeal: 16-1024
Doc: 75-5
Filed: 01/04/2017
Pg: 49 of 80
A Stream Condition Index for West Virginia Wadeable Streams
LITERATURE CITED
Barbour, M.T., J. Gerritsen, G.E. Griffith, R. Frydenborg, E. McCarron, J.S. White, and M.L. Bastian.
1996. A framework for biological criteria for Florida streams using benthic macroinvertebrates.
J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 15(2):185-211.
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. EPA, Office of Water, Washington, D.C.
Barbour, M.T., J.B. Stribling, and J.R. Karr. 1995. The multimetric approach for establishing biocriteria
and measuring biological condition. Pp. 63-76. In W.S. Davis and T.P. Simon, editors.
Biological Assessment and Criteria: Tools for Water Resource Planning and Decision Making.
Lewis Publishers, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
6
9/1 Rev. Ecol. Syst.
Cummins, K.W. and M.J. Klug. 1979. Feeding ecology of stream invertebrates. Ann.
1
10:147-172.
12/
ed
w
Gibson, G.A., M.T. Barbour, J.B. Stribling, J. Gerritsen, and J.R. Karr. 1996. Biological criteria:
vie
Technical guidance for streams and rivers. EPA/822-B-94-001. U.S. Environmental Protection
24, Technology, Washington, D.C.
Agency (US EPA), Office of10 and
Science
6.1
Hilsenhoff, W.L. 1982.o
Using a Biotic Index to Evaluate Water Quality in Streams. Wisconsin
N
Department of Natural Resources, Madison, Wisconsin. Technical Bulletin No. 132.
Jongman, R.H.G., C.J.F. ter Braak, and O.F.R. van Tongeren, editors. 1987. Data Analysis in
Community and Landscape Ecology. Pudoc Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Karr, J.R. 1991. Biological integrity: A long-neglected aspect of water resource management. Ecol.
Applic. 1:66-84.
Karr, J.R., K.D. Fausch, P.L. Angermeier, P.R. Yant, and I.J. Schlosser. 1986. Assessment of biological
integrity in running waters: A method and its rationale. Illinois Natural History Survey,
Champaign, Illinois. Special Publication 5.
Tetra Tech, Inc.
B-1
March 28, 2000 (Revised July 21, 2000)
Appeal: 16-1024
Doc: 75-5
Filed: 01/04/2017
Pg: 50 of 80
A Stream Condition Index for West Virginia Wadeable Streams
Karr, J.R., and D.R. Dudley. 1981. Ecological perspectives on water quality goals. Environ. Manage.
5:55-68.
Kenkel, N.C. and L. Orloci. 1986. Applying metric and nonmetric multidimensional scaling to
ecological studies: some new results. Ecology 67:919-928.
Kerans, B.L., and J.R. Karr. 1994. Development and testing of a benthic index of biotic integrity (BIBI) for rivers of the Tennessee Valley. Ecol. Applic. 4(4):768-785.
Kruskal, J.B. 1964. Nonmetric multidimensional scaling: a numerical method. Psychometrika 29:115129.
Ludwig, J.A. and J.F. Reynolds. 1988. Statistical Ecology: A Primer on Methods and Computing. John
Wiley & Sons, New York.
6
9/1 and R. Renfrow.
Maxted, J., M.T. Barbour, J. Gerritsen, V. Poretti, N. Primrose, A. Silvia, D. Penrose,
1
2000. Stream classification and biological metrics for the Mid-Atlantic Coastal Plain Ecoregion.
12/
J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. In Press.
ed
w
vie Analysis of Ecological Data, Version 2.0.
McCune, B., and M.J. Mefford. 1995. PC-ORD. Multivariate
24, Oregon, USA.
0
MjM Software Design, Gleneden Beach,
6-1
o. 1
Merritt, R.W., and K.W. Cummins, editors. 1984. An Introduction to the Aquatic Insects of North
N
America, 2nd edition. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, Dubuque, Iowa.
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1989. Addendum to biological criteria for the protection
of aquatic life, volume II: users manual for biological field assessment of Ohio surface water.
Ohio EPA, Division of Water Quality Planning and Assessment, Ecological Assessment Section,
Columbus, Ohio.
Omernik, J.M. 1987. Ecoregions of the conterminous United States. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 77(1):
118-125.
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/440/4-89001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, D.C.
Tetra Tech, Inc.
B-2
March 28, 2000 (Revised July 21, 2000)
Appeal: 16-1024
Doc: 75-5
Filed: 01/04/2017
Pg: 51 of 80
A Stream Condition Index for West Virginia Wadeable Streams
Reynoldson, T.B., R.H. Norris, V.H. Resh, K.E. Day, and D.M. Rosenberg. 1997. The reference
condition: A comparison of multimetric and multivariate approaches to assess water-quality
impairment using benthic macroinvertebrates. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 16:833-852.
Southerland, M.T., and J.B. Stribling. 1995. Status of biological criteria development and
implementation. Pages 81-96 in W.S. Davis and T.P. Simon (editors). Biological assessment
and criteria: Tools for water resource planning and decision making. Lewis Publishers, Boca
Raton, Florida.
Statsoft, Inc.. 1998. Statistica for Windows, Volume II, Graphics. 2nd edition. Tulsa, Oklahoma.
Stribling, J.B., B.K. Jessup, J.S. White, D. Boward, and M. Hurd. 1998. Development of a Benthic
Index of Biotic Integrity for Maryland Streams. CBW-MANTA-EA-98-3. Maryland
Department of Natural Resources, Chesapeake Bay and Watershed Programs. Monitoring and
Non-Tidal Assessment Division.
2
d1
e
6
9/1
/1
Tetra Tech, Inc. 1999. Ecological Data Application System (EDAS), A User’s Manual. Prepared by
Tetra Tech, Inc., Owings Mills, Maryland.
w
vie (DRAFT). Freshwater Macroinvertebrate
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 1990
24,and Functional Feeding Group Designations for Use in
0
Species List Including Tolerance Values
6-1 EA Report No. 11075.05. Prepared by EA Engineering,
Rapid Bioassessment 1
. Protocols. EPA, Office of Water, Washington, D.C.
Science, and Technology for US
No
Van Sickle, J. 1997. Using mean similarity dendrograms to evaluate classifications. J. Ag. Biol.
Environ. Stat. 2:370-388.
Wallace, J.B. and J.R. Webster. 1996. The role of macroinvertebrates in stream ecosystem function.
Ann. Rev. Entomol. 41: 115-139.
Tetra Tech, Inc.
B-3
March 28, 2000 (Revised July 21, 2000)
Appeal: 16-1024
Doc: 75-5
Filed: 01/04/2017
Pg: 52 of 80
6
9/1
APPENDIX C2/1
d1
e
ew
, vi AND METRIC
SITE METRICS
024
6-1 SCORES
o. 1
N
Appeal: 16-1024
Doc: 75-5
Filed: 01/04/2017
Appendix C
Pg: 53 of 80
Site metrics and metric scores
Stations are grouped by data set (1= 1996-1997 calibration data; 2= 1997-1998 validation data). Within each data set, stations are listed by site type (reference, unlabeled, stressed), then within type by ascending Station ID.
Data
Set Station ID
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
WVK-13
WVK-14-B-1-97
WVK-39-E-3-{0.6}97
WVK-39-M-1-A-{1.0}97
WVK-43-{156.2}
WVKE-102-A
WVKE-111-S
WVKE-117-B
WVKE-136-{0.5}
WVKE-137
WVKE-14-P
WVKE-50-B-10
WVKE-76-U-{0.8}
WVKE-98-C-1-0.5A
WVKE-98-C-14-{1.4}
WVKE-98-C-15-{1.0}
WVMC-12-A-{03}
WVMC-2-A
WVMC-52-A
WVMC-54-A
WVMC-54-C
WVMC-60-C
WVMC-60-C-3
WVMC-60-C-4
WVMC-60-E
WVMC-60-F
WVMC-60-I
WVMC-60-K
WVMC-60-K-2-A
WVMC-60-N-8.5
WVMC-60-T-1
WVMC-60-T-2
WVMC-60-T-3
WVMC-60-T-8
WVMC-7
WVMCS-12
WVMCS-14
WVMCS-28
WVMCS-53
WVMCS-54
WVMCS-8
WVMT-64-{6.7}
WVMT-64-C
WVMTB-31
WVMTB-32-D
WVMTM-1
WVMTM-11-{7.6}
WVMTM-11-E
WVMTM-25-{1.5}
WVMTM-25-A
WVMTM-26-B
WVPNB-18
WVPNB-4-EE-7-{0.4}
WVPSB-21-{33.7}
WVPSB-28-D
WVPSB-28-EE-2-A
WVPSB-28-EE-3
WVPSB-28-EE-3-A
WVPSB-28-EE-3-B
WVPSB-28-EE-3-C
WVPSB-28-EE-3-D
WVPSB-28-G
WVPSB-28-GG-1
Site
Type
Stream Name
LITTLE SIXTEENMILE CREEK
U.T. OF FIVEFORK BRANCH
BAYS FORK
HOFFMAN HOLLOW
ELK RIVER
CAMP CREEK
FLINT RUN
RIGHT FORK/LEATHERWOOD
PROPS RUN
LAUREL RUN
PANTHER HOLLOW
IKE FORK
JOHNSON BRANCH
WILSON RUN
FALL RUN
BIG RUN/ LEFT FORK HOLLY
LAUREL RN/BIG SANDY CK ABOVE PATTERSON RN
DARNELL HOLLOW
ROARING RUN
MIKE RUN
MAXWELL RUN
ELKLICK RUN @ FERNOW EXP. FOREST
JOHN B. HOLLOW
HICKMAN SLIDE HOLLOW
LAUREL RUN/DRY FORK
OTTER CREEK
MILL RUN /DRY FORK
GLADY FORK
HOG RUN/ PANTHER CAMP RUN
TINGLER RUN/LAUREL FK
LOWER TWO SPRING RUN
UPPER TWO SPRING RUN
SWALLOW ROCK RUN
BIG RUN/ GANDY CK NEAR LEADING RIDGE MTN
SCOTT RUN/CHEAT RIVER
LITTLE LAUREL RUN/SHAVERS FORK
CLIFTON RUN
UPPER PONDLICK RUN
BEAVER CREEK/SHAVERS FORK
SECOND FORK
LAUREL RUN/SHAVERS FK
MILL CREEK
GLADE RUN/MILL CREEK
RIGHT FORK BUCKHANNON RIVER
BEAR CAMP RUN
HANGING RUN
RIGHT FORK OF MIDDLE FORK
JENKS RUN
SCOOLCRAFT RUN
BIRCH FORK
ROCKY RUN
DIFFICULT CREEK
UT OF NORTH FORK PATTERS ON CREEK
SOUTH FK /SOUTH BR POT @ FT. SEYBERT
MOYER FORK
BACK RUN /BIG RUN
TEETER CAMP RUN
HEMLOCK RUN
LEONARD SPRING RUN
MIDDLE RIDGE HOLLOW
BUD HOLLOW
ZEKE RUN
VANCE RUN
reference
reference
reference
reference
reference
reference
reference
reference
reference
reference
reference
reference
reference
reference
reference
reference
reference
reference
reference
reference
reference
reference
reference
reference
reference
reference
reference
reference
reference
reference
reference
reference
reference
reference
reference
reference
reference
reference
reference
reference
reference
reference
reference
reference
reference
reference
reference
reference
reference
reference
reference
reference
reference
reference
reference
reference
reference
reference
reference
reference
reference
reference
reference
Collect
Date
Total
taxa
Tot. taxa
score
EPT
taxa
EPT taxa
score
%
EPT
% EPT
score
%
Chiro.
%Chiro
score
5/12/1997
5/12/1997
5/11/1997
6/12/1997
7/8/1997
7/9/1997
7/9/1997
7/8/1997
7/6/1997
7/7/1997
6/26/1997
7/29/1997
7/22/1997
7/7/1997
7/22/1997
7/8/1997
6/19/1996
7/29/1996
7/29/1996
8/7/1996
7/30/1996
6/11/1996
6/11/1996
6/11/1996
6/11/1996
6/11/1996
6/11/1996
6/13/1996
7/29/1996
6/12/1996
6/10/1996
6/10/1996
7/30/1996
6/10/1996
7/23/1996
7/29/1996
6/12/1996
6/10/1996
7/30/1996
6/10/1996
8/8/1996
9/10/1997
9/10/1997
9/9/1997
9/16/1997
8/25/1997
9/8/1997
8/26/1997
8/27/1997
8/27/1997
9/9/1997
8/13/1997
8/12/1997
8/20/1996
9/9/1996
8/20/1996
8/20/1996
8/20/1996
8/20/1996
8/20/1996
8/20/1996
9/10/1996
8/21/1996
15
18
20
17
18
18
12
14
15
16
13
16
13
13
18
15
15
18
18
13
14
18
14
23
12
17
21
16
15
16
19
16
15
17
10
13
18
17
19
13
15
16
19
15
13
17
18
16
13
17
10
16
17
22
14
12
15
11
11
10
14
18
14
71
86
95
81
86
86
57
67
71
76
62
76
62
62
86
71
71
86
86
62
67
86
67
110
57
81
100
76
71
76
90
76
71
81
48
62
86
81
90
62
71
76
90
71
62
81
86
76
62
81
48
76
81
105
67
57
71
52
52
48
67
86
67
9
12
12
13
11
12
8
11
11
12
9
10
9
8
12
11
11
12
12
9
11
14
13
14
8
11
13
10
11
13
14
14
8
12
1
11
14
12
11
8
11
11
12
9
7
7
10
10
10
13
6
11
11
11
12
9
10
8
10
8
9
12
10
69
92
92
100
85
92
62
85
85
92
69
77
69
62
92
85
85
92
92
69
85
108
100
108
62
85
100
77
85
100
108
108
62
92
8
85
108
92
85
62
85
85
92
69
54
54
77
77
77
100
46
85
85
85
92
69
77
62
77
62
69
92
77
91
89
68
83
65
87
93
87
91
80
86
79
76
84
90
90
81
79
91
93
95
93
99
57
90
76
74
83
74
97
79
70
57
90
35
94
89
92
84
76
90
78
83
73
59
66
77
85
86
96
54
78
83
52
96
97
72
90
49
43
53
91
81
99
97
74
90
71
94
101
94
99
87
94
86
83
91
98
98
88
86
99
102
103
101
108
62
98
83
81
90
81
106
86
77
62
98
38
103
97
100
92
82
98
85
90
80
65
72
84
93
93
104
59
84
90
56
105
106
79
97
54
46
58
99
88
6
3
6
4
26
7
3
5
2
15
7
3
3
6
5
3
5
7
4
2
2
2
0
6
0
4
3
10
6
1
4
8
22
2
7
5
4
1
2
12
6
19
9
13
32
12
8
10
7
1
41
5
3
3
1
1
9
6
0
3
4
2
10
95
98
95
97
75
94
98
96
99
86
94
98
98
95
96
98
96
94
97
99
99
99
101
95
101
97
98
91
95
100
97
93
78
99
94
96
97
100
99
89
95
82
92
88
69
89
93
91
94
100
60
96
98
98
100
100
92
95
101
98
97
99
91
Benthic
Sample ID
LOKAN
LOKAN
LOKAN
LOKAN
ELK
ELK
ELK
ELK
ELK
ELK
ELK
ELK
ELK
ELK
ELK
ELK
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
TYVAR
TYVAR
TYVAR
TYVAR
TYVAR
TYVAR
TYVAR
TYVAR
TYVAR
TYVAR
NBRPO
NBRPO
SBRPO
SBRPO
SBRPO
SBRPO
SBRPO
SBRPO
SBRPO
SBRPO
SBRPO
SBRPO
B6
B10
B2
B93
B143
B155
B156
B151
B128
B132
B117
B225
B21
B136
B20
B141
B100
B179
B185
B213
B204
B17
B23
B22
B25
B27
B26
B50
B180
B47
B8
B15
B207
B2
B147
B182
B36
B14
B189
B11
B220
B377
B371
B363
B389
B287
B350
B296
B320
B311
B364
B264
B259
B257
B320
B238
B261
B246
B251
B253
B241
B333
B279
. 16
No
02
-1
vie
4,
ed
w
Appendix C, page C-1
2/
1
/16
19
% Top 2 % Top 2
dominant
score
65
46
33
43
50
54
71
55
51
36
68
45
62
64
73
46
54
42
52
57
56
39
42
36
78
45
31
43
37
48
73
59
38
50
71
48
42
38
39
61
37
44
47
63
66
47
42
64
45
65
72
30
60
54
37
67
66
57
58
66
48
54
43
55
84
105
89
78
71
46
70
77
100
49
86
59
56
43
84
71
90
75
67
68
95
91
100
35
86
107
89
99
81
42
64
97
77
46
82
90
96
96
61
99
87
83
58
53
82
91
56
85
55
44
109
63
72
98
51
53
67
65
53
82
73
89
HBI
HBI
score
INDEX
(SCI)
4
3
3
3
5
4
3
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
4
3
3
4
3
4
4
3
3
4
2
4
3
4
3
3
4
4
4
3
5
4
4
3
3
3
3
4
4
5
5
4
4
5
3
4
5
3
3
4
2
4
5
4
3
4
4
3
4
85
98
95
95
76
89
97
89
90
89
101
94
99
96
85
93
95
85
105
90
85
95
104
87
106
85
94
84
93
103
84
89
89
97
64
90
91
105
97
103
101
81
83
72
67
86
83
77
93
87
69
96
99
86
106
86
72
82
94
89
88
94
88
79
92
92
92
78
88
77
84
87
88
78
86
78
77
83
88
84
89
92
81
84
96
93
91
75
86
95
85
87
93
83
83
76
91
49
86
94
95
93
76
91
83
89
73
62
77
86
78
84
87
54
89
86
83
93
77
74
76
74
66
77
90
83
Appeal: 16-1024
Doc: 75-5
Filed: 01/04/2017
Appendix C
Pg: 54 of 80
Site metrics and metric scores
Stations are grouped by data set (1= 1996-1997 calibration data; 2= 1997-1998 validation data). Within each data set, stations are listed by site type (reference, unlabeled, stressed), then within type by ascending Station ID.
Data
Set Station ID
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
WVPSB-28-GG-1-A
WVPSB-28-J.2
WVPSB-28-K-6-A
WVPSB-9-{02.2}
WVK-10-A
WVK-10-F
WVK-12-{20.7}
WVK-12-E-{2.4}
WVK-12-E-2.5-{4.0}
WVK-12-F-{5.0}
WVK-12-J
WVK-14-{2.2}
WVK-14-A.5-{1.6}
WVK-16-{12.8}
WVK-16-{33.0}
WVK-16-B
WVK-16-J-3-{1.0}
WVK-16-L
WVK-16-Q-{1.0}
WVK-16-S
WVK-22-{6.0}
WVK-22-B
WVK-29-{61.0}
WVK-32-0.1A
WVK-32-A
WVK-36-{2.4}
WVK-39-{03.6}
WVK-39-{12.2}
WVK-39-A
WVK-39-E-3-{0.4}
WVK-39-F
WVK-39-J
WVK-39-O
WVK-41
WVK-41-D.5
WVK-41-D.5-B
WVK-41-D-1
WVK-41-E-1
WVK-41-E-2-{0.1}
WVK-41-E-2-{1.4}
WVK-41-E-2-{1.7}
WVK-42
WVK-43-{1.2}
WVK-43-{63.0}
WVK-43-{87.4}
WVK-9-C-{5.4}
WVKE-102-{14.6}
WVKE-102-{2.83}
WVKE-102-C-1-{0.4}
WVKE-111-{0.2}
WVKE-111-K
WVKE-111-K-2
WVKE-111-Q
WVKE-115
WVKE-117
WVKE-118
WVKE-124
WVKE-128
WVKE-13
WVKE-138
WVKE-139
WVKE-139-B
WVKE-14-G-1-{0.8}
Site
Type
Stream Name
SAMS RUN /VANCE RUN
SHUCKLEFORD RUN
LOWER GULF RUN
MILL CREEK/SOUTH BR POT @ MOUTH
COOPER CREEK
BARNETT FORK
THIRTEEN MILE CREEK
MUDLICK FORK
U.T. OF MUDLICK FORK
POPLAR FORK
BEE RUN
SIXTEENMILE CREEK
U.T. OF SIXTEENMILE CREEK
EIGHTEEN MILE CREEK
EIGHTEEN MILE CREEK
JAKES BRANCH
SALTLICK CREEK
SULUG CREEK
HARRIS BRANCH
COTTRELL RUN
HURRICANE CREEK
POPLAR FORK
POCATALICO RIVER
VINTROUX HOLLOW
ROCKSTEP RUN
FINNEY BRANCH
DAVIS CREEK
DAVIS CREEK
WARD HOLLOW
BAYS FORK
RAYS BRANCH
COAL HOLLOW
SHREWSBURY HOLLOW
TWOMILE CREEK
RICH FORK/TWO MILE
CRAIGS BRANCH
U.T. OF LEFT FORK / KANAWHA TWO MILE
EDENS FORK
HOLMES BRANCH
HOLMES BRANCH
HOLMES BRANCH
JOPLIN BRANCH
ELK RIVER
ELK RIVER
ELK RIVER
LOWER NINEMILE CREEK
LAUREL CREEK
LAUREL CREEK
UT OF BROOKS CREEK
BACK FORK
SUGAR CREEK
LITTLE SUGAR CREEK
BIG RUN/ BACK FORK ELK
STEPS RUN
LEATHERWOOD CREEK
BERGOO CREEK
BIG RUN
HICKORYLICK RUN
NARROW BRANCH
BIG SPRING FORK
OLD FIELD FORK
CROOKED FORK
RIGHT FORK OF SLACK BRANCH
reference
reference
reference
reference
Collect
Date
Total
taxa
Tot. taxa
score
EPT
taxa
EPT taxa
score
%
EPT
% EPT
score
%
Chiro.
%Chiro
score
8/21/1996
9/10/1996
8/20/1996
8/27/1996
5/13/1997
5/14/1997
5/19/1997
6/10/1997
6/11/1997
6/16/1997
5/19/1997
6/10/1997
5/14/1997
5/21/1997
6/16/1997
5/21/1997
6/19/1997
5/20/1997
6/11/1997
5/20/1997
6/11/1997
5/28/1997
6/10/1997
5/15/1997
5/15/1997
6/11/1997
5/13/1997
6/12/1997
5/13/1997
5/8/1997
5/11/1997
5/13/1997
5/13/1997
5/13/1997
5/15/1997
5/15/1997
5/13/1997
5/20/1997
5/14/1997
6/16/1997
5/16/1997
5/13/1997
8/7/1997
8/5/1997
8/5/1997
6/9/1997
7/15/1997
7/9/1997
7/9/1997
7/9/1997
7/9/1997
7/9/1997
7/9/1997
7/8/1997
7/8/1997
7/8/1997
7/8/1997
7/7/1997
6/26/1997
7/14/1997
7/7/1997
7/22/1997
7/13/1997
16
13
16
16
15
15
10
20
13
16
17
10
12
17
13
13
11
16
10
18
12
15
10
9
8
13
13
12
7
17
11
7
17
4
2
7
7
14
7
13
12
5
14
19
16
14
20
10
10
15
17
16
15
12
15
15
17
20
9
15
14
17
12
76
62
76
76
71
71
48
95
62
76
81
48
57
81
62
62
52
76
48
86
57
71
48
43
38
62
62
57
33
81
52
33
81
19
10
33
33
67
33
62
57
24
67
90
76
67
95
48
48
71
81
76
71
57
71
71
81
95
43
71
67
81
57
10
9
11
9
9
9
6
7
8
5
10
4
8
10
5
8
3
9
7
12
4
6
4
2
3
8
8
8
1
10
6
2
12
1
0
3
2
7
1
8
7
1
7
13
10
7
11
6
4
10
13
10
10
6
11
10
11
14
6
8
11
12
6
77
69
85
69
69
69
46
54
62
38
77
31
62
77
38
62
23
69
54
92
31
46
31
15
23
62
62
62
8
77
46
15
92
8
0
23
15
54
8
62
54
8
54
100
77
54
85
46
31
77
100
77
77
46
85
77
85
108
46
62
85
92
46
86
78
91
42
69
72
70
24
68
56
89
70
63
72
54
42
23
93
80
69
29
34
56
4
1
88
68
79
5
68
9
2
73
3
0
10
1
30
2
3
78
2
75
88
85
64
82
92
60
58
61
79
87
76
83
77
85
79
85
42
90
72
84
93
84
99
46
75
79
77
26
74
61
97
77
69
78
59
46
25
101
87
75
31
37
61
4
2
95
74
86
5
74
9
2
79
3
0
11
1
33
2
4
85
2
82
95
92
70
89
100
66
63
67
85
95
83
90
84
93
86
92
46
98
78
92
2
14
1
34
21
16
11
18
23
10
4
21
17
22
24
54
66
3
15
4
47
48
35
79
67
1
26
13
43
10
81
93
19
85
98
86
44
51
22
16
10
95
1
3
1
9
1
5
22
36
23
6
5
4
10
14
7
5
0
20
6
15
4
99
87
100
66
79
85
89
82
78
91
97
80
84
79
76
46
34
98
86
97
53
53
66
21
33
100
75
88
58
91
19
7
81
15
2
14
57
49
79
85
91
5
100
98
100
92
100
96
78
65
78
95
96
97
91
87
94
96
101
81
94
86
97
Benthic
Sample ID
SBRPO
SBRPO
SBRPO
SBRPO
LOKAN
LOKAN
LOKAN
LOKAN
LOKAN
LOKAN
LOKAN
LOKAN
LOKAN
LOKAN
LOKAN
LOKAN
LOKAN
LOKAN
LOKAN
LOKAN
LOKAN
LOKAN
LOKAN
LOKAN
LOKAN
LOKAN
LOKAN
LOKAN
LOKAN
LOKAN
LOKAN
LOKAN
LOKAN
LOKAN
LOKAN
LOKAN
LOKAN
LOKAN
LOKAN
LOKAN
LOKAN
LOKAN
ELK
ELK
ELK
LOKAN
ELK
ELK
ELK
ELK
ELK
ELK
ELK
ELK
ELK
ELK
ELK
ELK
ELK
ELK
ELK
ELK
ELK
B277
B330
B252
B300
B13
B26
B52
B84
B90
B100
B47
B86
B37
B59
B97
B61
B102
B57
B88
B54
B89
B76
B85
B43
B42
B87
B14
B91
B25
B1
B3
B12
B21
B22
B41
B40
B23
B55
B31
B98
B44
B18
B238
B236
B237
B80
B173
B157
B161
B153
B160
B158
B154
B152
B144
B139
B140
B130
B116
B164
B134
B199
B162
. 16
No
02
-1
vie
4,
ed
w
Appendix C, page C-2
2/
1
/16
19
% Top 2 % Top 2
dominant
score
53
39
59
46
48
44
54
46
45
56
50
77
69
65
51
72
82
61
55
58
69
65
58
88
93
58
74
62
83
48
89
95
51
93
100
91
86
62
95
96
54
97
47
46
66
52
45
76
71
58
45
48
61
63
42
38
47
42
57
51
71
57
76
73
96
64
85
82
88
71
84
86
69
78
36
48
54
76
44
28
62
71
66
49
55
66
20
10
65
41
59
26
82
17
8
77
12
0
14
21
59
7
6
72
5
84
85
53
74
86
38
46
66
85
81
61
58
90
97
83
91
67
76
45
67
38
HBI
HBI
score
INDEX
(SCI)
4
4
4
5
4
4
3
6
4
4
4
3
3
3
4
6
6
3
4
5
6
5
5
7
7
4
4
4
8
4
7
7
4
7
7
7
8
6
9
9
4
7
5
4
3
4
4
5
5
5
4
3
4
4
4
4
3
4
4
5
5
4
3
82
91
85
68
80
78
92
59
87
87
90
97
98
96
81
62
53
96
85
70
55
67
75
44
46
92
86
89
32
90
45
44
88
42
44
47
27
59
13
11
86
43
75
88
94
82
84
73
69
71
80
98
87
81
88
87
97
89
78
72
74
78
102
83
82
85
68
76
78
71
67
75
70
87
61
69
77
65
54
36
83
72
81
46
55
58
25
25
79
67
73
27
82
31
18
83
16
9
24
26
53
24
38
74
14
77
93
82
73
90
67
56
69
82
85
81
70
86
84
89
93
71
68
77
80
72
Appeal: 16-1024
Doc: 75-5
Filed: 01/04/2017
Pg: 55 of 80
Appendix C
Site metrics and metric scores
Stations are grouped by data set (1= 1996-1997 calibration data; 2= 1997-1998 validation data). Within each data set, stations are listed by site type (reference, unlabeled, stressed), then within type by ascending Station ID.
