OCR error (C:\Conversion\JobRoot\00000ANJ\tiff\2000W73K.tif): Unspecified error
-------
Regional Center for Environmental Information
US EPA Region HI
1650 Arch St.
Philadelphia, PA 19103
-------
Table of Contents
1. Introduction 1
2. Monitoring Design and Site Locations 1
3. Monitoring Parameters, Methods and Their Frequency of Collection 1
4. The Virginia Stream Condition Index 2
5. Macroinvertebrate Results 3
Mainstem Indian Creek Sites 4
Tributary Sites 5
Limestone Sites 7
6. Qualitative Habitat and Field Chemistry Results 8
Figure 1. VSCI Scores at the Mainstem, Tributary and Limestone Sites from Upstream to
Downstream 10
Figure 2. Total Taxa Metric Values at the Mainstem, Tributary and Limestone Sites from
Upstream to Downstream. (Total Taxa Values are family-level and rarefied to a 200
count subsample.) 11
Figure 3. EPT Taxa Metric Values at the Mainstem, Tributary and Limestone Sites from
Upstream to Downstream. (EPT Taxa values are family-level and rarefied to a 200 count
subsample.) 12
Figure 4. VSCI scores and Total Habitat Scores 13
Figure 5. VSCI Scores and Conductivity 14
References 15
Appendix A. Data Tables and Maps 16
-------
Acknowledgments
Jim Green (USEPA), Maggie Passmore (USEPA) and Cindy Kane (USFWS) did the field work
for this project. Thanks to Cindy Kane for helping us in the field during the coldest week of the
year. Carole Rose (USEPA) and Steve Bosworth (USEPA SEE Program) subsampled and
picked all the samples. Jim Green and Maggie Passmore identified the macroinvertebrates.
Hope Childers (formerly of Veridian) and Lou Reynolds (USEPA) handled the data management.
Hope Childers and Doug Ross (Veridian) provided GIS support. Maggie Passmore prepared the
report. Thanks to everyone who provided comments on the draft reports.
-------
1. Introduction
This survey was done as part of a multi-agency analysis of periphyton, fish and benthic
macroinvertebrate communities and the effects of point and nonpoint sources in the Indian Creek
watershed, in Tazewell County in southwestern Virginia. The completed multi-agency study will
include collections or measurements of water quality parameters, the periphyton assemblage, the
benthic macroinvertebrate assemblage, the fish assemblage, instream physical habitat, and the
development of a Geographic Information System (GIS) database (Lingenfelser 2001). The
USFWS is the lead agency on the study and is interested in developing a restoration plan for the
endangered tan riffleshell mussel (Epioblasma walkeri), which lives in this watershed.
In February 2002, the USEPA Freshwater Biology Team and USFWS Staff collected benthic
macroinvertebrate samples, measured some field physical/chemical parameters, and performed
visual qualitative physical habitat surveys using the EPA's Rapid Bioassessment Protocol (RBP).
The objective of the benthic macroinvertebrate survey is to provide data on the condition of the
tributaries of Indian Creek and selected sites on the mainstem of Indian Creek. The sites were
sampled once, within one week, in late February of 2002.
2. Monitoring Design and Site Locations
hi April 2001, USEPA Wheeling staff accompanied USFWS staff and others on a reconnaissance
trip to visit the candidate sites. The site locations in this study were chosen primarily by USFWS
staff prior to the recon visit. These sites were chosen to provide information on the major
tributaries and the main stem of Indian Creek. Staff knowledge of mining activity, point sources,
and nonpoint sources was also important in selecting the sites. A list of the sites, their locations
and the sampling dates are provided in Map 1 and Table 1 (Appendix A).
3. Monitoring Parameters, Methods and Their Frequency of Collection
Benthic macroinvertebrate samples, physical/chemical field parameters and visual qualitative
stream habitat evaluations were collected once at each site during the week of February 26, 2002.
The benthic macroinvertebrate samples were collected using the USEPA RBP single habitat
protocol, with slight modifications. Four 0.25 m2 sections of riffle were sampled using a 0.5
meter wide, 600 um mesh rectangular dip net. These 4 samples were composited for a total of
one m2 sampled, hi the laboratory, a standard proportion (l/8th) of the sample was subsampled
and picked. For calculation of taxa richness measures, the resulting data were rarefied to a 200
organism fixed count subsample.
The stream habitat evaluations were conducted using the EPA RBP riffle/run protocol for high
gradient streams. The field chemical/physical parameters were measured using a Corning
Checkmate 90 field meter, which was calibrated according to the manufacturer's instructions
every day. The range of velocities in the sampled reach were measured using a Marsh McBirney
velocity meter.
-------
4. The Virginia Stream Condition Index
For this study, we used the Virginia Stream Condition Index (VSCI) and its component metrics
to assess the macroinvertebrate assemblage data. The VSCI was developed by Tetra Tech Inc.,
using the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VA DEQ) macroinvertebrate database
(Burton and Gerritsen 2003). The VSCI is a family-level index.
Eight metrics make up the VSCI: Total Taxa, EPT Taxa, % Ephemeroptera (% E), % Plecoptera
plus Trichoptera less Hydropsychidae (%P + T - H), % Scrapers, % Chironomidae, % 2
Dominant Families (% 2 Dom Fam), and a family level HBI. These metrics were chosen in a
rigorous process so that 1) the metrics could discriminate clearly between a priori most-disturbed
(impaired) and least-disturbed (reference) sites, 2) the metrics represent several different aspects
of the biotic community (e.g. composition, richness, diversity, tolerance, trophic groups), and 3)
the metrics chosen minimize redundancy among component metrics.
The eight metrics were aggregated into an index by calculating the 5th percentile (%
Chironomidae, % 2 Dom Taxa, HBI) or the 95th percentile (Total Taxa, EPT Taxa, % E, %P + T
- H, % Scrapers) for all 1671 non-coastal plain samples in the VA DEQ 1994- 2002 database.
These values were considered the standard "best" values. These values were then assigned a
score of 100. Values of a metric between the minimum possible value (or in some cases the
maximum possible value) and the standard best score were then scored proportionally from 0
("worst") to 100 ("best"). The standard best values developed using the VA DEQ dataset are
similar to those developed for West Virginia using a similar process but WV DEP's database
(Gerritsen et al. 2000).
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 multi-metric index value was calculated by
simply averaging the individual metric scores for the site. See table 2 for a list of the metrics,
the standard (best values) and the standardization equations.
Richness metrics have been shown to be positively correlated with abundance (Gerritsen et al
2000). VADEQ's sampling methods vary slightly across the state, but their subsample organism
counts usually vary from 100 to 200 organisms. We used a standard proportion (l/8th) of the
total sample as our subsample. This procedure standardizes the subsample by proportion, so the
number of organisms in the subsample can vary quite widely depending on the productivity of
the sampled streams. More productive streams will have much higher counts in the subsample
than less productive streams. In this study, for samples with greater than 200 organisms, we
rarified our proportion subsample data to 200 organisms and calculated richness measures on the
fixed count subsample in order to score our samples using the VSCI richness best standard
values. Seventeen (17) of the 24 subsamples were rarefied. The remaining seven proportional
subsamples had between 100 and 200 organisms. Rarefaction is a statistical procedure which
-------
lets you directly compare the number of taxa found in samples when the sampling or
subsampling effort differed. Rarefaction uses the data from the original sample to answer the
questions "how many taxa would have been found in a smaller sample?". Rarefaction takes
hypothetical subsamples of a fixed number of organisms from the original sample, and calculates
the richness metrics for each hypothetical subsample (Krebs 1998). Our rarefaction procedure
took 200 hypothetical subsamples of 200 organisms from the original subsample, and calculated
average total taxa richness and EPT richness metric values for those 200 subsamples for each
site. These average richness metrics were used in scoring the metric for the VSCI calculation.
