Ohio Valley Environmental Coal v. Fola Coal Company, LLC

Filing

OPINION ATTACHMENT. [16-1024]

Download PDF
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?