Data
Set Station ID
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
WVKE-14-G-2
WVKE-14-K
WVKE-14-M
WVKE-14-M-2
WVKE-14-O-{5.2}
WVKE-14-O-0.5
WVKE-19-B
WVKE-19-H
WVKE-21
WVKE-23-{0.43}
WVKE-23-F-1
WVKE-23-P-3-A
WVKE-2-E
WVKE-3
WVKE-34
WVKE-37-B
WVKE-37-D
WVKE-4
WVKE-40
WVKE-41
WVKE-41-A
WVKE-41-B-{0.2}
WVKE-41-B-1.5
WVKE-41-C-1
WVKE-45-B
WVKE-46-{1.2}
WVKE-49
WVKE-50-{0.2}
WVKE-50-B-{0.1}
WVKE-50-B-1-{2.0}
WVKE-50-B-7-{0.1}
WVKE-50-B-8
WVKE-50-B-9
WVKE-50-F-{2.2}
WVKE-50-I
WVKE-50-I-3
WVKE-50-O
WVKE-50-P
WVKE-50-S
WVKE-50-T
WVKE-56
WVKE-59
WVKE-6-{5.6}
WVKE-64
WVKE-69-{5.6}
WVKE-70-A
WVKE-74-{10.4}
WVKE-74-F
WVKE-76-{0.9}
WVKE-76-A
WVKE-76-C
WVKE-76-D-1
WVKE-76-E-{2.6}
WVKE-76-E-5
WVKE-76-E-6-A
WVKE-76-E-7.5
WVKE-76-N-{2.4}
WVKE-76-N-8
WVKE-76-O
WVKE-76-S.3
WVKE-76-W
WVKE-7-E
WVKE-84.5
Site
Type
Stream Name
WHITE OAK FORK
JOE’S HOLLOW
MORRIS FORK
MUDLICK BRANCH
MIDDLE FORK
MCBRIDE HOLLOW
TWO MILE FORK
PETES FORK
LEATHERWOOD CREEK
BIG SANDY CREEK
DOELICK RUN
HORSE RUN
GREEN BOTTOM
NEWHOUSE BRANCH
CAMP CREEK
LAUREL FORK
SUMMERS FORK
COONSKIN BRANCH
LITTLE SYCAMORE CREEK
SYCAMORE CREEK
CHARLEY BRANCH
ADONIJAH FORK
LAUREL FORK
GRASSY FORK
LICK BRANCH
LEATHERWOOD CREEK
PISGAH RUN
BUFFALO CREEK
LILLY FORK
SINNETT BRANCH
JIM YOUNG FORK
BEECH FORK
SYCAMORE RUN
SAND FORK
ROCKCAMP RUN
HICKORY FORK
ROBINSON FORK
TAYLOR CREEK
DILLE RUN
PHEASANT RUN
SPREAD RUN
TURKEY RUN
MILL CREEK
BIG OTTER CREEK
GROVES CREEK
ROAD FORK
STRANGE CREEK
BIG RUN
BIRCH RIVER
LEATHERWOOD RUN
MIDDLE RUN
BUCKEYE FORK
LITTLE BIRCH RIVER
WINDY RUN
SENG RUN
FISHER RUN
ANTHONY CREEK
RICH FORK
POPLAR CREEK
OTTER HOLE
JACKS RUN
KAUFMAN BRANCH
BEAR RUN
Collect
Date
Total
taxa
Tot. taxa
score
EPT
taxa
EPT taxa
score
%
EPT
% EPT
score
%
Chiro.
%Chiro
score
6/25/1997
6/25/1997
6/27/1997
6/25/1997
7/15/1997
6/26/1997
7/1/1997
7/9/1997
6/26/1997
7/21/1997
7/21/1997
7/23/1997
6/25/1997
7/1/1997
7/16/1997
6/26/1997
6/26/1997
6/25/1997
7/23/1997
7/24/1997
7/15/1997
7/17/1997
7/17/1997
7/17/1997
7/28/1997
7/31/1997
7/28/1997
7/31/1997
7/30/1997
7/30/1997
7/29/1997
7/29/1997
7/29/1997
7/30/1997
7/30/1997
7/29/1997
7/29/1997
7/29/1997
7/29/1997
7/28/1997
7/24/1997
7/24/1997
7/3/1997
7/21/1997
7/17/1997
7/16/1997
7/22/1997
7/22/1997
7/17/1997
7/23/1997
7/21/1997
7/16/1997
7/16/1997
7/15/1997
7/15/1997
7/15/1997
7/23/1997
7/24/1997
7/23/1997
7/23/1997
7/15/1997
6/24/1997
7/21/1997
5
8
7
6
16
16
15
12
15
13
12
15
11
7
7
14
15
12
9
15
19
13
16
9
13
15
20
13
16
16
7
13
14
16
13
3
16
2
6
6
14
5
14
13
19
11
14
21
10
13
14
15
13
13
12
17
20
20
17
18
7
9
10
24
38
33
29
76
76
71
57
71
62
57
71
52
33
33
67
71
57
43
71
90
62
76
43
62
71
95
62
76
76
33
62
67
76
62
14
76
10
29
29
67
24
67
62
90
52
67
100
48
62
67
71
62
62
57
81
95
95
81
86
33
43
48
3
3
3
1
8
9
9
6
8
6
5
8
4
0
3
4
5
4
5
6
12
5
6
4
5
7
11
7
9
10
2
8
9
8
7
2
8
1
3
3
9
1
6
6
11
5
9
12
5
7
9
9
6
9
7
9
10
12
10
10
2
3
4
23
23
23
8
62
69
69
46
62
46
38
62
31
0
23
31
38
31
38
46
92
38
46
31
38
54
85
54
69
77
15
62
69
62
54
15
62
8
23
23
69
8
46
46
85
38
69
92
38
54
69
69
46
69
54
69
77
92
77
77
15
23
31
94
78
91
76
61
68
64
59
30
57
61
64
7
0
65
54
43
35
90
80
81
86
87
57
64
55
75
81
80
77
50
87
71
71
78
95
64
50
99
44
92
22
39
89
82
69
68
59
64
62
85
65
44
78
90
70
87
75
92
72
10
32
33
102
85
99
82
66
74
70
64
33
62
66
70
8
0
71
58
47
38
98
87
88
93
95
62
69
60
81
88
87
84
54
94
77
77
85
104
70
54
108
48
100
24
42
96
89
75
74
65
70
68
93
70
48
84
98
76
95
82
101
78
11
35
36
0
6
3
0
8
7
6
4
28
4
0
10
65
34
22
34
46
44
6
6
11
2
1
33
4
13
4
11
3
5
9
3
11
13
1
0
7
50
0
3
1
0
3
7
7
8
7
13
19
4
8
13
29
6
2
18
1
5
2
6
23
48
48
101
95
98
101
93
94
95
97
73
97
101
91
35
66
79
67
54
56
95
95
90
99
100
68
97
88
97
90
98
96
92
98
90
88
100
101
94
50
101
98
100
101
98
94
94
93
94
88
82
97
93
88
72
95
99
83
100
95
99
95
78
53
53
Benthic
Sample ID
ELK
ELK
ELK
ELK
ELK
ELK
ELK
ELK
ELK
ELK
ELK
ELK
ELK
ELK
ELK
ELK
ELK
ELK
ELK
ELK
ELK
ELK
ELK
ELK
ELK
ELK
ELK
ELK
ELK
ELK
ELK
ELK
ELK
ELK
ELK
ELK
ELK
ELK
ELK
ELK
ELK
ELK
ELK
ELK
ELK
ELK
ELK
ELK
ELK
ELK
ELK
ELK
ELK
ELK
ELK
ELK
ELK
ELK
ELK
ELK
ELK
ELK
ELK
B111
B19
B121
B110
B174
B115
B126
B159
B114
B193
B195
B25
B18
B125
B181
B113
B120
B17
B27
B213
B170
B185
B189
B187
B218
B235
B221
B234
B230
B233
B226
B222
B228
B232
B231
B224
B227
B229
B223
B220
B212
B214
B127
B192
B188
B183
B23
B198
B186
B26
B197
B180
B182
B178
B176
B171
B24
B211
B29
B28
B172
B15
B191
. 16
No
02
-1
vie
4,
ed
w
Appendix C, page C-3
2/
1
/16
19
% Top 2 % Top 2
dominant
score
92
75
79
85
48
34
30
49
68
51
44
38
79
85
55
60
74
68
72
50
45
58
75
56
50
49
54
56
40
56
64
49
57
45
30
95
43
100
99
91
68
56
49
74
37
53
44
28
49
47
58
37
54
47
75
52
46
45
63
37
80
79
65
12
39
33
24
81
103
109
79
50
76
88
97
34
23
71
62
40
50
44
79
86
65
40
69
78
80
72
68
93
68
57
79
67
86
109
7
89
0
2
13
50
69
79
40
98
73
87
113
79
83
66
98
72
84
38
74
84
86
58
98
31
33
55
HBI
HBI
score
INDEX
(SCI)
2
4
3
3
4
5
4
5
6
4
4
4
7
8
5
6
6
6
3
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
3
4
4
3
5
4
4
4
3
5
4
5
3
4
4
5
4
4
4
5
4
3
4
3
3
5
5
4
4
5
3
4
3
4
6
6
6
107
81
95
104
81
74
79
77
59
84
88
79
46
25
65
61
58
61
96
82
88
77
75
66
71
74
98
85
83
102
77
87
81
86
92
69
85
77
101
85
91
74
81
79
88
75
89
92
81
97
93
76
67
80
81
70
96
91
95
90
60
53
62
60
60
64
57
76
81
81
70
58
71
73
78
34
25
57
58
51
49
69
77
89
72
72
56
69
71
88
75
85
83
55
80
75
79
82
51
79
33
59
49
79
50
69
70
91
68
80
89
66
77
80
79
61
79
71
76
91
90
85
87
38
40
47
Appeal: 16-1024
Doc: 75-5
Filed: 01/04/2017
Appendix C
Pg: 56 of 80
Site metrics and metric scores
Stations are grouped by data set (1= 1996-1997 calibration data; 2= 1997-1998 validation data). Within each data set, stations are listed by site type (reference, unlabeled, stressed), then within type by ascending Station ID.
Data
Set Station ID
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
WVKE-85
WVKE-87-B
WVKE-88
WVKE-9-{1.5}
WVKE-9-{15.0}
WVKE-91
WVKE-91-A-1
WVKE-94
WVKE-98-A
WVKE-98-B
WVKE-98-B-{13.6}
WVKE-98-B-16
WVKE-98-B-16.4
WVKE-98-B-3-{0.6}
WVKE-98-B-8
WVKE-98-C-{10.0}
WVKE-98-C-{13.8}
WVKE-98-C-1
WVKE-98-C-11
WVKE-98-C-11-C
WVKE-98-C-2
WVKE-98-C-2-D
WVKE-98-C-5
WVKE-98-C-6
WVKE-9-B-1
WVKE-9-C-{0.6}
WVKE-9-E
WVKE-9-G
WVKE-9-I-1-A
WVKP-16-{4.5}
WVKP-16-B
WVKP-16-D
WVKP-17-B-5
WVKP-17-C-1-A
WVKP-17-C-4
WVKP-17-E-{2.6}
WVKP-17-F-1
WVKP-17-G
WVKP-1-B
WVKP-20
WVKP-21
WVKP-26
WVKP-28
WVKP-28-A-1-{0.7}
WVKP-28-B-1
WVKP-28-E
WVKP-29
WVKP-32-.5A
WVKP-32-{1.0}
WVKP-33-{5.8}
WVKP-33-D-{0.8}
WVKP-33-G
WVKP-36-B
WVKP-37-A
WVKP-38-.8A
WVKP-38-D
WVKP-4
WVKP-40
WVKP-41-A
WVKP-43-A
WVKP-45.5
WVKP-5
WVKP-8
Site
Type
Stream Name
LITTLE BUFFALO CREEK
LAUREL FORK
OLD WOMAN RUN
LITTLE SANDY CREEK
LITTLE SANDY CREEK
WOLF CREEK
SPRUCE FORK
FLATWOODS RUN
KANAWHA RUN
RIGHT FORK HOLLY RIVER
RIGHT FORK/HOLLY RIVER
DESERT FORK
UPPER MUDLICK
FALL RUN
WEASE RUN
LEFT FORK/HOLLY RIVER
LEFT FORK/HOLLY RIVER
LAURELPATCH RUN
LAUREL FORK
RIGHT FORK/LAUREL FORK
OLDLICK RUN
COUGAR FORK
LONG RUN
BEAR RUN
BIG FORK
AARON’S FORK
BULLSKIN BRANCH
RUFFNER BRANCH (DOUGLAS BRANCH)
HARPER HOLLOW
GRAPEVINE CREEK
BROADTREE RUN
VANCE HOLLOW
FIRST CREEK / MIDDLE FORK
DAN SLATER HOLLOW
RAILROAD HOLLOW
DUDDEN FORK
LOOM TREE HOLLOW
FABER HOLLOW
BIGGER BRANCH
RACCOON CREEK
PERNEL BRANCH
CAMP CREEK
GREEN CREEK (REFERENCE)
HUNT FORK
BEAR BRANCH
ANDERSON LICK RUN
STRAIGHT CREEK
SUGAR CAMP HOLLOW
WOLF CREEK
TRACE FORK/FLAT FORK
COON RUN
CABBAGE FORK
BONER HOLLOW
SNAKE HOLLOW
GREATHOUSE HOLLOW
HOLLYWOOD FORK
HARMOND CREEK
ROUND KNOB RUN
SLAB FORK
SMITH RUN
VINEYARD RUN
ROCKY FORK
SCHOOLHOUSE BRANCH
Collect
Date
Total
taxa
Tot. taxa
score
EPT
taxa
EPT taxa
score
%
EPT
% EPT
score
%
Chiro.
%Chiro
score
7/21/1997
7/28/1997
7/28/1997
7/8/1997
7/8/1997
7/15/1997
7/15/1997
7/28/1997
7/7/1997
7/14/1997
7/15/1997
7/14/1997
7/14/1997
7/7/1997
7/7/1997
7/8/1997
7/8/1997
7/7/1997
7/18/1997
7/22/1997
7/8/1997
7/14/1997
7/8/1997
7/8/1997
6/26/1997
7/8/1997
7/1/1997
6/26/1997
7/1/1997
6/10/1997
5/12/1997
5/12/1997
5/13/1997
5/14/1997
5/14/1997
6/12/1997
5/13/1997
5/13/1997
5/15/1997
5/12/1997
5/12/1997
5/12/1997
5/28/1997
6/12/1997
5/28/1997
5/28/1997
5/12/1997
5/28/1997
6/12/1997
6/9/1997
6/9/1997
5/22/1997
5/22/1997
5/22/1997
5/22/1997
5/22/1997
5/14/1997
5/21/1997
5/21/1997
5/21/1997
5/21/1997
5/19/1997
5/19/1997
16
16
10
12
8
15
12
16
12
20
19
16
13
20
14
15
16
17
15
11
13
13
12
18
11
13
13
15
16
16
9
18
16
13
12
10
11
19
14
15
18
6
17
13
19
10
18
18
16
10
13
12
14
14
13
15
6
14
15
15
21
7
8
76
76
48
57
38
71
57
76
57
95
90
76
62
95
67
71
76
81
71
52
62
62
57
86
52
62
62
71
76
76
43
86
76
62
57
48
52
90
67
71
86
29
81
62
90
48
86
86
76
48
62
57
67
67
62
71
29
67
71
71
100
33
38
8
5
3
6
3
6
9
7
8
12
9
10
9
12
7
9
10
8
10
7
6
10
8
10
2
5
7
9
8
9
2
12
10
9
8
4
8
12
11
9
11
1
12
9
13
5
11
12
9
7
7
5
10
10
9
9
1
9
9
10
13
3
5
62
38
23
46
23
46
69
54
62
92
69
77
69
92
54
69
77
62
77
54
46
77
62
77
15
38
54
69
62
69
15
92
77
69
62
31
62
92
85
69
85
8
92
69
100
38
85
92
69
54
54
38
77
77
69
69
8
69
69
77
100
23
38
63
47
10
48
79
64
69
38
67
81
69
85
86
76
82
74
85
81
62
92
68
76
89
77
13
65
64
53
81
55
2
88
83
76
84
77
94
89
68
39
83
4
65
71
74
30
41
87
60
88
67
70
94
80
94
61
4
84
60
78
58
13
82
69
52
10
53
86
70
75
41
73
88
75
93
93
82
89
80
92
88
67
100
74
83
97
84
14
71
70
57
88
60
2
96
91
83
92
84
103
97
74
43
91
4
70
78
81
33
45
95
66
96
73
76
102
87
102
66
4
91
66
84
63
14
89
27
16
21
20
6
15
29
4
28
5
19
6
10
15
4
21
4
12
10
5
23
5
4
7
61
2
16
38
4
12
75
7
6
18
13
2
4
9
31
57
14
92
21
17
11
61
52
8
19
0
12
13
0
0
3
11
12
13
33
1
27
76
8
74
84
79
81
95
86
72
97
73
96
82
95
91
86
97
80
97
89
91
96
78
96
97
94
40
99
85
63
97
88
25
94
95
83
88
99
97
92
69
43
87
8
80
84
90
40
49
93
82
101
89
88
101
101
98
90
89
88
68
100
74
24
93
Benthic
Sample ID
ELK
ELK
ELK
ELK
ELK
ELK
ELK
ELK
ELK
ELK
ELK
ELK
ELK
ELK
ELK
ELK
ELK
ELK
ELK
ELK
ELK
ELK
ELK
ELK
ELK
ELK
ELK
ELK
ELK
LOKAN
LOKAN
LOKAN
LOKAN
LOKAN
LOKAN
LOKAN
LOKAN
LOKAN
LOKAN
LOKAN
LOKAN
LOKAN
LOKAN
LOKAN
LOKAN
LOKAN
LOKAN
LOKAN
LOKAN
LOKAN
LOKAN
LOKAN
LOKAN
LOKAN
LOKAN
LOKAN
LOKAN
LOKAN
LOKAN
LOKAN
LOKAN
LOKAN
LOKAN
B196
B217
B219
B147
B148
B179
B177
B216
B131
B168
B175
B166
B169
B129
B135
B145
B146
B133
B190
B22
B150
B165
B149
B138
B112
B137
B122
B118
B123
B83
B4
B11
B16
B27
B34
B92
B19
B15
B39
B8
B7
B5
B74
B94
B72
B71
B9
B77
B96
B81
B79
B67
B66
B70
B68
B69
B29
B62
B63
B64
B65
B48
B49
. 16
No
02
-1
vie
4,
ed
w
Appendix C, page C-4
2/
1
/16
19
% Top 2 % Top 2
dominant
score
72
47
79
42
70
36
61
43
72
45
45
41
70
58
66
45
45
58
41
89
48
39
59
60
72
54
42
64
53
44
87
63
56
64
60
67
69
47
63
74
79
96
55
38
48
72
67
56
46
74
44
77
78
42
57
45
65
50
48
56
50
84
77
44
82
32
91
46
100
61
89
44
86
85
92
47
66
53
85
85
66
92
17
82
96
65
63
44
72
90
56
74
88
21
57
69
57
62
52
49
83
58
41
33
6
70
97
82
43
51
69
85
41
87
36
34
91
68
86
54
77
81
68
77
26
36
HBI
HBI
score
INDEX
(SCI)
5
6
8
5
4
4
5
4
5
4
4
3
4
3
4
5
4
4
4
3
5
4
4
4
6
5
5
5
4
4
7
4
3
4
4
3
4
3
5
6
5
7
4
4
4
6
5
4
4
2
4
5
4
3
3
4
5
4
4
4
5
7
3
74
62
25
70
85
82
67
86
66
85
79
94
79
92
80
76
85
80
88
105
74
89
83
81
54
76
77
68
83
81
41
83
93
86
78
104
79
97
75
63
74
44
80
81
79
59
69
85
92
107
87
69
82
99
93
84
77
86
83
85
74
48
101
67
66
36
66
62
76
67
74
62
90
80
88
74
86
73
77
85
78
81
70
69
84
77
81
37
70
73
64
80
77
25
85
84
73
73
69
73
92
71
55
76
16
79
78
87
44
64
87
78
73
75
61
77
87
82
78
44
80
73
81
81
28
66
Appeal: 16-1024
Doc: 75-5
Filed: 01/04/2017
Appendix C
Pg: 57 of 80
Site metrics and metric scores
Stations are grouped by data set (1= 1996-1997 calibration data; 2= 1997-1998 validation data). Within each data set, stations are listed by site type (reference, unlabeled, stressed), then within type by ascending Station ID.
Data
Set Station ID
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
WVKP-9-A
WVM-27-{115.0}
WVM-27-{46.2}
WVMC-10
WVMC-11-D-{10}
WVMC-12-.5A-{0}
WVMC-12-.7A
WVMC-12-{10}
WVMC-12-{14}
WVMC-12-A-{02.5}
WVMC-12-A-1
WVMC-12-A-2
WVMC-12-B-.5-{00}
WVMC-12-B-.5-{02}
WVMC-12-B-.5-A
WVMC-12-B-{01}
WVMC-12-B-{02}
WVMC-12-B-{06}
WVMC-12-B-{11}
WVMC-12-B-1-{01}
WVMC-12-B-1-{04}
WVMC-12-B-3-{02}
WVMC-12-B-4-{02}
WVMC-12-B-4-{03}
WVMC-12-B-5-C
WVMC-12-B-6
WVMC-12-C-{01}
WVMC-12-D
WVMC-12-E
WVMC-12-E.1
WVMC-12-F-{00.0}
WVMC-12-F-{01.0}
WVMC-15-{01}
WVMC-15-A
WVMC-16-A-{0.8}
WVMC-17-.6A
WVMC-17-.7
WVMC-17-{10.2}
WVMC-17-{14.4}
WVMC-17-{3.2}
WVMC-17-{6.8}
WVMC-17-A.1
WVMC-17-B
WVMC-17-C
WVMC-18-.1A
WVMC-18-{0.0}
WVMC-18-{6.0}
WVMC-19
WVMC-19-A
WVMC-2
WVMC-2.5
WVMC-2.5-A
WVMC-2.7
WVMC-20-{0.0}
WVMC-20-{6.0}
WVMC-21
WVMC-22-{1.5}
WVMC-22-{2.0}
WVMC-22-B
WVMC-26-{0.0}
WVMC-28
WVMC-31.7
WVMC-31-{0.0}
Site
Type
Stream Name
SPRING BRANCH
TYGART VALLEY RIVER
TYGART VALLEY RIVER
BIG RUN NEAR PISGAH
LEFT FORK BULL RUN @ HEADWATERS
SOVERN RUN @ MOUTH
PARKER RUN/BIG SANDY CREEK
BIG SANDY CREEK @ BRUCETON MILLS FALLS
BIG SANDY CREEK ABOVE LITTLE SANDY CREEK
LAUREL RUN/BIG SANDY CK NEAR MOUTH
LITTLE LAUREL RUN
PATTERSON RUN
WEBSTER RUN @ MOUTH
WEBSTER RUN @ HEADWATERS
UNNAMED TRIB/WEBSTER RUN
LITTLE SANDY CREEK NEAR MOUTH
LITTLE SANDY CREEK BELOW BEAVER CREEK
LITTLE SANDY CREEK BELOW HOGG RUN
LITTLE SANDY CREEK BELOW CHERRY RUN
BEAVER CREEK NEAR MOUTH
BEAVER CREEK NEAR HEADWATERS
HOGG RUN AT HEADWATERS
ELK RUN NEAR MOUTH
ELK RUN ABOVE UNNAMED TRIBS
THIRD UNNAMED TRIB/CHERRY RUN NEAR HEAD
MILL RUN /LITTLE LAUREL RUN NEAR MOUTH
HAZEL RUN NEAR MOUTH
GLADE RUN WEST OF BRUCETON MILLS
GLADE RUN NORTH OF BRANDONVILLE
U.T./BIG SANDY CK NEAR CLIFTON MILLS
LITTLE SANDY CREEK @ MOUTH
LITTLE SANDY CREEK NEAR CLIFTON MILLS
LAUREL RUN/CHEAT RIV. ABOVE HOGBACK RUN
LONG HOLLOW
SOUTH FORK GREENS RUN ABOVE MIDDLE FORK
2ND UNNAMED TRIB /MUDDY CREEK
CRAB ORCHARD CREEK @ MOUTH
MUDDY CREEK ABOVE SUGARCAMP RUN
MUDDY CREEK NEAR HEADWATERS
MUDDY CREEK ABOVE MARTIN CREEK
MUDDY CREEK @ BRANDONVILLE TURNPIKE
UNNAMED TRIB/MUDDY CREEK @ MOUTH
JUMP ROCK RUN AT MOUTH
SUGARCAMP RUN/MUDDY CREEK
1ST UNNAMED TRIB /ROARING CREEK @ MOUTH
ROARING CREEK @ MOUTH
ROARING CREEK @ HEADWATERS
DAUGHERTY RUN
DORITY RUN @ MOUTH
MORGAN RUN
COLES RUN
BIRCH HOLLOW
KELLY RUN
ELSEY RUN
ELSEY RUN NEAR HEADWATERS
ASHPOLE RUN
BUFFALO RUN BELOW 1ST UNNAMED TRIB
BUFFALO RUN ABOVE 2ND UNNAMED TRIB
2ND UNNAMED TRIB /BUFFALO RUN
JOES RUN NEAR MOUTH
STAMPING GROUND RUN
FILL HOLLOW
BUCKHORN RUN
Collect
Date
Total
taxa
Tot. taxa
score
EPT
taxa
EPT taxa
score
%
EPT
% EPT
score
%
Chiro.
%Chiro
score
5/19/1997
9/3/1997
9/11/1997
7/23/1996
6/19/1996
6/17/1996
7/24/1996
6/17/1996
6/17/1996
6/19/1996
6/19/1996
7/24/1996
6/18/1996
6/18/1996
6/18/1996
6/18/1996
6/19/1996
6/19/1996
6/18/1996
6/19/1996
6/18/1996
6/18/1996
6/19/1996
6/19/1996
6/18/1996
6/19/1996
6/19/1996
6/19/1996
6/17/1996
6/17/1996
6/17/1996
7/24/1996
6/19/1996
7/29/1996
6/17/1996
6/17/1996
6/17/1996
6/19/1996
6/19/1996
6/17/1996
6/18/1996
6/18/1996
6/19/1996
7/24/1996
6/19/1996
6/19/1996
6/19/1996
6/18/1996
6/19/1996
7/23/1996
7/23/1996
7/23/1996
7/23/1996
6/18/1996
6/17/1996
6/18/1996
6/17/1996
6/17/1996
6/18/1996
6/18/1996
7/24/1996
7/24/1996
7/25/1996
5
19
13
20
9
3
16
16
8
15
12
8
3
13
3
8
11
6
6
6
12
16
11
11
9
8
11
13
11
14
18
16
13
16
4
10
9
20
18
11
6
13
9
15
15
12
24
17
18
19
11
18
7
16
17
14
12
12
17
8
11
14
8
24
90
62
95
43
14
76
76
38
71
57
38
14
62
14
38
52
29
29
29
57
76
52
52
43
38
52
62
52
67
86
76
62
76
19
48
43
95
86
52
29
62
43
71
71
57
114
81
86
90
52
86
33
76
81
67
57
57
81
38
52
67
38
3
8
10
8
6
1
8
8
4
11
5
3
2
8
2
5
7
3
2
2
6
9
7
7
3
4
4
10
7
8
10
10
8
9
2
7
4
14
9
7
4
7
4
7
7
7
17
10
12
10
3
7
2
13
9
8
8
8
8
6
7
10
1
23
62
77
62
46
8
62
62
31
85
38
23
15
62
15
38
54
23
15
15
46
69
54
54
23
31
31
77
54
62
77
77
62
69
15
54
31
108
69
54
31
54
31
54
54
54
131
77
92
77
23
54
15
100
69
62
62
62
62
46
54
77
8
19
30
64
63
88
79
57
61
53
94
79
58
80
70
50
82
87
20
80
84
82
51
84
65
97
85
65
71
90
64
49
63
90
77
40
94
3
81
68
64
84
72
87
87
74
58
84
82
68
61
42
32
54
88
46
67
84
88
21
61
63
61
31
21
33
70
68
96
86
62
67
58
102
86
63
87
76
54
89
95
21
87
91
89
56
91
71
105
93
71
77
98
69
53
68
97
83
44
102
3
88
74
70
91
79
94
95
81
63
91
89
74
66
46
35
59
96
50
73
92
95
23
66
69
66
34
26
10
26
7
0
18
13
24
29
1
3
0
0
2
0
10
8
76
8
3
3
30
0
20
1
3
4
25
6
30
12
4
3
1
40
2
5
7
23
29
3
19
2
5
14
4
5
7
6
15
8
23
1
6
33
10
9
2
68
34
2
6
13
74
90
74
94
101
82
87
77
71
100
98
101
101
99
101
91
93
25
93
98
98
71
101
81
100
98
97
76
95
71
89
97
98
100
61
99
96
94
78
72
98
82
99
96
86
97
96
94
95
86
93
78
100
94
67
91
92
99
32
66
99
95
88
Benthic
Sample ID
LOKAN
TYVAR
TYVAR
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
B50
B341
B381
B136
B103
B69
B159
B53
B54
B101
B105
B160
B89
B88
B87
B83
B106
B107
B82
B92
B73
B78
B95
B94
B85
B108
B98
B96
B62
B70
B64
B156
B102
B183
B68
B52
B57
B109
B110
B66
B84
B86
B99
B163
B91
B112
B111
B75
B93
B145
B139
B137
B142
B76
B58
B72
B56
B55
B71
B80
B162
B152
B166
. 16
No
02
-1
vie
4,
ed
w
Appendix C, page C-5
2/
1
/16
19
% Top 2 % Top 2
dominant
score
81
49
44
34
82
97
32
58
47
80
74
77
90
36
75
64
61
83
88
87
74
52
59
75
96
82
73
60
81
77
35
39
49
37
60
88
96
48
76
71
84
58
83
69
67
46
51
54
30
41
68
36
96
53
59
46
72
72
75
78
56
49
56
30
79
88
104
29
4
106
66
83
32
41
36
16
100
39
56
60
27
20
20
41
75
65
40
6
28
42
63
29
36
102
96
80
99
63
19
6
81
37
46
25
65
27
49
52
85
77
72
110
93
49
100
7
74
65
84
44
44
40
34
69
80
68
HBI
HBI
score
INDEX
(SCI)
8
5
5
4
3
3
4
5
5
2
3
5
5
4
3
4
4
6
3
2
3
4
3
3
2
3
3
4
3
5
4
4
3
4
6
2
4
4
5
5
2
5
2
3
5
4
4
4
3
5
5
5
5
4
4
5
3
2
6
4
5
5
4
32
75
71
80
103
100
86
68
70
106
96
64
77
81
102
88
91
49
103
106
101
78
100
96
110
96
94
87
96
69
82
84
94
80
59
106
82
82
68
71
109
76
106
97
77
84
89
78
94
77
68
68
64
88
78
72
103
109
60
83
72
69
78
34
72
73
83
69
49
79
69
58
81
69
54
52
80
54
67
74
29
57
59
72
71
77
66
62
64
64
74
71
62
81
83
82
85
43
70
43
90
69
61
62
70
66
77
70
73
92
82
90
82
55
70
47
88
68
75
74
76
50
56
69
76
52
Appeal: 16-1024
Doc: 75-5
Filed: 01/04/2017
Appendix C
Pg: 58 of 80
Site metrics and metric scores
Stations are grouped by data set (1= 1996-1997 calibration data; 2= 1997-1998 validation data). Within each data set, stations are listed by site type (reference, unlabeled, stressed), then within type by ascending Station ID.