The descriptive statistics and distribution of VSCI scores at the a priori reference site samples
were used to establish a threshold for determining whether test sites are comparable to the
reference condition (shown in table 3). In the final VSCI report, the 10th % was recommended as
a threshold to determine impairment (Burton and Gerritsen 2003). The 10th % VSCI score of the
reference site samples was 61.3. We used the VSCI scores to determine impairment and to rank
the sites. We also pointed out the sites where we believe the genus-level taxa lists indicate a
change in condition, but the family-level VSCI does not fully reflect those assemblage changes.
5. Macroinvertebrate Results
The macroinvertebrate component metrics and VSCI scores for the sites are shown in table 4.
Note that for three sites, there are duplicate samples. These duplicate samples are used to
estimate sampling method precision. Data generated from the first sample collected that day was
displayed on map 2 (VSCI scores), map 3 (total taxa), and map 4 (EPT taxa). The taxonomic
lists are shown in table 5. All total taxa and EPT (Ephemeroptera - mayflies, Plecoptera -
stoneflies and Trichoptera - caddisflies) taxa values discussed are at the family level for the
rarefied 200 fixed count subsamples, so many of these values, since they are averages, are not
integers.
Figures 1, 2 and 3 indicate the VSCI scores, the total taxa values and the EPT taxa values for the
200 fixed count subsamples. The mainstem, tributary and limestone sites are grouped in separate
bar graphs. The sites are listed from upstream to downstream order on each graph.
Most of the sites are located in the Cumberland Mountains area of the Central Appalachians (see
Map 2). Some of the sites are located in the Southern Limestone/Dolomite Valleys and Rolling
Hills of the Ridge and Valley Ecoregion. It should be noted that the VSCI study indicated that
historical VADEQ reference sites in the Central Appalachians had lower VSCI scores as a group
than reference sites located in other non-coastal ecoregions of Virginia. The interquartile range
of VSCI scores for the Central Appalachians ecoregions was approximately 55 to 70. The
interquartile range of all noncoastal reference sites was approximately 68 to 78. It is not clear at
this point whether a separate (lower) threshold of impairment is needed for the Central
Appalachians, or if the historical database in the Central Appalachians was biased to more
impaired sites, and more sampling needs to be done to identify candidate reference sites in that
region.
-------
Many of the sites (12 of 21) in this study passed the state-wide noncoastal VSCI impairment
threshold of 61.3. Three (3) sites scored less than the state-wide threshold but still within the
interquartile range of the Central Appalachians reference sites (less than 61.3 but greater than
55). Six (6) sites had VSCI scores lower than the interquartile range of the Central Appalachians
reference sites (less than 55). These six sites were site 1 (Indian Creek behind the trailer park),
site 2 (Lowe Branch), site 4 (unnamed tributary that drains McGuire Valley), site 15 (South
Branch of Indian Creek), site 19 (Coal Branch), and site 21 (Indian Creek at Cedar Bluff).
Mainstem Indian Creek Sites
There are 8 sites on the mainstem of Indian Creek. Starting at the upstream end, site 13
(upstream of Jackson Fork) was sampled in duplicate. The first sample scored 72.5 using the
VSCI. The second sample had a VSCI score of 70.1. The taxa lists for both samples indicate
good richness and evenness. There were 24.7 and 22.0 total taxa and 17.5 and 15.0 EPT taxa in
the two samples. The site had a large number of EPT taxa, and many sensitive taxa (e.g.
Dolophilodes, Glossosoma, Rhyacophila, Neophylax, Diploperla, Acroneuria, Paracapnia,
Pteronarcys, Ephemera, Epeorus, etc.). The dominant taxon was midge, but midge only
accounted for about 23% of the total organisms in both samples. The taxa lists for the two sites
were very similar. Site 13 is clearly in good condition.
Site 16, located downstream of Jackson Fork, had a VSCI score of 61.8. The VSCI score
dropped from that found at site 13 due to an increase in the number of Chironomidae collected at
site 16. Chironomidae accounted for 45% of the organisms in the sample collected at this site.
However, the number of total taxa (20.5) and the number of EPT taxa (13.4) were still high at
site 16. We collected a good number of more sensitive taxa (Dolophilodes, Neophylax, Goera,
Acroneuria, Diploperla, Strophopteryx, Paracapnia, Epeorus, Ephemera, etc.). The taxa list
suggests Site 16 is in good condition, although the VSCI score is slightly less than the statewide
threshold recommended for determining impairment.
Site 11, in Harmon, had a VSCI score of 72.2. This site was also sampled in duplicate and the
second sample scored 67.1. Although the VSCI score indicates site 11 is in good condition
overall, the taxa lists from both samples indicate loss of some more sensitive taxa. Taxa richness
values were lower in both samples (15 and 19) and EPT taxa values were lower in both samples
(9 and 10) than what was collected at upstream sites. (The taxa losses are particularly noticeable
in the genus-level data. When the data are collapsed to family, the differences between sites are
smaller.) The numbers of EPT organisms also decreased from upstream sites. We believe there
is a change in condition at site 11 in Harmon.
Site 8, upstream of Panther Branch, looks similar to site 11. The VSCI score at this site was
69.7. However, this site also had fewer total taxa (17) and EPT taxa (9) than the sites upstream
of Harmon. The abundance of these organisms dropped as well. Many of the more sensitive
taxa found upstream of Harmon were not found in the sample collected at site 8.
-------
Site 18, downstream of the railroad trestle in Bandy, had a VSCI score of 58.9. More sensitive
taxa were again collected at this site, but the sample was dominated by blackflies and midge.
This shift in composition to a predominance of more tolerant organisms drove the VSCI score
lower. Midge made up 22.2% of the sample at this site. There were 18.1 total taxa and 8.4 EPT
taxa in the sample. Some of the more sensitive taxa collected upstream of Harmon were also
collected at site 18 (Glossosoma, Goera). The abundance of EPT organisms also increased.
Site 5, upstream of the rail road trestle on rt. 630, had a VSCI score of 79. This site had good
total taxa richness (23.1) and evenness, and had a good number of EPT taxa (13). The dominant
taxon at this site was midge, although they were not overly abundant (only 24.7%).
Site 1, behind the trailer park, had a VSCI score of 43.3. This site has lower total taxa richness
than the nearest upstream site (16), and the taxa list indicates a loss of EPT taxa (7). The relative
abundance of sensitive taxa decreased at this site. The sample was dominated by midge (56.4%
of the sample). Overall abundance of other organisms at this site was low.
Site 21, at Cedar Bluff, had a VSCI score of 47.7. The VSCI score was driven down by an
abundance of midge in the sample (53.6%). However, the sample still contained a good number
of total taxa ( 17.8) and a fair number of EPT taxa (8.1), with some more sensitive taxa collected
(Brachycentrus, Helicopsyche, Allocapnia, Serratella) . The abundance of all organisms at site
21 was much higher than the abundance at site 1.
