j^ replaced Nitzschia inconspicua and Navicula minima as major species at site 02. The first two 

 indicate the presence of sandy substrates at site 02. All three species tolerate eutrophic 

 conditions but much less organic loading than A', inconspicua and N. minima. Site 02 did 

 support 3.88% abnormal diatom cells, which suggests moderate impairment from elevated 

 heavy metals. The two sites on Lost Creek shared only about one-third of their diatom floras. 



Savvlog Creek. Diatom metrics suggest moderate impairment from sedimentation 



and minor impairment iVom organic loading at site 01 on Sawlog Creek. This was one of the few 

 sites where motile Navicula species {N. capitatoradiata and N. reichardtiana) were abundant. 

 Like these Naviculas, the other major species here {Encyonema silesiacum and Planothidium 

 species) are also eutraphentic and somewhat tolerant of organic enrichment. 



Diatom metrics at site 02 on Sawlog Creek indicate somewhat less organic loading and 

 sedimentation than site 01, but still within the range of minor impairment. In addition to the 

 eutraphentic Encyonema silesiacum, the major species at site 02 indicate elevated inorganic 

 nutrients {Synedra ulna) and slower current velocities {Staurosira construens). No abnormal 

 diatom cells were observed at either site 01 or site 02, which shared about half of their diatom 

 assemblages. 



Camp Creek. All three sites on Camp Creek suffered minor impairment from 

 sedimentation, which approached moderate impairment at sites 02 and 03. Planothidium 

 species and the highly motile Nitzschia linearis were among the major species at sites 02 and 03, 

 but not at 01 . The dominant diatom at site 01 was the attached and pollution sensitive species 

 Achnanthidium affine. Organic loading was also a minor problem at site 02. The pollution index 

 at sites 01 and 03 approached but did not exceed the threshold for minor impairment. Abnormal 

 diatom cells were not observed in any of the Camp Creek samples. Sites 01 and 02 were very 

 different from one another, floristically, sharing only about one-quarter of their diatom floras. 

 Sites 02 and 03 were nearly as different and shared only about one-third of their assemblages. 



16 