Data
Set Station ID
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
WVMC-32
WVMC-32-B
WVMC-32-C-1
WVMC-32-D
WVMC-32-E
WVMC-32-F
WVMC-32-G
WVMC-33-{0.0}
WVMC-33-A
WVMC-33-A.5
WVMC-33-B.5
WVMC-33-C
WVMC-33-D
WVMC-33-E
WVMC-33-F
WVMC-34-{0.0}
WVMC-35
WVMC-35.5-{0.0}
WVMC-36-{0.0}
WVMC-36-A
WVMC-39
WVMC-4
WVMC-40
WVMC-42
WVMC-43-{0.0}
WVMC-43-A
WVMC-43-B
WVMC-44-{0.0}
WVMC-46
WVMC-46-A
WVMC-46-B
WVMC-47
WVMC-49
WVMC-50
WVMC-51
WVMC-51-A
WVMC-51-B
WVMC-51-B-2
WVMC-51-B-3
WVMC-51-B-4
WVMC-52
WVMC-52-.7A
WVMC-53
WVMC-54
WVMC-54-D
WVMC-54-F
WVMC-54-H
WVMC-54-H-1
WVMC-54-I
WVMC-54-I-1
WVMC-54-J
WVMC-54-K
WVMC-56
WVMC-57
WVMC-59-{00.0}
WVMC-59-{20.4}
WVMC-60-{11.6}
WVMC-60-{25.1}
WVMC-60-A
WVMC-60-D-11
WVMC-60-D-12
WVMC-60-D-14
WVMC-60-D-3-B
Site
Type
Stream Name
SALTLICK CREEK
SPRUCE RUN/SALTLICK RUN
CABBAGE RUN
WOLF RUN /SALTLICK CREEK
BUCKLICK RUN/SALTLICK CREEK
LITTLE BUCKLICK RUN
IRISH RUN
BUFFALO CREEK @ MOUTH
FLAGG RUN
BELL HOLLOW
DOG RUN
BIRCHROOT RUN
LITTLE BUFFALO CREEK
BUCKLICK RUN/BUFFALO CREEK
SUGARCAMP RUN/BUFFALO CREEK
SCOTT RUN/CHEAT RIVER NEAR MACOMBER
MADISON RUN
KEYSER RUN
WOLF CREEK
LITTLE WOLF CREEK
MUDDY RUN
WHITES RUN
FORD RUN
LOUSE CAMP RUN
LICKING CREEK
BEARPEN HOLLOW
JACOBS RUN
BEARWALLOW RUN
BULL RUN
LEFT FORK BULL RUN
RIGHT FORK BULL RUN
JOHNATHAN RUN
CLAY LICK RUN
UPPER JOHNATHAN RUN
CLOVER RUN
RIGHT FORK CLOVER RUN
LEFT FORK/CLOVER RUN
MILL RUN /LEFT FORK
BEAR RUN
VALLEY FORK
MINEAR RUN
BRIDGE RUN
DRY RUN NEAR ST. GEORGE
HORSESHOE RUN
HYLE RUN
LAUREL RUN/HORSE SHOE RUN
THUNDERS TRUCK RUN
WALNUT HOLLOW RUN
LEADMINE RUN
LIME HOLLOW RUN
WOLF RUN /HORSESHOE RUN
TWELVEMILE RUN
MILL RUN /CHEAT RIVER
WOLF RUN /CHEAT RIVER
SHAVERS FORK @ PARSONS
SHAVERS FORK @ STEWART PARK
DRY FORK NEAR CANAAN VALLEY
DRY FORK ABOVE JOB
ROARING FORK
YOOKUM RUN
FREELAND RUN
MILL RUN /BLACKWATER RIVER
MIDDLE RUN
Collect
Date
Total
taxa
Tot. taxa
score
EPT
taxa
EPT taxa
score
%
EPT
% EPT
score
%
Chiro.
%Chiro
score
8/7/1996
7/25/1996
7/25/1996
7/25/1996
7/25/1996
7/25/1996
7/24/1996
7/25/1996
7/24/1996
7/24/1996
7/23/1996
7/24/1996
7/23/1996
7/23/1996
7/23/1996
7/24/1996
7/24/1996
7/24/1996
7/24/1996
7/24/1996
7/23/1996
7/23/1996
7/23/1996
7/23/1996
7/25/1996
7/25/1996
7/25/1996
7/26/1996
7/30/1996
7/26/1996
7/26/1996
7/30/1996
7/30/1996
7/30/1996
7/30/1996
7/30/1996
7/30/1996
7/30/1996
7/30/1996
7/30/1996
7/29/1996
7/29/1996
7/30/1996
7/30/1996
7/30/1996
7/30/1996
8/7/1996
8/7/1996
7/30/1996
7/30/1996
7/30/1996
7/30/1996
8/8/1996
8/8/1996
6/12/1996
6/11/1996
6/10/1996
6/10/1996
6/11/1996
7/16/1996
7/16/1996
7/16/1996
7/16/1996
11
18
16
18
15
18
14
20
20
15
16
17
15
13
17
15
20
16
17
15
15
9
12
14
15
14
11
13
18
15
16
15
10
16
18
18
14
15
16
12
14
18
14
14
23
18
18
12
16
15
13
14
18
12
17
19
17
15
14
12
14
24
11
52
86
76
86
71
86
67
95
95
71
76
81
71
62
81
71
95
76
81
71
71
43
57
67
71
67
52
62
86
71
76
71
48
76
86
86
67
71
76
57
67
86
67
67
110
86
86
57
76
71
62
67
86
57
81
90
81
71
67
57
67
114
52
9
11
10
11
10
12
9
12
13
11
11
12
10
7
10
9
15
9
10
10
11
3
9
11
10
11
8
9
11
12
11
11
5
11
11
12
9
10
12
9
9
13
10
9
13
12
12
10
12
12
10
9
12
8
13
12
12
10
11
8
8
12
4
69
85
77
85
77
92
69
92
100
85
85
92
77
54
77
69
115
69
77
77
85
23
69
85
77
85
62
69
85
92
85
85
38
85
85
92
69
77
92
69
69
100
77
69
100
92
92
77
92
92
77
69
92
62
100
92
92
77
85
62
62
92
31
85
83
75
87
78
67
83
66
74
83
72
78
77
82
72
67
66
71
85
75
90
13
77
88
89
79
88
68
71
91
90
75
51
71
78
81
84
79
71
91
95
85
84
82
71
81
90
80
84
86
84
88
86
81
51
73
87
50
87
55
26
45
72
92
91
81
95
85
73
90
72
80
91
78
85
83
89
79
73
72
78
93
82
97
15
83
95
97
85
96
74
77
99
98
82
55
77
85
89
92
86
78
99
103
92
91
90
77
88
97
87
91
94
91
96
94
88
56
79
94
55
95
59
29
49
78
14
5
3
6
10
26
4
25
13
10
20
6
12
12
15
8
19
14
8
14
5
10
12
8
4
9
4
9
17
4
4
5
29
15
5
11
9
7
9
3
2
4
10
3
12
10
5
19
8
10
12
7
4
15
43
16
8
13
5
40
66
35
5
87
96
98
95
91
74
97
76
87
91
81
95
89
89
86
93
81
87
93
87
96
90
89
93
97
92
97
92
84
97
97
96
72
86
96
90
92
94
92
98
99
96
91
98
89
91
96
82
92
90
89
94
97
85
58
85
93
88
96
61
35
66
96
Benthic
Sample ID
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
B214
B173
B169
B174
B167
B172
B154
B168
B153
B150
B140
B151
B143
B138
B148
B161
B158
B155
B164
B157
B146
B149
B141
B144
B171
B165
B170
B175
B190
B176
B177
B198
B191
B209
B192
B206
B202
B205
B188
B210
B184
B178
B193
B195
B196
B200
B217
B219
B201
B203
B211
B208
B221
B222
B45
B30
B5
B4
B29
B128
B124
B126
B125
. 16
No
02
-1
vie
4,
ed
w
Appendix C, page C-6
2/
1
/16
19
% Top 2 % Top 2
dominant
score
54
47
33
44
57
42
48
50
43
34
49
36
44
42
41
54
36
35
51
53
41
69
50
48
49
41
65
38
33
52
37
46
52
31
47
30
63
38
35
45
63
30
57
55
26
47
44
48
48
31
51
38
40
85
54
36
41
56
56
60
81
58
69
72
83
104
88
67
90
81
78
89
103
79
101
88
91
92
72
100
101
76
73
93
49
77
81
80
92
54
97
104
75
98
84
74
108
83
110
57
98
102
86
58
109
68
71
116
82
87
82
81
107
76
96
94
24
71
100
92
69
68
62
30
65
48
HBI
HBI
score
INDEX
(SCI)
4
4
3
4
5
4
3
5
4
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
3
5
5
4
4
4
4
5
4
3
3
4
5
4
4
3
4
3
4
3
4
3
4
4
4
4
3
4
4
3
4
3
3
5
5
4
3
4
4
5
6
6
4
84
86
102
88
74
82
103
73
81
92
97
85
86
84
81
82
87
91
90
73
100
65
74
87
84
91
80
77
87
97
93
83
66
86
82
95
78
97
89
105
83
99
81
82
84
87
101
86
90
92
78
101
93
68
70
82
97
83
90
67
55
61
85
76
88
89
89
78
83
84
81
89
88
83
90
82
78
83
77
89
83
85
77
90
47
75
85
84
85
74
79
86
89
91
83
59
85
86
92
76
87
88
85
79
96
79
79
92
88
93
78
87
90
79
87
93
64
73
88
92
74
83
61
46
72
65
Appeal: 16-1024
Doc: 75-5
Filed: 01/04/2017
Appendix C
Pg: 59 of 80
Site metrics and metric scores
Stations are grouped by data set (1= 1996-1997 calibration data; 2= 1997-1998 validation data). Within each data set, stations are listed by site type (reference, unlabeled, stressed), then within type by ascending Station ID.
Data
Set Station ID
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
WVMC-60-D-3-C
WVMC-60-D-3-E
WVMC-60-G
WVMC-60-J
WVMC-60-K-16
WVMC-60-K-17
WVMC-60-K-17-A
WVMC-60-K-5
WVMC-60-K-8
WVMC-60-L
WVMC-60-N-{01}
WVMC-60-N-{20}
WVMC-60-N-4
WVMC-60-N-8
WVMC-60-O-{01.0}
WVMC-60-O-{07.0}
WVMC-60-O-1
WVMC-60-P
WVMC-60-Q
WVMC-60-R
WVMC-60-T-{02.5}
WVMC-60-T-{13.0}
WVMC-60-T-10
WVMC-60-T-11
WVMC-60-T-13
WVMC-60-T-9
WVMCS-13
WVMCS-15
WVMCS-16
WVMCS-18
WVMCS-2
WVMCS-22
WVMCS-25
WVMCS-3
WVMCS-33
WVMCS-3-A
WVMCS-46
WVMCS-47
WVMCS-5
WVMCS-6
WVMCS-6-B
WVMCS-6-E
WVMCS-7
WVMCS-7.5
WVMT-11-{6.6}
WVMT-11-B
WVMT-12-{10.2}
WVMT-18-E-3-A-{1.2}
WVMT-18-E-4-A
WVMT-18-G-2
WVMT-22
WVMT-23
WVMT-23-B-1
WVMT-23-C-{5.6}
WVMT-23-F
WVMT-24-{0.03}
WVMT-24-A
WVMT-24-C
WVMT-24-C-3.5
WVMT-26-{0.4}
WVMT-26-B
WVMT-29
WVMT-33-{11.8}
Site
Type
Stream Name
SNYDER RUN
SAND RUN
RED RUN/ DRY FORK
ELKLICK RUN NEAR ELK
WEST FORK OF GLADY CREEK
EAST FORK OF GLADY FORK
LOUK RUN
WOODFORD RUN
FLANNIGAN RUN
BIG RUN/ DRY FORK
LAUREL FK/DRY FK NEAR MOUTH
LAUREL FK/DRY FK @ LAUREL FK CAMPGROUND
BEAVERDAM RUN
FIVE LICK RUN/LAUREL FK/ DRY FK
RED CREEK NEAR MOUTH
RED CREEK NEAR LANEVILLE
BIG RUN/ RED CREEK
SPRUCE RUN/DRY FORK
HORSE CAMP RUN
TORY CAMP RUN
GANDY CREEK @ WHITMER
GANDY CREEK/BELOW SINKS GANDY
NARROW RIDGE RUN
WARNER RUN
BIG RUN NEAR GANDY SINKS
GRANTS BRANCH
LITTLE BLACK FORK
RATTLESNAKE RUN
JOHNS RUN
WOLF RUN /SHAVERS FORK
HAWK RUN
TAYLOR RUN
COLLETT GAP RUN
HADDIX RUN
FISHING HAWK CREEK
SOUTH BRANCH/HADDIX RUN
RED RUN/ SHAVERS FORK
BLISTER RUN
LAUREL RUN/SHAVERS FK @ MOUTH
PLEASANT RUN
AARONS RUN/PLEASANT RUN
CHOKE TRAP RUN
STONELICK RUN
CANOE RUN
BERKELY RUN
LONG RUN
THREE FORK CREEK
U.T. OF LEFT FORK/LITTLE SANDY CREEK
TIBBS RUN
U.T. OF LEFT FORK/LITTLE SANDY CREEK
CUNNINGHAM RUN
TETER CREEK
STONY RUN/RACOON CREEK/TETER CREEK
BRUSHY FORK
MILL RUN /TETER CREEK
LAUREL CREEK
FROST RUN
SUGAR CREEK
HUNTER FORK
HACKERS CREEK
FOXGRAPE RUN
ANGLINS RUN
MIDDLE FORK RIVER
Collect
Date
Total
taxa
Tot. taxa
score
EPT
taxa
EPT taxa
score
%
EPT
% EPT
score
%
Chiro.
%Chiro
score
7/16/1996
7/17/1996
6/11/1996
6/11/1996
6/18/1996
6/12/1996
6/12/1996
7/29/1996
6/12/1996
6/10/1996
6/13/1996
6/11/1996
6/12/1996
6/11/1996
7/17/1996
7/17/1996
7/17/1996
6/10/1996
6/10/1996
8/7/1996
6/10/1996
6/11/1996
6/10/1996
6/11/1996
6/11/1996
7/30/1996
7/29/1996
6/12/1996
7/30/1996
6/11/1996
6/12/1996
6/11/1996
6/12/1996
6/12/1996
6/11/1996
8/7/1996
6/10/1996
6/10/1996
8/7/1996
6/12/1996
6/13/1996
6/13/1996
6/12/1996
6/12/1996
8/27/1997
8/26/1997
9/2/1997
9/3/1997
9/3/1997
9/3/1997
9/9/1997
9/9/1997
9/4/1997
9/4/1997
9/9/1997
9/10/1997
9/10/1997
9/9/1997
9/10/1997
8/27/1997
9/16/1997
9/11/1997
8/27/1997
8
9
10
18
23
14
22
18
14
14
17
22
17
18
14
13
13
15
10
14
16
15
16
16
20
16
18
16
14
18
18
18
19
16
10
16
9
17
17
13
17
20
22
18
8
11
6
18
15
14
13
16
12
13
12
14
10
17
11
14
9
11
10
38
43
48
86
110
67
105
86
67
67
81
105
81
86
67
62
62
71
48
67
76
71
76
76
95
76
86
76
67
86
86
86
90
76
48
76
43
81
81
62
81
95
105
86
38
52
29
86
71
67
62
76
57
62
57
67
48
81
52
67
43
52
48
4
5
7
13
14
10
15
13
11
12
13
14
10
13
9
8
8
11
7
7
10
10
11
10
14
11
13
13
10
14
13
14
15
11
8
11
6
12
11
8
12
12
16
14
3
3
1
10
9
6
7
9
5
9
6
7
2
6
5
3
2
3
6
31
38
54
100
108
77
115
100
85
92
100
108
77
100
69
62
62
85
54
54
77
77
85
77
108
85
100
100
77
108
100
108
115
85
62
85
46
92
85
62
92
92
123
108
23
23
8
77
69
46
54
69
38
69
46
54
15
46
38
23
15
23
46
77
84
83
71
90
84
88
56
92
78
71
93
61
86
83
44
67
88
79
6
86
81
83
89
80
82
92
86
82
97
80
93
58
81
89
86
92
89
90
89
92
87
80
86
51
21
8
50
46
63
63
59
34
88
77
73
60
57
63
55
25
40
57
83
92
90
77
98
91
96
61
101
85
77
101
66
93
90
47
73
96
86
7
94
88
90
97
87
90
100
93
89
105
87
101
64
89
96
93
100
97
98
97
100
94
87
93
56
22
9
55
50
69
68
65
37
96
84
80
65
62
68
60
27
43
62
14
7
5
1
2
8
0
1
5
5
23
1
18
4
10
19
26
9
15
1
2
7
1
1
6
14
3
11
14
0
1
4
0
8
0
3
1
4
4
4
2
1
3
10
3
9
42
16
25
2
10
1
1
9
15
8
31
7
7
27
57
47
2
87
93
96
100
99
92
101
100
96
96
78
100
82
97
91
82
75
92
86
100
99
94
100
100
95
87
98
90
87
101
100
97
101
93
101
98
100
97
96
97
99
99
98
91
98
92
59
85
76
99
91
100
100
92
85
93
69
94
94
74
43
54
99
Benthic
Sample ID
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
TYVAR
TYVAR
TYVAR
TYVAR
TYVAR
TYVAR
TYVAR
TYVAR
TYVAR
TYVAR
TYVAR
TYVAR
TYVAR
TYVAR
TYVAR
TYVAR
TYVAR
TYVAR
TYVAR
B127
B134
B28
B18
B90
B38
B42
B187
B39
B1
B51
B24
B34
B20
B133
B132
B130
B13
B7
B218
B6
B21
B9
B32
B16
B194
B181
B44
B199
B33
B41
B31
B37
B40
B19
B216
B10
B3
B212
B43
B48
B49
B46
B35
B310
B300
B327
B342
B340
B343
B356
B366
B347
B344
B359
B374
B370
B365
B373
B313
B390
B379
B317
. 16
No
02
-1
vie
4,
ed
w
Appendix C, page C-7
2/
1
/16
19
% Top 2 % Top 2
dominant
score
78
75
60
30
52
42
41
59
54
47
42
36
46
43
58
57
46
50
55
92
47
52
61
51
36
46
35
29
48
62
45
37
57
42
66
40
82
46
44
42
64
41
23
31
54
47
67
39
46
51
33
44
60
54
40
46
89
49
51
75
82
76
60
35
39
63
109
75
91
92
65
72
83
91
100
85
88
66
67
84
78
71
12
82
76
61
76
100
84
102
112
82
59
86
99
67
91
54
94
28
85
88
91
57
91
121
108
72
83
52
96
85
77
105
87
62
71
93
85
17
80
76
38
29
38
63
HBI
HBI
score
INDEX
(SCI)
3
4
4
3
4
3
3
4
3
4
4
3
4
3
4
5
5
4
4
4
3
4
4
4
4
3
3
4
4
3
4
3
3
4
2
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
7
5
4
5
5
4
4
5
3
5
5
6
6
4
6
6
6
5
95
80
82
97
90
97
93
88
96
90
81
100
79
99
80
66
71
85
82
84
94
85
90
88
88
104
95
90
90
92
87
99
100
86
112
101
107
98
98
93
97
92
96
88
78
42
68
80
68
71
88
80
77
95
77
76
63
63
82
62
54
53
74
62
64
72
93
94
86
97
83
86
85
85
100
78
94
77
64
71
84
71
54
87
82
84
86
94
87
96
91
82
90
91
97
87
87
77
91
69
92
91
83
88
94
97
93
61
52
37
80
70
71
77
80
62
81
74
76
46
71
69
54
35
44
65
Appeal: 16-1024
Doc: 75-5
Filed: 01/04/2017
Appendix C
Pg: 60 of 80
Site metrics and metric scores
Stations are grouped by data set (1= 1996-1997 calibration data; 2= 1997-1998 validation data). Within each data set, stations are listed by site type (reference, unlabeled, stressed), then within type by ascending Station ID.
Data
Set Station ID
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
WVMT-36
WVMT-37-{2.8}
WVMT-39
WVMT-4
WVMT-40
WVMT-40-A
WVMT-43-{13.2}
WVMT-43-{15.6}
WVMT-43-F-1
WVMT-43-H
WVMT-43-M
WVMT-43-O
WVMT-45
WVMT-48
WVMT-5
WVMT-50-A-1
WVMT-50-B-3
WVMT-57-{0.4}
WVMT-61-{2.0}
WVMT-64-A.5
WVMT-64-E
WVMT-64-F
WVMT-66
WVMT-68
WVMT-68-D
WVMT-69
WVMT-7
WVMT-74
WVMT-74-B-1
WVMT-78
WVMT-8
WVMTB-10-A
WVMTB-11
WVMTB-11-B
WVMTB-18-B
WVMTB-18-B-3
WVMTB-18-D-{3.9}
WVMTB-19-{0.9}
WVMTB-20
WVMTB-24
WVMTB-25
WVMTB-25-A
WVMTB-27
WVMTB-3
WVMTB-30
WVMTB-31-C
WVMTB-31-D
WVMTB-31-F-1
WVMTB-31-F-2-{0.8}
WVMTB-31-F-5
WVMTB-32-H
WVMTB-32-I-1
WVMTB-7-{1.0}
WVMTB-7-A-{0.5}
WVMTB-7-A-{2.9}
WVMTB-7-C-{0.32}
WVMTB-8
WVMTM-0.5-{0.6}
WVMTM-11-{0.3}
WVMTM-13
WVMTM-17
WVMTM-2
WVMTM-21
Site
Type
Stream Name
ISLAND RUN
BEAVER CREEK
LAUREL RUN
GOOSE CREEK
BIG LAUREL RUN
LITTLE LAUREL RUN
LEADING CREEK
LEADING CREEK
LOGLICK RUN
DAVIS LICK
CAMPFIELD RUN
LAUREL RUN
CHENOWETH CREEK
KINGS RUN
LOST RUN
LIMEKILN RUN
HILL RUN
JONES RUN
SHAVERS RUN
BUCK RUN
MEATBOX RUN
POTATOHOLE FORK
RIFFLE CREEK
BECKY CREEK
WAMSLEY RUN
POUNDMILL RUN
PLUM RUN
ELKWATER FORK
FORTLICK RUN
RALSTON RUN
WICKWIRE RUN
SUGAR RUN
FINK RUN
MUDLICK RUN
BULL RUN
MUDLICK RUN
LAUREL FORK/FRENCH CREEK
TRUBIE RUN
SAWMILL RUN
LAUREL RUN
TENMILE CREEK
RIGHT FORK OF TENMILE CREEK
PANTHER FORK
BIG RUN
HEROLDS RUN
ALEC RUN
MILLSITE RUN
TROUT RUN
UPPER TROUT RUN
SALT BLOCK RUN
BEECH RU N
PHILLIPS CAMP RUN
SAND RUN
LAUREL FORK/SAND RUN
LAUREL FORK/SAND RUN
UT OF SAND RUN
BIG RUN
SWAMP RUN
RIGHT FORK MIDDLE FORK
LONG RUN
THREE FORKS RUN
LAUREL RUN
PLEASANT RUN
Collect
Date
Total
taxa
Tot. taxa
score
EPT
taxa
EPT taxa
score
%
EPT
% EPT
score
%
Chiro.