In summary, we believe that the samples we collected at 3 sites on the mainstem indicate some
degradation compared to other sites in the watershed: sites 11 and 8 downstream of Harmon, and
site 1, in the trailer park. At all of these sites, there was a loss of some of the more sensitive taxa
and low overall abundance. Site 21 shows an overabundance of midge, but still has good taxa
richness. The VSCI does not appear to be very sensitive to the loss of rare taxa. (By rare, we
mean more sensitive taxa that are not found in large numbers.) The VSCI is a family level index
and some of the taxa losses that are present at the genus level are not present when the data are
collapsed to family. The rest of the mainstem sites look to be in good condition, although midge
or blackflies were abundant or dominant at some of the sites (sites 16, 18 and 21), as indicated by
the lower VSCI scores.
Tributary Sites
There were ten tributary sites including the North and South Branches of Indian Creek. Most of
the tributary sites are located in the Cumberland Mountains region (subecoregion 69d). The
North and South Branches of Indian Creek both had considerable beaver activity and many
beaver ponds midstream. These ponds made it difficult to find good sampling habitat. Site 15,
on the South Branch, was located in a short reach between a beaver pond and a culvert upstream
and an impounded area downstream, at the confluence with the North Branch. The bad weather
and poor road conditions made it impossible to look further upstream for a more suitable site.
The VSCI score at site 15 was only 40, but we are not convinced that this score is representative
-------
of the true condition of the South Branch. We did not collect a great number of total taxa (15) or
EPT taxa (8) at this site. The habitat was clearly degraded instream, with some embeddedness
and sediment deposition. Midge was the dominant taxon collected at this site (59.4 %).
Site 23, on the North Branch of Indian Creek, was added to the site list since we could not
sample two of the original sites in the project plan (sites 14 and 22) due to beaver pond activity
and lack of access due to bad road conditions. Site 23 was added and was located between sites
14 and 22. We collected a good number of total taxa (21.9) and EPT taxa (13.4) at this site.
Midge dominated the sample (45.3%), and the VSCI score was 58.4.
Site 12 was located on Jackson Fork, which enters Indian Creek from the northeast of the
watershed. Although the topographic map indicates substantial historical mining in this
tributary's watershed, several total taxa (22.9) and EPT taxa (14.5) were collected, including
some more sensitive taxa (Glossosoma, Dolophilodes, Diplectrona, Rhyacophila, Paracapnia,
Acroneuria, Pteronarcys, Epeorus, Baetisca, Ephemera, etc.). In addition, the sample portrayed
an even composition, with midge accounting for only 12.6% of the sample. The VSCI score was
71.8.
Greasy Creek is the next tributary downstream and enters Indian Creek from the west. Site 9 is
located upstream on a Consol Coal Company property. Although the habitat at this site was
clearly degraded, we collected several EPT taxa (12), including several more sensitive taxa
(Hydatophylax, Neophylax, Pycnopsyche, Clioperla, Baetisca, Ephemera, Ameletus, etc.).
Although we did not collect many organisms, the sample was well balanced, and midge only
accounted for 24.6% of the sample. The VSCI score was 72.3.
The downstream site on Greasy Creek (site 10) was also in good condition. The habitat was
much better at this site, and a few more EPT taxa were collected (13.6). The sample was also
well balanced and midge accounted for only 19.6% of the sample. The VSCI score was 78.9.
Panther Branch is the next tributary downstream, and also enters Indian Creek from the west.
Site 17 was located right next to the road, and the habitat was not optimal, but the sample
collected from Panther Branch indicates a good variety of total taxa (21.4) and EPT taxa (12.3),
with a fairly balanced assemblage. Although midge were the dominant taxon, they were not
present in extreme numbers and made up only 25.2 % of the sample. The VSCI score for site 17
was 71.9.
Site 19 was located on Coal Branch, upstream of the railroad trestle. The VSCI score was 49,
reflecting the large number of midge and tolerant Hydropsychidae caddisflies in the sample.
Midge accounted for 34% of the sample. There were fewer total taxa (15.8) and EPT taxa (5.8)
in the sample and they were collected in low numbers. Only one Plecoptera individual was in the
sample.
Two sites were located on Laurel Fork. Site 6, the downstream site, had some habitat
-------
degradation due to the road and mowed lawns, but we still collected a good number of total taxa
(18.1) and EPT taxa (11.2), including several more sensitive taxa (Neophylax, Goer a, Clioperla,
Baetisca, Ephemera, Epeorus, etc.). A tolerant caddisfly (Cheumatopsyche) dominated the
sample. Midge accounted for only 16.5% of the sample. The VSCI score at this site was 67.9.
The upstream site on Laurel Fork was located upstream of the Rt. 626 bridge. Site 7 was
sampled in duplicate and the two samples had VSCI scores of 73.4 and 69.7. Both samples
indicate a good number of total taxa ((20 and 20.9) and EPT taxa (13 and 12.8). Midge were the
dominant taxon in both samples (23.8 and 30.3%), but the taxa lists indicate that overall, the
community was fairly well balanced among all the major insect groups.
The most downstream tributary was Raven's Nest Branch (site 20). This tributary also enters
from the west, and was sampled upstream of the railroad tunnel, in a pasture. Although the
habitat was not optimal in the sampled reach, we still collected several total taxa (19.8) and EPT
taxa (12), and in good numbers. The community was well balanced among the major insect
groups, and midge accounted for only 10.4% of the sample. The dominant taxon was the
stonefly Amphinemura. The VSCI score was 82.9. This site had the highest VSCI score in the
study.
hi summary, we believe the South and North Branch samples may not be representative of the
true condition of these tributaries. We had a difficult time finding areas to sample and in both
cases had to settle for suboptimal or even marginal habitats. These tributaries may be in better
condition than our data indicate. The nearest downstream station on the main stem, which
receives the major part of its flow from these two tributaries was in very good condition. We
believe that Coal Branch may have some impairment, since it is lacking many of the sensitive
taxa found in the other tributaries. The habitat at the Coal Branch sampling site was also
suboptimal and may have contributed to the result.
Limestone Sites
The Indian Creek watershed is a geologically diverse watershed. Three of the sites (site 2, site 3
and site 4) lie within limestone valleys (subecoregion 67f after Woods et al, 1999). These sites
are different from the other sites due to the limestone influence and their naturally high
conductivity. Site 3, the upstream site on Lowe Branch represents a typical limestone stream.
The taxa list indicates high abundance with fair taxa richness (14.5) and a fair number of EPT
taxa (7.2). There were also good numbers of organisms in the more sensitive EPT orders. The
dominant taxon at this site was an Ephemerella mayfly. The VSCI score for this site was 61.
Site 2, the downstream site on Lowe Branch, had a VSCI score of only 25.7. The taxa list for
this site indicates a loss of sensitive taxa, including the loss of all stoneflies and a sharp reduction
in mayflies. The sample contained only 9.3 total taxa and 1.7 EPT taxa. The taxa list also
indicates increases in tolerant taxa including a caddis fly (Hydropsychidae) and midge
(Chironomidae). The dominant taxon was midge which accounted for 66.3 % of the organisms.
-------
Site 4 is located on an unnamed tributary that drains McGuire Valley. This site scored 46.1 using
the VSCI. Site 4 had a good number of total taxa (16.8) and a fair number of EPT taxa (7.3), but
very few stoneflies and reduced numbers of mayflies compared to site 3. The site was dominated
by tolerant midge and blackflies.
6. Qualitative Habitat and Field Chemistry Results
Physical and chemical characteristics of the sampled sites including mean stream width, mean
velocity, temperature, conductivity, dissolved oxygen and pH are shown in table 6. None of the
field physical and chemical results indicate any water quality problems. It should be noted that
we sampled in February 2002. Parameters such as pH, temperature and dissolved oxygen
typically reach critical levels in the summer and early fall when temperatures are elevated and
primary productivity and respiration are at their peaks.
The Rapid Bioassessment Protocol component habitat parameters and total habitat scores are
shown in table 7. The Rapid Bioassessment Protocol has specific criteria and descriptions for
each parameter in ranges of optimal, suboptimal, marginal and poor. In general, optimal
conditions provide high quality habitat and have the potential to sustain diverse natural
assemblages of aquatic life. Suboptimal conditions provide adequate habitat for maintenance of
aquatic life. Marginal conditions provide habitat that is less than desirable and in poor
conditions, the physical habitat is obviously inadequate or absent. Optimal and suboptimal
habitat are both considered sufficient to support macroinvertebrate assemblages. For example,
state and federal agencies often require reference sites that are used to develop biological
reference conditions to attain at least suboptimal scores. In table 7, individual parameters that
scored less than Suboptimal (<11) are highlighted in red. The red parameters are in the marginal
or poor range.
Total habitat scores at a site are usually compared to the range of scores of a collection of
reference sites (a reference condition). For the development of the VSCI, a candidate site had to
have a total habitat score of at least 120 to be considered as a reference site. The VSCI is
composed of 461 macroinvertebrate samples from 116 reference sites. The 444 reference
samples which had RBP habitat assessments had a range of scores from 122 to 231. The 25th%,
median and 50th% scores of the reference samples were 173, 188 and 204.
The habitat results indicate a few habitat impairments at some of the sites. In terms of overall
score, only two sites show habitat problems in several components of instream, bank and riparian
habitat. Site 9 (the upstream site on Greasy Creek) only scored a total of 107, and scored only
marginally in epifaunal substrate/available cover, embeddedness, sediment deposition, frequency
of riffles and riparian zone width. Despite these low habitat scores, the benthos sample for the
Creek indicates good water quality.
Site 15, the South Branch of Indian Creek scored only 96 on the visual habitat assessment. This
site scored marginally on embeddedness, velocity depth regimes and sediment deposition. This
-------
site scored in the poor range for riparian zone width. As we stated earlier, we were confined to a
very short reach between a beaver pond and a culvert at site 15. We believe the marginal
instream habitat at this site may have impacted the benthos sample, which indicates some
impairment.
Several of the sites scored less than suboptimal on the velocity depth regimes parameter. This is
common for small streams, which often lack deep water, defined as greater than 0.5 meters. This
does not impact our benthos samples since we target riffles. Several of the sites scored less than
suboptimal on the bank vegetation and riparian zone width scores. These two parameters reflect
habitat condition outside of the immediate stream channel, and do note appear to impact the
benthos samples as much as the instream parameters (epifaunal substrate, embeddedness,
sediment deposition).
Figure 4 shows a scatter plot of VSCI scores and total habitat scores. Figure 5 shows a scatter
plot of VSCI scores and conductivity. Neither graph indicates a strong correlation between the
VSCI scores and the physical or chemical parameter.
-------
Figure 1. VSCI Scores at the Mainstem, Tributary and Limestone Sites from Upstream to
Downstream
y\J
80 -
tn yn .
s '" 1
E 60 -
&
ro
^
g 40-
8"~
CO 30 •
O
> 20 -
10 -
n -
—
|
—
I •
— i
—
£. 60
| 50
8 40
8
W 30
O
> 20
10
0
90
80
| 70
C/3
£ 60
S
trt
» 50
I 30
20
10
0
13 13 16 11 11 8 18 5 1 21
23 15 12 9 10 17 19 6 7 7 20
432
Site Number
10
-------
Figure 2. Total Taxa Metric Values at the Mainstem, Tributary and Limestone Sites from
Upstream to Downstream. (Total Taxa Values are family-level and rarefied to a 200 count
subsample.)
•S
C/3
CD
M
= 15
s
1
E 15-
13 13 16 11 11 8 18 5 1 21
23 15 12 9 10 17 19 6 7 7 20
432
Site Number
11
-------
Figure 3. EPT Taxa Metric Values at the Mainstem, Tributary and Limestone Sites from
Upstream to Downstream. (EPT Taxa values are family-level and rarefied to a 200 count
subsample.)
5 -
13 13 16 11 11 8 18 5 1 21
£ 15
s
I 10
CL
HI 5
23 15 12 9 10 17 19 6 7 7 20
Q-
LU
432
Site Number
12
-------
Figure 4. VSCI scores and Total Habitat Scores. Note that plot symbols are the site numbers,
red sites are mainstem sites, green sites are tributary sites and blue sites are limestone sites.
Duplicate samples are not shown.
VSCI and Total Habitat Scores
CO
2>
o
o
CO
90
80 -
70 -
60 -
0 50 -I
CO DU 1
40 -
30 -
20
80
20
09 17 113
06
03
19
04
18 23
21
07
01
15
02
100
120 140 160
Total Habitat Scores
180
200
13
-------
Figure 5. VSCI Scores and Conductivity. Note that plot symbols are the site numbers, red sites
are mainstem sites, green sites are tributary sites and blue sites are limestone sites. Duplicate
samples are not shown.
VSCI and Conductivity
90
o
o
CO
80 -
70 -
60 -
0 50 ^
CO OU '
40 -
30 -
20
10 05
08
15
100
1712
06
18
19
20
03
04
02
200 300 400
Conductivity (uS/cm)
500
600
14
-------
References
Barbour, M.T., J. Gerritsen, B.D. Snyder, and J.B. Stribling. 1999. Rapid Bioassessment
Protocols for Use if Streams and Wadeable Rivers: Periphyton, Benthic Macroinvertebrates and
fish, Second Edition. EPA 841-B-99-002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Office of
Water; Washington, D.C.
Burton, J. and J. Gerritsen. 2003. A Stream Condition Index for Virginia Non-Coastal Streams.
Tetra Tech Inc., Owings Mills, Maryland.
Gerritsen, J., J. Burton, and M.T. Barber. 2000. A Stream Condition Index for West Virginia
Wadeable Streams. Tetra Tech Inc., Owings Mills, Maryland.
Krebs, Charles J. 1998. Ecological Methodology 2nd ed. Addison-Wesley Educational
Publishers, Inc. Menlo Park, CA.
Lingenfelser, S.F. 2001. Environmental Contaminants Program Off-Refuge Investigations Sub-
Activity: VA Multi-agency analysis of periphyton, fish and benthic macroinvertebrate
communities and the effects of point and non-point sources in the Indian Creek, Virginia
Watershed. Department of the Interior. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Gloucester, VA.
Woods, A., J. M. Omernik, D. D. Brown. 1999. Level III and IV Ecoregions of Delaware,
Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia and West Virginia. USEPA. Corvallis, OR.