%Chiro
score
9/15/1997
9/15/1997
9/15/1997
8/25/1997
9/15/1997
9/15/1997
9/2/1997
8/27/1997
8/25/1997
9/11/1997
8/27/1997
8/27/1997
8/26/1997
8/26/1997
8/25/1997
8/26/1997
8/26/1997
8/27/1997
9/3/1997
9/3/1997
9/10/1997
9/10/1997
9/2/1997
9/3/1997
9/9/1997
9/9/1997
8/26/1997
9/9/1997
9/9/1997
9/9/1997
8/26/1997
9/2/1997
9/2/1997
9/2/1997
9/3/1997
9/3/1997
9/10/1997
9/4/1997
9/4/1997
9/4/1997
9/17/1997
9/17/1997
9/16/1997
9/17/1997
9/10/1997
9/9/1997
9/9/1997
9/8/1997
9/8/1997
9/8/1997
9/9/1997
9/15/1997
9/3/1997
9/3/1997
9/3/1997
9/22/1997
9/3/1997
8/25/1997
8/26/1997
9/8/1997
8/27/1997
8/26/1997
8/27/1997
10
10
12
2
12
13
13
17
18
8
19
15
19
16
16
15
15
16
15
13
13
13
16
19
16
12
14
20
20
15
13
8
10
4
11
17
19
21
5
6
8
16
13
11
14
14
14
15
18
15
14
11
17
14
16
15
10
18
19
18
15
22
16
48
48
57
10
57
62
62
81
86
38
90
71
90
76
76
71
71
76
71
62
62
62
76
90
76
57
67
95
95
71
62
38
48
19
52
81
90
100
24
29
38
76
62
52
67
67
67
71
86
71
67
52
81
67
76
71
48
86
90
86
71
105
76
2
4
5
1
6
7
5
7
12
2
11
6
9
5
8
12
10
8
8
8
9
9
7
11
10
7
6
10
11
8
6
2
2
0
3
2
9
8
3
3
2
9
6
5
5
8
11
9
11
11
9
8
9
9
6
8
4
7
10
10
6
13
5
15
31
38
8
46
54
38
54
92
15
85
46
69
38
62
92
77
62
62
62
69
69
54
85
77
54
46
77
85
62
46
15
15
0
23
15
69
62
23
23
15
69
46
38
38
62
85
69
85
85
69
62
69
69
46
62
31
54
77
77
46
100
38
50
60
57
67
63
41
54
54
90
12
77
40
65
42
50
82
88
63
84
61
73
88
41
73
72
28
40
75
64
60
24
14
35
0
70
4
72
41
82
86
70
58
58
57
74
92
77
64
79
85
61
77
72
64
45
67
56
33
45
85
9
46
44
54
65
62
73
69
45
59
58
97
13
84
43
71
46
54
89
96
68
91
66
79
96
44
79
79
31
44
81
70
65
26
15
38
0
76
4
78
44
89
94
76
63
63
62
80
100
83
69
86
93
66
84
78
70
49
73
61
36
49
93
10
50
48
24
8
21
0
20
24
11
4
7
51
11
40
7
21
7
14
3
18
12
22
20
10
42
24
15
67
12
7
4
18
14
74
38
19
12
59
10
9
7
6
21
26
36
4
13
3
21
24
14
9
24
15
5
33
31
7
17
12
12
5
55
16
24
77
93
80
101
81
77
90
97
94
50
90
61
94
79
94
86
98
83
89
78
81
91
59
77
86
34
89
94
97
83
87
26
63
82
89
42
91
92
94
95
80
74
65
97
88
98
80
76
87
91
77
86
96
67
69
94
84
89
89
96
45
85
76
Benthic
Sample ID
TYVAR
TYVAR
TYVAR
TYVAR
TYVAR
TYVAR
TYVAR
TYVAR
TYVAR
TYVAR
TYVAR
TYVAR
TYVAR
TYVAR
TYVAR
TYVAR
TYVAR
TYVAR
TYVAR
TYVAR
TYVAR
TYVAR
TYVAR
TYVAR
TYVAR
TYVAR
TYVAR
TYVAR
TYVAR
TYVAR
TYVAR
TYVAR
TYVAR
TYVAR
TYVAR
TYVAR
TYVAR
TYVAR
TYVAR
TYVAR
TYVAR
TYVAR
TYVAR
TYVAR
TYVAR
TYVAR
TYVAR
TYVAR
TYVAR
TYVAR
TYVAR
TYVAR
TYVAR
TYVAR
TYVAR
TYVAR
TYVAR
TYVAR
TYVAR
TYVAR
TYVAR
TYVAR
TYVAR
B385
B383
B386
B286
B384
B387
B323
B316
B289
B380
B312
B315
B293
B297
B290
B299
B295
B314
B339
B331
B376
B378
B325
B329
B367
B361
B303
B357
B358
B362
B308
B326
B322
B324
B332
B336
B375
B348
B346
B345
B394
B393
B391
B392
B372
B354
B360
B352
B353
B351
B355
B388
B337
B333
B334
B395
B330
B291
B304
B349
B321
B298
B319
. 16
No
02
-1
vie
4,
ed
w
Appendix C, page C-8
2/
1
/16
19
% Top 2 % Top 2
dominant
score
71
50
61
100
47
46
59
47
53
67
53
73
56
55
42
49
55
38
57
49
44
66
77
57
59
78
49
56
46
47
64
87
71
93
81
66
59
41
91
85
88
45
71
57
63
67
55
63
58
63
44
41
44
68
44
42
58
34
59
74
70
37
62
45
79
61
0
82
84
63
82
74
52
74
43
68
71
91
80
71
96
67
80
87
53
36
67
64
35
80
68
84
83
56
20
45
12
29
53
64
92
15
24
19
86
45
67
58
52
70
58
65
58
88
92
87
50
87
91
66
103
64
41
46
98
59
HBI
HBI
score
INDEX
(SCI)
6
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
7
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
5
3
2
6
5
4
6
5
4
4
4
5
7
7
9
5
7
5
5
5
5
5
4
5
4
4
4
5
5
4
4
5
2
4
5
5
4
5
4
5
4
6
4
5
63
89
71
70
72
74
73
75
81
41
75
64
76
69
78
82
84
79
81
72
95
116
58
76
81
55
73
91
86
79
71
49
48
12
66
46
76
74
67
73
67
83
70
81
79
87
76
72
82
80
70
107
80
65
69
83
66
86
72
78
60
80
69
51
68
61
43
68
66
64
75
87
35
83
55
78
63
76
83
83
77
77
70
79
79
55
79
77
44
66
84
86
74
58
27
43
21
56
40
78
77
52
56
49
75
59
66
68
78
77
69
82
80
73
79
82
65
66
79
59
75
73
78
46
86
61
Appeal: 16-1024
Doc: 75-5
Filed: 01/04/2017
Appendix C
Pg: 61 of 80
Site metrics and metric scores
Stations are grouped by data set (1= 1996-1997 calibration data; 2= 1997-1998 validation data). Within each data set, stations are listed by site type (reference, unlabeled, stressed), then within type by ascending Station ID.
Data
Set Station ID
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
WVMTM-27
WVMTM-3
WVMTM-5
WVMTM-7
WVMY-11
WVMY-2
WVMY-2-A
WVMY-2-A-1
WVMY-2-B-1
WVMY-3-A
WVMY-4
WVMY-9
WVP-20-{52.0}
WVP-20-{81.6}
WVP-20-{82.6}
WVP-20-{88.9}
WVP-20-{97.9}
WVPNB-1-{4.2}
WVPNB-15
WVPNB-16-.5A-{0.4}
WVPNB-16-{05.4}
WVPNB-16-{16.8}
WVPNB-16-A-{0.8}
WVPNB-16-B.5
WVPNB-17-{15.6}
WVPNB-17-B
WVPNB-17-C
WVPNB-17-E
WVPNB-19-{1.4}
WVPNB-19-A
WVPNB-22
WVPNB-4-{04.6}
WVPNB-4-{20.2}
WVPNB-4-{29.7}
WVPNB-4-{33.0}
WVPNB-4-{39.4}
WVPNB-4-C.5
WVPNB-4-CC
WVPNB-4-DD-{2.0}
WVPNB-4-FF
WVPNB-4-FF-5-A-{0.6}
WVPNB-4-J-{1.6}
WVPNB-4-J-1
WVPNB-4-S-{04.7}
WVPNB-4-S-{5.6}
WVPNB-4-V
WVPNB-4-W-3
WVPNB-7-{03.8}
WVPNB-7-{08.4}
WVPNB-7-{10.4}
WVPNB-7-F-{0.6}
WVPNB-7-H
WVPSB-0.5
WVPSB-1
WVPSB-1.8
WVPSB-1.9
WVPSB-11
WVPSB-13
WVPSB-14
WVPSB-16
WVPSB-16-A
WVPSB-17-A
WVPSB-18
Site
Type
Stream Name
MITCHELL LICK FORK
HOOPPOLE RUN
SERVICE RUN
SHORT RUN
SOUTH BRANCH LAUREL RUN
SNOWY CREEK
NORTH BRANCH
WARDWELL RUN
PINE RUN
LITTLE LAUREL RUN
RHINE CREEK
BUFFALO RUN
NORTH BRANCH POTOMAC RIVER
NORTH BRANCH POTOMAC RIVER
NORTH BRANCH POTOMAC RIVER
NORTH BRANCH POTOMAC RIVER
NORTH BRANCH POTOMAC RIVER
GREEN SPRING RUN
DEEP RUN
U.T. OF ABRAMS CREEK
ABRAM CREEK
ABRAM CREEK
EMORY CREEK
LAUREL RUN
STONY RIVER
MILL RUN
FOURMILE RUN
HEMLICK RUN
BUFFALO CREEK
LITTLE BUFFALO CREEK
DEAKIN RUN
PATTERSON CREEK
PATTERSON CREEK
PATTERSON CREEK
PATTERSON CREEK
PATTERSON CREEK
HORSESHOE CREEK
ROSSER RUN
THORN CREEK
MIDDLE FORK/PATTERSON CREEK
UT OF UT OF MIDDLE FORK / PATTERSON
CABIN RUN
PARGUT RUN
MILLL CREEK
MILL CREEK
ELLIBER RUN
WHIP RUN
NEW CREEK
NEW CREEK
NEW CREEK
ASH SPRING RUN
LINTON CREEK
IST UNNAMED TRIB /SOUTH BR POTOMAC
STONEY RUN/SOUTH BR POTOMAC
ABERNATHY RUN
2ND UNNAMED TRIB /SOUTH BR POTOMAC
MCDOWELL RUN
MILL RUN
BUFFALO RUN
DEVIL HOLE RUN
SAWMILL RUN
CLIFFORD HOLLOW
ANDERSON RUN
Collect
Date
Total
taxa
Tot. taxa
score
EPT
taxa
EPT taxa
score
%
EPT
% EPT
score
%
Chiro.
%Chiro
score
9/29/1997
8/25/1997
8/26/1997
8/26/1997
7/8/1996
7/8/1996
7/8/1996
7/8/1996
7/9/1996
7/8/1996
7/9/1996
7/8/1996
8/27/1997
8/26/1997
8/26/1997
8/11/1997
8/13/1997
8/19/1997
8/13/1997
8/14/1997
8/14/1997
8/27/1997
8/14/1997
8/19/1997
8/19/1997
8/13/1997
8/19/1997
8/19/1997
8/11/1997
8/11/1997
8/13/1997
8/13/1997
8/12/1997
8/11/1997
8/13/1997
8/11/1997
8/19/1997
8/11/1997
8/12/1997
8/11/1997
8/12/1997
8/12/1997
8/12/1997
8/11/1997
8/18/1997
8/11/1997
8/13/1997
8/13/1997
8/12/1997
8/12/1997
8/12/1997
8/13/1997
8/27/1996
8/26/1996
8/26/1996
8/27/1996
8/27/1996
8/27/1996
8/28/1996
8/28/1996
8/28/1996
8/28/1996
8/26/1996
15
3
13
18
17
9
13
13
18
8
14
9
7
11
10
10
14
22
11
9
3
6
6
7
10
16
5
9
20
4
9
26
21
23
23
23
22
20
17
18
12
14
13
14
19
15
15
14
15
16
17
21
11
14
13
14
11
15
12
11
14
9
9
71
14
62
86
81
43
62
62
86
38
67
43
33
52
48
48
67
105
52
43
14
29
29
33
48
76
24
43
95
19
43
124
100
110
110
110
105
95
81
86
57
67
62
67
90
71
71
67
71
76
81
100
52
67
62
67
52
71
57
52
67
43
43
9
2
7
9
8
3
7
5
13
3
9
4
1
6
5
5
7
10
8
4
1
3
3
3
5
10
1
3
13
2
3
13
10
11
12
13
11
9
9
8
3
6
6
4
10
6
9
8
9
7
10
12
6
7
5
6
6
9
6
8
7
6
4
69
15
54
69
62
23
54
38
100
23
69
31
8
46
38
38
54
77
62
31
8
23
23
23
38
77
8
23
100
15
23
100
77
85
92
100
85
69
69
62
23
46
46
31
77
46
69
62
69
54
77
92
46
54
38
46
46
69
46
62
54
46
31
64
67
73
79
36
63
89
39
85
73
64
72
16
85
84
68
81
52
93
58
71
83
79
78
47
75
17
15
78
88
49
30
67
77
70
82
88
60
82
36
18
46
29
46
81
95
85
66
85
75
82
86
58
79
35
46
18
70
71
73
58
78
43
69
73
79
86
39
68
97
42
92
79
69
78
18
93
92
74
88
57
101
63
77
91
86
85
52
81
18
17
85
95
53
33
73
84
77
89
96
65
89
39
20
50
31
50
88
104
93
72
93
82
89
94
63
86
38
50
19
76
77
79
63
85
47
29
33
14
11
11
5
2
36
4
7
25
1
74
11
11
24
8
24
4
0
25
6
9
11
47
8
33
33
9
0
23
38
1
10
7
7
5
19
9
21
8
23
55
15
15
2
13
13
12
13
9
2
15
12
4
33
61
22
4
20
14
20
37
72
67
87
90
90
95
99
64
97
94
76
100
26
90
90
77
93
77
97
101
76
95
92
90
53
93
67
68
92
101
78
63
100
91
94
94
96
82
92
80
93
77
46
86
86
99
88
88
89
88
92
99
86
88
97
68
40
78
97
81
87
81
64
Benthic
Sample ID
TYVAR
TYVAR
TYVAR
TYVAR
YOUGH
YOUGH
YOUGH
YOUGH
YOUGH
YOUGH
YOUGH
YOUGH
NBRPO
NBRPO
NBRPO
NBRPO
NBRPO
NBRPO
NBRPO
NBRPO
NBRPO
NBRPO
NBRPO
NBRPO
NBRPO
NBRPO
NBRPO
NBRPO
NBRPO
NBRPO
NBRPO
NBRPO
NBRPO
NBRPO
NBRPO
NBRPO
NBRPO
NBRPO
NBRPO
NBRPO
NBRPO
NBRPO
NBRPO
NBRPO
NBRPO
NBRPO
NBRPO
NBRPO
NBRPO
NBRPO
NBRPO
NBRPO
SBRPO
SBRPO
SBRPO
SBRPO
SBRPO
SBRPO
SBRPO
SBRPO
SBRPO
SBRPO
SBRPO
B396
B288
B305
B307
B117
B116
B115
B118
B121
B114
B122
B113
B318
B301
B302
B244
B268
B279
B263
B275
B273
B309
B274
B282
B284
B266
B278
B280
B239
B241
B262
B269
B255
B245
B270
B246
B281
B248
B257
B242
B260
B251
B254
B243
B277
B240
B272
B267
B252
B253
B250
B265
B296
B285
B280
B288
B298
B301
B309
B311
B315
B310
B281
. 16
No
02
-1
vie
4,
ed
w
Appendix C, page C-9
2/
1
/16
19
% Top 2 % Top 2
dominant
score
52
78
51
59
46
75
73
67
51
83
47
78
91
72
73
88
56
39
57
83
96
78
81
86
83
42
50
78
39
88
57
58
32
48
35
57
66
53
56
46
68
55
68
73
59
83
46
35
75
63
47
59
58
47
77
56
79
54
58
44
27
68
59
75
35
76
64
84
40
42
51
76
27
83
34
15
45
43
18
69
95
67
27
7
35
29
22
26
91
78
35
96
20
67
66
107
81
101
67
54
73
68
85
49
70
51
42
64
26
84
101
39
57
83
64
65
83
36
69
33
71
66
87
114
50
64
HBI
HBI
score
INDEX
(SCI)
4
5
3
4
4
6
5
6
3
3
5
4
7
4
4
5
5
5
4
5
5
5
5
5
6
4
6
6
4
5
5
6
4
5
4
4
5
5
3
5
4
5
6
5
4
3
4
4
3
4
4
3
4
4
4
5
6
4
5
4
4
4
6
79
70
94
81
82
60
77
60
98
95
71
88
49
80
81
68
76
74
84
75
65
71
74
69
61
85
63
60
87
73
73
61
84
77
83
87
71
76
97
71
90
71
59
72
84
99
88
87
95
80
86
99
79
84
81
66
54
82
70
83
80
89
59
73
46
75
79
73
55
72
53
92
59
72
62
25
68
65
54
74
80
77
57
41
57
55
54
46
84
43
41
92
54
56
70
89
86
91
90
84
77
83
70
55
64
49
58
82
74
82
79
76
73
85
91
65
77
59
61
41
75
69
74
75
66
51
Appeal: 16-1024
Doc: 75-5
Filed: 01/04/2017
Appendix C
Pg: 62 of 80
Site metrics and metric scores
Stations are grouped by data set (1= 1996-1997 calibration data; 2= 1997-1998 validation data). Within each data set, stations are listed by site type (reference, unlabeled, stressed), then within type by ascending Station ID.
Data
Set Station ID
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
WVPSB-18.2
WVPSB-18-A-{1.0}
WVPSB-18-A-0.5
WVPSB-18-A-1
WVPSB-18-B
WVPSB-19
WVPSB-2
WVPSB-21-{01.0}
WVPSB-21-AA
WVPSB-21-F
WVPSB-21-F
WVPSB-21-GG
WVPSB-21-HH
WVPSB-21-I
WVPSB-21-II
WVPSB-21-K
WVPSB-21-K-1
WVPSB-21-N
WVPSB-21-O
WVPSB-21-Q
WVPSB-21-R
WVPSB-21-T
WVPSB-23-A
WVPSB-23-A-1
WVPSB-26
WVPSB-26-A
WVPSB-26-B
WVPSB-26-C
WVPSB-26-D
WVPSB-26-D-2
WVPSB-26-D-3
WVPSB-26-E
WVPSB-26-E-2
WVPSB-28-.5A
WVPSB-28-{00.5}
WVPSB-28-{18.8}
WVPSB-28-A-1
WVPSB-28-A-2
WVPSB-28-B
WVPSB-28-CC
WVPSB-28-E
WVPSB-28-EE
WVPSB-28-EE-1
WVPSB-28-EE-2
WVPSB-28-GG
WVPSB-28-HH
WVPSB-28-K
WVPSB-28-K-1
WVPSB-28-K-2
WVPSB-28-K-3
WVPSB-28-K-4
WVPSB-28-K-5
WVPSB-28-K-6
WVPSB-28-P
WVPSB-28-Q
WVPSB-28-R
WVPSB-28-S
WVPSB-28-U
WVPSB-28-V
WVPSB-28-Z
WVPSB-30
WVPSB-30.5
WVPSB-32
Site
Type
Stream Name
UNNAMED TRIB/S BR POT SOUTH OF MCNEIL
MUDLICK RUN AT MOUTH
UNNAMED TRIB/MUDLICK RUN
TURNMILL RUN/MUD LICK RUN
WALNUT BOTTOM RUN
WILLIAMS HOLLOW/ GLEBE RUN
JOHN’S RUN
SOUTH FK /SOUTH BR POT NEAR MOUTH
MILLER RUN
DUMPLING RUN/MOOREFIELD RUN
DUMPLING RUN/MOOREFIELD RUN
LITTLE FORK
STONY RUN/MOOREFIELD RUN
KETTLE CREEK
BRUSHY FORK
ROUGH RUN/MOOREFIELD RUN
LITTLE ROUGH RUN
DICE RUN /SOUTH FK/SOUTH BR POT
WAGNER RUN
DEAN GAP
STONY RUN
HIVELY GAP
DURGEON RUN
MITCHELL RUN/DURGEON RUN
LUNICE CREEK
ROBINSON RUN
NORMAN RUN
BRUSHY RUN/LUNICE CK
SOUTH FORK/LUNICE CREEK
BIG STAR RUN
LITTLE STAR RUN
NORTH FK /LUNICE CREEK
SALT BLOCK RUN
POWERS HOLLOW
NORTH FK /SOUTH BR POT NEAR PETERSBURG
NORTH FK /SOUTH BR POT NEAR SENECA ROCKS
BIG RUN/ JORDAN RUN
LAUREL RUN/JORDAN RUN
SAMUEL RUN
TETER GAP
HIGH RIDGE RUN
BIG RUN/ NORTH FORK
COLD SPRING RUN
SAWMILL BRANCH/BIG RUN
LAUREL FORK/NORTH FK/SOUTH BR POTOMAC
STRAIGHT FORK/NORTH FK/SOUTH BR POT
SENECA CREEK
BRUSHY RUN/SENECA CREEK
ROARING CREEK
HORSECAMP RUN
STRADER RUN
GULF RUN
WHITES RUN
ROOT RUN
DICE RUN /NORTH FK/SOUTH BR POTOMAC
BLIZZARD RUN
BRIERY GAP RUN
JUDY RUN
NELSON RUN
BOUSES RUN
LONG RUN /SOUTH BR POTOMAC
UNNAMED TRIB/SOUTH BR POTOMAC
BRIGGS RUN
Collect
Date
Total
taxa
Tot. taxa
score
EPT
taxa
EPT taxa
score
%
EPT
% EPT
score
%
Chiro.
%Chiro
score
9/10/1996
8/26/1996
8/26/1996
8/26/1996
8/28/1996
8/28/1996
8/27/1996
8/19/1996
8/21/1996
8/19/1996
9/19/1996
8/21/1996
8/21/1996
8/20/1996
8/21/1996
8/19/1996
8/19/1996
8/20/1996
8/20/1996
8/20/1996
8/20/1996
8/21/1996
9/10/1996
9/10/1996
8/19/1996
9/10/1996
9/10/1996
8/19/1996
8/19/1996
8/19/1996
8/19/1996
8/19/1996
8/19/1996
8/21/1996
8/21/1996
8/20/1996
8/20/1996
8/20/1996
9/9/1996
8/19/1996
9/9/1996
8/21/1996
8/20/1996
8/20/1996
8/20/1996
8/20/1996
8/20/1996
8/20/1996
8/21/1996
8/20/1996
8/20/1996
8/20/1996
8/20/1996
8/21/1996
9/10/1996
8/19/1996
8/19/1996
8/21/1996
8/21/1996
8/19/1996
8/28/1996
8/28/1996
8/28/1996
11
13
10
14
14
14
12
14
8
16
1
13
13
19
11
14
13
12
13
18
8
16
9
12
11
10
13
14
10
16
15
15
16
11
14
13
18
16
15
15
13
10
14
13
13
14
12
12
13
14
16
17
15
9
17
13
9
11
13
10
19
13
13
52
62
48
67
67
67
57
67
38
76
5
62
62
90
52
67
62
57
62
86
38
76
43
57
52
48
62
67
48
76
71
71
76
52
67
62
86
76
71
71
62
48
67
62
62
67
57
57
62
67
76
81
71
43
81
62
43
52
62
48
90
62
62
8
8
5
8
9
6
8
9
2
6
1
7
7
11
6
8
7
8
8
10
2
5
4
6
5
6
8
8
4
11
13
8
6
6
8
7
11
12
10
7
12
7
9
11
7
8
7
10
7
11
10
11
11
5
13
10
6
4
8
6
12
7
9
62
62
38
62
69
46
62
69
15
46
8
54
54
85
46
62
54
62
62
77
15
38
31
46
38
46
62
62
31
85
100
62
46
46
62
54
85
92
77
54
92
54
69
85
54
62
54
77
54
85
77
85
85
38
100
77
46
31
62
46
92
54
69
92
45
49
59
68
63
44
61
33
12
100
65
85
60
80
64
55
63
66
57
43
26
57
59
81
72
85
42
49
86
78
75
66
27
73
86
75
83
56
47
98
96
72
97
79
50
60
59
91
71
86
87
91
56
93
96
79
31
89
94
63
58
93
100
49
53
65
74
69
48
66
36
13
109
70
93
65
88
69
60
69
72
62
47
28
62
64
88
78
92
46
53
93
85
81
72
29
79
94
82
91
60
51
107
104
78
105
86
55
66
65
99
78
94
95
99
61
101
104
86
33
97
102
68
64
101
4
28
31
18
17
23
18
8
11
1
0
4
1
21
14
22
30
12
13
29
18
44
5
7
3
8
7
7
5
9
11
4
2
31
17
10
13
10
6
37
0
3
13
2
9
34
25
35
4
26
5
4
4
10
3
1
3
9
7
2
9
25
3
97
72
69
83
84
78
83
93
90
100
101
97
100
79
87
79
71
89
88
71
82
56
96
94
98
92
94
94
96
92
89
97
99
70
84
91
88
91
95
63
101
98
88
99
92
67
76
66
97
75
96
97
97
90
98
100
98
92
94
99
92
76
98
Benthic
Sample ID
SBRPO
SBRPO
SBRPO
SBRPO
SBRPO
SBRPO
SBRPO
SBRPO
SBRPO
SBRPO
SBRPO
SBRPO
SBRPO
SBRPO
SBRPO
SBRPO
SBRPO
SBRPO
SBRPO
SBRPO
SBRPO
SBRPO
SBRPO
SBRPO
SBRPO
SBRPO
SBRPO
SBRPO
SBRPO
SBRPO
SBRPO
SBRPO
SBRPO
SBRPO
SBRPO
SBRPO
SBRPO
SBRPO
SBRPO
SBRPO
SBRPO
SBRPO
SBRPO
SBRPO
SBRPO
SBRPO
SBRPO
SBRPO
SBRPO
SBRPO
SBRPO
SBRPO
SBRPO
SBRPO
SBRPO
SBRPO
SBRPO
SBRPO
SBRPO
SBRPO
SBRPO
SBRPO
SBRPO
B332
B284
B287
B286
B317
B318
B297
B235
B271
B228
B335
B269
B278
B248
B265
B233
B229
B244
B262
B243
B258
B267
B323
B327
B231
B329
B328
B227
B236
B223
B230
B232
B234
B274
B273
B254
B239
B250
B321
B237
B319
B264
B242
B255
B249
B260
B256
B240
B275
B247
B259
B245
B263
B276
B322
B224
B226
B268
B272
B225
B312
B316
B308
. 16
No
02
-1
vie
4,
ed
w
Appendix C, page C-10
2/
1
/16
19
% Top 2 % Top 2
dominant
score
67
45
51
56
45
51
53
52
66
85
100
63
67
44
68
43
50
53
50
41
70
57
65
64
57
38
55
61
76
30
27
42
53
63
52
69
37
39
52
56
73
72
32
73
55
51
66
53
66
66
53
42
74
65
51
69
61
74
85
88
32
60
79
52
85
76
69
86
76
73
75
54
23
0
58
52
88
50
89
79
73
78
92
48
67
55
56
67
97
70
61
37
109
114
91
74
57
75
48
99
95
75
69
42
44
106
42
70
76
53
73
53
53
73
91
41
55
77
48
61
41
23
19
106
63
33
HBI
HBI
score
INDEX
(SCI)
3
5
5
4
5
4
5
5
6
4
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
6
5
5
6
5
5
5
4
5
4
5
5
4
4
5
4
7
4
5
4
4
5
6
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
4
5
4
3
5
5
4
4
5
8
5
5
4
6
5
103
67
63
84
73
86
72
73
60
82
70
64
76
75
87
78
79
61
69
73
59
63
66
66
88
77
79
74
65
90
91
74
82
42
78
75
82
86
64
61
96
78
82
78
73
67
68
73
84
70
85
96
76
63
89
81
75
34
69
72
86
61
76
77
66
58
71
75
70
66
74
49
57
47
68
73
80
68
74
67
68
72
77
48
55
59
64
72
73
77
67
55
89
89
79
75
49
74
71
87
89
74
62
82
70
81
77
73
66
62
68
75
71
83
91
78
58
91
78
68
47
68
64
88
63
73
Appeal: 16-1024
Doc: 75-5
Filed: 01/04/2017
Appendix C
Pg: 63 of 80
Site metrics and metric scores
Stations are grouped by data set (1= 1996-1997 calibration data; 2= 1997-1998 validation data). Within each data set, stations are listed by site type (reference, unlabeled, stressed), then within type by ascending Station ID.
Data
Set Station ID
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
WVPSB-33
WVPSB-34
WVPSB-4
WVPSB-40
WVPSB-41
WVPSB-46
WVPSB-46-A
WVPSB-46-B
WVPSB-47
WVPSB-47-B
WVPSB-47-C
WVPSB-5
WVPSB-50
WVPSB-53
WVPSB-9-{10.7}
WVPSB-9-B
WVPSB-9-B-2
WVPSB-9-F
WVPSB-9-F.5
WVPSB-9-G
WVK-11
WVK-12-{12.0}
WVK-12-A
WVK-12-F
WVK-12-H
WVK-14
WVK-16-{25.0}
WVK-16-G-1-{0.4}
WVK-19-C
WVK-22-{10.6}
WVK-22-{14.4}
WVK-22-B-2
WVK-22-B-3
WVK-22-B-5-B
WVK-22-J-{1.3}
WVK-30
WVK-33
WVK-41-A
WVK-6
WVKE-14-G-2-A
WVKE-23-{12.6}
WVKE-23-D-6
WVKE-23-P-3-B
WVKE-26-A-{0.16}
WVKE-78
WVKE-87-C
WVKE-9-J
WVKP-1
WVKP-13-{1.3}
WVKP-13-{3.0}
WVKP-13-A-1-A
WVKP-1-A
WVKP-43-{1.6}
WVMC-11-D-{00}
WVMC-12-C-{04}
WVMC-13-{01}
WVMC-14-{02}
WVMC-17-{2.6}
WVMC-17-A-.5-{0}
WVMC-17-A-.5-{3}
WVMC-17-A-{0.0}
WVMC-17-A-1-{0.0}
WVMC-18-A
Site
Type
Stream Name
REEDS CREEK
MILL RUN /SOUTH BR POTOMAC
FOX RUN
PETERS RUN
TROUT RUN
SMITH CREEK
LITTLE CREEK
TWIN RUN /SMITH CREEK
THORN CREEK
BLACKTHORN CREEK
WHITETHORN CREEK
BUFFALO CREEK
HAMMER RUN/SOUTH BR POTOMAC
EAST DRY RUN
MILL CREEK/SOUTH BR POT @ HEADWATERS
DUMPLING RUN/MILL CREEK
MAYHEW RUN
CAMP RUN /MILL CREEK
UNNAMED TRIB/MILL CREEK
ELKLICK RUN
POND BRANCH
THIRTEEN MILE CREEK
ROCKY FORK
POPLAR FORK
BAKER BRANCH
SIXTEENMILE CREEK
EIGHTEEN MILE CREEK
LEFT FORK TURKEY BRANCH
LEFT FORK FIVE AND TWENTY MILE CREEK
HURRICANE CREEK
HURRICANE CREEK
COW CREEK
LONG BRANCH
U.T. OF CROOKED CREEK
RIDER CREEK
ARMOUR CREEK
GALLATIN BRANCH
WOODWARD BRANCH
FIVE MILE CREEK
SCHOOLHOUSE FORK
BIG SANDY CREEK
COLEMAN RUN
SIMONS FORK
LEFT FORK OF MORRIS CREEK
UPPER MILL RUN
U.T./GRANNY CREEK
JAKES RUN
HEIZER CREEK
TUPPERS CREEK
TUPPER CREEK
TURKEYPEN BRANCH
MANILA CREEK
LAUREL FORK
LEFT FORK BULL RUN @ MOUTH
HAZEL RUN AT HEADWATERS
GIBSON RUN
HACKELBARNEY RUN NEAR HEADWATERS
MUDDY CREEK BELOW MARTIN CREEK
FICKY RUN AT MOUTH
FICKY RUN NEAR HEADWATERS
MARTIN CREEK @ MOUTH
GLADE RUN AT MOUTH
LICK RUN /ROARING CK ABOVE LITTLE LICK RUN
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
Collect
Date
Total
taxa
Tot. taxa
score
EPT
taxa
EPT taxa
score
%
EPT
% EPT
score
%
Chiro.
%Chiro
score
8/28/1996
8/28/1996
8/27/1996
8/27/1996
8/27/1996
8/27/1996
9/10/1996
9/10/1996
8/27/1996
8/27/1996
8/27/1996
8/26/1996
9/10/1996
9/10/1996
8/27/1996
8/27/1996
9/11/1996
8/27/1996
8/27/1996
8/27/1996
5/13/1997
5/19/1997
5/14/1997
5/14/1997
5/19/1997
5/14/1997
5/21/1997
6/16/1997
5/20/1997
6/24/1997
6/24/1997
5/28/1997
5/28/1997
5/28/1997
6/19/1997
5/15/1997
5/14/1997
5/16/1997
5/13/1997
6/26/1997
7/14/1997
7/21/1997
7/23/1997
7/14/1997
7/16/1997
7/24/1997
7/1/1997
5/14/1997
5/19/1997
6/24/1997
5/20/1997
5/14/1997
6/12/1997
6/18/1996
6/19/1996
6/17/1996
6/17/1996
6/17/1996
6/17/1996
6/18/1996
6/17/1996
6/17/1996
6/19/1996
14
10
12
19
16
12
19
16
16
13
19
9
15
5
18
10
11
14
16
19
14
14
17
14
17
14
14
15
12
10
6
11
12
8
10
3
4
2
9
7
11
8
13
5
13
6
11
11
7
5
14
9
10
9
12
18
15
6
7
4
2
5
12
67
48
57
90
76
57
90
76
76
62
90
43
71
24
86
48
52
67
76
90
67
67
81
67
81
67
67
71
57
48
29
52
57
38
48
14
19
10
43
33
52
38
62
24
62
29
52
52
33
24
67
43
48
43
57
86
71
29
33
19
10
24
57
7
5
6
11
9
8
13
11
9
7
11
4
11
3
9
2
5
8
8
10
8
8
9
9
10
8
8
9
8
1
1
5
7
3
5
0
2
0
6
4
5
4
5
1
5
1
4
6
3
0
9
4
7
3
8
10
9
2
0
4
0
0
5
54
38
46
85
69
62
100
85
69
54
85
31
85
23
69
15
38
62
62
77
62
62
69
69
77
62
62
69
62
8
8
38
54
23
38
0
15
0
46
31
38
31
38
8
38
8
31
46
23
0
69
31
54
23
62
77
69
15
0
31
0
0
38
62
32
56
75
81
26
86
89
51
71
64
16
90
98
76
71
27
76
80
73
38
71
61
36
83
55
75
55
64
48
5
23
6
4
57
0
2
0
89
87
33
65
53
54
39
20
71
49
17
0
51
74
66
89
93
69
71
18
0
100
0
0
67
68
35
61
82
88
28
94
97
56
78
70
18
98
107
83
77
29
83
87
80
42
77
67
39
91
59
81
60
70
53
6
25
7
4
62
0
2
0
97
95
36
71
58
59
42
22
77
53
18
0
56
80
71
96
101
75
77
20
0
109
0
0
73
28
56
23
7
10
71
7
6
18
14
19
58
3
1
4
13
61
8
8
11
52
16
27
56
9
35
18
37
34
34
39
65
88
45
20
88
89
10
9
6
27
0
14
23
30
10
11
16
54
29
43
0
24
2
0
5
0
18
40
0
50
84
11
73
44
78
94
91
29
94
95
82
87
81
43
98
100
97
88
39
93
93
90
49
85
74
45
92
66
83
64
67
66
62
36
12
56
80
12
11
90
92
95
74
101
87
78
71
91
90
85
46
72
58
101
77
99
101
96
101
83
61
101
50
16
90
Benthic
Sample ID
SBRPO
SBRPO
SBRPO
SBRPO
SBRPO
SBRPO
SBRPO
SBRPO
SBRPO
SBRPO
SBRPO
SBRPO
SBRPO
SBRPO
SBRPO
SBRPO
SBRPO
SBRPO
SBRPO
SBRPO
LOKAN
LOKAN
LOKAN
LOKAN
LOKAN
LOKAN
LOKAN
LOKAN
LOKAN
LOKAN
LOKAN
LOKAN
LOKAN
LOKAN
LOKAN
LOKAN
LOKAN
LOKAN
LOKAN
ELK
ELK
ELK
ELK
ELK
ELK
ELK
ELK
LOKAN
LOKAN
LOKAN
LOKAN
LOKAN
LOKAN
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
B314
B313
B293
B302
B305
B303
B326
B331
B304
B289
B307
B282
B325
B324
B299
B291
B334
B290
B306
B292
B20
B51
B35
B33
B46
B36
B60
B99
B56
B103
B104
B73
B75
B78
B101
B38
B28
B45
B17
B119
B163
B194
B210
B167
B184
B215
B124
B30
B53
B106
B58
B32
B95
B81
B97
B60
B63
B67
B59
B77
B65
B61
B104
. 16
No
02
-1
vie
4,
ed
w
Appendix C, page C-11
2/
1
/16
19
% Top 2 % Top 2
dominant
score
80
69
40
49
56
84
63
63
51
40
37
80
57
97
39
82
67
44
47
45
68
55
53
78
45
54
57
57
72
83
93
79
91
72
61
99
98
100
76
86
59
63
44
77
51
50
71
41
67
81
57
68
55
87
62
46
56
55
72
78
100
91
74
31
48
95
79
69
25
59
57
76
94
98
31
67
4
95
28
51
87
83
86
50
70
73
34
85
72
67
67
43
27
12
33
15
44
61
1
3
0
37
22
63
58
88
36
77
78
45
92
52
30
68
51
70
20
60
84
69
71
44
35
0
15
41
HBI
HBI
score
INDEX
(SCI)
5
6
4
4
4
6
4
4
5
5
5
6
4
5
4
5
6
4
4
4
5
3
5
5
3
5
3
5
5
6
6
6
7
7
6
7
7
10
3
2
5
4
5
4
5
7
5
4
7
6
5
1
4
2
2
4
4
5
6
3
5
7
3
65
51
78
82
86
55
79
79
76
71
73
57
84
71
84
64
59
84
84
78
65
92
74
69
93
77
98
73
67
59
51
56
47
36
61
37
40
4
99
107
65
85
74
89
64
44
68
88
46
59
68
121
85
109
110
90
85
70
55
99
77
44
92
60
44
69
85
80
43
86
81
73
74
83
37
84
54
86
53
45
79
81
83
56
75
73
54
86
67
76
67
61
43
28
40
32
33
59
11
15
17
69
63
55
64
68
49
59
45
61
69
37
31
64
67
67
63
80
85
79
48
32
64
23
17
65
Appeal: 16-1024
Doc: 75-5
Filed: 01/04/2017
Appendix C
Pg: 64 of 80
Site metrics and metric scores
Stations are grouped by data set (1= 1996-1997 calibration data; 2= 1997-1998 validation data). Within each data set, stations are listed by site type (reference, unlabeled, stressed), then within type by ascending Station ID.
Data
Set Station ID
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
WVMC-23-A-{2.9}
WVMC-26-{1.5}
WVMC-51-B-5
WVMC-60-D-1
WVMC-60-D-4.5
WVMC-60-D-4.7
WVMCS-.5
WVMCS-6-C
WVMT-11-A
WVMT-18-{9.6}
WVMT-24-C-2
WVMT-37-{0.0}
WVMT-42-B-3-{1.0}
WVMT-43-A
WVMT-66-B
WVMTB-11-B.5
WVMY-1-A
WVMY-2-B
WVMY-5
WVPNB-10
WVPNB-16-{18.1}
WVPNB-17-D
WVPNB-4-{45.2}
WVPNB-7-C.4-1-{0.2}
WVPNB-7-H-2-{1.0}
WVPSB-18-A-{6.7}
Site
Type
Stream Name
CHURCH RUN NEAR HEADWATERS
JOES RUN ABOVE 1ST UNNAMED TRIB
INDIAN RUN
BIG RUN/ BLACKWATER RIVER
SHAYS RUN
ENGINE RUN NEAR ELK
SMOKY HOLLOW
SLABCAMP RUN
SHELBY RUN
SANDY CREEK
BILLS CREEK
BEAVER CREEK
U.T. OF FLATBUSH FORK
CRAVEN RUN
MCGEE RUN
WASH RUN
WHITE OAK SPRING RUN
SOUTH BRANCH
MAPLE RUN
SLAUGHTERHOUSE RUN
ABRAM CREEK
LAUREL RUN
PATTERSON CREEK
U.T OF U .T. OF NEW CREEK
U.T. OF LINTON CREEK
MUDLICK RUN AT HEADWATERS
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
Collect
Date
Total
taxa
Tot. taxa
score
EPT
taxa
EPT taxa
score
%
EPT
% EPT
score
%
Chiro.
%Chiro
score
6/18/1996
6/18/1996
7/30/1996
7/17/1996
7/18/1996
7/17/1996
6/10/1996
8/7/1996
8/26/1997
9/3/1997
9/10/1997
9/15/1997
8/25/1997
8/25/1997
9/3/1997
9/2/1997
7/8/1996
7/9/1996
7/9/1996
8/11/1997
8/18/1997
8/19/1997
8/11/1997
8/13/1997
8/12/1997
8/26/1996
6
7
18
10
10
11
8
19
12
13
11
6
6
10
7
10
12
14
15
11
5
11
16
12
16
8
29
33
86
48
48
52
38
90
57
62
52
29
29
48
33
48
57
67
71
52
24
52
76
57
76
38
1
1
10
7
7
6
3
12
4
4
5
0
3
3
4
2
7
9
7
6
1
3
10
2
11
4
8
8
77
54
54
46
23
92
31
31
38
0
23
23
31
15
54
69
54
46
8
23
77
15
85
31
61
39
77
92
76
93
62
78
50
6
34
0
18
15
18
4
57
74
29
45
20
24
74
3
83
8
67
43
84
100
83
101
67
85
54
7
37
0
19
16
20
4
62
81
31
49
22
27
81
3
90
8
27
3
5
5
7
4
19
1
3
63
23
61
59
36
78
66
3
9
40
21
20
41
10
2
2
71
73
98
96
96
94
97
82
100
98
38
77
40
41
65
22
34
98
91
61
79
81
60
91
99
99
30
Benthic
Sample ID
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
CHEAT
TYVAR
TYVAR
TYVAR
TYVAR
TYVAR
TYVAR
TYVAR
TYVAR
YOUGH
YOUGH
YOUGH
NBRPO
NBRPO
NBRPO
NBRPO
NBRPO
NBRPO
SBRPO
B74
B79
B197
B129
B135
B131
B12
B215
B306
B338
B369
B382
B292
B285
B335
B328
B119
B123
B120
B249
B276
B283
B247
B271
B258
B283
. 16
No
02
-1
vie
4,
ed
w
Appendix C, page C-12
2/
1
/16
19
% Top 2 % Top 2
dominant
score
89
90
53
73
57
72
58
36
74
87
47
82
77
57
88
85
44
45
56
46
40
61
48
95
55
85
18
16
73
43
67
44
66
99
41
21
83
28
36
67
19
24
87
86
69
85
94
61
82
8
70
23
HBI
HBI
score
INDEX
(SCI)
4
2
4
2
4
3
5
3
5
7
5
5
6
7
6
7
3
4
6
5
7
6
4
4
4
7
91
110
80
108
85
94
73
100
71
49
71
66
62
46
49
37
94
89
63
65
48
58
81
84
90
49
48
50
83
73
72
72
58
94
59
35
60
27
35
44
29
27
75
81
58
63
46
47
81
45
85
30
Appeal: 16-1024
Doc: 75-5
Filed: 01/04/2017
Appendix C
Pg: 65 of 80
Site metrics and metric scores
Stations are grouped by data set (1= 1996-1997 calibration data; 2= 1997-1998 validation data). Within each data set, stations are listed by site type (reference, unlabeled, stressed), then within type by ascending Station ID.
Data
Set Station ID
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
WVBST-27-C
WVBST-60-E
WVBST-60-F
WVBST-60-G-{0.9}
WVBST-60-I-2
WVBST-70-Z-{2.3}
WVBST-76-E
WVK-14-B-1-98
WVK-39-E-3-{0.6}98
WVK-39-M-1-A-{1.0}98
WVKG-19-V-5
WVKG-34-H-14
WVKG-34-H-4
WVKG-34-H-9
WVKG-5-F-3
WVKG-5-H
WVKG-5-J
WVKGC-23-{2.3}
WVKGW-22-{0.4}
WVKGW-27
WVO-2-P-23
WVO-2-P-26
WVO-2-Q-17
WVO-2-Q-18-A
WVOG-29-C
WVOG-32-F
WVOG-34-E-1-{0.8}
WVOG-37
WVOG-38-{11.6}
WVOG-38-A
WVOG-38-D-{3.9}
WVOGM-8-B
WVP-16-{0.1}
WVP-6-A.5-{0.2}
WVP-6-G-1-{0.0}
WVP-9-B-{0.0}
WVP-9-B-{12.8}
WVP-9-G-2-{0.0}
WVPC-0.9A-{0.2}
WVPC-1-{0.2}
WVBS-{47.4}
WVBS-{51.6}
WVBS-{76.4}
WVBST-100
WVBST-103
WVBST-104
WVBST-105
WVBST-109-{0.0}
WVBST-109-{1.7}
WVBST-109-A
WVBST-109-B
WVBST-110
WVBST-111
WVBST-112
WVBST-113
WVBST-115
WVBST-115-A
WVBST-115-B
WVBST-115-D
WVBST-115-E
WVBST-115-F
WVBST-115-G
WVBST-117
Site
Type
Stream Name
MILL FORK
GEORGE BRANCH
CRANE CREEK
HURRICANE BRANCH
WHITE OAK BRANCH
VALL CREEK
DAYCAMP BRANCH
U.T. OF FIVEFORK BRANCH
BAYS FORK
HOFFMAN HOLLOW
LAUREL CREEK/LITTLE CLEAR CREEK
BEAR RUN
HUNTERS RUN
ARMSTRONG RUN
BEARPEN FORK
ASH FORK
NEIL BRANCH
SOUTH FORK CRANBERRY RIVER
LITTLE LAUREL CREEK
MOUNTAIN LICK RUN
ARKANSAS BRANCH
LONG BRANCH
ALUM FORK
LITTLE LAUREL CREEK
HORSESHOE BRANCH
PLUM BRANCH
NELSON FORK
LITTLE UGLY CREEK
BIG UGLY CREEK
PIGEONROOST CREEK
LAUREL CREEK
LEFT FORK/MILL CREEK
ROCKWELL RUN
U.T. OF BACK CREEK
LITTLE BRUSH CREEK
MEADOW BRANCH
MEADOW BRANCH
SOUTH FORK/INDIAN CREEK
CONNOR HOLLOW
CONSTANT RUN
TUG FORK RIVER
TUG FORK RIVER
TUG FORK RIVER
LITTLE INDIAN CREEK
ROCK NARROWS BRANCH
HARRIS BRANCH
MITCHELL BRANCH
SANDLICK CREEK
SANDLICK CREEK
RIGHT FORK / SANDLICK CREEK
LEFT FORK / SANDLICK CREEK
ADKIN BRANCH
BELCHER BRANCH
TURNHOLE BRANCH
HARMON BRANCH
SOUTH FORK
TEA BRANCH
MCCLURE BRANCH
JUMP BRANCH
SPICE CREEK
LAUREL BRANCH
ROAD FORK
LOOP BRANCH
reference
reference
reference
reference
reference
reference
reference
reference
reference
reference
reference
reference
reference
reference
reference
reference
reference
reference
reference
reference
reference
reference
reference
reference
reference
reference
reference
reference
reference
reference
reference
reference
reference
reference
reference
reference
reference
reference
reference
reference
Collect
Date
Total
taxa
Tot. taxa
score
EPT
taxa
EPT taxa
score
%
EPT
% EPT
score
%
Chiro.
%Chiro
score
7/7/1998
7/7/1998
7/7/1998
6/17/1998
7/8/1998
7/1/1998
6/24/1998
5/26/1998
6/4/1998
6/4/1998
7/29/1998
8/3/1998
8/4/1998
8/3/1998
7/22/1998
7/21/1998
7/21/1998
8/5/1998
8/6/1998
8/11/1998
7/7/1998
7/7/1998
5/28/1998
5/28/1998
5/13/1998
5/27/1998
5/11/1998
5/11/1998
5/19/1998
5/19/1998
5/18/1998
5/3/1998
6/3/1998
6/3/1998
6/2/1998
6/1/1998
6/3/1998
6/3/1998
6/3/1998
6/4/1998
7/8/1998
7/8/1998
7/7/1998
6/17/1998
6/23/1998
6/18/1998
7/1/1998
6/17/1998
7/1/1998
7/1/1998
7/1/1998
6/17/1998
6/16/1998
6/30/1998
6/30/1998
7/6/1998
7/1/1998
6/25/1998
6/25/1998
6/24/1998
7/6/1998
6/25/1998
6/24/1998
20
19
19
19
21
18
15
17
24
25
17
15
13
15
23
19
22
23
21
20
19
17
16
23
24
18
15
19
19
13
24
12
24
17
18
16
18
18
25
17
15
17
9
15
10
15
13
4
5
11
4
11
10
13
7
15
17
19
21
15
15
15
12
95
90
90
90
100
86
71
81
114
119
81
71
62
71
110
90
105
110
100
95
90
81
76
110
114
86
71
90
90
62
114
57
114
81
86
76
86
86
119
81
71
81
43
71
48
71
62
19
24
52
19
52
48
62
33
71
81
90
100
71
71
71
57
10
11
11
13
14
13
9
9
14
11
13
12
8
11
15
13
13
14
13
15
8
9
10
14
13
12
9
13
10
8
15
8
15
8
10
11
7
14
15
12
7
6
3
4
5
7
8
2
2
4
2
3
4
4
2
6
9
10
11
8
8
6
5
77
85
85
100
108
100
69
69
108
85
100
92
62
85
115
100
100
108
100
115
62
69
77
108
100
92
69
100
77
62
115
62
115
62
77
85
54
108
115
92
54
46
23
31
38
54
62
15
15
31
15
23
31
31
15
46
69
77
85
62
62
46
38
39
90
88
90
87
81
90
71
53
71
92
86
91
90
82
80
63
78
83
92
63
80
83
57
84
74
48
89
79
80
80
69
69
63
61
57
40
66
64
81
64
73
29
38
41
70
62
50
71
27
69
30
68
63
38
44
74
85
52
75
81
71
30
42
98
95
98
94
88
98
77
58
77
100
94
99
98
90
87
69
85
91
100
68
87
90
62
91
81
52
97
86
87
87
76
75
69
66
61
43
72
70
88
69
79
32
41
45
76
67
54
77
29
75
33
74
68
41
48
80
92
57
82
88
77
33
16
1
2
4
3
8
5
15
21
8
1
7
5
8
9
14
26
10
7
4
16
9
8
8
5
7
6
4
6
4
1
4
13
28
17
38
30
16
20
16
13
4
29
46
53
2
30
0
10
57
8
13
10
11
12
18
12
2
31
11
4
6
13
85
100
99
97
98
93
96
86
80
93
100
94
96
93
92
87
75
91
94
97
85
91
93
93
96
93
95
97
95
97
100
97
88
72
84
63
70
84
81
85
88
97
72
54
48
99
71
101
91
44
93
88
91
90
89
83
89
99
70
89
97
95
88
Benthic
Sample ID
TUG98
TUG98
TUG98
TUG98
TUG98
TUG98
TUG98
LOK98
LOK98
LOK98
GAU98
GAU98
GAU98
GAU98
GAU98
GAU98
GAU98
GAU98
GAU98
GAU98
TUG98
TUG98
TPO98
TPO98
LGU98
LGU98
LGU98
LGU98
LGU98
LGU98
LGU98
LGU98
POT98
POT98
POT98
POT98
POT98
POT98
CAP98
CAP98
TUG98
TUG98
TUG98
TUG98
TUG98
TUG98
TUG98
TUG98
TUG98
TUG98
TUG98
TUG98
TUG98
TUG98
TUG98
TUG98
TUG98
TUG98
TUG98
TUG98
TUG98
TUG98
TUG98
B60
B88
B89
B90
B91
B110
B116
B1
B2
B3
B43R
B97
B98
B100
B119
B120
B121
B152
B180
B181
B138
B1
B7
B8
B24
B28
B33
B36
B45
B37
B38
B135
B68
B42
B64
B21
B65
B66
B70
B69
B6
B7
B9
B11
B13
B14
B15
B20
B21
B18
B19
B22
B23
B24
B25R
B27
B28
B29
B30
B31
B32
B33
B35
. 16
No
02
-1
vie
4,
ed
w
Appendix C, page C-13
2/
1
/16
19
% Top 2 % Top 2
dominant
score
46
69
54
66
64
63
63
35
38
42
34
60
51
51
60
30
39
31
47
47
46
60
63
46
50
52
34
62
69
62
39
50
35
69
44
53
62
35
31
48
49
54
52
76
77
63
80
67
73
77
69
56
65
55
58
48
50
53
51
47
47
65
64
84
48
73
53
56
58
58
102
98
91
104
63
77
77
63
110
95
107
83
83
84
62
58
84
78
74
104
59
48
59
96
78
102
49
88
73
59
102
107
81
79
72
76
38
36
58
31
52
42
36
48
69
54
71
66
81
79
74
76
82
82
55
57
HBI
HBI
score
INDEX
(SCI)
5
4
4
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
3
4
4
3
4
3
4
4
4
4
5
4
3
4
4
4
4
5
4
4
4
3
5
5
5
6
6
5
5
5
5
6
5
5
6
5
5
5
4
3
5
4
4
3
5
75
87
83
99
103
97
96
90
83
91
96
102
92
102
98
96
81
87
92
91
85
95
90
92
88
91
83
89
74
81
93
86
89
85
86
75
80
88
86
93
72
77
64
55
60
75
66
77
68
56
68
75
63
71
71
72
79
96
74
86
84
94
71
76
85
87
90
91
87
81
84
86
89
96
86
81
87
90
93
87
94
93
94
79
81
81
88
92
86
79
89
78
75
96
76
92
69
81
72
65
88
90
87
72
76
51
48
46
72
60
53
53
41
53
57
60
66
52
67
80
88
77
79
81
73
57
Appeal: 16-1024
Doc: 75-5
Filed: 01/04/2017
Appendix C
Pg: 66 of 80
Site metrics and metric scores
Stations are grouped by data set (1= 1996-1997 calibration data; 2= 1997-1998 validation data). Within each data set, stations are listed by site type (reference, unlabeled, stressed), then within type by ascending Station ID.
Data
Set Station ID
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
WVBST-118
WVBST-119
WVBST-120-{0.0}
WVBST-120-{2.0}
WVBST-120-A
WVBST-121
WVBST-14-B
WVBST-17-{2.7}
WVBST-24
WVBST-24-{29.3}
WVBST-24-{31.8}
WVBST-24-N
WVBST-24-O
WVBST-24-P
WVBST-24-Q-7
WVBST-27-{2.5}
WVBST-31-B
WVBST-32
WVBST-34
WVBST-35
WVBST-40
WVBST-40-C
WVBST-40-H
WVBST-41
WVBST-42
WVBST-42-A
WVBST-42-B
WVBST-43
WVBST-60
WVBST-60-A-{2.0}
WVBST-60-D
WVBST-63-{1.2}
WVBST-70-{1.3}
WVBST-70-{18.4}
WVBST-70-{7.4}
WVBST-70-C
WVBST-70-F
WVBST-70-I
WVBST-70-M-{1.8}
WVBST-70-M-1
WVBST-70-M-3
WVBST-70-N-{2.7}
WVBST-70-N-{4.5}
WVBST-70-Q
WVBST-70-T-2
WVBST-70-U-1
WVBST-70-W-{0.8}
WVBST-70-W-{7.8}
WVBST-70-W-1-A-{0.8}
WVBST-70-Z-{0.0}
WVBST-71
WVBST-72
WVBST-76-{0.0}
WVBST-76-{10.2}
WVBST-76-{5.6}
WVBST-78-D
WVBST-78-E
WVBST-78-F
WVBST-78-H
WVBST-78-I
WVBST-85-A
WVBST-85-A-{0.8}
WVBST-94
Site
Type
Stream Name
MILL BRANCH
DRY BRANCH
LITTLE CREEK
LITTLE CREEK
INDIAN GRAVE BRANCH
MILLSEAT BRANCH
RIGHT FORK/BULL CREEK
JENNIE CREEK
PIGEON CREEK
PIGEON CREEK
PIGEON CREEK
ELK CREEK
MILLSTONE BRANCH
PIGEONROOST CREEK
SPRING BRANCH
MILLER CREEK
SOUTH FORK / BUFFALO CREEK
SUGARTREE CREEK
SYCAMORE CREEK
LICK CREEK
MATE CREEK
MITCHELL BRANCH
DOUBLE CAMP FORK
SULPHUR CREEK
THACKER CREEK
SCISSORSVILLE BRANCH
MAUCHINVILLE BRANCH
GRAPEVINE CREEK
PANTHER CREEK
GREENBRIER FORK
CUB BRANCH
HORSE CREEK
DRY FORK
DRY FORK
DRY FORK
MILE BRANCH
GRAPEVINE BRANCH
BEARTOWN BRANCH
BRADSHAW CREEK
GROUNDHOG BRANCH
WOLFPEN BRANCH
LITTLE SLATE CREEK
LITTLE SLATE CREEK
BARTLEY CREEK
CLEAR FORK
BIG BRANCH / WAR CREEK
JACOB FORK
JACOB FORK
MOUNTAIN FORK
VALL CREEK
LICK BRANCH
HARMAN BRANCH
CLEAR FORK
CLEAR FORK
CLEAR FORK
HONEYCAMP BRANCH
COONTREE BRANCH
STONECOAL BRANCH
NEWSON BRANCH
MOORECAMP BRANCH
LEFT FORK / DAVY BRANCH
LEFT FORK / DAVY BRANCH
SHANNON BRANCH
Collect
Date
Total
taxa
Tot. taxa
score
EPT
taxa
EPT taxa
score
%
EPT
% EPT
score
%
Chiro.