15
-------
Appendix A. Data Tables and Maps
Table 1. Indian Creek Site Locations
Station ID
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Stream Name
Indian Creek
Lowe Branch
Lowe Branch
NNT to Lowe Branch
(from McGuire
Valley)
Indian Creek
Laurel Fork
Laurel Fork
Indian Creek
Greasy Creek
Greasy Creek
Indian Creek
Description of
Location
Behind the trailer park
off 631.
Downstream of the old
gas station in
Busthead.
On property of Mary
Barnett.
Approximately 0.5
miles northwest of
636/627 intersection
on 627.
Downstream of
confluence with Lowe
Branch, upstream of
RR trestle on dirt road.
Upstream of first
bridge on downstream
end of Laurel Fork.
Upstream of the
bridge off of 626, on
Bandy Sportsmen's
Club property.
Past Bandy, upstream
of Panther Branch,
upstream of the 627
bridge.
On Consolidation Coal
Co. property off Rt
612.
Further downstream
than station 9, on
Consol property.
In Harman.
Latitude
Longitude
370526.88
81 44 38.44
370628.66
8141 58.44
370629.71
81 41 06.67
37 06 58.43
81 42 12.73
370651.24
814305.18
37 07 14.67
814249.40
37 07 50.03
81 43 02.09
37 08 54.92
81 42 09.92
37 10 41.89
81 44 10.47
37 09 38.04
814253.58
370932.12
814228.51
Sampling
Date
02.25.02
02.26.02
02.26.02
02.26.02
02.26.02
02.26.02
02.26.02
02.27.02
02.27.02
02.27.02
02.27.02
16
-------
Table 1. Indian Creek Site Locations
Station ID
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Stream Name
Jackson Fork
Indian Creek
North Branch of
Indian Creek
South Branch of
Indian Creek
Indian Creek
Panther Branch
Indian Creek
Coal Branch
Raven Nest Branch
Indian Creek
North Branch of
Indian Creek
North Branch of
Indian Creek
Description of
Location
Upstream of the 627
bridge.
Upstream of Jackson
Fork.
On Knox Creek Coal
property.
On AT Massey
property.
Downstream of
Jackson Fork, and
upstream of Harman.
Approximately 20
meters upstream of
confluence with Indian
Creek.
South of Bandy,
downstream of the RR
bridge.
Upstream of RR
tunnel.
Upstream of RR
tunnel.
At Cedar Bluff, along
631.
Upstream of site 14,
near gas well.
Between sites 14 and
22.
Latitude
Longitude
37 1048.82
814220.30
37 1106.36
814249.91
3711 58.00
814258.51
3711 51.47
81 43 05.26
37 1026.59
814237.25
37 08 43.94
8142 11.28
37 07 45.67
814158.34
370756.17
8141 54.71
37 06 06.59
814408.16
3705 17.37
81 45 19.67
371241.56
814307.73
37 12 10.86
814253.81
Sampling
Date
02.27.02
02.28.02
This station
could not be
sampled due
to beaver
ponds.
02.28.02
02.28.02
02.27.02
02.26.02
02.26.02
02.28.02
02.26.02
This station
could not be
sampled -
dangerous
road
conditions -
no other
access.
02.28.02
17
-------
Table 1. Indian Creek Site Locations
Station ID
Stream Name
Description of
Location
Latitude
Longitude
Sampling
Date
Watershed and sites are located on the Amonate, Jewell Ridge, Pounding Mill and Richlands VA 7.5 minute
USGS topographic maps.
Table 2. Metrics for Virginia non-coastal benthic multimetric index (VSCI). Standard values and
standardization equations.
Metrics that
decrease with
stress
Total taxa
EPT taxa
% Ephemeroptera
% Plecoptera +
Trichoptera -
Hydropsychidae
% Scrapers
Metrics that
increase with
stress
% Chironomidae
% Top 2
Dominant
HBI (family level)
Standard (best
value)
-^95
22
11
61.3
35.6
51.6
Standard (best
value)
X5
0
30.8
3.2
xmin
0
0
0
0
0
X5
100
100
10
Standardization equation
X = metric value at test site.
score =1 00 x (X/22)
score = 100 x(X/ll)
score = 100 x (X/58.9)
score=100x(X/34.8)
score = 1 00 x (X/58.9)
Standardization equation
X = metric value at test site
score = 100 x [(100-X)/( 100-0)]
score = 100 x [(100-X)/100-29.5)]
score = 100 x [(10-X)/(10-3.2)]
Final Index score for a site is determined by averaging the site's 8 unitless standardized metric scores, using a
maximum metric score of 100 for any metric whose individual score at a site exceeded 100.
18
-------
Table 3. Percentile distribution of index (VSCI) values in the Virginia DEQ 1994-2002 reference samples.
N
maximum possible
maximum in data
95th
90lh
75th
50Ih (median)
25th
10th
5th
minimum
standard deviation
mean
461
100.0
88.9
84.1
81.7
77.8
73.1
67.7
61.3
56.3
25.3
8.4
72.1
19
-------
3
o
1
tit Metrics and
rompone
w
o
3
OS
i!
a
I
I
1
h
i
£
5
« ^
u i£ a
H^
y
s
IP
H (2 «
«
1 '^
Total
Individuals
Collection Date
>uplicate #
tation #
m
^
O
^
tN
in
,_
oo
m
in
m
O
^
SO
in
0
r-
o
r-
0
so
o
SO
tN
2/25/2002
r~-
in
CN
r--
^
^H
O
tN
O
r-~
SO
oo
m
so
SO
r-
•-i
o
^r
m
OS
o
r--
so
oo
2/26/2002
fN
O
3
SO
tN
fN
SO
O
oo
m
fN
Os
CN
t-~
O
O
in
•<*
O
fN
OO
00
f— t
CN
2/26/2002
^,
so
O
SO
o
CN
SO
*-<
in
in
Os
SO
SO
SO
9
m
r-
o
Os
oo
SO
O
tN
fN
O
in
2/26/2002
o
Os
O
Os
SO
oo
r-
fN
in
Os
oo
m
t--
tN
O
ro
O
•*
^H
f^l
O
in
CN
r-
fN
2/26/2002
in
Os
t--
SO
t^
tN
ro
oo
in
oo
Os
r-
o
in
m
SO
fN
-H
O
<^1
, ,
oo
0
CN
CN
ON
fN
0
O
CN
SO
CN
CN
SO
^.
^
m
tN
^.
SO
fN
in
-<
^H
oo
Pi
00
CN
O
m
O
m
O
O
0
0
fN
Os
2/26/2002
r-
Os
SO
in
CN
CN
so
CN
fN
^.
r-
o
m
o
oo
CN
O
in
OS
O
o
m
fN
SO
Os
2/26/2002
r--
^
OS
SO
in
oo
CN
—
OO
m
SO
in
E
_H
SO
CN
0
OS
o
Os
0
r-
o
r-
S
2/27/2002
00
m
CN
r-
^.
OS
CN
CN
^H
Os
O
SO
O
SO
CN
0
CN
O
CN
0
OO
o
oo
oo
2/27/2002
Os
Os
oo
r--
so
OS
oo
o
fN
oo
0
,_,
o
OS
SO
Os
SO
m
o
^r
in
Os
o
o
CN
in
fN
2/27/2002
o
_
r-
SO
r-
3
fN
fN
SO
0
in
m
in
t^
fN
O
0
o
o
o
Os
o
OS
0
r-
2/27/2002
fN
tN
r-
00
r-
m
fN
CN
m
tN
Os
in
5
r-
o
CN
O
Os
0
Os
O
m
O
m
m
2/27/2002
oo
r-
fN
oo
fN
SO
m
so
m
^.