%Chiro
score
6/24/1998
6/24/1998
6/23/1998
6/23/1998
6/23/1998
6/24/1998
6/24/1998
6/30/1998
7/6/1998
6/23/1998
6/3/1998
6/16/1998
6/16/1998
6/16/1998
6/16/1998
6/17/1998
6/15/1998
6/15/1998
6/22/1998
6/15/1998
6/15/1998
6/16/1998
6/15/1998
6/16/1998
6/16/1998
6/16/1998
6/16/1998
6/16/1998
7/7/1998
7/7/1998
6/17/1998
7/7/1998
7/7/1998
7/6/1998
7/7/1998
7/2/1998
7/2/1998
7/2/1998
7/9/1998
7/9/1998
7/8/1998
7/8/1998
7/6/1998
7/9/1998
7/1/1998
7/6/1998
6/30/1998
7/1/1998
7/2/1998
7/1/1998
6/25/1998
6/25/1998
7/7/1998
6/30/1998
6/24/1998
7/9/1998
7/9/1998
6/30/1998
6/24/1998
6/24/1998
6/23/1998
6/23/1998
6/12/1998
18
23
12
23
17
20
15
13
12
7
16
9
15
18
11
12
18
7
16
9
9
8
16
4
7
6
4
7
10
14
21
19
13
16
14
16
14
12
17
11
18
19
19
17
8
19
14
15
10
17
10
16
13
14
13
18
14
19
11
14
10
21
15
86
110
57
110
81
95
71
62
57
33
76
43
71
86
52
57
86
33
76
43
43
38
76
19
33
29
19
33
48
67
100
90
62
76
67
76
67
57
81
52
86
90
90
81
38
90
67
71
48
81
48
76
62
67
62
86
67
90
52
67
48
100
71
9
12
3
12
9
10
6
5
5
2
11
4
6
10
4
7
8
3
6
3
3
1
6
0
1
2
1
2
4
3
12
8
6
7
8
10
6
7
6
3
7
11
13
7
2
12
5
6
5
9
3
9
7
5
4
5
5
8
2
5
5
11
9
69
92
23
92
69
77
46
38
38
15
85
31
46
77
31
54
62
23
46
23
23
8
46
0
8
15
8
15
31
23
92
62
46
54
62
77
46
54
46
23
54
85
100
54
15
92
38
46
38
69
23
69
54
38
31
38
38
62
15
38
38
85
69
61
84
20
63
27
76
80
30
25
38
86
19
48
62
63
46
44
55
47
63
7
10
65
0
13
63
54
75
51
2
77
59
59
30
44
73
53
88
35
8
41
84
74
48
4
84
66
39
63
67
5
89
81
10
46
70
25
76
1
60
48
75
80
66
91
21
68
29
82
87
33
27
41
94
21
52
67
69
51
48
59
51
69
7
11
70
0
15
68
59
82
55
2
84
64
64
32
47
80
58
96
38
9
45
91
80
52
5
91
72
43
68
73
6
97
88
10
50
76
27
82
1
65
52
82
87
4
5
62
6
33
7
3
43
27
55
3
3
13
7
17
9
19
9
2
17
50
8
26
40
40
13
4
2
40
79
13
17
5
50
31
17
41
3
50
61
41
2
14
33
66
5
22
32
25
21
63
4
2
62
17
12
42
13
89
9
23
0
5
97
96
39
95
67
94
98
57
74
45
97
97
87
94
83
92
81
92
99
84
51
93
75
61
61
88
97
99
61
21
88
83
96
50
69
84
60
98
50
40
60
99
87
68
35
96
79
69
76
79
38
97
99
38
83
89
59
88
11
92
78
101
96
Benthic
Sample ID
TUG98
TUG98
TUG98
TUG98
TUG98
TUG98
TUG98
TUG98
TUG98
TUG98
TUG98
TUG98
TUG98
TUG98
TUG98
TUG98
TUG98
TUG98
TUG98
TUG98
TUG98
TUG98
TUG98
TUG98
TUG98
TUG98
TUG98
TUG98
TUG98
TUG98
TUG98
TUG98
TUG98
TUG98
TUG98
TUG98
TUG98
TUG98
TUG98
TUG98
TUG98
TUG98
TUG98
TUG98
TUG98
TUG98
TUG98
TUG98
TUG98
TUG98
TUG98
TUG98
TUG98
TUG98
TUG98
TUG98
TUG98
TUG98
TUG98
TUG98
TUG98
TUG98
TUG98
B36
B37
B40
B41
B38
B42
B44
B46
B49
B57
B58
B139
B54
B55
B56
B61
B63
B65
B67
B68
B71
B73
B75
B76
B77
B78
B79
B80
B84R
B86
B87
B92
B111
B112
B113
B93
B94
B95
B98
B96
B97
B101
B99
B103
B104
B105
B107
B108
B106
B109
B114
B115
B117R
B119
B120
B122
B123
B124
B126
B127
B128
B129
B130
. 16
No
02
-1
vie
4,
ed
w
Appendix C, page C-14
2/
1
/16
19
% Top 2 % Top 2
dominant
score
54
52
75
53
61
34
65
59
56
91
42
86
38
38
63
54
47
55
64
77
74
81
65
60
63
66
92
92
77
86
46
41
69
63
51
44
88
76
68
84
65
49
44
60
87
70
49
65
72
47
84
58
54
82
48
61
63
64
93
56
44
61
59
72
76
39
73
61
103
54
64
69
14
91
23
96
97
57
73
83
71
56
36
40
30
55
63
57
54
13
13
36
23
85
92
49
57
77
88
19
38
49
25
55
79
87
63
20
48
80
54
44
83
25
65
72
28
82
61
58
57
11
69
87
61
64
HBI
HBI
score
INDEX
(SCI)
4
3
6
4
5
4
4
6
6
6
4
5
5
5
6
5
5
4
5
6
7
9
5
6
6
3
4
5
6
7
5
5
5
6
5
5
6
5
6
7
6
4
4
5
6
3
5
5
6
4
7
4
4
6
5
3
6
5
7
5
5
4
4
82
93
54
89
67
86
79
63
49
55
90
71
76
75
63
74
69
81
71
61
45
17
64
59
59
96
85
70
62
44
77
71
72
59
64
71
61
76
62
38
58
83
88
74
54
103
71
68
62
78
40
79
80
63
71
92
55
72
43
67
70
89
88
79
91
39
86
62
89
73
53
53
34
89
48
71
83
59
67
71
60
67
53
35
33
64
34
39
58
47
52
49
30
88
77
65
55
64
79
52
70
54
31
59
88
89
65
28
86
68
59
56
77
30
81
76
41
63
74
51
75
22
66
62
86
79
Appeal: 16-1024
Doc: 75-5
Filed: 01/04/2017
Appendix C
Pg: 67 of 80
Site metrics and metric scores
Stations are grouped by data set (1= 1996-1997 calibration data; 2= 1997-1998 validation data). Within each data set, stations are listed by site type (reference, unlabeled, stressed), then within type by ascending Station ID.
Data
Set Station ID
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
WVBST-95
WVBST-98-A
WVBST-99-{0.0}
WVBST-99-{16.4}
WVBST-99-L-{0.0}
WVBST-99-L-{6.2}
WVBST-99-L-1
WVK-34-{23.8}
WVK-34-{58.4}
WVK-82-{18.6}
WVK-82-{55.2}
WVK-82-{61.6}
WVK-82-{80.2}
WVKC-10-I-6-C
WVKC-10-L
WVKC-10-N-{3.0}
WVKC-10-P-.5
WVKC-10-T-{17.4}
WVKC-10-T-{18.5}
WVKC-10-T-11-{15.3}
WVKC-10-T-11-H.5-{0.3}
WVKC-10-T-2
WVKC-10-T-9
WVKC-10-T-9-B
WVKC-10-T-9-B.5
WVKC-10-T-9-C-2
WVKC-10-U-13
WVKC-10-U-17
WVKC-10-U-21
WVKC-10-U-3-B
WVKC-10-U-7-A
WVKC-11-{5.6}
WVKC-14
WVKC-16-A
WVKC-21
WVKC-21-C
WVKC-29
WVKC-29-A
WVKC-29-A-3
WVKC-31-{0.4}
WVKC-31-B-{0.2}
WVKC-31-B-{10.9}
WVKC-31-C
WVKC-35-{3.0}
WVKC-35-F
WVKC-43-{0.0}
WVKC-43-{2.8}
WVKC-46-{0.0}
WVKC-46-{15.3}
WVKC-46-{20.2}
WVKC-46-{5.8}
WVKC-46-C
WVKC-46-E
WVKC-46-G
WVKC-46-G-1
WVKC-46-G-1-.5A
WVKC-46-G-2
WVKC-46-H
WVKC-46-I
WVKC-46-J-2
WVKC-46-K
WVKC-46-L.5
WVKC-46-P
Site
Type
Stream Name
UPPER SHANNON BRANCH
PUNCHEON CAMP BRANCH
ELKHORN CREEK
ELKHORN CREEK
NORTH FORK / ELKHORN CREEK
NORTH FORK / ELKHORN CREEK
BUZZARD BRANCH
BIG COAL RIVER
COAL RIVER
GAULEY RIVER
GAULEY RIVER
GAULEY RIVER
GAULEY RIVER
RATTLESNAKE HOLLOW
CAMP CREEK
ROCK CREEK
LONG BRANCH
SPRUCE FORK
SPRUCE FORK
SPRUCE LAUREL FORK
TICKLE BRITCHES FORK
LAUREL BRANCH
HEWITT CREEK
MISSOURI FORK/HEWITT
ISOM BRANCH
SYCAMORE BRANCH
GRAPEVINE BRANCH
JASPER WORKMAN BRANCH
LACEY BRANCH
BENNETT FORK
ROACH BRANCH
ALUM CREEK
FORK CREEK
LEFT FORK/BULL CREEK
BRUSH CREEK
RIDGEVIEW HOLLOW
JOES CREEK
LEFT FORK JOES CREEK
SPICELICK FORK
LAUREL CREEK
HOPKINS FORK
HOPKINS FORK
COLD FORK
WHITE OAK CREEK
LEFT FORK OF WHITE OAK CREEK
ELK RUN
ELK RUN
MARSH FORK
MARSH FORK
MARSH FORK
MARSH FORK
HAZY CREEK
STINK RUN
PEACHTREE CREEK
DREWS CREEK
CANTERBURY BRANCH
MARTIN FORK
DRY CREEK
ROCK CREEK
BEE BRANCH
COVE CREEK
SHILOH FORK
SURVEYOR CREEK
Collect
Date
Total
taxa
Tot. taxa
score
EPT
taxa
EPT taxa
score
%
EPT
% EPT
score
%
Chiro.
%Chiro
score
6/17/1998
6/17/1998
6/22/1998
6/22/1998
6/22/1998
6/16/1998
6/22/1998
10/8/1997
10/7/1997
7/15/1998
7/29/1998
7/30/1998
8/5/1998
9/22/1997
9/23/1997
9/25/1997
9/24/1997
9/25/1997
9/25/1997
9/15/1997
9/15/1997
9/24/1997
9/24/1997
9/23/1997
9/24/1997
9/24/1997
9/23/1997
9/22/1997
9/22/1997
9/23/1997
9/22/1997
9/18/1997
10/6/1997
9/26/1997
9/26/1997
10/8/1997
9/17/1997
10/7/1997
9/17/1997
10/7/1997
10/7/1997
10/6/1997
10/7/1997
10/8/1997
10/8/1997
10/7/1997
10/7/1997
10/6/1997
10/6/1997
9/29/1997
10/6/1997
10/6/1997
10/6/1997
9/25/1997
9/25/1997
9/25/1997
9/25/1997
10/6/1997
10/7/1997
9/29/1997
9/29/1997
9/29/1997
10/7/1997
8
11
11
8
6
10
10
18
16
10
15
14
16
13
16
16
16
12
10
12
6
17
11
13
15
16
16
18
14
14
14
16
19
11
14
14
12
16
22
12
14
19
14
8
16
20
19
13
14
15
15
14
17
17
16
2
19
13
18
8
20
10
14
38
52
52
38
29
48
48
86
76
48
71
67
76
62
76
76
76
57
48
57
29
81
52
62
71
76
76
86
67
67
67
76
90
52
67
67
57
76
105
57
67
90
67
38
76
95
90
62
67
71
71
67
81
81
76
10
90
62
86
38
95
48
67
2
4
2
4
3
2
6
10
9
4
10
9
10
5
8
6
5
5
5
7
5
7
4
3
4
4
8
9
7
7
7
6
9
4
4
3
5
7
8
7
6
12
9
4
8
7
9
5
6
7
6
7
6
8
9
1
8
7
9
3
10
4
7
15
31
15
31
23
15
46
77
69
31
77
69
77
38
62
46
38
38
38
54
38
54
31
23
31
31
62
69
54
54
54
46
69
31
31
23
38
54
62
54
46
92
69
31
62
54
69
38
46
54
46
54
46
62
69
8
62
54
69
23
77
31
54
16
94
34
46
68
24
75
82
78
20
69
75
87
28
71
25
27
52
27
88
36
60
72
8
48
26
62
65
43
60
46
31
73
84
9
3
38
56
50
61
72
73
85
43
67
38
41
80
70
72
80
85
52
79
90
50
84
66
60
24
59
81
29
18
102
37
50
74
26
82
89
85
21
75
81
94
31
77
28
29
57
29
96
39
66
79
9
52
28
67
70
47
65
50
34
80
92
10
3
41
61
54
67
78
79
93
47
73
41
44
87
76
78
87
92
57
86
98
54
92
72
66
26
65
88
31
74
3
36
5
25
64
4
2
5
61
15
11
5
20
8
32
17
10
10
4
0
13
11
8
13
3
24
18
34
15
16
31
12
4
54
58
30
12
10
7
4
6
9
29
19
35
34
4
6
4
5
9
10
5
7
0
4
7
9
21
21
7
48
27
98
64
96
75
36
97
99
96
40
86
90
96
81
93
68
84
91
90
97
101
88
90
93
88
98
77
83
66
86
85
69
89
97
46
43
71
89
91
94
97
95
92
72
82
66
67
97
95
97
96
92
91
96
94
101
97
94
92
80
80
93
52
Benthic
Sample ID
TUG98 B131
TUG98 B132
TUG98 B136
TUG98 B137
TUG98 B134
TUG98 B135
TUG98 B133
COAL97 B15
COAL97 B16R
GAU98 B2
GAU98 B4
GAU98 B5
GAU98 B6
COAL97 B65
COAL97 B11
COAL97 B68
COAL97 B46
COAL97 B75
COAL97 B76
COAL97 B79
COAL97 B86
COAL97 B38
COAL97 B30R
COAL97 B58
COAL97 B34
COAL97 B85
COAL97 B28
COAL97 B35
COAL97 B37
COAL97 B4
COAL97 B67
COAL97 B2
COAL97 B27
COAL97 B40
COAL97 B9
COAL97 B66
COAL97 B36
COAL97 B42
COAL97 B73
COAL97 B39
COAL97 B32
COAL97 B33
COAL97 B18
COAL97 B92
COAL97 B41
COAL97 B24
COAL97 B25
COAL97 B50
COAL97 B51
COAL97 B52
COAL97 B54
COAL97 B29
COAL97 B81
COAL97 B60
COAL97 B22
COAL97 B12
COAL97 B55
COAL97 B23
COAL97 B69
COAL97 B3
COAL97 B19
COAL97 B71
COAL97 B84
. 16
No
02
-1
vie
4,
ed
w
Appendix C, page C-15
2/
1
/16
19
% Top 2 % Top 2
dominant
score
89
93
62
51
83
80
82
68
51
72
47
55
44
42
56
65
46
45
74
79
76
64
62
56
48
52
62
64
62
44
66
50
56
64
73
67
57
59
42
71
41
54
79
68
63
55
65
62
55
52
47
73
50
66
81
100
69
62
43
64
37
74
66
17
11
60
76
26
31
29
50
77
43
83
70
87
90
69
55
85
86
40
33
38
57
60
69
82
74
59
56
59
88
54
78
69
57
42
52
68
64
91
46
93
71
33
50
58
70
54
59
71
74
83
42
79
53
29
0
49
60
88
57
99
40
53
HBI
HBI
score
INDEX
(SCI)
7
5
6
6
5
7
5
4
4
6
5
5
4
5
4
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
6
5
4
6
7
6
5
4
5
5
4
5
5
5
6
6
4
5
4
4
5
5
4
5
3
4
5
4
5
4
3
6
49
70
59
57
65
49
72
79
82
56
73
75
82
70
83
64
76
74
71
72
86
81
79
74
76
76
68
67
64
74
82
63
77
81
54
45
57
71
78
72
77
85
75
64
70
62
63
88
77
80
82
72
69
78
74
99
82
76
80
77
82
95
58
27
60
48
58
49
34
62
80
81
40
78
75
86
62
77
56
65
67
53
68
55
71
65
55
67
64
68
72
59
72
65
61
79
68
41
39
55
69
79
65
76
85
71
50
70
65
65
72
72
76
78
70
70
76
73
45
79
70
80
50
83
66
53
Appeal: 16-1024
Doc: 75-5
Filed: 01/04/2017
Appendix C
Pg: 68 of 80
Site metrics and metric scores
Stations are grouped by data set (1= 1996-1997 calibration data; 2= 1997-1998 validation data). Within each data set, stations are listed by site type (reference, unlabeled, stressed), then within type by ascending Station ID.
Data
Set Station ID
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
WVKC-46-Q
WVKC-47
WVKC-47-A-{1.3}
WVKC-47-C
WVKC-47-F
WVKC-47-G
WVKC-47-G-1
WVKC-47-H
WVKC-47-N-{1.4}
WVKC-47-O-{0.0}
WVKC-47-O-{2.4}
WVKC-5
WVKC-9
WVKG-13-{0.0}
WVKG-13-{7.9}
WVKG-13-B
WVKG-13-F
WVKG-13-K
WVKG-19-{14.4}
WVKG-19-{18.0}
WVKG-19-{40.4}
WVKG-19-E-{2.0}
WVKG-19-G-{2.8}
WVKG-19-G-{9.6}
WVKG-19-G-3-{1.0}
WVKG-19-G-9-{7.5}
WVKG-19-H-{0.8}
WVKG-19-H-1-A-{1.2}
WVKG-19-J-1
WVKG-19-J-2
WVKG-19-P
WVKG-19-P-{5.4}
WVKG-19-Q
WVKG-19-Q-1-A-{1.4}
WVKG-19-Q-5
WVKG-19-U-{3.8}
WVKG-19-U-{7.8}
WVKG-19-U-2-C
WVKG-19-U-2-D
WVKG-19-U-4
WVKG-19-V-{4.4}
WVKG-24-{4.0}
WVKG-24-{6.2}
WVKG-24-E-{1.0}
WVKG-24-E-2
WVKG-24-G
WVKG-26-{1.6}
WVKG-26-{8.8}
WVKG-26-O
WVKG-26-O-2
WVKG-26-P
WVKG-27
WVKG-3
WVKG-30-{0.4}
WVKG-30-{3.8}
WVKG-30-{4.3}
WVKG-30-D-{0.8}
WVKG-30-E
WVKG-30-H
WVKG-30-L
WVKG-30-N
WVKG-30-P
WVKG-32
Site
Type
Stream Name
MILLERS CAMP BRANCH
CLEAR FORK
ROCKHOUSE CREEK
PANTHER BRANCH
STONECOAL BRANCH
LONG FORK
DOW FORK
MARE BRANCH
MCDOWELL BRANCH
WORKMAN CREEK
WORKMAN CREEK
FALLS CREEK
CROOKED CREEK
PETERS CREEK
PETERS CREEK
OTTER CREEK
JERRY FORK
BUCK GARDEN CREEK
MEADOW RIVER
MEADOW RIVER
MEADOW RIVER
GLADE CREEK
ANGLINS CREEK
ANGLINS CREEK
SUGARGROVE CREEK
U.T. OF ANGLINS CREEK
YOUNGS CREEK
NORTH PRONG CREEK
HAYNES BRANCH
ROAD FORK
MEADOW CREEK
MEADOW CREEK
SEWELL CREEK
BOGGS CREEK
GOULD HOLLOW
BIG CLEAR CREEK
BIG CLEAR CREEK
OLD FIELD BRANCH
JOB KNOB BRANCH
ELIJAH BRANCH
LITTLE CLEAR CREEK
HOMINY CREEK
HOMINY CREEK
GRASSY CREEK
BRUSHY MEADOW CREEK
ROARING CREEK
MUDDLETY CREEK
MUDDLETY CREEK
CLEAR FORK
FALLS RUN
LAUREL FORK
PERSINGER CREEK
BIG CREEK
BIG BEAVER CREEK
BIG BEAVER CREEK
BIG BEAVER CREEK
WYATT RU N
LITTLE BEAVER CREEK
LEFT FORK/BEAVER CREEK
BEARPEN FORK/BEAVER CREEK
LOWER LAUREL RUN
UPPER LAUREL RUN
PANTHER CREEK
Collect
Date
Total
taxa
Tot. taxa
score
EPT
taxa
EPT taxa
score
%
EPT
% EPT
score
%
Chiro.
%Chiro
score
10/7/1997
9/23/1997
9/23/1997
9/24/1997
9/24/1997
9/24/1997
9/24/1997
9/24/1997
9/22/1997
9/22/1997
9/22/1997
9/17/1997
9/17/1997
7/14/1998
8/4/1998
7/14/1998
8/4/1998
8/4/1998
7/29/1998
7/22/1998
7/27/1998
7/30/1998
7/30/1998
8/13/1998
7/30/1998
8/3/1998
7/27/1998
7/27/1998
7/29/1998
7/29/1998
7/29/1998
7/21/1998
7/28/1998
7/28/1998
7/27/1998
8/10/1998
7/21/1998
7/21/1998
7/21/1998
7/21/1998
7/30/1998
7/15/1998
7/16/1998
7/20/1998
7/16/1998
7/20/1998
7/20/1998
7/14/1998
7/20/1998
7/22/1998
7/22/1998
7/29/1998
7/15/1998
7/29/1998
7/28/1998
7/28/1998
7/30/1998
7/28/1998
7/28/1998
7/27/1998
7/27/1998
7/27/1998
8/5/1998
11
8
20
18
6
12
13
15
11
14
15
19
11
15
14
16
16
13
11
26
15
11
22
22
12
18
15
9
14
19
15
21
13
25
17
18
18
19
17
20
12
20
19
20
19
17
14
16
15
24
13
22
18
14
21
19
18
13
17
8
10
22
14
52
38
95
86
29
57
62
71
52
67
71
90
52
71
67
76
76
62
52
124
71
52
105
105
57
86
71
43
67
90
71
100
62
119
81
86
86
90
81
95
57
95
90
95
90
81
67
76
71
114
62
105
86
67
100
90
86
62
81
38
48
105
67
4
5
11
8
2
8
5
10
7
6
8
8
5
6
5
8
7
9
8
12
6
4
13
13
8
12
11
5
9
11
10
9
5
13
7
10
12
13
11
12
5
11
11
11
7
9
8
6
7
12
8
11
7
8
12
10
10
2
5
2
2
5
7
31
38
85
62
15
62
38
77
54
46
62
62
38
46
38
62
54
69
62
92
46
31
100
100
62
92
85
38
69
85
77
69
38
100
54
77
92
100
85
92
38
85
85
85
54
69
62
46
54
92
62
85
54
62
92
77
77
15
38
15
15
38
54
5
87
66
48
49
78
66
73
89
52
84
38
29
46
63
65
76
84
95
43
55
59
64
71
80
79
85
56
84
78
76
55
36
63
38
69
86
90
95
83
79
53
72
68
74
72
49
27
77
55
89
73
56
75
69
67
92
61
23
52
36
9
85
5
95
72
53
53
85
72
79
97
56
91
41
32
50
69
71
83
91
103
46
60
64
70
78
87
86
93
61
91
85
83
60
39
69
41
75
94
98
104
90
86
57
78
74
80
79
54
29
83
60
97
79
61
81
76
73
100
66
25
56
40
10
93
34
6
2
27
20
7
13
12
4
27
10
29
43
8
5
11
15
3
2
13
0
10
17
4
3
8
11
2
6
14
13
22
11
16
42
7
9
3
2
6
7
10
5
7
9
14
22
7
9
20
8
7
3
12
2
9
3
7
36
6
9
25
2
66
95
99
74
81
94
88
89
97
73
91
71
58
93
96
90
86
98
99
88
101
91
84
97
98
93
89
99
95
87
88
79
90
84
59
94
92
98
99
95
94
91
96
94
92
87
79
94
92
81
92
94
98
88
99
91
98
94
64
95
92
75
99
Benthic
Sample ID
COAL97 B57
COAL97 B13R
COAL97 B70
COAL97 B59
COAL97 B83
COAL97 B47
COAL97 B21
COAL97 B49
COAL97 B56
COAL97 B93
COAL97 B94
COAL97 B26
COAL97 B20
GAU98 B18
GAU98 B20R
GAU98 B12
GAU98 B14
GAU98 B15
GAU98 B48
GAU98 B49
GAU98 B51
GAU98 B22
GAU98 B25
GAU98 B26
GAU98 B23
GAU98 B24
GAU98 B28
GAU98 B27
GAU98 B29
GAU98 B30
GAU98 B31
GAU98 B32
GAU98 B33
GAU98 B34
GAU98 B35
GAU98 B39
GAU98 B40
GAU98 B36
GAU98 B37
GAU98 B38
GAU98 B46
GAU98 B59
GAU98 B60
GAU98 B54
GAU98 B52
GAU98 B55
GAU98 B71
GAU98 B72
GAU98 B68
GAU98 B69
GAU98 B70
GAU98 B73
GAU98 B74
GAU98 B83
GAU98 B84
GAU98 B85
GAU98 B76
GAU98 B77
GAU98 B78
GAU98 B80
GAU98 B81
GAU98 B82
GAU98 B87
. 16
No
02
-1
vie
4,
ed
w
Appendix C, page C-16
2/
1
/16
19
% Top 2 % Top 2
dominant
score
90
60
51
49
67
72
73
62
58
53
63
48
62
45
41
40
69
54
82
32
55
55
45
45
50
38
52
47
61
38
42
43
39
42
73
47
51
65
67
50
77
32
31
62
57
57
43
66
67
45
57
53
48
40
45
39
70
79
49
64
85
41
77
16
62
76
79
52
43
43
59
65
73
58
82
59
86
92
94
49
72
28
106
70
71
86
86
79
96
75
84
61
97
91
89
95
91
43
83
77
54
51
78
36
106
108
60
67
67
89
53
52
86
67
74
81
93
85
95
46
33
80
57
24
92
37
HBI
HBI
score
INDEX
(SCI)
5
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
4
5
5
5
6
5
4
5
5
4
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
6
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
4
5
5
4
4
5
5
4
4
4
5
4
4
4
5
5
6
6
6
6
5
77
80
79
69
75
76
74
77
91
66
76
71
62
68
82
75
68
81
74
67
69
75
77
81
89
85
86
79
82
88
84
74
64
77
56
80
81
81
82
84
81
77
86
75
73
80
83
72
73
85
78
82
64
80
85
83
76
66
52
61
60
52
74
41
68
84
70
51
70
63
75
76
64
75
70
50
69
74
78
69
79
69
82
69
64
86
90
79
90
83
67
77
89
82
79
65
87
55
82
87
87
83
89
65
84
89
81
76
77
72
62
71
84
76
86
74
79
90
85
80
56
57
54
46
61
70
Appeal: 16-1024
Doc: 75-5
Filed: 01/04/2017
Appendix C
Pg: 69 of 80
Site metrics and metric scores
Stations are grouped by data set (1= 1996-1997 calibration data; 2= 1997-1998 validation data). Within each data set, stations are listed by site type (reference, unlabeled, stressed), then within type by ascending Station ID.
Data
Set Station ID
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
WVKG-34-{0.0}
WVKG-34-{8.8}
WVKG-34-B
WVKG-34-E
WVKG-34-E-3
WVKG-34-F-{1.8}
WVKG-34-G-{1.0}
WVKG-34-G-{9.6}
WVKG-34-G-8
WVKG-34-H-{0.3}
WVKG-34-H-{9.5}
WVKG-34-H-11.5
WVKG-34-H-8
WVKG-35-{0.0}
WVKG-35-{17.5}
WVKG-35-{19.7}
WVKG-35-{23.7}
WVKG-5-{0.0}
WVKG-5-{15.6}
WVKG-51-{0.2}
WVKG-51-{1.2}
WVKG-51-{10.0}
WVKG-51-{20.0}
WVKG-5-A
WVKG-5-B-{1.3}
WVKG-5-B-1
WVKG-5-B-2
WVKG-5-B-7
WVKG-5-F
WVKG-5-L
WVKG-6-{0.6}
WVKG-6-{4.8}
WVKG-60
WVKG-60-A
WVKG-65
WVKG-6-B-{1.6}
WVKG-6-D-{1.8}
WVKGC-14
WVKGC-15
WVKGC-17.3
WVKGC-17.6
WVKGC-18
WVKGC-21
WVKGC-23-{3.6}
WVKGC-23-C
WVKGC-4-{0.4}
WVKGC-4-A
WVKGW-10
WVKGW-10-C
WVKGW-10-E
WVKGW-16.5
WVKGW-19
WVKGW-20
WVKGW-8
WVO-2-H-2-B.5
WVO-2-H-3
WVOG-10
WVOG-10-A
WVOG-11
WVOG-14-D-{0.4}
WVOG-2-{3.6}
WVOG-2-{47.0}
WVOG-2-{48.7}
Site
Type
Stream Name
CHERRY RIVER
CHERRY RIVER
COAL SIDING RUN
LAUREL CREEK
SPRING RUN
LITTLE LAUREL CREEK
SOUTH FORK/ CHERRY RIVER
SOUTH FORK/CHERRY RIVER
BECKY RUN
NORTH FORK/CHERRY RIVER
NORTH FORK/CHERRY RIVER
CARPENTER RUN
WINDY RUN
CRANBERRY RIVER
CRANBERRY RIVER
CRANBERRY RIVER
CRANBERRY RIVER
TWENTYMILE CREEK
TWENTYMILE CREEK
WILLIAMS RIVER
WILLIAMS RIVER
WILLIAMS RIVER
WILLIAMS RIVER
BUCKLES BRANCH
BELLS CREEK
OPEN FORK
SMITH BRANCH
CAMPBELL FORK
ROCKCAMP FORK
PEACH ORCHARD BRANCH
RICH CREEK
RICH CREEK
TURKEY CREEK
RIGHT FORK/TURKEY CREEK
WILLIAMS CAMP RUN
BRIDGE FORK
KELLY FORK
LICK BRANCH
HANGING ROCK BRANCH
LITTLE ROUGH RUN
PHEASANT HOLLOW
COLD RUN
BIRCHLOG RUN
NORTH FORK / CRANBERRY RIVER
LEFT FORK/NORTH FORK/CRANBERRY RIVER
BARRENSHE RUN
LITTLE BARRENSHE RUN
MIDDLE FORK WILLIAMS RIVER
BEECHY RUN
HELL-FOR-CERTAIN BRANCH
BRIDGE CREEK
UPPER BANNOCK SHOALS RUN
TEA CREEK
WHITE OAK RUN
U.T. OF MILLERS FORK
RUBENS BRANCH
MERRITT CREEK
RIGHT FORK OF MERRITT CREEK
SMITH CREEK
U.T. OF TRACE CREEK
MUD RIVER
MUD RIVER
MUD RIVER
Collect
Date
Total
taxa
Tot. taxa
score
EPT
taxa
EPT taxa
score
%
EPT
% EPT
score
%
Chiro.