,_H
5
SO
CN
in
^r
o
c--
Os
CN
0
SO
fN
m
2/27/2002
fN
in
CN
0
CN
m
m
CN
o
m
m
5
^.
CN
in
t--
o
Os
r--
^r
0
r-
fN
CN
in
CN
2/28/2002
_H
O
Os
CN
^
CN
^.
CN
m
CN
Os
in
^.
fN
O
in
O
m
O
tN
O
CN
CN
O
tN
2/28/2002
0
O
fN
CN
in
SO
r-
00
in
m
^
in
r-
^.
Os
in
0
oo
o
oo
0
in
o
m
oo
2/28/2002
in
oo
SO
fN
SO
O
-H
^H
Os
oo
oo
CN
in
t^
^
^
m
O
Os
in
0
o
oo
CN
in
oo
so
2/28/2002
SO
Os
r-
„
oo
CN
fN
fN
tN
m
OS
^
OS
oo
CN
m
CN
m
fN
O
M
^.
—
O
CN
0
f-
CN
2/27/2001
OS
oo
in
t^
S
r-.
OS
r-
,_
o
Os
in
CN
CN
CN
^.
OO
o
r-H
^H
OO
o
fN
Os
in
in
2/26/2002
OO
0
Os
^H
Os
CN
^.
CO
SO
O
in
OS
OS
in
O
s
oo
m
0
Os
oo
in
o
ro
fN
r--
in
2/26/2002
OS
Os
CN
00
^H
fN
oo
so
CN
in
5
SO
_
X
^
o
o
CN
0
m
oo
OS
o
CN
CN
Os
Os
fN
2/28/2002
o
r--
^3-
Os
fN
fN
ro
_
so
CN
m
SO
SO
£
_
OO
0
-H
00
r-
o
CN
Os
in
2/25/2002
^,
a
r-
c
o
SC
fN
^
^
0
f.
ir
^
^
C
Tl
0
•-
c
£
?
fN
c
fN
3
fN
fN
ff
-------
C
H
i
•^
;
"a
c
a
C
E
a
~
c,
1
c,
1
C
0
I/
s
Ltd
S
S
o
ON
f-H
00
-
2
IT)
32
1-H
T-H
T-l C-)
^
O
ON
0
00
0
f- p-l
o
VO
o
V)
"*
2
o
1-H
o
FinallD
CS
CO
Atherix
CD
ca
'o
1
<
' '
' '
Blepharicera
lariceridae
a
CD
ffl
ON
^
T— 1
II— +
*"" *
' '
I— «
t-H
CN
'~H
1
CD
m
opogonidae
C3
1)
U
*~^
Ceratopogon
opogonidae
C3
(1)
U
T-H
Ceratopogonidae
opogonidae
2
U
o
tN
CO
2
tN
OO
o
co
tN
oo
S
ON
in
tN
tN
oo
tN
oo
3
in
O
tN
^
00
VD
ON
oo
in
ON
Chironomidae
nomidae
.a
'?,
u
' '
tN
CO
1~M
^^
'~H
' '
Chelifera
CD
C3
3
P*
w
i-H
i-^
2
tN
tN
tN
^H
ro
'""'
""
tN
T—4
1-M
^
CO
CM
Hemerodromia
CD
•ft
W
^^
Psychoda
CD
•2
•3
o
o
PH
*~~l
Psychodidae
CD
3
'S
PH
~
tN
in
~
^~*
•o
o
tN
>n
in
• '
co
^H
2
co
*""*
O
NO
!2
in
O
s
^
tN
Simuliidae
1
1
V3
1— 1
'™H
* '
VO
^
2
m
O
•
^H
NO
CN
0
oo
tN
^H
n-
"^
ro
Antocha
1
g.
H
• '
CO
BJOUBJOIQ
•o
CX
H
*~~l
Limonia
CD
•3
ex
H
>— '
r~H
Molophilus
1
CX
H
' '
'3
•3
CD
PH
CD
ca
CX
H
in
CO
^^
T"H
CN
^^
ca
CX
O
1
CD
en
PH
CD
ca
•a
a
H
IN
CO
tN
T™^
*~T '
CN
^^
"*
ca
.&
T)
c.
H
CO
Brachycentrus
lycentridae
O
ce
CO
CO
^^
^H
^~*
rt
0
c/)
O
C/)
V3
O
0
osomatidae
en
O
O
in
^^
Helicopsyche
opsychidae
T>
E
'~H
-
ON
OO
NO
CN
ON
' '
in
o
in
'~~t
oo
CN
^H
O
ON
oo
O
^
CN
CO
CN
in
CN
Cheumatopsyche
apsychidae
i
E
2
00
CO
NO
in
oo
Diplectrona
apsychidae
•S
E
CN
^H
^
^
CN
^
"
CO
in
CN
^H
r-
-
•
oo
ON
SO
Hydropsyche
apsychidae
•S
E
™
Hydroptila
CD
.12
o.
o
c
E
^H
en
"CD
O
CD
O
CD
ca
CD
o
&
CN
^H
• "1
' '
'~™'
CS
CD
O
O
CD
ca
1
p-J
CO
'~H
Hydatophylax
ex
CD
J
VO
t— H
'~H
Pycnopsyche
ex
CD
hJ
"*
tN
^^
ON
r-
«
*~~*
(N
*~^
co
in
tN
Chimarra
potamidae
_o
PH
tN
(N
^H
^"
co
tN
tN
»— i
^^
Dolophilodes
potamidae
rS
PH
' — '
Oligostomis
;aneidae
PH
-------
^m
I
V.
H
t
V
T
e
s
tf
c.
I
•^
a
's
4
S
«
a
^
~
i
a
a
&
•*
Cl
%
'I
t
«
0
i/
_a
2
5
ffl
ri
~ &
!
'|
S!
(A
•
c/>
0
w
_O
PM
yganeidae
PH
^H
Neureclipsis
ycentropodidae
o
d<
*—•
*~~*
*~H
^H
*™^
1 '
' '
Polycentropus
ycentropodidae
o
PH
ON
ON
in
ts
1 '
^H
Psychomyia
chomyiidae
^->
en
PH
^H
CN
^H
^H
(^1
00
00
Rhyacophila
^acophilidae
S
r<1
W~)
ro
r-
(N
Neophylax
S
T3
'p
3
'a
«
u
T— *
Capniidae
u
3
'|
03
U
in
ro
*""*
ON
Paracapnia
3
'a
03
U
m
^r
03
"2
•S
o
u
PH
^^
~
•^r
TT
^f
O
(N
*~*
ON
ro
r~
03
!
WJ
HH
lodidae
u
PH
'~H
Perlodidae
u
03
IS
•3
o
u
PH
^H
Cvl
Pteronarcys
ronarcyidae
u
PH
~
Oemopteryx
niopterygidae
c«
H
ts
(N
in
rr
oo
'""'
m
Strophopteryx
niopterygidae
^
' ~*
Taeniopteryx
niopterygidae
03
H
'~H
~
1—1
t-H
NO
-------
^H
|
I/
•B
S
5!