%Chiro
score
7/30/1998
8/4/1998
8/5/1998
8/5/1998
8/5/1998
8/4/1998
8/4/1998
8/4/1998
8/4/1998
8/4/1998
8/4/1998
8/5/1998
8/3/1998
7/15/1998
7/16/1998
7/16/1998
7/16/1998
7/16/1998
7/20/1998
8/5/1998
8/4/1998
8/4/1998
8/4/1998
7/16/1998
7/22/1998
7/22/1998
7/16/1998
7/16/1998
7/22/1998
8/4/1998
8/5/1998
8/5/1998
8/5/1998
8/5/1998
8/5/1998
7/15/1998
7/15/1998
8/4/1998
8/4/1998
8/4/1998
8/6/1998
8/6/1998
7/16/1998
7/14/1998
7/14/1998
7/15/1998
7/15/1998
8/12/1998
8/12/1998
8/12/1998
8/4/1998
8/13/1998
8/13/1998
8/4/1998
5/7/1998
5/27/1998
5/21/1998
5/21/1998
5/12/1998
5/12/1998
5/29/1998
5/28/1998
5/28/1998
15
17
17
20
19
18
20
18
15
18
14
10
10
17
17
19
21
14
14
18
13
20
21
22
13
13
13
9
7
13
17
15
17
20
22
20
17
16
18
15
22
18
15
13
13
19
21
13
16
19
15
21
17
15
14
12
8
13
11
15
10
11
17
71
81
81
95
90
86
95
86
71
86
67
48
48
81
81
90
100
67
67
86
62
95
100
105
62
62
62
43
33
62
81
71
81
95
105
95
81
76
86
71
105
86
71
62
62
90
100
62
76
90
71
100
81
71
67
57
38
62
52
71
48
52
81
11
8
12
14
11
11
12
13
12
11
12
7
8
11
12
13
14
8
7
11
7
11
15
11
7
6
7
2
2
7
7
8
10
11
15
12
9
11
12
10
14
10
10
8
10
12
13
9
12
12
10
12
12
9
7
4
4
7
4
1
5
6
9
85
62
92
108
85
85
92
100
92
85
92
54
62
85
92
100
108
62
54
85
54
85
115
85
54
46
54
15
15
54
54
62
77
85
115
92
69
85
92
77
108
77
77
62
77
92
100
69
92
92
77
92
92
69
54
31
31
54
31
8
38
46
69
85
52
88
81
66
79
86
91
95
73
94
88
92
81
92
91
78
49
79
69
63
71
74
65
77
32
84
11
70
77
39
82
62
94
83
80
81
76
90
24
65
43
85
62
81
87
82
77
91
92
95
90
74
95
75
31
11
11
14
26
19
55
49
92
57
96
88
72
86
93
99
104
80
102
96
100
88
101
99
85
53
86
75
69
77
81
71
84
35
91
12
76
84
42
90
67
102
90
87
88
82
98
26
71
47
92
67
88
95
89
83
99
100
103
98
80
104
82
33
12
12
15
29
21
60
53
2
36
5
7
11
11
10
4
3
10
6
11
0
8
2
4
15
19
3
8
7
13
20
20
8
39
11
81
15
4
32
5
24
2
4
10
2
10
3
2
9
26
10
4
3
4
6
7
4
2
3
4
20
2
5
1
75
87
57
41
46
20
26
99
65
96
94
89
90
91
97
98
91
95
90
101
93
99
97
86
82
98
93
94
88
81
81
93
61
90
19
86
97
68
96
77
99
97
91
99
91
98
99
92
75
90
97
98
97
95
94
97
99
98
97
80
99
96
100
26
13
43
60
54
80
74
Benthic
Sample ID
GAU98
GAU98
GAU98
GAU98
GAU98
GAU98
GAU98
GAU98
GAU98
GAU98
GAU98
GAU98
GAU98
GAU98
GAU98
GAU98
GAU98
GAU98
GAU98
GAU98
GAU98
GAU98
GAU98
GAU98
GAU98
GAU98
GAU98
GAU98
GAU98
GAU98
GAU98
GAU98
GAU98
GAU98
GAU98
GAU98
GAU98
GAU98
GAU98
GAU98
GAU98
GAU98
GAU98
GAU98
GAU98
GAU98
GAU98
GAU98
GAU98
GAU98
GAU98
GAU98
GAU98
GAU98
TPO98
TPO98
LGU98
LGU98
LGU98
LGU98
LGU98
LGU98
LGU98
B103
B104
B89
B90
B91
B92
B95
B96
B94
B101
B102
B93
B99
B105
B106
B107
B108
B126
B127
B128
B129
B130
B131
B110
B115
B111
B113
B114
B117
B122
B135
B136
B137
B138
B139
B133
B134
B145
B7
B147
B148
B149
B9
B153
B10
B161
B160
B166
B169
B171
B176
B177
B178R
B182
B4
B5
B10
B11
B12
B13
B16
B17
B18
. 16
No
02
-1
vie
4,
ed
w
Appendix C, page C-17
2/
1
/16
19
% Top 2 % Top 2
dominant
score
56
57
45
32
38
30
62
57
65
46
56
48
59
44
55
54
52
59
81
42
42
46
49
67
67
60
68
91
70
63
50
68
50
53
48
58
61
24
32
68
37
52
40
51
60
44
38
40
49
51
77
52
53
52
59
87
86
93
70
67
71
56
47
68
66
86
106
97
109
60
68
55
84
68
82
64
87
70
71
75
64
30
90
91
84
80
52
52
63
51
14
47
57
78
50
78
74
81
66
61
119
106
50
99
74
93
77
62
87
97
94
79
76
37
75
74
74
65
20
21
11
47
52
45
68
82
HBI
HBI
score
INDEX
(SCI)
4
5
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
4
4
3
4
4
4
4
5
5
4
5
4
5
4
5
6
5
7
4
5
5
5
4
4
4
3
4
3
3
4
3
4
3
4
3
4
4
3
2
3
4
3
4
3
5
7
7
7
6
7
6
5
5
79
67
92
89
89
85
80
83
84
77
81
88
92
84
86
90
78
63
74
78
76
80
72
89
73
58
75
47
89
74
66
75
84
89
89
93
89
95
101
90
92
84
99
83
103
86
88
103
111
100
90
94
80
96
72
49
49
47
55
41
51
67
67
82
66
91
94
87
89
85
89
83
84
84
76
78
86
88
91
87
65
68
84
74
85
86
80
70
54
70
25
58
71
65
74
77
90
93
87
81
88
96
69
92
74
87
75
81
91
95
84
91
93
79
93
81
85
72
48
29
33
41
43
43
62
71
Appeal: 16-1024
Doc: 75-5
Filed: 01/04/2017
Appendix C
Pg: 70 of 80
Site metrics and metric scores
Stations are grouped by data set (1= 1996-1997 calibration data; 2= 1997-1998 validation data). Within each data set, stations are listed by site type (reference, unlabeled, stressed), then within type by ascending Station ID.
Data
Set Station ID
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
WVOG-23.5
WVOG-27-A
WVOG-27-H-{1.8}
WVOG-3-0.5A
WVOG-30-{1.2}
WVOG-34
WVOG-34-A
WVOG-34-B
WVOG-34-E-1
WVOG-35
WVOG-36
WVOG-38-D-{4.5}
WVOG-38-G
WVOG-38-K
WVOG-38-K.7
WVOG-38-K-5
WVOG-40
WVOG-41
WVOG-42-A
WVOG-42-C-{0.2}
WVOG-42-D
WVOG-42-E
WVOG-44-A.5
WVOG-44-A-2-{2.8}
WVOG-44-C.3
WVOG-44-C.7
WVOG-44-E
WVOG-44-E-.5
WVOG-44-F-1
WVOG-44-G-{1.9}
WVOG-44-H
WVOG-44-I
WVOG-44-K
WVOG-48
WVOG-49-{3.3}
WVOG-49-A
WVOG-49-A-1
WVOG-49-B-1
WVOG-49-C
WVOG-49-D-2
WVOG-49-E-1
WVOG-50
WVOG-51.5
WVOG-51-B
WVOG-53
WVOG-59
WVOG-60
WVOG-61
WVOG-9-A-{0.3}
WVOGM-13
WVOGM-16-A
WVOGM-19
WVOGM-20-A
WVOGM-20-K-1
WVOGM-20-M-{1.8}
WVOGM-20-M-1
WVOGM-20-R-2
WVOGM-20-V
WVOGM-22-A-{0.7}
WVOGM-25-A
WVOGM-25-B-{2.3}
WVOGM-25-B-1
WVOGM-25-I
Site
Type
Stream Name
STALEY BRANCH
LOWGAP BRANCH
FALLS BRANCH
EDENS BRANCH
STOUT CREEK
FOURTEEN MILE CREEK
LICK BRANCH
EAST FORK/FOURTEENMILE CREEK
NELSON FORK
AARONS CREEK
HAMILTON CREEK
LAUREL CREEK
SULPHUR CREEK
LEFTHAND CREEK
LITTLE DEADENING CREEK
PIGEONROOST FORK
SAND CREEK
DRY BRANCH
SHORT BEND
LAUREL FORK
MUDLICK BRANCH
GARTIN FORK
WORKMAN FORK
MARSH FORK
CANEY BRANCH
THOMPSON BRANCH
SMOKEHOUSE FORK
WOLFPEN BRANCH
ADAMS BR ANCH
BUCK FORK
HOOVER FORK
HENDERSON BRANCH
BULWORK BRANCH
LIMESTONE BRANCH
BIG CREEK
ED STONE BRANCH
NORTH BRANCH/ED STONE BRANCH
CHAPMAN BRANCH
VICKERS BRANCH
DOG FORK
PERRYS BRANCH
LILY BRANCH
FOWLER BRANCH
CANOE FORK
GODBY BRANCH
MILL CREEK
BIG BRANCH
BUFFALO CREEK
UPPER HEATH CREEK
BRUSH CREEK
FALLEN FORK
TRACE CREEK
COON CREEK
LEFTHAND FORK
BRIDGE CREEK
FLINT HOLLOW
DONLEY FORK/HAYZLETT FORK
ROCKHOUSE BRANCH
STRAIGHT FORK
MEADOW BRANCH
TRACE CREEK
TINCTURE FORK
SUGARTREE FORK
Collect
Date
Total
taxa
Tot. taxa
score
EPT
taxa
EPT taxa
score
%
EPT
% EPT
score
%
Chiro.
%Chiro
score
5/22/1998
5/22/1998
5/27/1998
5/18/1998
5/13/1998
5/6/1998
5/6/1998
5/6/1998
5/6/1998
5/11/1998
5/11/1998
5/18/1998
5/19/1998
5/19/1998
5/19/1998
5/19/1998
5/11/1998
5/11/1998
5/11/1998
5/11/1998
5/11/1998
5/11/1998
5/20/1998
5/20/1998
5/14/1998
5/14/1998
5/14/1998
5/4/1998
5/4/1998
5/14/1998
5/4/1998
5/4/1998
5/4/1998
5/6/1998
5/20/1998
5/5/1998
5/5/1998
5/5/1998
5/5/1998
5/5/1998
5/6/1998
5/6/1998
5/13/1998
5/6/1998
5/13/1998
5/13/1998
5/13/1998
5/13/1998
5/21/1998
5/15/1998
5/4/1998
5/4/1998
5/4/1998
5/7/1998
5/27/1998
5/6/1998
5/27/1998
5/7/1998
5/4/1998
5/6/1998
5/28/1998
5/6/1998
5/26/1998
8
20
13
10
16
13
7
19
20
10
8
21
16
16
11
19
10
8
8
13
19
16
16
13
20
18
15
18
19
16
24
20
18
13
15
6
9
12
6
17
6
13
8
13
12
18
17
13
14
18
23
16
7
17
17
18
21
14
18
13
16
15
9
38
95
62
48
76
62
33
90
95
48
38
100
76
76
52
90
48
38
38
62
90
76
76
62
95
86
71
86
90
76
114
95
86
62
71
29
43
57
29
81
29
62
38
62
57
86
81
62
67
86
110
76
33
81
81
86
100
67
86
62
76
71
43
3
9
8
5
8
7
3
9
12
5
4
13
11
10
7
8
7
3
4
7
10
11
10
8
9
11
9
13
10
10
15
12
10
5
8
2
4
7
2
9
1
8
1
8
4
7
11
7
8
9
15
10
4
10
8
12
9
9
9
5
7
9
5
23
69
62
38
62
54
23
69
92
38
31
100
85
77
54
62
54
23
31
54
77
85
77
62
69
85
69
100
77
77
115
92
77
38
62
15
31
54
15
69
8
62
8
62
31
54
85
54
62
69
115
77
31
77
62
92
69
69
69
38
54
69
38
5
55
93
35
87
78
83
31
77
44
94
71
92
88
82
67
77
7
63
43
59
60
74
78
68
85
47
87
91
54
74
73
82
42
30
21
67
85
47
83
1
85
39
66
11
28
88
91
45
27
80
67
39
88
50
97
56
96
31
9
36
79
63
6
60
101
38
95
85
90
34
83
48
102
77
100
96
89
73
84
7
68
47
65
65
81
85
74
92
51
95
99
59
80
79
90
45
33
23
73
92
51
90
1
92
42
72
12
31
96
99
48
29
87
72
43
96
55
106
61
104
34
10
39
86
68
63
27
3
7
3
12
15
34
6
35
4
7
3
4
17
1
15
90
34
50
13
16
13
14
16
3
28
1
4
16
9
9
7
15
19
29
5
8
13
11
97
3
43
30
82
49
6
1
38
6
11
10
30
3
5
0
21
0
54
64
24
14
5
37
74
98
94
98
89
86
67
95
66
97
94
98
97
84
100
86
10
66
51
88
84
88
87
84
97
72
100
97
85
92
92
94
86
82
72
96
93
88
89
3
98
57
70
18
51
95
100
63
95
90
91
70
97
96
101
80
101
46
36
77
87
96
Benthic
Sample ID
LGU98
LGU98
LGU98
LGU98
LGU98
LGU98
LGU98
LGU98
LGU98
LGU98
LGU98
LGU98
LGU98
LGU98
LGU98
LGU98
LGU98
LGU98
LGU98
LGU98
LGU98
LGU98
LGU98
LGU98
LGU98
LGU98
LGU98
LGU98
LGU98
LGU98
LGU98
LGU98
LGU98
LGU98
LGU98
LGU98
LGU98
LGU98
LGU98
LGU98
LGU98
LGU98
LGU98
LGU98
LGU98
LGU98
LGU98
LGU98
LGU98
LGU98
LGU98
LGU98
LGU98
LGU98
LGU98
LGU98
LGU98
LGU98
LGU98
LGU98
LGU98
LGU98
LGU98
B20
B22
B23
B26
B27
B29
B30
B31
B32
B34
B35
B39
B40
B41
B43
B42
B46
B47
B48
B49
B50
B51
B53
B52
B54
B55
B56
B57
B58
B59
B60
B61
B62
B63
B73
B66
B67
B68
B69
B71
B72
B74
B77
B75
B78
B82
B84
B85
B86
B89
B91
B92
B93
B99
B102
B101
B103
B105
B108
B109
B111
B110
B113
. 16
No
02
-1
vie
4,
ed
w
Appendix C, page C-18
2/
1
/16
19
% Top 2 % Top 2
dominant
score
83
48
58
87
64
53
84
59
51
65
87
34
69
71
80
35
76
93
68
70
48
40
52
74
55
48
51
50
66
41
35
32
58
31
62
57
64
44
77
48
98
63
82
56
87
64
38
58
61
71
51
54
55
57
56
52
41
78
63
79
45
53
79
27
82
66
21
56
73
25
63
77
54
20
103
48
45
31
102
37
11
49
47
82
94
75
41
70
81
76
79
54
92
101
106
66
107
59
67
56
88
36
82
3
58
28
69
20
56
97
66
61
45
77
72
71
66
69
74
93
35
59
33
86
73
33
HBI
HBI
score
INDEX
(SCI)
7
5
4
6
4
5
5
6
3
5
5
4
4
4
5
4
5
7
5
6
4
5
4
5
5
4
6
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
4
4
4
7
4
5
4
6
6
4
3
6
6
4
4
5
4
4
3
4
4
6
6
4
4
5
43
70
91
51
84
75
72
63
93
64
75
87
86
79
72
90
71
46
71
57
78
73
80
72
77
88
62
92
98
79
89
91
90
86
67
69
73
88
78
88
43
83
74
79
52
55
90
99
61
51
82
79
69
84
79
94
80
78
59
58
78
86
73
29
75
80
48
78
73
55
64
89
53
60
93
82
78
64
86
63
23
54
53
80
79
79
68
78
88
67
92
86
78
94
92
84
70
62
46
62
79
50
83
14
76
41
69
32
56
91
80
60
62
89
78
53
84
73
91
81
75
59
40
68
79
59
Appeal: 16-1024
Doc: 75-5
Filed: 01/04/2017
Appendix C
Pg: 71 of 80
Site metrics and metric scores
Stations are grouped by data set (1= 1996-1997 calibration data; 2= 1997-1998 validation data). Within each data set, stations are listed by site type (reference, unlabeled, stressed), then within type by ascending Station ID.
Data
Set Station ID
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
WVOGM-25-I-4
WVOGM-31
WVOGM-33-B
WVOGM-33-C
WVOGM-35-E
WVOGM-39
WVOGM-39-{10.2}
WVOGM-39-G
WVOGM-4-{2.0}
WVOGM-40.3-{0.0}
WVOGM-43
WVOGM-44-{0.2}
WVOGM-50
WVOGM-7-B-1
WVOGM-8-{4.0}
WVOGM-8-C
WVP-12-{5.2}
WVP-15-{0.4}
WVP-2.2-{0.3}
WVP-4.5
WVP-4-{1.3}
WVP-4-{17.8}
WVP-4-{29.2}
WVP-4-B
WVP-4-C-{0.2}
WVP-4-C-{1.5}
WVP-4-C-{6.0}
WVP-4-D
WVP-4-I
WVP-4-J
WVP-4-K-{1.2}
WVP-4-M-{7.8}
WVP-4-M-1
WVP-4-M-2
WVP-4-P
WVP-5
WVP-5-A-{1.4}
WVP-6-{1.2}
WVP-6-{17.3}
WVP-6-{18.4}
WVP-6-{33.8}
WVP-6-A.1
WVP-6-A.2
WVP-6-A-{0.5}
WVP-6-A-{1.3}
WVP-6-A-{9.4}
WVP-6-A-1-{1.6}
WVP-6-C.8-{0.6}
WVP-6-D
WVP-8
WVP-9-{1.0}
WVP-9-{10.0}
WVP-9-{12.2}
WVP-9-{15.2}
WVP-9-{18.2}
WVP-9-{21.6}
WVP-9-{23.6}
WVP-9-{33.2}
WVP-9-{35.6}
WVP-9-{36.8}
WVP-9-B-1-A-{0.1}
WVP-9-D.8-{0.5}
WVP-9-E-{1.5}
Site
Type
Stream Name
SAND FORK
SANDLICK BRANCH
DRY FORK
BIG BRANCH
LAUREL FORK
LEFT FORK/MUD RIVER
LEFT FORK/MUD RIVER
FLAT CREEK
BIG CABELL CREEK
UPTON BRANCH
STONECOAL BRANCH
BERRY BRANCH
LUKEY FORK
TONY BRANCH
MILL CREEK
RIGHT FORK/MILL CREEK
SIR JOHNS RUN
WILLET RUN
UT POTOMAC RV (TEAGUE’S RUN)
JORDAN RUN
OPEQUON CREEK
OPEQUON CREEK
OPEQUON CREEK
EAGLE RUN
TUSCARORA CREEK
TUSCARORA CREEK
TUSCARORA CREEK
EVANS RUN
HOPEWELL RUN
MIDDLE CREEK
GOOSE CREEK
MILL CREEK
SYLVAN RUN
TORYTOWN RUN
SILVER SPRING RUN
HARLAN RUN
TULLIS BRANCH (TULISUS)
BACK CREEK
BACK CREEK
BACK CREEK
BACK CREEK
UT OF BACK CREEK #2
KATES RUN
TILHANCE CREEK
TILHANCE CREEK
TILHANCE CREEK
HIGGINS RUN
U.T. OF BACK CREEK @ GANOTOWN
SAWMILL RUN
BIG RUN
SLEEPY CREEK
SLEEPY CREEK
SLEEPY CREEK
SLEEPY CREEK
SLEEPY CREEK
SLEEPY CREEK
SLEEPY CREEK
SLEEPY CREEK
SLEEPY CREEK
SLEEPY CREEK
ROARING RUN
LICK RUN
MIDDLE FORK/SLEEPY CREEK
Collect
Date
Total
taxa
Tot. taxa
score
EPT
taxa
EPT taxa
score
%
EPT
% EPT
score
%
Chiro.
%Chiro
score
5/26/1998
5/21/1998
5/21/1998
5/28/1998
5/28/1998
5/27/1998
5/27/1998
5/27/1998
5/26/1998
5/19/1998
5/18/1998
5/19/1998
5/18/1998
5/3/1998
5/3/1998
5/26/1998
6/1/1998
6/4/1998
6/2/1998
6/25/1998
6/2/1998
6/9/1998
6/9/1998
6/10/1998
6/10/1998
6/2/1998
6/1/1998
6/10/1998
6/9/1998
6/9/1998
6/8/1998
6/10/1998
6/8/1998
6/3/1998
6/4/1998
6/23/1998
6/24/1998
6/2/1998
6/3/1998
6/3/1998
6/8/1998
6/2/1998
6/2/1998
6/9/1998
6/9/1998
6/9/1998
6/2/1998
6/3/1998
6/3/1998
6/2/1998
6/1/1998
6/1/1998
6/2/1998
6/2/1998
6/3/1998
6/3/1998
6/3/1998
6/10/1998
6/10/1998
6/10/1998
6/3/1998
6/3/1998
6/3/1998
16
17
20
21
19
20
11
15
18
21
14
17
23
20
16
13
15
19
11
14
12
11
14
5
4
7
13
13
11
14
17
9
16
7
13
12
15
16
18
15
20
15
15
17
20
17
15
18
15
18
20
15
20
18
18
19
16
19
20
19
16
15
15
76
81
95
100
90
95
52
71
86
100
67
81
110
95
76
62
71
90
52
67
57
52
67
24
19
33
62
62
52
67
81
43
76
33
62
57
71
76
86
71
95
71
71
81
95
81
71
86
71
86
95
71
95
86
86
90
76
90
95
90
76
71
71
10
10
11
11
12
10
6
9
8
10
8
9
14
11
10
6
8
12
4
5
2
5
7
1
1
1
5
6
6
6
6
3
8
2
3
5
6
9
9
9
11
9
8
9
10
10
9
12
9
10
10
8
10
10
9
10
10
11
12
12
7
9
10
77
77
85
85
92
77
46
69
62
77
62
69
108
85
77
46
62
92
31
38
15
38
54
8
8
8
38
46
46
46
46
23
62
15
23
38
46
69
69
69
85
69
62
69
77
77
69
92
69
77
77
62
77
77
69
77
77
85
92
92
54
69
77
70
52
88
62
41
60
40
49
70
72
91
79
84
70
43
43
66
89
15
38
5
14
33
1
4
4
31
24
25
32
20
9
27
1
14
34
40
51
76
85
63
72
32
53
55
77
80
89
53
51
63
63
51
76
47
67
88
54
53
64
79
62
43
76
56
95
68
45
65
43
53
76
78
99
86
92
76
46
46
72
96
16
42
6
15
36
1
4
4
33
26
27
35
22
10
29
1
16
37
43
56
83
93
69
79
34
58
60
83
87
96
58
55
68
69
56
83
51
73
96
59
58
69
86
68
47
4
9
3
17
13
12
15
32
17
6
3
4
3
14
15
33
13
6
20
17
10
81
29
94
68
77
48
61
66
44
56
60
67
61
59
19
11
9
5
5
16
23
10
31
29
5
15
5
40
32
28
8
25
7
33
20
6
38
33
17
10
9
6
97
92
98
84
88
89
86
69
84
95
98
97
98
87
86
67
88
95
80
84
91
19
72
6
33
23
52
40
34
56
44
40
33
40
41
82
90
92
95
96
85
78
91
70
72
96
86
96
60
68
73
93
75
93
68
81
95
62
68
84
91
92
95
Benthic
Sample ID
LGU98
LGU98
LGU98
LGU98
LGU98
LGU98
LGU98
LGU98
LGU98
LGU98
LGU98
LGU98
LGU98
LGU98
LGU98
LGU98
POT98
POT98
POT98
POT98
POT98
POT98
POT98
POT98
POT98
POT98
POT98
POT98
POT98
POT98
POT98
POT98
POT98
POT98
POT98
POT98
POT98
POT98
POT98
POT98
POT98
POT98
POT98
POT98
POT98
POT98
POT98
POT98
POT98
POT98
POT98
POT98
POT98
POT98
POT98
POT98
POT98
POT98
POT98
POT98
POT98
POT98
POT98
B114
B117
B118
B119
B120
B123
B125
B124
B127
B128
B130
B131
B132
B133
B137
B136
B63
B67
B29
B14
B27
B28
B31
B1
B2
B32
B62
B4
B5R
B7
B33
B34R
B11
B9R
B12R
B15
B35
B36
B44
B45
B46
B16
B17
B38
B39
B40
B41
B43
B18R
B20
B47
B48
B49
B50
B51
B52
B53
B57
B59
B60
B71
B54
B55
. 16
No
02
-1
vie
4,
ed
w
Appendix C, page C-19
2/
1
/16
19
% Top 2 % Top 2
dominant
score
48
51
40
39
52
39
61
55
58
53
64
55
46
51
44
67
45
50
63
55
75
88
56
97
93
89
69
73
80
61
69
88
86
79
79
60
52
40
57
65
43
76
48
50
56
38
81
65
74
48
52
52
45
50
49
48
45
50
47
56
67
43
68
82
76
93
95
75
96
61
70
66
73
57
71
85
77
88
52
86
78
58
70
40
18
68
4
12
17
48
43
32
60
48
19
21
33
32
62
75
93
67
54
89
38
81
78
69
98
30
55
41
82
75
76
87
78
80
81
86
77
84
69
52
89
49
HBI
HBI
score
INDEX
(SCI)
4
4
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
4
4
4
3
4
4
5
4
3
5
4
5
6
5
7
6
7
6
6
6
5
6
6
6
7
6
6
5
4
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
3
3
3
5
5
4
3
4
3
6
4
3
5
5
5
3
4
4
83
86
96
81
81
80
70
69
70
80
87
85
98
83
84
66
83
94
67
81
74
50
67
42
53
39
57
56
54
65
57
50
54
47
54
63
70
78
94
94
80
91
82
72
70
94
98
96
77
74
81
96
83
100
62
82
97
75
77
76
98
85
88
82
78
94
85
79
84
60
67
74
84
78
81
95
84
76
57
77
91
51
64
47
32
61
14
21
21
49
45
41
55
50
31
46
28
38
57
66
77
82
80
84
71
70
71
74
88
74
87
63
74
78
78
79
86
69
81
88
75
79
80
76
79
71
Appeal: 16-1024
Doc: 75-5
Filed: 01/04/2017
Appendix C
Pg: 72 of 80
Site metrics and metric scores
Stations are grouped by data set (1= 1996-1997 calibration data; 2= 1997-1998 validation data). Within each data set, stations are listed by site type (reference, unlabeled, stressed), then within type by ascending Station ID.