£
V
c
a
IUUU1
c.
i
"3
',
•c
4
V
c,
's
IIMIUXK
t-
W
Jl
S
S
s
o
ON
00
r-
VO
1-H
!£
22
2
2
1"H C-l
^
O
o
00
o
o2
f-
0
VO
o
V)
TT
(*)
o
0
0
FinallD
1
fa
'~H
Caenidae
1
U
^^
o
u
O
1
U
m
Attenella
u
^
1
p
^H
'~H
Prunella
1
£3
1
p
W
fN
^
^
'~H
fN
O
"""
*~~
ro
S
^"
fN
fN
fN
2
i
Ephemerella
1
^3
e
^H
"
^^
Eurylophella
u
•3
^3
1
P
W
m
fN
m
r-1
^^
Serratella
T3
33
O
W
fN
1~H
fN
m
fN
' '
^^
"*
ON
' '
oo
fN
r-4
P.
W
CS
•o
Q.
W
oo
fN
O
in
2
fN
VO
12
m
m
en
O
CU
P.
W
cu
cs
'U
n
oo
CS
p.
ffi
m
r-
' '
^
^
r-
' '
r-
Heptageniidae
CU
cs
'U
C
00
CB
p.
a)
vo
Leucrocuta
u
cs
'U
C
00
CS
"p.
ffi
^H
"*
' '
^^
^"^
Stenacron
0
u
eptagen
ffi
<^i
2
fN
^
OO
oo
^
vo
ON
ON
O
^
• '
:s
VO
fN
ON
2
VO
oo
fN
VO
fN
• '
m
Stenonema
cu
cs
'U
a
oo
K
VO
VO
fN
in
^
^
"*
00
fN
VO
Isonychia
cs
o
n
en
O
OO
fN
00
fN
oo
«n
(N
in
00
r--
fN
VO
CO
fN
ON
O
Leptophlebiidae
cs
•o
XI
f
p.
s
vo
' '
n
•
in
r--
Paraleptophlebia
u
CS
•o
X>
f
p.
' l
'~H
•S
'C
o
CQ
i>
CO
n>
• '
Hetaerina
cs
Tl
'5b
cS
p.
U
'~H
*~-
Coenagrionidae
u
CS
CS
U
'""'
00
CS
"ea
W
CS
T3
'S
cs
u
f-H
Gomphidae
(U
fTt
•a
IS
n
a
fN
*~^
CO
1-H
"*
«n
fN
~
^H
fN
Stylogomphus
^
-a
1
o
a
^^
' '
Helichus
a>
CS
T3
'§•
Q
fN
vo
fN
fN
1 1
r^
fN
VO
Pubiraphia
0)
W
fN
m
fN
rt
Elmidae
CS
w
^^
'~H
Gonielmis
1
W
r^l
Microcylloepus
CS
W
2
«n
0
00
3
r-
^
fN
r--
r--
fN
fN
ON
00
12
r-
fN
fN
J~t
0
ro
O
oo
r-
Optioservus
CU
W
-------
f5
i
r««
to
ro
^H
>0
•*
~
.s
1
1
| Psephenidae
(N
t~-
ts
(N
r-
m
t~-
\o
fN
Tf
Psephenus
| Psephenidae
ro
'~~t
'~~l
^^
m
tN
<^l
04
^H
' '
CO
'I
ob
iz
| Corydalidae
^^
en
's
&
\ Sialidae
^^
Petrophila
ID
•3
f
OH
•
ID
CO
r2
"cS
k
OH
U
C3
•a
1
^
ro
• '
T '
'~H
ro
(N
Cambaridae
| Cambaridae
oo
m
Lirceus
| Asellidae
(N
00
•*J-
^
Gammarus
| Gammaridae
(N
Ancylidae
| Ancylidae
'~H
r^
^™^
Ferrissia
| Ancylidae
^H
Fossaria
| Lymnaeidae
m
• '
w~)
a
tfl
>>
Pu
ID
C3
3
'«
>i
Oi
'~~t
*— »
'~~l
(N
CN
O
^H
Goniobasis
[Pleuroceridae
1 *
Valvata
[Valvatidae
^H
^^
-------
Table 6. Physical/Chemical Characteristics of Stream Reach
Station ID
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
15
16
Stream
Name
Indian
Creek
Lowe
Branch
Lowe
Branch
NNTto
Lowe
Branch
Indian
Creek
Laurel
Fork
Laurel
Fork
Indian
Creek
Greasy
Creek
Greasy
Creek
Indian
Creek
Jackson
Fork
Indian
Creek
South
Branch of
Indian
Creek
Indian
Creek
Mean
Stream
Width (m)
6.9
1.3
1.7
3.5
5.5
1.1
2.7
6.9
2.7
4.5
4.4
3.3
3.4
2.8
4.0
Mean
Velocity
(ft/sec)
1.43
1.12
0.88
0.24
*
1.56
0.96
0.38
1.25
1.13
0.75
0.94
0.93
0.80
1.35
0.77
Temp
(C)
8.8
8.9
8.1
7.7
5.9
9.0
6.6
1.3
2.4
0.8
1.8
0.4
1.0
6.9
1.9
Conduct-
ivity
(uS/cm)
248
515
503
395
173
176
139
137
135
112
145
185
110
90
153
Dissolved
Oxygen
(mg/1)
13.4
11.6
10.6
12.3
14.2
9.5
11.4
12.2
10.2
11.1
11.1
11.4
12.6
9.0
12.2
pH
8.57
7.97
7.67
7.69
8.02
7.44
6.95
7.16
7.35
6.7
6.64
6.77
6.10
6.57
6.32
25
-------
Table 6. Physical/Chemical Characteristics of Stream Reach
Station ID
17
18
19
20
21
23
Stream
Name
Panther
Branch
Indian
Creek
Coal
Branch
Raven Nest
Branch
Indian
Creek
North
Branch of
Indian
Creek
Mean
Stream
Width (m)
1.8
6.4
1.2
2.4
9.6
4.0
Mean
Velocity
(ft/sec)
0.72
1.04
0.42
0.62
0.91
0.56
Temp
(C)
4.4
9.0
8.6
1.9
8.2
1.7
Conduct-
ivity
(uS/cm)
170
186
191
244
248
63
Dissolved
Oxygen
(mg/1)
10.4
12.4
13.8
13.0
13.0
11.9
pH
7.06
7.06
8.2
6.45
8.32
7.09
* Difficult to obtain accurate velocity reading due to large substrate.