Data
Set Station ID
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
WVP-9-E-1
WVP-9-F
WVP-9-G-{0.25}
WVP-9-G-1
WVP-9-G-3
WVP-9-I
WVBS-{104.2}
WVBST-10
WVBST-107
WVBST-116
WVBST-120-B
WVBST-14
WVBST-16
WVBST-19-{0.0}
WVBST-19-{8.0}
WVBST-24-{9.0}
WVBST-24-E-2-{0.1}
WVBST-24-K-8
WVBST-3
WVBST-31-{1.0}
WVBST-33
WVBST-36
WVBST-38
WVBST-40-B
WVBST-40-D
WVBST-43-A
WVBST-57-{0.6}
WVBST-57-B
WVBST-70-N-{0.0}
WVBST-70-O
WVBST-78-B
WVBST-78-G
WVKC-10-{03.6}
WVKC-10-{17.0}
WVKC-10-I-{0.0}
WVKC-10-I-{12.5}
WVKC-10-I-{5.6}
WVKC-10-J
WVKC-10-T-{0.3}
WVKC-10-T-{4.6}
WVKC-10-T-10
WVKC-10-T-11-{0.2}
WVKC-10-T-11-{4.1}
WVKC-10-T-21
WVKC-10-T-24-{0.6}
WVKC-10-T-3
WVKC-10-U-{0.4}
WVKC-10-U-{24.4}
WVKC-10-U-{4.9}
WVKC-10-U-{9.0}
WVKC-10-U-12-A
WVKC-10-U-7-{0.0}
WVKC-10-U-7-{4.3}
WVKC-10-U-7-{7.9}
WVKC-2-{2.0}
WVKC-4-{2.5}
WVKC-46-{32.8}
WVKC-47-L-{0.8}
WVKG-1
WVKG-13-{15.6}
WVKG-13-L
WVKG-13-M
WVKG-19-V-{1.0}
Site
Type
Stream Name
SOUTH FORK/SLEEPY CREEK
ROCK GAP RUN
INDIAN RUN
NORTH FORK RUN
MIDDLE FORK / INDIAN RUN
HANDS RUN
TUG FORK RIVER
DRAG CREEK
GRAPEVINE BRANCH
BELCHER BRANCH
PUNCHEON CAMP BRANCH
BULL CREEK
SILVER CREEK
MARROWBONE CREEK
MARROWBONE CREEK
PIGEON CREEK
SPRUCE FORK
SIMMONS FORK
POWDERMILL BRANCH
BUFFALO CREEK
WILLIAMSON CREEK
DICK WILLIAMSON BRANCH
SPROUSE CREEK
RUTHERFORD BRANCH
CHAFIN BRANCH
LICK FORK/GRAPEVINE
BULL CREEK
LEFT FORK BULL CREEK
LITTLE SLATE CREEK
ATWELL BRANCH
SHABBYROOM BRANCH
BADWAY BRANCH
LITTLE COAL RIVER
LITTLE COAL RIVER
BIG HORSE CREEK
BIG HORSE CREEK
BIG HORSE CREEK
LITTLE HORSE CREEK
SPRUCE FORK
SPRUCE FORK
STOLLINGS BRANCH
SPRUCE LAUREL FORK
SPRUCE LAUREL FORK
ADKINS FORK
BRUSHY FORK
LOW GAP CREEK
POND FORK
POND FORK
POND FORK
POND FORK
TRACE FORK/COW CREEK
WEST FORK
WEST FORK OF POND FORK
WEST FORK OF POND FORK
BROWNS CREEK
SMITH CREEK
MARSH FORK
TONEY FORK
SCRABBLE CREEK
PETERS CREEK
ROCKCAMP BRANCH
MCCLUNG BRANCH
LITTLE CLEAR CREEK
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
Collect
Date
Total
taxa
Tot. taxa
score
EPT
taxa
EPT taxa
score
%
EPT
% EPT
score
%
Chiro.
%Chiro
score
6/4/1998
6/2/1998
6/10/1998
6/1/1998
6/2/1998
6/10/1998
7/6/1998
6/30/1998
6/17/1998
6/25/1998
6/16/1998
7/7/1998
6/30/1998
7/7/1998
7/6/1998
6/22/1998
6/24/1998
6/22/1998
6/25/1998
6/23/1998
6/17/1998
6/22/1998
7/1/1998
7/1/1998
6/15/1998
6/16/1998
7/7/1998
7/7/1998
7/8/1998
7/8/1998
7/8/1998
7/1/1998
9/23/1997
9/22/1997
9/22/1997
9/23/1997
9/22/1997
9/22/1997
9/24/1997
9/24/1997
9/24/1997
9/25/1997
9/25/1997
9/25/1997
10/8/1997
9/24/1997
9/23/1997
9/22/1997
9/23/1997
9/23/1997
9/22/1997
9/22/1997
9/18/1997
9/18/1997
9/17/1997
9/17/1997
10/6/1997
9/22/1997
7/15/1998
7/29/1998
8/4/1998
8/5/1998
7/28/1998
18
19
17
18
18
22
12
18
4
6
16
9
12
10
20
13
8
11
14
15
7
6
12
6
9
7
13
12
10
21
14
12
16
12
14
13
9
13
14
16
15
12
9
11
13
7
18
10
13
19
16
10
10
10
17
11
13
13
9
12
19
12
8
86
90
81
86
86
105
57
86
19
29
76
43
57
48
95
62
38
52
67
71
33
29
57
29
43
33
62
57
48
100
67
57
76
57
67
62
43
62
67
76
71
57
43
52
62
33
86
48
62
90
76
48
48
48
81
52
62
62
43
57
90
57
38
10
11
10
11
10
13
4
9
0
1
9
4
4
4
9
4
2
2
3
6
2
2
3
1
2
1
5
3
5
8
4
4
6
5
3
3
4
2
6
7
6
4
3
5
6
1
6
4
5
6
6
4
1
3
7
4
5
6
2
4
6
7
2
77
85
77
85
77
100
31
69
0
8
69
31
31
31
69
31
15
15
23
46
15
15
23
8
15
8
38
23
38
62
31
31
46
38
23
23
31
15
46
54
46
31
23
38
46
8
46
31
38
46
46
31
8
23
54
31
38
46
15
31
46
54
15
68
70
87
83
67
75
17
71
0
4
57
74
51
54
62
16
34
12
7
30
18
9
46
68
49
56
72
14
16
50
64
38
82
80
24
35
20
22
73
51
60
39
67
62
57
4
59
62
72
47
44
73
46
61
41
30
17
48
4
58
64
81
12
74
76
94
90
73
82
19
78
0
5
62
81
56
59
67
18
37
13
8
33
19
10
50
73
53
61
78
15
18
54
69
41
89
87
26
39
21
24
80
55
65
43
73
68
62
4
64
68
79
51
48
79
50
67
44
33
19
52
4
63
70
88
13
9
7
8
13
21
15
60
12
0
67
8
9
16
21
2
4
3
62
69
11
18
19
25
8
26
17
17
61
79
26
29
41
6
2
28
20
30
31
11
8
12
26
14
23
7
9
9
11
7
18
33
16
19
19
38
45
63
38
73
9
10
9
39
92
94
93
88
80
86
41
89
101
34
93
92
85
80
99
97
98
38
32
90
83
82
75
93
74
84
84
39
21
75
72
60
95
99
73
81
71
70
90
93
89
74
87
78
94
92
92
90
94
83
67
85
81
82
62
55
38
63
27
92
91
92
61
Benthic
Sample ID
POT98 B22
POT98 B24
POT98 B58
POT98 B73R
POT98 B75
POT98 B74
TUG98 B3
TUG98 B10
TUG98 B17
TUG98 B34
TUG98 B39
TUG98 B43
TUG98 B45
TUG98 B47
TUG98 B48
TUG98 B59
TUG98 B51
TUG98 B52
TUG98 B62
TUG98 B64
TUG98 B66
TUG98 B69
TUG98 B70
TUG98 B72
TUG98 B74
TUG98 B81
TUG98 B83
TUG98 B82
TUG98 B100
TUG98 B102
TUG98 B121
TUG98 B125
COAL97 B43
COAL97 B44
COAL97 B5
COAL97 B6
COAL97 B7
COAL97 B45
COAL97 B74
COAL97 B77
COAL97 B82
COAL97 B78
COAL97 B80
COAL97 B1
COAL97 B10
COAL97 B48
COAL97 B61
COAL97 B62
COAL97 B63
COAL97 B64
COAL97 B88
COAL97 B89
COAL97 B90
COAL97 B91
COAL97 B8
COAL97 B72
COAL97 B53
COAL97 B87
GAU98 B11
GAU98 B19
GAU98 B16
GAU98 B17
GAU98 B45
. 16
No
02
-1
vie
4,
ed
w
Appendix C, page C-20
2/
1
/16
19
% Top 2 % Top 2
dominant
score
29
54
62
81
72
50
74
70
50
83
63
45
68
51
60
83
78
76
74
59
53
78
70
85
74
80
68
78
88
58
81
64
63
78
65
67
76
50
52
49
47
55
62
71
64
81
52
71
74
49
69
77
66
77
64
63
76
83
87
56
57
54
58
110
72
59
30
44
78
41
47
78
26
57
86
50
76
62
26
34
38
40
64
74
34
47
23
40
31
50
34
18
66
30
57
57
34
54
51
37
77
75
80
83
70
60
46
56
30
75
46
41
80
48
35
54
37
57
58
38
27
20
68
67
73
66
HBI
HBI
score
INDEX
(SCI)
4
4
3
3
4
3
6
3
4
7
5
4
5
5
5
5
5
7
6
5
7
8
6
5
6
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
4
5
6
5
6
6
5
5
4
5
5
5
4
6
5
5
5
6
6
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
7
5
5
4
6
88
81
92
100
91
101
57
98
85
43
74
81
76
67
72
72
71
46
54
65
40
25
57
70
55
77
68
52
52
57
61
59
81
76
62
66
63
60
74
73
79
68
69
66
82
58
74
68
71
50
62
67
66
64
63
60
61
60
47
70
69
85
50
86
83
83
80
75
91
41
78
47
24
72
69
59
60
77
51
49
34
37
61
44
33
52
49
47
49
63
37
33
69
55
51
74
65
51
54
44
51
72
72
72
57
59
58
67
38
73
58
64
67
58
58
51
53
60
48
43
52
26
63
72
75
41
Appeal: 16-1024
Doc: 75-5
Filed: 01/04/2017
Appendix C
Pg: 73 of 80
Site metrics and metric scores
Stations are grouped by data set (1= 1996-1997 calibration data; 2= 1997-1998 validation data). Within each data set, stations are listed by site type (reference, unlabeled, stressed), then within type by ascending Station ID.
Data
Set Station ID
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
WVKG-19-V-{6.0}
WVKG-24-{12.4}
WVKG-24-I
WVKG-26-B-2
WVKG-26-F
WVKG-26-K-1
WVKG-26-K-1-A
WVKG-30-K
WVKG-31
WVKG-5-B-1-C
WVKG-5-F-1
WVKG-5-P
WVKG-6-A
WVKGW-10-G
WVOG-2-{77.2}
WVOG-3
WVOG-38-{0.8}
WVOG-49-C.1
WVOG-51-G.5
WVOG-6-{0.1}
WVOGM-1.5
WVOGM-12
WVOGM-14-{7.2}
WVOGM-20-{21.2}
WVOGM-20-{6.4}
WVOGM-20-D-{4.6}
WVOGM-20-H
WVOGM-20-I-1-{1.5}
WVOGM-20-K
WVOGM-20-K-{0.1}
WVOGM-20-T-{3.5}
WVOGM-25-H-1
WVOGM-25-I-{3.0}
WVOGM-3-{0.9}
WVOGM-35-{1.8}
WVOGM-35-{4.1}
WVOGM-4-{0.2}
WVOGM-40.3-{2.2}
WVOGM-7-{0.4}
WVP-1-A-{0.8}
WVP-4-{18.8}
WVP-4-C-1
WVP-4-M
WVP-6-{9.1}
WVP-9-E-{7.0}
Site
Type
Stream Name
LITTLE CLEAR CREEK
HOMINY CREEK
COLT BRANCH
JONES RUN
TROUT RUN
LOWER SPRUCE RUN
SPRUCE RUN
PADDY RUN
LITTLE LAUREL CREEK
SANGAMORE FORK
SPRING BRANCH
ROBINSON FORK
LICK BRANCH
MCCLINTOCK RUN
MUD RIVER
DAVIS CREEK
BIG UGLY CREEK
U.T. OF BIG CREEK
SOUTH FORK/CRAWLEY CREEK
MILL CREEK
TANYARD BRANCH
INDIAN FORK
CHARLEY CREEK
TRACE FORK
TRACE FORK
BIG CREEK
CLYMER CREEK
KELLYS CREEK
MARTIN RUN
NELSON HOLLOW
JOES CREEK
VALLEY FORK
SUGARTREE FORK
LIDTTLE CABELL CREEK
BIG CREEK
BIG CREEK
BIG CABELL CREEK
UPTON BRANCH
LOWER CREEK
ELK BRANCH
OPEQUON CREEK
DRY RUN
MILL CREEK
BACK CREEK
MIDDLE FORK/SLEEPY CREEK
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
stressed
Collect
Date
Total
taxa
Tot. taxa
score
EPT
taxa
EPT taxa
score
%
EPT
% EPT
score
%
Chiro.
%Chiro
score
7/30/1998
7/22/1998
7/22/1998
7/15/1998
7/14/1998
7/22/1998
7/22/1998
7/27/1998
8/5/1998
7/16/1998
7/22/1998
7/20/1998
8/5/1998
8/5/1998
5/18/1998
5/18/1998
5/19/1998
5/6/1998
5/13/1998
5/18/1998
5/18/1998
5/15/1998
5/29/1998
5/29/1998
6/9/1998
5/28/1998
5/27/1998
5/28/1998
5/6/1998
5/4/1998
5/28/1998
5/26/1998
5/26/1998
5/26/1998
5/21/1998
5/19/1998
5/29/1998
5/19/1998
5/26/1998
6/2/1998
6/3/1998
6/3/1998
6/9/1998
6/2/1998
6/10/1998
10
8
23
13
25
20
19
28
8
7
6
11
7
13
16
5
11
4
7
6
5
7
10
13
17
15
20
17
15
12
13
15
17
10
14
16
10
24
17
10
19
14
15
17
12
48
38
110
62
119
95
90
133
38
33
29
52
33
62
76
24
52
19
33
29
24
33
48
62
81
71
95
81
71
57
62
71
81
48
67
76
48
114
81
48
90
67
71
81
57
4
3
11
3
9
7
4
12
4
3
0
5
0
10
8
2
6
2
2
2
0
3
5
6
7
7
8
8
9
9
7
10
9
5
8
8
3
11
8
4
10
4
8
9
5
31
23
85
23
69
54
31
92
31
23
0
38
0
77
62
15
46
15
15
15
0
23
38
46
54
54
62
62
69
69
54
77
69
38
62
62
23
85
62
31
77
31
62
69
38
62
29
45
30
38
35
51
47
86
38
0
80
0
92
42
8
48
2
5
10
0
5
37
39
60
44
50
44
89
82
50
16
51
26
69
80
41
67
42
9
40
8
42
83
48
67
31
49
33
41
38
55
52
94
41
0
87
0
100
45
9
52
2
5
11
0
5
40
42
65
48
54
48
96
89
54
17
56
28
75
87
44
73
46
10
44
9
46
90
53
14
21
44
49
45
16
17
25
2
0
64
10
85
6
32
87
9
98
43
73
75
57
22
38
18
12
16
9
6
11
20
16
9
60
7
1
47
8
40
31
40
44
43
8
23
87
79
56
51
55
85
84
76
99
101
37
91
15
95
68
13
92
2
58
27
25
43
79
63
83
89
85
92
95
90
81
84
92
40
94
100
54
93
60
69
60
56
58
93
78
Benthic
Sample ID
GAU98
GAU98
GAU98
GAU98
GAU98
GAU98
GAU98
GAU98
GAU98
GAU98
GAU98
GAU98
GAU98
GAU98
LGU98
LGU98
LGU98
LGU98
LGU98
LGU98
LGU98
LGU98
LGU98
LGU98
LGU98
LGU98
LGU98
LGU98
LGU98
LGU98
LGU98
LGU98
LGU98
LGU98
LGU98
LGU98
LGU98
LGU98
LGU98
POT98
POT98
POT98
POT98
POT98
POT98
B47
B58
B57
B61
B63
B66
B67
B79
B86
B112
B118
B125
B132
B172
B19
B25
B44
B70
B76
B83
B87
B88
B90
B106
B107
B94
B96
B97
B98
B100
B104
B112
B115
B116
B121
B122
B126
B129
B134
B25
B30
B3
B8
B37
B56
. 16
No
02
-1
vie
4,
ed
w
Appendix C, page C-21
2/
1
/16
19
% Top 2 % Top 2
dominant
score
58
50
61
78
75
44
40
56
83
38
85
86
94
72
64
93
52
99
94
86
98
88
52
57
56
60
48
47
63
40
43
79
58
72
58
50
85
40
64
66
54
65
72
63
44
66
78
61
34
39
88
93
68
27
98
24
22
9
44
57
11
74
2
10
22
3
19
75
68
69
63
81
82
58
94
90
33
66
44
66
78
23
93
56
53
71
55
44
57
88
HBI
HBI
score
INDEX
(SCI)
4
7
6
6
6
4
4
5
5
3
6
5
7
3
5
7
4
7
6
6
8
7
5
5
5
4
6
5
4
3
5
5
4
6
4
4
6
3
6
5
5
6
5
3
4
91
48
60
55
60
84
84
76
75
97
61
69
42
94
64
45
79
43
59
50
33
47
75
66
74
83
61
66
85
96
73
68
78
56
80
89
55
94
61
64
69
55
65
92
79
65
50
68
43
61
74
73
77
61
65
25
60
17
79
62
19
66
14
30
26
14
28
59
58
71
68
73
72
79
83
69
59
74
42
74
82
41
90
61
46
69
46
58
80
65
Appeal: 16-1024
Doc: 75-5
Filed: 01/04/2017
Pg: 74 of 80
APPENDIX D
SUPPORTING GRAPHS
102
6-
w
e
, vi
4
2
d1
e
6
9/1
/1
o. 1
Figures D1-D2. N Distributions of metric values in reference sites separated into
potential site classes by ecoregions and by index periods.
Figures D3-D6.
Discriminatory ability of each candidate metric for West
Virginia streams using calibration data (1996-1997) reference
and impaired sites.
Appeal: 16-1024
Doc: 75-5
Filed: 01/04/2017
Pg: 75 of 80
A Stream Condition Index for West Virginia Wadeable Streams
70
24
100
14
22
60
90
12
20
80
10
50
8
% dominant taxon
16
% EPT
EPT taxa
Total taxa
18
70
6
60
12
4
50
10
2
40
14
8
C.App.
0
RV+WA
30
C.App.
RV+WA
C.App.
10
RV+WA
RV+WA
40
60
75
40
we
45
e
, vi
10
10
35
024
0
C.App.
RV+WA
No
80
6-1
.1
C.App.
RV+WA
2
d1
20
20
30
20
10
0
0
C.App.
RV+WA
C.App.
15
RV+WA
6
60
13
50
60
5
HBI (Family biotic index)
11
% Tolerant
Intol. taxa
40
40
40
% Filtr
30
% Chiron
% Diptera
55
6
9/1
/1
50
30
65
% top 2 dom. taxa
C.App.
70
50
25
30
20
85
% Shred
40
9
30
20
7
4
3
20
10
5
0
0
C.App.
RV+WA
3
C.App.
C.App.
RV+WA
RV+WA
2
C.App.
RV+WA
Figure D-1. Benthic attributes (candidate metrics) in 67 reference sites divided into 2 Ecoregion
groups. Three Western Allegheny Plateau reference sites combined with 32 Ridge and Valley
reference sites were compared with 32 Central Appalachian reference sites. The %Diptera metric shows
the most noteworthy difference in ranges of values between the two ecoregion groups, with somewhat
lesser separation also shown by % Chironomid and % Tolerants; these three metrics are highly
correlated (Table 4-2). In most of these candidate metrics, there is no clear difference in ranges of
values between the two ecoregion groups.
Tetra Tech, Inc.
D-1
March 28, 2000 (Revised July 21, 2000)
Appeal: 16-1024
Doc: 75-5
Filed: 01/04/2017
Pg: 76 of 80
A Stream Condition Index for West Virginia Wadeable Streams
24
70
100
14
22
60
90
12
20
80
10
50
8
% dominant taxon
16
% EPT
EPT taxa
Total taxa
18
70
6
60
12
4
50
10
2
40
14
8
May-June
0
July-Sep
May-June
30
July-Sep
May-June
10
July-Sep
July-Sep
40
60
75
40
50
30
40
30
% Filtr
55
% Chiron
% Diptera
65
% top 2 dom. taxa
May-June
70
50
20
30
2
d1
20
45
20
10
we
10
35
e
, vi
0
0
July-Sep
No
13
40
May-June
0
July-Sep
May-June
6
50
5
40
9
30
20
7
July-Sep
60
11
Intol. taxa
60
July-Sep
. 16
15
80
024
-1
May-June
6
9/1
/1
10
HBI (Family biotic index)
May-June
% Tolerant
25
30
20
85
% Shred
40
4
3
20
10
5
0
0
May-June
July-Sep
3
May-June
July-Sep
May-June
July-Sep
2
May-June
July-Sep
Figure D-2. Benthic attributes (metrics) in 67 reference sites divided into 2 sampling periods. Twenty
reference sites sampled in May and June were compared with 47 reference sites sampled in July
through September. Possible classification is exhibited by % Filterers, EPT taxa, and Intolerant taxa.
However, % Filterers was eliminated as a metric for use in the index because of its poor discrimination
of impairment (Chapter 4; Figure D-5). EPT taxa and Intolerant taxa measured essentially the same
thing in the WV family-level data (Table 4-2, 92% correlated). The distinction shown here by these
metrics most likely reflects the presence of more Ephemeroptera in the earlier sampling period and may
support possible improvement in the assessment program by concentrating sampling earlier in the
summer. However, combined with other analyses (Chapter 3), we did not conclude that classification
by index period was required.
Tetra Tech, Inc.
D-2
March 28, 2000 (Revised July 21, 2000)
Appeal: 16-1024
Doc: 75-5
Filed: 01/04/2017
Pg: 77 of 80
A Stream Condition Index for West Virginia Wadeable Streams
24
14
20
12
10
EPT taxa
Total taxa
16
12
8
6
8
4
4
2
0
Non-Outlier Max
Non-Outlier Min
75%
25%
Median
ref
impaired
0
ref
6
5
5
Plecop taxa
7
6
Ephem taxa
7
4
3
2
024
1
0
ref
7
4
w
vie
,
3
2
No
6-1
.1
impaired
2
d1
e
6
9/1
/1
1
Non-Outlier Max
Non-Outlier Min
75%
25%
Median
Outliers
impaired
Non-Outlier Max
Non-Outlier Min
75%
25%
Median
impaired
Non-Outlier Max
Non-Outlier Min
75%
25%
Median
Outliers
0
ref
7
6
5
5
Diptera taxa
6
Trichop taxa
impaired
Non-Outlier Max
Non-Outlier Min
75%
25%
Median
Outliers
4
3
2
4
3
2
1
1
0
ref
impaired
Non-Outlier Max
Non-Outlier Min
75%
25%
Median
0
ref
Figure D-3. Discriminatory ability of candidate metrics for West Virginia streams using 1996-1997
calibration data reference and impaired sites: Total taxa, EPT taxa, Ephemeroptera taxa, Plecoptera taxa,
Trichoptera taxa, and Diptera taxa.
Tetra Tech, Inc.
D-3
March 28, 2000 (Revised July 21, 2000)
Appeal: 16-1024
Doc: 75-5
Filed: 01/04/2017
Pg: 78 of 80
A Stream Condition Index for West Virginia Wadeable Streams
100
1.0
80
% dominant taxon
Chiron taxa
0.8
0.6
0.4
60
40
0.2
20
0.0
ref
impaired
Non-Outlier Max
Non-Outlier Min
75%
25%
Median
Extremes
0
ref
100
90
90
80
80
70
70
50
40
30
24,
-10
20
10
0
. 16
ref
100
2
d1
e
60
60
% EPT
% top 2 dom. taxa
100
No
impaired
w
vie
Non-Outlier Max
Non-Outlier Min
75%
25%
Median
50
6
9/1
/1
40
30
20
impaired
Non-Outlier Max
Non-Outlier Min
75%
25%
Median
Outliers
impaired
Non-Outlier Max
Non-Outlier Min
75%
25%
Median
Outliers
10
0
ref
100
90
80
80
70
70
60
60
% Plecop
90
% Ephem
impaired
Non-Outlier Max
Non-Outlier Min
75%
25%
Median
50
40
30
50
40
30
20
20
10
0
ref
impaired
Non-Outlier Max
Non-Outlier Min
75%
25%
Median
Outliers
10
0
ref
Figure D-4. Discriminatory ability of candidate metrics for West Virginia streams using 1996-1997
calibration data reference and impaired sites: Chironomidae taxa, % dominant, %2 dominant, %EPT,
%Ephemeroptera, and %Plecoptera.
Tetra Tech, Inc.
D-4
March 28, 2000 (Revised July 21, 2000)
Appeal: 16-1024
Doc: 75-5
Filed: 01/04/2017
Pg: 79 of 80
A Stream Condition Index for West Virginia Wadeable Streams
90
80
80
70
70
60
60
% Diptera
100
90
% Trichop
100
50
40
30
50
40
30
20
10
0
ref
impaired
20
Non-Outlier Max
Non-Outlier Min
75%
25%
Median
Outliers
Extremes
10
0
ref
90
80
80
70
70
60
60
% Oligo
100
90
% Chiron
100
50
40
30
20
102
-
10
0
. 16
No
ref
100
90
impaired
4, v
Non-Outlier Max
Non-Outlier Min
75%
25%
Median
Outliers
Extremes
2
d1
e
50
iew
6
9/1
/1
40
30
20
impaired
Non-Outlier Max
Non-Outlier Min
75%
25%
Median
Outliers
Extremes
impaired
Non-Outlier Max
Non-Outlier Min
75%
25%
Median
Outliers
Extremes
10
0
ref
100
90
80
70
70
60
60
% Scrap
80
% Filtr
impaired
Non-Outlier Max
Non-Outlier Min
75%
25%
Median
Outliers
Extremes
50
40
30
50
40
30
20
20
10
0
ref
impaired
Non-Outlier Max
Non-Outlier Min
75%
25%
Median
Outliers
10
0
ref
Figure D-5. Discriminatory ability of candidate metrics for West Virginia streams using 1996-1997
calibration data reference and impaired sites: %Trichoptera, %Diptera, %Chironomidae, %Oligochaeta,
%Filterers, and %Scrapers.
Tetra Tech, Inc.
D-5
March 28, 2000 (Revised July 21, 2000)
Appeal: 16-1024
Doc: 75-5
Filed: 01/04/2017
Pg: 80 of 80
A Stream Condition Index for West Virginia Wadeable Streams
80
100
90
70
80
60
70
% Pred
% Collect
50
60
50
40
40
30
30
20
20
10
0
ref
impaired
10
Non-Outlier Max
Non-Outlier Min
75%
25%
Median
0
ref
impaired
14
100
90
12
80
10
70
Intol taxa
% Shred
60
50
40
30
24,
-10
10
. 16
No
ref
100
90
6
w
vie
impaired
Non-Outlier Max
Non-Outlier Min
75%
25%
Median
Outliers
2
d1
e
6
9/1
/1
2
impaired
Non-Outlier Max
Non-Outlier Min
75%
25%
Median
impaired
Non-Outlier Max
Non-Outlier Min
75%
25%
Median
Outliers
0
ref
10
9
8
HBI (Family biotic index)
80
70
% tolerant
8
4
20
0
Non-Outlier Max
Non-Outlier Min
75%
25%
Median
Outliers
Extremes
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
ref
impaired
Non-Outlier Max
Non-Outlier Min
75%
25%
Median
Outliers
Extremes
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
ref
Figure D-6. Discriminatory ability of candidate metrics for West Virginia streams using 1996-1997
calibration data reference and impaired sites: %Collectors, %Predators, %Shredders, Intolerant taxa,
%Tolerants, and HBI (Family biotic index).
Tetra Tech, Inc.
D-6
March 28, 2000 (Revised July 21, 2000)
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?