26
-------
Table 7. Habitat Assessment Scores
(Individual parameter scores that are marginal or poor are highlighted in red. Habitat parameters are
listed at end of table)
Station
ID
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
15
16
Stream
Name
Indian Creek
Lowe Branch
Lowe Branch
NNTto
Lowe Branch
Indian Creek
Laurel Fork
Laurel Fork
Indian Creek
Greasy Creek
Greasy Creek
Indian Creek
Jackson Fork
Indian Creek
South Branch
of Indian
Creek
Indian Creek
1
15
15
15
10
17
13
17
18
(>
17
14
16
15
11
19
2
18
14
14
16
16
18
18
19
6
13
16
15
15
8
15
3
14
10
10
11
!()
10
10
15
14
10
10
10
!()
10
10
4
16
13
15
16
18
17
19
19
6
18
17
18
18
6
18
5
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
6
16
13
8
16
16
13
18
15
15
18
15
14
11
11
15
7
16
17
17
16
18
16
18
18
9
18
17
18
18
6
18
8
9
9
6
6
9
9
6
6
9
9
9
6
10
10
9
9
8
8
9
9
8
8
9
9
9
9
7
5
9
9
9
9
6
5
s
i
^
s
s
10
9
4
-)
10
9
6
^
6
6
9
9
6
9
9
6
6
9
6
6
9
6
10
8
2
2
•>
->
1
2
9
9
5
1
i
10
6
d
2
;
4
1
9
->
8
9
2
2
9
~>
T
}
4
Total
154
124
121
134
162
127
171
155
107
162
146
151
147
96
151
27
-------
Table 7. Habitat Assessment Scores
(Individual parameter scores that are marginal or poor are highlighted in red. Habitat parameters are
listed at end of table)
Station
ID
17
18
19
20
21
23
Stream
Name
Panther
Branch
Indian Creek
Coal Branch
Raven Nest
Branch
Indian Creek
North Branch
of Indian
Creek
1
16
15
11
13
15
16
2
13
17
11
13
16
14
3
10
10
10
10
10
10
4
11
16
11
14
15
12
5
16
16
16
16
16
16
6
13
14
17
16
15
15
7
18
17
11
17
18
16
8
9
7
9
6
6
7
7
5
9
9
7
7
9
6
9
9
4
3
9
i
->
9
6
9
9
10
1
8
9
1
2
9
6
^
X
i
10
8
Total
137
143
123
124
148
149
Habitat Parameters:
1 . Epifaunal Substrate/ Available Cover
2. Embeddedness
3. Velocity/Depth Regime
4. Sediment Deposition
5. Channel Flow Status
6. Channel Alteration
7. Frequency of Riffles (or bends)
8. Bank Stability (score both left and right banks)
9. Vegetative Protection (score both left and right banks)
10. Riparian Vegetative Width Zones (score both left and right bank riparian zones)
Total = sum of parameters 1-10 (the highest possible score is 200).
Note that the individual ranges for the scores are as follows:
20-16 Optimal
15-11 Suboptimal
10-6 Marginal
5-0 Poor
28
-------
.
A %
'.fir*
,.*. '
„'*•'
MAPI
STREAM SAMPLING LOCATIONS
INDIAN CREEK WATERSHED
TAZEWELL COUNTY, VIRGINIA
I Sampling Stations USEPARegton 3
DRG - MAPTECH aid USGS
EPA R3GIS Team Project VER1325 MAPS1874 7/21/03
' r'
Iv
\
04
« •' ,>-#•
29
-------
MAP 2. VSCI SCORES
INDIAN CREEK WATERSHED
TAZEWELL COUNTY, VA
Virginia Stream Condition Index
. 25 40
• 40 55
55-61
"\_/ National Hydrology Data
I 1 Level IV Ecoregion
National Land Cover Data
OPEN WATER
LOW INTENSITY RE SIDENTIAL
HIGH INTENSITY RESIDENTIAL
COMMERCIAL INDJSTRIALTRANSPORrATION
QUARRIES/STRIP MINES/GRAVEL PITS
TRANSITIONAL
DECIDUOUS FOREST
EVERGREEN FOREST
MIXED FOREST
PASTURE/HAY
ROW CROPS
URBAN/RECREATIONAL GRASSES
B WOODY WETLANDS
B EMERGENT HERBACEOUS WETLANDS
No Data
EPA R3 CIS Team Project VER1325 MAP 11875 7/21/03
30
-------
MAP 3. TOTAL TAXA
INDIAN CREEK WATERSHED
TAZEWELL COUNTY, VA
Total Taxa Family Level (R200)
. 9-13
• 13-17
1/21
/\/ National Hydrology Data
!~l Level IV E cor eg ion
Natiooal Land Cover Data
OPEN WATER
LOW INTENSITY RESIDENTIAL
HIGH INTENSfTY RESIDENTIAL
COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIA I/TRANSPORTATION
I 1 QUARRIES/STRIP MINES/GRAVEL PITS
I 1 TRANSITIONAL
DECIDUOUS FOREST
EVERGREEN FOREST
| 1 MIXED FOREST
PASTURE/HAY
ROW CROPS
| 1 URBAN/RECREATIONAL GRASSES
WOODY WETLANDS
EMERGENT HERBACEOUS WETLANDS
No Data
31
-------
MAP 4. EPT TAXA
INDIAN CREEK WATERSHED
TAZEWELL COUNTY. VA
EPT Taxa Family Level (R200)
.2-6
6-10
10-14
/\/National Hydrology Data
I I Level IV Ecoregion
National Land Cover Data
I [OPEN WATER
I | LOW INTENSITY RESIDENTIAL
HIGH INTENSITY RESIDENTIAL
COMMERCIAL'INDUSTRIAL'TRANSPORTATION
QUARRIES/STRIP MINES/GRAVEL PITS
TRANSITIONAL
DECIDUOUS FOREST
EVERGREEN FOREST
[3^| MIXED FOREST
I I PASTURE/HAY
ROW CROPS
URBAN/RECREATIONAL GRASSES
WOODY WETLANDS
EMERGENT HERBACEOUS WETLANDS
I |No Data
EPAR3GISTeam Prqect VER1 325 MAP#1 877 7/21/03
32
-------
I
i
i
I
>
y
MAP 5. TOTAL HABITAT
INDIAN CREEK WATERSHED
TAZEWELL COUNTY, VA
Total Habitat Score
• 96
• 107
• 120-150
0 150-171
A,/National Hydrology Data
|~n Level IV Ecoregion
National Land Cover Data
I 1 OPEN WATER
I 1 PERENNIAL ICE/SNOW
I 1 LOW INTENSITY RESIDENTIAL
HIGH INTENSITY RESIDENTIAL
COMMERCIAUINDUST TRANSPORT
BARE ROCK/SAND/CLAY
QUARRIES/STRIP MINES/GRAVEL PITS
TRANSITIONAL
DECIDUOUS FOREST
EVERGREEN FOREST
MIXED FOREST
SHRUBLAND
ORCHARDS/VINEYARDS/OTHER
PASTURE/HAY
ROW CROPS
SMALL GRAINS
FALLOW
URBAN/RECREATIONAL GRASSES
WOODY WETLANDS
EMERG HERBACEOUS WETLANDS
NO DATA
I I
H
en
tm
0.5 0 0.5 1 Miles
33
-------
0.5 0 0.5 1 Miles
MAP 6. FIELD CONDUCTIVITY
INDIAN CREEK WATERSHED
TAZEWELL COUNTY, VA
Field Conductivity (uS/cm)
National Hydrology Data
I I Level IV Ecoregion
National Land Cover Data
OPEN WATER
PERENNIAL ICE/SNOW
LOW INTENSITY RESIDENTIAL
HIGH INTENSITY RESIDENTIAL
COMMERCIAUINDUST TRANSPORT
BARE ROCK/SAND/CLAY
QUARRIES/STRIP MINES/GRAVEL PITS
TRANSITIONAL
DECIDUOUS FOREST
EVERGREEN FOREST
MIXED FOREST
SHRUBLAND
ORCHARDS/VINEYARDS/OTHER
PASTURE/HAY
ROW CROPS
SMALL GRAINS
FALLOW
URBAN/RECREATIONAL GRASSES
WOODY WETLANDS
EMERG HERBACEOUS WETLANDS
NO DATA
PAR3filSTEAM PROJECT SB 1164 11 21 02 MAP" 1887
34
------- |